AB 1940, Assemblyman Chuck DeVore’s bill to grant pregnant women temporary disabled parking passes, failed to make it out of the Assembly Transportation Committee this afternoon. In an unusual move, every member of the committee abstained from the vote with the exception of Cathleen Galgiani (Yes) and Betty Karnette (No), the final vote being 1 to 1 (there are 14 committee members).

Assemblyman DeVore had offered an amendment to the bill that would have prevented use of the permits in paid municipal meters, which already have high usage in urban locations. The National Organization for Women testified in opposition to the bill, once again proving the hypocrisy of their group’s title. Responding to their allegations that AB 1940 classified pregnant women as disabled, DeVore stated that pregnancy is a temporary state, not a permanent disability, much like when an athlete is injured and needs some assistance for a few months.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists argued that such permits would discourage women from getting exercise. DeVore countered that many of the stories coming in to his office were from mothers who actually turn… Read More

The U.S. Supreme Court today announced a dismissal on jurisdictional grounds of the expedited appeal of Citizens United in their case challenging Federal Election Commission regulation (read: ban) of advertisements for a full-length feature movie that is highly critical of Hillary Clinton, a la the Michael Moore method. The law seems to be that Citizens United can show the movie, they just can’t tell anybody about it in the normal method of advertising, unlike what Michael Moore does for his movies attacking Republicans.

Citizens United filed the expedited appeal to try to get a decision on the constitutionality of buying advertising (the content of which would appear critical of Clinton – a presidential candidate) during this year. The Court’s action means that the Citizens United case can continue to work through the lower court, where it is still active, but that a final resolution of the issue will not occur until after the election, when the reason for it all will be rather moot.… Read More

I’m a little late in posting this here on FR, but the editorial below recently ran in the Riverside Press Enterprise:

Deficit DéjÀ Vu California’s Democratic majority refuses to learn from budgets past By JIM BATTIN Our budget picture just seems to keep going from bad to worse — and I fear that we haven’t hit bottom yet. Recently, the state’s nonpartisan budget analyst revised the projected deficit upward to $16 billion. We are absolutely going in the wrong direction and real, substantial changes are needed. Considering my fellow Senate Republicans and I … Read More

Jon Coupal, President of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has penned this very sobering column about city finances in Los Angeles, and the thirst to raise tax there… Never mind that Los Angelinos already are among the highest tax Californians already…

City Unions To L.A. Taxpayers: Peel Me A Grape By Jon Coupal

Los Angeles city government is in trouble. Projections are that it will face a budget deficit of at least $400 million in the coming fiscal year.

The financial bind in which the city finds itself is no accident. It is the result of a series of conscious decisions by elected officials and bureaucrats.

According to the U.S. Census… Read More

Jon Coupal, President of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has penned this very sobering column about city finances in Los Angeles, and the thirst to raise tax there… Never mind that Los Angelinos already are among the highest tax Californians already…

City Unions To L.A. Taxpayers: Peel Me A Grape By Jon Coupal

Los Angeles city government is in trouble. Projections are that it will face a budget deficit of at least $400 million in the coming fiscal year.

The financial bind in which the city finds itself is no accident. It is the result of a series of conscious decisions by elected officials and bureaucrats.

According to the U.S. Census… Read More

Section 25 of Article I of the California Constitution, believe it or not, guarantees to the people of this state the right to fish. Seriously, I am NOT making it up. In fact, here is the exact language straight from the source:

Section 25. The people shall have the right to fish upon and from the public lands of the State and in the waters thereof, excepting upon lands set aside for fish hatcheries, and no land owned by the State shall ever be sold or transferred without reserving in the people the absolute right to fish thereupon; and no law shall ever be passed making it a crime for the people to enter upon the public lands within this State for the purpose of fishing in any water containing fish that have been planted therein by the State; provided, that the legislature may by statute, provide for the season when and the conditions under which the different species of fish may be taken.

The reason that I point this out is that the ongoing efforts of extremists to infringe upon the liberty of Californians, under the… Read More

Section 25 of Article I of the California Constitution, believe it or not, guarantees to the people of this state the right to fish. Seriously, I am NOT making it up. In fact, here is the exact language straight from the source:

Section 25. The people shall have the right to fish upon and from the public lands of the State and in the waters thereof, excepting upon lands set aside for fish hatcheries, and no land owned by the State shall ever be sold or transferred without reserving in the people the absolute right to fish thereupon; and no law shall ever be passed making it a crime for the people to enter upon the public lands within this State for the purpose of fishing in any water containing fish that have been planted therein by the State; provided, that the legislature may by statute, provide for the season when and the conditions under which the different species of fish may be taken.

The reason that I point this out is that the ongoing efforts of extremists to infringe upon the liberty of Californians, under the… Read More

Veteran Capitol columnist Dan Walters was pretty accurate yesterday in the Sacramento Bee’s Capitol Alert Blog (free registration required and encouraged) when he referred to the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR) as, "…a Naderite, Santa Monica-based thorn in the side of California business for the past two decades…"

Apparently the group has decided to change its name to "Consumer Watchdog" — what a farce.

The only thing that this group cares about is creating more and more ways and opportunities to file more and more lawsuits. The FTCR is a vibrant and active front-group for the trial lawyer community.

While they wave a rhetorical banner of trying to "help consumers" — it’s just not true. It hardly helps consumers to see all… Read More