Author,
Chuck Frank
So where are the protests? Is it just “politically correct” and “tolerable” for all of the lower 1/3 to pay more excessive taxes to Jerry Brown who is now the self appointed, deputy/controller and King of the great late State of California and will he later be
running for President of California if it becomes a new nation? This kind of idea has a very distasteful flavor and has a ring to it which is likened to our beloved KGB director/dictator, Valdimir Putin of Russia, doesn’t it?
Yes it is true. Jerry Brown likes taxing everyone down to the bone for his poverty stricken Utopian, welfare state, while living up to his Alma Mater standard. After graduating from St. Ignatius High School in 1955, he then entered Sacred Heart Novitiate, a Jesuit seminary. He later attended the University of California, Berkeley, graduating in 1961 before earning a J.D. at Yale Law School in 1964. Karl Marx would have been be proud. But let’s not forget, it’s not just the lower 1/3 who is footing a tax bill to cover a 179.5 billion dollar budget which is also meant to also cover 2.4 million government employees on “glorified welfare.”
On another note, lest we forget, Brown placed a rider on an earlier bill which the California State Legislature never even voted on. It is taxing the water of every last well in California with a smart meter. This is our phony representation at best. Meanwhile, California burns millions of acres of prime forest land every year and with Brown’s smoky crystal $$$$ vision for a new nation of California, will a new dishwasher and a smart toilet be included in his monthly tax mix even though the person may not have a well? Will these tax increases be used to shore up and repair the ailing dams of California before they all break and force millions of people in the state out of their own homes to where they are even unable to work and make a living? Or is a bullet train more of a priority so California can be more like China?
Jerry Brown is literally tax crazy and cares not for any burden placed upon the lower, middle, or upper classes. He is in a class with the rest of the progressive/socialist/commie extortionists who would just as soon burn the American flag and begin a new totalitarian nation, yet he would still be opposed to the State of Jefferson?
Gee, I just wonder what the tax rate would be in Jerry’s new CalExit nation, and who would even want to join up in the Cal/Crazy/Army to protect the new country?
Let me think, I know who.
It will be the alien, unvetted terrorists that came in from half a dozen foreign nations and who arrived here via UPS airplanes under the cover of darkness, and will be living in the new sanctuary nation, aka, the great late state of California. I’m definitely going to offer them all a good cup of tea and then gladly purchase a one way ticket for these brazen revolutionaries so that they can go back to the Muslim nation of their choice or even Afghanistan where they can find a good job picking poppies.
Now then, thinking about all of this, the new State of Jefferson is sounding better everyday.
Count me in.
Feb 21, 2017 @ 01:46:10
Unfortunate is the fact that MANY donation-funded animal rescues use donation money meant for rescuing animals to hire attorneys to defend them when they are caught red-handed committing fraud, cruelty to animals, defaming people, etc and many people don’t have the resources to go forward with civil lawsuits. Their cult member followers that are primarily on social media that get their “drama fix” couldn’t care less what they use donation money for (even though its illegal) because many of these so-called rescues give the people what they want, reality show drama/entertainment, and that enables the “rescue” to pocket vast amounts of donations that they live the high life with, just as they continue to execute innocent animals that are supposed to be safe. A horse “rescue” in CA shot to death at least 56 horses donation money was sent to rescue. Hundreds of horses are entirely missing from 2016, but the “rescue” continues to motor along buying more, and more, and more horses from a weekly auction using thousands of dollars of donation money they collect fraudulently under the pretense of rescuing the horses but then they kill and “disappear” horses and then go back to the sale, beg for more money to “rescue” more horses, and pattern of illegal and deceptive behavior continues, with hundreds of horses being USED to collect donations again and again.
Its truly sad when people that are not only unethical and dishonest get ahead because ignorant, naive people finance their bad, and often illegal behavior, and innocent animals that are supposed to be safe and instead shot in the head, killed at animal controls the “rescues” dumped them at, etc, or go entirely missing and the donation money that was sent to rescue and maintain animals is used for attorneys, vacations, tattoos, cosmetic surgery and many other things that are not related to rescue by any stretch of the imagination.
LikeLike
Feb 20, 2017 @ 21:16:42
THE CONVERSATION
Who we are
The Conversation US launched as a pilot project in October 2014. It is an independent source of news and views from the academic and research community, delivered direct to the public.
Our team of professional editors work with university and research institute experts to unlock their knowledge for use by the wider public.
Access to independent, high quality, authenticated, explanatory journalism underpins a functioning democracy. Our aim is to promote better understanding of current affairs and complex issues. And hopefully allow for a better quality of public discourse and conversation.
We aim to help rebuild trust in journalism. All authors and editors sign up to our Editorial Charter. All contributors must abide by our Community Standards policy. We only allow authors to write on a subject on which they have proven expertise, which they must disclose alongside their article. Authors’ funding and potential conflicts of interest must also be disclosed. Failure to do so carries a risk of being banned from contributing to the site.
The Conversation launched in Australia in March 2011 and the UK in May 2013.
The Conversation started in Melbourne Victoria and the innovative technology platform and development team is based in the university and research precinct of Carlton.
We believe in open access and the free-flow of information. The Conversation is a free resource: free to read (we’ll never go behind a paywall), and free to share or Creative Commons. All you need to do is follow our simple guidelines. We provide valuable media resources: free content, ideas and talent to follow up for press, web, radio or TV.
Special thanks go to the foundations who funded the pilot: Alfred P Sloan Foundation, Hewlett Foundation, Howard Hughes Medical Institute and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
And also to Boston University’s College of Communication who are hosting the operation.
Our newsroom is based in Boston but our team is part of a global newsroom able to share content across sites and around the world. The Conversation US is a non-profit educational entity.
https://theconversation.com/us/who-we-are
LikeLike
Feb 20, 2017 @ 21:11:51
United Kingdom
From THE CONVERSATION:
Daniel Blake film
The Conservative MP Tim Laughton tweeted that his night at the BAFTA ceremony on February 12 had been ruined by “the usual predictable drivel from Ken Loach in his own La La Land” during the director’s acceptance speech for the Outstanding British Film award for I, Daniel Blake. But two days earlier we had shown the film to audiences that included claimants, relatives and welfare rights advisors. What they told us shows how the system of benefits for people who are sick or disabled is just as broken as Loach depicts in his film.
The film powerfully portrays how humiliation is endemic in the benefit system for those living with disabilities. It is also incredibly difficult for some claimants to get access to the support they need at the hardest times of their lives. In the film, Blake is told that the system is digital by default and all applications have to be made online. But this approach excludes many.
Like the title character, Daniel Blake, the father of one woman who watched the film with us had worked all his life. His daughter, Frances, told us how her father had been confronted by a sudden and serious health problem after a car accident. He is now blind in one eye with facial injuries, chronic pain and he can’t walk without a stick. He was recently assessed for benefits and found the process stressful and humiliating. After watching the film, Frances said:
Honest people who are unable to work do not deserve to be demonised. Well done to Ken Loach for raising awareness.
In light of the extensive and mounting evidence of this costly, complex, confusing and chaotic system it is difficult to understand the decision of several governments to continue to outsource benefits assessments to profit-making companies from overseas. The firm ATOS bought itself out of the £500m contract to run the fitness-for-work testing system in March 2014 following substantial criticism.
Running these services by the private sector has proved to be inefficient and uneconomic and has also caused unacceptable distress and hardship.
https://theconversation.com/we-showed-i-daniel-blake-to-people-living-with-the-benefits-system-heres-how-they-reacted-73153?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20February%2020%202017%20-%2067874974&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20February%2020%202017%20-%2067874974+CID_8c7d5128570fc2369f492d9cf9b5dd55&utm_source=campaign_monitor_uk&utm_term=We%20showed%20I%20Daniel%20Blake%20to%20people%20living%20with%20the%20benefits%20system%20heres%20how%20they%20reacted
LikeLike
Feb 19, 2017 @ 19:23:48
A taxpayer group has filed a lawsuit against Gov. Jerry Brown that seeks to invalidate a new law that will allow public funds to be used for political campaigning.
The lawsuit was filed in Sacramento Superior Court by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. The legal challenge says that a law signed by Brown in September that allows cities and counties to use public financing for political campaigns violates Proposition 73, which voters approved in 1988 and prohibits public funds from being used in campaigns.
“It runs directly contrary to the expressed language of the Political Reform Act,” Jon Coupal, president of the association, said on Tuesday. He said the law cannot be changed without another vote of the people.
Using public funds to benefit candidates is unfair, Coupal said, because “it’s the power of government skewing the political process.”
The lawsuit, which was co-filed by retired state senator and judge Quentin L. Kopp names Brown and the state Fair Political Practices Commission.
Representatives of Brown and the commission declined comment. The measure was authored by state Sen. Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica).
Allen said at the time the law was signed that it could help reduce the influence of special interests that contribute to candidates’ campaigns.
“Anything we can do to empower communities to reduce the influence of money in campaigns is a good thing,” Allen said.
On Tuesday, Allen said he is confident the bill will survive the legal attack.
“Without SB 1107, we are powerless to offer candidates an alternative to the current reliance on special interest dollars,” Allen said in a statement.
12:08 p.m.: This post was updated with a comment from state Sen. Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica).
http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-taxpayers-group-sues-gov-brown-to-1481656430-htmlstory.html
LikeLike