Craig DeLuz

Writer, Actor, Public Speaker, Media Personality
Posts Tagged ‘California Politics’

Revelation of gun ban for Tehama County shooter revives enforcement criticisms

(EAST BAY TIMES) – “If law enforcement had the ability to do that, why didn’t they?” DeLuz said, referring to the confiscation of Neal’s weapons. “We have some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and this still occurs.”

He added: “This goes to show that the only people affected by these laws are the law-abiding. There was a failure of the government to enforce those laws, and yet the answer folks keep coming up with is that we need more gun laws.”

Read More

CalGuns Foundation – This Week in California Gun Rights: 3-29-13 Edition

CGF, CAL-FFL, Gun Owners Win in South San Francisco; City Withdraws Ammo Ban, Cites Tremendous Opposition

After considering the letter of opposition sent by The Calguns Foundation and California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees, the City of South San Francisco prudently rejected an outrageous gun control measure that would have banned hollow point ammunition and subjected gun owners to serious privacy risks. The ordinance was backed by anti-gun San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee, who is working to have other Bay Area cities to adopt the highly-flawed ordinance that his city did earlier in March.

READ MORE…

Spike’s Tactical AR-15 Give-Away

cgf_spikes_ar15We are witnessing a revival among Second Amendment civil rights activists and — importantly — tremendous growth in both the diversity and sheer numbers of new gun owners. Our modern gun rights culture has adopted, rightfully, the American born-and-bred AR-15 self-defense rifle as the de facto symbol of our fundamental civil liberties.

To thank the anti-gun zealots for bringing together millions of law-abiding gun owners like never before in our history, we’re giving away one of our favorite guns – a new Spike’s Tactical AR-15 platform M4LE rifle! Best of all, our giveaway is free to enter – sign up right now for a chance to win!

READ MORE…

 

Cal-FFL Legislative Update

calffl headerThis update will provide you a thumbnail sketch of what is happening with key gun legislation in California. For more detailed information, follow the links provided.

UPCOMING BILLS

AB 48 (Skinner) – Ban on magazine parts; requires ammunition transfers to be conducted by FFL; requires law enforcement reporting for ammunition transactions. Hearing: Assembly Public Safety 4/2/13). Position: OPPOSE.

AB 169 (Dickinson) – Removes the “private party transfer” exemption for non-Rostered handguns and prohibits owners of non-Rostered handguns from selling them to non-exempt persons. Hearing: Assembly Public Safety 4/2/13. Position: OPPOSE.

AB 500 (Ammiano) – Waiting period expansion and new DOJ powers to deny guns to law-abiding people. Hearing: Assembly Public Safety 4/2/13. Position: OPPOSE.

READ MORE…

California Take Action! Campaign Launches

CA Take Action snip There’s no other way to say it: anti-gun politicians in Sacramento have declared war on your gun rights.

California Senator Darrell Steinberg and his gun-grabbing posse have introduced dozens of gun control bills aimed at gutting your Second Amendment rights.

FPC – and YOU – are all that stand in their way.

If their gun ban bills pass into law, hundreds of thousands of law-abiding Californians – like YOU – would face criminal liability, forced sale or confiscation of lawfully-owned private property, and be treated like sex offenders, among other horrors – just for exercising your fundamental right to keep and bear arms!

We need your help to oppose their gun ban plans RIGHT NOW! Join the fight at CalGunFight.com!

READ MORE…

donate_button

Why are Democrats resorting wedge issues?

Liberals are always accusing Republicans of promoting divisiveness and campaigning on wedge issues. But this election cycle it is Democrats appear to be doing the dividing and fear mongering; two Sacramento area Democrats in particular.

Assemblyman Dave Jones who is a candidate for insurance commissioner and Dr. Richard Pan have chosen to inject the controversial issue of abortion into the heart of their campaigns. One has to wonder why they have chosen to focus on an issue that has consistently ranked outside the top five issues concerning voters, especially during these trying economic times.

In this campaign speech, Asm. Jones is talking about how he plans to use the office of insurance commissioner to fight for government funding of abortions, an item that was so controversial it was removed from the national health care bill.

Dr. Pan has purchased millions on TV, radio and mail to emphasize the fact that his opponent, Andy Pugno is pro-life. This commercial is just one small example of how Pan is attacking his opponent on the issue of abortion.

So, one has to wonder why these Democrats are so focused on such a divisive issue that voters seem less concerned about than job creation and the economy? I believe it’s because they know that they are on the wrong side of the issues that voters are truly concerned about.

Voters don’t want higher taxes. Both Jones and Pan support higher taxes on Californian’s. Voters want to see government spending reduced. Both Jones and Pan support increased government spending. Voters want to see stranglehold that public employees have on our elected officials ended. Meanwhile, both Jones and Pan are running campaigns that are largely funded by these very same unions.

Dave Jones and Richard Pan are hoping that voters won’t recognize the fact that their campaigns do not speak to the issues Californians are really concerned about. This is because democrats cannot win on the issues. They can only win by demonizing Republicans.

Democrat consultants know that were they to campaign on the Stimulus Bill, Obama Care or tax increases they would lose most swing voters and many of their supporters. So instead, they are focusing on wedge issues and demonization of Republicans. This just goes to show how desperate they really are.

Governor blames GOP Legislators for his failings. Asm Kevin Jeffries sets the record straight.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger chose to use his weekly Raido Address to take aim at four Republican legislators who did not support his legislation that proportedly contained pention reform. Specifically he said”

“Maybe these Republicans just simply sold out because they got campaign contributions from the state prison guard unions,”

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/10/18/3111520/gop-foes-kindle-governors-wrath.html#ixzz12jks6OIu

Here is Assebmlyan Jeffries offical statement regarding the Governor’s Remarks:

“I have enjoyed working with the Governor, and appreciate that he has finally decided to stand and fight for something – anything – even something he abandoned and apologized for after losing in the 2005 special election, leaving those of us who supported him and his efforts out to hang and dry.  And despite the misrepresentations in his remarks, it was very impressive to see that he was actually able to name six Republicans currently serving in the Assembly.   He has been a very entertaining governor and I wish him well in his renewed acting career”

Assemblyman Jeffries did NOT speak against the bill or vote to block it, even though the Governor was reportedly threatening to come campaign against those who opposed him in their districts.  Reports on the floor were that the Governor caved to a last minute threat from another large union (bargaining unit) that was going to fight and kill the pension reform unless he agreed behind the scenes to exclude them (nearly 100,000 employees) from the reforms.

At that point, he reportedly caved and decided to remove them from the bill. Now he is throwing a temper tantrum because some of the legislators didn’t agree to his last minute half-baked reforms?!   Had the Legislature been allowed to examine and discuss the bills in their entirety before they were voted upon in the legislature (as Assemblyman Jeffries’ ACA 8 would have required), perhaps the discrepancies between public safety employees and other state workers could have been explained and he could have supported the legislation.  But while some reform may be necessary in police and fire pensions, he will not cut them until all the other state employees have had their pensions modified as well.

What is the purpose of marriage?

Following the recent decision regarding California’s law defining marriage as being one man, one woman; I was asked by one of my readers to discuss the following question, outside of the context of religion-“What’s the purpose of Marriage?”

This is a question that can be answered in a myriad of ways. Since the beginning of civilization this institution has come to carry religious, cultural and legal significance. And while one cannot fully understand the purpose of marriage without discussing all three; for this conversation, I will focus primarily on the purpose of marriage as defined by legal precedent.

How is marriage defined?
Black’s Law Dictionary Fourth Edition had three definitions of marriage.

The first definition was a “… condition, or relation of one man and one woman united in law for life …”.
Subsequent editions inserted “or until divorced”.

The second definition in Black’s Fourth was “A contract, according to the form prescribed by law, by which a man and woman, capable of entering into such contract, mutually engage with each other to live their whole lives together…”
Please note that the legal definition refers to a man and a woman. As a matter of fact, since the beginning of time, marriage has always been defined as a relationship between a man and a woman.

• Marriage: “That honorable contract that persons of different sexes make with one another.” A New General English Dictionary (1740).
• Marriage: “1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife . . .” Merriam-Webster online, April 20, ( 2005).
Now this is not to say the people don’t change the definitions of words. But in order to properly deduce what the authors of the follwoing legal opinions are trying to say, we must understand their words in the context in which they used them.

What role should government play in marriage?

When discussing the purpose of marriage from a legal standpoint, we must first understand government’s relationship to marriage. According to Meister v. Moore (1873) Marriage is not a right conferred by the state.

…everywhere is considered a civil contract. Statutes in many of the states it is true, regulate the mode of entering into the contract, but they do not confer the right.
And the reason that the state cannot confer this right is because the courts have deemed that it finds it roots in a power above even their own. As stated in 1892 by the Washington State Supreme Court regarding. McLaughlin’s Estate
marriage is a natural right, which always existed prior to the organization of any form of government, and all laws in restraint of it should be strictly construed in consequence thereof. It is held it should be the policy of the law to sustain all such contracts and relations whenever possible, and that this should always be done …[590 marriage has] its origin in divine law”
So why does government regulate and promote marriage?

Legal precedent tells us that it is to create the optimum environment to have and raise children. As stated in Baker v. Nelson (Minn. 1971)
The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.”

The same logic was part of the Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942):

Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.
Understand that this does not mean that the only people who can get married are those who desire to have children. In this case, the law has and educational function- to tell what is normative. And while not all opposite sex couples will produce children, it is still normative for them to do so. However, it is impossible for any same sex couple to naturally produce children. Therefore, it cannot be normative.

So why does the state ascribe certain rights only to married couples?

Well first of all , it is wrong to think of these benefits as rights. A better description would be to call them incentives.

In Maynard v. Hill (1888) the court acknowledged that just how important marriage is to society:

“Marriage… having more to do with the morals and civilization of a people than any other institution, has always been subject to the control of the legislature… the law steps in and holds the parties to various obligations… for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress… It is a relation for life…”

This means that how we handle this institution as a society will have a lasting effect on generations to come. This is why every effort to change the definition of marriage has failed. In Williams v. North Carolina (1942) the court ruled against efforts to legalize polygamy because of the effect it would have on the children.

That choice in the realm of morals and religion rests with the legislatures of the states… Within the limits of her political power North Carolina may, of course, enforce her own policy regarding the marriage relation-an institution more basic in our civilization than any other. But society also has an interest in the avoidance of polygamous marriages and in the protection of innocent offspring of marriages deemed legitimate in other jurisdictions.

And according to the US Supreme Court in Maynard v. Hill (1888) marriage is not a right granted by the state. It is an institution that the state has an interest in regulating and promoting. And that interest is rooted in protecting the offspring:

“marriage is a thing of common right… any other construction would compel holding illegitimate the offspring of many parents conscious of no violation of law

This is why the court quoted Skinner when it opted to once again to preserve the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman in Loving v. Virginia (1967).

Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival.
So what is the purpose of marriage?

While there are other cultural and religious purposes for marriage, when it comes to regulating marriage, the state has made it clear. The purpose is to create the most positive environment to have and raise children.

California government grows as private sector shrinks

With private sector jobs disappearing at an alarming rate, Assembly Republican Leader Martin Garrick, of Carlsbad, says in his weekly address that California must reduce the size of government to balance the budget. Here is the Assembly Republicans’ compilation of job statistics titled Real Facts: California Private Sector Job Loss vs. State Employee Job Cost.

California Unemployment Rate – 12.3%
Source: California Employment Development Department

Californians Currently Listed as Unemployed- 2.24 Million
Source: California Employment Development Department

Private Sector Jobs Lost in California Since 2005- 1,298,700
Source: California Employment Development Department

State Government Jobs Added Since 2005-  38,100
Source: California Employment Development Department

Average California Private Sector Job Salary- $55,000
Source: California Employment Development Department

Average State Taxes Paid by Each Private Sector Employee- $3,600
Source: Franchise Tax Board / Board of Equalization

Average Cost to Taxpayers to Pay Salary and Benefits for Each California Government Job- $90,000
Source: California Department of Finance

Number of Private Sector Jobs it Takes to Support One Government Job- 25
Source: Franchise Tax Board / Board of Equalization

So what is the Democrat’s answer to these alarming numbers? RAISE TAXES AND CONTINUE TO GROW GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS…

The people’s Prop 23 would reverse the politician’s AB 32… Bizzaro World? No, Just California….

When the people California began gathering signatures to overturn the politician’s Global Warming Initiative, who would have thought that irony would be played out so perfectly?

Should it pass, Proposition 23 (The California Jobs Initiative) which was put on the ballot by the people, would REVERSE AB 32 (The California Job Killer) that was passed by the politicians.

As pointed out by California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) AB 32’s higher energy prices will increase the cost of doing business here and cause economic “leakage” to occur: meaning that businesses will leave the state in search of greener pastures.

Jack Stewart, president of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association stated, “California has already lost 630,000 manufacturing jobs in the last decade, and the state is far below the national average in new industrial job growth. The Legislative Analyst’s most recent report makes it clear we’ll lose even more jobs and manufacturing activity if AB 32 implementation proceeds as scheduled.”

But needless to say, environmentalists will argue that despite the facts, AB 32 will not cost jobs and that those who want to repeal it simply want free reign to pollute California’s air and water.

I can see the commercial’s already- The BP oil spill… George Bush… and somehow referencing children and minorities…

NAACP supports legalization of marijuana… They’re fighting for your right to get high!

The California Conference of the NAACP has offered it’s unconditional support for an initiative that would legalize the recreational use of marijuana in the Golden State.
The Sacramento Bee reports:

In a news conference today, the California State Conference of the NAACP is due to throw its support behind the initiative to legalize marijuana for adults over 21, allow small residential cultivation and permit cities to tax and regulate pot sales.

In a statement, Alice Huffman, the state NAACP president, said the organization is backing the initiative, Proposition 19, to counter marijuana arrest rates that she contends unfairly target African Americans.

“There is a strong racial component that must be considered when we investigate how marijuana laws are applied to people of color,” she said. “The burden has fallen disproportionately on people of color and young black men in particular.”

The NAACP’s enthusiasm on this issue is not widely shared amongst African American leaders.

…(Ron) Allen, president of the International Faith-Based Coalition, a Sacramento group representing 3,600 congregations, said he is stunned the state NAACP would favor legalized marijuana.

“Most African American pastors are disappointed, absolutely disappointed with the decision,” said Allen, bishop of the Greater Solomon Temple Community Church in Oak Park. “If anyone should know the effects of illicit drugs in the black community, it should be one of our most respected civil rights organizations.”
The primary issue here is the fact that a greater percentage of blacks seem to be prosecuted for crimes involving marijuana than other ethnic groups.

“There is a strong racial component that must be considered when we investigate how marijuana laws are applied to people of color,” she said. “The burden has fallen disproportionately on people of color and young black men in particular.”
The problem is not that these young men are arrested for these crimes. It’s that they are involved in these crimes at all. If they did not have possession of illegal substances, then they would not be arrested for having them. And making that substance legal does not fix the underlying problem of drug usage and criminal behavior in the black community. If you want to reduce the number of young black men being arrested for possession, then get them to stop using and selling!
It’s hard to believe that this is the same organization that fought against the proliferation of liquor stores in the black community. I cannot believe they honestly support the idea of unleashing the plague of legalized drugs on those very same neighborhoods.

In California, Top of the GOP Ticket Target Black and Latino Voters Early

Senate hopeful Carly Fiorina and leading Gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman have begun there general election runs early. And they have done so by targeting those who Democrats seem to take most for granted- people of color.
The LA Times reported that over the weekend Carly was the only candidate of at any level to attend a Juneteenth celebration in Los Angeles.
Though many people had to ask her staff who Fiorina was, they crowded around to shake her hand, request her autograph and thank her for visiting South Los Angeles.

“I think it’s very brave of her to come out, because she certainly knows the kind of crowd she’s facing,” said Cathy Youngblood, 58, a cultural anthropologist from Watts. “She’s shown by being here, she’s willing to listen. … Do you see any other politicians here?”
And last week Meg Whitman began running Spanish language ads during the World Cup; making her the first Republican I can remember to ever do so, as well as the only candidate doing it at this time.
This just goes to show that these are not your typical Republican candidates. And this is not your typical lineup of GOP slate of candidates. Heavy on diversity and real world business experience, they present a stark contrast to the group of liberal political insiders offered up by the Democrats.
And unlike Republicans of the past (and their Democratic opponents) this new group of conservative leaders are not taking ethnic voters for granted. A strategy that I believe will pay off in the long run.
There may be issues that separate Republicans from Black and Latino voters. However, there are just as many issues upon which we have significant agreement. The need for real reform of our public schools, abortion, protecting the definition of marriage and the need for comprehensive immigration reform that includes aggressive enforcement of existing immigration laws; are just a few areas where there is support for conservative ideas amongst black and brown voters. And just like other voters, these groups are not happy with status quo incumbent politics.
Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina are engaging these voters; and engaging them early. They are hitting Democrats in their own backyard; making them step up and start offering a real alternative to these fresh new faces.
I hope that Meg and Carly keep up the pressure on their Democratic opponents. It will serve to not only help the GOP; but to give all voters a real choice come November.

California Democrats Support Tax Cuts for Business! Well…Sort of…

That’s right! Democrats are once again proposing significant tax incentives to encourage employers to do business right here in California… that is if they happen to be a green technology company. All other employers… you can go take a hike!… a tax hike that is!
Right on the heals of proposing over $12 billion in new taxes on Californians, Assembly Democrats (specifically Assemblymember Joan Buchanan) are proposing an increase in the research and development tax credit for companies that specialize in the development of alternative energy and green technologies. Buchanan states,
 

“Assembly Bill 1565 creates targeted Research and Development Tax Credit Areas with attractive R&D credits to motivate green technology businesses to stay in and move to California.”

In theory, this sounds like something Republicans should support – making it more cost-effective for businesses to come to and stay in California, thus providing much needed jobs. In fact, legislative Republicans have gotten behind such targeted efforts in the past. In 2009, they supported Assembly Speaker Karen Bass’ bill that provided tax credits for movie and television productions to studios that film here in the golden state. And a few months ago, they supported a manufacturer’s tax credit for green tech companies. So, why shouldn’t they get behind this most recent effort to provide much needed tax relief to at least some California companies? One word – Hypocrisy!
The California Legislature should not be in the business of picking winners and losers during these tough economic times. There is a basic hypocrisy in the liberal mindset that says, California is such and attractive place to do business that employers will stay here no matter how much we increase taxes and regulation; then at the same time arguing that we need to provide tax incentives to certain industries (the ones they happen to like) in order to bring and keep them in California. But wait…I thought those incentives didn’t make a difference?
Assemblyman Tom Amiano once lamented in a committee hearing that he was tired of people saying that our anti-business climate was chasing business out of the state. He stated that he just didn’t see the dire emergency. Apparently he forgot that in just a few short years, California went from the world’s fifth largest economy to the world’s eighth largest economy. And that was before the legislature passed the largest tax increase in state history. It is only a matter of time before having the highest sales tax, highest gas tax and second highest corporate tax rate drive us even further down the economic rankings.
It is important to note that is fact is not lost on Democrats. In fact Buchanan herself discusses the vital role that tax incentives can play in keeping businesses in California as she declares,

“This incentive will encourage business to remain in California and motivate new businesses to locate here, retaining and creating permanent jobs and helping to spur California’s economy.”

So what’s with the Jekyll and Hyde impression that Democrats seem to be doing on taxes? They know that tax cuts attract businesses and create jobs. But at the same time they are offering tax cuts to only a few select businesses, they are increasing taxes on the rest of California. What effect do they honestly believe that these tax increases will actually have?
Or maybe a better question is, do they even care?

California’s Race to the Bottom

Currently, the State Legislature is in its Fifth Extraordinary Session, which was called by Governor Schwarzenegger to implement reforms to our educational system that would make our state eligible to compete for over $400 million in federal “Race To The Top” education funds. But, when given an opportunity to make substantive change for the better in California’s education system, the California Assembly’s Education Committee chose to side with those who have destroyed the system in the first place.
On a 6-5-6 vote they shot down SB X5 1 (Romero), which was a bipartisan effort supported by scores of education advocates, school districts, educators and business leaders. Conversely, they approved AB X5 8 (Brownley), which is little more than a union backed attack on California charter schools.
Romero’s SB X5 1 was largely about bringing greater accountability and flexibility to education in California. It removed the cap placed on the number of charter schools that could be established; allowed student performance data to be utilized in the evaluation of their teachers; established an “Open Enrollment Act” which permitted students to opt out of failing schools; required state education leaders to intervene in the California’s worst performing schools; permitted differential pay for teachers; and allowed for parent initiated school reform.
On the other hand Brownley’s AB X5 8 does the bare minimum to qualify California for Race to the Top funds, while at the same time takes a big swipe at charter schools, one of few education reforms that has actually made positive a difference in California. It puts in place new rules and regulations making it easier to deny successful charter schools the opportunity to expand or even to have their charter renewed. In effect, this bill makes it easier to get rid of a successful charter school than to get rid of a bad teacher.
One only need look at the support and opposition to Romero’s measure to know the true story. The list of supporters for SB X5 1 was extensive and diverse. Conservative and liberal advocacy groups; education and business interests; Black and Latino community groups all lined up in support of what they saw as real reform. The only opposition to the bill was the union controlled Education Coalition members and other public employee union groups. Romero’s bill was so comprehensive, that Republicans and Democrats alike voted for it. And most of those who did not vote for it couldn’t even bring themselves to vote against it; choosing instead to abstain or not vote at all for fear of reprisals by the California Teachers Association.
Through it’s actions, the Assembly Education Committee made it clear that the rights and responsibility parents have to make decisions about what is in the best interest of their children comes second to the power of the state to control their children’s future; that status quo will trump real reform; that our children come in a distant second to the powerful union lead special interest groups. One can only wonder how the Democratic members of this committee will explain to their constituents why it is that their children’s schools, which are the most in need of reform, will continue to wallow in the culture of mediocrity.
Too many of our children are being failed by our public school system. If there was ever a time to set aside partisan differences, this is it. There is no greater crisis facing California for which the solution is so clearly evident. Accountability, flexibility and increased parental involvement are the keys to true education reform. SB X5 1 was written with this in mind. And nonetheless, it was summarily rejected by the legislature; by those who would put the special interests ahead of our children.
The voters of California are sick and tired of being sick and tired and it is actions like this that will continue to fuel the fire of a citizen’s revolt against the establishment. But it does not appear that the liberal controlled California Legislature is capable of much else.
Welcome to the revolution!

Power to the Parents!

Thanks to the pressure put on by parents, community members and pro-family activists the San Juan School Board voted 3-2 to not implement a new policy that would allow them to release students for “confidential medical services” without even notifying their parents.
“As a former teacher, current parent of two high school age children and a fellow school board member I know what you are going through in making this decision. I know that parents and voters have entrusted you make educational decisions for this district.” Craig DeLuz who is a candidate for the State Assembly in California’s Fifth District told the board, “But it is completely unacceptable for any board to take the power and trust we place in them and use it to undermine our rights and responsibilities as parents.”
Also speaking before the board were known conservative activists, Karen England with the Capitol Resource Institute who made it clear that other area school districts have opted to require parental notification and/or permission before a student is released for confidential medical services. “So far no school districts have been sued.” according to England. Karen went on to point out that the author of the legislation being sited as the reason for the policy change never intended for the bill to require a change in school district policy. In fact, she presented a 1987 letter from the assemblyman which stated that his intent was merely to require school districts to notify parents of what their policy was in regards to releasing students for such services.
Brad Dacus with the Pacific Justice Institute provided a bit of a legal seminar on the issue, as even the General Counsel for the district seemed to be misinformed as to what the law actually said. “The law say that school districts ‘may’ have such policies; not ‘shall'”
Parents, pro-life activists, community members and the media all looked on as the board, which was clearly uncomfortable with all of the new found attention narrowly voted down the new policy. Board members Larry Masuoka, Greg Paulo and Lucinda Lutgen all voted down the new policy, while Board President Richard Luaney and Assembly District 5 candidate Larry Miles voted to keep parents in the dark.
“It was fact that the people showed up that made the board do the right thing.” DeLuz declared “That’s why I was here. Because we need leaders who are going to show up.”

Governor finally agrees with GOP Legislators

Here is a quote from Gov. Schwarzenegger you won’t see in the main stream media:

“And now I understand when Republicans say they say that they are serious about negotiating, but when it comes down to the language itself, that’s where it will fall apart. And that’s exactly what happened this time.”

He made this statement after pledging to veto the controversial budget fixed passed on a simple majority vote, in violation of the State Constitution (Click Here to Watch the Video).

What he was commenting on was the fact that when Legislative Democrats negotiate they say they will do one thing. But the devil is in the details-otherwise known as “Bill Language”. Meaning- the bill language that is offered by the Democrats often does not do what they said it would do. This is why it is a general policy amongst assembly Republicans to not agree to any idea- even in concept until you see it in writing. Furthermore, it explains why the GOP has insisted on their issues being address before even considering new revenues.

The truth is that Legislative Democrats don’t believe that they have to actually negotiate with Republicans. They ignore them whenever they don’t need their votes to pass legislation. No matter how salient a point they make may be, it often gets lost in the fervor of getting their bills through the legislative process. They simply state that they are willing to take a look into it as the bill moves along. The bill passes and nothing ever happens.

And when they do need GOP votes, Democrats don’t bother trying to negotiate in good faith. Rather, they try to pick off one or two votes with incentives that may help that member, but don’t necessarily address their overall policy concerns. Of course, the governor cannot necessarily complain about this tactic, since he often employees it himself.

If a deal is going to get done, it will only be when all sides are allowed to sit at the table and negotiate in good faith. All sacred cows need to be on the table- meaning that everyone is going to have to give up something in order to get something.

Did Prop. 8 pass by a landslide or did Obama barely squeak by?

The following commentary is from my good friend and fellow Red County Blogger, Mike Spence. He does a really good job of putting the Prop. 8 victory in persepctive.

Proposition 8 Did Better Than You Think.

The losers in the Prosotion 8 race have tried to portray their loss as a narrow one, caused by various boogeymen. (LDS Church, Black voters, etc…)

Ron Prentice of the California Family Council and ProtectMarriage.com compiled some statistics to put the win in context. Here are some of them:

The official Statement of the Vote has been released by the Secretary of State. Proposition 8 passed by a margin of 52.3% to 47.7%. Proposition 8 won by a margin of 600,000 votes: 7,001,084 to 6,401,483.

Prop. 8 received 2,150,000 MORE votes than did Arnold Schwarzenegger when he was reelected in 2006.

Prop. 8 received nearly 2 million MORE votes than Dianne Feinstein did when she was reelected to the US Senate in 2006.

Prop. 8 received 250,000 MORE votes than did John Kerry when he carried California in 2004.

Prop. 8 received 45,000 MORE votes than did Barbara Boxer in her landslide reelection to the U.S. Senate in 2004.

Prop. 8 passed with approximately the same percentage of the vote that Barack Obama received nationally.

So did Prop. 8 pass by a landslide or did Obama barely squeak by?

CA Assembly to vote on $5 billion in new taxes that they are calling “Fees”

Today, Democrats will be offering $5 billion in new taxes, calling them fees. It is believed that by calling them fees, they can be passed by majority vote, rather than the 2/3 vote requirement that is necessary to raise taxes: meaning, they could conceivably pass this without any Republican votes.

Admittedly, I am not sure that this is the case. But cut me some slack, Republicans just got the bill language an hour or so ago. So much for “Open and Transparent Government”.

We have also heard that there will be votes on some education issues and transportation issues, and possibly health and human services. Of course, Democrats may change the whole thing up. Heck, we may not see what is actually being proposed until the members walk into the chamber this afternoon. They have already changed the meeting time. Who knows what else will change.

The California Channel will be broadcasting this session live at 3 p.m. on many local cable channels, or on their live webfeed at http://www.calchannel.com/ . You can also listen to the session live by going to the Assembly’s webpage and clicking on “Floor Session” at the top of this page here: http://www.assembly.ca.gov/Committee_hearings/ . If you are unable to watch live, you will be able to retrieve the broadcast at http://www.calchannel.com/ later in the archives.

Watch the “Why the GOP should cave!” dog and pony show LIVE!

Today at 3 pm the California Legislature will be holding a joint session to hear from the State’s fiscal leaders on why they need to address the State’s massive budget deficit ASAP. Featured speakers include State Controller John Chiang, Treasurer Bill Lockyer, Mike Genest, the Governor’s Director of the Department of Finance, and Mac Taylor, the state’s non-partisan legislative analyst. Each will speak for 15 minutes, and then there will be questions from the legislature afterwards.You can tune in and watch it live at CalChannel.com .

Sacramento Bee writers, Dan Walters and Jon Ortiz will also be hosting a live blog during the presentation at www.sacbee.com/live. That is how important this presentation will be.

But you can be assured that the bulk of the dog and pony show will be focused on why legislative Republicans should cave on their commitment not to raise taxes.

Bill Lockyer has already threatened to withhold the sale of any bonds until the budget is fixed. Furthermore, he would cease the flow of funds to current projects. Additionally, Governor Schwarzenegger has hinted at massive layoffs amongst the ranks of state employees, a proposal that will do more to influence Democrats than Republicans.

But what is missing from any discussions are the substantive requests that GOP legislators have put forward. Namely:

• Economic stimulus proposals (not tax cuts) for employers like:
o AB 32 implementation relief
o Repeal of eight hour overtime
o Regulatory relief

• Substantive budget reform like:
o A real spending cap
o A rainy day fund
o Providing flexibility to agencies (especially schools) on how they can spend their budgets.

• Ongoing spending reductions by:
o Consolidating agencies and departments with duplicative functions “Blowing up the boxes”
o Re-visiting collective bargaining agreements and related side deals.
o Reworking of funding formulas that demand so much of the state budget.

Even as Democrats declare “Everything needs to be on the table”. Please notice that these options will be found nowhere on that table. Not because Republicans have not proposed them. Rather, Democrats have killed them at every turn.

Craig DeLuz on the Capitol Hour: The Republican Reformation

“And if by these things you are not reformed by Me, but walk contrary to Me, then I also will walk contrary to you, and I will punish you yet seven times for your sins.” Lev 26:23-24

Republican voters sent a clear message to Republican elected and candidates- start governing like Republicans or we will send you packing! So have we learned our lesson?

Is this the beginning of the Republican Reformation?

We will be talking about this and more TODAY on the Capitol Hour.

Details Below:

When: Today, November 26th

Station: KTKZ 1380AM

Live Audio Steaming at http://www.ktkz.com/ (for those of you out of the Sacramento Region)

TIME: 12 noon-1 pm (PST)

Call in Numbers: (916) 923-3300 or 1(800) 923-1380

Thought the 2008 elections were over? Think again!

The battle for CD 4 between Charlie Brown and Tom McClintock is still up in the air as they continute to count ballots. The same is true for AD 10 as GOP hopeful Jack Sieglock hopes to fend off his democratic opponent, Alice Huber.

And what can we expect from Sacramento’s Mayor-Elect, Kevin Johnson? He is in the minority (Only three of members of the nine seat city council supported him) and will be facing some of the toughest budget decisions any Sacramento leader has ever had to face.

All this and more will be discussed during this week’s show.

To tune in simply go to http://www.deluzbrothers.com/ and click on the Listen Live Button at the top of the page.

You can even join the conversation by calling in at (347) 237-5073. We will be breaking down the upcoming election and much more. You don’t want to miss the fireworks!

Details Below:

When: Friday, November 21st

Station: Blogtalk Radio

Live Audio Steaming at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/The-DeLuz-Brothers

TIME: 11:30-12 noon (PST)

Call in Number: (347) 237-5073

Speaker Bass decries racist comments by LGTB community

During an interview with the Sacramento Bee editorial staff, California Assembly Speaker Karen Bass commented on the “hostility” that the LGTB community has shown towards blacks after the passage of Prop 8, which defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.

During a videotaped interview, Bass told of how blacks who actually voted against the measure were confronted with “racial epithets” when they showed up to protest the vote. She went on to point out that some were so fearful they even left because “…they were threatened.”

The Speaker went on to say, “I was appalled at how quickly some members of the LGTB leadership went there…”

Well Madam Speaker, they did. But I understand your confusion. I too thought they were No on H8?

(I stand corrected!!!! The video is quoted correctly in the article. My apologies to the Sacramento Bee!.)

No on 8 campaign resorts to hate speech

Can someone explain to me exactly why this commercial does not constitute hate speech?

Imagine if the two guys who conducted this home invasion were Catholic… or Muslim?

How do you think public reaction would be different?

In Case You Missed it:Activist twins are polar opposites politically


This weekend, the Sacramento Bee did a piece on my twin brother David and I. It was a really cool article. And I’m not just saying that because it is about me!

Activist twins are polar opposites politically

Outside the Pyramid Alehouse on 10th and K streets Thursday, it was hard not to notice the dapper DeLuz twins theatrically debating the great issues of our time.

They’re both 6-foot former linebackers and passionate activists well-known in Sacramento political circles.

Though Craig is sometimes confused for David and vice versa, that’s a giant mistake. Politically, the brothers are polar opposites.

David DeLuz – born 10 minutes before Craig on June 7, 1969 – is a liberal Democrat who proudly sports an Obama-Biden button and wears a blue tie and a navy blue suit.

Craig DeLuz – a quarter-of-an-inch shorter – is a conservative Republican in jeans and a gray pattern sport coat who staunchly defends McCain-Palin.

While there are physical differences between them, it’s really when the DeLuz brothers open their mouths that it’s easiest to tell them apart.

David opposes Proposition 8, which would ban gay marriage. Craig recently showed up at American River College to support a controversial student council resolution endorsing Proposition 8.

They vehemently disagree on abortion and the Iraq war.

In recent weeks they’ve heckled each other at a Black Political Forum in North Sacramento and an NAACP voter education rally at the state Capitol.

They also go at it on local radio and their blog: http://deluzbrothers. blogspot.com/.

“It’s just now getting to the point where people realize there are actually two of us,” David said. “I lost a politically connected position because they thought I was him.”

Craig said he lost a job when his potential employer found out he was the right-leaning DeLuz.

David, who was president of the Sacramento branch of the NAACP from 2002-2005, is an administrator with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation “focused on offender re-entry.”

Craig is Capitol director for Assemblyman Kevin Jeffries, R-Lake Elsinore.

Despite their differences, David managed Craig’s 2000 campaign for Sacramento City Council (he lost to Sandy Sheedy).

“Our goal is the same, to have an engaged community that provides opportunities for everyone,” David said.

The twins haven’t bet on the presidential race “because David won’t give me enough points,” Craig said.

Craig predicts that “an Obama presidency and a Democratic Congress will be one of the best advertising tools for the Republican Party” because they’ll tax and spend Americans into oblivion.

Obama epitomizes style over substance, Craig said. “McCain is not the most attractive or the best speaker, but he’s challenging the administration and trying to find common ground, compared to a guy taking the easy route and saying whatever people want to hear.”

David fires back: “Your depiction of Barack Obama is way over the top. His record demonstrates a willingness to try new ideas. He’s right where we need to be. It’s about creating a middle class that can be a consumer class.”

The twins – born to an Italian American mother and an African American father in Richmond – were adopted by a black couple, John and Elevera DeLuz.

John Deluz, who grew up in Newport, R.I., the son of a Cape Verdian immigrant, joined the Air Force during World War II and was trained as an electrician.

But he couldn’t get a job in Oakland because the electricians union discriminated against blacks. So he wound up taking a job washing cars and later became a warehouse supervisor for Safeway.

“He’d say, ‘You’re just as good as anybody, but you’re no better than anybody, and you’re going to have to work twice as hard to get half as far as the average white boy,’ ” David said.

Both parents were dedicated Democrats.

The twins played football for DeAnza High in Richmond. Craig was nicknamed ” ‘Duke,’ for John Wayne, because I walked like a cowboy and was ready to draw down on anybody.”

“The one thing you did not want to do was mess with one of the DeLuz brothers because if you got in a fight with one of us you had three to five minutes before the other showed up,” Craig said.

Craig went to Chico State, where he became the first African American elected president of the student government. He began listening to Rush Limbaugh but didn’t become a Republican until after his son was born in April 1995.

That day, he realized $2,500 of his first big commission check for signing up members for the California Chamber of Commerce was being taken in taxes. “I said this is outrageous!”

Meanwhile, David attended California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, and in 1988 was inspired by Jesse Jackson – the first black man to make a serious run for president.

“There have been a lot of heated arguments,” David said. “We argued a lot over Bill Clinton and morality in public service. Craig has the nerve to question the morals and ethics of Democrats in general – because we support abortion and gay rights, we are somehow morally inferior to the Republicans.”

“We argue about everything,” Craig said. “He’s a Pittsburgh Steelers fan, I’m a Dallas Cowboys fan. I belong to Kappa Alpha Psi and he belongs to Phi Beta Sigma,” rival black fraternities.

Their mother, who disliked George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan and loved Bill Clinton, “gave Craig a hard time until the day she died,” David said.

Inside the Pyramid Alehouse on Thursday, after the brothers fought over the last chicken wing, Craig declared his love for Sarah Palin.

“She’s got a reputation for taking on corruption and implementing fiscal conservatism. She took on the people who ran as Republicans and were spending like drunken liberals and booted them out.”

“Are you kidding me?” David responded. “That woman is clearly unqualified to serve as president.”

Craig contended: “Obama doesn’t say what change he’s about.”

David countered: “He’s definitely going to turn away from the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war and rely more on diplomacy, and he’s going to support working families rather than CEOs and big corporations.”

Jacques Whitfield, who worked with both brothers at the old Grant Joint Union High District where he served as general counsel from 1997 until earlier this year, says “they’re both very good at speaking up for their constituencies.”

Whitfield, now a management consultant, leans left, “but I respect Craig’s courage to stand up for what he believes in as an archconservative, even in this Democratic town where much of the agenda is progressive.”

Whitfield said Craig is a true believer and “interestingly enough, so is David. At the end of the day I love them both.”

Racist Cartoon has liberal roots

Well this is an iteresting twist!

It turns out that the “Obama Bucks” cartoon was actually created by a liberal blogger in an attempt to “to poke fun at the unrealistic fears and agenda of racism that a fringe element of Republicans strongly embrace.”

Do you really buy this? Here are some other pictures on his site.

So what exactly is the social value of these pictures? Even in the context in which he places them in his blog, they do nothing more than promote racism.

I want to be clear…. The “Obama Bucks” cartoon is flat out racist. And the head of the Republican women’s group that included it in her organizations newsletter was wrong as the day is long. There is not excuse to propigate such hatefilled material.

But this liberal blogger is just as wrong for creating and posting it as she was for reproducing and distributing it.

Racism is racim. From the right or the left, it is still wrong!

Debra Bowen hosts drive by registation, but has no voter reg cards for GOP

According to the California Republican Party, Secretary of State, Debra Bowen’s office refused to fulfull their request for 20,000 voter registration cards. The excuse given was that the delayed budget caused them to run low on printed voter registration cards.

When confronted by the media, Bowen’s office denied any such shortage. Little did the folks at the CRP saved the voicemail message for them from the Secretary’s office. and it tells a very different story.

Meanwhile, Ms. Bowen has hooked up with her fellow Democrats to host a “Driveby Voter Registration” event at the Sacramento Convention Center. I guess they the shortage only applied to certain groups.

Kevin Johnson caves on marriage

Today, former NBA point guard and Sacramento mayoral candidate, Kevin Johnson showed what I have been saying for months. (See Should Republicans vote for Kevin Johnson?) As much as he wants to portray himself as a new style political leader, when the pressure is on, he will cave on what he knows to be right.

The Sacramento Bee is reporting:

Kevin Johnson opposes same-sex marriage ban

By Ryan Lillis – rlillis@sacbee.com
Published 12:00 am
PDT Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Sacramento mayoral candidate Kevin Johnson will announce today that he opposes a Nov. 4 ballot measure that would ban same-sex marriage – even though his personal belief is that marriage is “between a man and a woman.”

According to a statement issued Tuesday by his campaign, Johnson opposes Proposition 8 “because it would write discrimination into the state constitution.”

The press release said Johnson shares views with Sen. Barack Obama and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who oppose a ban on gay marriage in California but personally believe marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Proposition 8 would reverse a Supreme Court ruling earlier this year allowing same-sex couples to marry.

Mayor Heather Fargo said Tuesday that Johnson made “a good move to oppose Prop. 8.”

“Now we just need to convince him that marriage between gay people is in fact a good thing,” Fargo said.

She said she has opposed Proposition 8 “since it has been drafted and will continue to campaign against it.” The mayor has conducted four marriage ceremonies between same-sex couples since they were legalized in June.

Fargo has been endorsed by the Sacramento Stonewall Democrats, which is the region’s largest Democraticorganization, and is campaigning to shoot down Proposition 8.

The organization’s president, Ed Bennett, said he was pleased Johnson was voicing his opposition to the proposed ban, but that his group would continue to support Fargo.

“She’s been against Prop. 8 since the beginning and her opinion
has always been voiced,” Bennett said. “She left no doubt from the very beginning.”


Back during the primary, Johnson created a quite a stir when he stated during a televised debate that he believed that marriage should be between a man and a woman. This statement had many supporters of marriage thinking that they finally had a democrat that they could get behind. Well, that didn’t last long.

Shortly after the State Supreme Court voted to undermine the voters of California and legalize same-sex marriage, Johnson’s campaign staff was quick post a statement on his campaign website stating that he fully supported the decision and would be an advocate for the LGTB community. This statement prompted criticism from some faith community leaders who supported him because of his previous statement in defense of marriage, prompting the campaign to moderate the statement. And now the statement has been changed again, removing all references to same-sex marriage.

Kevin Johnson taken the coward’s way out by trying to be on both sides of the issue. He says the he personally believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. But he opposes an initiative that would make sure that this is the case in California.

This causes me to wonder what other of his personal views will not be reflected in his administration?

He says he does not believe in raising taxes and wants to cut the size of government. But will he stand up to the public employee unions who will pressure him to expand the size of government and raise taxes? He says that he believes in economic development and promoting jobs. But what will happen when the environmentalists start clamoring to limit development? History of his story tells uu that he will cave.

Vote for Kevin Johnson if you wish. But don’t be fooled into thinking that you are voting for anything other than a Democrat who is afraid to stand up for what he claims to believe.

At least Heather Fargo isn’t afraid to stand for what she believes.