Xtra News Community 2

General Category => General Forum => Topic started by: Kiwithrottlejockey on November 12, 2016, 10:33:55 pm

Title: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on November 12, 2016, 10:33:55 pm

from The Washington Post....

While the country shifts to the right, California keeps moving left

The state and others on the West Coast backed Clinton and passed a flurry of liberal measures.

By KATLE ZEZIMA | 6:00AM PST - Friday, November 11, 2016

(http://i378.photobucket.com/albums/oo227/Kiwithrottlejockey/Washington%20Post%20pix/20161111cfp_CaliforniaFreewayProtestors_zpsaf4y12ea.jpg~original) (https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_2500w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2016/11/10/National-Politics/Images/622127792.jpg)
Police advance on protesters who shut down the 101 freeway Wednesday in opposition to the upset election of Republican
Donald Trump over Democrat Hillary Clinton in the race for president. — Photograph: David Mcnew/Getty Images.

SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA — Manuel Guerrero is terrified by the impending presidency of Donald Trump and how it will affect Latinos like him. But huddled over the trunk of a Toyota Camry as he put the final touches on a posterboard sign, he vowed that he and his fellow Californians would fight.

“California is not gonna take this,” he said as he held the sign, which read “F--- Trump.”

Then Guerrero, a 30-year-old artist, walked toward the sidewalk in front of a gas station parking lot, where he and a few dozen others protested, chanted, and waved Mexican flags amid a haze of exhaust and marijuana smoke. They crossed a six-lane highway as passersby honked their horns and pumped their fists out open windows.

California has long been in the vanguard of American politics, routinely enacting liberal legislation and policies long before the rest of the nation and a hotbed of support for Democrats such as Hillary Clinton. But in the aftermath of an election in which the country as a whole shifted to the right, the Golden State is now out of step with the rest of the nation by moving even farther to the left.

“In California, we are decisively going in a different direction than the rest of the country,” said Kevin de Leon, the Democratic president pro tempore of the state Senate.

The electoral map illustrates the United States' geographical and political divides in bright red and blue relief. But nowhere on Tuesday was the gulf between liberals and the conservative tack that won the electoral college more stark than here in California and other parts of the far West.

Nevada chose Clinton over Trump, an outcome driven in large part by the state's growing Latino population. It was one of the few states to send a new Democrat to the Senate, Catherine Cortez Masto, who will become the country's first Latina senator. Nevada also legalized the recreational use of marijuana, and voted to require background checks for most gun purchases and transfers. Oregon elected the nation's first openly LGBT governor. Washington raised its minimum wage to $13.25 an hour by 2020.

Here in California, voters legalized marijuana, enacted the nation's first background checks for ammunition purchases, banned large-capacity gun magazines, increased the tax on cigarettes and vaping devices, reinstated bilingual education, boosted income taxes on the wealthy, and banned the sale of single-use plastic bags.

The state also elected Kamala Harris, a Democrat, to the Senate. Harris will become the first Indian American and the second black female senator. The state overwhelmingly voted for Clinton in the presidential contest, with 61.5 percent of the electorate — one of the highest in the country — casting ballots for the former secretary of state, compared with 33.3 percent for Trump.

Months ago, Governor Jerry Brown (Democrat) joked about building a wall around California to “protect it from the rest of the country” if Trump is elected, a quip that is now recirculating. Some are even calling on California to secede from the rest of the country. A group that had previously dedicated itself to that cause rallied on the statehouse steps in Sacramento on Wednesday, stating a goal of getting a secession referendum on the 2018 ballot. Its leader tweeted on Thursday that he has received 18,000 emails in recent days.

Online, people are using the term “Calexit,” a take on Britain’s “Brexit” vote to sever ties with the European Union.

Shervin Pishevar, the co-founder and co-chief executive of San Francisco venture capital firm Sherpa Ventures, tweeted on Tuesday that he would begin and fund a “legitimate campaign” to help the world’s sixth-largest economy become its own nation, “New California.”

“It’s the most patriotic thing I can do,” he told CNBC (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/09/shervin-pishevar-wants-to-help-california-secede-from-the-us.html). “The country is at a serious crossroads.”

De Leon and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon said on Wednesday in a statement issued in English and Spanish that they felt like “strangers in a strange land” after the election. The men ordered attorneys to look at how a Trump presidency would affect federal funding of state programs, investments that rely on foreign trade and federal enforcement of various laws, including those relating to immigration. They vowed to “lead the resistance” to any efforts to “shred our social fabric” or Constitution.

“California is America before America is itself,” de Leon said in an interview. “That means the good, the bad and the ugly, not just the good things that happen in California.”

(http://i378.photobucket.com/albums/oo227/Kiwithrottlejockey/Washington%20Post%20pix/20161111gjb_GovernorJerryBrown_zpsopf9jnkc.jpg~original) (https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_2500w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2016/11/10/National-Politics/Images/California_Budget-959a4.jpg)
California Governor Jerry Brown (Democrat) joked before Election Day that the state might have to build a wall
around itself if Donald Trump was elected. — Photograph: Rich Pedroncelli/Associated Press.

In 1994, California voters passed an initiative designed to set up a state-run immigration system and deny most benefits, including education, to undocumented immigrants. Backlash to the proposition, which was strongly backed by then-Governor Pete Wilson, is widely considered a watershed moment that eventually led to the decimation of the Republican Party in the state.

Today, California allows undocumented immigrants to obtain driver's licenses and access in-state tuition at public universities. The state is also one of the most diverse in the nation. According to the census, 38.8 percent of Californians identify as Latino, 14.7 percent as Asian and 6.5 percent as black.

Those demographic changes are spurring political ones here in Orange County, once a mostly white bastion of Republicanism that has become increasingly Latino and Asian. While blue-collar Democrats who switched parties to vote for Trump in the Rust Belt helped propel him to the presidency, voters in Orange County chose a Democratic presidential candidate for the first time since the 1930s.

“I've always referred to Orange County as the ‘Orange Curtain’ because it’s so conservative,” said Adriana Garcia, a 40-year-old Democrat who lives in Newport Beach. She cried as she talked about a Trump presidency, concerned that it might subject her, the daughter of Mexican immigrants, to racist and sexist hatred she has never experienced.

“I thought it was wild” that Orange County tilted for Clinton, she said. “I'm sad more places didn't.”

Neighboring Riverside County also flipped to Democrat from Republican in 2012, as did Nevada County in the state's north.

Protests flared across the state on Wednesday after Trump's victory, with dozens arrested. A group of high schoolers in Berkeley walked out of class. In Oakland, more than 7,000 people took to the streets. In Los Angeles, hundreds of people blocked freeways. In front of City Hall, some protesters burned a giant papier-mâché Trump. Fewer protesters came out in L.A. on Thursday night, but those who did marched through the streets, halted traffic, threw bottles and set off fireworks. At least 185 people were arrested, a number that will likely rise, said Norma Eisenman, a Los Angeles Police spokeswoman.

Here in Santa Ana on Wednesday night, protesters spent more than an hour continually crossing the four-way intersection, walking in a square from the gas station to an auto-parts store to a food stand where some picked up Mexican corn, to a 7-11 and back to the gas station. They held signs reading, “Not our president” and “Dump Trump,” and yelled profanities about the president-elect. A 2-year-old held a sign reading, “Stop white supremacy.” Some wore bandannas around their faces, prepared for the police to deploy tear gas.

The group marched along the main street and the protest ballooned in size, with 650 people ultimately standing in an intersection until 2 a.m. Participants got into a standoff with police, who fired beanbags and used other non-lethal crowd-control methods; police said the crowd members threw bricks, bottles and other objects. Ten people were arrested, including three juveniles, on charges including disorderly conduct and assault with a deadly weapon on a police officer, said Corporal Anthony Bertagna of the Santa Ana Police Department. He said that a brick was thrown at a police car and that three others were seriously damaged. Two businesses also were damaged and 167 police officers from the county responded.

Many here expressed anger at white Americans, saying they helped propel Trump to the presidency and endorsed racism and xenophobia.

“Can I give you a hug on behalf of white people?” Jennifer Hellman, 36, asked Guerrero as the two stood in the parking lot of a strip mall of mostly Latino stores. “We're not all like this.”

The two embraced as a woman on a bicycle rode by, screaming an expletive about Trump.

Oliver Lopez, 33, and his wife, Lucy Dominguez, 37, stood in front of a neon gas station sign, arms around each other and each holding a sign that read, “Peace.”

Dominguez said she chose the sign because the nation needs peace in this moment. She was born in Mexico, became a citizen and voted for Clinton. She was angry about and hurt by Trump's assertion in his campaign kickoff speech that some Mexicans are drug dealers and rapists.

“I'm not a rapist. My family are not rapists,” she said.

Lopez said he is glad he lives in California.

“It gives me a sense of safety,” he said. “We're leaning more to the left.”

• Katie Zezima is a national political correspondent covering the 2016 presidential election. She previously served as a White House correspondent for The Washington Post.


Read more on this topic:

 • PHOTOGRAPH GALLERY: Protests swell across U.S. in wake of Trump victory (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/protests-swell-across-us-in-wake-of-trump-victory/2016/11/09/bac44658-a6ee-11e6-ba59-a7d93165c6d4_gallery.html)

 • ‘Not my president.’ Thousands protest Trump in rallies across the U.S. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/11/10/not-my-president-thousand-protest-trump-in-rallies-across-the-u-s)

 • Trump meets with Obama at the White House as whirlwind transition starts (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/11/10/obama-to-welcome-trump-to-white-house-for-first-meeting-since-election)

 • What the future of marijuana legalization could look like under President Trump (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/09/what-the-future-of-marijuana-legalization-could-look-like-under-president-trump)

 • Nebraska and California voters decide to keep the death penalty (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/11/09/nebraska-and-california-voters-decide-to-keep-the-death-penalty)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/while-the-country-shifts-to-the-right-california-continues-to-move-left/2016/11/10/1c6cc602-a6d9-11e6-ba59-a7d93165c6d4_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/while-the-country-shifts-to-the-right-california-continues-to-move-left/2016/11/10/1c6cc602-a6d9-11e6-ba59-a7d93165c6d4_story.html)

Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on November 13, 2016, 05:32:23 am

If they want to fight draft them and send them to Iraq

you have everything ass backwards which is normally what happens from the left, the things they accuse other people of doing things when it's really them doing it, all thanks to the left wing crony media which has done it's best to stir up a race war

these stupid fools they need to either move to a country with a dictatorship and no voting rights because they are the mentally-retarded supporters and useful idiots of the george soros foundation,if they acted like this in a communist country they would either be locked up in a gulag or put into a mental hospital and receive electric therapy.

when trump is president he should arrest and jail george soros confiscate all his money use it to build the wall.


Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on November 13, 2016, 06:24:06 am
Death to this vile creature who is working to destroy our lives



Use existing criminal and civil laws to shut down his anti-American juggernaut.
March 31, 2016

It is time to hold radical ringleader George Soros to account for the growing civil unrest that he has helped to foment in this presidential election cycle and his efforts to shut down Donald Trump rallies using physical force and intimidation.

Soros, the billionaire speculator, is the preeminent funder of the activist Left in America, which means he is the Number One funder of the domestic terrorism that is part and parcel of the Left.

Soros makes no secret of his contempt for leading GOP candidate Trump. In January he said "Donald Trump is doing the work of ISIS." Ideas like banning entry to the U.S. by Muslims might "convince the Muslim community that there is no alternative but terrorism."

Soros favors the decline of the U.S. and spends lavishly on activism to bring that collapse about. He has spent an estimated $7 billion or more on giving left-wing groups the resources to screw up the country.

He has used his vast fortune to topple governments in Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan. He "broke" the British pound, was accused of wreaking havoc on the Malaysian ringgit, and was called an "economic war criminal" in Thailand. A French court convicted him of insider trading.

America is his current target.

Soros calls America "the main obstacle to a stable and just world order" and hails Communist China for having "a better-functioning government than the United States." He says European-style socialism "is exactly what we need" and funds open-borders groups in order to corrode the nation's culture and change its electorate.

And he's at the forefront of the Left's push to defeat Trump by any means possible -- lawful or otherwise.

What do the violent mobs assaulting Donald Trump fans and supporting the Black Lives Matter and Occupy Wall Street movements have in common? Money from Soros and the huge philanthropies he has endowed to turn America into a socialist country. Black Lives Matter and Soros-funded MoveOn have been heavily involved in hardball tactical strikes against Trump and his supporters.

The morally flexible Soros works the American system from the inside and the outside, using both lawful and unlawful, illegitimate tactics.

Some of the anti-Trump activism he funds consists of conventional political activities.

Soros recently contributed $5 million to a new super PAC called Immigrant Voters Win. The PAC's FEC filings indicate it is run out of the Washington, D.C. office of a Soros-funded 501(c)(4) nonprofit called Center for Community Change Action (formerly called Campaign for Community Action). ACORN alumnus Deepak Bhargava is the nonprofit's executive director and Sixties radical Heather Booth is a member of its board. It is expected to conduct a $15 million voter-mobilization effort against Trump in Colorado, Florida, and Nevada.

But when Soros funds activist groups involved in illegitimate efforts to deny Americans their right to participate in the political process he crosses a line.

There is no right to riot or to silence one's political adversaries.

"Although the right to peacefully protest is enshrined in the Construction," law professor John F. Banzhaf III writes, "there is no constitutional or other legal right to commit criminal acts to make a point."

And as legal analyst Andrew Napolitano wrote after unruly Bernie Sanders supporters and other left-wing activists forced the cancelation of the Trump rally March 11 at the University of Illinois at Chicago, the law imposes on police "an affirmative obligation to take all reasonable steps to protect the speaker’s right to speak, the audience’s right to hear and the protesters’ right to protest." Put another way, "protest of political speech is itself protected speech, but protest cannot be so forceful or dominant that it vetoes the speaker."

Fox News legal analyst Peter Johnson Jr. added that "The First Amendment does not confer upon you or me or [Fox host] Steve Doocy the right to go to someone's rally and try to disrupt it, or destroy it, or to pull apart posters, or to start fights, or to attempt to commit an assault on a presidential candidate."

Johnson's comments came after admitted Bernie Sanders and Black Lives Matter supporter Tommy DiMassimo dramatically rushed the stage March 12 in Ohio when Trump was speaking. The college student, who was grabbed by security before he got to Trump, said he intended to silence the Republican candidate he accuses of having what he called "violent white supremacist ideas." He had previously bragged on Twitter that he planned to "spit on their false king [i.e. Trump.]"

What these so-called protesters do when they try to bring about a desired political result by frightening people amounts to terrorism. Terrorism isn't always about blowing up buildings or killing people. It can also consist of activity intended to frighten, demoralize,  or neutralize an enemy—in other words, a variety of psychological warfare.

"Terror means make it impossible to go to the public square. Make people afraid to go to Times Square. Make them afraid to go to train stations. Make them afraid to travel. Make them afraid to go to a Donald Trump rally. Make them afraid to go to any political rally. Make them afraid they might be hurt, they might be arrested, they might be intimidated, they might get sued ... "

The outrageous behavior by left-wing activists that is now routinely tolerated by police today would have quite properly landed a person in jail earlier in America’s history. 

But the social justice warriors of the Left, who perversely fetishize political protest as if it were the highest expression of civic responsibility, have defined deviancy down.

Whatever left-wingers do for their cause cannot be bad. And if it's violent, they find a way to excuse it and the media cheers them on, hailing them as heroic visionaries, early adopters, and trailblazing influencers.

Left-wingers believe that using physical force and intimidation for the right reasons is legitimate political protest protected by the First Amendment. In the leftist worldview, which holds that the U.S. Constitution protects everything they consider to be good whether or not it's mentioned in the actual text, this right to agitate on behalf of their twisted ideology supersedes all other rights.

The right to protest is exalted above property rights, according to Baltimore's joke of a mayor, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake (D). While her city burned last year after black career criminal Freddie Gray died in police custody, the street gang-loving mayor consoled the rabble, implying their violent activities constituted legitimate contributions to public discourse.

"I made it very clear that I work with the police and instructed them to do everything that they could to make sure that the protesters were able to exercise their right to free speech," she said. "We also gave those who wished to destroy, space to do that as well."

Black Lives Matter organizer DeRay Mckesson describes rioting as "a cry for justice." He told Yale students that "looting for me isn't violent, it's an expression of anger," and that "The act of looting is political. Another way to dissolve consent. Pressing you to no longer keep me out of this space, by destroying it."

Prosecutors and law enforcement need to start thinking outside the proverbial box and begin using the ample tools the law provides to deal with Soros, the most dangerous man in America, because he leads a massive, well-funded effort to deny the American people their right to participate in free and fair elections. The protesters whose groups Soros pays to break up political rallies are criminal thugs little different than the brown-shirted Sturmabteiling (S.A.) of the Third Reich.

If the tables were turned and a conservative billionaire were to lead and finance a violent organized insurgency against his political adversaries how long would it take before the authorities took action against him?

The criminal and civil provisions of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), state racketeering statutes, and class-action lawsuits could be used to end Soros's long-running scheme to interfere with the civil rights of Americans and fundamentally transform the country.

American law protects free speech, the right of peaceable assembly, and the right to protest, but it does not protect efforts aimed at silencing people or preventing them from getting involved in the democratic process.

David French argues at NRO that leftist activities like blocking roads and "every other protest tactic that violates the rights of innocents" need to be punished. He writes:

"The leftist media loves to love this lawlessness, and public officials are relentlessly pressured into administering the most meaningless slaps on the wrist — sometimes even letting protesters walk without charges. The Left demands most-favored-criminal status for its social-justice warriors, and it typically gets exactly what it demands. Criminality largely goes unpunished, so-called direct action is rewarded with fawning accolades from the media and celebrities, and the rule of law is diminished."

When police refuse to combat unlawful, disruptive protest, they fail in their "basic duty to protect the law-abiding public," while creating "waves of bitterness and resentment."

French says unspecified parties should work around "spineless local prosecutors" and sue the protesters into penury.

"Answer each lawless act with a civil complaint, seek injunctions, take discovery to reveal the full extent of leftist astroturfing — do you really think these protests represent spontaneous, uncoordinated events? — and collect money damages. Protesters aren’t deterred by small fines and short detentions, but financially ruinous damage awards raise the stakes."

Professor Banzhaf explains how to do it.

Protesters, he notes, broke the law in Arizona when they recently blocked a major highway leading to a Trump event and created a 10-mile backup. "The threat of arrests — only three reportedly occurred — and fines weren't much of a deterrent."

"Effectively trapping people in cars by blocking traffic satisfies the elements of false imprisonment," which clears the way for civil litigation, according to Banzhaf.

The recent actions against Trump are just the beginning. Activists are going to become more aggressive in disrupting Republican events as the campaign heats up. He writes:

"Now spreading to political campaigns is what we have unfortunately all too often tolerated on college campuses — protestors who interrupt speakers to prevent others from hearing them, who physically block attendees' access, and who threaten violence to squelch speech. Unless we do something about it, the problem will persist — and could get worse."

Using civil legal action has been "so effective in fighting for civil rights, women's rights, smokers rights (to obtain damages), nonsmokers' rights (to clean air), gay rights, gun rights, and in many other areas," that it is time to consider using lawsuits to shut down criminal disrupters.

"Victims of disrupters can also sue for civil conspiracy even if their individual actions, such as yelling out at a rally, aren't themselves criminal, but become so when done as part of a conspiracy to unlawfully cause harm."

An added benefit of civil proceedings is that they would "open the door to discovery, including those aimed at verifying concerns expressed in various media that those with even deeper pockets are involved in the planning, funding, and/or execution of these criminal disruptions."

In other words, George Soros.

More trouble is on the horizon.

Soros-funded groups, including MoveOn, Institute for Policy Studies, Demos, People for the American Way, and National People's Action, have endorsed Democracy Spring, a leftist project that among other things aims to overturn the Citizens United ruling and thereby gut the free speech protections of the First Amendment.

Demonstrations are scheduled to begin April 2 in Philadelphia after which participants will spend 10 days walking 140 miles to the U.S. Capitol for what is being billed as "the largest civil disobedience action of the century."

According to lead organizer Kai Newkirk, Democracy Spring is not -- wink, wink -- an explicitly anti-Trump event. But it is certain to become one as Newkirk more or less admits in a lie-filled screed posted online. "Trump's statements, proposed policies, and threats of violence concerning undocumented immigrants, Muslims, the KKK, protesters exercising their First Amendment rights, and others have crossed a very serious line into the territory of fascism and hate speech."

And anyone who remembers the Arab Spring of 2011 knows that an event named after it isn't likely to be peaceful.





Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on November 13, 2016, 12:08:33 pm

It's really hilarious reading the reader comments posted to The Washington Post article.

You can tell which are the stupid Trump supporters, based by the comments they post which are along the lines of “Time to cast California, Oregon, Washington (state) and all those commie, pinko lefties adrift from the USA”. Except that those dumbarse Trump supporters (you'd need to be mentally defective to support a liar and failed businessman like Trump, who has been bankrupted SEVEN TIMES) are too thick to work out that the three western states have by far the highest average personal income, so therefore pay the highest (by far) federal taxes per capita in the USA, and are therefore subsidising those Trump-supporting retards (the REAL Jesuslanders) who post dumb comments like that. Hillarious, how stupid & thick Trump supporters are. We've even got a few of them in this country too, and their stupidity is graphically on display.

Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on November 13, 2016, 12:13:53 pm

And its hilarious how Trump supporters (who were promising to make the USA ungovernable if Clinton had won the election) are now whining & whinging about intelligent folks protesting and causing disruption over a RETARD becoming the next US President.

Time to get in the beer & popcorn and watch Trump presiding over a country which is going to morph into a FAILED STATE under his presidency.

The sooner the northeastern states and the west coast states break-away and take their wealth with them and leave the stupid Jesuslanders to it, the better. Those dumb Jesuslanders will be able to pray to the god delusion inside their heads to take care of them once the money supply from the northeast and the west coast gets cut-off.

Haw haw haw!!

Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on November 13, 2016, 01:54:26 pm
you people and your kind are a braindead cult of clowns

and the washington post is only good to wipe your arse

Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Alicat on November 13, 2016, 05:27:07 pm
Oh great - yet another Trump thread.

Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on September 18, 2017, 02:01:45 am

from The Washington Post....

In message of defiance to Trump, lawmakers
vote to make California a sanctuary state

The legislation would prohibit local law enforcement agencies from co-operating with
federal immigration officials. It also forbids law enforcement from inquiring about a
person's immigration status. The bill now goes to California Governor Jerry Brown,
who is expected to sign it into law.

By KRISTINE PHILLIPS | 6:25PM EDT - Saturday, September 16, 2017

(https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_960w/2010-2019/Wires/Images/2017-09-09/AP/California_Legislature_Final_Week_60125-25f59.jpg&w=985) (https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_960w/2010-2019/Wires/Images/2017-09-09/AP/California_Legislature_Final_Week_60125-25f59.jpg&w=1484)
Protesters hold signs as they listen to speakers at a rally outside City Hall in San Francisco in January. — Photograph: Jeff Chiu/Associated Press.

IN what appeared to be an act of defiance against President Trump and to the dismay of many in law enforcement, California lawmakers took a significant step toward making the state a so-called “sanctuary state”.

The California Senate on Saturday passed Senate Bill 54, controversial legislation that would protect undocumented immigrants from possible deportation by prohibiting local law enforcement agencies, including school police and security departments, from co-operating with federal immigration officials. It also forbids law enforcement from inquiring about a person's immigration status.

The California Values Act provides an expansive protection to the state's undocumented population, estimated to be about 2.7 million, at a time when the Trump administration continues to aggressively crackdown on those who are in the country illegally and on so-called sanctuary cities — communities that limit local law enforcement's co-operation with immigration agents.

The strictly party-line vote sends the bill to California Governor Jerry Brown (Democrat), who is expected to sign it in to law.

Kevin de León (Democrat-Los Angeles), president pro tempore of the state Senate and California's most powerful Latino politician, introduced the bill in December. It sailed through the state Senate and Assembly without Republican support.

“Once signed into law and enacted, SB-54 will prevent state and local law enforcement officers and resources from being commandeered by President Trump to enforce federal laws,” de León said in a statement Saturday, adding later: “Our undocumented neighbors will be able to interact with local law enforcement to report crimes and help in prosecutions without fear of deportation — and that will make our communities safer.”

Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher (Democrat-San Diego) said California’s “families, schools, workplaces and communities” will be safer.

Those in law enforcement, however, disagreed.

The California State Sheriff's Association, which has vocally opposed the bill, said that limiting public safety agencies' ability to cooperate with immigration agents places communities at risk.

“We are disappointed that the Legislature chose political symbolism over public safety in approving SB-54,” the association said in a statement.

Brown and de León reached a compromise this week that allows law enforcement to have some flexibility. For example, the bill gives officers discretion to cooperate with immigration agents if a person has been convicted of a serious or violent felony and any felony punishable by imprisonment in a state facility.

Officials can report a person who has been convicted in the past 15 years of crimes such as unlawful possession or use of a weapon, driving under the influence, or drug- and gang-related offenses, as long as those offenses were felonies.

The revision also requires the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to give inmates credits toward reducing their sentences, regardless of their immigration status, if they complete educational and rehabilitative programs.

The compromise was accepted by immigration advocates but did not persuade law enforcement organizations to support the bill. In a statement after the deal was reached on Monday, the California State Sheriff's Association said that despite the changes, “the bill still goes too far in cutting off communications with the federal government.”

“Our overarching concern remains that limiting local law enforcement's ability to communicate and cooperate with federal law enforcement officers endangers public safety,” the association said.

Senate Republican Leader Pat Bates (Laguna Niguel) said in a statement that the latest amendments “may have removed some obstacles.”

But the bill, she added, “would still impose unnecessary restrictions. These restrictions will make it more difficult to stop dangerous criminals from being released into our communities.”

California is not the first state to pass a sanctuary law. The Oregon legislature passed a similar bill (http://www.oregonir.org/book/export/html/2433) in 1987.

The vote came just a day after a legal blow to the Trump administration's crackdown on sanctuary cities. A federal judge on Friday blocked the Justice Department from withholding grant funds from Chicago and other cities that refuse to co-operate with immigration authorities.

Last August, a federal judge in Texas temporarily blocked (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/immigration/federal-judge-blocks-texass-harsh-anti-sanctuary-law/2017/08/30/05dd770a-8cd0-11e7-8df5-c2e5cf46c1e2_story.html) parts of a state law that was supposed to outlaw sanctuary cities and penalize local officials for not cooperating with federal deportation efforts.

Brewing in the White House and on Capitol Hill is a debate on what to do with the hundreds of thousands of young undocumented immigrants who were brought to the country as children, after Trump announced that his administration is ending an Obama-era program granting legal status to “dreamers”. Departing from a campaign promise to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, Trump said that he favors some protections for dreamers, whom he called “good, educated and accomplished young people.”

Matt Zapotosky and Maria Sacchetti contributed to this report.

• Kristine Phillips is a general assignment reporter for The Washington Post.


Related to this topic:

 • VIDEO: How santurary cities are responding to Trump's threat to defund them (https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/a8647b78-eef0-11e6-a100-fdaaf400369a_video.html)

 • VIDEO: Federal judge sides with sanctuary cities in dispute with Trump administration (https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/019894b8-9a68-11e7-af6a-6555caaeb8dc_video.html)

 • Judge rules Justice Department can't keep grant money from unco-operative sanctuary cities (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/judge-rules-justice-dept-cant-keep-grant-money-from-uncooperative-sanctuary-cities/2017/09/15/40f0ec66-9a52-11e7-82e4-f1076f6d6152_story.html)

 • Trump's die-hard supporters are fuming after an apparent about-face on ‘dreamers’ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/09/14/according-to-democrats-trump-has-done-an-about-face-on-dreamers-his-diehard-supporters-are-fuming)

 • Trump and Democrats strike DACA deal. Yes? No? Sort of? Trump's world can be confusing. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-and-democrats-strike-daca-deal-yes-no-sort-of-trumps-world-can-be-confusing/2017/09/14/ab6a40d4-9970-11e7-82e4-f1076f6d6152_story.html)

 • Federal judge blocks Texas' harsh anti-sanctuary law (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/immigration/federal-judge-blocks-texass-harsh-anti-sanctuary-law/2017/08/30/05dd770a-8cd0-11e7-8df5-c2e5cf46c1e2_story.html)

 • Chicago sues Justice Department over new police grant rules targeting sanctuary cities (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/08/07/chicago-to-sue-justice-department-over-new-police-grant-rules-targeting-sanctuary-cities)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/09/16/in-message-of-defiance-to-trump-lawmakers-vote-to-make-california-a-sanctuary-state (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/09/16/in-message-of-defiance-to-trump-lawmakers-vote-to-make-california-a-sanctuary-state)

Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on November 12, 2017, 03:13:14 pm

from the Los Angeles Times....

U.S. cities, states defy Trump, still back Paris climate deal

By ERIK KIRACHBAUM | 3:05PM PST - Saturday, November 11, 2017

(http://www.trbimg.com/img-5a077435/turbine/la-1510437935-pwfjh8b6hr-snap-image/1000) (http://www.trbimg.com/img-5a077435/turbine/la-1510437935-pwfjh8b6hr-snap-image)
California Governor Jerry Brown speaks in the U.S. Climate Action Center at the COP 23 Climate Change Conference on Saturday in Bonn, Germany.
 — Photograph: Martin Meissner/Associated Press.

DETERMINED TO demonstrate that large numbers of Americans remain committed to fighting climate change, a loose alliance of cities, states, companies and universities from across the United States gathered on the fringes of a United Nations climate conference in Bonn on Saturday to pledge their support for the Paris agreement.

California Governor Jerry Brown, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and former U.S. Vice President Al Gore were among the leaders of the U.S. coalition during a series of speeches and panel discussions in a grand pavilion named the “U.S. Climate Action Center”. It was set up just outside the building where the U.N. climate conference is taking place. The American political and business figures told the audience that states, cities and businesses have real power that they can leverage in the fight against climate change even though the federal government wants to bail out.

“It is important for the world to know — the American government may have pulled out of the Paris agreement, but the American people are committed to its goals, and there is nothing Washington can do to stop us,” Bloomberg told the audience in the packed tent. He noted that the alliance of 20 states, 110 cities and 1,400 businesses would be the world's third-largest economy and represented about half of the U.S. economy.

President Trump announced in June that the United States will withdraw from the 2015 Paris agreement at the first possible date in 2020, arguing it was detrimental to U.S. business. Trump has expressed doubt about climate change, questioning how much human activity has contributed.

The Trump administration is represented at the Bonn talks of nearly 200 nations by a senior diplomat but has taken a low-key approach — in stark contrast to the attention-grabbing U.S. Climate Action Center.

Brown, who is on a whirlwind 10-day trip to four countries promoting climate change and California, was one of the featured speakers on Saturday that faced dozens of hecklers in the crowd who demanded his state do even more to fight pollution, stop fracking and oil drilling, and slow global warming.

After some good-natured jousting with the green activists, Brown praised them for their dissent and announced he would “reframe my speech”. He also told them he was a former cheerleader in college and that he liked their rallying cry “We're still in” so much that he led the whole audience in a cheering: “We're still in, we're still in”.

“Only in California can we stimulate this kind of opposition with strong advocates on all sides — [even though] we're doing more than anyone else,” Brown said. “This is one of the reasons why California has the most aggressive goals: no matter what we do, we're being challenged to do more, and I agree with that. We'll do a lot more.”

Brown then diverted from the rest of his planned “America's Pledge” speech to say:

“California is the most aggressive, most far-reaching climate action state in the country and in the Western Hemisphere. Is it enough? No. Do we have a lot of pollutants? Yes. Do we have 32 million cars driving 335 billion miles every year? Yes. Are we going to stop them today? No. Are we going to stop them in time? Yes, if America's pledge is picked up by the rest of the country and rest of the world. If we can take some of that noise and bottle it into energy, we'll get the job done. America, we're here, we're in and we're not going away.”

Bloomberg and Brown appeared along with Fiji Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama, who presiding over the U.N. conference at its climate headquarters in Bonn that runs until Friday. The talks are focused on designing a detailed set of rules to help guide forward the 2015 Paris climate agreement that established a goal of ending the fossil-fuel era by the end of the century.

Earlier on Saturday, Senator Edward J. Markey (Democrat-Massachusetts) promised the United States would remain committed to its climate change goals.

“We are here in Bonn to say we are not saying ‘bon voyage to our commitment on climate’,” he said.

• Erik Kirschbaum is a correspondent for the Reuters International News Agency, a non-fiction author, a long-time Springsteen fan, and an unabashed crusader for renewable energy. He has written about topics anywhere from entertainment to climate change in over 20 countries for many news organisations including the Los Angeles Times. He lives in Berlin.

http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-germany-climate-change-conference-20171111-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-germany-climate-change-conference-20171111-story.html)

Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on December 30, 2017, 02:32:12 pm

from the print edition of the Los Angeles Times....

Trump not in Golden State of mind

He has yet to visit California, a first since Eisenhower.
For the president, it's home to ‘the resistance’

By BRIAN BENNETT | Friday, December 29, 2017

(http://origin.misc.pagesuite.com/3630c326-c935-42f5-b0da-daebc36b7646/images/IMG_LA-APphoto_Trump_2_1_7A32R01P.jpg) (http://origin.misc.pagesuite.com/3630c326-c935-42f5-b0da-daebc36b7646/images/IMG_LA-APphoto_Trump_2_1_7A32R01P.jpg)
President Donald J. Trump once said that California was “out of control”. — Photograph: Susan Walsh/Associated Press.

WASHINGTON D.C. — President Trump's love for all things gold apparently doesn't extend to the Golden State.

Trump is about to become the first president since Dwight D. Eisenhower 64 years ago to skip a visit to California during his first calendar year in office. And he doesn't appear to have any plans to take Air Force One to the country's most populous and economically powerful state before he marks his first full year in office on January 20th.

Even past presidents who, like Trump, didn't win the state's electoral votes made it a destination, if only for California's allure as the Golden State of campaign cash.

For Trump, it's ground zero for “the resistance”.

A president so fixated on the 2016 election results as Trump may not want to be reminded that just 31% of California's voters chose him while 61% decided “I'm with her” — giving Hillary Clinton over 4 million more votes and the state's 55 electoral votes.

A few weeks afterward, President-elect Trump alleged on Twitter that there was “serious voter fraud” in California, as well as in Virginia and New Hampshire, claims for which he never suggested evidence.

Since then, California has been at the forefront of those states and organizations pushing back against Trump's policies to vastly scale back federal healthcare subsidies, environmental protections and safety regulations, and to crack down on legal as well as illegal immigration.

Trump noticed early on. California is “out of control,” he told Fox News in February.

“It's hard to imagine an environment less alluring to him right now than deep-blue California,” said Dan Schnur, a professor of political communications at USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism and a former Republican.

“He'll get here eventually, but we probably shouldn't hold our breath that it's coming anytime soon,” Schnur added.

Of the 29 states Trump has visited since taking office, just eight are west of the Mississippi River. He's mostly visited friendly red states in the Southeast and the Northern industrial belt that he won, often holding political rallies indistinguishable from his campaign events. Of the 20 states that went to Clinton, Trump has been to eight.

The devastating wildfires that hit the state prompted a few sympathetic messages from Trump, and support for some disaster aid. But Trump did not visit, even as he traveled to Florida, Louisiana, Texas and Puerto Rico following devastating hurricanes this year.

Jim Brulte, chairman of the California Republican Party, said he was fine with Trump not traveling to the state. “The president has a lot of things he has to do. We Californians are OK. We are used to being on the far end.”

He added: “He's the first president that's got significant tax reform and restructured the federal courts in his first year. We'll trade that for a visit to California anytime.”

Trump has made four foreign trips this year, but when he is in the United States, he doesn't like staying away from the White House, the presidential retreat of Camp David, or one of his resort properties, typically in New Jersey, Virginia or Palm Beach, Florida.

If and when Trump does visit California, he would have one of his own places to visit. The Trump National Golf Club in Los Angeles, on the bluffs of Palos Verdes overlooking the Pacific Ocean, describes itself as the “ultimate Southern California destination.”

So far that attraction has been lost on Trump. Recent history suggests California is unaccustomed to the snub.

While Eisenhower was the last president to skip California during his first year, he arrived during his 13th month, in February 1954, to vacation at Smoke Tree Ranch, the home of Paul Helms, an Eisenhower golfing buddy and owner of the Helms Bakery company, near Palm Springs. (The former Helms Bakery in Culver City is now an entertainment and shopping venue.)

During his stay with Helms, Eisenhower left the ranch for a night — to get a chipped tooth fixed, the White House said. The brief absence spawned decades of conspiracy theories that he had visited Edwards Air Force Base to visit aliens being held there. The same night, the Associated Press incorrectly published a bulletin that Eisenhower had died of a heart attack.

Before Eisenhower, presidents rarely traveled by air, making trips to the West Coast far more difficult.

Franklin D. Roosevelt didn't make it to California as president until October 1st, 1935, roughly two and a half years into his first term. He went by train — no president had yet done an official trip by air — for the dedication of Hoover Dam and a visit to Los Angeles.

His successor, Harry Truman, flew to San Francisco within three months of becoming president upon Roosevelt's death, to attend the closing session of the founding conference of the United Nations in June 1945.

Eisenhower's successor, John F. Kennedy, came aboard Air Force One to speak at a fundraising dinner for the California Democratic Party in Los Angeles in November 1961. Collecting campaign cash has been a draw for presidents ever since.

Lyndon B. Johnson flew to California in June 1964 for a two-day swing that included the dedication of the new campus of UC Irvine, as well as a campaign fundraising speech in Los Angeles where seats went for $100 each, far less than current political prices, even accounting for inflation.

At the Los Angeles fundraiser, Johnson claimed credit for passage of the “largest tax cut in American history” — a boast Trump would less accurately assert more than half a century later.

Richard Nixon, a native of the state, often visited what he called his Western White House in San Clemente, making his first visit as president within months, in June 1969. Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama all made trips within their first months as president, and, of course, so did Ronald Reagan, the former California governor.

While Trump has been MIA in California, fundraising for California Republicans has continued. Brulte said Vice President Mike Pence visited in October with House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy and helped raise more than $5 million for legislative races during visits to McCarthy's hometown of Bakersfield, Sacramento and the Beverly Hills home of developer Geoff Palmer.

The Republican Party often taps wealthy supporters in the state to help fund races across the country. Trump made campaign swings through California in April, May and June of 2016.

Trump plainly hasn't always liked his pre-presidential visits to California. In Los Angeles in December 2013, he grumbled about the cold weather, pointing to the chill as evidence for his belief that global warming is “a total, and very expensive, hoax” — comments that were doubly unwelcome to many Californians.


Los Angeles Times staff writer David Lauter in Washington contributed to this report.

• Brian Bennett covers the White House for the Los Angeles Times and writes about national security and immigration as well. Since starting in the L.A. Times Washington D.C. bureau in 2010, he has documented a pattern of excessive force by U.S. Border Patrol agents and revealed the first arrest on U.S. soil using a Predator drone. He reported for TIME magazine starting in Hong Kong in 2000, from Pakistan and Afghanistan after the September 11 attacks and was its Baghdad bureau chief in 2003 and 2004. A native of Riverside, California, he misses being able to pick avocados and oranges in the backyard.

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_popover_share.aspx?guid=d43c5d5c-2ec6-4bfe-8a77-1b2bf9b6b44a (http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_popover_share.aspx?guid=d43c5d5c-2ec6-4bfe-8a77-1b2bf9b6b44a)

Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on January 07, 2018, 02:50:49 pm

from the Los Angeles Times....

Trump's plan to open California coastal waters to new
oil and gas drilling probably won't go very far

By BETTINA BOXALL and TONY BARBOZA | 4:00AM PST — Saturday, January 06, 2017

(http://www.trbimg.com/img-5a5013d0/turbine/la-1515197387-1p3zotpqhi-snap-image/999) (http://www.trbimg.com/img-5a5013d0/turbine/la-1515197387-1p3zotpqhi-snap-image)
Oil companies may have trouble justifying the cost of new offshore developments at a time when hydraulic fracturing on land is cheaper.
Above, oil rigs in the Santa Barbara Channel in March 2015. — Photograph: Al Seib/Los Angeles Times.

THERE ARE two things working against the Trump administration's proposal to open up California coastal waters to new oil and gas drilling: state regulators and simple economics.

California has powerful legal tools to head off new offshore development, and the price of oil offers little incentive to the energy industry to pursue expensive drilling projects next to a hostile state.

“I don't think there's any reasonable chance that there will be any leasing or drilling along the coast,” said Ralph Faust, former general counsel for the California Coastal Commission. “This just seems like grandstanding” by the Trump administration.

The Interior Department on Thursday released plans (https://www.boem.gov/NP-Draft-Proposed-Program-2019-2024/) to open vast areas off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to new oil and gas exploration and drilling through a five-year leasing program that would begin in 2019.

But there are myriad obstacles opponents can throw in front of the proposal, not to mention questions about whether the oil industry has much of an interest in California's offshore reserves at a time when domestic oil production is at its highest level in decades.

Under the plan, the federal government would offer 47 leases in U.S. waters on the outer continental shelf, including two each off the Northern, Central and Southern California coasts and one off Washington and Oregon.

The governors of all three states issued a joint statement on Thursday saying they would do whatever it takes to block new leasing off their shores, which include some of the nation's most pristine coastlines.

The first hurdle for the Trump plan is a period of public comment (https://www.boem.gov/National-Program-Comment) and an extensive environmental review under federal law, which opponents can use to challenge the proposal as ecologically harmful.

In California, the state coastal commission also has the authority to review activities in federal waters to ensure they are consistent with the state's coastal management plans.

“The commission has extremely broad and very powerful authority to say ‘no’ to federal actions that would harm the coast of California and harm coastal waters,” said Steve Mashuda, an attorney at Earthjustice, a nonprofit environmental law organization.

The commission is ready to use it.

“Nothing galvanizes bi-partisan resistance in California like the threat of more offshore oil drilling,” coastal commission Chairwoman Dayna Bochco said in a statement. “We've fought similar efforts before, and we will fight them again.”

While the U.S. Secretary of Commerce could override a commission finding that new oil drilling violated the state's management plan, federal courts have tended to side with states in such contests.

And California has another weapon: State Lands Commission jurisdiction over tidelands and waters that extend roughly three miles offshore.

That gives the commission the ability to stop the construction of pipelines that are the most economical way of transporting oil and gas from offshore rigs to land.

“In some ways that is an even more formidable tool that the state of California and like-minded local governments can utilize to deny approval of things like oil terminals and pipelines crossing state sovereign tidelands,” said Richard Frank, director of the California Environmental Law & Policy Center at UC Davis.

There are 23 oil platforms in federal waters off California and four in state waters — near Santa Barbara County, Huntington Beach and Seal Beach. There are also four artificial islands used as drilling platforms off Long Beach and one off Rincon Beach in Ventura County.

But images of oil-drenched sea birds and fouled beaches during the massive 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill soured the state on offshore oil development. There have been no new federal leases off California since 1984.

Moreover, uncertainty over prices makes costly new drilling projects in California's deep offshore waters difficult to justify financially compared with cheaper hydraulic fracturing operations on land.

Oil is trading at about $60 a barrel — roughly the price that would make an offshore project profitable, said Peter Maniloff, an economist at Colorado School of Mines who studies the oil and gas industry.

But “you want to be confident that prices will remain that high before undertaking a very large investment to drill an offshore well,” Maniloff said. “And it's hard to be confident of that because fracking has driven prices down.”

“This announcement is not a game changer for the oil industry or for California,” he added. “I would not expect substantial drilling or production off California.”

Michael Livermore, an environmental law professor at the University of Virginia, said that “based entirely on the Department of Interior’s own analysis, drilling off the coast of California is a terrible idea.”

He cited a section of the leasing proposal that found waters off Central California did not meet the government threshold for benefits exceeding the costs of oil drilling. “Waiting in the region could provide greater value to society than leasing in the 2019–2024 Program,” according to the report.

Livermore also questioned whether any company would be willing to risk the public backlash were there to be a spill in such closely watched waters.

David Hackett, an oil industry expert and president of Stillwater Associates, an Irvine-based transportation energy consulting firm, supports more oil development off the California's coast.

But given fierce state and local opposition, he doubts new oil rigs will start popping up in the Pacific.

“Even if California was supportive, it would take a decade for production to begin,” he said.

• Bettina Boxall covers water issues and the environment for the Los Angeles Times. She shared the 2009 Pulitzer Prize for explanatory reporting with colleague Julie Cart for a five-part series that explored the causes and effects of escalating wildfire in the West. She began her journalism career as a photographer at a small Texas daily and reported for newspapers in Vermont and New Jersey before joining the L.A. Times in 1987.

• Tony Barboza is a reporter who covers air quality and the environment with a focus on Southern California. He has been on staff at the Los Angeles Times since 2006, is a graduate of Pomona College and completed a Ted Scripps Fellowship in Environmental Journalism at the University of Colorado.


Related to this topic:

 • Trump has big plans for offshore oil development. But will it ever happen? (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-offshore-oil-drilling-20180105-story.html)

 • California offshore drilling could be expanded for the first time since 1984 under federal leasing proposal (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-offshore-drilling-20180104-story.html)

 • Governor Jerry Brown: Trump's plan to expand offshore drilling is ‘reckless, short-sighted’ (http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-gov-brown-trump-s-plan-to-expand-1515100575-htmlstory.html)

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-california-offshore-drilling-20180106-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-california-offshore-drilling-20180106-story.html)

Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on January 07, 2018, 07:46:20 pm
Jerry Brown is a fool
people are leaving California in droves to get away from high taxes the place is broke and shit hole

Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on January 07, 2018, 10:28:57 pm
people are leaving California in droves to get away from high taxes the place is broke and shit hole

Ah, yes....the people who are leaving California in droves are those stupid rightie fuckheads who support Donald Trump.

They are fucking off to the mentally-fucked-up state of Texas where people believe the god delusion inside their head is real.

As far as California is concerned, it is “good riddance” 'cause the more mentally ill people they can get rid of, the better.

I posted a thread about this way back in July last year....

Hahaha: stupid boofhead righties flee California … Californians will be cheering (http://xtranewscommunity2.smfforfree.com/index.php/topic,15458.0.html)

(http://i378.photobucket.com/albums/oo227/Kiwithrottlejockey/TooFunny_zps2gz4suf2.gif~original) (http://i378.photobucket.com/albums/oo227/Kiwithrottlejockey/LaughingPinkPanther_zpsy6iu8yso.gif~original) (http://i378.photobucket.com/albums/oo227/Kiwithrottlejockey/ROFLMAO_Dog_zpsc4esrpyc.gif~original) (http://i378.photobucket.com/albums/oo227/Kiwithrottlejockey/LaughingHard_zpswco6umsu.gif~original) (http://i378.photobucket.com/albums/oo227/Kiwithrottlejockey/ItchyBugga_zpsebzrttez.gif~original)

Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on January 08, 2018, 03:32:23 pm
leftist clowns are fuckheads lost in total denial

Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on January 08, 2018, 09:17:52 pm

from The New York Times....

In Clash Between California and Trump, It's One America Versus Another

The growing divide between California and President Trump erupted this week,
over marijuana, immigration, taxes and the environment.

By TIM ARANGO | Sunday, January 07, 2018

(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2018/01/08/us/00california-02/merlin_131780856_8e572114-6f94-4533-b2c9-cd960c94948a-superJumbo.jpg) (https://static01.nyt.com/images/2018/01/08/us/00california-02/merlin_131780856_8e572114-6f94-4533-b2c9-cd960c94948a-superJumbo.jpg)
A cannabis dispensary in Oakland, Calif., on Monday. Legal recreational marijuana sales in the state began this year, just before the Justice Department
announced it would renew tough enforcement of federal marijuana laws. — Photograph: Jim Wilson/The New York Times.

LOS ANGELES — When drivers entered California recently from the borders with Arizona and Nevada, they were greeted with signs (http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2018/01/02/fake-sanctuary-state-sign) welcoming them to an “official sanctuary state” that is home to “felons” and “illegals”. It was a prank, but the message was clear: By entering California, they might as well have been entering foreign territory.

And in many ways it feels like that these days, as the growing divide between California and the Trump administration erupted this past week over a dizzying range of flash points, from immigration to taxes to recreational marijuana use.

What had been a rhetorical battle between a liberal state and a conservative administration is now a full-fledged fight.

Just as Californians were enjoying their first days of legal pot smoking, the Trump administration moved to enforce federal laws (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/04/us/california-defiant-in-face-of-federal-move-to-get-tough-on-marijuana.html) against the drug. On the same day, the federal government said it would expand offshore oil drilling, which California’s Senate leader called an assault on “our pristine coastline”.

When President Trump signed a law that would raise the tax bills (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/10/business/economy/california-republican-tax-bills.html) of many Californians by restricting deductions, lawmakers in this state proposed a creative end-around — essentially making state taxes charitable contributions, and fully deductible. And California's refusal to help federal agents deport undocumented immigrants prompted one administration official to suggest that state politicians should be arrested.

(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2018/01/05/us/00california-01/merlin_114300338_3e2e59d8-5005-48e3-b21b-3cb2519592c0-superJumbo.jpg) (https://static01.nyt.com/images/2018/01/05/us/00california-01/merlin_114300338_3e2e59d8-5005-48e3-b21b-3cb2519592c0-superJumbo.jpg)
A protest in Los Angeles against the election of President Trump in November 2016. — Photograph: Lucy Nicholson/Reuters.

The clash between California and Mr. Trump and his supporters — between one America and another — began the morning after he won the presidency, when Kevin de León, the State Senate leader, and his counterpart in the Assembly, Anthony Rendon, said they “woke up feeling like strangers in a foreign land.”

Since then the fight has metastasized into what could be the greatest contest over values between a White House and a state since the 1950s and 1960s, when the federal government moved to end segregation and expand civil rights.

Back then, of course, the ideologies and values at issue were reversed, as conservative Southerners, under the banner of states' rights, fought violently to uphold white supremacy. In these times it is liberal California making the case for states' rights, traditionally a Republican position.

“It seems like every day brings a new point of contention between two very different types of leadership,” said Jim Newton, a lecturer at the University of California, Los Angeles.

And it does not end there: New laws that went into effect on January 1st in California raised the minimum wage, allowed parents to withhold gender on birth certificates and strengthened what were already some of the toughest gun laws in the country by restricting ammunition sales and assault weapons, and barring school officials from carrying concealed weapons at work. Taken together, the measures are the surest signs yet of how California is setting itself apart from Washington — and many parts of America, too.

Mr. de León, along with almost the entire leadership of California, has been a bulwark against the Trump administration. Mr. de León introduced the so-called sanctuary state legislation — the California Values Act — that restricts state authorities from cooperating with federal immigration agents, and places limits on agents entering schools, churches, hospitals or courthouses to detain undocumented immigrants. The law went into effect on January 1st, provoking a prankster — presumably a Trump supporter — to put up those highway signs, and setting off a war of words between California and the administration.

The state should “hold on tight,” said Thomas Homan, the acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in an interview on Fox News last week (http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2018/01/02/acting-ice-director-california-made-foolish-decision.html).

“They are about to see a lot more special agents, a lot more deportation officers,” he said. “If the politicians in California don't want to protect their communities, then ICE will.”

Mr. Homan went on to assail politicians who support the sanctuary policy, suggesting they should be arrested.

Darrell Steinberg, the mayor of Sacramento, California’s capital, reacted angrily on Wednesday, saying on Twitter that “they certainly know where to find me.”

(https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/948703615031566336/BL4DcR0P?format=jpg&name=600x314) (https://twitter.com/Mayor_Steinberg/status/948988941364965376)
(click on the image to read the Tweet)

Also this week, Mr. de León introduced legislation to limit the impact of the new tax bill on Californians by essentially allowing residents to pay their state taxes in the form of a charitable contribution, which could then be deducted when filing federal income tax.

Mr. de León also said he was working with Eric H. Holder Jr., an attorney general under President Barack Obama, to push back against attempts to enforce federal marijuana law, which Attorney General Jeff Sessions said on Thursday he would allow federal prosecutors to do.

“Whether Jeff Sessions likes cannabis is not the question,” Mr. de León said. “The people of California voted overwhelmingly to legalize marijuana for recreational use.”

For his part, Mr. Trump is the first president since Dwight D. Eisenhower to not take a trip to California in his first calendar year in office, not even to visit his golf course in Rancho Palos Verdes, south of Los Angeles, or a mansion he owns in Beverly Hills, or to tour the vast damage left in the wake of a series of wildfires. By contrast, he has made multiple trips to other states hit by natural disasters, including Texas and Florida after Hurricanes Harvey and Irma.

In California, every state leader is a Democrat, including the governor and the leaders of the State Senate and Assembly. Of the state's 53 members in Congress, only 14 are Republicans, and analysts believe several of them are in jeopardy of losing their seats to Democrats in next year's mid-term elections because of opposition in California to Mr. Trump.

Still, not every Californian is lining up to join the opposition. Representative Kevin McCarthy, the Republican House majority leader, has stood firm with the president, was a strong supporter of the tax bill, and has said he believes there is still an opportunity for Democrats and the administration to come together, particularly on immigration. In an interview with Fox News on Friday (http://video.foxnews.com/v/5702967608001/?playlist_id=903354961001#sp=show-clips), he said, “I think there is a plan for securing the border, for dealing with chain migration.” He added, “I think there is a common ground that both sides can get to.”

But California's diversity — 40 percent Latino, and with an estimated 2.3 million undocumented workers, according to a Pew Research Center survey (http://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/unauthorized-immigrants) — is regarded by many people here as a powerful counternarrative to the Trump administration's anti-immigration policies and the ugly racial incidents and outbursts of white supremacy that have surfaced (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/trump-racial-jeers.html) during his presidency in places like Charlottesville, Virginia.

Beyond demographics and politics, charting its own course is part of the identity of California. “We are the frontier,” said Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a political scientist at the University of Southern California. “Beyond us, there's nothing but ocean.”

(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2018/01/05/us/00california-03/merlin_120196172_f71e35f8-e17b-4798-95aa-e1d2f9ccecf2-superJumbo.jpg) (https://static01.nyt.com/images/2018/01/05/us/00california-03/merlin_120196172_f71e35f8-e17b-4798-95aa-e1d2f9ccecf2-superJumbo.jpg)
Immigration advocates at a Los Angeles City Council meeting in March, held to discuss the Trump administration's threats to cut funding
for the city and other so-called sanctuary jurisdictions for undocumented immigrants. — Photograph: Lucy Nicholson/Reuters.

California is not the only liberal state standing up to the Trump administration. But as the most populous state, with close to 40 million people — if it were a country it would be the world's sixth largest economy, sandwiched between Britain and France — California has been energized in the age of Trump to take the lead in opposing what many here believe is a depressing reversal of American progress.

“California has distinguished itself from the federal government for a long time,” said Elizabeth Ashford, a political consultant who has worked for Governor Jerry Brown, former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Senator Kamala Harris. “Certainly Arnold spent a lot of time talking about California as almost a nation-state. And many Californians feel that way.”

She continued, “For Californians and California there's always this concept of a Golden State, a model of what a state can be and achieve.” These days, with the country roiled by a resurgence in white supremacy and nasty fights over immigration and diversity, essentially a battle over American identity, she said, “there are sharp distinctions that many Californians are drawing between us and them.”

Those distinctions may become sharper, as a generational shift in California Democratic politics, driven by leaders like Mr. de León, could tilt the state further to the left. Mr. de León, 51, is mounting a primary challenge to Senator Dianne Feinstein, 84, by positioning himself more to the left — and more stridently opposed to the president — than his rival.

Ordinary Californians have found other ways to push back.

One of them is Andrew Sturm, a graduate student in visual arts at the University of California, San Diego. Last year, Mr. Sturm was with a friend in Tijuana, Mexico, at a spot near the border where prototypes of Mr. Trump's planned wall had been positioned.

“We were thinking, man, these things look like drive-in movie screens,” he said. “We were thinking about how we could do something with them.”

The result was a display of political art, in the form of light (http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-border-wall-project-20171122-story.html). One evening this fall at dusk, Mr. Sturm and other activists, working from the Mexican side of the border, erected theater lights and used stencils to project images onto the prototypes — of a ladder, of the Statue of Liberty.

“I felt kind of sick as a U.S. citizen,” he said, referring to Mr. Trump's immigration policies. “I didn't want folks in Mexico to think this is how we all feel.”

Jennifer Medina contributed reporting.

• Tim Arango is a Los Angeles correspondent for The New York Times. Before moving to California, Mr. Arango spent seven years as Baghdad bureau chief, covering the drawdown of American forces in Iraq, the rise of the Islamic State, the downfall of Prime Minister Maliki, the return of the American military, and the offensives against the Islamic State in Falluja and Mosul. Doubling as the Istanbul bureau chief for five years, he also covered Turkey's decline from a rising Islamic democracy to an authoritarian state, a trajectory punctuated by mass protests, terror attacks, a botched coup, a migration crisis, and a military incursion into Syria. Before heading overseas, Mr. Arango had been a media reporter for The N.Y. Times since 2007. He is from Vermont.


Related to this topic:

 • California Defiant in Face of Federal Move to Get Tough on Marijuana (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/04/us/california-defiant-in-face-of-federal-move-to-get-tough-on-marijuana.html)

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/07/us/california-sanctuary-marijuana.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/07/us/california-sanctuary-marijuana.html)

Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on January 10, 2018, 12:06:52 pm

WOO HOO …… now this would light the fuse with Trump. Bring it on!!  (http://www.smfboards.com/Smileys//smf/afro.gif)

from the print edition of the Los Angeles Times....

‘Donate’ state taxes? Let's give this nutty plan a try.

By GEORGE SKELTON | Monday, January 08, 2018

(http://origin.misc.pagesuite.com/3630c326-c935-42f5-b0da-daebc36b7646/images/IMG_LA-3023042_CA_1018_d_3_1_50346NHQ.jpg) (http://origin.misc.pagesuite.com/3630c326-c935-42f5-b0da-daebc36b7646/images/IMG_LA-3023042_CA_1018_d_3_1_50346NHQ.jpg)
Kevin de León, the state Senate leader, says, “The Republican tax scam offers corporations and hedge fund managers massive
tax breaks and expects California taxpayers to pick up the costs.” — Photograph: Robert Gauthier/The Los Angeles Times.

EVEN FOR California government, this seems nutty: calling a state income tax payment a “charitable contribution” so it can be deducted on a federal tax return.

I recently wrote that the idea was cockamamie. Then last week, it was actually introduced as legislation by state Senate leader Kevin de León (Democrat-Los Angeles).

On second thought, maybe the concept isn't so screwy. And even if it is, given the pugnacious, polarized time we're caught in, it's probably a justifiable tax dodge in an effort to defend millions of California taxpayers from President Trump and the Republican Congress.

It fits snugly with the current shoot-first, ask-questions-later political climate.

Under the new GOP tax law, 6.1 million Californians who itemize their federal income taxes stand to lose an average of $8,438 in state and local tax deductions. That's because the law caps state and local tax deductions — mainly on income and property — at $10,000 total. The average California deduction was $18,438 in 2015, the latest year with complete data, according to the Government Finance Officers Association.

De León's solution, gleaned from academicians, is to allow Californians to take advantage of a federal loophole and deduct more than the $10,000 cap. They'd do that by claiming the amount over the limit as a charitable contribution to a state California Excellence Fund. There's no dollar limit on charitable contributions.

California government would treat the so-called contribution as a state income tax payment. There'd be a 100% state tax credit for the “donation.” All the money would flow into the general fund for regular government programs. And the taxpayer could soften the federal tax bite by exceeding the deductions cap.

At least that's the theory. Trump and Congress probably would have a different idea: Forget it. The IRS could quash it, or Republican lawmakers could amend the law.

“This isn't a pie-in-the-sky idea,” UC Davis tax law professor Darien Shanske says. “It could fit comfortably with existing law. That's not to say Congress wouldn't change existing law.”

UCLA law professor Kirk Stark has studied this concept for years and notes “it's not a new thing. Many states have charitable tax credits.” Even California does. But no state has anything approaching the scale that De León proposes.

In all, 21 states offer tax credits for donations to specific causes. Popular in some Southern red states are generous credits for funding private school vouchers.

In California, there's a program — created by a De León bill in 2014 — that offers a 50% tax credit for donations to the Cal Grant college scholarship fund. There's also a program that allows a private property owner to grant an easement to a land conservancy and receive a 55% tax credit. Several states offer that.

All that's OK with the IRS. But concocting a scheme so millions of Californians can deduct untold additional thousands of dollars on their federal returns would undoubtedly rattle the IRS and Trump.

But the president would need to use a scalpel targeted at California and other blue states trying to evade federal taxes, rather than taking a meat cleaver to every tax credit. Trump presumably wouldn't want to anger loyal red states that use tax credits to fund pet conservative causes.

Democrats suspect Trump of vengefully picking on high-tax blue states anyway.

“The Republican tax scam offers corporations and hedge fund managers massive tax breaks and expects California taxpayers to pick up the costs,” says De León, who's running against veteran U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, a fellow Democrat.

But, I asked him, is his bill really good tax policy?

“What is not good tax policy,” he replied, “is what happened in Congress. It's the worst tax policy in the history of this country. Perhaps the world.”

Actually, California's current tax policy is pretty rotten — literally rotted out from decay — and the Legislature should be focused on rebuilding it. But very few are interested. It's too tough politically.

As I've often written, the state tax system leans too heavily on high-end income taxes and ignores California's growing service economy. There's virtually no sales tax on services. The result is a highly volatile system that produces gushes of revenue in good times but slows to a trickle when the economy's bad. It's periodically boom or bust for the state budget.

What's needed is to lower income and sales tax rates and make up the lost revenue by extending the sales tax to services.

Senator Bob Hertzberg (Democrat-Van Nuys) is drafting a bill to do some of that. It would extend the sales tax to services used by businesses, but not by individuals. He'd also lower middle-class income taxes.

“Under Trump's plan, the business tax is going down,” Hertzberg says. “So add a little extra state cost. It would still be deductible.”

But his bill would require a two-thirds majority vote. So it's doomed. De León's bill needs only a simple majority vote. So it can pass.

Would Governor Jerry Brown sign it? He hasn't said. It's not the kind of gimmicky stunt Brown would ordinarily sanction these days. But given that it's a dagger at Trump and Republicans, and is drawing national attention, he just might.

It doesn't pass the smell test. But hardly anything political does these days. And it could save California taxpayers money. So open the windows and go for it.


• Political columnist George Skelton has covered government and politics for more than 50 years and for the Los Angeles Times since 1974. He has been a L.A. Times political writer and editor in Los Angeles, Sacramento bureau chief and White House correspondent. He has written a column on California politics, Capitol Journal (http://www.latimes.com/search/dispatcher.front?Query=Capitol+Journal&target=all&spell=on), since 1993. Skelton is a Santa Barbara native, grew up in Ojai and received a journalism degree at San Jose State.

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_popover_share.aspx?guid=6d8cff0d-ba40-4e91-97d6-67b225bcdfbc (http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_popover_share.aspx?guid=6d8cff0d-ba40-4e91-97d6-67b225bcdfbc)

Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on January 11, 2018, 01:17:20 pm

from the print edition of the Los Angeles Times....

Florida (only) exempt from offshore plan

California and New York Democrats accuse White House of partisan favoritism.

By GRAY ROHRER and MATT PEARCE | Wednesday, January 10, 2018

(http://origin.misc.pagesuite.com/3630c326-c935-42f5-b0da-daebc36b7646/images/IMG_LA-APphoto_SP_413860_2_1_S434JPUM.jpg) (http://origin.misc.pagesuite.com/3630c326-c935-42f5-b0da-daebc36b7646/images/IMG_LA-APphoto_SP_413860_2_1_S434JPUM.jpg)
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, right, holds a news conference in Tallahassee, Florida, with Republican Governor Rick Scott to announce
that the offshore oil drilling plan unveiled last week won't include Florida. — Photograph: Scott Keeler/Tampa Bay Times.

TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA — Democratic officials in California and New York accused the Trump administration of unfair partisan treatment on Tuesday after Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke exempted Florida from expanded offshore drilling — under pressure from the state's Republican governor — without offering similar exemptions to other coastal states.

The administration's move comes after a bipartisan backlash from politicians on both coasts after it announced plans last week to consider allowing new leases off most of the U.S. coastline to explore offshore oil and natural gas reserves.

“We are not drilling off the coast of Florida,” Zinke said at a hastily called news conference at the Tallahassee airport after meeting with Republican Florida Governor Rick Scott, who opposed the new drilling.

“President Trump has directed me to rebuild our offshore oil and gas program in a manner that supports our national energy policy and also takes into consideration the local and state voice,” Zinke said in a statement. “I support the governor's position that Florida is unique and its coasts are heavily reliant on tourism as an economic driver.”

But Zinke's announcement instantly drew criticism from Democratic officials who also oppose drilling off their states' coasts, saying they oppose drilling for the same reasons Florida's governor does.

“California is also ‘unique’ & our ‘coasts are heavily reliant on tourism as an economic driver’,” California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said on Twitter. “Our ‘local and state voice’ is firmly opposed to any and all offshore drilling. If that's your standard, we, too, should be removed from your list. Immediately.”

“Secretary Zinke must also abandon his efforts to drill along California's beautiful coastline,” Senator Kamala Harris (Democrat-California) tweeted. “Protection of our ocean shouldn't depend on the D, R, or I after the governor's name.”

In New York, Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo also tweeted a protest. “New York doesn't want drilling off our coast either,” he said. “Where do we sign up for a waiver @SecretaryZinke?”

Florida's elected officials from both parties, including Democratic Senator Bill Nelson, whom Scott is expected to challenge this year, and GOP Senator Marco Rubio, had also expressed opposition to the offshore drilling plan.

Late on Tuesday, Nelson denounced Zinke's announcement as a “political stunt orchestrated by the Trump administration to help Rick Scott.”

“Suddenly Secretary Zinke announces plans to drill off Florida's coast and four days later agrees to ‘take Florida off the table?’ I don't believe it,” Nelson said in a statement.

Under the Trump administration's original plan released for comment last week, the federal government would offer 47 leases in U.S. waters on the outer continental shelf, including two each off the Northern, Central and Southern California coasts, and one off Washington and Oregon.

There already are 23 oil platforms in federal waters off California and four in state waters — near Santa Barbara County, Huntington Beach and Seal Beach. There are also four artificial islands used as drilling platforms off Long Beach and one off Rincon Beach in Ventura County.

But images of oil-drenched seabirds and fouled beaches during the massive 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill soured the state on offshore oil development. There have been no new federal leases off California since 1984.

Oil drilling has likewise been a sensitive issue in Florida, with its miles of coastline, especially since the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico after the Deepwater Horizon explosion in 2010, which ravaged Louisiana's coast and left gooey tarballs on Florida Panhandle beaches.

Then-Governor Charlie Crist, a Democrat who is now a congressman, called a special session to ban oil drilling, but Florida lawmakers balked at the proposal.

As a candidate in 2010, Scott supported oil and gas drilling off Florida's shores as a way to reduce oil dependency and gas prices.

Despite the partial rollback of the plan, Zinke said the administration was still dedicated to aggressively seeking energy resources throughout the country.

“I don't want your kids ever to fight on foreign shores for a resource we have here,” he said. “But there's places where resources are sensitive, and there's places where we're not going to go forward with [drilling for oil], and one of them is off the coast of Florida.”

Scott was not the only Florida Republican criticizing the proposal last week, with U.S. Representative Vern Buchanan calling it “reckless, misguided and potentially catastrophic to Florida.”

The Florida Petroleum Council hailed the administration’s move as a way to benefit state consumers by potentially creating jobs and additional government revenue while strengthening national security.

“Allowing us to explore our offshore energy will boost our state economy and spur investment — all while safely co-existing with our agriculture, tourism and fishing industries as well as U.S. military operations,” Executive Director David Mica said in a statement.


News Service of Florida contributed to this report.

• Gray Rohrer is a reporter for the Orlando Sentinel.

• Matt Pearce is a national reporter for the Los Angeles Times and frequently writes about violence, disasters, social movements and civil liberties. A University of Missouri graduate, he has covered news in the Midwest for a number of publications and previously wrote about technology, culture and the Middle East as a featured writer for the New Inquiry. He hails from Kansas City, Missouri.

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_popover_share.aspx?guid=38fa494b-d788-419e-9e51-37f098d2abe6 (http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_popover_share.aspx?guid=38fa494b-d788-419e-9e51-37f098d2abe6)

Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on January 11, 2018, 01:17:30 pm

from the print edition of the Los Angeles Times....

Jeff Sessions' attack on the California way

If he prosecutes growers he will make weed more dangerous.

By GUSTAVO ARELLANO | Wednesday, January 10, 2018

(http://origin.misc.pagesuite.com/3630c326-c935-42f5-b0da-daebc36b7646/images/IMG_LA-3032014_ME_0102_w_2_1_9434IHGK.jpg) (http://origin.misc.pagesuite.com/3630c326-c935-42f5-b0da-daebc36b7646/images/IMG_LA-3032014_ME_0102_w_2_1_9434IHGK.jpg)
The reversal of a U.S. policy allowing leeway for state-sanctioned sales of marijuana could push banks to rethink their plans.
Above, a line at MedMen dispensary in West Hollywood. — Photograph: Christina House/Los Angeles Times.

KEYBOARD CONFESSIONAL: I've never smoked marijuana in my life. I don't care for kush. I hate its smell. Edibles scare me. I can't tell the difference between THC and TBS. The one time pals offered me a joint, I declined and drank Cactus Cooler instead.

But I support the right for any adult to light up. I voted to legalize marijuana in California, as the majority of residents did, because the drug war is a disaster that destroys too many lives and wastes billions of dollars. Legalizing is great for our image as Progressive Paradise, and my only regret is that we let Colorado do it first. You know what Colorado also beat us on? Craft beer. Let us never lose again to a state with the weirdest airport in the world.

Recreational dispensaries finally opened last week, which provoked the wrath of U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions. “Good people don't smoke marijuana,” he once said. I wish he'd repeat that in front of my butcher friend, who survived Stage 4 colon cancer and regained his appetite with the help of some fat blunts.

America's top lawman rescinded an Obama-era pledge that feds wouldn't crack down on states that allow marijuana, whether for pleasure or for pain. Such respect for states' rights “undermines the rule of [federal] law,” according to Sessions — funny, because he's from Alabama, which last year wanted to bar transgender folks from using the bathroom of their choice despite federal protections.

Sessions' memo is a targeted attack on the California way.

Make no mistake: He has it in for us, and not just because our attorney general, Xavier Becerra, keeps smacking the Trump administration with lawsuits as if it were a piñata. Sessions could've issued his downer-doobie edict last summer, when Nevada began the sale of recreational marijuana. He could've piggybacked on Maine Governor Paul LePage's veto this fall of a bill that would've allowed weed sales. (LePage is also a toke teetotaler; he once wrote, “The dangers of legalizing marijuana and normalizing its use in our society cannot be understated.”)

No, Sessions waited until 2018, when the eyes of the nation had turned to our Green Rush. He waited to humiliate us, to try and scare us into submission.

You can't put the nugget back in the stash, Brother Beauregard. The United States is irrecoverably going ganja. And in California, we're ready to provide a map for the future, one the rest of the country can use to roll out the reefer economy the right way.

We've screwed up before. Proposition 215 in 1996 made us the first state in the country to allow medicinal marijuana. Other states followed, of course. But let's be honest: While we were pioneers, the actual execution wasn't pretty. Getting a doctor's note for a card became easier than finding a good wave in Santa Cruz and made a mockery of Proposition 215's original intent. The black market exploded as a result, and that shadiness haunts the industry from the Emerald Triangle to grow houses in suburbia.

Proposition 64 in 2016 showed that California had learned its lesson. We want weed regulated like alcohol; that helps root out a lot of the unsavory and allows further respectability to seep into the business. Legal Lady Jane also offers relief for city budgets: in San Diego alone, the Union-Tribune reported, tax revenue would start at “$5.5 million per year initially, with steady increases up to $13.7 million … in June 2023.”

Sessions could've waited to see how California went forward. He could've even directed the Department of Justice to assist us on enforcement. Such a partnership could've helped thaw the Cold War we have with Trump.

Instead, Sessions may start prosecuting users, sellers and growers, which will only push marijuana even more underground and make it more dangerous. Don't take it from me. Representative Dana Rohrabacher (Republican-Costa Mesa), who long ago blocked me on Twitter because I like to mock his xenophobia, blasted Sessions in a statement for delivering an “extravagant holiday gift to the drug cartels.”

If Rohrabacher and I can agree on something, then all of us can unite on this. We squabble about everything here in California; I still maintain the only thing that brings us together is Huell Howser reruns. But a threat against our new weed trade and those who use it is another issue we can all rally around.

There's no one way to fight Sessions. Resist whatever the feds may bring; take revenge on politicians who support him come November; support your friendly neighborhood dispensary.

As for me? Maybe, just maybe, in defiance of any federal overreach, I'll buy and use a cannabis product for the first time in my life. I don't even smoke tobacco, so I'm thinking something like chocolate peanut butter cups. Or maybe gummies. They've always seemed psychedelic and cool to me. Anyone got any recommendations?


• Gustavo Arellano is the former publisher and editor of Orange County's alternative weekly OC Weekly, and the author of the column ¡Ask a Mexican!, which is syndicated nationally.

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_popover_share.aspx?guid=a1a3458f-c654-4ade-8565-9219c39413d2 (http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_popover_share.aspx?guid=a1a3458f-c654-4ade-8565-9219c39413d2)

Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on February 06, 2018, 02:05:14 pm

from the print edition of the Los Angeles Times....

Mixed signals stymie auto firms — a clash over clean air regulations

California battles with Trump administration to push tougher clean air regulations, putting carmakers in a bind.

By EVAN HALPER | Monday, February 05, 2018

(http://origin.misc.pagesuite.com/3630c326-c935-42f5-b0da-daebc36b7646/images/IMG_LA-APphoto_Germany_E_3_1_IM38E93O.jpg) (http://origin.misc.pagesuite.com/3630c326-c935-42f5-b0da-daebc36b7646/images/IMG_LA-APphoto_Germany_E_3_1_IM38E93O.jpg)
E-Golf electric cars hang in a Volkswagen plant in Germany last year. Automakers' transition to cleaner tech is further along overseas than it is in the U.S.A.
 — Photograph: Jens Meyer/Associated Press.

WASHINGTON D.C. — An intensifying clash between California and Washington over getting cleaner, more fuel-efficient vehicles on the road has put auto companies in a bind as they contemplate what cars they should be rolling onto showroom floors.

The signals to automakers couldn’t conflict more: California, with the nation's largest auto market, is stepping up pressure to stay on track with the state's ambitious climate goals. The Trump administration is moving to free the companies of such obligations and even has threatened to strip California of its power to impose existing requirements within its borders.

At stake: Governor Jerry Brown's plan to get 5 million electric vehicles onto California's roads by 2030 as well as the kinds of cars that drivers nationwide will be able to buy over the next decade.

Carmakers are left to gamble on how aggressively to follow California's blueprint as the Trump administration tries to undermine it.

The dilemma is largely of the industry's own making: Car companies have lobbied Trump to ease up on fuel economy standards, which currently call on them to sell cars by 2025 that average 54 miles per gallon.

But those same companies are keenly aware that ignoring the plans laid by California can be perilous.

They can't afford to manufacture different cars for different parts of the country, and California plans to keep the current, ambitious fuel economy goal and the electric vehicle mandate that goes hand in hand with it. So unless the Trump administration can block the state from going its own way, relaxing federal rules won't help the automakers much.

“The signal the administration is sending to auto companies is: Do whatever you want,” said Dan Becker, who runs the Safe Climate Campaign. “The world is looking to California to resist these rollbacks that will not just impede the growth of electric vehicles, but also the growth of more fuel-efficient gasoline vehicles.”

Market analysts agree, saying the one thing standing in the way of Brown's latest electric vehicles goal could be the Trump administration's plan to relax fuel economy targets.

If the administration can force California to join the federal government in weakening standards, said Salim Morsy, an analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance, “there is no doubt that would slow down electrification…. It would be a blow for the state, and whether it could reach that 5 million goal would become unclear.”

California has unique authority under the Clean Air Act, allowing the state to keep aggressive mileage targets in place even if the federal standards are weakened. Other states are allowed to adopt California's rules, which 13 states and the District of Columbia have done.

But the Environmental Protection Agency keeps threatening to challenge California's authority, pointing to the state’s outsize influence over what cars get built.

“Federalism doesn't mean that one state can dictate to the rest of the country,” EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said at a Senate hearing on Tuesday.

The state is showing no sign of flinching. Its power to set its own vehicle emission guidelines has been in effect for 50 years. The state and the EPA have been in negotiations in an effort to reach a compromise that would keep emissions targets uniform nationwide.

So far, not much seems to be happening at the bargaining table. California has little incentive to make concessions.

The tension will increase next month when the EPA completes a review of the current rules and starts to lay out its plans for rolling back mileage standards. The agency is under pressure from automakers objecting that there isn't a large enough market now to support a big infusion of smaller, lighter, less-polluting cars and trucks.

It's a familiar story in the auto industry: Gas prices are low, the profit margin on sport utility vehicles is high, and even as the companies boast of plans to roll out dozens of new electrified vehicles in the next few years, they would prefer to soak up profits from the SUV-buying binge for as long as possible.

Then-Ford Chief Executive Mark Fields warned the president a year ago that unless the mileage standards were more flexible, about 1 million American auto jobs could be lost.

The warning was widely dismissed by industry experts, who said it was based on misleading assumptions about gas prices, the cost of battery technologies and the types of workers who would be hit. The same study Fields cited envisioned another scenario in which keeping the mileage rules would lead to an increase of 144,000 jobs.

Many analysts say the industry's reluctance to push cleaner prototypes into the market echoes faulty business decisions American auto companies made more than a decade ago that helped precipitate a financial disaster for them that required a massive government bailout.

At the time, a business model that relied on selling more and more of the biggest and heaviest passenger vehicles drove the companies into financial distress when gas prices spiked, climate consciousness increased and drivers went looking for alternatives.

“GM went into bankruptcy with a promise to stop making so many bigger cars and start making littler cars,” said Maryann Keller, an analyst who has been tracking fuel economy issues for three decades. As long as gas is cheap and government incentives for driving low-emission vehicles are limited, however, persuading drivers to buy them is a challenge.

“The United States stands alone on this,” she said. “Other countries are moving forward…. Electric vehicles do not sell themselves. They are sold because there is government policy that supports their purchase.”

Some of the same firms lobbying to slow the transition here are racing to update their offerings abroad, where the evolution to newer technologies is much further along.

California Air Resources Board Chairwoman Mary Nichols called it “ironic” that the companies are not focusing their lobbying on policies that promote the use of the vehicles.

“At the same time they're complaining that they’re having a hard time with meeting the fuel economy standards, the industry is rushing to meet the demands from Asia and Europe, and not just California, for all kinds of electric vehicles,” she said.

Wall Street analysts say the transition to cleaner engines is inevitable here too, as all the major auto companies plan for a future in which the internal combustion engine becomes obsolete. The question is how far America will lag behind other nations in weaning itself off big cars and trucks, and how much that lag will undermine the fight against climate change.

Currently, automakers sell 150 types of electric vehicles and hybrids worldwide, according to Adam Fowler of Beacon Economics. Only about 25 of them can be found in showrooms in tech- and climate-conscious San Francisco and Los Angeles. In most states, he said, buyers will find only seven of those clean-tech cars and trucks on offer.

Environmentalists are having a tough time persuading a climate-skeptical administration that that is a problem. So they are turning their fire on the auto companies.

The Sierra Club and the Safe Climate Campaign are unleashing on Ford, rallying public pressure on the company to support the current fuel standard. As the Washington Auto Show got underway, the groups released a video accusing Ford of driving the nation backward, punctuated with a driver whose SUV joltingly flies into reverse and transforms into an antiquated, low-tech Model T.

“We are targeting the auto companies because it is hard to target this administration,” Becker said. “What can we say about the harm they are doing that they are not already out there saying themselves?”


• Evan Halper writes about a broad range of policy issues out of Washington D.C. for the Los Angeles Times, with particular emphasis on how Washington regulates, agitates and very often miscalculates in its dealings with California. Before heading east, he was the L.A. Times bureau chief in Sacramento, where he spent a decade untangling California's epic budget mess and political dysfunction.

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/desktop/latimes/default.aspx?pubid=50435180-e58e-48b5-8e0c-236bf740270e (http://enewspaper.latimes.com/desktop/latimes/default.aspx?pubid=50435180-e58e-48b5-8e0c-236bf740270e)

Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on March 12, 2018, 03:48:33 pm

from the Los Angeles Times....

Trump loves winning, but in his presidency and business,
California has gotten in his way

By NOAH BIERMAN | 12:40PM PDT — Sunday, March 11, 2018

(http://www.latimes.com/resizer/sGjc23S01N34B1EYmWXRK5qHu4M=/1400x0/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-tronc.s3.amazonaws.com/public/ISR7G7PF2VA4VDK2HWNODOF54M.jpg) (http://www.latimes.com/resizer/sGjc23S01N34B1EYmWXRK5qHu4M=/1400x0/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-tronc.s3.amazonaws.com/public/ISR7G7PF2VA4VDK2HWNODOF54M.jpg)
Deborah Joyce of Laguna Beach, left, talks with Nina Magnusdottir during a tour last month to view the border wall prototypes from the Tijuana side.
President Trump is scheduled to see the prototypes on Tuesday. — Photograph: Kent Nishimura/Los Angeles Times.

PRESIDENT TRUMP's well-documented clashes with California owe plenty to politics, culture and personality. But at bottom, what drives the president's toxic relationship with the nation's most populous state is this: his near-obsessive desire to be seen as a winner.

No state represents losing for Trump more than California, whether in business or politics. No surprise, then, that he didn't rush to visit. He arrives on Tuesday later into his term than any president since Franklin D. Roosevelt, back when presidents weren't flying routinely; FDR crossed the continent by train.

Trump's trip, to inspect prototypes for a border wall with Mexico that many Californians loathe, is expected to draw large protests. Besides that inspection in San Diego, the president plans to meet with members of the military and attend a high-dollar fundraiser in Beverly Hills.

As a candidate, Trump used to boast he could become the first Republican to win the state, and its 55 electoral votes, in nearly three decades. Instead, Hillary Clinton won California by 4.3 million votes, more than accounting for her nearly 3-million advantage in the popular vote nationwide. California's result became the basis for Trump's false claim that millions of illegal immigrants voted for Clinton.

It was a loss that stung long after his inauguration.

“If Abe Lincoln came back to life, he would lose New York and he would lose California,” Trump fumed to the Associated Press last year.

His resentment toward California extends beyond the election, however. The Golden State is the seat of an entertainment industry that dismissed him as a reality television creation, the home of a business culture where his real estate dreams were stymied and, now, the headquarters of a resistance movement that has tried to cast a cloud over his legitimacy as president.

One of his most embarrassing controversies, an imbroglio over a pre-election payment to a porn actress to keep quiet about an alleged affair, is playing out in a Los Angeles courtroom.

Trump has at times tried to comfort himself with the notion that the state's protesters and its courts, which have ruled against him on significant immigration issues, stand apart from other Americans and other judges.

Barry Bennett, a former political advisor to Trump, said, “Never in history have the political beliefs in California versus the rest of the nation been so different.”

Yet much of the nation, when it comes to Trump, is siding with Californians. The president's popularity is above 50% in only 12 states, according to the polling organization Gallup. In California, just 22% of voters approved of the job Trump was doing as president in a USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll in November; 66% disapproved. That suggests a significant loss of support even from his dismal election showing, though two-thirds of Republicans remain supportive.

Decades before Trump, Republicans were using the liberal state as a foil, and ambitious California Democrats have long seen huge political upside in feuding with Republican presidents. Several Democrats running for statewide office this year bragged in fundraising appeals last week that they were defending California against a lawsuit from Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions over immigration enforcement — a suit that Sessions came to California last week to trumpet, in a sort of warm-up act for Trump.

Governor Jerry Brown, who is also fighting the federal government's efforts to roll back environmental regulations, last week accused the Trump administration of “going to war” with the state.

The White House insists that Trump comes in peace — though with an edge that reflects the less than peaceable relationship.

“If anybody is stepping out of bounds here, it would be someone who is refusing to follow a federal law, which is certainly not the president,” White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters on Friday. “We're going for what we hope to be an incredibly positive trip.”

(http://www.latimes.com/resizer/jc2tUsIBTk6SQ-PG_Xtv7AUVb3o=/1400x0/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-tronc.s3.amazonaws.com/public/RZT6KJ2QBZE7XBBS2VQKK3225A.jpg) (http://www.latimes.com/resizer/jc2tUsIBTk6SQ-PG_Xtv7AUVb3o=/1400x0/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-tronc.s3.amazonaws.com/public/RZT6KJ2QBZE7XBBS2VQKK3225A.jpg)
Anti-Trump protest in downtown Los Angeles after his election in 2016. — Photograph: Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times.

Many Republican politicians in the state won't be welcoming Trump, either. Of more than a dozen GOP candidates the Los Angeles Times contacted, most said they had no plans to attend his events.

“I'm telling them to stay away,” said one Southern California Republican consultant who requested anonymity to avoid alienating the president. “We're not going to diss the president, but we're not going to go do a photo op with him, either.”

Another consultant said a client seeking an Orange County congressional seat would not participate in Trump's activities, to avoid making the president any more of an issue in the local campaign than he already is.

Many of the state's Republicans don't share Trump's hostility toward immigrants. Kevin Faulconer, San Diego's Republican mayor, likes to highlight his city's business ties with Tijuana and told the L.A. Times in an interview last year that the area's Latino community “helps define us.”

For Trump, however, the state — by its diversity, liberalism and aggressive environmental regulation — provides an especially vivid version of a potential future America that he vilifies.

He has been furious with what he sees as a dangerous protection of immigrants in the country illegally by so-called sanctuary cities — the object of Sessions' lawsuit. Trump called Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf a “disgrace” after she issued a warning about imminent immigration raids, and he assailed her again Saturday night at a raucous political rally near Pittsburgh.

The White House used its Twitter account last week to accuse the state of putting “the interests of criminal aliens ahead of the well-being of American citizens.” That tone surprised some observers, coming from the White House's official account.

“This tweet is written as though you are talking about a hostile foreign power,” Walter Shaub, former director of the Office of Government Ethics, responded on Twitter. “You do realize that you're talking about an American state, right?”

Trump's own animosity is familiar and long-standing. “California in many ways is out of control, as you know,” he said during an interview last year with Fox News. “And from an economic standpoint, people are leaving California and going to Texas and other places that run in a different manner.”

His list of California sparring partners is lengthy: Jerry Brown; Arnold Schwarzenegger, the last Republican governor of the state, who has spoken out against Trump and replaced him as host of “Celebrity Apprentice”; Representative Nancy Pelosi, the San Francisco Democrat who leads her party in the House; Representative Adam B. Schiff of Burbank, the most visible Democrat in the congressional investigation of Russian election interference; and Senator Kamala Harris, who is considering a presidential run.

“The president has shown himself to be many things, including vindictive,” said Schiff, whom Trump has derided as “Little Adam” and “Leakin' Adam”. He predicted Trump would face an unfriendly welcome.

Despite Trump's insistence while campaigning in the California primary in 2016 that “we're going after places that no other Republican goes after,” a proposal to place staff and other resources in all 50 states was quickly batted down, according to one former campaign staffer who requested anonymity to avoid alienating colleagues. Clinton beat Trump in California by a nearly 2-1 margin, 62% to 32%.

Business deals haven't come easily for Trump in California, either. His largest land holding is Trump National Golf Club in Rancho Palos Verdes.

In the 1980s, he backed away from buying stakes in the San Diego Padres and the Hollywood giant MCA. In Los Angeles, he tried and failed to build the tallest building in the world on Wilshire Boulevard, and put in a low-ball offer to buy the Beverly Hills Hotel, one of his hangouts, but lost the bidding to oil magnate Marvin Davis.

In 1988, Trump downplayed his interest in the state, with a characteristic knock.

“I'm really concerned about the whole earthquake situation in L.A.,” he said. “I am a tremendous believer that someday Las Vegas may be the West Coast.”


L.A. Times staff writers Brian Bennett and Christi Parsons in Washington and Christine Mai-Duc in Los Angeles contributed.

• Noah Bierman covers the White House in Washington, D.C. for the Los Angeles Times. Before joining the newspaper in 2015, he worked for The Boston Globe in both Boston and Washington, covering Congress, politics and transportation in the immediate aftermath of the Big Dig. He has also reported on higher education, crime, politics and local government for the Miami Herald, the Palm Beach Post and the Duluth (Minnesota) News-Tribune. Bierman is a native of Miami who attended Duke University.


Related to this topic:

 • Trump to enter enemy territory, but will California ‘resistance’ rise up or stay home? (http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-immigrant-rights-activist-prepare-for-trump-visit-20180311-story.html)

 • Jeff Sessions' lawsuit is an invitation for California to break the law (http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-pasquarella-sessions-californialawsuit-20180307-story.html)

 • California leaders rebuke Sessions as ‘going to war’ over state immigration policy (http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-sanctuary-state-sessions-lawsuit-20180307-story.html)

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-california-20180312-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-california-20180312-story.html)

Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on March 13, 2018, 01:52:57 am
Oh Yes Trump Should Be Very Afraid Of California
the libtards are leaving in droves looking for a better life

Donald Trump Is Making America Great Again

But Jerry Brown is such a retard he has turned California
into a 3rd world shithole






Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on March 13, 2018, 03:19:39 pm

from the Los Angeles Times....

His Royal Trumpness visits Southern California, but not Orange County?

By Gustavo Arellano | 8:55AM PDT — Monday, March 12, 2018

(http://www.latimes.com/resizer/8MoWQvDM82W7Q-eBEQsei7wRxIw=/1400x0/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-tronc.s3.amazonaws.com/public/CCXXF6JQDNFZFOIHDXNODNTA2I.jpg) (http://www.latimes.com/resizer/8MoWQvDM82W7Q-eBEQsei7wRxIw=/1400x0/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-tronc.s3.amazonaws.com/public/CCXXF6JQDNFZFOIHDXNODNTA2I.jpg)
President Donald J. Trump. — Photograph: Carolyn Kaster/Associated Press.

SO President Trump will visit our state this week. Ain't that a hoot? He's already declared war on California's middle class with a punitive tax code, sicced Attorney General Jeff Sessions on our pro-marijuana and pro-immigrant policies, and insulted many of our fine representatives, including Adam Schiff (Democrat-Burbank), Nancy Pelosi (Democrat-San Francisco) and Maxine Waters (Democrat-Los Angeles) — but strangely enough, never Dana Rohrabacher (Republican-Huntington Beach), who's so pro-Russia he makes Boris Badenov look like Captain America.

We see this jaunt for what it is: The emperor wants to inspect his new lands and show the world he can make the conquered natives bend the knee. It's taken a while, though; no president has taken longer to visit California after his election since Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1936. The reason for the delay? His Trumpness has no clothes. He's terrified of us. He wants nothing but adulation and glory and doesn't dare meet anyone who'll offer any bit of criticism whatsoever.

That's why his only two scheduled appearances so far are a fundraiser with the One Percenters in Beverly Hills and a review of prototypes for his beloved border wall. And that's why he's skipping Orange County. No rally, no fundraiser, no nada.

Because we, of all people, don't want him here. And in other news, The New York Times had an original insight about Los Angeles.

This development is big — Big One-big. Orange County has served as the Republican Party's emotional-support animal for generations. Barry Goldwater once famously quipped that the only states he carried during his disastrous 1964 presidential run were Arizona and Orange County. It's where rising conservative stars used to test their material before party elders and wealthy donors, where angry suburban voters reliably voted GOP in the name of liberty and fewer Mexicans.

Trump did hold a raucous rally at the Pacific Amphitheatre in Costa Mesa in April 2016. He bragged to his audience that 31,000 people were there — never mind that the Amphitheatre only holds 8,500. He returned that May to a far-smaller crowd at the Anaheim Convention Center, then ignored OC and hasn't even texted since.

It seems even Trump is capable of learning. He must've realized that this isn't the Orange County of old.

We've been majority-minority since at least 2004. Activists have created progressive pockets from Laguna Woods to Santa Ana and beyond. GOP registration has fallen precipitously as young voters have either sided decline-to-state or Democrat. All of these changes culminated in Hillary Clinton taking OC in the general election, the first time a Democrat did so since FDR in 1936.

Of course it wasn't just activists and demographics that helped Clinton along — it was Trump. I know a lot of GOPers who despised their candidate so much that they either didn't vote for any president or wrote in someone else. Jon Fleischman of the Flash Report, a man so conservative he probably doesn't do left turns while driving, announced on social media that he voted for Vin Scully as president.

Trump did the political equivalent of USC losing to Fresno State in the Freedom Bowl. (Look that one up, sports-hating lefties.) And what's happened in Orange County ever since should give the rest of the country hope. At the positive extreme: Invigorated activists have harangued OC's congressional GOP base, pushing two long-timers, Representatives Ed Royce of Fullerton and Darrell Issa of Vista, into early retirement. In 1990, the GOP held a 22 point lead over Democrats in voter registration; at last count, it was down to 2.8 (https://www.ocregister.com/2018/03/12/gop-still-losing-ground-in-o-c-and-latinos-young-voters-are-responsible) thanks to young people and Latinos.

The media and political sharks have taken note. National correspondents from The Wall Street Journal to CNN to even Curbed have parachuted in to proclaim that this isn't John Wayne's Orange County any more. (Pro tip: Even John Wayne wasn't John Wayne — all his children are half-Latinos.).

One almost feels sorry for Trump, that he can't get a hero's welcome in Orange County. In 1984, Ronald Reagan kicked off his re-election campaign at Mile Square Park in Fountain Valley to an audience of 50,000, with 15,000 people turned away. This is when the Gipper told reporters the quote that local conservatives bragged about for decades: that Orange County was where “all the good Republicans go to die.”

Now, thanks to Trump, OC has turned into the GOP's graveyard. Enjoy the Golden State, 45, and don't let the California burritos hit you on the way out.


• Gustavo Arellano is the former publisher and editor of Orange County's alternative weekly OC Weekly, and the author of the column “Ask a Mexican”, which is syndicated nationally. Arellano has won numerous awards for the column, including the 2006 and 2008 Best Non-Political Column in a large-circulation weekly from the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies, the 2007 Presidents Award from the Los Angeles Press Club and an Impacto Award from the National Hispanic Media Coalition, and a 2008 Latino Spirit award from the California Latino Legislative Caucus.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-arellano-trump-visit-california-20180312-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-arellano-trump-visit-california-20180312-story.html)

Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on March 14, 2018, 06:15:35 am
Trump is not royal he is the winner ;D

California a bankrupt mega taxed shithole that is losing bigtime because their leaders are libtard fuckwitts

Jerry Brown calls his voters freeloaders when really he's describing himself and his retarded dipshit government


Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on March 14, 2018, 02:59:27 pm

California taxpayers are financing the useless, lazy parts of America which are full of stupid Trump supporters.

The state of California needs to break away from the USA and become a separate, sovereign country so they don't have to subsidise all those Trump-supporting leeches.

I'm sure Oregon and Washington states would be only too happy to join California.

And in a similar vein, the citizens of New York state and the New England states are likewise paying considerably more in federal taxes than their states are getting back from the federal government, so they should likewise break away from the USA and form a separate, sovereign country to stop themselves been leeched off by the Trump-supporting parts of Jesusland.

When you have blood-sucking leeches sticking their noses in your trough, you need to do something to stop them.

Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on March 20, 2018, 02:26:48 pm

California needs to cut itself off from the leeches and parasites in Trump country and stop feeding them money.

California is the sixth-largest economy in the entire world....so why do they need the retards who reside in Trump country?

Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on March 20, 2018, 02:27:09 pm

California needs to cut itself off from the leeches and parasites in Trump country and stop feeding them money.

California is the sixth-largest economy in the entire world....so why do they need the retards who reside in Trump country?

Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on March 20, 2018, 02:27:26 pm

from the print edition of the Los Angeles Times....

Meet the mayor who dared to take on the president…
…will resistance help or hurt city?

Libby Schaaf is the left's newest hero. Will Trump punish Oakland for it?

By MARK Z. BARABAK | Monday, March 19, 2018

(http://origin.misc.pagesuite.com/3630c326-c935-42f5-b0da-daebc36b7646/images/IMG_LA-2494305_la-me-oak_2_1_G33F39I4.jpg) (http://origin.misc.pagesuite.com/3630c326-c935-42f5-b0da-daebc36b7646/images/IMG_LA-2494305_la-me-oak_2_1_G33F39I4.jpg)
Mayor  Libby Schaaf drew President Donald J. Trump's ire after she warned Oakland of an impending ICE raid. — Photograph: Francine Orr/Los Angeles Times.

OAKLAND — When Mayor Libby Schaaf delivered her most recent State of the City address, she moved the event from Oakland's City Hall to a location rife with symbolism, the Islamic Cultural Center of Northern California.

It was a way of sending a message, about openness and inclusion, that was characteristic of a mayor known more for the quiet details of policy planning than the clenched-fist politics of this urban liberal hotbed.

What followed a few weeks later, tipping off the community to an impending federal immigration raid, was an even more emphatic statement.

The results were swift: condemnation by the nation's attorney general and its chief immigration enforcement officer, a dressing-down from President Trump and Schaaf's overnight transformation — depending how one views it — into a left-wing heroine and brave face of resistance, or the law-breaking, mollycoddling embodiment of left coast lunacy.

Schaaf sees it more simply: “I would describe myself as a mayor.”

“Mayors are connected to their communities,” she said. “They do what they believe is in the best interest of their communities, irregardless of political ideology, and they do what's best in the interest of their communities, sometimes, without regard to what might feel popular.”

Actually, there is zero danger of seeming too anti-Trump in a city where he received less than 5% of the vote, or in much of the rest of the state, for that matter; if anything, Schaaf had been viewed as too passive by the president's more combustible critics.

Now, she has not only cemented her prospects for a second term in November — Schaaf faces just token opposition — but positioned herself for even grander designs, if so inclined.

‘Badge of honor’

“In California, being the mayor that stood up to Donald Trump is as good as it gets,” said Jim Ross, a Democratic campaign consultant who lives in Oakland and has supported Schaaf but also worked in political opposition.

“When you get called out by the president of the United States, that is a badge of honor that every other statewide Democrat would sell their fundraising list to have,” agreed Sonoma State's David McCuan, who has tracked Oakland politics since growing up decades ago in nearby Richmond.

Even so, there are some here who both loathe Trump and his immigration policies and criticize Schaaf for her brazen act, fearing retribution from a president with a lavish history of payback.

“I wish she'd simply made that notification quietly,” said Joe Tuman, one of more than a dozen candidates who ran against Schaaf for mayor. “Because she's in [Trump's] gun sights, rhetorically speaking, Oakland is in his gun sights.”

Noel Gallo, a councilman who represents a large immigrant population in the city's Fruitvale district, fears his constituents — many of whom are in the country illegally — will be the ones who pay a price. “The city of Oakland does need federal support for many services,” Gallo said. “I don't want to get into a fight with Trump at that level.”

Nor, Schaaf responded, does she. She sat at a corner table in her City Hall office, the rainy morning brightened by a cheerful bouquet from a well-wisher, and made her case with lawyerly precision.

The immigration raid, she asserted, was aimed not at hardened criminals but at residents who, save for their undocumented status, were upstanding residents.

Quiet warnings issued through community leaders hadn't worked, Schaaf said — “I had tried going through those informal channels” — so she issued a public alarm to ensure “the information about rights, responsibilities and resources was spread widely.”

Not, as critics have charged, to act as “a gang lookout,” but to avoid panic.

Instead, political bedlam ensued.

Schaaf, 52, is about as thoroughly Oakland as they come; “a scrappy localist,” she calls herself.

(http://origin.misc.pagesuite.com/3630c326-c935-42f5-b0da-daebc36b7646/images/IMG_LA-APphoto_Immigrati_2_1_G33F39ID.jpg) (http://origin.misc.pagesuite.com/3630c326-c935-42f5-b0da-daebc36b7646/images/IMG_LA-APphoto_Immigrati_2_1_G33F39ID.jpg)
Mayor Libby Schaaf says the immigration raid was aimed not at hardened criminals but at upstanding residents. But some fear her public warning may lead to federal payback.
Above, protesters in San Francisco. — Photograph: Marcio Jose Sanchez/Associated Press.

A city of challenges

Schaaf was born here and began her civic engagement at age 5, wearing a sandwich board to help her mother raise money for the Oakland Symphony. She played Cinderella and Raggedy Ann at Children's Fairyland, an amusement park on the shore of downtown Lake Merritt, interned at the zoo and has lived in the city her whole life, save for attending college in Florida and law school in Los Angeles.

As a young attorney, she served on three commissions and the boards of several nonprofits before being hired at City Hall, first as chief of staff to the council president, then as a top aide to then-Mayor Jerry Brown. In 2010, she was elected to the City Council and four years later, with Brown's blessing, emerged from the field of 14 candidates to become mayor.

The job is a tough one, historically more akin to a minefield than a pathway to higher office. Brown used eight years hunkering down to reinvent himself and help shed his flaky image. But for most recent mayors, their time in City Hall ended badly.

That is because for all of its advantages — a vibrant cultural scene, strong sense of community, lovely climate and abundant natural beauty — Oakland has long suffered.

It is a highly segregated city, and has been for generations, with a vast disparity between life in the mostly white, affluent hills and the disadvantaged “flats,” where black and brown residents have faced some of the worst ravages of urban America: drugs, crime, a dearth of jobs and opportunity, and toxic relations between police and minorities.

Recent years have seen a considerably lower crime rate, a building boom and greater prosperity, as a flood of tech wealth has washed over the Bay Area.

But the uneven spread of that abundance has produced its own set of issues. Soaring rents have contributed to a growing homeless problem and complaints that Oakland, historically an affordable alternative to San Francisco, is pricing out its middle class, just as that city has done.

“You have the juxtaposition of Google zillionaires and the hipster-tech types opposite communities that have faced decades of flight, systematic unemployment and a lack of investment,” said McCuan, who heads the political science department at Sonoma State.

On top of those challenges, Schaaf has faced a police sex abuse scandal and the deadliest fire in city history, in which 36 young people crammed into the Ghost Ship, a warehouse-turned-artist-collective and party site, were killed.

Compared with those awful episodes, Schaaf suggested, a verbal lashing from Trump is nothing. “A little surreal,” she said of her newfound celebrity, “but I've tried very hard not to let it distract me.”

‘1,000% focused’

She has avoided social media and its vitriol, left the front office to deal with the public outcry — more than 1,000 phone calls, almost all critical and most from outside the Bay Area — and refused invitations to go on national television and mud-wrestle with the president. (Not that she seems particularly suited to the endeavor.)

She predictably waved aside talk of higher office, saying she was “1,000% focused” on being reelected mayor, and professed not to worry about any personal consequences, even though the White House ominously warned the Justice Department was looking into the matter.

She has, however, retained outside counsel — a pro bono attorney, Schaaf emphasized, at no cost to the city.

And yes, the mayor allowed, she has some concern that Oakland may be made an example and punished by Trump and his administration, so others won't follow her defiant lead.

But she's undeterred. “At the end of the day,” she said, “I believe that I'm speaking for the values of the people that I represent and that we would not be cowed by a bully.”


• Mark Z. Barabak covers state and national politics for the Los Angeles Times, based in San Francisco. A reporter for nearly 40 years, Barabak has covered campaigns and elections in 49 of the 50 states, including all or part of the last 10 presidential campaigns and dozens of mayoral, gubernatorial and U.S. Senate contests. He also reported from the White House and Capitol Hill during the George H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations.

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=a9dbe72b-6ca7-4778-8158-8cf09d53b247 (http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=a9dbe72b-6ca7-4778-8158-8cf09d53b247)
http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=4b43fbb8-8c75-4425-9f2b-ed9bf5cfb802 (http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=4b43fbb8-8c75-4425-9f2b-ed9bf5cfb802)

Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on March 20, 2018, 11:46:30 pm
she is a law breaker they can take her to court and lock her up
if she wants to declare war on the elected american government
they can send in the troops arrest her for treason and try her in a military court

it has happened before

Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on March 22, 2018, 01:45:41 pm

Warning the population about impending fascist raids is neither illegal, nor treasonous.

It is being patriotic and standing up against the stupid fuckwit currently residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington D.C.

Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on March 22, 2018, 01:45:58 pm

from the print edition of the Los Angeles Times....

California's unexceptional resistance

President Trump's war against the Golden State is a war against the nation.

By DAVID L. ULIN | Wednesday, March 21, 2018

THE EVENING BEFORE the 2016 presidential election, Governor Jerry Brown joked at a political dinner in Sacramento: “If Trump were ever elected, we'd have to build a wall around California to defend ourselves from the rest of this country.”

At the time, it seemed a safe-ish bit of humor because, of course, Hillary Clinton would win. When she didn't, I came to imagine Brown's remark as the opening volley establishing California as the state of resistance — unique, independent, distinct from the rest of the United States.

Since the president and his minions descended on Southern California like a late winter storm earlier this month, I've found myself reckoning with a new realization: It's the other way around. California is not the resistance so much as it is the mainstream. We don't need to defend ourselves against the rest of the country, because we represent it.

Don't get me wrong; I realize that California's politics don't prevail in Washington, let alone many state-houses. I understand that resistance is essential. Indeed, I am drawn to the whole idea of it, with its whisper — I won't call it a promise, exactly — of the people rising up.

(I was born in the early 1960s and came of age in the backwash of the counterculture. I went to my first demonstration in 1977 when I was 15; we were protesting Kent State University's plan to build a gym annex on the site where, seven years earlier, the Ohio National Guard had gunned down four students. We lost.)

I am drawn, as well, to the idea of California as a free state. Like the governor, I've done my share of cracking wise about the need for a “big, beautiful wall,” but one that runs north from the Gulf of California, not east from the Pacific Ocean — a barrier to keep “the Americans” out.

We Californians, after all, like to think of ourselves as the vanguard, as special in nearly every sense. We take pride in living at the cutting edge of art and culture, technology and social change. These days, we see in the multicultural landscapes of our cities a vision of what America could, and should, become.

We sometimes call this sensibility California exceptionalism. The phrase derives from Carey McWilliams' book, “California: The Great Exception”, which was published in 1949. It's one of the cliches of the state, a corollary to the myth of West Coast reinvention, the faith that life here lends itself to re-creation, to a smarter, richer, better way of life.

That this is self-serving, smug even, is obvious. We know California has its own complex and less-than-progressive history, (See Proposition 187, the racial divisions that led to the 1992 uprising and the Watts riots a quarter-century earlier, the ongoing disaster of Proposition 13). We're beset with intractable contemporary problems (homelessness, economic inequality). And yet, we cling to a vision of ourselves as exceptional.

The truth is that California is more an exaggeration, an apotheosis, of America than an anomaly. We are less distinct, less separate than we would like to believe. At our best, we share with the rest of the nation a halting, if generally forward, movement toward what the Constitution calls “a more perfect union.”

Californians are, and should be, proud that the rule of law has expanded civil rights. So are the majority of Americans. Like nearly 70% of our fellow citizens, we understand that climate change is real. Most of us want to establish a path to legalization not just for “Dreamers,” but for their parents, as do the vast majority — nearly 90% — of people in the United States.

When the president and U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions came West in early March, they did so with the intent of accelerating what our governor is calling a “war against the state of California.” The main target of their displeasure (and the target of a federal lawsuit) are three immigration statutes, including the California Values Act, all of which limit cooperation by state authorities with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

But “California values” is a misnomer for these laws; it is American values we're talking about.

To wrap our minds around what that means, we can return to McWilliams and his notion of California exceptionalism. In the nearly 70 years since his book appeared, his intentions have been widely misunderstood. California, he wrote, “is the great catch-all, the vortex at the continent's end into which elements of America's diverse population have been drawn, whirled around.” And Californians “are more like the Americans than the Americans themselves.”

During his election eve remarks in 2016, Brown added this: “We don't like walls, we like bridges.” Another volley, and he wasn't speaking only for the Golden State.


• David L. Ulin is a contributing writer to Opinion at the Los Angeles Times.

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=01b24f54-6b6d-4153-8f25-8cbbc5d773ba (http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=01b24f54-6b6d-4153-8f25-8cbbc5d773ba)

Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on April 04, 2018, 10:35:26 pm

from the print edition of the Los Angeles Times....

California's air and land protections are targeted.
It's White House versus California.

Trump administration vows to end state’s tough emissions rules and its ability to limit sale of federal acres.

By EVAN HALPER and JOSEPH TANFANI | Tuesday, April 03, 2018

(http://origin.misc.pagesuite.com/3630c326-c935-42f5-b0da-daebc36b7646/images/IMG_LA-la_me_Getaway002_5_1_QO3HAK3U.jpg) (http://origin.misc.pagesuite.com/3630c326-c935-42f5-b0da-daebc36b7646/images/IMG_LA-la_me_Getaway002_5_1_QO3HAK3U.jpg)
Under the Clean Air Act, California is the only state that can adopt its own emissions rules, but other states can then adopt them.  — Photograph: Luis Sinco/Los Angeles Times.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration openly threatened one of the cornerstones of California's environmental protections Monday, saying that it may revoke the state's ability under the Clean Air Act to impose stricter standards than the federal government sets for vehicle emissions.

The announcement came as the administration confirmed it was tearing up landmark fuel economy rules that formed a key part of the effort by the Obama administration and California officials to combat global warming — and as the Justice Department sued to block a state law that limits the federal government's ability to sell any of the 46 million acres it controls in California.

The double-barreled move marks a sharp assault on the state's efforts to protect its environment as the Trump administration seeks to open more land in the West for mining, drilling and other interests.

California's elected leaders and environmental activists vowed to fight the push, while the administration argued that the state had exceeded its authority under the law.

“Cooperative federalism doesn't mean that one state can dictate standards for the rest of the country,” Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt said in a statement, which added that California's authority to set its own emissions standards was “being re-examined.”

The “EPA will set a national standard for greenhouse gas emissions that allows auto manufacturers to make cars that people both want and can afford — while still expanding environmental and safety benefits of newer cars,” Pruitt said.

“It's in everyone's best interest to have a national standard, and we look forward to working with all states, including California, as we work to finalize that standard.”

Governor Jerry Brown criticized the federal statement on auto emissions rules as a “belated April Fools' Day trick.”

“This cynical and meretricious abuse of power will poison our air and jeopardize the health of all Americans,” the governor said in a statement.

Although the state's authority to set its own clear-air standards has existed for decades, the other measure the administration went after — the law regarding federal land — is newly adopted.

The measure, passed by the Legislature in October, seeks to give California effective veto power over sales of federal land, not just parks or wilderness, in the state.

The law says the state won't recognize any sale, donation or exchange of federal land unless the California State Lands Commission has the right of first refusal over any deal.

The Legislature's own analysis of the bill said it raised “substantial constitutional questions.”

The Justice Department asked a federal court in Sacramento to overturn the law, saying it violated the Constitution's supremacy clause, which gives federal law primacy over state law, and a separate clause that gives Congress power “to dispose of” federal property.

The two moves joined a rapidly lengthening list of battles between California and the Trump administration over a wide range of issues, including the environment, immigration and civil rights. Last month, the Justice Department sued to block three California state laws, saying they were an unconstitutional attempt to thwart enforcement of federal immigration laws.

Pruitt's announcement said that the administration would abandon the federal goal of having vehicles average 55 miles per gallon by 2025. That target will be replaced with a weaker fuel economy standard that the administration will settle on at a later date.

The action sets up the administration for a confrontation with California and a dozen other states that use California's emissions standards.

Under the Clean Air Act, California is the only state that can independently adopt its own emissions standards, but other states can then adopt them. Several of the states that have done so have vowed to defy the administration's effort to weaken mileage standards.

The current national fuel economy targets represent the single biggest action the federal government has taken to curb greenhouse gases. They are crucial for California and other states to meet their goals for climate action and to reduce smog and other air pollution.

The targets are also essential to an effort led by Brown and others to carry the country toward meeting the obligations in the Paris accord on climate change that the Trump administration is refusing to honor.

The administration's action came at the behest of automakers, who say the 55-mile-per-gallon standard will impose too heavy a cost.

But an all-out fight between the federal and state governments over California's power to set emissions standards could backfire on automakers.

(http://origin.misc.pagesuite.com/3630c326-c935-42f5-b0da-daebc36b7646/images/IMG_LA-APphoto_Gas_Milea_5_1_QO3HAK44.jpg) (http://origin.misc.pagesuite.com/3630c326-c935-42f5-b0da-daebc36b7646/images/IMG_LA-APphoto_Gas_Milea_5_1_QO3HAK44.jpg)
Scott Pruitt, EPA chief, says one state can't “dictate standards for the rest of the country”. — Photograph: Pablo Martinez Monsivais/Associated Press.

Pruitt's legal ability to revoke California's authority is uncertain and any such move could be tied up in court for years. In the meantime, auto companies would be faced with the complicated and costly prospect of building and selling two different sets of cars — one for California and the other states that follow its standards, and one for the rest of the country.

The resisting states account for more than a third of all car sales. Although automakers have been hopeful some deal could be brokered, perhaps with California agreeing to weaken the more immediate targets in exchange for federal buy-in to more aggressive goals through 2030, that is looking increasingly unlikely.

Pruitt says he's not interested in making such concessions, and California officials say they see no reason to go along with his rollback. The tone between state air regulators and the EPA chief has grown increasingly tense.

“California will not weaken its nationally accepted clean-air standards,” said Mary Nichols, the state's chief air quality regulator. “Today's decision changes nothing in California and the 12 other states with clean car rules.”

Senator Dianne Feinstein (Democrat-California) warned that “the years of litigation and investment uncertainty will be far harder on the auto industry than simply living up to the fuel economy standards they once embraced.”

“The EPA is willfully ignoring the fact that these emission standards are working. Cars are becoming more fuel-efficient and consumers are saving money at the pump,” she said. “… There simply is no reason to roll back that progress.”

But automakers complain they are confronting a market in which gas prices are low and consumers are more interested in purchasing SUVs and pickups than the fuel-efficient passenger vehicles the federal mandates favor.

“Manufacturers need to sell vehicles that customers need and want today to fund the technological shifts and electrification and automation expected in the future,” said a statement from John Bozzella, chief executive of the Association of Global Automakers, an industry group representing the U.S. operations of car companies.

The EPA, in its statement announcing that it would propose new, lower fuel economy rules, basically adopted the automakers' analysis, pushing aside opposing views.

Industry officials and analysts note that electric cars and hybrids account for just 3% of vehicle sales in the United States, even as they are taking off in other countries. Environmentalists blame the companies, saying they are putting too much of their marketing and product development energy into SUVs.

If automakers prevail in their bid to relax mileage standards nationwide, said Dan Becker, director of the Washington-based Safe Climate Campaign, they will “grow weaker by making too many gas guzzlers, the very course that led GM and Chrysler to bankruptcy and an $85-billion bailout not even a decade ago.”

“Auto companies have the cost-effective technology — better engines and transmissions, high strength, low-weight materials — to safely meet the 2025 standards,” he said. “This is auto mechanics, not rocket science.”

And Becker warned that California is already in the process of developing its aggressive mileage targets for beyond 2025, targets that a different White House could decide to embrace nationally, leaving car firms that start backtracking now in a bind.

The more immediate dilemma that automakers — and consumers — face is how to contend with different rules applying to different parts of the country. Industry analysts say no good would come of it.

“Different standards in a single market will only cause harm to consumers, the environment, the economy and automakers,” Rebecca Lindland, executive analyst at Kelley Blue Book, said in an email. The fallout, she wrote, could include higher car prices, difficulty selling cars across state lines, and possibly more older, higher-polluting cars being used as consumers get discouraged from buying new models.

“Nobody wins if we can't come to a single standard agreement which promotes the most fuel-efficient versions of vehicles consumers already want to buy,” Lindland said.

The legal battle over federal land raises a different set of issues.

According to federal officials, the state law could block the Army's plan to convey 78 acres to a developer in the East Bay city of Dublin, a separate Navy contract with a developer for a property called Admiral's Cove in Alameda, and the long-running plan by the Veterans Affairs Department to rebuild its 388-acre West Los Angeles campus by leasing land for housing, and to provide an easement for the Purple Line Metro project.

“The Constitution empowers the federal government — not state legislatures — to decide when and how federal lands are sold,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said on Monday in a statement announcing the lawsuit.

“California has once again passed an extreme statute found in no other state to obstruct the federal government,” Jesse Panuccio, the acting associate attorney general, told reporters at the Justice Department.


Los Angeles Times staff writer David Lauter in Washington contributed to this report.

• Evan Halper writes about a broad range of policy issues out of Washington D.C. for the Los Angeles Times, with particular emphasis on how Washington regulates, agitates and very often miscalculates in its dealings with California. Before heading east, he was the L.A. Times bureau chief in Sacramento, where he spent a decade untangling California's epic budget mess and political dysfunction.

• Joseph Tanfani covers the Justice Department and Homeland Security in the Washington, D.C., Los Angeles Times bureau. Before joining the L.A. Times in 2012, he worked at the Philadelphia Inquirer, where he was a reporter and investigations editor, and at the Miami Herald, the Press of Atlantic City and the Williamsport Sun-Gazette.

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=ae5466e5-d212-48b0-bbe3-5b135cf9b96e (http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=ae5466e5-d212-48b0-bbe3-5b135cf9b96e)

Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on April 04, 2018, 10:39:50 pm

Good luck winning that fight in the courts, dumbshit Pruitt, before Trump eventually bows out as the 45th Prez of the USA, even if he wins a second term. California's lawsuit against the EPA will be tied up in the many levels of the US court system for at least a decade, possibly more. And that will severely hurt the stupid car companies who have allowed their GREED to cloud their better judgement. Foreign car makers will be laughing all the way to the bank, because even if Trump slaps tariffs on their fuel-efficient cars which DO comply with California's rules, their products will still be cheaper than American car makers who will be forced to either produce two classes of vehicles, or else give up on the third of the USA which has tough fuel economy and emissions rules in place.

Hilarious how stupid & dumb Trump, Pruitt and those American car makers are, eh? That should cost a shitload of American jobs!!

Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on April 04, 2018, 10:46:14 pm

from the print edition of the Los Angeles Times....

EDITORIAL: EPA's reckless step backward

In a giveaway to industry, the Trump administration eases fuel economy standards for new cars.

Tuesday, April 03, 2018

THE WORLD is increasingly speeding toward a future of clean, zero-emissions cars. China, the largest auto market, plans to ban the sale of new vehicles powered by gasoline or diesel in the coming decades. France, Britain, Norway and India have also pledged to phase out fossil fuel vehicles. And automakers have responded. Volvo pledged in 2017 to sell only hybrid or battery models starting next year, while General Motors, Ford, Volkswagen, Daimler and other big carmakers have said they will roll out more and more electric models to serve the growing market demand worldwide.

But here in the United States, President Trump and his anti-environmental protection sidekick, Scott Pruitt, are determined to head recklessly in the opposite direction. It's up to California and other environmentally responsible states to stop them.

On Monday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced it has abandoned  ambitious but much-needed fuel economy rules that required automakers to step up the improvements in their cars' and SUVs' mileage and emissions. Adopted under the Obama administration, the regulations were a crucial piece of the national effort to curb greenhouse gas emissions and slow global climate change.

Indeed, the regulations being heedlessly ditched were slated to improve the average fuel economy of new cars and trucks 50% by 2025, to almost 55 miles per gallon. To meet the new standards, automakers were expected to develop and sell more hybrid and electric models, which, over time, would slash oil consumption, smoggy tailpipe pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions.

But those benefits apparently carried little weight with Pruitt, a stalwart shill for the fossil fuel industry, who claims the Obama administration rushed the analysis of whether the regulations were feasible and set the standards too high. That's mere pretext, given that Pruitt has used his tenure at the EPA to systematically attack responsible, science- and health-based regulations. Nor, apparently, is it enough that he's weakened national environmental protections; Pruitt has suggested he may go after California's essential air quality regulations and climate change program as well.

In order to address the enormous contribution cars and trucks make to California's unusually severe air-quality problems, the federal Clean Air Act gave the state unique power to adopt vehicle emissions rules that are more stringent than the EPA's. The federal government can block the state rules only if the EPA deems them inconsistent with the Clean Air Act's efforts to protect public health or welfare. Thankfully, Governor Jerry Brown and state leaders have made it clear that California is not rolling back its clean-car rules. Other states can follow California's lead on tailpipe standards, and a dozen states, representing about one-third of the U.S. auto market, have said they will continue to do so.

That would leave manufacturers with two options. They could go the costly route of making two versions of each vehicle: A more fuel-efficient model for states with California's standards, and a less fuel-efficient model for the rest of the country. Or they could just comply with California's rules, which would negate the EPA's rollback. Or Pruitt and Trump could try to deny California its longstanding power to enact emissions standards, triggering (another) legal battle with the state.

It sure sounds like Pruitt is readying for a war. “Cooperative federalism doesn't mean that one state can dictate standards for the rest of the country,” he said in a statement. California leaders, already practiced in Trump resistance, are digging in as well.

Pruitt's efforts are a colossal waste of time and money. Every other government in the industrialized world recognizes that climate change is real and that it will take serious action now to minimize the devastating effects of global warming. The leading world economies also recognize that there is a much-needed shift from fossil fuel vehicles underway, and they are choosing to lead the transition to low- and no-carbon transportation systems.

Even automakers know this. That's why most of them are already developing and marketing electric and hybrid models to sell around the world. Instead of making progress toward innovation and a cleaner future, Trump and Pruitt have chosen, irresponsibly and cynically, to keep this country guzzling gas and pumping out carbon.

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=40f18d8f-3d71-48c7-b9bc-c54b1f6722f2 (http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=40f18d8f-3d71-48c7-b9bc-c54b1f6722f2)

Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on May 04, 2018, 05:48:35 pm

from the print edition of the Los Angeles Times....

California sues U.S. over car mileage rules

State joins 16 others in fight over vehicle emission rules as Brown levels attack on EPA head Pruitt.

By PATRICK McGREEVY and BEVAN HALPER | Tuesday, May 02, 2018

(http://origin.misc.pagesuite.com/3630c326-c935-42f5-b0da-daebc36b7646/images/IMG_LA-APphoto_Car_Pollu_2_1_K73LEDT9.jpg) (http://origin.misc.pagesuite.com/3630c326-c935-42f5-b0da-daebc36b7646/images/IMG_LA-APphoto_Car_Pollu_2_1_K73LEDT9.jpg)
The California-led lawsuit seeks to block the EPA's effort to weaken rules requiring cars and SUVs to average nearly 55 miles per gallon by 2025.
 — Photograph: Gary Kazanjian/Associated Press.

SACRAMENTO — An angry Governor Jerry Brown on Tuesday announced a lawsuit by California and 16 other states against the Trump administration to stop it from rolling back aggressive national fuel economy standards championed by the state.

In comments at the Capitol, Brown called actions of the Trump administration “so outrageous,” adding that “Trump is definitely running a one-man demolition derby on science, the Clean Air Act and a lot of things we are trying to do.”

Brown called Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt “Outlaw Pruitt,” and accused him of “breaking the law.”

“He's flouting the Clean Air Act and the legitimate needs and well-being of the American people,” the governor said.

The California-led lawsuit filed in federal court seeks to block the EPA's effort to weaken rules requiring cars and SUVs to average nearly 55 miles per gallon by 2025.

The rules are crucial to California and other states' ability to meet their climate action goals, as well as to fulfilling their vow to carry the country toward meeting its obligations under the Paris agreement on global warming. Under the Trump administration, the federal agency has said the standards are too onerous and need to be reconsidered.

While the administration has yet to announce how far it intends to roll back the mileage targets, a draft of its plan seen by lawmakers shows it is poised to significantly weaken them. The plan the EPA has drafted with the Department of Transportation would reduce the target from 55 miles per gallon to 42 miles per gallon.

It would also revoke the authority California and other states now have to keep in place the stricter targets.

The states argue that the EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously in trying to unravel the aggressive targets, failed to follow its own regulations and violated the Clean Air Act.

“The states joining today's lawsuit represent 140 million people who simply want cleaner and more efficient cars,” Brown said. “This phalanx of states will defend the nation's clean car standards to boost gas mileage and curb toxic air pollution.”

The lawsuit comes only days after Pruitt assured members of Congress that he was committed to compromise with California and would seek mileage targets the state could embrace. But soon after Pruitt made those assurances in congressional hearings, his agency's draft plan surfaced. It showed no intention of brokering a deal and instead strikes a hostile posture toward California and other states.

Trump was elected on the promise of reducing red tape and regulations for businesses, and the EPA has sought to scale back rules on several major industries. “Cooperative federalism doesn't mean that one state can dictate standards for the rest of the country,” Pruitt said in a recent statement on the emission standards issue.

Even the auto industry has become unnerved at how aggressively the EPA is going after emissions standards. A Trump administration war on the issue with California, which Brown said on Tuesday is “sharpening,” threatens to tangle the regulations up in years of litigation, leaving car makers uncertain of what to plan for.

EPA officials declined on Tuesday to respond to the allegations in the lawsuit or the name-calling by the governor.

The administration did not respond directly to a question about why it has had such a heavy hand with states, despite the normal deference urged by conservatives.

“Certainly the administration supports state rights,” Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said at Monday's press briefing. “In regard to the specific lawsuit, we're reviewing that,” she added.

California has been at the forefront of environmental protections for decades and pioneered efforts to regulate tailpipe emissions in the 1970s, when it created the country's first standards for nitrogen oxide emissions from tailpipes.

Starting in 2010 during the Obama administration, the EPA, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and California Air Resources Board established a single national program of greenhouse gas emissions standards for model year 2012-25 vehicles.

That program permits automakers to design and manufacture to a single target, according to state Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who filed the lawsuit.

The attorney general noted that last month the EPA reversed course and claimed that the clean car standards for model years 2022-25 should be scrapped. Becerra said the federal government offered no evidence to support the decision and the expected rules that may weaken the existing 2022-25 standards.

Becerra, who joined Brown at the Capitol to announce what is the state's 32nd legal challenge to the Trump administration, said the existing clean car standards are achievable, science-based and “a boon for hard-working American families.”

“Enough is enough,” Becerra said. “We're not looking to pick a fight with the Trump administration, but when the stakes are this high for our families' health and our economic prosperity, we have a responsibility to do what is necessary to defend them.”

The lawsuit was filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and California was joined as a plaintiff by other states including Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon and Pennsylvania among others, as well as the District of Columbia.

The states that sued represent some 43% of the U.S. automobile market, Brown said.

Brown was in fighting form on Tuesday, pounding the podium and blasting Pruitt for “his expensive travel tastes and funny little redecorating plans,” a reference to Pruitt taking first-class airline flights and spending tens of thousands of dollars to remodel his office, including installation of a sound-proof telephone booth.

The governor said the changes would make the U.S. auto industry less competitive with China and other countries in providing cleaner, more efficient engines.

“This move by Pruitt with the help and encouragement of Trump is not going to make America great,” Brown said. “It's going to make America second-rate and probably will jeopardize America's auto industry.”

He noted the Obama administration agreed to the standards with states including California based on two years of study.

“You can't just like some tin-horn dictator say, ‘I'm tearing up a rule that is based on a two-year-determination process’,” Brown said.

The states' lawsuit was supported by members of Congress from California including Senator Dianne Feinstein (Democrat-California) and Representative Doris Matsui (Democrat-Sacramento).

“The Trump administration cannot ignore the science and the law,” Feinstein said.

California has sued the Trump administration on environmental issues more than a dozen times and the state has won each case that has been decided, Becerra said.

The Trump administration's pending plan to freeze the fuel economy targets at 42 miles per gallon and pre-empt California's ability to set its own emissions standards, meanwhile, drew a scolding on Tuesday by Sentor Tom Carper (Democrat-Delaware), the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee.

Carper cited a leaked copy of the EPA proposal, which he said argues that “states may not adopt or enforce tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions standards when such standards relate to fuel economy standards and are therefore preempted” by federal law.

“Such a proposal, if finalized, would harm U.S. national and economic security, undermine efforts to combat global warming pollution, create regulatory and manufacturing uncertainty for the automobile industry and unnecessary litigation, increase the amount of gasoline consumers would have to buy, and runs counter to statements that both of you have made to Members of Congress,” Carper wrote in a letter on Tuesday to Pruitt and Transportation Secretary Elaine L. Chao.


Los Angeles Times staff writer Noah Bierman contributed to this report. Bevan Halper and Bierman reported from Washington.

• Patrick McGreevy covers the California Legislature out of the Sacramento bureau. Since joining the Los Angeles Times in 1998, he has worked in the City Hall and San Fernando Valley bureaus, writing about subjects including Valley secession, LAPD reform and city government during the administrations of Mayors Richard Riordan, James Hahn and Antonio Villaraigosa. He is a native of San Diego and a graduate of San Jose State University.

• Evan Halper writes about a broad range of policy issues out of Washington D.C. for the Los Angeles Times, with particular emphasis on how Washington regulates, agitates and very often miscalculates in its dealings with California. Before heading east, he was the L.A. Times bureau chief in Sacramento, where he spent a decade untangling California's epic budget mess and political dysfunction.

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=9ec05529-f8c1-405b-9f67-a466a65f0891 (http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=9ec05529-f8c1-405b-9f67-a466a65f0891)

Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on May 04, 2018, 05:48:52 pm

from the print edition of the Los Angeles Times....

EDITORIAL: California versus EPA, round 10

Wednesday, May 02, 2018

WORLD LEADERS may negotiate their climate change accords in foreign capitals, but the efforts to stem global warming may succeed or fail based on what happens in courtrooms here in the United States.

On Tuesday, Governor Jerry Brown and state Attorney General Xavier Becerra announced that they have filed California's 10th, and potentially most consequential, lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Joined by 16 other states and the District of Columbia, California is defending a planned increase in vehicle fuel-economy standards against an attack by EPA head Scott Pruitt.

Adopted under the Obama administration, the clean-car regulations were a crucial piece of the national effort to curb greenhouse gas emissions. And California, which has the unique authority to set its own vehicle emission standards, had agreed to forgo more stringent standards in favor of national regulations that would have a bigger impact on greenhouse gases.

Last month Pruitt announced the agency would abandon the stiffer fuel economy requirements, which were supposed to be phased in from 2022 to 2025. Pruitt is widely expected to weaken or even eliminate fuel standards, and he is reportedly looking to do so in a way that circumvents California's authority to adopt its own rules.

An attack on California's authority would not only hinder the Golden State's ability to clean up the air; it would stymie a dozen other states that have adopted California's vehicle emissions standards. And that would cripple efforts to combat climate change: Cars and trucks recently surpassed power plants as America's largest source of greenhouse gas emissions.

The clean-car rules were slated to improve the average fuel economy of new cars and trucks by 50% by 2025, to almost 55 miles per gallon. To meet the new standards, automakers were expected to develop and sell more hybrid and electric models, gradually cutting smoggy tailpipe pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions.

The states' lawsuit argues that the EPA acted arbitrarily to overturn the standards, violating its own rules and the Clean Air Act. Becerra said the federal government offered no evidence to support its decision.

California leaders rightly recognize the threat posed by Pruitt and the Climate Change Denier-in-Chief. Fortunately, the 17-state coalition formed to fight the EPA's clean-car rollback represents about 43% of the U.S. market for new cars and 44% of the U.S. population. That should make it abundantly clear to the administration and to the automakers lobbying for looser standards that Americans do not want to move backward on climate change and clean air.

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/desktop/latimes/default.aspx?&edid=4fe1eccc-e459-4dc6-ad3d-2b3cd8c9b7f4 (http://enewspaper.latimes.com/desktop/latimes/default.aspx?&edid=4fe1eccc-e459-4dc6-ad3d-2b3cd8c9b7f4)

Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on May 04, 2018, 05:49:02 pm

from the print edition of the Los Angeles Times....

Potential fallout from EPA's fuel economy rollback plan

Climate and air quality would suffer under the proposal, study shows.

By EVAN HALPER | Thursday, May 03, 2018

(http://origin.misc.pagesuite.com/3630c326-c935-42f5-b0da-daebc36b7646/images/IMG_LA-166864.ME.0718.cl_2_1_BK3LH7QP.jpg) (http://origin.misc.pagesuite.com/3630c326-c935-42f5-b0da-daebc36b7646/images/IMG_LA-166864.ME.0718.cl_2_1_BK3LH7QP.jpg)
Emissions from transportation generate the most greenhouse gases, and would keep rising under the plan. — Photograph: Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times.

WASHINGTON D.C. — The Trump administration's plan to scrap vehicle fuel economy rules would lead to a surge of oil consumption that independent researchers warn threatens to paralyze the ability of the United States to make crucial progress in confronting climate change.

The administration's blueprint, as detailed in a confidential draft that was leaked to lawmakers and the media last week, would propel Americans to consume up to hundreds of thousands of barrels of additional oil daily and spend billions of dollars more on fuel, and leave cars and trucks sending more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than they do today, according to a study released on Thursday by Rhodium Group, a research firm that tracks the progress nations are making in meeting climate goals.

The dire projections about how the plan would hinder the ability of California and the rest of the nation to slow climate change comes as state research already shows that a retreat on the emissions rules would hamstring California's effort to reduce the air pollution choking the state's population centers.

As California this week launched a 17-state legal effort to block the administration's rollback of vehicle mileage-per-gallon targets, Rhodium assessed the potential fallout of scaling back the rules.

“The decisions we make today are going to have a long-term effect on total vehicle emissions,” said Kate Larsen, a director at the firm. “We were already going to have to do a lot more to meet our goals, even with the standards created in the Obama administration.”

Rhodium's snapshot of how things would play out under the Trump administration's draft plan to freeze fuel efficiency targets at 42 miles per gallon — instead of pushing toward 55 miles per gallon by 2025, as the current law envisions — reflects a nation heading in a profoundly different direction than the world's other economic powerhouses.

The plan would have American vehicles consuming as many as 283,000 extra barrels of oil per day by 2025. By 2030, the amount of additional oil consumed could grow to as much as 644,000 barrels daily, the firm found. That is more fuel than is used each day in a large state such as New York or New Jersey. The increase could exceed the total annual oil production of Alaska.

As for greenhouse gases, by 2030 the increase from relaxed mileage targets could near the total emissions that Colorado sends into the atmosphere for everything it does, including from burning gas in car engines, producing electricity at power plants and releasing potent methane from drilling operations.

Transportation recently surpassed power plants as the area of the economy generating the most greenhouse gases. Its emissions need to be reduced dramatically to slow the pace of global warming. But under the administration's vision, they would keep going up.

The severity of the effects would depend on oil prices. If prices stay at current levels or drop, the impact in terms of air quality and climate change would be particularly acute. When gas prices are low, consumers buy more SUVs and pickups, which burn more gas.

(http://origin.misc.pagesuite.com/3630c326-c935-42f5-b0da-daebc36b7646/images/IMG_LA-2413649_FI_1114_g_2_1_T73LI5SN.jpg) (http://origin.misc.pagesuite.com/3630c326-c935-42f5-b0da-daebc36b7646/images/IMG_LA-2413649_FI_1114_g_2_1_T73LI5SN.jpg)
The severity of the plan's effects would depend on oil prices, which influence which cars people buy. — Photograph: Anne Cusack/Los Angeles Times.

Tougher fuel economy rules are particularly useful to efforts to reduce emissions in times of low prices at the pump, when consumers are less apt to turn to higher-efficiency vehicles to save money. Even when gas prices are low, according to federal data, the fuel economy rules still save consumers money over the long haul. The amount they add to the cost of a vehicle is dwarfed by the amount drivers save in fuel.

In the best-case scenario, drivers would spend some $90 billion more at the pump as a result of the plan drafted by President Trump's Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Transportation, according to the Rhodium Group. But the costs could pile up to more than $200 billion.

The plan, Larsen said, would also slow or halt key research and design developments by auto companies, creating a long-term ripple effect on the types of cars rolled out of factories. “These vehicles will stay on the road for a long time,” she said. “It would be a real loss not just for the vehicles that come off the assembly line in the next five years, but for that whole generation of vehicle technology that won't benefit from continually improved efficiency over those years.”

The administration's plan remains a draft, and it could change before becoming official. The draft goes further to relax mileage targets than even auto companies had been seeking. Some of the automakers are growing increasingly anxious that the administration is pushing too far, according to sources involved in negotiations. The companies worry the administration is inviting costly and protracted litigation with states like California, which could create years of uncertainty for the industry.

Or worse yet, it could leave the industry confronting two different mileage standards: one federal standard, and one set by California using its authority under the Clean Air Act and a waiver it was given by the federal government.

The Trump administration plan aims to revoke California's authority to stick to stricter emissions. Legal scholars are dubious that it would succeed.

“They are doing a retread of arguments that were made during the Geroge W. Bush administration,” said Jody Freeman, who was President Obama's advisor on climate change and now directs the environmental law program at Harvard. Two federal district courts rejected the arguments at that time, she said.

But before the administration even gets to the point of making its case, it will have to persuade the courts that any rollback at all is warranted. The lawsuit California and other states filed on Tuesday argues that the administration has yet to do the work required to justify even modest changes in the fuel targets. The Obama administration backed its rules with thousands of pages of research and data. The Trump administration has yet to offer anything close to an equally exhaustive scientific and economic review to back its plan.

“If you want to reverse a policy, you have to do so based on facts and data that is not arbitrary,” Freeman said. “They have yet to provide the level of specificity you need to do an about-face like that.”


• Evan Halper writes about a broad range of policy issues out of Washington D.C. for the Los Angeles Times, with particular emphasis on how Washington regulates, agitates and very often miscalculates in its dealings with California. Before heading east, he was the L.A. Times bureau chief in Sacramento, where he spent a decade untangling California's epic budget mess and political dysfunction.

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=41bce9c6-3e73-4a52-aa0b-8f3b4d3c6d6d (http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=41bce9c6-3e73-4a52-aa0b-8f3b4d3c6d6d)

Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on May 30, 2018, 02:39:37 pm

from the print edition of the Los Angeles Times....

EPA's agenda gets down and dirty

Disavowed research is used to justify putting mega-polluting big rigs on America's roads.

By EVAN HALPER | Tuesday, May 29, 2018

(http://origin.misc.pagesuite.com/3630c326-c935-42f5-b0da-daebc36b7646/images/IMG_LA-2950326_ME_0719_p_2_1_5A3PA8H1.jpg) (http://origin.misc.pagesuite.com/3630c326-c935-42f5-b0da-daebc36b7646/images/IMG_LA-2950326_ME_0719_p_2_1_5A3PA8H1.jpg)
Lawmakers, including Republicans, and most of the trucking industry oppose plans to allow trucks that run on rebuilt diesel engines.
 — Photograph: Wally Skalij/Los Angeles Times.

WASHINGTON D.C. — At a time when acts of defiance against the Trump administration are routine in Sacramento, the rebuke that breezed through the California Assembly this month still came as a jolt. Even Trump loyalists in the chamber joined in.

The message to the administration was clear: Forget about your plan to unleash on freeways a class of rebuilt trucks that spew as much as 400 times the choking soot that conventional new big rigs do. Getting caught behind the wheel of one of these mega-polluters in California would carry a punishing $25,000 minimum fine under the measure that lawmakers passed 73 to 0. It had the support of 25 Republicans.

“This was a reaction,” said Chris Shimoda, vice president of government affairs for the California Trucking Association, which sponsored the legislation. “A lot of people have made the investments to clean up their trucks. They don't want to see an obvious loophole that allows others to be gross polluters and undercut them.”

Equally strong reactions are rippling across the country in response to the Trump administration's push to boost a cottage industry eager to sell trucks that run on rebuilt diesel engines. The trucks look new from the outside but are equipped with repurposed motors that, according to the Environmental Protection Agency's own experts, threaten to produce enough soot each year to cause up to 1,600 premature deaths.

President Trump's EPA has tried to justify the move by citing a privately funded study that claimed the trucks did not cause more pollution, but even the university that conducted the research has cast doubt on the findings.

Air regulators loathe the proposal to allow thousands more of the trucks on the roads. Most of the trucking industry feels the same. Even the White House budget office and several conservative allies of the administration are balking.

“We urge you to consider the adverse impact on the economy,” said a letter that the EPA recently disclosed from the Republican senators of Indiana, West Virginia and North Carolina. They warned EPA chief Scott Pruitt that the plan was ill-advised and disruptive to industry. Ten House Republicans agreed in their own letter, which warned the proposal was a potential job killer. “We respectfully ask that you carefully consider the negative impacts,” the GOP lawmakers wrote.

Yet the EPA is undeterred. Its crusade to lift an Obama-era ban on these heavily polluting vehicles known as “gliders” perseveres, largely at the behest of a small group of activists on the right and one generous political donor, Tennessee businessman Tommy Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald, who has met privately with Pruitt and who held a campaign event in 2016 for Trump at one of his facilities, says restricting the sale of the trucks and the kits to build them threatens 22,000 jobs.

Pruitt says the restrictions on the trucks were a misuse of Clean Air Act regulations.

In announcing the rollback, Pruitt's agency ignored its own findings about how much environmental damage the vehicles cause. Instead, it cited a new study from Tennessee Tech University that concluded, astonishingly, that the glider trucks were no more harmful to air quality than trucks with new engines. That study was bankrolled by Fitzgerald's business.

The results of the study came as a shock to experts at the EPA, and also to the engineering faculty at Tennessee Tech.

“Tennessee Tech has skills in some areas, but air pollution is an area we have never worked in,” said David Huddleston, an engineering professor at the university. “I thought, who on campus knows enough to actually even offer an opinion on that? We have one guy who has some expertise in emissions, but he wasn't even involved in this.”

The faculty would soon learn that the study was run by a university vice president who lacked any graduate-level engineering training, and that it was conducted at a Fitzgerald-owned facility. Tennessee Tech's president and Representative Diane Black (Republican-Tennessee) — who has accepted more than $200,000 in political donations from Fitzgerald, his companies and top employees — had lobbied Pruitt to embrace the research.

The Tennessee study quickly came under suspicion. Notes from discussions between EPA scientists and its authors revealed major flaws. The EPA scientists then updated their own tests of glider vehicles, which confirmed the trucks are substantially dirtier than newly manufactured trucks.

The head of Tennessee Tech's engineering department dismissed the study's key conclusion as a “far-fetched, scientifically implausible claim” by a research team that included “no qualified, credentialed engineer.” The faculty senate passed a resolution demanding the university revoke its support for the study and begin an investigation.

By late February, the university asked the EPA to stop using or referring to the study, pending its investigation. That investigation continues.

“The university takes the allegations of research misconduct seriously,” the school said in a statement to the Los Angeles Times. “Tennessee Tech is still in the process of following its internal procedures related to such matters.”

Despite Pruitt's earlier acknowledgment that the study factored into his decision to revisit the glider vehicle restrictions, an EPA spokesperson said in an email last week that “it played no role” in the action the EPA is now taking.

Two former EPA chiefs are skeptical. Christine Todd Whitman, who led the agency under George W. Bush, and Carol Browner, who led it under Bill Clinton, pointed out in a March letter to Pruitt that the industry's petition that prompted the EPA to act on glider trucks relied heavily on the now-disavowed study. They urged him to withdraw the proposal.

Fitzgerald's company is refusing to publicly release the full study, which it owns under its arrangement with the school. But it has cast itself as the victim.

“We did not expect to receive work product that some have characterized as ‘flawed and shoddy’ or ‘far-fetched and scientifically implausible’, and we certainly did not expect to be defamed by faculty members and administrators from the very institution that conducted the research,” a company lawyer wrote to university officials this year.

The company later demanded that four faculty members who have spoken out against the research and the company's involvement in it turn over any emails they wrote about the matter.

“It's a mess,” Huddleston said. “All these professors are trying to do is the right thing. And now they have had to go out and hire lawyers to protect themselves. It's sad.”

Representative Black recently told Nashville Public Radio that she had no regrets about using the study to try to help the glider business. She said glider manufacturers were in a noble “David and Goliath” battle with much larger trucking interests seeking to crush them.

But even some at the White House are chafing. Its budget office directed the EPA to undertake an extensive economic review that will hold things up for weeks and could reveal more legal vulnerabilities. The free-market think tank FreedomWorks has, in turn, started a campaign to pressure the White House to approve the EPA's plan promptly, without requiring the economic analysis.

It remains to be seen whether Pruitt will prevail. But if he succeeds, glider truck drivers could find themselves entering California at their own risk. Backers of the $25,000 penalties that the Assembly approved said they would expect to see them enforced, regardless of how the EPA proceeds. The bill appears likely to pass the state Senate and be signed into law.

Asked how it would confront that challenge, the agency demurred. “EPA has not yet taken a final action,” said the email from its press office, “and will not comment on hypothetical outcomes before the process is complete.”


• Evan Halper writes about a broad range of policy issues out of Washington D.C. for the Los Angeles Times, with particular emphasis on how Washington regulates, agitates and very often miscalculates in its dealings with California. Before heading east, he was the L.A. Times bureau chief in Sacramento, where he spent a decade untangling California's epic budget mess and political dysfunction.

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=3cc035cd-b0e5-41ce-a686-e43e01179a33 (http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=3cc035cd-b0e5-41ce-a686-e43e01179a33)

Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on May 30, 2018, 02:41:08 pm

California has got it right.....fine those polluting truckies $25,000 a time.

The sort of truckies who drive polluting vehicles will all be dumb Trump supporters anyway, so slapping another $25,000 fine on them every time a cop in California sees them would most definitely be a good thing. Teach them a lesson being beeing stupid, mentally-retarded Trump supporters and being silly enough to enter California.

Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: aDjUsToR on May 30, 2018, 09:38:29 pm
Your Trump obsession appears to have taken over your life. Did you know there is now quite cheap therapy counselling over the internet? 😁

Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: aDjUsToR on May 31, 2018, 08:49:59 am
Yes gleefully and spitefully slap a struggling truck driver with a 25,000 fine (no help for him/her), while splashing billions of other people's money on various harebrained and wasteful loony left schemes. That's loony left thinking in a "nut" shell.

Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on May 31, 2018, 08:56:01 am

Hey, a truck driver can CHOOSE to not drive a stinking, polluting truck into California and instead do what other truckies do and drive a truck which complies with California's environmental laws. Nobody is forcing truckies to CHOOSE to drive non-compliant trucks over the state line into California. If a truck driver doesn't like California's laws, then fuck off and ply their trade elsewhere. The simple fact is that California used to have a HUGE pollution problem in their cities and they chose many years ago to do something about it after considerable pressure from the citizens of that state.

Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on May 31, 2018, 01:56:57 pm
California is a total failure


California is being ruined i mean run into the ground by stupid governor moonbat a dopy commie fuckwit
who has bankrupted the shithole so bad that their biggest export is people leaving because their taxes are as big as the moon


Not even Superman can save this California Bizarro Land that's because for California progressive means going down the shithole

The quicker they decide to exterminate all the commie scum the better off the whole planet will be lol

Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on May 31, 2018, 07:45:52 pm

California is the 5th RICHEST economy in the entire world.

The states which voted for Trump are miles behind California in the economic stakes.

Kinda says it all about places which are full of stupid retards who voted for Trump, eh?

California should tell the rest of the USA to “go fuck themselves” and go it alone.

No more Trump-supporting maggots leeching off California's earnings would definitely be a good thing.

Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on June 01, 2018, 03:27:15 pm
Biggest Not richest you commie retard

its not the richest economy its one of the biggest ecomomys with 39 m people and the taxes are so high that the middle class are leaving in droves because they cant afford to live there
so its just a place for the rich libtard scum
you should look up and see how much debt they have and how many homeless people
the place is a drugged out shit hole

Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on June 01, 2018, 06:20:15 pm

The federal tax take per capita from California is way, way ahead of any other state.

In other words, the rest of America is leeching off the earnings of Californians.

And with the exception of Texas (which is still way behind California), Trump-supporting states have the least federal tax takes per capita in America.

In other words, the Trump supporting states are the worst when it comes to leeching off California.

All the more reason for California to go it alone and tell the Trump supporting states to “go fuck themselves and suppor themselves!”

Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on June 01, 2018, 06:21:49 pm
Biggest Not richest you commie retard

its not the richest economy its one of the biggest ecomomys with 39 m people and the taxes are so high that the middle class are leaving in droves because they cant afford to live there
so its just a place for the rich libtard scum
you should look up and see how much debt they have and how many homeless people
the place is a drugged out shit hole

Trump supporting retards are free to CHOOSE to stay the fuck out of California and out of the business of Californians.

Let them support themselves instead of leeching & sponging off liberal states.

And only stupid rightie-voting crybabies are leaving California. Good riddance to them.

Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on June 01, 2018, 08:13:46 pm

Your new form of cock sucking communism has nothing to do with helping the poor workers i think it's
more about a gang of lefty thugs with a big government that lords over the people and steals all their money
its about rape,destruction,poor me, and control freakism right out of a holly wood wet dream
perfect for those stupid leftist brain dead cunts that need
a bullet through their tiny weak brains
to stop them crying to their climate change god who is really an idiot whos escaped from a mental hospital

message to all you stupid morons who are not really progressive at all
please do the world a favor and kill yourself because your life sucks
its to save the planet and stop the ice from melting and improve the gene pool.

Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on June 01, 2018, 11:17:18 pm

The arsehole who is doing the most damage to American workers is Donald J. Trump.

He is shitting on the conditions of ordinary American workers big-time.

Trump is all about enriching himself and other rich-prick Americans at the expense of America workers.

Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on June 02, 2018, 03:37:32 am
 ;)You are like Hitler totally insane

You're having another trump orgasm again
you piss weak name calling twat
trumps rich blaa bla bla wank wank
get help you mad moron

maybe you need a new brain transplanted from a flea bitten rabid dog
then you can be trained to stop eating your own shit
and kiss trumps arse ;D

Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on July 24, 2018, 02:36:21 pm

from the print edition of the Los Angeles Times…

California versus Trump in the courts: A score card

State Attorney General Xavier Becerra has sued the Trump administration 38 times.

By PATRICK McGREEVY | Monday, July 23, 2018

(http://origin.misc.pagesuite.com/3630c326-c935-42f5-b0da-daebc36b7646/images/IMG_LA-APphoto_2018_Atto_2_1_UQ41PECG.jpg) (http://origin.misc.pagesuite.com/3630c326-c935-42f5-b0da-daebc36b7646/images/IMG_LA-APphoto_2018_Atto_2_1_UQ41PECG.jpg)
State Attorney General Xavier Becerra, center, has won 12 key rulings in the lawsuits he has filed against the U.S. federal administration of Donald J. Trump.
 — Photograph: Rich Pedroncelli/Associated Press.

SACRAMENTO — California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has emerged as a leading national figure in what Democrats call their “resistance” to the Trump administration, filing a flurry of 38 lawsuits against the federal government in just the last year and a half.

The state's legal challenges have attacked federal actions on issues including immigration, the environment, the U.S. census, education, the internet, the rights of transgender people, and healthcare.

California's lawsuits claim Trump administration actions conflict with existing federal law, are overreaching of executive authority, fail to follow procedures for public input on rule changes or are based on whim without proper rationale.

So far, Becerra has won 12 key court rulings in the lawsuits he filed and lost on three. In other cases, the federal government reversed the policy challenged in lawsuits before a court could decide. Most of the legal cases are still awaiting a final determination by the courts.

Here's a rundown of the 38 legal actions filed by the state attorney general.


California is home to an estimated quarter of the 11.1 million immigrants in the country illegally. Becerra, who describes himself as the “proud son of immigrants,” has targeted many of his lawsuits — nine so far — to challenge Trump's get-tough policy on immigration enforcement

Becerra sued over Trump's proposal to build a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border, alleging it failed to comply with federal and state environmental laws, but a judge ruled against the state. More recently, Becerra went to court to challenge the federal policy of separating immigrants who enter the country illegally from their children, claiming it violates the due process rights of parents. That case is pending, although courts have ruled in other cases that children must be reunited with parents.

California also led a lawsuit against the Trump administration's decision to end a program that protects immigrants brought to the country illegally as children from deportation. The lawsuit argued that canceling the program violates the Constitution, and the courts issued a preliminary injunction.

One of Becerra's first lawsuits was over a Trump administration travel ban on immigrants from six countries with predominantly Muslim populations, claiming that the order represented unconstitutional religious discrimination. Judges in other cases put a freeze on the order. When Trump issued a revised travel ban, Becerra joined other states in suing again.

The Supreme Court last month upheld Trump's latest version of travel restrictions.

Becerra has also gone to court to oppose the Trump administration's attempt to place immigration enforcement conditions on certain public safety grants for law enforcement in cities that adopted so-called sanctuary laws that restrict cooperation with immigration agents. A request for a preliminary injunction was denied.

Other pending lawsuits sought to compel federal agencies to provide documents showing the rationale behind decisions to put conditions on grants to sanctuary cities, and to toughen enforcement of immigration laws.

When the administration proposed adding a question on citizenship to the 2020 U.S. census, Beccerra sued, claiming that the action was “arbitrary and capricious” and lacking proper rationale.


With three lawsuits, California led the effort to combat efforts by the Trump administration and others to roll back provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known popularly as Obamacare.

Becerra won a preliminary injunction to block federal rules that allowed employers to deny women cost-free birth control that the state argued was guaranteed under the Affordable Care Act.

The state was not successful in suing the administration over its stopping cost-sharing reduction payments that states argued are required by the Affordable Care Act. A judge denied a request for an emergency injunction, but the state is seeking a summary judgment on the merits of its claims.

Becerra also led a coalition of 16 attorneys general in winning a court decision allowing them to be part of the opposition to an application by Texas and other states that are seeking to halt operation of the Affordable Care Act nationwide.

(http://origin.misc.pagesuite.com/3630c326-c935-42f5-b0da-daebc36b7646/images/IMG_LA-3035927_et_cam-bo_2_1_6R41PJF3.jpg) (http://origin.misc.pagesuite.com/3630c326-c935-42f5-b0da-daebc36b7646/images/IMG_LA-3035927_et_cam-bo_2_1_6R41PJF3.jpg)
Wall prototypes along the U.S.-Mexico border in February. California has sued over the proposed wall. — Photograph: Kent Nishimura/Los Angeles Times.


As the first person in his family to graduate from college, Becerra has said education is an important issue for him, and he has filed a trio of lawsuits to press his case. He sued the U.S. Department of Education challenging its decision to refrain from helping students obtain forgiveness of their loans in cases where they went to universities that engaged in fraud.

California filed a lawsuit against the Education Department claiming that it had failed to process debt-relief claims submitted by students who took out federal loans to attend for-profit colleges. In addition, Becerra went to court to ask that federal officials require for-profit schools to meet a standard of preparing students for “gainful employment in a recognized occupation.”


With California leading the move from coal and oil to cleaner energy sources, it is no surprise that the most lawsuits filed by the attorney general — 21 so far — have challenged Trump administration proposals to roll back environmental protections.

In May, Becerra led a coalition of 17 states in suing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency claiming that it had violated the federal Clean Air Act in rolling back a requirement that cars average nearly 55 miles per gallon by 2025. The case is still pending.

Last week, Becerra led a coalition of 16 states in suing the EPA to challenge its suspension of a mandate that most rebuilt diesel engines installed in heavy-duty trucks meet the same emissions standards applied to new engines.

California previously sued the EPA for delaying other rules aimed at reducing air pollution, winning a case that said the agency improperly failed to identify parts of the country that have not achieved smog-reduction goals. The state also won an injunction after the agency balked at regulating methane created by oil and gas operations on public lands.

Becerra is still awaiting a judgment on a lawsuit that challenged the administration over the repeal of restrictions on hydraulic fracturing oil extraction, known as fracking, on federal lands. A decision also has not been made yet on a state lawsuit that argued the EPA violated the Clean Air Act by repealing a requirement that major sources of air pollutants, including petroleum refineries, install equipment to minimize pollution.

The state also sued twice over delay in a federal rule requiring companies that extract oil, gas and coal to pay royalties to states. A judge has ruled in favor of the state's claim in one of the cases.

Becerra also went to court with other states to force the EPA to reverse its suspension of safeguards for agricultural workers, claiming that if workers are not given training and education on pesticides, they risk being harmed. The EPA later backed down and implemented the training.

The agency also reversed course when it was hit with a California lawsuit claiming that it had improperly delayed enforcement of an energy-efficiency standard for ceiling fans, and a court sided with Becerra in a lawsuit alleging the federal government had failed to enact energy standards for portable air conditioners and walk-in freezers.

Last month, Becerra sued the EPA, claiming that it had acted improperly in allowing companies to manufacture products with hydrofluorocarbons — a refrigerant that is a potent greenhouse gas. The case is pending.

Another legal challenge was filed against the EPA over its suspension of the 2015 Clean Water Rule aimed at protecting lakes and streams from pollutants. The court has not yet ruled in that case.

Before EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt resigned this month amid scandal, Becerra sued to force the release of documents the state believed would shed light on Pruitt's suspected conflicts of interest.

And when the U.S. Department of the Interior proposed to restart federal leases for coal mining, California sued and is awaiting a ruling.

California and other states went to court and won a challenge to the decision by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to delay increased penalties for automakers whose vehicles fail to comply with fuel-efficiency standards.

LGBTQ rights, net neutrality

Becerra joined transgender service members in suing to challenge Trump's ban on transgender people serving in the military. A preliminary injunction was granted that could affect a subsequent executive order limiting service.

He also took the Federal Communications Commission to court, challenging its action to repeal net-neutrality rules, arguing its action was over-reach. The case is pending.


• Patrick McGreevy covers the California Legislature out of the Sacramento bureau. Since joining the Los Angeles Times in 1998, he has worked in the City Hall and San Fernando Valley bureaus, writing about subjects including Valley secession, LAPD reform and city government during the administrations of Mayors Richard Riordan, James Hahn and Antonio Villaraigosa. He is a native of San Diego and a graduate of San Jose State University.

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=ba72f1f7-bbf1-4b23-9bda-1857eac01af1 (http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=ba72f1f7-bbf1-4b23-9bda-1857eac01af1)

Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on August 04, 2018, 04:41:03 pm

from the print edition of the Los Angeles Times…

California defends mileage rules; Automakers seek compromise

State rejects bid by Trump officials to freeze standards for fuel economy in 2020.

By EVAN HALPER, TONY BARBOZA and DAVID LAUTER | Friday, August 03, 2018

(http://origin.misc.pagesuite.com/3630c326-c935-42f5-b0da-daebc36b7646/images/IMG_LA-3055278_la-me_epa_2_1_JI43B2Q6.jpg) (http://origin.misc.pagesuite.com/3630c326-c935-42f5-b0da-daebc36b7646/images/IMG_LA-3055278_la-me_epa_2_1_JI43B2Q6.jpg)
California and 13 other states with stringent rules account for over a third of new vehicles sold in the U.S. — Photograph: Photograph: Al Seib/Los Angeles Times.

WASHINGTON D.C. — The Trump administration pushed ahead on Thursday with plans to unravel the federal government's most effective action to fight climate change — aggressive fuel economy standards aimed at getting the nation's cars and trucks to average more than 50 miles per gallon by 2025.

After months of discussion and drafts, the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration formally unveiled their plan to rewrite those rules and replace them with some so lax that even automakers are wary.

The administration's plan would freeze mileage targets in 2020 for six years. It would also move to end California's power to set its own tougher greenhouse gas emissions standards and nullify the state mandate that automakers sell a specified number of electric vehicles.

EPA officials sought to portray the proposal as the administration's opening bid in a negotiation with California. State officials, however, denounced the plan as too extreme and threatened to fight it in court. California and the 13 other states that follow its more stringent rules say the Clean Air Act empowers them to keep the Obama-era standards in place in their markets.

Together, California and the other 13 states account for more than a third of the new vehicles sold nationwide.

The rollback would undermine those states' efforts to meet commitments the U.S. made in the Paris agreement on climate change. It would also worsen air quality problems in Southern California and other areas where officials are already struggling to reduce smog and ease rates of asthma and other illnesses.

The administration asserts that the fuel economy rules should not be used to attempt “to solve climate change, even in part,” because such a goal is “fundamentally different” from the Clean Air Act's “original purpose of addressing smog-related air quality problems.”

Administration officials acknowledged that flat-lining fuel economy improvements would come at the expense of pollution reductions and public health.

“If we lock in the 2020 standards, we're not getting as much emissions reductions as we otherwise would, and that translates into incrementally less protection of health and the environment,” said EPA Assistant Administrator Bill Wehrum, who oversees air and radiation issues.

“But balanced against that … we get substantial improvement in vehicle and highway safety,” he said. The administration argues that fuel economy and safety are inevitably in “tension,” as Wehrum put it. The Obama administration's higher efficiency rules would raise vehicle prices and “restrict the American people from being able to afford newer vehicles with more advanced safety features,” they assert.

“More-realistic standards can save lives while continuing to improve the environment,” said acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler.

Environmental advocates and many outside scientists dispute that reasoning, pointing to extensive studies done during President Obama's administration that found higher fuel standards could be achieved without compromising safety.

The EPA's own scientists also have questioned the administration's position. Wheeler, who took over the agency after Scott Pruitt resigned in early July, warned during recent internal debates that the evidence behind the proposal was questionable and might not stand up in court, administration officials have said.

The release of the administration's proposal was repeatedly delayed in recent weeks as officials debated how aggressively to push. In the end, the White House approved taking a hard line.

California Governor Jerry Brown vowed to push back, saying the state would fight the new plan “in every conceivable way possible.”

“For Trump to now destroy a law first enacted at the request of Ronald Reagan five decades ago is a betrayal and an assault on the health of Americans everywhere,” Brown said, referring to the Clean Air Act. “Under [Trump's] reckless scheme, motorists will pay more at the pump, get worse gas mileage and breathe dirtier air.”

That combative stance seems likely to have broad support in the state. For example, Brown's Republican predecessor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has championed efforts to combat global warming, blasted in an online post “fake conservatives” who “believe in states' rights to make their own policies — as long as state policy is to pollute more.”

By contrast, the Trump administration's internal tensions were on display during a call with reporters on Thursday as transportation officials steadfastly defended the proposal while the EPA emphasized that it was not final and that a compromise with California and the auto industry could be reached.

“There's nothing about how greenhouse gases and potential climate change affects California that's any different than any other state in the country,” Wehrum said, adding, “There's no justification for California to have its own standards.”

But he left room for compromise: “Having said that, this is just a proposed rule, and on the other hand we are committed to working with California to try to find a mutually agreeable set of regulations.”

The California Air Resources Board will submit comments on the proposal but has no meetings planned with the administration, a spokesman said.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said the state would “use every legal tool at its disposal to defend today's national standards and reaffirm the facts and science behind them.”

The prospect of an extended legal fight has discomfited automakers, who had asked the administration to relax the Obama-era rules but don't want to see the U.S. market split in two, with different models of cars required in blue and red states.

In letters to Brown and Trump, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the Association of Global Automakers, the industry's two lobbying groups, repeated their desire for changes in the Obama-era rules but notably did not endorse the administration's proposal to freeze the fuel standards in 2020.

The groups urged both sides to negotiate. “In our eyes, a negotiated settlement is preferable to a bifurcated system and years of litigation,” they wrote in the letter to Trump.

Vehicles are the single largest source in the U.S. of emissions that cause global warming, recently surpassing the electricity sector. The plunge in natural gas prices and other market forces have steadily lowered utilities' impact on the climate, but transportation is proving more stubborn. Electric cars and trucks still account for a tiny fraction of those sold, and driver preference for SUVs, along with relatively low gas prices, have inhibited progress.

The existing federal fuel economy targets, which were championed by California, ensure automakers keep moving toward higher-efficiency vehicles, as other nations also require. Those rules require automakers to meet fleet-wide averages of more than 50 miles per gallon by 2025, which when factoring in credits and other flexibility options translates to about 36 mpg in real-world driving conditions.

In comparison, the Trump proposal would freeze real-world fuel economy at about 30 miles per gallon, according to projections by the Rhodium Group, a research firm that tracks the progress nations are making in meeting climate goals.

The emissions impact of freezing those targets, as the administration favors, could be enormous. Official projections show the plan would increase daily fuel consumption by 2% to 3%, or about 500,000 barrels per day, increasing greenhouse gas emissions and contributing to the rise in global temperatures.

The Bay Area firm Energy Innovation, which models the environmental impact of energy policies, projects the proposal would increase U.S. fuel use 20% by 2035. The firm projects the policy would cost the U.S. economy $457 billion and cause 13,000 deaths by 2050 as air quality suffers.

The administration projects the efficiency rules would drive up the price of cars enough to push some buyers out of the market, leaving them to remain in older vehicles lacking life-saving new technologies like assisted braking and blind-spot warning. Flat-lining emissions standards, officials contend, would allow the auto industry to sell cars at lower prices, resulting in an additional 1 million new vehicle sales over the next decade.

The argument may prove a tough sell in court, where attorneys for states and environmental groups will come armed with a wealth of data undermining it.

“The fleet of new vehicles today is the most fuel-efficient ever, and they have gotten safer every year,” said Luke Tonachel, director of clean vehicles and fuels at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “These arguments are not new. They have failed before.”

Federal data show the increased cost consumers would pay for the more-efficient vehicles is dwarfed by the amount of money they would save at the pump, undermining the argument that drivers will stay in older, unsafe vehicles, advocates for the tougher rules say.

Trump administration officials conceded on Thursday that labor, parts and other costs — not fuel economy rules — are the main reasons cars and trucks are getting more expensive.

Automakers themselves have also confirmed that they can build lighter cars to meet tougher emissions standards without sacrificing safety, UCLA environmental law professor Ann Carlson wrote on Thursday. “The arguments about cost and safety are makeweights designed to provide cover for a proposal that is likely to be struck down in court.”

At a May meeting at the White House, auto firms appealed to Trump to tap the brakes on the administration's aggressive rollback plan. He assured them he would, ordering his EPA chief and Transportation secretary to try to broker a deal with California.

Those negotiations have gone nowhere. California is confident the administration has no legal authority to revoke the waiver the state has been granted under the Clean Air Act allowing it to keep the Obama-era rules in place. In May, California and 16 other states filed a preemptive lawsuit arguing the rollback would be illegal.

“There is no precedent for revoking California's waiver,” said Dan Becker, director of the Safe Climate Campaign of the Center for Auto Safety, an advocacy group in Washington. “There is no provision in the Clean Air Act for revoking a waiver…. The world is looking to California to hold its ground.”


• Evan Halper writes about a broad range of policy issues out of Washington D.C. for the Los Angeles Times, with particular emphasis on how Washington regulates, agitates and very often miscalculates in its dealings with California. Before heading east, he was the L.A. Times bureau chief in Sacramento, where he spent a decade untangling California's epic budget mess and political dysfunction.

• Tony Barboza is a reporter who covers air quality and the environment with a focus on Southern California. He has been on staff at the Los Angeles Times since 2006, is a graduate of Pomona College and completed a Ted Scripps Fellowship in Environmental Journalism at the University of Colorado.

• David Lauter is the Los Angeles Times' Washington bureau chief. He began writing news in Washington in 1981 and since then has covered Congress, the Supreme Court, the White House under Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton and four U.S. presidential campaigns. He lived in Los Angeles from 1995 to 2011, where he was the L.A. Times' deputy Foreign editor, deputy Metro editor and then assistant managing editor responsible for California coverage.

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=c8c2a988-5eb3-4372-ba30-94678835c0b8 (http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=c8c2a988-5eb3-4372-ba30-94678835c0b8)
http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=ee5a0ec9-081a-4806-ad39-dd2288689e52 (http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=ee5a0ec9-081a-4806-ad39-dd2288689e52)

Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on August 04, 2018, 04:41:26 pm

from the print edition of the Los Angeles Times…

EDITORIAL: Trump steps on the gas pedal

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD | Friday, August 03, 2018

OF ALL the Trump administration's assaults on the environment, there may be none more destructive than the decision to weaken fuel economy standards and let cars, passenger trucks and SUVs burn more gas and spew more pollution.

The fuel economy standards adopted by the Obama administration in 2012 were a central part of the United States' efforts to reduce the greenhouse gases responsible for global warming. The regulations pushed automakers to move faster, requiring the new cars and trucks they sold to average more than 50 miles per gallon by 2025.

The Trump plan announced on Thursday would freeze average fuel economy at 37 miles per gallon in 2021. Worse, it seeks to revoke California's longstanding authority to set its own standards for cleaner vehicles. If successful, the Trump administration would be stunting decades of progress in California and other states toward cleaner, healthier air, and it would be hobbling the worldwide effort to combat climate change.

The administration's decision to roll back the standards is especially appalling now. We're already feeling the effects of global warming in more extreme weather events, from prolonged droughts, endless wildfire seasons and unprecedented heat waves to severe hurricanes and floods. And cars and trucks are the nation's largest source of greenhouse gas emissions.

Yet despite the grave risk of delay, the Trump administration has put forth the flimsiest of justifications for the rollback. The plan, developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, asserts that lower fuel economy standards will save lives — the higher price of more fuel-efficient vehicles (about $2,300 more per car, they say) encourages some people to continue driving older, less-safe vehicles, the agencies say. That ignores the fact that more fuel-efficient vehicles are cheaper to operate since drivers have to buy less gas.

It also ignores the very significant impact President Trump's threatened tariffs could have on imported cars. Automakers estimate the tariffs could increase the average cost of a car by more than $5,000, dwarfing any potential bump in cost from fuel efficient technology.

Manufacturers are clearly capable of producing more fuel efficient vehicles. In fact, most of the major car companies have already pledged to develop more electric vehicles in response to demands by China and European countries.

The Trump administration would leave Americans stuck in gas-guzzling vehicles and breathing smoggy air while the rest of the world enjoys the benefits of automotive innovation. And it would be yet another sign that the current president and his allies in Congress have totally abdicated their responsibility to protect the health of Americans and the environment.

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=1ab373f6-270a-4b1e-806e-3ab92195075c (http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=1ab373f6-270a-4b1e-806e-3ab92195075c)

Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on September 30, 2018, 02:39:56 pm

from the print edition of the Los Angeles Times…

L.A.'s bad air days: Smoggy skies for nearly 3 months

Ozone readings violated standards for nearly three months straight, the longest span in 20 years.

By TONY BARBOZA | Saturday, September 22, 2018

(http://origin.misc.pagesuite.com/3630c326-c935-42f5-b0da-daebc36b7646/images/IMG_LA-3059749_ME_0919_s_8_1_7K4AF0O3.jpg) (http://origin.misc.pagesuite.com/3630c326-c935-42f5-b0da-daebc36b7646/images/IMG_LA-3059749_ME_0919_s_8_1_7K4AF0O3.jpg)
Unhealthful summer haze is not unusual in Southern California, but this year's persistence is troubling. — Photograph: Wally Skalij/Los Angeles Times.

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIANS might remember the summer of 2018 for its sweltering heat waves, record ocean temperatures and destructive wildfires. But it also claimed another distinction: the summer we went nearly three months without a day of clean air.

The region violated federal smog standards for 87 consecutive days, the longest stretch of bad air in at least 20 years, state monitoring data show. The streak is the latest sign that Southern California's battle against smog is faltering after decades of dramatic improvement.

The ozone pollution spell began on June 19 and continued through July and August, with every day exceeding the federal health standard of 70 parts per billion somewhere across Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties. It didn't relent until September 14, when air pollution dipped to “moderate” levels within federal limits for ozone, the lung-damaging gas in smog that triggers asthma and other respiratory illnesses.

It's not unusual for Southern California summers to go weeks without a break in the smog, especially in inland communities that have long suffered the nation's worst ozone levels. But environmentalists and health experts say the persistence of dirty air this year is a troubling sign that demands action.

“The fact that we keep violating and having this many days should be a wake-up call,” said Michael Kleeman, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at UC Davis who studies air pollution.

The South Coast Air Quality Management District, which is responsible for cleaning pollution across the region of 17 million people, said that consecutive bad air days is an inappropriate way to gauge progress curbing ozone, that this smog season was not as severe as last year's and had fewer “very unhealthy” days.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency judges whether the region meets Clean Air Act standards based on the highest pollution readings, not how long bad air persists. By federal metrics, air district officials argue they are making strides. The highest ozone levels recorded this summer, they point out, were lower than those in the previous year, and the smog season began later.

“By all accounts this year is not great, but it's a little better than last year,” said Philip Fine, deputy executive officer for the South Coast air district.

(https://www.latimes.com/resizer/m8h0eB6nNZJ5VN5DuaNmPSS3pcI=/1400x0/www.trbimg.com/img-5ba43ef5/turbine/la-me-smog-days-20180920/2000) (https://www.latimes.com/resizer/m8h0eB6nNZJ5VN5DuaNmPSS3pcI=/1400x0/www.trbimg.com/img-5ba43ef5/turbine/la-me-smog-days-20180920/2000)

The bad air spell follows an increase in smog over the last few years that has bucked a long-term trend of improving air quality and left officials searching for answers. In 2017, the region logged 145 bad air days for ozone pollution, up from 132 ozone violation days in 2016 and 113 the year before.

By the same measure, this smog season is on par with last year, with 126 ozone violation days logged through Monday, according to air district statistics.

The district could not say if there had ever been a stretch of bad air days longer than the one this summer. The agency does not track consecutive violations of federal health standards, a spokesman said, because it “is not a useful or meaningful metric to gauge ozone air quality trends.”

Not everyone agrees. Joseph Lyou, a South Coast air quality board member who heads the Coalition for Clean Air, said he's concerned that although the intensity of Southern California's air pollution has dropped, its longevity is increasing.

“It's a disturbing trend no matter what the law says you're accountable for,” said Lyou, who asked about the streak of bad air days at a public meeting earlier this month. “It's telling us we have a persistent problem and that we still have a long way to go.”

Regulators blame the dip in air quality in recent years on hotter weather and stronger, more persistent inversion layers that trap smog near the ground. They're also planning a study into whether climate change is contributing to the smog problem, as many scientists expect, due to higher temperatures that speed the photochemical reactions that form ozone.

Hotter weather from global warming is not accounted for in pollution-reduction plans required under the Clean Air Act, even though scientists expect it to hinder efforts to control smog.

“This is one example of the close ties between air pollution and climate change, which makes meeting air quality standards even more challenging and illustrates the urgency for addressing climate change at all levels of government in the U.S. and globally,” said Barbara Finlayson-Pitts, an atmospheric chemist at UC Irvine who studies air quality.

Lyou worries that a failure to account for climate change could pose another obstacle to meeting federal ozone-reduction deadlines in 2023 and 2031. The air district's latest cleanup plan says the region can get there only by increasing local, state and federal cash incentives for lower-polluting vehicles by more than tenfold to $1 billion a year. But so far, it's falling far short.

Environmentalists and community groups say the string of smoggy days is a symptom of insufficient regulation. They criticize air quality officials as too quick to blame the weather when they could be doing more to crack down on some of the biggest hubs of pollution, including truck-choked warehouses and ports and oil refineries.

“We know that it's getting hotter and drier from climate change, but the law says we need to breathe clean air no matter the weather,” said Adrian Martinez, an attorney for the environmental law non-profit Earthjustice who chronicled the mounting number of ozone violations from his Twitter handle @LASmogGuy.

“The last time we met the standard, Justice [Anthony] Kennedy had not announced retirement yet & the World Cup just started,” Martinez tweeted on September 7, some 80 days into the spell. “This isn't right. Our lungs deserve better.”

(http://origin.misc.pagesuite.com/3630c326-c935-42f5-b0da-daebc36b7646/images/IMG_LA-3052900_la-me-hea_2_1_3T4ALESA.jpg) (http://origin.misc.pagesuite.com/3630c326-c935-42f5-b0da-daebc36b7646/images/IMG_LA-3052900_la-me-hea_2_1_3T4ALESA.jpg)
Regulators blame the dip in air quality in recent years on hotter weather and stronger, more persistent inversion layers that trap smog near the ground. A display
at Calvary Church in West Hills in the San Fernando Valley registered 117 degrees on July 6. — Photograph: Brian van der Brug/Los Angeles Times.

Experts say the unsteady progress in Southern California is expected, and a reflection of the difficulties in controlling ozone, which is not emitted directly but forms when combustion gases and other pollutants react in the heat and sunlight. The formation of smog is so influenced by weather conditions and the precise mix of pollutants in the air that scientists and regulators are not surprised to see ozone pollution tick up, despite a long-term trend of declining emissions.

“As we work to bring the whole region down, we're actually seeing some areas where the ozone production is getting more efficient,” said Kleeman, who thinks scientists should reconsider the effectiveness of control measures and whether targeting different types of pollutants could bring swifter reductions.

“Are we really doing the right things for the right reasons and is it having the effect that we think?” Kleeman said.

At the same time, health scientists are publishing more research linking ozone and other regional air pollutants to a wider array of health problems at levels well below regulatory limits. Such findings, they say, underscore the need to do as much as possible to curb smog and ease the number of asthma attacks, missed school days, emergency room visits and premature deaths — all of which increase when ozone pollution is high.

“There's no question that people with pre-existing lung diseases, particularly asthmatics, have had a harder time this year than they would have in previous years where there weren't so many exceedances,” said Michael Jerrett, who chairs the Department of Environmental Health Sciences at UCLA's Fielding School of Public Health.

Such problems can be most acute in the smoggy Inland Empire. There, some are starting to view past success cleaning air pollution as an impediment to easing its health damage today. They say clearer mountain views can belie the fact that the air still exceeds health limits for much of the summer.

Smog's less visible presence can make it easier to live in denial about the health effects, said John Cadavona, a registered respiratory therapist who supervises Arrowhead Regional Medical Center's Breathmobile, a fleet of RVs that treat schoolchildren in San Bernardino County, where asthma rates and ozone pollution are both high.

“We have parents that think that a cough that their child has is normal, when it may be asthma,” Cadavona said. “If we had cleaner air, we'd have kids who were healthier, whose lungs can function normally and can play sports without having to take medication.”


• Tony Barboza is a reporter who covers air quality and the environment with a focus on Southern California. He has been on staff at the Los Angeles Times since 2006, is a graduate of Pomona College and completed a Ted Scripps Fellowship in Environmental Journalism at the University of Colorado.

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=f37616db-745a-4b15-b7e0-8f808792dbf3 (http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=f37616db-745a-4b15-b7e0-8f808792dbf3)
http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=a6419a0b-088f-4982-9881-b6d5e389199a (http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=a6419a0b-088f-4982-9881-b6d5e389199a)

Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on September 30, 2018, 02:40:57 pm

from the print edition of the Los Angeles Times…

State counters Trump on air rules

In an escalating fight, regulators vote to require automakers to hold to California's emissions standards.

By TONY BARBOZA | Saturday, September 29, 2018

(http://origin.misc.pagesuite.com/3630c326-c935-42f5-b0da-daebc36b7646/images/IMG_LA-AFP-Getty_US-ENVI_4_1_G54BHVS7.jpg) (http://origin.misc.pagesuite.com/3630c326-c935-42f5-b0da-daebc36b7646/images/IMG_LA-AFP-Getty_US-ENVI_4_1_G54BHVS7.jpg)
The low-carbon fuel standard is expected to cut the cost of a new electric vehicle by up to $2,000 over the next 12 years.
 — Photograph: Frederic J. Brown/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images.

IN AN escalation in the fight against climate change and the Trump administration, California regulators approved new measures to defend the state's vehicle emissions standards and bolster rules to cut carbon pollution from transportation.

The state Air Resources Board voted on Friday to require automakers to comply with California's strict rules on car and truck pollution if they want to sell vehicles in the state. It's California's latest move against the Trump administration's plan to freeze fuel economy targets and revoke California's power to set its own standards. State officials said the counterstrike was necessary to close a potential loophole automakers could use to avoid compliance with California's more stringent rules.

“The health of our state, our nation and the globe are at stake, and that is a fight worth having,” said state Senator Ricardo Lara (Democrat-Bell Gardens), who sits on the board.

The measure seeks to strengthen California's footing as it fights to preserve its emissions rules, both in court and in negotiations with the White House. At the same time, the move brings the nation one step closer to having two standards: one for California and the dozen other aligned states that account for one-third of the U.S. auto market, and another for the rest of the country.

During the board's meeting in Sacramento, the 16-member panel also expanded a climate rule that reduces carbon pollution with tradeable credits that gasoline and diesel producers must purchase from producers of lower-carbon fuels, such as hydrogen and biodiesel. By further incentivizing those cleaner technologies, the low-carbon fuel standard is expected to cut the cost of a new electric vehicle by up to $2,000 while raising gas prices by up to 36 cents a gallon over 12 years.

The market-based program, first adopted in 2009, aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions by spurring technology advancements that reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels. The state imposes a gradually declining cap on carbon intensity from “well to wheel,” including oil extraction, fuel production and distribution. Companies that produce gasoline, diesel and other fuels must meet those carbon-reduction targets each year, either directly or by purchasing credits from clean-fuel producers that exceed those standards.

In extending its low-carbon fuel standard, the state will require a 20% cut in the carbon intensity of transportation fuels by 2030, compared with a 10% reduction by 2020 under the current mandate.

“These amendments will take California's climate fight up another notch,” air board chair Mary Nichols said.

Taken together, the actions show some of the ways California can forge ahead fighting global warming in spite of the Trump administration's moves to dismantle climate regulations. Much bolder actions will be needed to slash greenhouse gases to meet state targets, including the latest ambitious goal Governor Jerry Brown issued in an executive order earlier this month: making California's entire economy carbon neutral by 2045.

The transportation sector remains the biggest obstacle to California meeting its climate goals. Pollution from cars and trucks, already the state's largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, has been rising the last few years as a result of more driving and the popularity of bigger, less-fuel-efficient SUVs.

The vehicle emissions standards the state is fighting to preserve would boost fuel economy of cars and trucks to about 36 miles per gallon in real-world driving by 2025, while the Trump administration proposal freezes it at the 2020 level of about 30 mpg.

The federal proposal would result in 12 millions of tons of excess greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 in California, both from vehicle tailpipes and from refineries as a result of increased gas consumption, according to an air board analysis. That additional pollution would wipe out any benefits from the strengthened low-carbon fuel standards approved on Thursday, the board projected.

Automakers asked the Trump administration early on to relax emissions rules, but now say they don't want the market split into two, requiring them to build different models of cars. Auto industry representatives on Friday urged the Air Resources Board to hold off on the measure and try to reach a compromise with the federal government.

California officials dismissed that idea, but said they've continued negotiations with the Trump administration. After a meeting last month, the White House, federal officials and the California Air Resources Board issued a joint statement agreeing to future meetings “with the shared goal of achieving one national set of standards for vehicle fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions.”

The low-carbon fuel standard reauthorized this week is one of the lesser-known pillars of California climate policy and is crucial for the state to meet its ambitious target of slashing greenhouse gas emissions 40% below 1990 levels by 2030.

Some of the changes to the program approved on Friday were designed to stimulate sales of zero-emission vehicles and the installation of electric charging and hydrogen fueling stations. Electric vehicles account for about 6% of vehicles sold in California, and that must ramp up dramatically if California is to meet its climate goals.

One notable provision directs utilities to use low-carbon fuel credits to offer increased rebates at car dealerships at the time of purchase, rather than by reimbursement after the fact. Customers would be offered an upfront rebate of up to $2,000 on the purchase of a zero-emission vehicle. The state-wide program, being developed by utilities and automakers, could begin as soon as 2019.

“This is money on the hood that can go to driving down the purchase price,” said Will Barrett, director of clean air advocacy for the American Lung Association in California. “It gives people a real tangible, on-the-spot incentive to make the clean-air choice.”

The auto industry says more generous rebates are needed because several car manufacturers are close to running out of federal tax credits of up to $7,500 per electric vehicle.

The fuel standard won't get California to its pollution-reduction targets on its own, but is an important part of state officials' three-pronged approach to reducing transportation emissions by shifting to cleaner fuels, slashing tailpipe emissions and reducing driving through transit-oriented development.

As part of the expansion of the program, the air board also established new protocols for generating credits through carbon capture and sequestration projects that collect emissions before they spew into the atmosphere and injects them underground. Those adjustments reflect a growing recognition by experts and regulators that sequestration will be essential to keeping global temperatures from rising no more than 2 degrees Celsius and avoiding the most devastating consequences of climate change.

The expansion of the low-carbon fuels program was greeted enthusiastically by biofuel producers and other renewable energy interests who benefit from the credit-based program and say it will help continue the shift toward cleaner technology.

The oil industry, the main target of the rules, has warned of increased costs that will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher gas prices.

Air Resources Board spokesman Dave Clegern said the low-carbon fuel standard is just one part of a portfolio of state greenhouse gas reduction policies that “has the potential to save individual California households money, as efficiency-related actions that reduce the amount of fuel used offset the somewhat higher costs of some low-carbon fuels today.”

During the two-day meeting, the state air board also approved a list of 10 communities hard hit by health-damaging air pollution from freeways, ports, warehouses, rail yards, oil wells, refineries and other industry that will be targeted for air monitoring, emissions reductions or both.


• Tony Barboza is a reporter who covers air quality and the environment with a focus on Southern California. He has been on staff at the Los Angeles Times since 2006, is a graduate of Pomona College and completed a Ted Scripps Fellowship in Environmental Journalism at the University of Colorado.

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=d4956c8d-f076-4a3f-930f-e233f078dad6 (http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=d4956c8d-f076-4a3f-930f-e233f078dad6)
http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=647fbd99-3baf-45bb-ae10-3a1f70dbd4bc (http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=647fbd99-3baf-45bb-ae10-3a1f70dbd4bc)

Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on January 19, 2019, 01:45:31 pm

from the print edition of the Los Angeles Times…

Memo to state GOP: Separate from Trump

President Trump helped sink congressional candidates.

By GEORGE SKELTON | Friday, January 18, 2019

(https://misc.pagesuite.com/3630c326-c935-42f5-b0da-daebc36b7646/images/IMG_LA-3064429_ME_1106_r_2_1_914QS6BP.jpg) (https://misc.pagesuite.com/3630c326-c935-42f5-b0da-daebc36b7646/images/IMG_LA-3064429_ME_1106_r_2_1_914QS6BP.jpg)
Ousted Representative Dana Rohrabacher was among seven GOP congressional candidates to lose in November, costing the party half its seats in the state.
 — Photograph: Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times.

A NEW dissection of votes from the November election has produced solid evidence that President Trump cost California Republicans seven congressional seats.

That was half of the state's already measly GOP House contingent. Democrats now outnumber Republicans 46 to 7 in the California delegation.

More precisely, it was the Republican candidates' kowtowing to the very unpopular president and his congressional agenda that cost them the support of local voters.

As it turned out, even little-known gubernatorial candidate John Cox ran better in six of their districts than did the Republican congressional candidates. And four were well-established incumbents with a long history of election victories.

The smart thing for the California Republican Party to do would be to stop living in denial and accept the costly lesson: To survive in competitive California congressional districts, a GOP candidate must stay as far away from Trump as possible.

If the president asks for a vote, leap to the other side. If he flies out to California, run for cover.

That, of course, carries different risks. A partisan elected official who repeatedly crosses party leadership — especially if it includes a president or governor — is apt to lose campaign money, key committee assignments and any hope of passing bills.

But a wise political leader — for example, legendary Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (Democrat-San Francisco) — would advise his members to vote however necessary to win re-election and keep the party in power.

Clearly, House Republicans in California got no such advice from Trump or their then-majority leader, Representative Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield.

“Republicans are now at this historic low in California, but it will only get worse if Trump heads the ticket in 2020,” longtime Republican political analyst Tony Quinn wrote last week in the blog Fox & Hounds.

“Any Republican up [for re-election] next year ought to hope that somehow Trump is impeached and convicted, and that Vice President Pence is at the top of the ticket.”

Quinn is editor of the non-partisan California Target Book, which handicaps congressional and legislative races. A Target Book researcher, Rob Pyers, analyzed the election votes in each district. Quinn reported the numbers in his blog post.

The Republican losers were Representatives Dana Rohrabacher of Costa Mesa, Mimi Walters of Irvine, Steve Knight of Palmdale, David Valadao of Hanford and Jeff Denham of Turlock, plus two nonincumbent former state legislators, Young Kim of Fullerton and Diane Harkey of Dana Point.

In all but Valadao's district, underfunded Cox ran better than the congressional contenders. So did former Republican Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner, bidding unsuccessfully for his old job as a nonpartisan independent. Also, the failed Republican-sponsored gas tax repeal, Proposition 6, carried every GOP-held congressional district.

“Had the Republicans run as well as the gas tax repeal, they would have picked up three seats instead of losing seven,” Pyers says.

(https://misc.pagesuite.com/3630c326-c935-42f5-b0da-daebc36b7646/images/IMG_LA-3063915_ME_1103_C_2_1_FN4QQTR4.jpg) (https://misc.pagesuite.com/3630c326-c935-42f5-b0da-daebc36b7646/images/IMG_LA-3063915_ME_1103_C_2_1_FN4QQTR4.jpg)
Republican John Cox with Young Kim, one of six GOP House hopefuls he out-ran in his bid for governor. — Photograph: Irfan Khan/Los Angeles Times.

The crucial mis-step for the Republican losers was voting for Trump's tax cuts — which actually were tax hikes for many of their constituents — and to kill popular Obamacare. Only Rohrabacher opposed the tax bill.

The tax and Obamacare votes tied the Republican House members tightly to Trump and made them fat targets.

Democratic candidates wisely ran on healthcare, pledging to preserve the ban on insurance companies denying coverage because of pre-existing medical conditions.

The so-called tax cut especially hit upper-middle income and wealthy Californians. Many reside in the Orange County suburban districts that Republicans were trying to defend. It hurt these voters by capping state and local tax deductions at $10,000 on federal returns.

It's not as if the seven Republican House candidates hadn't been fore-warned about Trump's toxicity. In each of their districts, Trump lost in 2016 to Hillary Clinton. But they didn't adapt, which is symbolic of the GOP itself in California.

GOP leaders have been blaming their shellacking on everything except Trump: The Democrats raised more money, they were better organized, they used a new law to “harvest” votes — collecting people's sealed mail ballots and delivering them.

“Republicans can point their finger at anybody they want but unless they're pointing it at themselves, they're not going to learn the lesson of the 2018 election,” says Darry Sragow, a long-time Democratic strategist who publishes the Target Book. “The lesson is what the Republican Party is selling in California under Donald Trump, the voters simply aren't buying. The [border] wall is one example.

“Second, for some perverse reason, he has made a habit of sticking a finger in the eyes of California. Beyond policy, it's gotten personal.

“The numbers,” Sragow adds, “paint a crystal clear picture of why the Republicans did so badly in California.”

“It's hard to dispute that and I'm not going to try,” says Republican consultant Wayne Johnson, Cox's campaign guru. “If the election was a referendum on Trump — and to an extent it was — that was a losing hand in California.”

Johnson says the GOP congressional candidates “were saddled with a Beltway message, talking about low unemployment, business is doing great, the tax cuts. Well, none of that translated to California voters.

“Cox's message was the exact opposite: We're actually in trouble in California. The homeless population is going through the roof, we've got the highest poverty rate in the country, high cost of living….”

Cox got walloped by Democrat Gavin Newsom. Yet he still won roughly half a million more votes than the Trump lemmings running for Congress.


George Skelton reported from Sacramento.

• Political columnist George Skelton has covered government and politics for more than 50 years and for the Los Angeles Times since 1974. He has been a L.A. Times political writer and editor in Los Angeles, Sacramento bureau chief and White House correspondent. He has written a column on California politics, “Capitol Journal”, since 1993. Skelton is a Santa Barbara native, grew up in Ojai and received a journalism degree at San Jose State.

https://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=dd748f64-2db2-4309-8a39-6fd9471c20e1 (https://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=dd748f64-2db2-4309-8a39-6fd9471c20e1)
https://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=65c989c5-442a-4155-b309-7ff055ab3b13 (https://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=65c989c5-442a-4155-b309-7ff055ab3b13)

Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on September 07, 2019, 10:57:17 pm

from The New York Times…

Justice Department Investigates California
Emissions Pact That Embarrassed Trump

The investigation escalates a standoff between President Trump, California and
the auto industry over one of his most significant rollbacks of climate regulations.

By HIROKO TABUCHI and CORAL DAVENPORT | Friday, September 06, 2019

(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2019/09/06/climate/06CLI-AUTOEMISSIONS1/06CLI-AUTOEMISSIONS1-jumbo.jpg) (https://static01.nyt.com/images/2019/09/06/climate/06CLI-AUTOEMISSIONS1/06CLI-AUTOEMISSIONS1-superJumbo.jpg)
The automakers under anti-trust investigation are Ford, Volkswagen, Honda and BMW. — Photograph: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images.

THE Justice Department has opened an antitrust inquiry into the four major automakers that struck a deal with California (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/climate/automakers-rejecting-trump-pollution-rule-strike-a-deal-with-california.html) this year to reduce automobile emissions, according to people familiar with the matter, escalating a standoff over one of the president's most significant rollbacks of climate regulations.

In July, four automakers — Ford Motor Company, Volkswagen of America, Honda and BMW — announced that they had reached an agreement in principle with California on emissions standards stricter than those being sought by the White House. The announcement came as an embarrassment for the Trump administration, which assailed the move as a “P.R. stunt.”

Now, the Justice Department is investigating whether the four automakers violated federal anti-trust laws by reaching a deal with California, on the grounds that the agreement could potentially limit consumer choice, those people said. The Justice Department declined to comment on the investigation, which was reported by The Wall Street Journal.

The investigation comes amid a battle over the Trump administration's effort to drastically roll back Obama-era rules intended to reduce emissions from cars and light trucks that contribute to global warming, a rollback that major automakers have publicly opposed (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/06/climate/trump-auto-emissions-rollback-letter.html). The administration is also considering a plan to revoke California's legal authority (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/05/climate/trump-auto-pollution-california.html) to enforce stricter greenhouse gas emissions rules within its state borders, putting the two sides on a collision course.

In a clear signal that the administration intends to increase the pressure on California, top lawyers from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Transportation Department on Friday sent a letter of rebuke to Mary D. Nichols, the state's senior clean air official. “The purpose of this letter is to put California on notice” that its deal with automakers “appears to be inconsistent with federal law,” the letter read.

The letter asserts that California is overstepping its authority under the Clean Air Act, which allows it to write statewide air pollution rules, by attempting to set fuel economy standards and to influence regulations nationwide.  Those powers, the letter says, are “squarely vested” with Congress.

An E.P.A. spokesman referred questions about the investigation to the Justice Department.

Governor Gavin Newsom of California said in a statement his state would “remain undeterred.”

“The Trump administration has been attempting and failing to bully car companies for months now,” Governor Newsom said. “California stands up to bullies and will keep fighting for stronger clean car protections that protect the health and safety of our children and families.”

If the Justice Department decides to take action against the car companies as a result of the investigation, anti-trust experts said, its lawyers would most likely argue that, by agreeing to a tougher standard than federal law requires, the companies could end up imposing a more expensive range of cars for sale nationwide.

“That anti-competitive theory relies on the idea that it is improper to agree to do more than what is required by the federal government,” said Nicholas S. Bryner, a professor at Louisiana State University who specializes in environmental law.

“Given that California has the legal authority to create emissions rules that are stricter than federal rules, this case doesn't make any sense,” Mr. Bryner said. “From an environmental perspective, this move seems designed to intimidate California and the automakers that signed onto the deal.”

Other legal experts and people close to the Trump administration agreed that the investigation was meant as a show of force to companies that have displeased the president.

“These are four car companies standing in the way of something the president wants to do,” said Richard Revesz, a professor of environmental law at New York University. “Now the enormous prosecutorial power of the federal government is brought to bear against them. This should make any large companies very nervous.”

He said the Justice Department investigation was surprising because the agreement between California and the auto companies has not yet been signed or legally formalized. “It is extremely unusual for a prosecutor to investigate a deal that hasn't even been signed,” Mr. Revesz said.

Myron Ebell, who led the administration's E.P.A. transition team and who now heads the energy program at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an industry-funded research organization, said antitrust laws were often used as a “shot across the bow to get the attention of corporations.”

“The anti-trust statutes give the government quite a lot of power to threaten companies with anti-collusion charges,” Mr. Ebell said.

The investigation appears to have already had an effect. Another auto company, Mercedes-Benz, had been poised to join the California agreement. But after the German government learned of the federal investigation into the other companies that had signed on, it warned Mercedes not to join, according to a person familiar with the matter who spoke anonymously about it because of the sensitivity of the negotiations.

The original Obama-era standards would have required automakers to roughly double the fuel economy of their new cars, pickup trucks and SUVs by 2025. That would have meant manufacturing vehicles that would average roughly 54 miles per gallon.

The agreement reached between California and the four automakers, which account for about 30 percent of the United States auto market, allows for slightly lower fuel economy, requiring an average fleetwide fuel economy of 51 miles per gallon by 2026. California has legal authority under the Clean Air Act to write air pollution rules that go beyond the federal government's.

In comparison, the Trump administration's plan would roll back those standards to about 37 miles per gallon.

Automakers had feared that the rift would split the domestic market — with California and the 13 other states that follow its lead enforcing one set of standards, and the rest of the country following the more lenient federal standards — resulting in a messy patchwork of regulations requiring two separate lineups of vehicles.

To avert that outcome, the four automakers entered secretive negotiations with California to agree on standards that would apply to vehicles sold nationwide. Some of their peers have been more cautious, saying they fear retribution from an unpredictable administration.

The Trump administration's plan would have immense climate effects (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/03/climate/trump-climate-emissions-rollback.html). Assuming that the plan is finalized and survives the expected legal challenges, cars and trucks in the United States would emit an extra 321 million to 931 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere between now and 2035 as a result of the weaker rules, according to an analysis (https://rhg.com/research/the-biggest-climate-rollback-yet) by the research firm Rhodium Group.

“The motivation for the anti-trust suit is to prevent car companies from voluntarily fighting climate change by limiting pollution,” said Ann Carlson, a professor of environmental law at the U.C.L.A. School of Law. “So it's hard to call the D.O.J. position ‘in the interest of consumers’.”

Honda, Ford and BMW confirmed that they had been contacted in the matter by the Justice Department and said they were cooperating. Volkswagen declined to comment.

A BMW spokesman, Mathias Schmidt, said in an email the company was looking forward to explaining the California agreement's “benefits to consumers and the environment.”


Katie Benner and Jack Ewing contributed reporting to this story.

Hiroko Tabuchi (https://www.nytimes.com/by/hiroko-tabuchi) is a climate reporter for The New York Times, based in New York. She previously wrote for the paper on Japanese economics, business and technology from Tokyo. In 2013, Ms. Tabuchi was part of the team awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Explanatory Reporting (http://www.pulitzer.org/citation/2013-Explanatory-Reporting) “for its penetrating look into business practices by Apple and other technology companies that illustrates the darker side of a changing global economy for workers and consumers.” In 2011, Ms. Tabuchi was part of a team whose coverage of the tsunami and nuclear disaster in Japan was named a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize for international reporting. Ms. Tabuchi came to The New York Times in 2008 after a year as a Tokyo correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, where she covered an eclectic beat ranging from politics and labor issues to fashion and consumer culture. Prior to The Wall Street Journal, she spent three years as a reporter at the Tokyo bureau of the Associated Press. She is a native of Kobe, Japan, and is a graduate of the London School of Economics and Political Science.

Coral Davenport (https://www.nytimes.com/by/coral-davenport) covers energy and environmental policy, with a focus on climate change, from The New York Times' Washington bureau. She has covered these issues since 2006, reporting for Congressional Quarterly, Politico and National Journal before joining The New York Times in 2013. Her coverage at The N.Y. Times has included reporting from atop the Greenland ice sheet, breaking the news of Volkswagen's illegal use of software devices to evade pollution regulations, and a 2016 interview with President Obama about his efforts to build an environmental legacy. Before covering environmental policy, she worked as a freelance reporter and food and travel writer in Athens, Greece, covering culinary trends, arts and culture, the economy, terrorism and security, and the 2004 Athens Olympics for publications from the Christian Science Monitor to Conde Nast Traveler. She got her start at the Daily Hampshire Gazette in Hampshire County, Massachusetts, after graduating from Smith College with a degree in English literature.

• A version of this article appears in The New York Times on Saturday, September 7, 2019, on page A1 of the New York print edition with the headline: “U.S. Investigates Emissions Pledge”.


Related to this topic:

 • White House Prepares to Revoke California's Right to Set Tougher Pollution Rules (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/05/climate/trump-auto-pollution-california.html) (September 5, 2019)

 • 84 Environmental Rules Being Rolled Back Under Trump (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks.html) (June 2, 2019)

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/06/climate/automakers-california-emissions-antitrust.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/06/climate/automakers-california-emissions-antitrust.html)

Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on September 09, 2019, 11:17:26 pm

from The Washington Post…

Trump can't erase a decade of clean air progress with a Sharpie

(https://www.washingtonpost.com/resizer/uoQ7x7utPKOn5GFB4-3mqFqVgz4=/90x90/s3.amazonaws.com/arc-authors/washpost/df0b5deb-e6fd-471f-9172-182386d31f78.png) (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-cant-erase-a-decade-of-clean-air-progress-with-a-sharpie/2019/09/08/8d6393de-d248-11e9-86ac-0f250cc91758_story.html) By ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER | 7:11PM EDT — Sunday, September 08, 2019

(https://www.washingtonpost.com/resizer/k5XAyGsK2vyOl8zZyAGqk4AH8XU=/1484x0/arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/QB7W47GSNMI6TFQQ7NLMKURODQ.jpg) (https://www.washingtonpost.com/resizer/k5XAyGsK2vyOl8zZyAGqk4AH8XU=/1484x0/arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/QB7W47GSNMI6TFQQ7NLMKURODQ.jpg)
Commuters navigate morning traffic as they drive toward downtown Los Angeles in July 2019. — Photograph: Mike Blake/Reuters.

CALIFORNIA has been a leader in the fight to clean our air since one of my heroes, Ronald Reagan, was our governor.

The Trump administration, for some reason, is hell-bent on reversing decades of history and progress. Whether it is political pettiness, short-sightedness or just plain jealousy, I couldn't tell you.

I can tell you that it's wrong. It's un-American. And it's an affront to long-standing conservative principles.

To understand why I'm so angry about the administration's move to revoke California's waiver (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-emissions-california/us-moving-to-block-california-vehicle-emissions-rules-idUSKCN1VQ24M) to regulate automobile emissions, you must understand the history. In 1967, Reagan established (https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/about/history) the California Air Resources Board to fight crippling pollution. He appointed as its first director not a political hack or lobbyist, but a scientist, Arie Jan Haagen-Smit, who was a pioneering researcher of the causes and impacts of smog. The 1970 Clean Air Act (https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/evolution-clean-air-act), signed by another California Republican, President Richard M. Nixon, gave California the authority to regulate air pollution — and ever since, we have had what is called a waiver from the federal government to set car pollution limits.

Historically, it worked well. We set our standards, and the federal government didn't just respect our authority, it generally made our rules the standard for the entire nation. During my time as governor, we had some hiccups with George W. Bush administration officials. They told us greenhouse gases were not a pollutant, and we won in the Supreme Court (https://www.oyez.org/cases/2006/05-1120) (duh). Then they didn't approve our clean air waiver, but that ended when President Barack Obama took office and made a compromise version (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/obama-administration-auto-industry-strike-deal-on-vehicle-fuel-efficiency/2011/07/27/gIQA72mKdI_story.html) of our state standard the national standard.

The Trump administration's threat to revoke our waiver to clean our air is more extreme. And coming from a Republican White House, it's downright hypocritical.

How many times have you heard conservatives beat the drum of states' rights? But suddenly, when a state wants to pollute less and protect its citizens from deadly pollution, conservatives throw states' rights straight out the window. Nixon and Reagan understood the importance of California's right to clean air, but some so-called Republicans today seem to only believe in states' rights when it's convenient, when the state voted for their party, or when the state is doing something really dumb.

How many times have you heard Republicans talk about being pro-business? But now, when automakers plead with the administration that they don't want the Stone Age standards the White House is fighting for, some Republicans aren't acting very pro-business. This administration is even taking the extraordinary step of investigating four companies (https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/justice-dept-launches-antitrust-probe-of-automakers-over-their-fuel-efficiency-deal-with-california/2019/09/06/29a22ee6-d0c7-11e9-b29b-a528dc82154a_story.html) — Ford, Honda, BMW and Volkswagen — that made an agreement with California to reduce their emissions. That agreement is another compromise, because California isn't anti-business. And I guarantee you that more big car-makers will be joining those forward-thinking companies.

How many times have you heard Republicans talk about security and public safety? When Americans are attacked or bridges collapse, we demand action. We know pollution sickens and kills (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/10/19/pollution-kills-9-million-people-each-year-new-study-finds) hundreds of thousands; the administration's own EPA says lowering the automobile standard will literally kill more people (https://www.vox.com/2019/8/21/20826601/trump-auto-company-fuel-economy-california). But suddenly public safety doesn't matter much anymore.

So why is revoking California's waiver even being discussed?

I'm sure the EPA and the White House will continue to say this dumb policy decision is all about stopping regulations that “cripple the economy.”

They should come out to California. Last year, the U.S. economy grew by 2.9 percent (https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/02/28/u-s-economy-2018-growth-2-6-q-4-and-2-9-year/3010070002/). California's economy, with our supposedly crippling regulations, grew by 3.5 percent (https://www.bea.gov/system/files/2019-07/qgdpstate0719.pdf) . We've outpaced the nation's economic growth even as we've protected our people.

Our success is built on our consistency. Ever since Reagan, each governor has continued the legacy of moving toward a clean energy future. We don't play the games Washington does, with each administration changing the trajectory of the United States and forcing businesses to guess about where we are headed.

That's a big reason nearly half of the venture capital (https://www.citylab.com/life/2016/02/the-spiky-geography-of-venture-capital-in-the-us/470208) in the United States comes to California. Businesses aren't just thinking about their talking points for their next campaign. They're planning for five years, 10 years, 20 years. Businesses must have long-term vision to succeed.

Knee-jerk reactionary policies such as the move to revoke our clean air waiver create uncertainty. These companies have been planning and working toward cleaner cars for a decade. They didn't ask for the Trump administration's backward thinking, and they know it won't help them. This “solution” in search of a problem reminds me of the nine words (https://tinyurl.com/ok8xr7r) that most terrified Reagan: “I'm from the government and I'm here to help.”

Business leaders — and Californians — know that you can't just erase decades of history and progress by drawing a line through it with a Sharpie. It's time the administration learns that lesson.

California will fight this decision. And I promise you, we will win.


(https://www.washingtonpost.com/resizer/sF7RSYi9S1pWKryjmkwrq51vM_k=/112x112/arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/RVFIWXVIOAI6PM5KYDRODVA6HA.jpg) (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-cant-erase-a-decade-of-clean-air-progress-with-a-sharpie/2019/09/08/8d6393de-d248-11e9-86ac-0f250cc91758_story.html) • Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, is a former governor of California.


Related to this topic:

 • Dana Milbank: Donald and the Black Sharpie (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/donald-and-the-black-sharpie/2019/09/06/44202240-d0b9-11e9-b29b-a528dc82154a_story.html)

 • Eugene Robinson: Trump's Sharpie-doctored hurricane map embodies the man (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-sharpie-doctored-hurricane-map-embodies-the-man/2019/09/05/86d95cec-d009-11e9-8c1c-7c8ee785b855_story.html)

 • Greg Sargent: Not just Sharpie-gate: 7 other times officials tried to fabricate Trump's ‘truth’ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/09/05/not-just-sharpie-gate-other-times-officials-tried-fabricate-trumps-truth)

 • Jennifer Rubin: Trump isn't even good at lying anymore (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/09/05/trump-isnt-even-good-lying-any-more)

 • Dana Milbank: Trump's Dorian response: Par for the course (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-dorian-response-par-for-the-course/2019/09/03/e0148242-ce8c-11e9-8c1c-7c8ee785b855_story.html)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-cant-erase-a-decade-of-clean-air-progress-with-a-sharpie/2019/09/08/8d6393de-d248-11e9-86ac-0f250cc91758_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-cant-erase-a-decade-of-clean-air-progress-with-a-sharpie/2019/09/08/8d6393de-d248-11e9-86ac-0f250cc91758_story.html)

Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on September 14, 2019, 06:56:43 pm
so says the white trash post

Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on September 14, 2019, 10:43:33 pm

Trump is going all-out to kill the American car-manufacturing industry.

Faaaarking hilarious, eh?

And California will tie Trump up in the courts for many years to come.

Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Im2Sexy4MyPants on October 05, 2019, 04:30:08 pm

Title: Re: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…
Post by: Kiwithrottlejockey on October 16, 2019, 08:16:43 pm

from The New York Times…

EDITORIAL: Trump Governs by Grudge in California

Californians don't vote for Trump, and he's showing them what he can do about it.

By THE NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL BOARD | Friday, October 04, 2019

(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2019/10/05/opinion/04california/04california-jumbo.jpg) (https://static01.nyt.com/images/2019/10/05/opinion/04california/04california-superJumbo.jpg)
Illustration by Nicholas Konrad; Photographs by Pete Marovich for The New York Times and Getty Images.

IN 1961, at a news conference three years before he became the Republican presidential nominee, the right-wing Arizona senator Barry Goldwater, surveying the progressive tendencies of voters in New York and its neighbors, was moved to observe (https://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/14/republicans-nominate-goldwater-for-president-july-15-1964-240466): “Sometimes I think this country would be better off if we could just saw off the Eastern Seaboard and let it float out to sea.”

President Trump may be forgiven for feeling the same way about California, a state that gets the president's goat more than any other. He lost the state by about two to one in 2016, and a new poll by the Institute of Governmental Studies (https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-09-25/trump-california-unpopular-poll-2020-election) at the University of California, Berkeley, says he's likely to do even worse next time, maybe falling short of even 30 percent of the vote.

Meanwhile, he is being hammered on a regular basis by California's energetic attorney general, Xavier Becerra. As of late last month, Mr. Becerra had filed or joined 60 lawsuits (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/03/climate/trump-california-environment.html) against the Trump administration, on issues ranging from the environment to immigration to the census, where legal action by California and other states blocked the administration's effort to add a citizenship question to the census survey.

For the last few weeks, Mr. Trump has been deep into retaliation mode, occasionally for reasons of policy, more often out of pique. His decision last month to try to revoke (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/17/climate/trump-california-emissions-waiver.html) California's historic right to set its own vehicle emissions and greenhouse gas standards was largely a policy matter, part and parcel of his effort to roll back President Obama's aggressive clean car rules. That effort would be rendered incomplete as long as California maintained the right to set its own higher standards, which govern a huge chunk of the car market now and would do so going forward unless somehow Mr. Trump, in plain violation (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/18/opinion/california-clean-air-trump.html) of the original Clean Air Act, got rid of it.

Two other recent actions by the administration seem more spiteful. On September 24, Andrew Wheeler, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, sent a letter to the state (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/24/climate/trump-california-climate-change.html) accusing it of failing to meet federal air quality standards (https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A846a6159-dc9a-4e13-838c-815cfcc438d1) and threatening to withhold billions in federal highway funds if California did not do more to clean up its air. Two days later (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/climate/trump-california.html), Mr. Wheeler sent another letter (https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/1854-epa-letter-to-california/5bea05fe6a916e64e079/optimized/full.pdf#page=1) charging California officials with failing to address multiple instances of discharges exceeding federal standards under the Clean Water Act, including pollution from trash, drug paraphernalia and human waste left on the pavement by homeless people in big cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles. (Mr. Trump has blasted state officials (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/17/us/politics/trump-california-homeless.html) for being too tolerant of the homeless, but has offered no concrete solutions and actually cut funding for housing in his recent budgets.)

It is true that California has dirty air. According to the American Lung Association, seven of the country's 10 metropolitan areas with the worst ozone or smog pollution (https://www.lung.org/our-initiatives/healthy-air/sota/) are in California. There are several reasons: California has a warm climate, a lot of people and vehicles, huge agriculture and fossil fuel industries, and mountainous terrain that traps pollutants in the skies above populous areas. California has long been aware of the problem; that is, in fact, precisely the reason it asked the federal government for permission, in the late 1960s, to set its own strict air pollution standards, permission the Trump administration is now seeking to revoke.

But no similar threats were sent to three dozen other states that, according to The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/09/24/trump-officials-threaten-withhold-highway-funds-california-its-chronic-air-quality-problems), contain counties that failed to meet those national benchmarks for air pollution. Nor were any threatening letters sent to the estimated 3,500 community water systems (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/epa-tells-california-it-is-failing-to-meet-its-obligations-to-protect-the-environment/ar-AAHSLS0) elsewhere in the country that failed to comply with federal water quality standards.

So what, really, is the purpose of Mr. Wheeler's public scoldings? To portray Californians as uniquely irresponsible? To deflect criticism from Mr. Trump's own sorry environmental record? It's hard to tell, but knowing Mr. Trump and his jealousies, he must hate it that when the world seeks evidence that America cares about climate change, it looks to state capitals like Sacramento and Albany and Olympia, and not Mr. Trump's Washington D.C.-based administration. Also, Hillary Clinton's four million vote margin (https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/results/california) in the state more than accounted for his national popular vote loss (https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/results/california-president-clinton-trump).

Meanwhile, as Mr. Trump's handmaiden, Mr. Wheeler has done the reputation of his agency no favors. There have been times in the E.P.A.'s long and controversial life when it fell down on the job by abdicating its regulatory responsibilities, as it did during Ann Gorsuch's reign (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/02/01/neil-gorsuchs-mother-once-ran-the-epa-it-was-a-disaster) under President Ronald Reagan. There have been times when it has been accused of over-reach simply for carrying out its responsibilities under the nation's basic environmental laws. But never, so far as we can recall, has it been so obviously deployed as an instrument of political retribution.

Californians fear that more such warfare lies ahead. Rumors abound in Sacramento that Mr. Trump is poised to use the federal Endangered Species Act to roll back protections for California's migratory salmon and other species by pumping more water from California's Central Valley to farms and cities. To preserve the delicate balance now in place, the State Legislature last month approved a remarkable bill (https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2019/09/14/legislators-pass-bill-reverse-trump-environment-rollback) that would have allowed the state's own endangered species protections to override anything that Mr. Trump proposed to do. Though a strong environmentalist, Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed the bill because he said it would limit his own efforts to find a compromise among the water users.

Even so, the Legislature's action sends a strong message to Mr. Trump: Leave us and our environment alone.


The New York Times Editorial Board (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/opinion/editorialboard.html) represents the opinions of the board, its editor and the publisher. It is separate from the newsroom and the Op-Ed section.

• A version of this article appears in The New York Times on Saturday, October 05, 2019, on page A22 of the New York print edition with the headline: “A President Governing by Grudge”.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/opinion/editorials/donald-trump-california-emissions.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/opinion/editorials/donald-trump-california-emissions.html)