The RAnts of RA

I really enjoy reading articles on Michelle Malkin and most of the time I agree with the piece. I was thrilled to see the author was Doug Powers, because I am not familiar with him at all. In his July 1st post, titled, “Google to Pay Heterosexuals Less Than Homosexuals,” he is dead wrong.

Let’s get a little background. Powers quotes a post, on MSNBC:

Google plans to pay gay employees more

Google is set to begin covering a cost that gay and lesbian employees must pay when their partners receive domestic partner health benefits, according to a report in the New York Times.

The cost is largely to compensate these workers for an extra tax that heterosexual married couples do not pay. The increase will be retroactive to the beginning of the year, the newspaper said.

Google is not the first large company to make up for the extra tax, the Times reported, adding that Google’s move could inspire its Silicon Valley competitors to follow suit, as they compete for the same talent.

If Google wants to pay deviants more, I say let them. Let consumers decide if they want to spend their money or use the services of a company that supports the “gay rights” agenda. Those that are offended can choose to take their business elsewhere.

However, this being said, if Google can legally discriminate against straight employees, then other businesses should have the right to choose their own policies as well. I’ve never understood the rationale behind the whole discrimination beef and all the laws and regulations that go along with it.

Let’s say I own a business and I have two employees. One is a married man with five children and a stay-at-home wife. The other is a single young man with no dependents, living at home with his parents. Both men are hard workers,  punctual and reliable. You feel blessed to have two dependable workers but you know that your married employee with five children is really struggling to support his family. You want to help by giving him a raise but the law says, if you give him a raise it’s “discrimination” unless  you also give your single young man a raise.

Stuff and nonsense. A business owner should have  the right to spend his own hard earned money any way he wishes. Years ago, a man could earn enough working on his own to support his family. Today, it takes a clever person to manage on one income. This is a direct result of the biased laws we have, which prevent employers from doing the right thing (if they want). Who wants to lose a hard worker, simply because he can’t make enough money?

We have more laws on the books that regulate everything under the sun. When is the government going to realize that businesses function best when market contraints dictate policy, rather than government intervention and manipulation.

Just a little something to chew on today.

Just who in the world does Governor Schwarzenegger think he is? What right does that man have to tell me what I can or cannot eat?

I grew up across the street from a dairy farm. Where every few days, I walked across the street with my large mouth 2-gallon jug to purchase fresh milk with the creme on top. Back then we called it “milk.” Today we can’t call it milk because everyone would mistake it for the new and improved inedible dead substitute excuse for milk they sell from every “authorized” retailer in the state.

Does Arnold really think he has the authority to mandate that we drink dead milk, not fit for animal consumption? The gut wrenching affects should be your first clue. Before the close of the legislative session our illustrious leader saw fit to Veto SB 201 a bill written in order to combat standards that were quietly passed in AB 1735 last session.

The way things are going in California; soon we’ll all be forced to live in large communes on small tracks of land allocated to the family unit, where we will grow large gardens, spend the summer canning and raise our own livestock.

CREMA  (California Real Milk Association) is leading the fight again this highly discriminator act that one could almost call arrogance. They issued the following statement:

Read the Governor’s veto statement

Read Senator Florez’ statement to the press

SB 201 Vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger

Our fight for raw milk in CA continues…

Despite our hundreds of calls and letters and overwhelming bipartisan support of the Legislature, our bill was vetoed by the Governor. Politics were at play as the Governor ignored testimony from UC Davis and other scientific experts that HACCP  plans and increased pathogen testing are a better way to regulate raw milk than coliform  limits. Instead, the Governor succumbed to pressure from the CDFA and other parties who would like to regulate raw milk out of business.

What’s next?

Senator Florez  will continue this fight when the new legislative session begins in January. California’s two raw milk dairies will press forward with their joint lawsuit against the CDFA’s  current standard while trying their best to continue operations under difficult conditions. (One dairy has already seen a significant increase in harassment by inspectors in the last week.) They ask for your continued patience and support if there are disruptions in supply.

As consumers, we can continue this fight to save our milk in CA by doing the following:

1. Consider making a donation to the Farm-To-Consumer-Legal Defense Fund. This arm of the Weston A. Price Foundation is providing legal representation to the two California dairies and is crucial to fighting the current standards in AB 1735 so we can still find the milk on store shelves. For more info and to donate click here.
2. Call your lawmakers and tell them how you feel. They listened and responded to us by passing SB 201 out of the Legislature with only four no votes. We need them to be just as responsive when we take this up again in January.
3. Call the Governor’s office and tell him how you feel. Tell him the CDFA is wrong and to read the testimony from the hearings or watch it on our video.
4. Continue telling your store managers how important raw milk is to you. We had strong vocal support from major raw milk retailers at our hearings and behind the scenes. If you are a Whole Foods customer, let them know you want them to keep fighting for us. Their political clout will continue to be critical going forward.
5. Write letters to editors, post on blogs, and tell your friends about the significant health benefits of raw milk. More enthusiastic consumers means more voices in our lawmakers ears.

We Californians have made huge strides in leading the nationwide effort to assure raw milk safety and consumer choice! Let’s be proud of our progress as we press forward in this campaign for nature’s most perfect food!

137 N. Larchmont Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90004

If you haven’t discovered the benefits of drinking raw, natural milk, your family is really missing out. A google search will provide plenty of information both fact and fiction but don’t let that prevent you from exploring your options. Our family was amazed at what we discoved and we are reaping the health benefits from making the switch.

While I admit we aren’t big milk drinkers, we do like a little on our cereal occasionally and you can’t beat milk for dunking oreo cookies. Despite recent campaigns telling consumers otherwise, milk is not necessary to a healthy body but if you are going to drink it, it should be the real deal.

~Annette
Got Milk? REAL Milk?

Child and Family Protection Association recently issued an alert on California Assembly Bill 755 (AB 755) and while I agree that this bill creates a huge problem for parents of young children. I really think they miss the point.

The alert highlights the following points of contention:

AB 755 (Assembly Member Sally Lieber) – Prohibition of Spanking Opposition Points to Share with Legislators
Position: Strongly Oppose
Status: AB 755 (introduced 2/22/07)

Assembly Member Sally Lieber’s first proposal to address all spanking of children ages three and under was never introduced as a bill, apparently due to much opposition. However, contrary to claims originating from her office:

1. She has not “fixed” her no-spank proposal; she has only adopted a different strategy;
2. AB 755 is an anti-spanking bill “in disguise” and would have the effect of abolishing most spanking without using language directly outlawing spanking.
3. Lieber believes that all “good parents” never spank their children; that only “bad parents” do, and therefore “good parents” do not need to be worried about her bill; and
4. When Lieber claims that her bill only deals with child abuse, remember that she believes that all spanking, by definition, is child abuse. Her strategy in AB 755 is to treat all spanking with an object as criminal child abuse. She has deliberately failed to make any distinction between spanking as a method of discipline and true child abuse.

AB 755 would amend Penal Code 273a, which currently makes it a crime to cause unjustifiable pain, harm, or injury to any minor child. AB 755 would create a new “rebuttable presumption” that physical pain or mental suffering inflicted upon a child is unjustifiable if it is caused by any of the seven kinds of actions, which are listed in AB 755.

The first of the seven actions listed is: “the use of an implementation, including, but not limited to, a stick, a rod, a switch, an electrical cord, an extension cord, a belt, a broom, or a shoe.” This first action includes the act of spanking with an implement (i.e. an object other than using one’s hand).

The significance of the new “rebuttable presumption” in AB 755 is that regardless of any circumstances, the police and District Attorney would have to consider all spanking with an implement to be unjustifiable. Parents would have the difficult task of proving (rebutting the charges) that the spanking was justifiable to the satisfaction of the court in a criminal trial in order to avoid being sent to jail for up to one year or receiving other penalties. The case also could be referred to Child Protective Services (CPS) and Juvenile Court, which could result in the possible temporary or permanent loss of custody of their children.

Roy M. Hanson, Jr.
Child and Family Protection Association
Alert issued April 12, 2007
PO Box 730
Lincoln, CA 95648-0730

Let’s put this all in perspective. The only way a parent would ever get caught up in this trap is by being reported by a childcare worker or medical personnel. This means that more parents will think twice before seeking medical attention.

The proposed legislation also requires; if a person is convicted of violating this section and probation is granted, the court shall require the following minimum conditions of probation:

1. A mandatory minimum period of probation of 48 months.
2. A criminal court protective order protecting the victim from further acts of violence or threats, and, if appropriate, residence exclusion or stay-away conditions.
   1. A Successful completion of either a nonviolent parental education class approved by the probation department or no less than one year of a child abuser’s treatment counseling program approved by the probation department. The defendant shall be ordered to begin participation in either the class or the program immediately upon the grant of probation.
   2. The terms of probation for offenders shall not be lifted until all reasonable fees due to the counseling program have been paid in full, but in no case shall probation be extended beyond the term provided in subdivision (a) of Section 1203.1. If the court finds that the defendant does not have the ability to pay the fees based on the defendant’s changed circumstances, the court may reduce or waive the fees.
3. If the offense was committed while the defendant was under the influence of drugs or alcohol, the defendant shall abstain from the use of drugs or alcohol during the period of probation and shall be subject to random drug testing by his or her probation officer.
4. The court may waive any of the above minimum conditions of probation upon a finding that the condition would not be in the best interests of justice. The court shall state on the record its reasons for any waiver.

This bill, as it is written, will provide a huge influx of cash for those offering parental education classes, treatment counseling programs and require more probation officers to be hired and more business for drug testing facilities. All of these “services” provided at the cost of the accused.

Those who are familiar with our court system know that it is currently next to impossible to get a fair trial. This bill will increase the caseload on the court system and does nothing to provided added protections for children.

In short, this bill is a smoke screen – a band-aid that does nothing but rake good parents over the coals and empty their wallets. You’ve heard the fraise “As California goes, so goes the nation.” If this bill is passed, you can expect to see similar legislation passed in many more states.

Related Articles

• AB 755 Action Alert
• AB 755 Alert Supplement
• Read AB 755 – Corporal punishment
• CA: Spanking Ban
• California News Archive