If you've landed on this blog by mistake, please follow this link:


Please update your bookmarks and the links on your sites.

Join our forum at:

Things To Think About


Our "leaders" here in California passed 725 new laws that went into effect the first of the year. 

One of them was AB 97 that was actually passed in 2006 and parts went into effect in 2008.  At that time, a food facility would have to have some sort of notice or labeling that the food they were serving contained artificial trans-fats.

Then, starting in 2010, the use of trans fats in food facilities was banned with a few exceptions (like bakeries).  Finally, this year, the ban was completed, and all food facilities had to discontinue the use of trans fats.

All except one type of facility.

It would also, commencing January 1, 2011, prohibit any food containing artificial trans fat, from being stored, distributed, or served by, or used in the preparation of any food within, a food facility. The bill would exempt from these prohibitions, specified public school cafeterias and food sold or served in a manufacturer's original, sealed package.
Yeah.  Our exhalted leaders have prohibited private businesses from using trans fats, but have exempted facilities over which they should actually have control.

Is anyone surprised?  Legislators throughout our state ban Happy Meals and prohibit private fast food businesses from opening.  In the schools, they prohibit cupcakes from being distributed during birthday celebrations, and soda and candy is verboten in vending machines. 

But to get their trans fat fix, the only place the kids can get it is by going to the school cafeteria.

Hey, Sacramento!  How about you pass a few less bills, and focus on that $20+ billion deficit?  Stop with the "busy work", OK?

How come this hasn't been reported in a single newspaper or MSM website?  Seriously - why would they have exempted public school cafeterias?  Is the "Public School Trans Fat Lobby" really that strong?

Are those of you who own firearms ready to be thumb printed whenever you buy ammo?  Yep, AB 962 goes into effect on February 1.  No more online ammo sales - they all must be done in face-to-face transactions.

I, for one, will in fact be buying all of my ammo in fact-to-face transactions, but the cashier on the other side of the counter will be a resident of either Oregon (no sales tax) or Nevada (tons of selection and great pricing).

Great plan, California.  Drive more sales revenues to other states.  Do you think that the criminals who we're supposedly being protected from by this bill will do the same thing?

It's not your property any more.

[Donning flame resistant jump suit]

I don't know of anyone who is a proponent of any form of Domestic Violence.  But when did the violence in your life become my financial responsibility?

January 1, 2011 is when.

That's when SB 782 went into effect.  In short, if you are the victim of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking, you cannot be evicted from your rental unit if you're not paying your rent.

So, let's say I own a home that I rent out.  I rent it to a nice family.  Dad wigs out, hits mom and mom gets a restraining order.

Time passes and the rent isn't paid.

The law doesn't specify any time frames for not making the payments, say a 2 or 3 month grace period.  All you need is a restraining order or a police report, and you can live rent free, apparently forever.

There's no provision that mom has to look for other housing.  There's no provision for anything other than mom can't get evicted.

The landlord - a disinterested third-party - has to shoulder the financial burden of mom's violent relationship.  I'm sure the mortgage lender will be understanding...

Hmmm.  What might be the result of this law?  Do you think landlords might start doing a background check on all applicants - men and women - to see if they have any history of filing restraining orders?  How might that play out in determining who will get the rental?

What am I getting at with all of this?

How long will Californians put up with the erosion of basic rights?  We allow our legislators to tell us what kind of fat we can eat.  Really?

We allow them to treat law-abiding gun owners like criminals.  We allow them to absolutely destroy contract law and property rights.

If/when California has to accept the "A" word - austerity - and cut back on government services, the folks that are no longer getting their food, schooling and housing paid for, are going to be joined by the working class folks that are tired of  being abused by Sacramento politicians.

It will be ugly.

And the state leaders scratch their heads when individuals and businesses leave the state.  Who'd a-thunk it?

Plan accordingly.

You can follow Chief Instructor at Accept The Challenge.

Join the APN Forum at www.AmericanPreppersNetwork.net
Visit the California Forum at www.CaliforniaPreppersNetwork.net

Pete Smith said...
January 5, 2011 at 1:03 AM  

You hit the nail right on the head with this one. I have only been here for a little more than ten years and can't follow the route of the legislators of this state. They will take a step forward just so they can fall ten steps behind and think that it's a good thing. I feel sad because this could be a great state to live in, but the local government is absolutely killing this state.

Chief Instructor said...
January 9, 2011 at 10:25 AM  

Pete, I've lived here my entire 51 years, and I've witness the slow, steady rotting of this state. We used to be a leader in most economic and educational categories. People came here to fulfill their wildest dreams.

No, we're a stagnant, decaying infection on the butt of America. I don't know if it's even possible to save our way of life in this state.

Post a Comment

Get Free Templates Here
Template Modifications By Tom: American Preppers Network