weiner, scott, rep C A
ntbcw dick pic anthony
U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem appeared to take a step toward circumventing federal laws that bar the military from taking part in domestic law enforcement in a letter she sent to the Department of Defense Sunday as the National Guard was deployed to Los Angeles amid mass protests over immigration raids.
In a letter obtained by The San Francisco Chronicle, Noem wrote to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that the Pentagon should direct military forces "to either detain, just as they would at any federal facility guarded by military, lawbreakers under Title 18 until they can be arrested and processed by federal law enforcement, or arrest them."
The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the military from taking part in domestic law enforcement without the authorization of Congress.
Noem called on the DOD to "support to our law enforcement officers and agents across Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and Federal Protective Services (FPS), as they defend against invasive, violent, insurrectionist mobs that seek to protect invaders and military aged males belonging to identified foreign terrorist organizations, and who seek to prevent the deportation of criminal aliens."
Noem did not specify the so-called "identified foreign terrorist organizations" that she claimed are involved in the protests that have erupted in Los Angeles in recent days in response to raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), in which 118 immigrants were arrested last week.
President Donald Trump has referred to the protests against his mass deportation operation as "riots," and has claimed those attending the demonstrations are "insurrectionists," but the protests were reported to be "largely peaceful" before Trump ordered more than 2,000 members of the California National Guard to Los Angeles on Saturday.
On Monday, 700 Marines were also deployed.
Syracuse University law professor William Banks told the Chronicle that Noem's request for members of the military to arrest protesters whom she labeled "lawbreakers" could be a step toward "the invocation of the Insurrection Act."
The Insurrection Act was last invoked in 1992 when Los Angeles residents erupted in fury over the acquittal of four Los Angeles Police Department officers who had been filmed savagely beating Rodney King, a black man who they had pulled over after a high-speed chase.
The 1792 law authorizes the president to deploy military forces domestically to suppress rebellions or unrest, when local or state law enforcement is unable to control the situation.
But Stephen Dycus, a professor emeritus at Vermont Law and Graduate School and an expert in national security law, emphasized that local authorities did not appear to lose control of the protests over the weekend.
Noem's requests for military arrests, along with Trump's federalization of the National Guard and deployment of the Marines, "can be seen as using the military, or at a minimum using that threat, to instill fear in the American people and discourage the kinds of protests that are going on in Los Angeles," Dycus told the Chronicle. "So this could be viewed as a preparation for invoking the Insurrection Act, or it could be viewed as part of a larger effort to frighten people who otherwise would exercise their First Amendment guarantee of free speech and protest."
Banks called Noem's push for military detentions of Los Angeles residents "a grave escalation."
The secretary indicated in her letter to Hegseth that she would send a formal request in the coming days. She also called for "the transportation of munitions" from Fort Benning and Wyoming, but did not say what the weapons would be used for.
California state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-11) said Trump's use of the military to suppress protests—which began when ICE agents searched the garment district of Los Angeles for undocumented workers—proves his mass deportation campaign "has nothing to do with deporting criminals and everything to do with creating a militarized terror police state."
"This isn't what happens in a democracy," Wiener told the Chronicle, "this is what happens in a dictatorship."
220 state senate
https://sanjosespotlight.com/south-bay-senate-candidates-differ-on-controversial-housing-bill/
Santa Clara County Supervisor Dave Cortese, former FEC Chair Ann Ravel and former Assemblywoman Nora Campos, who are running for state Senate,
svdc
In the first round of voting, Cortese led with 65 percent of the vote, just 1 percent shy of the threshold needed to secure the endorsement, before officially securing the club’s support in the second round.
Ravel, a prominent attorney whose campaign has focused on ethics, campaign finance reform and fighting for equality and a fair economy, came close to earning a duel endorsement.
Prameela Bartholomeusz, the club’s finance director, asked the candidates questions about running a clean and fossil fuel-free backed campaign, how to address sexual harassment and violence against women and supporting policies that target Silicon Valley’s housing and transportation woes.
“I can’t remember a time in my two decades of public service where things have been as lined up in Sacramento for us to do great work,” said Cortese, who touted his experience as a San Jose councilmember and Santa Clara County supervisor as preparation to begin tackling issues at the state level.
While the candidates agreed mostly on issues pertaining to education, climate change and women’s rights, they differed on housing and transportation — especially onSenate Bill 50, Scott Weiner’s ambitious housing billthat was recently shelved in the California Senate until next year.
Cortese strongly supported the bill, saying that something has to be done to address the housing crisis. Campos also supported the bill, calling it a “bold” effort.
But Ravel disagreed and did not support the bill.
“We clearly have a really serious housing problem in the state, but the problem with SB 50 that I see is that it shouldn’t really be totally avoiding the rights of individuals who live in various towns to have a voice,” Ravel said. “To eliminate local zoning ability, to have people come before their local cities to talk about their own communities is undemocratic. There are lots of other alternatives for figuring out where housing can go in each community.”
Many questions Monday focused on the prevailing topic of climate change. Candidates were asked whether they would take a pledge to reject campaign contributions from powerful fossil fuel companies.
Cortese was openly against taking money from corporations that harm the environment, saying that it’s “not just to uphold Paris,” referring to the Paris Accord Climate Agreement, but that it’s also about creating “100 percent renewable” energy sources. Ravel agreed, calling big oil and pharmaceutical companies “corporations that have decimated the country.”
Campos also vowed to run a “clean campaign,” vowing to reject money from special interests in California that are “harming the community.”
Addressing sexual harassment and assault was another hot topic at the forefront of Monday night’s debate. Cortese proudly called himself a feminist, saying that gender violence is one of the most serious issues that the country faces due to a lack of government funding.
==
==
sacramento–Today, Senators Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and Jim Nielsen (R-Red Bluff) joined a large coalition of homeowners, school officials, farmers, and small businesses to announce bipartisan legislation aimed at creating a solar bill of rights to protect the right of consumers to generate and store their own clean energy on-site, without interference from utility companies.
:{
}:
Senate Bill 288 enables more consumers to install and maintain renewable energy technologies by addressing some of the main barriers consumers currently face. These challenges include outdated tariffs that make it financially unattractive to install renewable energy technologies, including solar, and unreasonable barriers to connecting to the grid. Although known as the Solar Bill of Rights, SB 288 is technology neutral and applies to all renewable sources of energy and energy storage.
Currently, consumers — including everyday homeowners seeking to lower their electric bills, farmers who see solar as a reliable source of energy, and schools seeking to invest more in their students and less in their energy bills — face unnecessary obstacles and interference from utilities. For instance, many consumers who install on-site energy storage systems and are connected to the electric grid may at times receive no compensation at all for the additional electricity they are storing and putting back into the grid during the times of day when it is most needed. Instead, these same consumers could later be charged for electricity that they themselves discharged onto the electric grid. SB 288 requires the California Public Utilities Commission, the California Independent System Operator, and the board of publicly owned utilities around the state to update relevant tariffs to ensure fair compensation of these distributed energy resources (DERs).
“To fight climate change, California is moving aggressively to 100% renewable energy,” said Senator Wiener. “To meet our 100% renewable energy goal, we must make it easier for individuals, businesses, nonprofits, and public agencies to generate their own renewable energy. This legislation is about ensuring that we all have access to the benefits of solar and other sources of renewable energy. When our public agencies put up barriers to make it harder and less attractive to install renewable energy, we’re all worse for it. California needs to move away from a purely centralized, monopoly approach to energy in California. If we’ve learned anything from our push toward 100% renewable energy and from the recent wildfire disasters, it’s that we need both a diversity of energy sources and more decentralized energy generation. We must make it easier and more affordable — not harder and more expensive — to install and use these technologies.”
“With solar energy being mandated for new homes, it is important for individual homeowners to have fair compensation for energy produced on their properties,” said Senator Nielsen.
The Solar Bill of Rights promotes energy independence by recognizing that all Californians have a right to:
● Generate, store and use renewable energy on their property without interference from utility companies.
● Interconnect their solar and storage to the grid quickly, without utility red tape.
● Be free from discriminatory fees and charges associated with installing solar or storage technologies.
“Reliable and affordable electricity is critical to my business,” said Bill Carriere. “By investing in solar on my farm, I can save money and feel confident that I will have reliable, affordable power. Electric utilities feel threatened by my right to produce my own power for my business, and we need the legislature to step in and make sure those rights can’t be taken away.”
"No one owns the sun,” said Madera homeowner Ramon Torres. “We all know the benefits of going solar but the right to tap into those benefits is not protected. The law should protect my rights and the rights of my neighbors to go solar.”
"Solar energy has become an important part of managing our schools, saving us significant operational funds that can be much better spent on the educational needs of our kids," said Dr. Ken Testa, Director of Facilities for the Merced City School District. "But despite the state's commitment to solar energy, there are real barriers for consumers that need to be seriously addressed, particularly at the interconnection level."
The Solar Bill of Rights will also make it easier for storage customers to provide grid services with their battery, helping to create a more reliable electric grid and receive a fair credit in return.
"Every Californian has the right to make their own energy from the sun without the utility getting in the way, especially in these uncertain times," said Solar Rights Alliance Director Dave Rosenfeld. "The Solar Bill of Rights will guarantee those rights for everyone - homeowners, renters, farmers, businesses, schools - regardless of where you live or what you do. We're grateful to Senators Scott Wiener and Jim Nielsen for working together to stand up for our personal freedoms."
In addition to Senator Nielsen, SB 288 is co-authored by Senator Jeff Stone (R-Temecula) and Assemblymembers Richard Bloom (D-Santa Monica), Laura Friedman (D-Glendale), James Gallagher (R-Yuba City), and Robert Rivas (D-Hollister). Over 50 people joined today’s announcement including dozens of solar workers, farmers, school officials, small business owners, disability rights activists, and organizations including Vote Solar, Solar Rights Alliance, California Solar & Storage Association, Brightline Defense, California Housing Partnership Corporation, and Environment California.
SB 288 was officially introduced on February 13 and will be set for a hearing in the coming months. For the full text of the bill, please click here.
==
Senators Wiener and Nielsen Join Homeowners, School ...
https://sd11.senate.ca.gov › news › 20190219-senators-wiener-and-nielsen...
Missing: agri gop republican
A California bill would set up a backstop authority to meet the ...
https://www.greentechmedia.com › articles › read › california-bill-propose...
Missing: nielsen farm agri gop republican
September archives: California politics news feed - Los ...
https://www.latimes.com › politics › essential › la-pol-ca-essential-politics-up...
Sep 1, 2017 - Jerry Brown on Monday signed legislation to ensure farm labor ...... California's House Republicans all voted in favor of a GOP plan to ...... Jerry Brown to integrate California's electricity grid with other states in ...... Jim Nielsen (R-Gerber). .... Valley schools might have to schedule around agricultural needs.
California lawmakers take up key wildfire proposals - AP News
https://apnews.com › ...
weiner CA bill, jerry signs last minute
Soda, Like Tobacco, Has Serious Health Effects
One Harvard study found that consuming just one to two sugary drinks a day increases your risk of developing diabetes by a whopping 26 percent.Another Harvard analysis showed that men averaging one can a day of a sugary drink had a 20 percent increased risk of heart attack. Further, more than three-quarters of American adults are considered overweight or obese, as are 30 percent of children, according to an international study published in The Lancet.
Soda Taxes, Like Tobacco Taxes, Work
Multiple studies, including a recent analysis by researchers at Drexel University, show that soda taxes work. Drexel surveyed consumers before and after the implementation of Philadelphia’s tax and found that daily consumption of soda decreased by 40 percent and energy drink by 64 percent, while consumption of bottled water increased by 58 percent. Researchers at UC Berkeley’s School of Public Health found that sugary beverage consumption fell 21 percent in Berkeley after that city’s tax was implemented, while water consumption increased by 63 percent over comparison cities.
Many U.S. localities have implemented a soda tax to reduce obesity and related public health problems: Berkeley, CA; Philadelphia, PA; San Francisco, CA; Oakland, CA; Albany, CA; Boulder, CO; Santa Fe, NM (defeated 2017); Cook County, IL (repealed 2017); and Seattle, WA. In each locality, the American Beverage Association (ABA) has bankrolled a big-dollar PR campaign against the tax.
States with soda taxes include West Virginia (1951), Arkansas, Virginia, and Tennessee. And there are more than 30 countries with soda taxes, including France, Hungary, Ireland, Mexico, Norway, Philippines, South Africa, and the UK. Many other countries are pursuing such taxes.
Leading the Opposition: Coke, Pepsi, and the ABA
As cities and counties in the United States use the tools of local democracy to introduce modest soda taxes, they are facing sophisticated opposition spearheaded by the ABA, the blandly named trade association representing Coke, Pepsi, Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, and other sugary drink manufacturers. The use of the ABA name on websites and in anti-soda tax commercials effectively shields the brand-name companies from accountability and culpability for the harms caused by sugary beverages.
The ABA is a $125 million powerhouse bankrolled by the largest players in the soft drink industry. Coke brands include Fanta, Sprite, Fresca, Dasani, Honest Tea, and Minute Maid. PepsiCo brands include Gatorade, 7Up, Tropicana, and Mountain Dew.
In city after city, the ABA has fought grassroots campaigners seeking to implement a soda tax using front groups or big-dollar PR campaigns that spin the tax as a “grocery tax” and a burden on working families. You won’t see the CEOs of Coke and Pepsi making the case against a soda tax. Instead we see sympathetic front men and women, like the African American “single mom” in Chicago who told the camera “We’re being taxed out of Cook County. I’m a single mom. I can’t afford this tax!” The ABA has consistently worked to deflect the conversation away from public health and to frame the tax as an unfair, unnecessary “grocery tax.”
Preemption Strategy to Defeat Soda Taxes Borrowed from Big Tobacco
Municipalities have long played a valuable role as “laboratories of democracy” for important public policy innovations, including in public health. When U.S. cities began to regulate tobacco and create “tobacco free” work environments in the 1980s, the industry jumped into action.
“We could never win at the local level…. So the Tobacco Institute and tobacco companies’ first priority has always been to preempt the field,” said a tobacco lobbyist. Today, the majority of states have some type of tobacco preemption, and the soda industry is borrowing the same technique.
According to Grassroots Change, 12 states have enacted laws preempting local ordinances related to nutrition, including measures rammed through in Michigan, Arizona, and California over the past year.
In Michigan, House Bill 4999 was introduced Sept. 20, 2017, rushed through the legislature, and signed into law on Oct. 31. The bill bans an excise tax “on the manufacture, distribution, wholesale sale, or retail sale of food for immediate consumption or nonimmediate consumption.” Beverage and soda taxes are not mentioned, but included, according to legislative counsel analysis.
A host of agricultural interests were activated to register in favor of the bill, making it a “farm interests” bill. These groups testified in a very vague manner that they make and export many food products and are responsible for a lot of jobs in the state, but did not address any specifics nor mention a beverage tax.
The powerful $100 million National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) also testified in favor of the bill,specifically citing the beverage tax passing in other states. The NFIB has also worked to preempt paid sick days and local minimum wage hikes in other states and was cited by the media as a key player in Michigan.
In Arizona, HB 2484 received its first reading on January 30, 2018, rushed through the legislature, and was signed into law on March 16. This bill also broadly discusses food taxation, not just a beverage tax or a soda tax. The groups registered to lobby for the bill include the Arizona Retailers Association, Arizona Restaurant Association, Arizona Beverage Association, Arizona Food Marketing Alliance, and Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, as well as the Arizona Association of Food Banks. CMD has submitted an open records request to the bill authors for more information.
A bill has been introduced in Illinois (HB 4082) and another is scheduled for a vote in Pennsylvania (HB 2241).
Broad Anti-Grocery Tax Measures on the Ballot in Washington and Oregon
But the strong-arm tactics don’t stop there. The industry is rolling out statewide ballot measures in referendum and initiative states to ban all grocery taxes, including soda taxes.
Seattle’s soda tax took effect in January 2018. Since then, more kids and adults are drinking water, and it brought in more than $10 million in revenue for use on educational and health programs in its first six months. But in February 2018, a committee with the name “Yes! To Affordable Groceries” was launched to make sure the public health measure would not be adopted by any other local governments in Washington. Initiative 1634 is a deceptively simple anti-grocery tax measure that has been run through the corporate spin machine; it opens with the line “Whereas access to food is a basic human need of every Washingtonian.” The soda industry has raised over $20 million for the effort so far, with little organized opposition on the other side.
Heavy-handed industry tactics are also on display in Oregonthis year, where grocers and the ABA have raised $6.5 million on an overly broad constitutional amendment that would not just impact soda taxes but can be read as prohibiting taxes at all stages in the chain of commerce, permanently preventing the state and its cities and counties from levying any taxes related to distribution or sale of groceries. The ABA recently kicked in two enormous cash contributions of $500,000 each.
Opponents of the measures on the ballot in Oregon and Washington appear unlikely to be able to muster the kind of big money wielded by the soda industry. But health groups like the American Heart Association are doing their best to educate the media and voters.
One headline in the Seattle Times summarized what’s on the line for local democracy campaigns well: “Vote for this initiative and you may as well bow down to your corporate overlords.”
Supermajority Strategies and High-Stakes “Hostage Taking” in California
Early in 2018, California had the most soda tax measures under consideration of any state. Cathedral City, Palo Alto, Santa Cruz, and Richmond all seemed poised to join Berkeley, San Francisco, Oakland, and Albany as cities with soda taxes on the books.
That changed in April when the ABA spent millions on a campaign to get an explosively controversial measure on the November ballot that would have required a two-thirds supermajority vote by either voters or an elected body before any tax hike at the local level could be implemented. The move prompted an outcry by mayors across the state and was characterized as an “abomination” by Governor Jerry Brown.
After meeting with the soda industry, the governor cut a deal that resulted in legislators in Sacramento passing a preemption bill to ban local soda taxes until 2030 in exchange for taking the measure off the ballot. The whole incident was called a “shakedown,” “extortion,” and “high-stakes hostage taking” by the media.
Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) said, “Industry is aiming basically a nuclear weapon at governing in California and saying if you don’t do what we want, we’re going to pull the trigger and you are not going to be able to fund basic government services.”
This supermajority tactic, popularized by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which has peddled a “Super-Majority Act” for decades, is now spreading. Following last year’s repeal of a short-lived soda tax in Cook County, Illinois, a group of county commissioners introduced legislation last month that would require a two-thirds supermajority vote by commissioners to enact any new taxes.
Public health groups campaigning for soda taxes did score one big win this year, when the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania upheld the City of Philadelphia’s 2017 soda tax after an industry challenge.
Consumers can anticipate more deep-pocket PR campaigns and tactics in 2019 to bully localities into abandoning the soda tax idea.
==
Comcast, Verizon, AT&T winning fight against restoring net neutrality
Anyone doubting the power lobbyists still hold in Washington need only look at the ongoing, shameful net neutrality travesty.
It was bad enough that Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai, a former Verizon lawyer, engineered the repeal of President Obama’s landmark rules prohibiting Internet Service Providers from blocking or slowing down the internet or giving preference for certain online content.
Now Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee wants to lock the vast majority of Pai’s rules into law through her proposed legislation with the Orwellian title: the Open Internet Preservation Act.
The Verizon, AT& T and Comcast Dream Act would be more appropriate.
Unlike Pai’s new rules, Blackburn’s bill would prevent ISPs from blocking access to websites. That’s good news. But Blackburn would put into law the FCC chairman’s approval to allow ISPs to charge content providers on websites a premium for faster speeds. The legislation would devastate small businesses and startups from being able to compete, throttling creativity and innovation. It would also rake in billions for the ISPs who have poured more than $600 million into their lobbying efforts over the last 20 years.
Blackburn has been one of their prime beneficiaries, receiving more than $500,000 from telecom companies since she took office in 2002, including $84,000 in the most recent election cycle, the biggest contribution to any member of the House of Representatives.
Don’t expect Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell or Republicans in the Senate to stand up for consumers in a heist that will net Verizon, AT& T and Comcast billions. Telecom companies gave Mc-Connell a cool $250,000 in the last election cycle.
Blackburn also went out of her way to block any notion of blue states writing their own net neutrality laws. Her bill would pre-empt states from passing “any law, rule, regulation, duty, requirement, standard or other provision” related to net neutrality.
The Tennessee Republican was well aware that in California only days after the FCC vote, state Sen. Scott Wiener of San Francisco announced that he would introduce a net neutrality bill when the Legislature reconvenes in January. Wiener later indicated that he would join forces with New York state Sen. Brad Hoylman of Manhattan to write legislation that would restore net neutrality to both states. Democrats in Congress are hoping that a small number of Senate Republicans who in the past have expressed some support for net neutrality may find the courage to oppose Blackburn’s bill if it reaches the Senate floor, as expected.
It will take a major show of outrage by consumers and the tech industry to help make the case. They can start by citing a recent survey by the University of Maryland showing that 80 percent of Americans — including 75 percent of Republicans — oppose the notion of repealing net neutrality regulations.
The only alternative is to hope the courts strike down Pai and Blackburn’s efforts — or that enough Democrats win seats in 2018 to start their own cycle of congressional “repeal and replace”.
Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee wants to lock most of the new rules into law through her proposed legislation with the Orwellian title: the Open Internet Preservation Act. The Verizon, AT& T and Comcast Dream Act would be more appropriate.
===-