Strategic Planning Meeting
Wednesday, 2/27/13 7:00 P.M. Sloughhouse Inn
If you are interested in participating in the planning and implementation of our strategy for the next 2 years, please join us to provide your input and leadership. We will start gathering at 6 P.M. and kick of the meeting at 7 P.M. No-host dinner and drinks as you desire.
Strategic Planning Inititative
We are undertaking a major planning initiative that will guide our activities for the next two years. Please watch for opportunities to provide input to this important activity.
Tateishi - (Cooley?) Debate October 24th at C.R.E.S.
Both 8th Assembly District Candidates have been invited to a debate on the above date. Peter Tateishi has responded that he will attend, but we have not received a response from Ken Cooley. Please review the invitation: CLICK HERE
Candidate Forum with Dan Lungren - Wednesday, September 26 at Cosumnes River Elementary School, starting at 7:00 p.m.
The race for the 7th Congressional District is considered a tight one between incumbent Congressman Lungen and Dr. Ami Bera. In spite of our stubborn efforts, Dr. Bera has refused to talk to us about a debate with Mr. Lungren, so we have planned an in-depth discussion of the issues with Mr. Lungren. The forum will cover many of the issues facing our country and will be moderated by a 3 member panel. There will not be questions from the audience,
We would like your input. CLICK HERE to download or print a question submission form. Bring it to the forum.
Debate Invitation to Dr. Bera is Withdrawn.
Despite our stubborn efforts, we failed to get a response from the Bera campaign about a debate with Congressman Lungren. The invitation has been withdrawn. We are planning a different event with Mr. Lungren.
Voting Record of Richard Pan (Candidate for the 9th Assembly District) CLICK HERE to view.
General Meeting - Wednesday August 22 at 7:00 P.M. at the Consumnes River Elementary School (Doors open at 6:30 - come and visit with your neighbors.)
Our guest speaker will be John McGinness, former Sacramento County Sheriff and currently a talk show host on 1530 KFBK. John will discuss the ballot issues facing the voters in the November election.
Tea Party Patriots join with Progressive Americans for Truth to invite Dr. Ami Bera to debate Congressman Dan Lungren
In spite of sometimes divergent political views, both organizations agreed that voter education is important to the future of our country and agreed to jointly invite Dr. Bera. CLICK HERE to see a copy of the letter.
General Meeting - Wednesday, July 18, 2012 at the Consumnes River Elementary School. Doors open a 6:30 p.m. Meeting starts at 7:00 p.m.
We have two interesting programs - please join us!
Pacific Legal Foundation
PLF was actively involved in arguing the ObamaCare case before the Supreme Court. Join us to hear Richard Fields discuss the implications of the recent ruling.
"Stop Special Interest Money Now"
This initiative is on the November 2012 ballot. It would severely limit the ability of Corporations and Unions to collect money from their
employees or members for the purpose of political contributions.
Ed Ring of www.stopspecialinterests.org will discuss this initiative.
July 4, 2012
An inspiring presentation by the ghost of Samuel Adams. At our 6/20/12 meeting, Samuel Adams (aka Rex Ruth) entertained us with a lively reinactment of the debates taking place during the writing of our Constitution, including threats to our liberty that we face today that were anticipated by our founding fathers.
Successful Candidate's Forum! A video of the entire Forum is posted on RanchoMurieta.com. You can view the video here: CLICK HERE
Candidate's Forum: Wednesday, May 16th - Consumes River Elementary School 7:00 - 9:00 P.M. (Doors open at 6:30)
Our regular monthly meeting will consist of a candidate's forum of primary candidates for the 8th Assembly District and the 4th Supervisors District. All candidates have been invited. Come hear the candidates describe their ideas for representing you. CLICK HERE to go to our Election Page and a copy of the Forum Guide.
Friday, April 27 - Noon: The California Revolution Rise Up Bus Tour is coming to Rancho Murieta!
Join us and listen to motivating speakers and singers promoting Primary Election Accountability. Visit the Bus Tour web site CLICK HERE
Wednesday, April 18, 2012 6:30 P.M. - General Meeting.Our meeting this month features Radio Hosts Armstrong and Getty and 4th District County Supervisor Roberta MacGlashan CLICK HERE for more information.
April 14, 2012 - Tax Day Rally at the State Capitol. CLICK HERE for more information
Straw Poll Results
At our general meeting this evening we conducted a straw poll of the Presidential race:
PART 1: Considering the three core principles of the Tea Party Patriots, which candidate do you believe best represents these core principles : Fiscal Responsibility-Constitutionally Limited Government - Free Markets ?
Newt Gingrich 36%
Rick Santorum 24%
Mitt Romney 19%
Ron Paul 18%
Rick Perry 1%
Sarah Palin 1%
Herman Cain 1%
Barack Obama 0%
PART 2: Based on your observations, which of the candidates do you feel has the best chance of winning the election?
Mitt Romney 64%
Newt Gingrich 24%
Barack Obama 7%
Rick Santorum 3%
Sarah Palin 1%
Ron Paul 1%
Rick Perry 0%
The results of this poll do not represent an endorsement of a candidate or a political party by the River Valley Tea Party Patriots.
Have an opinion to offer? We would like to hear from you! Please send it to firstname.lastname@example.org (Please limit your comments to 600 words or less.)
Positions on Ballot Propositions
This year’s November election has a daunting number of California Propositions for voters to consider. We at River Valley Tea Party Patriots have given considerable thought on taking positions on these important matters. Remember, we do not support either candidates or political parties, but we will take positions on legislative matters. We evaluated each of these Propositions using our three guiding principles - Constitutionally Limited Government, Fiscal Responsibility, and Free Markets. We assiduously avoid social and moral issues since they generally fall outside of these guiding principles. We have also purchased an advertisement near by for you to cut out and take to the voting booth for your convenience.
Prop. 30 - NO. Temporary Taxes to Fund Education. Violates Fiscal Responsibility. Raises taxes on ALL Californians via a sales tax increase. Enables State politicians to continue profligate spending in lieu of making difficult fiscal choices. Estimated to take $6 billion dollars from California tax payers and not fund classroom education.
Prop. 31 - NO. State Constitutional Amendment - two year budget cycle. Violates both Fiscal Responsibility and Limited Government. Diverts $200 million tax dollars to local governments to establish regional councils reducing local representative government. Councils would be controlled by State officials to establish “Community Strategic Action Plans.” Two year budget cycle sounds good, but has cynical big government implications.
Prop. 32 - YES. Political Contributions via Payroll Deductions. Constitutionally Limited Government and Fiscal Responsibility. Reduces the coercive effect of funds from both public sector unions and corporate employees to unduly influence legislators. Future political contributions would be strictly voluntary.
Prop. 33 - YES. Auto Insurance Companies. Free Markets. Allows car owners to switch from insurance carriers without penalty. Appears to have no fiscal effect on State Government costs.
Prop. 34 - NEUTRAL. Eliminate California Death Penalty. This proposition is more a social issue than a Tea Party Patriot guiding principle.
Prop. 35 - NEUTRAL. Human Trafficking Penalties. This proposition is more a social issue than a Tea Party Patriot guiding principle.
Prop. 36 - YES. Revision of Three Strikes Law for Repeat Felony Offenders. Fiscal Responsibility. The revision of the current law would have short term increase in costs as felons with a third strike for non-violent crimes were re-sentenced. Over time would most probably have a fiscal impact by NOT assigning a life without parole sentence for a third offense of a non-violent crime.
Prop. 37 - NO. Genetic Engineered Foods Labeling. Violates Fiscal Responsibility, Limited Government and Free Markets. The projected costs on this proposition are open ended and unpredictable. The unintended consequences of cost to food producers is an unknown, but will likely be very high due to litigation costs. Most likely will drive more companies out of California.
Prop. 38 - NO. Tax to Fund Education and Early Childhood Programs. Violates Fiscal Responsibility. More onerous than Prop 30. Extracts at least $10 billion a year from California businesses and families. Will probably drive more businesses out of California. Begins child education as early as infants and toddlers. Creates more education bureaucracy.
Prop. 39 - NO. Tax Treatment of Multi-state Businesses. Violates Fiscal Responsibility, Limited Government and Free Markets. Raises an estimated $1 billion annually on businesses. Provides an estimated $22 million to create a new bureaucracy to manage clean energy job creation.
Prop. 40 - No Position. Redistricting. Prop on ballot but withdrawn by supporters.
Mark your calendars for a very important pre-election event. How well do you know the candidates running to represent you in the United States House of Representatives? On September the 26th (Wednesday) the River Valley Tea Party Patriots along with the Progressive Americans for Truth (PAT) are co-sponsoring a candidate forum. This is not the first time the River Valley Tea Party Patriots (RVTPP) have conducted such an evening. For those who recall we coordinated a ‘meet the candidates’ on May 16 where an informative meeting was conducted to allow candidates running for the 8th Assembly District and Sacramento County 4th Supervisor District to voice their views. By all accounts this event was deemed a model of decorum and all who participated felt they were treated with fairness and respect.
Our September 26th meeting is planned with the very same respectful atmosphere. We want you, the voting public, the opportunity to see, listen and evaluate your Congressional candidates. The goal of our RVTPP organization is to educate the voter on issues and candidates BEFORE an election is conducted. As always we use our founding principles as a guide: Constitutionally Limited Government, Fiscal Responsibility, and Free Markets.
As of this writing (Sept the 11th) we, sadly, only have one candidate who has agreed to show up for this September the 26th event. Starting in the May timeframe both RVTPP and PAT have made numerous phone calls, letters, and even registered letters to the challenger in this race - Dr. Bera. Most of these attempts have been summarily ignored. When Dr. Bera’s Campaign Manager or Chief of Staff has been reached we are told that Dr. Bera is either too busy, does not feel the forum is worthy of his time, or the forum would be unfair or hostile. We are welcoming all constituents throughout the U. S. Congressional 7th District area to attend.
It has been stated in this periodic by myself many times, the fact is we at RVTPP do not endorse or support in anyway candidates running for an office. With that said, I wonder out loud a few thoughts toward this reticence on the part of Dr. Bera to attend. I would ask you, as voters, your thoughts on a candidate that does not have the time to speak to his constituents or even worse does not feel you worthy of his time, especially when running for office. I wonder about your thoughts toward a candidate who fears an atmosphere of unfairness or even more importantly, does not even research the venue but relies on misinformation he has been fed from unreliable sources. If he does not research a venue providing an opportunity to meet his constituents, what does that say about how much he will inform himself on issues he would be called upon to vote for if elected to Congress? I wonder out loud what a man like this would do in office to represent us in the potentially hostile and unfair atmosphere of Congress?
Again, as of this writing Dr. Bera has not responded favorably to this invitation. We by necessity and planning purposes have given him a Sept 10th dead line to respond. Thus we are going forward with, if necessary, an event with one man who WILL take the time to meet and respond to constituent questions and concerns: Congressman Dan Lungren. Evidently, Congressman Lungren does have the time to spend with the voters in our area.
As always, our doors at the River Valley Cosumnes Elementary School will open at 6:30 PM with our meeting starting promptly at 7:00 PM. Come spend and evening with your fellow citizens getting informed on up coming election information.
Questioning Proposition 30
Proposition 30 on the November ballot carries an intriguing title: “Temporary Taxes to Fund Education. Guaranteed Local Public Safety Funding.” It includes a one-quarter cent sales and/or excise tax, and increases the income tax rates for those earning above $250k per year. (sub-chapter S small business)
The findings cite severe budget cuts for education and public safety in the last 4 years. When I review the budget history, the General and Special funds total for 2012-13 is up 8.42% over the previous year. The General plus Special Funds total for 2009-10 was $110.75 Billion, while 2012-13 is $132.38 Billion. Decreasing budgets?
Proposition 30 also purports to guarantee future funding for Local Public Safety. Why do each of those guarantees include the term ‘less refunds’, and language that allows the Department of Finance to recalculate the amount of funding available looking back two years? Why are the funding allocations for education offset by the amounts specified in current education code requirements? Is that language the recognition that these ‘new’ tax revenues are really nothing more than a replacement for currently allocated General Fund amounts that have been diverted to other expenditures by vote-hungry legislators?
Now for the big question; “How can they guarantee future funding of education and public safety services with temporary taxes?” The answer is that once these taxes expire, there will be a defacto obligation to continue funding these vital services beyond 2017, mandating extension. The 2011 Realignment Legislation permanently realigned the obligations for Public Safety Services, and provided funding. These temporary taxes take the place of that funding approved just last year.
Why are the most severe cuts in the budget only in Education and Public Safety? Why do these previously funded programs now need their own special taxes? Why the need for new taxes if the total budget amount has actually increased? Why did the California Legislature vote to saddle the citizens with an additional debt of nearly $8 Billion for a non-functional piece of High Speed Rail, and now demand that voters pass additional taxes to replace the funds they divert from education and public safety to pay for it?
And when was the last time you heard of a ‘temporary tax’? Temporary taxes of 2010 expired because they knew they couldn’t pass an extension. Well, they’re back, asking for even more ‘temporary taxes’.
With a multitude of additional tax measures being contemplated at the Federal level, State level, and local level, where does it stop? I have thoroughly read proposition 30. It demonstrates to me that the Governor and the Legislators who put it on the ballot continue to believe the California voter will not recognize this shell game of moving money around to create a crises in vital services closest to the people. It’s clear they presume the people will vote in new taxes to repair the damage that they have done.
My answer is; “IT STOPS IN NOVEMBER”. I intend to exercise my right and duty to vote as an informed voter, voting no on Proposition 30 and against the legislators who put it on the ballot.
I understand this ballot measure will be discussed at length at the next River Valley Tea Party Patriots meeting on August 22nd, when former Sheriff John McGinnis will be the guest speaker.
Are we in desperate times? Some would say yes, but those who have a sense of history would probably disagree. I would submit during the Civil War and World War Two a great percentage of our citizens would say these were desperate times. A case could even be made of the Great Depression as desperate times. If we just look at World War Two and the loss of over 400,000 mostly men, it makes for a strong case of our country was in desperate times. So many men were killed in Europe that our allies committed land for the burial of many of our military. During World War Two many items were rationed here at home bringing the reality of war to our everyday lives. Huge numbers of civilian men and women toiled in factories to turn out weaponry from tanks, ships, aircraft and ammunition.
So if you agree that their have been much more dire and desperate times in the history of our country would you not also agree that it just might be a sign of desperation for our President to ask for donations to his reelection campaign in lieu of wedding gifts? I thought I had seen it all, but to ask donors to provide a campaign contribution as a gift to the newly weds was nothing short of sleazy and clearly a demonstration of how low this campaign season can go. What’s next asking for dying people to designate part or all of their estate to the reelection campaign? Come to think of it, maybe I just figured out what ObamaCare is all about.
It is very hard to not be too cynical when it comes to evaluating this Administration. They have even offended the Catholic Church with the mandating contraception and abortificia drugs to be bought for employees at no cost. In the 2008 election of the President he carried the majority of the Catholic vote. Will that reoccur in November of this year? I have been predicting (a dangerous act) for some months now that this election will not be close. I believe the only scenario in which a reelection can occur would be the out break of another war and a rise in the sentiment of not wanting to change horses in mid-stream. Keep a sharp eye out for this scenario. It could be the next step if there is a lack of wedding gift money coming into the Chicago style reelection campaign headquarters.
Dennis Berg (Presented to our 6/20/12 General Meeting at the Consumnes River Elementary School) To download this speech CLICK HERE.
Welcome to our June 2012 River Valley Tea Party Patriots meeting. Our theme this month is Elections Have Consequences. Whenever this obvious statement is made we often take the negative perspective. We cannot help but look at the negative given some of the legislation that has been passed in the US Congress and signed into law since the last presidential election. As we look forward to the next presidential election we can again be wary of the net result of reelecting our current President. All one need to do is look at the age of some of our current Supreme Court Judges. Four of the seven current sitting judges are in their seventies: Justice Scalia is 76, Justice Kennedy is 76 next month, Justice Breyer is 79 in August, and my favorite Justice Ginsburg is 79. Supreme Court appointments are life long, so our next elected President could have the opportunity to replace close to fifty percent of the court thus changing the complexion of this branch of government for a generation to come. Another negative consequence that could come out of this upcoming election is on our countries debt crisis. Under the current Administration we have added an average of $1.7 trillion of debt per year. If this Administration wins in November and continues on its current average spending rate we will add another almost $8 trillion to our debt. To put this spending record into perspective consider this: we are adding $3 million a minute to our national debt. This two hour meeting will see a $360 million increase in our debt.
I could spend the rest of the evening going over the negative effects of our national vote of 2008, but I believe we are seeing some positive signs in the future. I do not want you to see me as a pollyanna, all is well in the world person, but bear with me and hear me out on some points of light that I see.
The most recent elections have some real signs of positive change. Let’s take the Wisconsin recall attempt. My wife and I went to high school and college together in Wisconsin, so we were particularly buoyed by the failure of the recall of Governor Scott Walker. Incidentally, this is the first Governor in the history of the United States to survive a recall attempt.
My wife and I have many personal friends and relatives still living in Wisconsin, so we can give you some first hand war stories and insights in to this political blood fest. We have relatives driving around now with out dated recall Walker bumper stickers on their cars. I will be interested to see this summer when we travel home if they have removed their bumper stickers or if they have no shame and continue to show their out voted allegiances.
So what was the driving force behind this unnecessary recall vote that cost the State of Wisconsin some $20 million? To some it up, I believe it was a governor who actually enacted his campaign promises. Many Wisconsin voters viewed Scott Walker as just another campaigner making promises to balance the budget and move Wisconsin toward some semblance of fiscal responsibility. The residences of Wisconsin did not need to look far to see an example of irresponsibility since Illinois lays just south of the boarder. Chicago style politics is not looked upon with favor by the mid-west values of a large number of Wisconsin voters. Shortly after Scott Walker took office he began to take his campaign promises to heart. His ‘shock and awe’ leadership style was effective since the Republican party had control in the State Legislature. Did he move too fast? Some, even himself, would say yes. The single piece of his legislation that angered the State Employees was the removal of their bargaining rights. This single match provided the ignitor for the onslaught of protesting and Democrat Legislators to leave the state and hide in Illinois.
So how and why did Scott Walker survive a recall after maybe pushing too hard and too fast? I believe it was because as much as he may have pushed too hard and too fast, the Unions pushed even further and far too fast in their rising up with righteous indignation. Wisconsin was the epicenter of some of the most outrageous 1960’s turbulent demonstrations. Many Wisconsinites have not forgotten the turbulence of those hay days. But things have changed since then. The 60’s protestors are now in their 60’s. They were offended by the occupying of their capital building and their legislators going to Illinois to hide out. These 60‘s protestor voters were now tax payers and understand the fiscal responsibility ethos. The former protester generation now viewed the capital building as my building and you public union people are getting paid more on average than we tax payers get paid. Additionally, you legislators are getting paid by us tax payers to run and hide in, of all places, Illinois? I also believe the idea of out of state union paid protesters being brought into Wisconsin was the icing on the cake to provide the seething anger of the average Wisconsin voter. Both sides may have over played their hand, but the protest side was far more egregious in this effort.
As we Californian’s watched this on going food fight on our news casts, we were not being fed the actual behind the scenes subtle yet more important actions taking place. When Scott Walker ended the state collecting of dues for state employee unions, membership fell by two thirds. Additionally, when Scott Walker offered the Teachers Unions more jobs if they would pick up some of the cost of their health care and retirement the unions said no deal. This was read as the unions would not protect jobs but wanted to protect the union’s income from the union sponsored health care companies. The Wisconsin voter saw this as nothing short of a greed play and did nothing to help the educating of their children.
By the time this recall effort ended in a vote the entire purpose of the election was all but forgotten. So the recall effort centered, not on the termination of bargaining rights, but far more on fiscal responsibility for the State. When the taxpayers began to see the net result of Scott Walker’s budgetary changes it was all but over for the unions.
So how does the Wisconsin experience have any effect on California? We Californians have always had a narcissist view of our importance to the country at large. After all the social trends and new ideas only come from California and move across the fruited plane. What goes on here eventually becomes reality in fly over country. I believe the waves created here are resulting in back lash waves of influence that are beginning to return to us in the form of fiscal reality. I point to the two most recent examples of this reverse trend - San Diego and San Jose. The voters in these two cities have viewed the fiscal realities of a potential bankruptcy and have decided to avert these problems by taking on the overly generous union employee costs.
Will this reverse trend continue in California? I am a realist on this point. There are worlds of differences between the Wisconsin voter and the California voter. What I am about to say will probably anger some of you, but we need to address reality, something I believe California voters have not come to grips with. Wisconsin has always been a hot bed of political change. Wisconsin people take their politics as seriously as they take their football. When you mention the name Green Bay Packers in Wisconsin you will see a wave of pride come to each and every citizen. Wisconsin residence view outsiders with deep suspicion. Illinois visitors come to Wisconsin for summer vacations and the Wisconsinites willingly take their money and then are relieved when they pack up and go home. Is there anything similar in California? I say absolutely not. We have no similar pride. We are populated with citizens who are more interested in the ‘what’s in it for me’ than what is the effect on our state. Our Californian pride is in the form of narcism and not a pride of our state. When I point this out to people around me I typically get the comment back - well what else is there to do in Wisconsin beside drink beer and watch the Packers. This attitude, even though presented out of humor, points to the ‘we are so much more important than the rubes in Wisconsin’ attitude that permeates this cultural narcissism on parade here in California. It just seems to me that California takes pride in self destructive behavior and anti-business policies. To Californians it is far more important to keep some obscure darter fish alive than the prosperity of agricultural businesses in the Central Valley.
I never point out a problem without providing a viable solution. I am reluctant to propose a proposition, but it just seems to me that the first step toward fiscal responsibility in this state would be to have a California Constitutional amendment to end the state collection of public union dues. This state is a wholly own subsidiary of our public unions. We have the best government a union could own. If we stopped union dues collection by our state you would see a precipitous drop in union membership and money flowing into union supported liberal politicians. I have never thought an employee should be able to choose their boss, and that is exactly the problem with unions in the public sector. They collect our tax dollars from their union members and then finance their chosen candidates for election. Finally, elections do have consequences, are we Californians going to change those consequences from negative to positive?
Thank you for your kind attention and as you know we are a non-profit organization with only you as our source of funding to provide this free speech zone and this facility. I will start the collection this evening by putting my twenty in the hat and thank you in advance for your contributions.
The River Valley Tea Party Patriots (RVTPP) May 2012 Meet the Candidates evening could only be rated as an excellent forum to introduce our fellow citizens who have chosen to run for election to serve and represent our community. A special and warm note of gratitude must be stated upfront to RanchoMurieta.com for their effort in covering this community informational meeting. The net result of their efforts was to stream our meeting on their website. If you have not had a chance to see our candidates introduce themselves I would highly recommend spending some time to watch and listen to their views on the problems and opportunities that exist serving as either our County Supervisor or California Assembly representative. Additionally, if you have never attended an RVTPP meeting, I believe you will be pleasantly impressed by its organization and the serious non-confrontational approach toward competing ideas. Respectful dialogue is the not only our house rule, but has never been violated by our attending members.
We must reiterate our RVTPP organization does not endorse either parties or politicians. That does not mean we will not comment on legislation or propositions. I personally have long been a supporter of the proposition process that allows citizens to make a change to our governance. With that said, I have had the opportunity to see the net effect of the propositions over the years. As each Constitution Amendment prop (Prop 28) gets passed into law it becomes part of our state constitution making it more complex and therefore open to the politicians to interpret and bend to competing ideologies. Other Propositions are statutory and have the effect of law thus giving permission for the State to sell bonds. High Speed Rail (Prop 1A) comes to mind as an excellent example. With this as a back drop, it is very important that we as voters think long and hard on voting propositions into law. Once they are law we have handcuffed ourselves to live through the repercussions, to include unintended consequences of the new law.
We have two propositions on the ballet for the June 5th election. Prop 28 and Prop 29. The RVTPP is urging voters to VOTE NO on both of these initiatives.
Prop 28, a change to our State Constitution, would actually increase the amount of time current and future politicians could hold a particular office. Why would we want to increase the time in office for politicians that have served us so poorly? Would you not agree it is the current office holders that should be held accountable for the budget mess we have now? Why reward them with extended stays in office at our expense?
Prop 29 violates common sense, fiscal responsibility and a move toward smaller government. I am not a smoker and disdain the habit. Raising the tax on cigarettes is a feel good idea, but in the long run would not collect the amount of taxes the dreamers of this initiative are counting on. The truth is Prop 29 would most likely collect less taxes than planned for due to decreased smoking (a good thing) and illegal cigarette sales (a bad thing). This initiative would stay in effect and with no mechanism for amending for 15 years from its passage. Lastly, there are no provisions for oversight, accountability or requirements to use the tax dollars for Californians or in California. Again, we urge VOTE NO on both Proposition 28 and 29.
General Meeting Speech Presented by Dennis Berg at our March 21, 2012 General Meeting.
Thank you Tim for that both informative and entertaining presentation. I would also like to personally thank those of you here this evening attending our March Tea Party Patriot meeting. This evening I ask you to think back to the days you were in school and got the written test that at least one question started with Compare and Contrast two concepts. I do not know about you but I hated those kinds of questions. This evening I would like to attempt to compare and contrast this month’s speaker Tim Donnelly with last months speaker Roger Niello. Please do not panic, there will be no test. For those of you who were not here last month, do not worry. If I do my job right you will not be at a disadvantage.
Last month’s guest, Roger Niello, is a very pleasant and entertaining gentleman. In my conversations with him before and after the meeting coupled with his presentation I found him to be affable, knowledgeable and well prepared. I must tell you though, in my mind he is of the political conservative middle in every respect. His philosophy of change is through incrementalism and compromise. He resides in the world of ‘it took a long time to get where we are today’ so it will take a long time to change the hearts and minds of the opposition and begin to dig out of the mess we are in. Again, nice gentlemen and the kind I would love to talk with over a glass of wine. Unfortunately, California politics and the fiscal situation we have been put in does not lend itself to a wine tasting party with cheese and crackers.
This evening is the second time I have had the privilege to listen to Assemblyman Tim Donnelly. In my mind he is an easy compare and contrast to Roger Niello. I believe you can clearly see he is a take charge kind of a legislator. I would highly recommend you the Tea Party Patriots here tonight to go to his website and review his proposed legislation over his career as the Assemblyman from the 59th District. Personally I am loath to suggest new laws, with that said, I am all for legislation that corrects, eliminates or adds common sense to an out of control State government. I am not going to take the time to review all of Tim’s legislation this evening, but suffice it to say I smiled in approval as I worked my way through the list. One example: Proof of Citizenship prior to registering to vote. How novel is that?!
So to sum up my compare and contrast between Mr. Niello and Mr. Donnelly, they are completely different in their approach to leadership in the legislature. One would have you stand around and attempt to build coalitions through compromise and the other would establish common sense legislation for which the opposition would need to compromise. For myself as a retired military man, I preferred taking the high ground and have those whom I battle to come to the table to compromise. You say how can you do that when you are so outnumbered? Stand your ground and make them look the fools that they are with their foolish legislation. I found a quote on the politically far left California Legislator Tommy Ammiano’s website that supports my contention: “Just about every piece of historic legislation we’ve seen in the last decade in San Francisco has Ammiano’s fingerprints all over it.” The interesting point of this is he is proud of the condition of San Francisco’s fiscal, cultural and moral condition.
You may or may not agree with me, but I am of the opinion our State and Nation is in a condition that does not allow for much compromise. We have already compromised our future and the future of our children and grandchildren. Additionally, have we not already tried the compromise methodology with the Democrat run Legislature? How well is that working? I would like to see a show of hands here tonight. How many of you believe it is time to change our approach to how we legislate in this state? Come on raise your hand if you want real change brought to this state. Now for those of you who raised your hand you just volunteered to take the Constitutional Amendment Initiative for a Part-time Legislature off your chair and collect signatures. We need the people and not the politicians to control our California Legislature. If we fail in this endeavor our politicians will get the signal that no one is watching and our State will continue to slide into monetary and civil chaos. It is time for action and this is a small part of the action that you citizen patriots can take part in.
As you all know by now, we are a nonprofit organization and we depend on your contributions to sustain our continuation of these events. To that end, I have my twenty to put in the hat and kick off our fund raising. Please be generous for we have some up coming expenses that will need to be funded. Thank you for your kind attention.
The Cost of Our "Rights"
It never occurred to me one of the most talked about topics in the current political season would be a woman’s constitutional right to have ‘free’ birth control health care. If one listens to Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown (Catholic) University Law student and presumably well educated person, she proclaims a right and the Catholic University or we tax payers an obligation to provide her free (to her) contraception coverage. This begs the question, has our political season become so debased as to center on a woman’s right to sex with no consequences?
I am reminded of a conversation I had with a flight attendant during my days as an airline pilot. The crew had finished flying for the day and we all piled into a van to go to our layover hotel. One of the young flight attendants got in the van and sat down and let out a loud groan and said, “I am so tired, what a long day.” I very jokingly said to her as a means to boost her spirits, “A young woman like you with your energy should be ready to go out dancing tonight.” She failed to find anything positive in that quip and immediately fired back at me, “We have it so much harder than you did at my age, we have to worry about AIDS.” I found this to be a potential teaching moment, so I asked, “How old are you?” “I’m 26” came the answer. I thought for a moment and responded, “Let me see, what was I doing at 26? Oh yes, I remember, I was just married and seven days later left to fly combat missions in Vietnam. Yes, you are right, you do have it tougher than I did.” She fired back again, “We have AIDS to deal with.” So I closed out the conversation with, “So let me see if I have this right, you just want to be able to have sex with no consequences?”
Not much has changed over the decades since this incident happened. We are still in the throws of trying to make the sexes equal in every respect. I know it is highly controversial to think, let alone say, but just maybe there is a difference between women and men. Life is not fair. Women bear children, men do not. If women have this ability (bearing children) do they not have an obligation to be careful with their bodies? I completely agree, men as equal partners, should be held accountable in this sex without consequences process, but again, and it is unfair, women are the bearer of children and therefore should be far more cognizant of the consequences of sex.
What is missing in our political discussion is the intrusion of Government into our lives and a misunderstanding/perversion of our Constitutional rights. Rights as guaranteed by our Constitution should not cost us anything. Your right to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. should not cost me anything. As usual, the liberals are stuck on equality. They want equality of the sexes, equality of outcomes, equality in all of life. They just cannot abide by life not being fair. To this end, the liberals are not concerned about our country’s debt, after all the bill will be paid by the rich so they can be brought down to equality with all of us. The bill will also be paid by unborn future generations of productive tax paying citizens.
I must admit I am feeling sympathy for the position Ms. Fluke has found herself. In my opinion Nancy Pelosi and the feminist Congresswomen who put Ms. Fluke in front of national television took full advantage of this naive young woman and unintentionally made her out to be a woman of questionable morals. -Dennis Berg
Speech by Denny Berg at our General Meeting
Welcome to our February River Valley Tea Party Patriots meeting. When I sat down to put together some thoughts for this evening I decided it was appropriate to cover the general topic of elections have consequences. I will briefly highlight a couple of legislation bills that almost became law to support my contention that elections do have consequences. One of these was Senate Bill 810 right here in California. This bill would have put in place a single payer system of healthcare. Put another way, this would have been socialized medicine for all Californians. We ducked a bullet on this one since it fell two votes short of passing. Another jewel of colossal government overreach was proposed legislation by Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio with his Gas Price Spike Act. This legislation, if passed, would have establish a non-elected appointed by the President government panel to determine when excessive profits were being collected by oil companies. Upon making this determination, taxes would be levied on the companies for up to 100% on the government determined excess profits. Neither of these bills will become law NOW. They will become law at some future point if we continue to elect politicians who are motivated by envy, class warfare and anti-free enterprise philosophy.
Now let me turn to a very uncomfortable topic for me to address, religion. Religion and our rights to practice religion in our country is a fundamental part of both our Constitution and our heritage. We at Tea Party Patriots stay clear of social issues since they can be more divisive than inclusive. With that said, we have one leg of our key core values known as Constitutionally Limited Government. Our current Administration is clearly violating the First Amendment of our Constitution. The First Amendment has as its entering clause - “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The President signed off on a Health and Human Services arbitrary ruling on the application of ObamaCare. In this ruling the Catholic Church will be required to provide contraceptive care, sterilization and abortion inducing pharmaceuticals. I am not a lawyer, but it seems pretty clear this is directly contrary to the First Amendment clause of “prohibiting the free exercise of religion.” Do we have an Administration tearing up our Constitution? What our government is demanding of the Catholic church is to compromise their most fundamental religious beliefs. Now you may or may not agree with the Church’s stance on reproductive rights, but that is not the issue, this is a direct assault on our Constitution.
Pastor Martin Niemoller, was a World War Two surviver of Dachau concentration camp. After the war he wrote a poem in which he lamented the famous, “First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out because I was not a communist.” After a litany of other groups he concluded the poem with a “Then they came for me and no one was left to speak up for me.” I would like to paraphrase his poem by saying, ‘First they came for the Catholics and I did not speak out because I was not Catholic.’ Who will this government come for next? Mormons? Evangelicals? or maybe Tea Party members?
As this unfolds over the coming months, it will be interesting to watch how the current administration will attempt to compromise or even back down from this Constitutional crisis. Their first attempt at compromise is no compromise at all. To insist Catholic organizations will not pay for reproductive services, but their insurance companies will pick up the tab is nothing short of an obvious dodge. All this does is provide a level of plausible deniability for the Church leadership when they self examine their own consciences. In other words a means to rationalize the acceptance of this government mandate. In the world of true morals and ethics this is absurd. An administration to even propose a compromise such as this, is an administration that both fails to understand and is unwilling to understand the moral cliff they are pushing the Catholic hierarchy to face. We now know what Nancy Pelosi meant when she said, “We have to pass this bill to find out what is in it.”
The point of all this from my perspective is this: Are we beginning to see into the heart of a second term for this administration? Thus far, the administration has demonstrated a willing disregard for the Constitution, respect for religion, and for a free enterprise system. If the constitution is no longer a valid document to establish the rule of law for us, then what is in store for us in a second term? In closing on this topic, I must admit as a practicing Catholic I have to wonder if the liberal wing of my church has learned anything? For decades these church liberals have quietly wished for a more equitable distribution of our country’s wealth via government mandated redistribution. Put succinctly, for decades the liberal wing of Catholicism has danced with the devil and now it is time to pay the piper.
I would like to shift gears to address a recent well publicized news event that has surfaced some questions about our organization. As I am sure you will recall the Susan G. Komen Foundation had an embarrassing situation concerning the flow of their funds through Planned Parenthood. Some of you may be wondering how your contributions and your email addresses are handled by our local River Valley Tea Party Patriots. Let me assure you we are a local grass roots organization. We do not send money, email addresses or other local information to the National or State Leadership of Tea Party Patriots. Additionally, we do not take any directions or orders from any organization including Tea Party Patriot affiliated groups. Even though we are independent of these groups we maintain a close collaborative relationship with these organization to improve the synergistic effect of greater numbers of like minded people.
In closing, I thank you all for coming this evening and your kind attention. As you know we have only one source of income to sustain our nonprofit organization. This evening I will be passing the hat and here is my twenty to kick things off. Thank you very much for your passed generosity and this evening.
Tea Party Patriots response to President Obama's State of the Union speech. Features Jenny Beth Martin, Co-founder and National Coordinator.
(Link to video) CLICK HERE
High Speed Rail "Bait and Switch"
Transmitted to email@example.com 1/24/12
(1/31/12 NOTE: The Sacramento Bee refused to publish this letter.)
- Bill Thacher
Editors, The Sacramento Bee:
The editorial board and staff of the Bee continue to fail to report the most significant obfuscation by the California High Speed Rail Authority.
Proposition 1A was sold to the public as a $43 billion, 800 mile system. The 2012 Business Plan reveals that the new projected construction cost is actually $98.5 to $117 billion for "Phase 1". "Phase 1" includes only the 520 mile segment from San Francisco to L.A. and does not include Sacramento and San Diego as promised in Proposition 1A.
If you extrapolate the cost of the 280 miles that is omitted from the 2012 business plan the cost of the entire system is (as promised in Proposition 1A) is actually $151.5 to $180 billion, or 3.5 to 4.2 times higher than the promise in Proposition 1A. In spite of this fact, you continue to report it as a $98.5 billion project, which it is not.
The public and private concerns and inconsistencies that you are reporting are merely symptoms of the efforts at an expensive "bait and switch" that the High Speed Rail Authority and its supporters are attempting to pull on the taxpayers of California. They are describing their effort in writing, in their own business plan. The Bee needs to report it.
- Bill Thacher, Rancho Murieta
CLICK HERE to jump to our High Speed Rail page.
2012 A Year to Remember
- Dennis Berg
Count me in the column of believing 2012 is the year of the most important election decision for our country since the Civil War. As a country we are at a momentous turning point and must decide our future. Are we going to return to some semblance of fiscal sanity with a vibrant economy or are we going to continue down the road toward a bankrupt entitlement economic system such as many countries in Europe? Are we going to return to office those politicians supporting reckless spending and ever increasing government regulations and government bureaucracy? What lies ahead of us is the daunting task of informing, educating and inspiring voters to turn back toward a Constitutionally Limited Government exercising Fiscal Responsibility and unleashing the Free Market Enterprise system.
The River Valley Tea Party Patriots have scheduled for our January 18th monthly meeting a dynamic speaker to kick off our new year with a great number of thoughts to ponder toward this election year. Mark Meckler is the National Coordinator and Co-Founder of the Tea Party Patriots and to have him as our guest speaker is a real treat and should not be missed. He lives in Northern California and has graciously agreed to be our speaker to kick this election season off. Mark has made numerous appearances on national television and can always be counted on to provide insight and encouragement to those of us who believe we need to center our government back on track toward Tea Party Patriot core values of Constitutionally Limited Government, Fiscal Responsibility and Free Market Enterprise.
As part of our January 18th meeting at Cosumnes River Valley Elementary School (CRES) we will be conducting a straw poll among you, our attendees. During January’s meeting we intend to focus on the field of Presidential contenders. The polling list will include our incumbent President. It cannot be over emphasized a poll by our Tea Party Patriots is NOT an endorsement of any one candidate or our support in anyway toward a political party. The purpose of a straw poll at our meeting is merely to inform and educate you on where our ‘members’ are trending in the election process. Future monthly meetings will include straw polls on other elective offices.
After our December Christmas break we are looking forward to getting back into the monthly Tea Party Patriot meetings. As always, we meet on the third Wednesday of each month at CRES. Please mark your calendars for our 18th of January meeting. Our doors open at 6:30 PM with our meetings starting promptly at 7:00 PM and never ending after 9:00 PM. Come early, bring a friend and enjoy the company of like minded friends and neighbors. RVTPP.ORG
Dennis Berg, Rancho Murieta