First Happy Meals, Now South LA Bans All New Fast Food Restaurant, Killing Jobs in Low-Income Neighborhood

They should really change California from the Golden State to the Nanny State. First, the San Francisco City Council tried to ban happy meals. Now, in all of their infinite wisdom, the Los Angeles City Council has restricted any new fast-food restaurants from opening, if they are too close to an existing fast-food joint:

New stand-alone fast food restaurants have been banned from setting up shop in South Los Angeles, due to rising health concerns by the city council.

How many fast food eateries does one area really need? The Los Angeles City Council thinks South Los Angeles and South East Los Angeles need new choices as these regions face an over-concentration of such restaurants.

"This is not an attempt to control people as to what they can put into their mouths. This is an attempt to diversify their food options," said councilmember Jan Perry.

Perry's new plan bans new so-called "stand alone" fast food restaurants opening within half a mile of existing restaurants.

Such stand-alone establishments are on their own property, but those same restaurants are OK if they're a part of a strip mall, according to the new rules.
"Give a grocery store and a housing combination a chance to come in," Perry said.
The city says around 72 percent of restaurants in South L.A. are fast food establishments, which is much higher than West L.A. and countywide averages which range in the 40s.

This is not going to do anything to diversify their dietary options. The existence of fast-food restaurants don’t stop other restaurants that may have a healthier menu, grocery stores, or housing combination from coming into the area. What Perry doesn’t seem to understand that healthier menues also carry a higher pricetag. That is the reason why they aren’t coming into the low-income South LA area. Most people can’t afford to pay the higher prices that higher-end restaurants would bring. So, even on the basic principle that this ban is based on is very wrong and it will not produce the results that they are desiring.

Now, let’s look at the unintended consequences of the ban. If the forbid new restaurants from opening that want to come into the poor areas of the city, won’t they also be blocking new jobs that would come with those new businesses? They may be low paying jobs, but I’m sure that most of those that are struggling to make ends meat in South LA would love to be able to make a few extra dollars to feed their kids or buy them shoes, medicine, etc. Why would they take away any job oppurtunities away from their people, given the high unemployment and high deficits in California? This is really incomprehensible, especially since they are taking away these job oppurtunities from those who probably need it the most, the poor.

H/T to HotAir's Ed Morrissey

Jerry Brown and Chris Mathews Talk Down to Voters During Hardball Interview

Jerry Brown, who is the Democrat that is running against Meg Whitman in the California gubernatorial election, was on Chris Mathews’ Hardball program. During the interview, both Mathews and Brown had some derogatory things to say about the right. While this, on its own, is not really shocking news, it is still noteworthy.

From the beginning, Mathews called Meg Whitman an outsider. At about the 1:36 mark, Mathews calls Whitman, along with Dubya and Palin, "know-nothings" especially about government. He goes to insult Americans by questioning why the hell they would ever vote for Bush:

What is it in the American psyche or character that says that if you don't know anything you're somehow an average person or average guy, and you have horsesense. What is about people that they keep picking people like George W Bush to be president? And you see someone like Sarah Palin have fans. Why would anybody like somebody who the campaign manager for John McCain said, "She doesn't know anything."? Why is not knowing anything; why is the know-nothing candidate like Meg Whitman, a person who doesn't have any government experience, have the appeal to be even with you in the polls, the person who doesn't know anything about government?

Listening to the video you can really hear the venom come out of Mathews’ mouth as he spits the name Bush and Palin.

Mathews continues to show his disdain for the everyday Californian by calling them amateurs and wondering if letting them vote on specific issues is really a good thing? After all, most people can’t be as smart as the politicians are. So, we can’t possibly know what is good for us. Right, Chris?:

The people of California haven't had alot of faith in politicians over the last 20-30 years. They've gotten their fingers in actual legislature, not just saying who should do it but doing it themselves...Has that been good for California, all this effort to keep refining and refining and messing with it as amatuers? Has it been a good political system for California?

The real gem comes from Jerry Brown at about 6:15:

Don't you just say that unions are a powerful force. Wall St. destroyed $11 Trillion worth of wealth. That's pretty powerful. No union could ever do that. (M-Yeah, I know) Then, there is the teabaggers. There is the Chamber of Commerce. (M-giggles)

Now, Chris did ask a good question about unions there, and but Brown quickly dismissed that question and changed the topic to those who he really blames for the recession. All Mathew can say about that is, “Yeah, I know”. First of all, unions have destroyed the auto industry in Detroit, which in turn helped tank the market. That is an over trillion dollar industry in itself. So, unions are just as influential in the long run as the evil stock brokers are.

Second, TEABAGGERS?!? Really? Haven’t the Democrats gotten past using juvenile insults, yet? I guess not. Of course, Chris doesn’t challenge him on that he only giggles like a junior high school boy.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Comedy Gold: Rep Pete Stark (CA) Berates & Is Berated By Town Hall Attendees Regarding Illegal Immigration

This is a spirited debate between Pete Stark and the townspeople of Fremont, California from a few days ago, and as always, Pete is being his normally charming self:



Considering how this town hall went, it's not surprising that the Democrats have decided to skip town halls in their home districts and not have face-to-face chats with their constituents, many of whom are pissed at them.

It’s Come to This: Schwarzenegger Threatens to Lower CA State Workers’ Wages to Minimum If State Budget Not Passed

Apparently, the Govahnatah is prepared to hit the nuclear button, if the Democratic-controlled California legislature fails to pass a budget this year:

After enduring more than a year of unpaid monthly furlough days, state workers could see their pay cut to minimum wage until Sacramento strikes a budget accord this summer, according to a memo from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration sent Wednesday.

This may end up being an empty threat, however, because the men that actually signs the checks for California’s state employees have gone on the record to saying that he will take that take it under advisement and refuse to follow that potential order. Still, this shows how dire the deficit situation is in California.

Dem: They Told Us Not to Call It Stimulus, Although That's What It Is-Porkulus Lite

A California Democrat was caught on tape during a telephone town hall admitting what conservatives already knew and have been saying for months. The proposed "Jobs Bill" is actually just another mini-stimulus bill. Audio here:

Honest leadership … open government … and the Tooth Fairy.  Breitbart and Naked Emperor News catches Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) telling his constituents in a telephonic town hall meeting that the new stimulus bill Democrats will promote in coming weeks is “pretty much similar” to Porkulus, just smaller in scale — which isn’t exactly news, since even Democratic leadership isn’t foolish enough to think they can get another $787 billion after getting nothing more than the loss of 3.4 million jobs from the first one.  In an Orwellian admission, Sherman tells listeners that he’s been told not to call it a stimulus bill, but a “jobs bill,” even though he also admits that the jobs won’t come for years later...

“I’ve been pushing for aid to state and local governments.  First, because my own state is having such severe problems.  And second, from a macroeconomic standpoint, we’re trying to have jobs now, and construction projects, for example — they talk about them being shovel ready, but even if you’re ready to start building a bridge now, a big chunk of that work is going to be done in 2013, 2014.”

Considering that not even half of the money allocated in the first stimulus bill hasn't even been spent, yet. Why must we already pass another one? Shouldn't we spend that money first? This the Democrats in Congress trying to look busy, in order to claim that they are doing something, anything to help create jobs.

The sad fact is that Congress can do very little to stimulate the economy, and what they can do, cut taxes, they aren't doing. A spending spree will not do any long-lasting good. It may create a few government jobs, but it won't create nearly enough private sector jobs to justify the massive expenditure.

Genius: SF Mayor Newsom Thinks It's OK To Be Sued In Order to Raise Soda Fees While Running For Governor

Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco has a brilliant idea: add new "fees" on sodas in the middle of a falling economy where California, as a whole, has seen unemployment reach 12.2%, East Bay and San Francisco/San Mateo regions has risen to11.9% and 9.5%, respectively.

Newsom would need voter approval to tax individual cans of soda and sugary juice, but only needs approval from the Board of Supervisors to levy a fee on retailers. His legislation would charge grocery stores like Safeway and big-box stores, but would not affect restaurants that serve sodas.

Newsom wouldn't say how much the stores would have to pay or how the city would spend the fees. When he first floated the idea in 2007, he said the money would go to his Shape Up San Francisco exercise program and for media campaigns to discourage soda drinking.

The mayor said the city attorney's office has warned him the city would probably be sued over the matter, but he said it is worth the risk to try to curb a leading cause of obesity and diabetes.

"We know we'll be sued," he said. "But I really believe this is important to do."

Let me get this straight, he's willing to waste millions of taxpayer dollars to fight a lawsuit in order to raise taxes that he will use to pay for healthcare. Why? Depending on how the court case goes, he could spend more on lawyers and court fees than he'll get in new tax revenue. Liberal math strikes again.

Another thing is that in California it is the law that voters must ok all taxes raises. So, Gavin must instead institute new "fees" to find a way around that law. In reality, "fees" are really taxes by another name. So, he is theoretically violating California law by not allowing voters to vote on whether they want their taxes raised or not.

Why would he do such a thing? He knows that no one in their right mind would vote for higher taxes, not even in ultra-liberal San Francisco. History has shown that to be true.

Liberal democracy in action?

He says that he's doing this for San Franciscans to "Shape Up San Francisco". Apparently, he thinks there are too many fat people that don't know what's good for them. So, he's going to decide what's good for them.

"It makes sense for the government to help people to make the right choices, and it makes sense to use dollars from charges on sweetened beverages on health programs," he said.

It doesn't make sense to me or to most Americans. They are very wary of nanny states and of federal interventions into their everyday lives. Where will it all stop? New taxes on doughnuts? Fried chicken? Pizza?

He is doing in the middle of his campaign to become the next governor of California. Is this really the best thing to do to win in 2010? Is raising taxes on people who have repeatedly voted down tax raises in a bad economy while trying to institute a "nanny state", interventionist policy a successful formula for a win next year? Probably not. Not even in the liberal state of California.

Governator Finds Fiscal Backbone; Uses Line-Item Veto to Cut $656M Democrats Refused to Cut

Schwarzenegger finds his fiscally responsible backbone and stands up to Democrats in the state legislature:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger made additional cuts to child welfare programs, medical care for the poor and AIDS prevention efforts Tuesday as he signed an $85 billion compromise spending plan that he called "the good, the bad and the ugly."

Schwarzenegger used his line-item veto authority to save an additional $656 million that will let the state restore a reserve fund he says is needed for tough times.

While "child welfare programs, medical care for the poor and AIDS prevention efforts" are all well and good, they are not too big and need to be trimmed down, or the whole state government will fall into bankruptcy. It's about time, we saw Arnold return to what brought him to the dance in the first place, that is being fiscally responsible.

What's With Liberals and Their Penchant For Taxing Addicts to Pay For Kids' Programs?

Now, this hasn't been passed yet, but it could be in the near future:

On my way into work this morning, I heard a report on the radio about a proposal in California to tax marijuana in order to alleviate the state’s budget meltdown. With the money the state could raise, said one supporter, California “could hire 20,000 teachers.”

First, Democrats added about $1 per pack tax to all tobacco products in order to pay for health insurance for children. Now, they want to legalize wacky tabacky to help poor kids, too. This time it will help educate them.

Just an additional thought: is it just me, or does it seem counter-productive for Democrats to engage in a "war on smoking" if they are relying on them to pay for their pet projects?

Also, why are they once again considering taxing the poor to help the poor? Low income people are the ones that tend to puff the magic dragon more than rich Americans.

How odd could it be in California? It might turn out that if we want our children healthy and well-educated, we must first light up, put on some Grateful Dead, and grab some munchies in order to ensure a better future for our nation's next generation.

With Bankruptcy Knocking At Its Door California Might Close Welfare Programs Permanently

Things have become so bad for California financially that the liberally dominated state is actually considering http://www.sacbee.com/topstories/story/1917387.html of one of its costly entitlement programs:

Could California become the first state in the nation to do away with welfare?

That doomsday scenario is on the table as lawmakers wrestle with a staggering $24.3 billion budget deficit.

County welfare directors are "in shock" at the very idea of getting rid of CalWORKs, which has been widely viewed as one of the most successful social programs in the state's history, said Bruce Wagstaff, director of the Department of Human Assistance in Sacramento.

This is shocking to believe that the "cradle to grave" Democrats would actually go for this. Perhaps, they have come to their senses and realized how bad their situation actually is.

Now, I don't believe that legitimate "hand up" programs should be totally disregarded, but the loop holes that allow people who can work take advantage of the programs. Not all but many use the welfare programs to take care of them without having to work on it. In my time in various "hand up" programs there were some that were just there for the free room and board. They were not into bettering their situations for good.

I know there are some out there that do use the programs as a stepping stone off of the streets as I did. I don't believe that they should be robbed of the chance to get help to live a better life.

Hopefully, they can find a way to keep programs that help people that are truly looking for a way off of the streets and welfare while closing the loopholes and programs that keep people dependent on the government for their housing and food without offering them a way out.

California Supreme Court Actually Acts Like, Well, Judges Not Legislators

Yes, I know that this happened a few days ago, but so much has been happening that it slipped through the cracks. The state supreme court of California shocked the country:

The California Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld same sex marriages that were already performed but upheld voters' rights to ban gay marriage through the state constitution.

The court surprised me by actually recognizing their role of not making law but interpreting it.

Chief Justice Ron George, writing the 6-1 decision, said the people have a right, through the ballot box, to change their constitution.

"In a sense, petitioners' and the attorney general's complaint is that it is just too easy to amend the California constitution through the initiative process. But it is not a proper function of this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it," the ruling said.

The court is the same one that last May ruled it unconstitutional to deny gay couples the right to marry. That led to the constitutional amendment offered on the ballot last November.

"After comparing this initiative measure to the many other constitutional changes that have been reviewed and evaluated in numerous prior decisions of this court, we conclude Proposition 8 constitutes a constitutional amendment rather than a constitutional revision," the ruling said.

Why didn't they come to this conclusion last year when they made new law by overruling the measure passed by the people of California of not allowing gay marriage? The 6-1 vote was surprisingly one-sided, too. Maybe they saw the backlash that rained down on them last time, and it was too much to put on themselves again. Could they have realized that we want judges to intpret not make law? I can only hope the this will begin a chain reaction of change away from judicial activism.

Move to Concord, CA: Commit Misdemeanors, Don't Worry About Prosecution

A county right outside of San Francisco and Oakland area "can't afford" to prosecute people for committing certain crimes according to the county DA. Not only are they refusing to prosecute crimes, but they are stupid enough to announce it to the world.

(04-21) 16:41 PDT MARTINEZ -- Misdemeanors such as assaults, thefts and burglaries will no longer be prosecuted in Contra Costa County because of budget cuts, the county's top prosecutor said Tuesday.

District Attorney Robert Kochly also said that beginning May 4, his office will no longer prosecute felony drug cases involving smaller amounts of narcotics. That means anyone caught with less than a gram of methamphetamine or cocaine, less than 0.5 grams of heroin and fewer than five pills of ecstasy, OxyContin or Vicodin won't be charged.

Huh! Pot is already all but legal in San Francisco just 30 miles away. Now, this knuclehead just made Contra Costa County the new druggie heaven. People will come from miles to commit the crimes that DA Kochly considers the "lesser of evils".

People who are suspected of misdemeanor drug crimes, break minor traffic laws, shoplift, trespass or commit misdemeanor vandalism will also be in the clear. Those crimes won't be prosecuted, either.

Stores might has well close right now. Customers will give themselves "five-finger discounts" all day with no fear. They'll go bankrupt. The economy will collapse.

Don't even bother submitting the cases, Kochly said Monday in a memo to the Contra Costa County Police Chiefs Association.

In a video, Kochly adds grand theft and hit and run to the list of unpunishable offenses. Really? The county will be a demolition derby 24/7.

They might has well not even have a police department.

Great News: SF Mayor Newsom Running For CA Governor: Just When We Thought California Couldn't Go Further Left

Great news is coming in fresh off the presses:

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has made it official—he's running to become California's next governor.

Mayor Gavin Newsom is a ultra-liberal Democrat. He has led the city of San Francisco into a liberal wonderland of universal healthcare, all but totally legalized pot, sanctuary city policies on steroids, and same-sex marriage. He did all this while bulding a amazing deficit of $576 million This respresents the "worst fiscal crisis in the city since the Great Depression". Now, he wants to do the same with the state of California.

Yeah!

California is on the verge of bankruptcy now. If elected, Newsom will just go ahead and push California the rest of the way into the Pacific.

With regards to the universal healthcare plan, he said this to say in a recent interview:

In fact, last week we just announced we’ve increased the opportunity for people earning up to $106,000 for a family of four. Expanding our universal health plan for people earning up to 500 percent of poverty.

Does a family making over $100 K a year really need socialized healthcare, or is it a waste of money? Considering that San Francisco is over half of a billion in the hole every year, I would go with a waste of money.

The Imperial Valley Staff sums it all up nicely:

We applaud anyone for stepping up and running, and are pleased to see some youthful energy. But we believe Newsom represents the exact thing that has gotten California into such a financial hole. We need someone who will make tough choices in serving the people, not embrace huge new government programs and taxes, which could certainly happen under Newsom if his record is any indication.

California's Green Agenda Being Pushed Through Despite Falling Economy

State considers ban on big screen TVs
March 23rd, 2009, 3:00 am
posted by BRIAN JOSEPH
Sacramento Correspondent

In their continuing quest to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, state regulators have uncovered a new villain in the war on global warming : your big screen TV

Couch potatoes, beware.

The California Energy Commission is considering a proposal that would ban California retailers from selling all but the most energy-efficient televisions. Critics say the news standards could take 25 percent of televisions off the market — most of them 40 inches or larger.

“The larger the television, the more at risk it is of being banned unnecessarily in California,” said Douglas Johnson, senior director of technology police for the Consumer Electronics Association.

Association officials say the standards are not only unnecessary –  because the federal government already regulates energy efficiency through the voluntary Energy Star program — but also ill-timed. The last thing our economy needs now is products taken off the market, they say.

Furthermore, they say that with a weak economy, consumers are going out less and watching TV more.

“This is really about regulating entertainment, not energy use,” Johnson said.

Poppycock, says the commission.

Affordable big screen TVs will still be available under the new standards, spokesman Adam Gottlieb said. In fact, he said the regulations will save you money.

The commission calculates that if you buy televisions meeting the proposed standards it’ll cut your annual energy use by — drum roll, please — $18 to $30.

“I don’t know anyone who doesn’t like to save money,” Gottlieb said.

Gottlieb said the commission is exploring the regulations to reduce the strain on the energy grid and to avoid building new power plants.

Televisions are the fastest growing consumer appliance in California. Californians are buying bigger TVs, and more of them. If something doesn’t happen, televisions are going to devour a bigger and bigger piece of the state’s power grid, which means we’ll need more power plants. More power plants mean more greenhouse gas emissions.

“Consumers aren’t aware of the hidden cost of powering these things,” Gottlieb said.

Gottlieb insisted that the regulations wouldn’t eliminate big screens from California stores. But the commission’s own draft report says TV energy use is “proportional to the screen size.” And there’s no doubt the regulations will limit energy use.

So if you’re in the market for big screen TV, now might be the time to buy. The regulations are expected to be approved this summer.

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.com/2009/03/23/state-considers-ban-on-big-screen-tvs/12993/
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

This is just what this country needs. The new regulations will decrease the sales of the TVs. This in turn will lead to layoffs all the way from the TV manufacturing plants to electronics stores. Unemployment will go even higher with the added layoffs.

Couldn't they wait until we get the economy back on track before putting these kind of unneeded limitations on our businesses?

California: "Pink Friday" Protests State's "Poor Job of Planning."

Mar 14, 5:34 AM EDT
Calif. teachers see red over mass pink slips
By LISA LEFF Associated Press Writer

SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) -- In a spring rite that has become as predictable as cherry blossoms in the nation's capital, public school employees throughout California warned of wrenching classroom cuts as local officials faced a deadline for issuing layoff notices to educators.

The state Department of Education estimates that preliminary pink slips will have been handed to 26,500 teachers by the Sunday cutoff - two-and-a-half times as many as were issued last year. Another 15,000 bus drivers, janitors, secretaries and administrators also were expected to receive the written warnings, said Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell.

Because of the state's less-than-rosy economic outlook, California's 1,000 K-12 school districts have been instructed to absorb more than $8 billion in funding cuts over the next year. To draw attention to the situation, teachers and parents wore pink clothes and waved pink protest signs for a day California's largest teachers' union dubbed "Pink Friday."

Rosemarie Ochoa, a fifth-grade teacher who's in her third year with the San Lorenzo Unified School District, said she was pulled out of class Monday by a district official bearing a pink slip.

"I smiled at her because I knew what she was there for," said Ochoa, 28, who was among 76 of the district's 640 teachers who got a notice this week. "Then I had to go back to my students and retain my composure."

But in another annual ritual, many, if not most, of the early layoff notices could end up being withdrawn by June, especially if the state can devote some of its federal stimulus money to education, officials said.

Six years ago, for example, all but 3,000 of the 20,000 teacher pink slips that went out statewide were rescinded.

O'Connell, who donned a pink tie for an appearance at Gianola's school Friday, allowed that tens of thousands of teachers were unlikely to be let go, but said that with so huge a budget gap to fill, schools would probably increase class sizes, reduce library hours and lose counselors.

Ochoa said officials in San Lorenzo, a working class suburb 15 miles east of San Francisco, told her that some of the cuts probably would be permanent as the district planned to increase primary grade class sizes to save money.

Another unknown is whether the state's financial picture will worsen in the months ahead. If voters do not approve the spending package that will be the subject of a special election in May, schools would have to cut even more deeply and be unable to avert mass layoffs, he said.

"The cuts we are experiencing in public education are debilitating. These cuts have real consequences for real students," he said.

O'Connell, a Democrat who is considering a run for governor next year, said the dispiriting cycle would continue until state officials find a long-term and reliable way to pay for schools.

W. Norton Grubb, the director of a principal training program at the University of California, Berkeley and the author of "The Money Myth: School Resources, Outcomes, and Equity," agrees that years of uncertainty take their toll on schools even when layoffs do not come to pass.

"What is happening in these schools when the pink slips go out is everything stops, everyone is discouraged, everyone is busy worrying whether the money will come through, and all the efforts to get schools going basically grinds to a halt and remains ground to a halt for the rest of the spring," Grubb said. "A state that has these kind of crises year after year is really doing a poor job of planning."

Teachers, students and parents at Alhambra High School, located in the eastern Los Angeles suburb of Alhambra, were familiar with the Pink Friday routine from previous years. Some parents dropping off their children at school had pink paper taped to their car windows or honked to show their support for the 40 teachers who stood outside in pink wigs, bows and T-shirts.

Justin Li, a 17-year-old senior, photographed the protest for the school paper. The effects of the budget cuts have been noticeable, he said.

"We are seeing teachers being laid off year after year and we want to do something, because all the good teachers are leaving and more and more classes are being cut," Li said. "Teachers work too hard to lose their jobs."

The Alhambra district has seen a $6-million budget cut this school year and 38 teachers have received layoff notices, said Rosalyn Collier, vice president of the Alhambra Teachers Association.

"The cuts have left no wiggle room in the master schedule for the fall. Every class will be at 36 students and no less," said Kathleen Tar, an English teacher for 33 years. "So, if we have honors classes that do not meet 36, those classes will go away."

This week was the third time Steve Chambers, 47, a 5th-grade teacher at Allen At Steinbeck K-8 School in San Jose, has gotten a pink slip, but this is the first time that he has been truly worried. The economy is so bad everywhere, he has little confidence he would be able to get a teaching job elsewhere.

"It's irritating, the fact that I am an eight-year veteran and I could be out of a job for a year," said Chambers, who brought his class to listen to O'Connell's remarks.

Besides Chambers, Principal Nico Flores gave pink slips to four other teachers, one of his vice principals and a counselor. Flores said San Jose is better off than many school districts because it had a spending freeze and large reserve fund in place, but the topsy-turvy budget situation for schools makes him nervous.

"It's like crying wolf, crying wolf, and then suddenly the wolf is really coming and no one is listening," he said.

------------------------------------------------------------
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/T/TEACHER_LAYOFFS?SITE=FLROC&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
------------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

"A state that has these kind of crises year after year is really doing a poor job of planning."

Democrats and the unions have run California into the ground. They need to be protesting in from of the Democrats', the Governator's, and union offices.

Californians unite. You need to take their state back.