Our illustrious Mayor Heather Fargo sent out this idiotic press release yesterday in response to the California Supreme court decision to legalize gay marriage: 

Sacramento Mayor Heather Fargo Responds to

State Supreme Court Decision Legalizing Gay Marriage

 

 

Sacramento Mayor Heather Fargo released the following statement regarding today’s historic decision by the California State Supreme Court legalizing same-sex marriage:

 

“Today, the California State Supreme Court made an historic decision validating the equality of all Californians and indeed, all Sacramentans, by legalizing same-sex marriage. 

 

“Our City is proud to be a City that celebrates and encourages diversity.  The Court’s decision finally allows all of Sacramento’s residents to enjoy the right and freedom to love and have the legal benefits and protections that come with a commitment to marry.

 

“I share the joy of many of my friends who have waited so long for this day to come.”

 

Mayor Fargo will attend a special rally celebrating the Court’s decision this evening at 7:00 p.m. at the Sacramento Gay and Lesbian Center, 1927 L Street in Midtown Sacramento.

 

I am always intrigued when people describe Mayor Fargo as intelligent. Based on this statement, she does not know the difference between feelings and law, nor does she understand constitutionality.

Today, the California State Supreme Court decided 4-3 to recognize same-sex marriages in California.

Once again, extremest activists have done what is best for them, for the adults, without any consideration to the wake of destruction left heaped upon the children of these selfish, self-indulgent relationships.

Men and women are not interchangeable. A marriage between a man and a woman is not the same as a marriage between two men or two women. Marriage between a man and a women is what brings the unique power of self-respect, self-confidence and security to children - two opposing viewpoints in one household is mentally healthier for children.

In this era of gross misinformation about the realities of homosexuality, Dawn Stefanowicz, author of Out From Under: The Impact of Homosexual Parenting, whose own father led an openly homosexual life, writes, “From a young age, I was exposed to explicit sexual speech, self-indulgent lifestyles, varied GLBT sub-cultures and gay vacation spots,” Stefanowicz says in a warning to those who would give the nod to same-sex adoptions. “Sex looked gratuitous to me as a child. I was exposed to all-inclusive manifestations of sexuality including bathhouse sex, cross-dressing, sodomy, pornography, gay nudity, lesbianism, bi-sexuality, minor recruitment, voyeurism and exhibitionism. Sado-masochism was alluded to and aspects demonstrated. Alcohol and drugs were often contributing factors to lower inhibitions in my father’s relationships.”

Understandably, such an environment contributed to pathology in her life as well. “Over two decades of direct exposure to these stressful experiences caused me insecurity, depression, suicidal thoughts, dread, anxiousness, low self-esteem, sleeplessness and sexuality confusion. My conscience and innocence were seriously damaged. I witnessed that every other family member suffered severely as well.”

She adds, “Government and judges need to advance and defend marriage as between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others for the sake of our children.” The tragic realities of the homosexual sub-culture have already affected the offspring dramatically. But because the very nature of much of the homosexual lifestyle is one of selfish, self-indulgent hedonistic pursuits, the children are a throw-away by-product, that apparently Judges and gay activists feel is acceptible.

ProtectMarriage.com wrote this about the decision: As over 1.1 million signatures are being validated for the qualification of constitutional marriage amendment for the November 2008 ballot, the California Supreme Court today overturned Proposition 22, the initiative passed in 2000 by more than 61% of California’s voters. The Court declared a right to “same-sex marriage” in direct opposition to the definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman, established by Proposition 22.

In the majority decision authored by Chief Justice Ronald George, he wrote “an individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.”

"The Court’s rationale for its decision should prompt outrage from the majority of California’s citizens,” said Ron Prentice, chairman of the ProtectMarriage.com coalition. “The will of the people has been completely undermined by four individuals. In November, the people will have an opportunity to overrule the Court’s decision by passing a constitutional amendment – and California’s voters must respond by voting,” concluded Prentice.

ProtectMarriage.com is a coalition of grassroots organizations, churches and voters, formed in order to place a constitutional amendment on the November 2008 ballot. The Supreme Court’s ruling coincides with the submission of 1.1 million signatures to California’s 58 counties. Known as the California Marriage Protection Act, the initiative’s signatures are now undergoing a review for validation. Based on the current projection of valid signatures, it appears the initiative will qualify for the ballot.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Marvin Baxter stated, “…marriage is, as it always has been, the right of a woman and an unrelated man to marry each other.” Baxter added “…there is no deeply rooted tradition of same-sex marriage, in the nation or in this state.” Concurring, Prentice said, “Since time began, marriage between a man and a woman has served children and societies best. Today, the California Supreme Court dishonored marriage’s tradition and historic purposes, as well as the will of the people.”

The Court’s ruling will take effect in 30 days, unless a “stay” is requested. It is likely that legal representation for ProtectMarriage.com will seek a stay in order to allow the people to vote on the constitutional amendment in November.

The decision is outrageous and unconstitutional. I suspect that there will be backlash.

The Sacramento Bee has done it again. This time they are advancing the cause for the "Fairness Doctrine" under the auspices of "it's not fair."

On the Forum page in Sunday May 11, 2008, former Capital Public Radio personality Sue Wilson penned an opinion piece whining about how conservative talk radio is unfair because it dominates talk radio. She complained that liberal local talk radio was "taken" off the air (unfairly).

Wilson prattles on to support her opinion: In the political realm, three local radio stations program 264 hours of partisan Republican radio talkers beating up on Democrats every week. Now, zero stations program any Democratic view whatsoever: 264-0. This follows the national trend revealed in the 2007 Free Press and Center for American Progress study, "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio." Nationally, 90 percent of commercial talk radio is conservative; only 10 percent is liberal. (This study does not include Public Radio, which by statute is required to provide differing points of view. One is as likely to hear a Republican's views as a Democrat's. And NPR hosts don't beat up on anybody.)

Sue Wilson obviously never sat through a semester in Economics or even U.S. History. She does not understand that "if you build it they will come" only works in the movies. Basic economics tear her theory and whining apart. If not enough listeners tune in to a radio show to sell the advertising necessary to keep it on air, the owner of the radio station pulls the show. It's called supply and demand - not fair or unfair.

That's just the economic aspect. The political aspect is that people are obviously bored with the radio personalities and their liberal rhetoric. They spend entire shows whining, complaining, but never offer solutions or ideasIf we don't like it from our kids, why would we subject ourselves to it on the radio? They use foul language, they say horrible things about people, and it's pretty obvious why they do not have a listening audience capable of supporting the programming. What advertiser wants to have his company name associated with whining, anger, foul language, liberal rhetoric?

The Liberal agenda already controls most of our news and information sources: television news, newspapers, news shows, as well as the entertainment industry which slants almost all movies to the left and rewrites history. Additionally, educators indoctrinate students with the liberal agenda from elementary school through college.

And now liberals want to eradicate radio of any conservative thought. That's called censorship and is a violation of free speech rights guaranteed in our constitution - Amendment l to the Constitution, ratified December 15, 1791.

Ms. Wilson lives in a bubble. She needs to branch out and listen to some of the "conservative" radio she claims is dominating the air waves. But that's too much to ask. A differing opinion is unacceptible to most liberals. And don't bog them down with facts, research and history.

One aspect conservatives have over liberals: we are constantly bombarded with the liberal message everywhere we turn. Consequently, we are able to sort through both points of view and derive an educated opinion.

Sue Wilson cannot say that. Her opinion piece was an embarrassment - full of holes, a purely emotional argument, and used faulty, skewed research.

Read her opinion column for yourself: http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/927485.html The Sacramento Bee has exhibited an incredible lack of journalistic professionalism, judgment and once again demonstrated to readers that it is no longer a credible news source.

Are you calm while you sit in city traffic, or are you or agitated, angry and charged up? Do you imagine that while you sit in one lane of traffic that used to be two lanes, while cars around you are idling and spewing fumes in the air for neighbors, pedestrians and cyclists to breathe, that you are somehow helping the environment?

 

I attended the most recent Land Park Community Association (LPCA) meeting, where additional “traffic calming” projects were on the agenda. However, these were discussed by only a couple of enthusiastic residents. The rest of the neighbors sat upright in their seats, arms crossed against their chests, eyebrows raised in disbelief. The downtown neighborhood of Land Park has recently had “traffic calming” projects completed on two major streets; conversions of once-flowing one-way streets to two-way, and lane reductions from two lanes, to one lane. Councilman Rob Fong proudly calls this a “lane diet.” Several other downtown neighborhoods have also undergone lane conversions and lane reductions. But no one is calm. In fact, we are experiencing more traffic congestion, worse air quality and are left with dangerous road conditions because of these changes. So what’s the real motive behind the innocuous sounding but fallacious “traffic calming” in Sacramento?

Traffic congestion increases fuel consumption and the release of harmful emissions. If motorists avoided idling their vehicle for just five minutes per day, millions of CO2 would be not enter the atmosphere. Yet city traffic planners keep drawing up and executing plans that create more traffic problems than they solve. Numerous traffic engineering studies in cities across the United States show that arbitrarily interrupting traffic with "nuisance" or "speed-breaker" stop signs, speed bumps and round-abouts, increase intentional violation and can actually increase the overall speed on the road where they are used. The devious plan to force us out of our cars is not working.

We should instead be working on traffic signal synchronization, removal of unwarranted traffic signals, stop signs and traffic undulations. Increasing traffic flow is far more beneficial to neighborhoods as well as safer for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists.

When unreasonable restrictions are continually imposed, drivers become careless and/or contemptuous about the need to obey the law. Greater air pollution and neighborhood noise is created due to braking, deceleration and acceleration of vehicles. This is fact and the city doesn’t want to talk about it. They have their own agenda.

According to the National Motorists Association (NMA), another public misconception is that speed limits reduce vehicular speed and improve public safety. In fact, speed limits posted lower than dictated by California Vehicle Code leads to a greater risk of driver, pedestrian, and cyclist accidents. A driver's speed is more realistically dictated by the roadway appearance and traffic conditions than by posted speed limits. Traffic studies clearly show that reducing speed limits has no influence on vehicular speed. Unrealistically low limits cause some drivers to obey them and others to ignore them, which disrupts uniform traffic flow and increases accidents. Pedestrian and cyclists injuries increase because of their difficulty in judging the varying speed of traffic. Downtown Sacramento is a case in point.

Safety on the road should come first and foremost, and not through the indiscriminate use of traffic control devices. Instead, city officials and neighborhood activists bombard us with messages of “traffic calming,” which is nothing more than a euphemism for traffic obstruction and diversion.

A significant portion of vehicular fuel consumption is wasted due to unwarranted traffic control. Traffic engineering studies have demonstrated that in cities with excessive numbers of traffic signals and stop signs, the fuel consumed by vehicles stopping and idling accounts for approximately 40% of all vehicular fuel consumption.

However, it is obvious that the decisions for traffic control devices are made in response to undue public pressure by special interests. People who purchase a home on a major thoroughfare in a neighborhood want reduced traffic. Neighbors fear for their safety when there is no traffic enforcement. Instead, they should be advocating for realistic traffic safety enforcement and efficient traffic flow on thoroughfares.

Then there are the extreme groups of bicycle advocates, which is what’s driving Sacramento’s “traffic calming” scheme. They absurdly and unrealistically advocate for no cars on the road, and use burdensome traffic control devices as their instrument. Traffic engineers know that what the extremists are asking is actually jeopardizing public safety, but on the surface, it looks as if they are fighting for bicyclists and pedestrians, and doing their part in the politically correct fight against global warming.

Traffic signals are only an asset to traffic control if installed at intersections that really warrant a signal; stop signs are intended to help drivers and pedestrians decide who has the right-of-way and not for speed control; crosswalks are only for the guidance and control of pedestrians and not to ensure safety; lower speed limits do not slow down traffic; speed bumps are more hazardous than helpful on public streets, especially on streets designated as emergency vehicle routes; and unnecessary traffic control devices cause pollution.

The rise in road rage and the increasing dilemma of  red lights runners, is linked to the proliferation of needless traffic control devices and the nonsensical “traffic calming” techniques being used across the country. Practical, levelheaded traffic control and enforcement would solve many of these problems, rather than using punishment techniques against people who drive automobiles.

“Traffic calming” devices, such as speed bumps and traffic circles (round-abouts) are being installed in communities across the United States, without regard to their risks. Deflection devices built to slow passenger vehicles, create even greater delays to large emergency response vehicles. The longer wheel-base, stiff suspension, and high vehicle weight, requires drivers to slow almost to a stop to negotiate the devices safely. On our downtown streets, large delivery trucks cannot navigate a right turn around the newly installed jutting street corners, or the many round-abouts that sit in the middle of small intersections.

Stop-and-go traffic creates an environmental impact that takes a toll on health and quality-of-life. “Traffic calming” is the tool used by city officials to regulate and deliberately inconvenience, as well as hinder, the legitimate travel of motorists. As a community, we must put an end this obstruction and abuse.

 There is nothing like a good old-fashioned political scandal to obfuscate the truth. The chips are down as well as her poll numbers; the truth is that Mayor Fargo et al (Richie Ross) glommed on to old accusations of sexual impropriety by challenger Kevin Johnson, in order to bewilder and confuse the good, caring voter. The truth is that Mayor Fargo cannot run on her merit, so a scandal must be the answer.

 

But what Fargo did not count on is that many voters feel that she’s dishing out the justice. Together with The Sacramento Bee editors, Mayor Fargo has made sure that Johnson has been tried, convicted and sentenced to life. Or so she thinks.

 

Remember when Arnold Schwarzenegger was accused of being a “groper?” Oh how the media relished that issue, playing the accusations over and over, while assisting his challenger in the inevitable take down. But the manipulators forget that voters actually do have the ability to reason, and possess the olfactory senses that are so necessary for smelling a rat. Witness Governor Schwarzenegger and not Governor Bustamante.

 

Professional athletes have certainly had their issues surrounding sex and violence. However, what few people are willing to talk about is the professional athlete as a victim. Professional athletes are stalked more than any other group of famous persons. Pro athletes are targeted by gangs of ruthless women for several reasons: Bragging rights, shakedowns, calculated set-ups for monetary gain, pregnancy, and the like. Unscrupulous mothers coach their teenage daughters on how to set up the pro athlete for a sexual shakedown. That’s how bad this phenomenon is.

 

Today’s professional athlete cannot walk to his hotel room without women lurking about, waiting for opportunity. Golfers on the PGA tour report flocks of groupie women throwing their proverbial panties at them, attempting pickups and hook-ups at every restaurant and bar on the tour, just for a piece of the famous (and rich) guy.

 

And let’s be straight about one thing: we are talking about men, with all of their drives and appetites. Some men, married or not, accept the proposals. Some do not. But the point is, that with millions of women behaving very badly, offering sex to men they do not know, there are going to be a few takers. And the taking has a hefty price.

 

In his 1991 biography, Wilt Chamberlain bragged that he had sex with at least 20,000 women. Magic Johnson contracted the AIDS virus during his bachelor days, probably through the revolving door to his bedroom. Neither of these men is an example of a victim, but the easy access they had to women is despicable.

 

Women learn how to affect men from the first flirtation with our fathers when we are still toddling around in diapers. Teenage girls know and love the reaction they are able to elicit from men, young and old. Many of today’s teenage girls are built like Marilyn Monroe, and dress like Madonna and Brittney Spears. The only message men get from the sleazy attire is “I’m easy.”

 

Today’s young women have been trained as predators, to whiff out the scent of money, fame and power. There have always been women who are attracted to powerful rich men, but today’s phenomenon of girls giving “it” away, of relentlessly pursuing male professional athletes, is diabolical. The powerful regret the women have after giving “it” away is often what leads to claims of inappropriateness. Women are not wired the way men are; we don’t hunt down “prey” for the sport of it. However, after several generations of feminists telling us that we are just like men, and raising daughters to deserve everything men have and are, women can’t live with the aftershock. When women behave like men, and suffer the consequences of their actions, they hate themselves. And now, women are dragging too many men through the emotional muck alongside them.

 

We have no idea what famous professional athletes go through. Some guys love the attention the way Chamberlain and Magic Johnson did.  And yes, even as protected as they are by the NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL, and the PGA, they are vulnerable. Female predators are just as dangerous as their male counterparts, and usually more emotionally unstable.

 

Pro athletes are more aggressive, more confident, and bigger risk takers than the average man or woman. And some are just jerks, just like the average guy or gal. Most just wanted to play basketball, baseball, football or golf. The fame was a ticket out, as well as a side effect. But did any of these talented men ask for throngs of crazy, sleazy women to hunt them down at every turn? Did they want to be marked as easy prey for predatory women?

Tom "Satch" Sanders of the Boston Celtics works as Vice President of Player Programs for the NBA. “Their (players) prominence means they will take much more heat from the media and the public for similar situations that befall other people with normal lives,” Sanders explained. Sanders expanded on this: "Everyone feels that athletes have to take the good with the bad, the glory with the negative publicity. However, no one appreciates the broad-brush application that is applied in so many instances. Of the few thousand that play sport on the highest level, if four or five individuals in each sport - particularly if they are black - have problems with the law, people won't have long to wait before some media people are talking about all those athletes."

Mayoral candidate Kevin Johnson has been tried and convicted in the media on what has unfortunately become customary; women bent on getting whatever they want, for whatever the reason, regardless of the cost. And because he is a famous, black, professional NBA star, it’s a media shakedown. God help anyone who wants to run for political office; you either have to be willing to live with the horrifying, negative media, or be as dull as Mayor Fargo.

(From a letter I wrote to the city:) People are poaching, hunting and fishing in the park by my house. Since the end of January, the pond nearest my house on is missing 14 domestic geese. There are no domestic geese in left in the big pond. And domestic geese do not fly and/or migrate.

 

The two geese that my husband and I raised, (after they were abandoned by their parents on our doorstep), just disappeared as well. I have been in contact with Animal Control as well as the park management, and what we have discovered is appalling. Southeast Asian persons are poaching in Land Park very regularly. The gentleman who works for park maintenance and is in charge of the area near my house, is well aware of this and has caught many people hunting geese, ducks and other birds, even squirrels. Not even the ducks and geese on the island are safe; the children are instructed by the parents to swim into the pond and catch and kill the birds. This is not done for personal consumption – the captured birds are then sold to Asian markets. This is mercenary and illegal.

 

The other problem is that the people who illegally fish from the ponds (permits are required) leave their discarded barbed hooks and lines strewn about on the grass and walkways. Fishing has become a daily occurrence in both ponds. Ducks and geese get tangled in the fishing line so severely, that several wild geese now have lame legs from being constricted by tangled line. My husband and I have rescued and saved a few geese that had three-pronged barbed hooks caught in their feet, and line wrapped around their legs. I even pulled 4 feet of fishing line from the throat of a choking goose recently.

And who is going to do something about it?

Fargo Far Gone from Accountability
Fargo conveniently jumped on the real estate downturn as a simplistic and emotional answer for Sacramento’s exorbitant budget deficit. In one aspect, she is right: Several new development areas in Sacramento are experiencing unusually high numbers of foreclosures. But who pushed for and ultimately approved the development of the thousands of new homes in the city and county, even when economic forecasters predicted that the real estate market would crash? Mayor Fargo, the Sacramento City Council and the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors all took developer money for their campaigns and rewarded commercial and residential developers with fields of gold.

 

Up is down, left is right and wasting is saving at City Hall.
(Sacramento Union Photo/Lance Armstrong)

There is plenty about residential development to discuss, yet when discussing the current city economy, we must focus on commercial development in downtown Sacramento as well. Recently, it was announced that the city agreed to sell the 503-room Sheraton Grand Hotel for $130 million to local developer David Taylor. The council voted to quickly sell to Taylor against advice from City Treasurer Tom Berke, who said that more review was needed and he felt that the council was being hasty (i.e. they were selling at the bottom of the market). The city council voted 8-1 to sell the hotel, with Councilman Kevin McCarty as the only dissenting vote.

The Sacramento Bee reported Councilman Steve Cohn’s response to Tom Berke’s warning as: “If you’re correct about how severe this recession is, now is exactly the time to sell. None of us has a crystal ball, but what we’ve been presented with has great benefits for the city. Frankly, I want to get out of the hotel business and invest in other things.”

How’s that for cut-and-run thinking?

Proceeds Proceed to What End?
After paying off the bond debt left from the construction of the hotel, the city expects to receive $40-$45 million from the proceeds of the sale, one-half of which ($20-$23 million) they are giving back to developer Taylor for “as-yet-unspecified downtown projects.”

Only 25 percent of the $40 million proceeds will actually make it into the city’s budget reserve account—only $10 million against an estimated $55 million deficit.

Aren’t you curious why the $40 million that could be used against the $55 million deficit is not going to be?