Tag Archives: San Diego

Woman, 45, claims she is ‘married’ to a train station

train station freak

Carol and her “wife,” the train station.

Hey, #LoveIsLove, or something like that…

From Daily Mail: A woman has ‘married’ a train station and claims they have spent 36 years in love with one another. Carol Santa Fe, 45, from San Diego, California, says she fell for Santa Fe train station when she was nine years old. Although the union is not legally binding, she ‘tied the knot’ with the building in 2015 – and celebrated their one year anniversary last Christmas.

Ms. Santa Fe says she has ‘sex’ with the station mentally and identifies herself as an objectum sexual – a person who is sexually attracted to inanimate objects and structures.

It is a worldwide debate whether the phenomenon is a sexuality, fetish or mental condition.

Ms. Santa Fe said: ‘I am married to the Santa Fe train station – her name is Daidra. We didn’t start a relationship until 2011 but I had been in love with the station since I was a young girl. When we got married, I stood there and I told her that I take it as my partner. It was the happiest day of our lives.

Every day the volunteer support worker takes a 45 minute bus ride to the station to spend time with the building. She said: ‘When I get there I say hello to her – I then walk around the block circling around her, trying not to let anyone notice I am talking. There is a private bit where two walls meet, I go there to touch her, which I do by leaning against her with my clothes on. When I’m touching her, I feel as though it actually holds me and kisses me.’

‘I don’t have physical sex with the station in public, I want to be respectful. I wouldn’t do that with a human in public so why would I do it in this case. I do have sex with Daidra in my mind when I stand there. I especially like when I hear the trains rev up their engines – it turns me on.’

Ms. Santa Fe – who has lived in California since she was three – claims the train station is the love of her life despite being in a previous relationship with a man.

She added: ‘I loved a human once before, his name was Tom and we were together for 18 months. But it didn’t work out and I felt amazing when I got into a relationship with Diadra because she told that she would never leave me. I love her so much, she is so romantic.’

‘We first consummated our love a few years ago when I felt the wall behind me, and I felt this energy. I came close to an orgasm and I was scared I’d get caught by the station staff. I don’t ever want the security guards to find out – I am a closeted objectum sexual.’

Ms. Santa Fe discovered she was an objectum sexual after she searched online ‘I am in love with a building’.

She is not the first to confess her love for inanimate objects. Erica Eiffel, an objectum sexual, famously married Paris’s Eiffel Tower in 2007. Another well-known objectum sexual is Eklöf Berliner-Mauer, who married the Berlin wall in 1979 and was the first person to come forward with objectum sexuality.

Ms. Santa Fe hides her attraction while at the building because she fears she could be banned from the site. She added: ‘It’s not at all because I am ashamed. Erica Eiffel got banned from the Eiffel Tower for kissing it and straddling it – so I don’t want to get banned like she did. I don’t like to publicly show anything between me and Daidra as I have more respect than that.’

Carol has been working as a volunteer for emotional support groups for years.

Carol said: ‘Objectum sexuality is not a mental illness like the media always makes out. It is our sexuality, just like being lesbian or bisexual – we are not crazy. People just don’t understand. I feel really lonely not having anyone to talk to about it.’

Daidra has been the most stable partner I have ever had. I have had the time of my life being her wife. I used to be scared of being in love with humans, but I’m not scared with Daidra. I can never leave San Diego, because my lover is here. I could never love another train station – she is the one.’

DCG

Advertisements

The price tag on universal health care in California is bigger than state’s budget

government solve all problems

Shocker, not.

From Sacramento Bee: The pricetag is in: It would cost $400 billion to remake California’s health insurance marketplace and create a publicly funded universal health care system, according to a state financial analysis released Monday.

California would have to find an additional $200 billion per year, including in new tax revenues, to create a so-called “single-payer” system, the analysis by the Senate Appropriations committee found. The estimate assumes the state would retain the existing $200 billion in local, state and federal funding it currently receives to offset the total $400 billion price tag.

The cost analysis is seen as the biggest hurdle to create a universal system, proposed by Sens. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, and Toni Atkins, D-San Diego.

It remains a longshot bid. Steep projected costs have derailed efforts over the past two decades to establish such a health care system in California. The cost is higher than the $180 billion in proposed general fund and special fund spending for the budget year beginning July 1.

Employers currently spend between $100 billion to $150 billion per year, which could be available to help offset total costs, according to the analysis. Under that scenario, total new spending to implement the system would be between $50 billion and $100 billion per year.

“Health care spending is growing faster than the overall economy…yet we do not have better health outcomes and we cover fewer people,” Lara said at Monday’s appropriations hearing. “Given this picture of increasing costs, health care inefficiencies and the uncertainty created by Congress, it is critical that California chart our own path.”

The idea behind Senate Bill 562 is to overhaul California’s insurance marketplace, reduce overall health care costs and expand coverage to everyone in the state regardless of immigration status or ability to pay. Instead of private insurers, state government would be the “single payer” for everyone’s health care through a new payroll taxing structure, similar to the way Medicare operates.

Lara and Atkins say they are driven by the belief that health care is a human right and should be guaranteed to everyone similar to public services like safe roads and clean drinking water. They seek to rein in rising health care costs by lowering administrative expenses, reducing expensive emergency room visits and eliminating insurance company profits and executive salaries.

In addition to covering undocumented people illegal aliens, Lara said the goal is to expand health access to people who, even with insurance, may skip doctor visits or stretch out medications due to high co-pays and deductibles.  “Doctors and hospitals would no longer need to negotiate rates and deal with insurance companies to seek reimbursement,” Lara said.

Insurance groups, health plans and Kaiser Permanente are against the bill. Industry representatives say California should focus on improving the Affordable Care Act. Business groups, including the California Chamber of Commerce, have deemed the bill a “job-killer.”

“A single-payer system is massively, if not prohibitively expensive,” said Nick Louizos, vice president of legislative affairs for the California Association of Health Plans. “It will cost employers and taxpayers billions of dollars and result in significant loss of jobs in the state,” the Chamber of Commerce said in its opposition letter.

Underlying the debate is uncertainty at the federal level over what President Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress will do with Obamacare. The House Republican bill advanced earlier this month would dismantle it by removing its foundation – the individual mandate that requires everyone to have coverage or pay a tax penalty.

Republican-led efforts to repeal and replace Obamacare is fueling political support for the bill, Atkins said at a universal health care rally this past weekend in Sacramento hosted by the California Nurses Association, a co-sponsor.

“This is a high-ticket expense…We have to figure out how to cover everyone and work on addressing the costs in the long-term — that’s our challenge,” Atkins said. “I’m optimistic.”

The bill has to get approval on the Senate floor by June 2 to advance to the Assembly. A financing plan is underway, which could suggest diverting money employers pay for worker’s compensation insurance to a state-run coverage system.

Lara said he believes California can and should play a prominent role in improving people’s lives. “We can do better,” he said.

DCG

California Democrats flip off Donald Trump and Shout “F*ck Donald Trump”

john burton and nancy pelosi

Pelosi and her foul-mouthed buddy, John Burton

Remember, “Love Trumps Hate.”

From Sacramento Bee: The anti-Trump fervor at California’s Democratic Party convention this weekend can be summarized in choice words from outgoing chair of the California Democratic Party, John Burton: “F*%! Donald Trump.”

The always foul-mouthed Burton, 84, stood before thousands of Democratic delegates at Saturday’s general assembly, and as a rallying cry asked the crowd to join in. He then shoved two fists in the air, flipping the bird. Across the room at the Sacramento Convention Center, many in the audience followed suit.

On stage were House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, Rep, Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, state Sen. Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, and others.

Democrats over the weekend were fired up about Donald Trump’s presidency, investigations into Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election and possible collusion with the Trump campaign and the heated health care debate in California. Nearly every politician who took the stage at Saturday’s convention denounced Trump and his agenda.

“We are President Trump’s worst nightmare,” California Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León said in a speech.

Burton, who took over as chairman of the state Democratic Party in 2009, fired off expletives throughout the three-day convention.

“Put your f*&#! sign down man, we’re all for it,” Burton said to a crowd of nurses urging fellow Democrats to support a bill in the Legislature that would create a publicly funded, universal health care system for California.

Friday night, hecklers shouted down Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg moments before Democratic National Party Chairman Tom Perez took the microphone, chanting in support of single-payer health care. “Hey shut the F$@# up or go outside alright?” Burton said.

h/t Gateway Pundit (See the video there.)

DCG

Second Amendment case Peruta vs. California may be heading to Supreme Court

erwin chemerinsky

Dean Erwin Chemerinsky: No right to have concealed weapons

If this does make it to the Supreme Court, I’m certainly hoping for an outcome which favors legal firearm owners.

From Fox News: The Second Amendment is only 27 words, but Americans have used millions of words arguing over what it means. It guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” But which people, what arms, and under what circumstances?

Two milestone cases involving the Second Amendment that reached the Supreme Court are District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), declaring an individual has a right to own a firearm, and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), affirming the Second Amendment applies to state law.

Now, if the Supreme Court decides to hear it, there may be a third major case in a decade: Peruta v. California.

At issue is the right to keep and bear arms outside the home. The Heller case specifically applies to situations within the home. Those who have petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case are hoping the justices will see it as a logical extension of their earlier opinions.

The case arose when Edward Peruta and other gun owners who lived in or near San Diego, Calif., couldn’t get concealed-carry permits in their county. The Sheriff’s Department handles permit requests and requires “good cause” to carry a gun outside of the home. This does not mean a generalized concern for safety, but something specific, such as fear of domestic violence or a regular need to move large amounts of money.

There were two separate lawsuits challenging the interpretation of “good cause,” but the district courts found no violation of the Second Amendment.

Then, in 2014, a three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the policy did indeed violate the right to bear arms for self-defense. The state, however, got a new hearing in front of 11 9th Circuit judges, who decided 7-4, the restrictions for concealed-carry permits were allowable.

The case has now been appealed to the Supreme Court and though the Justices have rescheduled its consideration several times, some experts feel the court is finally ready to hear Peruta.

“I suspect they’re going to grant it,” said John Eastman, former law dean at Chapman University and the director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence. Eastman told Fox News, “it’s percolating all across the country.”

He also feels the justices may have put it off while waiting for a full complement on the court, which they got when Neil Gorsuch was confirmed last month. Gorsuch, in fact, may be the justice to tip the opinion in one direction or the other, as previous Second Amendment cases were determined in a 5-4 ruling.

According to Eugene Volokh, professor of law at University of California at Los Angeles, this case is primed for the Supreme Court, as it deals with a basic constitutional right and “the lower courts are split on the issue.”

It would be a good time for the highest court to step in and settle the controversy. He also feels that while no one is sure how Gorsuch will vote, there is a “sense that he’s sympathetic to a broader view” of the Second Amendment.

The case may turn on how the court frames the issue. To Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California Irvine School of Law, the legal question to be settled is whether a state like California may determine its own rules on concealed-carry permits.

“The Second Amendment isn’t an absolute right,” Chemerinsky notes. Throughout British and American history, “there’s never been a right to have concealed weapons.”

But Eugene Volokh believes there’s a bigger issue at stake. If the state of California, which essentially bans open carry of a gun, makes it next to impossible for a typical citizen to get a concealed-carry permit, this is “tantamount to banning” the right to bear arms “except for a few favored people.”

Experts agree on one point. As Chemerinsky puts it, if Peruta is taken up, “no matter what the Supreme Court says, it will be a landmark decision.”

DCG

‘Babies before booze’ CA bill would raise liquor tax to pay for tax-free diapers, tampons

lorena gonzalez

Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher

The woman who wants you to put “babies before booze” is also a big supporter of abortion mill and baby parts harvester/seller Planned Parenthood. I question Ms. Fletcher’s values.

From Sacramento Bee: After Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed their bills last year to exempt diapers and feminine hygiene products from sales taxes, citing the cost to state and local revenues, Assemblywomen Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher and Cristina Garcia went looking for a way to pay for the measures.

Their solution: Raise the excise tax on distributors of hard alcohol when they buy their product from manufacturers, which hasn’t increased since 1991.

“This is a question of values,” Gonzalez Fletcher, D-San Diego, said. “We should be putting babies before booze.”

The assemblywomen unveiled their proposal, Assembly Bill 479, at a press conference on Thursday. It would raise the liquor tax by about a third – to $4.50 from $3.30 per gallon – which they said equates to less than 2 cents per drink. That revenue would offset the cost of exempting diapers and products like tampons and pads from sales taxes, estimated by state officials last year at $55 million, half of which goes to the general fund.

Because it proposes a tax increase, the bill would require a two-thirds vote of the Legislature. Gonzalez Fletcher and Garcia, D-Bell Gardens, urged their colleagues to prioritize “basic necessities” over a luxury item, pointing to significant potential savings for women, families and senior citizens – as much as $100 annually on diapers, for example, enough to pay for a month’s supply.

“No one claims liquor is a basic necessity of life. My period is not optional,” Garcia said. “There is no happy hour for menstruation.”

DCG

California lawmakers want third-gender option on IDs

genders

From Fox News: Democratic lawmakers on Thursday introduced a bill supporters say would make California the first state to add a third gender option on state identifying documents.

State Sen. Toni Atkins’ bill would add a non-binary gender marker option for driver’s licenses, birth certificates, identity cards and gender change court orders. The San Diego Democrat says SB 179 would also simplify the process for changing one’s gender on those documents.

Transgender people face discrimination in their everyday lives when they use IDs that do not match the gender they appear to be, Atkins said. The legislation would help transgender people and those who do not identify as either male or female to obtain official documents that match their gender identity, she said.

SB 179 would end the requirements that a person get a doctor’s sworn statement and appear in court even if no objections have been filed when petitioning to change their gender on official documents. The bill would also allow minors to apply for a gender change on their birth certificate.

This legislation would be the first of its kind in the country, said Jo Michael, who works with Equality California, a group that advocates for LGBT rights and is co-sponsoring Atkins’ bill.

“As a person who identifies as transgender and is non-binary, this piece of legislation is important to me on a personal level,” Michael said during a press conference on the bill. “For the first time, Californians could have accurate gender markers that truly reflect who we are.”

The federal government does not offer a third gender option for official documents such as passports. The issue drew national attention in November when a federal judge asked the U.S. State Department to reconsider its decision to deny a passport to a Colorado resident who does not identify as male or female. Government lawyers argued that moving beyond two gender choices on federal documents would hamper officials’ ability to verify identities and backgrounds because they rely on state documents including drivers’ licenses and birth certificates with only male and female gender options.

The California Family Council, a conservative Christian group, opposes adding gender options beyond male and female to state documents, the group’s CEO Jonathan Keller said.

“We believe government documents need to reflect biological facts for identification and medical purposes,” Keller said in a statement on SB 179. “Laws like this will simply erase any meaningful gender definitions, if being male or female is completely divorced from biological facts.”

Sen. Scott Wiener is coauthoring SB 179 and said he thinks California should lead the way in enacting protections for transgender people.

The trans community is under assault in this country. California needs to go in the opposite direction,” the San Francisco Democrat said. “When they go backwards, we go forwards.”

DCG

Court: People have no right to carry concealed weapons in public

MOLON LABE.

second amendment3

From Q13Fox: A federal appeals court ruled on Thursday that there is no Second Amendment protection for concealed weapons — allowing states to prohibit or restrict the public from carrying concealed firearms.

The en banc opinion by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals could set up a new showdown on gun rights at the Supreme Court.

At issue was California’s law on concealed weapons, which requires citizens to prove they have “good cause” to carry concealed firearms to get a license. Plaintiffs challenged guidelines in San Diego and Yolo counties that did not consider general self-defense to be enough to obtain a license.

The 9th Circuit held 7-4 in the case, Peruta v. County of San Diego, that the restrictions on concealed carry are constitutional, ruling that the Second Amendment right to bear arms does not provide a right to carry concealed arms.

Judge William Fletcher

Judge William Fletcher

“The historical materials bearing on the adoption of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments are remarkably consistent,” wrote Judge William Fletcher, going back to 16th century English law to find instances of restrictions on concealed weapons. “We therefore conclude that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms does not include, in any degree, the right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.”

Fletcher also cited the most recent Supreme Court cases on gun rights, District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago, which were major victories for gun rights activists, in making his case.

The Heller decision, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, solidified a Second Amendment right of the public to keep guns, but it specifically noted the right was not absolute, and Fletcher pointed out that Scalia cited restrictions on concealed weapons as a historical example.

The court was careful to make the ruling narrow. The opinion does not say concealed weapons are unconstitutional, nor does it make any decisions about openly carrying weapons in public.

The case was a blow for gun rights advocates, and sets up the fight on gun rights for the Supreme Court to consider, says UCLA law professor and gun law expert Adam Winkler.

“This case raises the next great question for the Supreme Court: Does the Second Amendment guarantee a right to carry guns in public? And if so, what kind of licensing can states use to permit people to carry concealed weapons?” Winkler said.

The Supreme Court would not necessarily have to take up the case. The ruling does not create a substantive divide among different circuit courts in the U.S., one of the major factors the court considers in weighing which cases to take.

Judge Consuelo Callahan

Judge Consuelo Callahan

Four judges dissented from the ruling, with the main dissent by Judge Consuelo Callahan (appointed by Bush) arguing that California’s laws taken together amount to a substantial restriction on citizens’ right to bear arms for self defense, as protected by the Second Amendment.

Whether the court does or does not take the case, the early 2016 death of Scalia looms large over it. Scalia authored Heller, the most substantial gun ruling in modern history of the court. And Republicans in the Senate have refused to consider President Barack Obama’s nominee for replacing Scalia on the court, meaning the eight justice panel can split 4-4.

Without a ninth justice, Winkler said, it’s unlikely the court would take up the case, even with Scalia’s allies on the issue Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas still on the court.

Obama’s nominee to replace Scalia, Judge Merrick Garland, was chosen in large part for his moderate record. But one of the most substantial conservative arguments against Garland has been that his record on guns is too liberal, though his written record on the issue is limited.

The case was argued by Paul Clement, a former solicitor general under the George W. Bush administration and one of the top litigators for conservative causes at the Supreme Court in recent years.

Ever since the Supreme Court decided the Heller decision and a follow up case two years later, the Supreme Court has declined to take another major second amendment case, a frustration Clement cited in a 2013 filing with the court.

In the years since Heller had been decided many expected a “major consideration” or extant firearms laws, Clement wrote. “Instead, jurisdictions have engaged in massive resistance to the clear import of those landmark decisions, and the lower federal courts, long out of the habit of taking the Second Amendment seriously, have largely facilitated that resistance.”

California state Attorney General Kamala Harris said the decision “is a victory for public safety and sensible gun safety laws. The ruling ensures that local law enforcement leaders have the tools they need to protect public safety by determining who can carry loaded, concealed weapons in our communities.”

ssig_biteme_100-103

DCG