Fox Business Varney California Love

Thank you to Fox Business Network and Stuart Varney for having me on Varney & Co. on Thursday, March 15, 2018.

The topic was California. I talked up the positives while Stuart pointed out the perceived problems.

Here is a little highlight clip:

And here is the whole segment:

FNC Tucker Carlson California Quality Of Life

I joined Tucker Carlson again on Fox News March 2, 2018. Our discussion centered on U.S. News & World Report’s Best States Ranking with California #32 overall and #50 in Quality of Life, while ranked #4 for economy.

We covered everything from immigration to homelessness, the environment and drugs.

Here is a short clip:

And here is the full segment:

FNC Tucker Carlson Palm Springs Racist Trees

Screenshot Tucker Carlson 12-21-2017

I joined Tucker Carlson Tonight again Thursday night, December 21, 2017, on Fox News! Tucker wanted to mockingly revisit the story of trees allegedly planted for racist reasons along a golf course in Palm Springs, California.

My argument is focused on racist origins (the neighborhood came about because Palm Springs engaged in ethnic housing cleansing), the fire hazard of tamarisk trees, and the waste of the water in drought ravaged California.

Take a look at the clip below and share your thoughts!

FNC Tucker Carlson California Elder Abuse HIV Spread

I joined Tucker Carlson Tonight again last night on Fox News! Tucker wanted to tie two separate new California state laws into one topic: SB219 and SB239.

One adds intentional and repeated use of names/pronouns for a person in a state licensed nursing home to the definition of elder abuse. Elder abuse is the physical or psychological harm of an elder, BTW.

The other reduces the charge for not informing a sex partner that you knowingly have HIV from a felony to a misdemeanor (up to 6 months in jail per charge). This stems from prison overcrowding, medical advances, and if someone dies homicide charges still are available.

What do you think?

 

FNC Tucker Carlson California China Climate Deal

FNC Tucker Carlson California China Climate Deal

I joined Fox News Channel’s Tucker Carlson Tonight with Tucker Carlson on June 7, 2017. We discussed California Governor Jerry Brown striking a deal with the Chinese to work on clean energy, trading technology and committing resources in a non-binding agreement.

From The Hill:

California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed an agreement to work with China to lower greenhouse gas emissions Tuesday, just days after President Trump pulled the United States out of an international climate change agreement.

The agreement, though nonbinding, aims to expand cooperation between China and California on renewable energy, zero-emission vehicles and low-carbon urban development, Brown’s office said. It will establish a joint working group of Chinese and Californian officials to come up with ways to work together, and to invest in programs that would cut carbon emissions.

What do you think of our exchange?

Tune in to my KGO 810 radio show every weekday from noon to 2pm Pacific time in the Bay Area or online at www.kgoradio.com

Ethan Explains California Proposition 66

Ethan Explains California Proposition 66

This is the last of the California statewide ballot initiatives in 2016 that I’ll cover. Proposition 66 is the “Death Penalty Procedures Initiative” Also known as the “Death Penalty Reform and Savings” Initiative.” This is the second initiative on the ballot to address the death penalty this year. The other is Prop 62.

The death penalty is having trouble in California because of the massive and lengthy appeals process. When talking about the ultimate penalty, death, we as a society do need to be careful.

However, endless delays, limited attorneys, and the only court that can hear habeas corpus in death penalty is the California Supreme Court.

So, Proposition 66 aims to address those issues by letting lower courts hear the appeals, which will then work their way up through the system like any other crime. Further, it caps the appeals length to 5 years. But, this Proposition also throws in a work requirement.

I like portions of this initiative, like opening up the courts and attorneys that can address these cases. I am uncomfortable with a constitutional work requirement to repay victims. I support the idea of prisoners working to pay off their debts: court ordered yes, prison system ordered yes, constitutionally ordered no.

Further, I think the five year cap is actually too short. Seven or ten years seems like a much more reasonable cap, five is simply too short to accomplish everything required in a capital punishment case.

I still support having the death penalty available, plus a reasonable process to ensure proper justice. But like so many other propositions, this one is trying to address too many things at once, some of which I disagree.

I say NO to Proposition 66.

Tune in to The Ethan Bearman Show Monday through Friday, noon to 2 p.m. on KGO 810 – www.kgoradio.com

Ethan Explains California Proposition 65 and 67

Ethan Explains California Proposition 65 and 67 – Plastic Bag Ban Money

This is numbers 15 & 16 of 17 of the California statewide ballot initiatives in 2016 that I’ll cover. Both are related to the California statewide plastic bag ban and what to do with the money. Proposition 65 is the “Dedication of Revenue from Disposable Bag Sales to Wildlife Conservation Fund Initiative.” Proposition 67 is the “California Plastic Bag Ban Veto Referendum.”

Proposition 65 sends the money that grocers collect, by law, for the paper bags and sends it to the California Treasury for management by the Wildlife Conservation Board.

Proposition 67 lets the grocery stores keep the money.

Since the plastic bag ban was to help save the oceans and environment from plastic pollution, doesn’t it make sense to spend the money on environmental programs?

I never understood why grocers were forced by law to charge for the brown paper bags. Why not let them compete and make it a value added service? Instead it became a government mandated revenue stream. I want to keep plastic bags out of the ocean, the beaches, and the rest of the environment. But, since our legislators decided on forcing a charge for paper bags, let that money go to environmental programs.

I say YES to Prop 65 and NO to Prop 67.

Tune in to The Ethan Bearman Show Monday through Friday, noon to 2 p.m. on KGO 810 – www.kgoradio.com

Ethan Explains California Proposition 64

Ethan Explains California Proposition 64

This is number 14 of 17 of the California statewide ballot initiatives in 2016 that I’ll cover. Proposition 64 is the “Marijuana Legalization. Initiative Statute.” Also known as the “California Marijuana Legalization Initiative.”

Is it high time for reefer madness to end?

Medical marijuana is already legal. We all know many people who smoke or consume cannabis recreationally. Why not remove the criminal element?

Legalize, tax, regulate. Sensible, no? Like Washington and Colorado have already shown us.

This initiative would allow Californians 21 years of age and over to possess up to one ounce of weed, have six plants for growing, tax sales at 15 percent, and limit ads targeted at minors.

All attempts for the past 45 years to stop people from consuming cannabis have failed. Stop supporting the cartels.

One area that does need to be addressed is Driving Under the Influence (DUI). I am concerned about that now and California needs a standard in place to address this problem. BTW, I discussed this on my KGO Show with Todd Mitchem from Colorado. Take a listen HERE.

It’s also important to note that not only has prohibition not worked, in Washington and Colorado usage rates have NOT gone up since legalization. This simply removes the criminal element.

And if you want a deeper look at the failed drug war, grab a copy of my book Liars & Whores: How Big Government and Big Business Are Working to Save Their Own Assets, Not Yours

I say YES to Proposition 64.

Tune in to The Ethan Bearman Show Monday through Friday, noon to 2 p.m. on KGO 810 – www.kgoradio.com

Ethan Explains California Proposition 63

Ethan Explains California Proposition 63

This is number 13 of 17 of the California statewide ballot initiatives in 2016 that I’ll cover. Proposition 63 is the “The Safety for All Act of 2016.” Also known as the “Background Checks for Ammunition Purchases and Large-Capacity Ammunition Magazine Ban.”

Who doesn’t want to reduce the murder rate?

Proposition 63 claims to reduce gun crimes in the state of California by requiring background checks for the purchase of ammunition, banning possession of large capacity magazines, increasing penalties for theft of firearms, and requiring reporting for those thefts.

Requiring background checks for the purchase of ammunition

This is a newer approach by gun control advocates. The claim is that a criminal in possession of an illegal firearm still needs to buy ammunition. If we make the purchase of ammunition more difficult, they will commit fewer crimes with firearms. On the face of it, that appears logical. However, Illinois has already had this type of rule in effect for years. Yet, we consistently hear about the out of control murder rate in Chicago. The law doesn’t stop criminals and this approach hasn’t worked in Illinois other than inconveniencing legal firearm owners.

Banning possession of high capacity magazines

California banned the purchase of high capacity magazines in 2000. They are magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Proposition 63 seeks to outlaw them completely, including possession. So, a firearm owner who legally purchased on before 2000 will be required to dispose of it or sell it out-of-state if this initiative passes. The argument for this is that no reasonable person needs this kind of firepower. And the argument against is that these are used for sport shooting and jam quite frequently so any criminal who uses one has a significantly reduced chance of success. I am neutral on this argument.

Increasing penalties for theft of firearms

Right now in California, due to Prop 47, theft of a firearm valued less than $950 is petty theft. The maximum penalties for most petty theft convictions are a fine of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000), up to six (6) months in county jail, or both. And right now, maximum penalties for petty theft are not happening. Proposition 63 will recategorize ALL firearm thefts to felony with up to 3 years in prison, as they were before Prop 47. I strongly support this portion of the initiative.

Requiring reporting for firearm thefts

Under this initiative, sellers of ammunition would need to report a theft or loss within 48 hours. Individuals would be required to report a theft or loss within five days to local law enforcement. Right now, many criminals are acquiring their firearms through theft, like the Kate Steinle killer. In order to help law enforcement track stolen firearms a reporting requirement is a sensible approach. Plus, any rational firearm owner would want law enforcement to know the date their weapon was stolen so if it is used in a crime in the future, they aren’t a suspect. This section is entirely logical.

The problem with Proposition 63, like so many others, is that instead of focusing on a single issue, many are combined into one. I can support portions of this initiative, but not others. Further, this is a political move by Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom to burnsih his anti-gun credentials before the 2018 gubernatorial election. Infringing constitutional rights without evidence to support the intended conclusion sits poorly with me. Properly use the legislature to pass the reasonable sections.

I say NO to Proposition 63.

Tune in to The Ethan Bearman Show Monday through Friday, noon to 2 p.m. on KGO 810 – www.kgoradio.com

Ethan Explains California Proposition 62

Ethan Explains California Proposition 62

This is number 12 of 17 of the California statewide ballot initiatives in 2016 that I’ll cover. Proposition 62 is the “Death Penalty. Initiative Statute.” Also known as the “Repeal of the Death Penalty Initiative.”

Does anybody actually like the death penalty? The purpose of the death penalty is to apply the ultimate retributive justice to the most vile offenders against society.

Think of brutal serial killers who murder many and terrorize whole communities. Those people are why we have the death penalty.

Proponents of Prop 62 argue that the death penalty is costly and justice isn’t served when people stay on death row for decades. True. However, the reason they are on death row for decades is because of the people who are against the death penalty. See the circular logic there?

Look, California is not Texas or Oklahoma. Two states where it seems like there is a blood-thirsty approach to the death penalty and retribution. California is a restrained state when it comes to applying for the death penalty.

Further, I’d like our prosecutors to have the discretion to apply for the death penalty in the cases of the most egregious murderers. Plus, if it deters even one killer, it is worthwhile.

I say NO to Proposition 62.

Tune in to The Ethan Bearman Show Monday through Friday, noon to 2 p.m. on KGO 810 – www.kgoradio.com