Fighting against

The following are some examples that we want to expose in order to defend and fight against attacks on our families, communities, State, and independence: 

The scheme behind "Environmental Leadership" as a serfdom or thiefdom by the supermajority party against Californians - SB2X1, AB900, SB1122, SB743, SB100, AB322, SB7, and CPUC Decision 11-12-035

At the turn of the century, one political party established control over California becoming a supermajority by 2010s controlling all branches of our government to create its serfdom or thiefdom using the "environment" against Californians. In 2011-2012, California Senate Bill 2X1 (SB 2X1) required utility companies to increase purchases of renewable energy so that its retail sales are 33%, procured by renewable energy resources. These lawmakers provided the following reasons to justify making it law:

·  Bring green investment, expertise and jobs to California

·  Improve air quality

·  Address climate change

·  Protect customers from rate manipulation by diversifying our sources of energy

·  Allow for an American foreign policy based on American values and American interests, rather than energy needs

In 2011, California Assembly Bill 900 (AB 900) established the “Jobs and Economic Improvement Through Environmental Leadership Act” that provided certain exceptions and privileges to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) framing it as an improvement to jobs and our economy that was disingenuous because it curved out exceptions to privilege a few. With no other entity to challenge the supermajority party, these lawmakers framed their charge, disguising and championing the “environment” against us all, in all facets of our life including jobs, housing, communities, and travel.

In 2011-2012, CPUC (CPUC Decision 11-12-035) established the Electric Program Investment Charge (EPIC) and instituted a ratepayer surcharge in 2012 to pay for EPIC. Thereon, CPUC authorized surcharges in annual collection of $148 million for EPIC through 12/31/2030 that has gained more than $1 billion dollars administered by the California Energy Commission (CEC). The EPIC program consists of 3 areas: Applied Research and Development; Technology Demonstration and Deployment; and, Market Facilities.  The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate help regulate utility companies in terms of the policies established by our legislators.

In 2012, California Senate Bill 1122 (SB 1122) lawmakers required procurement of renewable biomass or biogas projects at “a price that is consistent with the operational characteristics of the projects."

In 2013, California Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) reconfigured CEQA to shift its focus from studying the Level of Service (LoS) to studying VMT (Vehicle Mileage Travel, that consist of a vehicle trip multiplied by its length) curving out exceptions and privileges. The purpose of the VMT is to increase tax revenue for infrastructural maintenance and construction (i.e. highways, roads, bridges, etc); reduce greenhouse gases; increase biking and walking; and encouraging urban density to keep us in one place under a VMT precept.

In 2017-2018, California Senate Bill 100 (SB 100) established “The 100 Percent Clean Energy Act of 2018” requiring renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100% of retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers and 100% of electricity procured to serve all state agencies by December 31, 2045. In 5 years, these same lawmakers, required California to go from 33% to 100% of renewable energy source abrogating it commitment to diversification of our sources of energy that expose and harm us with rate manipulation with rate surcharges and taxes via its disingenuous policy agenda. 

In 2021, California Assembly Bill 322 (AB 322) directed EPIC spending for BioMass. Here, renewable energy and environmental experts are thought to work hand-in-hand; however, biomass and biogas advocates are often at odds with clean air advocates where many renewable energy promises are without results and its application is not practical. For example, biomass advocates have advocated the use of forest debris and certain tree that can be used for biomass renewable energy that can also combat forest fires. The use of biomass would seem to be practical and promising as a renewable energy source and to combat forest fires, however, clean air advocates argued against this type of renewable energy citing it would lead to bad air quality. Yet, nonetheless, forest fires raged on providing no renewable energy, bad air quality, and spending our tax dollar on renewable energy without providing desired outcomes.

Other renewable energy sources seem promising in theory without producing desired results. California Assemble Bill 525 (AB 525) for offshore wind generation seems very promising but nothing has worked so far to make good on any promises made by supermajority lawmakers over a decade ago to do at it pleases without being checked and held accountable.

These supermajority lawmakers sacrifice us to nature—the air, land, and seas—as a scapegoat to do as they please.  The sacrifice to our households is costly. In 2025, the Pacific Research Institute analyzed and noted it will cost each household at-least $17,000-$20,000 to advance “green” policies. In essence, we are a mark and targeted to be held hostage for a ransomed over policies that do not take our well-being nor our ability to provide for our families into account.

In 2021, California Senate Bill 7 (SB 7) tied environmental laws tied to housing, communities, and travel together using its VMT precept that manufactures higher taxes and costs through a labyrinth of political tricks and strategies. In short, the supermajority party of California has turned on Californians for more than a decade using California to create its serfdom or thiefdom.

The scheme behind the Vehicle Mileage Travel (VMT) or Road Usage Charges (RUC) taxes - SB743, SB339, SB768, AB130, AB1421

VMT or RUC threatens our very freedom and independence in California to be able to travel as we please whether to visit our great State’s landmarks, go on a trip to see our children compete in some tournament, visit family and friends, go on a family vacation near or far away, or to simply commute trying to beat the high cost of living.  VMT or RUC attempts to track you and every member of our family’s driving, via GPS or a third party, and charge each driver in our family a tax for every mile they drive. This  substantially increasing our family’s cost to live in our great State and limit our family’s freedom and independence by design.

It started back in 2013 with California Senate Bill 743 (SB 743). This bill reconfigured environmental studies (i.e. C.E.Q.A.) from focusing and studying traffic congestion or the Level of Service (LoS) to studying VMT (Vehicle Mileage Travel that consist of a vehicle trip multiplied by its length). The purpose of the VMT is to increase revenue for infrastructural maintenance and construction (i.e. highways, roads, bridges, etc); reduce greenhouse gases; increase biking and walking; and encouraging urban density to keep us in one place. On the one hand, current legislators have advocated for EV (electric vehicle usage) for its climate agenda creating the conditions upon which declining revenues and supply surrounding gas along with the ban on new gas powered vehicles in 2035 and the heighten regulatory around gas production; and on the other hand, it promotes its VMT tax as fair usage while restricting our freedom and independence that driving our vehicles has given us.

In 2021, California Senate Bill 339 (SB 339) established a VMT pilot program, and its 2024 study SB 339 Road Charge Collection Pilot was lacking failing to assess and acknowledge the impact on families. In 2024, California Senate Bill 768 (SB 768) commissioned another study, due by 2028, by the Department of Housing and Community Development on using VMT as a measurement for transportation impacts in housing development. In 2025, California Assembly Bill 130 (AB 130) established a mitigation fund between VMT and housing to encourage developers, counties, and cities to build housing that promotes the purpose of VMT (i.e. to restrict your freedom).  In 2025-2026, California Assembly Bill 1421 (AB 1421) established the Road Usage Charge Technical Advisory Committee and mandated a report on VMT implementation.

Current legislators are bent on imposing a VMT tax to restrict you and your families’ freedom and independence, directing us to walk and bike, restricted to a dense city to track you, while they create the conditions for its implementation (e.g. removing gas vehicles, promoting electric vehicles, imposing exorbitant taxes on gas and regulations on gas refineries, commissioning studies on its implementation and pilot programs, and providing a pot of incentive funds for going "green" while raising the cost of living upon us), their supporters as the Fair Transportation Funding Coalition on Instagram (@ftfcoalition), Transportation California, consist of unions, construction companies, politicians, academics etc. who all have a vested interest in passage of any VMT tax imposed upon all of us as they argue, it is only a study and rising alarms for its dire need to implement a VMT tax. “Third-party” administrators who will track and charge us, will also benefit from a VMT tax. These studies have not considered families and voters’ perspective on these bills, much less the VMT tax, nor have they studied the impact a VMT tax will have on families and individuals trying to make end’s meet. Rather, these bills, studies, incentive funds, and pilot programs are part of a scheme in how the current legislators are going to implement the VMT tax while they facilitate the conditions for its necessity crying why the VMT tax is needed in a nicely wrapped package with a bow for us to eat.   In short, current legislators' action and goals surround their VMT tax is indefensible as a contradictory scheme with sinister ends - restricting our liberty, freedom, and independence! These bills are not justified and does not serve our famlies, neighbors, and communities.

AB435 Child Restraint Car Seats for Teenagers

Starting January 1, 2027, California Assembly Bill 435 (AB 435) requires children and teenagers aged 8 to 16 to use a booster seat or proper child restraint unless they can pass a "five-step test" to ensure an adult seat belt fits properly. California’s legislature enacted this law based upon studies it did not question and support by so-called “experts” or interest groups in the field absent parents and their families’ perspectives on the matter. The baseline year for all studies was in 2020 when nobody was driving due to the COVID “pandemic” when government facilitated the decline in travel. Consequently, NHTSA cited a 17% increase from 2020 resulting in a 3% fatality rate for children 14 years and younger. UC Berkeley’s SafeTREC cited 46% - 73% child safety seats were misused, improperly or incorrectly installed since 2020. CHP cited a 22.5% increase in child restraint violations since 2020. Those supporting this bill included public safety organizations and insurance industry groups like automobile clubs, hospital associations, CHP and the like who all have a vested interest in restraining your teenager. HOWEVER, the issue is when a parent attempts to restraint a teenager who does not want to be restraint as a child, by reason of being a teenager, causing tension within the family and between a family with its government over compliance. California has been quick to give voice to teenagers over other controversial issues but silences them in child seat restraint policies placing all the burdens this bill carries upon the parent trying to raise their teenager while trying to comply with AB 435. This bill is not justified and does not serve our families 

SB960  - Undocumented State Police Officers

In 2022, California Senate Bill 960 (SB 960) permitted undocumented persons to become state police officer (e.g. California Highway Patrol Officer) by striking from the law the provision requiring a state police officer be a citizen or a legal resident eligible and applying for citizenship. As a result, the law enables spies, secret police, terrorists, and criminals to easily infiltrate our State’s policing ranks from foreign counties. Supporting legislators argue being a citizen or vetted as a permanent resident is outdated, considering undocumented person can now obtain a driver’s license and pay in state tuition for college. In addition, they argue recruitment and retention of state police officers warrants undocumented state police officer to regulate and police citizens, vetted residents, and our public infrastructures. Getting an education and getting around town is not the same as having position and authority over our communities and public spaces. Even prisoners understand the need to understand who they are incarcerated with as they require other prisoners to show them their paperwork—it’s fundamental that we should know who is in our house, protecting it.  While legislators have moved to limit gun rights in our State, they move to provide undocumented police office with gun rights while they are on the job. These legislators misstated and misused the “democratic values of equal representation” failing to understand representation is based upon us, the voter! SB960 is not justified and places our families, communities, and State in greater risk.  

AB646 Prematurely Restoring Voting Rights for Convicted Felons on Parole

In 2020, California Assembly Bill 646 (AB 646) permitted a person who is on parole for the conviction of a felony to register to vote and be able to vote. A prison sentence is not finished if a convict is on parole. It is a step in restoring the trust and confidence in a convicted felon to gain redemption after completing his parole for restoration of rights. Supporters argued once convicted felons “finished their prison sentence” restoring their voting rights help lower recidivism rates. However, parole does not mean convicted felons have finished their sentence. Many legislators who voted for this bill have diminished crime bills they have presented and voted for, prematurely admiring convicted felons, demonstrating the lengths they would indulge to get a vote. A convicted felons need to demonstrate their desire to reintegrate into society by first fulfilling the required consequences of their actions in order to restore their voting rights. AB 646 is not justified and does not serve our families, communities, and State.