Brown purges respected doctor

Brown purges respected doctor

May 11, 2012

By John Seiler

California increasingly resembles the Soviet Union in the 1930s but with better weather. The economy is socialist; the leader is megalomaniac; and dissidents are purged.

The latest victim is Dr. La Donna Porter, M.D. Her “crime”: advocating policies different from those of the Dear Leader, Gov. Jerry Brown:

 “Under pressure from health advocates, Gov. Jerry Brown on Thursday removed a controversial physician from a state health board after she appeared in an industry-funded ad against a tobacco tax hike on the June ballot.”

That’s Proposition 29, which would massively punish dissidents who smoke tobacco by imposing on them a $1 per pack increase in the price of cigarettes — a commodity already massively taxed. Ironically, by sucking another $735 million from the productive economy, Prop. 29 would reduce the tax base from which Brown needs revenue to close a budget deficit that just keeps growing — even before Prop. 29 hits the polls.

Kalifornia science and economics makes no more sense than Soviet science and economics.

As Dr. Porter points out, correctly, in the video, a lot of the money stolen from smokers by Prop. 29 would be sent out of state. That would kill jobs here. Unemployed people in Kalifornia don’t pay many taxes, but do take much in social services and unemployment benefits.

It’s like how, in the 1930s, Stalin used concentration camps to steal the slave laborers’ production, then used the money to fund lavish living for himself and the socialist elite.

Here’s Dr. Porter’s ThoughtCrime:

No comments

Write a comment
  1. Beelzebub
    Beelzebub 11 May, 2012, 09:32

    Well, I was going to say that Porter is courageous and bold but first I would like to know how much the tobacco companies paid her for said advertisement. Once I have the answer to that question I will respond accordingly.

    But the argument is a darned good one. All of us rational and reasonable thinkers know that the smokers are an easy target – being in the minority of the California population today. If the government showed consistency they would provide privileged protections to this minority as they do for others. But it’s just too damn easy to steal from them without getting called out for practicing discrimination. 😀 So when the opportunity arises to pile on – expect Gov. Clown and his band of renegade to kick the vulnerable smokers to the curb once again. 😀 Hell, that’s the American way, after all.

    Reply this comment
  2. CalWatchdog
    CalWatchdog Author 11 May, 2012, 10:17

    Porter was not paid for the ads, according to the Prop 29 campaign.

    This is nothing more than a sin tax, but instead of luxury charging people extra $$ for expensive cars and yachts, this will disproportionately impact middle and lower income folks.

    And don’t forget Don Perata is the dog behind this proposition. If Prop 29 is passed, Perata will run a brand new state agency, with a more than $16 million a year budget, and control $700 million.

    This is as ugly as it gets.

    Katy

    Reply this comment
  3. CalWatchdog
    CalWatchdog Author 11 May, 2012, 10:18

    … and I am suspecting that the call to Gov. Brown to can the good doc came from Perata
    -Katy

    Reply this comment
  4. queeg
    queeg 11 May, 2012, 10:35

    The ad is really pithy. Unions hate it…smugglers detest it….politicans enraged….perfect storm….take out the messenger….chapter one???

    Reply this comment
  5. Rogue Elephant
    Rogue Elephant 11 May, 2012, 11:06

    “Under pressure from health advocates, Gov. Jerry Brown on Thursday removed a controversial physician from a state health board after she appeared,” reports one newspaper.

    Health advocates? Try “taxaholics”. Controversial? Why don’t we call her “mentally ill”? Has she been sent to reeducation camp?

    Reply this comment
  6. Beelzebub
    Beelzebub 11 May, 2012, 11:18

    “Porter was not paid for the ads, according to the Prop 29 campaign”

    I don’t care what the campaign said. I want to hear it directly from Porter. And now that she’s been fired by Brown she has every right to make a public statement. Where is it? Part of that public statement should be whether she was compensated for doing the advertisement. That’s what I want to know.

    But I agree that Prop 29 is just another preposterous tax on the weak and the vulnerable. The tobacco companies have tossed in $40M so far to defeat it and I hope they succeed. It is another attempt at legal theft by way of bullying and strongarming. Not much different than the mafia operated in Chicago back in the 20’s/30’s.

    Reply this comment
  7. SayWhat?
    SayWhat? 11 May, 2012, 16:15

    The first line of your story is hyperbolic.

    Regardless, Dr Porter is entitled to whatever freedom of speech she wants. That is not the same as “freedom from repercussions” from that speech. She has stated her point of view, and she is not in jail or on charges for doing so. So enough of the “Kalifornia” krap. She knew or should have known that there could be consequences to her “free speech.” And there have been. She is still free to do as she pleases. Like make any “unpaid” commercials she wants.

    Reply this comment
  8. CalWatchdog
    CalWatchdog Author 11 May, 2012, 16:21

    Dr. Porter’s compensation is that, if Prop. 29 is defeated, she will live in a slightly more free state.

    — John Seiler

    Reply this comment
  9. Beelzebub
    Beelzebub 11 May, 2012, 16:28

    “She knew or should have known that there could be consequences to her “free speech.” And there have been”

    I concur. Serving at the pleasure of these political hacks does have consequences when you start bad mouthing them or their polcies in public. It’s sort of like being in the military. If you start bad mouthing your OIC and you don’t have support from the majority of your rank ‘n file buddies – you are in a world of hurt.

    That’s why I’m a little suspicious of her participation here. Is what she did based on her own personal convictions or did a big money source hire her services? I mean, she HAD to know what was going to happen when did did this. She is a medical doctor and I assume that there’s are a few marbles inside her skull.

    When something doesn’t smell quite right, I will always question it. Doesn’t matter what the poltitical party or political ideology might be. If it smells I will point at it.

    Reply this comment
  10. Beelzebub
    Beelzebub 11 May, 2012, 16:32

    “Dr. Porter’s compensation is that, if Prop. 29 is defeated, she will live in a slightly more free state”

    I want to read a statement from HER that says that. I want to hear or read her say that she did not receive compensation for participating in the advertisement. Oh, and I received a glossy from the “no on 29” campaign. Porter is the poster girl on the piece. Nice photo.

    Why no statement from Porter yet??? She is free to speak.

    Strange…………..

    Reply this comment
  11. Cacheguy
    Cacheguy 12 May, 2012, 05:50

    This is just a “jobs” program for politicians who are termed out or lost their re-election. Just look at what happened with Abe Maldonado and Anthony Adams. They don’t have to return to private life; they can get high paying, low stress jobs working for an appointed government board/commission.

    This proposition will just open up more positions for crony politicians to be appointed to.

    Reply this comment
  12. Beelzebub
    Beelzebub 12 May, 2012, 10:11

    “Just look at what happened with Abe Maldonado and Anthony Adams. They don’t have to return to private life; they can get high paying, low stress jobs working for an appointed government board/commission”

    I’ve been ranting about that forever, Cacheguy. And you know who appoints scum sucking bottom feeders like Maldonado and Adams to those $150,000+ commission jobs??? Yep. Their fellow REPUBLICANS for being good soldiers and doing what they were told to do (ie. raising taxes while violating signed pledges not to do so. They took their constituent’s money and votes – and then gave them the raised middle finger after getting elected to office. Scum sucking bottom feeders. 🙁

    Reply this comment
  13. Bob
    Bob 12 May, 2012, 14:37

    This is just a “jobs” program for politicians who are termed out or lost their re-election.

    And it’s more wide spread than people realize. One of our local supervisors lost an election. She was a well heeled DemoNcrat hack and Brown (or one of his underlings) gave her a cushy job on some damned board.

    It’s not just the politicians in the state assembly and senate receiving this welfare.

    Reply this comment
  14. Beelzebub
    Beelzebub 12 May, 2012, 14:43

    “And it’s more wide spread than people realize. One of our local supervisors lost an election. She was a well heeled DemoNcrat hack and Brown (or one of his underlings) gave her a cushy job on some damned board And it’s more wide spread than people realize. One of our local supervisors lost an election. She was a well heeled DemoNcrat hack and Brown (or one of his underlings) gave her a cushy job on some damned board”

    Oh, but you can’t stop it and it’s our fate as little people to get crapped on. We have to accept it since we can’t change it. Let’s just move on…..(sarc/)

    Reply this comment
  15. Rex The Wonder Dog!
    Rex The Wonder Dog! 12 May, 2012, 16:45

    What you may not know is many of those commission jobs only meet one day per month-for 8 hours if that. They review findings of administrative bodies which they never reverse-so they are really nothing more than slush funds/jobs, fraud.

    Reply this comment
  16. Bob
    Bob 12 May, 2012, 16:51

    Mr. Bub, I will bet you that a generation from now political hacks in Colliefornia (as Ahnode sez) will be appointed cushy jobs on useless boards by a corrupt governor. Yes, the little people will still be crapped on.

    Reply this comment
  17. Beelzebub
    Beelzebub 12 May, 2012, 19:40

    “Mr. Bub, I will bet you that a generation from now political hacks in Colliefornia (as Ahnode sez) will be appointed cushy jobs on useless boards by a corrupt governor. Yes, the little people will still be crapped on”

    You are basing your forecast on what happened in the past. You can’t do that. We are not the same nation in 2012 as we were in 1970. The wealth pie has shrunk. The fat cats don’t want to sacrifice. They believe they have the power to maintain the status quo for themselves while crapping on the little people and forcing the little people to fight over crumbs. That’s won’t work. Little people fight back too – and in America they have the means to do so. I am just basing this on world history and what has happened to other empires that preceded ours. People often don’t learn from history – they relive it. Prosperous societies often pay a very heavy price. America is a flash in the pan. It was an experiment. It had the potential to be utopia for most people. But greed is killing it. Greed has a way of doing that in the end. I believe we are self-destructing. That is my personal opinion.

    Reply this comment
  18. Bob
    Bob 12 May, 2012, 23:19

    I hope you’re right, Mr. Bub. I really do. But in 1970 a corrupt governor put cronies on useless boards and in 2012 it’s still happening. I hope you are right and things will be different in 2032. Who knows, maybe there will be no Colliefornia then.

    Reply this comment
  19. Beelzebub
    Beelzebub 12 May, 2012, 23:50

    “I hope you are right and things will be different in 2032”

    Bob, things will either be different or California will only be talked about in the history books – sort of like the Island of Atlantis. 😉

    Reply this comment
  20. Katherine Sutherland, MD
    Katherine Sutherland, MD 7 June, 2012, 20:34

    The comments that have been made are all political in nature. What about the health consequences of this proposition? By putting her MD behind her statements, it suggested to voters that “doctors” do not favor the proposition. With few exceptions, practitioners in the health field favor this proposition. It would result in people stopping smoking or not starting in the first place which is a great benefit to them and to society who pays much of the bills. I am sorely disappointed that a fellow physician used the weight of her medical degree to support the big tobacco agenda at the expense of people’s health. I don’t feel she belongs on a state health board if she doesn’t put the health of the people of our state first.

    Reply this comment
  21. Michael J. McFadden
    Michael J. McFadden 19 June, 2012, 03:23

    Dr. Sutherland, are YOU “using the weight of [your] medical degree” to support a tax that would likely greatly increase the easy availability of cheap black marketed cigarettes to children by vendors who’ll never worry about ID? Why?

    As for society paying “much of the bills” for smokers, I would suggest you read a little more in the area. Google the phrase “apocryphal tobacco executive” and read my “Taxes, Costs, and the MSA” and feel free to offer any specific, substantive criticisms you might have. I promise I won’t mind, and I’ll try to stop back to respond. You might also want to check out the NY Times article on Pieter van Baal’s research on the subject. Google the following combination of words to see that:

    pieter van baal $371,000 nytimes

    Michael J. McFadden,
    Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”

    Reply this comment
  22. Michael J. McFadden
    Michael J. McFadden 19 June, 2012, 09:15

    In addition: Beelzebub, you wrote, “I mean, she HAD to know what was going to happen when did did this. She is a medical doctor and I assume that there’s are a few marbles inside her skull.”

    Assuming that she believed what she said, perhaps she also believed that stating the truth about an issue might be considered acceptable behavior. Would she have had the same problem if she’d appeared in an ad and expressed a political opinion on the opposite side of this issue? Should all the medical personnel who appeared in various ads to express political opinions on the other side be fired from their positions as well?

    As I just noted in my previous post, it could well be argued that those in support of 29 were hoping to increase the profits of cigarette smuggling and help make sure that cigarettes would be more available to children, so firing them all might make some sense, true?

    Fair is fair, right?

    – MJM

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply



Related Articles

New PPIC election Poll

Katy Grimes: A new poll just released by the Public Policy Institute of California of  2,002 people surveyed reports, “Jerry

CalWatchdog Morning Read — April 7, 2016

Good morning! We just got back from Klamath, where Gov. Jerry Brown signed an agreement to remove four dams along

Will CO follow CA and increase taxes?

Gov. Jerry Brown has set himself and California up as a new national model. Ten days ago he told a