Category: Civil Rights

Editordude:  Sue Taylor is a retired City of San Diego employee who worked at the City for 41 years. She recently wrote a commentary in response to an article at Voice of San Diego entitled, “Mayor Todd Gloria set out to fix the city’s deficit this year. He didn’t.” She originally sent it the Voice last week and had followed up several times but never got a response from Voice managing editor Scott Lewis. Taylor then sent it to the Rag — and here it is:

By Sue Taylor

The city’s significant budget deficit has been a serious problem for well over a year, and it’s largely of Mayor Todd Gloria’s own making.

But the mayor found it politically expedient to ignore the budget gap when he ran for re-election in November 2024. Only after securing another term did he begin framing this as a fiscal emergency.

Yes, voters did reject the proposed sales tax increase. But in the months leading up to the election, the mayor’s deputy chief operating officers focused on how to spend the roughly $400 million they assumed voters would approve, rather than preparing for the very real possibility that it would not pass. That was a choice, and in hindsight, a very bad one.

The fact that voters rejected the tax spoke volumes about their distrust of city hall, even if many were reluctant to cast their vote for the political novice who challenged the mayor’s successful campaign for a second term.

by Douglas Letter  / Time / January 6, 2026

On Jan. 6, 2021, I was in the Chamber of the U.S. House of Representatives as violent insurrectionists attacked our nation’s Capitol, bent on interrupting Congress in carrying out its constitutional responsibilities and doing serious harm to Vice President Pence, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and members of Congress.

[Please go to original here for all the links]

As I reflect on this dark day for our precious—and often fragile—American democracy, I keep returning to one of the underlying forces helping to fuel the violence: Second Amendment extremism.

Second Amendment extremism comes from what legal scholars describe as the “insurrectionist” interpretation of the Second Amendment. This seriously flawed reading believes that Americans have a right under the Constitution, and even an obligation, to take up arms against the government when they disagree with its direction. At the core of this extremism is the dangerous view that the founders viewed aggrieved citizens who attack the government through armed violence as righteous patriots, rather than the enemies of the state.

Compare Editorials from Washington Post with New York Times

Below the masthead at the Washington Post sits this small phrase: “Democracy Dies in Darkness”.

But with the almost giddy editorial by the Post on Saturday, Jan. 3, in total full-throated support for Trump’s illegal strike in Venezuela, the Post editorial board have now proven that they’re willing to help snuff out whatever light is left in American democracy. They need to remove that phrase from the masthead for the American people can no longer rely on the Washington Post for truth and any light in the darkness.

If Jeff Bezos had owned the Post back in the early 1970s, we would never have known about the Watergate scandal — that eventually forced President Nixon to resign.

With Bezos’ manly bear hug of Donald Trump’s authoritarianism, America not only lost one of the country’s great pillars of truthful journalism, it’s just one more incredible sign that US corporate media are bending their knee to our tinpot dictator wannabe. One more institution has fallen.

Here are a few key segments of the Post’s editorial:

What is the War Powers Resolution? – History and Major Facts

The War Powers Resolution, also known as the War Powers Act of 1973, is a pivotal piece of U.S. federal legislation designed to reassert Congress’s authority in decisions concerning military engagements and to limit the U.S. president’s authority to commit American forces to armed conflict without congressional approval. .

It was passed in the wake of escalating concerns over the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War and executive overreach in wartime decisions.

Although it became law over President Richard Nixon‘s veto, the resolution has sparked significant legal, political, and constitutional debates since its enactment

Understanding the War Powers Resolution requires exploring its historical context, its legislative framework, and how it has been applied and interpreted in the decades since its passage.

Historical Background

The roots of the War Powers Resolution can be traced back to growing frustration among members of Congress over the U.S. executive branch’s increasing control of military decisions, particularly during the Cold War.

The Vietnam War, which began as a limited U.S. advisory role, escalated into one of the most controversial and protracted military engagements in American history, despite the absence of a formal congressional declaration of war. This set the stage for Congress to take action to reassert its constitutional authority over war powers.

Several “No War on Venezuela” protests are being planned across the country today, after the US conducted a large-scale strike on the city of Caracas and captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

“We need to take to the streets and say no to another endless war! The people of this country do not want another war! A U.S. war would cause death and destruction for the people of Venezuela,” the Answer Coalition, one group organizing the protests, wrote in a news release.

Demonstrations are planned for Chicago, New York’s Times Square, outside the White House in Washington, DC, along with city halls and statehouses across the country this afternoon.

Meanwhile, In Congress 

Members of the US Congress on Saturday, Jan. 3, demanded emergency legislative action to prevent the Trump administration from taking further military action in Venezuela after the president threatened a “second wave” of attacks and said the US will control the South American country’s government indefinitely.

Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), said that “Congress should vote immediately on a War Powers Resolution to stop” President Donald Trump, whose administration has for months unlawfully bombed boats in international waters and threatened a direct military assault on Venezuela without lawmakers’ approval.

“Trump has no right to take us to war with Venezuela. This is reckless and illegal,” said Casar. “My entire life, politicians have been sending other people’s kids to die in reckless regime change wars. Enough. No new wars.”

A day after the strikes on Venezuela and the kidnapping of its president by elements of the U.S. military, I guess we can now relax over any concerns that our military men and women wouldn’t follow illegal orders. For, the invasion of a sovereign country and the illegal abduction of its leader without Congressional approval (or even notice) by our army and navy are clearly illegal and against the Constitution.

Apparently, our boys and girls wearing US uniforms didn’t stop their actions in this attack against US and international law.

What a sigh of relief.

It was not even two months ago that a squad of Democratic congresspeople produced a video distributed widely telling military and intelligence officers to “refuse illegal orders.” Which is the law. Here’s that video they made:  a video .

By Annie Karni / New York Times / Jan. 3, 2026, 10:46 a.m. ET

While President Trump crowed on Saturday about the dramatic capture of President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela by U.S. authorities, Democrats in Congress sounded alarms about the legality of the action and raised questions about recent briefings in which administration officials assured them that they were not seeking regime change in the nation.

Senator Andy Kim, Democrat of New Jersey, accused Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth of having “blatantly” lied to Congress when they said the administration’s objective in Venezuela was not about toppling Mr. Maduro. He called the move to oust the Venezuelan leader “disastrous,” arguing that it would further isolate the United States on the global stage.

“Trump rejected our Constitutionally required approval process for armed conflict because the Administration knows the American people overwhelmingly reject risks pulling our nation into another war,” Mr. Kim, a former national security official in the Obama administration, wrote on social media.

Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Florida Democrat who represents a district in which Venezuelan immigrants cheered for the news, said that Mr. Maduro’s capture was “welcome” but that the way it was done raised serious questions.

Early Saturday, January 3rd, the Trump regime conducted a blatant and illegal act of war against Venezuela by bombing civilian and military sites and illegally kidnapping Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife.

This act of aggression is a imperialistic continuation of U.S. policies against the sovereign South American country with attempts to seize and plunder Venezuela’s natural resources and threatens the sovereignty of other countries in Latin America.

The aggression goes against the will of the American people and against our Constitution. Nearly 70% of Americans oppose another war and reject the endless cycle of military interventions carried out in their name.

Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to military action in Venezuela, according to a Quinnipiac poll published in mid-December amid an escalation of U.S. pressure on President Nicolás Maduro.

Sixty-three percent of respondents told Quinnipiac they are against military action against Caracas, which President Donald Trump has repeatedly declined to rule out, with just 25 percent expressing support. And 53 percent of respondents said they opposed the administration’s use of military strikes to kill alleged drug smugglers in international waters.

As domestic and international condemnations of the attack and kidnapping mount up, there are typical sycophantic expressions of support from Trumpian Republicans.

By Donna Frye

As we head into the new year, it’s time once again to let the city council know that we oppose paid parking at our beaches and Mission Bay Park for residents and non-residents alike.

Last year, four councilmembers (LaCava, Foster, Moreno and Elo-Rivera) included paid beach and bay parking in their budget priority memos as a potential revenue source.

Fortunately, on November 18, 2025 the paid parking proposal was not included as part of the council resolution being sent to the mayor’s office for consideration in preparing the FY 2027 budget.

However, as part of the annual budget cycle, the city council is required to update their budget priority memos and provide them to the Independent Budget Analyst (IBA) by January 9.

We need to make sure that the next round of budget priority memos do not include proposals for paid parking at our beaches and Mission Bay Park.

There are many reasons why paid parking at our beaches and Mission Bay Park is a bad idea.

Every Saturday at 10:30 am. San Diego Climate Mobilization Coalition Meetings January 3rd, 10th, 17th, 24th and 31st.

Every Saturday 10 am – 12 pm Peace Vigil for Palestine:

The San Diego River Park Foundation has volunteer opportunities in Ocean Beach

Every Sunday 1:30  pm – 4 pm Otay Mesa Vigil Otay Mesa Detention Center

January 1st Thursday – January 4th Sunday 10 am – 6 pm San Diego Auto Show

January 3rd Saturday 5 pm doors open “From Ground Zero” film screening fundraiser for a family in Gaza.

January 5th Monday  12 pm – 1 pm Interfaith Vigil For Earth Justice Event by Interfaith Coalition for Earth Justice

Note: Author’s views do not necessarily reflect the views of the OB Rag.

By Lisa Mortensen

Our city and county governments are looking for any avenue available to obtain revenue to feed their over-sized staffing.  Rather than pop the staffing balloon, our elected officials would like to tap into our property taxes by placing initiatives on the ballot that would require only a 51% threshold to approve these measures into law that would threaten to uncontrollably increase our property taxes and jeopardize our Prop 13 protections.

Currently the county of San Diego wants to place a measure on the ballot that would increase the real estate sales transfer tax from 55 cents for every $500 in assessed property value to $30.55 for every $500.  This would basically burden both buyers and sellers to have to come up with this excessive additional transfer tax during a for-purchase transaction.

Let’s not forget the trash tax assessment that was placed on our property tax bill ($539 and rising in 2026-2027 tax bill) by just a 51% threshold.

By Geoff Page

2025

The Rag’s editor-in-chief challenged Rag writers to provide “thoughts on the passing of 2025 and what the future portends.” That’s a big Magilla because it was a year like none other in my three-quarters of a century.

I’m not a pessimist or an optimist, some of both. But, this year, it was nearly impossible to have any sense of optimism. However, two important, positive things happened this year in my personal world. My little girl got married and a dog bit me.

By “little girl,” I mean my 32-year-old child who is beginning her seventh year in the legal profession. I did the big walk down the aisle and it was more emotional than I had imagined. It was a great experience, seeing her so happy. I’m not a fan of the institution of marriage, as a rule, but that day was an exception.

After a long professional career as a construction claims expert, I had managed to avoid ever owning – or wearing – a suit. I wore one that day and it felt right. I have a new son-in-law now that we all like and is a perfect fit for my girl.

Much as I love my girl, I will say I don’t envy parents who have to go through weddings for multiple daughters. There is this level of stress…

The dog bite was not pleasant when it occurred.