May 18, 2018
May 18, 2018
Pro-choice Pelosi touts 'spark of divinity' within MS-13
Someone must have let Nancy Pelosi out on a weekend pass, because the woman is losing it. At her press conference this week, the House minority leader mumbled, zoned out, and chuckled inappropriately. The only thing missing from the event was drool dripping out the corner of Nancy's mouth onto her expensive silk scarf.
The most peculiar thing Nancy had to say concerned the "spark of divinity" she believes resides within the violent street gang, MS-13.
Currently, most of these so-called Salvadoran "divine creatures" roam the streets of America illegally. According to Robert Hur, an official with the Justice Department, the culturally diverse MS-13's motto is "mata, viola, controla" – which translates "kill, rape, control."
Notorious for their hand signs, machetes, and full body tattoos, MS-13 participatein activities that involve things like human- and drug-trafficking, child prostitution, kidnapping, gun-smuggling, murder, and gruesome styles of retribution.
In the Northeast, on Long Island alone, MS-13 committed 25 killings in the past two years.
Recently, President Donald Trump, a man who calls it like it is, referred to MS-13 residing in U.S. prisons as "animals." Based on the bedlam the gang has wrought within America's borders, Trump calling them "animals" was more a compliment than an insult.
Simply put, MS-13 is a band of marauding illegals from Central America who threaten members with death if they attempt to leave the ranks and who wreak havoc wherever they go.
Speaking on behalf of the Democratic Party, Nancy Pelosi said Trump calling illegal rapists and murderers "animals" is offensive and harsh.
So, in between holding up five fingers while referring to the number six and staring out into space mid-sentence, during Pelosi's press conference, the House minority leader also chided the POTUS for insulting MS-13.
Waxing spiritual, it happened during the former Speaker's comments on "food insecurity." After mentioning "God's children," Nancy had this to say about Trump's MS-13 comments:
When the President of the United States says about undocumented immigrants, "These aren't people; these are animals," you have to wonder: does he not believe in the spark of divinity? The dignity and worth of every person?
Democrats are the ones who justify bestowing immigrant status on illegals while denying human status to unborn humans, and now Mrs. Pelosi is suddenly touting the "dignity and worth of every person"?
Nancy Pelosi must have forgotten that she advocates for the unfettered slaughter of 3,000 American babies per day. Based on Nancy Pelosi's own words, if a "spark of divinity" is infused into a fertilized egg, then supporting abortion is far worse than Trump calling MS-13 names.
Either way, House minority leader Nancy Pelosi is still the official spokesperson for a political party that publicly honors the "spark of divinity" in vicious street gangs and does it while disregarding the "spark of divinity" residing within the guiltless unborn.
In other words, when it comes to shedding innocent blood, pro-choice liberals and Central American street gangs are similar. Therefore, before accusing Trump of being hostile toward violent gang members, maybe loopy Nancy Pelosi and her ilk need to acknowledge that the gruesome procedure that ends the life of the innocent and helpless inside the womb is on par with the murder and mayhem MS-13 inflicts on enemies outside the womb.
Jeannie hosts a blog at www.jeannie-ology.com.
THE PLUNDERING BARONESS PELOSI:
Nancy Pelosi triples her loot since the banksters
nearly destroyed America’s economy and demands endless hordes of illegals to
keep wages depressed!
Someone must have let Nancy Pelosi out on a weekend pass, because the woman is losing it. At her press conference this week, the House minority leader mumbled, zoned out, and chuckled inappropriately. The only thing missing from the event was drool dripping out the corner of Nancy's mouth onto her expensive silk scarf.
The most peculiar thing Nancy had to say concerned the "spark of divinity" she believes resides within the violent street gang, MS-13.
Currently, most of these so-called Salvadoran "divine creatures" roam the streets of America illegally. According to Robert Hur, an official with the Justice Department, the culturally diverse MS-13's motto is "mata, viola, controla" – which translates "kill, rape, control."
Notorious for their hand signs, machetes, and full body tattoos, MS-13 participatein activities that involve things like human- and drug-trafficking, child prostitution, kidnapping, gun-smuggling, murder, and gruesome styles of retribution.
In the Northeast, on Long Island alone, MS-13 committed 25 killings in the past two years.
Recently, President Donald Trump, a man who calls it like it is, referred to MS-13 residing in U.S. prisons as "animals." Based on the bedlam the gang has wrought within America's borders, Trump calling them "animals" was more a compliment than an insult.
Simply put, MS-13 is a band of marauding illegals from Central America who threaten members with death if they attempt to leave the ranks and who wreak havoc wherever they go.
Speaking on behalf of the Democratic Party, Nancy Pelosi said Trump calling illegal rapists and murderers "animals" is offensive and harsh.
So, in between holding up five fingers while referring to the number six and staring out into space mid-sentence, during Pelosi's press conference, the House minority leader also chided the POTUS for insulting MS-13.
Waxing spiritual, it happened during the former Speaker's comments on "food insecurity." After mentioning "God's children," Nancy had this to say about Trump's MS-13 comments:
When the President of the United States says about undocumented immigrants, "These aren't people; these are animals," you have to wonder: does he not believe in the spark of divinity? The dignity and worth of every person?
Democrats are the ones who justify bestowing immigrant status on illegals while denying human status to unborn humans, and now Mrs. Pelosi is suddenly touting the "dignity and worth of every person"?
Nancy Pelosi must have forgotten that she advocates for the unfettered slaughter of 3,000 American babies per day. Based on Nancy Pelosi's own words, if a "spark of divinity" is infused into a fertilized egg, then supporting abortion is far worse than Trump calling MS-13 names.
Either way, House minority leader Nancy Pelosi is still the official spokesperson for a political party that publicly honors the "spark of divinity" in vicious street gangs and does it while disregarding the "spark of divinity" residing within the guiltless unborn.
In other words, when it comes to shedding innocent blood, pro-choice liberals and Central American street gangs are similar. Therefore, before accusing Trump of being hostile toward violent gang members, maybe loopy Nancy Pelosi and her ilk need to acknowledge that the gruesome procedure that ends the life of the innocent and helpless inside the womb is on par with the murder and mayhem MS-13 inflicts on enemies outside the womb.
Jeannie hosts a blog at www.jeannie-ology.com.
OPEN BORDERS: The Democrat Party’s Weapon of Mass Destruction on the American Worker
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2016/09/the-la-raza-mexican-crime-tidal-wave.html
"Los
Angeles saw all crime rise in 2015: violent crime up 19.9 percent, homicides up
10.2 percent, shooting victims up 12.6 percent, rapes up 8.6 percent, robberies
up 12.3 percent, and aggravated assault up 27.5 percent,"Landry said.”
FORMER SEN. BARBARA BOXER and NOW SEN. KAMALA HARRIS are a
pantheon of staggering self-serving corruption.
They and their families have all gotten filthy rich off of
these women’s elected office.
Their endless hispandering for the illegals’ votes has turned
California into Mexifornia, a drug, gang and anchor baby welfare third-world
dumpster!
“Liberal governing has
transformed beautiful California into the poverty
capital of America with the worst quality of life. Crazy
taxes,
crazy high cost of living, and crazy overreaching
regulations have crushed the middle class, forcing the middle class to
exit the Sunshine State. All that is left in California are illegals
feeding at the breast of the state, rapidly growing massive
homeless tent cities, and the mega-rich.” LLOYD MARCUS
Democrats Could Face Midterm ‘Catastrophe’ in California
Democrats had been counting on victories in at least half a dozen California congressional districts to bring them closer to the 24 needed to take control of the U.S. House of Representatives.
Republicans only hold 14 seats in the Golden State, and Hillary Clinton won many of those districts in the 2016 election.
But a combination of factors — including an excess of Democratic contenders, and a surge in Republican enthusiasm — could thwart those plans.
California has a unique primary system called the “top two” or “jungle” primary, under which every voter can vote for any candidates, and the top two vote-winners advance to the general election, regardless of party. That means it is theoretically possible for the general election to feature an all-Democrat — or, less frequently, all-Republican — final.
Until recently, Republicans feared being shut out from the November ballot in statewide races for governor and for U.S. Senate. Now, to their horror, Democrats could fail to make the November ballot in congressional races.
Ben Christopher of Calmatters.org reports:
California Democrats know exactly the trouble they’re in: They have too much of a good thing.Competitive congressional districts across Southern California are packed with qualified, enthusiastic and well-financed candidates touting progressive policies and promising stiff resistance to President Trump’s agenda.The only problem: there are too many of them.
Christopher calls the emerging danger of all-Republican contests in several key races a “nightmare scenario” for the party.
McClatchy also reports:
The political arm of House Democrats is undertaking a late push to drive up voter turnout in a handful of marquee California congressional districts where the party now faces the possibility of not even having a Democrat make it onto the November ballot.…Democrats are concerned that California’s uncommon electoral system — in which the top two vote-getters in a primary advance to the general election regardless of party — will prevent them from winning at least three House seats this fall. The seats – the 39th Congressional District, the 48th Congressional District, and the 49th Congressional District — are each located in the battleground suburbs of Orange County, where a plethora of Democratic candidates in each threatens to split the vote evenly and allow two GOP candidates to move on.
In some races, the party leadership is attempting to persuade voters to unite behind a single primary candidate (which has led to some pushback from the grass roots). In others, the party is simply aiming to boost voter registration and turnout so that there will simply be more votes to divide.
Another reason Democrats are suddenly in trouble is that Republicans are re-engaging in the political process, inspired by a U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit filed in March against California’s “sanctuary state” laws.
That lawsuit inspired local activists, especially in Southern California, to push city and county governments to defy the state’s “sanctuary” laws and to join the federal government’s lawsuit. The White House has stoked the fight by taking on California and Governor Jerry Brown in public.
If Democrats split their vote, and Republicans turn out enthusiastically, California may prove to be the obstacle to Democratic control of the House, rather than the pathway to it.
San Francisco’s own House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has vowed to come back as Speaker of the House if Democrats win in November.
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He was named to Forward’s 50 “most influential” Jews in 2017. He is the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.
It Pays to be Illegal in California
By JENNIFER G. HICKEY May
10, 2018
Look how the
liberal drug culture has destroyed Eureka, California
"Particularly since the 2008
economic crisis,
the ruling class and its two
parties have slashed
social spending while cutting taxes
for
corporations and the rich."
More than 50,000 UC workers on
strike
For a political movement of the entire working class against
inequality and capitalism!
By David Moore
Maybe if California and New York Cared as Much about the Middle Class as
They Do About Illegal Alien…
California Goes Rogue
By Mark Krikorian
How the Golden State defies immigration law
‘I will hang the first man I can lay my hand on engaged in such treasonable conduct, upon the first tree I can reach.” That was President Andrew Jackson’s response to South Carolina’s intention to prevent enforcement of a federal law within the state. Despite his admiration for Jackson, President Trump hasn’t yet threatened to start hanging California politicians. But that state’s “sanctuary” policies protecting illegal immigrants and obstructing enforcement of federal immigration law echo the long-ago fight over nullification and states’ rights.
The passage of three sanctuary bills last year by the state legislature in Sacramento is now the subject of a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Department of Justice. It was the culmination of a decades-long process, as mass immigration transformed California’s politics from reddish purple to deep blue.
The first measure that could be described as a sanctuary provision was the Los Angeles Police Department’s Special Order 40, enacted in 1979, which prohibited officers from arresting a person for the federal crime of illegal entry and, unless he was arrested for another crime, from even inquiring as to legal status. But that order merely instructed police to abstain from involving themselves in immigration enforcement. In the 1980s, a more proactive conception of illegal-alien sanctuary spread, as Central Americans fleeing war in their homelands snuck into the U.S. but did not qualify for asylum.
At first, only some pro-Sandinista churches postured as sanctuaries for these illegal aliens. But in late 1985, Mayor (now Senator) Dianne Feinstein signed a resolution declaring San Francisco a “city of refuge” for illegals. She ordered that “City Departments shall not discriminate against Salvadorans and Guatemalan refugees because of their immigration status, and shall not jeopardize the safety and welfare of law-abiding refugees by acting in a way that may cause their deportation.” The declaration was followed four years later by a city law formally prohibiting city employees from assisting federal immigration authorities.
Even measures such as this, which were adopted by other big cities over the years, were of largely local interest until a new system, developed at the end of the Bush administration and completed in 2013, went online. The fingerprints of every person booked by police throughout the country have long been sent to the FBI. But under the new system, dubbed Secure Communities, those fingerprints now also go to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). So while in the past the feds didn’t necessarily know whether cops in San Francisco arrested an illegal alien for, say, a drug offense, now they do. Every time.
There will still be some illegal aliens who elude detection if ICE has no record of them because they’ve never interacted with the immigration authorities. But if police arrest anyone who’s in the Department of Homeland Security database — who was deported previously, got turned down for asylum, was picked up by the Border Patrol, overstayed a visa, or appeared before an immigration judge — ICE learns about it.
There are only so many hours in the day, so not every arrested illegal alien can be taken into custody. But if ICE wants the alien because, for instance, he has previously been deported or is a fugitive from a deportation order, it notifies the local authorities to hold him, as they would for any other state or federal law-enforcement agency, up to 48 hours after they would otherwise have released him, so that agents can collect and deport him.
With this new fingerprint-matching system in place, instead of receiving the occasional hold notice, or “detainer,” cities and counties with large numbers of immigrants started hearing from ICE constantly. In some states where large-scale immigration was a recent development, the political culture had not yet shifted to the left to such a degree that this new level of cooperation with ICE met objections. But immigration, legal and illegal, has transformed California’s population and political culture so profoundly that the pushback there was inevitable.
Of California’s 40 million people, about 15 million are in immigrant households (immigrants and their children under 18), accounting for more than 37 percent of the state’s population. Not only is that by far the highest percentage in any state, but the increase in people in immigrant households in California from 1970 to today — just the increase — is nearly twice as large as today’s total population in immigrant households in Texas, the state in second place.
Survey after survey shows that immigrants are disproportionately big-government liberals. As one overview of the data concluded, “solid and persistent majorities of Hispanic and Asian immigrants and their children share the policy preferences of the modern American Left.” As a result, as University of Maryland political scientist James Gimpel has demonstrated, in the nation’s largest counties (which are where immigrants tend to settle), “Republicans have lost 0.58 percentage points in presidential elections for every one percentage-point increase in the size of the local immigrant population.”
The results in California are plain to see. There hasn’t been a Republican in statewide or federal office since Arnold Schwarzenegger (and he was only nominally Republican). Only 13 of 40 state senators and 25 of 80 state assemblymen are Republicans. This has enabled leftist maximalism on a wide range of issues, including immigration.
Even in this environment, the effects of Secure Communities in identifying deportable aliens were blunted for a time by the Obama administration’s lax policies. Despite the anti-borders Left and its kabuki protests that Obama was the deporter in chief, his administration effectively exempted most of the resident illegal population from immigration law. Even though ICE continued to be notified of arrested illegals, administration policy was to ignore all but the worst cases. In the words of John Sandweg, who headed ICE during part of Obama’s term, “If you are a run-of-the-mill immigrant here illegally, your odds of getting deported are close to zero — it’s just highly unlikely to happen.”
Then came Donald Trump.
It wasn’t just that Trump pledged tough immigration enforcement in his raw and often coarse manner. It wasn’t just that Hillary Clinton, who said publicly that she would not deport anyone who hadn’t first been convicted of a violent felony, won California by 30 points. It was the whiplash from Obama to Trump that supercharged the sanctuary push in the state legislature. Democratic politicians, their activist allies, and illegal aliens themselves had gotten used to Obama’s arrangements and had come to think that was the way things were going to be from now on. Trump’s reversal of Obama’s laxity fell on them like a bucket of ice water.
The state took a variety of steps in response to the return of immigration enforcement. Lawmakers appropriated $45 million for a fund to help illegals fight deportation. And the state senate appointed an illegal alien to a state education commission.
But most consequential were three laws designed to limit the federal government’s ability to enforce immigration law. The best known is Senate Bill 54, the California Values Act, the most sweeping measure of its kind in the nation, making the entire state a sanctuary for illegal aliens. It prohibits state and local law enforcement from complying with ICE detainers in most cases. It prohibits notification to ICE about an alien unless in the past 15 years he’s been convicted of one of a list of the most serious crimes. It prohibits state and local authorities from allowing ICE to use space in their jails and from providing ICE any non-public information on suspects. It restricts state and local participation in any multi-agency task force that includes ICE.
The second of the three measures attempts to impose state oversight on any facility ICE uses to detain deportable aliens. And the final law seeks to shield illegal-alien workers from detection by, among other things, prohibiting private employers from voluntarily allowing ICE agents into any non-public area of their business.
The Trump administration has pushed back. The first step was to threaten to cut off certain Justice Department grants to sanctuary jurisdictions nationwide; longstanding doctrine limiting the withholding of federal funds to coerce states makes a broader cutoff unlikely. A few jurisdictions outside California have changed their sanctuary policies in response to the funding threat, but the administration’s initiative is tied up in litigation and, in any case, is unlikely to hurt sufficiently to persuade hard cases such as California to mend their ways.
That’s why in March the Justice Department filed suit against California to strike down all or parts of the three sanctuary laws, claiming that they were preempted by federal law and that they violate the supremacy clause of the Constitution. (Interestingly, the complaint cites, among other things, the Supreme Court ruling overturning parts of Arizona’s SB 1070, which was intended to assist in enforcement of federal immigration laws, on the same grounds of federal preemption.) But it will be a long time before the case reaches the Supreme Court; the defendants no doubt hope to drag things out long enough that President Maxine Waters or Dennis Kucinich can reverse the policy.
But change may come sooner than that. The legislature’s overreach has sparked a rebellion of communities seeking sanctuary from the sanctuary law. The small Orange County city of Los Alamitos got things rolling by voting to opt out of SB 54 and join the federal lawsuit. A growing list of other cities has joined the suit as well, as have Orange and San Diego counties. More cities and counties are likely to join them.
In an attempt to harness this political energy, two people whose children were killed by illegal aliens have launched a ballot initiative to repeal the sanctuary laws. Don Rosenberg, one of the parents, told the Washington Times , “This will be David versus Goliath. We’re clearly David on this side. But there are millions of Davids here.”
While the steady stream of preventable crimes by illegal immigrants protected by sanctuary policies keeps the issue before the public, the very extremism of the Left may supply the five smooth stones this army of Davids will need to slay the sanctuary Goliath. In February, for example, Oakland mayor Libby Schaaf warned illegals that an ICE raid was planned for the Bay Area. Such brazen acts delegitimize sanctuary policies in the eyes even of moderate voters.
South Carolina eventually repealed its Ordinance of Nullification. The state’s subsequent acts of resistance against legitimate federal authority also failed. It’s too early to tell whether California will succeed where South Carolina did not.
California’s Rich May Leave to Avoid $12 Billion in SALT Tax Hit
President Donald Trump’s new tax cut, which limiting state and local
tax deductions, will cost rich Californians $12 billion more in federal taxes,
with $9 billion coming from those making $1 million or more.
Is California Governor
Jerry Brown Mentally Ill?
Meanwhile,
leftists are ignoring glaring reasons to question the sanity of California's
governor, Jerry Brown. The entire country is talking about the
collapse of California due to decades of insane liberal
policies. And what is Governor Brown's response? He
implemented hundreds more destructive liberal rules, regulations, and giveaways
to illegals. An article listing the top ten
stupidest new California laws includes "Single-User Restrooms,"
"Controlling Cow Flatulence," "Legalizing Child
Prostitution," and "Felons Voting."
By Wayne Allyn Root
Zuckerberg’s
Investor Group Pushes for Pre-Election Amnesty
http://www.breitbart.com/2018-elections/2018/04/19/zuckerberg-lobby-joins-pre-election-amnesty-push/
Silicon Valley investors, including Facebook owner Mark Zuckerberg, are
joining the Koch network’s push for a quick amnesty that would also keep the
issue of cheap-labor immigration out of the November election.
California zipped
past the United Kingdom to become the 5thlargest economy in the world in 2017.
It Pays to be Illegal in California
It
certainly is a good time to be an illegal alien in California. Democratic State
Sen. Ricardo Lara last week pitched a bill to permit illegal immigrants to
serve on all state and local boards and commissions. This week, lawmakers
unveiled a $1 billion health care plan that would include spending
$250 million to extend health care coverage to all illegal alien adults.
“Currently,
undocumented adults are explicitly and unjustly locked out of healthcare due to
their immigration status. In a matter of weeks, California legislators will
have a decisive opportunity to reverse that cruel and counterproductive fact,”
Assemblyman Joaquin Arambula said in Monday’s Sacramento Bee.
His
legislation, Assembly Bill 2965, would give as many as 114,000
uninsured illegal aliens access to Medi-Cal programs. A companion bill has been
sponsored by State Sen. Richard Lara.
But that
could just be a drop in the bucket. The Democrats’ plan covers more than
100,000 illegal aliens with annual incomes bless than $25,000, however an
estimated 1.3 million might be eligible based on their earnings.
In
addition, it is estimated that 20 percent of those living in California
illegally are uninsured – the $250 million covers just 11 percent.
So, will
politicians soon be asking California taxpayers once again to dip into their pockets
to pay for the remaining 9 percent?
Before
they ask for more, Democrats have to win the approval of Gov. Jerry Brown, who
cautioned against spending away the state’s surplus when he introduced his $190 billion budget
proposal in January.
Given
Brown’s openness to expanding Medi-Cal expansions in recent years, not to
mention his proclivity for blindly supporting any measure benefitting lawbreaking
immigrants, the latest fiscal irresponsibility may win approval.
And if he
takes a pass, the two Democrats most likely to succeed Brown – Lt. Gov. Gavin
Newsom and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa – favor excessive social spending and are actively courting
illegal immigrant support.
Look how the
liberal drug culture has destroyed Eureka, California
In
normal circumstances, Eureka, California, would be a paradise. It's
situated in northern California on the Pacific Coast and is simply beautiful,
sandwiched between rugged redwood forests and an implacable open
sea. The weather is perfect, constantly between 50 and 75 degrees
year round. It's isolated from other major cities, but some find
value in the quiet of a more secluded lifestyle.
Unfortunately,
Eureka, in Humboldt County, is in the center of a narco-state where marijuana
is grown industrial-scale and drug use is rampant. The situation has
gotten so bad that even tourists avoid it. Here's one telling review from TripAdvisor. It's a little long but
well worth the read:
Just back from 5 days in Eureka CA. Had not been
there for a few years so decided to visit north coast area, see some redwoods,
great coastal scenery and victorian homes along the way. We were quite
impressed that someone is trying to make Eureka a tourist destination (murals,
town gazebo, festival, arts and a wonderful visitors center),. At the same
time, we witnessed what appeared to be several dozen (at least!!) drunken
and/or drugged human beings lying on curbs, in doorways, against fences, behind
stores, camping out in parking lots, stumbling onto HWY 101 etc etc. Old motels
(The Serenity for one) were overflowing with people outside at all hours of the
day and night. A poor pit bull was chained to a fence next to highway all day
Saturday w/ cops driving back and forth. Drug deals appeared to be taking place
right out in the open within sight of traffic on 101. We stopped to take a
picture of a cute mural downtown and a wild-eyed woman came screaming out of
the shrubs-screaming at us for "taking her picture". She had
something in her raised hand and we got out of there fast. This was across the
street from the jail and near an area of lovely victorian homes on 3rd. Doesn't
really matter where in town it was because it was all over. Mixed in with great
businesses, lovely scenery, restaurants and historic places, we dodged crazies
screaming at the top of their lungs. Panhandlers followed people around from
store to store. We were in one cafe when a man sat down in filthy urine soaked
clothes and reeking of alcohol. He wasn't ordering anything but just came to
talk-however, most of the other customers had to get up and leave as the smell
was so overpowering. And although we felt bad that these people have such
problems...well...Eureka has a big problem too. A split-image.
Later, at [a bookrestore] in the Bayshore Mall,
we found several prominent displays on growing and/or manufacturing drugs.
Umm...from the looks of Eureka's streets, that information has already been put
to use. I hope that this once lovely town can come to grips with this problem.
The
above review is a few years old, but be assured that nothing has changed for
the better in Eureka, as The New York Times reports:
California's North Coast is known for its natural
beauty and magnificent redwoods, but Eureka, the Humboldt County seat, is
increasingly known for something else: the prevalence of dirty needles
littering parks and public areas, crude remains of a heroin scourge that is
afflicting the region.
Drug use in Humboldt County has many
layers. Meth has been a scourge in rural California for many years,
and because it is often shot intravenously, the transition to heroin has been
too easy for many. Eureka's large homeless population has been
especially vulnerable to addiction in recent years.
Discarded syringes have become a significant
concern for the town's residents, who worry that the needles pose a threat to
children and tourists.
OK, so why do so many people here use drugs?
Theories abound, with the most common explanations tending to involve the
marijuana industry and its associated culture of permissiveness and
experimentation. Michael Goldsby [an addiction studies instructor at College of
the Redwoods since 1987] thinks that theory makes sense.
"Risk factors for drug problems include
availability of drugs, positive peer attitudes towards drug use [and] community
norms that accept drug misuse," he explained. "Drug and alcohol use is
accepted and even encouraged in our community."
Legalized
drug use has destroyed some of the most beautiful places in California and is
now doing the same in Colorado and elsewhere, where "harmless"
marijuana, the gateway to even worse narcotics, has been
legalized. It's just a shame that immorality seems to go hand in
hand with some of the prettiest places in America.
"Particularly since the 2008
economic crisis,
the ruling class and its two
parties have slashed
social spending while cutting taxes
for
corporations and the rich."
"Between 2005 and 2015, the
total payroll cost for the top 10 percent of UC wages grew from 22 to 31
percent, while that of the bottom 50 percent dropped from 24 to 22
percent."
More than 50,000 UC workers on
strike
For a political movement of the entire working class against
inequality and capitalism!
By David Moore
9 May 2018
David Moore is
the Socialist Equality Party’s candidate for senate in the California June 5
mid-term elections. You can find out more and get involved in the campaign at socialequality.com/2018.
Tens of
thousands of service workers at the University of California (UC) are
concluding their three-day strike against deteriorating pay and conditions
today.
The
widespread support for the strike of services workers, including from nurses
and technical workers who have engaged in sympathy strikes, is part of a growing
wave of opposition from workers throughout the United States and
internationally. However, the unions involved have worked to limit and contain
the struggle and ensure its defeat.
In April,
the UC system unilaterally imposed a contract on service workers that increased
the retirement age by five years, included a paltry two percent wage increase,
and allowed the university to outsource more jobs as well as raise health care
premiums.
The UC
system is the state’s third largest employer, and the conditions there are
immediately familiar to workers across the country. Just in the past two months
there have been strikes of public school teachers and support staff in West
Virginia, Oklahoma and Arizona.
In each of
these strikes, the role of the unions—the American Federation of Teachers and
the National Education Association—was to smother opposition and shut it
down. The strikes were not initiated by the unions, but by
rank-and-file teachers. The unions intervened to end the strikes and prevent
them from developing into a nationwide movement against the Democratic and
Republican parties and the capitalist system.
The teachers
unions were operating under the principle articulated by a lawyer for the
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) in the
pending case of Janus vs. AFSCME on
union agency fees: “Union security is the tradeoff for no strikes.” The AFSMCE
lawyer was telling the high court justices: You need us, because without us
there will be “an untold specter of labor unrest throughout the country.”
The main
union involved in the UC strike is AFSCME, and it—along with the University
Professional and Technical Employees and California Nurses Association—is
putting this statement into practice. The three-day strike is intended to let
off steam, while doing nothing to resolve the conditions facing service and
other workers in the UC system.
AFSCME has a
long history of calling short-term strikes and making empty strike threats to
demoralize members and force through sellout contracts. In 2014, it cancelled
planned strikes of two different sections of workers and imposed contracts that
included increases in pension contributions from workers. In this strike,
AFSCME is seeking to block widespread opposition to the bipartisan attack on
public education and workers compensation by focusing almost entirely on racial
and gender pay discrepancies that they claim can be fixed at the university
level.
The unions
want to prevent any discussion of the political background to the conditions facing
UC workers. Particularly since the 2008 economic crisis, the ruling class and
its two parties have slashed social spending while cutting taxes for
corporations and the rich.
BLOG: CA
IS A STATE THAT HANDS OUT $30 BILLION FOR SOCIAL SERVICES AND WELFARE FOR
ILLEGALS BUT CUTS EVERYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH LEGALS!
Within
California, the UC system’s budget has been cut by Democratic Governor Jerry
Brown and the former Republican Governor Schwarzenegger.
In 2017
the state of California provided nearly two-thirds less in per pupil funding
than it did in 1990, from $19,100 down to $7,160, after inflation. State
funding now only accounts for roughly 10 percent of the UC budget. More than
three times that amount comes from UC-run medical centers.
Those cuts
have increasingly shaped every aspect of work and study in the UC system.
Custodians, groundskeepers and office staff workers are overworked, and their
departments are understaffed. University lecturers find
themselves on food stamps with no prospect of advancement. Students have seen
their tuition and debts soar.
As part of
the UC’s transformation from being funded by the state to making profits from
medical and research businesses, well-heeled administrators were brought
in. Between 2005 and 2015, the total payroll cost for the top 10
percent of UC wages grew from 22 to 31 percent, while that of the bottom 50
percent dropped from 24 to 22 percent.
UC workers
in the medical centers are doubly squeezed by the attacks on health care that
were carried out under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), or Obamacare. Hailed by
the unions and Democrats as a great reform, the ACA has provided record profits
to insurance companies while forcing low-income workers to ration their care in
overpriced plans with prohibitively high deductibles and co-pays.
Within the
medical centers and hospitals, health care workers have been subjected to
particularly sharp understaffing and speedup.
These
attacks on the working class have been combined with tax breaks, bailouts and
giveaways to the ultra-rich. Nationwide, the three richest billionaires have as
much wealth as the poorest half of Americans combined. This immense social gulf
grew precipitously under the Obama administration and continues to accelerate
with the Trump tax cuts.
BLOG: THE
ENTIRE REASON FOR OPEN BORDERS IS TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED. THERE IS NO
BILLIONAIRE THAT DOES NOT PUSH FOR WIDER OPEN BORDERS, AMNESTY and NO E-VERIFY!
Both parties
of big business have worked closely to funnel money from the working class to
the rich. While being run by Democrats from top to bottom, California has
grown to be the fourth most unequal state in the US, with the largest number of
billionaires and the largest homeless population. When the
cost of living is taken into account, California has the highest poverty rate
in the country, at just over 20 percent.
The unions
promote the lie that Democrats are allies of workers. Yet the Democrats voted
for a record $700 billion military budget, found room in the budget for Trump’s
border wall and bailed out the banks in 2008, but claim there is no money for
education, health care and retirement.
The
three-day strike will resolve nothing. I call on UC workers to form
rank-and-file committees, independent of the unions, to unite their fight for
wages and benefits with the struggles of the entire working class against
inequality and war. The conditions facing striking workers are the same as
those facing teachers, auto workers, Amazon workers, telecommunication workers,
and all sections of the working class—in the United States and internationally.
The building
of rank-and-file factory and workplace committees must be connected to a
political counteroffensive against the two big-business parties and the entire
capitalist system. The resources exist to ensure everyone the right to a
high-paying job, quality health care and a secure retirement. The problem is
capitalism, a social and economic system based on the exploitation of the
working class to secure the profits of the ruling class.
Maybe if California and New York Cared as Much about the Middle Class as
They Do About Illegal Alien…
TWEET
Economists Arthur Laffer (the guy with the famous curve) and Stephen Moore, a leading
libertarian voice for mass immigration, predict that some 800,000 people will pack up and leave California and New York over the next three years. The
reason they cite for the exodus in their Wall Street Journal op-ed is that the
new federal tax law, which eliminates deductions for state income taxes, will
be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.
Implicit in their assignment of blame to the federal tax
overhaul is that the people who will be leaving are the ones who pay taxes –
the sort of folks that state and local governments rely to provide a revenue
stream. As such, one would think that these would be the people whose concerns
would get a lot of interest in Sacramento and Albany. But clearly that is not
the case.
For the privilege of living in places like the Bay Area, Los
Angeles, or New York City, you must bear some of the most ridiculous housing
costs in the nation, along with crushing state and local taxes. In
California, be prepared to turn over as much as 13.3 percent of your income to
the state. High-earning New Yorkers fork over a more modest 8.82 percent, but
if you live in the five boroughs you can tack on an additional 3.87 percent in city income taxes. California and New York also have some of the highest sales tax rates in the
country at 8.54 percent and 8.49 percent respectively (and higher in many
cities). And now, as Laffer and Moore point out, you can’t even deduct those
costs on your federal taxes.
One might also think that for all these state and local taxes,
residents could expect the most modern infrastructure, efficient public
transportation, world class public schools, affordable housing, and other
amenities. Ha. No, in Sacramento and Albany they prioritize an ever-growing
list of public benefits and services to immigration law violators; subsidies
and grants to go to college, and legal aid for illegal aliens in deportation
proceedings. In New York, Gov. Andrew Cuomo is even threatening to sue the federal government (with taxpayer money, of course) for even trying to
enforce immigration laws.
Some $23 billion of California taxpayers’ money and $7.5 billion of New
York taxpayers’ money is expended on illegal aliens
and their dependent children. For the benefit of the trolls at the Southern Poverty Law Center, the problems of California and New York cannot entirely be
blamed on illegal aliens. Many, many factors have led to the middle class
flight from these states. But one has to wonder why states wouldn’t want to do
as much to woo their tax base into staying as they are doing to attract,
protect, and reward illegal aliens.
Cutting back on benefits and protections for illegal aliens
would not solve all of these states’ problems, but it certainly wouldn’t hurt.
In the meantime, every U-Haul packing up a middle or upper-middle class family
headed out of California and New York represents a loss of vital revenue
necessary to address myriad needs of both citizens and legal immigrants.
Steinle’s
murderer, Jose Zarate and been deported 5xs!
California Goes Rogue
By Mark Krikorian
National Review
Online, April 26, 2018
How the Golden State defies immigration law
‘I will hang the first man I can lay my hand on engaged in such treasonable conduct, upon the first tree I can reach.” That was President Andrew Jackson’s response to South Carolina’s intention to prevent enforcement of a federal law within the state. Despite his admiration for Jackson, President Trump hasn’t yet threatened to start hanging California politicians. But that state’s “sanctuary” policies protecting illegal immigrants and obstructing enforcement of federal immigration law echo the long-ago fight over nullification and states’ rights.
The passage of three sanctuary bills last year by the state legislature in Sacramento is now the subject of a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Department of Justice. It was the culmination of a decades-long process, as mass immigration transformed California’s politics from reddish purple to deep blue.
The first measure that could be described as a sanctuary provision was the Los Angeles Police Department’s Special Order 40, enacted in 1979, which prohibited officers from arresting a person for the federal crime of illegal entry and, unless he was arrested for another crime, from even inquiring as to legal status. But that order merely instructed police to abstain from involving themselves in immigration enforcement. In the 1980s, a more proactive conception of illegal-alien sanctuary spread, as Central Americans fleeing war in their homelands snuck into the U.S. but did not qualify for asylum.
At first, only some pro-Sandinista churches postured as sanctuaries for these illegal aliens. But in late 1985, Mayor (now Senator) Dianne Feinstein signed a resolution declaring San Francisco a “city of refuge” for illegals. She ordered that “City Departments shall not discriminate against Salvadorans and Guatemalan refugees because of their immigration status, and shall not jeopardize the safety and welfare of law-abiding refugees by acting in a way that may cause their deportation.” The declaration was followed four years later by a city law formally prohibiting city employees from assisting federal immigration authorities.
Even measures such as this, which were adopted by other big cities over the years, were of largely local interest until a new system, developed at the end of the Bush administration and completed in 2013, went online. The fingerprints of every person booked by police throughout the country have long been sent to the FBI. But under the new system, dubbed Secure Communities, those fingerprints now also go to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). So while in the past the feds didn’t necessarily know whether cops in San Francisco arrested an illegal alien for, say, a drug offense, now they do. Every time.
There will still be some illegal aliens who elude detection if ICE has no record of them because they’ve never interacted with the immigration authorities. But if police arrest anyone who’s in the Department of Homeland Security database — who was deported previously, got turned down for asylum, was picked up by the Border Patrol, overstayed a visa, or appeared before an immigration judge — ICE learns about it.
There are only so many hours in the day, so not every arrested illegal alien can be taken into custody. But if ICE wants the alien because, for instance, he has previously been deported or is a fugitive from a deportation order, it notifies the local authorities to hold him, as they would for any other state or federal law-enforcement agency, up to 48 hours after they would otherwise have released him, so that agents can collect and deport him.
With this new fingerprint-matching system in place, instead of receiving the occasional hold notice, or “detainer,” cities and counties with large numbers of immigrants started hearing from ICE constantly. In some states where large-scale immigration was a recent development, the political culture had not yet shifted to the left to such a degree that this new level of cooperation with ICE met objections. But immigration, legal and illegal, has transformed California’s population and political culture so profoundly that the pushback there was inevitable.
Of California’s 40 million people, about 15 million are in immigrant households (immigrants and their children under 18), accounting for more than 37 percent of the state’s population. Not only is that by far the highest percentage in any state, but the increase in people in immigrant households in California from 1970 to today — just the increase — is nearly twice as large as today’s total population in immigrant households in Texas, the state in second place.
Survey after survey shows that immigrants are disproportionately big-government liberals. As one overview of the data concluded, “solid and persistent majorities of Hispanic and Asian immigrants and their children share the policy preferences of the modern American Left.” As a result, as University of Maryland political scientist James Gimpel has demonstrated, in the nation’s largest counties (which are where immigrants tend to settle), “Republicans have lost 0.58 percentage points in presidential elections for every one percentage-point increase in the size of the local immigrant population.”
The results in California are plain to see. There hasn’t been a Republican in statewide or federal office since Arnold Schwarzenegger (and he was only nominally Republican). Only 13 of 40 state senators and 25 of 80 state assemblymen are Republicans. This has enabled leftist maximalism on a wide range of issues, including immigration.
Even in this environment, the effects of Secure Communities in identifying deportable aliens were blunted for a time by the Obama administration’s lax policies. Despite the anti-borders Left and its kabuki protests that Obama was the deporter in chief, his administration effectively exempted most of the resident illegal population from immigration law. Even though ICE continued to be notified of arrested illegals, administration policy was to ignore all but the worst cases. In the words of John Sandweg, who headed ICE during part of Obama’s term, “If you are a run-of-the-mill immigrant here illegally, your odds of getting deported are close to zero — it’s just highly unlikely to happen.”
Then came Donald Trump.
It wasn’t just that Trump pledged tough immigration enforcement in his raw and often coarse manner. It wasn’t just that Hillary Clinton, who said publicly that she would not deport anyone who hadn’t first been convicted of a violent felony, won California by 30 points. It was the whiplash from Obama to Trump that supercharged the sanctuary push in the state legislature. Democratic politicians, their activist allies, and illegal aliens themselves had gotten used to Obama’s arrangements and had come to think that was the way things were going to be from now on. Trump’s reversal of Obama’s laxity fell on them like a bucket of ice water.
The state took a variety of steps in response to the return of immigration enforcement. Lawmakers appropriated $45 million for a fund to help illegals fight deportation. And the state senate appointed an illegal alien to a state education commission.
But most consequential were three laws designed to limit the federal government’s ability to enforce immigration law. The best known is Senate Bill 54, the California Values Act, the most sweeping measure of its kind in the nation, making the entire state a sanctuary for illegal aliens. It prohibits state and local law enforcement from complying with ICE detainers in most cases. It prohibits notification to ICE about an alien unless in the past 15 years he’s been convicted of one of a list of the most serious crimes. It prohibits state and local authorities from allowing ICE to use space in their jails and from providing ICE any non-public information on suspects. It restricts state and local participation in any multi-agency task force that includes ICE.
The second of the three measures attempts to impose state oversight on any facility ICE uses to detain deportable aliens. And the final law seeks to shield illegal-alien workers from detection by, among other things, prohibiting private employers from voluntarily allowing ICE agents into any non-public area of their business.
The Trump administration has pushed back. The first step was to threaten to cut off certain Justice Department grants to sanctuary jurisdictions nationwide; longstanding doctrine limiting the withholding of federal funds to coerce states makes a broader cutoff unlikely. A few jurisdictions outside California have changed their sanctuary policies in response to the funding threat, but the administration’s initiative is tied up in litigation and, in any case, is unlikely to hurt sufficiently to persuade hard cases such as California to mend their ways.
That’s why in March the Justice Department filed suit against California to strike down all or parts of the three sanctuary laws, claiming that they were preempted by federal law and that they violate the supremacy clause of the Constitution. (Interestingly, the complaint cites, among other things, the Supreme Court ruling overturning parts of Arizona’s SB 1070, which was intended to assist in enforcement of federal immigration laws, on the same grounds of federal preemption.) But it will be a long time before the case reaches the Supreme Court; the defendants no doubt hope to drag things out long enough that President Maxine Waters or Dennis Kucinich can reverse the policy.
But change may come sooner than that. The legislature’s overreach has sparked a rebellion of communities seeking sanctuary from the sanctuary law. The small Orange County city of Los Alamitos got things rolling by voting to opt out of SB 54 and join the federal lawsuit. A growing list of other cities has joined the suit as well, as have Orange and San Diego counties. More cities and counties are likely to join them.
In an attempt to harness this political energy, two people whose children were killed by illegal aliens have launched a ballot initiative to repeal the sanctuary laws. Don Rosenberg, one of the parents, told the Washington Times , “This will be David versus Goliath. We’re clearly David on this side. But there are millions of Davids here.”
While the steady stream of preventable crimes by illegal immigrants protected by sanctuary policies keeps the issue before the public, the very extremism of the Left may supply the five smooth stones this army of Davids will need to slay the sanctuary Goliath. In February, for example, Oakland mayor Libby Schaaf warned illegals that an ICE raid was planned for the Bay Area. Such brazen acts delegitimize sanctuary policies in the eyes even of moderate voters.
South Carolina eventually repealed its Ordinance of Nullification. The state’s subsequent acts of resistance against legitimate federal authority also failed. It’s too early to tell whether California will succeed where South Carolina did not.
Coming soon: Mass exodus from NY, CA due to high taxes
Arthur Laffer and Steven
Moore have penned an interesting article in the Wall Street
Journal that gauges the impact of the cap on state tax deductions in
high tax states.
Their conclusions should
frighten high-tax, big-spending liberals in blue states across the country.
In
the years to come, millions of people, thousands of businesses, and tens of
billions of dollars of net income will flee high-tax blue states for low-tax
red states. This migration has been happening for
years. But the Trump tax bill's cap on the deduction for state and
local taxes, or SALT, will accelerate the pace. The losers will be
most of the Northeast, along with California. The winners are likely
to be states like Arizona, Nevada, Tennessee, Texas and Utah.
For
years blue states have exported a third or more of their tax burden to
residents of other states. In places like California, where the top
income-tax rate exceeds 13%, that tax could be deducted on a federal
return. Now that deduction for state and local taxes will be capped
at $10,000 per family.
Consider
what this means if you're a high-income earner in Silicon Valley or
Hollywood. The top tax rate that you actually pay just jumped from
about 8.5% to 13%. Similar figures hold if you live in Manhattan,
once New York City's income tax is factored in. If you earn $10
million or more, your taxes might increase a whopping 50%.
About
90% of taxpayers are unaffected by the change. But high earners in
places with hefty income taxes – not just California and New York, but also
Minnesota and New Jersey – will bear more of the true cost of their state
government. Also in big trouble are Connecticut and Illinois, where
the overall state and local tax burden (especially property taxes) is so
onerous that high-income residents will feel the burn now that they can't deduct
these costs on their federal returns. On the other side are nine
states – including Florida, Nevada, Texas and Washington – that impose no tax
at all on earned income.
The authors put their finger
on the real meaning of SALT: it prevents the rest of us from subsidizing the
blue state model. By making rich taxpayers in blue states bear the
true cost of all those goodies given out by their state governments, those
living in low-tax red states will no longer subsidize the irresponsible spending
habits in blue states.
Now
that the SALT subsidy is gone, how bad will it get for high-tax blue
states? Very bad. We estimate, based on the historical
relationship between tax rates and migration patterns, that both California and
New York will lose on net about 800,000 residents over the next three years –
roughly twice the number that left from 2014-16. Our calculations
suggest that Connecticut, New Jersey and Minnesota combined will hemorrhage
another roughly 500,000 people in the same period.
Red
states ought to brace themselves: The Yankees are coming, and they are bringing
their money with them. Meanwhile, the exodus could puncture large
and unexpected holes in blue-state budgets. Lawmakers in Hartford
and Trenton have gotten a small taste of this in recent years as billionaire
financiers have flown the coop and relocated to Florida. As the
migration speeds up, it will raise real-estate values in low-tax states and
hurt them in high-tax states.
We are the most mobile
society in the history of industrialized civilization. The fact that we
are a federal republic with fifty individual state governments makes choosing a
place to live more than just a preference for climate or
scenery. High taxes generally bring with them a higher cost of living,
urban decay, crime, and a lack of economic opportunity.
So Americans are voting with
their feet. And in this competition, it's no contest.
California’s Rich May Leave to Avoid $12 Billion in SALT Tax Hit
President Donald Trump’s new tax cut, which limiting state and local
tax deductions, will cost rich Californians $12 billion more in federal taxes,
with $9 billion coming from those making $1 million or more.
Recently,
the California Department of Finance reported good news for Sacramento
politicians: thanks largely to having the top state income tax bracket in the
nation at 13.3 percent, California collected about $3.3 billion more in state
taxes than forecast in the first three months of 2018, with 67 percent coming
from higher than expected personal income taxes.
But
the California Franchise Tax Board also warned that
the Trump tax cut, which
limits state and local tax (SALT) deductions to a maximum of $10,000, will cost
same high income earners $12 billion a year more in federal tax.
The
bigger tax bite could also be strong motivation for California’s highest income
earners to vote with their feet and leave California to save big bucks in a low
tax state.
Maine
is second to California with a top income tax rate of 10.15 percent, followed
by Oregon’s 9.9 percent. But Nevada, Washington, Texas and Florida have no
state income tax.
Only
about 61,000 households, or 0.4 percent, of the 16 million households in
California reported an income of more than $1 million in 2014. But the
CalMatters blog commented
that of the 40 million residents in California, the top 150,000 that are in
the top 1 percent of income earners pay about half of all state income taxes.
California
taxpayers may already be voting with their feet, according to an analysis by
CNBC. The business news team found that from 2016 to 2017, California saw a net
138,000 people leave the state, while Texas grew by 79,000 people, Arizona
added 63,000 residents, and Nevada saw a 38,000 gain.
The
Republican Governors’ Association was quick to observe: “California
Democrats imposing massive tax hikes on middle-class families, driving up their
state’s cost of living, residents are packing their bags and leaving for states
run by GOP governors like Arizona, Nevada, and Texas with lower tax burdens and
friendlier business climates.”
Adios, Sanctuary La Raza Welfare State of California
A fifth-generation Californian laments his state’s ongoing economic collapse.
By Steve Baldwin
American Spectator, October 19, 2017
What’s clear is that the producers are leaving the state and the takers are coming in. Many of the takers are illegal aliens, now estimated to number over 2.6 million. The Federation for American Immigration Reform estimates that California spends $22 billion on government services for illegal aliens, including welfare, education, Medicaid, and criminal justice system costs.
A fifth-generation Californian laments his state’s ongoing economic collapse.
By Steve Baldwin
American Spectator, October 19, 2017
What’s clear is that the producers are leaving the state and the takers are coming in. Many of the takers are illegal aliens, now estimated to number over 2.6 million. The Federation for American Immigration Reform estimates that California spends $22 billion on government services for illegal aliens, including welfare, education, Medicaid, and criminal justice system costs.
BLOG:
MANY DISPUTE CALIFORNIA’S EXPENDITURES FOR THE LA RAZA WELFARE STATE IN
MEXIFORNIA JUST AS THEY DISPUTE THE NUMBER OF ILLEGALS. APPROXIMATELY HALF THE
POPULATION OF CA IS NOW MEXICAN AND BREEDING ANCHOR BABIES FOR WELFARE LIKE
BUNNIES. THE $22 BILLION IS STATE EXPENDITURE ONLY. COUNTIES PAY OUT MORE WITH
LOS ANGELES COUNTY LEADING AT OVER A BILLION DOLLARS PAID OUT YEARLY TO
MEXICO’S ANCHOR BABY BREEDERS. NOW MULTIPLY THAT BY THE NUMBER OF COUNTIES IN
CA AND YOU START TO GET AN IDEA OF THE STAGGERING WELFARE STATE MEXICO AND THE
DEMOCRAT PARTY HAVE ERECTED SANS ANY LEGALS VOTES. ADD TO THIS THE FREE ENTERPRISE
HOSPITAL AND CLINIC COST FOR LA RAZA’S “FREE” MEDICAL WHICH IS ESTIMATED TO BE
ABOUT $1.5 BILLION PER YEAR.
Liberals
claim they more than make that up with taxes paid, but that’s simply not true.
It’s not even close. FAIR estimates illegal aliens in California contribute
only $1.21 billion in tax revenue, which means they cost California $20.6
billion, or at least $1,800 per household.
Nonetheless, open border advocates, such as Facebook Chairman Mark Zuckerberg, claim illegal aliens are a net benefit to California with little evidence to support such an assertion. As the Center for Immigration Studies has documented, the vast majority of illegals are poor, uneducated, and with few skills. How does accepting millions of illegal aliens and then granting them access to dozens of welfare programs benefit California’s economy? If illegal aliens were contributing to the economy in any meaningful way, California, with its 2.6 million illegal aliens, would be booming.
Furthermore, the complexion of illegal aliens has changed with far more on welfare and committing crimes than those who entered the country in the 1980s. Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute has testified before a Congressional committee that in 2004, 95% of all outstanding warrants for murder in Los Angeles were for illegal aliens; in 2000, 23% of all Los Angeles County jail inmates were illegal aliens and that in 1995, 60% of Los Angeles’s largest street gang, the 18th Street gang, were illegal aliens. Granted, those statistics are old, but if you talk to any California law enforcement officer, they will tell you it’s much worse today. The problem is that the Brown administration will not release any statewide data on illegal alien crimes. That would be insensitive. And now that California has declared itself a “sanctuary state,” there is little doubt this sends a message south of the border that will further escalate illegal immigration into the state.
Nonetheless, open border advocates, such as Facebook Chairman Mark Zuckerberg, claim illegal aliens are a net benefit to California with little evidence to support such an assertion. As the Center for Immigration Studies has documented, the vast majority of illegals are poor, uneducated, and with few skills. How does accepting millions of illegal aliens and then granting them access to dozens of welfare programs benefit California’s economy? If illegal aliens were contributing to the economy in any meaningful way, California, with its 2.6 million illegal aliens, would be booming.
Furthermore, the complexion of illegal aliens has changed with far more on welfare and committing crimes than those who entered the country in the 1980s. Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute has testified before a Congressional committee that in 2004, 95% of all outstanding warrants for murder in Los Angeles were for illegal aliens; in 2000, 23% of all Los Angeles County jail inmates were illegal aliens and that in 1995, 60% of Los Angeles’s largest street gang, the 18th Street gang, were illegal aliens. Granted, those statistics are old, but if you talk to any California law enforcement officer, they will tell you it’s much worse today. The problem is that the Brown administration will not release any statewide data on illegal alien crimes. That would be insensitive. And now that California has declared itself a “sanctuary state,” there is little doubt this sends a message south of the border that will further escalate illegal immigration into the state.
"If the racist "Sensenbrenner
Legislation" passes the US Senate, there is no doubt that a massive civil
disobedience movement will emerge. Eventually labor union power can merge with
the immigrant civil rights and "Immigrant
Sanctuary" movements to enable us to either form a new political
party or to do heavy duty reforming of the existing Democratic Party. The next
and final steps would follow and that is to elect our own governors of all the
states within Aztlan."
Indeed, California goes out of its way to attract illegal aliens. The state has even created government programs that cater exclusively to illegal aliens. For example, the State Department of Motor Vehicles has offices that only process driver licenses for illegal aliens. With over a million illegal aliens now driving in California, the state felt compelled to help them avoid the long lines the rest of us must endure at the DMV. And just recently, the state-funded University of California system announced it will spend $27 million on financial aid for illegal aliens. They’ve even taken out radio spots on stations all along the border, just to make sure other potential illegal border crossers hear about this program. I can’t afford college education for all my four sons, but my taxes will pay for illegals to get a college education.
Indeed, California goes out of its way to attract illegal aliens. The state has even created government programs that cater exclusively to illegal aliens. For example, the State Department of Motor Vehicles has offices that only process driver licenses for illegal aliens. With over a million illegal aliens now driving in California, the state felt compelled to help them avoid the long lines the rest of us must endure at the DMV. And just recently, the state-funded University of California system announced it will spend $27 million on financial aid for illegal aliens. They’ve even taken out radio spots on stations all along the border, just to make sure other potential illegal border crossers hear about this program. I can’t afford college education for all my four sons, but my taxes will pay for illegals to get a college education.
If Immigration Creates
Wealth, Why Is California America's Poverty Capital?
California used to be home to America's
largest and most affluent middle class. Today, it is
America's poverty capital. What went
wrong? In a word: immigration. According to the
U.S. Census Bureau'...: The
Golden State is peddling fool's gold lately.
California used to be
home to America's largest and most affluent middle class. Today, it
is America's poverty capital. What went wrong? In a
word: immigration.
According to the U.S. Census
Bureau's Official Poverty Measure, California's poverty rate hovers
around 15 percent. But this figure is misleading: the Census Bureau
measures poverty relative to a uniform national standard, which doesn't account
for differences in living costs between states – the cost of taxes, housing,
and health care are higher in California than in Oklahoma, for example. Accounting
for these differences reveals that California's real poverty rate is
20.6 percent –
the highest in America, and nearly twice the national average of 12.7
percent.
Likewise, income inequality in California is
the second-highest in America, behind only New York. In fact, if California
were an independent country, it would be the 17th most unequal country on
Earth, nestled comfortably between Honduras and Guatemala. Mexico is
slightly more egalitarian. California is far more unequal than the
"social democracies" it emulates: Canada is the 111th most
unequal nation, while Norway is far down the list at number 153 (out of 176
countries). In terms of income inequality, California has more in
common with banana republics than other "social democracies."
More Government, More Poverty
High taxes, excessive regulations,
and a lavish welfare state – these are the standard explanations for
California's poverty epidemic. They have some merit. For
example, California has both the highest personal income tax rate and the
highest sales tax in America, according to Politifact.
Not only are California's taxes high,
but successive "progressive" governments have swamped the state in a
sea of red tape. Onerous regulations cripple small businesses and
retard economic growth. Kerry Jackson, a fellow with the Pacific
Research Institute, gives a few specific examples of how excessive government
regulation hurts California's poor. He writes in a recent op-ed for
the Los Angeles Times:
Extensive environmental regulations
aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions make energy more expensive, also
hurting the poor. By some estimates, California energy costs are as
much as 50% higher than the national average. Jonathan A. Lesser of
Continental Economics ... found that "in 2012, nearly 1 million California
households faced ... energy expenditures exceeding 10% of household
income."
Some government regulation is
necessary and desirable, but most of California's is not. There is
virtue in governing with a "light touch."
Finally, California's welfare state
is, perhaps paradoxically, a source of poverty in the
state. The Orange Country Register reports that California's
social safety net is comparable in scale to those found in Europe:
In California a mother
with two children under the age of 5 who participates in these major welfare
programs – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (food stamps), housing assistance, home energy assistance,
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children – would
receive a benefits package worth $30,828 per year.
... [Similar] benefits
in Europe ranged from $38,588 per year in Denmark to just $1,112 in
Romania. The California benefits package is higher than in
well-known welfare states as France ($17,324), Germany ($23,257) and even
Sweden ($22,111).
Although welfare states ideally help the poor, reality
is messy. There are three main problems with the welfare
state. First, it incentivizes poverty by rewardingthe poor with government
handouts that are often far more valuable than a job. This can be
ameliorated to some degree by imposing work requirements on welfare recipients,
but in practice, such requirements are rarely imposed. Second,
welfare states are expensive. This means
higher taxes and therefore slower economic growth and fewer job opportunities
for everyone – including the poor.
Finally, welfare states are magnets
for the poor. Whether through domestic migration or foreign
immigration, poor people flock to places with generous welfare
states. This is logical from the immigrant's perspective, but it
makes little sense from the taxpayer's. This fact is why socialism
and open borders arefundamentally incompatible.
Why Big Government?
Since 1960, California's population exploded from 15.9 to 39 million
people. The growth was almost entirely due to immigration – many
people came from other states, but the majority came from
abroad. The Public Policy Institute of California estimates that 10 million
immigrants currently reside in California. This works out to 26
percent of the state's population.
BLOG: COME TO
MEXIFORNIA! HALF OF LOS ANGELES 15 MILLION ARE ILLEGALS!
This figure includes
2.4 million illegal aliens, although a recent study from Yale University suggests that the
true number of aliens is at least double that. Modifying the initial figure implies that
nearly one in three Californians is an immigrant. This
is not to disparage California's immigrant population, but it is madness to
deny that such a large influx of people has changed California's society and
economy.
Importantly, immigrants vote
Democrat by a ratio higher than 2:1, according to a report from the Center for Immigration Studies. In California,
immigration has increased the pool of likely Democrat voters by nearly 5
million people, compared to just 2.4 million additional likely Republican
voters. Not only does this almost guarantee Democratic victories,
but it also shifts California's political midpoint to the left. This
means that to remain competitive in elections, the Republicans must abandon or soften many
conservative positions so as to cater to the center.
California became a
Democratic stronghold not because Californians became socialists, but because
millions of socialists moved there. Immigration turned California
blue, and immigration is ultimately to blame for California's high poverty
level.
March 23, 2018
Is California Governor
Jerry Brown Mentally Ill?
Leftists are relentlessly
selling their bogus narrative that Trump is insane. Here are samples
of leftists' headlines: "Lawmakers Met With Psychiatrist About Trump's
Mental Health," "President Trump's Mental State An 'Enormous Present
Danger,'" "The Awkward Debate Around Trump's Mental Fitness,"
"The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists Assess."
So what has Trump done to
convince leftists that he must be crazy? Unlike Republicans, Trump
fearlessly confronts fake news media, calling them out when they
lie. Unlike Obama's punish-evil-America-first presidency, Trump has
America's best interest at heart. Unlike leftists seeking to
dissolve our borders, Trump plans to build a wall to protect our people and our
economy. Insanely, leftists cheered when Obama allowed
Ebola into America, claiming it was racist and unfair for Americans not to be
subjected to the disease. Unlike Obama, Hillary, Democrats, and fake
news media's war on Christianity (forcing a 100-year-old order of Catholic
nuns to fund contraception and forcing Christian businesses to service
same-sex ceremonies), Trump vows to defend religious liberty.
So I guess, according to
leftists' perverse way of thinking, that Trump must be crazy, along with the 63
million Americans who voted for him.
Governor Brown signed a
new law making California a sanctuary state, doubling down on his bizarre quest
to undermine American citizens. In essence, Brown gave federal law,
President Trump, and legal California residents his middle
finger. Numerous California families have suffered devastating losses
of family members killed by illegals with long felony records who have been
deported several times and welcomed back with open arms by
Brown. One mom whose son was killed by an illegal with two DUIs and
two felonies said Brown should be arrested for treason. Isn't it
reasonable to question Brown's sanity?
Liberal governing has
transformed beautiful California into the poverty
capital of America with the worst quality of life. Crazy
taxes,
crazy high cost of living, and crazy overreaching
regulations have crushed the middle class, forcing the middle class to
exit the Sunshine State. All that is left in California are illegals
feeding at the breast of the state, rapidly growing massive
homeless tent cities, and the mega-rich. Would a sane governor take pride
in causing this to happen to his state?
Headline: "San
Francisco Is A Literal [s-]hole, Public Defecation Map Reveals." Can
you imagine homeless people pooping on the streets being so pervasive that an
interactive map was created to help citizens avoid the piles of
poop? Human feces carries infectious
diseases. What
kind of irrational logic deems posing such health risks to constituents an act
of compassion? Is Governor Brown crazy?
Insanely, three fourths
of California's taxpayer dollars – more than $30 billion – is spent on
illegal aliens. Meanwhile, despite the highest taxes in the nation,
California is $1.3 trillion in debt – unemployment is at a staggering
11%. California's wacko giveaways to illegals include in-state
tuition, amounting to $25 million of financial aid. Nearly a million
illegals have California driver's licenses. L.A. County has 144% more registered voters than there are
residents of legal voting age. Clearly, illegals are illegally
voting.
Get this, folks:
Americans are spending almost a billion dollars a year on auto insurance for
illegals. Brown is gifting illegals billions in welfare and housing
while his constituents cannot find a place to live.
Ten years ago, a buddy of
mine excitedly moved his family from Maryland to California to accept the
highest-paying job of his career. Despite his lucrative salary, he
was forced to move back east due to the outrageously high cost of
living. My buddy said if he were an illegal, practically everything
would be free. His story inspired me to write and record a Beach
Boys-style song titled "Can't Afford the Sunshine."
Once again, I ask you, folks:
would a rational governor do what Brown is doing to his
constituents? Is Governor Jerry Brown mentally ill?
Laura Ingraham: ‘California Is Almost Acting Like It’s a Separate Country’
Earlier this
week on Fox News Channel’s “The Ingraham Angle,” host Laura Ingraham slammed
California and its leaders for its sanctuary city policies and its open
defiance of the federal government seeking to uphold existing immigration law.
Transcript as follows:
INGRAHAM: The radical takeover of California, that’s the focus
of tonight’s ANGLE.
I still remember the first time I traveled to Southern
California, it was the summer of 1984 and Los Angeles is hosting the Olympics.
Reagan was president and Republican George (inaudible) was the state’s
governor. Now, he was a moderate conservative, a law and order kind of guy.
The whole place, to me at least, felt like a Beach Boy song, the
weather, the people, the lifestyle was all, you know, beautiful stuff. But
today, the sunshine not with understanding, California is a very different
place. It’s now a place where state officials actively thwart federal
authorities trying to stop violent criminal offenders.
Oakland’s mayor, Libby Schaaf, went so far as to issue a warning
to immigrant communities that an ICE raid was forthcoming. Well, the president
sounded off on that today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: What the mayor of
Oakland did the other day was a disgrace where they had close to 1,000 people
ready to be gotten, ready to be taken off the streets. Many of them, they say
85 percent of them were criminals and had criminal records, and the mayor of
Oakland went out and she went out and warned them all, scatter.
So instead of taking in a thousand, they took in a fraction of
that. She said get out of here. She is telling that to criminals and it’s
certainly something that we are looking at with respect to her individually.
What she did is incredible and very dangerous from the standpoint of ICE and
Border Patrol, very dangerous. She really made law enforcement much more
dangerous.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: Now, for her part, Mayor Schaaf is deflecting that
criticism and she is going straight to the r-word.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAYOR LIBBY SCHAAF, OAKLAND: The attorney general is trying to
distract the American people from a failed immigration system by painting a
racist, broad brush of our immigrant community as dangerous criminals.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: Now who is mentioning skin color or ethnicity or where
people are from. That’s just pathetic. California, the way you see this playing
out, is almost acting like it’s a separate country all together, not a separate
state. Well, I think Attorney General Jeff Sessions was 100 percent correct
yesterday when he labeled state officials radical extremists for perpetuating
the lawlessness.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JFFF SESSIONS, ATTORNEY GENERAL: Federal law determines
immigration policy. State of California is not entitled to block that activity.
Somebody needs to stand up and say no, you’ve gone too far. You cannot do this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: But California AG Javier Becerra shot back. He argued
that the state sanctuary laws are constitutional adding our folks are very busy
doing public safety around the state. We don’t have to do the immigration work
for immigration officials. Excuse me. Public safety?
Well, that’s what we are supposed to believe when your own
Oakland mayor warned the illegal aliens ahead of time when she got wind of the
ice raid that was about to happen? Today, the White House released a partial
list of the crimes committed set free despite the lawful request of immigration
authorities. Check it out.
There is a Guatemalan citizen who was arrested last august for
injuring his spouse. While the Sonoma County jail provided ice with a whopping
24 minutes in the before it released the alien. A few weeks later, the Santa
Rosa Police Department in California arrested that same individual as a suspect
in the murder of his girlfriend.
Another Guatemalan, an alleged gang member was arrested by the
San Francisco police more than 10 times between 2013 and 2017 for charges
including rape, domestic battery, second degree robbery, assault, vehicle
theft, and on each occasion, what happened was ice requested notification of
his release so then ice could take him into custody.
Each time ICE’s request was declined by California. And then a
citizen of Mexico was arrested by Santa Clara County for drug possession on
January 11th, 2017. He was later convicted of child cruelty, felony possession
purchase of controlled substances and, of course, possession of marijuana. He
was released from local custody.
The list goes on and on. And we could literally do an entire
show just on the myriad ways that California sanctuary policies have endangered
the lives of innocent, law abiding citizens. And, of course, law enforcement
and, of course, legal immigrants.
California AG Becerra and Governor Moon Beam Brown are living in
alternative universe. They deny that they even have sanctuary laws in place.
Yet, here’s what their new statutes stipulate. In violation of federal
statutes, local officials cannot tell the feds when illegals in custody are
about to be released.
And they are banned under this law from transferring criminal
immigrants to federal officials. Now, we are talking about undocumented
criminals here. And the state of California is also so concerned about the
welfare of the illegal immigrants, that they imposed a state-run inspection of
immigrants detained by the federal government.
So, basically, they are trying to regulate federal immigration
detention and, perhaps most outrageously, one California law now requires
private business owners to — they can’t voluntarily cooperate with ICE agents.
Now, in fact, they have to notify illegal employees before any workplace
inspections take place or those private business owners face heavy fines.
Now, you cannot get more radical and rapidly open borders than
that. Though California officials are triggered over the sessions’ lawsuit, it
may be, may be the beginning of restoring some sanity to this state.
Republicans, let’s face it, largely have been shut out of
California politics now for years u and we are a very long way from the days
when Pete Wilson was governor back in the 1990s. Permissive liberal social
welfare policies and the embrace of illegal immigrants have plunged the state
into a spiral of homelessness.
It’s now at a crisis point declared by San Francisco and Los
Angeles and even Orange County. We reported on this before is grappling with
homeless encampments and the crime and health issues that come along with them.
This is not what the people of California want. How do I know that?
Well, a UC Berkeley poll just found that 74 percent of
Californians wanted to end sanctuary cities including 55 percent of Hispanics,
and 73 percent of Democrats. Now, if that’s not a cry for sanity or a cry for
help, I do not know what is.
Sessions and the Trump administration are throwing the golden
state a lifeline with these sanctuary lawsuits because if they’re successful,
perhaps the good vibrations, political and otherwise, can roll through
California once again. And that’s THE ANGLE.
California. Sh*thole.
By Wayne Allyn Root
Gateway Pundit,
California
is Exhibit A. It’s filled with immigrants. Ten million to be exact. Many of
them illegal. Guess which state has the highest poverty rate in the country?
Not Mississippi, New Mexico, or West Virginia, but California- where nearly one
out of five residents is poor. That’s according to the Census Bureau.
While California accounts for 12% of America’s population, it accounts for one third of America’s welfare checks. California leads the country in food stamp use. California has more people on welfare than most countries around the world.
. . .
If immigration is so great for our country and illegal aliens “contribute a net positive” to society…how do you explain what’s happening in California?
I haven’t even gotten to the taxes. The income taxes, business taxes, sales taxes and gas taxes are all the highest in the nation. Why do you think that is? To pay the enormous costs of illegal immigration. To pay for the education costs, healthcare costs, police, courts, lawyers, prisons, and hundreds of different welfare programs for millions of California’s illegal aliens and struggling legal immigrants too.
But you haven’t heard the worst yet. California- the immigrant capital of America- is filthy. Perhaps the filthiest place on earth. Filthier than the slums of Calcutta. Filthier than the poorest slums of Brazil and Africa.
NBC journalists recently conducted a survey of San Francisco. They found piles of smelly garbage on the streets, used needles, gallons of urine and piles of feces- all near famous tourist attractions, fancy hotels, government buildings and children’s playgrounds.
While California accounts for 12% of America’s population, it accounts for one third of America’s welfare checks. California leads the country in food stamp use. California has more people on welfare than most countries around the world.
. . .
If immigration is so great for our country and illegal aliens “contribute a net positive” to society…how do you explain what’s happening in California?
I haven’t even gotten to the taxes. The income taxes, business taxes, sales taxes and gas taxes are all the highest in the nation. Why do you think that is? To pay the enormous costs of illegal immigration. To pay for the education costs, healthcare costs, police, courts, lawyers, prisons, and hundreds of different welfare programs for millions of California’s illegal aliens and struggling legal immigrants too.
But you haven’t heard the worst yet. California- the immigrant capital of America- is filthy. Perhaps the filthiest place on earth. Filthier than the slums of Calcutta. Filthier than the poorest slums of Brazil and Africa.
NBC journalists recently conducted a survey of San Francisco. They found piles of smelly garbage on the streets, used needles, gallons of urine and piles of feces- all near famous tourist attractions, fancy hotels, government buildings and children’s playgrounds.
Zuckerberg’s
Investor Group Pushes for Pre-Election Amnesty
http://www.breitbart.com/2018-elections/2018/04/19/zuckerberg-lobby-joins-pre-election-amnesty-push/
Getty/Saul Loeb
Silicon Valley investors, including Facebook owner Mark Zuckerberg, are
joining the Koch network’s push for a quick amnesty that would also keep the
issue of cheap-labor immigration out of the November election.
But
the push by Zuckerberg’s FWD.us investor group quickly hit a roadblock Thursday when Majority Leader
Rep. Kevin McCarthy denounced the “discharge petition” amnesty plan, which is
fronted by California GOP Rep. Jeff Denham.
“I
don’t believe discharge petitions are the way to legislate,” McCarthy said
to The Hill. “I don’t believe members in the [GOP] conference believe that,
either.”
McCarthy’s
opposition — and the growing pressure for a quick exit by retiring House
Speaker Paul Ryan — opens up room for GOP legislators to make the November
election all about rising wages vs. cheap-labor immigration. Numerous
polls show that more than 70 percent of Americans want
companies to hire Americans before importing more cheap-labor immigrants, and
numerous business groups say they need more imported labor as wages begin to
rise.
But
a quick Zuckerberg amnesty would prevent President Donald Trump or GOP leaders
from running on an immigration reform platform in November — and would
also deflate economic pressure that is delivering higher wages before the
2018 election. “It would be the dumbest thing possible for
Republicans to do coming election which they already think they may lose — they
would for sure lose with this,” said Rosemary Jenks, the director of
governmental affairs at NumbersUSA. She continued:
I
don’t think they will [shift to immigration, but] … it would be a surefire way
to keep the majority. People in Washington talk about [election-winning] ’70
percent issues’ … [and] this is it, this is the 70 percent issue.
Backed by Zuckerberg’s
FWD.us, Denham is collecting GOP signatures for a resolution that would urge a
so-called “Queen of the Hill” debate on the House floor. In that very rare
form of debate, legislators could debate several alternative
immigration bills, and the most popular proposal would be sent to the Senate
Those rules would almost
guarantee a big win for Zuckerberg and his allies because nearly all Democrats
and many business-first Republicans — including many who are retiring this year
— will support a no-strings “Clean Dream Act” amnesty for at least 1.8 million
younger ‘DACA’ illegals.
Denham
claims to have 50 GOP legislators backing his resolution, but those
GOP members have not signed the needed “discharge petition” which allows 218
cooperating legislators to force the debate despite opposition from the Speaker
of the House. Many of Denham’s supporters don’t recognize the impact of
Denham’s plan, said Jenks, and “when they find out, they are
not going to be happy and will certainly not sign the discharge.”’
Denham’s office did not
respond to questions from Breitbart News.
McCarthy’s quick opposition
to Denham’s push is critical because he is the likely replacement for
exiting House Speaker Paul Ryan. Without McCarthy’s support for the
immigration push, few of the GOP legislators on Denham’s resolution will
sign the needed discharge petition — even though many will use their support
for the resolution to ingratiate themselves with their donors and pro-amnesty
voters.
Denham’s
resolution is getting expensive media support from the various donors who are
working under cover of the Koch advocacy network, which has at least 550
business donors.
On April 17. Daniel Garza, the president of the Koch-funded LIBRE
Initiative, told Business Insider:
The American people deserve a
government that is effective and efficient in solving our nation’s problems.
Congress and the White House
have spent a lot of time talking about DACA, but today our elected officials
have yet to approve a permanent legislative solution. The Dreamers are
among our best and brightest. They are students, workers, and men and
women risking their lives in the Armed Forces. Washington must come
together and approve a bipartisan solution that provides certainty for Dreamers and
security improvements along our border.
Zuckerberg’s
FWD.us advocacy group is also providing direct support for the Denham
push, and it touted Wednesday’s press conference where Denham was flanked by a
few other cheap-labor Republicans — Texas Rep. Will Hurd, Colorado Rep. Mike Coffman and
California Rep. David Valadao – as
well as the Democratic head of the Hispanic ethnic lobby, new Mexico
Democrat Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham.
NOW and NEW: 50
Republicans join over 180 Republicans for the “Queen of the Hill” Rule to try
to force a debate/series of votes for Dreamers.
Zuckerberg’s FWD.us group was
founded a by a slew of information-technology investors who gain from cheap white-collar labor.
The
group has endorsed multiple bills and amnesties which would raise
the supply of white-collar labor and also block Donald
Trump’s populist “Buy American, Hire American” policies, all of which will tend
to raise Americans’ blue-collar wages and white-collar salaries. In February,
FWD.us joined with many other business groups to help the Senate block Trump’s
popular immigration reforms.
Since
Trump’s election, the FWD.us group has used the relatively few college-grad ‘DACA’ illegals to
shift the political focus from Trump’s very popular wages-for-Americans pitch.
That diversionary tactic has worked, partly because most establishment
reporters prefer to focus on the concerns of foreign migrants rather than the
concerns of fellow Americans.
However,
Republicans are facing a tough 2018 election and may decide to pick
up the issue up the popular issue of immigration and wages, especially if
McCarthy replacesHouse Speaker Paul Ryan before the election.
That
shift to wages and immigration is made likelier by the spreading benefits of
Trump’s anti-amnesty policies which is delivering higher wages and overtime to many employees,
including black bakers in Chicago, Latino restaurant workers in Monterey,
Calif., disabled people in Missouri, high-schoolers, the construction industry, Superbowl workers, the garment industry, and workers
employed at small businesses.
Higher
wages are strongly resisted by business groups,
partly because they threaten to lower investors’ returns and
stock values on
Wall Street, including the founders of FWD.us.
Zuckerberg’s
group has funded polls which tout the supposed
popularity of immigration. These “Nation of Immigrants” polls pressure Americans to
say they welcome migrants.
In
contrast, polls which ask people to pick a priority, or to decide which
options are fair, show that voters
in the polling booth put a high priority on helping their families and fellow nationals get decent jobs in a
high-tech, high-immigration, low-wage economy.
Also,
a series of 2018 polls and surveys show that GOP voters believe the immigration
issue is far more important than celebrating tax
cuts.
Four million Americans turn
18 each year and begin looking for good jobs in the free market. But the
federal government inflates the supply of new labor by annually accepting
roughly 1.1 million new legal immigrants, by providing work-permits to
roughly 3 million resident foreigners, and by doing little to block the
employment of roughly 8 million illegal immigrants.
The
Washington-imposed economic policy of economic growth via mass-immigration
shifts wealth from young people towards older people, it floods the market with foreign labor, spikes profits and Wall Street
values by cutting salaries for manual and skilled
labor offered by blue-collar and white-collar employees. It also drives
up real estate prices, widens wealth-gaps, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, hurts kids’ schools and college education, pushes Americans away from high-tech careers, and sidelines at least
5 million marginalized Americans and their families,
including many who are now struggling with opioid addictions.
HALF THE POPULATION OF CALIFORNIA WAS BORN IN MEXICO!
California
Passes UK to Become World’s 5th Largest Economy
California zipped
past the United Kingdom to become the 5thlargest economy in the world in 2017.
The
U.S. Commerce Department reported that California with a population of 39.54
million has a larger Gross State Product at $2.75 trillion, versus the United
Kingdom with a population of 65.64 million and a Gross Domestic Product of
$2.62 trillion.
A
big advantage California enjoys is having a surface area of 163,696 square
miles, compared to the UK with just 93,628 square miles of area. Although
almost a third of California is
uninhabited, about the same one-third of the UK is uninhabited.
Setting
a new all-time highest ranking versus the world is a huge change from 2012 when
huge swaths of California real estate was getting foreclosed and thousands of
cars were getting repossessed. This knocked the not-so-golden state to a world
economic ranking of #10.
But
California’s Gross State Product jump by $700 billion and created 2 million
jobs in the last six years. A huge piece of that recovery has been due to
globalism, with the U.S. Commerce Department reporting that
California exported $171.9 billion to 229 foreign economies in 2017.
Outstanding
performing export sectors were Silicon Valley which passed $30 billion, Hollywood
entertainment hitting about $16 billion, and
the state’s agricultural sector recording a near-record $20 billion in exports.
The
chief economist at the California Department of Finance Irena Asmundson told the
Associated Press that California’s economy since the lows in 2012 hit new highs
in 2017 that included $26 billion for financial services and real estate; $20
billion for the information sector; and a decade-high $10 billion in
manufacturing.
Asmundson
added that during the five-year period, California with 12 percent of the U.S.
population created 16 percent of all new domestic jobs and the state’s share of
U.S. Gross Domestic Product grew from 12.8 percent to 14.2 percent.
California’s
unemployment rate was at a 17-year low of 4.8
percent in 2017 and has steadily declined to 4.3 percent at the
end of March to set a 38-year low, according to the state’s Employment
Development Department.
But
not everything is great for all Californians, with Breitbart News reporting
that Silicon Valley has the highest income inequality in
the nation and the U.S.
News & World Report naming California
as the worst state for “quality of life,” due to the high cost of living.
If
California was a nation, the only countries left to pass would be Germany with
a GDP of $3.69 trillion, Japan with a GDP of $4.87 trillion and China with a
GDP of $12.02 trillion. Then the Golden State could try to pass United States
that has a GDP of $16.64 trillion, without California.
No comments:
Post a Comment