“All in all, it was an incredible victory for the Chinese government. Feinstein has done more for Red China than other any serving U.S. politician. “ Trevor Loudon...After Feinstein was elected to the Senate in 1992, Blum continued profiting off their ties to China. A the same time, the freshman lawmaker was pitching herself as a “China hand” to colleagues, even once claiming “that in my last life maybe I was Chinese.” HARIS ALIC
Monday, October 14, 2019
CALIFORNIA'S BLACKOUTS - ANOTHER DYNAMIC OF THE STATE'S STAGGERING CORRUPTION
A New Dark Age: California’s Blackouts Are Self-Inflicted
California, the richest state in the nation—and one that’s often portrayed as the progressive harbinger of the future for the rest of the country—has been hit with its latest Third World-style disaster.
On top of high poverty rates, skyrocketing homelessness, rising crime, and the return of medieval-sounding diseases, the state—specifically, the San Francisco Bay Area—has been hit with a mass blackout.
About 1 million people in one of the most densely populated parts of the country have had their power shut off by the utility company, Pacific Gas and Electric.
The local utility, PG&E, initiated the blackout in an effort to limit the potential for mass wildfires, which ravaged the state in 2018 and bankrupted the company. Exposed power lines and infrastructure make the likelihood of sparking fires much greater in places where there is ample dry fuel (more on that later). Still, the fires are back this year.
The blackout, which has hit cities throughout Northern California, is causing chaos: businesses have to shut down, people can’t go to work, and in some blacked-out areas, curfews have been put in place to prevent crime.
Though it’s easy to criticize PG&E, which hardly looks good in this whole mess, there is a lot of blame to go around—and no, it doesn’t have anything to do with “climate change.”
Poor land management has been a major contributing factor to the uptick in massive wildfires in the West and around the country. California is particularly susceptible.
Fires need heat, and they need fuel. At certain times of the year in California, the state is hot as dry winds blow in from Nevada, a combustible environment for fire. That’s hardly a new situation in the Golden State.
Unfortunately, there’s now far more fuel in our forests that has built up over decades because of a change in forest management strategy.
Former California Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, who now lives in Texas, has done a great job of highlighting this issue and explaining how the blackout crisis was largely caused by politicians.
Renewable energy has been prioritized over reliable infrastructure, DeVore recently wrote in The Federalist, while there has been an uptick of vulnerable power lines to connect distant wind farms to urban centers.
PG&E shifted its priority to the overpriced renewables at the behest of politicians, The Wall Street Journal explained in an article aptly titled “California’s Dark Ages.”
For years, the utility skimped on safety upgrades and repairs while pumping billions into green energy and electric-car subsidies to please its overlords in Sacramento. Credit Suisse has estimated that long-term contracts with developers of renewables cost the utility $2.2 billion annually more than current market power rates.
Now, in large parts of California, if you want to keep the lights on during the blackouts, you better have a flashlight or a gas lamp. Twenty-first century green dreams have led to 19th-century realities.
The Dark Ages indeed.
Worse than the misguided green energy push and poor infrastructure, of course, has been the shifting forest management strategy—mostly the result of misguided environmentalist ideology—that turned large swaths of the state into a tinderbox.
“With a decline in the harvest came a decline in the allied efforts to clear brush, build and maintain access roads and firebreaks,” DeVore wrote in The Federalist. “This led inexorably to a decades’ long build-up in the fuel load. Federal funds set aside for increasingly unpopular forest-management efforts were instead shifted to fire-suppression expenses.”
One failure led to another as poor forest management has necessitated vastly increased budgets for putting out the fires, which will undoubtedly continue to be a threat.
Further, DeVore noted, these fires pose more danger to people than ever before as middle-class Californians flee the state’s expensive urban areas to the more affordable, but also more at-risk parts of the state.
So, the current blackouts are ultimately the result of short-term reality and long-term dysfunctional governance.
California is a wealthy state with vast natural advantages and near-limitless potential for growth. It’s why so many Americans have moved there over the past century.
Despite those attributes, California’s future success looks, well, a whole lot darker due to political dysfunction and the inability to address the growing problems facing the state.
Let us all hope that America’s future is a lot brighter than California’s.
Los Angeles was meanwhile, and this was back in 2013, squandering $2370 per citizen household on welfare for people who are neither U.S. citizens nor legal guests of the United States. If you're an immensely wealthy Google employee, California is Heaven. If you're not, it's becoming more and more like Hell.
Escape from CA: Why Workers, Taxpayers, and Businesses Should Leave
Escape from LA is a 1996 post-apocalyptic movie that features a villain who can cut off the world's power supply. California's inability to prevent wildfires has led to a massive power shutdown that has left hundreds of thousands of people without power, refrigeration and, if they are dependent on wells, running water. This, along with the state's high taxes and cost of living, $4 or more a gallon gasoline, and the fact that its major cities are turning into open sewers where sidewalks serve as gender-neutral toilets, is a strong argument for workers, taxpayers, and businesses to go elsewhere. The same goes for other big cities that are governed almost universally by the extreme left wing of the Democratic Party.
The Big City: What is it Good For?
The answer is the same as that in the song about war: "absolutely nothing," except possibly for museums, theaters, and other downtown attractions. Cities were otherwise obsolete a century ago as described accurately by Henry Ford in My Life and Work (1922). Emphasis is mine:
"And finally, the overhead expense of living or doing business in the great cities is becoming so large as to be unbearable. It places so great a tax upon life that there is no surplus over to live on. The politicians have found it easy to borrow money and they have borrowed to the limit. Within the last decade the expense of running every city in the country has tremendously increased. A good part of that expense is for interest upon money borrowed; the money has gone either into non-productive brick, stone, and mortar, or into necessities of city life, such as water supplies and sewage systems at far above a reasonable cost. The cost of maintaining these works, the cost of keeping in order great masses of people and traffic is greater than the advantages derived from community life. The modern city has been prodigal, it is to-day bankrupt, and to-morrow it will cease to be."
Cities evolved for exactly two purposes, neither of which they serve today. These were (1) as centers of commerce, and (2) defensible positions around which one could build a wall. Long gone are the days when you had to make a trip into "the big city" to buy what you wanted, and cities are now nothing more than dense targets for enemy bombers and ballistic missiles.
San Francisco: A Literal "Outhouse City"
San Francisco, whose Board of Supervisors called the National Rifle Association and its millions of law-abiding members a domestic terrorist organization, deserves a new city seal whose central feature is the smiling poo emoji, and whose motto is "Gardyloo;" the warning shout required when emptying a chamber pot into the streets of a medieval city. The city mascot is now the hepatitis virus (all three versions, A, B, and C) noting that the disease is transmitted by excrement and also discarded hypodermic needles, while the equally appropriate plague-carrying rat has already been taken by Baltimore.
San Francisco is indeed an "outhouse city" -- I am using a family-friendly and radio-safe version of the word Donald Trump used for certain countries -- in terms of more than sanitation. The cost of living is more than three times than the average in the United States. Employers who are mandated to pay $15.59 an hour should therefore move the jobs, if possible, to a state like Michigan or Pennsylvania and pay the minimum wage workers $7.80 an hour: a 50% reduction in labor costs and a 50% pay increase for the workers. $7.80 buys 50% more in most of Pennsylvania and Michigan than $15.59 buys in San Francisco.
This is by no means a recommendation that employers pay workers as little as possible. Bosses who pay as little as they can have no right to complain when their employees do as little work as they can. It means the organization should similarly consider moving $50 an hour jobs out and paying $25 an hour instead. When studio apartments rent for roughly $3000 a month, the organization and its stakeholders might as well be throwing $10 or even $15 an hour per worker down the nearest sewer. This means higher prices for customers, lower profits for investors, and no benefits whatsoever for the workers.
Los Angeles was meanwhile, and this was back in 2013, squandering $2370 per citizen household on welfare for people who are neither U.S. citizens nor legal guests of the United States. The city now plans to squander $700,000 per apartment to house homeless people. To put this in perspective, a clean working class house can be purchased in Allentown PA for a tenth of this money. The Quonset hut, a practical shelter once used extensively by the Armed Forces, can be built for $13 or less per square foot. Quonset huts can be built to resist hurricanes and, more importantly in Los Angeles, earthquakes.
The productive citizen households, the makers who contribute to their community's economy, should therefore relocate and let the takers, who include the government of California, fend for themselves. Will the last worker to leave California please turn out the lights, unless PGE takes care of this first?
Escape from New York
The movie of this title depicts Manhattan as a maximum security prison, and maybe Andrew Cuomo and Bill de Blasio will need to make it into one to prevent the workers, taxpayers, and employers from leaving once they wake up to the fact that the entire city is, like LA and SF, a pay-more-get-less waste of money. Here, for example, is a good question for users of legal services. Do some New York City lawyers charge $1000 an hour because they are outstanding lawyers, or because the median price of a 1-bedroom apartment in Manhattan is $710,000? You, the individual or business client, are paying not only for the attorney's skills but also to carry New York City's bloated cost of living, sky-high city and state taxes, and whatever inflated rent the law firm must pay for office space. The result is that you pay a lot more than you should, and the attorney receives less real compensation than he or she should. Shoppers in downtown New York are similarly carrying the retailer's sky-high rent and New York City taxes.
Henry Ford added of prestigious office buildings, "We will not put up elaborate buildings as monuments to our success. The interest on the investment and the cost of their upkeep only serve to add uselessly to the cost of what is produced…" A New York City (or SF, or LA) address doesn't tell me you're a high-quality, top-of-the-line business; it tells me you are squandering my money as a customer along with your investors' return on investment and your employees' wages. When investors, workers, and customers wake up to this fact, the big cities that are managed almost exclusively by the extreme left wing of the Democratic Party will lose their disproportionate influence on the nation's politics.
Report: Gary, Indiana, Named Most ‘Miserable’ U.S. City
The city of Gary, Indiana, was ranked the most “miserable” place to live on a list of the 50 most miserable cities in America, according to a report from Business Insider.
Business Insider ranked Gary, Indiana— just outside of Chicago— as the most miserable city followed by Port Arthur, Texas, and Detroit, Michigan.
The publication said it relied on U.S. Census data— specifically statistics on crime, population changes, drug addiction, job opportunities, household incomes, abandoned homes, and how likely a city would face problems with natural disasters.
The outlet said that what all “miserable” U.S. cities had in common were “few opportunities, devastation from natural disasters, high crime and addiction rates, and often many abandoned houses.”
For example, Gary has one of the highest crime rates in America. Statistics show that the odds of becoming a victim of violent or property crime is one out of 25 in Gary, according to crime rate tracker Neighborhood Scout.
The city was also known for selling a handful of homes for $1 back in January to reverse the decades of blight that had plagued the city.
Many cities in California and New Jersey were the states that made up the remainder of the list, with ten in California and nine in New Jersey.
The ten California cities made a strong showing on the list:
Bell Gardens (14); Compton (41); El Monte (22); Hemet (44); Huntington Park (10); Lancaster (50); Lynwood (21); Montebello (40); Palmdale; and San Bernardino (42).
The nine New Jersey states also made a significant showing on the list:
Camden (8); Newark (5); New Brunswick (11); Passaic (4); Paterson (19); Plainfield (30); Trenton (17); Union City (15); and West New York (29).
We've identified the 50 most miserable cities in the US, using census data from 1,000 cities across the country, taking into consideration population change (because if people are leaving it's usually for a good reason), the percentage of people working, median household incomes, the percentage of people without healthcare, median commute times, and the number of people living in poverty.
Often, these cities have been devastated by natural disasters. They've had to deal with blight, and with high crime rates. Economies have struggled after industry has collapsed. These cities also tend to have high rates of addiction.
The state with the most miserable cities was California, with 10 in the top 50. New Jersey was second with nine, and Florida had six.
Here are the 50 most miserable cities in the US, based on US census data.
Pasadena has 153,000 people, 65% of whom are working, and one-fifth live in poverty. While the median income is $50,207, nearly 29% of people don't have health insurance.
Mostly working-class, the city is based near petrochemical plants, and is known for its race issues. It used to be home to the Texas headquarters of the Ku Klux Klan. Now, it's divided. In the north it's primarily made up of Latino people and to the south it's mostly white people.
47. Macon-Bibb County, Georgia
Grant Blankenship / Macon Telegraph / MCT / Getty
Macon-Bibb County has 153,000 people, but it lost 1.7% of its population between 2010 and 2018. Fifty-six percent are working, and 26% live in poverty.
One of Macon-Bibb County's biggest problems is blight. Across the city there are about 3,700 unoccupied buildings, including dilapidated homes and overgrown yards.
46. Danville, Virginia
Michael Williamson / The Washington Post / Getty
Danville has 40,000 people, but its population fell by 5.5% between 2010 and 2018. Fifty-five percent of people are working and 21% live in poverty.
It used to be one of the richest cities in the Piedmont area. But it's struggled since its tobacco and textile mills shut down. However, the city is fighting for a comeback. It's set up solar farms, and its downtown is in the midst of a rehabilitation to turn abandoned warehouses into mixed-use developments.
Hemet has a population of 85,000 people and between 2010 and 2018, it grew by 8.5%. However, it's struggled since the 2008 recession. Twenty-three percent of people live in poverty, and crime rates are high. In 2016, 623 cars were stolen, 170 robberies were reported, and police logged 398 aggravated assaults — the most this century.
43. Mansfield, Ohio
Eric Thayer / Reuters
Mansfield has 46,000 residents, but lost 2.7% between 2010 and 2018. Forty-eight percent of people are working, and 24% are living in poverty.
It used to have lots of industrial work, with people making things like steel, machinery, and stoves, but that dried up in the 1970s and 1980s. More recently, in 2010, a GM factory closed its doors, leading to more job losses. It's also had a surge in crime, and between 2012 and 2017, violent crimes rose by 37%.
42. San Bernardino, California
AP Photo/Reed Saxon
Of San Bernardino's 216,000 residents, 57% are employed, and 30% live in poverty.
It's 60 miles east of Los Angeles, and has an interesting history. It's where McDonalds began, as well as the Hells Angels motorcycle gang. Along with a tough recession, it had a steel plant and an Air Force base close down, meaning even fewer jobs.
41. Compton, California
Mario Anzuoni / Reuters
Compton has 96,000 people, 40% of whom aren't working, and 23% live in poverty.
Saginaw has 48,000 people, and between 2010 and 2018 it lost 6% of its population. Fifty-five percent of people are working and nearly 34% are living in poverty.
Like many other cities on this list, it used to have a lot of manufacturing jobs — at one point around 25,000 with General Motors. But they didn't last.
Some locals reportedly refer to the city as "sag-nasty" because of its issues with crime. In May 2019, violent crime had fallen in the city, with 16 shootings to date, compared to 30 at that point in 2018.
30. Plainfield, New Jersey
Plainfield has 50,693 people, 70% of whom are working, and one-fifth of whom live in poverty. Nearly one-third are without health insurance, and the median commute time is 31 minutes.
It used to be a violent city — in 1990 there were 719 violent crimes, but since then things have improved, although in 2016 there were 12 murders.
29. West New York, New Jersey
Eduardo Munoz / Reuters
West New York has nearly 53,000 people, and it grew by 6.6% between 2010 and 2018. Almost 70% are working, and 22% are living in poverty.
Cleanliness and parking are meant to be two of the biggest issues for its new mayor. The median commute time is 37 minutes.
28. Miami Gardens, Florida
Joe Skipper / Reuters
Miami Gardens has 113,000 people — 60% are working, while about 22% live in poverty.
Another issue in the area is the cost of water. Because it comes from a plant owned by the City of North Miami Beach, the cost of living is a little bit higher. In March, the city was suing to fight the extra 25% surcharge.
El Monte has 115,000 residents; 58% of its population is working, and 22% live in poverty. The average commute time is a half hour.
The city, which is located near two freeways and close to Los Angeles, had a lot of revenue coming in from car dealerships, but struggled during the recession, when three dealerships closed, and the city's tax revenue fell. It's continued to have issues with finances, and the city is now divided over the future of marijuana production — one large facility in particular.
21. Lynwood, California
Lawrence K. Ho / Los Angeles Times / Getty
Lynwood has 70,500 residents — 60% work and 23% are impoverished. It was once called "the best place to live best." But things didn't stay that way.
The construction of Interstate 105, which cut right through the city, caused many to leave their homes, and 1,000 homes and businesses to be knocked down. More recently, officials have struggled to manage the city's finances, resulting in losses that could have been used to help the city.
20. Huntsville, Texas
Richard Carson / Reuters
Huntsville has 41,500 residents; 39% of its people are working, and almost 35% live in poverty. However, the low employment is in part because those living in prisons are counted in the city's population.
Union City has 68,500 residents, almost 70% are working, while 23% live in poverty. The average commute time is 33 minutes long.
The city is known by some as "Havana on the Hudson," due to 80% of its residents identifying as Hispanic, many of whom fled from Cuba. It's only 1.28 square miles, making it one of the most densely populated areas in the US.
14. Bell Gardens, California
Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times / Getty
Bell Gardens has 42,300 residents; 63% of people working, and almost 30% are living in poverty.
Camden has 74,000 residents, and its population fell by 4% between 2010 and 2018. Nearly 57% of people are in the work force, and 37% live in poverty. The average household income is $26,105 — the lowest on this list.
It used to be a manufacturing city, but that fell to pieces between the 1950s and 1970s. It's had a high crime rate and been known as one of the most dangerous cities in the country, but it is improving. In 2017, there were 22 murders, which was the lowest number since 1987, thanks in part to new police procedures.
7. Flint, Michigan
Rebecca Cook / Reuters
Flint has 96,000 residents, and it's fallen by 6% between 2010 and 2018. Just over half of people are working, and 41% of people are living in poverty — the highest on this list.
Pine Bluff has 42,000 residents, and between 2010 and 2018, it lost nearly 14% of its population — the biggest loss on this list. Fifty-two percent of people are working, and 30% are living in poverty.
Gary has 75,000 residents, but lost 6% between 2010 and 2018. Just over half of the population works, and 36% live in poverty. The most miserable city in the US was once a manufacturing mecca, but those days are over.
A drug enforcement agent who grew up in the area told The Guardian in 2017: "We used to be the murder capital of the US, but there is hardly anybody left to kill. We used to be the drug capital of the US, but for that you need money, and there aren't jobs or things to steal here."
More than 22 million people are illegally present in the United States, according to a recent study by scholars at MIT and Yale. Pew Research pegged the figure at 11 million, and for years it stood as the official count for media and government. It now emerges that 11 million is more like the number illegally present in California alone.
“California is home to over 10 million immigrants,” reads a chart displayed by California attorney general Xavier Becerra and governor Gavin Newsom as they announced a lawsuit against the Trump administration’s public-charge rule. “Immigrants,” is California code for “illegals,” a term the state’s ruling class has banned. As Rachel Bovard notes at American Greatness, even a legal immigrant’s ability “to stay off the welfare system must be taken into account when considering qualifications for a green card.”
California heaps welfare benefits on those illegally present, including nearly $100 million for health care in the recent budget. Many of those 10 million illegals came to California specifically to get those taxpayer-funded benefits. It disturbs Becerra and Newsom that this disqualifies the recipients from any future legal status, but there’s more to it. As attorney Madison Gesiotto explains in The Hill, voting must also be taken into account.
“Voting as an illegal alien in federal elections is a crime punishable by fine, imprisonment, deportation, or inadmissibility.” According to a State Department investigation, false-documented illegals have been voting in federal, state and local elections for decades. In 1996, illegals cast 784 votes against Republican Robert Dornan in a congressional race Democrat Loretta Sanchez won by only 984 votes.
If Newsom and Becerra are certain that more than 10 million people illegally reside in the state, they doubtless know how many voted in 2016. Trouble is, California Secretary of State Alex Padilla refused to release any voter information to a federal voter-fraud probe.
Back in 2015, Padilla told the Los Angeles Times, “At the latest, for the 2018 election cycle, I expect millions of new voters on the rolls in the state of California,” with “new voters” code for ineligible voters. True to form, by March, 2018, more than one million “undocumented” immigrants received driver’s licenses from the state Department of Motor Vehicles, which automatically registered them to vote under the “Motor Voter” program.
Padilla is now claiming that only six “California residents” were erroneously added to voter rolls for 2018, that it was all due to DMV errors, and that none was guilty of “fraudulently voting or attempting to vote.” To paraphrase John Goodman in The Big Lebowski, this is what happens when the governor’s own department of finance, not the official state auditor, investigates the DMV.
In reality, California officials know full well how many non-citizens voted in 2016 and 2018. With more than 10 million illegals in the state, the ballpark figure of one million illegal voters is probably low. In California, illegals are the Democrats’ electoral college, and the Democrats reward them with welfare benefits and protection from deportation through sanctuary laws. This raises another issue.
Illegals’ use of welfare benefits and practice of voting in federal elections disqualifies them from legal residency and citizenship. This makes for a permanent group of more than 10 million foreign nationals in California alone. In these conditions, Congress should start pushing back.
Public officials who apportion taxpayer-funded benefits for foreign nationals should be required to register as agents of the governments of those foreign nationals. The primary candidates would be the governments of Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador, which Gavin Newsom visited before he had even toured his own state.
State and federal governments should also bill the foreign governments for welfare, medical, education and incarceration costs. Some of this could be alleviated by a tax on remissions, such as the 33.4 billion Mexicans abroad sent back last year. That amount is impossible without massive inputs from U.S. taxpayers. Legitimate citizens and legal immigrants have no obligation to relieve foreign governments of responsibility for their own citizens.
Meanwhile, as Rachel Bovard also notes, the Trump administration’s new rule only updates a 1996 law proclaiming “inadmissible” those aliens likely to become a public charge. The law was supported by Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Joe Biden and other leading Democrats. The Trump administration measure gives more definition to what constitutes a welfare benefit, food stamps, Medicaid, public housing assistance and such. Those benefits are all for legitimate citizens and legal immigrants but Bovard cites Census data showing that 63 percent of non-citizens use the welfare system.
Those who thought there were only 11 million illegals nationwide were mistaken. Thanks to Jerry Brown crony Gavin Newsom, and Xavier Becerra, once on Hillary Clinton’s short list as a running mate, Americans now understand that “more than 10 million” illegally reside in California alone, and that might understate the figure.
The MIT-Yale estimate ranges as high as 29.1 million nationwide, more than the population of Australia, with 25,088,636 and a veritable occupation. To all but the willfully blind, politicians have abandoned the rule of law, and made false-documented illegals a protected, privileged class.
This is how a nation loses its sovereignty.
Democrats turning California into a third-world hellhole: Going without electricity edition
Democrats are turning California into a third-world hellhole without electricity, water, and freedom.
Due to Democrats' love for trees, at least 800,000 Californians will be without power for several days. Instead of properly managing California forests to reduce the chances of big fires, Democrats are saying Californians have to go without lights, refrigerators, and air-conditioning. Democrats could also avoid this by not making the power company financially liable for all forest fire damages, but since PG&E is a company, not an illegal alien, the Democrats couldn't care less about doing what's best for California.
While they try to blame climate change and the infrastructure, the reality is that neither of those has caused any significant changes in the last ten years — but now, suddenly, due to Democrat policies, Californians have to start living in the 18th century.
The Democrats who run California also refuse to build more water storage capacity even though the state's population has dramatically increased, ensuring that water has to be rationed during droughts.
Democrats are turning California into a third-world country economically. The income inequality between the über-rich Silicon Valley workers and the rest of Californians is huge, just like in third-world countries, while the elites live in luxury and the rest live in squalor.
Democrats are doing a great job manufacturing poverty and homelessness even as they fail to instill hope in Californians.
California has four times more homeless per capita and three times more poor per capita than the rest of America. Half the homeless in America are in California, even though California has only 12% of the U.S. population. Also, blacks are six times more prevalent in the San Francisco homeless population than they are in California in general.
The homeless explosion has brought the return of third-world diseases like typhus to California — not to mention streets littered with human feces.
Democrats are trying to keep people from having cars, just like the people of the Third World. After all, a car gives people the freedom to move, and freedom is a bad thing in the minds of Democrats since it limits the power the government has over citizens.
Recently, Gavin Newsom, the Democrat governor, transferred millions of dollars that the voters had been ensured would go to improve the state's failing road infrastructure to a fund designed to convince Californians to give up their cars.
Democrats are also working to make cars unaffordable for any but the richest Californians.
Californians pay $1.53 more for a gallon for gasoline than the rest of America. That's $21 more for a tank of gasoline. Facebook employees won't notice it, but the poor in California who can't afford to live near their jobs are paying through the teeth.
Like all third-world tyrants, Democrats are doing everything they can to eliminate democracy in California.
The jungle primary, where the top two candidates in the primaries go against each other, has resulted in many races where two Democrats are running against each other, giving voters who don't agree with the Democrats' failed policies no one to vote for.
California is doing nothing to ensure that people who shouldn't vote don't vote. Instead, the people running the state are doing everything possible to let illegal aliens vote. When illegal aliens go pick up their driver's licenses, they're automatically enrolled to vote unless they say they're not citizens.
California is also trying to end democracy by keeping the Republican presidential candidate off the ballot. Democrats passed an unconstitutional law to keep any candidate who didn't release his tax returns off the ballot solely to keep Californians from voting for Trump.
Finally, the Democrats are going after freedom of the press. An undercover journalist revealed that Planned Parenthood was selling aborted baby parts. Instead of investigating that illegal practice, Democrat Kamala Harris decided to put the journalist on trial.
Democrats keep telling us California is the future if they get elected. That means that poverty, homelessness, the end of democracy, and a press that reports only what Democrats want heard are what Democrats are promising us.
If you're an immensely wealthy Google employee, California is Heaven. If you're not, it's becoming more and more like Hell.
“The high cost of housing (71%) is the most common reason given by voters for wanting to leave California,” polling director Mark DiCamillo said. “However, high taxes (58%) and the state’s political culture (46%) are also prominently mentioned, particularly by Republicans and conservatives.”
Walters: California Paradox: Economy–and poverty–hit record highs
California’s median income rose to among the nation’s highest in 2018, but it ranked 50th in housing
By happenstance, events in the final week of September perfectly framed what one might call the California Paradox — a thriving, world-class economy with stubbornly high levels of poverty and a widening divide between the haves and have-nots.
The week began with Gov. Gavin Newsom’s keynote address to a United Nations-sponsored forum on the environment and economic growth, in which he crowed about California’s economic achievements.
“It’s an interesting fact, while this country is running $1 trillion-a-year deficits, California is running historic budget surpluses,” Newsom told the international audience. “It’s an interesting fact that California has enjoyed the lowest unemployment rate in its history, more consecutive months of net job creation than at any time in its history, and significantly outperforming the United States of America in GDP growth over a five-year period — not despite our environmental strategies, but because of our environmental strategies.
“As we change the way we produce and consume energy, it is spawning new companies, new energy, new growth. We lead in venture capital and green tech. Five to one — five to one, the number of clean energy jobs in the state of California versus fossil fuel jobs.”
But a few days later, the Census Bureau released new state-by-state data on income and poverty, underscoring once again that California is one of the leaders in both categories.
While California’s median personal income rose by 2.3% in 2018 to $75,277, one of the nation’s highest levels, it was one of only five states in which the “Gini index,” which measures income inequality, increased.
“New census figures released today show rising income inequality across the state and millions of California residents who are struggling to get by on extremely low incomes, while higher-income households experienced more income growth,” the California Budget & Policy Center said in its analysis of the Census Bureau data.
The organization noted that “from 2006 to 2018, the median household income in California increased by 6.4%, after adjusting for inflation, but the average real income for the lowest quintile of households (those in the bottom 20%) actually decreased by 5.3% while the inflation-adjusted average income for the top 5% of households increased by 18.6%, or nearly three times as much as the increase in the median income.”
That analysis is in line with another recent measure of wellbeing by an organization called the “Social Progress Imperative.” It merges dozens of economic and other factors to generate a “social progress index” for nations and their subdivisions, including states — and California doesn’t fare well.
It ranks 33rd among states and not surprisingly, its housing crisis is a major reason why. The index places it at 49th in the category of “basic human needs,” which includes a 50th place in “shelter.”
Finally, a few days after Newsom bragged about California’s economic achievements to the elite economic gathering in New York, UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies released its latest poll, revealing that half of the state’s voters have considered leaving the state.
“The high cost of housing (71%) is the most common reason given by voters for wanting to leave California,” polling director Mark DiCamillo said. “However, high taxes (58%) and the state’s political culture (46%) are also prominently mentioned, particularly by Republicans and conservatives.”
Moreover, just 50 percent of those surveyed agree that California is now the best place to live.
There you have it, the California Paradox.
The Mexican Invasion & Occupation