Friday, June 1, 2018

DANIEL GREENFIELD - MUELLER INVESTIGATION COST ENOUGH TO FEED OVER 5 MILLION CHILDREN!

Earlier this month, President Trump tweeted the probe was a "soon to be $20,000,000 Witch Hunt, composed of 13 Angry and Heavily Conflicted Democrats and two people who have worked for Obama for 8 years, STOP!"



MUELLER INVESTIGATION COST ENOUGH TO FEED OVER 5 MILLION CHILDREN




Daniel Greenfield



Whenever the media dislikes a government program (usually involving weapons, because those are the only government programs that lefties dislike), it tells us what we could get for that money.
How many hungry children could you feed for the cost of one stealth bomber?
Okay. How many hungry children could you feed for the cost of the Mueller investigation. Turns out to be a whole lot.
The special counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election has cost nearly $17 million dollars so far, according to a new report from the Justice Department.
Correction, it's not an investigation of Russia, but of Trump.
When Mueller busts down the door of the Russian embassy or starts hanging around Moscow, I'll take the Russian part seriously. Or maybe revisits Uranium One.
Earlier this month, President Trump tweeted the probe was a "soon to be $20,000,000 Witch Hunt, composed of 13 Angry and Heavily Conflicted Democrats and two people who have worked for Obama for 8 years, STOP!"
$20 million here we come. And that's without a single indictment based on the actual central justification of this investigation. 
But how many hungry children could you feed for the cost of feeding Team Coup?
In April 2008, USDA released its School Lunch and Breakfast Cost Study-II, which examined the cost of producing a school meal during school year 2005-06.The study found that, on average, the full cost to produce a reimbursable school lunch was $2.91, exceeding the free lunch subsidy, then $2.495.
5 million hungry kids.







What we learn from Ben Rhodes: Obama believed he was entitled to rule and anyone thinking otherwise was a bitter clinger




Former White House Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes has his book out and you can tell which reporters got the free copies of it based on who has a review out about it now.
Still waiting for mine in the mail.
But there's much to learn about how the Obama administration was run, based on the points they zero in on, and what their take is on it.
In short, Rhodes conveys that Obama was convinced he was entitled to power, and completely believed that "progress" (read: leftwingery) was inevitable, because, you know, "history," just as classical Marxists do. He also maintained his lip-curdling contempt for America's voters. And Rhodes himself maintains his reputation as a "twerp."
Here are the money quotes nearly all of the reviewers cite, starting with his sense of entitlement to power, back on election night 2016, when the news of his repudiation by voters was sinking in. It begins with his court eunuchs fanning him with icky flattery:
His aides reassured him that he still would have won had he been able to run for another term and that the next generation had more in common with him than with Mr. Trump. Mr. Obama, the first black man elected president, did not seem convinced. "Sometimes I wonder whether I was 10 or 20 years too early," he said.
Here's his view showing his view that history dictates leftwingery as he practices it as inevitable:
Elsewhere in the book, Rhodes recounts how Obama openly questioned whether his presidency came "10 or 20 years too early" for the country.
Here's his lip-curdling contempt for America's voters - actually, it's two passages, the first, beginning with his disappointment after President Trump was elected:
"What if we were wrong?" he reportedly asked his aides in late November. "Maybe we pushed too far. Maybe people just want to fall back into their tribe.”
The old bitter clingers canard, in other words, still bitterly clinging to Obama's psyche after all these years.
Here's more of the same loathing for voters:
But days later, Mr. Obama seemed less sanguine. “I don’t know,” he told aides. “Maybe this is what people want. I’ve got the economy set up well for him. No facts. No consequences. They can just have a cartoon.”

As Salena Zito famously observed, leftists take President Trump literally, but not seriously. Voters take Trump seriously and not literally. Obama fits the former group to a T. And after eight years in the White House, guy hasn't changed a bit - and with all his views on his entitlement to rule, Rhodes's memoir presents a picture of a man who's 'learnt nothing and forgotten nothing' as Talleyrand said of the Bourbons.
Some of the reviews are worth reading, starting with a somewhat satisfying one from a former chief diplomatic correspondent of the Wall Street Journal, Carla Anne Robbins, who hates Trump even more than Rhodes. She writes in theWashington Post
Rhodes also exhibits less self-knowledge than one might wish. He insists that Obama made the right decision to keep the United States out of Syria despite the many horrors President Bashar al-Assad inflicted on his own country. But he replays Syria so often — yo-yoing between his desire “to do something” and “world as it is” futility — that it’s clear (if not to Rhodes) he still has a lot to work through about Obama’s responsibilities and his own.
...and...
As Congress considered whether to authorize a military strike, Rhodes writes, he realized that the president “was comfortable with either outcome. If we won authorization, he’d be in a strong position to act in Syria. If we didn’t then we would potentially end the cycle of American wars of regime change in the Middle East.” I’ve heard a lot of explanations for why Obama backed away from his own red line, but never that it was supposed to be a teachable moment, to break Americans of their appetite for Middle East war.
...and...
At one point in the discussions, the younger Castro proposed that Cuba take back the U.S. naval base and prison at Guantanamo Bay, along with its remaining prisoners. “Cuba is very good at holding people securely,” he said. (Rhodes seems unaware of how creepy that statement is.) Obama rejected the offer.
What can we say about this? It conveys the basic loathing the press had for Rhodes, who was always considered a "twerp" and a "flimflam man" by the press corps. Now Rhodes is offering nothing we didn't already know from foreign policy maven Thomas Ricks, who wrote That Famous post for Foreign Policy, with an unprintable word describing Rhodes in the headline. According to Ricks:
Rhodes and others around Obama keep on talking about doing all this novel thinking, playing from a new playbook, bucking the establishment thinking. But if that is the case, why have they given so much foreign policy power to two career hacks who never have had an original thought? I mean, of course, Joe Biden and John Kerry. I guess the answer can only be that those two are puppets, and (as in Biden’s case) are given losing propositions like Iraq to handle.
Fact check: Obama’s hasn’t been an original foreign policy as much as it has been a politicized foreign policy. And this Rhodes guy reminds me of the Kennedy smart guys who helped get us into the Vietnam War. Does he know how awful he sounds?
That statement, and this analysis from Diplopundit, following the suck-up profilethe New York Times did of Rhodes as President Obama's "mind meld" pretty well are verified by this new book put out by America's most famous creative writing major.

Haven't the Obamas Made Enough Money?




For a guy who said, “at some point, you’ve made enough money,” and a gal who said, “someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more" the Obamas sure rake in plenty of dough.
Unless installing an in-ground pool in the yard of an  $8.2-million home located in a fancy Washington, DC neighborhood  is considered spreading the wealth?  Since, leaving the White House the duo seems to be gathering, not “spreading, the wealth.”
Fresh out of the White House, Michelle and Barack began “leveling their playing field” with a joint book deal in excess of $65-million penned with Penguin Random House.  Let’s face it, $65-million is not a bad payday for people who earn oodles of capital reiterating the same hardscrabble story about impoverished childhoods, suffering racial injustice, and how understanding gender inequity and the plight of poor people is something only they can do.
The $65-million the Obamas will earn on their books will trickle into the couple’s bank accounts in dribs and drabs, first for Michelle, whose long-awaited memoir is due out in November and is entitled: “Becoming.”
While the Mrs. is busy showing up angry on book tours, hubby will be pleasantly giving speeches at $400,000 a pop where he can pontificate about community organizing and commiserate with the problems poverty-stricken Americans suffer.  And while payroll is processing Barack's speaking stipend, the former president can continue to bide his time with extemporaneous musings about American prejudice, minority mistreatment, and how Trump-style capitalism is a global blight.
Just recently, the Obama $65-million+pie expanded, receiving a fresh infusion of cash from internet entertainment company Netflix.  Netflix is perfect for the Obamas because the network’s programming includes liberal topics that cover subjects such as sexual awareness in children and normalizing abortion.
It was a top Obama campaign contributor named Ted Sarandos that provided the Obamas the opportunity to community organize 125-million Netflix subscribers in 190 nations worldwide. Sarandos is the chief content officer and manager of the $8-billion Netflix budget who brokered a deal that industry sources say could be worth more than $50-million for Mr. and Mrs. “You Didn’t Build That.”
Any way you look at it, the Obama creative production deal with Netflix is an impressive promotion from the church basement on the Southside of Chicago where Barry Soetoro strategized Marxist troop formation on a chalkboard.
More importantly, at Netflix, the opportunities presented are endless for the Obamas to bring their unique brand of hostility to a much broader audience – which is always the pair's underlying objective.
According to the multiyear contract, when not out inspiring dissatisfaction at live appearances and college commencement ceremonies, the twosome, will be called on “to produce a diverse mix of content, including the potential for scripted series, unscripted series, docu-series, documentaries and features.”
The whole thing works out beautifully because by signing on with Netflix, the Obamas get to assist their good friend George Soros in his quest to ‘slow the rising oceans’ of freedom and ‘heal the planet’ from the ravages of democracy.  Soros and the Soros Fund Management own about 71,500 shares of Netflix stock.
Barack Obama recently said that the original deal at Netflix provides an opportunity for him and his wife to communicate inspiring stories about individuals who’ve made a difference.  But, in reality, and based on what both Obamas consider inspirational difference making,  Netflix will most definitely double as a high-tech training ground to prepare legions of socialist-leaning youth to converge on democratic nations transforming the whole planet into one big Arab Spring.
Ted Sarandos had this to say about his friends, Barack and Michelle:
Barack and Michelle Obama are among the world’s most respected and highly recognized public figures and are uniquely positioned to discover and highlight stories of people who make a difference in their communities and strive to change the world for the better. We are incredibly proud they have chosen to make Netflix the home for their formidable storytelling abilities.
And so thanks to Netflix the community organizer and his sullen spouse are going global with their “formidable storytelling abilities,” or what is more accurately described as going global with the Obamas unique ability to twist the truth, incite discontent, and drive the naïve toward total ruin.
Rest assured, regardless of what Barack and Michelle say, the Obama Storytelling Show likely will be multiyear streaming of left-wing churlishness presented to the world on brightly colored sound stages complete with progressive guests, distorted tales of woe and radical rants.  Both Obamas will be front and center infusing the conversation with manipulative mind control tactics and jazzing it up with aerobic dance routines choreographed by Bruno Mars.
In addition to all that obnoxiousness, the Raconteurs probably will feature rhetoric interspersed with pleas for a more significant piece of the pie.   Likewise, there will also be admonishments that at some point enough money has been made, exhortations to spread the wealth around, and constant reminders that, regardless of what Americans think, “they didn’t build that.”
But most importantly, Barack and Michelle will have an international platform to counterpoint President Trump’s policies and do it from a $50-million podium where they will be paid handsomely to undermine Trump’s accomplishments with lies and distortions from the left.
Jeannie hosts a blog at www.jeannie-ology.com


GEORGE SOROS PARTNERS WITH BARACK OBAMA and ERIC HOLDER TO CREATE A GLOBALIST REGIME FOR THE BILLIONAIRE CLASS and CRONY BANKSTERS…. Open borders and endless hordes of illegals will make it happen!


http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/04/monica-showalter-soros-banksters-and.html


 


YOU WONDERED WHY OBAMA-HOLDER WORKED SO HARD TO SABOTAGE AMERICAN VOTING FOR MORE ILLEGALS???


Those are the subliterate, low-skill, non-English-speaking indigents whose own societies are unable or unwilling to usefully educate and employ them. Bring these people here and they not only need a lot of services, they are putty in the hands of leftist demogogues as Hugo Chavez demonstrated - and they are very useful as leftist voters who will support the Soros agenda.




CLINTON – OBAMA – TRUMPERNOMICS: STEAL FROM THE AMERICAN MIDDLE-



CLASS and HAND IT TO THE SUPER RICH ON A SILVER PLATTER!




http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/05/clinton-obama-trumpernomics-rich-get.html



"The Wealth-X report shows that the world’s billionaire population has grown by 15 percent, to 2,754 people, since 2016, and that the wealth of these billionaires “surged by 24 percent to a record level of $9.2 trillion,” equivalent to 12 percent of the gross domestic product of the entire planet."






THE BANKSTERS’ RENT BOYS & GIRLS IN CONGRESS GATHER ROUND TO UNLEASH THE WHOLESALE LOOTING OF THEIR BANKSTER PAYMASTERS EVEN MORE….
BOTTOMLESS BAILOUTS AROUND THE CORNER WAITING!


After eight years of the Dodd-Frank bank “reform,” the American financial oligarchy exercises its dictatorship over society and the government more firmly than ever. This unaccountable elite will not tolerate even the most minimal limits on its ability to plunder the economy for its own personal gain.
*
This was not because of difficulties in securing indictments or convictions. On the contrary, Attorney General Eric Holder told a Senate committee in March of 2013 that the Obama administration chose not to prosecute the big banks or their CEOs because to do so might “have a negative impact on the national economy.”

OBAMA’S CRONY BANKSTERISM destroyed a 11 TRILLION DOLLARS in home equity… and they’re still plundering us!

Barack Obama created more debt for the middle class than any president in US

history, and also had the only huge QE programs: $4.2 Trillion.

OXFAM reported that during Obama’s terms, 95% of the wealth created went to the top 1% of the world’s wealthy. 

 OBAMA: FUNDED BY HIS CRONY CRIMINAL BANKSTERS and ELECTED


BY MEXICO – THE FIRST BLACK MAN OR THE FIRST SPY ELECTED TO THE PRESIDENCY???

 

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/05/matthew-vadum-spies-like-obama.html

 

Now the outlines of a Watergate-like conspiracy are emerging in which a sitting Democrat president apparently used the apparatus of the state to spy on a Republican presidential candidate. Watergate differed in that President Nixon didn’t get involved in the plot against the Democratic National Committee until later as an accomplice after the fact. Here Obama likely masterminded or oversaw someone like the diabolical Benghazi cover-up artist Ben Rhodes, masterminding the whole thing.

 

"Cold War historian Paul Kengor goes deeply into Obama's communist background in an article in American Spectator, "Our First Red Diaper Baby President," and in an excellent Mark Levin interview.  Another Kengor article describes the Chicago communists whose younger generation include David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, and Barack Hussein Obama.  Add the openly Marxist, pro-communist Ayers, and you have many of the key players who put Obama into power." Karin Mc

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!

MAKES YOU WONDER HOW MANY ILLEGALS SHE EMPLOYS AT HER ST. HELENA, NAPA WINERY …. The same county where an ILLEGAL started a fire that killed dozens and did millions of dollars in property damage!

"Today, each of the top 5 billionaires owns as much as 750 million people, more than the total population of Latin America and double the population of the US."


OBAMA’S CRONY BANKSTERISM destroyed a 11 TRILLION DOLLARS in home equity… and they’re still plundering us!

Barack Obama created more debt for the middle class than any president in US

history, and also had the only huge QE programs: $4.2 Trillion.

OXFAM reported that during Obama’s terms, 95% of the wealth created went to the top 1% of the world’s wealthy. 


April 5, 2018

Democrats: The Party of the Super-Duper (Mostly White) Gazillionaires




Though there are numerous questions I could ask to determine if a fellow American gets his "news" from the DMIC (Democrat Media Industrial Complex), I usually lead with this one: "What political party is the party of the wealthy?"
If the answer is "the Republican Party," I know that the individual is a regular consumer of DMIC propaganda.  It's tempting to get angered at the individual, but I know that two of the ways the DMIC lies are by distorting and withholding.
The Democratic Party is the party of the mega-, mega-wealthy.  This is one of the dangerous cover-ups of the DMIC.  Let's go to the tale of the tape.

BLOG: BELOW IS A WHO'S-WHO OF BILLIONAIRES FOR OPEN BORDERS, AMNESTY, NO E-VERIFY AND NO LEGAL NEED APPLY TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED!
Here are the top ten American billionaires, according to Forbes:
1.   Bill Gates, $86 billion
2.   Warren Buffet, $75.6
3.   Jeff Bezos, $72.8
4.   Mark Zuckerberg, $56.0
5.   Larry Ellison, $52.2
6.   Charles Koch, $48.3
7.   David Koch, $48.3
8.   Michael Bloomberg, $47.5
9.   Larry Page, $40.7
10.                Sergey Brin, $39.8
Well, well, well – look at all that wealth that could be redistributed!  The above wealth totals $567 billion.  The Ds above outnumber the Rs 7-3 (I counted the Kochs twice, even though they could be counted as one; the third is Ellison), with 74% of the wealth owned by the Democrats. 
Oh, the hypocrisy, the hypocrisy!  Perhaps you're asking yourself: What's my fair share of all those billions?
Democrats spread their wealth to other Democrats
Make no mistake: in addition to campaign contributions, which can be viewed at OpenSecrets.org (I have no affiliation), the Democrat billionaires do believe in wealth redistribution, which is why they've invested their monies across every Democrat-friendly industry – from media to technology to anti-Second Amendment groups.  It's the Democrats' (legal) version of a Madoff scheme.
In 2016, the Kochs – favorite targets of Democrats – spent over $31 million ($11 million to candidates and political action committees and $20 million on lobbying).  These big bucks certainly are not chump change, but they're ranked 39 among all donors to candidates and PACs and 27 among all lobbyist spending.
Whatever one's opinion of money in politics, in all its forms – soft, hard, dark, by individual, by family – it's indisputable that it is a wide and deep hole that both major parties have leveraged.
But why stop at the Democrat gazillionaires?  Let's take a look at other Democrat 1-Percenters.
I checked dollar amounts at the Federal Election Commission, where campaign contributions are tabulated (keep in mind that there is usually a lag in tabulations – sometimes up to a year due to off-year election years).  Here's a 2014 graph; there's some crossover, but the D contributions outnumber R by almost half a billion dollars, and this is over the last 25 years.
For 2016 federal contributions to organizations, seven of the top 10 (including number 1) went to Democrats, totaling over $300 million.
For 2016 federal contributions to individuals, six of the top 10 (including number 1) went to Democrats, totaling nearly $250 million.
In the 2016 Presidential election, President Trump spent $325 million; Clinton spent $563 million.
The Democrat myth of publicly financed elections
Does one really think Democrats want campaign finance reform, or publicly financed elections, or higher taxes for the wealthy?  The Democrats' counter is always well, those are the rules of the game, and we're playing the game.  Money in politics is a legitimately concerning issue, but Democrats need to spare us the sanctimonious moralizing that they give mucho dinero out of the sheer kindness of their hearts.
Democrats love money in politics as much as Republicans, and they keep their sheep voters occupied with hating the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling inCitizens United v. FEC, which had nothing to do with campaign contributions; it had to do with the constitutionality of airing on television a Citizens United-produced documentary about Hillary Clinton before the 2008 Democratic Party primary.
Marxist warfare
Money in politics is more ammo in the Democrats' Marxist war of economic hate and envy.  President Trump's election, in large part, stemmed from small business owners and dirty-fingernails workers who have grown tired of the condescending "you didn't build that" remarks made famous by President Obama and U.S. senator Elizabeth Warren.  The super-rich do well no matter who's president, and they did extraordinarily well under Obama.  (Obama's net worth, it should be noted, is approximately $8 million; his net worth was around $1.7 million when first elected president, and his 2015 tax return showed an effective tax rate of around 19% – lower than Warren Buffett's secretary's!).  It's estimated that 90% of income gains went to the top 1% under Obama, who spent a cool $1.9 billion in his 2008 and 2012 campaigns.
Let's give "honorable mention" to Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, who is the fourth wealthiest billionaire in the world and a majority stakeholder in The New York Times Company.  Over the years, Slim, both personally and through his company, Telmex, has contributed millions to the Clinton Foundation.  All this means that Mr. Slim, a Mexican citizen, has heavily involved himself in American politics.  Sounds an awful lot like collusion, doesn't it?
The DMIC (of which Mr. Slim is a member) has carefully, and effectively, crafted a narrative that the GOP is the party of wealthy whites.  As usual with anything Democrat, the opposite is true: wealthy whites predominantly vote for and fund Democrats, and the top ten most expensive cities in America are populated by mostly white, limousine liberal Democrats.
Conversely, Democrat policies in the inner cities are guaranteed to fail.  Here's the proof.
But your Democrat friends and relatives knew all this from Bill Gates, Rachel Maddow, and Media Matters for America, right?  

Rich Logis is the host of The Rich Logis Show, at TheRichLogisShow.com, and author of the upcoming book 10 Warning Signs Your Child is Becoming a Democrat.  He can be found on Twitter at @RichLogis.
Image: MOs810 via Wikimedia Commons.



It Pays to be Illegal in California

 By JENNIFER G. HICKEY  May 10, 2018 
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.

 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. 
                                                                                                                
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.
"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.



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'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.


Report: Amazon Importing More Foreign Workers to Take Coveted Tech Industry Jobs than Facebook, Google Combined



HINDUSTAN TIMES/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES
by JOHN BINDER25 Apr 2018Washington, D.C.374

Amazon, the multinational online retail conglomerate, is importing more foreign workers to the United States to take coveted tech industry jobs than Facebook and Google combined.

Every year, more than 100,000 foreign workers are brought to the U.S. on the H-1B visa and are allowed to stay for up to six years. There are about 650,000 H-1B visa foreign workers in the U.S. at any given moment. Americans are often laid off in the process and forced to train their foreign replacements, as highlighted by Breitbart News.

Data reported by Statista reveals that Amazon requested to import 2,515 foreign H-1B workers in 2017, more than the 720 foreign workers that Facebook asked for and the 1,213 foreign workers Google has attempted to bring to the U.S.

In 2017, Amazon, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Intel, and Apple all requested more foreign workers to take U.S. jobs than the year before. In 2016, Amazon was one of the top 20 corporations demanding foreign workers to take jobs.

As Breitbart News reported, tech conglomerates like Amazon, Microsoft, and Apple hide their H-1B foreign worker hires through outsourcing firms like Cognizant, Tata, and Infosys. The practice allows the corporations to claim they are not undercutting or replacing American workers at extraordinary rates, as they simply contract the foreign workers through the outsourcing firms.
Meanwhile, the H-1B visa program and importation of foreign workers has crowded out American young people and STEM graduates from high-paying jobs in Silicon Valley, the tech hub of the world, Breitbart News reported.





Data: Foreign-Born Workers Overwhelmingly Outnumber Americans in Silicon Valley Jobs | Breitbart

·        
4
·        

Data analyzed by the Seattle Times revealed that 71 percent of tech workers in Silicon Valley are foreign-born, while the tech industry in the San Francisco, Oakland, and Hayward area is made up of 50 percent foreign-born tech workers.
Though not specified in the analysis, a wide number of the tech industry’s foreign tech workers are imported to the United States through the H-1B visa, which brings more than 100,000 foreign workers to the U.S. every year.
Oftentimes, importing a foreign worker on the H-1B visa is the first step in a multinational corporations’ effort to outsource the American job, as the foreign worker arrives in the U.S., is trained in the job, and then is eventually sent back overseas with the job.
The growing foreign-born population dominating the workforce in Silicon Valley comes as nearly 500,000 Americans graduate in the STEM fields every year. Those American graduates are forced to compete with a booming foreign-born population in the U.S. and foreign workers who are imported by outsourcing firms and major tech conglomerates.
The foreign-born population in Silicon Valley is likely heavily weighted and biased to male Indian nationals, as they make up nearly 70 percent of all imported foreign workers on the H-1B visa, as cited by the Center for Immigration Studies.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder

JEFF BEZOS, BILL GATES AND WARREN BUFFET and SWAMP KEEPER TWITTER TRUMPER….

THE ROAD TO REVOLUTION II WILL IS PAVED BY THE LOOTING BILLIONAIRE CLASS AND WILL TRAMPLE THE POLS THAT GROVEL AT THEIR FEET FOR BRIBES!


"Today, each of the top 5 billionaires owns as much as 750 million people, more than the total population of Latin America and double the population of the US."

"Amazon is a massive wrecking machine consuming American retail. It's looting the economy and leaving behind rubble. " --- DANIEL GREENFIELD  FRONTPAGE MAG

Low unemployment rate overlooks those
who've dropped out of the job market entirely


Washington, D.C. (May 22, 2018) – The Center of Immigration Studies analysis of new Bureau of Labor Statistics data for the first quarter of 2018 shows that the labor force participation rate has not returned to pre-2007 recession levels, and relative to 2000 the rate looks even worse. Things are particularly bad for those without a college education. The problem is not confined to one area of the country; in virtually every state, labor force participation is lower in 2018 than in 2007 or 2000 among the less-educated.

While the unemployment rate has improved significantly in recent years, the official unemployment rate includes only those who say they have looked for a job in the last four weeks. It does not include those of working age who have dropped out of the labor force entirely – neither working nor looking for work.

Dr. Steven Camarota, the Center's director of research and author of the report, said, "The current low unemployment rate is misleading because it does not include people who have left the labor force entirely. There is an enormous pool of potential workers who could be drawn back into jobs if we let the market work, forcing employers to change recruiting practices, raise wages, and improve working conditions. Instead, some employers are lobbying to bring in more foreign workers to avoid having to make such changes."

View the entire report at: https://cis.org/Report/Employment-Situation-Immigrants-and-Natives-First-Quarter-2018

Among native-born Americans:
  • The overall unemployment rate for natives in the first quarter of 2018 was 4.4 percent, much lower than at the peak of the Great Recession. However, the overall unemployment rate obscures the low labor force participation rate, especially among those without a college education.
  • There has been a long-term decline in the labor force participation rate of working-age (18 to 65) natives without a bachelor's degree. Only 70 percent of natives in this group were in the labor force in the first quarter of 2018; in 2007, before the recession, it was 73.8 percent, and in the first quarter of 2000 it was 76.1 percent.
  • The labor force participation rate of natives without a college degree has shown no meaningful improvement in recent years. For example, in the first quarter of 2012 it was actually slightly better than it was in the first quarter of 2018.
  • The decline in labor force participation among those without a bachelor's degree is even more profound when it is measured relative to those who are more educated.
  • In the first quarter of 2018, 70 percent of natives without a bachelor's degree were in the labor force, compared to 85.8 percent of those with a bachelor's degree — a 15.8 percentage-point difference. In the first quarter of 2007, the gap was 12.4 percentage points, and in the first quarter of 2000 the gap was 11.7 percentage points.
  • In 48 states plus the District of Columbia, labor force participation of natives without a college degree was lower in the first quarter of 2018 than the same quarter in 2007. The same is true comparing 2000 to 2018.
Among immigrants:
  • Working-age immigrants without a college education also have not fared well since the recession. Unlike the labor force participation of natives, immigrants without a college education did improve their situation between 2000 and 2007. But it has not returned to 2007 levels. Also like natives, there has been no meaningful progress in the last few years.
  • In the first quarter of 2018, the labor force participation rate of immigrants (18 to 65) without a bachelor's degree was 71.9 percent, somewhat better than that of natives, but still below their rate of 73.4 percent in the first quarter of 2007.
Immigrants and natives not in the labor force:
  • In the first quarter of 2018, there were a total of 50.1 million immigrants and natives ages 18 to 65 not in the labor force, up from 43.3 million in 2007 and 37.2 million in 2000.
  • Of the 50.1 million currently not in the labor force, 39.9 million (80 percent) do not have a bachelor's degree.
  • The above figures do not include the unemployed, who are considered to be part of the labor force because, although they are not working, they are looking for work. There were almost seven million unemployed immigrants and natives in the first quarter of this year; more than three-fourths of the unemployed do not have a bachelor's degree.



Further Reading: 




U.S. Imported More than 10M Immigrants in Last Decade, Exceeding the Population of NYC










John Moore/Getty Images
  Washington, D.C.3,299






















The United States has imported more than 10 million legal immigrants in the last ten years, federal data circulated by the White House reveals.

Since 2008, the U.S. has admitted and permanently resettled close to 10.8 million legal immigrants, a foreign population that exceeds the entire population of New York City, New York — where more than 8 million residents live.
Of those roughly 10.8 million legal immigrants resettled across the U.S., the majority derives from the process known as “chain migration,” where newly naturalized citizens are allowed to bring an unlimited number of foreign relatives to the country.
Nearly 7.8 million legal immigrants have been imported to the U.S. through chain migration since 2008.
Another 478,000 legal immigrants have entered the U.S. through the Diversity Visa Lottery program in that same time period. The Visa Lottery randomly gives out 50,000 visas every year to foreign nationals from a multitude of countries, including those with known terrorism problems – such as Afghanistan, Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Trinidad and Tobago, Venezuela, Yemen, and Uzbekistan. Visa Lottery winners have undergone only minor screening from immigration officials, even when their ideology is hostile to Americans laws and culture.
White House officials said the current U.S. legal immigration system “fails to consider the needs of American workers and taxpayers” by inundating the nation with mass immigration every year.
Officials said:
Census data shows that current U.S. immigration policy admits large numbers of individuals who struggle to become financially independentand instead rely on a vast array of government benefits paid for by U.S. taxpayers. For instance, roughly half of all immigrant-headed households use one or more welfare program. [Emphasis added]
Under our current refugee and asylee programs, the federal government brings in hundreds of thousands of mostly lesser-skilled migrants into the United States, on top of other legal immigration flows, who can quickly become eligible for cash and non-cash federal welfare, federal entitlements, free medical care, education and a host of state and local benefits. [Emphasis added]
As Breitbart News has chronicled, chain migration is expected to add more than 8 million foreign-born voters in the next 20 years, forever changing the electoral landscape of the nation.



The chain migration importation of eight million new foreign-born voters in the next two decades would be double the size of the annual number of U.S. births; about four million American babies are born every year.http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/01/29/chain-migration-to-add-foreign-born-voting-population-double-the-size-of-annual-american-births-by-2038/ 


Chain Migration to Add Foreign-Born Voting Population Double the Size of Annual American Births by...

·        
·        

Likewise, the Visa Lottery has imported more than 30,000 foreign nationals from terrorist-funding countries since 2007, Breitbart News reported. Last year, it was revealed that 29-year-old Sayfullo Saipov — the man who allegedly mowed down pedestrians in the Tribeca neighborhood of New York City — entered the U.S. in 2010 from Uzbekistan through the Visa Lottery before obtaining a Green Card to permanently stay in the country.
Meanwhile, a majority of American likely voters have continuously told pollsters that they want to see legal immigration reduced to the U.S., including an end to chain migration and the Visa Lottery program.
In the latest poll by the Polling Company, a majority, 52 percent, of swing-voters said they wanted to see chain migration eliminated.
Despite sweeping nationwide support for wage-boosting legal immigration cuts, the Republican establishment has fixated their midterm re-election campaigns on a tax cuts, amnesty, and prison reform agenda driven by the billionaire GOP megadonors, the Koch brothers.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder. 


 "Critics argue that giving amnesty to 12 to 30 million illegal aliens in the U.S. would have an immediate negative impact on America’s working and middle class — specifically black Americans and the white working class — who would be in direct competition for blue-collar jobs with the largely low-skilled illegal alien population." JOHN BINDER


*

"Additionally, under current legal immigration laws, if given amnesty, the illegal alien population would be allowed to bring an unlimited number of their foreign relatives to the U.S. This population could boost already high legal immigration levels to an unprecedented high. An amnesty for illegal aliens would also likely triple the number of border-crossings at the U.S.-Mexico border." JOHN BINDER

*

“At the current rate of invasion (mostly through Mexico, but also through Canada) the United States will be completely over run with illegal aliens by the year 2025. I’m not talking about legal immigrants who follow US law to become citizens. In less than 20 years, if we do not stop the invasion, ILLEGAL aliens and their offspring will be the dominant population in the United States”…. Tom Barrett 

 

 


388 SHERIFFS FROM 40 STATES SAY BUILD 


THE FREAKING WALL!!!


Mexico says we will simply tunnel under it and our LA RAZA DEMOCRAT PARTY will buy the shovels for us to do it!



Bristol County, Massachusetts, Sheriff Thomas Hodgson state in an open letter, issued on March 21, makes clear that the responsibility for the continued carnage of innocent Americans caused by those who shouldn’t be present in the country in the first place lies firmly in the lap of Congress.  “Because Congress has failed to enact the necessary reforms, our citizens and legal residents face even greater dangers, our national security is more vulnerable, and our enforcement efforts have been seriously compromised”



Obama Officials Spied on Trump Campaign Using at Least Five Methods

May 31, 2018 5:26 pm Last Updated: May 31, 2018 10:53 pm
During the heat of the 2016 presidential elections, officials within the Obama administration, including cabinet-level officials who answered to Obama directly, extensively spied on the campaign of then-candidate Donald Trump.
Both the Department of Justice inspector general and the House intelligence committee are currently probing the actions of the Obama officials and their motivations.
So far, at least five different ways that the officials spied on the Trump campaign have been uncovered.
These include the use of national security letters, a FISA warrant, an undercover informant, the unmasking of identities in intelligence reports, and spying conducted by foreign intelligence agencies.
Each of these methods provided the officials with sensitive information on the Trump campaign that could have been used for political purposes.
Private communications between FBI officials involved in the agency’s investigation on the Trump campaign, reveal its links to the White House.
In one of the text messages obtained by the DOJ inspector general, and since released publicly, the lead FBI agent on the case, Peter Strzok, wrote in a Sept. 2, 2016, message to FBI lawyer Lisa Page that “potus [president of the United States] wants to know everything we’re doing.” Page was serving as counsel to then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe.
There have also been direct ties between the spying and the campaign of then-Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
The FBI and DOJ relied heavily on unverified allegations contained in the so-called Trump dossier, paid for by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC), to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page.

1. National Security Letters

The FBI, which at the time was headed by FBI Director James Comey and Deputy Director McCabe, used counterintelligence tools known as national security letters to spy on the Trump campaign.
Marc Ruskin, a 27-year veteran of the FBI, told The Epoch Times that the agency has strict guidelines regulating the use of different types of investigations, such as national security, criminal, and terrorism investigations. Launching a foreign counterintelligence investigation (FCI), which falls under the FBI’s national security guidelines, must meet a lower bar of probable cause than do criminal investigations.
Using an FCI to investigate the Trump campaign, the FBI was able to gather intelligence—not necessarily evidence—which it would likely not have been able to do using a criminal investigation, given the lack of probable cause.
However, the FBI appears to have used the FCI tools—potentially illegally—to launch a subsequent criminal investigation.
Comey told Congress under oath in June 2017 that the investigation did not target Trump, even though it had spied on his campaign.
Similarly, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who oversees the investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller, said in April that Trump is not a target of Mueller’s investigation.

2. FISA Warrant

The FBI and DOJ obtained a FISA spy warrant on Carter Page, a volunteer adviser to the Trump campaign, on Oct. 21, 2016. Under the so-called “two-hop” rule, the FISA warrant could have been used to spy on anyone with two layers of separation from Page himself. This means that both of the people Page was in contact with himself at the campaign could have had their communications surveilled, which is the first hop, as well as anyone who was in contact with the campaign officials, the second hop.
This means that even though Carter Page never talked to Trump himself, as said by Page in a Feb. 6 ABC News interview, Trump could still be spied on, because Page had contact with one of his campaign officials.
Because Page is a U.S. citizen, the application had to be certified by the FBI director or deputy director. Comey signed off on three of the applications, which include renewals, and McCabe signed one.
Deputy attorney generals Sally Yates, Dana Boente, and Rosenstein each signed one or more applications on behalf of the DOJ.
A FISA warrant is among the most intrusive ways to spy on an individual. It includes access to data collected under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
This data includes all digital communications—such as internet browsing histories, phone conversations, emails, chat logs, personal images, and GPS locations—that are transferred over the internet and captured by the NSA using so-called upstream data, which is all internet data traveling through key internet backbone carriers.
The FBI itself has access to 702 collected data collected by the NSA. A declassified top-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) reportreleased in April 2017 detailed numerous violations by the FBI in handling this data.
Among the violations were the FBI’s providing of access to raw FISA data to private contractors, in violation of policies intended to safeguard the data. The contractors were also found to have maintained access to the sensitive data, which includes communications of Americans, after the contractors’ work for the FBI was concluded.
The FBI also provided 702 data to a private entity that did not have the legal right to it. According to the FISC, the FBI also did not give oversight or supervision on how the data was used. It is unclear which private entity the FBI provided the information to.
It is unclear at this point in time whether the communications of Trump and his campaign were provided to outside private entities.
In addition to the FBI’s mishandling of Section 702-acquired data, the declassified FISC report shows numerous violations under the Obama administration of procedures intended to safeguard Americans’ personal data and communications. For example, the NSA had an 85 percent noncompliance rate with guidelines for when it came to searches involving American citizens.

3. Unmasking

Top Obama officials made hundreds of so-called unmasking requests for the identities of members of the Trump campaign in intelligence reports.
Unmasking refers to the practice of requesting that an intelligence agency, in most cases the NSA, unmask the name of an American citizen, which by default is concealed in intelligence reports to protect identities.
Obama’s national security adviser, Susan Rice, Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power, and CIA Director John Brennan have so far been identified by the House intelligence committee as having filed such requests.
Power testified before the House oversight committee in October last year that even though unmasking requests were made in her name, they were in fact made by another undisclosed official.
The communications obtained by Rice and Brennan could have been provided to Obama during the daily intelligence briefings he received from them.

4. Undercover Informant

The FBI used an undercover agent to infiltrate the Trump campaign.
Stefan Halper, a Cambridge professor with ties to the CIA and British intelligence agency MI6, reached out to Carter Page; George Papadopoulos, a volunteer foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign; and Sam Clovis, a senior Trump campaign official.
Halper received over $1 million from a Defense Department think tank between 2012 and 2017.
In the same month that Halper reached out to Papadopoulos, in September 2016, the Office of Net Assessment—a strategy think thank that falls directly under the Defense Secretary, exercised an option to extend Halper’s contract for nearly $412,000. Government records show Halper’s work was marked as “special studies/analysis – foreign/national security policy.”
According to media reports, Halper met with Carter Page as early as July 2016, the same month the FBI opened its counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign.
On May 20, the DOJ, under the direction of Trump, ordered its inspector general to look into the actions of the FBI informant.
“If anyone did infiltrate or surveil participants in a presidential campaign for inappropriate purposes, we need to know about it and take appropriate action,” Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said in a statement.
It expands the scope of the investigation by Inspector General Michael Horowitz, whose office is already investigating the FBI’s use of a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign.

5. Foreign Intelligence

British Intelligence agency GCHQ provided officials within the CIA, both members of the “Five Eyes” intelligence alliance, information on the Trump campaign as early as late 2015, The Guardian reported.
According to the publication, then-head of GCHQ Robert Hannigan provided then-CIA Director John Brennan with sensitive information on the Trump campaign on a “director level” in the summer of 2016.
Brennan subsequently prepared an “eyes only” report for Obama and three senior aides. Brennan also provided briefings to the members of the “Gang of Eight” (the House and Senate majority and minority leaders, as well as the chairmen and ranking members on the House and Senate intelligence committees).
That GCHQ’s Hannigan provided Brennan with the information on the Trump campaign is highly unusual, as the House Intelligence Committee has found that no official Five Eyes intelligence product exists.
“We are not supposed to spy on each other’s citizens, and it’s worked well. And it continues to work well. And we know it’s working well because there was no intelligence that passed through the Five Eyes channels to our government,” Chairman of the House intelligence committee Devin Nunes told Maria Bartiromo on Sunday Morning Futures on April 22.
The Five Eyes alliance uses strict guidelines to make sure that participating intelligence agencies in the United States, UK Canada, Australia, and New Zealand don’t spy on each other’s citizens. The guidelines aim to prevent, for example, the U.S. government from using intelligence obtained by the Five Eyes to gain communications of Americans­—which the government is not allowed to monitor without a warrant.
However, Hannigan and Brennan appear to have done exactly that by circumventing official channels, thus explaining why no official intelligence product exists.
The fact that no official intelligence exists that was used to open the investigation into the alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia means that those involved went around the official system.
Hannigan unexpectedly announced he was resigning from his post just three days after Trump was inaugurated.

CLINTON – OBAMA – TRUMPERNOICS: STEAL FROM THE AMERICAN MIDDLE-

CLASS and HAND IT TO THE SUPER RICH ON A SILVER PLATTER!


http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/05/clinton-obama-trumpernomics-rich-get.html


"The Wealth-X report shows that the world’s billionaire population has grown by 15 percent, to 2,754 people, since 2016, and that the wealth of these billionaires “surged by 24 percent to a record level of $9.2 trillion,” equivalent to 12 percent of the gross domestic product of the entire planet."


THE U.S. SUPREME COURT IS LOADED WITH THE 

BIGGEST WHORES ANY PRESIDENT COULD LOAD 

IT WITH!

According to a 2015 study, workers prevail in only 20 percent of all claims brought to arbitration and win an average of just $23,548. By comparison, workers win 57 percent of cases in state court, with an average compensation of $328,008.

US Supreme Court eliminates workers’ right to collectively sue corporations

By Eric London
23 May 2018
The United States Supreme Court’s 5–4 decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis eliminates the right of tens of millions of workers to bring class action lawsuits against their employers. With the bang of a gavel, the Supreme Court has effectively stripped workers of their legal rights and guaranteed the flow of even greater fortunes to the corporate and financial oligarchy, which controls America’s legal and political system.
The majority opinion, written by Trump nominee Neil Gorsuch, upholds the legality of mandatory arbitration clauses that bar workers from filing lawsuits. This locks the courtroom doors for coal miners suffering from black lung, construction workers with mesothelioma, fast food workers cheated of overtime pay, farmworkers denied the minimum wage, waitresses sexually harassed by their bosses, and countless other workers suffering forms of workplace abuse and exploitation. It announces “open season” for intensified corporate exploitation at tens of thousands of workplaces across the country.
The decision revives the legal doctrine of the Gilded Age elaborated by the Supreme Court’s 1905 decision Lochner v. New York, which overturned a state law limiting the workday to 10 hours on the absurd grounds that the regulations violated workers’ “right” to work as long as they want. In reality, that ruling safeguarded the power of corporations to exploit workers without recourse.
Today’s Supreme Court followed a similar logic, justifying its decision to eliminate workers’ right to sue with the lie that workers are always free to negotiate better contracts with their corporate bosses.
According to the Economic Policy Institute, roughly 60 million workers—56 percent of all private-sector nonunion workers—now no longer have access to the courts. 

Arbitration is a sham process set up by the corporations to deprive workers of even the minimal protections afforded by the courts and to spare businesses the cost of litigation.

Arbitration forces workers to take their grievances to a private tribunal. Sixty percent of all arbitrators are lawyers who formerly represented corporations. Arbitrators develop corrupt relationships with corporate lawyers who regularly appear before their tribunals and almost always rule against workers. Due process is severely limited as the rules of the arbitration are written by the corporations themselves.
According to a 2015 study, workers prevail in only 20 percent of all claims brought to arbitration and win an average of just $23,548. By comparison, workers win 57 percent of cases in state court, with an average compensation of $328,008.
The majority opinion ruled that forcing workers to raise claims in this setting does not violate the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, even though Section 7 of the act guarantees, alongside collective bargaining and the right to strike, the right “to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.”
In her dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted with concern that the ruling would bring the US back to the Lochner era. “The end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th was a tumultuous era in the history of our nation’s labor relations,” she wrote.
The National Labor Relations Act, also known as the “Wagner Act” for its architect, New York Senator Robert Wagner, was passed in 1935 in an effort by the Democratic Party and the Roosevelt administration to control the Depression-era strike wave and direct it away from the prospect of socialist revolution and into a legal framework that the government and corporations could regulate and control. Section 7, the hallmark of the bill, prevented employers from forcing workers—ostensibly under the “freedom of contract”—to sign “yellow dog contracts,” which were pledges that they would not join a union.
The trade unions are terrified that the Supreme Court decision so nakedly exposes the courts as instruments of capitalist rule that workers will be encouraged to fight in defense of their interests outside of the legal system. A “friend of the court” supplemental brief was filed before the ruling by the AFL-CIO, the American Federation of Teachers, the National Education Association, the United Auto Workers and other unions.
In it, the unions jointly begged the Supreme Court:
“[I]f employers are allowed to impose contract terms that prohibit workers from challenging unlawful employer conduct except on an individual, one-on-one basis, Congress’s statutory goals of minimizing industrial strife and maintaining labor peace will be set back more than a century.”
The union brief continues by arguing that the New Deal-era labor laws like the Wagner Act were passed “not to further union organizing or collective bargaining for their own sake, but as instruments to further the broader statutory goal of reducing industrial strife and achieving economic stability.”
Furthermore, the trade unions state, “When an employer engages in wrongful discrimination or violates other workplace statutory obligations, it is far less disruptive to allow the injured workers to pursue concerted legal action before a neutral decisionmaker than to force the workers to challenge that unlawful conduct through less effective and potentially more contentious form of group protest, such as strikes, that pit workers and employers directly against each other without the intermediary of a neutral pledged to apply the law fairly and impartially.”
Such statements expose the chief role of unions as police arms of the corporations that work to prevent the working class from advancing their interests and threatening the profits of the corporations through “group protests, such as strikes.” Contrary to what the unions’ lawyers write, the methods of the class struggle are the only effective way to challenge the dictatorship of the union-corporate alliance.
This term, the Supreme Court will also rule on another case, Janus v. AFSCME, related to whether unions can require workers to pay an “agency” or “union security” fee to fund the union even if they opt out of joining. During oral arguments before the Supreme Court in February, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) lawyer David Frederick argued, “The key thing that has been bargained for in this contract for agency fees is a limitation on striking. And that is true in many collective bargaining agreements.”
Fredrick continued, “Union security is the tradeoff for no strikes.” If the court makes the decision to overturn prior precedent that allows states to mandate agency fees, he warned, “You can raise an untold specter of labor unrest throughout the country.”
These are the statements of a labor police force. The union lawyers have good reason to fear the revolutionary implications of dismantling the long-established structure to suppress the class struggle and, with its most recent ruling, the exposure of the Supreme Court as a brazen instrument of class war.


SOCIALISM AS THEY ENJOY IN SWEDEN, NORWAY and DENMARK WILL SAVE AMERICA FROM WALL STREET'S CRONY CAPITALISM!

PRINCETON REPORT:
American middle-class is addicted, poor, jobless and suicidal…. Thank the corrupt government for surrendering our borders to 40 million looting Mexicans and then handing the bills to middle America?

"ALARMING?" HOW MUCH MORE CAN WALL STREET AND THE SUPER RICH PLUNDER FROM US????

"The most alarming result, according to [George] Barna, was that four out of every ten adults say they prefer socialism to capitalism," the ACFI noted in its commentary on the poll.  "That is a large minority," Barna said, "and it includes a majority of the liberals – who will be pushing for a completely different economic model to dominate our nation.  That is the stuff of civil wars.  It ought to set off alarm bells among more traditionally-oriented leaders across the nation.'"  That 40 percent of Americans now prefer socialism to capitalism could spell major change to the policies advanced by legislators and political leaders and to the interpretations of judges ruling on the application of new and pre-existing laws.”

OBAMA’S CRONY BANKSTERISM destroyed a 11 TRILLION DOLLARS in home equity… and they’re still plundering us!

Barack Obama created more debt for the middle class than any president in US history, and also had the only huge QE programs: $4.2 Trillion.


OXFAM reported that during Obama’s terms, 95% of the wealth created went to the top 1% of the world’s wealthy. 



HAS AMERICA DESTROYED ITSELF MERELY TO MAKE THE RICH SUPER RICH?
 
Viking Economics by George Lakey

by Melville House

This week, we’re excited to be publishing Viking EconomicsGeorge Lakey’s look at how the Nordic countries, in a very short span of time, managed to move past many of the problems faced by nations like the US and UK today — problems with inequality, infrastructural weakness, the cost of education, and personal freedom. Today, the people of DenmarkIcelandNorway, and Sweden enjoy widely-shared prosperity, low crime rates, reliable infrastructure, affordable education, great personal freedoms — some of the highest standards of living in the world.
Particularly as both the US and the UK face some of our biggest challenges in a generation — and, in both cases, under new leadership — Viking Economicsoffers some crucial examples of how we might get some things right.
Here’s a brief excerpt to read on the longship ride over to your local bookstore to buy a copy; please try not to get herring on it.


Like most Americans today, Norwegians a century ago didn’t like the results of a wealth gap: the hunger and poverty, the crime, elderly friends warehoused or left in isolation, young people without hope of a good job. Norwegians also didn’t like the attitudes that went with inequality: an inclination toward arrogance among higher-income people and the feeling among lower-income people that they were losers, defeated by the system.
Early in the twentieth century, Norway had the formal institutions of parliamentary democracy, but ordinary people were not empowered: they did not set the direction of their society. The direction was set, instead, by the economic elite, through the political parties they dominated and the businesses they ran. Career options were limited, and there was little social mobility.
The differences between then and now are striking: If you’re a Norwegian teenager today and the job you’re interested in pursuing doesn’t require higher education, you can choose among good public vocational courses. If you learn better in a hands-on apprenticeship mode, publicly supported programs help you do that. If, instead, you prefer to develop a talent in art or music, or follow a career at sea or in engineering, you can attend a free post-secondary school.
Paid maternity and paternity leave (including for adoptive parents) is built into the system, and your job is held until you return. After the leave is over, child support is increased if you choose to be a full-time parent. If your choice is to go back to work, affordable childcare is available.
Extensive, subsidized public transport means that you probably won’t need a car to get to work. High educational standards prevail in big-city schools, as well as in the suburbs. Small towns receive subsidies to make them attractive for people who might otherwise feel forced to live in a city for cultural amenities, again increasing your options. The economy subsidizes family farming both for its own sake and for food security, so farmers can earn a reasonable income, another freedom denied in many industrialized countries.
The government offers free vocational counseling, education, and job-training resources for people seeking a career change, and entrepreneurialism is encouraged through free health care and a public pension for all: In Norway, you have the freedom to fail without becoming a failure.
Money doesn’t dominate the political system, so citizens are freer to participate meaningfully in political life—and they’re more likely to be exposed to newspapers with a variety of points of view, because journalism is subsidized to avoid a narrowing of perspective. According to Freedom House, in 2013, Norway was tied with Sweden at number one in the world for freedom of the press. Denmark was sixth, and Iceland was tenth. (The United States was twenty-sixth.) Indeed, this approach to public life has a long lineage in the region: Sweden was the first country in the world to establish freedom of the press—in 1766.
The Nordics are among the longest-living people in the world, and older citizens continue to benefit from an economy designed for personal freedom. The Global Watch Index studied ninety-six countries and rated Norway as the best place to grow old, followed closely by Sweden. The pension system enables you to live at home with health aides or in a senior living facility. You don’t need to fear hunger or lack of medicines or of health care. Every small town has a music and culture center where you can enjoy the arts and pursue your hobbies.
The crime rate is very low, partly because societies with high equality tend to experience less crime. Even in their largest city, Norwegians enjoy a remarkable degree of freedom from fear about personal safety.
Designing an economy that supports freedom and equality pays off in happiness, judging from the Vikings’ descendants making the top ten in the UN’s International Happiness Index. In 2015, the ratings showed Denmark, Iceland, and Norway sharing first place with Switzerland, while Sweden was close to its cousins.
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), composed of thirty-four of the most-developed nations, compared life satisfaction experienced by the people in each country in 2013. The OECD found Norway second, Iceland third, Sweden fourth, and Denmark fifth.
And yet in spite of all this security and support, the Nordic yen for adventure has not disappeared. Americans, too, have a strong yearning for both freedom and equality, so the Nordic desire for both isn’t surprising. What is surprising, though, is that they went ahead and built an economy to serve those values. That’s the story in this book.
Like their Viking ancestors, the moderns made mistakes in their explorations. Iceland’s financial collapse of 2008 was a spectacular error, and, as I’ll describe, back in the 1980s, the Norwegians and Swedes made a series of serious economic mistakes. The Nordics haven’t built a utopia: Norwegians see themselves as “a nation of complainers,” and this book doesn’t shy away from the challenges that face them and their Nordic cousins.
Still, it’s useful for us as outsiders to observe the Nordics’ expeditions and to use them to reflect on our own situations. There are many important lessons to be learned.







Socialist-Backed Candidates Sweep Pennsylvania State House Primaries


Nationwide, the Democratic Socialists of America has grown exponentially since Donald Trump’s election.

X
Four Pennsylvania state House candidates backed by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) won their Democratic primaries, marking another milestone in the radical left’s march into electoral politics.
The wins by the four candidates ― all women unseating men ― were the product of a variety of political forces and groups. But in a country where “socialist” remains an epithet in certain quarters, the growing electoral success of a once-marginal socialist organization is an especially notable political development. 
According to Arielle Cohen, co-chair of Pittsburgh DSA, it reflects a revival of the socialist-leaning economic left in the wake of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) 2016 presidential bid.
“It feels like a monumental shift,” Cohen said. “We won on popular demands that were deemed impossible. We won on health care for all; we won on free education.”
“We’re turning the state the right shade of red tonight,” she added.
Pittsburgh DSA campaigned heavily for two Democrats: Summer Lee, an African-American attorney and labor organizer running in Pennsylvania House District 34, and Sara Innamorato, a founder of the women’s advocacy group She Runs Southwestern PA running in Pennsylvania House District 21.
Lee and Innamorato, who are dues-paying members of DSA, defeated veteran Pittsburgh-area state representatives ― and cousins ― Paul Costa and Dom Costa, respectively. Both women lack a Republican opponent in the general election (though Innamorato’s opponent, Dom Costa, solicited Republican write-in votes as a last-ditch attempt at survival in the primary).
On the other side of the state, Philly DSA worked hard to elect Democrats Elizabeth Fiedler, running in the 184th House District, and Kristin Seale, running in the 168th District. Fiedler, a former public radio reporter, defeated Jonathan Rowan and lacks a Republican opponent in the general election. Seale, an executive at an energy conservation nonprofit, is due to challenge incumbent Rep. Christopher Quinn.
Pittsburgh DSA, which swelled from about 50 members before the 2016 election to some 500 now, already has a record of success at the ballot box. In November, the group helped elect Mik Pappas as a Pittsburgh district judge and Anita Prizio to the Allegheny County Council. Pappas defeated Ron Costa, a two-decade veteran and member of the same vaunted Pittsburgh political family as defeated state representatives Paul and Dom.
Nationwide, DSA has grown since the 2016 election and now has upwards of 35,000 dues-paying members in chapters all across the country. 
Although Sanders identifies as a Democratic Socialist and shares DSA’s staunch support for Medicare-for-all and other benefits, the typical DSA member favors a more dramatic restructuring of the economy. For example, Virginia Delegate Lee Carter, a Democrat and member of Metro D.C. DSA, envisions transforming corporations into worker-owned cooperatives.
The group is nonetheless committed to enacting a progressive agenda, one local office at a time, and its success has already had serious policy implications. For example, Pappas has virtually abolished the use of cash bail, which earned him criticism in some circles and praise from criminal justice reform advocates. And Innamorato, a staunch reproductive rights proponent, replaced a state legislator in Dom Costa, who once voted for a 20-week abortion ban.
“As someone who’s had an abortion, it really means a lot to me that Sara is standing up and making clear that she will fight for full comprehensive reproductive justice,” Cohen said.
Clarification: Language in this story has been amended to describe Dom Costa’s opponent consistently.










Summer Lee, a candidate with the backing of the Pittsburgh Democratic Socialists of America, won the Democratic nomination fo
SUMMER LEE










Summer Lee, a candidate with the backing of the Pittsburgh Democratic Socialists of America, won the Democratic nomination for Pennsylvania House District 34.

THE NEW YORK TIMES

What Should I Do About My Rage?

Navigating workplace bureaucracy and sexism has left a reader exhausted, angry and in need of some serious self-care.

CreditHeidi Younger

By Cheryl Strayed and Steve Almond
May 15, 2018
Dear Sugars,
I have a wonderful and fulfilling job connecting low-income disabled people with resources to help ease their burdens. My job requires me to coordinate with bureaucracies that are complex, obstructive and immensely frustrating. Spending my days arguing with people over stupid rules, errors and minor clerical tasks has made me beyond angry. I’m in a rage all the time. Every little fight is a fight that, if I don’t win, could spell the end of the road for the person I’m trying to help. That many of them have incredibly sad stories only exacerbates my rage.
I don’t want to leave my job. It’s incredibly satisfying overall, but I feel lots of rage in my daily work. This rage has been spilling over into other parts of my life. I’m less patient with the people I’m trying to help than I used to be. Traffic now incenses me. I’ve begun snapping at friends and family. My boyfriend says I’m not my usual sunny self. I’ve sought advice from co-workers, but they aren’t as consumed by rage as I am. I’m a woman and sometimes when I go on a rant and people will tell me I’m “scary,” but I’ve heard men in my office talk exactly the way I do and no one says that to them. This double standard only makes my temper more volcanic. Sugars, it’s exhausting. I can’t keep feeling this much anger and function in my normal life, but I don’t want to leave my job. Your advice?
Angry Advocate
Cheryl Strayed: You have every right to be angry about the injustices you see in your work, Advocate. Your challenge isn’t to stop having an emotionally appropriate response to the victimization of the vulnerable population you serve; it’s to redirect your anger down channels that don’t deplete you. I suggest you start by using mindfulness techniques to help you shift your consciousness about the role rage plays in your life. It isn’t your anger that wins those arguments about the “stupid rules,” after all; it’s your persistence. It isn’t your rage that compels you to navigate through complicated bureaucratic systems day after day; it’s your compassion. So try centering your thoughts there, on the deeper and truer qualities that make you good at what you do, rather than on the inane and unjust policies that make you rightfully furious. The next time you feel ready to go on a rant, repeat the words persistence and compassion silently to yourself, and sit for a few minutes observing how you feel. I know it sounds hokey. I also know it works.
Steve Almond: Cheryl is right that your rage is part of what powers your drive for social justice. Channeling the anger is essential, as it has clearly reached an intensity where it’s eroding your faith in the good work you do and harming your relationships. But your letter also called to mind a passage from “The Woman Upstairs,” Claire Messud’s remarkable 2014 novel. Her narrator, a woman barely able to contain her wrath, makes the following confession late in the book: “Above all, in my anger, I was sad. Isn’t that always the way, that at the heart of the fire is a frozen kernel of sorrow that the fire is trying — valiantly, fruitlessly — to eradicate.” The only way to let go of some of the rage is to recognize that kernel of sorrow. This is hard to do precisely because despair is insoluble. In confronting it, we run the risk of being consumed by negative feelings, of surrendering to a reality that can feel like hopelessness: We’ll never escape the world’s injustice, its idiotic bureaucracies and snarls of traffic. But your letter tells me just the opposite — that you’re strong enough to feel sorrow without being consumed by it. In fact, it’s the activists and idealists like you who always take it on the chin. You’re the ones called to heal our world precisely because you’re brave enough to recognize how broken it is.
CS: What Steve and I are both getting at, Advocate, is that the best way to manage your anger is to work to more deeply understand it, to recognize it for what it is and even to embrace it so that you’ll feel less consumed by it. Mindfulness is about bringing awareness to things as they are (rather than as we wish they were) and setting intentions based on those realities. It’s not about repressing your anger but rather making choices about how and when you express it. Sometimes your intention might be to rant about something that enrages you. Other times it might be to redirect your anger into something positive. The point is, when you make conscious decisions about how you’ll respond to infuriating injustices, you’re better able to see that anger is only one of the many emotions you experience on the job. I suggest you use writing as a tool to explore your thoughts and feelings about anger and make a plan. Some questions worth answering: When, how, and with whom would you like to express your rage? When and how will you redirect it? What can you do in your personal life to counterbalance the negative aspects of your job?
Image
Listen to ‘Dear Sugars’
What are the consequences of hiding away your anger? The Sugars advise.
SA: It’s important to recognize there are millions of Americans who feel just as you do. We should be outraged that a nation with as much wealth as ours cares so little for our most needy. It’s unconscionable and unchristian, particularly if you believe in the ideas expressed by Jesus in his Sermon on the Mount. And it’s especially hard to be a soldier in the war for social justice when your moral authority keeps smashing up against the limits of your actual power. One way to honor the work you do is to be kind to yourself, so that you don’t burn out. Because the population you serve needs you more than ever. That’s why you need to harness your rage, to find in it a red lesson rather than a black hole. One way to jump-start that process would be to find a therapist. I’d also suggest reading the work of writers such as James Baldwin and Martin Luther King, Jr., who spent their lives struggling against oppressive systems of power. Hope is a terrible burden to shoulder, because it leads so naturally to disappointment, sadness and rage. But it’s also the inexhaustible fuel of moral progress. You are a part of that larger American story. The small hearts and guilty souls of this world will do everything they can to undermine your idealism. Don’t listen to them. Remember who you are. You’re not an Angry Advocate. You’re a damn hero.



TRAVIS ALLEN FOR GOVERNOR: End LA RAZA supremacy and the Mex welfare state on our back.

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/05/californias-travis-allen-gops-winning.html

Allen prioritized the fight against “sanctuary” policies across the state. “I’ve always been against this illegal sanctuary state from the very beginning,” he said. “Last year in the legislature, I put forth legislation — AB 1252 — to defund every sanctuary jurisdiction in California, and of course the Democrats killed that.

THE DEATH of CALIFORNIA: SHOCKING REPORT OF POVERTY, CRIME AND LA RAZA SUPREMACY

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/05/california-passes-uk-to-become-worlds.html

PRINCETON REPORT:

American middle-class is addicted, poor, jobless and suicidal…. Thank the corrupt government for surrendering our borders to 40 million looting Mexicans and then handing the bills to middle America?






Gavin Newsom: Being ‘Asylum State’ Is What Makes CA ‘Great’



California Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom claimed on Tuesday evening in San Jose that being an asylum state is what makes the Golden State great.

“We’re a state of asylum,” Newsom proudly declared, pointing out that California has accepted 112,000 refugees in the last 15 years and that is “what makes California great.”
Newsom made his remarks during the California gubernatorial debate a week after a migrant caravan arrived at the U.S.-Mexico border seeking asylum. Caravan organizers have vowed to get asylum for all of the migrants, most of whom are from Central America.
Other Democrats running for governor also supported the migrants seeking asylum.
“If they’re fleeing violence they should be able to seek asylum,” former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said.
Democrat Delaine Eastin said that “Central Americans fleeing violence should be welcomed into the border.”
“We have all descended from immigrants,” she said.
Republican candidate Travis Allen vowed to reverse the “illegal sanctuary state law” via a special election and blasted the “open-border policy” pushed by California Democrats like Attorney General Xavier Becerra.
John Cox, the other GOP candidate, also talked about reversing the state’s sanctuary laws and the need for a border wall.
Newsom, again defending the state’s sanctuary laws, vowed to “push back against John Cox, Travis Allen, and Trumpism.”












MEXICO INVADES, OCCUPIES, LOOTS and then VOTED DEMOCRAT FOR MORE!


L.A. County has 144% more registered voters than there are residents of legal voting age.  Clearly, illegals are illegally voting

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. 

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.
As for the cause of all this:
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.
Ed Straker is the senior writer at Newsmachete.com.

"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…

 By IRA MEHLMAN  April 30, 2018 


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

by CHRISS W. STREET24 Apr 2018Newport Beach, CA19

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. 
                                                                                                                
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.
"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.
  
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'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.

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.
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." 
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?
Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American
Help Lloyd spread the Truth
http://LloydMarcus.com


Laura Ingraham: ‘California Is Almost Acting Like It’s a Separate Country’


by
 JEFF POOR10 Mar 201877
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.


 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
by NEIL MUNRO19 Apr 201819

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-immigrationlow-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 laborspikes 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 priceswidens 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 
by CHRISS W. STREET5 May 2018Newport Beach, CA2,199

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: