Forum: Who Wins The War Between Trump And California's Sanctuary Policies?

Every week, the WoW! community and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher's Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week's question:Who Wins The War Between Trump And California's Sanctuary Policies?

Dave Schuler:Honestly, I have no idea. I think that while it's possible for the federal government to win the fight it's likely that California will. It's also possible that California's politicians will overreach, make a misstep, the president will invoke the Insurrection Act, and California's state government will be removed.

I think it's clear that California is presently an outlier in an number of ways ranging from politics to demographics to economy. Under the circumstances just about anything can happen.

Rob Miller : First, it's important to look at the real issue here. And it isn't some kind of humanitarian 'immigration' issue. It's about ethnic politics and political power.

Over the past three decades or so, the state's population has largely been deliberately replaced, especially in the coastal areas where the population is. It was done using open borders, sky high taxes, massive and complex 'regulations' on businesses and punitive laws favoring illegal migrants and 'takers' rather than makers.

Well funded political organizations like MeCHA, La Raza and MALDEF based on creating and exploiting ethnic grievance also played a role. As things rolled along, laws making it easy for voter fraud to occur and for illegal migrants to vote have exacerbated things. Meanwhile, small business owners, new college graduates, and many working families have simply left because of the artificially created high cost of living and doing business. Large corporations are also starting to leave the not-so-Golden State, because of the high taxation, strangling regulations and the difficulty in attracting employees because the high cost of housing and daily living. Even Silicon Valley has started to move to places like Boise, Idaho,Texas, Phoenix and Colorado among other places.

My point is that this is a political issue that has nothing to do with immigration or humanitarianism.

So who wins? Well, the Constitution says plainly that immigration is one of those powers the Federal Government has reserved for itself, like coining money or issuing postage stamps. Since California's sanctuary laws are in violation of federal immigration laws, it would seem that once this gets to the Supreme Court, if it does, that President Trump wins this one. However, since a lot of appellate judges, especially Obama's appointees seem far more concerned with political posturing rather than the law, it's likely to be a real cobra vs. mongoose battle.

One thing the president could do to bring things to a head is to send federal marshals to Oakland to arrest the mayor, Libby Schaaf for obstruction of justice (a felony) prosecute her, and sentence her to a jail term. Ms. Schaaf is the mayor who warned illegal migrants of ICE activities that she was informed of in advance by ICE. Because of her actions, an estimated 800 illegal migrants with felony convictions are still running around loose. I believe that putting a few examples like Ms. Schaaf in prison would do a great deal to end this standoff, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if President Trump does just that. If I were placing a bet, I'd put it on President Trump to win this one.




Fun fact: It's no secret that one of the Supreme Court justices is planning to retire this summer, and the name that keeps being mentioned is 81-year-old Anthony Kennedy. A Trump nominated justice definitely affect how this goes.

Laura Rambeau Lee: The majority of Americans understand we have a very real problem with illegal immigrants who have entered and are continuing to enter our country. They are undermining the fabric of our society; driving down wages for low income and mostly minority workers; and bankrupting our states with the additional costs expended for education, medical care, and other government entitlements paid out to them. It seems daily we are hearing reports of illegal immigrants committing crimes against American citizens and getting away with them. All too often our system is protecting the criminals and not delivering justice to the victims.

This battle being fought between the Justice Department and the State of California presents a constitutional crisis for our country. California has officially become a sanctuary state and recently passed three laws which the Justice Department says violate the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. California’s Attorney General Xavier Becerra, a son of legal Mexican immigrants, not only refuses to comply with federal immigration policies, he recently asserted his department would prosecute any business that willingly complies with federal law by allowing federal immigration officers on their property.

Putting an end to illegal immigration was the primary issue of Trump’s campaign and the reason he won. We know the majority of Americans are behind him and his efforts to build the wall, end illegal immigration, and find an acceptable solution to deal with the illegal immigrants already living here.

The federal government must win this war.


Well, there it is!

Make sure to drop by every Monday for the WoW! Magazine Forum. And enjoy WoW! Magazine 24-7 with some of the best stuff written in the 'net. Take from me, you won't want to miss it.

California's New 'Sanctuary State ' Law

 

The State of California is putting the finishing touches on the “California Values Act." Essentially, this is California's New 'Sanctuary State ' Law. The new law, just vetted and passed by the California Assembly Judiciary Committee would prevent state and local law enforcement from cooperating in any way with federal immigration authorities.



State Senate President Pro Tem Kevin De Leon, (D-Los Angeles), is sponsoring the state senate version of the new law, Senate Bill 54 to fight what he called the “Trump Deportation Machine.”

Back in February when he was first crafting the bill, De Leon admitted in an interview with left wing public broadcasting station KPPC that, "half my family is here illegally" and using fake IDs, a felony under California and federal law:

"I can tell you half of my family would be eligible for deportation under [President Donald Trump’s] executive order, because if they got a false Social Security card, if they got a false identification, if they got a false driver’s license prior to us passing AB60, if they got a false green card, and anyone who has family members, you know, who are undocumented knows that almost entirely everybody has secured some sort of false identification. That’s what you need to survive, to work. They are eligible for massive deportation."

“Someone simply who received or purchased a [fraudulent] Social Security card down at MacArthur Park, or elsewhere in my district would be eligible immediately for mass deportation,”

And of course, with a fake Social security card or a fake green card, many illegal migrants can easily obtain social welfare benefits like welfare, SSI, food stamps, section 8 public housing, and MediCal, California's taxpayer funded free medical care. And of course, they can - and many do- also vote, especially since in California  it's established policy  in social welfare  departments and the state's voter registration office not to check things like immigration status too closely.

 

That last fact is a huge reason why De Leon and many of his fellow Democrats are going all out to protect illegal migrants from being deported. Believe me, if illegal migrants voted Republican, people like De Leon would be calling out the National Guard to conduct mass deportations, and the Border Wall would have been built a long time ago. The Democrats want the votes of this new 'constituency' and the campaign donations from donors who love the continued flow of cheap labor.

 “Under constitutional threats from the reckless Trump administration, SB 54 protects state and local law enforcement and resources necessary to keep our communities safe,” De Leon said. De Leon also claimed that "Arrests of undocumented immigrants with no previous criminal record are up 150 percent since Trump became president.”

We'll explore these falsehoods in a second.

Assemblywoman Eloise Gomez Reyes chimed in, saying the measure is necessary not just for California, but for the nation. “California must send a clear message that we will remain the last line of defense against the fear-mongering and xenophobia,” Reyes said. “Rather than addressing the failure of policy, the federal solution has been to demonize our immigrant communities.”

Hmm...if these people she's talking about are 'immigrants' rather than illegal migrants,  why ever would they need fake IDs? And why would public policy in California need to have such strict measures against inquiring as to someone's immigration status? But I digress. None of these politicians seem overly concerned about ID theft, voter fraud or respecting any existing laws that conflict with their political agenda.

Back on May 25 of this year, there was a raid in which ICE agents arrested 188 illegal immigrants in Los Angeles. But according to U.S. immigration officials, total numbers of arrests of illegal immigrants are relatively flat in California and somewhat lower than during the Obama administration. So De Leon's nonsense about the 'Trump deportation machine' is simply partisan horse manure.

Oh, and his other remarks about how SB54 keeps our communities safe? Let's see how California's New 'Sanctuary State ' Law does that.

Most of the illegal migrants arrested in the May 25 raids had ties to El Salvadoran prison gangs such as MS-13, one of the most vicious and violent gangs in America. Almost 90 percent had previous criminal records for a variety of crimes including drug offenses, domestic violence, DUI, sex crimes, battery, weapons violations, assault, burglary, fraud, vehicle theft, arson, cruelty to a child, robbery, obstructing justice, property damage, larceny, escape, manslaughter, prostitution, trespassing, incest, and receipt of stolen property.

 

Under SB 54, none of these individuals would be transferred to ICE after serving their sentences after they were tried and convicted for these offenses. The bill specifies “serious felonies” but doesn't include almost all of the ones listed above. Instead of being turned over to ICE for deportation, these criminals would simply be released into the very communities De Leon and his cohorts claim SB 54 would 'keep safe.'

The question of the bill's legality is interesting.

SB 54 was given a a constitutional legal sign-off written by former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, who was paid a large sum for his analysis and is still on the State of California's payroll as it's lawyer to defend California's sanctuary policies. The state's Democrat legislators chose to pay for Holder's analysis rather than rely on one prepared by the California legislature's Legislative Council.

As Assemblyman Kevin Kiley, (R-Rocklin) pointed out, Holder announced his approval of SB 54 just one day before announcing his intention to run for president in 2020. how convenient!

So what are the actual legal precedents for California's New 'Sanctuary State ' Law?

The Constitution is pretty clear on the subject. The 10th Amendment  states that those powers not claimed by the Federal government in the Constitution "are clearly  are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Control over immigration and naturalization, like the coining of money or foreign policy are expressly given to the Federal Government.

And legislation signed, ironically by none other than President Bill Clinton in the mid-1990s bars states from creating laws that restrict communication with federal law enforcement agencies.

Now there are also two recent decisions by the Supreme Court that ruled against Federal Law superseding state laws ( New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 [1992] and Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997). Neither involved powers reserved constitutionally to the Federal government, since one involved the dumping of waste within a sovereign state's borders and the other involved a clear violation of the Second Amendment via the Brady Bill.

There are also a few judicial decisions at the lower federal level, creating precedents that the federal government cannot commandeer local law enforcement resources for the purpose of immigration enforcement. SB 54 deals with all cooperation with ICE including merely providing information on criminal illegal migrants. Do these decisions apply? The feds are not asking for the use of manpower or other resources to round up illegal migrants  but merely for basic cooperation by local law enforcement that SB 54 essentially blocks,

Given the effort, time and taxpayer dollars Democrats are willing to spend in protecting illegal migrants, even criminals from being deported, California's New 'Sanctuary State' Law will probably be headed to the Supreme Court if Governor Brown signs it and SB 54 becomes law.

L.A. City Council Votes To Back Trump Impeachment Investigation

 

CBS has reported that the L.A.  City Council voted 10-0 last Friday,May 5th to back an investigation of President Donald Trump in order to to find grounds to impeach him.

The city’s 2017-18 federal legislative program will be required to include support, financial or otherwise for any legislative action to investigate whether Trump is guilty of high crime or misdemeanors.

 

The L.A. City  Council is completely composed of Democrats except for one member, Councilman Mitchell Englander. He reportedly stepped out during the vote, but was present both before and after.

The resolution was presented by the West Valley Resistance to Council member Bob Blumenfield.

The focus is on an alleged violation of the the Foreign Emoluments Clause, because of the president's
real estate holdings in the form of hotels in foreign countries. That clause bars government officials from accepting gifts or benefits from foreign leaders or foreign states, something a little difficult to extend to things like renting hotel rooms, drinks at the bar or greens fees on a hotel golf course. That's especially true since President Trump is now no longer running his companies, in common with most presidents with outside investments, and has pledged to donate any foreign profits to to the U.S. Treasury on an annual basis to reduce the deficit. But if that doesn't pan out, the L.A. City Council is mandated to continue to back investigations into, well, anything as long as it might remotely involve impeaching President Trump.

The whole idea of invoking the  rather hypocritical in view of what Hillary Clinton was allowed to get away with while she was secretary of state. Talk about accepting money from Foreign governments! But I digress.

What the L.A. City Council has now endorsed is the use of taxpayer funded resources and funds to support the impeachment proceedings against a sitting president on partisan grounds, and that is a fascinating precedent.

Isn't the L.A. City Council and their respect for democracy touching?

CrazyFornia -Dems Want Willfully Infecting Others With HIV To Be 'Misdemeanor'

Democrats are rallying around a new bill by state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco,(where else?) that would make it a misdemeanor instead of a felony to intentionally expose someone to HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.



Under current laws , if someone who knows they are infected with HIV infects someone else deliberately - say, with unprotected sex or even sexual assault - it's a major felony and can lead to years of jail time if they're convicted. Wiener's bill wants that repealed.

Wiener's bill, SB239, would also repeal California laws that require people convicted of prostitution for the first time to be tested for AIDS and that increase penalties for prostitution if the prostitute tested positive for AIDS before after a previous arrest.

The rationale for this? Believe it or not 'science.' And equality, of course! Here's the Sacramento Bee quoting Wiener:

"These laws were passed at the height of the HIV/AIDS epidemic when there was enormous fear and ignorance and misinformation around HIV," Wiener said. "It's time for California to lead and to repeal these laws to send a clear signal that we are going to take a science-based approach to HIV not a fear-based approach."

The last time I checked, 'Science' hadn't yet found a complete cure for HIV or AIDS and it still kills people. According to the last figures we have from the Center For disease Control, in 2014, there were 12,333 deaths of people with diagnosed HIV infection from various causes attributed to effects of the disease and 6,721 deaths were attributed directly to HIV. Thankfully, the number is going down because more of the population most directly affected, male homosexuals, are practicing safe sex and treatment has improved. But ask yourself...how many of these 19,000 people were unknowingly infected? How many were infected by people who knew they had HIV but simply didn't give a damn? And what about the people who were unknowingly infected with HIV by someone who knew they had it, and who didn't die but whose lives were changed forever? Shouldn't people willing to do that to another human being be punished for what amounts to 2nd degree murder or manslaughter at worst and playing Russian roulette with someone else's life at best?

Wiener also claims that the current laws deter people from getting tested for HIV and seeking treatment. Impossible to see how that could be true...unless we're talking about people who are prostitutes and already got caught and were tested once but continued to practice their trade anyway. Or people so self centered and irresponsible that they don't care that having unprotected sex with an unknowing partner could be a death sentence for that person.

Even the most ancient law codes we know recognize that someone deliberately causing injury or death to another person is guilty of a serious crime, and that concept is deeply embedded in common law today worldwide...except in Crazyfornia, a bizarro land where things are different.

I can't imagine homosexuals supporting this lunacy, but given where Wiener's district is, enough of them must be. Given that this is Crazyfornia, I expect the legislature to pass SB239.

California Seceding? Don't Make Me Laugh!

The latest manifestation of butt hurt, crybaby lefties are threats from Democrat owned California to secede from the United States.



Here's a sample of what the#neverTrumpers at Bloomberg have to say:

Immediately after the election, state Senate President Kevin de León and his Assembly counterpart, Anthony Rendon, both Latinos from Southern California, sent out a scathing statement in English and Spanish assuring all 39 million Californians that they were ready for political war. “Today, we woke up feeling like strangers in a foreign land, because yesterday Americans expressed their views on a pluralistic and democratic society that are clearly inconsistent with the values of the people of California,” they wrote. “We will lead the resistance to any effort that would shred our social fabric or our Constitution.”

With the largest economy in the U.S. and the sixth-largest in the world, the state enjoys greater independence from Washington than most. It was the first state to adopt its own vehicle emissions standards, in 2002. In 2012, California created the only state-level cap-and-trade system for limiting greenhouse gas emissions after Republicans in Congress rejected a national model. California, which has more undocumented immigrants than any other state, offers them driver’s licenses as well as financial aid for college. It has imposed some of the country’s strictest background checks on firearms purchases. It’s one of three states to provide paid family and medical leave and one of five that require employers to offer paid sick leave. “This is unlike anything we’ve seen in modern political history,” says de León. “We’re going to do everything in our power to protect our people and our values as Californians.”

State Democrats say there’s plenty they can do short of leaving the U.S. California has long been a net contributor to Washington’s coffers, receiving an estimated 78¢ in federal spending in return for every dollar it sends, according to a study by the Washington-based Tax Foundation, a nonprofit think tank that provides analysis of federal and state tax policies. That gives state leaders potential leverage when it comes to complying with policies it doesn’t like, starting with the deportation of undocumented immigrants.

From January 2014 to September 2015, California released immigrants considered deportable under federal law in more than 11,000 instances, rather than keeping them in custody for federal agents, according to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement data obtained by the Texas Tribune. The next state on the list, New York, released people in fewer than 2,000 cases.

The article's certainly correct about that last part. One of these 'immigrants' they refused to hold for ICE (let's be more honest than Bloomberg and call them illegal migrants instead) was a career criminal murdered Kate Steinle in San Francisco. And that's after he was deported five times.

 

 Let's examine this bolshoi in detail, shall we?

The reason for the uproar among California Democrats has nothing to do with values. It has to do with maintaining their political power. California is a solid blue state today simply because the electorate was deliberately changed by the state's Democrats using a combination of open borders,extremely generous social welfare benefits and high taxation to pay for it that caused a lot of the sort of people who used to vote Republican to leave the state.

California, which has the largest population of illegal migrants in America is arguably the easiest state in the union to commit voter fraud in. Democrat President Clinton's 'voter-motor' legislation automatically registers to vote anyone getting a driver's license or registering a vehicle who checks a box asking to be registered to vote. California changed that slightly by automatically registering them to vote unless they checked a box asking not to be registered to vote.

The state gives driver's licenses to illegal migrants and not only does it not check immigration status, but it allows illegal migrants to obtain California driver's licenses with a matricula consular card issued by one of the numerous Mexican consulates in the state as their only identification. Needless to say, the consulates don't check anyone's data too closely, and if there's a problem, $50 0r $100 cash to the right clerk will get you a matricula consular ID with any name or details you want.

The state has no voter ID laws at all, and a recent Univision poll that the station quickly suppressed and took off the internet showed that a third of the respondents who admitted to being in California illegally also admitted they had voted. And why wouldn't they? There's nothing stopping them, they're duly registered and the president of the United States encouraged them to vote in the last election!

So now you know exactly why many California Democrats are up in arms over actually enforcing our immigration laws. And a big part of what's behind the recent secession fervor.

Right now, as I write this there's an organized group submitting a proposed ballot measure to the state attorney general’s office for a 2018 vote.

It's unlikely to go anywhere for a number of reasons. The national Democrat party will fight it tooth and nail because without California, they lose two senate seats and 39 House seats, and they're doomed to minority status forever. A large part of the state would likely refuse to leave the United States. And November 2018 would take place almost two years after President Trump takes office. A fair amount of those illegal migrant votes the proponents are counting on to shove this through will likely not be available by then. Finally, as we'll see, the cost would likely bankrupt the state.

But just for giggles, let's assume it gets on the ballot, is put to a vote, and passes. How exactly would that work out for California?

As secession proponents are fond of repeating, the state is the world's sixth largest economy and contributes $1 to the federal treasury for every 78 cents it receives in federal funding. What they aren't looking at is the nature of what California contributes and where it comes from, or the nature of that federal spending.

California's large economy primarily derives from the fact that it can ship things like high tech and agricultural products to the rest of the United States tariff free and receive imports from the rest of America duty free. If the new nation/state of California expects to receive the same deal after a hostile secession, they're kidding themselves.

Just imagine how quickly most of Silicon Valley would relocate faced with a 25% tariff on what it exports to the rest of America! Not only that, but things California now gets for free would be things the state would now have to finance, like defense, the Coast Guard, airport security, Medicare, MedicAid (that's $15 billion for the exchange  alone) a merchant marine to ship its good overseas, various regulatory agencies...it's a long and costly list. 

Another thing secessionists aren't calculating astounds me, given that it's California we're talking about...that divorces always cost money.

California has millions in Federal infrastructure. There are office buildings, highways, post offices, military bases, armories, dams, national parks, prisons, VA hospitals, communications networks and terminals, fire watching stations,and railroads among other things that the Federal government will rightly demand to be reimbursed for since they were paid for with federal funds.

Also, much of what California contributes to the federal treasury is in the form of taxes. This includes excise taxes on gasoline, communications, the internet, and all sorts of other things. A lot of this stuff would have to be imported to the new nation, and the cheapest and nearest source is Red America unless the new California government wants to enrage its powerful environmental lobby by drilling offshore near those pretty beaches. Setting up an oil or natural gas infrastructure is costly too. And so is importing it. Goodness, they'd actually have to build an oil refinery! And put desalinization plants on the coast to be able  to stop buying Colorado River water from Red America. Imagine how high the taxes would have to go to support all that!

Californians thinking about whether to secede will be shocked at how much freedom from America is going to cost.That ratio of dollars paid out versus federal funds received would change really quickly.

The socialist coastal elites have been running - almost wrote ruining, Freudian slip- California for some time now. You won't get any argument out of me that they're insane. Whether they're crazy enough for this, especially since a lot of their tax base - the folks that aren't working for state and local governments would move away to avoid the inevitable sky high taxes that would result  is anyone's guess. Mine would be no, but like I said we're not dealing with rational people here.

Wild California - Cougar Sightings Near Populated Areas

Californians have been rattled lately by sightings of cougars, AKA mountain lions in suburban and ex-urban areas close to mountain areas. This one was seen in Hesperia, which is by no means a small town out in the boonies! As reported in the Daily Press:

Jose Ruiz, a resident who lives across the street from the pole, told the Daily Press that the mountain lion was startled by children coming home in a Lucerne Valley Unified School District school bus. They were yelling with excitement and the big cat scurried up the pole, Ruiz said.

The mountain lion came down from the high-voltage power pole sometime Tuesday night and was not seen the next day, Ruiz said.

They've also been seen on high desert communities like Victorville.

Where I used to live, one of these critters came down from the hills, killed an Akita dog belonging to a friend of mine and dragged it back up the canyon. They don't really understand fences, pets or even small choldren and just see an easy meal, although they mostly stay clear of humans.

L.A. City Council Votes To Increase Unemployment, Destroy Tax Base

 

Ah, Lah Lah Land! While it's not quite the People's Republic yet, it's getting there fast, with a nice side order of corrupt banana republic.

Today,they voted 14-1 to increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour, joining Seattle, San Francisco and several other municipalities:

Los Angeles became the largest US city to raise its minimum wage to $15 an hour on Tuesday, as a wage increase bill passed the city council by a vote of 14-1.

It is now up to city attorney Mike Feuer to draft an ordinance to implement the new minimum wage requirements. The ordinance will then return to the council for a final vote before becoming law. Under the proposed legislation, the city’s minimum wage would increase to $10.50 in July 2016, and would increase incrementally every year until it reaches $15 in July 2020. For small businesses with 25 or fewer employees, the wage hike would come on a modified schedule with the incremental increases starting in July 2017 and the minimum wage reaching $15 by July 2021.

The current minimum wage in California is $9 an hour and is set to increase to $10 in January 2016.

The one no vote might have come from this guy, who before getting into politics was L.A's no-nonsense police chief:

Council member Bernard Parks has previously expressed concern about $15 minimum wage leading to higher unemployment in the area.

“Every minimum wage increase that we’ve seen, if it’s too high, causes unemployment,” Parks told NPR in February. “If you have a big city like Los Angeles doing something, you’re going to find a lot of people will fall in line without any thought, because they believe that we’ve done the research. The fact is, we have not done the research.”

Proponents of the new law responded that they had done some research..from the Institute for Research on Labor Employment from University of California, Berkeley. And Berkeley, or Berserkely as we natives fondly refer to it, has a certain reputation in matters like these as some of you may know.

So, how will this new law effect Los Angeles? Believe it or not, a lot of the workers whom were egging the council on to pass this will end up far worse off.



The first thing that will happen is that lots of them will be fired. If you own a small business where you were paying people $12 an hour and you now are mandated to pay them $15 per hour so your bottom line costs go up 1/3, you'll either raise your prices (which will cut into your business), cut your work force by 1/3 or both. Or you'll move somewhere else.

San Francisco and Seattle, aside from their radical politics are both fairly small cities. San Francisco in particular is somewhat isolated on its little peninsula unless you take the ferries or pay toll to use the bridge, and it has the advantage of being a major tourist town. so it's a lot easier to get away with this there, to an extent.

Los Angeles isn't like that at all. It's a large, heavily populated area clustered with smaller, independently incorporated cities like Glendale, Burbank, Torrance and Calabasas.All of them are thriving because they've avoided L.A's ridiculous restrictions, costly permits and high taxes on business. The result is that when people start a business , lots of them do it outside Los Angeles unless it's something like a franchised fast food restaurant like a McDonald's where their location is mandated by the franchise. This does not do wonders for the city's tax base.

Next, the ones that still have jobs will be introduced to the wonders of unsubsidized ObamaCare and life without food stamps, section 8 rent subsidies or earned income credit refunds on their federal taxes, because they will no longer qualify for them.

And finally, those of them whom work at jobs where tips are a big part of their income can largely forget about that. In Seattle and San Francisco,the new normal is 'service charges' and no tips. In Seattle, the service charges are running a hefty 18.5% at restaurants like Ivar's and the Whale Wins. And no, the wait staff doesn't get that, the restaurant does to offset that $15 per hour wage, although some restaurants might choose to share a portion of it with the help..who will now be taxed on every cent they receive. Or, since people will be eating out less because the service will deteriorate and the cost will be much higher, restaurants will need those service charges to stay in business. Yes, those waiters and waitresses who used to make more than their co-workers by hustling and taking good care of their customers will have absolutely no incentive to do so. Talk about penalizing hard work and enterprise!

I can just imagine how that's going to work in a spread out, car friendly city like Los Angeles. People will eat out less, or they'll travel outside the city limits to do it. One huge trend in the L.A. area is specialty food trucks featuring gourmet and ethnic cuisine, and I would expect them to get a lot more business as well, since they're mostly small, family owned businesses.

I can hear the wheels turning in those of my reader's heads with socialist leanings. "Why, we can just mandate it in all of L.A. County. Or in all of California! And why not a federal minimum wage law? No one will be able to avoid it then, bwah ha ha ha!"



Well, that's the way it is in much of Europe. It hasn't exactly worked out the way it was supposed to, and those legendary EU high unemployment benefits are already becoming a casualty out of sheer necessity,what with the double digit unemployment and all,

Here's something to think about.

Minimum wage jobs were never intended to be careers. They were always intended to be one of two things. Either they were entry level positions, with the low starting salary a sort of compensation for the employer training you and taking a chance on someone without experience so that you could either move up where you were or find a better paying position as an experienced worker elsewhere. Or they were a stopgap, a temporary situation designed to keep things together until you (a) got that big break (b) finished your schooling or training for something better or (c) were ready to move on somewhere else.

I've had such jobs before. My very first one, at age 15 was working at a gas station owned by a friend of my father's after school. I swept up, pumped gas, checked oil and tires and even did the odd lube job or tire change. I was absolutely thrilled to have it, even though I was paid in cash at slightly less than the minimum wage back then.Aside from being able to give my parents a little money, it meant I had money of my own to spend (there was no such thing as allowances in my house), and it introduced me into the adult world of work and responsibility. That experience was one of the many things I have to thank my father (Z"l) for.

No, I never had to support a family on that. But then, it never would have occurred to me to start a family I couldn't support either.


Attempts like this to bypass economic man never really work. What you end up with is collective misery and massive corruption as people do what they need to do in order to bypass the system. Just talk to anyone who used to live in the Soviet Union.

Israel To Give Desperately Needed Developmental Aid To...California!

This is not a joke at all. California's Governor Jerry Brown has just signed a strategic cooperation Agreement with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to receive aid from Israel.

California has been going through a catastrophic drought for three years now, which has cost the state's economy at least $2.2 billion and left 500,000 acres of what was once rich,productive farmland fallow.

So where did California turn to for help? Not the Obama White House, but to Israel, the world's acknowledged expert on irrigation and water use.

Prof. Eilon Adar, a world expert in groundwater flow systems, will work to help the state work out solutions to the issue. Prof. Adar visited San Fransisco and Silicon Valley, touring desalination plants in northern California, and participating in a state-wide conference in which a slew of possibly technological solutions were presented.

"If we managed to overcome the water issues in the Middle East, we can do it anywhere in the world," Prof. Adar said. "Nonetheless, (to address the issue) they will need to improve the management and efficiency of the water market and increase and optimize the coordination between the water companies."

He's got that right. Israel is the only country in the entire Middle East that is self sufficient in water. And they did it themselves, in a hostile environment.

"We are pushing ahead with the water issue and branding Israel as part of the solution, an ally with the know how whom can come to help in a time of need," said Andy David, Israel's consul to California.

I hope California's Democrats remember whom their friends are when it comes to voting on President Obama's anti-Israel, pro 'Palestine' agenda. An Israel pushed back to indefensible borders and under attack isn't going to be much help to the world in situations like these.

Dating A Co-Ed In California? Use A Condom And Bring A Notary Along

California just added its own salvo to the war on men.

The state assembly just passed SB 967, already passed by the state Senate. This bill requires colleges and universities receiving public funds to enforce an “affirmative consent” standard on all campus sexual activity.

Among other things, the bill, by Democratic Sen. Kevin de Leon of Los Angeles requires investigations of sexual assaults to seek whether there was  "affirmative consent". Silence or lack of resistance doesn't amount to consent under the new standards, nor is it consent if the party bringing the action, the victim  claims she was drunk or otherwise intoxicated at the time.

Let's examine what those fine words mean, shall we?

 

If you're, say, a sophomore at UCLA dating a fine specimen of California co-ed you met in Owning White Privilege 101 and things progress romantically to the point where the two of you are apparently willing to make the Beast with Two Backs, S T O P   R I G H T   T H E R E.

You must first get the girl's full and explicit consent to any and all sexual activity the two of you might have had in mind....positions, who does what to whom, which orifices are involved, everything. And since if things go sour later (for example, if you start dating a different girl) it's your word against hers as to what happened,  so you had better get it in writing..and notarized. Or video tape a detailed consent statement, at the very least. How romantic!



Even then, you're not really covered. The girl can say she initially consented but then changed her mind and you refused to stop. Or she can say she didn't say anything because she 'felt intimidated'. Or she can say she was drunk or high at the time. Can you prove she wasn't? Several days, weeks or even months after the fact?

I am not kidding.

The White House and The Department of Education pressured many colleges to change the burden of proof standard that they use in disciplinary proceedings over sexual harassment and sexual assault in 2011. And unfortunately, given the politics, many colleges didn't have to be pressured at all.

They now routinely restrict a male student's right to due process by using ‘preponderance of the evidence’ as the new, lower standard of proof instead of the higher ‘clear and convincing’ standard.

Among other things, the new guidelines demand that students “not be allowed to personally cross-examine each other.” Court rulings like Donohue v. Baker (1997), concluded that cross-examination must be allowed in campus disciplinary hearings, but that isn't being taken into consideration any more. Frequently, male students are not even allowed an attorney in these college inquisitions.

According to the the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR), “Preponderance of the evidence” means that if a school thinks there's as  little as a 51 per chance that the accused is guilty, the accused must still be disciplined.

 

Yes, ‘preponderance of the evidence’ essentially means that if a College disciplinary board thinks you just might be guilty or the girl's a half way decent actress, they will find against you. You will likely be asked to leave the college no matter what the actual facts are. Why take a chance and open themselves up to liability or risk being accused of political incorrectness just to protect your rights? And then, with that on your record, try to get into another college, let alone grad school. And even if you're not kicked out of college, the stigma remains, and it could even make the difference in where you are able to be hired.

You think I'm exaggerating? Here are just a a few examples that ought to change your mind.

The hellish thing about this totalitarian overreach is that it does absolutely nothing to protect college girls from rape.  Does anyone in his or her right mind imagine that an actual rapist on campus would have any problem physically intimidating his victim to sign a consent form?

A sensible male going to college in California can only take one message from this. Just as dating someone you work with no longer makes any sense for pretty much the same reason, it no longer makes sense to date California co-eds, at least if you're in college. And that especially applies to a co-ed in your own school .Of course, that doesn't totally protect you, since the way things are  now you can be accused of sexual assault even if you had no sexual contact with the girl in question and the odds are definitely not in your favor. But avoidance at least makes it less likely.

Since the two of the most common places for women meet their future spouses (or at least they used to be) is at work or in school, this new male bashing  nonsense all but guarantees that there will be a lot of sad and lonely single  California women in their late twenties to mid thirties wondering why  they can't seem to meet a decent guy who might be a potential mate. And unfortunately, it's not just California.

Governor Brown And Mexico's President Nieto Make Mexifornia Official

According to California's Governor Jerry Brown, it doesn't matter if you're an illegal alien, you're more than welcome in California.

The governor, who made the remarks when introducing Mexico's Presidente Enrique Peña Nieto has already done his bit to underline that message. California is a sanctuary state, where law enforcement is forbidden to cooperate with ICE or even hold illegal aliens who have a deportation order outstanding so the feds can pick them up. California's social welfare agencies are also forbidden by law to check immigration status when handing out benefits, as are the public schools,there are no voter ID laws, the California DREAM Act extends full educational benefits, state financial aid and in state tuition rates to illegal aliens and California's Trust Act, gives driver's licenses to illegal immigrants using the easily obtained and forged Matricular Consular card as ID.

 

Presidente Nieto graciously acknowledged the governor's remarks by calling California "the other Mexico," and thanking Brown for his efforts and those of state officials for embracing laws that that extend state benefits to immigrants.

Well he might. Those illegal aliens represent billions of dollars repatriated back to Mexico, a major source of income. At the same time, the costs of medical care, education, use of California's infrastructure  and other social welfare benefits aren't a concern for the Mexican government, because they're paid for by State and federal taxes.

 

Actually, I can't disagree with Nieto.California is becoming the other Mexico.  According to Pew Research, Latinos make up nearly 40% of the state's population, the majority of whom are Mexican and an estimated one third of America's illegal aliens call California home...at an estimated cost per year to the state of between $19 and $22 million, depending on whose counting and how they're figuring.

Meanwhile, the state's unemployment rate continues to remain high and the flow of illegal aliens keeps jobs hard to find and the cost of labor low.

By the way, don't be misled into thinking this is just California's problem. It's coming soon to a theater near you, as they say in the movie biz.

New Bill Demands Explicit Written or Verbal Consent For Sex On College Campuses

Where else but in California?

SB 967, written by state Sen. Kevin de Leon (D-Los Angeles) demands that a couple stop in the middle of the festivities to obtain "an affirmative, unambiguous, and conscious decision by each participant to engage in mutually agreed-upon sexual activity."

According to the language of the bill, "consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual encounter, and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent."

So........according to this new law, a couple needs to engage in a detailed discussion before lovemaking each and every time, married or not. Talk about a mood killer! Also, since 'verbal consent' is a matter of he said, she said in a court of law and people have been known to lie, any male (and of course, that's who this bill is directly aimed at) including husbands with a decent amount of brain cells to rub together is going to get that consent in writing, just in case. Smart men will come equipped not only with condoms, but with pre-printed forms, perhaps with a checklist. Or perhaps with small video recorders or digital cameras to record consent.

Of course, even a consent form or a video isn't sufficient really, according to the bill. If consent
"can be revoked at any time" and a past relationship between a couple is not deemed to signify consent, a woman can always claim she revoked consent after she signed the form or said 'yes' on camera..say, a week or so later after the guy dumps her for a hot cheerleader. And yes, there are plenty of examples of exactly this sort of thing happening, especially now that colleges have abandoned the legal standard of a burden of proof and use the far more subjective and flexible standard of the 'preponderance of evidence' in these matters.

In fact, the bill actually places the burden of proof on the accused in a sexual assault case demonstrate they obtained at least verbal ‘affirmative consent’ before engaging in any sexual activity.Men apparently no longer have the right to be presumed innocent until found guilty when it comes to these proceedings.

This also significantly changes the legal definition of rape from being a violent act clearly against someone's will to merely being a non-violent act someone may not have explicitly consented to (returning caresses and kisses or 'yes, oh yes!' apparently doesn't count) verbally or in writing beforehand.

Of course, these non-verbal exchanges are exactly how a lot of romantic encounters occur. Foreplay? Better get that written consent form signed first.

Of course, this bill violates privacy rights as well as rights of due process and common sense, but that apparently is not a consideration for proponents of this bill. But it will never pass, right?

Wrong.

SB 967 passed the Democrat dominated California state senate by a vote of 27-9 and is now on its way to state assembly. Even more ominously, the entire University of California system has adopted a new iron clad policy that doesn't just mirror SB967 but requires affirmative consent not just for sex, but to every form of “physical sexual activity” engaged in! In other words, if you come back to your domicile at the end of the day and give your significant other a hug and a kiss, you'd better have that consent form at the ready.

Read or watch the film version of "1984" some time and pay attention to what happens to Winston Smith and Julia. We're just about there.

"The progressive Left is like an acid that distorts and ruins everything it touches." - Rush Limbaugh, saying something I once thought was fairly exaggerated.

California Dems Suspend 3 Members - And Lose Senate Supermajority

You might recall that a month ago, I wrote a piece about the outrageuos behavior of California Democrats in the State Senate who refused to suspend two members. One, Ron Calderon,had been indicted for 24 counts of corruption, which included accepting thousands of dollars in bribes from undercover FBI agents posing as a film studio owner and a Southern California hospital executive as well as wire fraud, money laundering and falsification of tax returns. Another Rod Wright had actually been convicted of 8 counts of voter fraud and perjury.

Instead of suspending them, the Democrats simply had them take a 'leave of absence' in order to preserve their supermajority while the two continue to receive their full salary of $ $95,291 per year courtesy of California's taxpayers.

Recently a third California Democrat state senator, Leland Yee, was charged in a federal criminal complaint this week with accepting bribes and coordinating an international gun-running operation. Oh yes, he's also an outspoken voice in favor of gun confiscation. There was also an attempt to put Yee on a 'leave of absence'.

Instead, the stench got so bad and the public reaction was so negative that finally, even Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg had to take action. In a vote of 28-1 in the 40 member senate, all three senators were formally suspended, which means that while they still collect their salaries, the trio are prohibited from exercising any power of their office until the pending criminal cases against them have been resolved.And California's Democrat supermajority in the state senate is history.

The lone senator to vote against the resolution, SR38, was Republican Sen. Joel Anderson of Alpine, because he argued that all three should be expelled outright and that it was wrong for the three disgraced senators to continue receiving their salaries.

It remains to see how things ends up. Certainly I would expect Governor Jerry Brown to spend state money on special elections or apoint temporary Democrats to these seats. But with elections due to be held anyway this year, it might be that they simply let things ride until November.

In any event, for now the Senate Democrats are going to have to work with Senate Republicans and take their considerations into account. And that's a good thing.

Democrats In California Ignore Rule Of Law To Keep Their Supermajority

Political disagreements on the issues are one thing. A blatant disregard for law and an essentially fascist mentality are another.

California has a Democrat majority in both house of the state legislature, which means they can essentially do whatever they want. But it's slightly less in the state senate than in the assembly.

Two California Democrat state senators have been recently convicted of felonies. Sen. Ron Calderon was indicted last week on 24 counts of corruption, which included accepting thousands of dollars in bribes from undercover FBI agents posing as a film studio owner and a Southern California hospital executive as well as wire fraud, money laundering and falsification of tax returns. Given that he's a powerful state senator in the majority party, the vice-chairman of California's Latino Legislative Caucus and the fact the FBI is heavily involved, the fact that he's been indicted at all means this is almost a slam dunk guilty verdict and Calderon's lawyers are already attempting a plea bargain. Calderon is so dirty that even the Democrats in the state senate voted to give him until March 3rd to take a paid leave of absence while his trial is going on.

The other senator is Democrat Sen. Rod Wright, who was convicted of 8 counts of voter fraud and perjury which included lying about living in the district he represents.

The normal procedure for senators in these circumstances has always been to expel them from the senate, especially in Wright's case where he's already been convicted. But there's a problem...because if Wright and Calderon are both expelled from the senate, the Democrats lose their supermajority and would be unable to simply to ignore the concerns of the Republicans. So we can't have that:

So the senate Democrats blocked a resolution to expel Wright by sending the Republican proposal on a party line vote to the Rules Committee, where they can can permanently stall it. Instead, both Calderon (when he accepts it as he almost certainly will) and Wright already is - wait for it - going on a paid leave of absence at the taxpayer's expense.

Sen. Steve Knight, the Republican from Palmdale who introduced the resolutions said, “This will be precedent-setting.”

“We have gone past any time period where someone has been convicted of a felony and not resigned.”

Sen. Joel Anderson, R-Alpine, said, “You guys are the supermajority, you can do anything you want any time you want. ... Except for of course, if two members are expelled from this house. And then you would have to work with us to get that supporting vote,” Anderson said.

Democrat Senate leader Darrell Steinberg's excuse for this disgusting maneuver is both dishonest and bizarre. First, he gave the excuse that since Wright is already on a paid leave of absence, expelling Wright would “make zero practical difference.” Except this way, the committees and chairs stay in Democrat hands, and Calderon at least will still be allowed to vote if necessary.

Sen.Steinberg also made the ridiculous claim that technically,Wright isn't a felon even though he's been convicted by a jury since that jury's verdict hasn't been 'finalized' by a judge, and Wright plans to ask the judge to override the verdict...even though Steinberg acknowledged that judges almost always uphold juries’ verdicts!

“The integrity of this institution cannot tolerate a convicted felon in its ranks. But at this point in time Senator Wright is not a convicted felon,” Steinberg said. Ri-ight.

Not only that but Steinberg took the opportunity to throw some gratuitous slime,saying (without naming any names of course) that several Republican senators face allegations that they do not live in the districts they represent...even though that's by no means the only thing Wright was convicted of. He even had the nerve to quote the New Testament in which Jesus says, “Let him who is without sin among you cast the first stone.”

Of course the answer to this is simple...if there actually are Republicans in the senate who are guilty of multiple felonies,bring charges, indict them, convict them and throw them out of the senate.If Darrell Steinberg could pull that off, don;t you think he would?

And Steinberg's faux sophistry brings to mind a quote from Martin Luther.."Even the Devil can quote scripture to his own purpose."

Sen. Steve Knight is entirely correct, this is a precedent setter. It will not go unnoticed.

California Democrats Preparing A Boatload Of New Taxes.

California is a Democrat-ruled state, with super majorities in the Assembly and the state Senate, and control of all other major state offices including the governor's mansion.

That's already resulted in the highest taxes in America, defacto amnesty for illegal aliens including driver's licenses, the strictest anti-Second Amendment laws outside of New York's, and the imposition of same sex marriage in spite of state laws, among other things.

Here's what they have planned for the coming year.

New taxes on oil are on the agenda, in spite of the fact that the oil companies already pay half a billion dollars to the state of California each year. Spearheading the drive is billionaire activist
Tom Steyer, a global warming advocate who has poured millions into issues like opposition to the Keystone Pipeline and carbon taxes...in other words, he's opposed to oil, period.

The wealthy Steyer could obviously care less, but California already has some of the highest gas prices in America thanks to California's high sales taxes, fees on energy companies, property taxes and business levies. While the oil extraction tax he wants might pass the legislature and give Sacramento a few dollars to spend, it will simply result in less revenue as even higher gas prices result in people simply cutting back on useage and oil companies ramping down their production in California and transferring it elsewhere. That will end up causing a loss to what California now collects from the industry, and a loss of high paying blue collar jobs.

The state is planning try to to more than double car license fees, including a 1% 'value' levy each year. That will have to go on the ballot, but California's Democrats have something planned for that too.Just as a coincidence, also want to legislate how propositions relating to taxation can be passed. Right now, it takes a 2/3 majority of the voters. The new proposal is to make it a simple majority.

And that relates to yet another huge tax increase.

The last time Democrats had this kind of control of the Golden State back in the 1970's, they pushed property taxes to the absolute limit. Elderly people were literally being forced out of homes they'd lived in for decades, and the housing market had taken a major dip as new home buyers looked, aghast, at what they would be expected to pony up.

In response, there was literally a tax payers revolt that culminated in the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978 , which limited the amount property taxes could be raised annually and set a high bar for how government can raise them.

Democrats have always singled out Proposition 13 for special hatred,because it limited increases to 'special assessments' rather than the wholesale plundering they wanted. Now that they have control of the state again, they want to gut Prop 13 and get their hands on one of the last sources of wealth remaining to the middle class and the elderly.

Right now, the way this is being pushed is as a way to rob from corporately owned properties...something that will simply do wonders for California's double digit unemployment and skyrocket rents, something the politicians backing this aren't mentioning. Rest assured once Prop 13 is breached, residential properties won't be far behind.

It would take a two thirds majority in both Houses and governor Browns signature to push this through, which is a no brainer right now.It will bring about the same misery and destruction of the housing market it did back in the 1970's.

Thinking of moving to California because of the weather? Take a tip from Woody Guthrie..even commies get it right sometimes:




Or better yet, just do a little research and see where California's middle class, jobseekers and retirees are moving.

California's Governor Brown Signs Off On Driver's Licenses For Illegal Aliens

As expected, California's Governor Jerry Brown has signed the bill passed by the Democrat-dominated state legislature to allow illegal aliens to obtain driver's licenses.

“The governor’s signature on AB60 opens a window of opportunity unfairly closed shut to millions of Californians in 1993,” said Angelica Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles. “The state Legislature and the governor recognize a driver’s license makes our roads safer and offers a practical tool any Californian, regardless of immigration status, can use to conduct everyday tasks that greatly contribute to our state’s growth.”

Well, in the first place, they aren't 'Californians' in the sense that they are legal residents of the state who are legally supposed to be here. Nor is it going to make the roads safer, since a large number of the illegal aliens working under the table as busboys, construction workers or gardener are no more likely to spend money buying insurance for the kind of vehicles they drive than they were before.

As a matter of fact, signing this bill into law shows an almost criminal disregard for public safety.

The new law allows illegal aliens to get a driver's license using any 'form of identification approved by the Department of Motor Vehicles.' In real life,  that means Mexican Matricula Consular cards, which as everyone in California knows are a joke. They're easily forged or duplicated, or they  can be obtained at any of the numerous Mexican consulates in California over the counter or under the table if you know where to go. If you pay the fee (or the bribe, if necessary), the consulate officials will issue one to almost anyone who applies, under whatever name you like.

Once someone obtains one, they can be used as ID to open bank accounts, mail drops, rent storage facilities, PO boxes, obtain welfare and medical benefits and a host of other services...even if your real name is Ahmed or Hassan rather than Armando or Jorge. Now,thanks to Governor Brown and his fellow Democrats, they can be used to obtain fully legal driver's licenses as well. It's a terrorist or criminal's dream come true.

 

Of course public safety is the last thing on these politician's minds. For them, this is entirely about cementing their political control of the state.

Bill Clinton's motor voter registration bill of 1993 allows anyone applying for a driver's license to register to vote by simply checking a box.Since California has no voter ID law and is unlikely to ever have one as long as Democrats dominate the legislature and the governor's mansion, it's also going to allow illegal aliens to vote, legalizing the illegal migrant voting that's been going on for years.

The Democrats have just established a new pool of easily manipulated voters to keep them in power, especially since the Democrats already successfully gamed what was supposed to be a non-partisan redistricting process.

Amnestia in California has already happened. The state doesn't enforce most of immigration laws anyway, and hasn't for some time. It really doesn't make any sense in California to be a U.S. citizen or to go to the bother to immigrate legally any more. There's no benefit to doing so. Which is exactly how California's elites want it, with a built in majority of low information voters and a reliable stream of low wage, low skilled labor continuing to pour across the border.

At least until they run out of other people's money to bribe them with.

California Approves Drivers Licenses For Illegal Aliens

 

The Democrat dominated California State legislature has passed legislation allowing the issuing of drivers licenses to illegal aliens. The bill has been sent to Governor Jerry Brown, who is expected to approve it.

“This is a moment, members,” sponsor Assemblyman Luis Alejo, D-Watsonville, said in closing remarks on the Assembly floor, “that years from now you’re going to look back on.”

In a statement released shortly after the vote, Brown signaled he will sign the bill.

“This bill will enable millions of people to get to work safely and legally,” Brown said in the statement. “Hopefully, it will send a message to Washington that immigration reform is long past due.” [...]

By extending licenses to undocumented immigrants, Alejo said, California would open a legal umbrella for everyone on the road to prevent situations in which immigrants face arrest, heavy fines and car impoundment when they are pulled over.

Another thing these Democrat politicians (and of course, the reporter writing this) aren't mentioning is that thanks to Bill Clinton's motor voter registration bill of 1993 which allows anyone applying for a driver's license to register to vote by checking a box,it's also going to allow them to vote, thus legalizing the illegal migrant voting that's been going on for years.

The sob story about 'arrest, heavy fines and car impoundment' is also bogus, since in the vast majority of California jurisdictions with large illegal alien populations, police officers are prohibited from asking any questions about someone's immigration status, so the most illegal aliens are faced with unless they've been involved in something like a serious wreck or drunken driving is being issued a citation for driving without a license. In Los Angeles, which proudly labels itself a 'sanctuary city' in defiance of U.S. law, the directive to the city's law enforcement personnel mandating this is known as Special Order #40.

If you're a U.S. citizen, good luck getting a driver's license without a birth certificate. But as an illegal alien, this legislation will allow you to get your license using 'a form of identification approved by the Department of Motor Vehicles.'

In practice, that means Mexican Matricula Consular cards, which as everyone in California knows are a joke. Mexico has numerous consulates in California where they can be obtained, over the counter or under the table. If you pay the fee (or the bribe, if necessary), the consulate officials will issue one to almost anyone who applies, under whatever name you like. They're also easily forged and duplicated, and once someone obtains one, they can be used as ID to open bank accounts, mail drops, rent storage facilities, PO boxes, obtain welfare and medical benefits and a host of other services...even if your real name is Ahmed or Hassan rather than Armando or Jorge. Now they will also be able to be used to obtain fully legal driver's licenses.



The national security implications, of course, are not on Democrat's minds. What they're really salivating over is a new pool of easily manipulated 'voters' to keep them in power, especially since they've already successfully gamed what was supposed to be a non-partisan redistricting process.

 The idea, of course is to keep California a solid Blue state for years and to ward off any pesky federal attempts at a voter ID law.

Amnestia doesn't matter here, because it's already happened. It really doesn't make any sense in California to be a U.S. citizen or to immigrate legally any more. Which is exactly how California's elites want it, so that an easily manipulated voter base and a reliable stream of low wage, low skilled labor continues to pour across the border.

California Assaults Religious Freedom For Christians And Jews

There's a new bill pending in the California legislature that directly targets religious freedom for Christians and Jews.

It's SB 323, which passed the California Senate and sailed through Assembly committees to a floor vote, possibly this week.

The bill targets the tax exempt status of groups like the Boy Scouts, Little League, Future Farmers of America and 19 other organizations if they discriminate in any way based on gender identity, sexual orientation, nationality, race, religion or religious affiliation.

The measure is also aimed tax-exempt status for public and private schools found to sponsor any of these 'discriminatory' youth groups..including exemption status held by a religious school or church.

“Traditional values regarding heterosexuality are being branded as the legal equivalent of racism, and so there’s the quite genuine fear that the tax code really is the battleground against the traditional churches,” said Alan Reinach, executive director of Church State Council, which opposes SB 323.

“It’s not about ‘live and let live.’ If the churches do not conform to the values of homosexuality, then we will lose our standing in society,” he said. [...}

They say SB 323 discriminates against organizations that have faith-based convictions and forces them to adopt the government’s viewpoint on sexual orientation and gender identity in their hiring, practices, membership, objectives or activities.

Many youth groups do not even hold their own tax-exempt status, but operate under the exemption of their church conference, said Mr. Reinach, whose public policy organization focuses on religious-freedom issues.

So if a youth group is found to be discriminatory, “what are you going to do — revoke the tax exemption for two dozen schools and 150 churches or at least all of their youth groups?” he asked.

Interestingly enough, only churches, synagogues and groups affiliated with them are n=being mentioned. Not a word is being said about the Nation of Islam, which is avowedly anti-homosexuality or Muslim mosques or groups,which hold similar views based on the Qu'ran.

Other groups named in the bill are Bobby Sox, Little League, Campfire Inc., 4-H Clubs, Future Farmers of America, Future Homemakers of America, Boys’ Clubs, Girls’ Clubs, Pop Warner football and AYSO as well as several other soccer organizations.

Brian McClintock, a spokesman for the Little League, said his group already has policies not to discriminate on the “basis of race, creed, color, national origin, marital status, gender, sexual orientation or disability.” And two people associated with Future Farmers of America said they couldn’t imagine why their organization was named in the bill.

Perhaps I can answer their question.

Homosexuals have become a new 'protected group' for democrats and a major fundraising target, as no less then Rahm Emmanuel himself recently let us know. They normally tend to have decent incomes and usually have no expenses or time constraints associated with child rearing and thus have ample disposable income and leisure time that can be tapped politically.

Additionally, since California enacted de facto legal same sex marriage even though a measure passed by a majority of the state's voters amended the state's constitution to prevent that, this is seen as just another political payoff to the very powerful and well funded homosexual lobby.

We will see a time soon in California when a church is going to be sued for not hiring a gay clergyman, and will lose its tax exempt status as a result.

As Mr. Reinach presciently observed, the end game is to eliminate a huge source of tax exempt giving and to destroy the standing in society of churches and synagogues...at least those that refuse to leave their religious principles behind and go along to get along.

First Amendment...wha? Who?

Gay Marriage To Remain Legal In California As The Rule Of Law Collapses

 

As expected, in a one-line order, the California Supreme Court declined to hear a case brought last month by backers of Proposition 8 challenging the legality of same sex marriage in California.

This is the same judicial body that previously ruled that Prop 8, which amended the state constitution to state that marriage would only be between one man and one woman was both legal and constitutional and could appear on the state's ballot.

Although Prop 8 was passed by a large majority of the state's voters, it was challenged in court by gay marriage activists. When state attorney general Jerry Brown refused to defend it in court as he was legally bound to do, a group of private citizens stepped in to defend Prop 8 before Judge Vaughn Walker in Ninth Circuit, a homosexual and a proponent of same sex marriage who predictably ruled against it.

When the case came to the U.S. Supreme Court, it refused to hear the case on the ridiculous grounds that the plaintiffs, the group of private citizens, 'lacked standing'.

Jerry Brown, now California's governor ordered the state to immediately allow same sex marriage on that basis.

"When politicians disregard the law, and the courts refuse to get involved, what are we left with?" said Andy Pugno, counsel for ProtectMarriage.com.

The answer of course, is nothing. The rule of law simply no longer matters.

Here we have a law passed by a clear majority of the voters that was simply ignored by the government officials charged with defending it because they felt like it. And when one obviously biased judge ruled against that law after the State Supreme Court ruled that it was both legal and constitutional, citizens attempting to fill the breach and honor the will of the people of California are simply told they have no rights in the matter and just to lay back and take it.

While supporters of same sex marriage may applaud this win, it establishes a dangerous precedent, with consequences they may not like in the future.

The people in power change, and what was done to the rule of law by judicial and political tyranny here can be done again in another time and place.

California Set To Disarm Its Citizens

 

As California continues to release thousands of violent felons from its prisons, the Democrat-dominated State legislature is working to pass legislation to victimize law abiding citizens and make it as difficult as possible to defend themselves.

The Senate and the Assembly are working on passing a number of bills that would severely affect the rights of Californians and give the state the nation's toughest anti-Second Amendment laws.

The Assembly will hear a bill that would ban all semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines. Since the majority of rifles today are semi-auto, this would ban all rifles except black powder muzzle loaders and bolt action rifles that load each shot individually.They will also hear bills already passed in the State Senate that would make it a crime to leave a gun unlocked when you're out of the house and make owning a 'high-capacity magazine', defined as ten shots or more, illegal, even those that were grandfathered in under the state’s previous gun laws. That will outlaw a number of previously legal handguns, as well as rifles that were previously legal.

The Senate will hear bills passed in the Assembly that would create a state database of all ammunition purchases and require background checks to purchase it, make it a crime to have a gun that's not locked up when not being carried, and extend the time for which someone is banned from owning firearms after making a violent threat. I'm not certain exactly how 'violent threat' is defined, and neither is the bill as of yet.

This is how the elites in California, who all have extensive, tax payer provided security feel about the 'less worthy'.

California still has what's known as 'defense of the castle laws' wherein you can use deadly force against someone who breaks into your home if you have a reasonable belief they might do you bodily harm.

That might very well be the next to be 'amended'.

California Pols Get Raise For 'Balancing Budget' - While Deficit's At $127.2 Billion!

California's almost entirely Democrat ruling class just received a 5% raise from a State panel  appointed by Governor Jerry Brown:

A state panel on Wednesday approved a 5% pay raise for Gov. Jerry Brown, legislators and other state elected officials, restoring the salary level they received before it was cut during last year’s budget problems.

The California Citizens Compensation Commission also agreed to increase the state’s contribution to the health benefits of state elected officials by 10%, restoring half of the amount cut in 2009.

The panel’s action boosts the salary of Brown from $165,288 to $173,987 in December, and increases legislators’ pay from $90,520 to $95,291 at the same time. Raises will also be provided to the state attorney general, state treasurer and other constitutional officers.

During the last four years, the commission had cut the pay of 132 elected state officials by 23% in reaction to the recession and its damage to the budget, which resulted in furloughs for rank-and-file state workers.

But commissioners noted Wednesday that the economy has improved, the budget has been balanced with a $1 billion reserve fund, and Brown has offered a 4.5% pay raise phased in over two years to the largest state employee union.

“The governor has done a fantastic job of getting the tax initiative passed and the economic climate, while not completely restored, is on the right trajectory," said Commissioner Wilma Wallace. "And I believe that it is important to acknowledge that the Legislature has stepped up and that they deserve to have the 5% reinstated."

The 'tax initiative', of course was a huge tax increase.

Just one problem, however. The State's independent auditors reveal that the budget isn't balanced at all!

A financial report issued by state auditors finds that the state of California is in the red by an unsustainable $127.2 billion.

The report says that the state’s negative status increased that year, largely because it spent $1.7 billion more than it received in revenues and wound up with an accumulated deficit of just under $23 billion in fiscal year 2011-2012, the Sacramento Bee stated.

Gov. Jerry Brown has referred to the deficit and other budget gaps, mostly money owed to schools, as a “wall of debt” totaling more than $30 billion, the Sacramento Bee reported.

About half of the deficit came from the state issuing general obligation bonds and then giving the money to local governments and school districts for public works projects. The report listed California’s long-term obligations at $167.9 billion, nearly half of which ($79.9 billion) were in general obligation bonds, with another $30.8 billion in revenue bonds, the Sacramento Bee reported.

And the economic climate? Several large cities are in bankruptcy proceedings, the real U6 unemployment rate is around 15%, the state is overrun with illegal aliens and businesses are still moving out of the state at a brisk clip.

As another sign of how 'balanced' the budget is, the state legislature has already started work on destroying Proposition 13, the state initiative passed by Californians back in the 1970's to mandate that the insane property tax increases the state was imposing at that time needed to be limited in scope and passed in the legislature by by a 2/3 majority. Th enew law, already passed in the Asembly will go to the state senate, where it will also likely pass.

Now that California's Democrats effectively own the state, Prop 13 will soon be history, causing the real estate market to dip further as people unload their homes and rental property and flee to other locations.

The idea of awarding these cretins with more money for dismantling the economy of what used to be one of the richest and most prosperous states in the union is beyond ludicrous.