Assembly GOP Caucus Punts: Mayes “Leader” Till Next Tuesday

Over the past few weeks County GOP Chairs and County Committee’s have asked Chad Mayes to resign as Assembly Republican Leader.  Last Friday by 13-7, the Board of Directors of the California Republican Party—including Chair Jim Brulte—but NOT Vice-Chair Kristin Olsen, a close associate of Chad Mayes.  Volunteer leaders and donors asked him to step down—not a single County Chair or Committee supported Mayes (Alameda chair Sue Caro—also on the CRP Board, did vote not to ask Mayes to resign—on the basis she said that the Bay Area loves raising taxes!

Now the Assembly Caucus at 5:00pm yesterday held a meeting—the results and what they mean are in the story below.

Chad Mayes2

Assembly Caucus Punts:  Mayes Leader Till Next Tuesday

By Stephen Frank, Exclusive to the California Political News and Views,  8/22/17

 

When the Assembly Republican Caucus met in the Capitol at 5:00pm yesterday there was a single vote taken.  The decision was  made to hold a vote on Leader NEXT Tuesday.  Motion was made to vacate the Chair. This failed by three votes.  But, if Mayes had 13 votes to continue, he would have held such a vote–it did not happen.

When the Tuesday August 29 Caucus meeting is gaveled to open, at that point there will be NO Caucus Leader–the Chair will have been vacated.  Instead, the decision was to allow Mayes to continue as Leader for a week.  How weak is Mayes?  If he had the votes to continue as Leader he would have held that vote.  So, we do know that he does not have the support of 13 GOP Assembly members.

The fact that a motion to vacate the chair was made also but not passed means none of the three potential replacement candidates had the 13 votes to become the new Leader.  And, that the three of them could not come to an agreement for new leadership.  Otherwise there would have been a vote on replacement.

This is a massively divided Caucus.  Mayes knows he can not continue as Leader—in fact one of his staff members, privately claimed, Mayes came to the meeting prepared to resign.  But when he saw the votes were not there to get rid of him, nor to find a replacement, he accepted the decision for an election to be held next Tuesday.

At the end of the day, Chad Mayes is gone, has to if the Assembly Caucus wants to protect its members and possibly even grow their numbers, in spite of Mayes and six others diminishing the Republican Brand into a quasi Democrat signature.  The new leadership will have to address this problem immediately.

The new Leadership needs to clean house of those that advised and worked for Olsen and Mayes—they advised Olsen into losing three seats and then advised Mayes into voting like a Democrat, and then trying to destroy the fund raising of the CRP, the Assembly and Senate Republicans.  Mayes has a scorched earth policy—by next Tuesday he will be gone—Members believe in self preservation and Mayes new policies will kill some of them off in 2018.

One other point.  As I have said, I have not, and will not support any one candidate for Leader (except to end the reign of Mayes).  Now that it is shown that none of the candidates for Leader has been able to get the needed 13 votes (majority of the Caucus), I expect a surprise compromise candidate to come forward.  If that happens, that person will win.  Until next Tuesday the Assembly Caucus has no viable leader, no one with authority.  I do hope that Mayes will do no further harm to the Caucus or the Republican Party in the next 8 days.  If he truly wants the GOP to succeed, he will immediately resign as Leader.  To stay another hour in that position is destructive to the Caucus and the Republican Party–but he knows that.

In the OC Register yesterday, Mayes wrote this as part of an Op-Ed, “Republicans have a choice: We can remain in a state of denial and continue to lose elections, influence and relevance, or we can move forward boldly to articulate and apply our principles in a way that resonates with a changing California. To me, the choice is clear”

His choice is to raise taxes, give your taxes dollars to the choo choo to nowhere boondogle and to reward polluters–with your dollars and those of companies Democrats want to punish.  Is this your choice?  Now you know why his “leadership” sound more like Jerry Brown and Kevin DeLeon than the Republican party, the legacy of Ronald Reagan and CRP Chair Jim Brulte who wrote a blast email just before the November, 2016 election that the Republican Party stands for limited government and lower taxes.  He does not want to be “different” his vote shows he wants to be like a Democrat.

California HATES the South for Nullification—Now Brown and Friends ARE Nullifying Federal Laws

Let get real—the south seceded from the Union—by a vote of their legislatures.  California has begun the process of seceding from the union—by a vote of the legislature.  In BOH cases it is Democrats that want no part of the Constitution or the Rule of Law.

“When the Legislature returns to Sacramento this week for the final throes of its 2017 session, a major agenda item is Senate Bill 54, carried by Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León. It would prohibit local and state law enforcement agencies from cooperating with federal immigration authorities in identifying and holding those in the country illegally, except when it involves those convicted of particularly violent or heinous felonies.

De León says it “will prevent state and local law enforcement agencies from acting as agents of immigration and customs enforcement (and) keep them focused on community policing, rather than rounding up hardworking, honest immigrants who in many instances assist police in solving crimes rather than committing them.”

The south seceded to protect ownership of slaves.  California Democrats in 2017 are seceding to protect criminals.  Democrats never change.  Lest we forget Jim Crow laws and the KKK were the work of the Democrat Party.  One of the most vicious segregationists was Lyndon Johnson, till he became President.  In the dark of night Sunday the University of Texas/Austin took down Confederate statues on campus.  Will they now close the racist Lyndon Baines Johnson on campus?  Or, like California, UT is run by hypocrites?

confederateFlag

California writing a new chapter in centuries-old ‘states’ rights’ conflict

By Dan Walters, CalMatters,  8/20/17

Tension between the federal government and its states has permeated American history from the earliest moments of the nation’s founding 241 years ago.

Drafting the U.S. Constitution was an exercise in balancing federal authority against “states’ rights.” The Constitution’s “supremacy clause” defined federal authority, for instance, while its 10th amendment guaranteed that states could exercise powers not reserved to the national government.

The broad wording of both merely set the stage for centuries of political and judicial conflict over their meaning, punctuated by the nation’s bloodiest war.

Over those decades, “states’ rights” evolved, in the minds of many, into code words for discrimination and/or repression. It was cited, for example, by Alabama Gov. George Wallace and other defenders of racial segregation a half-century ago.

More recently, we have seen conflicts over whether the federal government or its courts could prohibit states from outlawing abortion or same-sex marriage, and over the constitutionality of state and local gun control laws.

As those instances suggest, those on the political left have usually cheered when federal law triumphed – when, for instance, state laws to crack down on illegal immigration were deemed to violate the federal government’s authority over immigration matters.

Today, however, with Donald Trump in the White House and Republicans in control of Congress, the worm has turned and California, ever the contrarian, is invoking the doctrine of states’ rights to resist the Trump administration’s vow to round up and deport those in the country illegally.

The state is home to at least two million undocumented immigrants and has done everything in its power to legalize them, such as issuing driver’s licenses.

Last month, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions declared that local governments that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities would lose federal law enforcement grants, citing a specific federal law barring non-cooperation.

“So-called ‘sanctuary’ policies make all of us less safe because they intentionally undermine our laws and protect illegal aliens who have committed crimes,” Sessions said.

The money involved for California is chickenfeed, just $28 million a year. However, last week, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra responded with a lawsuit, branding Sessions’ action, and the presidential order that preceded it, as an unconstitutional incursion on states’ rights.

“The Trump administration is starting with the very misguided premise (that) immigrants are a danger to the public or our public safety. That could be no further from the truth,” Becerra said at a press conference. “It’s our right and it’s our duty to fight to protect our law enforcement officers … and to protect the resources that they rely upon. “We’re in the public safety business. We’re not in the deportation business.”

As that legal conflict – one seemingly destined for the U.S. Supreme Court – begins to play out, California lawmakers and Gov. Jerry Brown may be inviting more legal war by making the entire state a sanctuary.

When the Legislature returns to Sacramento this week for the final throes of its 2017 session, a major agenda item is Senate Bill 54, carried by Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León. It would prohibit local and state law enforcement agencies from cooperating with federal immigration authorities in identifying and holding those in the country illegally, except when it involves those convicted of particularly violent or heinous felonies.

De León says it “will prevent state and local law enforcement agencies from acting as agents of immigration and customs enforcement (and) keep them focused on community policing, rather than rounding up hardworking, honest immigrants who in many instances assist police in solving crimes rather than committing them.”

Many local law enforcement officials oppose the measure, saying it would inhibit anti-crime efforts, and Brown has not yet endorsed it. Earlier, as attorney general, Brown was leery about sanctuary laws, but has since joined other Democratic politicians in the “resistance” to Trump.

Should it be enacted, which is highly likely, it will open a new and ironic chapter to the tortured history of states’ rights.

Our leading hate group: Southern Poverty Law Center

Go to the web site of the southern Poverty law Center—many Christian and conservatives groups are listed as hate groups.  Their crimes?  They either believe in the Bible and/or the rule of law, the Constitution.  Of course since the Constitution was written by slave owners, the Poverty Center has declared that agreeing to support the Constitution makes you a hater and a member of a hate group.  Anyone check their sanity?

“Earlier this year our friends at American Greatness took note with Mike Sabo’s column “The Southern Poverty Law Center is a hate group.” This past week the Wall Street Journal published Jeryl Bier’s scrupulously reported column “The insidious influence of the SPLC” (unfortunately, behind the Journal’s subscription paywall). Jeryl notes, for example:

Aided by a veneer of objectivity, the SPLC has for years served as the media’s expert witness for evaluating “extremism” and “hatred.” But while the SPLC rightly condemns groups like the Ku Klux Klan, Westboro Baptist Church and New Black Panther Party, it has managed to blur the lines, besmirching mainstream groups like the [Family Research Center], as well as people such as social scientist Charles Murray and Somali-born Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a critic of Islamic extremism.

In fact, it is the southern Poverty Law Center that is a hate group—trying to silence their opponents who prefer and defend freedom.  To the Center freedom is a hate thought.  Shame on the media for being part of the hate America crowd.

Photo courtesy pd2020@sbcglobal.net, flickr

Photo courtesy pd2020@sbcglobal.net, flickr

Our leading hate group: Southern Poverty Law Center

Powerline blog,  6/25/17

The concept of a “hate group” could be useful. In practice, however, it is like the concept of “hate speech,” applied to shut down heterodox speech and confine the public square to dissemination of officially approved thought. The concepts somehow overlook the likes of the hilariously misnamed Southern Poverty Law Center and its works, which direct something far beyond the Orwellian Two Minutes Hate to the likes of Charles Murray and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. If there is such a thing as a “hate group” — as I say, it could be a useful concept — the SPLC is it. Indeed, I think it may be our most influential hate group.

Earlier this year our friends at American Greatness took note with Mike Sabo’s column “The Southern Poverty Law Center is a hate group.” This past week the Wall Street Journal published Jeryl Bier’s scrupulously reported column “The insidious influence of the SPLC” (unfortunately, behind the Journal’s subscription paywall). Jeryl notes, for example:

Aided by a veneer of objectivity, the SPLC has for years served as the media’s expert witness for evaluating “extremism” and “hatred.” But while the SPLC rightly condemns groups like the Ku Klux Klan, Westboro Baptist Church and New Black Panther Party, it has managed to blur the lines, besmirching mainstream groups like the [Family Research Center], as well as people such as social scientist Charles Murray and Somali-born Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a critic of Islamic extremism.

A clear illustration of the SPLC’s pervasive and insidious influence is the March riot at Middlebury College, where Mr. Murray had been invited to speak. “The SPLC is the primary source for the protesters at my events,” Mr. Murray told me. “It is quotes from the SPLC, assertions by the SPLC that drive the whole thing.”

Mr. Murray’s politics are libertarian, but the SPLC labels him a “white nationalist.” In reporting on the Middlebury fracas, numerous news organizations repeated the SPLC’s characterization without noting it was false. The AP even put it in a headline: “College Students Protest Speaker Branded White Nationalist.”

Sometimes understatement can be an effective rhetorical device. Jeryl tactfully suggests the true nature of the SPLC:

The SPLC’s work arguably contributes to the climate of hate it abhors—and Middlebury isn’t the worst example. In 2012 Floyd Lee Corkins shot and wounded a security guard at the Family Research Council’s headquarters. Mr. Corkins, who pleaded guilty to domestic terrorism, told investigators he had targeted the group after learning of it from the SPLC’s website. The SPLC responded to the shooting with a statement: “We condemn all acts of violence.”

Last week the SPLC found itself in the awkward position of disavowing the man who opened fire on Republican members of Congress during baseball practice. “We’re aware that the SPLC was among hundreds of groups that the man identified as the shooter ‘liked’ on Facebook,” SPLC president Richard Cohen said in a statement. “I want to be as clear as I can possibly be: The SPLC condemns all forms of violence.”

Jeryl notes in a parenthetical comment in his concluding paragraph: “[The SPLC] did not respond to three inquiries for this article.” That is silence speaking.

One more example of the SPLC at work. The SPLC has gone to work on anti-radical Muslim activist Majiid Nawaz. The SPLC has labeled Nawaz an anti-Muslim extremist along with Frank Gaffney, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and others. Nawaz appeared on Bill Maher’s HBO show on Friday. Josh Feldman covered the interview for Mediaite. RCP has posted the video here. I’m embedding it below.

The New York Times Magazine profiled Nawaz in the article “Majiid Nawaz’s radical ambition.” The Atlantic took up the SPLC’s stigmatization of Nawaz in a column by David Graham. (I don’t appreciate Graham’s workout on the “Islamaphonia” shtick in the column, but it’s good on Nawaz.) Nawaz responded to the SPLC designation in this Daily Beast column.

Walters: California: 20% IN Poverty—Another 20% Near Poverty—Third World State

For a generation Democrats a Republicans (Arnold) pretending to a Republican have killed jobs, raised taxes, created expensive totalitarian regulations, wasted and limited water, deep sixed the pension plans and micro-managed education so that we are 46th in the nation.  All of this have their results—none of which is good.

“By the measure, just over 20 percent of Californians are living in poverty. The Public Policy Institute of California has devised its own measure, similar to the Census Bureau’s, that not only validates the 20 percent figure, but tells us that another 20 percent of Californians are in “near-poverty,” which means they struggle to pay for food, shelter and other necessities of life.

Another indicator of California’s impoverishment is that more than a third of its 39 million residents are enrolled in Medi-Cal, the state-federal program of medical care for the poor. And that doesn’t count a few million more who cannot legally obtain Medi-Cal coverage because they are undocumented immigrants.”

Policies have consequences.  Elections have consequences—thanks to Gray Davis, Arnold and Jerry, California is officially a Third World State—very rich, very poor, illegal aliens and the middle class fleeing ahead of the collapse.

jerry brown legis

Why does California have the nation’s highest poverty level?

By Dan Walters |CalMatters,  8/13/17

With all the recent hoopla about California’s record-low unemployment rate and the heady prospect of its becoming No. 5 in global economic rankings, it is easy to lose sight of another salient fact: It is the nation’s most poverty-stricken state.

So says the U.S. Census Bureau in its “supplemental measure” of poverty that is a far more accurate than the traditional measure because it takes into account not only income, but living costs.

By the measure, just over 20 percent of Californians are living in poverty. The Public Policy Institute of California has devised its own measure, similar to the Census Bureau’s, that not only validates the 20 percent figure, but tells us that another 20 percent of Californians are in “near-poverty,” which means they struggle to pay for food, shelter and other necessities of life.

Another indicator of California’s impoverishment is that more than a third of its 39 million residents are enrolled in Medi-Cal, the state-federal program of medical care for the poor. And that doesn’t count a few million more who cannot legally obtain Medi-Cal coverage because they are undocumented immigrants.

Finally, 60 percent of California’s 6 million K-12 students are either “English-learners” or come from poor families, thus qualifying their schools for additional state support aimed at improving their academic achievements.

Two new reports not only underscore California’s economic stratification, but point to its underlying factors.

One comes from the Tax Foundation and delves into the sharp differences in cost-of-living by comparing what $100 buys in each state.

It would have $115 in relative purchasing power in Mississippi, which has the nation’s lowest overall living costs, but just $84 in Hawaii, which has the highest. California, unfortunately, is much closer to Hawaii than to Mississippi at $88, the 47th highest.

Our soaring housing costs are one factor. It’s not unusual for a low-income family to pay more than 50 percent of its income for housing, if it can find it. California has very high automotive fuel prices and utility rates, which weigh heavily on the state’s poor, particularly the so-called “working poor” who don’t qualify for many public benefits.

The second new report comes from Wallet Hub, a personal economics website, which tapped a variety of data, such as high school graduation rates and college degree holders, to determine the education levels of the nation’s 150 largest metropolitan areas.

Ann Arbor, home of the University of Michigan, is No. 1 and university communities are generally bunched near the top, but the San Jose area, the seat of California’s high-tech industry, is No. 3 and the San Francisco-Oakland region is No. 8.

Other California metropolitan areas string out below, but the most startling revelation is that the bottom 10 – the nation’s least educated communities – include five from California, Salinas (144), Fresno (145), Modesto (146), Bakersfield (147) and Visalia-Porterville (148).

If one takes the Wallet Hub rankings for California and places them next to a chart of personal incomes in the state’s 58 counties, there is a strong correlation. The higher their education rankings, the higher their incomes, and vice versa.

Direct efforts to relieve poverty via raising minimum wages, providing an earned income tax credit and expanding other public benefits certainly have marginal effects. But the latest reports indicate that in the long run, holding down costs for housing and other living costs, making education more available and effective, and encouraging private investment in more and better jobs are vital if California is to escape the ignominy of having the nation’s highest level of poverty.

Chuck Schumer—Expensive Totalitarian/Crony Capitalist

We know that Senate Democrat Leader chuck Schumer has demanded that the 48 members of his Caucus vote NO on everything—even agreement on the time of day.  He has belittled the President, called for a coup and has decided he will stop the creation of jobs—the good news is that in 2018 ten Democrats, five in deep trouble for re-election have to defend harming the American public, causing them to lose health care, not get jobs and keeping taxes at record highs.

Now Schumer—who does not want you to have a tax cuts demands his friends and donors in the New York grape industry receive an $18 million subsidy from people in Nebraska he is keeping from tax cuts and jobs.  Can you spell corruption?

“Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D.-N.Y.) and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D.-N.Y.) announced yesterday that the federal government will spend up to $18,000,000 to buy Concord grape juice in an effort to increase the price that New York farmers can get for their grapes.

In a letter to Agricultural Secretary Sonny Perdue urging him to have the government buy the grape juice, Sen. Schumer noted that there are “more than 280 growers with over 9,700 acres” of Concord grape vineyards in New York State.”

What would the Feds do with all of those grapes—give them to the poor created by Democrat parties.

Photo courtesy Third Way, flickr

Photo courtesy Third Way, flickr

Chuck Schumer Says Feds Will Spend $18,000,000 to Buy Grape Juice to Subsidize Vineyard Owners

By CNSNews.com Staff, 8/18/18

(CNSNews.com) – Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D.-N.Y.) and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D.-N.Y.) announced yesterday that the federal government will spend up to $18,000,000 to buy Concord grape juice in an effort to increase the price that New York farmers can get for their grapes.

In a letter to Agricultural Secretary Sonny Perdue urging him to have the government buy the grape juice, Sen. Schumer noted that there are “more than 280 growers with over 9,700 acres” of Concord grape vineyards in New York State.

“I write to encourage the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Agriculture Marketing Service (AMS) to utilize its statutory authority under Section 32 of the Agriculture Act of 1935 to conduct a bonus buy purchase of Concord grape juice as soon as possible,” Schumer wrote Perdue. “This critical bonus buy would help ensure the continued success of Concord grape growers in New York and nationwide, while also helping to supplement the USDA’s supply for nutrition programs.

“As you may know, New York has more than 280 growers with over 9,700 acres of Concord vineyards across the state,” wrote Schumer. “Over the past few years, the Concord grape crops have been larger than average nationally, with this year’s crop being no exception.

“This year’s successful crop, in addition to a large carryover from last year, is of great concern to our small grower’s and the industry as a whole,” Schumer wrote. “Since previous AMS Concord grape bonus buys, like the $25 million buy in 2014, have been largely successful, I urge you to quickly approve this request. This bonus buy would not only help stabilize grower’s incomes, it also would help provide valuable nutrients to those most in need.”

The headline on a press release put out by Schumer and Gillibrand yesterday said: “Schumer, Gillibrand Announce U.S. Department of Agriculture Has Agreed to Purchase $18 Million in Surplus Concord Grape Juice to Stabilize Prices For Grape Growers in Upstate New York.”

“The USDA’s decision to purchase surplus Concord grapes is a major victory for New York growers and individuals across the state receiving nutrition assistance,” Schumer said in the release.  “More juice sales mean more profit for our growers in Western New York, Central New York and the Finger Lakes as well as increased access to healthier foods for those in need. Today’s announcement is good news for every grape-grower in New York.”

Gillibrand also pushed the $18 million subsidy as a “healthy” food program.

“This additional USDA funding will support our upstate New York grape growers and is a key step towards ensuring competitiveness while stabilizing prices for farmers,” Sen. Gillibrand said in the release. “Purchasing the surplus juice for our nutritional assistance programs across the state reaffirms our commitment to essential healthy affordable food programs for New Yorkers in need.”

(See Schumer’s press release and letter to Agriculture Secretary Perdue by clicking here.)

Unions STEAL Workers $$–Now Steal Privacy of Non-Bribe Payers

If you pay a bribe to a union in order to work, you get your paycheck handed to the union first—not by you, but by your employer.  95% of the bribe payers did not want this—but forced to pay if they wanted to work.  N ow the unions are passing a bill to force employers to give your home address—so unions goons can harass you and your kids—and you email address, so they can invade your privacy—without the RIGHT to unsubscribe to the extortion of the unions via the Internet.  Crime?  Unions should be the textbook definition of criminal enterprise—punished under the RICO act.  Why not?

Legislators are about to require that private-sector workers in the home-care industry provide a wide range of personal information—home address, email contact, cell-phone number—to any labor organization that wants it. Those unions would then be free, at their discretion, to pester these workers into joining the union.

The bill only affects one industry, but the precedent is clear. How long before an ever-expanding list of private workers in California are subject to union organizers showing up at their doorstep and contacting them on their private emails and cell phones? The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) has already been able to unionize home healthcare workers receiving government payments to care for a loved one. Clearly, SEIU is expanding its horizons.

Freedom?  Privacy?  Unions act like Fascists, steal, harass and abuse.  The Democrats in Sacramento approve of totalitarian legislation.

Unions2

California Looking to Give Unions Private Workers’ Phone Numbers, Addresses

Legislature aiming at a scary precedent.

Steven Greenhut, Reason, 7/7/17

 

Even those observers of California state government who are aware of the degree to which the Democratic-controlled legislature is in the tank for public-sector unions might be shocked by the latest bill that’s making its way to the governor’s office.

Legislators are about to require that private-sector workers in the home-care industry provide a wide range of personal information—home address, email contact, cell-phone number—to any labor organization that wants it. Those unions would then be free, at their discretion, to pester these workers into joining the union.

The bill only affects one industry, but the precedent is clear. How long before an ever-expanding list of private workers in California are subject to union organizers showing up at their doorstep and contacting them on their private emails and cell phones? The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) has already been able to unionize home healthcare workers receiving government payments to care for a loved one. Clearly, SEIU is expanding its horizons.

In fact, the bill apparently is such a priority to the Democratic leadership that Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de Leon (D-Los Angeles) recently stacked the Human Services Committee with three new Democratic members to assure its passage. It’s a highly unusual move to expand the size of a committee to assure passage of particular legislation.

Assembly Bill 1513 ostensibly is designed to improve the licensure and regulation of home-care organizations—companies that provide aides to the homes of sick, disabled or elderly people to help them with laundry, cooking, showers and other basic needs.

The state already requires aides to pass background checks, receive necessary training and register with the California Department of Social Services to help combat abuse. The aides must already provide their personal information to the state government. Clients can search an existing database to double-check the backgrounds of those who provide such work in their homes.

This new Home Care Services Consumer Protection Act claims to improve home health services by allowing “home care aides the opportunity to benefit from information, resources and more,” according to Assemblyman Ash Kalra (D-San Jose). But the real purpose is to let the bill’s sponsor, SEIU, gain personal information for organizing purposes.

There’s no need to speculate about the goal here. The previous version of the bill required employees to provide their personal information to the state, which would then provide the information “to a governmental or non-profit entity that provides training, educational classes, and other specified services” upon that entity’s request.

The newly amended bill requires “a copy of a registered home care aide’s name, mailing address, cellular telephone number, and email address on file with the department to be made available, upon request, to a labor organization.” The labor unions would be free to use the information for “employee organizing, representation and assistance activities.” That provides wide latitude with few restrictions.

The bill includes an “opt out” mechanism, but that doesn’t offer much protection. A home-care worker would need to go through the trouble of trying to keep personal information out of the union’s grasp. And we’ve seen the problems with such a system in the current union dues-paying system.

A 1977 U.S. Supreme Court ruling allows public employees to opt out of paying those portions of their dues that are used for direct political purposes. But employees who want to opt out often complain about the difficult and convoluted process of doing so. Obviously, unions—and the state government—have no reason to make such a process easy.

This bill is nothing more than a union-organizing ploy. Again, the state government already has all the requisite personal information of those who provide home-care services. The public can search that information using an employee number. We’re talking about private employees of private companies working for private people. This is different from the Medicaid-funded In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) system.

Legislators also have recently passed two bills, as I detailed for the California Policy Center, that provide public-sector unions with unfettered on-the-job access to teachers and other government workers in order to provide seminars about union membership. That legislation is a pre-emptive effort in case the U.S. Supreme Court, as some expect, strikes down mandatory union membership. A.B. 1513 is even more noxious because it gives unions a right to contact employees of private companies outside of the job site.

The bill also undermines a compromise that was hammered out between unions, legislators and Gov. Jerry Brown (D) in 2013. That’s when the legislature passed the previous version of the Home Care Services Consumer Protection Act to require the licensing and regulation of the private home-care industry. Unions had pushed for the inclusion of personal employee information back then, but concerns about privacy scuttled that idea.

Now they’re back for the same thing again and are likely to get the bill through because of De Leon’s committee-packing efforts. De Leon removed Sen. Josh Newman (D-Fullerton) and added Democratic Sens. Connie Leyva of Chino, Mike McGuire of Healdsburg and Anthony Portantino of La Cañada-Flintridge. Newman is facing a recall, so this takes him off of the hot seat on a controversial union vote in conservative-leaning Orange County.

Ironically, Democratic legislators often have tried to enhance the privacy of public employees with a variety of bills. Yet when it comes to private-sector employees, the Legislature is more than happy to let union organizers know exactly where they live—and even have access to their cell-phone numbers and email addresses.

“A.B. 1513 is clearly just a labor grab, and will do nothing more than boost unions’ membership rolls and bottom line at the expense of home care aides and the frail elderly and disabled individuals they serve,” said Trevor O’Neil, president of Colonial Home Care Services in Orange and co-chairman of the Home Care Association of America, California chapter. “Home care is an out-of-pocket expense, and any mandated increases to employee pay and benefits will result in higher prices for people who depend upon these services to remain in their homes.”

That’s for sure. But even worse—home-care workers could now be subject to unwanted visits from Nick the Union Organizer. And how long will it be before other unions follow this lead and coerce the legislature to hand over your personal information?

This column was first published by the California Policy Center.

 

CNN Caught Lying—AGAIN—About Antifa Violence—Pretends it Doesn’t

If I want fun news I turn to two sources—Saturday Night Live at about Midnight when they present the news.  Or I can watch CNN to find out the latest propaganda from the Left.  Unfortunately, once again they got caught lying about Leftist violence—and the Left being able to WRITE the CNN stories and headlines—who needs journalists at CNN when you have Soros sponsored Fascists?

“CNN, you almost did a great thing. In fact, the article you published about the violent Antifa movement was not bad. You showed how they view police as the enemy; how the group’s far left views on pretty much everything is way outside the mainstream, and how they’re lawless. Even those who are studying extremist groups in the country note that the violent course Antifa takes will ultimately kill the movement. Yet, it seems the news network caved to Antifa’s complaining over their original headline: “Unmasking the leftist Antifa movement: Activists seek peace through violence” to “unmasking the leftist Antifa movement.” The editor’s note reads, “This story has been updated to clarify that counterprotesters say they are not to blame for violence at the Charlottesville protest. The story’s headline has also been updated.”

What is the philosophy of Antifa?  This says it all, “For almost three decades, Scott Crow was part of the Antifa movement.

“I fought (against) Nazis. I’ve had death threats. I’ve had guns drawn on me. I’ve drawn guns on fascists. I’ve been in altercations. I’ve smoke-bombed places,” he said. “I’ve done a myriad of things to try and stop fascism and its flow over the years.”

Activists don black bloc, Crow said, as a means to an end.

“People put on the masks so that we can all become anonymous, right? And then, therefore, we are able to move more freely and do what we need to do, whether it is illegal or not,” he said.”

Antifa—the Nazi’s of the Left.

Cnn.svg

Seriously? CNN Changes Headline On Story About Antifa Because They Didn’t Like Being Called Violent

 

Matt Vespa, Townhall,  8/20/17

 

CNN, you almost did a great thing. In fact, the article you published about the violent Antifa movement was not bad. You showed how they view police as the enemy; how the group’s far left views on pretty much everything is way outside the mainstream, and how they’re lawless. Even those who are studying extremist groups in the country note that the violent course Antifa takes will ultimately kill the movement. Yet, it seems the news network caved to Antifa’s complaining over their original headline: “Unmasking the leftist Antifa movement: Activists seek peace through violence” to “unmasking the leftist Antifa movement.” The editor’s note reads, “This story has been updated to clarify that counterprotesters say they are not to blame for violence at the Charlottesville protest. The story’s headline has also been updated.”

What happened in Charlottesville was a disgrace. Both white nationalists and Antifa showed up, melees broke out, and one woman died when a white nationalist plowed through a group of counter demonstrators. I’m not saying Antifa isn’t violent. They are—and CNN did a good job noting this in their story. The problem is that it was a white nationalist who murdered someone. The narrative changes with this incident because, despite the clashes, one side decided to mow people down—and it wasn’t the far left. Then again, the CNN piece was not really focused on Charlottesville. It was about the movement in general [emphasis mine]:

Anti-fascists and the black bloc tactic originated in Nazi Germany and resurfaced in United Kingdom in the 1980s. Large numbers of Antifa activists first appeared in the United States at anti-World Trade Organization protests in 1999 in Seattle, and then more recently during the Occupy Wall Street movement.

But their profile has been rising.

Antifa demonstrators have marched in more than a half dozen protests since Election Day in Portland, Oregon, according to police.

Earlier this year, Antifa activists were among those who smashed windows and set fires during protests at the University of California, Berkeley, leading to the cancellation of far-right provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos and withdrawal of Ann Coulter as speakers.

For almost three decades, Scott Crow was part of the Antifa movement.

“I fought (against) Nazis. I’ve had death threats. I’ve had guns drawn on me. I’ve drawn guns on fascists. I’ve been in altercations. I’ve smoke-bombed places,” he said. “I’ve done a myriad of things to try and stop fascism and its flow over the years.”

Activists don black bloc, Crow said, as a means to an end.

“People put on the masks so that we can all become anonymous, right? And then, therefore, we are able to move more freely and do what we need to do, whether it is illegal or not,” he said.

And that means avoiding police, whom many Antifa members see as an enemy, as well as skirting the scrutiny Antifa activists often get from alt-right trolls on the Internet. Black bloc, one member told us, also unites the movement.

Antifa activists often don’t hesitate to destroy property, which many see as the incarnation of unfair wealth distribution.

“Violence against windows — there’s no such thing as violence against windows,” a masked Antifa member in Union Square told CNN. “Windows don’t have — they’re not persons. And even when they are persons, the people we fight back against, they are evil. They are the living embodiment, they are the second coming of Hitler.”

Crow explained the ideology this way: “Don’t confuse legality and morality. Laws are made of governments, not of men,” echoing the words of John Adams.

Each of us breaks the law every day. It’s just that we make the conscious choice to do that,” he said.

Antifa members also sometimes launch attacks against people who aren’t physically attacking them. The movement, Crow said, sees alt-right hate speech as violent, and for that, its activists have opted to meet violence with violence.

Right or wrong, “that’s for history to decide,” he said.

CNN interviewed Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino, who said such violence is going to kill Antifa.

“It’s [violence] killing the cause — it’s not hurting it, it’s killing it, and it will kill it,” he said, noting that such acts, like when Antifa members physically go after neo-Nazi members, gives them moral high ground. These are awful people. Then again, so are the Antifa members.

The moral of the story is that just because Antifa is fighting white nationalist and neo-Nazis, doesn’t make them the good guys. Neither side deserves to be defended as a beacon of political discourse or civic engagement. They’re both despicable—and that’s what CNN captured in this story that’s been diluted in the name of political correctness. You cannot talk about or condemn political extremism without slamming both Antifa and white nationalists. Does a white nationalist murdering someone in Charlottesville change how we should view these two groups? No. They’re both made up of violent thugs.  But in the case of Charlottesville, only one side decided to use a car to achieve a homicidal goal. That’s what’s different here, and why so many were not satisfied when Trump blamed both sides for the violence. There’s a difference between a scuffle on a march way and plowing through people with a car.

Yet, it doesn’t negate the fact that Antifa are still violent criminals, who shouldn’t be martyred or idolized as some anti-Nazi antidote to American political discourse.

Democrats Become Unhinged—Instead of Job Creation/Tax Cuts Prefer Exam of Trump

You would think the Democrats had an IQ of over room temperature.  Instead of working for tax cuts, job creation, fair trade, quality education, affordable housing and affordable health care—Pelosi and her buddies think a mental exam of the President is needed.  I agree, only after the Democrat have their own mental exam—why are they killing the Democrat Party by not promoting policy changes needed by Americans?

“Rep. Zoe Lofgren’s (D-Calif.) resolution specifically calls on Vice President Pence and Trump’s Cabinet members to “quickly secure the services of medical and psychiatric professionals” to “assist in their deliberations” invoking the 25th Amendment, which outlines presidential removal procedures.

It posits that such an examination by doctors would “determine whether the president suffers from mental disorder or other injury that impairs his abilities and prevents him from discharging his Constitutional duties.”

This proves what I have thought in the past—Democrats are not serious about governing—they prefer a totalitarian State where the State tells the people what to think, act and live.  No questions asked.  For the first time in a long time, we have a President that tells the truth—without regard to political correctness—this is driving the Democrats crazy, no one has told the truth about them and the media before.  Thank you President Trump for being a truth teller.

pelosi3

House Dem introduces measure urging Trump undergo mental exam

By Cristina Marcos, The Hill,  08/18/17

A House Democrat introduced a resolution on Friday suggesting that President Trump undergo a physical and mental health exam to help determine whether he is fit for office.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren’s (D-Calif.) resolution specifically calls on Vice President Pence and Trump’s Cabinet members to “quickly secure the services of medical and psychiatric professionals” to “assist in their deliberations” invoking the 25th Amendment, which outlines presidential removal procedures.

It posits that such an examination by doctors would “determine whether the president suffers from mental disorder or other injury that impairs his abilities and prevents him from discharging his Constitutional duties.”

Under the 25th Amendment, the vice president and a majority of Cabinet members can jointly declare that a president is unfit to serve. Two-thirds of both the House and Senate would have to vote to force the president’s resignation in the event the president refused to cede the Oval Office to the vice president.

Her resolution states: “President Donald J. Trump has exhibited an alarming pattern of behavior and speech causing concern that a mental disorder may have rendered him unfit and unable to fulfill his Constitutional duties.”

Lofgren’s office raised the following questions in a press release: “Does the President suffer from early stage dementia? Has the stress of office aggravated a mental illness crippling impulse control? Has emotional disorder so impaired the President that he is unable to discharge his duties? Is the President mentally and emotionally stable?”

Lofgren joins a relatively small group of Democrats in Congress who have openly questioned Trump’s mental health.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) introduced legislation in April that would enhance the 25th Amendment by empowering former presidents and vice presidents of both parties to determine if a president is fit for office.

Blumenauer said at the time that he was concerned the 25th Amendment in its current form would be insufficient if the president were mentally incapacitated and simply fired the entire Cabinet to prevent an ouster.

Democrats this week have been turning to every possible outlet to put pressure on Republicans in Congress to condemn Trump for his equivocating response to the violence stemming from a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Va., over the weekend.

Dozens of Democrats have signed on to a resolution authored by Reps. Jerry Nadler (N.Y.), Bonnie Watson Coleman (N.J.) and Pramila Jayapal (Wash.) to censure Trump for his handling of the Charlottesville violence and insistence that “both sides” were to blame. A woman died and more than a dozen were injured when a man with white supremacist ties plowed his car into a crowd of anti-racist protesters on Saturday.

One Democrat, Rep. Steve Cohen (Tenn.), even announced this week that he would introduce articles of impeachment over Trump’s response to Charlottesville.

Reps. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) and Al Green (D-Texas) had already introduced an article of impeachment last month alleging that Trump obstructed justice by firing James Comey as FBI director amid the investigation of whether the president’s campaign colluded with the Russian government to win the presidential election.

Southern California Economic FRAUD on Customers—“Free” Solar? Someone Pays

Southern California Edison is acting like a hack politician.  They are offering “FREE” Solar.  Seriously do they think 18 million people have an IQ below room temperature?  Free?  Is Southern California Edison, its workers and vendors going to provide solar for free?  Someone is going to pay.  In this case, Edison is going to charge EV ERY customer for you to receive free solar.  This is how government operates—takes from one, gives to another and then claims it is providing a free service—without telling of the theft from the first customer to pay for the freebie to the second customer.

“There is a new Solar Program available in Southern California and it’s got Southern California Edison(SCE) shaking in their boots. This new solar program qualifies SCE customers, who live in specific zip codes, to receive $1000’s in Government rebates and tax breaks. Homeowners are shocked to learn that subsidies and rebates cover 99% of costs associated with installation. With the option to put $0 down, you’ll start saving immediately.

Where does the government get the money to give you $1,000’s in rebate—by taxing people in the first place?  That forces me to pay for your rebate.  As I have said before government is mismanaged, incompetent and/or corrupt.  In this case all three.

Remember TANSTAAFL.

Solar panels

Southern California Edison Customers Can Now Go Solar at No Cost

By,Atlas Novack, Santa Monica Mirror, 8/21/17

There is a new Solar Program available in Southern California and it’s got Southern California Edison(SCE) shaking in their boots. This new solar program qualifies SCE customers, who live in specific zip codes, to receive $1000’s in Government rebates and tax breaks. Homeowners are shocked to learn that subsidies and rebates cover 99% of costs associated with installation. With the option to put $0 down, you’ll start saving immediately.

So, how does this program work? This new program let’s qualifying homeowners lease or purchase solar panels for $0 downRebates and incentives from the state of Ontario cover most, if not all, of the upfront costs. Before this policy, solar panels cost $10’s of thousands of dollars to purchase and install. If you couldn’t afford to pay the entire cost up front, you were forced into a high interest rate loan. But now, Homeowners have little to no out of pocket expense and can virtually erase their electric bill right away. There has never been a better or less expensive time to go solar.

 

Su-prize, su-prize: California is not where you want to retire

We all know how expensive it is to live in California thanks to high taxes, bad regulations and a government dedicated to kicking out the middle class.  Now we find this is not a good place in which to retire.  In fact only Hawaii is a worse State—we are 49th out of 50.  We are 46th worst in education, have the worst roads, the highest taxes and cost of housing.

Top 5 States Where Your Dollar Will Last the Shortest

  1. Hawaii

$1 million will last: 11 years, 11 months

  1. California

$1 million will last: 16 years, 5 months

  1. Alaska

$1 million will last: 17 years, 0 months

In California if you retire at 65, you are broke at 81—think you can get a job at Wal Mart?

california-debt

Su-prize, su-prize: California is not where you want to retire

Central Valley Business Times,  8/21/17

 

  • State will burn up retirement money faster than any place but Hawaii
  • But retire in Mississippi? Really?

Mississippi is the state where the retiree’s dollar will last the longest amount of time in retirement, while Hawaii is the state where your dollar will last the shortest, with California right behind the island state, a new study says.

It’s a common refrain that retirees should save at least $1 million for retirement, but how much does where they live affect their saving needs? Personal finance website GOBankingRates.com looked into that and came up with a list.

It added the average total annual expenses for people 65 and older (adding up groceries, housing, utilities, transportation and healthcare costs), then determined the state-specific yearly cost by multiplying total expenses by each state’s cost of living index.

The average American retirement age is 63, and the life expectancy for retirees is about 85, the report says. That means Americans should plan to spend 22 years in retirement. According to the math done by GoBankingRates, retires can squeeze an extra decade out of that million dollars they so ant-like socked away if they’d just live their golden years in Mississippi instead of the Golden State.

“Do I have enough to retire?” asks GoBankRates.

“If you have $1 million and you’re asking this question in California, the answer is no,” it says.

Top 5 States Where Your Dollar Will Last the Shortest

  1. Hawaii

$1 million will last: 11 years, 11 months

  1. California

$1 million will last: 16 years, 5 months

  1. Alaska

$1 million will last: 17 years, 0 months