HEARD ON THE TOM/TOMS

HEARD ON THE TOM/TOMS/

Stephen Frank, California Political News and Views, 9/11/19 

“A people that wants to remain ignorant and free … wants what never has been and never will be” ~ Thomas Jefferson.”

CONTENTS

  1.  Abuse of process at California Republican Party Convention
  2. Weber runs for Congress not Lt. Gov.
  3. Dossett out of 10th CD race
  4. Omar Navarro arrested?
  5. Harkey upset Issa running for Congress
  6. NCAA to DISQUALIFY  all California college teams from Bowl games—thanks to legislature.
  1. Unbeknownst to the delegates to the California Republican Party convention, a resolution was submitted—in a timely fashion—to ask for the Repeal of Prop. 14—the Top Two.  The Party did NOT notify the delegates by putting it on the website.  The Chair of the Committee did not allow it to be heard or debated.  The Chair claimed while running for office that she was NOW opposed to Prop. 14—after spending years collecting proxies on behalf of Charles Munger to keep Republicans from voting for Republican nominees (exclusively).  By burying the resolution she assured the Party unable to debate and vote to end the destruction of Prop. 14.  In 2018 there were 41 legislative seats, out of 153, without a Republican on the November ballot—that is the policy the Party wants to continue.  You might ask the BOARD to take this up and put them on record—do you want Republicans deciding who is the Republican nominee or that a Republican can be on the November ballot—or do you OPPOSE the Republican Party acting for the almost 5,000,000 registered Republicans in the State?

This is at the same time the Resolution Committee Chair declared out of order a resolution to allow ONLY Republicans to vote for a Republican candidate for President.  It took an uprising to reverse that.  The point here is simple.  Leadership is making itself clear that it is working hard to open the Party to Decline to State Voters.  Could that be why they invited the Bernie Sanders wannabee—the pro-choice, pro-open borders, pro-government OWNING utilities, Republican Mayor of San Diego, Kevin Faulconer—who will run for Governor in 2022 as either a Republican or an NPP?

  • Errol Webber has been a candidate for Lt. Governor in 2022.  Now he has decided to run, instead for Congress against the openly Socialist Democrat Karen Bass in the heart of Los Angeles.
  • In the 10th Congressional District Charles Dossett has dropped out and endorsed Bill Elliot.  This is the old Denham seat.
  • Has Omar Navarro been arrested yet?  Yesterday I received a press release showing that an arrest warrant (allegededly) has been issued against Omar Navarro, the former and future candidate against Cong. Maxine Waters.  The charges?  He allegedly violated a restraining order five times.  The person who got the order is Deanna Lorraine, a “Love Consultant” from Redondo Beach—she is running for Congress against San Fran Nan—Pelosi.  The district is over 400 miles from her home!!  This is getting crazier by the moment.  I have reached out to Omar Navarro for a comment—but no response as of this posting.)
  • From Politico—Harkey had already endorsed another candidate for this congressional seat, “‘WRONG’ GUY? “Issa blasted by former GOP ally as he considers new congressional bid,” by POLITICO’s Jeremy B. White: “‘Issa: The wrong candidate for all the “Right” reasons,’ reads a missive from Diane Harkey obtained by POLITICO. Last cycle, she suffered one of the most lopsided defeats among the seven seats Democrats flipped in California.”
  • The NCAA has already announces that is the bill is passed allowing college students to get paid to play athletics, the colleges will NOT be allowed to play in post-season games—like the Rose Bowl, the Cotton Bowl or another Bowl, “FINAL PLAY? “NCAA sends California governor letter calling name, likeness bill ‘unconstitutional,’ ” by USA Today’s Christopher Bumbaca and Steve Berkowitz: “Reference to the bill’s legality signals the NCAA’s potential willingness to sue California under the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution  No more USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal or Fresno State to be seen on the BIG GAME DAYS.
  •  (Periodically the California Political News and Views will publish tidbits of political news, to keep you in the loop of what the pooh bahs know.  The phrase “tom/tom’s” comes from my mentor, Lorelei Kinder who never passed a rumor, just called to tell me what she heard on the “Tom/Tom’s”.  This column is named in her honor.)

New Nonprofit Group Warns, “Don’t Californicate America”

In Texas one of the largest selling bumper stickers says, “Don’t Californicate Texas.”  Now this message is going national.  California the State with the highest poverty rate, the highest tax rate, the highest cost of living—and the legislature just voted to KILL hundreds of thousands of part time jobs adding to the unemployment rate a poverty (AB 5—ending the gig economy in California).

“”The ideas coming out of California range from the plainly dumb, to the mind-boggling to the deadly dangerous,” Schubert said. “Only in California would political leaders propose medical marijuana for pets, and suggest people pay for a state permit to eat roadkill. Unfortunately, the failed ideas from California don’t stop with the plainly dumb. They include mind-boggling ideas such as providing free health care for illegals but not for citizens, and distributing hundreds of thousands of plastic syringes to drug users every month in Gavin Newsom’s San Francisco while banning the use of plastic straws. Even worse, California has enacted deadly dangerous policies, such as letting violent criminals out of jail and ensuring that brazen teen-age killers are released into communities no later than age 23.”

The Politburo running California from Sacramento (Newsom pretend he is Putin) has decided that creating a depression is the goal of government.  Why?  They want everyone dependent on government.  Freedom?  That has to be taken out of the textbooks, why confuse young people with a theory  not allowed in reality.

New Nonprofit Group Warns, “Don’t Californicate America”

Frank Shubert, Reject the Resistance,  9/9/19 

Sacramento, CA – As the country prepares for critical elections next year, a new nonprofit group has formed to warn Americans not to follow the lead of California’s political leadership, urging voters across the country, “Don’t Californicate America.”

“California’s political leadership fancies itself as leading the resistance to all things conservative, and all things Trump,” said Frank Schubert, founder of Reject The Resistance, the recently formed nonprofit group. Schubert has twice been named America’s top public affairs consultant.  “While the politics of the resistance might generate supportive headlines, the policies that are advanced in California would be a disaster for the country. We urge voters to take a look at the ideas advanced by California’s leadership and see the mess they have made of the state.”

Reject The Resistance has launched a television ad that it plans to air in key states, and has unveiled a website setting forth some of the policies that it says would be pursued if voters reject a conservative approach to government. The advertisement highlights many of California’s problems including homelessness, filthy cities with streets soiled by urine and feces, sanctuary cities, crime, and out of control government spending and debt.

“The ideas coming out of California range from the plainly dumb, to the mind-boggling to the deadly dangerous,” Schubert said. “Only in California would political leaders propose medical marijuana for pets, and suggest people pay for a state permit to eat roadkill. Unfortunately, the failed ideas from California don’t stop with the plainly dumb. They include mind-boggling ideas such as providing free health care for illegals but not for citizens, and distributing hundreds of thousands of plastic syringes to drug users every month in Gavin Newsom’s San Francisco while banning the use of plastic straws. Even worse, California has enacted deadly dangerous policies, such as letting violent criminals out of jail and ensuring that brazen teen-age killers are released into communities no later than age 23.”

Reject The Resistance contends that virtually every major idea being advanced by Democrat candidates for president have their origin in the policies of California. “From Medicare for All, to the Green New Deal, to Sanctuary Cities and open borders, all of these ideas have their genesis in California,” Schubert said. “If you want to know what will happen to America should voters reject a conservative approach to government and elect any of the leading Democrat candidates, just look at the mess that California is in as a result of the terrible policies that have been advanced by the state’s political leadership, all Democrats. We urge citizens across the country to reject the resistance and don’t Californicate America.”

McNamee: Unmarried with Children – When It Pays Not To Marry

President Johnson welfare “reform” killed American families.  The hardest hit was the black community.  Remember, Johnson was an open racist, loved the “N” word and made it clear he did not think blacks were human.  His policies destroyed the black family in America—and the crime, drug use, unemployment and dependence on government came from his the racism of the Democrat Party.  Racism is the only explanation for the Democrats hatred of people of color.

“I listened to a contractor tell me how he asks one of his long-time, “green card” employees from Mexico when he will become a US citizen. The employee says, “Why should he? It is better for him to not become a US citizen.” Again, I did not understand but listened.

The contractor said the employee and “wife” are unmarried and have four children. Three children are attending California State University Northridge. While attending college, each child receives a state living subsidy ($3,000 annually) and pay no tuition, fees, etc. ($9,000 annually).[1] For the three children attending college, his savings for being unmarried with three children from Mexico attending a California State University,  $36,000 annually or $144,000 after four years.

Productive people are being abused by government and the greedy.  They get benefits and you work hard for THEM, not yourself.  When will the productive people revolt?  Maybe we need a new leader—like an Ayn Rand?

Unmarried with Children – When It Pays Not To Marry

Dr. Kevin McNamee, Exclusive to the California Political News and Views,  9/13/19

It finally became clear how couples are gaming the welfare system to enrich themselves at American tax payer expense while destroying the institution that lead to our national success.

I was confused when a woman tells me that her daughter is not marrying the father of their child but they are living together. The woman is delighted at the prospect of being a  grandmother but is  not sure why they do not want to marry. Her daughter said, “It is better not to be married.” I did not understand but listened.

I listened to a contractor tell me how he asks one of his long-time, “green card” employees from Mexico when he will become a US citizen. The employee says, “Why should he? It is better for him to not become a US citizen.” Again, I did not understand but listened.

The contractor said the employee and “wife” are unmarried and have four children. Three children are attending California State University Northridge. While attending college, each child receives a state living subsidy ($3,000 annually) and pay no tuition, fees, etc. ($9,000 annually).[2] For the three children attending college, his savings for being unmarried with three children from Mexico attending a California State University,  $36,000 annually or $144,000 after four years.

I was told of a man and woman living in Palmdale, California who are not married but live in the same house raising their children. She is a school teacher. He is employed as an electrician. They say, “It is better not to be married.” Again, I did not understand but listened.

Because the welfare system does not know the two live together, she qualifies for federal housing and food assistance. If they married, the welfare assistance would stop so they continue to live together in the same home, raising their children, functioning like a family but remain unmarried.  By all outward appearances, they function as husband and wife raising a family.

Contrast these unmarried, family-living arrangements, to the story of a traditional life journey.

Another woman tells me that she and her husband have been married for four years and have a three year old child. She tells of how they have been living with her husband’s parents so they can save for a down payment to buy a house and make it their home.

After four years living with the in-laws, they decided to move out, rent a house and begin an independent life together. She described her frustration that she is paid well at her job and her husband’s company is finally making a profit and growing with the economy but between the two incomes making “good money” there is nothing left for a down payment after paying rent, taxes and expenses.

She then tells of two friends who have a child of the same age, but both women are not married to their respective “fathers of the children.”  Both couples decided not to marry but live together while raising their respective child. Because the women are unmarried, they receive federal housing, food and healthcare assistance. If the women were married, those federal welfare subsidies would be stopped.

The woman and her husband, starting their life married and raising a family, are doing it the traditional way. She was angry that being married is penalizing them while her friends are rewarded by not marring. Her friends receive federal tax payer welfare subsidies and gaming the system to their financial benefit. She said “And I am a millennial, but this is not fair.”  I said to her, “You sound like a Republican.”

I listened and began to understand.

Today’s youth have figured out that it is financially better to live together unmarried, in the same house, raising the family, receiving federal assistance,  instead of being married which stops federal welfare benefits.

There are benefits to being unmarried besides the federal welfare benefits.

Today, there is less social stigma for an unmarried woman raising children.

It is easier for the unmarried man to step away from the “family” and abandon his children and the woman who birthed them.

Being unmarried removes the arduous and financially painful journey of divorce court. Unmarried, the man simply step away and is not obligated to pay child support and alimony. Unmarried woman’s benefit is the child support and alimony payments are shifted to a more financially lucrative, secure and reliable income source, welfare subsidies paid by tax payers.

Everyone wins with the unmarried approach to “family” except the tax payer who pays the cost of the bastardization of welfare’s intent which is enriching the unmarried couple. 

Being unmarried was a non-traditional approach to raising a family but has become the norm. The traditional approach of marriage is now arbitrary and capricious. 

The fabric that weaves historically through America society that has been so important to our national success is marriage and the family. However, this is changing with the invisible hand of government welfare policies and programs that encourage more couples to remain unmarried while raising children.

I listened and began to understand why couples are not marring. Government rewards it.

References:


[1]. https://www.csun.edu/financialaid/2019-2020-fall-and-spring-cost-attendance

[2]. https://www.csun.edu/financialaid/2019-2020-fall-and-spring-cost-attendance

Save California, Ban Environmentalists

Want to grow the economy?  Want to grow jobs and have a stable community? Think plastic straws are nice for the kids and the elderly, that grocery bags have lots of uses?  Want to spend $35,000 or more on solar panels—even if you don’t want them or that they cost more than they save?

There is only one answer to this—ban environmentalists, before they ban your life.  Yes, I am serious.  If you believe Bernie Sanders, climate change is due to “too many people”.  So he wants government to eradicate people!  Plastic straws are just the start.  AOC wants to get rid of cars and planes—guess she can bike to D.C. or her neighborhood bar.

“California had a great ban streak going. It had already banned plastic bags, straws and dog breeders. Assemblyman Ting, who had only been known for wearing bow ties, had declared war on receipts.

And Ting had his aide wear a giant receipt to show how bad receipts were for the environment. And how better to crusade for the environment than by printing up a receipt 100,000 times normal size?

No paper receipts—forcing small businesses to spend thousands on new machines to meet government mandates.  Another tax on the people of California.  No wonder we have the HIGHEST poverty rate in the nation—18.2%.  The national average is 11.8%

Save California, Ban Environmentalists

Hold the straws, legalize the rats.

Daniel Greenfield, Frontpage,  9/9/19 

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

The 6-foot-tall man dressed as a giant receipt stood on a stool next to the emblem of the State Capitol in Sacramento. He was there because Assemblyman Phil Ting of San Fran wanted to ban receipts.

California had a great ban streak going. It had already banned plastic bags, straws and dog breeders. Assemblyman Ting, who had only been known for wearing bow ties, had declared war on receipts.

And Ting had his aide wear a giant receipt to show how bad receipts were for the environment. And how better to crusade for the environment than by printing up a receipt 100,000 times normal size?

According to Ting’s people, receipts not only wasted trees and water, but were actually toxic. The San Francisco Democrat explained that receipts were coated in chemicals that weren’t allowed in baby bottles. It’s probably a good thing then that receipts don’t go inside baby bottles. Or inside babies.

There was even a hashtag, #SkiptheSlip.

In an extraordinary setback for stupid bans, Ting’s receipt ban bill never made it to the floor. But Ting tweeted that he was “glad to have raised awareness about the health & environmental harm receipts can cause. Change often takes time.” Next time around, the receipt bill ban will succeed.

Perhaps Ting ought to consider raising awareness about the 16,000 complaints of filth and waste in his own city. The human waste spread by his constituents is a lot more toxic than paper receipts.

The same Democrats who shrug at a hepatitis outbreak gasp at the toxicity of store receipts.

But Ting didn’t put all his bans in one basket. That same month, he also called for a ban on facial recognition body cameras for police. The fact that no police forces in California use facial recognition body cameras didn’t stop Ting and his partners at the ACLU from trying to ban them anyway.

Meanwhile, yet another bill set out to ban plastic shampoo bottles in hotel rooms. There would be inspections and a $2,000 fine for giving “a small plastic bottle containing a personal care product.”

“Small plastic bottles that are less than 12-ounces represent a sizeable amount of waste,” Assemblyman Ash Kalra of San Jose declared. The irony was lost on him. Irony will probably be banned next year.

California Democrats allowed drug addicts and the insane to turn the state’s major cities into toilets leading to outbreaks of hepatitis and typhus. They still haven’t banned public defecation.

But a ban on plastic bottles is their priority.

Assemblyman Karla might have paid more attention to the shigella outbreak in San Jose. Shigella outbreaks are spread through human waste. Not through shampoo bottles. The shigella outbreak in San Jose infected 182 people. The only thing that can worsen disease outbreaks spread by human waste is banning single-use plastic in restaurants and fast food places. So that’s what the Democrats are doing.

But banning individual plastic things, like bags, straws and little bottles, isn’t a radical enough solution.

“Rather than continue to tinker around the edges with one-off bans of individual plastic items, we need a thoughtful, comprehensive solution,” Senator Ben Allen warned. The solution thoughtfully declares that all single-use plastic is pollution and must be banned or everyone will die of plastic poisoning.

Nobody in Santa Monica, Allen’s home turf, has actually died of plastic poisoning. Instead, its homeless population is dying of drugs and alcohol, meth, PCP, and a beating with a bolt cutter by Ramon Escobar.

Escobar is an illegal alien who had been deported 6 times and fled to California from Texas. In the sanctuary state, the illegal alien criminal found a fresh hunting ground stocked with vulnerable victims.

Single-use plastics don’t kill. Filling your cities with the mentally ill and illegal aliens does. The thoughtful solution would be to criminalize crime, instead of decriminalizing it, while criminalizing everything else.

August’s bans were the latest outflow of a torrent of insane bans and bills flooding Sacramento. In July, there was CROWN or Creating a Respectful and Open Workplace for Natural hair which bans workplaces from asking employees to come to work groomed. Asking nurses or cooks not to wear dreadlocks is now illegal in California which will do wonders for the health and hygiene of hospitals and restaurants.

Meanwhile a bill to ban flavored tobacco products ran into interference from the Hookah Lobby. The Hookah Lobby, a previously unknown force in the Sacramento mental institution where all of the state’s legislative sessions take place, managed to scuttle a ban on cherry and apple vaping products.

But a ban on rat poison succeeded. That’s unfortunate because typhus, a disease making a comeback in Los Angeles, is spread by rats. The outbreak began when California Democrats decided that crazy people had a right to live on the street. The filthy conditions helped spread typhus with rats as the carriers.

After making it impossible to stop the homeless camps, Democrats made it impossible to stop the rats.

Democrats cried racism when President Trump pointed out Baltimore’s rat problem. Now they’ve gone to great lengths to protect the homeless-flea-rat typhus pipeline. Good thing the straws are banned.

San Francisco has a huge rat problem.

“We get complaints for rats all over the city,” Nader Shatara, a top Department of Public Health guy, said. “Rats are part of the fauna in the city.”

The ban on some rodenticides will ensure that rats remains a part of the fauna of all of California.

The most effective rat poisons were banned because they also kill the mountain lions who eat the rats. Better to have a typhus outbreak in Los Angeles than to kill a few lions in the Santa Monica mountains.

While California is drowning in filth and disease, its Democrat elites are focused on the environment.

They caused a drought for the environment. They let fires happen for the environment. Now they’re going to cause a rat infestation and typhus epidemic for the environment. It’s the environmentalist way.

And, if you’re an environmentalist, people dying of preventable diseases is good for the environment,

California’s statewide bans include the usual effort to ban circuses, fur, sodas, makeup and bots. Locally, the San Francisco airport, which offers dedicated yoga rooms, banned bottled water. Some California cities are banning natural gas in new buildings. California’s civil war with socially conservative states, where travel by Cali government employees is banned, continues to escalate. The latest boycott strategy is to give tax breaks to movie productions that leave pro-life states for pro-abortion California.

The Share Our Values tax credit bill will offer tax credits on up to $100 million for movies and miniseries that leave a state that restricts “across to abortion”. What shared values does the state of bans have?

Killing babies is the only thing that can’t be banned in California.

It’s Official: The Democrats Just Want You Dead

Democrats are not upset that the murderer of Kate Steinle has been allowed to leave prison due to the Judge deciding (this is NOT a joke) that the illegal alien did not have the gun long enough to be a murderer.  The Politburo in Sacramento wants to kill babies even after they are born.  They are upset in San Fran with the NRA—but give money to the genocidal Planned Parenthood which kills over 300,00 people each year.

“No, “white supremacists” are not the greatest threat to your safety, despite what Don Lemon and his cohorts in the Fake News Industrial Complex say. In fact, of 250 shootings in America wherein four or more people were shot (which is the official definition of a “mass” shooting), not one of the perpetrators was a conservative, let alone a “white nationalist.” But that hasn’t stopped the Democrats.

It has been more than two months since the gay Asian journalist Andy Ngo was brutally attacked by Antifa a block from the police headquarters in Portland, Oregon. In the nine weeks since, not one of his left-wing attackers has been charged, despite the multiple witnesses and clear video footage. It seems that if you call yourself an anti-fascist, you can act with impunity and use violence for optical ends in cities controlled by the Democratic Party.”

Democrats need to be glad they are not victims of their own policies—support of criminals from foreign countries, Planned Parenthood or promotion of the use of drugs—or assisted suicide..

It’s Official: The Democrats Just Want You Dead

The Democrats have their own violent, armed wing. It’s no longer the Klan with their white hoods. It’s Antifa and their black masks.

Sebastian Gorka, American Greatness,   9/8/19

Americans are normalizing violence in their politics, but not in the way the media and the “experts” would have you believe.

No, “white supremacists” are not the greatest threat to your safety, despite what Don Lemon and his cohorts in the Fake News Industrial Complex say. In fact, of 250 shootings in America wherein four or more people were shot (which is the official definition of a “mass” shooting), not one of the perpetrators was a conservative, let alone a “white nationalist.” But that hasn’t stopped the Democrats.

It has been more than two months since the gay Asian journalist Andy Ngo was brutally attacked by Antifa a block from the police headquarters in Portland, Oregon. In the nine weeks since, not one of his left-wing attackers has been charged, despite the multiple witnesses and clear video footage. It seems that if you call yourself an anti-fascist, you can act with impunity and use violence for optical ends in cities controlled by the Democratic Party.

But this isn’t about one-off events. This is not about at-risk journalists. If you believe in our Constitution, this is about you.

Democrats last week officially proclaimed that 5 million Americans are domestic terrorists and demanded in an official resolution that the federal government handle them accordingly, as a threat to the nation’s national security. If you are a member of the NRA, that includes you.

On Tuesday, in a unanimous vote, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a resolution labeling the NRA and all those who support the Second Amendment not-for-profit terrorists. And, of course, there are no Republicans on the board.

Why would leading Democrats such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez lobby for the dissolution of those armed organizations that protect our borders, while other Democrats who are running for president openly call for the government to disarm American citizens?

While the NRA has never condoned terrorism, and not one of its members has ever committed a terrorist attack, the Democrats by the Bay are comfortable with dehumanizing millions of Americans and using political language that, in effect, draws a target on the backs of innocent Americans by designating them all “domestic terrorists.”

Since 63 million Americans elected political outsider Donald J. Trump President, the leftists in Antifa have made “Punch a Fascist” their battle cry. If, like the Democrats, you believe unprepossessing gay Vietnamese journalists need to be punched, what would you do if you believed there are millions of actual terrorists living in America?

Remember, James Hodgkinson, the Bernie Sanders campaign volunteer who decided that campaigning wasn’t enough. So he took a rifle and a handgun to a baseball diamond in Virginia with a kill-list of leading Republican congressmen, and almost killed one of them, Steve Scalise, before he was killed by two brave Capitol police officers. How many James Hodgkinsons are there still out there who have now been given a target-set of millions of their fellow Americans thanks to official decisions by leaders in the Democratic Party.

Before I joined the Trump White House, I spent two decades studying and then teaching irregular warfare and counterterrorism to our military and federal law enforcement agents. In the various case studies we used, we saw a pattern. In the developed Western world, under the Westphalian model of the national state wherein the government maintains a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, those groups who wished to destabilize the status quo and subvert the political system came up with a Janus-like strategy, a political pincer movement to get their diabolical way.

Realizing their terrorist group was small and could never defeat the government in a head-to-head fight, groups like the UK’s Provisional IRA, or ETA (the Basque separatists of Spain) would work hand-in-glove with “legitimate” political parties that could exploit the inherent weakness of non-authoritarian democratic systems from the inside, while pretending to denounce the bombings and assassinations of their terrorist comrades. For the IRA, that political front was Sinn Fein; for ETA, it was Herri Batasuna.

This was a cunning and devious model, which could be very effective. The IRA eventually succeeded in getting a seat at the negotiating table to parley with the British government—a fateful decision that eventually led to the Good Friday Agreement of 1999, which for all intents and purposes was state capitulation. Now the Democrats have found their armed wing, and are using their official proclamations to encourage further violence.

We should not be surprised at this turn of events; remember, it has happened before. America’s worst domestic terrorist organization, the Ku Klux Klan, was founded after the Civil War by Democrats, and acted as the party’s armed wing for nigh on a century.

Forget the lies and propaganda of today’s DNC, the KKK always was a creature of the Democratic Party, achieving what the Democrats couldn’t in state capitols and in the federal government through the murder and intimidation of lynchings and cross burnings.

The undemocratic, totalitarian tendencies of the Left run deep and run strong, and today they even have minority voices like Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) spout the most viciously racist statements. Ask yourself, why would leading Democratic Party voices such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) lobby openly for the dissolution of those armed organizations that protect our borders and keep us safe, at the same time that other Democrats who are running for president openly call for the government to disarm American citizens?

The Left already has it’s violent armed wing. It’s no longer the Klan with their white hoods. It’s Antifa and their black masks. And if the Democrats win in 2020, they will move forward with disarming those who disagree with them politically, starting with 5 million Americans who believe in the Second Amendment and who are, therefore, “terrorists.”

When you think about how important the next election is, think about it in those terms. As Donald Trump, Jr. said on the night of the launch of his father’s re-election campaign, you have a straightforward choice in 2020. Socialism or liberty. It’s that simple.

Sebastian Gorka

Sebastian Gorka, Ph.D., is former deputy assistant and strategist to President Donald Trump, host of the nationally syndicated “America First” radio show, and author of…

What San Fran’s Declaration Of The NRA As A Terrorist Group Says About America Today

The Politburo running San Fran—they call themselves by the innocuous name “Board of Supervisors”—believe the NRA is a terrorist organization because it supports the Second Amendment—yet say nothing about San Fran resident Dianne Feinstein carrying a gun for self protection, or their support of Planned Parenthood, killing over 300,000 people a year in a genocidal fit.

“In declaring the NRA a “domestic terrorist group,” San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors have shed further light on where extreme politics have taken the country. Rather than engaging in a productive dialogue on gun violence, San Francisco’s city leaders have instead declared their political opponents are something worse than enemies: “domestic terrorists.” This is a gross mischaracterization of an organization of more than five million people and illustrates a growing culture of contempt destroying American civility.

“Terrorism” is defined as “the systemic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective.” In order to be a terrorist organization, then, the NRA would need to be encouraging violent attacks on U.S. citizens with the purpose of harnessing fear to promote its mission. Certainly, the NRA is no terrorist group.

Note they are upset with the NRA—but look the other way when Antifa riots, bullies and closes down campuses and streets.  The Politburo in San Fran is NO different than the Politburo in Moscow.

What San Francisco’s Declaration Of The NRA As A Terrorist Group Says About America Today

By Tristan Justice, The Federalist,  9/9/19

On Tuesday, San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors unanimously declared the National Rifle Association to be a “domestic terrorist organization” and urged the city to re-evaluate its financial commitments to organizations that conduct business with the interest group.

City leaders labeled the gun rights group that represents nearly five million members a “terrorist” group in response to several mass shootings that took place this summer, including one that took place at a food festival in Gilroy, California killing three people just south of San Francisco.

“The National Rifle Association musters its considerable wealth and organizational strength to promote gun ownership and incite gun owners to acts of violence,” the supervisors declared in the resolution. “The National Rifle Association spreads propaganda that misinforms and aims to deceive the public about the dangers of gun violence, and…through its advocacy has armed those individuals who would and have committed acts of terrorism.”

The board of supervisors continued in the resolution to recommend that the city assess its financial relationships with companies that work with the NRA, and urged other cities, states, and the federal government to do the same.

The NRA has been vilified by Democratic politicians and elites in the wake of nearly every mass shooting as wrongly responsible for killing sprees by crazy people. But San Francisco’s declaration of the gun-advocacy group as a “domestic terrorist” organization has taken this vilification to new heights.

In declaring the NRA a “domestic terrorist group,” San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors have shed further light on where extreme politics have taken the country. Rather than engaging in a productive dialogue on gun violence, San Francisco’s city leaders have instead declared their political opponents are something worse than enemies: “domestic terrorists.” This is a gross mischaracterization of an organization of more than five million people and illustrates a growing culture of contempt destroying American civility.

“Terrorism” is defined as “the systemic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective.” In order to be a terrorist organization, then, the NRA would need to be encouraging violent attacks on U.S. citizens with the purpose of harnessing fear to promote its mission. Certainly, the NRA is no terrorist group.

While San Francisco leaders label the law-abiding citizens of the NRA as terrorists, will they do the same with Antifa? Antifa certainly fits the criteria of a domestic terrorist group, launching violent attacks on its opponents and journalists to harness fear against President Donald Trump and pursue a far-left political agenda.

Here’s a video of Antifa attacking conservative journalist Andy Ngo at a protest in Portland, Oregon:

Ngo was more than a little “roughed up.” Ngo suffered a traumatic brain injury from the assault.

Here is another video of Antifa violently attacking opponents:

Is Antifa not worth condemnation as a terrorist group?

San Francisco’s demonization of the NRA showcases the cancer that is contempt in American politics, where even leaders are seemingly incapable of engaging in civil dialogue and instead use extreme labels to characterize their opponents.

Tristan Justice is a staff writer at The Federalist focusing on the 2020 presidential campaigns. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com.

Wildly inflated health costs are costing California taxpayers $3.3 billion annually

Government does not have to pinch pennies—it has your checkbook and pay stub.  Sacramento and the counties only have to abuse the taxpayer by using money meant for education or roads for salaries and benefits instead.   How bad is it?

“Spending 52 percent more than the market average for public employees’ medical insurance is costing California taxpayers at least $3.3 billion annually, according to a Transparent California analysis of 672,000 payroll records from more than 1,500 individual government agencies statewide.

While you need to eat burgers and hot dogs—government gets the filet and lobster.  Why pinch pennies, when you can spend what you want on yourself?   The next time a tax increase or bond is on the ballot, remember the abuse given you by government.  Squeeze government spending, not the needs of your family.

Money
Wildly inflated health costs are costing California taxpayers $3.3 billion annually
Transparent California,  9/9/19 
Spending 52 percent more than the market average for public employees’ medical insurance is costing California taxpayers at least $3.3 billion annually, according to a Transparent California analysis of 672,000 payroll records from more than 1,500 individual government agencies statewide. The analysis found that California’s state and local governments spent an average of $14,288 per employee on medical insurance last year. That amount that was 52 percent greater than the regional average of $9,381, as reported by the 2018 UBA Health Plan Survey, the nation’s largest and most comprehensive of its kind. There was a tremendously wide variation across the agencies surveyed, with one agency paying as much as $80,000 for a single employee’s medical insurance plan, while several others paid rates more in line with the market average. The most expensive plans were found at California’s special districts, which likely reflects the fact that personnel costs for these agencies are a comparatively smaller percentage of total expenses, which makes excessive spending less noticeable to ratepayers and the public. At more than triple the market average, the $29,923 average cost at the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (Central San) was the largest of any major government agency statewide. 48 district employees received medical plans that cost at least $51,148 apiece. Plans that expensive almost certainly reflect price gouging, rather than additional value provided, as explained in more detail below. Other key findings from the analysis are presented below: The $80,665 paid by the Water Replenishment District of Southern California on behalf of the agency’s communications director was the most expensive plan statewide. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power had 151 employees who received medical plans that cost the district over $57,800 apieceThe agency-wide average of $20,935 means that ratepayers would save nearly $110 million annually if the district’s health costs were reduced to the market average. LA Metro ($21,757) and the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District ($19,449) would have saved $63.5 million and $33.5 million, respectively, by paying the market rate. Click here to see a list of special districts surveyed. The cities of Whittier ($23,918), Milpitas ($21,543), Alameda ($21,150), Richmond ($19,588), Santa Cruz ($19,255) and Oakland ($19,133) all had average health costs of more than twice the market average. Click here to see a list of all cities surveyed. $50K plans impossible to justify “Spending over $50,000 on a single employee’s health insurance plan is an inexcusable waste of taxpayer funds,” according to Transparent California Executive Director Robert Fellner. “Medical plans this expensive simply don’t exist in the broader market, which is a strong indication that providers are exploiting the fact that these governments are happy to pay inflated prices with other people’s money,” Fellner continued. A recent survey from the Kaiser Family Foundation, for example, found that 92 percent of family medical plans had premiums of less than $26,000.   “The annual premiums of over $50,000 found at agencies like Central San and the LADWP are such extreme outliers that price gouging, rather than a genuine increase in value provided, is the only explanation that makes sense,” Fellner said. “That was, in fact, the explanation that emerged after we looked into similarly high costs at a Los Angeles-area government back in 2016,” Fellner continued. “At that time, Aetna was charging the City of Industry over $50,000 per employee for medical insurance, but after an audit was done, the city reported that they could increase their employees’ medical insurance coverage by purchasing a plan from a different provider that cost nearly 65 percent less,” Fellner explained. 100% employer-paid premiums encourage waste In the private sector, employees typically pay around 30 percent of the annual premium for their medical insurance. But many California governments, especially those with the most expensive plans, offer these plans at no cost to the employee. Such an arrangement makes it easier for providers to artificially inflate rates, according to Fellner. “Employees at both the LADWP and Central San do not bear any of the cost of these wildly expensive medical plans,” Fellner continued. “This makes it easier for providers to artificially inflate costs, as consumers are obviously much less cost conscious when someone else is paying the bill.” Costs reasonable at many agencies While California governments, on average, spent well above the market rate, there were several agencies that offered plans at or around market rates. “Cities like Ventura, Pomona, Newark, Hanford and several others are all behaving in a fiscally responsible manner when it comes to health costs,” Fellner said. “The city of San Diego and many area transit districts are likewise paying reasonable costs,” Fellner continued, “demonstrating that there is no legitimate need for other agencies to pay such inflated rates.” To see where any California city or special district ranked on the statewide list, or for more information about the analysis, please contract Transparent California Executive Director Robert Fellner at 559-462-0122 or Robert@TransparentCalifornia.com. Transparent California is California’s largest and most comprehensive database of public sector compensation and is a project of the Nevada Policy Research Institute, a nonpartisan, free-market think tank. The website is used by millions of Californians each year, including elected officials and lawmakers, government employees and their unions, government agencies, university researchers, the media, and concerned citizens alike. Learn more at TransparentCalifornia.com.

The Housing Crisis Part I: Pasadena – The Fight Over City And State Development Laws

Guv Newsom sued Huntington Beach because the city council wanted what was best for the people of the city.  The Politburo in Sacramento wanted to veto the city—and run the zoning and permitting process—from 400 miles away.  Now he wants to tell Pasadena how to run their business—including extra number of housing units that would cause traffic and other problems for the community.

“For several years, a 92-unit apartment building in the heart of Pasadena, known as the 253 South Los Robles project, had moved through different committees in the Pasadena government. But during the final vote before City Council in July, it was defeated due to a last minute change of vote

The main issue was over the most controversial part of the proposal: the affordable housing concession. Under state law, if a development adds over the allotted number of low-income housing units, the proposed building can get some bonuses. This can include extra floors and volume. In the voted down South Los Robles projects case, it would have led to an additional 21 units and two extra floors if they added 8 more low-income units. 

So the multi-millionaire living in a mansion outside of Sacramento is telling the people of Pasadena that more crime, worse traffic and major impacts on the community are mandated—but he will live where he wants.  Sounds like a totalitarian ruler, head of the Politburo rather than a real person.  Why does Newsom want to abuse the people of Pasadena—and why do the people of Pasadena vote for legislators that support the abuse?

The Housing Crisis Part I: Pasadena – The Fight Over City And State Development Laws

The Globe takes a look at how the housing crisis is affecting cities all over California

By Evan Symon, California Globe,  9/9/19 

Since 2015, California has been adding more and more laws to create more affordable housing. With a rise in rents and homelessness, laws such as a measure forcing new developments to include low-income housing, have been passed by the Legislature. Others measures, such as SB 50, which would have streamlined development for larger and denser housing, even in residential areas, have not been as lucky. For anything passed by the state, they have the power to automatically trump local laws, for better or for worse.

Very few cities have defied state law. The first city, Huntington Beach, was sued by the state in January for blocking such housing. Pasadena, as it turned out, would be the second. 

For several years, a 92-unit apartment building in the heart of Pasadena, known as the 253 South Los Robles project, had moved through different committees in the Pasadena government. But during the final vote before City Council in July, it was defeated due to a last minute change of vote

The main issue was over the most controversial part of the proposal: the affordable housing concession. Under state law, if a development adds over the allotted number of low-income housing units, the proposed building can get some bonuses. This can include extra floors and volume. In the voted down South Los Robles projects case, it would have led to an additional 21 units and two extra floors if they added 8 more low-income units. 

On a state-wide level, it could simply be seen as wanting to keep out possible new residents. For Pasadena, a city of over 140,000 people and growing, it has turned into a major issue and has shown how opposed local citizens have been against the measure.  In a city with dozens of historical neighborhoods, a master plan, and traffic issues, it is more complicated.

In the Pasadena Planning and Community Development Department, Director David Reyes pulled out a map of the city for the Globe, showing circles around major Metro stops in correlation to high density development.

“SB 50 copied us on what we’re trying to do,” Reyes said, referring to the measure in SB 50 tying large scale developments to areas near mass transit stops.

“Rent costs have not improved since the recession,” stated city Senior Planner Andre Sahakian. “And the number of units needed to address the issues has gone up; 3.5 million units need to be built in California. Only 100,000 have been built.”

Pasadena has also been the leader on Inclusionary Housing, the ordinance that sets aside a percentage of units in new developments that go towards low-income housing. Pasadena used to be at 15 percent, but in August, it went up to 20 percent

But even with new regulations, developers are still coming in thanks to the favorable state laws. 

“We expect change in neighborhoods, but we got changes way out of scope of the community and city council,” pointed out  Director Reyes, “It was not expected.”

“Developers are 100 percent absolutely taking advantage of the situation.”

Many citizen groups have come out against South Robles and other developments. City Council meetings have been spilling out into the hallways in recent months due to the sheer number of people against it. Sharon Kramer, who leads a historical neighborhood organization and has gone to most city council meetings to speak out against developments, told the Globe why many were against it.

“Pasadena has a certain feel to it,” said Kramer. “We’re large, but we feel like a small town. Any large buildings would destroy that. We have a few, but we don’t want to explode in skyscrapers like Glendale.”

“We also have to worry about more traffic with more parking lots for these buildings. We have to worry about more noise with those cars. We have larger buildings, and that means losing the character of the city.”

“All of the neighborhood groups have similar grievances on why we don’t want some larger developments. And we’re actually ok with some of them as long as they’re in the proper zones near the freeways and downtown. When they start putting them on or around the edges of where they shouldn’t be zoned, then we’ll come out en masse like we have.”

“Oh, we’ve been accused of a lot of things,” Kramer continued. “Like how we don’t want poor people here, or if it would lower real estate values. But this is actually for the heart and soul of the city.”

Developers have a different point of view.

At a recent Pasadena city council meeting over the South Robles project, the developers lawyer, Richard McDonald, explained point blank on how the laws were set up and how cities couldn’t turn down any developments.

“You have to give us concessions,” stated McDonald, “You have no choice. You can quibble about height. You can quibble about FAR (Floor Area Ratio). You’d have to have substantial evidence to deny them.”

A representative for a San Gabriel Valley developer also gave their insight.

“California has a housing crisis,” explained the representative. “What Pasadena is doing, and what other cities might do in the future, is blocking what the state is trying to do. We’re housing people in ways that can still be profitable for us. Yes, we build new condos that are considered expensive, but we’re also bringing low-income housing to places where it isn’t. We’re following every law.

“We’re not here to destroy history or make a city unrecognizable. We’re here to make sure people of all economic levels have a place to live at what they can afford. Local input is important, but we are in a giant crisis here. We can have wealthy cities like Huntington [Beach] or Pasadena say no today, but we may have more and more. Then what? Where can people go for affordable housing then?”

There isn’t a definite answer. If you support local laws, it’s ignoring a possible solution to the crisis and marking the city down as a troublemaker, the latter of which was noted as a concern by Pasadena Mayor Terry Tornek recently. If you are pro-state laws, then you risk the city being over-built against it’s wishes and stretching local resources past their limits.

The growing issue of state development laws versus local development laws is just one of the many parts of the overall California housing crisis. And as we’ll see in the series, there is no easy solution, and there is no quick fix.

As the Globe reported in February, “California Charter Cities have a certain level of autonomy over local affairs. Zoning ordinances is one of these. While the state legally regulates the process of zoning, it is not allowed to regulate the substance.”

Arnold Schwarzenegger: Donald Trump ‘Wants To Be Me’ (Arrogant Arnold)

Arnold Schwarzenegger is arrogant—a narcissus.  He believes he is the gift to mankind.  Instead, he is ego driven, cares little about people—ask Maria Schriver about that.  As Governor he could nto find enough taxes to increase—and jobs to kill, while tanking the California economy.  Now he is claiming that President Trump wants to be like him—a hater of people of color, a person with no respect for those that elected him to office and someone that can not be trusted.  Those are E things I can say about the DEMOCRAT former California Governor.  He lied about being pro-life when running for office, just one of his lies to get elected.

Trump on the other hand was very clear as to what his policies would be—as so far he has attempted to check every box—no surprises—we knew what we were getting as President.  Arnold had to lie about his positions to get elected.   You may not like Trump, but at least he is doing what he said he would do.

To be clear:  Trump ran as a conservative and his term of office has proved he is one of us.  Arnold LIED about being a conservative—he ran as a Republican and served as Governor to the LEFT of Grey Davis.

Arnold passing AB 32—the job killing environmental rule is the true man.  Trump cutting taxes is the honest Trump.

Arnold Schwarzenegger: Donald Trump ‘Wants To Be Me’

“That’s the reality of it.”

By Paul Bois, Daily Wire,   9/10/19  

Even though Donald Trump rose to become the President of the United States, actor Arnold Schwarzenneger, who only served as governor of California, claims that the president secretly wants to be him, which would explain the feud brewing between them over the years.

 Speaking with Men’s Health for October’s magazine issue, the 72-year-old star of “Terminator: Dark Fate” said that the president is “in love” with him.

“That’s the reality of it,” Schwarzenegger said. “With Trump, he wants to be me. I don’t think he fears me. But I remember that in the old days, when we went to the wrestling matches, the way he admired people with bodies, and the way they would jump around in the ring, and to perform physical stunts and stuff like that — he had great admiration for that.”

As noted by Fox News, the feud between Trump and Schwarzenegger developed shortly after the 2016 election when the action star was tapped to head “The Apprentice” in the real-estate mogul’s absence. As the show’s ratings quickly dwindled, Trump made sure to put the blame on Schwarzenegger.

“Arnold Schwarzenegger isn’t voluntarily leaving the Apprentice, he was fired by his bad (pathetic) ratings, not by me. Sad end to great show,” Trump wrote on Twitter at the time.

Schwarzenegger did not take the insults lying down and immediately shot back with a troll video of his own when President Trump’s approval ratings dipped into the thirties in 2017.

“Oh, Donald, the ratings are in, and you got swamped. Wow. Now you’re in the thirties?” said Schwarzenegger at the time. “But what do you expect? I mean when you take away after school programs for children and meals on wheels for the poor people, that’s not what you call ‘making America great again.’ Come on! I mean, who is advising you?” He continued, “Let me give you some advice: go to a middle school — the Hart Middle School, right in Washington, six miles away from the White House. I’ll take you there, so you can see the fantastic work that they’re doing for these children. Let’s do it, huh?” 

Schwarzenegger even went as far to blame Trump for the show’s failure during an interview with Variety Magazine in 2017.

“I loved every second of working with NBC and Mark Burnett. Everyone — from the celebrities to the crew to the marketing department — was a straight 10, and I would absolutely work with all of them again on a show that doesn’t have this baggage,” he said. “With Trump being involved in the show, people have a bad taste and don’t want to participate as a spectator or as a sponsor or in any other way support the show. It’s a very divisive period now and I think this show got caught up in all that division.”

Critics at the time, however, noted that the absence of Donald Trump left a serious void in the show. Mike Hale of The New York Times, for instance, said the show lacked an “old bite.”

“With Mr. Schwarzenegger, there’s no joy, just a — you’ll pardon the word — robotic professionalism,” wrote Hale. “His rebukes don’t have enough bite, his stares don’t have enough menace. His one noticeable zinger, ‘You guys are ducking more questions than Congress,’ sounded scripted.”

Uber Challenges California Legislature, Saying Drivers Won’t Become Shift Employees

Glad to see a corporation telling government to go to hell.  If they didn’t, over 300,000 people (not a typo) would lose their opportunity to pay bills and stay out of poverty.  The passage of AB 5 will end hundreds of thousands of ridesharing drivers, home newspaper delivery (killing off newspaper) and send the State, already with the highest poverty rate—will skyrocket once AB 5 goes into effect.

““Contrary to some of the rhetoric we’ve heard, AB5 does not automatically reclassify any rideshare drivers from independent contractors to employees,” said Tony West, Uber’s chief legal officer, in remarks prepared for a national conference call with media.

West argued that the new bill and earlier court ruling do not apply because drivers’ work “is outside the usual course of Uber’s business, which is serving as a technology platform for several different types of digital marketplaces.”

The San Francisco-based company’s other businesses include Uber Eats, Uber Freight and self-driving cars.

West said the rideshare company would continue to respond in court to any claims of worker misclassification.”

Watch this carefully—the Sacramento Politburo mad eit clear—the poor and middle class are not wanted in California.

Uber Challenges California Legislature, Saying Drivers Won’t Become Shift Employees

Posted by Chris Jennewein, Times of San Diego,   9/11/19 

Assembly Bill 5, which passed the state Senate on Tuesday night, codifies a state Supreme Court ruling that effectively requires most independent contractors to be reclassified as traditional shift employees.

“Contrary to some of the rhetoric we’ve heard, AB5 does not automatically reclassify any rideshare drivers from independent contractors to employees,” said Tony West, Uber’s chief legal officer, in remarks prepared for a national conference call with media.

West argued that the new bill and earlier court ruling do not apply because drivers’ work “is outside the usual course of Uber’s business, which is serving as a technology platform for several different types of digital marketplaces.”

The San Francisco-based company’s other businesses include Uber Eats, Uber Freight and self-driving cars.

West said the rideshare company would continue to respond in court to any claims of worker misclassification.

“Because we continue to believe drivers are properly classified as independent, and because we’ll continue to be responsive to what the vast majority of drivers tell us they want most—flexibility—drivers will not be automatically reclassified as employees, even after January of next year,” he said.

Lyft has taken a different position, saying that it will have to make its drivers employees and that as many as 300,000 could lose their jobs. On Wednesday, the company sent a note to drivers saying they “may soon be required to drive specific shifts, stick to specific areas, and drive for only a single platform.”

The bill, authored by San Diego Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez, passed the state Senate on a 29-11 party-line vote and now heads to Gov. Gavin Newsom for signature.

Newsom has vowed to sign it, but also told the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday that he is continuing to negotiate with Uber and Lyft.

The two rideshare companies and DoorDash have committed to spend $90 million on a ballot measure to overturn Assembly Bill 5 in 2020.