The Left Is Partying Like It’s 1969

Once upon a time there was a Republican candidate for president who was reviled and distrusted by a fairly large segment of the public. The media barely concealed its dislike and contempt for the candidate. After winning the GOP nomination, this candidate chose as his running mate a governor unknown on the national stage.

The Democrats nominated their heir apparent but not with the ease that conventional wisdom assumed. A candidate from the far-left fringe of the party emerged, said candidate giving the Democrat warhorse a much tougher battle for delegates than anyone thought was possible. This caused the Democrat establishment to go to “DefCon 1” to smack down the insurgent. The heir apparent was nominated at a contentious convention marked by protests from leftist Democrats and chose as a running mate an unknown U.S. Senator.

The fall campaign was an unpleasant one, highlighted by continuous press attacks on the character and mental stability of the Republican and left wing sniping at the Democrat. Election night was a cliff-hanger, with the Republican candidate being assured of victory only after a mid-western state that had been trending Democrat fell into the GOP column. He won with far less than a majority of the popular vote.

Extra credit and a tip o’ the hat to any who realized that the above describes the 1968 election. The Republican candidate was Richard Nixon. His running mate was Maryland Governor Spiro Agnew. The Democrat candidate was Hubert Humphrey, who defeated leftist Senator Eugene McCarthy at the now-infamous Chicago convention.  Humphrey chose Maine Senator Ed Muskie as his running mate.

The general election campaign seemed to be a contest between the Nixon-hating media and the Humphrey-hating left to see who could set new lows for public discourse. Alabama Gov. George Wallace was the wildcard in the race. On election night the decision came down to Illinois – a previously reliable GOP state that had voted Democrat for president the last two elections. When all the votes were counted, Nixon received 43.4 percent of the popular vote,  Humphrey 42.7 percent, while Wallace drew 13.5 percent.

And the Left went wild.

Flag burningThey had been protesting against the Vietnam War for a couple of years, but really didn’t ramp up the venom and violence until Richard Nixon, longtime anti-communist and therefore object of hatred to the Left and much of the media, became president on January 20, 1969. Hundreds of thousands of people marched, burned American flags, spit on police, overturned and burned police cruisers, broke windows in businesses during their marches, etc. et. al. Hatred of the president was always front and center in their frequent demonstrations and riots. The protesters made a specific effort to push into the spotlight all the hideous, bizarre, offensive-to-middle-America counter-cultural mutations and freaks of their movement. The media, almost unanimously in sympathy with the anti-Nixon mobs gushed and fawned over the demonstrations, covering any gathering of two or more protesters as the second storming of the Bastille and a great day for America.

Any of this beginning to sound familiar? I hope so, as that’s the point.

The Left had their moment in the spotlight for four years, and paid a heavy price for it in the alienation of non-radical voters of both parties. After losing the ’68 election to Nixon, the Democrats engaged in months of navel gazing and soul searching about a path back to power. Their answer, becoming more liberal and counter-cultural, was exactly the wrong one. Non-liberal Democrats were driven from the party. Internal party reforms insured the nomination of the Liz “Pocahontas” Warren of the day, radical “peace candidate” Senator George McGovern to oppose Nixon in 1972.

The judgment of the American people on four years of non-stop protest, vulgarity and violence was swift and harsh.  Richard Nixon, the object of hatred and hysteria from the Left and the press (redundant, I know) turned his narrow 1968 win into a landslide of historic proportions. He carried 49 states, received 61 percent of the popular vote and 520 electoral votes to 17 for McGovern.

The Left and the media had over-reacted and over-reached. The American people reacted by reaching for the Republican Party and its president.

I remember this vividly, as it happened during my formative political years. My first political activity was in 1964 for Barry Goldwater. In the ’64 election the eight “sub-units” of my close family – my mother, father and his seven siblings – were 6 to 2 in favor of Lyndon Johnson (my mom and dad were strong Goldwater fans). In 1968 the family units voted 5 to 3 in favor of Humphrey.

These were all first generation Americans, culturally conservative, respectful of FDR and deeply patriotic. The Left’s vehemence and violent protests against Nixon had a dramatic effect on my family. By 1972 there was not a Democrat vote among them. They were part of Nixon’s “silent majority” and their votes were unanimous for Nixon and the Republicans, and stayed that way permanently.

Trump hugs flagAnd so we have Yogi Berra’s “deja-vu all over again” in 2017. The Left and the media are unhinged, in some cases literally deranged. There are open calls for assassination, military coups and other extra-constitutional means to remove President Trump. As disgusting and disturbing as these things are, they should also bring a smile – at least subliminally. Realize that the excesses and over-reach of today’s Left will very likely have the same effect on typical American voters as did their predecessors of 1969 – 1972.

Flag burning, police hatred, window smashing and unthinking vitriol toward a duly elected president has, thankfully, never been a path to power in America. Angry, purple haired, “F” bomb spewing women dressed as giant vaginas are not the way to the hearts and minds of middle America. And lest we forget,  it was precisely “middle America” – both politically and demographically – that elected Trump.

While the Left parties like it is 1969, it happily appears they are so overcome by Trump Derangement Syndrome that they have forgotten the American people’s verdict of 1972. They have also forgotten George Santayana’s famous admonition, “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

Party on Lefties … please oh please party on. Wear those pussy hats. Burn those flags. Throw those “F” bombs. Keep those vagina suits handy. It may seem like 1969 now, but 1972 and 2020 are just around the corner. It’s going to be “yuge.”

Bill Saracino is a member of the Editorial Board of CA Political Review.

Major Blow to Obamacare Mandate

MedizinHow much difference does a single line on a tax form make? For Obamacare’s individual mandate, the answer might be quite a lot.

Following President Donald Trump’s executive order instructing agencies to provide relief from the health law, the Internal Revenue Service appears to be taking a more lax approach to the coverage requirement.

The health law’s individual mandate requires everyone to either maintain qualifying health coverage or pay a tax penalty, known as a “shared responsibility payment.” The IRS was set to require filers to indicate whether they had maintained coverage in 2016 or paid the penalty by filling out line 61 on their form 1040s. Alternatively, they could claim exemption from the mandate by filing a form 8965.

For most filers, filling out line 61 would be mandatory. The IRS would not accept 1040s unless the coverage box was checked, or the shared responsibility payment noted, or the exemption form included. Otherwise they would be labeled “silent returns” and rejected.

Instead, however, filling out that line will be optional.

Earlier this month, the IRS quietly altered its rules to allow the submission of 1040s with nothing on line 61. The IRS says it still maintains the option to follow up with those who elect not to indicate their coverage status, although it’s not clear what circumstances might trigger a follow up.

But what would have been a mandatory disclosure will instead be voluntary. Silent returns will no longer be automatically rejected. The change is a direct result of the executive order President Donald Trump issued in January directing the government to provide relief from Obamacare to individuals and insurers, within the boundaries of the law.

“The recent executive order directed federal agencies to exercise authority and discretion available to them to reduce potential burden,” the IRS said in a statement to Reason. “Consistent with that, the IRS has decided to make changes that would continue to allow electronic and paper returns to be accepted for processing in instances where a taxpayer doesn’t indicate their coverage status.”

The tax agency says the change will reduce the health law’s strain on taxpayers. “Processing silent returns means that taxpayer returns are not systemically rejected, allowing them to be processed and minimizing burden on taxpayers, including those expecting a refund,” the IRS statement said.

The change may seem minor. But it makes it clear that following Trump’s executive order, the agency’s trajectory is towards a less strict enforcement process.

Although the new policy leaves Obamacare’s individual mandate on the books, it may make it easier for individuals to go without coverage while avoiding the penalty. Essentially, if not explicitly, it is a weakening of the mandate enforcement mechanism.

“It’s hard to enforce something without information,” says Ryan Ellis, a Senior Fellow at the Conservative Reform Network.

The move has already raised questions about its legality. Federal law gives the administration broad authority to provide exemptions from the mandate. But “it does not allow the administration not to enforce the mandate, which it appears they may be doing here,” says Michael Cannon, health policy director at the libertarian Cato Institute. “Unless the Trump administration maintains the mandate is unconstitutional, the Constitution requires them to enforce it.”

“The mandate can only be weakened by Congress,” says Ellis. “This is a change to how the IRS is choosing to enforce it. They will count on voluntary disclosure of non-coverage rather than asking themselves.”

The IRS notes that taxpayers are still required to pay the mandate penalty, if applicable. “Legislative provisions of the ACA law are still in force until changed by the Congress, and taxpayers remain required to follow the law and pay what they may owe‎,” the agency statement said.

Ellis says the new policy doesn’t fully rise to the level of declining to enforce the law. “If the IRS turns a blind eye to people’s status, that isn’t quite not enforcing it,” he says. “It’s more like the IRS wanting to maintain plausible deniability.”

Tax software companies are already making note of the change. Drake Software, which provides services to tax professionals, recently sent out a notice explaining the change in policy. As of February 3, the notice said, the IRS “will now accept an e-filed return that does not indicate either full-year coverage or an individual shared responsibility payment or does not include an exemption on Form 8965, as required by IRS instructions, Form 1040, line 61.”

The mandate is a key component of Obamacare’s coverage scheme, which is built on what experts sometimes describe as a “three-legged stool.” The law requires health insurers to sell to all comers regardless of health history, and offers subsidies to lower income individuals in order to offset the cost of coverage. In order to prevent people from signing up for coverage only after getting sick, it also requires most individuals to maintain qualifying coverage or face a tax penalty. While defending the health law in court, the Obama administration maintained that the mandate was essential to the structure of the law, designed to make sure that people did not take advantage of its protections.

In a 2012 case challenging the law’s insurance requirement, the Supreme Court ruled that the individual mandate was constitutional as a tax penalty. The IRS is in charge of collecting payments.

Some health policy experts have argued that the mandate was already too weak to be effective, as a result of the many exemptions that are included. A 2012 report by the consulting firm Milliman found that the mandate penalty offered only a modest financial incentives for families making 300-400 percent of the federal poverty line. More recently, health insurers have said that individuals signing up for coverage and then quickly dropping it after major health expenses is a key driver of losses, and rising health insurance premiums.

It’s too early to say whether the change will ultimately make any difference. But given the centrality of the mandate to the law’s coverage scheme and the unsteadiness of the law’s health insurance exchanges, with premiums rising and insurers scaling back participation, it is possible that even a marginal weakening of the mandate could cause further dysfunction. Health insurers have said the mandate is a priority, and asked for it to be strengthened. Weaker enforcement of the mandate could cause insurance carriers to further reduce participation in the exchanges. One major insurer, Humana, said today that it would completely exit Obamacare’s exchanges after this year.

It is also possible that congressional Republicans will make it moot by repealing much of the law, including its individual mandate, which, as a tax, can be taken down with just 51 Senate votes.

Regardless of its direct impact, however, the change may signal that the Trump administration intends to water down enforcement of the health law’s most controversial requirement, even if those steps are seemingly small. The Trump administration may not be tearing Obamacare down entirely, but it appears to be taking steps to weaken the law, however subtly, one line at a time.

This piece was originally published by Reason.com

Jim Lacy: Trump’s tax cuts key to transforming the U.S. economy?

Taxifornia 2016” author and California Political Review Publisher James Lacy discusses the potential impact of President Trump’s tax policy and California’s efforts to become a sanctuary state.

Trump threatens to defund ‘out of control’ California

As reported by the Sacramento Bee:

President Donald Trump is threatening to withhold federal funds from “out of control” California if the state declares itself a sanctuary state.

“If we have to, we’ll defund,” Trump said in an interview with Fox News host Bill O’Reilly before the Super Bowl. “We give tremendous amounts of money to California, California in many ways is out of control, as you know.”

Trump was responding to a question from O’Reilly about efforts by Democratic state legislators to make California a de-facto “sanctuary state” that would restrict state and local law enforcement, including school police and security departments, from using their resources to aid federal authorities in immigration enforcement. …

Click here to read the full article

Dems Launch 2018 Campaign Against 20 Republicans Including Ed Royce and Darrell Issa

130510_darrell_issa_mscott_328Democrats have launched an all-out offensive assault in Blue State California well ahead of the 2018 midterm elections with particular aim taken at increasingly vulnerable House Republicans Rep. Ed Royce, Rep. Darrell Issa, and Rep. Jeff Denham.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee announced on Thursday that it was launching “March into ’18,” a program aimed at taking out Republican members of Congress in 20 districts across the country. Those districts are: CA-10, CA-39, CA-49, CO-06, FL-26, IA-01, IL-06, KS-03, MN-02, MN-03, NE-02, NY-22, NY-24, PA-06, PA-07, PA-08, TX-07, TX-23, TX-32, and VA-02.

Full-time local organizers will be hired in these districts, dedicated to unseating the Republicans. The hiring began on February 1st. The campaign will run ads on Twitter, the social media site that President Donald Trump has used consistently to communicate directly with Americans. The DCCC will target ads at “those that have followed or tweeted about local Women’s Marches, ACA rallies, and other events” according to their own statement. Those ads will direct recipients to local events where they can get involved in Democrat activism.

Issa, first elected to the House of Representatives in 2000, barely squeaked out a win over Democrat challenger Doug Applegate last November. Democrats focused intense effort on unseating the congressman and almost did as the election results-watch was drawn out for days. Ultimately Issa won 50.3 to 49.7 percent according to the California Secretary of State. Royce won over challenger Brett Murdock more comfortably last November, 57.2 to 42.8 percent.

Most DCCC targeted seats are in districts where failed 2016 Democratic Party presidential nominee Hillary Clinton won the district according to the Orange County Register.

“This is an unprecedented early investment in key Republican-held House districts, in order to engage voters and help make their voices heard. So many people are looking for ways to tell their stories, channel their energy and organize for change, and this project will help do just that,” DCCC Chair Ben Ray Lujan said upon the announcement.

A dedicated “March into ’18” website and Facebook page have been established to field potential workers for training to “Build events such as house parties and phone banks,” “organize protests and days of action,” and promise events via live stream and social media.

Follow Michelle Moons on Twitter @MichelleDiana 

This piece was originally published by Breitbart.com/California

San Francisco sues Trump over his ‘sanctuary city’ order

As reported by the Fresno Bee:

San Francisco sued President Donald Trump on Tuesday, claiming an executive order that cuts funding from immigrant-protecting “sanctuary cities” is unconstitutional and a “severe invasion of San Francisco’s sovereignty.”

The federal government cannot “put a gun to the head of localities,” City Attorney Dennis Herrera said, arguing that the order violates states’ rights and the law.

The complaint, filed in federal district court, names Trump and his administration and claims the president is trying to coerce local authorities into abandoning sanctuary city policies, which San Francisco has adopted.

“Strong cities like San Francisco must continue to push the nation forward and remind America that we are a city that fights for what is right,” Mayor Ed Lee said.

The president signed an order last week to withdraw funding from sanctuary cities that decline to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. It did not specify what kind of money could be pulled. …

Click here to read the full article

Will Taxpayers Come to the Aid of Sanctuary Cities?

People march through downtown Los Angeles supporting amnesty for illegal immigrants living in the United States Saturday, Sept. 2, 2006. The event, called "La Gran Marcha Laboral," was organized by the March 25 Coalition, which put on a massive protest in Los Angeles earlier this year. (AP Photo/Oscar Hidalgo)

President Donald Trump started the process of denying federal grants to cities that don’t cooperate with federal immigration laws. Mayors of many large California cities, but not all, have declared they will resist the order and keep sanctuary status for undocumented immigrants. If the president is eventually successful in denying funds to sanctuary cities will local taxpayers bail out cities with additional tax revenue? That would be the ultimate test of voters’ support or rejection of sanctuary city policy.

We are a long way from that point but it is worth considering. Congress has to approve the reduced revenue to sanctuary cities. Lawsuits will be adjudicated since challenges are bound to be filed claiming the federal government cannot deny funds for local policies. Local government leaders in California also promise to establish funds for individuals to defend themselves against federal immigration deportation actions. These lawsuits and legal defense funds will add to taxpayer costs.

The debate over sanctuary for illegal immigrants is being fought on moral grounds. One side calls it a human rights issue. The other side asks how long civil society can function if people or institutions pick and choose the laws they will obey.

But support for and against the sanctuary policy may ultimately be measured in dollars and cents.

One indication of support or lack thereof for sanctuary policy is a poll conducted by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Government Studies. That poll showed 73 percent opposed the idea of sanctuary cities and that opposition was across the political spectrum. Yet, a more recent poll from the Hoover Institution had an even split on the question of sanctuary cities.

IGS director Jack Citrin points out that the poll results depend on how the question is asked. “In the IGS Survey which simply focused on cooperation with federal authorities in the case of someone arrested and detained, a large majority opposed non-cooperation, but this declined and became more polarized by party and ideology in the Hoover question which gave reasons for each position and noted that police chiefs felt this might deter cooperation in solving other crimes,” he said.

Citrin notes that Trump’s opposition to the policy tends to polarize the attitude of voters.

So will taxpayers be willing to support politicians defiance with their dollars, especially as some officials advocate for more taxes to increase traditional government services?

Citrin’s view: “This would be a good test of public opinion, particularly if the price was simply to hand over people charged or convicted as criminals. California has been willing to raise taxes recently, but mainly taxes on the rich. This kind of a tax might have a chance in highly liberal communities which now are exuding bravado and resistance but again depending on the framing and the size of the tax it wouldn’t be a slam dunk.”

This piece was originally published by Fox and Hounds Daily

California’s Recipe for Voter Fraud on a Massive Scale

VotedThe media have exhibited a pathological determination to ignore any possibility of voter fraud, in spite of mountains of evidence to the contrary.

In this week’s headlines, the narrative is repeated over and over again: President Donald Trump is making it all up.

USA Today: “Fact check: Trump claims massive voter fraud; here’s the truth

Washington Post: “Trump’s imaginary ‘voter fraud’ claims will make it harder for minorities to vote

New York Times:  “Trump’s Voter Fraud Example? A Troubled Tale With Bernhard Langer

Los Angeles Times: “President Trump’s voter fraud allegation is ‘a lie,’ says California’s top elections officer

According to the latter article, California Secretary of State Alex Padilla called President Trump a liar.

Breitbart News’ calls to the Secretary of State’s office for a comment were not returned, but that is not surprising. California has intentionally created a recipe for voter fraud on a massive scale.

Here’s the recipe, from an article I wrote in November for PolitiChicks.com:

Treat anyone who proposes a Voter ID bill like [Saul] Alinsky would — shame them, shun them, ridicule, then repeat.

Make access so easy that you can register to vote online up to 15 days prior to Election Day and still vote. (They pushed for same day voter registration so that people who “forgot” to register could still register & “participate” as late as Election Day).

Make a major push to move as many voters as possible to mail-in ballots (permanent absentee ballots).

Spend millions of taxpayer dollars handing out Drivers Licenses to millions of people illegally present in the state (with an asterisk stating, “Federal Limits Apply”).

Pass a law requiring everyone who has a California Drivers License to be “automatically” registered to vote — including illegal aliens.

“If the voter does not check either the “Yes” or “No” box (for whether or not they are U.S. Citizen), and the registration is otherwise complete, the registration should be processed normally and entered on the voter rolls.” (See screenshot of official publication below on California Secretary of State Website regarding CA compliance with National Voting Rights Act (NVRA): http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/nvra/laws-standards/pdf/complete.pdf

Never update statewide voter database with any information that ever disqualif[ies] a voter — especially county coroner lists of the newly deceased.

Voter fraud recipe (Screen shot)

Voter fraud recipe (Screen shot)

When you look at what California has done to protect the ruling class of Democrat politicians and powerful public sector unions who represent the legions of bureaucrats, it’s diabolically simple and diabolically clever.

And easy to understand why.

Hundreds of millions in contracts and pay increases for tens of thousands of public sector unions and permanent political careers for politicians are at stake, and as long as the unions keep their cronies in power, the gravy train continues.

All you have to do is follow the money.

They created a system where it was virtually impossible to ever catch anyone cheating, removed all verification processes, automatically register[ed] all drivers license holders — whether they like it or not, and then launch[ed] that program immediately after granting every one of the untold millions of illegal aliens in California a driver[‘s] license.

When the Election Integrity Project brought forth a report on documented voter fraud, the LA Times and other publications slamming Mr. Trump — you guessed it — (yawn) ignored the facts.

California is not an isolated case.

A Breitbart News story from October documents serious, widespread voter fraud involving non-citizen voting in Virginia. Many of the safeguards previously in place have been removed — in large part due to pressure brought by George Soros-backed organizations ostensibly fighting for voter integrity. The only problem is that these Soros-funded groups oppose Voter ID laws and every effective measure to safeguard the integrity of the vote.

Breitbart News story disclosed that in Virginia, “state officials had used the federal Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements database [SAVE] … to detect and remove aliens from the voting rolls.” And it added: “One of the top priorities of the Soros Advancement Project is to stop the use of SAVE to purge voter lists.”

Last year, in New York City, Alan Schulkin, Commissioner of the Board of Elections, was caught on hidden video by Provject Veritas talking about how Democrats commit voter fraud in New York City.

“Yeah, they should ask for your ID. I think there is a lot of voter fraud,” said Schulkin, who elaborated on the types of voter fraud that are taking place in New York.

Voter fraud has been labeled as a right-wing myth by the left, but Schulkin, a Democrat, confirmed everyone’s worst fears, going against the grain of his own party.

“You know, I don’t think it’s too much to ask somebody to show some kind of an ID. … Like I say, people don’t realize, certain neighborhoods in particular they bus people around to vote,” said Schulkin.

According to a Fox News op-ed by John Fund and Hans A. von Spakovsky, President Trump’s investigation of voter fraud is long overdue. The piece documents a complete unwillingness of President Barack Obama’s Department of Justice to take any action. “This refusal to enforce the law came despite a 2012 study from the Pew Center on the States estimating that one out of every eight voter registrations is inaccurate, out-of-date or a duplicate.”

One thing we do know, if President Trump acts, the media will cover it.

And who knows, maybe the guy who defied every prediction, and became the most powerful political leader in the world, will succeed in forcing the media to cover the failings of the very foundation of our Republic — our elections — and build public pressure to fix them.

Tim Donnelly is a former California State Assemblyman.

Author, Patriot Not Politician: Win or Go Homeless

FaceBook: https://www.facebook.com/tim.donnelly.12/

Twitter:  @PatriotNotPol

This piece was originally published by Breitbart.com/California

California Will Give In To Trumpism

donald-trump-3Now that Donald Trump is president, he will take the reins of the most powerful government the world has ever known: 7,000 nuclear weapons; a world-spanning conventional military; a $4 trillion federal budget, that’s $4,000,000,000,000.00; a couple dozen spy and armed domestic enforcement agencies: CIA, FBI, NSA, federal marshals, etc.; vast new powers, of dubious constitutionality, thanks to outgoing President Obama’s countless “executive orders”; a bully pulpit that now includes tweets; a huge following among the toiling masses.

So who’s going to challenge him in California and become a counter-president, nationally or even just here? Jerry Brown? Nancy Pelosi? Dianne Feinstein? The Calexit folks?

Nobody.

Although there will be maneuvers by the politicians and protests in the streets, California will knuckle under to Trumpism just like the rest of the country. The days of states resisting federal power ended on April 9, 1865.

What happens when the tax takings from early 2017 greatly exceed expectations and Democrats in the Legislature start salivating about spending all that dough? Will they be as upset with Trump about immigration and Obamacare? Will they wish Hillary had won and vastly increased taxes and regulations?

Even last July, Republicans in Congress were threatening to withhold $135 million in federal grants to law enforcement if the state’s Sanctuary Cities policies were enforced. Now Republicans will control the White House. And President Trump could withhold the money by himself with an executive order. How will the cop and prison unions respond to that?

California can’t stop Trump from reinforcing the wall that already exists along its border with Mexico. Nor can it do anything about the additional border agents who will be hired and placed there.

Nor can it do anything about whatever happens with Obamacare.

Then there’s education, by far the biggest state expenditure. The California Teachers Association long has hated President Bush’s No Child Left Behind. In 2015, the Republican Congress passed and President Obama signed a bill effectively ending NCLB, returning some control to state and local school boards. Trump also opposed NCLB, as well as Obama’s Race to the Top, and wants more decentralization. He also favors school choice, which the CTA really hates. And he opposes the Common Core standards, which the CTA favors and the state is adopting.

But the central factor is that Trump opposes centralization, which means the federal money will flow to the states with fewer strings attaches – likely meaning more power for the CTA.

On the environment, Trump can’t change AB32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. But he has appointed global-warming skeptics, such as Myron Ebell, to his administration. There’s nothing California can do about that.

According to the New York Times, “In a show of defiance, Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, and legislative leaders said they would work directly with other nations and states to defend and strengthen what were already far and away the most aggressive policies to fight climate change in the nation. That includes a legislatively mandated target of reducing carbon emissions in California to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.”

So? As the Times notes, Trump could cut funding for climate research going to state university research labs. Actually, I think he’s going to cut it nationally close to zero. In any case, California can do nothing about that except scream and hope its Democratic members of Congress can slightly reduce whatever Trump wants to do.

The EPA itself was established by President Nixon in 1970 with an executive order. It has accumulated vast new powers, including by President Obama’s executive orders. Trump can do the same, including canceling previous orders, affecting all states, including California.

Now, flip it over and look at what the more conservative states faced when Obama became president eight years ago. In 2010, Arizona passed SB 1070 to reduce illegal immigration. The Obama Justice Department insisted the bill went too far and usurped federal supremacy on immigration. The U.S. Supreme Court sided with Obama and threw out most of the bill. The Feds won.

In 2008, California passed Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage. Most states also had similar bans. That year, presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both came out against legalizing same-sex marriage. Soon, Obama and Clinton switched and backed same-sex marriage. Obama appointed two justices to the U.S. Supreme Court with similar views. In 2015, in the Obergefell decision, the court struck down all state bans. The Feds won.

The Feds always win. Lee lost at Gettysburg. Sherman marched through Georgia.

Finally, if you know anything about Congress, or any legislative body, there’s a lot of “horse trading” going on. New Rep. Lou Correa campaigned on a platform that, while in the Democratic majority in the California Legislature, he was nice and worked with the minority Republicans, so now he’ll cooperate with the majority Republicans on deals with California Democrats.

Especially with Trump in the Oval Office, there will be deals upon deals. Eventually, even Jerry Brown will be forced to come around. He’s a lame duck with waning power. He can brood only so long on his ranch.

29-year Orange County Register editorial writer now writes freelance. Email: writejohnseiler@gmail.com

This piece was originally published by Fox and Hounds Daily

Eric Holder hired to “fight Trump” – San Fran Chronicle does not provide whole story

attorney-general-eric-holderWhen President Obama worked to pass the Affordable Care Act, the state of California did not hire a Washington attorney to fight for this legislation. As Obama was issuing the Dream Act, amnesty for illegal aliens, the state Legislature did not hire a Washington attorney to demand, at a $25,000 a month retainer, to use his office to overturn a vote of Congress for the amnesty. Sacramento has given the 38 million people of California some of the toughest, and least enforced, gun laws possible. The hacks of the Capitol were “so successful” that 1.3 million new guns were sold in the state in 2016.

Yet, the San Francisco Chronicle reported in an article on January 15, 2017, that the state of California, via the Democratic supermajority in the Legislature, has hired a Washington, D.C., attorney to “fight” for California:

“California lawmakers are bracing for a fight against soon-to-be President Trump and top officials in his administration who have said they will push for policy and legal changes that would threaten several of the state’s progressive laws.

From immigration to gun control to environmental protections, the state finds itself at odds with Trump, who will be sworn in as the 45th president of the United States on Friday. One of the biggest tools the federal government has is control of the purse strings. California is expected to receive $105 billion in federal dollars in the upcoming fiscal year, which includes $78 billion for various health and human services. The new administration, and the Republican-controlled Congress, can reward — and punish — states with the way it distributes federal dollars.

To prepare for any battles, the Legislature has hired a Washington, D.C., law firm headed by former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.”

So, to get these “progressive policies” in the past, the California government used its 53 members of Congress, its two U.S. Senators, 80 Assembly members, 40 State Senators, the governor, the attorney general and the 1,600 attorneys in that office, along with the numerous state agencies.

Now that Donald Trump is to be the president, politicians in Sacramento, using tax dollars, have decided to hire a gun-runner, a former attorney general that authorized the sale of assault weapons to the Mexican drug cartels, to represent us in Washington. It is as if none of the thousands already being paid to do the job of representing us no longer exist. This has a smell of a political payoff rather than the hiring of an attorney.

Assemblyman Kevin Kiley, though a freshman, has figured it out and why this is wrong. “In a letter to the opinion unit of the state attorney general’s office, the Rocklin Republican and former deputy attorney general argued that hiring Holder as outside counsel violates Article VII of the California Constitution. Kiley said California courts have interpreted that section ‘as forbidding private contracting for services that are of a kind that persons selected through civil service could perform ‘adequately and competently’ ” – such as “assisting in defending California against federal actions,” a function of the attorney general.

“In light of these facts, I respectfully ask your legal opinion as to whether the 1,592 attorneys and legal staff at the State Attorney General’s Office can perform ‘adequately and competently’ the legal services for which Covington & Burling has been retained by the Legislature,'” Kiley wrote in a letter to the Attorney General’s Office.

Most headlines in the Times, Chronicle and Bee noted that Holder was hired “to fight” Donald Trump. Is that the role of the Legislature, to fight a president because they do not like him? Is that the proper use of tax dollars, when we have homeless, affordable housing, pension and a water crisis? The state of California has a close to a $2 billion planned deficit, yet the Democrats in the Legislature refuse to use current assets to hire an attorney with no credibility in a town with a Republican president, Congress and Senate? Even if this was a needed hire, the person hired is known as being ethically challenged. He lied to a court and got caught, using his office for political purposes.

From Techdirt, October 30, 2014:

“Holder was asked if there was a decision during his tenure that he regretted, and he brought up the Rosen story:

Holder: I think that — I think about the subpoena to the Fox reporter, Rosen. I think that I could have been a little more careful in looking at the language that was contained in the filing that we made with the court. He was labeled as a — as a co-conspirator. I mean, you had to do that as a result of the statute, but there are ways in which I think that could have been done differently, done better. And that’s one of the reasons why I thought the criticism that we received because of that — and the AP matter as well — was something that we had to act upon and why we put in place this review of our — the way in which we interact with the media.

Except, as Julian Sanchez points out, that’s completely bogus. Holder claiming they had to do that because of the statute is flat out opposites-ville. They had to do that because the statute doesn’t allow them to spy on journalists. The law was designed to stop the DOJ from spying on journalists, and so the only way to break that was to lie to the court. The law in question — 18 USC 793 is designed to only apply to the people actually committing the crime of leaking defense information — and not to reporters.”

Yes, not only did Holder lie to a court — he used his office to illegally spy on journalists.  Plus on other occasions he lied to Congress.

None of this was part of the Chronicle story — other than California is angry with the results of the elections and does not like it that Trump appears to be willing to keep his campaign promises. And, the fact, California taxpayers have been forced to hire one of the least likely people in Washington to get past the receptionist. The San Francisco Chronicle has a responsibility to fully explain the story. By leaving out who Holder really is and his record, it denies the readers of being able to make a judgement that the decision was good or bad.

Is this a man you would want pleading your case in Washington starting January 20, 2017? It is not California vs. Trump. It is Sacramento vs. California. And the Democrats have a supermajority. What could you do with $25,000 a month?

Stephen Frank is editor of the California Political News and Views section of California Political Review.