HEARD ON THE TOM/TOMS

HEARD ON THE TOM/TOMS

Stephen Frank, California Political News and Views,  7/22/19  

CONTENT

BIG STORY:  CAGOP cash balance in state account on June 30, 2019 is $778,205. In 2017 it was $1,744,732, and in 2015 it was $2,067,596. Source: Cal-Access forms 460s.    This is not “commitments in the millions”, it is dollars that can be spent.  No “promises”, real dollars.  The good news is that this is approximately $400,000 more than on May 18.  Still we do not have a voter registration bounty program—and most registrations programs are organized by volunteers outside of the organized Party.  Over the next four months we will be doing campaign and voter registration training, as a volunteer—no one is being paid—in most of the State.  So far sessions in the work or dates finalized are in 17 counties.  I will let GOP volunteers know about them via this column in my newsletter.

  1.  The NRCC says that David Valadao can beat T.J. Cox by 16 points—maybe the controversies and misrepresentations of Cox have finally hit home.  Former Rep, Hanford dairyman files initial candidacy paperwork while mulling bid: Former Congressman David Valadao (R-Hanford) quietly filed his statement of candidacy on Tuesday to seek a potential rematch with his successor, Rep. TJ Cox (D-Fresno).
  2. CA-39: Rep. Gil Cisneros (D) was the only Democrat incumbent in the Frontline program to be out raised by a GOP challenger. Republican Young Kim raised $401,280 in the second quarter to Cisneros’ $318,085. Kim now has $381,814 in cash on hand to Cisneros’ $389,942. However as a Lotto winner Cisneros has plenty of money to self fund and pay off people who accuse him of sexual harassment. Kim lost this PVI-Even district to Cisneros in 2018 by a very narrow 3 point margin.
  3. CA-10: Rep. Josh Harder (D) has outraised every other freshman Democrat, raising $750,000 in 2Q fundraising and has $1.3 million COH. Only one of the 4 Republicans running for the seat has released 2Q fundraising numbers-former Turlock City Councilman Ted Howze (R), who raised $108,000 and has $675,000 COH, mostly from a personal $625,000 loan. The other 3 Republicans-Army veteran Charles Dossett (R), agriculture lobbyist Marla Sousa Livengood (R), and San Joaquin County Supervisor Bob Elliott (R), have not released updated fundraising numbers.
  4. On November 1, I will be on a panel hosted by the Napa County Republican Central Committee to discuss voter registration.  It starts at 6:00pn at the Napa Horsemans Association  On August 26 I will be in Sonora at the Opera House in the evening discussing voter registration and the creation of a camping team and effort.  These are just the start of the FALL OFFENSIVE FOR VICTORY 2020.   In a short while I will be publishing the almost twenty other cities and regions I will be doing this.  For the record, I am doing this for free, I am a volunteer.
  5. Over the weekend ,over than 200 conservative activists, representing about 60 different organizations attended a real training session in Fresno.  How to raise money, how to develop coalitions, the use of policy and issues in a campaign, the role of policy and issues in campaigns, the elements of a campaign Team and much more.    The CALIFORNIA CONSERVATIVE CONFERENCE was training and a coalition building effort, to unite all conservative leaders and organizations.  We will no longer be divided by non conservative efforts.

The next step is bringing training to the communities and regions of California.  So far, 17 areas have asked for training to be finished before the middle of November.  All of this is done by volunteers.   Volunteers have been set up to advise campaigns, direct resources and develop candidates and campaigns—watch this column for notices of new training sessions.  If you want information or assistance, contact Steve Frank at 805-795-1271 or stephenfrank@sbcglobal.net.  All Republicans and conservatives deserve help, not just in targeted races.

Bernie Sanders campaign responds to staffers’ demand for $15 minimum wage by … cutting back hours

Bernie Sanders is getting a lesson in capitalism.  He tried to run his campaign by socialist values—but even socialists want money.  So, by being forced to pay $15 an hour for workers, he now needs to fire some and not hire others—because the Socialist Sanders can not afford the $15 minimum wage.  Wonder if he realizes he is killing off jobs in the private sector.

“Shakir also told Newsweek that leadership at the campaign previously offered a pay increase for field organizers, but that the offer was rejected in a formal vote. According to the Post, Shakir offered organizer pay to be raised to $42,000 annually and extend the workweek to six days. The offer was reportedly rejected because it would have elevated staff to a pay level in which they’d be responsible to pay more of their own health care costs.

As of now, Bernie’s field organizers have all of their health insurance premiums covered by the campaign. By comparison, campaign supervisors who make more than $36,000 per year have only 85 percent of their premiums covered. Team Bernie, champions of Medicare for All, counteroffered the field organizers’ demand for higher pay here in part by adding the condition that disgruntled employees take on some of the financial burden of their own health insurance.”

Supporters of the free market need to use the Sanders experience as evidence that an artificial minimum wage is a loser for workers and society.

Bernie Sanders campaign responds to staffers’ demand for $15 minimum wage by … cutting back hours

Allahpundit, HotAir,   7/21/19  

Congrats on finally becoming a capitalist, Bernie.

If you missed Ed’s post on Friday about Team Bernie’s crash course in real-world economics, read it now for background. The campaign’s field organizers realized they’ve been working an average of 60 hours a week at a rate of $36,000 per year, which shakes out to a bit less than $15 per hour — the magic number Bernie himself has demanded be set as the new federal minimum wage. He can’t pay us less than what he wants every American to be paid, his staffers rightly reasoned. So they’ve complained to management and the complaints leaked into the press and now there’s a hubbub over the country’s most prominent socialist nickel-and-diming his own labor force and, quite simply, it’s the feelgood story of the summer.

It was, of course, also completely foreseeable. Mandate higher wages and a business will start slashing hours to make ends meet. Or laying people off, of course — that’s the inevitable next chapter in this comedy. Unless, I suppose, Bernie decides to sell one of his vacation homes and uses the proceeds to keep a few extra people on the payroll for awhile.

In a statement provided to Newsweek,

[campaign manager Faiz]

Shakir said that the campaign has been in discussions about pay structure changes with the United Food & Commercial Workers Local 400, the union representing the organizers.

“We look forward to continuing those discussions and obviously are disappointed that some individuals decided to damage the integrity of these efforts before they were concluded,” Shakir said. “As these discussions continue, we are limiting hours so no employee is receiving less than $15 for any hours worked.”

Shakir also told Newsweek that leadership at the campaign previously offered a pay increase for field organizers, but that the offer was rejected in a formal vote. According to the Post, Shakir offered organizer pay to be raised to $42,000 annually and extend the workweek to six days. The offer was reportedly rejected because it would have elevated staff to a pay level in which they’d be responsible to pay more of their own health care costs.

As of now, Bernie’s field organizers have all of their health insurance premiums covered by the campaign. By comparison, campaign supervisors who make more than $36,000 per year have only 85 percent of their premiums covered. Team Bernie, champions of Medicare for All, counteroffered the field organizers’ demand for higher pay here in part by adding the condition that disgruntled employees take on some of the financial burden of their own health insurance.

Here’s the icing on the cake, though:

[Sanders] expressed frustration that staffers had taken their complaints to the media.

“It does bother me that people are going outside of the process and going to the media,” he said. “That is really not acceptable. It is really not what labor negotiations are about, and it’s improper.”

Yeah, since when do workers make their grievances with management publicly known in order to gain leverage in a labor dispute?

This guy and his fans get boners every time a picket line forms somewhere but when it’s his own staffers complaining to the press he’s like, “I’m disappointed they weren’t more discreet about this.”

Spend a few minutes with this very recent analysis from CBO estimating the macroeconomic effects of a mandatory $15 minimum wage. Bottom line: 1.3 million jobs gone. Those lucky enough to keep their jobs will do better, obviously, but there are other bad knock-on effects:

In CBO’s estimation, it would:

— Boost workers’ earnings through higher wages, though some of those higher earnings would be offset by higher rates of joblessness;
— Reduce business income and raise prices as higher labor costs were absorbed by business owners and then passed on to consumers; and
— Reduce the nation’s output slightly through the reduction in employment and a corresponding decline in the nation’s stock of capital (such as buildings, machines, and technologies).

On the basis of those effects and CBO’s estimate of the median effect on employment, the $15 option would reduce total real (inflation-adjusted) family income in 2025 by $9 billion, or 0.1 percent.

Exit question: Will Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez join in solidarity when Bernie staffers eventually go on strike against him?

Mayor of Oakland Missing in Action—FOR TWO MONTHS

This is great news for the safety of the people of Oakland.  The Mayor has disappeared, for a total of two months.  That means she is not in town—maybe out of the country—while ICE protects the people over her objections.

“Schaaf has been absent from city hall business since the beginning of this month. Prior to the trip to China, she took a summer vacation with her family. She is due to return next week.

But the timing of the vacation time and business trip is somewhat curious, in part, because taking into account the city council’s annual August recess, it means Schaaf will have been absent from city government for two entire months.

In addition, any tie votes made during this month will languish in uncertainty until the council returns to session in early September. No ties have been cast recently, but the same situation exists for closed session items.”

It does prove that Oakland does not need a Mayor—everyone is safer that way.

Oakland: Schaaf is missing, Kaplan is concerned

East Bay Citizen,  7/16/19 

Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf could potentially be away from the Oakland City Council for two months.

In early 2018, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf took the unusual step of alerting undocumented immigrants in Northern California that agents from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) were on the their way to remove those living illegally in the U.S. Schaaf’s stern rebuke against Trump and ICE won her a national following.

But when ICE agents were rumored to be arriving in the Bay Area last weekend, it was not Schaaf who spilled the beans, but Trump who confirmed in a tweet last Friday that operations to remove undocumented immigrants would begin last Sunday. As of Monday, though, ICE agents have not been reported in the area.

It turns out neither has Schaaf.

Council President Rebecca Kaplan said Monday that the city attorney’s office notified the council that Schaaf would be unavailable to break any tie votes on the council, if it were to occur, at last week’s meeting and, again, this Tuesday. (Unlike most cities, Oakland has an even number of councilmembers–seven districts and one at-large member.)

Schaaf’s whereabouts have also been murky to some, in addition, to the length of time she appears to have been away from the fray at city hall. “Given the threat of ICE raids makes it further unusual,” Kaplan said.

“The Mayor is in China with representatives from the Port of Oakland, Visit Oakland, and the Chinatown Chamber of Commerce on a work trip behalf of Oakland. It’s been a long-planned and well publicized visit,” said Justin Berton, Schaaf’s communication director.

Schaaf has been absent from city hall business since the beginning of this month. Prior to the trip to China, she took a summer vacation with her family. She is due to return next week.

But the timing of the vacation time and business trip is somewhat curious, in part, because taking into account the city council’s annual August recess, it means Schaaf will have been absent from city government for two entire months.

In addition, any tie votes made during this month will languish in uncertainty until the council returns to session in early September. No ties have been cast recently, but the same situation exists for closed session items.

It is unknown whether a tie has recently occurred in closed session since it is not considered a direction of the council and, therefore, not a reportable action to be disclosed in open session.

Under some circumstances, Vice Mayor Larry Reid could assume the title of acting mayor upon a portion of Schaaf’s prolonged absence, but that has not occurred. Under Oakland’s charter, the mayor only needs to be reachable via telephone to avoid relinquishing control to an acting mayor.

Theoretically, Schaaf could still break a council tie via telephone. However, just like a councilmember who attends a meeting remotely, there are specific protocols that must be followed. Primarily, the specific location of the elected official must be posted on the agenda 72 hours prior to the meeting.

Lone Ranger Arrested in California!

Why was the Lone Ranger visiting Lone Pine, California, where he was arrested?  He was visiting  “The Film Museum of all things Western “

This is a great place for anyone who loves old western movies and TV shows. A bonanza for baby boomers who enjoyed Roy Rogers, the Lone Ranger, and the other great cowboy shows from the 60’s. The collection is expansive and you will step back.”

But even the Lone Ranger is not allowed to protect innocent citizens—just like ICE.

““Thanks for helping old widow Smith,” he said, “but did you really give her a silver bullet?”

“Yes,” replied the Lone Ranger, “after all that’s my trademark.  Got a problem with that?”

“Well, yes,” hesitated the sheriff.  “Ya see . . . under Proposition 63, you’ve got to be a licensed firearms dealer to give anyone a bullet.”

“Are you kidding?” asked the Lone Ranger.

“Wish I was,” said the embarrassed sheriff, “and to boot whoever receives the bullet has to be registered with the Department of Justice.”

“Holy guacamole!” exclaimed the masked man. “Did I do anything else wrong?”

“Well,” said the sheriff, looking even more sheepish now, “there’s the little matter of you shooting a gun out of the outlaw’s hand.”

While this appears to be satire—in todays’ California it could happen to you.  Feel safe?  Not in California, even if you are the Lone Ranger.

Lone Ranger Arrested in California!

Posted on November 22, 2016 by DRGO, Dr. Wallace Swarm,  11/22/16  

The Lone Ranger was arrested in Lone Pine, California today for the crime of illegally transferring silver bullets.  The famed masked man had just apprehended an armed felon after shooting the gun out of his hand.  As was his practice for the last eighty years, he gave a silver bullet to the outlaw’s victim.

She was a kindly old widow who was robbed and held captive by the desperado.  This lady, grateful that her life and property were restored, treasured the silver bullet as a symbol that justice was done.

The trouble started when she showed the bullet to her weekly garden club.  Upon seeing the gleaming memento, one lady fainted. Another lady gasped that they were all going to die.  A third lady, who was also a member of CHA (California Hysterics Anonymous), warned that where there was a bullet there had to be a gun.  During the shocked silence an attendee desperately summoned the Sheriff on her cell phone.

When the Sheriff heard their story he struggled to stifle a laugh.  He knew the old gentleman on the big white horse.  He also appreciated how many criminals the Lone Ranger had captured over the years.  However, since California voters passed Proposition 63, he had to uphold the law.

Predictably, he found the masked man enjoying a Near Beer at the Dry Gulch Saloon back in town.

“Thanks for helping old widow Smith,” he said, “but did you really give her a silver bullet?”

“Yes,” replied the Lone Ranger, “after all that’s my trademark.  Got a problem with that?”

“Well, yes,” hesitated the sheriff.  “Ya see . . . under Proposition 63, you’ve got to be a licensed firearms dealer to give anyone a bullet.”

“Are you kidding?” asked the Lone Ranger.

“Wish I was,” said the embarrassed sheriff, “and to boot whoever receives the bullet has to be registered with the Department of Justice.”

“Holy guacamole!” exclaimed the masked man. “Did I do anything else wrong?”

“Well,” said the sheriff, looking even more sheepish now, “there’s the little matter of you shooting a gun out of the outlaw’s hand.”

“What!” said the Lone Ranger. “If I hadn’t done that, the skunk would have plugged me for sure.”

“I know that,” admitted the Sheriff, “but he’ll probably sue you for failing to retreat and using unnecessary force.  If they convict you, they’ll take your six-shooters away for good.  Which reminds me, according to California law, your pistols have too large a capacity.  If I were you, I’d convert those six-shooters into five-shooters as quick as you can.”

“Jumpin’ Junipers!” exclaimed the Lone Ranger. “I’d better tell this to my faithful Indian companion, Tonto.”

“Hold on,” said the Sheriff. “I need to remind you that Indians are now referred to as Native Americans.  We privileged male palefaces have got to remember that.”

As the Lone Ranger sat in shocked silence, the sheriff explained his rights and proceeded to take him in.

#####################################################################################

Postscript:

Upon being provided an attorney at State expense, the outlaw successfully sued the Lone Ranger.  He claimed that he could no longer work since he had suffered the permanent loss of his trigger finger.  Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom urged imposing the maximum sentence for possession of illegal ammunition and a firearm that exceeds lawful capacity.  He received a huge monetary award, forcing the Lone Ranger to sell the silver mine.

Tonto was deemed innocent but victimized by virtue of being a member of an oppressed minority.  He was given land by the state and now operates a very profitable casino.

After getting out of jail, the Lone Ranger could not find a job since he was now an ex-con.  Fortunately, Tonto lets him do light janitorial work at the casino and sleep in the basement.

Following the passage of Proposition 63, violent crime in California has steadily increased.  Lt. Governor Newsom advises troubled property owners to protect themselves by posting signs that say:

Keep Out—Gun Free Zone

Lawyer on Call

Wallace Schwam, MD is a retired internist with interests in geriatrics and pharmacology who trained at Duke University. He rated expert in marksmanship in the Army and continues to enjoy hunting and tactical training with handgun, rifle and shotgun. 

All DRGO articles by Wallace Schwam, MD

Elias: Why should independents pay for partisan primaries?

Recently I was contacted by a significant member of the California Republican Party Board about a proposed change in election law.  This person suggested that the Republican Party should allow NON REPUBLICANS vote in the Republican Presidential primary—these would be the Decline to State (NPP) voters.  Under the law, the State Party could have this law change to allow this.

As I explained, once this is done we do not need to ever again register voters.  Why register Republican when you can vote for Republicans under the Top Two (Prop. 14)  and also vote to nominate a Republican for President.  We have already seen the manipulations of the system for legislative office (in 2018 there were 41 out of 153 legislative seats on the November ballot without a Republican).  What happens when the Democrats have an easy Presidential primary in the future—they could get the NPP voters to vote for a radical or weak GOP candidate.

The bottom line, pass this and there is no longer a need for an organized Republican Party.  There will be a resolution presented for the September convention to put the volunteers and Party members on record against the concept of non Republicans selecting our presidential candidates.

What do you think about this?

Why should independents pay for partisan primaries?

By Thomas D. Elias, Pasadena Star-News,  7/16/19  

With California’s March presidential primary less than eight months off, herds of candidates arrive in the state regularly, seeking both votes and campaign cash.

But one often unspoken question remains about that vote, which will look very different from most other primaries in this state: Why should people who declare themselves independent, no

This question arises because state government – that’s us, the taxpayers – foots all the bills for these elections. That includes the 26 percent or so of all voters who are NPP. When primaries involve California offices, state or local, any registered voter can cast a ballot for any candidate listed for a particular office. But it doesn’t work that way in presidential primaries.

Only Republicans can vote for GOP candidates for president next March. And while anyone who wants to can vote for Democratic presidential candidates next spring, NPP voters must first request a Democratic ballot. For those planning to vote by mail, this means sending a postcard to the local registrar of voters with the request, and all but declaring themselves Democrats.

Those policies are set not by the state, but by the national political parties. Unfortunately, no one thought of these wrinkles back in 2010, when Proposition 10 passed handily and created the Top Two “jungle primary,” where the two leading primary vote-getters get spots in November runoffs for state offices, regardless of their party.

State legislators have known the rules for almost a decade and chosen not to confront the national parties. That could risk a confrontation which might reduce California’s role in presidential candidate selection.

As it stands, almost one-fourth of Californians now have a limited role because of exclusionary national party rules. No one really knows how a confrontation might turn out in the future, whether Californians or the national parties would blink first. But it’s pretty unlikely such a conflict would ever lead to there being no presidential primary here at all.

Since California sets just about all its own election rules except those for presidential primaries, why not test this? Gov. Gavin Newsom has shown plenty of daring since he took office last January, on everything from housing problems to the death penalty. Why not take the lead on enfranchising the huge chunk of California voters (more than the total voters in all but eight other states) who may not now be able to vote for the presidential candidate they like best?

And why should all Californians, including both Democrats and NPPs, foot the bill for the 23 percent of state voters now registered Republican to cast their votes? Why not have each political party pay for primaries not run according to state rules?

Those questions won’t get substantial answers before the March vote, in which California might have more influence over eventual presidential choices than it has since the early 1970s.

But some NPP registrants are already thinking four-plus years ahead, to the next time these issues arise.

Some advocate a state law giving independent voters their own ballot, listing every presidential candidate. This won’t happen, because providing an open ballot to a quarter of the voters leaves them with more options than the majority would have. It would be unequal.

There’s also the problem of the national parties possibly refusing to recognize ballots cast that way.

The result is today’s situation, a mess created by the two major parties’ insistence on exclusivity financed largely by voters belonging to other parties, or none.

“I don’t agree that a voter’s rights should be subject to party rules,” tweeted Chad Peace, a leading spokesman for NPPs. “We can’t control party rules, but we can write laws to maximize voter rights.”

Do that, and you get a state confrontation with both national parties and their long records of opposing open voting in California. Which means this state’s primaries will remain essentially unfair until the state’s politicians rouse the courage to risk doing something about it.

AB 619: New Law: Bring Your Own Cups and Containers to Restaurants

California has now gone crazy.  This one slipped by me.  But, this effort to save the planet is the craziest idea to come out of crazy Sacramento.  AB 619, which is now law—but NOBODY knows about it—allows restaurant patrons to bring their own cups and containers to food places.  I guess the next step is that you will be forced to bring your own “doggie bag” to take home leftovers.  Why not?

“Last week, the governor signed the environmentally friendly Assembly Bill 619, which allows restaurants to fill customers’ containers “as long as they are either isolated from the serving surface or the surface is sanitized after each fill,” Food & Wine reports.

In addition, eateries must have a written policy regarding cross-contamination practices regarding the reusable containers and cups available for food inspectors to review, according to Nation’s Restaurant News.

That Sacramento speak is the real goal of the bill—no more doggie bags!  Eat it or leave it.  You bring a cup for coffee, the restaurant has to inspect it to make sure it is “safe”.  This may be the craziest bill ever in California—wait till the comedians get ahold of it!

California Gov. Gavin Newsom OKs bill for restaurant patrons to bring reusable containers, cups

By Janine Puhak,, | Fox News, 7/22/19   

In a bid to better reduce single-use packaging and plastics, California Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed a bill giving the green light for restaurant patrons in the Golden State to use their own reusable containers and cups.

Last week, the governor signed the environmentally friendly Assembly Bill 619, which allows restaurants to fill customers’ containers “as long as they are either isolated from the serving surface or the surface is sanitized after each fill,” Food & Wine reports.

In addition, eateries must have a written policy regarding cross-contamination practices regarding the reusable containers and cups available for food inspectors to review, according to Nation’s Restaurant News.

Last week, the governor signed the environmentally friendly Assembly Bill 619, which allows restaurants to fill customer’s containers “as long as they are either isolated from the serving surface or the surface is sanitized after each fill” Beyond addressing traditional restaurant settings, the bill also approved permissions for multi-use dishes and cutlery for customers at ever-popular “temporary food facilities” like festivals and market events. The bill stipulates that the multi-use products must be properly cleaned and sanitized for repeated customer use, Nation’s Restaurant News reports.

“Having fun at a concert or festival does not have to result in a sea of trash,” Calif. Assemblyman David Chiu, who introduced the legislation, told SF Weekly of the news. “I am grateful Governor Newsom saw the need for this new law that will give event organizers the ability to make greener choices and reduce landfill waste.”

In similar headlines, on the other side of the aisle, President Trump questioned efforts in communities across the country to ban plastic straws while plates and wrappers get a pass.

“I do think we have bigger problems than plastic staws,” Trump told reporters on Friday. “What about the plates, the wrappers and everything else that are much bigger and they’re made of the same material?”

Trump’s 2020 campaign is taking his statements a step further, selling its own plastic straws to replace “liberal paper straws.”

A pack of 10 BPA-free straws sells for $15; the straws themselves are “laser engraved” with Trump’s name.

As of yesterday, they had sold out online.

CA Bill Guarantees New ‘Rights’ to Foster Kids, Promotes Abortions, Rape Care, Phone Calls, Texts and Privacy From Adults

Eugenics is the policy of the Democrat started affiliate, Planned Parenthood.  The goal of the PP founder Margaret Sanger was to eliminate unwanted members of society, BEFORE they became adults.  Hence abortion, of blacks and those of limited economic means.  Since 1973, this has meant the abortion of 19 million black babies and 61 million abortions overall.  Now a California bill is going to be used to give abortions to foster children—without telling the parents or the father that a murder is about to happen.

AB 175, by Assemblyman Mike Gipson (D-Carson), provides for an expanded “Bill of Rights” for foster children, that allows the right to abortions, contraception, and medical treatment for rape “without the knowledge or consent of any adult.”

 “AB 175 also mandates that foster kids get access to the Internet and privacy from nosy foster parents seeking to monitor phone calls, texting, and emails,” Greg Burt with the California Family Counsel reported. Given how many children are stalked on the Internet by sexual predators, this bill appears to play right into their hands.

The only umbrella of protection foster children receive through foster parents could be removed if AB 175 passes.”

As we know, Planned Parenthood refuses to report rapes of the girls.  These allow predators to stay on the streets.  Who decides who gets an abortion?  The State of California—not an adult that knows the girl or the circumstances.  China had a similar policy—called “one child”.   Sham on us for Sacramento Democrats admitting they are no different that the dictators of China.

CA Bill Guarantees New ‘Rights’ to Foster Kids, Promotes Abortions, Rape Care, Phone Calls, Texts and Privacy From Adults

Human sex trafficking in the U.S. disproportionately affects foster youth

By Katy Grimes, California Globe,  7/11/19  

60 percent of all child sex trafficking victims have histories in the child welfare system

A foster care bill currently in the California legislature, guarantees rights to foster children that should raise the hackles of anyone concerned with child sex trafficking.

AB 175, by Assemblyman Mike Gipson (D-Carson), provides for an expanded “Bill of Rights” for foster children, that allows the right to abortions, contraception, and medical treatment for rape “without the knowledge or consent of any adult.”

 “AB 175 also mandates that foster kids get access to the Internet and privacy from nosy foster parents seeking to monitor phone calls, texting, and emails,” Greg Burt with the California Family Counsel reported. Given how many children are stalked on the Internet by sexual predators, this bill appears to play right into their hands.

The only umbrella of protection foster children receive through foster parents could be removed if AB 175 passes.

According to the FBI, sex and human trafficking in the U.S. disproportionately affects foster youth. “In the U.S., the FBI estimates that over 100,000 children are victims of sex trafficking. Foster children are particularly vulnerable to falling victim to sex trafficking and other forms of human trafficking.”

The FBI reports that 60 percent of all child sex trafficking victims have histories in the child welfare system.

“Increasingly, traffickers are using fear tactics to lure children and youth into commercial sex acts and/or compelled labor,” Youth.gov reports. “Young people, especially those with risk factors, are vulnerable to human trafficking. The Administration for Children and Families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued new guidance on child trafficking to child welfare systems and runaway and homeless youth programs because of increased vulnerability to trafficking for youth who have experienced prior abuse or who have run away from home.”

With all of the federal government concerns about the vulnerability of foster youth, why would the California Legislature support a bill to lessen adult supervision of vulnerable foster children?

Highlights in AB 175, including exact language allows the foster child to:

  • contact the Community Care Licensing Division of DSS or the State Foster Care Ombudsperson regarding violations of rights, to speak to representatives of these offices confidentially, and to be free from threats or punishment for making complaints;
  • make and receive confidential telephone calls and send and receive unopened mail, unless prohibited by court order;
  • maintain an emancipation bank account and manage personal income, consistent with the child’s age and developmental level, unless prohibited by the case plan;
  • be free from unreasonable searches of personal belongings;
  • be placed in out-of-home care according to their gender identity, regardless of the gender or sex listed in their court or child welfare records;
  • have caregivers and child welfare personnel who have received instruction on cultural competency and sensitivity relating to, and best practices for, providing adequate care to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth in out-of-home care;
  • have access to age-appropriate, medically accurate information about reproductive health care, the prevention of unplanned pregnancy, and the prevention and treatment of sexually transmitted infections at 12 years of age or older
  • Establishes the Foster Child Ombudsperson Program (§ 16160 et seq.) as an autonomous entity within DSS for the purpose of providing children who are placed in foster care with a means to resolve issues related to their care, placement, or services (§ 16161). Requires the Ombudsperson to, among other things, disseminate information regarding its services and the rights of foster youth, develop standardized information explaining those rights, and compile and make available to the Legislature all data collected by the Ombudsperson, including specified data regarding complaints made to the Ombudsperson and investigations conducted by the Ombudsperson.
  • Additionally, the bill would establish that a foster youth has the right to age appropriate, medically accurate information about reproductive health care, the prevention of unplanned pregnancy, and the prevention and treatment of sexually transmitted infections. Existing law establishes this right at age 12; this bill omits this age limit. However, existing section 16501.1(g)(20) also requires that social workers ensure foster youth, beginning at age 10, are educated about their sexual and reproductive health rights.

“Traffickers are experts at using mobile applications to find and lure children into sex trafficking rings, and this is where children spend the majority of their time,” one human behavior expert explains. “Sex traffickers have access to commonly used apps such as WeChat, Instagram, Snapchat, Kik, online games, Whisper, YikYak, Facebook, and many others.”

The bill also provides that foster youth has the right to:

  • at any age, consent to or decline services regarding contraception, pregnancy and perinatal care, including, but not limited to, abortion services and health care services for sexual assault without the knowledge or consent of any adult; and
  • at 12 years of age or older, consent to or decline health care services to prevent, test for, or treat sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV, and mental health services, without the consent or knowledge of any adult.

The umbrella of protection foster children receive is about to be removed if AB 175 passes.

The bill is sponsored by California Youth Connection, located in Oakland, CA.

“We are proud to share the third and final State of the Community report developed by our Nostigma Nobarriers Project!” their website says. “’POWER: Elevating Youth Voice and Engagement in transition age youth (TAY) Mental Health Services’ celebrates the work of the No Stigma No Barriers Board, CYC staff, Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission, and community partners, and shares the perspectives and recommendations of the young people who have led the three-year project. We hope their voices will inspire the community to put youth voice at the center of analysis, planning, and oversight of California’s TAY mental health services.”

The No Stigma No Barriers group says, “For those who are transitioning out of the foster care or juvenile justice system, these tasks are even more formidable.”

“While California has been a leader in statewide youth-led policy advocacy in areas such as foster care and the impact of incarceration on families, TAY mental health services in most of our 58 counties are still largely planned and implemented by adults,” No Stigma No Barriers group says. “Experience shows that these services are not effective for many of the youth who need them and who suffer long term disconnection from education, employment, and relationships as a result. The No Stigma, No Barriers (NSNB) Collaborative was formed to help change this.”

The Charity Navigator rating for California Youth Connection is mixed in that they do not have audited financials or their IRS Form 990 tax returns available on their website. The form 990 shows:

  • California Youth Connection received $1,814,858 in government grants
  • $841,762 in other grants, gifts and contributions
  • $1,444,705 on salaries – compensation of officers, directors, of $129,978, “other salaries $1,084,300
  • “Other benefits” $115,349
  • $1,404,211 in “other expenses”
  • $277,097 in travel
  • $124,241 in “occupancy,” which if it is rent, is $10,353 per month;
  • more “other” expenses of $678,255
  • Office expenses $66,099
  • IT expenses $17,998
  • “All other expenses” $12,634
  • Equipment rentals $6,680
  • Miscellaneous expenses $11,948

Actual Program expenses $149,259, while directors and staff apparently spend $277,097 on travel.

Support for AB 175 comes from: California Youth Connection (sponsor), Alliance for Children’s Rights, American Civil Liberties Union, California Civil Liberties Advocacy, California Court Appointed Special Advocate Association, California Public Defenders Association, California State PTA, California Teachers Association, County Behavioral Health Directors Association of California, East Bay Children’s Law Offices, Juvenile Court Judges of California, Lincoln, Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter National Center for Youth Law, Seneca Family of Agencies, Stonewall Democratic Club, The Anti-Defamation League.

Opposing AB 175 are: American College of Pediatricians, California Catholic Conference, California Family Council, Eagle Forum of California, Pacific Justice Institute.

Coastal Commission Crackdown

How corrupt in the Coastal Commission?  They fined a hotel for not allowing beach access—when the hotel did no such thing.  This is more evidence of a totalitarian government.  Sadly, the hotel will pay and investors will be fearful of risking money on projects in California.

“Last month, the California Coastal Commission fined the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Half Moon Bay a full $1.6 million for “failing to provide public access to its nearby beaches.” The hotel, “failed to display signs informing the public that beaches are free and open to anyone,” and in the Commission’s view came up short on providing free parking for beachgoers not staying at the hotel.

The Ritz-Carlton did not actually block anyone from going to the beach, so a fine of $1.6 million may have left Californians puzzled about the state agency that levied such a steep penalty. Seriously, if the Coastal Commission wanted a$75 sign erected, they should have done it.  But, this is how agencies like this finance themselves, by pretending crimes are committed and blackmailing folks to pay.

Coastal Commission Crackdown

Commission confiscates funds, transfers money to another private group to buy property

By Lloyd Billingsley, California Globe,  7/11/19 

Last month, the California Coastal Commission fined the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Half Moon Bay a full $1.6 million for “failing to provide public access to its nearby beaches.” The hotel, “failed to display signs informing the public that beaches are free and open to anyone,” and in the Commission’s view came up short on providing free parking for beachgoers not staying at the hotel.

The Ritz-Carlton did not actually block anyone from going to the beach, so a fine of $1.6 million may have left Californians puzzled about the state agency that levied such a steep penalty. Like the California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA), the California Coastal Commission goes back to the 1970s.

The Santa Barbara oil spill in January,1969, prompted environmental activist Peter Douglas to author the 1972 Proposition 20, which created a temporary 15-member commission to craft policies aimed at protecting coastal ecosystems. Douglas went on to author the California Coastal Act of 1976, which made the Commission permanent. The next year, Douglas became deputy director of the agency he had conceived and in 1985 Douglas became CCC executive director. That reign continued for more than 25 years and Douglas and his fellow commissioners never once had to face the voters.

The unelected Coastal Commission overrode scores of elected city and county governments on land-use issues. Douglas ran roughshod over property rights, and on his watch the CCC combined regulatory zealotry with high-level corruption. Commissioner Mark Nathanson, for example, extorted “payments from Hollywood celebrities and others seeking coastal building permits.”

At a Sacramento conference in June, 2011, attended by this writer, Douglas bristled when a journalist mentioned Nathanson, but allowed that maybe one or two other commissioners had committed similar transgressions. Douglas provided no names, and did not indicate whether these officials still sat on the Commission. CCC staff, he said, were people of “integrity.”

It bothered Douglas that state courts sometimes had the temerity to rule against the CCC, and Douglas pushed for the power to levy fines directly.  Despite concern from the Legislative Analyst, in 2012 the CCC gained the power to bypass the courts and levy fines directly, as with the recent action against the Ritz-Carlton. Of the $1.6 million fine, $1 million will go to “a commission fund that provides signs, trails, stairs and other amenities to help the public use state beaches.”

The remaining $600,000 will go to the Peninsula Open Space Trust, “a Palo Alto land conservation group, to help purchase a property north of the hotel to expand public beach access.” The Commission thus confiscates funds from the hotel and transfers the money to another private group to buy property, all without oversight from the courts.

No state administration, Republican or Democrat, has sought to curtail or eliminate the California Coastal Commission. Any restraint of CCC power is unlikely under Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has announced no plans to trim bureaucracy and expanded government by appointing the state’s first surgeon general. On Gov. Newsom’s watch, an unelected, unaccountable body of regulatory zealots will continue to override scores of elected governments on the California coast.

Democrats Declare Civil War: Hispanics vs. African-Americans

AOC, an Hispanic, calls Pelosi, a white woman, a racist.  The Black Caucus is upset the Hispanics are calling them racists.  The Democrats Party in Washington, and nationally (Kamala Harris called Joe Biden a racist).  In fact they are all racists—they believe in identity politics, Harris wants to spend $100 billion on housing JUST FOR BLACKS, Biden now believe kids should be put on buses because of the color of their skin and AOC is hatting everyone.

“When I asked Nelly about the treatment of migrants at the border, she demurred. “I feel bad for them, but it is now a crime to cross the border illegally.” Nelly came across the border illegally with her husband eight years ago. They now are a family of four and she was sympathetic to the alleged mistreatment of children. When I pointed out it wasn’t too long ago that she was a migrant, she said, “Listen, I crossed the border illegally then took the proper legal steps to become a citizen. I would never dream of asking for asylum at the border, because I, like many others, was an economic migrant. “

We have Pelosi, Newsom and even a radical anti-American City Councilwoman who prefers criminals from foreign countries to Americans telling the cops not to obey the law and criminals not to respond.  This from someone who represents Simi Valley, home of the Reagan Library.  We are in the midst of a race war and few want to admit it.

Dems Have an Hispanic Problem

Sara Corcoran. City Watch LA,  7/11/19 

DC DISPATCH-When I attended a LULAC (League of Latin American Citizens) annual conference in 2016, Hillary Clinton was the presumptive nominee and keynote speaker.

As someone who has Hispanic roots and identifies with many of the issues facing the demographic, I had delusions of grandeur, not for myself but for Clinton and the Latino Community. I thought that she would capture 85% of the Latino vote and in key states such as Texas, North Carolina, Arizona and Nevada. 2016 would be the year that the Hispanic vote would become tangible, a recognized force that would help seal the electoral college victory for Clinton. Sadly, my prediction was wildly inaccurate, and Hillary Clinton received less than 66% of that predicted vote. 

According to the Pew Research Center, Hispanics are expected to account for 13% of the voting population in 2020, surpassing the African American community’s representation of 9% for the first electoral cycle in history. So, it makes sense that Beto O’Rourke and Corey Booker would squeeze some Spanglish into their respective debate performances. However, the Democratic Party is failing in making this constituency solid blue and my anecdotal interactions with multiple Hispanics in Northern Virginia support this claim. 

I spoke to two Hispanic Women and two Hispanic men hailing from different parts of Northern Virginia. As I speak both Spanish and English, I told them to speak to me in either language they felt most comfortable with — all chose Spanish. All the respondents had their own small business although some used them to supplement income and others as the main source of funds. What I discovered was shocking. 

“I saw the Democratic debates and the candidates focused too much on African American issues from decades ago. We came here from El Salvador and have earned every cent we have and only believe in supporting the less fortunate via our church. I have never heard of Unidoas,” said one the ladies. “Donald Trump has been great for my family. We saved over $50,000 in tax cuts on our small business last year.” 

When I asked Nelly about the treatment of migrants at the border, she demurred. “I feel bad for them, but it is now a crime to cross the border illegally.” Nelly came across the border illegally with her husband eight years ago. They now are a family of four and she was sympathetic to the alleged mistreatment of children. When I pointed out it wasn’t too long ago that she was a migrant, she said, “Listen, I crossed the border illegally then took the proper legal steps to become a citizen. I would never dream of asking for asylum at the border, because I, like many others, was an economic migrant. 

Jesus has his own car repair shop and is the son of two illegal immigrants from Honduras. When I asked him if President Trump’s statements on Hispanic immigrants bringing crime and drugs to our borders were bothersome, he wasted not a second. “They do bring crime and drugs. I have a family that wants to leave Honduras because of the problem of crime and drugs, but they are older, and the trip is too dangerous for them. I am not a fan of Trump, but I don’t feel like the Democrats are focused on second generation offspring of immigrants, who want affordable college, healthcare, and childcare.” 

Rosa is also a former illegal immigrant from El Salvador and works at a “peluqueria” (hairdresser). She is paid under the table, paid a coyote to cross the border over a decade ago, and is now a voting citizen. I asked her what she thought about President Trump’s cuts in aid to El Salvador and Honduras. “Listen,” she said, “these are very corrupt governments, if you want to call them that.” 

There is a chasm between members of the Hispanic community who have earned their way to citizenship and those who have not; most of them care about the economy first. “If Trump can keep the economy stable, I can live with his obnoxious personality,” they all admit. Julian is a Lyft driver who drives part-time and is also a small business owner. He thinks there is a trend of Hispanics leaving the Democratic Party and becoming Independents. “I don’t identify with Donald Trump and am an Independent — not in the Bernie Sanders sense of the word. Anyone who thinks socialism is a good idea, should look to the chaos in Venezuela. If Donald Trump is the stable genius he claims to be, he should court Hispanics. We are culturally conservative and are hard working. We are not looking for a handout.” 

Democrats can count Asian Americans and African Americans as solid constituencies. In the 2018 midterms elections, Asian Americans voted Democrat 77% and African American 90%. However, Hispanics voted Democrat only 66% of the time. According to the Pew Research Center, close to 27% of the Hispanic were voting for the first time in 2018, so the Hispanic electorate skews to younger generations. 

With legions of active political organizations and members of Congress to represent their interests, what is clear is that these interests are diverse, do not represent the many left-leaning advocacy groups, are influenced by whether they are citizens, whether they own small businesses, and how aligned they have found their economic fortunes to be with either party. 

Latinos can no longer be counted upon to vote Democrat like African American and Asian American constituencies can. This represents a great opportunity for Republicans. If the White House and the President could court Latinos as small business owners, who are a valued segment of our society, he may no longer need to fight losing battles such as the Census citizenship question. The gerrymandered districts where Democrats have taken steps to incorporate Latino communities into their districts could backfire, leading to blue districts voting red for years to come. All Trump needs to do is speak Spanish better than Beto and maybe stop by for a meal at a “Pupuseria” with Republican strategist Steve Cortez.

(Sara Corcoran writes DC Dispatch and covers the nation’s capital for CityWatch. She is the Publisher of the California and National Courts Monitor and contributes to Daily Koz, The Frontier Post in Pakistan and other important news publications.)

Epstein, Bean & Buck: The Democratic Donors’ Sex-Creep Club

When will the Republican is California demand Democrats give back the money they took from Hillary Clinton best friend—Ed Buck—who is the scourge of gay black men.  While not arrested for their murder, he is being sued.  Remember, OJ got off on the criminal murder charges—but lost the civil suit and $25 million.  Buck is just another OJ in the making.

“Then there’s Ed Buck, another Democratic gay rights leader and moneyman whose West Hollywood den was the scene of not one, but two overdose deaths of black men he allegedly paid for sex and drugs. An independent journalist/blogger, Jasmyne Cannick, who has investigated Buck’s sordid activities for several years, warned authorities that the influential campaign contributor was a “predator” who lured vulnerable minority men into his filthy orbit. This week, the mother of one of the dead men alleged Buck violated federal human trafficking laws and “knowingly utilized interstate commerce” to entice the victim to California “for the purpose of engaging in commercial sex acts.” Family members will mark the two-year anniversary of the death of one of the victims, Gemmel Moore, at the end of this month.

Buck has donated more than a half-million dollars to top California Democrats including current Gov. Gavin Newsom, former Gov. Jerry Brown, LA Mayor Eric Garcetti, and LA District Attorney Jackie Lacey.

The media and the GOP needs to make this an issue.  Why haven’t they?

Epstein, Bean & Buck: The Democratic Donors’ Sex-Creep Club


by Michelle Malkin, 7/10/19 

Well, well, well. “Follow the facts,” Democratic strategist Christine Pelosi now advises fellow liberals in the wake of billionaire and high-flying political financier Jeffrey Epstein’s child sex trafficking indictment this week. Some of “our faves” could be implicated in the long-festering scandal, the Pelosi daughter warned, so it’s time to “let the chips fall where they may.”

Too bad Ms. Pelosi’s mommy hasn’t adopted that same attitude of accountability. While serving as the highest-ranking elected woman in America for decades, San Fran Nan has chronically downplayed, whitewashed or excused the sleazy habits and alleged sexual improprieties of a long parade of Dem pervs — from former San Diego Mayor Bob Filner to former New York Reps. Eric Massa and Anthony Wiener to former Oregon Rep. David Wu to former Michigan Rep. John Conyers and current presidential candidate Joe Biden.

Since the woke-ty woke Democrats are now gung-ho on undoing special treatment of wealthy liberal sex creeps, perhaps they will soon be revisiting the matter of two of their other “faves,” Oregon real estate mogul and deep-pocketed left-wing White House donor Terry Bean and West Hollywood Clinton pal Ed Buck.

Here, let me help.

Terry Bean is the prominent gay rights activist who co-founded the influential Human Rights Campaign organization. He is also a veteran member of the board of the HRC Foundation, which disseminates Common Core-aligned “anti-bullying” material to children’s schools nationwide.

Like Epstein, Bean had a penchant for rubbing elbows and riding on planes with the powerful. Upon doling out more than $500,000 for President Barack Obama and the Democrats in 2012, he was rewarded with a much-publicized exclusive Air Force One ride with Obama. His Flickr account boasted glitzy pics with Michelle Obama and Bill Clinton.

Like Epstein, Bean also had a thing for young minors. In 2014, a grand jury charged him with horrifying sexual abuse allegations involving multiple victims — including a 15-year-old boy. After a sweeping investigation led by the Portland police department’s sex crime units and two county district attorney’s offices, authorities charged Bean with two felony counts of third-degree sodomy and one misdemeanor count of third-degree sex abuse. His 20-something boyfriend, Kiah Lawson, was indicted on third-degree sodomy and third-degree sexual abuse.

Allegations of Bean’s lurid sexual trysts with young men, which Lawson says the Democratic donor secretly videotaped, first surfaced in the local Willamette Week newspaper five years ago. Police say the pair enticed a 15-year-old boy to a hotel in Eugene, Oregon, after meeting him through the iPhone app Grinder, which helps men locate “local gay, bi and curious guys for dating.”

Bean wriggled out of prosecution by publicly dangling a $220,000 cash “compromise” with the alleged victim, who then suddenly refused to testify against him. A judge in the county where the politically influential Bean family reigned, promptly dismissed the charges. Case closed? Not so fast.

In January, government investigators filed new charges against Bean and Lawson after the alleged underage victim, now an adult, revealed that he had been ripped off by his attorney, who reportedly never delivered Bean’s payoff. The criminal trial is scheduled to begin in August. In May, a second alleged juvenile victim of Bean’s came forward with a civil lawsuit alleging the Dem donor sexually abused him three times when he was 17. The state Democratic Party and several federal officials who have received donations from Bean have declined to return the money.

Then there’s Ed Buck, another Democratic gay rights leader and moneyman whose West Hollywood den was the scene of not one, but two overdose deaths of black men he allegedly paid for sex and drugs. An independent journalist/blogger, Jasmyne Cannick, who has investigated Buck’s sordid activities for several years, warned authorities that the influential campaign contributor was a “predator” who lured vulnerable minority men into his filthy orbit. This week, the mother of one of the dead men alleged Buck violated federal human trafficking laws and “knowingly utilized interstate commerce” to entice the victim to California “for the purpose of engaging in commercial sex acts.” Family members will mark the two-year anniversary of the death of one of the victims, Gemmel Moore, at the end of this month.

Buck has donated more than a half-million dollars to top California Democrats including current Gov. Gavin Newsom, former Gov. Jerry Brown, LA Mayor Eric Garcetti, and LA District Attorney Jackie Lacey.

That’s a lot of chips falling in the coffers of the party that claims to care most about sex assault and human trafficking victims.

Will Pelosi “follow the facts,” like her daughter recommends, or continue to cover up?