California’s Cautionary Tale – Joel Kotkin

John and Ken interview Joel Kotkin regarding California’s crisis after a decade of Green House regulations. The LARGE study from Chapman University, “California, Greenhouse Gas Regulation, and Climate Change,” (PDF)

Latest article by Joel:

✦ California’s Climate Extremism: The pursuit of environmental purity in the Golden State does nothing to reverse global warming—but it’s costing the poor and middle class dearly (CITY JOURNAL)

Here is a great summary of a dummed down article of the above (via WE ARE SC):

  • since 2007 has reduced emissions by 10 percent, below the national average of 12 percent,
  • The state is home to a remarkable 77 of the country’s 297 most “economically challenged” cities based on levels of poverty and employment, suffering the highest poverty rate of any state, well above the rate for such historically poor states as Mississippi.
  • California now has the greatest income inequality in the nation,
  • out-migrant households had a higher average income than those households that stayed, or of households that moved in to the state.
  • minimum or near-minimum wage jobs accounted in 2015-16, notes the state’s Business Roundtable, for almost two-thirds of the state’s new job growth.

(The entire Orange County Register article can be read here: SAVE MARINWOOD || See also, “Electricity Rates by State in 2018“)

BREAKING CALIFORNIA NEWS!

BREAKING! A family friend sent me info on this, and I was totally unaware… here are some sources of info on this:

Senator Lara’s bill, SB 174, Public employment: eligibility is going to be heard in the Assembly Judiciary Committee on July 3rd This bill will allow “those without lawful immigration status” to hold “appointed civil office”, i.e., ILLEGAL ALIENS may be appointed to city boards and commissions and ”may receive compensation”. This bill started out over a year ago as something related to “public utilities”, less than two months ago it was ‘gutted’ and renamed. ***These positions require one to take the Oath of Office, how can a foreign national, here ILLEGALLY, do that? ***Is the next step to allow illegal aliens to run for elected office? ***These positions would (are) be STOLEN from citizens. ***By authoring this bill, Senator Lana is admitting that the two illegal aliens serving on commissions since 2015 in Huntington Park are doing so UNlawfully! Senator Lara has an office located in the Huntington Park City Hall. Legislators and Committees keep a tally of calls ‘for’ and ‘against’ a bill. Please call to have your voice heard! Judiciary committee 916-319-2334 Assembly members: Mark Stone (D-Chair) 916-319-2029 Jordan Cunningham (R-Vice Ch) 916-319-2035 Ed Chau (D) 916-319-2049 David Chiu (D) 916-319-2017 Chris Holden (D) 916-319-2041 Ash Kalta (D) 916-319-2027 Kevin Kiley (R) 916-319-2006 Brian Maienschein (R) 916-319-2077 Eloise Gomez Reyes (D) 916-319-2047 “The bill would also provide that a person, regardless of citizenship or immigration status, is eligible to hold an appointed civil office if the person is 18 years of age and a resident of the state. The bill would provide that a person appointed to civil office, regardless of citizenship or immigration status, may receive any form of compensation that the person is not otherwise prohibited from receiving pursuant to federal law, including, but not limited to, any stipend, grant, or reimbursement of personal expenses that is associated with carrying out the duties of that office.”

All Californians would be able to serve on state boards — even people in the U.S. illegally — under new bill

  • (LA TIMES) “…The Senate bill would delete the phrase “transient aliens” from the government code and make clear that any person, regardless of citizenship or immigration status, can hold an appointed civil office if they are at least 18 years old and a resident of the state. That would allow any Californian to serve on hundreds of boards and commissions that advice in an array of policy areas, including farm labor, history and employment development….” Senator Lara Introduces Bill to Allow All Californians to Serve on Boards and Commissions — Regardless of Immigration Status
  • (AUTHOR OF THE BILL) “California’s 2 million undocumented immigrants are a source of energy for our state, and their voices should matter when it comes to policies that affect our healthcare, schools, families, and economy,” said Senator Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens). “It is shocking to read the words of fear and exclusion that are still in California law but belong in history’s trash can. The California Inclusion Act is another step toward utilizing the talents of our diverse population and righting a historical wrong.” Undocumented immigrants could serve on California boards under new bill
  • (SACRAMENTO BEE) “Senate Bill 174 amends existing state law to allow the appointment of any resident over the age of 18 to a civil office regardless of citizenship or immigration status. California law currently states that someone is incapable of holding office if they are not a citizen at the time of their appointment.”

California Has Debt, Not Surplus

Dennis Prager interviews California Senator John Moorlach (37th District) about California Assembly Bill 2943, HOWEVER, the conversation started out with budgets and economics. Sen. Moorlach is a CPA after all. This is the section I clipped for use with friends and family that state California is money rich when you speak about our states debt.

Other related audio is here:

Here are half of Senator John Moorlach’s six points in his article entitled, “Budget Primer: 6 Key Measures Of California’s Fiscal Health” (January, 2017):

1. California’s Net Financial Position

California’s “net” unrestricted financial position is a $169 billion deficit ($4,375 per person) according to the most recent Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR).

This figure should be positive for healthy organizations. It is derived by tallying the state government’s assets (monetary funds, investments, buildings, roadways, bridges, parks, etc.) and subtracting its obligations. The last positive position California had was during Governor Pete Wilson’s final term where the state had $1.5 billion in unrestricted net assets.

California is now ranked the worst state, below Illinois, whose net position is a negative $143 billion, or $11,174 per person. Illinois’ finances are so bad, they’re telling lottery winners that they may have to delay their payments.

Deferred maintenance for the state’s roads and highways is some $59 billion.

2. Estimates of California Unfunded Pension Liabilities

*NOTE: For the 2015/16 fiscal year, CalPERS planned for a 7.5% rate of return, but only managed to achieve a 0.6% rate of return. Seven percent of a $400 billion liability means a shortfall of $28 billion (some 20% of Governor Brown’s general fund budget.)

3. Current Unfunded Retiree Medical Liability

California has the nation’s highest unfunded retiree medical liability at $74.1 to $80 billion.

A John and Ken reality check (posted January 2017):

John and Ken speak to Marc Joffe of the California Policy Center (http://californiapolicycenter.org/) in regard to these recent articles on the subject of California’s fiscal emergency:

One aspect Marc Joffe mentioned would be a way to overcome this “debt” is to increase California’s population… however, we see through some recent stories…

…this is not a viable option… nor will it be as long as Democrats are in charge:

In other words, Californians are doomed if remaining on this course.

See also:

As CALIFORNIA Goes, So Goes the NATION


CALIFORNIA UNDOCUMENTED POPULATION


This is with thanks to BLACK PIGEON SPEAKS! Using the numbers below and the idea (fact really) that the largest population of illegal immigrants live in California, I would say California illegal population is at least 13% of Cali’s population. It wouldn’t be unreasonable to say, then, that it could be as high as 20% (so 2-of-every-10 residents). Here are some other factoids:

  • Most undocumented immigrants are from Latin America. Nationwide, 78% of undocumented immigrants are from Latin America—a slight majority (52%) come from Mexico alone. Most of the others (13%) are from Asia, although Africa and Europe also account for hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants in the US. The Pew Research Center (PRC) estimates that as of 2014, 71% of California’s undocumented population was Mexican-born.

Yale Professor: There Are “22.8 Million Undocumented Immigrants” In America, Double Official Estimates

A working paper by Dr. Mohammad Fazel Zarandi from the Yale School of Management, coauthored by two other Yale professors, estimates that there are 22.8 million illegal immigrants in the United States.

This is over double estimates compiled by the Department of Homeland Security, which claims 11.1 million illegal aliens live in the US.

The paper’s abstract outlines some of the reasons why their estimate is both higher, and better than the current government statistics:

We apply standard operational principles of inflows and outflows to estimate the number of undocumented immigrants in the United States, using the best available data, including some that has only recently become available. We generate a lower bound for the number of undocumented immigrants using conservative parameter values that underestimate inflows and overestimate outflows.

Our lower bound is close to 17 million, 50% higher than the most prominent current estimate of 11.3 million, which is based on survey data and thus different sources and methods. Standard parameter values generate an estimate of 22.8 million undocumented immigrants, twice as large as the current estimate.

Conservatives have argued for well over a decade that the number of illegal immigrants is widely underestimated by the government, and think tanks which base their calculations on government data—finally academics are beginning to take an independent look at the problem.

But the fact that the paper needed to be written at all highlights an insidious problem: we really don’t know how many illegal immigrants live in the US.  With that in mind, I think it’s worth surveying the research on the topic—at the very least I’ll be able to give you some context for the broader debate….

Debating Our Cities “Sanctuary” Status (Santa Clarita)

A strain on Facebook’s “Santa Clarita Community” page is keeping people (myself included) up late at night. What got this party started was the below graphic and comment (click to enlarge):

FIRST-and-FOREMOST — many mentioned that Joshua chapter 29 is non-existent — like how the Left views clearly enumerated powers in the Constitution. Non-existent. But discussion of the statement in the Original Post (OP) also riled people us, including myself.

It reads:

  • After seeing all these so called “christians” protesting the sanctuary laws, i feel ashamed to be part of this community. People aren’t thinking of the consequences of getting rid of said laws. #sanctuarysantaclarita

Here is my response to this:

Hmm, what makes me embarrassed is that Christians do not use a proper hermeneutic, and apply 21st century understanding/context to Biblical and Ancient Near East laws, history, and culture. Here is a primer on these cities (4-partial excerpts from the many commentaries available for those seeking context – since it is king – rather than straw-men, red-herrings, and non-sequiturs):

CITIES OF REFUGE

This had been described already in Exodus 21:12–14, as well as Numbers 35 and Deuteronomy 4 and 19. Exodus 21 places the law of asylum at the head of its discussion of capital offences. It describes how God will designate a place for the unintentional killer to flee for safety. Numbers 35:9–15 defines six places as towns of asylum, three east of the Jordan and three to the west. Verses 22–28 go on to state that the town must guarantee protection for the person who is found not guilty of murder, but if the person wanders from the town he may be killed by the avenger of blood. Deuteronomy 4:41–43 describes the three towns of asylum east of the Jordan which Moses designated in that area.

Richard S. Hess, Joshua: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 6, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 305.

1. The Lord spake unto Joshua … Appoint out for you cities of refuge—(See Nu 35:9–28; De 19:1–13). The command here recorded was given on their going to occupy their allotted settlements. The sanctuaries were not temples or altars, as in other countries, but inhabited cities; and the design was not to screen criminals, but only to afford the homicide protection from the vengeance of the deceased’s relatives until it should have been ascertained whether the death had resulted from accident and momentary passion, or from premeditated malice. The institution of the cities of refuge, together with the rules prescribed for the guidance of those who sought an asylum within their walls, was an important provision, tending to secure the ends of justice as well as of mercy.

4. he that doth flee unto one of those cities shall stand at the entering of the gate of the city—It was the place of public resort, and on arriving there he related his tale of distress to the elders, who were bound to give him shelter and the means of support, until the local authorities (Jos 20:6), having carefully investigated the case, should have pronounced the decision. If found guilty, the manslayer was surrendered to the blood-avenger; if extenuating circumstances appeared, he was to remain in the city of refuge, where he would be safe from the vindictive feelings of his pursuers; but he forfeited the privilege of immunity the moment he ventured beyond the walls.

Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, vol. 1 (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 155–156.

One of the first ordinances after the announcement of the Ten Commandments provided for the future establishment of cities of refuge (Ex. 21:12–13). These cities, providing havens for unintentional manslayers, are discussed in detail in Numbers 35:6–34 and Deuteronomy 19:1–14. The present chapter discusses their appointment after the Conquest (see their locations on the map “Canaan in the Conquest” near Josh. 3).

The fact that these cities are discussed in four books of the Old Testament marks them as being of great importance. It is apparent that God wished to impress on Israel the sanctity of human life. To put an end to a person’s life, even if done unintentionally, is a serious thing, and the cities of refuge underscored this emphatically.

In the ancient world blood revenge was widely practiced. The moment a person was killed, his nearest relative took responsibility for vengeance. This ancient rite of vendetta was often handed down from one generation to another so that increasingly larger numbers of innocent people died violently. The need in ancient Israel for the refuge that these special cities provided is evident.

Donald K. Campbell, “Joshua,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 362–363.

The need for these cities grew out of the fact that in the ancient world, and to some extent in the Near East even today, there was a custom according to which, if a member of a family or clan was killed by someone, either intentionally or accidentally, the family would gather together and appoint one of its members to be an “avenger of blood” for his relative. This was a world in which the basic legal maxim was “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” So if a member of the family was killed, it became the duty of the avenger of blood to track down and kill the murderer. Clearly, there was a certain primitive justice in this system. But a person could be killed by accident, and if that were the situation, it would be an injustice if the avenger were allowed to proceed.

[….]

Once in the city, the frightened man was to appear before the elders, as the text in Joshua shows. He was to state his case, explaining why the death was accidental. Then, if the elders of the city judged that there was no malice aforethought and the death was indeed accidental, they were to admit him to the city, where he was to live in safety. It was necessary for him to remain there until the death of the high priest serving at that time. After that, he could return home in safety.

James Montgomery Boice, Joshua (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2005), 108–109.

After I posted the above, JESSIE responds with this:

I respond:

I was responding to the OP* [posted by ALEX], but thanks. And I would bet your understanding of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists and the first time it was invoked as something supporting a separations of church and state is lacking. But hey, thanks.

[Here is] the context in which my response was written:

“…what makes me embarrassed is that Christians do not use a proper hermeneutic…”

Which was a response to:

* “After seeing all these so called ‘christians’ protesting the sanctuary laws, i feel ashamed to be part of this community. 

Now, the assumption could be that ALEX is ashamed to be part of this community (the SCV) because Christians who live in the SCV do not rip Joshua out of it’s cultural and historical context — in which case my comment is somewhat null… but still making a salient point.

But if ALEX is saying that he is a “true Christian” because he takes Joshua out of context, and then applies it to sanctuary cities regarding immigration (modern legal dilemmas), then, my comment has weight.

DIMITRI was nice enough to share his support…

PAQUITA joined the convo in a way that caused a few responses. (BTW, BILL Q’s responses were great.) Here is her opening salvo:

  • Church is a festering ground of sinners. That’s why people go to church. Deep down inside we all know how rotten humans can be to each other. Therefore, I’m not surprised that a few Christians are at the forefront of such demonstrations. They are not the voice for an entire congregation . Everyone has their own version of Christianity. In many churches they are divided , over, on going issues. Yet, the irony of some churches is to go the world over in the name of their God & put a nice face in prayer to basically sucker people to become members. However, their agenda isn’t about inclusion or bettering anyone or love for their fellow man, but their numbers. It’s the oddest thing how people feel so much hate when most church pastors spend hours spreading compassion. However, there’s a lot of hateful preachers too & haters share a strong bond psychologically.

(As an aside, the church IS filled with sinners, she is correct. The human condition is awful. Thank GOD for Jesus [Romans 7:25a is a response to the human condition enumerated from verse 14]. But by stating such in no way supports her jump to the issue at hand or how she encapsulates it.)

I said,

So to be against sanctuary cities is hateful? And then this lawful, secular position is applied to what it is to be a true believer?

......

wow.

PAQUITA responds to me specifically:

  • Sean G sure it’s hateful, against your follow man. God creates all & didn’t put those little lines on the maps. The world is ever changing. People screw it up with the violence, anger, competitive , complaining, bad ideas, and festering selfish ideas of this belongs to me, me, me. This earth belongs to everyone. No one is taking Mother Earth to the grave. The future generations will proceed. Each one of us is here for a short time & to get greedy & not share the earth is really backward thinking. After all China & India surpass the USA in populations. Do you realize those two countries each have over a billion population? This here mass of land of the USA from east to west can support the 316,000,000 million we have.

I respond:

POINT ONE >> To quote you PAQUITA, “…sure it’s hateful, against your follow man…”

May I share what I think is foolish and brings harm to the many women who decide to make the trek from South and Central America? And mind you, I wish to show you that the more hurtful position to women is yours, and not my own, or even Trump’s – so bear with me.

I asked all my Left leaning family members and friends to name one or two things that come to mind regarding why they think Donald Trump is a bigot or racist. I wrote on three of the most popular examples given by these 40+ people who responded.

Number one was Trump’s statement that “Mexico was sending its rapists and drug dealers.” (I do have the full quote on my site if you wish to view it.)

The issue is, is this statement true in its essence. OBVIOUSLY most immigrants aren’t necessarily coming from Mexico, but, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL (a Left leaning org) had previous numbers of 60% of the women making the trek from the lower Americas being raped. This has been revised to 80-percent.

You read that right.

80%

…Now, this doesn’t mean all the men coming across our borders are rapists. Many may be (more on this in a second), but I suspect some of the rapes occur by residents of wherever these women are passing through, or by the Coyotajes (which I show a news footage piece about “rape trees” by these traffickers on my site).

But, a good number of these rapes are happening by the criminal element traveling to and across our border as well. So by not controlling the border and giving haven to these criminal elements, not only are the women from these areas at risk, but the women of all nationalities and ethnic backgrounds here in America are also being put at risk.

Which explains these criminal record percentages committed by illegal aliens as VERY high (comparing their percentage of the general population).

So, back to my point. Your position on immigration and our border seems to be protecting crimes against women. Which I would assume to the women having been or being raped would seem pretty hateful an act — especially at the time.

POINT TWO >> To quote you PAQUITA, “…God creates all & didn’t put those little lines on the maps…”

I will assume you have not read much of your Bible. God created different cultures and languages at the Tower of Babel. Not only that, but I suggest you read up on YHWH’s dealings with the Israelite’s and giving the differing tribes boundaries to live withing the boundaries of other nations.

One example of the GENIUS of GOD is that these boundaries, cultures, and languages, stopped (and has and will stop) mad men from taking over the world. For instance, WWII.

If we had no boundaries and all had a similar culture, a Hitler could have easily swayed many more than he did. And may have eventually taken over most of the world with his Socialism. 

But as the Nazis advanced across the map, they were crossing borders and entering into self-selected cultures (via Free Will — which God created) which rebuffed this advancement. And finally, the various cultures that did joined forces as Allies and defeated Nazi Germany. 

So you can see — I would hope — the benefits of nation states and the importance of protecting our varied cultures and histories.

In responding to BILL Q, PAQUITA noted that she “was raised a southern baptist & than we became seventh Day Adventist.” (All misspellings in the original.)

POINT THREE >> PAQUITA, No Seventh Day Adventists speaks of “Mother Earth.” Dumb. Most “Seven Dayers” I meet are young earth creationists. And there are healthy 7-day churches that rebuke much of Ellen G. White’s teachings, and others that embrace her teachings.

But even they are not New Agers, which is what you are sounding like.

CHRIS summed up the discussion between PAQUITA and BILL and myself (TL/DR means: too long, didn’t read):

PAQUITA then responded to a comment by CHRISTOPHER M

  • “…quote those bible versus: facts please. Borders didn’t exist when the Bible was written…”

I respond to the border issue:

FIRST Here is a map of the ANCIENT NEAR EAST IN OLD TESTAMENT TIMES. These empires were ruled by differing peoples and cultures and many writings in stone speak [jump to historical example from the Sumerians] of these kings and rulers going into other lands and defeating the people who considered this their land and enslaving them:

SECOND Here is a map of the Tribes of Israel in OLD TESTAMENT TIMES — the borders you see were instituted by God through the priests in their theocratic faith (or, guided at times by YHWH through the priests, through judges, or through a king, etc):

And this THIRD example (not during Biblical times) is about the warfare over natural resources here in America BEFORE and after the Settlers arrived (short video):

FOURTH… and most important: 

The New Morality | State Religion

Albert Mohler’s [important] Briefing from 4-20-18. My previous post on this is entitled: “California Wants To Curtail Free Speech.” Usually I grab a smaller clip from THE BRIEFING, but this is an attack on our faith that needs full attention. Here is the descriptions from the shows segments:

  • California set to enact legislation barring sale of any books expressing orthodox Christian beliefs on sexuality (NATIONAL REVIEW has an important article on this “wind change.”)
  • Christians no longer welcome? What’s really behind the line of questioning in a Senate committee hearing (Dennis Prager discusses Cory’s TOTALITARIANISM)
  • Army chaplain under fire after refusing to facilitate a marriage retreat for same-sex couples (Here is the ARMY TIMES article)

THE FEDERALIST has an important article on the matter as well. The entire article is worth spending some time with over a cup of joe:

FactCheck.org has joined Snopes as another sneaky liar with their article on Apr. 25 entitled “California Bill Wouldn’t Ban the Bible.” Although per the “Editor’s note,” “FactCheck.org describes itself is one of several organizations working with Facebook to debunk false stories,” it is not without its left-wing biases.

Article author Angelo Fichera claims that California Assembly Bill 2943 has no bearing on the sale not only of the Bible but also of any Christian book that makes the case, in whole or part, for orientation, identity, or behavior change. Although Fichera asserts claims about AB 2943 banning books “are indeed not supported by the language in the legislation,” he does not actually analyze the contents of the bill.

The extent of his “research” is to cite a tweet from the bill’s author, California assemblyman Evan Low, and an email from attorney Anthony J. Samson, a registered state lobbyist who “provided Low with technical assistance on the bill.” Another quote from Samson is now offered in the updated Snopes article.

Low and Samson are hardly impartial sources. They have a vested interest in getting the bill passed into law before massive opposition can galvanize. FactCheck.org never bothered to do the most basic investigative work of all: “factcheck” the bill’s author and his assisting attorney in relation to the language of AB 2943.

FactCheck-org would never take Donald Trump’s or Jeff Sessions’s word for what a certain anti-immigration bill of theirs says. So why does FactCheck-org take the word of Low and Samson about what AB 2943 allegedly says, particularly since it appears to be at odds with the wording of the bill?

[….]

Bill’s Author Agrees It Can Apply to Churches

Now let’s go back and see how the bill’s actual wording applies to Low and Samson’s remarks. Low’s first comment in his tweet is a devastating new admission: “A church or individual may still practice conversion therapy if they do so without charging for this fraudulent service.” The flipside of this statement is that “a church or individual” cannot “practice conversion therapy” if there is a charge for the service.

Contrary to what many supporters of the bill have been saying, the bill’s application extends beyond mental health professionals (note that the Snopes article claims this is unclear). There is no exemption for religious instruction. We now have confirmation from AB 2943’s author that the bill would indeed apply “to a pastor, Bible study or house church leader, member of a parachurch organization working to help people afflicted by same-sex attractions, or indeed anybody who attempts change if goods or services involve an exchange of funds.”

AB 2493’s wording does not support Low’s second statement: “It does not ban bibles nor does it ban the basic sales of books as some would have you believe.” The only way that such a statement, particularly the second half, could be true is if the sale of a book were not included as “a transaction which results in the sale of goodsto any consumer” or did not come under the heading of “selling a financial product.” It is difficult to see how that could be the case.

For example, the California government’s own guide to “Understanding California’s Sales Tax” gives as its first example of how “sales tax . . . depends on the tax rate and the dollar value of the goods sold” that of a retailer who “sells five books costing $20 each” at a tax rate of 8 percent (my emphases). There is no puzzling over whether the sale of “books” could count as a sale of “goods.” It’s obvious.

“Goods” are broadly defined in AB 2943 as “tangible [movable] chattels bought or leased for use primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.” By what rationale, then, can Low claim the sale of books is excluded from the bill’s designation “sale of goods”? If Low were so concerned to exclude book sales from his bill, he would have to have excluded “books” from the category of “goods” explicitly…..

Brian Whitman of the Morning Answer Impersonates Doug Ose

In a hilarious bit, Brian Whitman of The Morning Answer impersonates Doug Ose after the breaking news that he would no longer run in the gubernatorial race in California.

New California | The 51st State?

John and Ken interview Vice Chair, Paul Preston (of NEW CALIFORNIA STATE). In the interview there is the idea I have explained for years… that is ArticleIV, Section4 of the Constitution reads: “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government…” California is flouting this and could have its politicians arrested, and/or the police force federalized for a time. See my “CALIFORNIA vs. AMERICA” post.

More from FOX NEWS:

Two men have launched a campaign to divide rural California from the coastal cities, motivated by what they referred to as a “tyrannical form of government,” that doesn’t follow the state or federal constitution, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

Unlike the failed 2016 campaign to split California into 6 states, the “New California” movement, founded by Robert Paul Preston and Tom Reed, seeks to consolidate rural California into a dinstinct economy separate from the coast. 

Preston and Reed say the citizens of the state live “under a tyrannical form of government that does not follow the California and U.S. Constitutions.”

The “founders” have evoked Article IV Section 3 of the United States Constitution as justification for establishing a new economy with a new state constitution……

Here is CBS 13 via WEASEL ZIPPERS:

With the reading of their own version of a Declaration of Independence, founders of the state of New California took the first steps to what they hope will eventually lead to statehood.

To be clear, they don’t want to leave the United States, just California.

“Well, it’s been ungovernable for a long time. High taxes, education, you name it, and we’re rated around 48th or 50th from a business climate and standpoint in California,” said founder Robert Paul Preston.

The state of New California would incorporate most of the state’s rural counties, leaving the urban coastal counties to the current state of California.

“There’s something wrong when you have a rural county such as this one, and you go down to Orange County which is mostly urban, and it has the same set of problems, and it happens because of how the state is being governed and taxed,” Preston said.

But unlike other separation movements in the past the state of New California wants to do things by the book, citing Article 4, Section 3 of the US Constitution and working with the state legislature to get it done, similar to the way West Virginia was formed.

“Yes. We have to demonstrate that we can govern ourselves before we are allowed to govern,” said founder Tom Reed.

And despite obstacles, doubters, and obvious long odds the group stands united in their statehood dream.

The group is organized with committees and a council of county representatives, but say it will take 10 to 18 months before they are ready to fully engage with the state legislature.

California vs. America

Below are two positions taken by a left leaning columnist and a right leaning columnist that essentially say the same thing. SOMETHING, mind you, Dennis tapped into some time ago in his article entitled, “AMERICA’S SECOND CIVIL WAR.” Here are the other two articles mentioned in these audios:

  1. Tim Arango of the New York Times: “In Clash Between California and Trump, It’s One America Versus Another
  2. Michael Walsh* at American Greatness: “Democrats Fire on Fort Sumter

Before beginning I just wish to say that California is working against the clear Constitutional mandates that the Federal government controls and protects its borders… and the Trump administration is working against the Constitution in its trying to fight against California’s legalization of marijuana. NOTE! If you are for the state of California choosing to legalize pot, but against the state defining marriage as between one-man and one-woman… you are a confused individual who makes choices on emotion and not Constitutional foresight/understanding. When Walsh and Prager discuss “arresting California lawmakers,” in my minds eye the legal standing ta do this is Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution — which reads:

  • “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government

I have been warning about this for years in regard to The Golden State… California is setting itself and our country up for a world of hurt.

NEW YORK TIMES:

AMERICAN GREATNESS:

* Michael Walsh is a journalist, author, and screenwriter. He was for 16 years the music critic of Time Magazine. His works include the novels, “As Time Goes By,” “And All the Saints” (winner, 2004 American Book Award for fiction) and the “Devlin” series of thrillers; as well as the recent nonfiction bestseller, “The Devil’s Pleasure Palace.” A sequel, “The Fiery Angel,” is scheduled to appear in 2018.

John and Ken Discuss The New Tax Plan

John and Ken discuss the new GOP tax plan with the President of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Foundation, Jon Coupal. In the discussion one can see that the problem in California are not the Republicans in Washington… but with our own state government.

You-Vil-Use-Zhe-Pronoun! Jail Time In California (Updated)

UPDATE!

(HOT AIR) Let’s just list this as the next in an ongoing series of reasons why you should be glad that you don’t live in California. (And for those of you who actually do, I don’t have too much pity. You’ve had plenty of warning signals and you should have moved by now.) In the race to lead the nation in identity politics and political correctness taken to the umpteenth degree, California should be surging into the lead. A bill has actually been passed in the State Senate and is now under consideration in the Assembly which would impose criminal penalties – including jail time – if you are found to be addressing a transgender person using pronouns which don’t match the gender they imagine themselves to be.

A bill that passed the California state senate and is now moving through the Assembly could threaten jail time for anyone who refuses to use a transgender person’s preferred pronoun.

The law is currently limited in its effects to nursing homes and intermediate-care facilities, but if passed, those who “willfully and repeatedly” refuse “to use a transgender resident’s preferred name or pronouns” could be slapped with a $1,000 fine and up to one year in prison, according to the California Heath and Safety code. The state senate passed the bill 26-12 at the end of May. Since then, the Assembly Judiciary committee recommended the bill unanimously and the General Assembly held its first hearing on the legislation Wednesday.

(Daily Caller – emphasis Added)

For the moment, this would only apply in nursing homes. (These are locations which are not traditionally known for an overwhelming number of transgender residents.) But legal analysts are already speculating that the prohibition would spread well beyond those confines and do so quickly…………

  • [I]t is “pretty unlikely that, if this law is enacted, such prohibitions would be limited just to this [nursing home] scenario,” UCLA First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh told National Review. (MOONBATTERY)

Original Post…

(Side-note, all seminaries better have a campus in another state ready to go.) In a previous post I spoke to New York having the ability to close and fine businesses (out of business) for not using the pronouns (HERE and HERE). Here, is an example of why government shouldn’t be involved at all with licensing a profession. Here is a reminder of the NY lunacy:

THE DAILY WIRE posts the following on the bill that will surely jail persons in California: “California Proposes JAIL TIME For Using Wrong Gender Pronoun For Senior Citizens”

….“It shall be unlawful for a long-term care facility or facility staff to … willfully and repeatedly fail to use a resident’s preferred name or pronouns after being clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns,” reads SB 219, called “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Long-Term Care Facility Resident’s Bill of Rights.”

“It imposes fines and jail time on any long-term care employee who refuses to use transgender pronouns. Fines for repeat offenders could be as high as $1,000 and a jail term of up to a year,” reports CBN News.

The bill is sponsored by Equality California and penned by Senator Scott Wiener of San Francisco, notes CBN.

Opponents of the bill (or, people who’ve read the Constitution) are arguing that the compelled speech is an infringement on the First Amendment.

“How can you believe in free speech, but think the government can compel people to use certain pronouns when talking to others?” asks Greg Burt of California Family Council. “Compelled speech is not free speech. Can the government compel a newspaper to use certain pronouns that aren’t even in the dictionary? Of course not, or is that coming next?”

“Those proposing this bill are saying, ‘If you disagree with me about my view of gender, you are discriminating against me,'” he continued. “This is not tolerance. This is not love. This is not mutual respect. True tolerance tolerates people with different views. We need to treat each other with respect, but respect is a two-way street. It is not respectful to threaten people with punishment for having sincerely held beliefs that differ from your own.”

In Canada, such Orwellian measures are already in place. If you refuse to use the pronouns which match a person’s “gender identity,” you could be found guilty of a “hate crime” and face massive fines and possible jail time…… (emphasis added)

CHICKS ON THE RIGHT wryly note:

  • Oh California. You so crazy. As you all know, California is the hub of human advancement. The rest of us are so behind the times. We’re old school hayseeds and need to get with the program ASAP.

Canada has been headed towards the same lunacy as well. Also see this Joe Rogan interview of Jordan Peterson.

#LoveisLove is the new Fascist mantra. Think of how fast this whole issue has moved in a decade. So, in ten years I will be in jail for wearing this?

California Sen. Kevin de Leon “The Rise of White Supremacy”

I have an addition to the HOT AIR story, but first the main idea:

…The most recent example of this is California Senate President pro Tempore Kevin de Leon, who grandstanded to colleagues on Monday he wanted to have a series to public hearings to make sure “California is adequately prepared for Nazi rallies.”

“We’ve already seen this repugnant ideology rear its ugly head on our own college campuses … even right here at our great state Capitol,” De Leon dramatically intoned while reading from pink pages. “In fact, after last year’s fiasco, where a melee occurred on these Capitol Grounds, CHP, the California Highway Patrol, at my request, has fully reviewed what transpired and has made a number of arrests and completed an assessment.”

What’s interesting, yet completely unsurprising, is de Leon’s decision to not reveal exactly how many were arrested and whether they were actual Nazis. The truth is only four people, out of the 106 CHP wanted charged are actually facing prosecution: one a Nazi, while the other three were counter-protesters, aka Antifa. De Leon also failed to mention whom the fine folks in law enforcement believe are to blame for said melee. For that, we have to turn to comments made by CHP in June 2016. Via the Los Angeles Times:

“If I had to say who started it and who didn’t, I’d say the permitted group didn’t start it,” said California Highway Patrol officer George Granada, a spokesman for its Protective Services division. “They came onto the grounds and were met almost instantly with a group of protesters there not to talk.”

The permitted group, for those wondering, is The Traditionalist Worker Party, which openly admits to supporting National Socialism aka Nazism. Their philosophy is completely execrable, but at least the loathsome Neanderthals ask for permits.

The Antifas, who are as execrable and Neanderthalic as the Ratzis, did not have a permit, and showed up to stop the rally from happening.

Now, I personally don’t believe organizations need to implore on bended knee “if it pleases the Crown, pretty please give us a piece of paper” in hopes of promoting some sort of cause. The First Amendment does protect the freedom of speech and assembly, as long as the group doesn’t trample on private property.

However, the Antifas showed just how fascist they are by deciding the best way to protest is with a fist to the face instead of fist in the air, proclaiming, “Down with Nazis! Down with hate!” After all, Antifa did cause $100K in damage to UC Berkeley, something de Leon conveniently forgets, then decided to cause more damage downtown.

So why doesn’t de Leon acknowledge the facts of what happened and admit the so-called Antifas started the violence? Why should that interfere with a good story for voters? After all, de Leon is yearning for a promotion to lieutenant governor and it behooves him to pretend to be “doing something, anything!” to cajole Democrats to cast their vote for him. Besides … everyone hates Nazis, except those who share their beliefs, so might as well make them out to be the problem instead of admitting something is rotten in the state of California.

This is why this entire “left wing vs. right wing” classification is as ridiculous as dress shoes in an ice hockey game. The true battle is between ideologues who believe in freedom versus those who believe in totalitarianism…..

My only addition to De Leon’s LACK of understanding is that these racist groups are primarily Left leaning… as I noted in this Larry Elder [short] clip “California’s KKK Grand Dragon Endorsed Hillary”

OH!!! And don’t furget about de Leon’s GHOST GUN bit: