California AG Makes a Puzzling Assertion About New Sanctuary Laws

In a January press conference, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra dodged questions about specific provisions of the new Immigrant Worker Protection Act, AB 450, saying that his department was working on “guidance” for employers wishing to avoid huge fines for voluntarily complying with requests from federal immigration officers. Tuesday (nearly a month later) he held a press conference with Asm. David Chiu, author of AB 450, to present a seven-page document detailing how the state intends to enforce the law.

If you’re not familiar with AB 450, it prohibits private and public businesses of all sizes from voluntarily cooperating with immigration enforcement officers, from allowing said officers from entering “nonpublic” areas of the business, and requires that employers notify employees who’ve been identified by federal officials as possibly having deficiencies in their I-9 documentation (giving them a chance to flee).

Despite the Act’s name, Becerra said, “Let me stress again, AB 450 is about privacy, constitutional rights and Californians at the workplace.”

Unfortunately, the “guidance” doesn’t provide much of it because so many of the terms are undefined or poorly defined. Never fear, the legal beagle told employers wary of possibly violating federal law in order to be in compliance with state law: “There is no conflict with what AB 450 requires and what federal laws require.”

The federal government begs to differ. ICE spokeswoman Lori Haley told USA Today:

“[The Immigrant Worker Protection Act] reflects yet another effort by the State of California to interfere with federal immigration enforcement authorities. Federal law established by the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 requires employers to verify the identity and work eligibility of all individuals they hire.”

In addition to the “Do I follow federal or state law” dilemma employers face, the definitions provided in the guidance produce more questions than answers. For example, the guidance notes that the statute does not define what a “nonpublic area” is, and states it “should be given…its usual or ordinary meaning. A “nonpublic” area is one that the general public is not normally free to enter or access.”

After noting that an employer’s definition of what is public or nonpublic is not controlling, the document states:

It is important to recognize that every place of employment is different and whether or not a business premise, or any part thereof, constitutes a “nonpublic” area of a place of labor is a factual, case-by-case determination that will depend on an assessment of all the circumstances in any given situation.”

Which means that it’s completely subjective and depends on whether they want to fine you or not.

Becerra and Gov. Jerry Brown continue to maintain that California has the autonomy to create its own policies on the matter. But no less than Kamala Harris (then California’s Attorney General) argued against state-based immigration policies just a few years ago in a brief filed supporting the federal government’s position in Arizona v. United States:

California told the court that any state interference with federal policies of removal is strictly unconstitutional as an interference with federal priorities and policies. The brief insisted that “removal’s inherently national character extends to enforcement activities in aid of removal, such as arrest and detention and “such enforcement inevitably targets foreign nationals” and rests solely with the federal government.

Indeed, California argued that a “patchwork of separate removal policies would undermine ‘the nation’s need to ‘speak with one voice’ in immigration matters.’” Thus, California argued that the Court should not allow a state to “interfere with the achievement of the federal priorities that Congress has set” and Arizona should be blocked on the ground that its law “conflicts with Congress’s national removal policy.”

Fortunately for those who believe in the supremacy clause and the rule of law, the document Becerra produced today just provided a lot of ammunition.

The post California AG Makes a Puzzling Assertion About New Sanctuary Laws appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Would Kevin De Leon Rather Have California Women Raped than Illegal Alien Criminals Deported?

That’s the contention of an anti-sanctuary state group, Fight Sanctuary State, after an illegal alien criminal was charged with four counts of rape Monday.

Alfonso Alarcon-Nunez drove for Uber and his targets were young intoxicated females who were leaving parties. He’d take them home then return hours later to rape and rob them. He was able to get a contract with Uber because he had a valid California driver’s license, issued in 2015. On January 1, 2015, California began issuing driver’s licenses to people who didn’t have documentation to prove they were in the country legally, courtesy of AB-60, a bill Kevin De Leon co-sponsored.

The San Luis Obispo County District Attorney hasn’t said definitively that Alarcon-Nunez’s license was an AB-60 license, but if it wasn’t, then Alarcon-Nunez used fake papers to obtain a license. Since an AB-60 license would have been the path with the least obstacles, it would seem likely that’s the type of license he had.

In addition, Alarcon-Nunez had already been deported from the country once, in 2005.

Grassroots groups in California are incensed that the state’s leadership favors illegal alien criminals over law-abiding citizens. Fight Sanctuary State’s Don Rosenberg, whose son Drew was killed by an illegal alien, said:

“How many people have to suffer from crimes committed by illegal aliens before we get serious about getting them out of the country, keeping them out of the country, and severely punishing companies that hire them?”

Maybe if one of these girls was Kevin De León’s daughter he would think twice about protecting criminal illegal aliens.”

De Leon and his allies Jerry Brown, Kamala Harris, and the wacky mayor of Oakland, Libby Schaaf, try to argue that “undocumented immigrants” are simply peaceful people, looking for a better life. That is true for some of them, but the public safety risk they pose is undeniable.

That same year, [2014], the U.S. Sentencing Commission found that 75 percent of all criminal defendants who were convicted and sentenced for federal drug offenses were illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants were also involved in 17 percent of all drug trafficking sentences and one third of all federal prison sentences.

According to the FBI, 67,642 murders were committed in the U.S. from 2005 through 2008, and 115,717 from 2003 through 2009. The General Accounting Office documents that criminal immigrants committed 25,064 of these murders.

To extrapolate out these statistics, this means that a population of just over 3.5 percent residing in the U.S. unlawfully committed 22 percent to 37 percent of all murders in the nation. This is astounding.

In states with the highest illegal alien populations, it’s even worse.

In California, there are just over 92 illegal immigrants imprisoned for every 100,000 illegals as compared to 74 citizens and legal non-citizen immigrants.

The cost of jailing illegal alien criminals is astronomical.

According to research and statistics by the U.S. Departments of Justice and Homeland Security, U.S. taxpayers are footing an annual bill of nearly $19 million a day to house and care for an estimated 300,000 to 450,000 convicted criminal immigrants who are eligible for deportation and are currently residing in local jails and state and federal prisons across the country.

The cost of jailing them pales in comparison, though, to the cost to all of us of the loss of children whose lives were cut short by the crimes of illegal alien criminals. Don Rosenberg has fought against California’s handouts to illegal aliens since his son’s death, and in an interview with RedState admits that it’s emotionally exhausting sometimes, especially at times when he’s the only one standing up against insane proposed laws. He was the only person – ONLY PERSON – who testified in opposition to AB-60, the illegal alien driver’s license bill, when it was in committee.

Rosenberg has formed Fight Sanctuary State with other parents whose children were killed by illegal aliens, in an attempt to repeal California’s sanctuary state laws. He made a great point that the Democrats should think about. “When they argue for gun control, they say, ‘If only one life is saved, it’s worth it.’ Yet when they talk about illegal aliens, they ignore the thousands of lives that could be saved.”

The post Would Kevin De Leon Rather Have California Women Raped than Illegal Alien Criminals Deported? appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


With Rumors of ICE Raids “Swirling,” CA Attorney General Threatens Employers, Feds

Who the heck does this guy think he is?

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra held a press conference Thursday ostensibly to ensure the (illegal) immigrant community of their rights should Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) come knocking on their door. While he repeatedly used generic phrases in English and Spanish along the lines of “people have rights” and “we want to protect people’s privacy,” he laid out his specific expectations for federal immigration officers and employers.

By watching the entire 30-minute press conference (during which one has to suspend disbelief and take a few blood pressure pills or have a stiff drink) it’s apparent the real purpose of the “It’d be a shame if something happened to it” style press conference was to put the feds and employers on notice of new California laws designed to impede the enforcement of federal immigration laws.

Some other accounts gloss over Becerra’s defiant, threatening tone…

“He largely avoided discussing the rumors themselves, and instead focused on ensuring that residents are aware of privacy laws.”

…which was apparent from his opening statement (emphasis added).

“As the Attorney General and our state’s chief law enforcement officer, I take this very seriously and I want to make sure that people understand what their rights and their responsibilities are under the law… whether you are a law enforcement officer, employer, employee, resident, and certainly if you are a federal official, working under federal jurisdiction, in this case, immigration, all of us should know our rights and know our responsibilities when it comes to interacting with the people in the State of California.”

Noting rumors of increased immigration enforcement measures in Northern California, Becerra warned:

“Immigration enforcement must be done according to federal law and certainly according to the US Constitution. Local law enforcement, we always respect federal law and the US Constitution and we abide by state law as well. We would hope that just as California respects the constitution and our laws, that our partners in the federal government would do the same.”

He then references newly-enacted state laws specifically designed to prevent illegal aliens living in California from being discovered by the feds and deported. He attempts to say they’re just “privacy” laws, but when you look them up they only relate to immigration status – so they don’t apply to OTHER issues of privacy.

In 2018 there are some new laws in the state of California that have a role to play in how we go about our business, including when it involves federal immigration enforcement….The Department of Justice is still reviewing [these new statutes] and we will be preparing to issue guidance on the implementation of these two measures.

We hope to be able to give a clear picture of that these laws now mean for us…but the key to these new state laws is that they are a further effort to provide all of our people with the protection of our rights and our privacy.

In other words, we passed these laws that we’re really serious about and you’re obligated to follow, but we’re not gonna give you any guidelines or specifics. It’s taken them more than 18 months to issue proposed regulations for the “Gunpocalypse” bills signed in June 2016, (prompting a lawsuit from gun owners unable to comply with the law), so hey, why would anyone expect what amounts to the STATE’S LARGEST LAW FIRM to be able to actually do their job?

Becerra acknowledged the federal government’s jurisdiction over immigration, and that “we” (the state government) acknowledge and respect it.

We’re challenging the federal government’s ability to force California to do its federal immigration enforcement for it. We do challenge when federal immigration enforcement tries to tell our local law enforcement what they must do, and we’re prepared to challenge any actions by federal immigration enforcement that would violate the constitutional rights of those who live in the state of California.

This is setting up an intellectually and legally interesting, but frightening, situation. If the state believes federal immigration enforcement officers are breaking California laws, will they attempt to detain them? What happens then?

California employers are between a rock and a hard place with AB450, Becerra explained:

“This new law, in an effort to protect people’s privacy, makes sure that no one, but more specifically employers, voluntarily give up individuals – in this case employees’ – rights to privacy. So AB 450 tries to make sure that as an employer you are not sharing information that is not readily available to the public with anyone about your employees. And if you do so in violation of this new law, you are subjecting yourself to fines, up to $10,000, for violations of this new law.

And so I think it’s important that I specifically address our employers, our businesses…as the federal immigration authorities try to go about their work, to make sure it’s clear what you can and cannot do in respecting the rights and protections of the people of California in trying to respond to federal immigration enforcement authorities.

Please be sure you’re aware of this law. Talk to your attorney. Read the law.

Give it a rest, Xavier. Though you say throughout this presser that it’s an “effort to protect people’s privacy” (when you’re not saying that this is about public safety), it’s not about “people” or “privacy.” It’s only about employees whose immigration status could be called into question, and only pertains to “federal immigration agency immigration worksite enforcement actions.” It says right there in the Legislative Counsel’s Digest.

I am definitely a fan of privacy rights. But, hold on just a minute. Why is the state only interested in protecting one type of private information? Never mind; that’s a rhetorical question.

Becerra urges employers to talk to an attorney and read the law because “ignorance of the law does not allow you to escape punishment.” But apparently ignorance of the law is something his department has down pat, because they’re projecting they won’t be able to provide templates for employers on how to comply with the law until July, 2018, six months after it went into effect.

(A great explanation of what the law entails and its “unintended” consequences can be found here.)

Also, I’d like know when a press conference will be held in which Becerra seeks to protect the privacy rights of law-abiding citizens? More importantly, when will his office be held accountable for disseminating the private information of thousands of law-abiding gun safety instructors? If privacy rights are so important, why would the AG’s office seek to gain the private information of people exercising their First Amendment rights and contributing to conservative causes?

Becerra then expressed some seriously misplaced compassion for illegal alien families having to live a life based on “swirling rumors.”

“You can’t live a life based on rumors, and for a lot of immigrants in California – just take – look at the DREAMers, they’ve had to figure out how to live their life based on rumors. DACA will be around, DACA will be gone. It’s really tough. You can imagine the stress that a lot of these families are under and the fear, the panic…”

Yes, those of us who have had to pay for overpriced health insurance policies that don’t cover diddly-squat and have spent a few years wondering about “rumors” of Obamacare repeal understand that!

Becerra’s not as great with off-the-cuff talking points, so he stammers a little, then:

“Do tomorrow what you were gonna do tomorrow. If you’re doing it right, if you’re obeying the laws of this state…then do what you’ve been doing. And — just make sure you’re doing it according to the laws…

Warning, warning, Xavier! They’re breaking laws already by being here, and you’re supposed to be reminding the people who want to enforce the federal law not to break your new law!

“…including our new laws, and know that California is doing all it can to provide everyone in this state with the types of protections of their rights and their privacy as we can.

Phew, he brought it back to obeying the NEW laws.

Knowing that he might face questions asking for details, he reiterated that he wasn’t going to give a lot of detail today (except as it applies to the dollar amounts of fines California employers could face):

“That actually will come later, because we are working on these guidance — issuing these guidances to local law enforcement and people in the state of California and on how these new laws will operate.

“Please understand what these new laws mean for you in terms of your rights AND your responsibilities.”

But you just told us that we don’t know all of that yet!

Either out of willful ignorance or complete stupidity about the effect of illegal immigration on crime, Becerra ended the press conference by saying the CA DOJ is “in the business of public safety; we’re not in the business of deportation.”

The post With Rumors of ICE Raids “Swirling,” CA Attorney General Threatens Employers, Feds appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


LA Times Head Outed as Serial Sexual Harasser and Worse

The Los Angeles Times has been at the forefront of reporting about sexual harassment allegations against Hollywood celebrities and politicians (especially California politicians) since October, but its reporters could have looked a lot closer to home for a big scoop.

Ross Levinsohn, who has headed the paper since August, “has been a defendant in two sexual harassment lawsuits and that his conduct in work settings over the past two decades has been called into question repeatedly by female colleagues.”

NPR published details of Levinsohn’s questionable behavior and the two sexual harassment lawsuits Thursday, citing interviews with 26 former colleagues and associates and a review of court documents and financial filings as sources. Prior to publishing the story NPR emailed Levinsohn asking for comment on the allegations. He would not respond on the record, instead placing a call to NPR’s CEO, calling the “allegations ‘lies’ and [saying] he would retain legal counsel if he felt NPR had disparaged him.”

Among the allegations:

Levinsohn was sued in separate sexual harassment lawsuits as an executive at two different corporations. By his own sworn testimony, Levinsohn admitted to rating the relative “hotness” of his female colleagues in office banter as a vice president at a digital media company. He also testified that he speculated about whether a woman who worked for him there was a stripper on the side.

Two witnesses say they were shocked to see Levinsohn aggressively kissing and pressing himself against a woman at a glitzy music industry dinner in plain view of his subordinates and his clients. Levinsohn was married at the time.

Levinsohn once told an executive for the Hollywood Reporter he would not stay at the publication’s lunch honoring the entertainment business’ most influential fashion stylists because….”As my buddy said, why would I hang out with a bunch of ladies and fags?”

Such behavior is disgusting, no matter the target. It will be interesting, though, to see if outrage in the City of Angels is directed more at Levinsohn’s sexual harassment or homophobic comments?

Though Tronc, the Times’ parent company, described Levinsohn as “a visionary and innovative leader” upon his appointment as CEO, his track business track record isn’t stellar. He was an executive at Alta Vista before it folded, then moved to News Corp., where he encouraged Rupert Murdoch to purchase MySpace in 2005. Murdoch lost an enormous amount of money on that deal, later calling it “a huge mistake.”

At Yahoo, Levinsohn was successful in sales, but ultimately lost a bid to become CEO.  Marissa Mayer was named CEO instead.

During Levinsohn’s short tenure at the LA Times, he hasn’t been successful in building a fan base. He brought in a number of his “good ol’ boys club” pals and installed them in senior positions, including naming Lewis D’Vorkin, the former editor-in-chief at Forbes magazine who worked at the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and AOL, as editor-in-chief.

D’Vorkin and Levinsohn upset many reporters in the newsroom last fall by failing to defend the paper’s coverage publicly after meeting with Disney executives who condemned its stories documenting financial windfalls the company received from the City of Anaheim.

Levinsohn also wants to focus on entertainment stories and told investors Thursday morning he “anticipated the adoption of a related ‘contributor’ model for the Los Angeles Times and other Tronc properties: ‘The approach allows us to be less dependent on the newsroom transformation as we pursue other growth opportunities.’”

Additionally, the results of a unionization drive at the LA Times are scheduled to be announced Friday. NPR reports that six veteran LA Times journalists, who declined to be named, said the drive “has been propelled in part by related concerns over the commitment of the paper’s leadership to its journalism and its financial soundness.”

There are a lot of moving parts in this story, and it could very well be that this well-deserved “outing” was orchestrated by Levinsohn’s underlings as part of a coup.

The post LA Times Head Outed as Serial Sexual Harasser and Worse appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


LA Sheriff’s Deputy’s Side Gig Lands Him in Federal Court

The FBI sting and arrest of LA County Sheriff’s Deputy Kenneth Collins isn’t as shocking as that of former California state senator and Secretary of State candidate Leland Yee (D-RPG Trafficker), but it’s right up there.

Collins was arrested Tuesday, accused of running an “extensive drug trafficking network” and “accept[ing] bribes to use his law enforcement status for criminal purposes.

Undercover FBI agents approached Collins last year, seeking his assistance in providing security for a marijuana grow house. Collins told them “he had three teams already working in the region, including one that was protecting an illegal marijuana grow house disguised as an auto repair shop.” To assure his potential clients that his team had the cajones to get the job done, Collins “boasted that he and two comrades were hired by a client to set ablaze an $85,000 Cadillac truck in order to intimidate someone.”

In a separate meeting, Collins told the agents he had connections in Northern California as well, and could sell them $4 million of marijuana (yes, $4 million!) a month.

Marijuana wasn’t the only contraband Collins’ team handled. The undercover team engaged Collins for a number of “test runs,” including one in which a shipment of methamphetamines (which were fake) and other contraband was to be delivered to Las Vegas. The agents hesitated after Collins named his price, but the crooked deputy stuck to it.

“We’re cops,” Collins said, according to the complaint. “We deal with a lot of, you know, kind of high-end clients, and $25,000, they’re like, you know, it’s like as long as you can make sure my shipment gets from here to there, that’s fine.… They make profits in upwards of $5 million on certain, certain transports.”

When Collins met with the undercover agents Tuesday, he believed his team would be providing security for a shipment consisting of “20 kilograms of cocaine, 6 kilograms of methamphetamine and cash.” The initial price tag for his team’s services was $75,000, but in subsequent meetings Collins tried to sell the agents on moving a larger quantity of drugs and paying him up to $250,000, according to the court filings.

At his initial court appearance, Collins’ attorney argued that he should be granted bail because he “posed no risk to the community” and that “his wife and mother-in-law would put up $115,000 as assurance that he would not flee” – not even to his family in Cuba, where he’d recently visited. Besides, the attorney argued, save a 1999 drunk driving conviction, he has no criminal record.

Gee, I wonder why that is? Here is a man who told his clients, “I fix problems. I make a lot of things go away…” Such as an $85,000 Cadillac SUV.

In addition to Collins, three other men were arrested Tuesday morning as a result of the undercover operation. Only one defendant, a man who served as a lookout driver during the test run to Las Vegas, was granted bail.

The post LA Sheriff’s Deputy’s Side Gig Lands Him in Federal Court appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


School’s In: CEO Blasts Nancy Pelosi’s “Crumbs” Comment

Last Thursday Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Rich Off Hubby’s Money) held a rambling press conference in which she characterized the bonuses corporations are giving their rank-and-file employees as “crumbs.” Of course, she has to spin it that way because for months she and her acolytes predicted that the tax cut would only benefit the rich and the evil corporations.

Waste Management is one of the companies providing bonuses. The company announced this week that they’re giving 34,000 “rank-and-file” employees a $2,000 bonus, and its CEO, James Fish, destroyed Nancy Pelosi’s “crumbs” comment on Fox Business News Tuesday morning.

Over at Townhall, Guy Benson breaks down Fish’s comments.

He calmly explains three points: (1) The tens of thousands of employees receiving $2,000 tax reform-inspired bonuses are working people — “drivers, helpers on the back of trucks, recycle workers, landfill workers, customer service agents” — who earn $40-$60k annually.  An extra two grand in their pockets (in addition to their tax cuts) is a big deal.  “We’re giving [these bonuses] to those folks because not only because they’re hardworking, but they don’t participate in our annual bonus plans, which typically are for salaried employees,” he says.  (2) Injecting $68 million into the economy in the form of augmented income for middle class employees has a stimulative effect on the broader economy.  (3) “From a shareholder standpoint, this is good for us because retention is always an issue for our company. It’s always an issue for companies that employ drivers and hourly employees like these, so this is good for us in terms of retention.”

Hopefully Pelosi took some notes about how economics actually works.

The post School’s In: CEO Blasts Nancy Pelosi’s “Crumbs” Comment appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


California: Further Proof that Liberal Policies Ruin Everything They Touch

I hate to say, “I told you so.”

Well, that’s not really true. I love saying, “I told you so.” But in this case I hate that a headline I wrote more than a year ago is still (mostly) correct.

One of the first pieces I wrote for RedState was titled “California Dems Got a Supermajority, and All I Got Was This Lousy Bullet Train.”

I haven’t received the promised bullet train yet, but they assure me they’re trying! (And in liberal land, that’s all that matters.) I have received a higher gas tax and higher registration fees for my car, but the roads are still filled with potholes. And soon I’ll receive higher energy prices because of the carbon bribe law passed with the help of a few idiot Republicans this past summer. But I digress.

In another early post for RedState, I warned the Dem supermajority that if they tried to secede from the United States (as they were threatening pre-Trump inauguration), that it would not go well for them because of their economic policies. They scoffed.

But this week, in an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, Kerry Jackson of the Pacific Research Institute asks a great question. If liberal policies are the key to eliminating poverty, why is the liberal paradise of California “the poverty capital of America”?

Jackson highlighted four liberal policies that are destroying California’s middle class and creating a state with only two classes – the super rich and the poverty stricken.

1. No-Strings-Attached Welfare. When many other states and the federal government created work requirements for welfare recipients and succeeded in reducing their welfare rolls, California #resisted. In addition, a huge amount of cash is going to poor immigrant families.

“California recipients of state aid receive a disproportionately large share of it in no-strings-attached cash disbursements. It’s as though welfare reform passed California by, leaving a dependency trap in place. Immigrants are falling into it: 55% of immigrant families in the state get some kind of means-tested benefits, compared with just 30% of natives.”

Why didn’t California follow successful welfare reform models? Easy. There are close to a million full-time-equivalent state and local employees in California who don’t want to lose their jobs. They’d rather not help families out of poverty.

2. Land-use Regulations. Since so many other natural laws (like winter) don’t apply to much of California, its rulers seem to think economic principles of supply and demand don’t apply to housing here either. Um, wrong.

“Counties and local governments have imposed restrictive land-use regulations that drove up the price of land and dwellings,” explains analyst Wendell Cox. “Middle-income households have been forced to accept lower standards of living while the less fortunate have been driven into poverty by the high cost of housing.”

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulations are so overbearing that they can add $1 million to the cost of a housing development, Jackson writes. While liberals seem to think that big scary corporations should eat that cost and not pass it down to the customer, that’s not how the real world works. With housing costs soaring, middle class families are forced to either share a home with extended family members or move further away from the cities, which drives up the cost of commuting and increases the state’s already legendary traffic problems.

3. Energy Regulation. “California blend” gasoline in the winter, carbon taxes, etc., combine to create a huge burden on burden the middle and lower class.

“By some estimates, California energy costs are as much as 50% higher than the national average. Jonathan A. Lesser of Continental Economics, author of a 2015 Manhattan Institute study, “Less Carbon, Higher Prices,” found that “in 2012, nearly 1 million California households faced … energy expenditures exceeding 10% of household income. In certain California counties, the rate of energy poverty was as high as 15% of all households.” A Pacific Research Institute study by Wayne Winegarden found that the rate could exceed 17% of median income in some areas.”

4. Minimum Wage Hikes. The minimum wage in California is set to increase to $15 from $10 by 2022. The implications of these government-mandated wage hikes (even in some California cities) are already known, but, again, California’s rulers seem to think natural laws don’t apply to them.

“A Harvard University study found evidence that ‘higher minimum wages increase overall exit rates for restaurants’ in the Bay Area, where more than a dozen cities and counties, including San Francisco, have changed their minimum-wage ordinances in the last five years. ‘Estimates suggest that a one-dollar increase in the minimum wage leads to a 14% increase in the likelihood of exit for a 3.5-star restaurant.’”

In addition, Jackson notes:

A higher minimum wage will do nothing for the 60% of Californians who live in poverty and don’t have jobs.

But since the welfare administrators don’t want them to find jobs, it’s all cool. Besides, we’ll have the bullet train.

The post California: Further Proof that Liberal Policies Ruin Everything They Touch appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


UPDATE: Black Activists in Cleveland Hammer Pro-Abortion Group for Targeting Their Neighborhoods

Last week I reported about the pro-abortion billboard campaign that Preterm, a leading abortion provider, launched throughout the Cleveland area (supposedly) but targeting black communities. During the last week, activists in the black community on both the pro-life and pro-choice sides have hammered Preterm.

Newly-elected Cleveland City Councilman Basheer Jones and community activist Mikki Smith appeared on the “Views from the 216” talk radio show with Darvio “The Kingpin” Morrow to discuss the issue, and Smith did not hold back. She described how the executive director of the Union Miles Development Corporation told her about the billboards and she knew she had to take action. (Emphasis added.)

“I wanted to make sure that…we collectively, as the city of Cleveland, as a community, we stood up and we tell them, ‘Not on our watch.  You will not bring this into our community and tell us our children are not necessary.’

Smith said she wasn’t surprised that the billboards targeted her community.

“We know that Planned Parenthood, Preterm, was created by Margaret Sanger years ago to control population – control the black population.

They popped up all of the Planned Parenthoods in our communities, in our neighborhoods. Why? Because we are not aware. We think, they’re just trying to help us.  No, they’re bringing this in here to get rid of you, so you can stop creating. We were meant to create. We were not meant to abort our children.”

If Preterm or any other abortion provider wants to truly help the black community, Smith says, there are other ways.

“Myself, as a community activist, would prefer that Preterm target conception management, abstinence, not abortion. If they’re going to target anything – get rid of abortion. How about we start teaching the kids, hey, Preterm has contraception management. You can come get free condoms.

Why are you targeting abortions? Why specifically abortions? Why can’t you tell them, ‘Hey, if you’re thinking about having sex come let us help you make that right decision’? You’re telling us after we got into trouble. Now I need to get rid of my kid, ‘Come on here. Come on over to Preterm. We’ll help you get rid of that kid.’”

The hosts of Views from the 216 have asked Preterm representatives to be on the show to talk about the placement of the billboards and answer Mikki Smith’s questions, but they replied that they were not available.

Councilman Basheer Jones said he had a meeting scheduled with Preterm’s leaders, but has not issued a statement about the meeting.

The post UPDATE: Black Activists in Cleveland Hammer Pro-Abortion Group for Targeting Their Neighborhoods appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Nancy Pelosi’s No Good, Racist, Elitist, Nearly Incoherent Press Conference

In Pelosi-land, the only people who can complain about or vote on or negotiate or even have a thought about a certain issue are the ones she deems are affected by it. You know, if you’re not a woman you can’t have an opinion on birth control or abortion. And if you’re white, you can’t have any knowledge or an opinion or work on laws relating to immigration. Because it’s only non-white people who are affected by our immigration laws, right?

Please.

So Pelosi is peeved that the five people working on an immigration deal are white, and that they’re men. In her weekly press conference she made an incredibly racist statement:

“The five white guys I call them, you know. Are they going to open a hamburger stand next or what?”

Nice stereotype, Nancy. Do you really think that’s all white men can do?

She continued:

“That could’ve been done four months ago. The very idea that this week they’re saying, ‘Oh why don’t we get four white guys and General Kelly to come and do this…”

Pelosi’s defense? Well, the joke went over fine last week, so I thought I’d get more mileage out of it.

Drew Hammill, Pelosi’s spokesman, later said she wasn’t criticizing Hoyer or Durbin’s participation and has made similar comments during meetings with both this week, without complaints.

Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), the Minority Whip, was ticked. He told Politico:

“That comment is offensive. I am committed to ensuring DREAMers are protected and I will welcome everyone to the table who wants to get this done.”

Hammill said his boss lady was just trying to call attention to the people who *weren’t* at the table.

The millionaire from San Francisco also said that employers who have given employees bonuses or increased hourly wages as result of the tax bill are just giving “crumbs” and that it’s “pathetic.”

Not everyone can be married to a man who has lucrative government contracts thrown his way, Nan. Some of us are getting by one $1,000-bonus at a time. Feel free to throw any such crumbs my way.

The Botox really seems to be building up in Pelosi’s brain. Her press conferences and speeches have become almost unbearable to watch, not because of the crazy logic she attempts to employ, but because it’s so painful to watch her try to even find the words. Perhaps it’s time for her to head back to the Bay Area and enjoy her twilight years. Then her colleagues can explain away her racist and elitist comments as the mutterings of a crazy old lady.

The post Nancy Pelosi’s No Good, Racist, Elitist, Nearly Incoherent Press Conference appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Ohio Abortion Provider Targets Black Neighborhoods in Disgusting New Ad Campaign

Leading Ohio abortion provider Preterm launched a new campaign this week “invit[ing] our community to reflect on the powerful role that abortion plays in people’s lives.” According to their “My Abortion, My Life” website, they asked themselves:

“What does abortion really mean to people? What is abortion?” But we couldn’t choose just one answer.

Preterm’s 16 “answers” to the “What is abortion?” question are featured on billboards supposedly “throughout Cleveland.”

Good medicine? For whom??

Necessary??

If you’d choose a different word to end that sentence, Preterm wants to hear from you. They give a few suggestions on their site and ask respondents to choose two or three, but there’s also a place to write your own suggestion.

They say each billboard:

“highlight[s] the variety of ways abortion is important to our lives. Abortion may be many things, but one thing it isn’t is one size fits all. Abortion is all of the above!”

But to whom is abortion important? To whom is it necessary and good medicine? An article in Cleveland.com says the purpose of the campaign is to “shift the public conversation on abortion away from the black-and-white political rhetoric.

According to local talk radio host Darvio Morrow and others, there’s another purpose. Noting that the billboards are placed almost exclusively in black neighborhoods, Morrow says:

“They are outright targeting black people and trying to put a happy face on abortion. I am appalled by this.”

One resident called Preterm out, saying, “you do NOT see this in Moreland Hills, Beechwood, Solon, or other well-to-do areas. Sometimes I hate the area that I live in but I despise the agenda behind what’s advertised here even more.”

Preterm claims that abortion is safer than childbirth, so are they suggesting that pregnant women in these neighborhoods just abort their babies because that’s the “safe” choice?

A local doula, Nakia Smith, posted on Instagram that the campaign has blatantly racist intentions.

One of the city’s newest councilmen, Basheer Jones, has been inundated with complaints from members of the black community and is asking to have a meeting with members of Preterm’s senior leadership.

On its main website, Preterm characterizes its focus on black communities as “racial justice.”

“We know how race, discrimination, and poverty shape the reproductive lives of our patients. Because of racial injustice, women of color are both more likely to need abortions, and less likely to be able to afford them.

For us, reproductive justice includes racial justice.”

Racial justice includes limiting the number of black babies born? Apparently black lives don’t really matter to Preterm.

The post Ohio Abortion Provider Targets Black Neighborhoods in Disgusting New Ad Campaign appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State