Four families have controlled CA for eighty years now...

Watch the short video and find out what Obama did on 10/1/16 just before the election!

https://www.thepostemail.com/2019/12/03/california-mafia/

HOW THE DEMOCRATS KILLED CALIFORNIA

A CONDENSED [Wikipedia] HISTORY OF HOW DEMOCRATS REBELLED AGAINST THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE AT THE BALLOT BOX [AS IN OUR 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION] AND DESTROYED CALIFORNIA

California Proposition 187 (also known as the Save Our State (SOS) initiative) was a 1994 ballot initiative to establish a state-run citizenship screening system and prohibit illegal immigrants from using non-emergency health care, public education, and other services in the State of California.

The bill passed with 59% in favor and 41% against at a 60% turnout.

The constitutionality of Proposition 187 was challenged by several lawsuits:

Legal challenges

The constitutionality of Proposition 187 was challenged by several lawsuits. On November 11, 1994, three days after the bill's passage, Federal Judge W. Matthew Byrne issued a temporary restraining order against institution of the measure, which was filed by State Attorney General Dan Lungren.[27] After Judge Mariana Pfaelzer issued a permanent injunction of Proposition 187 in December 1994, blocking all provisions except those dealing with higher education and false documents, multiple cases were consolidated and brought before the federal court. In November 1997, Pfaelzer found the law to be unconstitutional on the basis that it infringed on the federal government's exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to immigration.[28] Pfaelzer also explained that Proposition 187's effect on the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, the Congressional overhaul of the American welfare system, proved that the bill was a "scheme" to regulate immigration:

"California is powerless to enact its own legislative scheme to regulate immigration. It is likewise powerless to enact its own legislative scheme to regulate alien access to public benefits."[29]

Governor Wilson appealed the ruling, which brought the case to the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. But in 1999, the newly elected Democratic Governor Gray Davis had the case brought before mediation.[30] His administration withdrew the appeal before the courts in July 1999, effectively killing the law.[31]

California repealed the unenforceable sections of Proposition 187 in 2014.[32] In September 2014, California passed a bill, SB 396, that removes those sections from California's education, health and safety, and welfare codes, as a symbolic act after the repeal of Prop.187. Bill author Kevin de León said this "closes a dark chapter in our state’s history, and brings dignity and respect to the national immigration debate."[33]

Noting a rapid increase in the number of Latinos voting in California elections, some analysts cite Wilson and the Republican Party's embrace of Proposition 187 as a cause of the subsequent failure of the party to win statewide elections.[34][35]

YOU PROBABLY MISSED THIS!

Excerpt: Last week's most overlooked news was Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez revealing herself as a champion of the "Reconquista" war against Europeans. The Mexican Reconquista movement is an openly admitted effort by Hispanic activists to take "back" California (Southern especially), New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas through immigration and activism. This is one of several driving forces behind allowing illegal immigration. . . READ MORE

Victor Davis Hanson: "A reminder that abstract progressive ideologies impose life-and-death consequences on millions"

Roads between mountain communities are windy, narrow, and often potholed and crumbling (California remains near last in state-by-state infrastructure ratings, though it will soon have the nation's highest gas taxes). For many foothill residents, the ensuing lack of traffic and easy mountain access is seen as a sort of blessing, ensuring privacy and a lack of tourism. Unfortunately, the net result of both poor and too few roads was that when wind-swept fires leapt through canyons and up hillsides, it was almost impossible to escape rural communities and private residences with any rapidity. And so, homes burned down and people died.

In a larger sense, twenty-first-century California is starting to confront the real-life consequences of its own abstract ideologies — on several tragic fronts. The nearly five-year drought taught us that entire communities and vast irrigated acreages could disappear if we ignored our forefathers' warnings to keep building reservoirs, aqueducts, and dams commensurately with population growth, and to abide by the original rationale of these multi-billion-dollar projects. Open borders and sanctuary cities appear humanitarian, but when the result was the arrival of millions of impoverished immigrants without legal status, English fluency, and high school diplomas, state resources once prioritized for roads, bridges, canals, reservoirs, and airports were directed to accommodate vast expansions of social-welfare programs. The idea of ending close state supervision of those suffering from psychological disorders and mental illnesses, when combined with strict zoning and environmental laws that stymied new low-cost housing construction, led to hundreds of thousands of homeless living on the sidewalks of the state's temperate coastal cities, from San Diego to Berkley. Medieval plagues like typhus and infectious hepatitis are often the result.

These same paradoxes help explain the 2018 epidemic of destructive forest fires, a tragic consequence of ideology trumping reality and common sense. Once upon a time, the architects of state governance understood that living in paradise required constant investments and vigilance against the vagaries of both Mother Nature and human nature, whether that meant managed forestry, road construction, reasonable building codes, or water storage and transfers. In theory, at least, millions of dead trees may have been ecological assets for a near pristine, mid-twentieth-century California of 10 million people. But such natural kindling can pose an existential danger to a complex civilization of 40 million twentieth-first century state residents.

READ MORE

CLARK BAKER (LAPD) & THE WAR ON DRUGS

I was part of the failed "War on Drugs" and made 2500+ arrests during the 1980s that saved taxpayers ~$160 million in potential property losses and law enforcement. Despite that, I knew that its prosecution was folly.

To fix this requires a completely different strategy that is based on two FACTS:

1) Most crime is drug-related and;

2) Rehabilitation requires a sincere desire to change. (Most addicts don't want to.)

I recommend a state-run program that sends bonafide criminal-addicts to secure rehabilitation centers (closed military bases are great venues). These centers would offer two specific services:

* The “rehab” wing would offer the best rehabilitation techniques and services known in the Western World, along with out-patient support, job training, and counseling. If an addict completes the program and pisses clean for nine months he/she can be released.

* The "addict" wing would offer pharmaceutical doses of the drug of choice - cocaine, meth, alcohol, cannabis, opiates, mushrooms, LSD etc. - under the care of medical practitioners. In this environment, prostitutes won’t turn tricks and burglars and robbers won’t steal to score adulterated street drugs. Addicts in that wing could stay indefinitely and be released to the Rehab-wing for treatment upon request.

In this way, street drug sales would plummet. After all, why would anyone buy adulterated street drugs when they could acquire pharmaceutical doses of their favorite drug in a secure environment? With most drug-addicted criminals no longer committing crime to score drugs, crime would plummet across the cities and states that utilized the program. And while the initial costs would be high, those costs would be gradually offset as drug-related prisoners transferred from jails and prisons to these rehab centers. As the addict-population rises, the jail populations would shrink.

I also support the idea that anyone can grow and consume any illicit drug they produce personally, but that any commercial sale of their products would result in incarceration and asset forfeiture. Drug-related crime like DUI and manslaughter would result in a prison sentence, followed by the program.

The biggest benefit is that these centers would segregate drug users from the rest of society at the discretion of the addicts themselves - a moral and constitutional solution. I pitched this to Congress years ago. I suspect that law enforcement and prison unions don’t want to jeopardize the status quo. BTW... If you wonder how I calculated my personal $160 million contribution to the LA economy, here it is:

Between 1985-1989, I averaged 4.5 §11550 H&S arrests a day, 22 each week, or 900 addicts a year (assuming 40 weeks a year on the street). During that 48-month period, I made 2,500+ §11550 arrests.

The typical drug addict commits at least five property crimes each day to support their addictions. Their crimes (burglary, robbery, shoplift, B/TFMV, and 484) are not dollar for dollar: That is, the replacement cost for a watch, TV, purse, computer, or cell phone usually costs more than fees paid by a fence or insurance settlement. Addicts might get $100 for a $2000 watch. For computational ease, let’s assume that each crime CONSERVATIVELY represents an average $50 loss to victims. Addicts who commit five crimes a day represent a minimum property loss of $250 (five crimes X $50).

I didn’t include the repair costs of a broken door or window, or the health costs from being attacked by robbers, the injuries, hospitalization, lost work, psychological trauma, and so forth, nor will I include the costs for addict "rehabilitation", incarceration, or international drug interdiction efforts.

By applying these numbers we can accept that by arresting one addict who spends 180 days in jail, I effectively prevented 900 crimes (five crimes X 180 days) and the property loss of $45,000 ($50 X 900 crimes).

If we assume a minimum replacement cost of $50 per stolen item (it is far greater), we can estimate another $45,000, bringing the total cost savings to victims (and their insurers) at $90,000 during 180 days of incarceration.

Back then, taxpayers spent at least $300 for police to investigate these crimes, which includes fuel, vehicle maintenance, uniform and equipment wear and tear; administrative costs, training, and follow-up investigations and prosecution. Not every crime is reported to police, so if we assume that 200 of those 900 crimes are reported, the LAPD spent $60,000 to investigate those 200 crimes.

This means that if one addict is sentenced to 180 days in jail, LA residents and taxpayers will save at least $210,000 in property loss and investigative costs.

If we apply these numbers to the 2500+ addicts I arrested, we can roughly estimate that my efforts alone saved LA residents and taxpayers at least $200 MILLION in lost property and tax revenues. I wasn't alone - most patrol divisions deployed hype cars.

I typically released arrestees without bail on their "own recognizance" (OR) who provided urine samples and good ID (most did). I couldn't order them to provide a urine sample, so I offered the OR if they provided good ID and urine that would 1) confirm their identity and 2) obtain urine that would prove the crime.

They almost never appeared in court and the judge often issued a high-bail warrant for their arrest ($50-$100K) so they couldn't bail out. As a result, patrol officers who observed the suspect but didn't have enough evidence or probable cause to arrest was relieved to learn that they could arrest the suspect on outstanding warrants. At that time, sentencing guidelines prevented judges and sheriffs from releasing the suspects in less than 180 days.

Unfortunately, §11550 is no longer enforced because Marxist judges and legislators view property crime as a form of "wealth redistribution" under the pretext of compassion - that these are "non-violent crimes" that are perpetrated by the poor and sick who deserve our help and compassion.

Orlando mosque tied to case Hillary's State Dept scrubbed

As a member of one of the National Targeting Center’s advanced units, Haney helped develop a case in 2011 on a worldwide Islamic movement known as Tablighi Jamaat, as he recounts in his new book “See Something, Say Nothing: A Homeland Security Officer Exposes the Government's Submission to Jihad” Within a few months, the case drew the “concern” of the State Department and the DHS’s Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Office because the Obama administration believed it unfairly singled out Muslims. The intelligence, however, had been used to connect members of the movement to several terrorist organizations and financing at the highest levels, including for Hamas and al-Qaida.

In the immediate aftermath of the Orlando massacre, Haney has found that the Islamic Center of Fort Pierce, Florida, is part of a network in the United States that originated in the Indian subcontinent.

READ MORE

GELLER: THE THIRD MAN

Something is rotten in the state of California.

It’s extraordinary. The vanishing of this third man recalls the disappearance of the third man who was involved in the Oklahoma Federal building bombing with Timothy McVeigh. Jayna Davis of KFOR-TV in Oklahoma City reported on an FBI alert for “Middle Eastern-looking” suspects – an alert that was later canceled.

READ MORE

California’s Water Crisis – Get Out While You Can

Get out of California while you still can! It will be America’s first “failed State” very, very soon. I am talking to all my CollapseNet friends, family and subscribers here, and I mean every word. Thirty-nine million people surrounded by hundreds of miles of mostly uninhabitable desert…think on that for a while, but not too long. Get your plans in place and put them in action, because this is very real and it is happening right now, albeit in what appears to be slow-motion. That will change faster every week that goes past.

If you live in California, especially in SoCal, you need to pack your shit and move while there are still enough idiots left to buy your property!

I love California, but its fate cannot be more clear. The entire continent and world economy WILL be impacted hard by California’s drawdown (or die-off, if you prefer), but if you live there right now, this is a matter of imminent survival within the coming months.

California will be the world’s most massive demonstration of climate refugees, occurring in the wealthiest and most industrialized nation, but one that STILL HAS NO MEANS to absorb even a significant fraction of the people who are and will be displaced by Liebig’s Law of the Minimum (here, water) from California in the immediate future.

Mother Nature always bats last, hits hardest, and wins.

Anybody have a better plan than to GTFO? Your government doesn’t have one, that’s for certain.

READ MORE

MUTINY IN MURIETTA

In an exclusive expose regarding the immigration standoff in Murrieta, California, it was revealed by a confidential informant inside the Murrieta U.S. Border Patrol facility that the real reason busses stopped delivering illegal immigrants was due to a virtual mutiny within the U.S. Border Patrol ranks.

READ MORE

Goodbye, California!

Please forgive me, but posting will be very light during this transition from CA to AZ!

I won't have much Internet access for at least a week, because there was not enough time and ability to get things set up in AZ before we moved.

I love everybody for sticking around for this long, and hope my loyal readers will still be reading this blog in the future as I fully intend to still keep posting when I'm able. CA was my home state, and you can't imagine how angry I am at all the liberals who have ruined such a beautiful place to live. I've seen this transition for decades and it's heartbreaking.

Thanks, everybody!

CALIFORNIA: OBAMACARE TURNING CANCER PATIENTS AWAY

There are two reasons patients will be turned away: one that President Barack Obama hid, and one that he lied about.

READ MORE

California, here I come...NOT!

Today, about 38 million people live in the state of California.

There isn’t going to be enough water for all of them in the years ahead.

And there certainly isn’t going to be enough water in the years ahead to produce the massive amount of food that California is currently producing.

But this is just a RETURN to the previous condition of this part of the country!

Unfortunately for California, the truth is that the weather in the western half of the country is simply returning to historical norms. Scientists tell us that the 20th century was the wettest century in the western half of the United States in 1000 years, and that extremely dry conditions are normally what we should expect for most areas from the Pacific Ocean to the Mississippi River. If long-term conditions truly are “returning to normal”, then the state of California could be heading for a water crisis of unprecedented magnitude.

But it is not just the state of California that should be concerned. The reality of the matter is that the produce grown in California feeds the rest of the nation.

READ MORE

We're leaving my home state in just a couple of months...but what about the food that California supplies to the rest of the country? I hope Arizona grows some of their own...

Orly Taitz Back in Court 10-23-13 Santa Ana, CA

For more information and directions, click here.

Orly has requested that supporters please support her by showing up if you can!

The Real Story on Prop 8 in California

Supreme Court of the United States

---

DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. KRISTIN M. PERRY ET AL.

---

No. 12-144

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Argued March 26, 2013, Decided June 26, 2013 OCTOBER TERM, 2012

Thanks to Diane Lenning for posting this:

Here just part of it! There is more so please read the article. 

CLICK HERE

"Confused about what is really going on with Proposition 8? You’re not alone.

When the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry, we fully expected it would do one of two things: either (1) uphold the voters’ right to protect traditional marriage, or (2) declare a new constitutional “right” to homosexual marriage. 

Either way, it would have given us a clear-cut, definitive answer.

But the Court did not reach either result. Instead, it left us in legal limbo, allowing hostile government officials to capitalize on the resulting confusion, and then lawlessly cease to enforce Proposition 8 throughout California.

Let me try to explain. It is a difficult task, because frankly it doesn’t make much sense.


First of all, the Supreme Court did not rule against Proposition 8.


This has been widely misreported in the media. In reality, a bare majority of the Supreme Court Justices (5 to 4) decided that the Court would not even reach the merits of our case. Rather than determine whether or not Prop 8 is constitutional, the majority avoided the key issue by dismissing the case for “lack of jurisdiction.”

Even though our State Supreme Court of California had unanimously designated us—as the Official Proponents of Proposition 8—to defend the vote of the people (in lieu of government officials who refused to do so), the majority of the nation’s highest court refused to recognize our role as the measure’s official defenders.

Unbelievably, the majority opinion said that only government officials such as the Governor and Attorney General can appear in court to defend the law. In other words, the court concluded that government officials can effectively “veto” a vote of the people by rendering an initiative measure defenseless against a federal lawsuit!

Of course the 4 justices of the minority, led by Justice Anthony Kennedy, lodged a vigorous dissenting opinion, explaining that the court majority’s refusal to recognize our legal standing could now allow government officials to do indirectly what the law prevents them from doing directly. 


Second, by finding there was no jurisdiction, the Supreme Court also vacated (erased) the Ninth Circuit’s decision declaring Prop 8 unconstitutional..."

"...This is crucially important, but widely misunderstood. Even now, I talk to media reporters who still do not understand that, as a consequence of finding no jurisdiction, the Supreme Court expressly and completely nullified the Ninth Circuit’s ruling against Prop 8, which until then was the only other legal precedent on the books contrary to Prop 8’s validity. 

As a result, the only court decision questioning Prop 8’s validity that remains standing today is the sole judgment of one trial court judge in San Francisco from 2010.

This is where it starts to get confusing…

You see, only appellate courts—not trial courts—can establish binding legal precedent that renders a voter-passed initiative unconstitutional. So, while former Judge Walker of San Francisco could order only two County Clerks to give marriage licenses to the two same-sex couples who filed the lawsuit against Prop 8, he had no authority to nullify Prop 8 statewide.


Third, the Governor’s attempt to force all 58 of California’s County Clerks to disobey the State Constitution is a lawless act.


The plaintiffs who challenged Prop 8 took a big gamble when they picked which defendants to sue. They sued the Governor and Attorney General (who have no legal authority over the issuance of marriage licenses in California) and only two County Clerks (who also agreed not to defend Prop 8 at all).

As a result, the injunction they obtained, requiring marriage licenses for the two plaintiff same-sex couples, is extremely narrow. As they admitted repeatedly during that case, former Judge Walker’s order does not directly bind any of California’s 56 other County Clerks—the only public officials with authority to issue marriage licenses.

Of course, they were hoping for an appellate court, such as the U.S. Supreme Court, to nullify Prop 8 statewide. But as I explained at the beginning, there is no such legal precedent left on the books today as a result of the Supreme Court's decision “not” to get involved.

That is why the Governor acted well outside of his legal authority when his administration issued an executive order telling all 58 County Clerks to stop enforcing Prop 8, a state constitutional provision. At least 56 of those County Clerks had nothing to do with the lawsuit against Prop 8, and—more importantly—the court judgment against the Governor makes no difference because he is not the “boss” of County Clerks. County Clerks are independent local officials who take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the State of California—including Proposition 8!


Finally, our new appeal to the California Supreme Court could be our last chance to restore the rule of law.


Nine years ago, our State Supreme Court intervened to stop the lawless issuance of same-sex “marriage” licenses in San Francisco, ruling that other public officials, such as then-Mayor Gavin Newsom, have no authority to tell County Clerks to disobey state law.

Today, we face the same situation, except this time it is the Governor telling County Clerks to disobey the State Constitution.

That is why, a few days ago, we filed a legal petition in the State Supreme Court, asking the seven justices to—once again—restore the rule of law and put an end to the Governor’s illegal attempt to impose same-sex “marriage” throughout California without any legal precedent. We named all 58 County Clerks in our lawsuit, as well as the Governor and Attorney General.

After giving our legal petition an initial look, the State Supreme Court issued an order directing the 58 County Clerks, the Governor and the Attorney General to file legal briefs in response to our petition by late July. The Court also directed us to prepare and file our rebuttal briefs by early August.

Additionally, we asked the Court to create a temporary “stay” to prevent the continued defiance of Proposition 8 by public officials while the case is pending and until a final decision is made. The Court denied that request on Monday, but the merits of our case continue to be teed-up for consideration by the Court in August.

So, once again, our Prop 8 Legal Defense Team is hard at work, led by a crew of outstanding attorneys from our good friend and ally, Alliance Defending Freedom.

And once again we need your help.

Will you join us one more time in this important fight to restore the rule of law and protect Proposition 8 against the lawless acts of politicians hell-bent on killing traditional marriage?

As I said, the federal courts have decided to stay out of this issue, leaving it to California to decide. Yet, with public officials determined to subvert the vote of the people at every turn, even if it means gutting the initiative process and ignoring the rule of law, it is up to us to represent the voters and fight with all our strength to protect the vote of the People.

So please help us win this fight in the California Supreme Court to restore the rule of law with a tax-deductible and confidential contribution of any size today.

I hope this has helped to clear up some of the confusion surrounding the unbelievable circumstances we find ourselves in. If it seems to defy reason, you’re right. 

But when our government becomes one of “men” rather than of “law,” the fight becomes all the more difficult… and all the more important.

Thank you for your continued support."
Very truly yours,

Andy Pugno
Prop 8 General Counsel

P.S. The rule of law has broken down in California. The people’s power of initiative hangs in the balance. Please help us win this fight to restore order and uphold Prop 8 today. Thank you!

So far, not one single case challenging the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the office of president was heard on the merits

Press Release: Appellant’s opening brief filed in Taitz v Obama, Feinstein and Emken:

Second part of the case provides over 100 pages of sworn affidavits of top law enforcement officials and official records, showing that Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, aka Barack Hussein Soebarkah committed fraud and ran for the position of the U.S. President and established his eligibility for the position of the U.S. President based on all forged and fraudulently obtained IDs: E-verify and SSNVS records showed that Obama used a CT Social Security number xxx-xx-4425, which was never assigned to him, forged birth certificate, forged Selective Service certificate, last name not legally his and Indonesian citizenship. Not only Obama never had any valid IDs to show him as a natural born citizen, as required based on Article 2, section1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, all of the evidence showed that he never had any IDs to show any citizenship and any legal status for him. While the evidence against Obama and evidence of elections fraud was gradually developed and it evolved during the past 4 years, one thing remained constant: desire of courts to use any and all excuses to cover up elections fraud and cover up Obama’s use of forged and stolen IDs.

There were multiple challenges filed all over the country by some 45 licensed attorneys and hundreds of pro se litigants. So far not one single case was heard on the merits. Obama consistently refused to comply with any and all subpoenas by all the attorneys and litigants and so far not one single judge held Obama accountable, not one single judge issued an order to compel production of the original wet ink vital records of Obama while all of the copies released to the public were deemed by dozens of experts to be crude laughable forgeries.

In general we are seeing a vicious cycle and all three branches of the government not acting as independent branches that are supposed to provide a system of checks and balances. We are seeing reports of FBI and CIA agents and informers working as aids for congressmen, editors of major papers and as staff attorneys and attorney-law clerks for highly positioned judges. This provides an unprecedented level of censorship which was exacerbated by 9/11.

This system leaves the U.S. citizens effectively deprived of their First Amendment right for Redress of Grievances, and often elections fraud cases, particularly ones dealing with the usurpation of the U.S. Presidency by Obama, are being dismissed on technicalities, excuses. There were instances of retaliation by members of the judiciary against members of the U.S. military and civil rights leaders and attorneys seeking to end elections fraud and seeking an adjudication on the merits in relation to Obama’s forged IDs.

Rubio's amnesty isn't just bad for America, it's the end of America

EVERYTHING THAT NEEDS TO BE SAID

While the GOP sleepwalks toward amnesty, there are a few voices pushing back. Mickey Kaus' blogging has been invaluable. Rich Lowry had a good piece on Schumer taking Rubio to the cleaners. And Ann Coulter ruthlessly gets to the point and unties the entire package of absurdities.

Rubio keeps trotting out the canard about the bounty of taxes we're going to collect from millions more minimum-wage workers when illegals are legalized, stoutly asserting: "In order to keep this legal status, you must be gainfully employed and you must be paying taxes."

It's as if he's talking to someone who has never been to America and is unfamiliar with its tax system.

By "paying taxes," Rubio means "filing a tax return and getting a payment back from the government in the form of the earned income tax credit." Another term for what Rubio calls "paying taxes" is "receiving welfare" -- which newly legalized illegals will start receiving right away under Rubio's plan. The only tax they'll pay is the same tax they pay now: sales tax.

But, incomprehensibly, Rubio swore up and down that the newly legalized illegal immigrants won't get government benefits: "And then they don't qualify for any federal benefits. This is an important point. No federal benefits, no food stamps, no welfare, no Obamacare."

How on Earth does Rubio plan to enforce this "important point"?

Just three weeks ago, the U.S. Senate voted down a proposal to prevent illegal immigrants from receiving benefits under Obamacare. At the time, Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez sneered at Republicans opposing Obamacare for illegals, saying, "This is not a great way to try to do your outreach to the Hispanic and immigrant community."

Forcing Republicans to spend the next two decades arguing that poor Hispanic children shouldn't have access to government benefits like health care and food programs sounds like a terrific way to win over the Hispanic vote!

Is it going to be easier or harder for Republicans to deny welfare to 20 million newly legalized illegal aliens than it is for them to simply say that people who have broken our laws should not be on a fast-track to citizenship?

Coulter is right of course. The premise that you can combine a sellout under pressure with any kind of enforcement or red line is ridiculous.

In California -- which will be America if Rubio's plan goes through -- 82 percent of households headed by an illegal immigrant are on welfare, as are 61 percent of households headed by legal immigrants, according to the March 2011 Current Population Survey by the Center for Immigration Studies.

If you think Republicans are Hispandering now, wait until the children of 20 million illegal aliens start to vote. Rubio's amnesty isn't just bad for America, it's the end of America.

If you're running for the border, then you're not in any position to take a stand. Not now. Not then.

California Seeks Retroactive Taxes From Business Owners

NEWSMAX

“How would you feel if you made a decision, which was made four years ago, you absolutely knew was legally correct and four years later a governing body came in and said, ‘no, it's not correct, now you owe us a bunch more money. And we’re going to charge you interest on money you didn't even know you owed,’” San Francisco entrepreneur Brian Overstreet told Fox.

CA: The middle is still shrinking.

Excerpt from Beautifully Medieval California" by Victor Davis Hanson, PJ Media

A medieval society can be defined in a variety of ways. In terms of class, there is more a pyramidal culture. A vast peasantry sits below an elite of clergy and lords above — but with little or no independent middle class in-between.

I think California is getting there quickly — with the US soon to follow. . .

But feudal California is more than a sense of bifurcated classes and locations. It adopts a closed medieval state of mind too. The Renaissance marked a lessening of the intolerance and censorship of the medieval clergy. Art, literature, science, and philosophy were freed from shibboleths of Aristotle, Church doctrine, and formalistic conventions. But California has of yet had no such renaissance. In our closed, anti-scientific, and deductive way of thinking, Solyndra was a success. Drilling for cheap natural gas in the Monterey Shale formation would be seen as failure. When our governor told Rick Perry that Californians did not need to cool off in 110 degree heat through “fossil fuel”-fed air conditioning, he did not mean that solar panels were energizing green air conditioners in Barstow, but rather that our elites on the coast have natural air conditioning; it’s called the Pacific Ocean. And although wind and solar provide miniscule amounts of California energy, it matters little, given that coastal elites enjoy 70 degree weather year-round and keep their power bills low. PG&E’s and Southern California Edison’s astronomical energy costs are for “little people,” the middle classes in the hot and cold interior and mountains. The aristocracy sets the regulations that make power soar, and the interior pays far more of the costs.

READ MORE

California in crisis

Conn Carroll: What happened to the Golden State?

Over the next four days, The Washington Examiner will look at what ails California, and how it got to its current state of failure. We will look at the state's out-of-control budget and debt, the powerful union interests driving it, the decline of its education system, the failure of its "clean energy" initiatives and the environmental regulations that are wrecking the economy in many regions of the state.

The current trends in the Golden State point to a failing state -- a California in crisis.

Tomorrow: The California spending rush.

READ PART ONE HERE.

TWO BUCK UP-CHUCK

And yes, Trader Joe’s hippie liberal Democrat zombies, the prices went up because of our beloved Dem-controlled state legislature’s taxes and fees on businesses. So embrace those new higher prices, because you made ‘em!

[Begin transcript]