Posted by Comrade Jack
As I write, our wonderful Demokratic-Peoples lawmakers of Kaliforni are introducing a slew of wonderful new immigration-related proposal. They want to make it even easier for illegal to come here and stay. Yippeee, we’ve all been wanting this and we final got our wish! We can’t do enough for our illegals can we? Open borders – Si! Immigration control – Nyet!
These bills will include measures that would extend the already lavish state-paid health coverage to those in the country illegally and offer more protection against deportation. We’re so lucky to being living in California where we’ve got our priorities in line with the President’s. And if all this isn’t enough good news for you it’s also Comrade, Gov. Brown’s birthday today! What could be better, except perhaps extending the Bullet Train into Tijuana!
The Communists, Democrats behind the wonderful 10-bill package intend to make history today with these landmark immigration laws. They’re going to undermine the stupid Federal government’s immigration laws and add to the already (so-called) un-Constitutional immigration laws passed in California in recent years by our comrades friends in Sacramento. Eh hombre this is good news, no?
Remember last year, we passed a law to allow illegals to obtain a legal driver’s licenses? That was soooo funny, because we drove the conservatives crazy with that one! But, that was just the beginning and there’s no reason to try to hide our real agenda any more – after all who’s going to stop us now? We’re going to fundamentally transform California into a leftist utopia!!!! There should be a Statue at the CA border saying, “Give us your tired illegals, your huddle homeless and a blank check…. we’ll do the rest.” El Democrats
By keeping up the pressure on vastly outnumbered conservative lawmakers our comrades our democrats hope to overwhelm them into just giving up. We want to force them to surrender to our endless stream of pro-illegal alien legislation! We know this will then spread to other states and overwhelm the Federal laws designed to protect our borders and control immigration. The plan is working perfectly too and with the help of our great leader in Washington, Comrade President Obama, victory over rich racist America will soon be ours, just like it was in CA. Viva la revolution’.
California’s liberal communist lawmakers are making tremendous progress for [open borders] while forcing the evil wealthy, those families making $30,000 and above a year, into paying for the benefits given freely to millions of illegal aliens we’ve brought in to be future democrat voters.
The tipping point for a balanced democracy in CA came a number of years back when our Democrat voters, by sheer force of numbers motivated by greed, were able to neuter the conservative vote that was holding back spending. We were able to force the hapless republicans into a funny situation where they have absolutely no influence over any legislation…how comical that was.
On this joyus day I am proud to point out that California has issued 110,000 driver’s licenses to illegal aliens in the country without permission since the new law was passed last year. Keep in mind the law was only implemented in January.
In effect the democrats in Sacramento are saying to the US Congress and to other States, ”There’s nothing you can do to stop us!”
We are being lead by Senator Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles) who runs the CA Senate. Patron’ Deleon, shown on far left where he belongs, acknowledges that our leftist efforts have millions of illegal aliens living in CA, but he hinted that we shouldn’t worry about paying for their high costs, because this expense can be placed on the backs of the stupid wealthy people. We just keep voting for tax increases! What a system, can you say, Que bueno!
The most far-reaching of the new proposals would offer enrollment in Medi-Cal — California’s healthcare program for people who qualify regardless of immigration status. Ha, take that conservatives. Better start working more cause this is going to cost you.
In California, about 1.8 million low income illegals will be given free or mostly subsidized healthcare coverage, according to estimates by UC Berkeley and UCLA. About 1.5 million of them would qualify for Medi-Cal which is 100% paid for by the taxpayers.
Joe Guzzardi of Californians for Population Stabilization, calls for enforcement of existing immigration laws and says forcing taxpayers to pay for benefits such as healthcare coverage for illegal aliens is un-Constitutional. He claims it’s destroying California and our State economy. But, he a rightwing radical that believes in the old Constitution that has long outlived its purpose. Our new democrats in power are quick to point out that people like him are simply [un-caring] and part of the [elite rich] who don’t want to pay their fair share! They are causing [children] to starve too.
“It doesn’t make any sense to keep on reaching out and encouraging more illegal immigration into California,” Guzzardi said. Democrats say he’s an fool that should not be listened too.
Guzzardi recently said, “More people into California means more water consumption, more resource depletion, more traffic on the roads, more urban sprawl — that’s beyond question but it doesn’t seem to bother [lawmakers].”
What is it that we fear in embracing the millions of human beings that are already living in our communities?- Senate leader Kevin de León. So, Guzzardi is just a racist fear monger like all
republicans and this is why they have been voted out of power in CA.Medi-Cal rolls are already swelling because of President Obama’s recent executive action offering temporary deportation relief to certain immigrants. Researchers at UCLA and UC Berkeley estimate up to half a million people may qualify for coverage under the directive, which is currently on hold because of a court injunction.
The Medi-Cal bill, SB 4 by Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens), would also direct the state to ask the federal government to allow higher-income people in the country illegally to buy insurance through the state-run Covered California exchange.
Should the state not receive that permission, it would build a separate exchange for such immigrants if the measure became law.
Lara pushed a similar proposal last year, but it stalled in the Legislature because of its cost, which legislative analysts said could be as high as $1.4 billion.
President Obama has also rolled out the Red Carpet for illegal aliens with his unilateral decision to create a de facto new legal status for millions of illegal immigrants in the United States by making it clear that the United States will not in any manner attempt to deport them.
California Governor Jerry Brown and his liberal Democratic colleagues, who control overwhelming majorities in both chambers of the State Legislature are way ahead of the President when it comes to inviting those in the country illegally to “come out of the shadows” and start receiving the privileges that state government can bestow on them.
If you go to the California Department of Motor Vehicles website, you are greeted by a large hyperlinked banner saying, “AB 60: Driver License Implementation” next to a big yellow button that reads, “Click here for information on how to apply for your original drivers license.”
It’s a new era, and it’s time for California’s Hispanic population to dominate politics and do what is what is right for them and of course all illegal Hispanics because they have the numbers. The Republicans in California are finished because Democrats have been able to buy votes by given free stuff to their supporters. Never before in US history has so much wealth been taken away from one group and given to another, and ironically many in that second group were not even US citizens. It’s a grand coup d’ etat and they’ve won it all.
Hasta la vista baby!
Taxifornia’s lawmaker majority are so far left they are unable to make a right turn when driving.
Gonna be interesting when there aren’t enough folks paying taxes left to support all of the giveaways thought up by the Demwits in the Legislature.
How about a ballot initiative to require those in the Legislature to pay for their bright ideas outta their OWN pocket instead of picking the taxpayer’s pocket?
Jack: “So, Guzzardi is just a racist fear monger”
Yes, that’s accurate. The guy has written several articles for the white nationalist and anti-Semitic website VDARE. The organization he works for now, Californians for Population Stabilization, is part of a network founded by white nationalist John Tanton. They have been condemned by the Anti-Defamation League:
http://archive.adl.org/civil_rights/anti_immigrant/resource_planning.html#.VSSMxWK9KSM
You have once again cited a racist in an article in which you complain about conservatives being unfairly painted as racists.
“like all Republicans”
I don’t believe that all Republicans are racist. But of the two of us, the guy perpetuating that idea isn’t me; it’s you, because you insist on continuing to cite open, unrepentant racists, while at the same time complaining about the perception that Republicans are racist. That’s not constructive. You are perpetuating a cycle here, and it’s only contributing to the downward spiral of your party.
If you don’t want Republicans to be portrayed as racist, stop linking to racists to support your views. I don’t think that is an unfair suggestion, nor do I see why some on the right are so unwilling to accept the rational consequences of their own choices.
Chris, whether they are racist or not the left will label them as such. I have no knowledge of Guzzardi other than what he said about immigration, but apparently he has already been smeared by the rabid left… eh, big deal.
Also, what’s with the repeated assertions that open borders are a communist idea? Do you have any idea what the immigration policy was in Soviet Russia?
Open borders aren’t a communist idea. They’re a libertarian idea.
http://www.cato.org/research/immigration
Jack: “Chris, whether they are racist or not the left will label them as such.”
This is the “Well, I was already accused of beating my wife, so I decided to do it anyway” defense. It’s entirely unprincipaled. Why prove your critics right? I admit that some liberals make unfounded accusations of racism, but this isn’t one; Guzzardi really does work for racist and anti-Semitic groups, and that’s simply a fact. The ADL is not a liberal or conservative organization, they’re all about fighting anti-Semitism, and they’ve called this guy’s organization a hate group.
“I have no knowledge of Guzzardi other than what he said about immigration”
…And you don’t think you should rectify that situation before you defend him from charges of racism? That’s nonsensical. Why would you defend someone you admit you know nothing about?
Are you going to defend David Duke next, just because the left thinks he’s racist?
“but apparently he has already been smeared by the rabid left…”
*sigh* Keep playing the tribal politics game, Jack. Words like “racism” and concepts such as right and wrong apparently have no real meaning in that game; it’s only about point-scoring. I’m not interested in that; I’m interested in rational conversations and reasoned debates.
Look Chris, you are being ridiculous in your pursuit of trying to score with criticism. It’s absurd to ask me to background every single person who may have a relevant quote. Once again, you attack the author of the quote by calling him a racist… a charge not in evidence. I respond by saying, maybe he is or maybe he isn’t, I don’t know, but how is that charge relevant? I only know what he said was right.
You do not attack the veracity of what he said – that’s where your criticism belongs. That’s the most important part, right? Did he speak the truth or not? Why do you bring up these red herrings that we could debate for hours and still not have a resolution?
We know the left has a bad habit of trying to play the race card to destroy conservatives, so automatically anytime your side cries racist I take it with a grain of salt. That makes vetting such a person less than productive, because who am I to believe… your sources that have been guilty of disinformation? No, I am not going to do that. The quote stands on it’s own merit and that’s all the time I have for this.
Can’t wait to see and hear all of the left-wing media and pundits calling this group bigots and homophobes. The internet and airwaves should be filled with their outcries.
One Group Just Outright Banned Same-Sex Marriage. Waiting For Liberal Outrage…:
“This is bigger than refusing to bake a cake or cater or provide flowers for a gay wedding – Native Americans are saying you can’t have a same-sex wedding on tribal lands AT ALL!
Will anyone call these tribes bigots? Or threaten to boycott or whatever? Probably not. But kudos to them for standing on their principles!”
http://chicksontheright.com/blog/item/28220-one-group-just-outright-banned-same-sex-marriage-waiting-for-liberal-outrage
It has become acceptable and even expected to attack Christians and conservatives for their beliefs. While others like Muslims who violate women’s rights, and “protected” groups or individuals the left-wing like to claim as one of their own will get a pass on the verbal attacks.
Jack: “Look Chris, you are being ridiculous in your pursuit of trying to score with criticism.”
I’m not trying to “score” anything. I am trying to get at the truth.
“It’s absurd to ask me to background every single person who may have a relevant quote.”
The problem with you claiming that Guzzardi’s credibility doesn’t matter is that you are the one who brought his credibility up in the first place.
In the article, you wrote:
“But, he a rightwing radical that believes in the old Constitution that has long outlived its purpose. Our new democrats in power are quick to point out that people like him are simply [un-caring] and part of the [elite rich] who don’t want to pay their fair share! They are causing [children] to starve too.”
“Democrats say he’s an fool that should not be listened too.”
“So, Guzzardi is just a racist fear monger like all republicans”
Your tone in these comments is clearly satirical; you were mocking the notion that Guzzardi is racist, before I even pointed out his connection to hate groups. Your comments about him only make sense as a defense of Guzzardi from accusations of racism.
It is intellectually dishonest of you to now claim that Guzzardi’s credibility is not relevant to his comments. You started vouching for his credibility before it was even attacked by anyone at this blog. You can’t say his credibility matters when you want it to and doesn’t matter when you don’t want it to.
Of course you don’t have a responsibility to check the background of every single person you quote. That would be ridiculous. But I’ve never said you have any such responsibility. There is a difference between that and checking the background of a person who you are going out of your way to defend from criticism that hasn’t even occurred yet.
If you’re going to put forward someone as Totally Not Racist (TM), and if you are going to launch pre-emptive strikes on accusations of racism against that person, then yes, of course you should check and see if that person has ties to racist hate groups before you do that. That is common sense.
Furthermore, this is at least the…what, sixth time in the past year that this blog has cited a white nationalist in an article, while at the same time complaining about unfair accusations of racism? And every time you’ve said that the source doesn’t matter. At what point do you stop and wonder why you are finding so much common ground with white supremacists? Where are you finding so many to even quote? Why is the relationship between white nationalists and right-wing blogs so strong?
“Once again, you attack the author of the quote by calling him a racist… a charge not in evidence”
Please do not claim I have not provided evidence for something when I clearly did in comment #2; that is very poor form.
“That makes vetting such a person less than productive, because who am I to believe… your sources that have been guilty of disinformation?”
Are you accusing the Anti-Defamation League of disinformation? What is your evidence of this?
Peggy–
Just one liberal’s opinion: Yes, Native American tribe leaders who do not recognize same-sex marriage are acting in a bigoted and homophobic manner.
I used to believe that there were some non-bigoted reasons to oppose same-sex marriage. But after closely looking at the arguments, I have had to conclude that there are no real rational reasons to oppose it, and that all arguments against gay marriage are motivated by bigotry.
(And I say that as someone who can see rational reasons to oppose almost anything I disagree with: abortion, torture, hell, even the existence of climate change. But I have never seen one argument against gay marriage where the premises actually lead to the conclusion.)
It should be noted that more Native American tribes do recognize same-sex marriage than explicitly don’t recognize it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_under_United_States_tribal_jurisdictions
Calif. just came in 2nd place for people moving out of states with high taxes. Only New York had more. What will they do when all of the taxpayers are gone?
Report: People Fleeing High-Tax States for Low-Tax Alternatives:
“California came in second by that indicator, with 1.4 million leaving the state.”
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/rudy-takala/report-people-fleeing-high-tax-states-low-tax-alternatives?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=marketing&utm_term=facebook&utm_content=facebook&utm_campaign=n-high-tax-states
At least Maine figured out a way to help both the taxpayers and those needing a help up.
State: More than 9,000 Mainers removed from food stamps program:
“Adults who are not disabled and have no dependents are limited to three months of assistance unless they meet work or volunteering requirements.”
http://www.pressherald.com/2015/03/24/state-change-removed-more-than-9000-mainers-from-food-stamps-program/
Peggy: “What will they do when all of the taxpayers are gone?”
I wouldn’t worry about that. Tax flight is largely a mythical phenomenon.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3556
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/fact-check/2014/10/30/az-fact-check-ducey-california-corporate-exodus/18212183/
I wouldn’t trust any report from ALEC without verifying the methodology used. They have a history of publishing erroneous reports, and their entire purpose is to allow corporations to write legislation.
http://www.iowafiscal.org/2013docs/130211-IFP-ALECmyths.pdf
http://www.synapse-energy.com/project/response-alec-anti-renewables-reports
http://grist.org/climate-energy/not-so-smart-alec-how-the-lobbying-group-uses-bad-data-to-fight-clean-energy/
http://www.nirsonline.org/storage/nirs/documents/alec_fact_check_1.20.pdf
#9Chris, As I see the dilemma, it’s where does one person’s rights end and another’s begin?
The supreme court has already ruled that Holy Lobby’s religious freedoms doesn’t end at the owner’s church doors. The owners have the right to run their business with their religious beliefs.
I do not see the difference with the HL owners and a baker, photographer, florist who does not want to participate in a ceremony that they do not agree with because of their religious beliefs.
All of the business owners sold their products or services to the LGBT community. No one was denied or turned away. The owners declined the business only when they were asked to compromise their religious beliefs.
Have you seen the videos showing a guy posing as a gay man go into Muslim bakeries and ask for them to make him a wedding cake? They all say no. Yet their is no major media cover on these businesses, while the airways are filled with the Christian businesses.
Here are other situations I’ve heard of that begs the answer for where does one’s right end and another’s begins.
Westboro Baptist church does into a gay owned print shop and orders, “God Hates Fags” signs. Will they be required to make the signs?
Will butcher shops owned by Muslims and Jews be required to sell pork products?
I’m sure there are more examples, but I think you get the idea.
I don’t agree with you that everyone who is against same-sex marriage is a bigot any more than I agree that just because someone had a problem with one minority individual makes them a hateful racist.
The internet is full of gays who stood up and supported the pizza parlor owner’s right to not participate in a gay marriage ceremony. Some of them even donated to the Go Fund Me acct. that raised almost a million dollars. Are they bigots? I think not.
I am of the philosophy that if it ‘doesn’t pick my pocket or break my leg’ we will get along. While I would like everyone to believe and think as I do, I understand that they all won’t and they do have the right to be different, but so do I. The problem is created when one doesn’t recognize the other’s right to be different and being different is no longer ok. Everyone is being forced to believe, do and act the same by those in power. I hope you can see how bad this is.
Peggy: “#9Chris, As I see the dilemma, it’s where does one person’s rights end and another’s begin?”
I think those Native American tribes have the right to not recognize same-sex marriages performed on their land. I also think that their choice is bigoted.
Personally–and here is where I part ways with most outspoken liberals–I don’t have much of a problem with certain bakeries, florists and photographers refusing to cater gay weddings. I agree with most liberals that orientation should be covered under discrimination law, but I also think that bakers, florists and photographers are acting in a creative capacity, and that their religious objections (while still, IMO, bigoted) should be protected. I think this is very different from a restaurant or hotel refusing service to a gay couple–the objection seems to largely be against serving a specific occasion (gay weddings), not against a specific group of people (gays), though obviously the distinction is a very fine one and the former is motivated by animus toward the latter.
I think liberals would do better to focus on fixing the law so that it is illegal to fire someone or refuse to sell them a home because of their orientation. The fact that people can lose their jobs for being gay harms gay people in a far more material way than simply having to find another baker.
“Have you seen the videos showing a guy posing as a gay man go into Muslim bakeries and ask for them to make him a wedding cake? They all say no. Yet their is no major media cover on these businesses, while the airways are filled with the Christian businesses.”
I think this is largely because Christians comprise the religious majority in this country. Statistically speaking, the discrimination that gays in America face is much more likely to come from Christians than from Muslims. It makes sense, then, to focus on the largest and most powerful group responsible for the discrimination. Prop 8 didn’t pass because of the strong support and funding of Muslim organizations.
“Here are other situations I’ve heard of that begs the answer for where does one’s right end and another’s begins.
Westboro Baptist church does into a gay owned print shop and orders, “God Hates Fags” signs. Will they be required to make the signs?”
Not likely, because no protected class is being discriminated against in that scenario. If it were found that the print shop generally printed such messages for non-Christians, but not for Christians, or just not for members of this particular church, then the print shop would be running afoul of discrimination law. But if they just generally don’t print these kinds of messages, they’re not discriminating against anyone, therefore the decision would be legal. Again, I think there’s a difference between businesses choosing whom they serve and businesses choosing what they serve.
“Will butcher shops owned by Muslims and Jews be required to sell pork products?”
Nope. No one is being discriminated against when a butcher decides not to sell pork products. Now, if a Muslim butcher sells certain products only to Muslims but not to Jews, then there is a problem.
Businesses have the right to determine what they serve and don’t serve. They even have a general right to determine who to serve, unless of course they are discriminating based on race, gender, religion, or in some states (and hopefully more soon), sexual orientation.
“The internet is full of gays who stood up and supported the pizza parlor owner’s right to not participate in a gay marriage ceremony. Some of them even donated to the Go Fund Me acct. that raised almost a million dollars. Are they bigots? I think not.”
No, I don’t think so. They weren’t supporting the bigoted beliefs of the pizza parlor owners, they were supporting their right to say bigoted things without being publicly harassed and intimidated; I see a big difference.
I will say that the behavior of many liberals toward those business owners was disgusting. Boycotts of big corporations like Chick-fil-A for donating to anti-gay causes is one thing. Harassing and sending death threats to small business owners who will probably never even have the opportunity to discriminate in the way they said they would is quite another. The whole situation was blown WAY out of proportion.