California has managed to outdo itself yet again, choosing to honor the needs of their illegal alien population over that of their American taxpaying citizenry. California’s General Assembly has just passed a bill making them the first state to extend Medicaid coverage to immigrants, regardless of immigration status.
The bill is known as AB 2965 and it will eliminate the legal residency requirements currently present in California’s Medicaid program known as Medi-Cal. It passed the Democratic-controlled Assembly 33-21. The state has already done away with residency requirements for individuals younger than the age of 19. the Democratic-controlled Assembly 33-21
According to California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office, offering this level of full cost coverage to these individuals would cost California taxpayers approximately $3 billion for JUST the 2018-2019 fiscal year. The bill is set to be presented to the state Senate and they are expected to pass the proposal and present to Governor Jerry Brown for signature.
How will they pay for it? Increase the debt! pic.twitter.com/DOB6BXsogB
— DBM (@DBM69) June 12, 2018
Proponents of the bill state their support due to inconsistent access to care for illegal aliens and a significant reliance on walk-in or community clinics and emergency rooms. Almas Sayeed is the deputy director of programs and counsel for the California Immigrant Policy Center and she states – “That’s not the same as having a general practitioner or internist you see regularly. This would be a systematic way to keep communities healthy.”
Opponents of the bill question why illegal aliens should receive such benefits at taxpayer expense and if illegal individuals will flock to California in order to take advantage of such a benefit. They also wonder just how long the state can bear such a significant financial burden without federal subsidy.
Just like every one of us who leaves for Mexico without a visa is automatically covered for medical for life! Oh, what’s that? Only works the other way? Oh.
— Dard Hunter (@DardHunter1) June 12, 2018
Opponents of the bill have questioned the necessity of the bill, believing that this is simply a political maneuver on the part of liberal, open borders politicians in California. They have even suggested that this may be a purposeful overloading of the system in an effort to force universal state-run healthcare much like what is found currently in the United Kingdom and other parts of Europe. A place where medical care is rationed out to the elite and very wealthy first and the weak, handicapped, and elderly are weeded out as “unnecessary.”
Twenty-three-month-old Alfie Evans of Merseyside, England suffered under this sort of “care” as did his family. Former Senator Ron Paul, himself a physician, raged at a system that would justify such horror as Baby Alfie and his family were subjected to.
Paul states – “While the official cause of death was a degenerative brain disease, Alfie may have been murdered by the British health system and the British high court. Doctors at the hospital treating Alfie decided to remove his life support, against the wishes of Alfie’s parents. The high court not only upheld the doctors’ authority to override the parents’ wishes, it refused to allow the parents to take Alfie abroad for treatment.
CA leaders are essentially pushing their tax base to leave for saner states in the USA. Hoping for a backlash in November that will surprise these coastal elites and wake them up that they have gone too far. If not, welcome to #Mexifornia or #Calenzuela. #VoteTheBumsOut
— Radio Junky (@radiojunky00) June 11, 2018
In upholding the government’s authority to substitute its judgment for that of Alfie’s parents, the high court is following in the footsteps of authoritarians throughout history. Ever since Plato, supporters of big government have sought to put government in charge of raising children. The authoritarianism of a system where “experts” can override parents is underscored by a police warning that they were “monitoring” social media posts regarding Alfie.
Alfie’s case is not just an example of the dangers of allowing government to usurp parental authority or the failures of socialized medicine.It shows the logical result of the widespread acceptance of the idea that rights are mere privileges bestowed by government. It follows from this idea that rights can be taken away whenever demanded by government officials or the popular will.
Of course, most western politicians deny they believe rights come from government. They instead claim that government must place “reasonable” limits on rights to advance important policy goals, such as limiting the right to free speech to protect certain groups from hate speech, or limiting property rights to promote economic equality. But, a right by its very nature cannot be limited or abolished and still be a right.
This disdain for a true understanding of rights is found among both liberals and conservatives. Both support a welfare-warfare state-funded via the theft of income taxes and the indirect theft of inflation. Both support jailing people for nonviolent actions like drinking raw milk. Many politicians, regardless of ideology, support restrictions on parental rights such as mandatory vaccination laws. While claiming to support the right to life, most modern liberals not only support legalized abortion, they want to force pro-lifers to fund abortion providers.”
So my family members that don’t currently have healthcare have to leave the county and become a citizen in another country and then sneak back into US (California) in order to get free healthcare.
— Walter Hopkins (@walterphopkins) June 11, 2018
Adding to that issue, earlier this year Steve Westly, former California controller and Calpers board member – manager of the largest public pension fund in the US, made a stunning admission. Westly revealed that $350 billion California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) is nearly insolvent making either reform or bailout necessary in the very near future.
The situation recently came to light when the $350 billion California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) made a “relatively small change” in its amortization policy. Specifically, the CalPERS board voted to change the period for recouping future investment losses from 30 years to 20 years. While on paper this may not sound like much, in reality this would force the California state government along with thousands of local governments and school districts to significantly increase their mandatory contributions to the massive trust fund in an effort to keep it solvent and funded.
Many California cities are already complaining of double-digit increases in CalPERS payments are driving municipal budgets to insolvency and there will be no bailout because America’s largest public pension fund itself is on the brink. The CalPERS system was once more than 100% funded, yet now has scarcely two-thirds of what it would need to fully cover all of the pension promises to current and future retirees, under the assumption that investment earnings target a minimum of 7% per year. The problem is many believe this is entirely too optimistic.
Over the past decade, approximately five million people have moved away from California. One does not have to look far to wonder why. This combined with crumbling infrastructure, a massive tax burden for residents boasting the highest income tax in the entire nation, and earthquakes, annual wildfires, rampant homelessness, and a fleeing taxpaying populace amongst other significant issues, and California just continues to add fuel to the fire to hasten the eventual collapse.
Dem Lawmaker Wants To Make Criminals Out Of People By Making A New ‘Hate Crime’
There seems to be some Constitutional issues with this
As the most reliable and balanced news aggregation service in the world, RWN offers the following information published by DownTrend
Well, I guess this is one way to cut down on the number of black people in jail. A New York State lawmaker is proposing making it a hate crime to call the police on black people. If you think I’m making this up or overreacting to something, check out this headline from The Patch, which says the same:
And the article backs that headline up:
New Yorkers who call 911 on law-abiding people of color are committing hate crimes and should be prosecuted, according to a state senator who was recently reported to police for campaigning in his own district.
State Senator Jesse Hamilton, who represents Brownsville, Crown Heights and Flatbush, proposed new legislation a week after a self-described Trump fan called police to report him for speaking to constituents in public. It would criminalize 911 calls against people of color without evidence of malice.
“That’s gonna be a hate crime. This pattern of calling the police on black people going about their business and participating in the life of our country has to stop,” said Hamilton.
Try to guess the race and political party of this guy. If you said white and Republican you were way off.
The deal is, there have been a handful of incidents in which white or non-black people have called the police on black people for doing things that were determined not to be a crime. The natural knee-jerk reaction is to make a law for something that isn’t even remotely a problem.
The law however would be a huge problem. If people know they could get slapped with a hate crime charge, they would be reluctant to ever call the police on a black person no matter what kind of heinous crime they appear to be committing. The onus should not be on average citizens to determine the guilt of a person they think is committing a crime. The easiest solution is for 911 operators to weed out the silly calls and not send police when someone reports something that very clearly is not a crime.
I have more than a few questions about this proposed law: Would it still be okay to call the police on white people. I’m assuming yes. Could black people call the police on other black people? How do Asians and Hispanics figure into this law? Oh, and what about illegal aliens who have sanctuary in NY and are above the law? Can they call the police on black people?
There also seems to be some Constitutional issues with this proposed law because it specifically makes it a hate crime to call the police on black people. It would still be a dumb law if it included all people of all races, but making it race-specific like this is a clear violation of equal protection under the law.
The clarification the news gave on this proposed law doesn’t make it seem any less terrible:
Hamilton’s proposal would strengthen current legislation that outlaws false reports by designating racially-motivated 911 calls as hate crimes, especially in instances where the call results in police responding with the preconception that the person might cause a threat. Read More
Man Found Contracts Showing Obama Was Paying Trump Spy – Obama Tried To Shut Him Up By Stripping Security Clearance
Obama-appointed officials cleaned house
A man named Adam Lovinger lost his security clearances after complaining about the questionable government contract that was awarded to Stefan Halper, who is being touted as an FBI informant whose job was to keep an eye on President Trump’s campaign. Who stripped the clearances, you might ask? It’s being reported that it was Obama-appointed officials who cleaned house and ripped Lovinger’s clearances away, presenting to us quite a concern that involves contracts and clashing forces within the government who either supported Obama then or support Trump now. Either way, it’s a mess.
Lovinger was reportedly complaining about Halper’s contracts back in 2016. He then lost his clearances on May 1, 2017. Lovinger’s lawyer, Sean M. Bigley, then complained to the Pentagon’s senior ethics official, mad that Lovinger’s “higher ups” were basically punishing him with the whole security clearance thing – punishing him for complaining about the deals that were given to Mr. Halper and apparently a “best friend” of Chelsea Clinton, as per the Washington Times.
The Washington Times called this out, as well as numerous other sites who wanted the public to be notified about what was going on behind closed doors. Since John Brennan just lost his security clearances, it was probably just another relative topic to bring up someone else who lost their clearances as well. However the big problem is why they lost their clearances and how it ties back to Obama’s administration, and perhaps even Hillary Clinton on a long stretch. Rather than point fingers at two particular names, it might just be the entire Democratic Party. However it goes, it’s up to the public to absorb the information and make their own decisions.
Anytime these news stories are breaking the headlines, it’s always important to take in all the information and figure out what’s going on. Then share the story with people who would enjoy it. If you’re up for a good bit of government drama, then this is right up your political alley!
Here’s a brief summary that details most of what happened:
“As it turns out, one of the two contractors Mr. Lovinger explicitly warned his ONA superiors about misusing in 2016 was none other than Mr. Halper,” Mr. Bigley wrote in his ethics complaint, which called the contracts “cronyism and corruption.”
Mr. Lovinger filed a whistleblower reprisal complaint in May with the Defense Department inspector general against James Baker, director of the Office of Net Assessment. The complaint also singles out Washington Headquarters Services, a Pentagon support agency that awarded the Halper contracts totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars.
In an internal October 2016 email to higher-ups, Mr. Lovinger wrote of “the moral hazard associated with the Washington Headquarters Services contracting with Stefan Halper,” the complaint said. It said Mr. Baker hired Mr. Halper to “conduct foreign relations,” a job that should be confined to government officials.
“It was a topic of conversation within the office,” Mr. Bigley told The Times. “What is Halper doing, and why is he being paid astronomically more than others similarly situated?”
The Office of Net Assessment conducts analyses of future threats and ways to defeat them.
“Nobody in the office seemed to know what Halper was doing for his money,” Mr. Bigley said. “Adam said Jim Baker, the director, kept Halper’s contracts very close to the vest. And nobody seemed to have any idea what he was doing at the time. He subcontracted out a good chunk of it to other academics. He would compile them all and then collect the balance as his fee as a middleman. That was very unusual.”
Mr. Bigley told The Times that the inspector general’s criminal investigative division has interviewed Mr. Lovinger about Office of Net Assessment contracting.
In all, Mr. Lovinger has four cases pending: whistleblower reprisal, criminal division, an ethics complaint and an appeal on his security clearance revocation.
A spokesman told The Times that the Pentagon would not comment on the case’s merits.
The spokesman said the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudicaitons Facility reviewed Mr. Lovinger’s clearance.
It then “issued a statement of reasons stating why, under [federal guidelines] it would not be clearly consistent with the national interest to continue Mr. Lovinger’s security clearance, and he was provided with the opportunity to respond to the security concerns,” the spokesman said. “After considering all available information, the CAF issued an unfavorable clearance determination and Mr. Lovinger’s clearance was revoked.”
Mr. Bigley said the conflict is that the consolidated authority resides within the Washington Headquarters Services, which is the target of Mr. Lovinger’s complaint.
“The CAF’s entire ‘adjudication’ of this case was orchestrated by corrupt officials at WHS, which was demonstrated numerous times throughout the process,” he said.
To conservatives, Mr. Lovinger is a victim of the “deep state” — Obama loyalists out to harm the Trump administration.
Press reports identified Mr. Halper as a paid FBI confidential human source, whose mission was to make contacts with Trump campaign workers. The FBI was investigating any Trump ties to Moscow at a time when its intelligence officers were hacking Democratic Party computers.”
After lodging his complaints about the Office of Net Assessment’s outside research in general and Mr. Halper specifically, Mr. Lovinger sought an assignment to the Trump White House national security staff in January 2017. He was soon confronted with allegations from Mr. Baker that he failed to follow security rules. Mr. Lovinger denies any wrongdoing.
Mr. Baker was appointed chief of the Office of Net Assessment in 2015 by Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, Mr. Obama’s appointee.
The Washington Headquarters Services, which revoked Mr. Lovinger’s clearance, is headed by Barbara Westgate, who was appointed in 2016.
Perhaps the most intriguing narrative in the Lovinger story is the appearance of Mr. Halper, a national security consultant in the U.S. and Britain who is tied to that country’s MI6 spy agency through his business partner.”
Rosie Promotes Trump Supporters As Brainwashed Rednecks, Patriots Make Her Regret It
Reality is far different than she wants it to be
BREAKING: Manafort Judge Guarded By US Marshals In Fear Of His Life After Making His Decision
He has received threats over the case
EPIC VIDEO: Former Obama Supporter Gives POWERFUL Answer For Why She Chose To #WalkAway
It gives many Democrats, who felt trapped by an abusive political party that shamed them for “wrong thing,” the courage...
Dem Lawmaker Wants To Make Criminals Out Of People By Making A New ‘Hate Crime’
There seems to be some Constitutional issues with this
Somali American Wins Democrat Primary After Saying Muslims Are Victims Of 911
She is the second Somali-American to likely be a state representative