My own home state of California isn’t even trying to hide its lunacy anymore.
We all already know very well that California seems to have a fetish for disobeying the federal, and even state, constitutions in the name of social justice and to get more Democrat voters. But now they have taken it a step further.
Illegal immigrants are not only a danger to society since we don’t know who they are, but they are also a huge drain on the American taxpayer. And now the former Golden State wants to make the drain even worse by mandating that American citizens fund Medicaid programs to include Illegal aliens from the moment they step on American soil.
This is a move that will mean that while citizens like you and me have to work our butts off each and every day to be able to provide health care for our families, all foreign nationals have to do is take a stroll across the U.S. Mexico border and they get it all for free.
The ludicrous measure was passed in the extreme far left California General Assembly. AB-2965 gives “illegal immigrants access to full-cost healthcare.” This was predominantly supported by Democrats in a 33-21 vote on Wednesday of last week.
Here is more information on this bill via The Conservative Daily Post:
“Many California policies are deliberate Constitution violations as illegal immigrants are welcomed in the same way that American citizens are. This not only endangers national security, but is also highly disrespectful to taxpayers given that they are essentially funding illegal immigrants’ lifestyles after they cross the border.
In the most recent horrendous California legislation passage, the state mandated that it will now fund its Medicaid program to include illegal immigrants.
This will now mean that while American citizens work hard to obtain healthcare benefits, illegals will automatically be granted such.
The outrageous measure passed in the California General Assembly, AB-2965, gives “illegal immigrants access to full-cost healthcare.”
Unsurprisingly, this was predominantly supported by Democrats in a 33-21 vote on Wednesday.
While former President Obama ensured that the average worker would be fined for not having healthcare coverage, liberals continuing his unpatriotic legacy are disgustingly proposing that those in the United States illegally will be granted such protections automatically.
This will obviously be economically taxing on the state and will cost it an estimated $3 billion every year that the program continues.
The only thing stopping this from coming to pass would be if the bill is stopped in the state Senate, again, an unlikely possibility considering the liberal lean of the state’s politicians.
While this robs the average taxpayer to benefit those who have in no way contributed to society, liberals who support the bill have noted that they do not fear that illegals will take advantage of the system.
That is a ridiculous anticipation considering that they already do exactly that in seeking emergency care and “health care at community clinics.”
Of course, there is a moral obligation to help someone who is seriously injured or in need; however, it is not Americans’ responsibility to fund preventative care.
Yet it soon will be in California, a sanctuary state, which will now take care of illegals above its own people, further encouraging illegal immigration from Mexico.
This will also encourage immigrants currently residing in other states to move to California where their healthcare needs will be met.
While it is only common sense to expect this, some Democrats in the state will defend such ideas in their continuing apparent desire to help non-citizens.
Thankfully, there are some who understand the importance of limiting immigrants’ rights.
Health policy and economics professor from the University of Southern California Joel Hay rightfully opposed the state’s need to continue to protect illegals, saying that the ModernHealthCare.com organization “hasn’t seen evidence” that illegals need any additional protections.
It should not require an official organization to determine this, yet it may be the only one that was willing to “question whether the law was necessary.”
However, necessity is apparently questionable under liberal logic considering that back in April, a judge unsurprisingly appointed by Obama mandated that pregnant illegal immigrants in U.S. custody may remain in the country to have abortions.
While many immigrants come to the United States to escape other oppressed societies, the way that liberals appear to be welcoming them undermines actual necessity and instead implies that America is a socialistic society which will assist anyone in need, regardless of urgency.
However, such protections are not extended to law-abiding citizens while “the proposal would eliminate legal residency requirements in California’s Medicaid program, known as Medi-Cal.”
Prior to the recent amendment, illegal immigrants under the age of 19 were entitled to American healthcare benefits, but the recent allowance now extends this to adults who should be held responsible for obtaining their own healthcare.
Of course, in siding with illegals, the California Immigrant Policy Center Deputy Director of Programs and Counsel, Almas Sayeed, defended such rights on the basis that mandated emergency care previously provided is “not the same as having a general practitioner” and that providing healthcare to immigrants “would be a systematic way to keep communities healthy.”
This is admittedly true not only for illegals but also for American citizens who cannot afford to provide their own healthcare.
They too would be admitted under emergency circumstances but would, of course, benefit from receiving preventative care.
This outrageous new provision shows that California has an unexplainable desire to help foreigners above its own residents.
This can be said to be a state-wide problem; however, the way that it is implemented promotes socialism on a national level.
Healthcare is in no way universal in the United States, unless, of course, one is in the country unlawfully.”
When I sit and look at what Democrat rule has done to my home state of California it just breaks my heart. Unless you are a high paid Silicon Valley leftist fascist you can’t afford to live here anymore. But if you are poor, or an illegal here you will be ok. The state is being overrun by illegal immigrant gang crime from ruthless gangs such as MS-13 but lawmakers are ok with it since they don’t have to live in the areas that are affected by these downright treasonous legislations.
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