If Democrats The Party Of Public Safety Honestly Cared About Public Safety They Would Support Border Security, They Would Not Support Sanctuary Cities!

In their every press conference and interview rejecting President Trump’s call for a wall along our southern border to help prevent and protect against human trafficking of women and children, the unbridled import of opioids, and the entry of criminals and terrorists into our country, the Democrats maintain that they oppose only the Wall but otherwise strongly support border security. Thus, they state that they prefer drones and hi-tech equipment instead of a wall because, they say, those more modern approaches will do an even better job than will an old-fashioned wall at guarding the border. In other words, they claim to be as concerned as is the President over the chaos transpiring along our porous southern border.

There are two ways to demonstrate they are lying. One way is by sitting and arguing back-and-forth with the other side endlessly, as in a cable news panel discussion. I have come to hate wasting my time watching those. When I have a few moments each day to grab some news on Fox, the only value-added from Marie Harf, Chris Hahn, and Jessica Tarlov is that, while muting them, they offer a few moments for me to check the channel guide or pay a bill or two. But there is a much quicker alternative way to cut through the muck and prove Pelosi, Schumer, and their gang a bunch of liars on border security:

Just ask yourself: Side by side with their opposition to a wall, why do they also support Sanctuary Cities and Sanctuary States? If they truly are so concerned about protecting the public against the infiltration of Illegals into our midst, why do they seek to prevent Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from receiving the information and tools ICE needs to remove illegal entrants safely and promptly from our land? Would that kind of helpful cooperation with ICE not be a logical part of any drone, hi-tech, and “everything-but-a-wall” approach to protecting the border?

They support Sanctuary Cities because they want porous borders, and they will do everything humanly possible to swell the tide of illegal immigration into a tsunami. They do not want word to spread southward that this country punishes and promptly deports those here illegally. Au contraire — they want a message to be sent to Guatemala, the Honduras, El Salvador, and Mexico that it all is a children’s game of tag: once you get past the “home-base” line without getting tagged, you may call “Sanctuary” — just like Quasimodo (or even Totalmodo) — and you are safe. Thus, ICE plans a raid to arrest Illegals, and Pelosi’s northern California ally, the despicable mayor of Oakland, publicly warns the Illegals that “The Fuzz” are coming, so get away quick. In another time in this country’s history, that mayor of Oakland would have been arrested. However, in today’s America it is the President of the United States whom the Democrats would impeach. The inmates in charge of the asylum.

Need more proof that the Democrats do not merely oppose The Wall but actually want porous borders? OK. Remember Jeff Sessions, the guy whose virtual absence from ministering the Justice Department for two years prepared all of us to experience what a Government Shutdown would look, sound, and feel like if they ever did to the rest of Washington what The Recuser did to Justice? Well, no sooner did he finally act against Sanctuary Cities, announcing a Trump Administration decision to withhold federal funds from any municipality refusing to cooperate with ICE, than the Democrats and their Left allies sprinted to House Lannister in King’s Landing — the Westeros-like fantasy land also known as the region within the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit — and got themselves an Obama Judge to strike down the law with a nationwide injunction. United States District Judge William H. Orrick III nailed the door, pending eventual Supreme Court review one of these years, on the Trump Administration’s efforts to stop the madness. “Not an Obama Judge,” huh? Guess what? He previously had bundled $200,000 for Obama. Thus, the Justice Department never had a chance with him, and they did not have a snowball’s chance in a California summer of doing any better on appeal in the Democrat-Left-dominated Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the lower court in pertinent part.

(The Ninth Circuit panel split 2-1. Affirming the Obama Judge were U.S. Circuit Judges Sidney Thomas and Ronald Gould, both named by Bill Clinton. Voting in the Ninth Circuit minority to support the President’s Executive Order was U.S. Circuit Judge Ferdinand Fernandez, initially named a federal district judge by President Reagan and there after elevated by President George H.W. Bush to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Circuit Judge Fernandez found that District Judge Orrick’s court “fail[ed] to accord the Executive Order a fair enough reading. That resulted in its abusing its discretion when it issued the injunction.” In the words of Chief Justice Roberts: “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges.”)

If Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer and all those newly harvested Democrat House representatives up and down California really wanted border security, why did they not join the chorus who spoke out against the judge’s ruling? Why do they instead all support Sanctuary Cities? Just as we are told that cereal and fruit juice are part of a balanced breakfast, isn’t the arrest and removal of illegal immigrants an obvious part of a complete border-control policy, side-by-side with drones and high technology and increased border patrols? Is there a consistency between Democrats saying, on the one hand, that they would pay for more guards and drones along the border… while, on the other hand, guaranteeing “sanctuary” for all criminals who sneak past those very guards and drones?

So it all is a game. A joke, a lie. When they say they are for border security in every which way — everything, everything except for a wall — there is the truth, the proof. No need for a cable television-news panel debate. This does not take rocket science. If you install a home protection system, but then a crook evades the front-door camera or the home alarm or just defiantly smashes your front window and breaks into your home anyway, do you take the position that you will not shoot the invader or call the police — or first call the police and then shoot the invader — because, well, they got past the alarm, so…SANCTUARY! If you employ an insect exterminator — and, no, we are not comparing illegal immigrants other than MS-13 and opioid smugglers and human traffickers to insects — and if that exterminator does a great job, but you later see an ant or spider or silverfish that got past him, would you not squish it? Or do you look at that centipede and proclaim liberty throughout the land: SANCTUARY!

The pernicious “Sanctuary City” secessionist movement from the federal government and from the supremacy of federal immigration law that has spread throughout Democrat-controlled urban polities proves definitively that all the other talk about “protecting our borders, just not with a wall” is facially mendacious. For the liberals and their Democrat party, the issue is not The Wall but assuring that our southern border remains porous so that the national voting electorate can continue to be transmogrified from a rooted majority-conservative constituency to a blue New Mexico, a converted-blue California, an increasingly blue-ing Nevada, and a purpling Arizona. It is about changing the demographic of our country by importing a new voting bloc of people who, because of their understandable poverty and limited Anglophonic skills, amplified by their utter ignorance of the values and beliefs and self-evident truths that animated our nation’s founding, will need to fall on the Government for handouts for at least a generation — free healthcare, free education, free hospital emergency rooms for stuffy noses, food stamps, welfare. They will be as natural a constituency for Democrats in other states as they have proven to be since turning California from the reliably Republican state that it was as recently as twenty years ago.

That is what this is all about. It is not about drones and high tech and about what else “works better” than a wall. Rather, it is about the destiny of this magnificent social experiment that, as of now, we still call America — until someone on the Left finds a tweet from Amerigo Vespucci where he said that there only are two genders, male and female.https://spectator.org/if-democrats-honestly-cared-about-border-security-they-would-not-support-sanctuary-cities/

The Schiff Coup: Day One

These facts cannot be disputed:

1. Former Vice President Joe Biden admitted and bragged on TV that he threatened to withhold one billion dollars in American foreign aid to Ukraine if Ukraine did not fire the prosecutor investigating Burisma.  Burisma was paying Hunter Biden, son of the Joe Biden, over $50,000 per month as a board member of Burisma.  There is no dirt to dig up.  Joe Biden admitted to the dirt.

2. The Obama-Biden administration did not supply military aid to Ukraine when Ukraine needed the aid against Russia. This was admitted by the acting ambassador to the Ukraine, William Taylor, in his testimony.Trump in December 2017 announced that the United States would send military aid to Ukraine that then–Ukraine president Poroshenko requested from the USA.  Obama and Biden had refused the sale of $47 million’s worth of Javelin antitank missiles.

In May 2018, after Ukraine tested its new Javelin missiles, Poroshenko thanked Trump for supporting Ukraine and providing the Javelin antitank missile systems.

3. On July 25, 2019 President Trump asked Ukraine’s President Zelensky to investigate Ukraine’s involvement in the 2016 election.  There is evidence that Ukraine helped Hillary in the 2016 election and tried to sabotage the Trump election.

4. The transcript of the phone call was released by President Trump.  The transcript speaks for itself.  There is no mention of conditioning American aid on any investigation of Biden.

5. There was no investigation by Ukraine into the 2016 election or any investigation of Joe Biden.

6. Ukraine received the American military aid that is the subject of the “impeachment inquiry” on September 11, 2019, six weeks after the July 25, 2019 phone call between President Trump and President Zelensky.

7. The Democrats have refused to produce the so-called “whistleblower” to testify.

The Democrats, led by Adam Schiff, AKA Shifty Schiff, believe that these facts are enough to constitute “bribery, treason, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” to impeach and remove President Trump.

Shifty Schiff is calling as “witnesses” State Department employees who are giving their opinions about the meaning of the transcript and their opinion of the events. They do not agree with President Trump’s foreign policy. 

 We have the transcript, and anyone, including Congress, can decide what it means.  It means exactly what the words of the transcript show: no quid pro quo, nothing illegal.

The first two witnesses, George Kent, a State Department official

William Taylor, acting ambassador to Ukraine, clearly by their demeanor and opinions show that they do not support President Trump.

  I would bet anything they voted for Hillary Clinton. 

 Both are annoyed that Trump is president and that Trump used his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, to investigate corruption in Ukraine.  Rudy investigated as part of his defense of Trump in the Robert Muller investigation.

It appears that Shifty Schiff is offering these witnesses as “expert witnesses” as to how to deal with Ukraine.  In a court of law, expert witnesses have to be qualified as experts in the field in which they testify

and are used only when an expert is needed to explain to a court and jury something beyond the understanding of the layman.  For example, claims against doctors require that a doctor explain what the defendant doctor did wrong.

Kent and Taylor, and the rest, are employees who are to carry out the foreign policy established by the president.  Their opinions about President Trump’s foreign policy are irrelevant to whether the facts constitute “bribery, treason, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

  At best, their opinions qualify them for a job at CNN or MSNBC, alongside John Brennan and James Clapper, to attack Trump. 

 But their testimony is not relevant and not material to the issue of whether the phone call amounts to “bribery, treason, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Kent and Taylor are upset that President Trump used Rudy Giuliani, his private attorney, to investigate Ukraine’s involvement in our politics

. After watching Taylor and Kent, the first two witnesses called by Shifty Schiff, President Trump was wise to use Rudy and not rely on these two.

But their “concern” about Ukraine rings hollow.  They both knew that Obama refused to give Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine when Ukraine needed those during its battles with Russia.  

Yet now they are “concerned” about Ukraine’s safety.  They are following the Shifty Schiff narrative that Trump withheld aid for about six weeks, from July 25 to September 11.  Both said that defending Ukraine means defending the USA. 

 If they and the Democrats and media, who have suddenly discovered that Ukraine is crucial to the USA defense, believed that, then they should have impeached Obama for failing to give the Javelin missiles to Ukraine.

In sum: President Trump supplied the Javelin missiles to Ukraine. Obama refused to supply the missiles.  Joe Biden threatened Ukraine with the loss of one billion dollars in aid if Ukraine didn’t fire the prosecutor investigating Burisma.  Burisma paid Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, over $50,000 a month for a no-show job only because he was the V.P.’s son. 

 But it is wrong, according the Democrats and media, to question Biden about this, and Trump should be removed from office because they interpret his phone call as asking Ukraine to investigate Biden.

The crime is that there is no investigation of Joe Biden using his position as V.P. to get the $50,000 per month to his son and to get the prosecutor fired.  Nor is there any investigation of the Ukraine interference in the 2016 elections to help Hillary Clinton and Trump.

President Trump and the Republicans are correct to fight this shabby attempted coup.  He should ignore the “advice” of former U.S. attorney Andrew McCarthy, who is usually correct in his legal analysis, and Fox reporter Chris Wallace, who is usually wrong in his political analysis because he is a NeverTrump.  Both suggested following the hearing on November 13 that Trump admit that his phone call was inappropriate or wrong and argue that impeachment is too severe for the phone call.  This is admitting the premise of Schiff’s charge.  It is similar to a guilty plea where you ask for lenient sentence.

The Democrats and media have nothing.

If this were a real trial, the judge would dismiss the complaint and assess counsel fees and costs against the Schiff Democrats for bringing a suit with no basis in law or fact, and brought solely in bad faith to harass President Trump.

Corrections: $50,000 per year corrected to $50 per month; November 25 corrected to July 25


Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Calif.). Lawmakers Condemned Violence Against Unarmed People,”Dose Dose Not Condemned Violence Unarmed Trump Supporter in 2016: OR Condemned Violence Unarmed Romney Supporter In 2012

#WaysToGetShot: Obama thugs joke about shooting Romney supporters

Recent attacks against individuals wearing “Make America Great Again” hats have failed to make it to the national news media cycle, giving the impression that attacks from President Donald Trump’s supporters are the only ones worth noting. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/03/12/recent-hate-against-trump-supporters-goes-unnoticed-talker/3139501002/

A day after a Hong Kong police officer shot a protester at close range, U.S lawmakers condemned the incident.

“The Hong Kong Police are out of control and escalating the level of violence against unarmed people,” said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Calif.).

The 21-year-old protester, surnamed Chow, remains in critical condition. https://www.theepochtimes.com/us-lawmakers-criticize-out-of-control-hong-kong-police-after-shooting-of-protester_3143374.html?ref=brief_News&utm_source=Epoch+Times+Newsletters&utm_campaign=67f17ba6b0-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_11_11_06_41&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_4fba358ecf-67f17ba6b0-241094945

he hashtag #WaysToGetShot has been floating around Twitter for a while. We did a story on it in April, and occasionally it results in some pretty hilarious comedy, but it’s always generated some over-the-line activity. Today we tried combining it with political search terms and found violent references to Mitt Romney popping up every few minutes. Yes, every few minutes. Here are recent results from the search #WaysToGetShot Romney:

Thomas S. Shelby@SeveAkaSwave

If you touch my Lion King movie or say you voting for Romney #WaysToGetShot6:21 PM – Oct 15, 2012Twitter Ads info and privacySee Thomas S. Shelby’s other Tweets

Kylan Morris@KylanDMorris

#WaysToGetShot say u voting for Romney around a group of black people5011:05 AM – Oct 15, 2012Twitter Ads info and privacy271 people are talking about this

Frankie T.@Frank_TrujilloS

#WaysToGetShot Voting for Romney6:17 PM – Oct 15, 2012Twitter Ads info and privacySee Frankie T.’s other Tweets







#2chainzpresidentialelectionlyrics romney gonna find out #WaysToGetShot bein next to a G in the election spot3:59 PM – Oct 15, 2012Twitter Ads info and privacySee 1800SaveAHoeKeyshawn’s other Tweets





Searching “#WaysToGetShot Obama” also generated a lot of pro-Obama, anti-Romney hate tweets:



#WaysToGetShot Try and tell me Obama isn’t a real nigga

— Sj (@IAmKingSean) October 16, 2012

@ReynoldsJosiah BANG BANG

— Sj (@IAmKingSean) October 16, 2012

Do most of these people actually plan on shooting Romney supporters? We doubt it. Still, if your idea of a joke involves race-baiting and threats of violence, you have a problem.

Make no mistake: There are some tasteless Obama-haters using the tag, too:




But those are far outnumbered by sick tweets on the pro-Obama side.

Long live “progressive” new civility!


Death threats against Mitt Romney proliferate

More Obama supporters threaten to kill Romney if he becomes president

Democrats Gone Wild: Obama supporters ‘key’ cars displaying pro-Romney bumper stickers

Obama supporter: ‘Every car I see with a Romney sticker, I key it.’

Conservatives chronicle Romney death threats, face false reports

Vandal smears excrement on Romney-Ryan yard sign

Unhinged liberals fantasize about ramming into cars with Romney bumper stickers

Lady parts panic: Libs claim Romney will ban tampons; threaten to kill him, ‘bleed on his face’

Twitter user who vowed to ‘lynch’ Romney threatens to kill Twitchy reader

Unhinged liberals urinate on Romney-Ryan yard signs; Update: No apologies

Got a Romney bumper sticker or yard sign? Watch out for these unhinged libs

Vandal sprays ‘Obama’ on Romney supporter’s boat, defaces Romney-Ryan yard sign

Twitter user threatens to assassinate Mitt Romney

Hate against Donald Trump’s supporters sometimes gets swept under the rug: Today’s talker

Chaplain at Private School Created By Founder Of Methodist Church Resigns After Suggesting Gay People Should Stay Single: Snyder v. Phelps (2011)

Image result for westboro baptist church snyder v phelps

Rev. David Hull, a school chaplain at Kingswood private school in Bath, England, resigned after suggesting that gay people should stay single.Ditch the fake news ==> Click here to get news you can trust sent right to your inbox. It’s free!

According to The Guardian, the school was created by the founder of the Methodist church, John Wesley, in 1748.

Earlier this year, the Methodist church faced a divisive vote regarding whether its churches would permit same-sex marriages to take place in the church. https://www.theblaze.com/news/chaplain-at-private-school-created-by-founder-of-methodist-church-resigns-after-suggesting-gay-people-stay-single

Fred Phelps and his followers at the Westboro Baptist Church believe that God punishes the United States for its tolerance of homosexuality, particularly within the military. To demonstrate their beliefs, Phelps and his followers often picket at military funerals.
Snyder v. Phelps (2011)

Supreme Court Holding

Yes. The Supreme Court’s holding turned largely on its determination that the church was speaking on “matters of public concern” as opposed to “matters of purely private significance.” The Court explained that “[s]peech deals with matters of public concern when it can ‘be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community’ or when it ‘is a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public.'” Speech on public issues is entitled to special protection under the First Amendment because it serves the “the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” To determine whether the speech dealt with matters of public concern, the Court examined the “content, form, and context” of the speech. The court noted that none of these factors determines the outcome of the case and that a court must evaluate all the circumstances of the speech, “including what was said, where it was said, and how it was said.”

Even though some of the picket signs arguably targeted only the Snyder family, most of them addressed issues regarding the moral conduct of the U.S., the fate of the U.S., and homosexuality in the military. As such, the “overall thrust and dominant theme” of the speech related to broader public issues. Furthermore, the church was picketing on public land adjacent to a public street. Finally, there was no pre-existing relationship between Westboro’s speech and Snyder that might suggest that the speech on public matters was intended to mask an attack on Snyder over a private matter. Therefore, the Court held that the Phelps and his followers were “speaking” on matters of public concern on public property and thus, were entitled to protection under the First Amendment.

The Rev. Fred Phelps, the founder of the Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church, made a career out of being reprehensible to many people. Phelps and his followers came to national prominence in 1998 by picketing the funeral of Matthew Shepard, displaying signs the used slurs directed at homosexuals. In the wake of 9/11, church members began demonstrating at military funerals, using similarly incendiary rhetoric.

In 2006, members of the church demonstrated at the funeral of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq. Snyder’s family sued Westboro and Phelps for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and the case began making its way through the legal system.

In an 8-1 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Westboro’s right to picket. While acknowledging that Westboro’s “contribution to public discourse may be negligible,” Chief Justice John Roberts’ ruling rested in existing U.S. hate speech precedent: “Simply put, the church members had the right to be where they were.” 

Supreme Court Holding

Yes. The Supreme Court’s holding turned largely on its determination that the church was speaking on “matters of public concern” as opposed to “matters of purely private significance.” The Court explained that “[s]peech deals with matters of public concern when it can ‘be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community’ or when it ‘is a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public.'” Speech on public issues is entitled to special protection under the First Amendment because it serves the “the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” To determine whether the speech dealt with matters of public concern, the Court examined the “content, form, and context” of the speech. The court noted that none of these factors determines the outcome of the case and that a court must evaluate all the circumstances of the speech, “including what was said, where it was said, and how it was said.”

Even though some of the picket signs arguably targeted only the Snyder family, most of them addressed issues regarding the moral conduct of the U.S., the fate of the U.S., and homosexuality in the military. As such, the “overall thrust and dominant theme” of the speech related to broader public issues. Furthermore, the church was picketing on public land adjacent to a public street. Finally, there was no pre-existing relationship between Westboro’s speech and Snyder that might suggest that the speech on public matters was intended to mask an attack on Snyder over a private matter. Therefore, the Court held that the Phelps and his followers were “speaking” on matters of public concern on public property and thus, were entitled to protection under the First Amendment.

Trucking Companies Move To Cut Ties With Independent California Driver’s As Labor Law Assembly Bill 5, Looms:

Image result for what is the Employee and Independent Contractors law, AB5,

Last year, the California Supreme Court announced a demanding three-part test hiring entities must meet to classify workers as independent contractors instead of employees. Gov. Gavin Newsom just signed legislation, Assembly Bill 5, which, effective Jan. 1, broadens that test beyond violations of the state’s wage orders, narrows the types of work to which that test applies, and authorizes the city attorneys of big California cities, including San Diego, to sue hiring entities to enforce the new law.

The Legislature expects the measure ultimately to cause “potentially several million” California workers to be reclassified as employees and to bring revenue to government coffers in the form of previously avoided payment of payroll taxes and premiums for workers compensation premiums, Social Security, unemployment and disability insurance. https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/story/2019-09-25/abcs-of-ab5-independent-contractor-law

Image result for gov. newsom

California-based owner-operators say a new state law, AB5, that seeks to limit the use of independent contractors targets them unfairly.

Some owner-operators who live in California said they are being told to move out of the state, get their own authority, which can be costly, or transition to company drivers, in some cases.

Landstar System of Jacksonville, Florida, is one of the large carriers that recently sent out a letter or contacted its business capacity owners (BCOs) or leased owner-operators based in California, outlining their options regarding AB5.

According to the Landstar letter sent out Nov. 4, its leased owner-operators can move out of state and provide the company with proof of a new driver’s license, get their own authority, or deliver a load into California, but they can’t pick up a load in the state.

“Due to the uncertain legal environment created by the new law, Landstar will be reaching out to each BCO and operator who has a California-based address on file with Landstar to discuss some options relating to the potential impact of the new law,” the letter read. “It will be up to each interested California-based BCO or operator to make its own informed business decisions with respect to how it wishes to react to AB5.”

Ivan Mikhov of Sacramento, California, said he loves his job as a leased owner-operator to Landstar. He has worked for the company for nine years and said he will leave the state he has lived in for more than 17 years in order to continue working for Landstar.

“I guess we will relocate because I don’t see a way out of this,” Mikhov told FreightWaves. “I love working for Landstar because the agents call me directly when they have a load. They know me.”

Mikhov, his three kids, dad, brothers and sisters all live in Sacramento. His family moved from Ukraine 17 years ago. However, he said he will sacrifice his close family bond to continue working for Landstar.

“My brother had his own authority for a while, but he came back to Landstar about nine months ago because it’s really hard to be on your own right now,” he said.

He recently paid off the newer Volvo truck he was forced to buy to comply with emissions regulations implemented by the California Air Resource Board (CARB).

“I really don’t see myself doing anything else,” Mikhov said.

Starting Jan. 1, 2020, the Employee and Independent Contractors law, AB5, goes into effect.

AB5 is a state law determining whether a worker is an employee or contractor. It stems from the California Supreme Court’s decision against Dynamex Operations West Inc., a package and document delivery company. The court found that Dynamex misclassified its delivery drivers as independent contractors rather than employees and that all California-based companies that use independent contractors must use the “ABC test,” a three-pronged test to determine whether a worker is an employee.

Trucking companies must prove a worker is free from the control and direction of the hirer in connection with the performance of the work; the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation or business of the same nature as the work performed for the hiring entity.

AB5 is affecting carriers of all sizes, including Landstar, said Joe Rajkovacz, head of government affairs for the Western States Trucking Association (WSTA).

“This is indicative of Landstar arriving at the same conclusion that many other motor carriers not based in California have arrived at recently,” Rajkovacz told FreightWaves.

Rajkovacz said out-of-state carriers who lease with California-based owner-operators can’t pass the B prong, which is why some mega-carriers are cutting them loose.

“The state of California is trying to superimpose its will on the federal government, but I believe the federal courts may fight this, but it’s going to take a few years,” Rajkovacz said.

Michael Lotito, co-chair of think tank Littler Workplace Policy Institute, said the disruptions to the California economy “are likely to be massive as a result of AB5.”

“AB5 is the most radical reformation of the employer/employee relationship in history,” Lotito told FreightWaves.

One Schneider National driver, headquartered in Green Bay, Wisconsin, told FreightWaves Schneider’s California-based owner-operators are being called and have been given the options to get their own authority, move out of state or become a company driver. 

Another owner-operator living in San Bernardino County, California, said she has received no word from her carrier, Roadrunner Transportation Systems, about the impact AB5 may have on her business, but she fears the worst.

“My husband and I are team drivers, and we make good money leased to Roadrunner,” Valerie Lopez told FreightWaves. “We recently bought a house here in California and don’t want to move, but there is no way we can make the same money if we have to transfer to a company driver or leave the company.”

Read more stories by FreightWaves’ Clarissa Hawes, https://www.freightwaves.com/news/california-owner-operators-weigh-options-as-ab5-deadline-looms?p=235801&fbclid=IwAR3WJl8AECdbJZTLeYJLfhWzYnrROr2CLspvxMp96sQZMPn_Ip7kUzrrSuw

Rep. Adam Schiff, John McCain! And The Us Supreme Court: Rep. Adam Schiff introduces constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United

Image result for the us supreme court

What is McCain-Feingold McCain-Feingold was created to prohibit soft money contributions to national political parties, and limited campaign financing to hard money. Soft money is unlimited funding collected by political parties intended for party strengthening, while hard money is donations directly made to a candidate’s campaign. https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/08/the-legacy-of-mccain-feingold/

Washington (CNN)Rep. Adam Schiff on Wednesday introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which helped usher in a new era of big money in American elections.”Our democracy is not for sale. We must stop the flood of dark money from drowning out the voices of everyday citizens,” the California Democrat said in a statement on Twitter. He said such an amendment would “restore power to the American people.”By a 5-4 ruling, the high court in 2010 swept aside a ban on independent spending by corporations and unions in candidate elections, saying the restrictions amounted to censorship. Outside spending in federal elections has soared from $338 million in 2008, the last presidential election before the ruling, to $1.4 billion in 2016, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.Overturning the blockbuster ruling has become a rallying cry for many progressives in the Democratic Party, and other lawmakers have introduced a similar measure this year. But efforts to revise the Constitution have failed to gain traction. Two-thirds of the House and Senate must approve the change. Then, three-fourths of states must ratify it.



The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2003, also known as “BCRA” or “McCain-Feingold”, put restrictions on unions and corporations and the independent expenditures they could make if the funds came from the general treasury:

  • No “electioneering communication,” defined as “any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication” that “refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office” that is “publicly distributed” within 30 days of a primary election
  • No speech that expressly advocates for a candidate’s election or defeat

If a union or corporation wanted to do this, it had to set up a separate political action committee (PAC), that is typically funded by individuals within the union or corporation.

An “independent expenditure” is money spent by groups or individuals that are not controlled by a candidate (such as his or her campaign committee).

Citizens United is a nonprofit corporation created under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. Citizens United wanted to run television commercials to advertise their documentary that negatively portrayed then-candidate for president Senator Hillary Clinton within 30 days of a primary. The group asked for a court order that said it would be able to run the commercials and stop the Federal Election Commission (FEC) from finding it in violation of BCRA. After many decisions and appeals, the case made it to the United States Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Opinion

The Supreme Court’s opinion said several things, but the key takeaways were that a union or corporation:

  • Can make independent expenditures from its general treasury without creating a PAC. The court held that the BCRA section that banned this political speech violated the First Amendment.
  • Must still publicly disclose its identity if it sponsored an advertisement.
  • Cannot directly donate to a candidate or candidate’s committee.

The Supreme Court opinion expanded the original question after hearing oral arguments for a second time. This was necessary because in the first oral arguments session, the attorney for the FEC stated that an earlier case (Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce) meant that the government had the right to ban a book that had even a single sentence that advocated for or against a candidate if a union or corporation published or distributed it. The Court determined that there was a greater Free Speech issue in play, leading to this ruling.

What does the Citizens United decision mean for labor unions?

Prior to Citizens United, the funds that unions collected from union dues could not go to political spending that expressly advocated for the election or defeat of a candidate. That funding could, however, still go to other “political activities.” These include informational and educational materials that are distributed to members.

Under Citizens United, unions can take member dues and spend the money on materials in support or in opposition to a candidate for office. This is problematic because union members are not asked for permission before this money is spent, and it is often difficult to ask for a refund.

Didn’t Citizens United create “super PACs”?

No. The Court in Citizens United found that unions and corporations could spend money from their general treasury to advocate for or against a candidate and that banning that activity was unconstitutional under the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. A later case decided by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission, allowed unions, corporations, individuals, and associations to make unlimited contributions to a group that only spends its funds on independent expenditures. These groups are called super PACs.

Is the identity of a group that spends money as allowed under Citizens United a secret?

No. Both unions and corporations must disclose that they are behind any advertisement or other electioneering material. Unions must specifically disclose where their money goes. You can find that here.

How Dystopian Los Angeles Measures Up to Rwanda?

My wife and I just returned from Rwanda, where we trekked to visit a family of mountain gorillas living in the rainforests of Volcanoes National Park on the slopes of Mount Bisoke.

Rwanda is the most densely populated of all African nations.  Kigali, its capital, is a proud and bustling city on a hill whose citizens rely on hiring motorcycle and bicycle taxis for transportation as we hire Uber and Lyft autos.  Just 25 years on from the Rwandan Genocide, when radical Hutus slaughtered 800,000 Tutsis, the Twa (pygmies), and their moderate Hutu brothers and sisters, Rwandans have an established New Democratic government, enjoy a cautious détente, and possess a bold new eco-friendly vision for the future. 

As we drove through Kigali in a green Toyota Land Cruiser we were stunned by how incredibly clean and well kept Kigali’s streets, sidewalks, and businesses were.  There was no litter, no graffiti, roadside vegetation was manicured, and there were no foul vagrants living along the sidewalks or in the parks.

I asked our guide how the Rwandans manage to keep their city so clean.

Umuganda!” he shouted.  “Before Umuganda, there were piles of garbage everywhere!  Look!  Now, no one is now allowed to even use a plastic bag, no one is allowed to buy water in a plastic bottle.  We are solar.  Rwanda is green!”  He explained that on the last Saturday of every month, all able-bodied Rwandans (18–65), including the president and his Cabinet members, are required by law to go out and clean the areas around their homes and businesses.  The police fine eligible citizens who fail to participate 5,000 Rwandan francs (about U.S. $5.00).  These fines and traffic tickets are sent via text to the violator’s mobile phone.  The fine is paid via the phone.  Mobile phone transactions have all but overtaken those involving currency in Rwanda.

A4 is the two-lane highway between Kigali and the park.  Like all of Rwanda’s highways, it is kept impeccably clean by crews of maintenance workers who sweep up litter with wicker brooms and hand-snip the flora and fauna growing on its shoulders.  Small farms with modest cottages line the highway.  I was reminded of Switzerland — a far less wealthy Switzerland, but a nation of proud citizens.  The fascinating difference is that once outside Kigali, there are only a handful of buses and trucks.  There are virtually no automobiles except for the safari wagons carrying camera-toting tourists in khaki outfits. 

Rwandans of all ages walk along A4.  Frail old men with walking sticks, whole families including grandparents, parents, aunts, uncles, and cousins, an entire village walking to celebrate a wedding, the birth of a child, or the death of a neighbor.  There are schools of children in bright blue and yellow uniforms.  There are women in elegant mushananas, wrapped skirts tied over the shoulder and bunched at the hips in colors of the sky, the lakes, and flowers parading along the shoulder of the road carrying exotic handcrafted baskets to and from the market stalls in the villages.  There are porters carry lighter 50-pound bundles of bamboo and sugarcane and sacks of vegetables on their heads.  Larger loads such as multiple sacks of potatoes weighing up to 300 kilos (600-plus pounds) are strapped onto the racks of the bicycle taxis, whose Sisyphean drivers laboriously push them up each hill and struggle to hold them back from running away downhill.  Given the distances they walk, the hills they climb, and their mostly healthy vegetarian diets, there is no need for Weight Watchers in this African nation!

We began comparing Rwanda’s A4 to our stretch of U.S. 101 that runs from the Cahuenga Pass near Universal Studios, past the Hollywood Bowl and the Hollywood sign, past the star-studded Walk of Fame, then down into the Los Angeles Civic Center, Staples Center, and the opulent Arts District.  This stretch of California 101 serves motorists in one of the world’s most vibrant and richest cities, yet little money is been spent maintaining it, never mind beautifying it.  It is a dull, dreary, and sad stretch of highway.  The freeway is bounded by ghostly trees and weed patches covered in layers of litter — empty beverage cans, soiled diapers, discarded cigarette packs, snack wrappers, and more.  Befouled homeless shanties dot 101’s shoulders, line its overpasses, and occupy its underbelly in tableaus similar to those found in Kibera, the grand slum of Nairobi; Dhavari in Mumbai; and the Rocinha in Rio de Janeiro.  U.S. 101 reflects our city’s, county’s, and state’s lack of leadership and vision. 

There are too many areas in Los Angeles that are equally neglected. 

California and Los Angeles promote our city to poor, uneducated Latino immigrants.  We wondered why our government could not declare Umuganda throughout Los Angeles, why it does offer the uneducated, the poor, and the able-bodied social services recipients minimum-wage jobs maintaining our roads.  We wonder whether Nuevo Los Angeles will be a proud, revitalized city under the sun or a jumble of tiny islands of wealth in a sea of slums.https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/11/how_dystopian_los_angeles_measures_up_to_rwanda.html

Destroying The Liberal Claim ” Stop Breaking Up The Family” Feminism Has Destabilized The American Family, Proving The American Family IS all Ready Broken Up!

Image result for stop breaking up the family

In 1970, three furious feminist tracts dominated the bestseller lists: Kate Millett’s “Sexual Politics,” Germaine Greer’s “The Female Eunuch,” and Shulamith Firestone’s “The Dialectic of Sex.” They, and others who comprised what was then called the “women’s lib” movement, fulminated against male dominance, endorsed sexual liberation and demanded that the nuclear family be smashed.

Their fame has faded, but their influence lives on. Lena Dunham, who has built a persona as a spokesman for women, wondered how any woman could reject the label feminist (a 2016 poll found that 68 percent of American women use the term to describe themselves). Her free-floating contempt for men was evident in a recent tweet: “I’d honestly rather fall into one million manholes than have one single dude tell me to watch my step.”

Note the resentment, even when men are attempting to be kind. Dunham is voicing the 21st-century version of the 1970s slogan: “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” Without denying the beneficial effects of feminism, we are overdue for a reckoning about its missteps. One of those was stoking such bitterness between men and women.

While there is near-universal agreement that women should be treated equally in the workplace and in the family, other aspects of the feminist agenda — such as devaluing marriage — have left women more, not less vulnerable than they were pre-revolution.

In 2012, Katie Roiphe, feminist and mother of two children by different fathers, condemned concerns about single motherhood: “If there is anything that currently oppresses the children, it is the idea of the way families are ‘supposed to be.’ ” That’s the feminist mantra, but “alternative” families work only for a tiny minority. For most women, children and, as we’re coming to understand better with each passing year, men, the traditional family remains the gold standard.

Forty percent of American children are now born to single mothers

It should not be anti-feminist to recognize that men and women do need each other and that, contrary to feminist theories, marriage is a key pillar of stability for both sexes and especially for children. Feminists greeted unwed parenthood and easy divorce as steps on the ladder of liberation. For some it was and is. But the price has been steep. Women are commonly worse off financially after divorce than their ex-husbands. Those who worked before, during or after their marriages experienced a 20 percent decline in income after divorce, compared with men, whose incomes rose by 30 percent.

Forty percent of American children are now born to single mothers. This rate of non-marital births, combined with the nation’s high divorce rate, means that around half of all American children will spend part of their childhood in a single-parent home. Social scientists across the political spectrum agree this family chaos is destructive. In 2017, the poverty rate for woman-headed families with children was 36.5 percent, compared with 22.1 percent for father-only families and 7.5 percent for families headed by a married couple. And abundant data show married adults are happier, healthier and wealthier than singles.

The sexual revolution has scythed through the institution of marriage, leaving millions of women without the love and emotional and financial security that they and their children so need. It hasn’t been a picnic for men, either.

Recent studies about the effects of fatherlessness have revealed that the rise of single-parent (which usually means mother-only) families has had even worse consequences for boys than for girls. Father absence in African-American homes leads to more mental-health and behavioral problems for boys, according to an MIT study by two economists looking at brothers and sisters born in Florida between 1992 and 2002. “Growing up in a single-parent home appears to significantly decrease the probability of college attendance for boys but has no similar effect for girls.” They found other worrisome effects, too. “Fatherless boys are less ambitious, less hopeful and more likely to get into trouble at school than fatherless girls.”

Everything is connected. When more boys are growing up without fathers, there are fewer young men who become the kind of adults women want to marry — educated, employed, non-drug-abusing and not involved with the criminal-justice system. Without the grounding of marriage, men become disconnected from society. Some 22 percent of prime-age men (25 to 54) are not working or looking for work. Unmarried men are over-represented in this group. By contrast, married men with only high-school diplomas are much more likely to be employed than unmarried men with some college or an associate’s degree.

Diseases of despair — alcoholism, overdoses, suicide — have been rising among white, working-class Americans, the very population that has witnessed a steep decline in family stability over the past several decades.

Most women want and need upright, well-adjusted, dependable men to serve as co-anchors of healthy and happy families. The feminist movement was deeply misguided to take aim at marriage. Far from oppressing women, it offers a safe foundation for a full life. https://nypost.com/2018/07/07/feminism-has-destabilized-the-american-family/

Mona Charen is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Her new book,“Sex Matters: How Modern Femin

Two Truths and a Lie: Equal Rights Amendment?

Everyone loves the party game/icebreaker “two truths and a lie.”

The Equal Rights Amendment has been in the news recently, and recently failed to pass in Virginia. Can you identify which of the following is NOT true about the Equal Rights Amendment?

A. Women’s natural rights and basic legal equality are already protected in the U.S.

B. The ERA will not protect women against the predatory men being exposed by #MeToo or ensure that they are paid equally for the same work.

C. The ERA needs just one more state to ratify before it is added as the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Let’s take these statements one at a time:

  1. TRUTH!

The Constitution protects women’s rights to free speech, religious liberty, jury trial, and many other crucial rights. The 19th Amendment ensured that all women of age would have the right to vote and the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment protects women from being treated differently under the law solely on the basis of sex. Discrimination against women based on sex is also barred by the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and by other federal and state laws. 

However, the Constitution as currently interpreted does allow for some common sense distinctions. For example, only men are required to sign up for draft, and government facilities such as public school restrooms and prisons are still allowed to be single-sex. These “discriminations” could be jeopardized by some readings of the ERA, which leaves extraordinarily broad language for judges to interpret instead of leaving these thorny social issues to the voters (the majority of whom are women).

  1. TRUTH!

Proponents of the ERA say that it only enshrines the basic legal equality that well over 90 percent of both women and men say they support, and at the same time, that it will solve the societal problems exposed by #MeToo and erase the so-called pay gap between men and women. But the ERA will not affect criminal laws against harassment and assault, which are already in place in all 50 states. Similarly, sex discrimination in the workplace is already barred by federal law since 1963. Furthermore, there is ample evidence that the pay gap is not primarily the result of discrimination against women, but instead, the natural result of the different choices women make on average about balancing work and family.  

  1. LIE!

35 of the state ERA ratifications took place in the 1970s before a long-passed deadline from Congress, while two (Nevada and Illinois) have taken place since 2016. There are serious legal issues involved in counting all of these ratifications together when they took place over such a long period. While the Supreme Court has left the exact parameters for ratification to Congress as a political question, it has also ruled that they need to be “reasonably contemporaneous” and part of a single act, in order to uphold the purpose of the amendment process in showing overwhelming popular support. Furthermore, four of the original states have rescinded their ratifications of the ERA, and one attached a sunset clause to its original ratification. Finally, Congress will need to remove the deadline it set in its passage of the ERA in the 1970s.

These open legal questions are unlikely to be resolved immediately upon a 38th state’s ratification, should one occur. Instead, look for a drawn-out court battle over the amendment process.

Read more about the ERA and its potential consequences here.

A New Era for the ERA?, In A Moment Of Reckoning For Women’s Equality? Gender Debate Sparks Bitter Divide Among Trans And Feminist Group?

Image result for the era

In a moment of reckoning for women’s equality, lawmakers and investors are teaming up to push for change in corporate boardrooms, executive suites, and across the country — and that’s generating renewed interest in an Equal Rights Amendment.

Propelled by the #MeToo and Time’s Up movements, women are flexing their power to confront everything from gender pay disparities and harassment to the lack of legal protections and corporate diversity.

“The #MeToo movement really has given the women’s movement a lot of strength, but we now need to harness it into positive change,” including finally passing the Equal Rights Amendment, Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney said during an interview in her congressional office. https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/new-era-era

The proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) has sparked a bitter divide between the trans community and groups of feminists across the country.

At one protest in Newcastle, the frustration was palpable. Protesters, who chanted “transphobia has got to go”, were upset about a meeting of feminists taking place to discuss their concerns about the reforms to the law.Sponsored link

A protester told Sky News: “No one has the right to tell you how to identify, that is up to you. These groups, they sit and perpetuate hateful rhetoric.”

But feminist campaigner Dr Heather Brunskell-Evans, who was speaking at the event having written a book on transgender children, has found herself at the centre of this conflict and warned free speech was being shut down.

“I’m absolutely shocked at the level of vitriol, the level of silencing. Even asking for a discussion is considered transphobic,” she said.

Describing the aggression she had come up against from trans activists, she highlighted one meeting where she was blocked from entering.

More from Lgbt https://news.sky.com/story/line-18-gender-debate-sparks-bitter-divide-among-trans-and-feminist-groups-11439676