THE RESIST MOVEMENT HAS (MASSIVELY) FAILED TO PROTECT CALIFORNIA AGAINST TRUMP
updated September 24 2019
Ps. Don’t expect to see any of this in the news, because the narrative is that the resistance movement is succeeding against Trump. However, buried on the back pages of news sites, a list is slowly building up of actions by Trump, that have been backed by the Federal government over the objections of California’s people, government, and activists (aka the resistance).
The popular news likes to say that you don’t need to Calexit — because the Federal system still works, and California can use Federalism to protect our California values. However, the lists below directly refute this idea.
While California may have won a majority of its lawsuits against the Federal government, this is only because Trump is an idiot with little understanding of the law, and so it is easy to undue ideas that he has that are completely without an understanding of how government actually works. However, sometimes Trump is right and he can do exactly what he threatens and the Supreme Court agrees with him and makes his wishes binding law against California.
California Failed to protect its economy against Trump. (1) A trade war has been launched, California’s economy has lost billions and hundreds of thousands of jobs . Trump has managed to (2) cut down on skilled immigrant labor, and (3) massively reduced the flow of immigrants who work in agriculture. Trump so far has managed to (4) cut Obama Care, and hundreds of thousands of Californians are without health care now.
California Failed to protect its values — from Trump and the Federal system. The Supreme Court has said that (1) women and minorities don’t have a right to class action lawsuits against discrimination, and (2) they don’t have a right to prosecute police who burst into their home without a warrant and accidentally gun them down in their own home. The highest Court also said that it is (3) legal for businesses to discriminate against LGBTQ customers, and (4) the military can partially ban some LGBTQ citizens. They also said it is legal for Federal agents to pursue “racial profiling” for immigration policing and they do (5) “racially profile” Latinos “with impunity” in California currently. California has failed to (6) stop funding for the racist border wall, (7) stop construction of the wall, or (8) punish California companies who want to work for Trump to build the wall. California has failed (9) to ensure that 2/3rds of its police agencies don’t work with ICE officials, (10) that companies don’t help ICE officials do mass arrests of Undocumented people, and (11) that the undocumented are not held in “unlimited detention” or (12) that they “don’t die in camps”. California has failed to protect legal immigrants, who (13) can be blocked from asylum and (14) or blocked from entering because they are Muslim, and (15) the Federal government can punish California by withholding funds because it chooses to protect the Undocumented.
So next time — you hear California is winning against Trump — ask “perhaps, but are you losing in all of the important areas”
PART 1 — CALIFORNIA’S ECONOMY
The Sacramento Bee, the newspaper of California’s government, had its Editors take time to issue a special statement that California did not need to leave — because if it tried — it could stop Trump’s actions that are detrimental to California’s robust economy.
“More constructive would be a statewide effort to stand strong and defend our values and economy against what is sure to be an onslaught of hostile federal legislation. (1) Trump’s promise to dismantle the Affordable Care Act stands to slash billions of federal Medicaid dollars from the state budget and could cancel health insurance for millions of low-income Californians. (2) Trump’s vows to start a trade war with China…would slash California’s agricultural exports and devastate port traffic. (3) His immigration policies would gut a key source of skilled tech labor, the ability to hire engineers on H-1B visas. And the Central Valley harvest would grind to a standstill without seasonal Mexican labor. Blue state elites need to stop plotting exit strategies and crashing Canadian immigration websites, and get busy pitching in.”
It is over 2 years later and we can test the results of this hypothesis:
PREVENT TRUMP FROM ENGAGING IN A TRADE WAR: Trump did start a Trade War with China and it has gone on long enough to damage California’s agriculture and threaten to damage it permanently. “The costs of Trump’s trade war are mounting in California. Californians have paid $5.3 billion in additional tariff costs so far, according to an analysis by Farmers for Free Trade …The group says California’s farmers and businesses have faced $1.6 billion in new retaliatory tariffs and California exports subject to retaliation from trading partners targeted by Trump have dropped by 9.5 percent. It warns that, in the worst case scenario, Trump’s trade war “could cost up to 248,400 jobs” in the state.” — FAIL
PREVENT TRUMP BLOCKING SKILLED IMMIGRANTS: “The Trump administration is denying and delaying more skilled-worker visa petitions than at any time since at least 2015 … But lawyers who help employers apply for the visas say the agency is rejecting legitimate applications and tying up requests in bureaucratic red tape.” — FAIL
PREVENT TRUMP BLOCKING UNSKILLED IMMIGRANTS: “Fifty-six percent of California farmers were unable hire the amount of employees they needed at some point in the last five years …The report from the California Farm Bureau, conducted in collaboration with the University of California, Davis, highlighted widespread labor shortages” — FAIL
PREVENT TRUMP FROM REMOVING FUNDING FOR HEALTH CARE AND REMOVING CALIFORNIA’S HEALTH INSURANCE: “On July 18, 2018, Judge Vince Chhabria of the federal district court for the Northern District of California issued an order dismissing a lawsuit brought by California and 18 other states (including the District of Columbia) over the Trump administration’s decision in October 2017 to abruptly stop making payments for cost-sharing reductions (CSRs). “ “A federal judge in Texas said on Friday that the Affordable Care Act’s individual coverage mandate is unconstitutional and that the rest of the law must also fall.” “Supreme Court agrees to hear Obamacare cases with billions of dollars at stake.”- FAIL SO FAR (COULD CHANGE)
PART 2 — CALIFORNIA’S VALUES:
Many other experts said that we can protect our “CALIFORNIA VALUES” through using the Federal system.
“Contemporaneously, on a parallel but significantly more consequential rail to the secession movement, Californian lawmakers, activists, and judges began to give citizens another potential outlet for their indignation over the election of Trump.” “legal scholars and non-secession-supporting Californians I spoke to, emphasized the legal ways that California can toe the line of what is permitted constitutionally. A nonviolent resistance to the imposition of federal law.” https://www.gq.com/story/california-secession-movement
“The next venue for more assertive action from California officials is likely to be the courts, where the rights of states versus the federal government are tested. Just as conservative Texas used litigation in an attempt to stymie then-President Obama on immigration and environmental policy, California is looking to the judiciary to block Trump’s goals.” http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-california-trump-resistance-20170917-htmlstory.html
It is over 2 years later and we can test the results of this hypothesis:
PREVENT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN AND MINORITIES — PART 1: ENSURE WOMEN AND MINORITIES HAVE THE TOOLS THEY NEED TO FIGHT AGAINST DISCRIMINATION AND SEXUAL ABUSE AT WORK: said they would stop Trump from taking away civil rights. “the Supreme Court basically barred workers nationwide from launching class-action lawsuits against employers…The class action, on the other hand, is one of the key legal mechanisms workers have to raise their collective voice on issues of wage theft, discrimination, sexual abuse” — FAIL
PREVENT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN AND MINORITIES — PART 2: “Police officers can barge into a house without a warrant or without announcing themselves and shoot someone if they fear for their life when they pull the trigger.” “That’s what the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday, when all eight justices agreed to strike down the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals “provocation doctrine” — the only court rule in the country that sought to hold cops accountable for their actions leading up to excessive use of force.” “Racial minorities made up about 37.4 percent of the general population in the US and 46.6 percent of armed and unarmed victims, but they made up 62.7 percent of unarmed people killed by police.” —FAIL
PREVENT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST LGBTQ — PART 1: DISCRIMINATION BY BUSINESSES WITH RELIGIOUS BELIEF: said they would stop Trump from backsliding on social progress. “The Supreme Court ruled Monday in favor of a Christian baker in Colorado who refused to make a custom cake for a same-sex couple” - FAIL
PREVENT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST LGBTQ — PART 2: PREVENT BAN OF TRANS-GENDERED FROM SERVING IN MILITARY —
“The Supreme Court will allow President Donald Trump’s partial ban on transgender people serving in the military to take effect while court challenges continue. Responding to Justice Department requests, the high court Tuesday cleared away lower-court actions that blocked the controversial policy from being implemented for nearly a year.” — PARTIAL FAIL
BLOCK THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BORDER WALL — PART 1: PUNISH THOSE THAT SUPPORT THE BORDER WALL: said they would punish any company that helps build this wall. “Senator Ricardo Lara, the author of SB 30, legislation opposing the construction of the border wall, pulled his bill on July 12, 2017 on the same day that President Trump tweeted that the $1.6 billion he requested to build the border wall has been allocated by the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee.” However the Bill had little support from Sacramento — “Here are some of the resistance bills that stalled in the Legislature: Border wall: Senate Bill 30, by Lara, would have prevented the state from doing business with contractors involved in the construction of the president’s proposed border wall between the U.S. and Mexico — specifically on the California border.” “Such discrimination to those providing goods or services to support the federal government’s construction of the border wall may be unconstitutional”-FAIL
BLOCK THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BORDER WALL — PART 2: Even though California lead a coalition of 16 states “California is joined by Nevada, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Virginia” it still lost. “The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday handed President Donald Trump a victory by letting his administration redirect $2.5 billion in money approved by Congress for the Pentagon to help build his promised wall along the U.S.-Mexico border even though lawmakers refused to provide funding.”-FAIL
BLOCK THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BORDER WALL — PART 3: said they would shut down the construction of the border wall. “The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rebuffed a challenge by three conservation groups to the authority of President Donald Trump’s administration to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border… The justices’ declined to hear the groups’ appeal of a ruling by a federal judge in California rejecting their claims that the administration had pursued border wall projects without complying with applicable environmental laws.” — FAIL
PROTECTING IMMIGRANTS — PART 1: PREVENTING RACIST IMMIGRATION BAN: When Donald Trump proposed that he would ban travel from 7 many Muslim countries, protesters said that it was racists to ban travel from Muslim countries and vowed they would shut down the ban. The American Supreme Court said that a “partial ban” that only listed 6 mainly Muslim countries could go forward. The ban is not as strong as was initially proposed, and includes fewer countries, but it still bans people from a large number of mostly Muslim countries from being to freely travel to any part of America. The News considered this a “partial victory for the Trump administration”. — PARTIAL FAIL
PROTECTING IMMIGRANTS — PART 2: PROTECTING ASYLUM — ”The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday granted a request by President Donald Trump’s administration to fully enforce a new rule that would curtail asylum applications by immigrants at the U.S.-Mexico border, a key element of his hardline immigration policies. The court said the rule, which requires most immigrants who want asylum to first seek safe haven in a third country through which they traveled on their way to the United States, could go into effect as litigation challenging its legality continues. The rule would bar almost all immigrants from applying for asylum at the southern border.” — FAIL
PROTECTING UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS -PART 1: — Said that it was within our rights to pursue Sanctuary policy and the Federal government couldn’t deny funds to cities that did this because it was their right — “The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday ruled in favor of the Trump administration’s efforts to prioritize federal dollars for local policing to towns and cities that complied with certain immigration policies. The ruling, a split 2–1 decision, said the Department of Justice (DOJ) was within its rights to withhold Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grants from sanctuary cities and states over their refusal to work with federal immigration enforcement authorities.” — FAIL
PROTECTING UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS -PART 2:— The California government said that they could protect Undocumented Californians from harsh treatment by Federal authorities. The Federal government ruled against California and supported Donald Trump’s harsh ideas on how the Undocumented should be treated. “The Supreme Court on Tuesday endorsed the U.S. government’s authority to detain immigrants awaiting deportation anytime — potentially even years — after they have completed prison terms for criminal convictions, handing President Donald Trump a victory as he pursues hardline immigration policies.” —FAIL
PROTECTING UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS — PART 3: — “The full Legislature still must sign off on the plan that would make such immigrants ages 19 to 25 eligible for Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program. The deal was a win for Newsom, who rejected as too expensive a state Senate plan to include adults 65 and older living in the state illegally.” “as many as 30,000 California residents age 65 or over don’t have primary care,” “UC Berkeley Labor Center projects 1.15 million undocumented adults would be eligible for full scope Medi-Cal in 2020, if coverage were to be extended to all income eligible individuals regardless of immigration status.” — PARTIAL FAIL (COULD CHANGE)
PROTECTING UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS — PART 4: The federal agents in charge of immigration enforcement arrest people based on racial profiling in both Southern and Northern California. There is nothing California can do about this because the Supreme Court said it is legal. ”Federal immigration officials who launched a big enforcement operation this week in Northern California objected to the actions being labeled sweeps or raids, saying the government went after specific people and does not “target aliens indiscriminately.” …in what he called an instance of racial profiling.” “They burst into View Park Automotive in South Los Angeles carrying semi-automatic weapons and wearing vests that simply read “police.”They didn’t identify themselves or ask questions about the men’s immigration status as they arrested every employee on the property.”
“But evidence suggests that Mexicans and other Latinos are sometimes targeted for arrest based on their race or ethnicity.” “Center for Constitutional Rights Executive Director Vince Warren finds the Court’s decision to uphold the “show me your papers” provision of Arizona’s immigration law, which allows police to demand proof of immigration status of anyone they stop or detain, disappointing. “In upholding Section 2(B) of SB 1070, the Supreme Court has legitimized reactionary state law ordinances that encourage widespread racial profiling”- FAIL
PROTECTING UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS — PART 5: “California Attorney General Xavier Becerra warned employers Thursday of legal repercussions if they assist federal immigration officials in an impending crackdown in the sanctuary state” “A federal judge rejected … temporarily barred a law that had required employers to restrict federal immigration officials’ access to workplace ..the state could no longer compel businesses, under the law known as AB 450, to prevent immigration officials from accessing a workplace and employment records without first obtaining a search warrant or a subpoena.” — FAIL
PROTECTING UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS — PART 6: Almost 2/3rds of California’s law enforcement works against the spirit of the sanctuary city law passed by California citizens: “Of 169 local law enforcement agencies reviewed, 68 were not complying with CA SB-54, the state law that limits cooperation between police agencies and federal immigration agents…. San Diego Sheriff’s Department deputies are still asking detainees about their immigration status…. Stanislaus Sheriff’s Department allows its deputies to hold detainees for immigration agents. …San Jose Police Department are still providing space for federal agents in their local facilities. All of those actions violate SB 54. … Los Angeles, Orange County, San Bernardino, and Riverside Sheriff’s Departments are “exploiting an exception” in the state’s sanctuary law by posting on their websites information regarding the release dates of immigrant inmates…” — FAIL
PROTECTING UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS — PART 7: Augustina Arreola, Vincent Maradiaga, Sergio Lopez, Osmar Gadba, Igor Zyazin, Jose Hernandez, Jose Bucio, all died in Federal ICE holdings in California along with “three detainee deaths and six unsuccessful suicide attempts at Adelanto during fiscal 2017”, for a total of 10 Undocumented immigrants who died by Federal mismanagement while in California.
WHAT IS LEFT TO DO:
How do we get California to Calexit
Have to prove system broken
Ca government and news lying to people that California is winning
ANNOUNCE: starting today — calling out Misleading by CA gov and Ca news.
THE RESIST MOVEMENT HAS (MASSIVELY) FAILED TO PROTECT CALIFORNIA AGAINST TRUMP
Supreme Court current loss
1. Federal gov can sell 45% of Fed land in CA to oil drillers
** California choose not to file bill to attempt to block Fed oil drilling in Fed water
2. America can ban Muslims
3. America can refuse Transgendered in army
4. America can refuse to serve gay requests at any business
5. America can profile people if they look Latino and single them out for questioning for ICE
6. America can do unlimited detentions for ICE
7. America can deny funding to California because of undocumented immigration policy
8. America can deny asylum to Latinos on border
9. California can’t punish companies who build wall
10. California can’t punish companies who work with ICE ignore undocumented immigration policy
11. California can’t stop the construction of the wall
12. California can’t enforce environmental laws on wall
Supreme court Potential future loss
1.June Medical Services LLC v. Gee March 4, 2020,
upholding Louisiana’s law requiring physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital or they can’t offer abortion.
Can states pass laws that make it almost impossible to get access to abortion
2.United States v. Sineneng-Smith February 25, 2020 CA COURT (already won on removing funding for violating immigration, and unlimited detention)
can the federal government punish people for encouraging or helping undocumented immigrants
3.United States Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association February 24, 2020 (already sided against CA on stopping selling of fed land)
Can they put natural gas pipelines on Federal forest land with only Federal approval — that is 45% of California they could punch a pipeline through without concern of what California or any environmental groups say
4.Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau March 3, 2020 CA COURT
Can they destroy the consumer financial protection bureau aka Dodd Frank which reigns in banks.
5.Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam CA COURT (already can block muslim imm)
Can they deny assulym applications realy fast March 2020
6.A decision on DACA is expected by summer JUNE JULY 2020 CA FILE
can they destroy DACA
7.Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia JUNE (already said can deny customer)
Can you fire someone for being gay — is it okay for business
A decision is expected by the end of June.
3. If not impeach Trump
By 2040 Democracy in America will be DEAD
•President chosen by electoral college
•Senate approves of all Fed judges — even if pres liberal
•Senate approves of all laws — even if house liberal
oSenate will not impeach Trump —
oTrump appointing Kavanaugh and Senate approving is evidence. Jul 10, 2018
@NormOrnstein I want to repeat a statistic I use in every talk: by 2040 or so, 70 percent of Americans will live in 15 states. Meaning 30 percent will choose 70 senators. And the 30% will be older, whiter, more rural, more male than the 70 percent. Unsettling to say the least
Paul Waldman In the age of minority rule, a Supreme Court justice appointed by a president who got fewer votes is confirmed by a party in the Senate that got fewer votes, to validate policies opposed by most Americans
4. Trump win in 2020
•ALL experts wrong b4
•55% approve of trump economy
•Dial not turned by entire impeachment coverage
PART 3— CALIFORNIA’S LAND
BLOCK THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM SELLING OFF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC LANDS: said they would stop the Federal government from giving away cherished parks — FAILED
PREVENT OFFSHORE DRILLING: said they would prevent oil drilling along the coast — FAILED
PROTECT CLEAN AIR AND WATER ACTS: said they would prevent Federal government from loosening protections on clean air and water — FAILED
Newsom Plans to Veto Bill That Would Have Blocked Trump's Rollback of Endangered Species…
Gov. Gavin Newsom plans to veto a bill passed by California lawmakers that would have allowed the state to impose…
Newsom plans to veto bill that would have blocked Trump's rollback of endangered species…
Gov. Gavin Newsom plans to veto a bill passed by California lawmakers that would have allowed the state to keep strict…
Federal governments top court back Trumps on selling off California land
“Judge rules in favor of Trump administration in California federal lands case”
“Water under the Mojave desert: Environmentalists backed AB 1000 as an attempt to block a controversial project that would pump groundwater out of the Mojave desert and direct it to more populous communities near the coast. The bill also had the unusual support of Gov. Jerry Brown and U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein. But labor and business groups opposed it, and the project developer, a company called Cadiz, is a big political donor. After killing the bill, Senate appropriations chairman Ricardo Lara released a statement saying the project had gone through extensive environmental review and the Legislature shouldn’t interfere.”
“Blocking coastal oil drilling: After President Donald Trump signed an executive order that could expand oil and gas drilling into federal waters off the California coast, Democratic Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson of Santa Barbara introduced a bill intended to block it. Her SB 188 would have prohibited the state from approving new leases on pipelines or other infrastructure needed to support new oil and gas development. The bill would have cost the state millions of dollars in lost leases. Its demise in the Assembly appropriations committee marked a loss for environmentalists and a win for oil companies — and the Trump Administration.”
“Here are some of the resistance bills that stalled in the Legislature:
• Offshore drilling: Senate Bill 188, by Sens. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara; Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens; and Senate Leader Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles, would have prohibited the California State Lands Commission from allowing new or additional exploration, development or production of oil or natural gas offshore “that would result in the increase of oil or natural gas production from federal waters.”
• Clean Air Act: Amid the threat of environmental rollbacks came Senate Bill 49, from Sens. Kevin de León and Henry Stern, which sought to make the existing protections under the federal Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act enforceable under state law.”
“California lawmakers pushed through a passel of legislation to thwart initiatives from the Trump administration — but also discovered that even their popular resistance has limits.”
• “A bill to protect California from the threat of rolled-back federal regulations on clean air and water didn’t even get a vote in the Assembly.”
• “Another bill that failed to gain traction responded to a Trump executive order opening the door for new offshore oil development. Senate Bill 188 would have prohibited the State Lands Commission from approving new leases for pipelines or other infrastructure to support new federal oil and gas development off of the California coast.”
The liberal news also won’t point out that two California Deans of Laws Schools agree. Erwin Chemerinsky, The Dean of the UC Berkeley and UC Irvine school of law admits that simple majority of Congress (51%) could vote for California to secede legally and David A. Carrillo, executive director of the California Constitution Center at the UC Berkeley’s law school, admits that he could not rule out that consent did not mean a majority of Congress.
“In theory, because it was a majority vote of Congress to admit California, in theory a majority vote of Congress could approve secession.”
Erwin Chemerinsky, founding dean UC Irvine Law school
DEAN of Berkeley Law
Created Irvine Law school
David A. Carrillo, executive director of the California Constitution Center at the UC Berkeley’s law school.
Admits that Texas v White is a legal decision on secession and that it does include the phrase you can legally secede “through consent of the states”
“Texas v. White held that states cannot secede, and that decision’s off-hand comment about the states consenting probably refers to the constitutional amendment procedure.”