If this bill becomes Law, Nic Shirley needs to put it to the test and force CA to defend it in court and ideally all the way to SCOTUIS so they can shut down corrupt CA politician's efforts to hide fraud. I have nod doubt Shirley could raise the necessary funds for a legal defense and that's assuming none of the well known true free speech organizations wouldn't take his case for free. While defeating the bill would be easiest, the fact is if it is passed and challenged and then defeated it will make it near impossible for corrupt CA politicians to try it all over again with different wording.
How is it even legal to enact legislation that is actively discriminatory. The wording says "immigrant" meaning any non-immigrant based service providers do not have the same protections. They could have simply said "providers" but they said "immigrant" because this is about protecting not just a group, service providers, but a very select sub-set of those being immigrant providers.
Californians including Democrats should be angry at that fact even if they dislike Nick Shirley and what he's done since its about protecting ONLY immigrant providers. Does this mean Democrats are Ok with minority non-immigrant owned service provider's not getting the same protections?
Its obvious by their own deliberate wording of the bill that this is not about protecting service providers but preventing future exposures and that raises the question of why? Why does house member Mia Bonta and her husband need so badly to prevent any future exposures that their willing to try and push legislation to do it and word it such that they exclude their own people, fellow minorities who might be owners of service providers? I'd say it's clear these 2 are either trying to cover their own backsides, from whatever fraud they are involved in that has not yet ben exposed from being exposed or their helping one or mor others to avoid exposure. If this was truly about protecting service providers it absolutely would not be limited to immigrant owned only.
Did you catch in the video that Mia Bonta tried to interrupt DeMaio's speech on this? That's how worried she is about people looking too closely at what this bill is really about.
I was hired by a Taiwanese insurance company to obtain, with the written permission of the clients, their medical records of giving birth in California to anchor babies. The Chinese woman arrived shortly before birth and stayed for a month at considerable expense. When it came time to pay the hospital bill, all eighty-three of them signed a document pleading poverty. CA residents paid 90% of each of the average $55,000 hospital bill.
The Left never sleep. They will go to any and lengths to make sure any and every Constitutional and God-given right we have is crushed into dust. Our rights and freedoms are their most despised enemy.
Their COVID escapade was just the tiniest taste of their all-consuming lust for total control over the populace in absolutely every sphere of their lives.
Shutting down free speech is the Biggie, which is why they will relentlessly pursue abridging, curtailing, and out right censoring and punishing it every chance they get.
Europe and the UK, who don’t have the benefit and blessing of our Constitution are making great strides in this effort. But the US offers the people there being silenced, sued and imprisoned hope.
We have to be twice as relentless as the Left in fighting back against these efforts because if we fail here, it’s will not be just us, but the whole world which will go dark.
That's b/c Democrats view [political] power as something to be wielded and often where as Republicans view it as something to be earned and used sparingly. Its how even when the Right controls all 3 parts of the Fed Gov the left still somehow manages to move their agenda forward albeit slower.
Apologies to Spencer Pratt and Steve Hilton, but in my opinion the whole damn state needs to be trashed, and sooner than they're accomplishing themselves. What a wretched place run by wretched people.
Cara - you may well be right. Like with a drug addict, it may take the state truly crashing and all who vote blue no matter who loosing everything before they will wake up and see the light. If its ever to happen it needs to be son while Trump is in office for I fear any other administration including a republican one, would bail out the state if it went bankrupt where as Trump would let them deal wit their own self-made disaster. As long as they can find some way to keep the entitlements flowing, they will never stop voting blue no matter who.
For this to pas into law and someone, ideally Nick Shirley himself, to get charged with it and challenge the state in court. It would take a few years most likely but that would ensure an end to this and in a way that would make it for CA to seek some work-around as they normally do when their anti2A laws get over turned. When that happens they do another bill with enough changes so its the same effective outcome but the pathway to it is different and the process starts all over again. In this case, only some benefit from preventing the exposure where as most of them want to ban guns so if this were to get overturned by SCOTUS I doubt we'd see CA try it again.
Well written and clear article. Thank you.
This defines the depth of corruption in California.
California does not actually want to foil and repel the corruption and fraud, they want to make the inquiries, the revelations go away.
Follow the money.
If this bill becomes Law, Nic Shirley needs to put it to the test and force CA to defend it in court and ideally all the way to SCOTUIS so they can shut down corrupt CA politician's efforts to hide fraud. I have nod doubt Shirley could raise the necessary funds for a legal defense and that's assuming none of the well known true free speech organizations wouldn't take his case for free. While defeating the bill would be easiest, the fact is if it is passed and challenged and then defeated it will make it near impossible for corrupt CA politicians to try it all over again with different wording.
How is it even legal to enact legislation that is actively discriminatory. The wording says "immigrant" meaning any non-immigrant based service providers do not have the same protections. They could have simply said "providers" but they said "immigrant" because this is about protecting not just a group, service providers, but a very select sub-set of those being immigrant providers.
Californians including Democrats should be angry at that fact even if they dislike Nick Shirley and what he's done since its about protecting ONLY immigrant providers. Does this mean Democrats are Ok with minority non-immigrant owned service provider's not getting the same protections?
Its obvious by their own deliberate wording of the bill that this is not about protecting service providers but preventing future exposures and that raises the question of why? Why does house member Mia Bonta and her husband need so badly to prevent any future exposures that their willing to try and push legislation to do it and word it such that they exclude their own people, fellow minorities who might be owners of service providers? I'd say it's clear these 2 are either trying to cover their own backsides, from whatever fraud they are involved in that has not yet ben exposed from being exposed or their helping one or mor others to avoid exposure. If this was truly about protecting service providers it absolutely would not be limited to immigrant owned only.
Did you catch in the video that Mia Bonta tried to interrupt DeMaio's speech on this? That's how worried she is about people looking too closely at what this bill is really about.
I was hired by a Taiwanese insurance company to obtain, with the written permission of the clients, their medical records of giving birth in California to anchor babies. The Chinese woman arrived shortly before birth and stayed for a month at considerable expense. When it came time to pay the hospital bill, all eighty-three of them signed a document pleading poverty. CA residents paid 90% of each of the average $55,000 hospital bill.
The Left never sleep. They will go to any and lengths to make sure any and every Constitutional and God-given right we have is crushed into dust. Our rights and freedoms are their most despised enemy.
Their COVID escapade was just the tiniest taste of their all-consuming lust for total control over the populace in absolutely every sphere of their lives.
Shutting down free speech is the Biggie, which is why they will relentlessly pursue abridging, curtailing, and out right censoring and punishing it every chance they get.
Europe and the UK, who don’t have the benefit and blessing of our Constitution are making great strides in this effort. But the US offers the people there being silenced, sued and imprisoned hope.
We have to be twice as relentless as the Left in fighting back against these efforts because if we fail here, it’s will not be just us, but the whole world which will go dark.
That's b/c Democrats view [political] power as something to be wielded and often where as Republicans view it as something to be earned and used sparingly. Its how even when the Right controls all 3 parts of the Fed Gov the left still somehow manages to move their agenda forward albeit slower.
Apologies to Spencer Pratt and Steve Hilton, but in my opinion the whole damn state needs to be trashed, and sooner than they're accomplishing themselves. What a wretched place run by wretched people.
Cara - you may well be right. Like with a drug addict, it may take the state truly crashing and all who vote blue no matter who loosing everything before they will wake up and see the light. If its ever to happen it needs to be son while Trump is in office for I fear any other administration including a republican one, would bail out the state if it went bankrupt where as Trump would let them deal wit their own self-made disaster. As long as they can find some way to keep the entitlements flowing, they will never stop voting blue no matter who.
Agree with all you say. What's needed to get SCOTUS to tell Cali to pound sand?
For this to pas into law and someone, ideally Nick Shirley himself, to get charged with it and challenge the state in court. It would take a few years most likely but that would ensure an end to this and in a way that would make it for CA to seek some work-around as they normally do when their anti2A laws get over turned. When that happens they do another bill with enough changes so its the same effective outcome but the pathway to it is different and the process starts all over again. In this case, only some benefit from preventing the exposure where as most of them want to ban guns so if this were to get overturned by SCOTUS I doubt we'd see CA try it again.