Posted on by

Why do the Editorial Board of The Philadelphia Inquirer hate America?

Why do the Editorial Board of The Philadelphia Inquirer hate America?

In an editorial that reads suspiciously like it was primarily written by far-left columnist Will Bunch, I found this:

After all, it is difficult to be proud when masked federal agents kill U.S. citizens in broad daylight.

Mr Bunch, oops, sorry, the Editorial Board somehow failed to mention that Renee Good tried to run over an ICE agent with her car, or that Alex Pretti was pulling a gun in a struggle with law enforcement agents. Both are stone-cold graveyard dead now because they just couldn’t think Pretti Good. If they had been exercising their constitutional right to peaceably assemble to protest immigration enforcement, they’d still be alive today.

It is difficult to be proud when U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents round up migrants while they work on farms in California, repair a roof in Louisiana, or wash cars in North Philadelphia.

It’s not difficult for me to be proud of immigration agents doing something really radical like enforcing our immigration laws. The Board do not mention that ICE was arresting people who were in this country illegally.

It is difficult to be proud when a hapless defense secretary celebrates the killing — in violation of international law — of more than 200 civilians in tiny boats, who may be transporting drugs or just fishing.

High speed boats heading to our country are not out fishing, but doing exactly what you know they were doing: smuggling drugs. That the drug smugglers were killed while smuggling drugs bothers me not in the slightest.

It is difficult to be proud when a nation founded by immigrants sends migrants with no criminal record to maximum-security prisons in foreign lands without any due process.

Again, we have immigration laws, and the illegals here are violating them.

Pride does not come easily when you live in a country whose leader dismantles higher education, shakes down law firms, slashes scientific research, tramples the rule of law, and cuts off health insurance for the most vulnerable citizens.

The federal Department of Education has been a miserable failure, and should be dismantled. The United States was number one in education when the Department was created under President Jimmy Carter, and now we’re way down the list. And it is not the job of the federal government to provide health insurance for anyone.

Where is the pride in watching the world’s richest man parade across a stage with a chain saw to celebrate the firing of hundreds of thousands of federal workers? Or when he ends foreign aid for the poorest lands, leading to mass deaths?

I’m pretty proud of the Trump Administration slashing unnecessary federal workers and cutting foreign aid; we do not somehow ‘owe’ people living in foreign countries the taxpayers’ dollars of hard-working Americans. My only complaint is that not enough useless federal workers have lost their jobs, and not enough wasteful spending has been cut.

The Inquirer kept telling readers that the 2024 election was about saving democracy. Well, the American people voted, in a free and fair election, for the candidate who promised to do all of the things the Board lamented. 77,302,580 of us voted for exactly what President Trump has been doing. It seems that the people who were telling us that the 2024 election was about saving democracy are thoroughly upset at the result of democracy.

Posted on by

The ‘transgendered’ would find their lives far simpler if they’d stop trying to make their beliefs other people’s business

“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” ― George Orwell, 1984

Living on a rural farm, in a small, mostly rural county, in a very politically conservative state, I only rarely see the ‘transgendered.’ I saw one such gentleman pretending to be a lady, as a customer, in the Corto Lima restaurant in downtown Lexington several years ago, and another such gentleman working as a waiter in the now-several-years-closed Applebee’s on Bypass Road in Richmond. I thought such was humorous, because neither one came anywhere close to ‘passing’ as a real woman, but I had no interactions with either of them. They were doing what they wanted to do, in a manner which had no impact on me at all. Unlike the “Party’s” most essential command, I accepted the evidence of my eyes.

That, of course, was simple: these gentlemen who thought they were ladies weren’t trying to force me to accept them as ladies. The problem today as that so many of the ‘transgendered’ are attempting to compel the rest of us to accept their delusions. From The Wall Street Journal:

How the Tide Turned Against Transgender Athletes—and the Movement

Loss at Supreme Court this week leaves activists playing defense—even in blue states

By Louise Radnofsky | Wednesday, July 1, 2026 | 6:20 PM EDT

When 11-year-old Becky Pepper-Jackson wanted to run cross-country in middle school five years ago, it seemed like a favorable moment to challenge a West Virginia ban on transgender girls like her joining female teams.

An openly transgender woman competed in weightlifting at the Olympic Games in Tokyo that summer. And the Supreme Court had recently delivered a landmark victory for the LGBTQ rights movement, establishing that bedrock federal civil-rights law prohibited employers from discriminating against workers on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation.

By the time the justices issued their opinion on Pepper-Jackson’s case on Tuesday, upholding bans in West Virginia and Idaho, and 25 states like them, the tide had turned decisively. The transgender-rights movement has lost nearly all of its ground in red states, and is on the defensive in blue states.

Conservatives paint the era in which Pepper-Jackson brought her case as a lapse of common sense. “Today most people look at this and they can’t believe what we were going through six years ago,” said Raúl Labrador, Idaho’s Republican attorney general, who championed his state’s ban.

Note that reporter Louise Radnofsky used the feminine pronouns to refer to young Mr Pepper-Jackson. As per our published Stylebook, The First Street Journal always uses the pronouns and honorifics appropriate to the actual sex of the ‘transgendered, not the ‘gender’ they claim to be, but we also do not alter the direct quotes of others. We also use their real names, but have been thus far unable to discover Mr Pepper-Jackson’s birth name. While we’d like to see wiser journalistic practice from as august a publication as The Wall Street Journal, we are not surprised that they appear to be going along with the Associated Press Stylebook’s recommendations. 🙁

“I think there’s been a real backsliding over the past five years, not just specifically in the context of sports, but in terms of discrimination against trans people in general, and vitriol,” said Joshua Block, the ACLU senior counsel who represented Pepper-Jackson.

It’s simple: if Mr Pepper-Jackson, as well as people like Brayden Fleming and Will Thomas hadn’t been trying to compete in girls’ and women’s sports, had not been trying to impose their beliefs that they are real girls/women, they would have been like the two previously mentioned in restaurants: oddities, perhaps, but really none of our business.

But they made it our business. Mr Thomas took several victories away from real women, as have people like Abraham Fernandez Delgado in the Pyrite State. California tried to split the difference, with a split podium, having young Mr Delgado share the first-place spot on the podium with the top finisher among real girls, a compromise which pleased exactly no one. The supporters of ‘transgenderism’ said that it made it seem as though Mr Delgado was not a real girl — which he isn’t! — while those who support biology and common sense said that he should not have been allowed to compete against girls in the first place.

When the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in January, though, the optics had changed. For one thing, University of Pennsylvania swimmer Lia Thomas had drawn significantly more attention to the issue—much of it negative. Thomas transitioned during college after competing on the men’s team as a freshman and sophomore. She set off an earthquake when as a senior she won an NCAA freestyle title in 2022. The university later stripped her of her records as part of a deal with the Trump administration.

Mr Thomas deprived a real woman, Emma Weyant, of the NCAA 500-yard freestyle women’s championship in 2022, something which caused real harm to the swimmer from Virginia. These things weren’t rec league titles, but real national championships.

Everyone wants to make this issue complicated, but it really isn’t. Our good friends on the left kept telling us to “follow the science” when it came to trying to mandate the COVID vaccines, but they are wholly unwilling to “follow the science” when it comes to ‘transgenderism, because it really is simple: people cannot change their sex. The ‘transgendered’ would find less hassle if they’d simply stop trying to hassle other people into accepting their delusions. They should live their lives in a way which doesn’t make their lives other people’s business.

Posted on by

Democrisy! Democrats claim, without any proof, that President Trump is a sexual predator, but then pardon a convicted child rapist to try to keep him from being deported.

It has been said that presidential candidates like to pick vice presidential running mates who will not overshadow them, and such is frequently done by picking running mates who are dumber than them. That hasn’t often been the case with Republicans, as Ronald Reagan chose the elder George Bush, who was very intelligent and qualified, the younger George Bush chose Richard Cheney, and Donald Trump picked J D Vance. But among the Democrats, yeah, it seems likely: Bill Clinton choosing Al Gore, Barack Obama running with Joe Biden, Mr Biden then running with Kamala Harris Emhoff, and Mrs Emhoff then going to the very bottom of the barrel, picking tampon Tim Walz.

From The New York Times:

Minnesota Pardons Sexual Abuser Who Was Set to Be Deported

Tou Lue Vang has expressed regret for abusing a 10-year-old two decades ago. The Trump administration accused Gov. Tim Walz, a Democrat, of shielding an immigrant who committed a serious crime.

By Hamed Aleaziz, Ernesto Londoño and Amy Qin | Wednesday, July 1, 2026

A three-person Minnesota panel including Gov. Tim Walz granted a pardon to an immigrant convicted of sexually abusing a child, drawing accusations that he and other Democrats are impeding federal efforts to expel dangerous foreign criminals eligible for deportation.

Shouldn’t that headline be “Minnesota Pardons Child Rapist Who Was Set to Be Deported”?

The Minnesota Board of Pardons granted the reprieve on June 10 to Tou Lue Vang, 42, who came to the United States as a child and was set to be deported to Laos imminently. Mr. Vang had submitted a letter to the board expressing regret for the actions that led to his 2005 conviction, and said a pardon could help him stay in the country with his wife and six children.

Mr. Vang’s victim, who was 10 when the abuse began, also submitted a letter supporting the pardon. Mr. Vang pleaded guilty to first-degree criminal sexual conduct in a plea deal that spared him from serving time in prison.

The pardon effectively wiped clean Mr. Vang’s criminal record, providing him an avenue to fight deportation.

There’s more at the original.

So, Mr Vang, sometime around age 18, raped a 10-year-old, but got a plea deal which allowed him to avoid prison. Under §609.342 Criminal Sexual Conduct in the First Degree, Subd. 1a, the penalty for such is up to thirty years in the state penitentiary. There are exceptions which allow non-incarceration, and the victim’s family pressured the then 12-year-old girl not to cooperate with the prosecution; that led to the probationary sentence.

Mr. Vang was around 18 when he first began abusing the girl, who was then 10 years old. Mr. Vang initially tried to defend his actions upon his arrest in 2005.

When a detective interviewed Mr. Vang, he acknowledged having had sexual contact with the girl and called it a “minor thing,” according to a criminal complaint. Mr. Vang blamed cultural norms in Thailand, according to the complaint.

You might, or perhaps might not, want to review what Minnesota defines as “sexual contact” with a person under 14, as the Times story used that euphemism.

The conviction led immigration officials to seek his deportation, and an immigration judge ordered him removed in 2006. But because Laos refused to accept deportees in large numbers, many ethnic Laotians and Hmong, including Mr. Vang, were allowed to remain in the United States on supervised release.

At least the Bush Administration tried to get rid of Mr Vang, though clearly did not try hard enough. He should have been taken to Laos and simply dumped there, if nothing else. Perhaps take him to sexual predator-friendly Thailand, drive him across, and just push him over the border.

I’ve said it before: sometimes you just have to be an [insert slang term for the anus here] to do the right things!

That changed early last year when Mr. Trump returned to office, and Laos began to accept many of these stateless deportees with decades-old removal orders. Hundreds of people have since been deported to Laos.

That’s good; kick him out!

There’s some major Democrisy — you can easily see the etymology of that admittedly made-up word! — going on here. Our good friends on the left have been trying everything they possibly could to disqualify Donald Trump from the presidency, including claiming, to this day, that the Epstein files proved he was diddling underaged girls, despite the fact that, while those files were in the possession of the Justice Department under President Joe Biden and Attorney General Merrick Garland, who absolutely hates Republicans for denying him a Supreme court seat, the Biden Administration never found a single bit of evidence that such was true, yet state Attorney General Keith bin Ellison, state Supreme Court Chief Justice Natalie Hudson, and Governor Walz, Democrats all, decided to pardon a convicted child rapist, all to keep him in the United States, and, of course, fight President Trump’s policies.

I can understand how the left might have sympathy for illegal immigrants who have tried all along to be good people, but to attempt deliberately to keep a convicted sex offender in the country? Just how stupid can they be?

Posted on by

Why does The Philadelphia Inquirer censor the news?

Our great nation’s third oldest continuously published daily newspaper, The Philadelphia Inquirer, hasn’t exactly been silent on the murder of William “Billy” Schmidt, but hasn’t spent a lot of time on the case, either.

2 teens sought in shooting death of Penn State student in South Philly

Police obtained arrest warrants for Kaiseem Smith and Azzubair Outen-Fleming, both 16, on charges of murder and related offenses in the death of William “Billy” Schmidt, police said.

by Robert Moran | Tuesday, June 30, 2026 | 5:48 PM EDT

Two 16-year-olds are being sought for the fatal shooting of a 22-year-old Penn State student in South Philadelphia, police said Tuesday.

Police obtained arrest warrants for Kaiseem Smith and Azzubair Outen-Fleming on charges of murder and related offenses in the death of William “Billy” Schmidt, said Deputy Commissioner Frank Vanore.

On June 6, Schmidt was gunned down just footsteps from his home on the 2300 block of South 20th Street in an apparent robbery attempt.

Schmidt was pronounced dead at Penn Presbyterian Medical Center a short time later. Schmidt was studying digital journalism and media at the Penn State World Campus, the university’s online campus.

There’s a little more at the linked Inquirer story.

But you know what isn’t at the linked story? The photos of the suspected killers! While in one of reporter Robert Moran’s linked stories we are given a bit of surveillance photos, enough to see that the two then-unidentified suspects are black, I had to use the tweet from Philly Crime Update to give my two regular readers their images, because the newspaper wouldn’t do so.

The two suspects are still at large, and if the newspaper had published their photographs, perhaps a local reader would spot one or both of them based on that. If the editors were trying to avoid pointing out that the suspects are black, they’d never have published their names: it’s not as though anyone would think that suspects named Kaiseem Smith and Azzubair Outen-Fleming were anything but black.

So why hide the photos?

Then there’s this:

Stepfather of teen accused of killing Penn State student is charged with hindering apprehension

The two teens wanted in the shooting death of 22-year-old Billy Schmidt remained on the run Wednesday, authorities said.

by Jillian Kramer | Wednesday, July 1, 2026 | 3:57 PM EDT

Authorities have arrested the stepfather of one of the two teenagers wanted in the shooting death of Penn State student William “Billy” Schmidt in South Philadelphia last month, though prosecutors said he is not accused of taking part in the slaying.

Donte Abdulmalik, 35, was charged with hindering apprehension, obstruction of justice, tampering with evidence, and related crimes, District Attorney Larry Krasner said Wednesday.

Abdulmalik’s arrest comes as authorities continue to search for Azzubair Outen-Fleming and Kaiseem Smith, both 16, who they say robbed, shot, and killed Schmidt, 22, just steps from his family’s South Philadelphia home on June 6.

Outen-Fleming, Abdulmalik’s stepson, and Smith remained at large Wednesday, Krasner said as he urged anyone with information about their whereabouts to come forward.

There’s considerably more at the newspaper’s original, including Mr Krasner’s statement that others may be involved. Mr Abdulmalik allegedly helped his stepson flee the city. But, once again, with yet another opportunity, this time 22 hours later, the Inquirer declined to publish the photos of the accused killers. But for our $6.99 per week digital subscriptions, the Inquirer doesn’t want to give readers all of the news.

Posted on by

Another victory for normal people! The Supreme Court did the right thing, but the left will never see it that way.

On this last day of ‘Pride month,’ the United States Supreme Court voted that common sense and normal behavior were inshrined in our laws and Constitution. Naturally, the left are aghast. From NBC News:

Supreme Court upholds bans on transgender athletes in girls’ and women’s sports

In the latest of a string of losses for LGBTQ rights, the high court allowed states to bar transgender athletes from girls’ and women’s sports.

by Lawrence Hurley | Tuesday, June 30, 2026 | 10:04 AM EDT | Updated: 10:08 AM EDT

WASHINGTON — Delivering another major blow to LGBTQ rights, the Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld state laws that ban transgender athletes from participating in girls’ and women’s sports.

Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence, that in saying that boys are not really girls and girls and not really boys, this ruling says absolutely nothing about “LGB,” lesbians, gays, or bisexuals. The ruling affects only the “T” part, that biological and scientifically male persons cannot claim to be female to force their way into women’s and girls’ sports. The ruling says nothing about Brianna Stewart of the New York Liberty, famously a lesbian and ‘married’ to another woman, can’t play in the WNBA, because “Stewie” is biologically a real woman. The ruling says nothing about any homosexual athlete not being able to play in the NBA or NFL or MBL or NHL, though there are no currently known homosexual players on the rosters of any of the teams in those leagues.

The court, largely divided 6-3, ruled against two transgender students, Becky Pepper-Jackson and Lindsay Hecox, who had challenged restrictive laws in West Virginia and Idaho, respectively.

The court in an opinion authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh concluded that the laws do not violate either the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which requires that the law apply evenly to everyone, or Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which bars sex discrimination in education.

“The Constitution and Title IX do not require an overhaul of women’s and girls’ sports throughout America,” Kavanaugh wrote.

He expressed sympathy for transgender girls and women who desire to play sports, saying “their desire to compete warrants respect” and that they should not be “ostracized or vilified.”

Although the ruling directly concerns only West Virginia and Idaho, it is likely to affect 25 other states with similar bans.

It is the latest in a string of defeats for transgender people at the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority.

What author Lawrence Hurley really means is that there is a 6-3 common sense majority on the Supreme Court. That males and females are physically different, in ways which make a difference in most sports, has been known since we’ve had sports, has been known since human beings became self-aware. WNBA games are 40 minutes long, while the NBA regulation game is 48 minutes. The standard regulation height for a men’s indoor and beach volleyball net is 7 feet, 11⅝ inches (2.43 meters), while the official women’s volleyball net height for indoor, beach, and outdoor competition is 7 feet, 4⅛ inches (2.24 meters), all because men, on average, are taller and can jump higher than women. And we have previously noted how University of Pennsylvania men’s swimmer, Will Thomas, was a middle-of-the-pack athlete in university men’s swimming, but once he decided that he was a woman calling himself “Lia,” his performances against women vaulted him to number one in women’s university swimming.

In Bostock v Clayton County (2020), the Court held that homosexuality and transgenderism were protected classifications under Title VII, Justice Neil Gorsuch, a member of today’s 6-3 majority, wrote:

An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.

That was a case concerning discrimination against homosexuals or transgendered persons whose being homosexual or transgendered had no impact on his ability to do the job required, or led to any other legally significant differences. Such is clearly not the case when it comes to the sexual dimorphism and physical differences when it comes to athletics.

The court did the right thing, but the left will never see it that way.

Posted on by

Supreme Court Rules POTUS Has Authority To Remove “Independent Agency” Heads

How can an agency in the Executive Branch be “independent” from the president?

Justices Overturn 1935 Precedent, Backing President’s Power to Remove Agency Heads

The Supreme Court on Monday handed President Trump a sweeping victory over the administrative state, ruling that Congress cannot shield the heads of independent regulatory agencies from presidential removal, and overturning a landmark 1935 precedent that had underpinned the modern regulatory framework for nearly a century.

The 6-3 decision in Trump v. Slaughter arose from the President’s firing of two Democratic-appointed Federal Trade Commission commissioners, Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya, at the start of his second term. Trump cited his constitutional authority under Article II rather than any cause recognized by the FTC’s governing statute, which permits removal only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts concluded that the FTC’s for-cause removal protection is incompatible with the Constitution’s vesting of executive power in a single President. Officers who exercise executive power, the Court held, must remain accountable to the President — and accountability requires the ability to remove them at will.

The ruling explicitly overturned Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which had carved out an exception to presidential removal authority for agencies exercising so-called quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial functions. The Court found that characterization had never made sense and had become increasingly untenable as the FTC’s powers expanded to cover virtually every corner of the American economy.

The decision’s reach extends well beyond the FTC, potentially exposing the leadership of dozens of independent agencies — including the SEC, CFTC, and NLRB — to at-will presidential removal.

If the POTUS doesn’t have control of an agency that what is the POTUS? The only way to shield these people is to pass a law out of the Legislative Branch and have a POTUS sign said law. Or refuse to sign but not veto, allowing it to become law with no action. The above article does briefly mention that SCOTUS held that the president has less power to fire a member of the Federal Reserve in a companion ruling, but, mostly because Lisa Cook was not given time to respond. More on that here.

And another big ruling that Trump lost

SCOTUS Rules 5-4 to Permit Counting of Mail-In Ballots that Arrive After Election Day

The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruled that state laws allowing for the counting of mail-in ballots after election day are not in violation of federal law, a blow to the Republican National Committee and President Donald Trump’s administration.

On Monday, SCOTUS issued a 5-4 ruling that permits states to count mail-in ballots — sent on or before election day — that are received by state election officials after election day.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority’s opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts as well as Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

“Two principles are important here. First, post-election-day receipt, considered on its own, does not conflict with the election-day statutes,” the Court writes:

Well, I kind of agree. If they were postmarked, and there really must be a clear, real postmark, then they should be counted per state law, since the Constitution gives states this power to set laws. I also understand this point by Alito

But if that is all that the election-day statutes require, there is no sense in which the electorate as a whole can be seen as making its choice on election day. Rather, the electorate’s choice would be made piecemeal over an extended period prior to election day, and that prospect is blatantly contrary to what the election-day statutes demand. [Emphasis added]

Election day is a specified date, not a span of multiple days. The election-day statutes require that federal elections occur on that date. Under the challenged Mississippi law, however, the collection of ballots continues for five more days, and therefore the “election” is not held until the end of that period. Because federal law requires that the election occur on election day, it preempts Mississippi’s statute. [Emphasis added]

But, unless the Court wants to rule to kill vote by mail and early voting, the laws, federal Constitution, and state Constitutions allow mail in. This will allow for challenges over postmarkes.

Posted on by

Climate Wacko Files Suit Against New Zealand Government

The cultists always want to force their Beliefs on Everyone Else

Climate change activist files High Court proceedings over government ruling

A climate change activist has filed a court case against the government’s plans to prevent companies being sued over their greenhouse gas emissions.

Mike Smith’s case against six major emitters, including Fonterra and Z Energy, prompted the government’s decision to block tort-based litigation over climate change.

Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said the change would apply to current and future cases – stopping Smith’s landmark case from going ahead next April.

Now Smith has filed proceedings with the High Court over the government’s plans, asking for a declaration that both the decision and the process behind it were unlawful.

RNZ reported in May that a previously undisclosed briefing document had been provided to the prime minister’s office by Fonterra and Z Energy regarding Smith’s case.

RNZ also reported officials had told the government not to intervene in the court case.

In fairness, the cases prior to the law should be allowed to proceed, but, then they just need to stop. This climalawfare costs time and money, and raises the cost of living for Everyone Else. And Smith has already asked the UN to intervene about 10 days ago. Last time I checked New Zealand is a sovereign nation not run by the United Nations. Also, the citizens of NZ voted out the previous climate cult wackos because they were tired of this cult crap.

Posted on by

Tennessee To Review Immigration Status Of All On Government Programs

Really, illegals, (fake) asylum seekers, refugees, and lawful aliens should not be on any sort of government program

Tennessee law requires immigration review for public benefits starting this week

A Tennessee law set to take effect Wednesday will require local government agencies such as health departments to verify and report the immigration status of people applying for certain public benefits. Vivian Lozano Sterchi, chief operating officer of the Chattanooga immigrant advocacy group La Paz, said it’s unclear what the ramifications of the new law will be.

The law is broad and applies to any local government entity, including counties, cities, towns and local health departments. It applies to people 18 years or older who are applying for federal, state or local public benefits.

The law requires local governments to report to the state’s immigration agency the status of applicants so it can be shared with federal immigration enforcement officials. The new law makes an employee’s failure to report an individual’s unauthorized status a misdemeanor.

“I think what makes it so hard is the lack of clarity, which at the end of the day doesn’t matter, because this is a terrible bill that’s going to negatively impact hundreds of families in our state, and so families are afraid to receive medical care,” Lozano Sterchi said. “What does that mean for the overall health of our community, for our schools?”

It means anyone on public benefits who is not lawfully in the U.S. will have their names sent to ICE so they can be rounded up and deported. It means that illegals will be scared to apply, and legal aliens will also not apply (they are pretty much restricted in most cases for most visas from getting govt aid), leaving more money and services for actual citizens.

The law gives the Tennessee attorney general the authority to investigate allegations and complaints that a local government or employee is violating the law by not reporting someone who is an unauthorized immigrant or continuing services.

The law does not define public benefit or specify which public benefits or local government entities the law applies to.

That’s because it is all for people 18 and over. Why is this difficult to understand for the liberals?

Meanwhile

A new law could create a list of immigrants illegally living in Mississippi. Advocates are alarmed

A new Mississippi law will authorize the state’s top law enforcement agency to compile a list of all immigrants illegally living in the state.

What’s to be done with that information is a bit open-ended. But the law set to take effect Wednesday is sparking alarm among immigrant advocates, who fear it could become a new tactic to target immigrants in conjunction with President Donald Trump’s plan to deport millions of people lacking legal approval to live in the U.S.

Why fear? That’s exactly the purpose. My goodness, the Credentialed Media seems rather dense, eh?

Posted on by

Huh: “California” Is Getting To Raise Health Insurance Tax

Democrats: “How dare Republicans allow a subsidy lapse for the Ocare market! Health insurance is too much!”

Also Democrats:

California is getting ready to increase a health insurance tax. Will it affect your premium?

Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón, a Santa Barbara Democrat, told reporters earlier this week that there was no perfect plan for redesigning the tax and that the Senate still has concerns, but the proposal they voted through is one that would bring in money quickly.

“We have as a Senate been very clear that we needed revenue … it was a matter of making a decision which we could troubleshoot given what is happening at the federal level,” Limón said.

As part of the tax and spending law Congress passed last summer, the federal government imposed new restrictions on provider taxes, including the one imposed on health plans. Under existing rules, California received almost $8 billion annually from this tax; the new limits mean the state will receive billions less. The Legislature’s plan tries to fill at least some of that gap.

The plan does not directly raise health insurance premiums. Instead it imposes a higher tax on private plans, which have said they’d pass the cost down to consumers.

By “California” the LA Times means “Democrats”, who run the People’s Republic Of California general assembly with an iron fist. They can pretty much do whatever they want. And what they want is to tax the hell out of people who have health insurance.

The proposal would require all health plans, both public and private, to pay a monthly rate of $8.85 per enrollee — a total cost of about $1.5 billion a year for private plans. If health plans pass the entire tax to their members, Californians could see about a 1.5% increase in their monthly premiums, according to the independent Legislative Analyst’s Office. That’s on top of the yearly premium rate increases that people see year to year.

Doesn’t seem like a lot, but, health insurance costs are sky high in the PRC, along with everything else. And don’t forget they high cost of deductibles and how the availability of actual care is limited because of all the illegals in California

The California Assn. of Health Plans, the health insurance lobby, estimates this would translate to consumers paying about $100 more in premiums each year. That means a family of four could be looking at $400 more a year in health premiums.

Democrats will say “it’s just $400, no biggie”, because all these people making the laws are rich and/or get lots of graft money. Hey, maybe if California wasn’t spending $9.5 billion a year on healthcare for illegals it wouldn’t be an issue.

Sen. Akilah Weber Pierson, a San Diego Democrat, said she found the tax plan “extremely problematic” as she questioned the administration during a hearing Wednesday. “I am very uncomfortable with this proposal and the economic burden it will have on the families I serve as a senator but also a physician.” She voted for the measure on Thursday.

So, of course she voted against….wait, what? She voted for it? Kinda the way it goes with Democrats. They express concern, then vote to screw the peasants.

I wonder if California will throw even more subsidies to illegals?