The State of California may begin taxing text messages if a new proposal from state regulators is approved.

The San Jose Mercury News Mercury News reports that the California Public Utilities Commission is scheduled to vote on the proposal to add a surcharge to text messages next month.

The surcharge would reportedly be used to fund services to provide cell phone access to the poor — just as surcharges on land lines once did, Fortune magazine notes. As phone calls have declined, so have revenues.

Fortune adds (original link):

So California’s PUC is exploring its options and, as texts share infrastructure with voice calls — even if the medium is different — it estimates it could raise $44.5 million a year with the change. Applied retroactively it could amount to a bill of more than $220 million for California consumers.

In response, the telecoms industry is filing complaints arguing that texting is an email-like “information service” and should be exempt from PPP.

The Federal Communications Commission is considering the issue on Wednesday. But Fortune notes that the tax may arrive too late to make a difference, as smartphone users are increasingly turning to services like WhatsApp and Snapchat as an alternative to text messages.

Californians are already struggling to deal with higher gas taxes, passed last year and upheld by a referendum last month in which the state’s Democrats allegedly manipulated the title of the ballot initiative to confuse voters. The measure, which would have repealed the new gas tax, the state told voters that Proposition 6 “Eliminates Certain Road Repair and Transportation Funding” rather than “Repeals Gas Tax.”

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

Photo: file

President Trump clearly shocked House speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi and Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer yesterday with his televising of the Oval Office sit-down over his demand for $5 billion in funding for border security, including funding of critical mileage for his border wall.  Knowing well that Pelosi had already vowed publicly that “transparency and openness” would characterize the Democrat-run House starting next month, her plaintive request to speak in private scored points for Trump and revealed her hypocrisy before any substance at all was considered.

The remarkable body language during the meeting tells the story of Trump’s dominance.  Here is the full video of the press gaggle, via Grabien:

That was merely the first of three traps Trump had prepared for the Democrats’ congressional leadership.

Trump’s second trap is his bold declaration of ownership of any “government shutdown.”  Democrats have convinced themselves that what is called a “shutdown,” but really means furloughing non-essential federal workers, is a tragedy, a scar on the nation’s psyche.  The fact that federal workers are now a major and solid constituency for Democrats skews their perception of the public’s concern.  Aside from canceling sleigh rides in national parks and other such photo drama, the fact is that life goes on well for nearly all Americans during the furlough.  They learn that there are a lot of non-essential government workers.

After multiple shutdowns, including the last one that bore the label “Schumer Shutdown” and was quickly conceded by the Democrats, the public is no longer afraid of non-essential services (roughly 25% of the government) being temporarily suspended.

Chuck Schumer took the bait on the second trap, and after the Oval Office meeting, he employed triumphantly the term “Trump Shutdown” as if he had won a victory through Trump’s surrender.  Thus fortified, he is more likely to take Trump’s dare and refuse funding for adequate border security and metaphorically throw Bre’r Trump into the briar patch.

The third trap is maneuvering the Senate Democrats into standing for open borders, or at least ineffective border security.  The current House of Representatives will pass the funding.  It is the Senate, where a 60-vote filibuster could be employed, that would be the obstacle.

Never forget that Trump was the most successful producer of reality television in the history of the medium.  He understands drama and a story arc.  Chuck Schumer leading a Senate filibuster right before Christmas to stymie border protection is exactly the story Trump wants the nation’s TV-viewers to absorb.   

He is immeasurably aided in crafting his third trap narrative by the Democrats’ acceptance of and belief in the narratives peddled by their allies in the mainstream media.  Just as they believe that the voters share their own horror over a “partial government shutdown,” they also believe their own rhetoric about a wall being “immoral” (Pelosi) or “wasteful” (Schumer).

But the arrival of the Central American caravan and the reaction of Tijuana’s political leadership and citizens have changed the game.  The “race card” (more properly, the “ethnicity card” for Hispanics) no longer trumps (pun intentional) the hand being played by Trump.  It is obvious that a substantial portion of the populace of Central America would like to enter the United States and take advantage of our free schooling for their children; food stamps; the refundable tax credit (which doesn’t refund taxes, but sends a check to poor families who file tax returns without owing any taxes); Section 8 housing; and, when their kids are ready for college, race preferences.

Trump knows he would win in the court of public opinion, by making the point that the Democrats want to let more illegals into the country, and that failure to reinforce the border will mean more caravans, more terrorists, and more welfare clients entering our country.

President Trump clearly shocked House speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi and Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer yesterday with his televising of the Oval Office sit-down over his demand for $5 billion in funding for border security, including funding of critical mileage for his border wall.  Knowing well that Pelosi had already vowed publicly that “transparency and openness” would characterize the Democrat-run House starting next month, her plaintive request to speak in private scored points for Trump and revealed her hypocrisy before any substance at all was considered.

The remarkable body language during the meeting tells the story of Trump’s dominance.  Here is the full video of the press gaggle, via Grabien:

That was merely the first of three traps Trump had prepared for the Democrats’ congressional leadership.

Trump’s second trap is his bold declaration of ownership of any “government shutdown.”  Democrats have convinced themselves that what is called a “shutdown,” but really means furloughing non-essential federal workers, is a tragedy, a scar on the nation’s psyche.  The fact that federal workers are now a major and solid constituency for Democrats skews their perception of the public’s concern.  Aside from canceling sleigh rides in national parks and other such photo drama, the fact is that life goes on well for nearly all Americans during the furlough.  They learn that there are a lot of non-essential government workers.

After multiple shutdowns, including the last one that bore the label “Schumer Shutdown” and was quickly conceded by the Democrats, the public is no longer afraid of non-essential services (roughly 25% of the government) being temporarily suspended.

Chuck Schumer took the bait on the second trap, and after the Oval Office meeting, he employed triumphantly the term “Trump Shutdown” as if he had won a victory through Trump’s surrender.  Thus fortified, he is more likely to take Trump’s dare and refuse funding for adequate border security and metaphorically throw Bre’r Trump into the briar patch.

The third trap is maneuvering the Senate Democrats into standing for open borders, or at least ineffective border security.  The current House of Representatives will pass the funding.  It is the Senate, where a 60-vote filibuster could be employed, that would be the obstacle.

Never forget that Trump was the most successful producer of reality television in the history of the medium.  He understands drama and a story arc.  Chuck Schumer leading a Senate filibuster right before Christmas to stymie border protection is exactly the story Trump wants the nation’s TV-viewers to absorb.   

He is immeasurably aided in crafting his third trap narrative by the Democrats’ acceptance of and belief in the narratives peddled by their allies in the mainstream media.  Just as they believe that the voters share their own horror over a “partial government shutdown,” they also believe their own rhetoric about a wall being “immoral” (Pelosi) or “wasteful” (Schumer).

But the arrival of the Central American caravan and the reaction of Tijuana’s political leadership and citizens have changed the game.  The “race card” (more properly, the “ethnicity card” for Hispanics) no longer trumps (pun intentional) the hand being played by Trump.  It is obvious that a substantial portion of the populace of Central America would like to enter the United States and take advantage of our free schooling for their children; food stamps; the refundable tax credit (which doesn’t refund taxes, but sends a check to poor families who file tax returns without owing any taxes); Section 8 housing; and, when their kids are ready for college, race preferences.

Trump knows he would win in the court of public opinion, by making the point that the Democrats want to let more illegals into the country, and that failure to reinforce the border will mean more caravans, more terrorists, and more welfare clients entering our country.

Veteran actor William Shatner tore into “myopic censorship club members” on social media this week, who’ve been calling for the Christmas classic song “Baby, It’s Cold Outside” to be taken off the air.

Captain Kirk scoffed at CBC radio’s decision to ban the Christmas song, “Baby, It’s Cold Outside,” a song that many radical leftists now claim is a “rape song,” TheWrap reported. The famed Star Trek star is no right-winger, mind you, but he is a proponent of freedom, and he does not suffer liberal Twitter ninnies well.
William Shatner, who never misses an opportunity to remind fans he is Canadian, not an American, was quite unhappy that the Canadian radio system was going to ban the song. His tweet was unequivocal in support of the song penned in 1944.

“Call in to CBC radio all day and get them to play ‘Baby, It’s Cold Outside’ over and over until midnight!” Shatner said.

Call in to CBC radio all day and get them to play “Baby It’s Cold Outside” over and over until midnight! 😝😈 pic.twitter.com/qrRwAHOwYX

— William Shatner (@WilliamShatner) December 11, 2018

Unsurprisingly, the T.J. Hooker star immediately began tangling with fans over the song, slamming the “myopic glasses” through which people have been viewing the holiday ditty.

Not every fan lined up against Shatner because of the song. For instance, one wondered if Bill couldn’t find something “more important to rally for.”

Shatner begged to differ.

“I would think that censorship of classics because certain ‘types’ need to judge things through their own 2018 myopic glasses and demand they be stricken from history is important,” Shatner responded. “Or is this 1984 only 34 years too late?”

I would think that censorship of classics because certain “types” need to judge things through their own 2018 myopic glasses and demand they be stricken from history is important. Or is this 1984 only 34 years too late? https://t.co/sU4JgIA80i

— William Shatner (@WilliamShatner) December 11, 2018

Some fans thought Bill was joking to get a rise out of people. The “Rocketman” singer was quick to disabuse them of that notion.

I’m not, actually. 🙄 https://t.co/CzdP0cKIcB

— William Shatner (@WilliamShatner) December 11, 2018

Shatner also slammed the “Myopia Censorship Club” lined up against the song:

🙌🏻 I’d still call and request the song be played just to stick it to the Myopia Censorship Club members! 😏 https://t.co/5s8pRZaw92

— William Shatner (@WilliamShatner) December 11, 2018

Shatner continued to criticize fans upset over the classic Christmas tune needling them for loving rap music but agitating against “Baby, It’s Cold Outside.”

“Have you watched the original choreography, myopic Peter or are you one of those who needs to take the lyrics & extrapolate worst case? You must clutch your pearls over rap music,” Shatner tweeted.

Have you watched the original choreography, myopic Peter or are you one of those who needs to take the lyrics & extrapolate worst case? You must clutch your pearls over rap music. 😂 Here’s the original choreography from 1949: https://t.co/bYvhvJg8Zt https://t.co/Jr4FNJccUs

— William Shatner (@WilliamShatner) December 11, 2018

Shatner added that the choreography to the song is “the interpretation of the lyrics from the timeframe when it was written (1940’s).”

The choreography is the interpretation of the lyrics from the timeframe when it was written(1940’s.) If 2018 prudes want to interpret the lyrics as something else; the problem obviously lies in their own minds not in the original lyrics. https://t.co/vXWJiw9M4X

— William Shatner (@WilliamShatner) December 11, 2018

Eventually, CBC Radio rescinded its ban on the 1940s song after reacting to a backlash against the decision to stop playing it.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Twitter @warnerthuston.

The following is the most important exchange during Tuesday’s televised Oval Office meeting between President Trump, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY).

THE PRESIDENT: Chuck, did you want to say something?

SENATE MINORITY LEADER SCHUMER: Yeah. Here’s what I want to say: We have a lot of disagreements here. The Washington Post today gave you a whole lot of Pinocchios because they say you constantly misstate how much the wall is — how much of the wall is built and how much is there.

Trump then laughed at the notion that the far-left Washington Post, whose disgraced fact checkers are some of the most dishonest and partisan hacks not employed by CNN, are legitimate.

But none of that is the point.

The point is that the very first thing Schumer said during this meeting, the key message he wanted to send, is that Trump is weak on the border and lying about it.

Think about that

No seriously, think about that.

I’ll wait.

As the 17-minute made-for-TV spectacle progressed, Trump boldly pledged to shut down part of the government — the part we can all live without that should be closed permanently anyway — if he does not receive adequate border security funding. Meaning, he would not sign on to continue funding the government.

All of this was a calculated set up on Trump’s part, and a successful one.

Pelosi had no idea she was being set up, which is why, like a prim schoolmarm always caught off guard, she chose to lecture Trump about the legislative process.

Schumer, though, is nobody’s stupe, and knew exactly what Trump was up to.

This is what Trump knows… Between now and Election Day 2020, there will be an organized effort to separate Trump from his base, and the best way to do that is to make Trump look weak on border security, and the best way to do that is for leftists to continue to organize and fund illegal immigration, especially through these caravans.

Trump can see the future and he knows it is going to be plagued with an orchestrated and well-funded campaign to create border chaos, to make him look feckless.

But what he did yesterday was flip the script. Here’s more:

THE PRESIDENT: Because when you look at these numbers of the effectiveness of our border security, and when you look at the job that we’re doing with our military —

SENATE MINORITY LEADER SCHUMER: You just said it is effective.

THE PRESIDENT: Can I tell you something?

SENATE MINORITY LEADER SCHUMER: Yeah, you just said it’s effective.

THE PRESIDENT: These are only areas where you have the walls.

SENATE MINORITY LEADER SCHUMER: We want to do this —

THE PRESIDENT: Where you have walls, Chuck, it’s effective. Where you don’t have walls, it is not effective.

HOUSE SPEAKER-DESIGNATE PELOSI: Wait a second. Let’s call a halt to this.

SENATE MINORITY LEADER SCHUMER: Yeah.

HOUSE SPEAKER-DESIGNATE PELOSI: Let’s call a halt to this. We’ve come in here as the first branch of government: Article I, the legislative branch. We’re coming in, in good faith, to negotiate with you about how we can keep the government open.

A little later:

SENATE MINORITY LEADER SCHUMER: You’re bragging about what has been done.

THE PRESIDENT: By us.

SENATE MINORITY LEADER SCHUMER: We want to do the same thing we did last year, this year. That’s our proposal. If it’s good then, it’s good now, and it won’t shut down the government.

THE PRESIDENT: Chuck, we can build a much bigger section with more money.

In front of the whole world, on film, you have Trump demanding more border security, which includes his wall, you have Trump promising to shut down part of the government if he does not get the security requested…

You also have the two top Democrats in the country saying that what we have now is good enough.

Behind all of this are those leftists eager to organize and fund as much border chaos as possible.

Finally, you have voters, the American people, who now see border security as a national priority, second only to the economy.

Basically, now that Trump has America’s two top Democrats on video opposing additional border security, he can hang every incident — every caravan, every criminal act committed by an illegal, all the chaos, drug overdoses, rock throwing, and whatever else we are in store for over the next two years, around the neck of the Democrat Party.

This is a huge win for Trump, and there is no way he can lose. If Illegal immigration decreases, he takes the credit for his pro-active policies, and Democrats cannot claim he failed on his biggest issue.

If illegal immigration continues to surge, he can go to the Oval Office videotape for proof that Democrats are to blame.

Using border security, he will also be able to mercilessly pound away at whoever the left-wing extremist is Democrats choose to run against him in 2020.

Democrats and their media allies are trying to gaslight voters into believing illegal immigration is not a priority. They want those of us who believe it is to feel alone, outnumbered, and wondering if we are racists. This is all propaganda, and Trump is not falling for it.

Trump’s televised meeting was the first round of the 2020 presidential campaign, and Trump not only won that round, he did the body work that will pay off in the all-important later rounds.

 

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC. Follow his Facebook Page here.

BY: Haris Alic Follow
@realHarisAlic

December 12, 2018 1:07 pm

Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) has yet to take the speaker’s gavel of the U.S. House of Representatives, but Democrats are already laboring to make it easier to dismantle the achievements of the Trump presidency.

The incoming chairman of the House Rules Committee, Rep. Jim McGovern (D., Mass.), confirmed to colleagues on Wednesday that he would not honor the three-fifths supermajority requirement to raise income taxes, as reported by The Washington Post.

McGovern’s decision overturns a rule implemented under outgoing Speaker Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) that mandated a three-fifths majority approve any proposed hike to the income tax.

The change comes after a standoff between Pelosi and her moderate allies in the Democratic conference, such as incoming Ways and Means Committee chairman Richard Neal (Mass.), and younger, more progressive members like Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.).

In November Pelosi and Neal initially proposed keeping the three-fifths supermajority rule for income tax increases “on the lowest-earning 80 percent of taxpayers.” That notion, however, met stern opposition from Ocasio-Cortez and other progressives because it would severely constrain the ability of House Democrats to find new revenue sources to fund measures like universal health care and free college tuition.

A number of progressive organizations that had been strong allies of Pelosi and the Democratic leadership broke ranks on the issue and sided with the progressive politicians. MoveOn, which spent more than $27 million this election cycle bolstering Democrats up and down the ballot, called Pelosi’s proposal a “staggeringly bad idea.” The organization made the announcement shortly after endorsing Pelosi’s return to the speakership.

In response to the rule change, Ronna Romney McDaniel, the chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, lambasted Democrats on Wednesday for prioritizing “more government” over the economic interests of the “middle class.”

“It’s barely gotten any attention, but Nancy Pelosi just made it easier for House Dems to raise taxes on everyone,” McDaniel wrote on Twitter. “Not on the wealthy. Everyone.”

BY: Paul Crookston Follow
@P_Crookston

December 12, 2018 1:38 pm

A federal investigation into top circles of Tallahassee politics has led to the indictment and arrest of one of Florida’s most prominent Democrats.

Tallahassee City Commissioner and former Mayor Scott Maddox, who used to be the chairman of the Florida Democratic Party, was indicted on Tuesday by a federal grand jury on public corruption charges, the Tallahassee Democrat reports. Paige Carter-Smith, executive director of the Downtown Improvement Authority Executive, was also charged in the 44-count indictment as part of the City Hall probe, according to federal court documents.

It’s unclear whether the FBI’s probe into Tallahassee city politics is coming to a close or just getting started.

Maddox was arrested Wednesday morning by FBI agents and Carter-Smith was scheduled to surrender to the FBI the same morning, according to court documents. They are scheduled to first appear before a judge this afternoon.

Maddox denied the charges back in February, and Carter-Smith’s lawyer said she will be cleared.

With Maddox indicted, Republican Gov. Rick Scott, Florida’s junior senator-elect, could suspend him from office. If he did so, Tallahassee city commissioners could appoint someone to fill his place on their five-person commission, and if they don’t within 20 days, the governor would then have the option to do so.

This comes more than a year after the grand jury subpoenaed the city for Maddox’s communications with aides, including Carter-Smith.

The Democrat has reported extensively on the corruption probe’s look at Maddox’s alleged pay-to-play scheme, which involved a public relations firm he started and companies such as Uber Technologies:

In February, the Democrat obtained federal court documents showing Maddox and Carter-Smith were central figures in its public corruption probe. A search warrant affidavit for Maddox’s personal emails and texts said the two engaged in a pay-to-play scheme involving their firm, Governance, Inc., and city vendors. The affidavit was sealed by a federal magistrate judge but later inadvertently posted on a federal court website.

The FBI alleged that Maddox sold Governance, a firm he started in 1999 when he was mayor, to Carter-Smith sometime between 2010 and 2012. But he continued to secretly control the company and profit from it, the documents said. Over a roughly five-year span, Governance made nearly $400,000 in payments to Maddox or Maddox and his wife and nearly $200,000 more to his family members.

The affidavit said Maddox took official actions to benefit a “ride share delivery service” that appeared to be Uber Technologies but was identified only as “Company One.” It also referred to a “waste services provider” that appeared to be Waste Pro USA but was identified only as “Company Three.”

While Tallahassee’s city commission was revising regulations on vehicles for hire, Uber hired Carter-Smith to be on its lobbying and consulting team, although she never registered as a lobbyist. When an ordinance with provisions favorable to Uber came up later on, Maddox voted in favor of it.

The trash vendor Waste Pro paid Governance more than $170,000, according to court documents, and it is cooperating with investigators.

Maddox’s indictment is not a surprise to many following the corruption scandal. He has been photographed with undercover FBI agents and was even recorded telling one of them to pay $20,000 per month to Governance.

Birth control is an individual responsibility.

Via Washington Examiner:

Christian organizations do not need to comply with Obamacare’s birth control mandate, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.

Judge Philip Brimmer of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado ordered that the federal government cannot enforce the provision, which obligates employers to pay for health insurance for their workers that covers all forms of contraception without a copay.

Brimmer, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, determined that the rule violated rights established by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The mandate was challenged by six Christian organizations, including the Association of Christian Schools International, Samaritan Ministries International, Taylor University, Indiana Wesleyan University, Asbury Theological Seminary, and the Alliance Defending Freedom.

The birth control mandate was created as an outgrowth of Obamacare. The law was written to allow the Department of Health and Human Services to decide what type of preventive care health insurance plans should cover without a copay, and the Obama administration determined that all forms of birth control should be included.

The obligation previously had exemptions for houses of worship, but not for companies that had closely held religious beliefs. Those who didn’t comply would be fined, and after the Supreme Court asked the Obama administration to find a work-around, groups again challenged them in court.

The Trump administration didn’t fight the challenge to the mandate and also has loosened the birth control rule by allowing employers to opt out of the mandate if they have religious or moral objections. The change is set to take effect at the beginning of 2019.

Keep reading…

Police confiscated a man’s licensed pistol and shotgun after he was forced to defend himself against an attack from a pit bull.

The 25-year-old man from Massachusetts said he was attacked by his recently fostered pit bull while he, his girlfriend and the dog were lying in bed, according to The Boston Globe.

The man tried to move the dog, but it retaliated by biting him on the left arm. The man tried to release the dog’s grip, but it refused.

In order to end the attack, the man reached for his 9mm handgun and shot the dog.

“The single shot stopped the attack and the dog died shortly afterward,” police said in a statement.

TRENDING: Watch: Smug Student Compares Clarence Thomas to Hitler Then Interviewer Wipes Smile Off His Face

The man ended up in the hospital with what was described as “serious” injuries to his arms. Had the man not been armed, the dog could have done more damage and seriously harmed his girlfriend, who was also present.

It’s sad that the dog died, but a human’s life could have been lost instead.

“The man is fully licensed to have firearms in Massachusetts,” the police said.

Despite legally owning his firearms and saving his girlfriend from a potential attack, the man’s guns were taken by police.

The police confiscated the man’s handgun, his 12-gauge shotgun and ammunition “for safekeeping.”

Who or what are the police keeping safe by confiscating someone’s legally owned firearms?

Police often keep items for “safekeeping” if they are at risk of being stolen, but that doesn’t seem like the case here. The only possible explanation is that the police don’t want the man to use his own guns.

It’s not as if he is a threat to attack other dogs. The man defended himself and his girlfriend against a potentially lethal attack.

In fact, confiscating the man’s firearms makes him less safe and more vulnerable to threats.

RELATED: City Gives AR-15 Owners December Deadline To Submit to Rifle Count

The threat could be more than a dog next time. The man is now completely helpless against home intruders.

While police did not disclose the reason they confiscated the man’s firearms, it’s possible he violated one of the state’s anti-gun laws.

Massachusetts has a “safe storage” law, which requires gun owners to keep their firearms “secured in a locked container or equipped with a tamper-resistant mechanical lock or other safety device.”

Failure to comply with this law can be punishable by a fine of up to $7,500.

Hopefully, that’s not the case in this situation. Regardless, the man shouldn’t have lost his firearms.

Only in a backward liberal state like Massachusetts can someone lose their rights for defending themselves.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.