Biden Cartel California. Commentary Economy Links from other news sources. Uncategorized

I told you so. California Unions demands $20.00 an hour for all folks on the bottom.

Visits: 15

I told you so. California Unions demands $20.00 an hour for all folks on the bottom.

They didn’t even wait for the ink to dry. So now the Unions are demanding that everyone gets paid a minimum of $$20.00 an hour. So, a person who gets hired tomorrow gets $20. A person who has been an employee for say 2 years, they get $20.

Across California, labor groups are calling for a $20 minimum wage for all workers. Ahead of the law coming into effect, restaurant owners and other industry insiders warned that the law would be detrimental to small businesses and consumers. Told you so.

So what does the loon say who supports this madness? “Frankly, inflation has already happened, and many prices have already gone up. Grocery store prices have already gone up. And so, it’s not a matter of we can’t raise wages anymore because prices might go up,” she said.

“Prices have already gone up. If we don’t keep wages in step with the rising cost of living, either workers will leave the state or these other horrible things happen.”


California. Commentary Corruption Elections Links from other news sources.

When you can’t win legally do what California does. Gerrymander.

Visits: 13

When you can’t win legally do what California does. Gerrymander. No state does it better. Their legislatur used to do it, but the voters changed the system. They created a phony California Citizens Redistricting Commission.

So this so called Commission redrew the districts. They took six Republican districts that were about 5% more Republican, and added more Democrat voters. Now the Democrats have a chance to flip these districts. Below are the six.

Young Kim, 40th District

Michelle Steel, 45th District

Mike Garcia, 27th District

Ken Calvert, 41st District

John Duarte, 13th District

David Valadao, 22nd District



Biden Cartel California. Commentary Government Overreach Leftist Virtue(!) Life Links from other news sources. Reprints from others.

Living in Florida vs California.

Visits: 10

Living in Florida vs California.

For those who think it’s so great, think about what it would cost you to live in California..

If you lived in California instead of Florida, you would:


Basic meal with drink at inexpensive restaurant$19.03
Fast food combo meal
McDonalds, or similar
Bottle of Coca-Cola (11 fl. oz)$2.25
Bottle of water (11 fl. oz)$1.84



1 loaf
Local cheese (8 oz)$6.22
Milk (1 gallon)$4.26
1 dozen
Boneless chicken breast (1 lb)$5.09
Apples (1 lb)$2.33
Bananas (1 lb)$0.76
Oranges (1 lb)$1.97
Tomatoes (1 lb)$2.20
Potatoes (1 lb)$1.43
Onions (1 lb)$1.46



Gasoline (1 gallon)$3.44
Monthly public transit pass$52.60
New Volkswagen Golf 1.4 (standard edition)$24,899.31
Taxi trip in downtown area (5 miles)$15.08


Internet connection
50 mbps or faster, cable/dsl
1-Bedroom apartment in downtown area$1,757.68
1-Bedroom apartment outside city center$1,518.55
Utilities for two (700 sq ft apartment)
including electric, gas, water, heating


Private preschool for 1 child, monthly$960.80
Middle school for 1 child, two semesters$14,658.88


Domestic/local beer (1 pint)$4.81
Cappuccino in mid-range area$4.36
Pack of cigarettes
Marlboro or similar
Monthly membership at local gym$39.38
Movie ticket to theater/cinema$12.34


Regular jeans
Levi’s brand
Regular dress
from H&M or similar store
Running shoes
Nike or Adidas
 Page last updated: April 2024


Biden Cartel California. Commentary Links from other news sources. Reprints from others.

State Farm, California’s largest insurer, announced that it will discontinue coverage for 72,000 homes.

Visits: 7


State Farm, California’s largest insurer, announced that it will discontinue coverage for 72,000 homes and apartments starting this summer, a move likely to sharply inflate housing costs for affected residents in a state that’s reeling from a series of destructive recent wildfires.

The Illinois-based insurance giant, which accounts for a fifth of the California home insurance market and is the largest property and auto insurer in the U.S., cited rising costs, increasing catastrophe risk and outdated regulations in declaring it won’t renew California policies for 30,000 homes and 42,000 apartments.

“This decision was not made lightly and only after careful analysis of State Farm General’s financial health,” the company said in a March 20 statement. “State Farm General takes seriously our responsibility to maintain adequate claims-paying capacity for our customers and to comply with applicable financial solvency laws. It is necessary to take these actions now.”

The announcement comes less than a year after State Farm announced it would not issue new policies in California, citing similar concerns. And it comes as the state’s elected insurance commissioner embarks on a yearlong overhaul of home insurance regulations aimed at calming California’s imploding market by giving insurers more latitude to raise premiums while extracting commitments from them to extend coverage in fire-risk areas.

“One of our roles as the insurance regulator is to hold insurance companies accountable for their words and deeds,” said Deputy Insurance Commissioner Michael Soller. “State Farm General’s decision today raises serious questions about its financial situation — questions the company must answer to regulators. … We need to be confident in State Farm’s strategy moving forward to live up to its obligations to its California customers.” But it was unclear whether the department would launch an investigation into State Farm’s move.

Harvey Rosenfield, the Consumer Watchdog founder who authored the state’s insurance regulation system approved by voters in 1988’s Proposition 103, said the company’s announcement comes just after the state Department of Insurance approved a 20% premium increase for the company. That approval was based on State Farm’s existing number of policy holders, and he said the state should take another look at the rate hike considering the new cancellations.

Whole article is here.






Back Door Power Grab Commentary Corruption Government Overreach Leftist Virtue(!) Links from other news sources. Reprints from others.

Articles we missed. California Exit Tax & Wealth Tax: What Is it & How it Applies to You.

Visits: 22


California is known for having some of the most significant in-state taxes in the country with a 13.3% annual income tax rate. You can checkout anytime you want, but you can never leave.

However, did you know that you might still be taxed even after you leave the state?

Yep! Thanks to the California exit tax legislation, depending on how much money you get from in-state activities, such as investments in real estate or business operations, you could still be treated like a Californian on your next tax return!

Join us as we walk you through the California wealth and exit tax questions, such as “what is the exit tax in california,” how much it is, who it applies to, and a deeper dive into the CA wealth tax proposal and the Assembly Bill 2088.


So, what is the California exit tax? The California exit tax explained:

The California exit tax is a one-time tax that must be paid by businesses and individuals who relocate outside of California. The tax is based on the value of the business or individual’s assets, including property, stocks, and other investments.

It forms part of the larger California wealth tax, whereby the state imposes a tax based on its residents’ wealth.

Those who have lived in the state at any point in time in the past and who earn an annual income greater than $30 million are affected by the wealth tax and would have to pay an annual tax on their wealth for as long as 10 years after they have left the state.

How much is the California exit tax?

The amount of the California exit tax is 0.4% of an individuals’ net worth over $30,000,000 in a tax year, no matter where it’s located—within CA, other states within the US, or overseas. This amount is halved to $15,000,000 if a married taxpayer files a separate return to their spouse.

The one caveat is that there is no California exit tax on real estate (but if the real estate is within state lines, it would still be taxed under California Revenue and Tax Code § 17591).

Who has to pay California exit tax?

The exit tax applies to both businesses and individuals who leave California. This includes businesses that move their operations out of state as well as individuals who relocate to another state. It should be noted that the exit tax only applies if you’re moving to another state, not within California.

Why was the California exit tax of 2020 created?

The exit tax is intended to recoup some of the money that California has invested in these businesses and individuals.

For example, if a business owner has received tax breaks or other financial incentives from the state, the exit tax ensures that they will still contribute some money to California‘s economy even after they leave.

The primary reason for the enactment of the exit tax was to close a loophole that allowed people to avoid paying taxes on their capital gains.

Under federal law, capital gains are only taxed when they are realized. This means that if someone buys a stock for $1,000 and it goes up to $10,000, they don’t have to pay taxes on that $9,000 until they sell the stock.

If that person lived in California and then moved to another state before selling the stock, they would never have to pay taxes on that $9,000 in capital gains.

To close this loophole, the Golden State enacted the California wealth and exit tax. Now, anyone who leaves the state is required to pay taxes on their unrealized capital gains.

It’s been criticized by many people, who argue that it is unfair and punitive. They point out that many people who are leaving California are doing so because they can no longer afford to live there.

By California taxing people who leave even more, they say the state is effectively pushing them out.

What’s more, they argue that the exit tax will make it even harder for these businesses and individuals to get back on their feet financially once they’re in their new location.

The California Wealth Tax Proposal in a Nutshell

California is in the midst of a major overhaul of its tax code, which could expand the state’s ability to tax non-residentseven if they sever their connections with the state.

The bill that is causing quite a stir among business and property owners is called the Assembly Bill 2088 (AB 2088), which is, effectively, the California wealth tax proposal.

AB 2088 was introduced in Sacramento in August of 2020, and it proposes a California wealth tax for the first time in the state, affecting individuals who have lived in the state and who make an annual income greater than $30 million.

However, before we delve into the loopholes and exceptions to this ambitious, but potentially consequential, new bill, we must first understand how California’s tax code could impact you, even as a non-resident.

Whether you are a landowner or an entrepreneur with connections to the state, understanding the tax implications is crucial to mitigating the possibility of having to pay some pretty significant taxes.

Starting point: Residency & the California exit tax proposal 2020

First, California’s Franchise Tax Board (FTB) is in charge of setting the requirements for California citizenship, and plays a pivotal part in a California residency audit.

Factors that affect its determination include:

  • your largest residential property’s location
  • Residence of your spouse and children
  • School districts where your children attend
  • Whether your account statements from your credit cards show your residence in California
  • Exemptions you may claim as a homeowner in California
  • Approximately how many days you spend in California each year
  • Whether your California residence is listed on a federal and local tax return
  • Where you vote
  • Where your vehicles are registered

Looking at these factors, you might think that removing yourself physically from the state would result in them no longer applying and saving you a fair amount of money.

There is some truth to this assumption, as the Franchise Tax Board actually cannot base your residence in California if you do not physically reside within your home in California for most of the year.

This is especially convenient for people who frequently travel or, perhaps, own other residential property outside of California.

Still, even if you change addresses, remove California on your tax returns, and move across the country, you could still be impacted by the California tax code when it comes to taxes.

The above factors listed by the FTB are to be used as a guideline; they are certainly not the only things to consider.

A common fallacy: people frequently believe that moving out of California will make them exempt from paying individual income taxes. This is not necessarily the case, and it would be wrong to assume relocation is a blanket solution.

Check Out Our Complete Residency Audit Guide for More Help

Requirements for the CA exit tax 2020: do they apply to you?

California looks at two major factors when determining whether an individual’s income is taxable and how that then applies to the California exit tax proposal 2020:

  1. Do you generate income from sources within the state? (e.g. real estate investments, business investments in California);
  2. Does your business operate within state lines? (e.g. facilities, employees, etc.)

Let’s look at these two in more detail and how they apply to the “leaving California tax”, as it’s sometimes known…

1. Income-generating sources from within the state

According to the California Revenue and Tax Code § 17591any financial ties you have to California follow you to your new state of residence.

In other words, if you have invested in or own real estate within California, you still need to pay in-state tax on that real estate, even if you technically reside in another state.

This tax code applies even at the time of sale of that real estate, because it falls under the category of California-source income”—income derived from sources within California state lines. 

FTB Publication 1031 elaborates further on the types of real estate and property investments that are subject to California nonresident taxes:

Community property income

For individuals with spouses who are California residents, the spouse’s income is considered community property and is, therefore, split equally by the couple.

The community property share of that income is taxable to each spouse, even if one of the spouses lives outside of California and has never lived in the state before.

Real estate sales

Any gain (or loss) from selling real estate located in the state of California is taxable under California’s tax code.

This applies even if the owner is a non-resident who has never lived within the state. The location of the property controls whether the tax applies.

2. Business Operations and Activities in California as a Non-resident

Another situation to be wary of is owning or operating a business within California state lines as a non-resident.

Many business owners falsely believe that because they live outside of California or conduct part of their business operations out-of-state that this exempts them from California taxes.

Under the Constitution, a business’s income may be taxed by the percentage of business activity conducted within a given state.

As applied to California, if a business’s manufacturing facilities are located in Nevada but its workforce, such as remote and/or in-person workers, and corporate offices are in Los Angeles, then that business has demonstrated a sufficient “nexus” or connection with California.

Thus, it is subject to the state’s taxes, and the exit tax in California applies.

If a business demonstrates a sufficient connection or “nexus” to the state of California, it may be subject to the state’s taxes, regardless of whether some of its operations or employees live out of state.

Still, this does not necessarily mean that the California taxes will apply to that business’s total income, especially if only a fraction of the business’s total revenue is derived from California sources.

Say, for example, a business earns $10 million in annual income with 40% from California consumers and 60% from Nevada consumers. California will only be able to tax $4 million of the total $10 million income, because that is the proportion of California-sourced income.

Types of non-resident businesses and the exit tax in California

FTB Publication 1031 elaborates further on the types of business activities that are subject to California non-resident taxes:

  • Salary and wages: To non-residents, wages and salaries for services performed in California are taxable, regardless of the location of the employer or employee.
  • Income from business: Income from a business, trade, or profession conducted in the state may be taxed on non-residents.

Unsure How This Applies To You? Give Us A Call

Foreseeable Developments to the California Exit Tax 2020 Proposal—Assembly Bill 2088

In terms of whether the California exit tax 2020 proposal bill will actually stand the test of litigation, the likelihood of courts nullifying the law, should it be enacted, is high.

The exit tax clearly violates the constitutional right to travel, because it burdens individuals from:

  1. Moving to the state of California in fear that the state tax will follow them even after they leave the state, and
  2. Moving out of the state for the similar reason of having to continue to pay California taxes while also navigating the state and local taxes of their new residence.

To provide some context to why courts will likely find the tax unconstitutional, it is important to first understand the levels of “scrutiny” or critical inspection of the law that will be applied.

Since the law affects a fundamental constitutional right—the right to travel—strict scrutiny will apply here.

Strict scrutiny of the “leaving California tax

Under strict scrutiny, the burden is on the legislature to show that the law was enacted to further a “compelling government interest” and the law is “narrowly tailored” to achieve that interest.

In other words, the question revolves around whether the law is essential or necessary and whether there are alternative, less-intrusive methods of attaining the same result.

The state of California will likely argue that the “compelling” interest is to mitigate economic inequality and the disparity between classes. This is certainly an important and necessary issue to address.

However, coming up with an argument to show that the exit tax is “narrowly tailored” in that no other alternatives for achieving the purpose are available will be an uphill battle.

Overall, because the bill will impact a fundamental constitutional right and there are likely many other ways to go about addressing the compelling interest it aims to address, the likelihood of the exit tax withstanding strict scrutiny is slim.

Nevertheless, litigating the issue will take time, and it’s important to prepare for any impact the bill may have upon being enacted.

Avoiding the California exodus tax: what can you do?

The first step to approaching this California tax for leaving state is to consult a licensed tax attorney and explore your options.

Depending on your situation, taxes may apply to you in ways you might never anticipate.

Further, having a professional explain to you what parts of your income, business operations and activities, and wealth are taxable under California law will help to ensure that you do not suffer from unfortunate surprises on your next tax statement.

Still Need Assistance? Give Us A Call

Key takeaways on the California wealth and exit tax

The AB 2088 Bill is responsible for the California wealth tax over 10 years ruling, whereby if you leave California, the State can tax you for up to 10 years.

As part of this California 10 year tax, the exit tax is 0.4% of an individuals’ net worth over $30,000,000 in a tax year, which is halved if you have a spouse filing a separate tax return.

However, this all depends on your residency status, which can be a complicated matter. Get in touch with our team if you need help with residency or anything to do with the California exit tax.




Biden Cartel Government Overreach Gun Control Leftist Virtue(!) Links from other news sources. Reprints from others.

Another California gun law struck down.

Visits: 11

Another California gun law struck down.

A California law barring people from buying more than one gun a month has been struck down.

In his March 11 ruling, a federal judge said that the one-gun-a-month (OGM) law does not adhere to requirements for gun restrictions outlined by the U.S. Supreme Court in a pivotal 2022 decision.

“Defendants have not met their burden of producing a ‘well-established and representative historical analogue’ to the OGM law,” U.S. District Judge William Q. Hayes wrote in the decision.

“The court therefore concludes that plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment as to the constitutionality of the OGM law under the Second Amendment.”

The U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen says that if a law regulates conduct covered by the Second Amendment, officials defending the law must show it is “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

Defendants must provide “historical precedent from before, during, and even after the founding [that] evinces a comparable tradition of regulation,” the high court stated.

Justices instructed lower courts not to “uphold every modern law that remotely resembles a historical analogue” but that “analogical reasoning requires only that the government identify a well-established and representative historical analogue, not a historical twin.”

They also issued guidance for judges to consider “how and why the regulations burden a law-abiding citizen’s right to armed self-defense” and to examine “whether modern and historical regulations impose a comparable burden on the right of armed self-defense and whether that burden is comparably justified are central considerations when engaging in an analogical inquiry.”

The law, signed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2019, barred people who bought a handgun or semiautomatic centerfire rifle from a dealer from applying to buy another handgun or semiautomatic centerfire rifle for at least 30 days.

“Gun violence is an epidemic in this country, one that’s been enflamed by the inaction of politicians in Washington,” Mr. Newsom, a Democrat, said at the time.

“While Washington has refused to act on even the most basic gun safety reforms, California is once again leading the nation in passing meaningful gun safety reforms.”

Gun owners and groups sued in 2020, saying the law violated their constitutional rights.

After the 2022 Supreme Court ruling, defendants were ordered to provide historical examples of similar laws.

California officials offered four categories of historical restrictions, including regulations on selling guns to Native Americans and regulations on gunpowder.

Those regulations are not relevant to the law in question, Judge Hayes said.

Differing Objectives

The restrictions on Native Americans, for instance, “do not impose a comparable burden” to the California law, he wrote.

“The identified historical laws targeted only a narrow subset of the population perceived as dangerous, while the OGM law, with limited exceptions, affects all people acquiring handguns and semiautomatic centerfire rifles in California.

“Further, laws restricting the sale of arms to Native Americans impose neither a quantity nor time limitation similar to that of the OGM law.”

The gunpowder regulations were comparable because they “placed limits on the ownership and storage of gunpowder,” but “did not completely prevent people from purchasing gunpowder,” the state argued.

The regulations and the 2019 California law are “comparably justified” because both were imposed to “promote public safety,” the state said.

Judge Hayes, though, noted that officials have said previously that the California law was aimed at reducing firearms trafficking and disarming criminals, while the gunpowder regulations were put in place to prevent fires and explosions.

“Put simply, gunpowder regulations addressed fire-related risks, while the OGM law addresses risks associated with illegal gun trafficking and gun violence. Gunpowder restrictions and the OGM law are therefore not comparably justified,” he said.

Judge Hayes, a George W. Bush appointee, entered a stay of the order for 30 days to enable California officials to appeal.

“We are currently evaluating the decision, but it is important to acknowledge that the law limiting firearm purchases to one every thirty days remains in effect at this time,” a spokesperson for California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, told The Epoch Times via email.

“Another week, another California gun control law declared unconstitutional by a federal court,” Cody J. Wisniewski, vice president and general counsel of the Firearms Policy Coalition, said in a statement. Some of the group’s members are among the plaintiffs.

“California’s one-gun-a-month law directly violates California residents’ right to acquire arms and has no basis in history,” Mr. Wisniewski said. “Given it seems certain California will refuse to learn its lesson, we look forward to continuing to strike down its gun control regime and to defending this victory.”

“This is a win for gun rights and California gun owners,” Alan M. Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, another plaintiff, said in a statement. “There is no historical justification for limiting law-abiding citizens to a single handgun or rifle purchase during a one-month period, and Judge Hayes’ ruling clearly points that out.”



Commentary Crime Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics

Yes Virginia, fifth largest economy and you still need Federal aid to hide your Homeless folks.

Visits: 29

Yes Virginia, fifth largest economy and you still need Federal aid to hide your Homeless folks. We hear it all the time. California is the fifth largest economy in the world. We bail out red states, we carry the nation on our back. And on and on.

But now we see that California Democratic senators Alex Padilla and Laphonza Butler announced just over $600 million in federal dollars to curb the spiraling homelessness crisis in the state, as officials struggle to get a handle on the problem exacerbated by drug addiction and mental illness. Mental illness is an issue especially in Sacramento.



Biden Cartel Black Supremacy Child Abuse Commentary Corruption Education Leftist Virtue(!) Links from other news sources. Weaponization of Government. White Progressive Supremacy WOKE

Why are we surprised? It’s California. Test scores fall.

Visits: 12

Why are we surprised? It’s California. Test scores fall. I was always taught that you went to school to learn how to read and write. But one school in the San Francisco school system is teaching hate, racism, and bigotry. So, what about the basics?

Just 3.8% of students were proficient in math and 11.6% at grade-level in English for the 2022-23 school year — a decline of about 4.5 percentage points in each category from the previous year, according to data from the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress. In plain English, they got worse. One reason why.

Student achievement at a San Francsico-area elementary school fell dramatically following the establishment of a woke teaching policy through a $250,000 federal grant.

Two years into a three-year contract with Woke Kindergarten, a for-profit company that trains teachers to confront white supremacy, disrupt racism and oppression, and remove those barriers to learning, test scores in English and math at Glassbrook Elementary in Hayward, California, reached new lows, the San Francisco Chronicle reported Saturday.

Tiger Craven-Neeley, a teacher at Glassbrook, told the Chronicle he supports discussing racism in the classroom but found the Woke Kindergarten training confusing and rigid. He said he was told a primary objective was to “disrupt whiteness” in the school — and that the sessions were “not a place to express white guilt.”

Craven-Neeley, who is white and a self-described “gay moderate,” said he questioned a trainer who used the phrasing “so-called United States,” as well as lessons available on the organization’s website offering “Lil’ Comrade Convos,” or positing a world without police, money, or landlords. He said he wasn’t trying to be difficult when he asked for clarification about disrupting whiteness.



Biden Cartel Biden Pandemic Commentary Economy Education Links from other news sources.

4TH year in a row that folks are leaving California. That’s OK, the undocumented and Hamas supporters will fill in the gap.

Visits: 9

4TH year in a row that folks are leaving California. That’s OK, the undocumented and Hamas supporters will fill in the gap. Yes my friends, we have the latest U-Haul flight list just out and guess who’s on top of that list? California is not the place to be.

For the fourth year in a row, liberal California topped U-Haul’s Growth Index list for having the largest net outbound movers in 2023. Don’t fret, the undocumented and Hamas supporters won’t abandon you.

U-Haul publishes its Growth Index report every year, analyzing the difference between the number of one-way U-Haul trucks coming into a state or city and those leaving. If a mover relocates from California to Texas, for example, that would be calculated as Texas’s gain.



Biden Cartel Links from other news sources. Uncategorized

Would the Beverly Hillbellies move to California today?

Visits: 21

Would the Beverly Hillbellies move to California today? Back in 2020, when the flight from California started, a loon from Northern California stated that they checked and every single person who left were Republicans and poor. I know, crazy, isn’t it?

The Hollywood stars who’ve moved out of California each have their reasons — some personal, some political. But what unites them is that California no longer holds the allure it once did.

Mark Wahlberg

The Oscar-nominated star moved with his family to Nevada so that he could “give my kids a better life.”

“So, we came here to just kind of give ourselves a new look, a fresh start for the kids, and there’s lot of opportunity here,” Wahlberg said in an interview last year. “I’m really excited about the future.”

“A lot of Hollywood is living in a bubble,” Wahlberg said in another past interview. “They’re pretty out of touch with the common person, the everyday guy out there providing for their family,” he said.

Sylvester Stallone

After decades living in Los Angeles, the Rocky star has moved with his family to Florida.

“It’s an incredible move, I have to say I’m really happy with our move and our change,” his wife Jennifer Flavin recently said.

Stallone revealed in his recent Netflix documentary Sly that the change of locale will hopefully inspire something creative in him.

“I wasn’t moving because ‘Oh, wow, I wanted another beautiful view.’ Any time changing that paradigm which you become used to, it’s literally to jump-start that process again,” he said.

Rod Stewart

The British rocker is selling his Los Angeles residence, saying he is fed up with the city’s “toxic culture.”

The 78-year-old star had initially listed his L.A. home for $70 million six months ago but upped the price to $80 million in his new listing. He plans to spend more time at his home in the U.K.

Sheryl Crow

The country music star said her decision to move from Los Angeles to Tennessee saved her life.

“I know how hard it is for especially young people — and I don’t know if anybody was pained by struggles like I did when I was young — but these are some tricky waters to navigate now,” she said earlier this year. “I’ll just tell you that, for me, getting out in nature really saved my life.”

Dean Cain

The Lois & Clark star quit California after decades, relocating to Nevada.

“I had to leave California. California has gone crazy in a sense,” he said. ” There’s been so much. Look at the taxation. Look at the regulations. Look at the silly laws that have been passed. There were things that I didn’t agree with, and I’ve been voting here and living here and working here my entire life. I finally got to a place where I was like, I don’t agree with this.”

Robert Davi

The Die Hard star (and director of My Son Hunter) left California for Florida.

“Dear Friends I quietly Moved to Florida 2 years ago,” the actor wrote in a recent X/Twitter post.

In his most recent article for Breitbart News, Davi praised GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy’s performance at the Republican primary debate in November, comparing his command of the stage to an expert knockout punch from Mike Tyson.

Kat von D

The celebrity fashionista and tattoo artist — who recently embraced Christianity — has bid farewell to California, moving to a small town in Indiana.

“Goodbye California!” she wrote in an Instagram post two years ago. “After much thought, we have decided we will permanently be moving to Indiana at the end of this year. We plan on selling our beautiful home here, and I will most likely open a private studio in Indiana once we are done with the house remodel there”

James Van Der Beek

The Dawson’s Creek star said goodbye to California, moving his family to Texas nearly three years ago.

As Breitbart News reported, the actor recently ripped the Democratic National Committee for backing President Joe Biden without allowing his challengers Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Marianne Williamson to debate him on television.

“How is this a democracy?” he said in a social media video post.

Sean Patrick Flanery

The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles actor also moved to Texas after years in California.

Speaking earlier this year in an interview with Breitbart News’ editor-in-chief Alex Marlow, he said he credits “traditional family values” — including hard work and meritocratic achievement — for the success he has experienced in his professional and personal life.

He said moving from California to Texas brought numerous benefits, including being closer to extended family members.

“I always wanted that for my kids,” he said. “We were thinking about going back and forth but we never actually did. We sold everything and our only regret was why didn’t we do it sooner?”

Nikki Sixx

The Mötley Crüe bassist says he and his family moved to Jackson Hole, Wyoming, in 2020. “I wake up and I’m like, ‘I can’t think of a place I’d rather be,’’ he exclaimed.

The rocker said that the area’s outdoor activities like skiing and fishing make it a wonderful place to live, while his former home of Los Angeles is fine for the occasional visit.

“[During the pandemic] my journey took me back to a place where I can go fishing and see the mountains,” he remarked. “And then one day, my wife was like, ‘Why are we still here in California? This is a better place to raise our daughter.’ We find ourselves coming down to Los Angeles to see friends. But then we are happy to go back home. And we spend 95% of our time in Wyoming. It’s home.”



Verified by MonsterInsights