California Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez (D-Union $$) has been unusually active on Twitter of late and she’s earned the dubious distinction of being more insufferably out of touch and irritatingly condescending than the former title holder, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Willie).

Though she’s been dragged in multiple ways by people across the political spectrum over her completely idiotic AB-5 (anti-freelancing, union-sponsored bill), she just keeps tweeting. Her tweets are extremely tone deaf, which isn’t a surprise to anyone who saw this Dec. 8 tweet:

I am not amused to be paying over $500 this year for the privilege of retaining my license to practice law. This is why I refused to vote for the increase in bar dues. Lawyers who use their law degrees for the public good: to represent the poor, immigrants, incarcerated…1/

— Lorena (@LorenaSGonzalez) December 9, 2019

She’s not amused? Oh, no, poor baby.

Gonzalez, who’s a flunkie for (millionaire) Elizabeth Warren, tweeted this question during the recent Democrat Debate.

Who else’s is just really interested in seeing a wine cave now? Are there free tours? #Fieldtrip

— Lorena (@LorenaSGonzalez) December 20, 2019

She wrote:

“Who else’s is just really interested in seeing a wine cave now? Are there free tours? #Fieldtrip”

We’ll ignore the typo as unintentional. OF COURSE we are interested in seeing a wine cave. Most adults in the country would be, especially after watching the Democrat debate. But if they use any kind of contract labor, it would be a no-go. It would be rather hypocritical, no? And why would a legislator be asking for free tours? Seems like a conflict of interest.

Next question…

Good God, how many billionaires are there in the US?

— Lorena (@LorenaSGonzalez) December 20, 2019

This one was also asked during the Democrat debate:

“Good God, how many billionaires are there in the US?”

The snarky answer is – not enough. The literal answer is that there are 705 billionaires in the US out of just over 2,153 worldwide. Her question has a subtext, though, that there is a problem with having a lot of billionaires in our country, or that there is something wrong with being a billionaire. Even the New York Times admits that more than half of US billionaires didn’t inherit their money. And while Kylie Jenner was by no means born in poverty, the fact that our country is so free and full of opportunity that even she can become a billionaire at 21, inspires me to say, “God Bless America.” Just peruse the Forbes list of billionaires in the U.S. They’re job creators and, more importantly, innovators. They are the intellectual capital of this country and our competitive advantage in the global marketplace. But sure, go ahead and wish there were fewer of them, Lorena.

Ummmm. What voter fraud? https://t.co/hvxMiz0Xft

— Lorena (@LorenaSGonzalez) December 19, 2019

Next we tackle another sarcastic question. To Tomi Lahren’s tweet about voter fraud in California, Gonzalez asks, “What voter fraud?” Asm. Gonzalez, the voter fraud enabled by the motor voter and ballot harvesting laws we’re sure you champion. Perhaps you can go find “Lulu” who was presumably paid by a union to help “only Democrat” voters with filling out their ballots in CA-25 and ask her how many people she “helped” look up candidates on her phone? Or how many potentially GOP votes she threw away?

Why is homeland security at Union Station just posted there?
I was told “to make me safe.” pic.twitter.com/vYw0cLcOsU

— Lorena (@LorenaSGonzalez) December 19, 2019

While, we assume, NOT waiting for an Uber or Lyft to take her to the Democrat debate, Gonzalez posted a photo of Department of Homeland Security officers stationed outside downtown Los Angeles’ Union Station and asked the question:

“Why is homeland security at Union Station just posted there? I was told ‘to make me safe.'”

What is your implication? Are you saying they’re there to root out the Spanish speaking brown people and harass them? Am I allowed to have that as my first guess or is that racist too? Maybe, since you’re a legislator, you would understand the constant threat our modes of mass transit are under, especially so close to the holidays. (The Lockerbie bombing and the attempted terrorist attack by the “shoe bomber” were both around Christmas, FYI.) To answer your question, yes, they’re there to keep you safe.

I almost regret asking this here, but given the broad cross section of freelance writers here, it’s a start: if the Bill was amended to make clear that the Business to Business exemption applies to freelance journalists who satisfied the requirements – would that work? #AB5

— Lorena (@LorenaSGonzalez) December 19, 2019

Aaaaand… here’s the kicker. After days of being hounded on Twitter by freelance writers, Gonzalez asks:

I almost regret asking this here, but given the broad cross section of freelance writers here, it’s a start: if the Bill was amended to make clear that the Business to Business exemption applies to freelance journalists who satisfied the requirements – would that work?

Whoa, whoa, whoa… that is quite a tactic. Wait to see who complains then offer an exemption to just that industry.

Short answer – no, that doesn’t work!

Here’s the longer answer. Your bill, AB-5, is a disaster across many professions. You say you met with lots of industries and people before for input before it was passed. While that is undoubtedly true, it’s also undoubtedly true that this bill was authored by you because of your coziness with unions and there were only so many concessions you were going to make. Your own tweets show your closed-mindedness on this topic. You have bragged that you were the leader of a local union before running for office and were elected to essentially turn the union’s desires into law.

According to the Assembly website, your bill was introduced approximately a year ago and amended three times in the Assembly, the last time in May, 2019. It was signed into law in mid-September. So within nine months you attempted to fix what you describe as a flaw in labor law going back almost 80 years, while only truly caring about the opinion of one side of the problem? For your edification, there are at least three points of view that should be taken into consideration: business, laborers who choose/desire to take part in a union, and laborers who don’t choose/desire to take part in a union. It might be news to you, but not all laborers wish to be part of a union. It sounds like you’re hearing plenty from them now. They have valid opinions and points of view which you should have considered months and years ago but never did because of your preconceived notions, biases, and bigotry. It’s good that you’re being forced to confront them now.

There are more questions on Asm. Gonzalez’ Twitter that could be responded to, but to do so would require an inordinate amount of labor (to explain precepts that should have been understood by the time one graduated high school or law school), and it’s doubtful that Asm. Gonzalez truly wants an honest answer to those questions. Perhaps in the future we’ll venture to Part 2 of Answers to Asm. Gonzales’ Twitter Questions, but, for now, Happy Trails.