Jerry Brown–Barack Obama Policies Responsible for Murder of Deputy Sheriff in California by Illegal Aliens

Elections have consequences according to President Obama. Policies also have consequences. Gov. Brown signed the TRUST ACT, which stops law enforcement from checking the arrest record, deportations and background of illegal aliens they find doing anything less than a murder. Catch a drunk driving illegal alien—who has been deported, no problem—cops must let them go—no new deportation for them.

A Sacramento Deputy Sheriff was killed and a Placer County Deputy Sheriff was critically wounded by a known illegal alien, drug dealer, who had twice been deported. Thanks to the policies of Obama and Brown a law enforcement agent is dead. The policies of Obama and Brown killed a cop—and neither has apologized or publicly stated they will change the policy. When will law enforcement speak up—their lives, along with ours, are endangered by politicians looking for votes.

The article below does not mention even one of the 198,000 criminal illegal aliens Obama has given amnesty to, illegally. When Brown created a Sanctuary State he created the conditions for the murder of law enforcement agents—shame on him for not apologizing and ending the killer policy.

JerryBrownSchw

More Jurisdictions Defying Feds on Deporting Immigrants

By Tim Henderson, Stateline, 10/31/14

Rhode Island residents demonstrate in Democratic Gov. Lincoln Chafee’s office after sheriff’s deputies allowed federal immigration authorities to take a prisoner directly from a courthouse. More jurisdictions across the country are refusing to cooperate with federal immigration actions. (AP)

Carlos Rodriguez, a 27-year-old Dominican-born chef in New York City, thought he was safe from deportation because his wife and daughter are U.S. citizens and he had never been in trouble with the law.

Then he was arrested for trespassing in a friend’s apartment building last year, a charge that was later dropped. It was the beginning of an eight-month nightmare that started when immigration authorities took him into custody and worsened when they moved him to a detention center in New Jersey to await deportation. Because his wife is a citizen, Rodriguez qualified for a green card, but he didn’t know that until an advocacy group stepped in to help. Eventually he was freed from detention and allowed to remain in the country.

“I lost my job as a chef and my wife and daughter were about to lose the apartment because they depend on my job for the rent,” Rodriguez testified recently at a New York City Council meeting.

New York City decided in 2011 to limit or refuse cooperation with federal “detainers,” or requests from immigration authorities to hold someone for possible deportation. Almost 300 cities and counties plus the states of California, Colorado and Connecticut have done the same, according to the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, which tracks them.

A Stateline comparison of the center’s list with U.S. Census data shows that more than half of the nation’s 22 million noncitizens live in those jurisdictions, including such immigrant strongholds as New York City, Los Angeles and Miami. But other areas also with large noncitizen populations, including Harris County, Texas (which includes Houston), and Maricopa County, Arizona (Phoenix), do cooperate, at least officially.

The detainers are notices from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) requesting local police to hold a prisoner an extra two days for possible deportation, after the prisoner would ordinarily be released because the charges were dropped or bail was posted. In some cases, prisoners have been jailed longer—sometimes months—because bail was refused based on the detainer, or in some cases, prisoners opted not to post bail, hoping to postpone federal custody and deportation.

Federal immigration authorities began to use detainers in 1996. They became more common for more minor arrests when the Secure Communities deportation program, which became mandatory in 2012 after four years as a pilot program, required state and local law enforcement agencies to send fingerprints from every booking to immigration authorities for checks.

Refusals Take Hold

New York City was one of the first jurisdictions to question the detainers, said Peter Markowitz, director of the Immigration Justice Clinic in New York and co-author of a 2011 Berkeley Law School study of Secure Communities that became the basis for many arguments against detainers.

“It’s really gone from 0 to 60,” he said about the move to limit or refuse to cooperate. “A few years ago, nobody was doing it, then a few places like Santa Clara County, California, and New York City, and now there’s just an explosion.” Markowitz said state and local officials began to balk when they saw that many people were deported even though they had not committed serious crimes.

ICE says it deports about 133,000 people annually from the interior of the country, as opposed to deportations of those caught trying to cross the border, and that most of them have criminal histories. But criminal history can include strictly immigration-related cases like failing to show up in immigration court, or “recent border crossings,” according to ICE.

“A large percentage of these people have no criminal record,” said Markowitz. “Many of the people we represented were afraid of any kind of contact with authorities because of the close ties between New York City police and ICE.”

But many jurisdictions are still cooperating with the detainers, sometimes resulting in different outcomes for immigrants even in the same state. Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, for example, has aggressively resisted detainers, saying she welcomes immigrants, but nearby Frederick County, Maryland, is one of the most cooperative jurisdictions.

“We all know there are people out there advocating that we not enforce any laws whatsoever,” said Frederick County Sheriff Charles “Chuck” Jenkins.

“If you’re arrested for any crime in my county, we put you in handcuffs and we ask you two simple questions: ‘What country were you born in?’ and ‘What country are you a citizen of?’” Jenkins said. “Everybody is treated the same.”

A Range of Policies

Frederick County is part of the 287(g) program, an enhanced partnership program with ICE that trains and uses local law enforcement to carry out some federal immigration laws, such as determining when a detainer is warranted. Since 2008, county officers have filed 1,311 immigration detainers, usually resulting in a transfer to federal authorities for possible deportation, although they don’t know how many actual deportations result.

At times, policies can clash within the same jurisdictions. Rhode Island Democratic Gov. Lincoln Chafee in July ordered state prisons and jails not to hold immigrant detainees for extended periods of time for possible transfer to ICE. This allowed one of them, Antonio Mejia of Mexico, to post bail for his charge of driving without a license after seven months in jail, and return to his fiancée and her children.

“It was a very difficult time for his family, including his parents in Mexico who depend on the money he sends,” said Will Lambek, one of the activists who pushed for a policy change on behalf of Mejia. “The faith and power of an organized community really paid off.”

At the same time, however, county sheriffs guarding courts allowed immigration officials to take prisoners directly from courthouses, resulting in the detention of another young man with a wife and children in the community, Lambek said. That loophole was closed, but too late to stop the deportation of Gustavo Arroyo of Guatemala.

Stories of mistreated immigrants and lawsuits holding localities responsible for civil rights violations have led some communities to rethink whether they should cooperate with immigration authorities.

Even Frederick County no longer holds immigrants for any longer than the original local charges warrant, after a federal court in 2013 found that Jenkins, the sheriff, erred in detaining a Salvadoran immigrant named Roxana Orellana Santos in 2008. Santos was questioned as she ate a sandwich outside her workplace, and officers gestured for her to remain seated while they checked her status, finding an immigration warrant. The court ruled that this warrant “did not provide the deputies with a basis to arrest or even briefly detain Santos.”

Court Battles

The American Civil Liberties Union has been active in questioning the validity of immigration detainers, challenging jurisdictions that still recognize them.

“We have sued multiple state and local entities for detaining people in violation of the Fourth Amendment and due process clause,” said ACLU attorney Jonathan Blazer, counting lawsuits against Los Angeles County, the state of Rhode Island and Lehigh County, Pennsylvania.

“Each one of those places had policies of complying with detainers at the time they detained the plaintiffs,” he said, “and all of these jurisdictions have since announced reforms to their detainer practices.”

The Pennsylvania case was key because a federal judge ruled in March that cooperation with ICE detainers was voluntary, and local officials could be held responsible if they violated a prisoner’s rights. The case was brought by Ernesto Galarza, a U.S. citizen born in New Jersey who was held on a detainer for three days over a weekend in 2008 despite posting bail for a drug charge and having a valid driver’s license showing his place of birth.

“Immigration detainers do not and cannot compel a state or local law enforcement agency to detain suspected aliens subject to removal,” the appeals court judge ruled, overturning a district court ruling that the police were required to comply with the detainer.

Galarza was not told why his release was delayed until three days after his arrest, when ICE agents interviewed and then released him. A jury later acquitted him of the drug charges.

Dona Ana County in New Mexico settled a lawsuit by two sisters last year who charged that they were illegally held for two months on an immigration detainer. After that, the county became one of the first border counties east of California to stop honoring detainers, and also voted to declare the county a “Safe International Community” where county employees are forbidden from asking anyone about immigration status.

Another case that drew widespread attention was that of Juana Villegas, who was shackled to a hospital bed in Tennessee while on an immigration retainer in 2012. She was awarded $200,000 in a civil suit against Nashville and Davidson County.

A federal court case that prompted new policies this year was one in Portland, Oregon that declared immigration detainers unconstitutional if they result in jail time longer than otherwise necessary for local law enforcement purposes. The court ruled that Clackamas County had illegally imprisoned a woman by telling relatives over a two-week period that she could not be bailed out because of an immigration detainer, which had actually specified only a 48-hour hold.

Miami-Dade County in Florida, with one of the largest immigrant populations in the country, noted in its resolution against full cooperation that extra prison time for immigration detainers had cost up to $1 million a year. Fewer than half of the 3,262 detainers the county handled in 2011, and 2,499 in 2012, involved felony crimes.

Some still think detainers should be respected and can be legally justified despite court rulings in specific cases. The Center for Immigration Studies, which favors limited, legal immigration only, says immigration officials should be more aggressive.

“There are places that are scared by the Oregon ruling and releasing people that they really shouldn’t,” said spokesman Jessica Vaughan. “Nobody can really look at the cases and say that ICE has been overzealous. It’s certainly not fair to them to say they’re deporting too many people.”

Blaze, the ACLU attorney, said the growing movement may be having an effect on ICE policy. Detainers have been more likely to focus on criminals than simply unauthorized immigrants, he said.

 

San Francisco to strengthen chain store restrictions on FOREIGN stores

If you have a great recipe for a sandwich and want to open a shop on Market Street in San Fran, go for it. If you do not have a recipe, but still want to have a sandwich shop—go for—but NOT in San Fran. If you want to open a Wimpys burger on Market Street in San Fran you will need to pay for an economic analysis for the city of SF. Wimpys is an English firm, it is a chain and the politicians do not want you.

“San Francisco is expected to strengthen its anti-chain store law by applying the restrictions to international companies, expanding the requirements to the mid-Market Street area and requiring any chain to pay for an economic analysis when seeking approval to open.

Any wonder California is expensive, why high real unemployment and taxes in San Fran so high? Go to Dallas, they welcome you with open arms. San Fran instead wants you to open your bank account to government if you think you want to start a firm in their city.

PileOfMoney

San Francisco to strengthen chain store restrictions 

By Joshua Sabatini, SF Examiner, 10/31/14

San Francisco is expected to strengthen its anti-chain store law by applying the restrictions to international companies, expanding the requirements to the mid-Market Street area and requiring any chain to pay for an economic analysis when seeking approval to open.

When discussions began last year to modify chain store restrictions, a major clash began to brew and two competing proposals emerged, one from the Planning Department and another from a member of the Board of Supervisors.

But Supervisor Eric Mar, who has taken a lead on modifying existing formula-retail regulations, helped broker a compromise measure that the full board will vote on next week. He expects unanimous support.

“There is no shortage of chain stores in San Francisco. There are 1,250,” Mar said. “I’ve been committed to giving our neighborhood residents a strong voice in their economic development of their neighborhood corridors and to leveling the playing field.”

San Francisco’s first restrictions on chain stores, defined as having 11 or more store locations in the Untied States, was enacted in 2004 with an outright ban for Hayes Valley. North Beach followed suit. And in 2006, voters approved a ballot measure requiring any chain store to have to obtain a special permit to open in neighborhood commercial corridors through the Planning Commission, which is appealable to the board. The process can take six to nine months.

Since then, new concerns have emerged in communities related to formula retail stores finding loopholes in the existing law. One example was when GANT Rugger opened in Hayes Valley last year. Though the company had more than 11 locations, eight were in the U.S. and the rest in Europe, and therefore it did not fall under The City’s chain store law.

Under Mar’s proposal, the definition of a chain store would change to 11 or more locations worldwide, no longer just in the Untied States. The types of businesses captured by the restrictions would also expand to include check cashing, massage parlors, tobacco sales and fitness gyms.

Additionally, the proposal adds mid-Market to the coverage area. It would also require applicants proposing 20,000 square feet of space or more to hire a consultant to perform an economic analysis of how the business would impact neighboring businesses. The study must include details on employment numbers along with wages and benefits.

Supervisor Scott Wiener said the proposal “will provide an even stronger and better process than we already have.”

Some criticism has come from the real estate industry. Matthew Holmes, co-founder of San Francisco-based retail firm Retail West, said the added restrictions are “going to make it difficult to fill vacancies.”

“I know everybody is concerned about character of the neighborhood,” Holmes said. “I see no character in vacant storefronts.”

 

Massive Non-Citizen Voting Uncovered in Maryland (Illegal Aliens)

Kansas just found over 22,000 non citizens (illegal aliens) REGISTERED to Vote. Who says that voter fraud does not exist?

Maryland is also finding thousands in just one county that claimed on jury forms they were not citizens, registered to vote. No idea how many statewide in Maryland are criminals voting. Can you imagine how many illegal aliens are registered to vote and vote in California? Our Secretary of State has done nothing in eight years to provide honest elections—her stance has been, register and vote, while opposing any effort to assure those involved are eligible. Could this be the reason so few vote—they know that illegal voters make the difference and honest people are harmed?

“The group, Virginia Voters Alliance, says that it compared how voters in Frederick County filled out jury duty statements compared with their voting records. The group’s investigation found that thousands of people in Frederick County who stated that they are not U.S. citizens on jury duty forms went on to cast votes in elections. Either they failed to tell the truth when they were summoned for jury duty, or they cast illegal votes. Both are crimes. The same group previously found that about 40,000 people are registered to vote in both Virginia and Maryland.”

ICE-Immigration-Agents

Massive Non-Citizen Voting Uncovered in Maryland

 

By Bryan Preston, PJMedia, 10/29/14

An election integrity watchdog group is suing the state of Maryland, alleging that it has discovered massive and ongoing fraudulent voting by non-U.S. citizens in one county. But because of the way that the non-citizens are able to cast votes in elections, the fraud is likely happening in every single county and subdivision across the state. The group believes that the illegal voting has been happening for years.

The group, Virginia Voters Alliance, says that it compared how voters in Frederick County filled out jury duty statements compared with their voting records. The group’s investigation found that thousands of people in Frederick County who stated that they are not U.S. citizens on jury duty forms went on to cast votes in elections. Either they failed to tell the truth when they were summoned for jury duty, or they cast illegal votes. Both are crimes. The same group previously found that about 40,000 people are registered to vote in both Virginia and Maryland.

It is a federal crime to cast votes if you are not legally eligible to vote. Non-citizens, whether in the country legally or not, are prohibited from voting in most local and all state and federal elections. Yet the VVA investigation found that hundreds of non-citizens have been voting in Frederick County, Maryland. One in seven Maryland residents are non-U.S. citizens.

“The lawsuit is the equivalent of the lookout spotting the iceberg ahead of the Titanic,” state Del. Pat McDonough told the Tatler. He added that the group’s investigation found a voter fraud “smoking gun.”

Maryland state law makes it easier for non-citizens, both those present legally and those in the country against the law, to vote. Maryland issues drivers licenses to legal and illegal aliens. Driver’s licenses in turn make it easier under the Motor Voter law to register to vote. Maryland also offers copious taxpayer-funded social programs to non-citizens in the state.

The group filed suit in Baltimore’s U.S. District Court on Friday. They are suing the Frederick County Board of Elections and the Maryland State Board of Elections.

Del. Pat McDonough (R-Baltimore and Harford Counties) detailed the alleged fraud in a Maryland press conference today. He is calling for a special state prosecutor because the fraud may be taking place statewide, with significant impact on Maryland elections. Maryland currently holds 10 electoral votes in presidential elections. McDonough is also proposing legislation including voter ID to close the loopholes that he says non-citizens are using to cast votes.

 

Listen to These Obesity Rap Songs That Cost Taxpayers $88,529

You need to listen to $88,000 of your tax money being wasted on “songs against obesity”. Not enough money for medical research, but enough to let radical leftist song writers collect a piece of the corruption. See here. Pass this along to your friends and put on Facebook and Twitter.

In a $4 trillion budget, $88,000 is not even a rounding error. It is an example of the disrespect the Obama Administration and government has for jobs and families—this is money taken from businesses and families as part of a wider program. The program of the Obama Administration is telling citizens we are not smart enough to spend our own money. Government agents believe citizens do not understand the wider needs of society. They really believe we need a propaganda song, heard by a few, understood by even fewer is how to spend tax dollars.

“The grant said that the agency wanted to “take advantage” of the popularity of rap music among young African-Americans to transmit messages about healthy eating.

“The target audience for the Music CD would be African American youths ages 8 to 12,” the USDA said. “Although music is a widely consumed communications channel among youth, it is under-utilized in health communications.”

The USDA said songs about health are “classic by definition.” Positive Records features their songs on obesity prevention on their website.”

budget

Listen to These Obesity Rap Songs That Cost You $88,529

Songs use auto-tune, encourage healthy eating habits

BY: Elizabeth Harrington, Washington Free Beacon, 10/30/14
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) paid $88,529 to make a hip-hop cd about obesity.

A research project to look into whether music can be used for obesity prevention resulted in rap songs about drinking less soda and the horrors of eating junk food.

“Positive Records,” a music-based messaging company, received the USDA grant to develop the album and then play it for elementary students in California.

The grant said that the agency wanted to “take advantage” of the popularity of rap music among young African-Americans to transmit messages about healthy eating.

“The target audience for the Music CD would be African American youths ages 8 to 12,” the USDA said. “Although music is a widely consumed communications channel among youth, it is under-utilized in health communications.”

The USDA said songs about health are “classic by definition.” Positive Records features their songs on obesity prevention on their website.

Among them include “Fuel Up to Play 60,” a rap song about getting 60 minutes of exercise a day, “Small Steps,” and “Let’s Move,” a nod to Michelle Obama’s anti-obesity campaign.

Let’s Move begins with this refrain:

How did we get here; Was it super size burgers and fries; Or giant sodas; With the value meals at dinner time; Busy parents; Cafeterias at schools; Hear the wake up call; It’s our moment of truth; Let’s move

In “Rethink Your Drink” a rapper scolds his “homie from around the way” that drinking too large of sodas is making him fat.

Positive Records called the project the “Groovy Pyramid,” and said kids responded well to their songs.

The company also created a song to encourage enrollment into Obamacare for Covered California.

 

8 of 9 Water Bond Czars hail from NorCal –Will Spend $15 Billion Prop. 1 $$ (including interest)

The State of California is about to pass Prop. 1—the $15 billion (when interest is included) so-called water bond. This bond is to be used for conservation, wetlands and paying off Leftist environmental promises. The $2.7 billion for groundwater and dams will be used exclusively for ground water—since the State now has total control over the use of groundwater. For the majority of California residents, who live in Southern California, the distribution of the money will be determined by nine people, eight of whom are from Northern California.

By the way not a single one of those responsible for spending $15 billion were elected to that position.

  • “The past or present occupation of four of the members is environmental lobbying, education and political consulting: David Curtin, Delfino, Armando Quintero and Anthony Saracino.

  • Two members are primarily labor and union lobbyists: Curtin and Del Bosque.

  • Two are from agriculture, one Democrat, Del Bosque; and one Republican, Orth.

  • Eight are men, one is a woman, Delfino.”

Another reason to vote NO on Prop. 1 .

vote

8 of 9 Water Bond Czars hail from NorCal

By Wayne Lusvardi, Calwatchdog, 10/30/14

Call them Water Bond Czars.

They’re the nine members of the California Water Commission and will decide how to implement Proposition 1, the $7.5 billion water bond on the Nov. 4 ballot, should voters pass it.

While most media have focused on what’s in the bond, little attention has been given to who will oversee the first water storage projects built in California in 50 years. The bond stipulates that the Nine Water Bond Czars will decide where the money goes.

According to the commission’s website:

“Seven members are chosen for their general expertise related to the control, storage, and beneficial use of water and two are chosen for their knowledge of the environment.”

But eight of the nine current members hail from Northern California. Just one, Chair Joseph Byrne, hails from drought-parched Southern California.

In the official pamphlet sent to voters for Prop. 1, the impartial California Legislative Analyst explained the powers of the commission for picking water storage projects:

“The Commission would not have to go through the state budget process to spend these funds. For all other funding provided in the measure, the Legislature generally would allocate money annually to state agencies in the state budget process.”    

The power of the commission won’t be total because the $2.7 billion in bond monies for storage must be used as matching funds for water storage projects competitively proposed by other state, federal or local agencies.  In other words, the commission won’t originate storage projects, but will pick the winners from proposals submitted by other agencies.

And Prop. 1 does not provide for accepting proposals from private entities or joint venture projects with private entities.

Who are California’s Water Czars?

A Calwatchdog probe of the makeup of the nine Water Bond Czars found:

  • Eight of nine commissioners are from Northern California.
  • Three are Republicans: Andrew Ball, Luther Hintz and David Orth.
  • Two are undeclared in political party, but liberal-leaning: Jose Del Bosque and Kimberly Delfino.
  • Only three have any strong water policy experience before serving on the commission: Del Bosque, Hintz and Orth.
  • Of those three, only two, both Republicans, have experience with statewide water issues: Hintz, and Orth.
  • The past or present occupation of four of the members is environmental lobbying, education and political consulting: David Curtin, Delfino, Armando Quintero and Anthony Saracino.
  • Two members are primarily labor and union lobbyists: Curtin and Del Bosque.
  • Two are from agriculture, one Democrat, Del Bosque; and one Republican, Orth.
  • Eight are men, one is a woman, Delfino.
  • Interestingly, while anti-fracking activists have erroneously been trying to convince the public that hydraulic fracturing of oil is depleting California’s water supplies, there are no representatives of the oil industry on the Commission.

By clicking on the names in the table below, or going here, the biographies can be seen of each Commission member.

California Water Commission – Member Profiles

Name Principal Occupation Education Northern or Southern California Party Affiliation Prior Water Policy Experience
Andrew Ball Building Industry Architecture Northern Republican None
Joseph
Byrne
Political Consultant Law Southern Democrat None
Daniel Curtin Labor Lobbyist & EnvironmentalAdvocate Bachelor of Science Northern Democrat None
Jose Del Bosque Labor & Agriculture Farming (Del Bosque Farms) Northern Undeclared Prior years not stated
Kimberly Delfino Environmental lobbyist Law Northern Undeclared None
Luther Hintz Water Engineer Engineering Northern Republican 52 years
David Orth Agricultural Water Manager-Accountant Accounting Northern Republican 28 years
Armando Quintero Environmental educator Education Northern Democrat None
Anthony Saracino Environmental Water Consultant Environmental Engineer Northern Democrat None

Conclusion

The Commission is far from a panel that reflects the diversity of water interests in California and six of its members had no prior water policy experience before serving on the commission.

If Prop. 1 passes, its implementation could turn out to be a major political controversy in the next several years.

Note: The water bond matching fund share is typically 50 percent.  This means the real tax burden of Proposition 1 is not $7.5 billion, but $10.2 billion, as another $2.7 billion will have to come from other agencies.  So while water storage comprises 35 percent of the $7.5 billion total bond funds provided in Prop. 1, the actual amount of funding for water storage will be $5.4 billion.  This would make funding for water storage about 53 percent of all funding.

 

Federal Taxpayers Spend Over $300 per day to ENTERTAIN Obama’s Imported Illegal Aliens

Barack Obama imported over 60,000 illegal aliens from Central America earlier this year. He made clear this is just the first batch of law violators he is bringing and he wants to make them comfortable. He has literally dispersed them to all fifty States. The President is forcing local and State government to pay for their welfare, education, health care, housing and more. Not till a few days ago did we realize what “more” meant.

“One of the contractors housing some of the surge of illegal immigrant children from this summer offers them a petting zoo with miniature ponies, a tilapia fish farm operation and guitar lessons, according to documents released Thursday by a senator who questioned whether the plush accommodations were a good use of taxpayers’ money.

Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, said it seemed excessive to pay the $329 that Southwest Key Programs, the contractor, charged per child per day at one of its California facilities in Lemon Grove, California. Another facility in El Cajon cost taxpayers $316 per child per day.

The people of the United States, the honest citizens, are paying over $300 per day to entertain the illegal aliens imported by Barack the First.

300px-Seaworld_logo.svg

 

Feds pay for guitar lessons, petting zoo trips for illegal immigrant children

By Stephen Dinan, The Washington Times, 10/30/14

One of the contractors housing some of the surge of illegal immigrant children from this summer offers them a petting zoo with miniature ponies, a tilapia fish farm operation and guitar lessons, according to documents released Thursday by a senator who questioned whether the plush accommodations were a good use of taxpayers’ money.

Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, said it seemed excessive to pay the $329 that Southwest Key Programs, the contractor, charged per child per day at one of its California facilities in Lemon Grove, California. Another facility in El Cajon cost taxpayers $316 per child per day.

Mr. Grassley said it was particularly questionable to pay those high rates even as the White House came to Congress asking for more money to handle the surge of children earlier this year.

“It is disturbing that HHS is funding such expensive facilities despite claiming to be unable to meet basic needs for UACs,” Mr. Grassley said in a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell, using the acronym for Unaccompanied Alien Children, which is the term the government has given to the illegal immigrant youths who jump the border without their parents.

An HHS spokesman didn’t return a message seeking comment on Thursday.

A spokeswoman for Southwest Key said they were just seeing the letter and would try to respond on Friday.

SEE ALSO: Obama’s immigration plan would hurt black workers: Civil-rights commissioner

The Washington Times has previously reported on some of the conditions for facilities housing the children elsewhere, including culturally sensitive music piped in to their rooms, meals tailored for lactose-intolerant stomachs and guaranteed phone privileges to be able to call their family either back home in Central America or in the U.S., where many of the children’s parents are already living illegally.

In the documents Mr. Grassley revealed Thursday, Southwest Key says it has a fish farm where they cultivate more than 1,000 tilapia. It also says it has an organic orchard with lemon, orange and grapefruit trees and an organic garden that provides vegetables for their kitchen.

The children are paid $1 a day in allowance, according to the documents.

HHS has kept many of the details of the children’s care from the public, with officials saying they believed Congress had instructed them to protect the children’s privacy, which includes the locations and conditions of their housing.

The Times made an open-records request for details of an HHS contract with Southwest Key in early July, and has yet to receive a response. The law gives agencies a month to respond.

LA increases use of probation for non-violent offenders – but still trails others

Why is the Second Amendment needed? Because Guv Brown, prior to that, Arnold, released over 40,000 criminals from State prison. Many of these went to county jail and supervision. Of course the counties have crowded jails—so they were forced to release thousands of prisoners. Now the probation officers have over crowded dance cards, unable to keep up or keep track of the criminals no longer incarcerated.

“Under California’s realignment law in 2011, low-level offenders can serve half their time behind bars, and the rest on mandatory probation where they can access rehabilitation services. Advocates say it reduces recidivism and reduces jail crowding.

Many counties throughout the state have used the policy, called split sentencing, to reduce overcrowding in their jails, after a wave of inmates were transferred there from state prisons. Riverside and Orange County reportedly use split sentencing in more than 50 percent of cases.”

DA’s throughout the State are refusing to bring charges for “minor” crimes. Lots of petty crimes are going unpunished—it is the victims that pays for the crimes of Arnold and Jerry.   

ms13-in-prison

LA increases use of probation for non-violent offenders – but still trails others

Andrea Gardner, KPCC, 10/31/14

New data from the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office suggests that Los Angeles County prosecutors are beginning to embrace split sentencing for low-level felons – though they’re still far behind Orange and Riverside counties.

Under California’s realignment law in 2011, low-level offenders can serve half their time behind bars, and the rest on mandatory probation where they can access rehabilitation services. Advocates say it reduces recidivism and reduces jail crowding.

Many counties throughout the state have used the policy, called split sentencing, to reduce overcrowding in their jails, after a wave of inmates were transferred there from state prisons. Riverside and Orange County reportedly use split sentencing in more than 50 percent of cases.

New numbers from the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office shows in September, 14 percent of cases resulted in split sentences. That’s up from 3 percent in June, when District Attorney Jackie Lacey first issued a directive ordering prosecutors to give split sentences when appropriate.

Lynne Lyman from the Drug Policy Alliance and the Los Angeles Re-entry Partnership praised Lacey’s efforts.

“You need that buy-in from the top, and then you need that buy-in to be integrated into the organization through training, and that’s why we’ve seen this turn around in the numbers,” she said.

Lyman expects those numbers will keep going up.

State law mandates split sentencing become the presumptive punishment for low-level felons starting in January. That means each low-level felon who is eligible for a split sentence will get one unless a judge states a reason for denying it on the record.

 

Rep. Smith Slams Use of Obamacare Funds to Promote Amnesty for Young Illegals

There is a famous organization in the former Golden State called the “California Endowment”. “The California Endowment is a statewide, private health foundation that supplies grants for various organizations throughout California, and has served as one of the Obama administration’s loudest promoters of Obamacare.” In fact it is really a promoter of illegal aliens, they promote amnesty of criminals from other nations—including those just imported into the United States by the President.

Tax dollars meant to help the health care of Americans is used to promote illegal activities. It is instead being used as a slush fund for political action. Why isn’t the IRS stopping this? Oh, because they are in on the scam of taxpayers.

“Newsbusters (which like CNSNews.com is part of the Media Research Center), reported earlier this month that the California Endowment last year signed a $20 million deal with the Spanish-language TV outlet “Univision” to help promote Obamacare. Using federal tax dollars from the health fund, the foundation then sponsored ads on Univision reminding qualifying illegal aliens to renew their Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (DACA) permits before they expire.

“U.S. taxpayer dollars are being spent for Univision morning show weatherwoman Ximena Córdoba to exhort beneficiaries of President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program to renew the permits exempting them from deportation proceedings for another two years,” Newsbusters reported.”

obamacare irs nsa spying

Rep. Smith Slams Use of Obamacare Funds to Promote Amnesty for Young Illegals

By Brittany M. Hughes  CNSNews, 10/30/14

(CNSNews.com) – In a letter to House Appropriations Chair Harold Rogers (R-Ky.) on Tuesday, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) called for defunding a provision in Obamacare that has been allowing taxpayer dollars set aside for public health initiatives to fund television ads for President Obama’s illegal alien amnesty programs.

In his letter, Smith cites a $15 million grant from the Prevention and Public Health Fund that the Department of Health and Human Services gave the California Endowment. The Prevention and Public Health Fund was created by the Affordable Care Act to support public health care initiatives. The California Endowment is a statewide, private health foundation that supplies grants for various organizations throughout California, and has served as one of the Obama administration’s loudest promoters of Obamacare.

Newsbusters (which like CNSNews.com is part of the Media Research Center), reported earlier this month that the California Endowment last year signed a $20 million deal with the Spanish-language TV outlet “Univision” to help promote Obamacare. Using federal tax dollars from the health fund, the foundation then sponsored ads on Univision reminding qualifying illegal aliens to renew their Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (DACA) permits before they expire.

“U.S. taxpayer dollars are being spent for Univision morning show weatherwoman Ximena Córdoba to exhort beneficiaries of President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program to renew the permits exempting them from deportation proceedings for another two years,” Newsbusters reported.

The DACA program was an executive action by President Obama that allows some illegal aliens who were brought to the United States as minors to receive relief from deportation proceedings.

Newsbusters also reported the ad “combines the DACA permit renewal campaign with ObamaCare enrollment promotion” by flashing Univision’s Obamacare enrollment website during the ad’s closing screenshot, as well as crediting the California Endowment for sponsoring the ad.

In his letter, Smith called the ad “just one example of the wasteful and unaccountable spending created by the Prevention and Public Health Fund.”

“Regardless of how one feels about Obamacare, taxpayer money being spent to remind undocumented immigrants to renew their DACA permits does not promote healthcare,” Smith argued.

Smith also cited “deep flaws” with the fund, as well as with Obamacare itself.

“This slush fund has virtually no oversight as to where taxpayer money is spent and gives the Department of Health and Human Services free reign to spend the money in any manner it chooses,” Smith argued, adding that fund dollars “may not even have to go toward healthcare related initiatives.”

Smith called for Congress to defund the Prevention and Public Health Fund in its next appropriations bill, as well as a total repeal of Obamacare, citing the health care law’s “many flaws.”

 

State Wants $500 Billion for “Water Plan”—Still Demands $200 Billion for Choo Choo Train

The next few years will be the biggest spending years in the history of California. Tens of billions for a delta tunnel, a couple of hundred billion on a choo choo train, in 2016 there will be November bond measure on the ballot for parks and for education. But the big winner will be water—in the next ten years some in government have a plan to spend $500 billion (not a typo).

““If we want to improve that reliability, improve water quality across communities in California and deal with the continued ecosystem decline that we’re facing then we’re going to have to increase that investment up to as much as $500 billion.”

Any wonder the special interests have put so much money ino the 2014 elections—they will shortly get the pay back, with lots of interest.

RB Drought

California Releases Comprehensive Water Plan

Amy Quinton, Capitol Radio, 10/31/14

The plan is the most comprehensive guide to managing water and involves dozens of state, federal and local agencies. A key part of the plan is integrating management across jurisdictions. Mark Cowin, director of the Department of Water Resources, says it sets out no new water policies, but improves and expands existing ones. It also looks at management through the lens of a growing population and climate change.

“It’s not a matter of not enough water in California but the need to invest in better management of those supplies,”  says Cowin. “We can accommodate a growing population but we can only do so through intelligent planning and investment.”

The Water Plan says it will require a $200 billion investment in the next decade just to maintain the current system and level of service. Cowin says much of California’s water supply and flood protection infrastructure is aging or outdated.

“If we want to improve that reliability, improve water quality across communities in California and deal with the continued ecosystem decline that we’re facing then we’re going to have to increase that investment up to as much as $500 billion.”

Cowin also says the plan has more than 300 specific steps to reinforce the Governor’s Water Action Plan that was released in January. They include making conservation a way of life, expanding water storage, and providing safe drinking water.

 

Court Approves Stockton Cutting Pensions—and Leaving CalPRS

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court made it simple if Stockton wants to prevent another trip to the court. The city is allowed to cut its pension benefits. It can even leave CaLPRS is they want. CalPRS has announced it will cost Stockton $1.5 billion to leave—the court said, no, they can leave without paying a bribe.

Now the city must decide—the unions or another trip to bankruptcy court. Vallejo refused to reform its pensions and is already looking at another trip to bankruptcy court. The people of Stockton deserve better. The new Mayor and City Council may have new names, but the policies are the same—unions uber alles—and the people pay for this union ownership of the city.

““The judge recognized that the city’s employees and retirees have already made significant concessions with respect to their pension and health benefits and that further impairing pensions would harm them even more,” says Anne Stausboll, chief executive officer of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System “The city has made a smart decision to protect pensions and find a reasonable path forward to a more fiscally sustainable future.”

20111203 court law

CalPRS is smiling—they can continue to take from the people—and the people will pay more.

Court OKs Stockton’s bankruptcy exit plan

Central Valley Business Times, 10/30/14

•  Includes controversial approval to cut pensions

•  “This plan is the best that can be done”

U.S. Bankruptcy Court has approved Stockton’s plan to exit its Chapter 9 bankruptcy.

“I’ve looked long and hard at this case. This plan is the best that can be done,” says U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Christopher Klein in ruling from the bench Thursday morning.

Stockton Mayor Anthony Silva noted that the lengthy process has cost taxpayers “millions and millions” of dollars. It had been estimated earlier that the city will pay more than 440 million in legal and related fees.

“A heavy burden has been lifted from the city of Stockton,” Mr. Silva said outside the federal courthouse in Sacramento. “As the city moves forward, it is very important that we assure the taxpayers that their tax dollars will be spent wisely.”

He says the Central Valley city could, if it wishes, slash pensions, treating them as any other debt. But the city says it will not do that.

“The judge recognized that the city’s employees and retirees have already made significant concessions with respect to their pension and health benefits and that further impairing pensions would harm them even more,” says Anne Stausboll, chief executive officer of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System “The city has made a smart decision to protect pensions and find a reasonable path forward to a more fiscally sustainable future.”

The ruling about pensions being no different than other debt, could rewrite decades of protection of pensions. The credit rating firm Fitch Ratings had said earlier this month that if Stockton’s payments to the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) were to be “impaired” – legally cut like any other debt – it could encourage other cities faced with massive pension debts to follow Stockton into bankruptcy to rid themselves of the burden.

But more likely, said Fitch, was that the ruling could encourage labor and management to negotiate pension cuts to avoid the uncertainties of bankruptcy court.

The impact of the ruling for Stockton’s employees may be minimal, as the city has proposed no pension benefit reductions for employees covered by CalPERS and had argued in court against making pension cuts. The city said it feared that if it must slash pensions by half or more that employees will quit en masse.

If Stockton were to try to use the exit plan to get out of its pension obligations, CalPERS has said it would whack the city with a $1.5 billion bill, something Mr. Klein has said would not be enforceable.

If upheld at the appellate level, Mr. Klein’s ruling could be seen as historic and could impact public employees throughout the state.

Stockton has been in Chapter 9 bankruptcy since June 27, 2012, the largest city in California to go bust and second in size only to Detroit in the U.S.

Stockton’s bankruptcy exit plan is called a plan of adjustment and comes following years of negotiations with the city’s creditors as well as a bankruptcy court trial that began May 12.

While agreements were reached between the city and its major creditors prior to the trial’s start, one refused to settle. Franklin Templeton Investments argued that it was unfair for it to accept less than the $35 million it says it’s owed by the city. Stockton proposed to repay about $300,000. Judge Klein says Frankjlin has about $4 million in secured assets to offset the debt.

Now comes the minutia of the final paperwork to exit bankruptcy. Attorneys have been given two weeks to submit further written comments.