Terrorist Also ILLEGAL Voter—Vote Fraud Rampant

We are told that vote fraud is almost non-existent in the United States.  We are also told that voter ID is racist.  The State of Washington has an open ballot—ANYONE can vote, no ID is needed.  How does that work out?

“The man charged in Washington state’s deadly mall shooting on Sept. 23 voted in three elections despite not having U.S. citizenship.

Arcan Cetin of Oak Harbor is charged with five counts of first-degree premeditated murder in relation to last week’s shooting that killed five. The green card holder, who moved to the U.S. from Turkey when he was 7, may now face additional charges related to voter fraud.

State records show that Mr. Cetin registered to vote when he turned 18 and then voted in three elections, including the 2016 presidential primary. Federal sources confirmed to a local NBC affiliate on Wednesday that he is not a U.S. citizen and is legally prohibited from voting.

Yup, Democrats are defending the right of terrorists to illegally vote in our elections.  Rigged?  What does this look like?  If a terrorists can vote, how many illegal aliens are voting?  In California THOUSANDS of dead people—dead a decade or more—are still voting.  Do the dead have the Constitutional right to vote?  When a terrorist can easily vote do not say we have honest elections.

Terrorist hunting

Wash. mall shooting suspect voted in 3 elections without U.S. citizenship

Washington state doesn’t have provision to allow officials to verify voter eligibility

Top of Form

Public records show that Washington state mall shooting suspect Arcan Cetin voted in three different elections despite not being a U.S. citizen.

By Douglas Ernst, The Washington Times, 9/29/16

The man charged in Washington state’s deadly mall shooting on Sept. 23 voted in three elections despite not having U.S. citizenship.

Arcan Cetin of Oak Harbor is charged with five counts of first-degree premeditated murder in relation to last week’s shooting that killed five. The  green card holder, who moved to the U.S. from Turkey when he was 7, may now face additional charges related to voter fraud.

State records show that Mr. Cetin registered to vote when he turned 18 and then voted in three elections, including the 2016 presidential primary. Federal sources confirmed to a local NBC affiliate on Wednesday that he is not a U.S. citizen and is legally prohibited from voting.

“We don’t have a provision in state law that allows us either county elections officials or the Secretary of State’s office to verify someone’s citizenship,” Secretary of State Kim Wyman told the station. “So, we’re in this place where we want to make sure we’re maintaining people’s confidence in the elections and the integrity of the process, but also that we’re giving this individual, like we would any voter, his due process. We’re moving forward, and that investigation is really coming out of the investigation from the shootings.”

Mr. Cetin could face five years in prison and up to a $10,000 fine if found guilty of the offense

 

Rent in San Fran for ONE Bedroom “Plunges” to $3420 a Month!

It is expensive to survive in San Fran (they call it living).  Imagine after a 5% decline is rent costs, a one bedroom on average goes for $3420.  Imagine how much you have to earn to be able to afford that!  Worse, that also means the middle class can not have a family in this city, unless they are VERY rich.

“In San Francisco, the median asking rent for a one-bedroom apartment fell 5.5% year-over-year to $3,420, according to Zumper, which analyzes rental data from over 1 million active rental listings in multi-family buildings and does not include single-family houses on the rental market. For a two-bedroom, it fell 4.4% year-over-year to $4,780.

It was the third month in a row of year-over-year declines. The last time the market was negative year-over-year was in April 2010. Since then, rents have soared at astonishing rates. Hence the San Francisco term for it: “Housing Crisis.” It’s when even teachers can’t afford to live in the city – unless they’ve been in a rent-controlled apartment for years and don’t get evicted.”

The Bay Area may have three months of declining rates—from totally unaffordable to totally unaffordable.  Now the school districts are looking at taking money from education and build apartments and dorms for teachers.  This is a disaster for all concerned.

Photo Courtesy of 401(K) 2013, Flickr

Photo Courtesy of 401(K) 2013, Flickr

Rents Plunge in San Francisco, New York. “Mixed” Nationally

by Wolf Richter, Wolf Street,  9/30/16

The supply of rental units on the market is ballooning.

“The trend in rental prices this month was mixed”: so started out the Zumper October Rent Report for the month of September.

“Mixed” is not exactly a bullish term – not when it includes the two most expensive housing markets in the US, San Francisco and New York, where rents have fallen, in some cases sharply, on a year-over-year basis, as the supply of new apartments already on the market and coming on the market is enormous.

In San Francisco, the median asking rent for a one-bedroom apartment fell 5.5% year-over-year to $3,420, according to Zumper, which analyzes rental data from over 1 million active rental listings in multi-family buildings and does not include single-family houses on the rental market. For a two-bedroom, it fell 4.4% year-over-year to $4,780.

It was the third month in a row of year-over-year declines. The last time the market was negative year-over-year was in April 2010. Since then, rents have soared at astonishing rates. Hence the San Francisco term for it: “Housing Crisis.” It’s when even teachers can’t afford to live in the city – unless they’ve been in a rent-controlled apartment for years and don’t get evicted.

OK, $4,780 a month is still a huge amount for a two-bedroom. Median asking rents means 50% are higher, 50% lower. But not many people, even in San Francisco, can afford those kinds of rents.

To put that in perspective, that median two-bedroom costs the tenant $57,360 a year, which is about the median household income in the US. So there’s a little bit of an affordability problem, even in San Francisco, and hence a demand problem.

Now incentives are piling up, such as one month free rent – previously a rare occurrence in San Francisco. These incentives are not included in asking rents. The rent decline for the median two-bedroom amounts to $2,523 a year. Together with one month free rent, the actual decline in asking rent for the first year is $7,303, or about 12%! A big plunge for both landlord and tenant. But it’s just the beginning.

What a difference! Here is what happened a year ago, according Zumper’s October 2015 rent report:

High priced cities are getting more expensive; in fact, the top four cities on our list all saw rent increases in the near term. San Francisco widened its gap between NYC…. September again marked a new record high for the city, now with a median one bedroom of $3,620 and two bedroom of $5,000. Rents in the city are up 13.1% in the past year.

Note the double-digit year-over-year rent increase. At the time, there were zero incentives.

The supply of rental units on the market is ballooning.

On Zillow, there are 1,237 apartments listed as available for rent in San Francisco, up 7.7% from a month ago (1,149 units) when I last wrote about it. The Zillow image below only shows 500 units. If all available units were shown, over one-third of San Francisco would be solid purple. Note the dots that say “9+.” They represent larger buildings, some of them with dozens of vacant rental units. You can see these towers South of Market and in some other pockets:

Apartments.com lists 3,534 apartments for rent, up 14% from the 3,094 units a month ago, and up 54% from the 2,302 apartments it listed in June:

The densest clusters of units in both charts are in areas where the high-rise construction boom is most obvious. It’s not just apartments. Condos purchased by investors play a role too. The construction boom created numerous condo towers. Investors who bought the preconstruction units but have no intention of living there are trying to sell them, which is getting difficult, so they’re showing up on the rental market.

Most of these new units are higher end. But as landlords are cutting rents and piling on incentives, they’re pressuring the levels below, and then those levels have to cut rents and offer incentives to compete with then nicer new units, and over times, these pressures cascade all the way down.

New York City is facing similar dynamics: high rents that are crimping demand and a construction boom that is adding an enormous amount of supply.

Median asking rents fell 5.9% year-over-year to $3,040 for a one-bedroom apartment and 7.2% to 3,470 for a two-bedroom apartment, not including incentives.
The median asking rent for a two-bedroom, at $41,640 a year, is now $3,231 lower than it was a year ago. With the additional incentive of one-month free rent, the 12-month cost for the tenant (and revenue for the landlord) plunged by $6,700, or 15%!!

A sea change from a year ago. Zumper’s October 2015 rent report on New York City:

One bedroom asking prices hit $3,230 for a one bedroom and $3,740 for a two bedroom. Prices across the 5 boroughs are up 9.5% in the year.

For the five boroughs, Zillow lists 25,432 apartments available for rent. Appartments.com lists 16,717 just in Manhattan:

For landlords that are putting new units on the market in these two cities, the slide in rents is very inconvenient. Capitalization rates have become razor thin in recent years. The process of declining rents and increasing incentives, as new supply surges for years to come, screws up their entire math.

In terms of commercial real estate, this will pressure prices. Given the high leverage, there will be defaults, and creditors will end up with some of those buildings.

But renters, after having their lifeblood squeezed out of them over the past years, will be able to breathe a sigh of relief. Neither of these two markets will ever be cheap, but rents are likely to become less ludicrous. Prospective renters have an opportunity to become tough negotiators, now that they can walk away and shop elsewhere.

Of the 12 most expensive large rental markets in the US, median rents for one-bedroom apartments fell in 7 cities year-over-year. Suddenly there’s a lot of red on what had been solidly green for the past six years:

In the two-bedroom segment, similar trends are playing out, with rents in six cities of the top 12 in the red and one unchanged:

Note in both charts the declines in Chicago and the surges in Los Angeles and Seattle – hence the infamous “mixed” label.

The tables don’t include smaller rental markets with super-high rents such as Palo Alto, in Silicon Valley, were the median rent is an utterly insane $5,800.

Overall in the top 100 rental markets in the US, median asking rents for one-bedroom apartments rose 2.3% year over year to $1,136. For two-bedrooms it rose 3.0%, to $1,350.

Below are the top 100 markets, in order of the amount of rent for one-bedroom apartments. Check out your city to see what the trends in September were (tables by Zumper, click tables to enlarge):

 

Uber drives into the long-haul trucking business. Teamsters in Trouble?

Uber has killed off the taxi industry and with it the unions controlling the drivers.  It looks like the Teamster union will have real competition—a Uber-like firm providing trucking across the nation—with the union agreements or control.  The world of disruption is moving quickly.

“As part of that process, Ron said that Otto/Uber is planning to increase its fleet from six trucks to 15 in the next year, and has already started building relationships within the trucking industry. He was also quick to point out that although that may seem like a small beginning, just about anything would be an improvement to how the freight shipping business currently works.

“In Uber, you press a button and an Uber shows up after three minutes,” Ron said. “In freight … the golden standard is that it takes (the broker) five hours of phone calls to find your truck. That’s how efficient the industry is today.”

While the growth is small-the slightest recession is going to blow up the trucking industry.  As Otto/Uber grows and firms save time and money, trucking firms, first the small ones, will try the service—and businesses looking to save time and money will do so also.  The world is changing there is nothing the special interests or unions can do about it.

HOMESTEAD AIR RESERVE BASE, Fla. (AFPN) -- Trucks began arriving here to pre-position water, military rations, ice and tarps for the post-hurricane relief effort. The trucks, which began arriving Oct. 20, have delivered supplies from Key West to northern Miami-Dade County since the storm passed. (U.S. Air Force photo by Lisa M. Macias).

HOMESTEAD AIR RESERVE BASE, Fla. (AFPN) — Trucks began arriving here to pre-position water, military rations, ice and tarps for the post-hurricane relief effort. The trucks, which began arriving Oct. 20, have delivered supplies from Key West to northern Miami-Dade County since the storm passed. (U.S. Air Force photo by Lisa M. Macias).

Uber drives into the long-haul trucking business

Riley McDermid , San Francisco Business Times ,9/29/16

Ride-hailing company Uber is bringing the same tools it used to disrupt the taxi industry to the shipping business, saying this week that its plans to roll out a long-haul trucking fleet are rapidly taking shape.

In a long interview with Reuters, the founder of self-driving truck startup Otto, Lior Ron, which Uber recently acquired in a bid to push into the shipping arena, said the company is getting ready to start “putting miles” on its trucking program.

“This is really about connecting the dots, connecting the shippers and the carriers,” Ron said. “We are building that on the long-haul piece. Uber, through UberRush and UberEats, built that on the urban piece.”

As part of that process, Ron said that Otto/Uber is planning to increase its fleet from six trucks to 15 in the next year, and has already started building relationships within the trucking industry. He was also quick to point out that although that may seem like a small beginning, just about anything would be an improvement to how the freight shipping business currently works.

“In Uber, you press a button and an Uber shows up after three minutes,” Ron said. “In freight … the golden standard is that it takes (the broker) five hours of phone calls to find your truck. That’s how efficient the industry is today.”

Still, despite Otto/Uber’s enthusiasm, there remain skeptics who said Uber has a long way to go before it can convince traditionally risk-shy companies that they can be trusted with their goods.

“I don’t really see it as a near-term threat, just because of how complex the industry really is,” Jack Atkins, a transportation analyst with investment bank Stephens Inc. Cos., told the news service.

“It’s not as simple as, ‘Hey, I want to go from point A to point B in Midtown.’”

 

Guv Brown Vetoes Illegal Alien Assistance Bills: Why Isn’t Media Calling Him Racist?

Hell has frozen over.  And the saying, even a stopped clock is right twice a day is proven to be true once again.  Our very confused Guv Brown has VETOED bills that would give illegal aliens special privileges at our community colleges and phony screenings to “prove” all illegal alien children—because they are illegal—suffer from traumatic experiences.  If they do, they is not because of the State of California or our policies—it is because their parents decided to break the law.

  • This is one of the bills he vetoed:  “SB 1113, authored by Sen. Jim Beall, D-San Jose, would have funded pilot programs to expand mental health diagnosis and treatment for Medi-Cal eligible, low-income children through partnerships between school districts and county mental health providers, with an estimated multi-million dollar cost.”

You should also know that Prop. 52 gives lots of money to Medi-Cal.  Why?  No, not because they want to help the hospitals and doctors—that is the excuse.  Last year a new law gave 200,000 illegal aliens FREE health care via Medi-Cal—without the financing—if you want to support illegal aliens getting free health care, vote for Prop. 51.

Jerry Brown state of the state

Brown vetoes half-dozen K-12 bills, citing budget pressure

By John Fensterwald, Edsource,  9/29/16

Gov. Jerry Brown signs legislation into law.

Citing the danger of adding costs at a time of financial uncertainty, Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed a half-dozen K-12 education-related bills Wednesday, including one that would have required screening all low-income children receiving Medi-Cal services for the potential effects of traumatic experiences. He also rejected a bill that would have required all Cal State campuses and community colleges to establish centers or liaison positions to help undocumented students (see previous EdSource article).

Brown has until the end of Friday to act on hundreds of bills that the Legislature sent to him. There were no education bills among the 60 that he approved on Wednesday. In vetoing four of the education bills, he did not comment on the merits of the proposed programs. But in the veto message addressing those four, Brown cited both the “precarious balance of the state budget” and the need to use available revenue to complete funding of the Local Control Funding Formula, Brown’s signature school reform that directs additional dollars to English learners and low-income students.

The four bills are:

  • AB 1198, authored by Assemblyman Matt Dababneh, D-San Fernando Valley, would have provided money for the California School Finance Authority for a fund to lower the credit risk for districts issuing school construction bonds. Although the bill would have particularly helped reduce borrowing costs for charter schools, which Brown generally supports, a Senate analysis had cited potential General Fund costs of millions of dollars.
  • AB 1783, authored by Assemblyman Bill Dodd, D-Napa, would have required a seismic inspection and report on the condition of every school with a high risk of earthquakes (nearly all in the state) by 2020.
  • AB 2182, authored by Assemblyman Kevin Mullin, D-San Mateo, would have funded neurocognitive testing in three pilot districts of athletes suspected of having experienced a concussion. The goal was to establish protocols, training and baseline data. A legislative analysis cited potential high financial costs to expand the program statewide.
  • SB 1113, authored by Sen. Jim Beall, D-San Jose, would have funded pilot programs to expand mental health diagnosis and treatment for Medi-Cal eligible, low-income children through partnerships between school districts and county mental health providers, with an estimated multi-million dollar cost.

In authoring SB 1466, requiring trauma screening of children for emotional and psychological harm from physical and sexual abuses, divorce and parental incarceration, Sen. Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles, cited the benefits of early diagnosis and treatment, especially for children in foster care. But in his veto message, Brown noted the growth of Medi-Cal under the Affordable Care Act from 8 million to 14 million Californians, including 5 million children, and his reluctance to add another mandatory service.

Brown did not cite cost in his veto of AB 491, by Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzales, D-San Diego, which would have required districts to explain to parents who take a home language survey that the results may lead to a designation of their child as an English learner. Brown acknowledged there needs to “be a better job” of communicating with parents on this issue but wrote that the bill’s language may have created more confusion among parents.

Brown also vetoed a bill that would have required all Cal State campuses and community colleges to establish centers or liaison positions to help undocumented students. The legislation, AB 2009, would have increased enrollment and graduation rates of such immigrant students, according to its author, Assemblywoman Patty Lopez, D-San Fernando. However, state Senate staff estimated the extra state funding would have totaled more than $12 million a year across all Cal State campuses and community colleges. Some UC, Cal State and community college campuses already have started “Dream Centers” to help the rising number of those undocumented students. In his veto message, Brown noted that undocumented students already are eligible for state financial aid and other services. He called on UC, Cal State and community colleges to use existing staff to help these students.

 

Making people POORER to Create Special Interest Housing

This is why you can not respect or trust government.  In San Mateo County they raised sales taxes in 2012—and on the November ballot have a bond—the purpose of both is to create money to build affordable housing.  Yet, to do so, they are taking money from the poor and middle class—and giving it to unions, special interests and crony capitalists.  Under State law, the contracts to build affordable housing can not go to the lowest qualified bidder—it must go to the high bidder using union labor.

“The sales tax generates more than $80 million annually and the board is committed to spending a big chunk of it on helping to build more affordable housing with nonprofit partners.

Supervisor Don Horsley said up to $20 million a year could be spent on boosting the affordable housing stock in the county. The county may also seek lease revenue bonds to boost the area’s housing stock that would then be paid for out of the general fund.

Sales taxes go into the county’s general fund but technically cannot be used to fund a specific initiative such as a bond can.

Foes of the sales tax say a bond is a much better option considering those who support it would know exactly how the revenue is spent.

Where does the other $60 million a year from the sales tax go?  In all probability to CalPERS—since it is one trillion dollars underfunded.  This is just a scam to keep the pension system afloat and give bucks to supporters of government.  Just vote NO.

affordable housing

Merits of Measure K argued: Proponents say sales tax can be invested in affordable housing; foes wonder ‘why now’

 By Bill Silverfarb, Daily Journal , 9.30/16

 

When voters passed Measure A in 2012, it was supposed to be a temporary sales tax that expired in 2023 to give San Mateo County extra money to stop homelessness, reduce childhood poverty and provide low-income health care at Seton Hospital among other initiatives.

But the county faces new challenges such as a wave of displacement of low-income residents who cannot afford to live in the area any longer due to skyrocketing rents.

The housing crisis prompted the Board of Supervisors to place Measure A back on the ballot for the November election. Now called Measure K, the half-cent sales tax will expire in 2043 with voter approval.

The sales tax generates more than $80 million annually and the board is committed to spending a big chunk of it on helping to build more affordable housing with nonprofit partners.

Supervisor Don Horsley said up to $20 million a year could be spent on boosting the affordable housing stock in the county. The county may also seek lease revenue bonds to boost the area’s housing stock that would then be paid for out of the general fund.

Sales taxes go into the county’s general fund but technically cannot be used to fund a specific initiative such as a bond can.

Foes of the sales tax say a bond is a much better option considering those who support it would know exactly how the revenue is spent.

“It offers greater accountability and transparency,” former Foster City mayor Linda Koelling said about a bond. Koelling sits on the “Stop K” committee with San Carlos Councilman Matt Grocott.

But a bond did not poll well with voters so the county decided to seek the sales tax extension.

Koelling and Grocott say it’s too soon to bring the tax back to the voters considering it was passed less than four years ago.

“The first question is ‘why now,’” Koelling said.

She questions how the county can determine its needs beyond 2023.

Grocott said the county should wait until year nine of the temporary sales tax before deciding whether the revenue is still needed and an extension sought.

It appears to be that the temporary sales tax is becoming permanent, Koelling said.

Proponents of the extension such as Evelyn Stivers with the Housing Leadership Council and Michele Beasley with the San Mateo County Parks Foundation point to the good work already accomplished with the extra sales tax revenue.

Measure A revenue has improved emergency dispatch services and funded the Big Lift preschool program, addressing early learning and the literacy gap.

The revenue has also revitalized the Parks Department, Beasley said.

Parks have been “severely underfunded” and Measure A has helped to address access, Beasley said.

Measure A also funds paratransit for SamTrans, Horsley said.

It has also been increasingly used to fund affordable housing, Stivers said.

Supervisors just committed about $9 million, mostly in Measure A funds, to help build 403 affordable housing units throughout the county in partnership with nonprofits such as MidPen Housing.

“This is an investment for the future. You can’t build housing without money and the change will take years,” Horsley said.

The county has added about 55,000 new jobs but only 2,100 units of housing in recent years, Horsley said.

Measure A passed with about 65 percent support in 2012 and needs a simple majority to pass.

But Koelling warns that future boards can decide to spend the sales tax on whatever they wish and that there is no guarantee it will actually be spent to tackle the housing crisis.

Plus, in a few years, “maybe the problem is not so big,” Koelling said about the housing crisis.

The job market may “cool” also, she said.

But Beasley said the number of “help wanted” signs in small shops and restaurants throughout the county point to how difficult it is to retain workers who work for lower wages.

“We need to decide whether we want to be an exclusive or an inclusive community. If we want to be inclusive, we need to provide housing,” Beasley said.

Measure K is on the Nov. 8 ballot.

Report: Up to 10 states have experienced election-related hacking

We are being told America holds honest elections.  Yet in California dead people vote, in Washington State terrorists, illegally, vote.  A few weeks ago we were told that two States had their election system hacked—why do we ever believe government?  Now they are admitting to ten States—and who knows how many are really being hacked.  Worse, what does that mean—are they able to destroy votes cast, re-allocate votes cast or destroy the system at 8:00pm on election night and NO votes can be counted?

“– As many as 10 state election databases have been hacked, not only the two previously reported in Illinois and Arizona, according to a report by CBS News.

The hacks come as officials in the Justice Department and Homeland Security warn state and local officials of the threat posed by hackers seeking access to the nation’s election database.

The CBS report did not identify exactly how many states have been hacked, nor which ones. But according to multiple anonymous national security officials, as many as 10 have experienced some sort of hack.”

So, government admits they are holding back information from us—while the bad guys are laughing.  Do Americans deserve the truth from government or the continued lies from the White House pretending all is well?

government-vote

Report: Up to 10 states have experienced election-related hacking

By Eric DuVall, UPI,  9/29/16

This week, Comey told the House Judiciary Committee his investigators are looking into potential tampering by foreign hackers seeking to influence the U.S. election.

WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 (UPI) — As many as 10 state election databases have been hacked, not only the two previously reported in Illinois and Arizona, according to a report by CBS News.

The hacks come as officials in the Justice Department and Homeland Security warn state and local officials of the threat posed by hackers seeking access to the nation’s election database.

The CBS report did not identify exactly how many states have been hacked, nor which ones. But according to multiple anonymous national security officials, as many as 10 have experienced some sort of hack.

So far the two known data breaches affected voter registration information and not vote-tallying software. In Arizona, malware was found installed in voter registration data. In Illinois, thousands of voters’ registration information was accessed, though most of it — names, addresses and telephone numbers — is public information accessible through a public records request.

FBI Director James Comey testified before Congress on Wednesday, saying his agency is investigating various hacking attempts by foreign actors attempting to meddle with the election. While Comey and other officials said a large-scale hack to influence the outcome of the November election is unlikely or impossible, the probability of further cyberattacks leading up to the election is high.

“There have been a variety of scanning activities, which is a preamble for potential intrusion activities, as well as some attempted intrusions at voter registration databases beyond those we knew about in July and August,” Comey told the House Judiciary Committee. “There’s no doubt that some bad actors have been poking around.”

Comey was careful to note the difference in severity between scanning voter databases for individuals’ personal information and hacks that affect actual election infrastructure.

So far, officials have not made public any evidence that voter registration information was altered or deleted – one way hackers could wreak havoc on the election without actually tampering with polling machines or vote-tallying software.

Latino Children are Under Attack Again … Vote NO on Prop 58

Why do the Democrats open the borders, give free health care and protection by the police from arrest for illegal aliens.  But, while giving them free education—in California they are pushing to segregate illegal aliens.  By the time they leave school, if Prop. 58 passes they will not be speaking English—and in this case leaving school means dropping out, not getting a diploma.  For decades we tried this and totally failed and created a generation of illegal aliens that can not speak English well enough to survive in an English speaking nation without welfare.

“Latino children, like any children, deserve to have as bright a future as any of us.  Hence, when Proposition 227 passed in 1998, it should be remembered that much of the start of this effort to End Bilingual Education came from Latino families in Santa Ana–some who predominantly spoke Spanish–who wanted their children to achieve the American Dream and who valued their children’s education.

Much of the “bilingual education” had to do with either political correctness or just a nice, fat, financial bonus ($5000/year, approximately) for teachers certified as bilingual.  English-speaking children with Latino last names were being yanked out of normal classes and slammed into “bilingual” classes that scored horribly on standardized tests in either English OR Spanish.

Gee, a bonus to keep kids from an education!  We used to be a melting pot—now we just smoke the pot.

560px-School-education-learning-1750587-h

Latino Children are Under Attack Again … Vote NO on Prop 58

Ken Alpern, City Watch LA,  9/29/16

ELECTION 2016–There are a few obvious truths in our 21st Century, “small world after all” nation and globe.  One is that speaking only one language is a surefire way to limit your financial future.  Another is that being illiterate in any language, particularly English (our current global scientific/financial “lingua franca”), is a surefire way to limit your financial future.  Which is why Latino children are again being attacked.

Latino children, like any children, deserve to have as bright a future as any of us.  Hence, when Proposition 227 passed in 1998, it should be remembered that much of the start of this effort to End Bilingual Education came from Latino families in Santa Ana–some who predominantly spoke Spanish–who wanted their children to achieve the American Dream and who valued their children’s education.

Much of the “bilingual education” had to do with either political correctness or just a nice, fat, financial bonus ($5000/year, approximately) for teachers certified as bilingual.  English-speaking children with Latino last names were being yanked out of normal classes and slammed into “bilingual” classes that scored horribly on standardized tests in either English OR Spanish.

It was terrible, and the Latino parents in Santa Ana (who clearly love their children) wanted a choice. Proposition 227 passed, and English immersion was required.  Bilingual education was limited only to those parents who specifically made the choice to enter those classes (and who usually had children scoring high in either language, and in schools who focused on the well-being of the students, and not teachers’ salaries).

And students test scores throughout the state, including Latino student scores, then went up significantly.

So Proposition 58, in an attempt to repeal Proposition 227, is rightfully viewed as a dangerous threat to Latino students, and which is being promoted by the same politically-correct (and financially-focused, to be sure!) lobbies that really don’t give a hoot, and won’t be there to help, the children that they hurt.

For those of us not aware of Latino culture and its very close ties to the Spanish language, it should be pointed out that there is an emotional, and often painfully-important tie of Spanish to many Latinos (particularly those who are ambivalent of which identity should be first and foremost in their hearts and minds … American, Latino, or both?).  Asking Asians and Europeans to switch to English is not nearly so hard as it is to many Latinos.

Yet Latinos who never learn English, or at least become bilingual, have a horrid future in that they lose access to higher-paying jobs in a nation where blacks, Asians, and most Latinos do speak English in their everyday and financial transactions.

And Latinos who grabbed the American Dream (let’s keep the illegal/legal immigration out of the picture for the time being … but both have benefited) either by supporting Proposition 227 or throwing out the corrupt rascals that led the City of Bell into the financial toilet have almost universally enjoyed financial and political benefit.

Would anyone reasonable recommend that Latinos forsake the Spanish language?  Certainly not–in our international society, mastery of multiple languages is as beneficial as being computer-literate, or fiscally-literate. Whether it is Spanish, Mandarin Chinese, Japanese, or any other major language of the world, it is vital to hold onto any form of multilingual capability available.

But the bilingual education lobbies are dangerous–they seek to balkanize, they seek to profiteer, and they seek to control any group of individuals possible while claiming they “speak for them”.  Hence the Useful Idiots at the LA Times who are promoting Proposition 58 are as dangerous as they’ve always been.

And, of course, the LA Times and other typical knee-jerk liberal newspapers have almost never been on the side of Latinos, African-Americans, and other under-represented minorities…although it’s to be presumed the “wizards of smart” at the Times probably think that they’ve got the backs of the Latino children they’re sending to Poverty Purgatory by ignoring the dreadful history of bilingual education.

We’ve too much to gain by being able to communicate with each other, and too much to lose by not communicating with each other, to let the Politically-Correct-But-Factually-Incorrect-And-Financially-Compromised creepies try to balkanize California yet again.

Let’s keep our students’ test scores high, and let’s demand our children be exposed (and, if possible, master more than one language) to English so that ALL students, including and especially Latino students, can enjoy the bright future that only the United States of America has to offer.

Vote NO on Prop 58. Vote yes on a brighter future for all of our children.

(Ken Alpern is a Westside Village Zone Director and Board member of the Mar Vista Community Council (MVCC), previously co-chaired its Planning and Outreach Committees, and currently is Co-Chair of its MVCC Transportation/Infrastructure Committee. He is co-chair of the CD11Transportation Advisory Committee and chairs the nonprofit Transit Coalition,

 

To Dairy Farmers, New Climate Legislation Is “Like A Kick In The Teeth”

Thanks to the Democrats and Guv Brown, by 2030 cows in California must reduce their farts by 40%.  Unlike a car engine which can be re-engineered, the insides of a cow can not.  That means we need to cut 40% of the cow herds in California—costing thousands of jobs and consumers millions in higher prices.  This is not about the air—it is a back door way for radical vegetarians to get their revenge on steak and burger lovers.

“Governor Jerry Brown has made fighting climate change a major priority for California. One of the most recent laws he signed was Senate Bill 32, which requires the state to dramatically reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. Called “critical” and “far-reaching,” it’s been heralded by some as one of the most ambitious climate regulations in the world–but not everyone thinks the law will be good for California.

Joey Airoso has two kids and close to 3,000 mouths to feed. He’s a dairy farmer in rural Tulare County.

Three thousand cows produce a lot of milk. They also produce a lot of poop. At the end of each lane of cows, there’s a big water spigot for cleaning the manure out. “This is what we call a manual flush system,” says Airoso, opening the spigot and sending water rushing under hundreds of heifers’ feet. “We do it twice a day, and it basically runs that water that comes out of the chiller system and it flushes this lane.”

At some point the people have to say NO.  They only way to do that is by voting out of office the radicals trying to kill society and give total control over your life to government.

400px-CH_cow_2

To Dairy Farmers, New Climate Legislation Is “Like A Kick In The Teeth”

By Kerry Klein, Valley Public Radio,  9/27/16

Governor Jerry Brown has made fighting climate change a major priority for California. One of the most recent laws he signed was Senate Bill 32, which requires the state to dramatically reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. Called “critical” and “far-reaching,” it’s been heralded by some as one of the most ambitious climate regulations in the world–but not everyone thinks the law will be good for California.

Joey Airoso has two kids and close to 3,000 mouths to feed. He’s a dairy farmer in rural Tulare County.

Three thousand cows produce a lot of milk. They also produce a lot of poop. At the end of each lane of cows, there’s a big water spigot for cleaning the manure out. “This is what we call a manual flush system,” says Airoso, opening the spigot and sending water rushing under hundreds of heifers’ feet. “We do it twice a day, and it basically runs that water that comes out of the chiller system and it flushes this lane.”

That slurry of water and manure drains into large open lagoons, where the solid manure settles out and the water is eventually used for irrigation.

But Airoso may not be able to flush his lanes out for much longer. That’s because lagoons release methane, one of the main targets of new climate legislation from Governor Jerry Brown. Under Senate Bill 32 and a few companion bills, which Brown signed into law earlier this month, California will have to cut its greenhouse gas emissions practically in half by the year 2030.

Methane is a greenhouse gas that’s many times more potent than carbon dioxide, and it poses health risks as a precursor to other pollution. Unfortunately for dairy farmers, cows happen to produce a lot of methane. So, for them, this law could be bad news, and complying with it could require extensive renovations that many dairy farmers can’t afford.

According to Airoso, the message from Governor Brown is pretty clear. “What I’m hearing? He doesn’t want dairy farms in California; he may not want ag in California,” Airoso says. “This has riled people up about as much as anything. And, frankly, it’s like getting kicked in the teeth.”

Airoso is a fourth-generation dairy farmer in Pixley. He produces milk with his wife, his parents, and his 29-year-old son. The family still owns the farm his great-grandfather bought in the 1930s, along with a bigger, more efficient operation they built 10 years ago.

When it’s milking time, the cows walk onto what looks like a slow-moving, high-tech carousel equipped with suction cups and cris-crossed by tubes flowing with milk. “This is called a rotary milking parlor,” Airoso says. “It takes about 8 minutes to take a turn; we milk about 400 cows an hour.”

Each cow produces around 20,000-30,000 pounds of milk per year, all of which Airoso sells to the dairy company Land O’Lakes.

Close to two million cows graze in California, over 80 percent of which are in the San Joaquin Valley. And those cows produce methane from both ends. Manure is a problem in lagoons like Airoso’s, where methane is produced by the solids fermenting underwater without exposure to air.

But cows burp methane, too. They produce it in their first stomach, where they digest grass, hay, corn husks and other fibrous materials that most other animals can’t eat.

Those burps and poop add up. “The biggest source of methane emissions in the state by far are dairies,” says Ryan McCarthy, an advisor at the California Air Resources Board. “Forty-five percent of methane emissions in California come from dairies.”

The largest share of that 45 percent is manure. “We’re proposing to really tackle manure management at California dairies,” says McCarthy.

The Air Resources Board proposed cutting methane emissions from manure by 75 percent by 2030. Ultimately, Senate Bill 1383 mandated a reduction of only 40 percent.

Here in the San Joaquin Valley, reducing methane could help more than the climate. Kevin Hamilton is the CEO of the Central California Asthma Collaborative, and he says methane is a precursor to one of the Valley’s nastiest pollutants. “Methane, when it heats up and starts to split apart, is going to cause some ozone production because of the way the chemicals come back together again in the air,” he says.

Hamilton says, with this legislation, the state may be facing a crossroads. “Either move out the people or move the cows out; you’re kind of in a situation where you have to consider one of the two.”

He may not be far off. Back in Pixley, Airoso points to a picture of his great-grandfather’s farm.

“That farm there? Forget it,” he says. “It’s not going to be adaptable to the methane regulation. The farm that was built in 1938 will not be able to operate under the regulations that he signed yesterday.”

There’s a possible solution, though, and it’s right down the street from Airoso’s Farm. It’s widely used in other parts of the world and it could help the state’s entire dairy industry. What it is, and how it works, we’ll discuss in a later story.

 

Free Choice Comes to San Fran Ferry Service

San Fran government is taking away your right and ability to drive a car on its famous streets.  The city makes it expensive for folks to rent or buy.  This may be the most intolerant city in the world, outside of Baghdad.  But, finally, they are giving commuters the choice of using highly subsidized, poorly run government ferry services—which if the union leadership is upset won’t run anyway.  Instead the city is allowing a private company to provide the same service.

“The California Public Utilities Commission voted Thursday to allow private ferry companies PROP SF and Tideline Marine Group to run scheduled public commuter ferry routes across San Francisco Bay.

PROP SF is expecting to launch its commuter service at the beginning of 2017 with routes connecting Berkeley and Emeryville in the East Bay with Redwood City and Pier 15 in San Francisco. Tideline plans to be in the water within the next 30 days with a single route between Berkeley and Pier 1 1/2 in San Francisco.”

Doubt if this is the start of rational government decisions—but we can hope.  This is a small addition of freedom to the least fee city on the West Coast—a minor start.

San Francisco, CA, USA

Private Ferry Commuter Service Coming to San Francisco Bay

By Ryan Levi, KQED,  9/30/16

Commuters in the Bay Area will soon have two new choices if they decide to take the ferry to work.

The California Public Utilities Commission voted Thursday to allow private ferry companies PROP SF and Tideline Marine Group to run scheduled public commuter ferry routes across San Francisco Bay.

PROP SF is expecting to launch its commuter service at the beginning of 2017 with routes connecting Berkeley and Emeryville in the East Bay with Redwood City and Pier 15 in San Francisco. Tideline plans to be in the water within the next 30 days with a single route between Berkeley and Pier 1 1/2 in San Francisco.

“We are faced with a growing traffic congestion challenge here in the Bay Area that we’re all aware of,” said Ernest Sanchez, spokesman for the Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA), which oversees San Francisco Bay Ferry. “The opportunity for PROP SF and Tideline to offer another option for commuters is welcome.”

Ferries have long been a part of the Bay Area transit scene, but their popularity has waxed and waned over the years. Recently, commuter demand for ferries has been on the rise. The Golden Gate and San Francisco Bay Ferry systems carried around 15,000 passengers on an average weekday in 2015, up nearly 50 percent from the beginning of the decade. San Francisco Bay Ferry will expand service to Richmond in 2018 and Treasure Island in 2022.

PROP SF’s CEO and founder James Jaber said the company’s 36-passenger ferry could carry as many as 760 commuters a day. Tideline’s three boats could handle more than 1,400 daily passengers at maximum capacity.

The fares from those riders will be the only source of revenue for these private companies, as opposed to the publicly subsidized Golden Gate and San Francisco Bay Ferry systems. PROP SF will cost riders between $8.50 and $20 for a one-way ticket, depending on the route, and Tideline president Nathan Nayman said round-trip fares on the Tideline Water Taxi will run between $15 and $20.

Nayman said Tideline will start with just one boat running only on Fridays while Jaber said PROP SF will be running ferries Monday through Friday. Both companies plan to expand beyond their initial offerings, including using their smaller boats to access parts of the bay that the large public ferries can’t reach.

“Our vision is to see a plethora of these vessels moving up and down the bay to alleviate this congestion,” Nayman said.

But Randy Rentschler, director of legislation and public affairs at the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), doubts that the additional ferries will have much of an impact on traffic.

“The ferries are concentrated, they’re very boutique, they’re relatively small,” Rentschler said. “For the people who get them it’s great, but as far as a significant congestion relief across the Bay Area, it’s just not what they do.”

He pointed out that ferries accounted for less than 1 percent of transit tracked by the MTC in 2015.

PROP SF plans to run eight routes between 6:30 a.m. and 9:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. and 7:30 p.m.

The morning Tideline ferry between Berkeley and San Francisco will run between 6:30 a.m. and 9:30 a.m. The first afternoon ferry will leave Pier 1 1/2 in San Francisco at 4 p.m., and the final boat will leave San Francisco at 7:30 p.m.

 

Is the city of LA punishing companies that boycott Israel? Hope So

Should the city of Los Angeles boycott those firms that boycott the State of Israel?  In fact, that is the law—yet few are monitoring firms that boycott Israel—especially those that use intermediaries to do it.  A world famous car company did that years ago, but selling to a firm, they owned and controlled in Venezuela.  Now, an organization closely aligned, previously with terrorists, communist and totalitarians, the National Lawyers Guild.

The Guild is claiming that this was an inadvertent action—since it punishes those supporting the terrorist Palestinian government.  Actually, that is a good thing—terrorists should not be supported even if Barack Obama gave $1.7 billion in non traceable cash to the Iranian terrorists.

“The bill targets a campaign that urges divestment from, and boycotts and sanctions of Israel until it ends what activists say are human rights violations against Palestinians. The bill, however, says that the goal of targeting the boycotts is to protect trade relationships with the country.

State legislators later amended AB 2844 so it would only target businesses that boycott Israel for discriminatory reasons.

Gee, a city policy of not buying from companies that promote terrorists—is that bad?

Photo Courtesy of Rusty Stewart, Flickr

Photo Courtesy of Rusty Stewart, Flickr

Is the city of LA punishing companies that boycott Israel?

Posted by Hoa Quach, MyNewsLA,  9/28/16

The Los Angeles City Council may have inadvertently approved a resolution that calls for punishing companies that avoid doing business with Israel to protest its policies towards Palestinians, National Lawyers Guild attorneys said Wednesday.

Council members waded into the contentious territory in June by signing off on a resolution supporting an earlier version of a state bill, AB 2844, that would have prohibited public agencies in California from giving contracts of $10,000 or more to businesses that boycott Israel.

National Lawyers Guild Executive Director Ameena Mirza Qazi said the council approved the resolution “without batting an eye,” despite the message it sends to activists who are critical of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.

The bill targets a campaign that urges divestment from, and boycotts and sanctions of Israel until it ends what activists say are human rights violations against Palestinians. The bill, however, says that the goal of targeting the boycotts is to protect trade relationships with the country.

State legislators later amended AB 2844 so it would only target businesses that boycott Israel for discriminatory reasons.

Qazi told City News Service that the change to the bill was made because of worries that punishing companies for boycotting Israel would be unconstitutional, and even though the author of the resolution, Councilman Bob Blumenfield, knew this, he did nothing to inform his colleagues of it before they voted.

In a letter sent this week to Council President Herb Wesson and other members of the City Council, Qazi and other attorneys accuse the city’s approval of the resolution as siding with the “Israeli lobby,” which “appears to have no problem in convincing our City Council to blindly support resolutions that eviscerates the First Amendment protections of Los Angeles residents.”

The attorneys allege the bill that the city went on record to support was an attempt to quash political protest against Israel, and while the city has no actual power over such issue, the move would create a “chilling effect” on free speech.

In their letter, the attorneys call on the council to withdraw its support for the resolution, and to “further acknowledge that political boycotts are protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”

Representatives for Wesson, who chairs a committee dealing with intergovernmental resolutions, did not respond to a request for comment on the issue and the guild’s letter.

Blumenfield said he authored the resolution because he preferred the “original version” of AB 2844, which was “a little stronger.”

The movement to boycott Israel would hurt trade relationships that the city and state are attempting to build with Israel, Blumenfield told City News Service.

“The BDS movement … has been trying to delegitimize Israel and is trying to get the state to boycott, to not do business with companies that do business with Israel,” Blumenfield said.

“And in the state of California and the city of Los Angeles, we have active policies to do business with Israel.”

Blumenfield added that there is “widespread support for the bill, so the folks who are coming in (to oppose it) are pretty out of touch (on) where we are as a state and where we are as a city,” he said.

“There is a lot of mutual benefit particularly on clean tech and green tech that we’re already engaged in and that we should engage in further,” Blumenfield said.

A city legislative analysis of the resolution notes that the activists’ growing campaign — known as the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions, or BDS, movement — is estimated by Israeli officials to cost their country about $1.4 billion a year.

A Rand study estimates that the movement would lead to a loss of about $47 billion over 10 years, mostly due to the movement gaining traction in Europe, according to city analysts.