How Does San Fran Handle an Act of Congress making it ILLEGAL to Protect Illegal Aliens? Nullification Like the Old South?

The folks in Washington, in 1860 did not approve of nullification.  Yet, 157 years later, Congress still does not approve of nullification.  In this case, Congress, instead of participating in a War, is going to withdraw Federal funds from States, like California for their protection of criminals from foreign countries.  California is also about to pass a law nullifying our marijuana law enforcement of Federal laws—as well as national environmental rules and regulations.  Sacramento Democrats are clear—This is a nation, not a State, hence we do not have to formally secede—just ignore the Federal laws.

“With the House Judiciary Committee’s approval of House of Representatives Bill 2431 last week, a full-scale anti-immigration agenda has been launched. The bill cracks down on sanctuary cities, and strengthens the authority of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to arrest and deport undocumented immigrants. The voting on the bill by the House Judiciary Committee was split strictly along partisan lines, with 19 Republicans supporting the bill and 13 Democrats opposing it.

San Francisco will be particularly affected if this bill becomes law. Besides having a substantial undocumented population (there were 44,000 undocumented immigrants in 2014, according to an estimate by the Migration Policy Institute), San Francisco is also a sanctuary city.

On June 11, at 1:30pm I will be debating the issue of Sanctuary Cities under the sponsorship of the San Francisco Libertarian Party.at the library on Larkin St.  Please join us for this discussion.  This is a serious discussion—looking forward to seeing you at the event.

confederateFlag

San Francisco, what do we do about the Davis-Oliver Act?

By Jaya Padmanabhan, San Fran Examiner,  5/31/17

With the House Judiciary Committee’s approval of House of Representatives Bill 2431 last week, a full-scale anti-immigration agenda has been launched. The bill cracks down on sanctuary cities, and strengthens the authority of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to arrest and deport undocumented immigrants. The voting on the bill by the House Judiciary Committee was split strictly along partisan lines, with 19 Republicans supporting the bill and 13 Democrats opposing it.

San Francisco will be particularly affected if this bill becomes law. Besides having a substantial undocumented population (there were 44,000 undocumented immigrants in 2014, according to an estimate by the Migration Policy Institute), San Francisco is also a sanctuary city.

The City’s sanctuary policy is that undocumented residents live freely among us, with the confidence to report crimes to police without fear that local authorities will assist federal enforcement agencies in deportation efforts.

HR 2431 punishes sanctuary cities by withholding certain federal grants related to, among others, refugee resettlement as well as to crime control and safe streets.

Mayor Ed Lee, in his 2017 State of the City address, declared, “We are a sanctuary city, now, tomorrow, forever.” Is he still willing to risk the funds that The City needs to conduct its business in order to hold on to The City’s ideals of diversity and equality for all?

San Francisco received $509,260,129 in federal grants and direct payments in 2016, according to openthebooks.com. It is unclear as to how much of this amount stands to be compromised. This money went to fund the Museum of Modern Art, the San Francisco Police Department, the Fire Department, as well as Medicaid and public school programs, among others.

The bill is named after two California law enforcement officers — Michael Davis, Jr., and Danny Oliver — who were killed allegedly by Luis Enriquez Monroy Bracamontes in the course of a daylong rampage in October 2014. Bracamontes is an undocumented immigrant twice deported for drug crimes — once in 1997 and again in 2001.

Bracamontes, who faces the death penalty, showed little remorse and a terrifyingly unpleasant glee at his Feb. 4, 2015, hearing. According to The Sacramento Bee, he is believed to have said, “I killed them cops,” and then proceeded to demand an execution date.

The lives of Davis and Oliver were tragically and prematurely cut short while they were doing their jobs. Both men were beloved husbands and fathers and the trail of sorrow that has infected those close to them cannot be minimized. “My life will never be the same,” Susan Oliver said in a poignant 2015 speech to Congress. “My daughter recently got engaged, and there will be a marriage he will not be at,” Susan Oliver added, charting the losses that are still to come.

It is heart-breaking when you point a flashlight deep into this well of anguish. Yet, I do believe that a single act of carnage cannot be the masthead of a policy that promotes lack of humanity.

“This bill is straight out of the Donald Trump mass deportation playbook,” said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-New York, a senior Member of the House Judiciary Committee. “First you demonize immigrants, then you dehumanize them, and then you label them all as criminals, all of which helps you build public support for removing them from the country,” according to his website.

This is the kind of bill that can pit neighbors, communities, church members, acquaintances, co-workers and even students against each other. This bill cannot be implemented without racial profiling and now we are talking about all races that are brown.

Just last month, William Orrick, federal judge for the Northern District of California, blocked an executive order issued by the Trump administration to defund sanctuary cities. Orrick ruled that the executive fiat exceeded the limits of federal law. In a statement, he said that immigration enforcement strategy cannot be linked to federal funding in ways that threaten those cities that don’t comply with Trump’s directives. “The order’s attempt to place new conditions on federal funds is an improper attempt to wield Congress’s exclusive spending power and is a violation of the Constitution’s separation-of-powers principles,” he said.

Yet, now, here’s another way to implement Trump’s original executive order. However, the Davis-Oliver act is far worse than the executive order. If people overstay in the U.S. by even one day, they could be liable for a six-month prison term, Nadler said. According to Homeland Security, 628,799 folks overstayed their visas in 2016.

Furthermore, Dreamers would no longer be exempt from deportation. Dreamers were brought here when they were children, and if they are cognizant of the fact that they were brought here illegally, this bill turns them into criminals once they turn 18. That’s a terrible coming-of-age birthday party to look forward to.

There’s still a long way to go before the bill becomes law. It will do us good to sit up and take note of it, though. There’s much to lose for San Francisco. But there would be even more to lose if The City caved to the pressure of HR 2431. As the Cato Institute summarizes, this is a bill that would compromise privacy, undermine democracy, obstruct accountability and threaten the civil liberties of Americans.

James Irvine Foundation Spending Millions on Progressive Political Activism in Orange County

James Irvine was a legend in Orange County.  He owned enough land to develop major portions of the County.  His legacy is seen all over the area.  The Irvine Company has donated to create cultural venues and programs, created a quality of life, second to none in the nation.  This is a place for the future.  Now, unfortunately, his fortune, put into the James Irvine Foundation is now used to promote George Soros policies and communities.  Instead of uniting people the Irvine Foundation is working hard to make Orange County into a socialist/Progressive place.

“Spearheading the political ground game there was Orange County Communities Organized for Responsible Development (OCCORD), the non-profit, community organizing arm of the militant UNITE-HERE hotel workers union. From 2012 to 2013 – when the district elections project commenced – OCCORD‘s annual revenues jumped from $368,000 to $1.3 million. $450,000 of that came from the James Irvine Foundation “to promote district-based elections in Anaheim and establish a local civic engagement model for voting rights advocacy across California.”

Since 2014, OCCORD’s annual budgets have hovered just below $800,000. The James Irvine Foundation gave OCCORD another $350,000 in 2015 to “increase nonpartisan voter and civic engagement opportunities in the context of new district elections in Anaheim.” [Given the nearly two-year lag time between when these contributions are made and when they’re disclosed, we don’t have a complete picture of Irvine Foundation political spending in 2016].”

The Foundation is the local funded of radical, hateful organizations tearing apart a once wonderful community—the Foundation is the local equivalent of a Soros operation—a man that, by action, hates freedom and America.  Thought you should know about this—especially my friends in Orange County.

478px-George_Soros_47th_Munich_Security_Conference_2011_crop

James Irvine Foundation Spending Millions on Progressive Political Activism in Orange County

Posted by: Matthew Cunningham, Anaheim Blog,  5/25/17     

One doesn’t ordinarily think of charitable foundations as political players, but the reality is ostensibly non-partisan not-for-profits spend enormous sums funding progressive organizations and their political agendas.

For example, the James Irvine Foundation – which has nothing to do with The Irvine Company other name a common namesake – spends tens of millions of dollars funding “civic engagement” and “democracy” projects with the goal of effecting who gets elected to local governments. Anaheim was the target of a highly-organized, multi-year project to replace at-large council elections with a by-district system in an effort to end decades of Republican control of the city council.

Spearheading the political ground game there was Orange County Communities Organized for Responsible Development (OCCORD), the non-profit, community organizing arm of the militant UNITE-HERE hotel workers union. From 2012 to 2013 – when the district elections project commenced – OCCORD‘s annual revenues jumped from $368,000 to $1.3 million. $450,000 of that came from the James Irvine Foundation “to promote district-based elections in Anaheim and establish a local civic engagement model for voting rights advocacy across California.”

Since 2014, OCCORD’s annual budgets have hovered just below $800,000. The James Irvine Foundation gave OCCORD another $350,000 in 2015 to “increase nonpartisan voter and civic engagement opportunities in the context of new district elections in Anaheim.” [Given the nearly two-year lag time between when these contributions are made and when they’re disclosed, we don’t have a complete picture of Irvine Foundation political spending in 2016].

That’s $800,000 over three years to fund build progressive political infrastructure in a single Orange County city. To give this some perspective, the Republican Party of Orange County recently approved a $1.2 million campaign plan for the next 18 months that encompasses the entire county.

The “civic engagement” in question has been non-partisan in name only: OCCORD has worked hand-in-glove with the Democrats and their special interests in Anaheim.

In October 2016, the James Irvine Foundation cut a check for $300,000 to the Orange County Labor Federation to “support increased civic engagement and economic self-sufficiency for low-wage workers and communities of color in Orange County” – i.e. funding voter turnout efforts in support of Democratic candidates endorsed by the OC affiliate of the AFL-CIO.  The OCLF is run by leftist Democrat Julio Perez, who earlier this month at a Welcoming Anaheim immigration task force meeting called opponents of sanctuary cities “evil.”

During the last three years, the James Irvine Foundation has also contributed $900,000 to the Korean Resource Center, another progressive political advocacy group that has been active in pushing by-district elections in north OC cities such as Fullerton and Buena Park. The KRC’s Orange County director, Jonathan Paik, was one of the plaintiffs who sued Fullerton under the California Voting Rights Act to force adoption of by-district elections. The KRC advocates for immediate citizenship for illegal immigrants, leading the push for the Fullerton School District’s recent adoption of a “sanctuary district” policy and helping organize last month’s “Caravan of Fear” campaign of attempted occupations of GOP Congressional offices in Orange County.

Another radical beneficiary of James Irvine Foundation largess is Orange County Congregation Community Organization (OCCCO). The Irvine Foundation has given $500,000 to OCCCO in the last three years for “voter and civic participation among underrepresented communities” – progressive-speak for registering and turning out Democratic voters. OCCCO advocates for an end to deportation of illegal immigrants, contributed thousands of dollars to Measure L (the 2014 ballot district elections measure in Anaheim), and was heavily involved in the campaigns to pass Propositions 47 and 57, which are putting thousands of criminal back on the streets.

The Irvine Foundation routed money bound for Orange County political causes through the San Francisco-based Tides Center, donating $500,000 to the leftist advocacy group in 2015 to “increase voter and civic participation among Orange County’s underrepresented Latino, Asian Pacific Islander, and low-income communities.” Tides funds radical groups and causes ranging from the Occupy movement to the Marxist-inspired Zinn Education Project. In 2014, it contributed $20,000 to the Yes on Measure L and M campaign – the Anaheim ballot measures that imposed by-district council elections and expanded the city council from four to six members.

That’s $3,000,000 from the James Irvine Foundation alone to fund progressive political infrastructure in Orange County for the past few years. These examples are the tip of the iceberg of what is happening in Orange County, and a local example of a larger phenomenon of charitable non-profits founded by long-dead capitalists morphing into progressive underwriters of a political movement intent on undermining the free enterprise system whence their wealth and resources derived.

Judge Keeps Ban on San Francisco’s Tenant-Payout Law

The city of San Fran is trying hard to break the back of landlords and property owners.  The preference is government owned or controlled property.  That is called socialism, the government control over the use of private property.  You take the risk and government will decide if you are allowed to succeed.  In this case, San Fran wanted to financially destroy property owners by outrageous payments to tenants that are being evicted.  The goal?  To make it too expensive to evict and assure bankruptcy for the owners.

“The dispute goes back to 2014, when property owners Daniel and Maria Levin sued the city after they found they were going to have to pay their tenant $117,000 to move out of a two-unit building they bought in 2008.

The Levins claimed they never wanted to be landlords and immediately informed the woman, who had been living in the first-floor unit since 1988, that they planned to remodel and use both units themselves.”

The city went after the personal property of the Levins—the city wanted to take away private property.  In this case a judge stopped government commanded theft.  Good for the judge.

More electricity cables for picturesque San Francisco needed to meet state mandate?  Photo courtesy borkur.net, Flickr

More electricity cables for picturesque San Francisco needed to meet state mandate? Photo courtesy borkur.net, Flickr

Judge Keeps Ban on San Francisco’s Tenant-Payout Law

MARIA DINZEO, Courthousenews,  5/30/17

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – A federal judge refused Tuesday to vacate his judgment that the city of San Francisco had enacted an unconstitutionally burdensome ordinance requiring landlords to provide evicted tenants with massive lump-sum payouts.

The city wanted U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer to vacate a judgment barring enforcement of the law, since its board of supervisors later amended the ordinance to lower the payout amount.

But Breyer said the judgment needn’t be vacated because the city essentially repealed its own law.

“The court likewise concludes that the city’s voluntary action mooted this case,” Breyer wrote.

The dispute goes back to 2014, when property owners Daniel and Maria Levin sued the city after they found they were going to have to pay their tenant $117,000 to move out of a two-unit building they bought in 2008.

The Levins claimed they never wanted to be landlords and immediately informed the woman, who had been living in the first-floor unit since 1988, that they planned to remodel and use both units themselves.

They moved into the one-bedroom top floor and, after the tenant protested their attempts to remodel, the Levins decided to take the ground-floor apartment off the rental market through the 1985 Ellis Act. The act allows landlords to evict tenants if the landlord wants to get out of the rental business.

The Levins said they paid the tenant, Thina Holman, $8,000 under old tenant payment laws.

But because Holman was still living in the unit when a new rent ordinance took effect in June 2014, the Levins had to pay her the difference between her old rent of $2,479 a month and the price of comparable housing in the city, for two years.

The city appealed the injunction, but enacted a new ordinance the following year.

In March, a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel sent the case back to Breyer to consider vacating his 2014 judgment. The city argued an injunction still in place would hurt its chances of ever resurrecting the old ordinance.

“The city stresses that it is not trying ‘to have its cake and eat it too’ because it has scrupulously abided by the terms of injunctions issued here and in state court, and because it urged the Ninth Circuit to reach the merits on appeal,” Breyer wrote on Tuesday. “Fair enough, but not enough. Let’s have no illusions about what happened here. The city tried to repair some (but not all) of the original ordinance’s constitutional infirmities – and successfully requested a stay of the appeal to make those repairs.

“The city then sought review of the amended ordinance, which by its very design would have presented a closer question on the merits. Now, after being denied review, the city seeks vacatur based on mootness that it itself caused. The court sees no equitable reason to reward litigants for attempting to hedge their bets.”

Breyer also implied the city is also looking to avoid paying the Levins’ attorney fees. Having won an injunction, the Levins are entitled to attorney fees that a vacatur might prevent them from ever recovering.

“So while resolving whether plaintiffs are entitled to fees is a question for another day, the court is loathe to risk burying an inadvertent dagger in their chances,” Breyer wrote.

In an email, San Francisco City Attorney spokesman John Coté said, “We’re reviewing the court’s ruling.”

 

SB 384: Extends Drinking Hours Till 4:00am—Like New York

New York is the city that does not sleep and at 4:00 in the morning you can still get drunk at a bar.  Should SB 384 pass, the whole State of California can stay drunk till 4:00am.  We are already pushing cities to have high density, take away private transportation, create massive housing projects, rent control—California is looking more like Manhattan every day.  Now a San Fran State Senator—from the San that calls itself the West Coast New York—wants us to drink till 4:00pm at bars.

All of that being said, I do not oppose the law.  Heck, allow the sale of beer, wine and alcohol 24 hours a day—to go along with the around the clock sale of pot and all other drugs.  Fry as many brains as possible—that may be the only way to live in a totalitarian State—not knowing or caring about your community, health or safety.

“The legislation, known as the “LOCAL Act,” or Let Our Communities Adjust Late Night, would allow local governments to extend alcohol service hours to a time between 2 a.m. and 4 a.m. with the authorization of the state Department of Alcohol Beverage Control.

Communities interested in extending their hours must develop a plan identifying the affected areas and obtain a law enforcement assessment of the public safety impact. In addition, they must demonstrate support from local residents and businesses, as well as the availability of transportation.”

Guess these folks would rather buy expensive drinks at a bar at 3:00am instead of going home and drinking the same alcohol, much cheaper.

masseto wine

Senate bill would allow California cities to extend late night drinking hours

Trad’r Sam bar on Geary Boulevard. (Juan Pardo/2014 Special to S.F. Examiner)

By Bay City News, 2/15/17

State Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, on Wednesday announced legislation that would allow local governments to permit bars and restaurants to serve alcohol as late as 4 a.m. in areas zoned for late night entertainment.

The legislation, known as the “LOCAL Act,” or Let Our Communities Adjust Late Night, would allow local governments to extend alcohol service hours to a time between 2 a.m. and 4 a.m. with the authorization of the state Department of Alcohol Beverage Control.

Communities interested in extending their hours must develop a plan identifying the affected areas and obtain a law enforcement assessment of the public safety impact. In addition, they must demonstrate support from local residents and businesses, as well as the availability of transportation.

The proposal does not apply to liquor stores, and individual businesses would still need to apply to the ABC for an extended hours license.

“California is a diverse state, with cities and neighborhoods that have different needs when it comes to nightlife,” Wiener said in a statement.

“By granting local control to our cities to extend their late night hours, we can support areas that benefit economically and culturally from a strong nightlife presence, while ensuring that other cities and neighborhoods retain their current rules,” he said.

The legislation is backed by a coalition of business and hospitality groups including the California Restaurant Association, the Golden Gate Restaurant Association, the California Music and Culture Association, the California Hotel and Lodging Association, the Hotel Council SF, San Francisco Travel and the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce.

Cities that allow alcohol service beyond 2 a.m. include Chicago, Washington, D.C., New York City, Buffalo, Las Vegas, Louisville, Atlanta, Miami Beach and New Orleans.

 

Planned Parenthood Closes Three Clinics in Northern California

The most dangerous place in America for a black baby in the womb is not at a KKK rally, it is at a Planned Parenthood clinic.  Abortions galore—though they claim they do mammograms—yet not a single PP clinic has such a machine—they get paid by the taxpayers to REFER a woman to a proper clinic.  But, that business is slowing down—the lie has become well known.  Now there are 13 PP clinics closing down and you can add three to that total in Northern California.

“The country’s largest abortion provider is receiving lower rates of Medicaid reimbursement because of cuts to the state’s Medi-Cal program, the Sacramento Bee reports. Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion led to a large amount of new enrollees in the state, stretching available funding. Planned Parenthood relied on those state dollars to continue providing its services.

“For all of our centers, we really need that support on the state level,” said Miriam Gerace, a Planned Parenthood spokeswoman.

Interesting—to get free health care to illegal aliens the State of California is lowering the reimbursements for Planned Parenthood. Great trade off—what do you think?

Planned Parenthood Abortion Pro Choice

Planned Parenthood Closes Three Clinics in Northern California

BY: Paul Crookston, Washington Free Beacon,  5/31/17

Planned Parenthood is closing three clinics in northern California as public money in the state continues to tighten.

Planned Parenthood Northern California also faces legal challenges while it looks for more funding from the government. The Senate Judiciary Committee referred Planned Parenthood Northern California to the Department of Justice for investigation regarding illegal sale of fetal tissue.

Amid the bad publicity, the organization has received support from local politicians.

“We’ve gotten great support from legislators in our service area,” Gerace said. “Every elected official in our area has voiced support, but the funding needs to be there.”

Director of Californians for Life Wynette Sills said that women were choosing to stay away from abortion clinics.

“As more Californians understand the humanity of the child in the womb, abortion rates continue to drop,” Sills said. “There are fewer clients going to the nation’s largest abortion provider.”

Northern California’s three closed clinics come in addition to 13 other Planned Parenthood closures this year. Nevertheless, Gerace maintains that the organization is simply making strategic changes.

“This is something that happens all the time—you look around, you see where you can adjust. We’ve been around for 100 years and we’ll be around for 100 more,” she said.

 

Activists sue to block plans to bury 3.6 million pounds of nuclear waste near California beach

At some point in time nuclear waste will be a serious issue.  For years Harry Reid stopped the burial of nuclear waste at a site in Nevada.  But the waste did not go away, just grew.  Now, the environmentalists along the San Diego coast, are planning to fight a Coastal Commission permit to bury the nuclear waste from San Onofre.

“Environmental activists in California are fighting plans to store 3.6 million pounds of highly radioactive nuclear waste on a popular beach in San Diego County. In 2012, a radioactive leak at the San Onofre nuclear power plant forced an emergency shutdown. The plant was fully closed by June 2013. Now residents are fighting the permit issued by the California Coastal Commission to store the millions of pounds of nuclear waste in thin, stainless steel canisters, within 100 feet of the ocean. We speak to Ray Lutz, founder of Citizens’ Oversight, which has filed a lawsuit challenging the expansion of the nuclear waste storage facility.”

This could become a disaster in the future.  At that point few will remember the folks hat sued to create the disaster.

Humpback Whate breaching near PG & E's Diablo Canyon nuclear facility.  Photo credit to mikebaird, Flickr

Activists sue to block plans to bury 3.6 million pounds of nuclear waste near California beach

Residents are fighting the permit issued by the California Coastal Commission to store the millions of pounds of nuclear waste within 100 feet of the ocean.

By Amy Goodman, Nation of Change,  5/18/17

Environmental activists in California are fighting plans to store 3.6 million pounds of highly radioactive nuclear waste on a popular beach in San Diego County. In 2012, a radioactive leak at the San Onofre nuclear power plant forced an emergency shutdown. The plant was fully closed by June 2013. Now residents are fighting the permit issued by the California Coastal Commission to store the millions of pounds of nuclear waste in thin, stainless steel canisters, within 100 feet of the ocean. We speak to Ray Lutz, founder of Citizens’ Oversight, which has filed a lawsuit challenging the expansion of the nuclear waste storage facility.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman. We’re ending the show here in San Diego, where environmental activists are fighting plans to store 3.6 million pounds of highly radioactive nuclear waste on a popular beach in San Diego County, just about an hour north of here.

In 2012, a radioactive leak at the San Onofre nuclear power plant forced an emergency shutdown. The plant was fully closed in June of 2013. Now residents are fighting the permit issued by the California Coastal Commission to store the millions of pounds of nuclear waste in thin, stainless steel canisters within a hundred feet of the beach. The facility began the decommissioning.

We are joined now by Ray Lutz, founder of Citizens’ Oversight, which has filed a lawsuit challenging the expansion of the nuclear waste storage facility.

We just have a few minutes, Ray. Explain what’s happening.

RAY LUTZ: Well, this is a ridiculous move by this for-profit corporation to avoid public scrutiny – the 3.6 million pounds, only a hundred feet from the ocean, only inches above the salt water line at high tide. And, you know, now they have authority to leave this here forever, according to the Department of Energy, because there is no alternative, they say. Our lawsuit, though, we’re saying, you know, they didn’t investigate any alternatives, and there are other places, better places, to put this than right here, right next to the beach.

You know, this is just a government-regulators-plus-corporate-profiteers-equals-insanity sort of math equation that you get out of this – these for-profit corporations. You know, it all comes back down to the military-industrial complex is forcing these – you know, the mindset, sort of Trump mindset, of we want to be first in the nuclear world, as these plants are very uneconomic. They shouldn’t be used at all. Plus we’ve got all this waste that’s piling up at a hundred places around the county, which are virtually terrorist targets now.

So we need, as a community, to really look at and make sense of what these decisions are. And if you leave it to the for-profit corporations like Edison to decide these things that may be here for decades, if not centuries, based on their next quarterly report, you’re going to get really bad decision-making. That’s what it comes down to in this case.

You know, meanwhile, we have the $3.3 billion price tag they want the community to pay for this closed plant, due to Southern California Edison’s own mistakes in their design process for the steam generators. Shutdown in 2012, a radioactive leak, and now we know that it’s because they were trying to uprate this plant to try to get more out of it through the design, pushing the design more than it should have been with these new steam generators. And we’re glad that it shut down. You know, this is a great thing to have this plant, this waste-generating plant, shut down. But now they want the customers to pay for the plant for 10 years, as if it’s still operating, and for them to even make a profit on it after their failure. So that’s also in a mediation mode.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, Ray Lutz, we have 10 seconds. What is the larger message you feel is important to send regarding the decommissioning of nuclear plants around the country, dealing with their nuclear waste? Ten seconds.

RAY LUTZ: This is the biggest human blunder of all time. These nuclear plants are uneconomic. They should be all shut down. We’ve got to really push hard to get this industry to stop. Thank you.

AMY GOODMAN: Ray Lutz, I want to thank you for being with us, founder of Citizens’ Oversight.

L.A. Metro Rail—Trains and Bikes—Did You Know How Your Tax $$ is Spent?

When you voted to tax yourself for expensive trains, bet you did not know that part of the money was actually going for government owned bikes.  In Pasadena and the Port of Los Angeles the Metro system—which gets approximately 15% of its operating costs from the fare box—the rest is tax dollars subsidizing the massive deficits—the government is going to provide bikes to run around on—as if it will make a dent in anything.

I just came back from a vacation in Rome, Paris and London—Paris has almost no bike lanes and the other cities bikes are of minimal use or minimally used.  Waste of tax dollars in Europe, waste of tax dollars in Los Angeles—oh, and more bikers are being hit by cars in L.A.—an epidemic.  Looks like Metro wants to kill off our tourists.

“The Port of LA is a great location for these bikes. The attractions are placed fairly far apart—those long stretches may tempt visitors to get in their cars to shuttle among them.

Placing bike hubs on the San Pedro waterfront will make even more sense as the area’s many planned projects are completed. There’s the vast, 35-acre ocean science research facility in the works for City Dock No. 1 and a huge makeover for the Ports O’ Call Village—set to begin construction this year—that will have the kitschy spot looking like Disneyland meets the Santa Monica Pier.

If bikes were a good investment, private industry would provide the market.  Instead, it is a massive money loser—so the taxpayers subsidize bikers instead of more police or better education.  What a waste of resources—bet you did not know about this.

Photo courtesy of skew-t, flickr

Photo courtesy of skew-t, flickr

Bike share coming to Pasadena and Port of LA in July

More than a dozen bike hubs will be placed on the waterfront

by Bianca Barragan, LA Curbed,  5/31/17

The expansion of Metro’s bike share program into Pasadena has been anticipated for months, and now we’re learning that not only will July bring the black-and-neon-green bikes to Pasadena but to the Port of LA.

KPCC reports that 13 stations will open along the approximately two-mile-long stretch of the waterfront close to such attractions as the Battleship Iowa, the L.A. Maritime Museum, and the Ports O’ Call Village. There will also be three stations in Wilmington, including one each at both ends of Wilmington Waterfront Park.

The Port of LA is a great location for these bikes. The attractions are placed fairly far apart—those long stretches may tempt visitors to get in their cars to shuttle among them.

Placing bike hubs on the San Pedro waterfront will make even more sense as the area’s many planned projects are completed. There’s the vast, 35-acre ocean science research facility in the works for City Dock No. 1 and a huge makeover for the Ports O’ Call Village—set to begin construction this year—that will have the kitschy spot looking like Disneyland meets the Santa Monica Pier.

Metro’s bike share station map shows that Pasadena’s 34 bike stations will be unveiled on July 14, with the Port’s bike stations following on July 31. Venice will get its bike hubs later this year, and Culver City might team up with LA to put hubs in next year.

The Metro bike share program launched less than a year ago.

 

Homelessness Jumps In Los Angeles

Mayor Eric Garcetti—the pretender for the White House—has spent and demanded billions to help the homeless.  At the same time he raised the minimum wage, causing loss of jobs and homelessness.  At the same time he promoted high taxes and more regulations, causing more homelessness and loss of jobs.  Garcetti is protecting illegal aliens—taking the jobs of honest Americans and causing their homelessness.

So, it is no surprise that the Garcetti/Democrat policies have caused a jump in homelessness.  Now the City wants to spend more, tax more, regulate more—to help the homeless—which instead will create more poverty and misery as the last of the middle class flees this collapsing city.

“Homelessness in the city of Los Angeles jumped by 20 percent over the last year while the county saw a spike of 23 percent, according to the results of the 2017 Greater Los Angeles Homeless Count released Wednesday.

In the city, the total number of homeless went up to 34,189 and the county number increased to 57,794.

Government needs to stop helping make more homeless—roll back the regulations, taxes and policies—start enforcing laws and then you will see a massive drop in homelessness.  My guess is that it will get much worse before the collapse and then the Times will ask, “how did this happen?”.

eric garcetti

Homelessness Jumps In Los Angeles

The homeless population in the county increased by 23 percent, according to the Greater Los Angeles Homeless Count released Wednesday.

By PATCH SOCAL (Patch Staff), 5/31/17

 

LOS ANGELES, CA — Homelessness in the city of Los Angeles jumped by 20 percent over the last year while the county saw a spike of 23 percent, according to the results of the 2017 Greater Los Angeles Homeless Count released Wednesday.

In the city, the total number of homeless went up to 34,189 and the county number increased to 57,794.

“We didn’t need a homeless count to know what we know, which is that Los Angeles is undergoing a housing and homelessness crisis,” Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti said.

The homeless count took place over three nights in January and was conducted by the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, which saw a record number of volunteers — totaling more than 8,000 — participate.

In light of the higher number of volunteers, the number of homeless may not have gone up, but LAHSA may have just gotten more accurate at counting them, officials said.

“Our numbers are more accurate. People always go back and forth, is it really that homelessness is up by this much? I’m going to assume it is,” Garcetti said at a news conference at LAHSA’s headquarters.

The tally comes as the city and county are investing a record number of funds toward homeless services following the passage by city voters of Measure HHH in November and county voters’ approval of Measure H in March.

Measure HHH is expected to raise $1.2 billion in bonds for the construction of 10,000 units of housing for the homeless, and Measure H will create a quarter-cent sales tax to raise $355 million annually over 10 years for homeless programs.

“Today I am not discouraged at all by this data. We knew well intuitively that the uptick could be perceived,” said county Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas.

“The good news is that we have the capacity for the first time to stand up to it. Imagine how we would feel if there had been no Measure HHH. Imagine how we would look today if there had been no Measure H. This would be a very different conversation.”

The rising cost of housing, along with a housing shortage, was acknowledged by officials as a top cause of the homeless problem. Los Angeles has not built enough housing or affordable housing over the last decades to keep up with the increasing population, making the city one of the least affordable in the nation.

“What we need to double down on is, with the mayor’s leadership and the leadership of the council, making sure that we have a source of revenue for affordable housing, that we have sufficient anti-poverty programs,” said Councilman Marqueece Harris-Dawson.

The count is required to be done every two years by the federal government, but LAHSA went to an annual count last year.

LAHSA is in charge of the count for what is called the continuum of care for the entire county except for Glendale, Pasadena and Long Beach, which conduct their own counts. But the newly released number for the county included the results from those three cities.

California Decides to Become South Carolina 1860: Democrats Promote Nullification

In the South before the Civil War Southern States nullified the rules and laws of the government in Washington.  In 2017, Sacramento is nullifying the rules, regulations and laws of the Federal government.  Illegal aliens—protect them.  Federal pot laws—protect the drug dealers.  Environmental issues:  make California a separate State.  Yes, we have the 10th Amendment, but the courts have ruled that in these areas and others Federal laws supersede State laws—except California considers itself a County—The confused Jerry Brown even has his own State based foreign policy and trade agreements.

He wanted to be President of the United States—he is settling for being PRESIDENT of the Nation of California.

“The state Senate on Tuesday passed a trio of bills that would do the following:

  • Make current federal clean air, clean water, worker safety, safe drinking water and endangered species standards enforceable under state law even if the Trump administration rolls back and weakens those standards;
  • Allow California to protect its federal lands – which make up nearly half the state – from being sold to private parties for mining, oil drilling or other exploitive activities; and,
  • Protect federal employees working in California from losing their licenses for speaking out about unlawful or unethical actions or dangers to public health and safety committed by their agencies or others.

Federal law might not even be taught in our schools as Brown and the Democrats separate the State (except for begging for money) from Washington.

jerry brown legis

State bulks up its Trump defenses

Central Valley Business Times,  5/31/17

 

  • Senate passes “Preserve California” legislation
  • Designed to safeguard key environmental regulations

Even if the U.S. Congress allows President Donald Trump’s administration to dismantle federal environmental regulations, California might still be protected.

The state Senate on Tuesday passed a trio of bills that would do the following:

  • Make current federal clean air, clean water, worker safety, safe drinking water and endangered species standards enforceable under state law even if the Trump administration rolls back and weakens those standards;
  • Allow California to protect its federal lands – which make up nearly half the state – from being sold to private parties for mining, oil drilling or other exploitive activities; and,
  • Protect federal employees working in California from losing their licenses for speaking out about unlawful or unethical actions or dangers to public health and safety committed by their agencies or others.

“We value the amazing natural resources we have in this state and refuse to let the Trump administration put corporate interests and profits ahead of the rights and health of everyday Americans,” says Ann Notthoff, director of California advocacy for the Natural Resources Defense Council. “Thank goodness we live in a state that is willing to stand up for its people and the beautiful, irreplaceable places that make California so great.”

 

Obama’s regulations in 2016 to drain economy by $2 trillion

The Hugo Chavez regime in Venezuela and the United States ended in 2016.  Chavez bankrupted his country—Barack Obama ADDED $2 trillion to the cost of living and doing business in the United States—enough to kill the economy if Hillary had been elected instead of Trump.  The President is rolling back the anti-freedom regulations as fast and as much as possible.  Imagine, $2 trillion that could go to job creation instead went down the toilet of government regulations.

““The federal government’s reach extends far beyond its taxes, deficits, and borrowing. Federal environmental, safety and health, and economic regulations affect the economy by hundreds of billions — even trillions — of dollars annually,” Clyde Wayne Crews Jr. wrote in the CEI’s 2017 “Ten Thousand Commandments” report on federal regulations.

He counted 3,853 federal rules that were finalized in 2016 — the most for any year since 2005.

All told, during his time in office, Mr. Obama issued 685 “major” rules — generally defined as having an economic impact of at least $100 million — compared to 505 during President George W. Bush’s tenure, the CEI report said.

But the destruction of the American economy did not start with Obama—it was pushed along by George Bush.  The time has come to sunset all regulations and start anew—maybe over a ten year period to research and study the value of the regulations.  Or each each department and agency of government—there are hundreds—to look at and review $1 billion a year in regulations and recommend keeping or killing them.  Until we do, job creation, revenues and a quality of life will be stopped by government fiat.

Obama Cuba

Obama’s regulations in 2016 to drain economy by $2 trillion

By David Sherfinski, The Washington Times,  5/31/17

The Obama administration issued a record number of new regulations on its way out the door in 2016, leaving an administrative state that saps the economy of nearly $2 trillion a year, according to a new report being released Wednesday.

The government itself spent $63 billion in 2016 to administer and enforce all of its own regulations, the Competitive Enterprise Institute said.

With Republicans in Washington looking for reasons to streamline Washington and roll back President Barack Obama’s accomplishments, the new report is likely to be ammunition.

“The federal government’s reach extends far beyond its taxes, deficits, and borrowing. Federal environmental, safety and health, and economic regulations affect the economy by hundreds of billions — even trillions — of dollars annually,” Clyde Wayne Crews Jr. wrote in the CEI’s 2017 “Ten Thousand Commandments” report on federal regulations.

He counted 3,853 federal rules that were finalized in 2016 — the most for any year since 2005.

All told, during his time in office, Mr. Obama issued 685 “major” rules — generally defined as having an economic impact of at least $100 million — compared to 505 during President George W. Bush’s tenure, the CEI report said.

The page count for the Federal Register, which publishes regulations, topped 95,000 new pages in 2016, setting a record, the report said.

The Department of the Treasury led the way among executive branch agencies by accounting for 469 rules among agency priorities, followed by the Interior, Transportation and Commerce departments and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Financial regulations and federal land use issues in the western part of the U.S. were two big battles during the Obama administration.

President Trump already has made regulatory reform a key part of his agenda. He ordered the dismantling of Mr. Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which was a push to regulate carbon emissions in the nation’s power plants, and teamed up with Congress to repeal about a dozen last-minute Obama-era regulations.

But the CEI report said Congress should also bear more responsibility for the “hidden tax” of regulatory costs, which it said gets passed on to consumers to the tune of $15,000 per household.

For example, rather than vote to create new job training programs — and accept the consequences of adding to the federal deficit — lawmakers can instead pass a law requiring major companies to provide job training under rules they delegate to the Labor Department, Mr. Crews wrote.

“The latter option would add little to federal spending but would still let Congress take credit for the program,” he wrote. “By regulating instead of spending, government can expand almost indefinitely without explicitly taxing anybody one extra penny.”

The growth of the so-called “administrative state” has become a major issue in conservative legal circles, with some scholars saying it’s time to push the federal courts to roll back regulatory power and force it back into the hands of Congress.

Newly installed Supreme Court Justice Neil M. Gorsuch drew praise from some conservative circles with his opinion in a case last year in which he said it may be time for the high court to show less deference to regulatory agencies’ decisions.

On Capitol Hill, Republicans are pushing another solution: fewer regulations all around.

In January the House passed the REINS Act, which would require Congress to vote on major rules before they can take effect. That legislation hasn’t gone anywhere in the Senate.

Congress has, however, used the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to overturn a dozen last-minute Obama-era regulations. Previously the tool had been used just once to overturn a Clinton-era rule.

Democrats have tried to throw up roadblocks to Republicans’ deregulation efforts, saying many rules are intended to protect consumers, notably in the area of financial oversight.

Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer said earlier this month that the recent uses of the CRA were more about helping special interests than rolling back burdensome regulations.

“They are giveaways to big oil, big gas, big coal, big mining and wealthy special interests,” he said.

The total federal regulatory cost was $1.963 trillion in 2016, which marked an increase of about $100 billion since 2012, according to Mr. Crews’ analysis.

Mr. Trump can also order reviews within his own administration, hoping to knock out rules that tie the economy’s hands.

But White House budget director Mick Mulvaney said it’s not always easy to unwind long-embedded regulations.

“As we’ve been through the process, what we’ve learned is, it’s not that hard to slow down an agency on creating new regs,” Mr. Mulvaney recently told the Senate Budget Committee. “But when you ask an agency, a bureaucratic agency that is designed to create regs, to start to deregulate themselves … it’s a muscle that they have not used for a long time, if ever.”

Still, Mr. Obama’s penchant for using regulations as an end run around Congress means some of them are easier to undo now, said Tim Phillips, president of Americans for Prosperity.

“Right now we’re seeing enormous progress rolling back the extreme environmental regulations of the Obama years precisely because our side was successful in stopping the extreme environmental legislation during the eight years of Obama,” said Mr. Phillips, whose group lobbies for lower taxes and fewer regulations.