Mueller Indictments of Russians—Makes Case Against Illegal Aliens

The Mueller indictments may be the best action he takes.  While there is ZERO chance any of the trolls of Moscow will agree to a trial in the U.S., the cause of action is really about illegal aliens.  In the following trade the term Russians for illegal aliens:

“The indictment charges the defendants with working in concert to travel to the United States under false pretenses, and to steal identities of U.S. citizens to create email accounts and establish fake social media accounts so they could publish content and organize political rallies using false personas. Flouting the Federal Election Commission’s ban on foreign money in electioneering communications, they also conspired to conceal their political expenditures by funneling them through PayPal and other online financial entities (wire fraud and bank fraud), and failed to register with the Justice Department as foreign agents.

But Russians aren’t the only foreign nationals working to interfere in United States affairs. Many are here illegally, are politically active in grassroots organizations, post on social media, and attend protest marches. In fact, it’s fairly commonplace. Mexican and other foreign nationals participate in all kinds of activities to influence public opinion and government policy, just as the Russians named in Mueller’s indictment allegedly did. Many of them may be colluding with their governments to evade our laws and subvert their enforcement.

If collusion is a Federal crime, then who is colluding with the illegal aliens?  Feinstein, Harris, Brown Pelosi, Obama, Clinton and the other Socialists Democrats.  Should they be indicted for collusion?  Donald Trump has opened up a hornets nest for the Left—showing their corruption and hypocrisy.  This is going to be a long term disaster for the Democrats.  How do they explain the corruption of their Party while running for office?

Protesters chant during a May Day demonstration outside a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in San Francisco on Monday. Thousands are expected to take to the streets across the United States to participate in May Day demonstrations.

Mueller Indictment May Be Bad News for Illegal Aliens

By Ruth Papazian|, American Greatness,  2/21/18

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s 37-page indictment against three Russian entities and 13 Russian individuals may have legal implications for illegal aliens residing in the United States, and could serve as grounds for deportation.

Mueller accuses the Russian nationals of “knowingly and intentionally conspiring to defraud the United States” by hindering the functions of the Federal Election Commission (FEC), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Department of State for “the purpose of interfering with the U.S. political and electoral processes, including the presidential election of 2016.”

The introduction of the indictment lays out the theory of the case against the Russians:

The United States of America . . . regulates the activities of foreign individuals and entities in and affecting the United States in order to prevent, disclose, and counteract improper foreign influence on U.S. elections and on the U.S. political system. U.S. law bans foreign nationals from making certain expenditures or financial disbursements for the purpose of influencing federal elections. U.S. law also bars agents of any foreign entity from engaging in political activities within the United States without first registering with the Attorney General. And U.S. law requires certain foreign nationals seeking entry to the United States to obtain a visa by providing truthful and accurate information to the government. Various federal agencies, including the Federal Election Commission, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the U.S. Department of State, are charged with enforcing these laws.

The indictment charges the defendants with working in concert to travel to the United States under false pretenses, and to steal identities of U.S. citizens to create email accounts and establish fake social media accounts so they could publish content and organize political rallies using false personas. Flouting the Federal Election Commission’s ban on foreign money in electioneering communications, they also conspired to conceal their political expenditures by funneling them through PayPal and other online financial entities (wire fraud and bank fraud), and failed to register with the Justice Department as foreign agents.

But Russians aren’t the only foreign nationals working to interfere in United States affairs. Many are here illegally, are politically active in grassroots organizations, post on social media, and attend protest marches. In fact, it’s fairly commonplace. Mexican and other foreign nationals participate in all kinds of activities to influence public opinion and government policy, just as the Russians named in Mueller’s indictment allegedly did. Many of them may be colluding with their governments to evade our laws and subvert their enforcement.

While the scope of the political activity permitted to illegal aliens under 2 U.S.C. §441e (contributions and donations by foreign nationals) and the First Amendment has not been resolved by the courts, illegal aliens clearly are subject to the same restrictions as the defendants in the indictment.

The defendants are accused of “knowingly and intentionally conspir[ing] to defraud the United States by impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful functions of the Federal Election Commission, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the U.S. Department of State in administering federal requirements for disclosure of foreign involvement in certain domestic activities.”

Delving into the particulars of each of the eight counts:

Based on the theory of the case, foreign nationals in the U.S. illegally, as well as those who aid and abet them in evading deportation, could also be charged with similar offenses under 18 U.S.C. §§371 and 1028A:

  • Noncitizens who overstay their visas have defrauded the State Department if they didn’t truthfully divulge their intentions to a U.S. consular officer when they applied for nonimmigrant visa.
  • The number of noncitizen adults who illegally registered to vote was estimated between 800,000 and 2.2 million in 2013. A 2014 study by professors of political science at Old Dominion University and George Mason University found that “non-citizen voting likely changed 2008 outcomes including Electoral College votes and the composition of Congress.” Illegal aliens who have registered to vote in the U.S. and/or have voted in elections have defrauded the FEC.
  • Illegal aliens routinely purchase Social Security numbers, green cards, birth certificates, and other fake documentation to create false personas to apply for jobs, fraudulently claim tax credits on state and federal tax forms, and apply for Federal Housing Administration-backed loans. In addition to aggravated identity theft, they are committing perjury on W-9 forms and tax forms—and are involved in a conspiracy to defraud the United States.

Since 2009, courts have ruled that using false documentation to obtain work is not grounds for immediate deportation—but being party to a criminal conspiracy to obtain and use a phony social security number could be considered “a crime of moral turpitude,” as it is “a continuing offense.”

Going by the charges in Mueller’s indictment, purchase and use of false documentation is a conspiracy to use fraud and deceit to impair, obstruct, and defeat the lawful functions of the State Department, the Department of Justice, the IRS, and the Social Security Administration, among other government agencies. Also complicit in these crimes are:

  • Developers of smartphone apps and text messaging services that warn illegal aliens when U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers are conducting sweeps at homes, workplaces or traffic checkpoints are interfering with the lawful functions of the Department of Homeland Security and of ICE.
  • City and state legislators who have enacted legislation or ordinances to create sanctuary jurisdictions, and the officials who enforce policies that thwart the lawful functions of ICE, are conspiring to defraud the United States. Foremost among them are lawmakers and officials in California, which enacted legislation to become a “sanctuary state.”

Earlier this month, several immigration rights groups filed a suit against ICE alleging the agency is “unconstitutionally using its power to suppress political dissent by targeting outspoken immigration activists for surveillance and deportation,” reports The Hill. The complaint states: “The Government’s targeting of activists on the basis of their core political speech is unfair, discriminatory, and un-American. And it violates the First Amendment.”

Based on the theory of Mueller’s case, they could be charged with several of the same felonies under 18 U.S.C. §371, which may strengthen the case for deporting them and other illegal aliens. And a host of state and local officials, grassroots organizations and others who impede the enforcement of federal immigration law, or abet identity theft and other fraud, could theoretically be prosecuted for 18 U.S.C. §371 offenses as well.

 

San Fran Nan: Hire Illegal Aliens to “Mow Grass by the Border”

This is NOT a joke.  San Fran Nan Pelosi has a Democrat Plan for border security.  She wants to hire illegal aliens mow the grass near the border.  Why, so illegal aliens can’t sneak into the nation in high grass?  Now you know why I demand she stay as leader of the Democrat party—we need her to speak out and explain what Democrats stand for and against.  They have two favorite words—RESIST and NO.  How can’t we win seats in November with that as the Platform of the opposition Party?

“However, the solutions she offered up were drastically more nonsensical than the idea of a border wall. She highlighted the most ridiculous approach — “mowing the grass” — by stating, “that’s something.”

“Let’s talk about where a more serious structure might be necessary, where fencing will do, or mowing the grass so people can’t be smuggled through the grass — that’s something — levies, technology, personnel.”

Republicans could not pay for her words.  In fact, I hope the GOP has a fund to allow Nancy and Hillary to tour the country.

download

Pelosi’s Border Solution: ‘Mowing The Grass’

Amber Athey, Daily Caller, 2/22/18

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said during a Tuesday interview that she thinks “mowing the grass” along the border could be one solution to border security.

WATCH:

Pelosi denounced the idea of a border wall during the interview, which was broadcast on Facebook live, stating that such an idea is “never going to happen.”

“Well, I’m not the wall’s biggest advocate in Congress, but I do know that representatives in the House and Senators in that body from the border wall areas have some serious objection to a wall,” Pelosi explained. “Because they know how detrimental it can be to the community trade, to all of the other aspects of a border.”

However, the solutions she offered up were drastically more nonsensical than the idea of a border wall. She highlighted the most ridiculous approach — “mowing the grass” — by stating, “that’s something.”

“Let’s talk about where a more serious structure might be necessary, where fencing will do, or mowing the grass so people can’t be smuggled through the grass — that’s something — levies, technology, personnel.”

Facing specter of drought, California farmers are told to expect little water

If all goes well, our Central Valley farmers will receive 20% of the water they need to grow our food.  What does this mean?  I just bought some blueberries from State Brow in Simi Valley.  It came from a firm in Dominquez, California—South Bay of L.A.  But the small print shows the blueberries were grown in Chile.  Our farmers could not grow enough in this country—so we had to import them.  Why?  Lack of water.

“The agency said it can’t yet provide an initial allocation figure for many Sacramento Valley water agencies because of the lack of rain and the legal requirement that plenty of water be kept in Shasta Lake, the largest reservoir in California, to protect endangered species of Chinook salmon.

Those left in the dark for the time being includes some urban agencies in the Sacramento area such as Placer County Water Agency and the San Juan Water District, although officials stressed that those agencies aren’t in danger of running short of water.

At a time when farmers need to prepare to seed the crops for the Spring and Summer, they do not know how much water they will get.  What is the fastest growing crop in the Central Valley?  Farms using the land to “grow” solar panels—not food.  Our water is allowed to flow into the ocean, water is used for the delta smelt, salmon and other fish.  We have the water, government has priorities other than people, food and our economy.

Farm workers farming

Facing specter of drought, California farmers are told to expect little water

By Dale Kasler, Sierrastar,  2/20/18

It’s starting to look like a drought year for California farmers who depend on water from the federal government.

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation announced Tuesday that most farmers south of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta who get water from the federal Central Valley Project will receive just 20 percent of their requested allocation this year.

Although the numbers could change and the allocations could increase this spring, the initial figures reflect the abysmal precipitation California has received so far this winter. “We have extremely low snowpack and limited anticipated runoff,” said David Murillo, the bureau’s regional director.

The agency said it can’t yet provide an initial allocation figure for many Sacramento Valley water agencies because of the lack of rain and the legal requirement that plenty of water be kept in Shasta Lake, the largest reservoir in California, to protect endangered species of Chinook salmon.

Those left in the dark for the time being includes some urban agencies in the Sacramento area such as Placer County Water Agency and the San Juan Water District, although officials stressed that those agencies aren’t in danger of running short of water.

Still, the announcement was sobering. Despite last winter’s record rainfall, Californians must “prepare for the potential of return to drought conditions,” said Federico Barajas, deputy regional manager of the bureau.

The Sierra Nevada snowpack is just 20 percent of normal and most of the state has received rainfall levels that are well below average.

So far, however, conditions aren’t as bad as during the worst of California’s five-year drought. In some years, farmers south of the Delta received no water from the Central Valley Project, prompting many of them to dramatically increase the amount of water they pumped out of the ground.

Last winter’s record Northern California rainfall filled most of the state’s reservoirs and will ensure that most of the irrigation districts and municipal agencies that belong to the CVP will get at least some water from the feds.

At the San Juan Water District in suburban Sacramento, for instance, the reservoir conditions provide a cushion against the uncertainty of not receiving an initial allocation.

“The good news is that Folsom Lake has a lot of water in it,” said San Juan general manager Paul Helliker, whose agency pulls water from the reservoir and has supplies outside of the Central Valley Project. “That does give us some comfort.”

The State Water Project has set an initial allocation of 20 percent for all of its farm and municipal customers. The CVP doesn’t distribute its water equally, however, because some of its customers have special historic water rights that provide for more generous deliveries. While many of the farmers in the San Joaquin Valley are getting an initial allocation of only 20 percent, others have been told to expect 30 percent or more. The “settlement contractors,” a select group of Sacramento Valley rice farmers, have been given an initial allocation of 100 percent.

The short-term weather forecast does offer some relief. The National Weather Service said the Sierra is expected to get as much as 8 inches of new snow starting late Wednesday. Because it’s so cold, snow levels could drop to as low as 1,000 feet. However, forecasters said the incoming storm isn’t expected to bring heavy precipitation.

UC-San Diego refuses to cancel course on films of Woody Allen

UC San Diego has no problem with Hollywood types (even if they live in New York) that abuse under age girls.  In the case of Woody Allen, it has been known for decades that he had sexual relations with an underage girl—he is the American version of Roman Polanski, without the conviction.  So when 21,000 asked the school NOT to hold a course on his films, it did not matter—his “brilliance” is more important than his perversions.

““As many of you know, a public petition was initiated several weeks ago with the purpose of cancelling a current course on the films of Woody Allen, a staple elective in the Theatre and Dance Department,” the Academic Senate wrote. “This, of course, raises serious issues concerning academic freedom, utterly independent of any specifics pertaining to allegations about Woody Allen.”

The petition, which currently has more than 21,000 signatures, was created by UCSD theater student Savanah Lyon with the goal of permanently taking the course “off the books forever” so that future students will not “have to see that pedophile glorified” in the classroom.”

Maybe they can have Harvey Weinstein or Kevin Spacey moderate the discussion?

Aerial_Hollywood_Sign

UC-San Diego refuses to cancel course on films of Woody Allen

Nikita Vladimirov, Campus Reform, 2/21/18

   

·  The University of California, San Diego is refusing to cancel a course on “The Films of Woody Allen” despite a petition with more than 20,000 signatures demanding it be “taken off the books forever.”

·  Allen has denied allegations that he sexually abused his adopted daughter when she was a child, but the petitioners assert that the course has “glorified” a man they unreservedly label a “pedophile.”

·  The UCSD Academic Senate responded to the controversy with a statement defending academic freedom, which according to the petition shows that faculty members “do not care about the statement it makes to survivors everywhere.”

The University of California, San Diego is refusing to cancel a course on “The Films of Woody Allen” despite a petition that has received tens of thousands of signatures.

In a statement last week, the Academic Senate pushed back against demands that the class be cancelled based on unproven sexual abuse allegations against the filmmaker, stressing the importance of academic freedom on campus.

“This, of course, raises serious issues concerning academic freedom, utterly independent of any specifics pertaining to allegations about Woody Allen.”

“As many of you know, a public petition was initiated several weeks ago with the purpose of cancelling a current course on the films of Woody Allen, a staple elective in the Theatre and Dance Department,” the Academic Senate wrote. “This, of course, raises serious issues concerning academic freedom, utterly independent of any specifics pertaining to allegations about Woody Allen.”

The petition, which currently has more than 21,000 signatures, was created by UCSD theater student Savanah Lyon with the goal of permanently taking the course “off the books forever” so that future students will not “have to see that pedophile glorified” in the classroom.

“I have emailed all of the people in charge in an attempt to appeal to their sense of reason, humanity, and morality to stop this class and take it off the books so that no one can teach this class again,” she states in the document. “I have been met with dismissal, unprofessionalism, and dehumanizing rhetoric.”

Addressing the university’s academic freedom argument, Lyon complains that administrators “do not care about the statement it makes to survivors everywhere,” suggesting that there are “thousands” of other directors whose films could be used to teach the same concepts.

“This class might not be able to be cancelled in its current quarter but it can be taken of the books forever so that no one will ever have to see that pedophile glorified in an educational institution again,” the petition concludes, encouraging supporters to email both the Theatre Department chair and the instructor of the Woody Allen course.

The Academic Senate, however, only underscored the university’s commitment to academic freedom, stating that the university “is responsible for vigilantly maintaining and promoting the First Amendment guarantee of free expression of ideas and opinions on campus and for encouraging critical, deliberative, and informed debate on controversial issues.”

The statement adds that “this responsibility is manifested both in our valuing and respecting the right of students to express their deeply held views, and our valuing and respecting the right of our faculty, in accordance with fundamental principles of academic freedom, to choose what they teach.”

The Senate also concluded that “cancelling or removing this or any other course for the reason that it contains the study of controversial material, or even material widely regarded as morally problematic, would undermine both the value of free inquiry and the associated rights of faculty to engage in such inquiry by choosing their course content.”

Lyon criticized the university’s response in a Facebook post Tuesday, pledging to continue to speak out “every time I feel something goes against what’s right.”

“I tried, I tried as hard as I could, and the people around me and across the globe tried as well,” she wrote. “The odds were stacked up against me from the beginning and yet still I took it to the next step each time. It’s hard to believe what would’ve been enough to get them to remove it from the books.”
Campus Reform exposes the liberal bias and abuse against conservatives on America’s colleges and universities.

As a Campus Reform reader, you know about the abuse taking place at our nation’s higher education institutions, and you know how important it is to bring these stories to light.

College campuses are no longer bastions of higher learning. Professors indoctrinate students with their agendas. They even silence conservative students with their attempts to suppress free speech.

 

It is illegal for this student to be in the country. So how is he attending UC Berkeley?

The law is clear.  If you are given a visa, it has an expiration date.  You have the right to have it extended by asking for an extension.  But, if you do not get an extension—you need to go home.  In the case of Luis Mora, he does not give a damn about our country or its rules.  He thinks he is the center of the universe and we revolve around his wants and desires.  So there is a honest California citizen unable to attend Cal Berkeley because there seat is taken by a self absorbed, narcissistic, criminal.

“The case reveals a strange loophole in United States immigration law: No federal law expressly prohibits a public university from admitting an immigrant student who does not have all the proper paperwork; in fact, some courts have found their education is allowed under the constitution, regardless of their immigration status, according to one legal scholar interviewed by The College Fix.”

It is time to make California great again—by enforcing the laws and putting our taxpayers and children before foreigners that break our laws?  What do you think?

UC Berkeley

It is illegal for this student to be in the country. So how is he attending UC Berkeley?

Coy Westbrook, The College Fix,  2/22/18

Luis Mora, the University of California, Berkeley student who was detained last month by Immigration and Custom Enforcements, was in the country on a visa that expired several years ago. He was denied DACA status by the federal government. He was in the country illegally. Nevertheless, he is able attend a major public university, even qualifying for in-state tuition.

How?

The case reveals a strange loophole in United States immigration law: No federal law expressly prohibits a public university from admitting an immigrant student who does not have all the proper paperwork; in fact, some courts have found their education is allowed under the constitution, regardless of their immigration status, according to one legal scholar interviewed by The College Fix.

Mora was brought to the United States when he was eleven years old, according to the UC Berkeley student activist group Rising Immigrant Scholars through Education, or RISE.

Mora–whose visa expired two years ago and whose deferred-action application was denied by the federal government–was arrested by border patrol agents in December of last year and transferred to federal immigration custody.

The UC Berkeley community agitated for Mora’s release, with the chancellor of the university “taking all appropriate actions” in order to return the student to campus. After two weeks in custody, Mora was released on bail. He is scheduled for a court hearing next year. In the meantime he will continue to attend UC Berkeley, according to the university.

A spokesperson for Immigration and Customs Enforcement told Campus Reform last month that Mora “lacks the necessary visa to be legally enrolled in a university” and “should never have been allowed to enroll in the first place,” but that claim appears to conflict with some legal analysis, according to an immigration expert at the University of California, Irvine.

“No federal law expressly prohibits a state university from admitting an immigrant student present in the country without authorization,” Jennifer Chacón, a senior associate dean at UCI Law, told The College Fix via email. “Unless such laws or policies are expressly prohibited by Congress, conflict with federal immigration law or pose an obstacle to that law, the state’s laws and policies are not preempted by federal immigration law.”

“States can’t enact their own immigration laws — federal law controls admission and removal of immigrants — but states can and do regulate the lives of the immigrants within their borders in many ways, and state regulation of this kind generally is perfectly lawful if it is not preempted and does not violate other constitutional rights.”

“In fact, there is federal constitutional case law that prohibits states from DENYING K-12 education to undocumented students,” Chacón added. “So educating undocumented students isn’t contrary to federal immigration law and in some cases, courts have found such education to be constitutionally required.”

The College Fix repeatedly reached out to Immigration and Customs Enforcement via email seeking clarification on the legalities of Mora attending UC Berkeley. Nobody from the department responded.

The student activist group RISE also did not respond to request for comment from The Fix; nor did the University of California’s office of the presidency or UC Berkeley’s office of the chancellor.

Reached via telephone, Berkeley spokeswoman Janet Gilmore declined comment.

According to Campus Reform, when asked, officials at UC Berkeley “tactfully denied receiving ‘any requests from ICE to cancel a student’s registration.’” Berkeley officials stated that Mora “is in excellent academic standing, attending all his classes diligently, and a positive contribution to our Berkeley community.”

 

Stanford: Men Claiming to be Women Can Attend Women Only Gym Classes

I love Stanford—it is a pervert’s haven.  What would happen if tomorrow I decided I was a “woman”?  Under the rules of the University, I could go into the women’s locker room and take a shower.  How sick is that.  The Left says we should believe science—I agree—DNA, not the thought of the day, perversion or confusion decides your gender.

“It started offering “Women’s Only Training” on Monday and Wednesday afternoons, an idea hatched by the chairs of the “Inclusivity Committee” of the Recreation and Wellness department, according to The Stanford Daily.

The limitation is only applied to men who identify as men, however: Men who identify as women are allowed in the space at all times.

This method of “Inspiring a healthier Stanford” may in fact violate both the law and “Stanford’s own statement of nondiscrimination,” Perry told the Stanford student in an email the professor shared with The College Fix.

Is there is IQ test to allow an Administrator a job at Stanford?  Do students have to have a modicum a common sense—or do you have to be a pervert to qualify for enrollment?

classroom

Stanford protects inclusivity by banning men from the gym twice a week

Jorin Burkhart, The College Fix, 2/22/18

Michigan State University operated a women-only lounge going back to the Great Depression. The University of Michigan-Flint has excluded whites and males from consideration for certain faculty awards.

Economist Mark Perry filed civil rights complaints against both practices. Now the UM-Flint professor is training his sights on another gender-segregated space: a gym at Stanford University.

A student at the elite private university asked for Perry’s help publicizing the new no-men hours in a space at Stanford’s Arrillaga Outdoor Education and Recreation Center.

It started offering “Women’s Only Training” on Monday and Wednesday afternoons, an idea hatched by the chairs of the “Inclusivity Committee” of the Recreation and Wellness department, according to The Stanford Daily.

The limitation is only applied to men who identify as men, however: Men who identify as women are allowed in the space at all times.

This method of “Inspiring a healthier Stanford” may in fact violate both the law and “Stanford’s own statement of nondiscrimination,” Perry told the Stanford student in an email the professor shared with The College Fix.

Perry suggested the segregated workout program was hypocritical in a full analysis: “So in the new upside-down world on college campuses, ‘excluding’ half of the campus from a university facility for four hours per week is celebrated as advancing ‘inclusivity’?”

 

California bill will ban guns on campuses, period

If a terrorist, madman or gangsters wanted target practice, without the target shooting back, California Democrats have made government schools shooting ranges out of our schools.  Now, the LEAST safe place for children in California is not a politically incorrect playground, but the classroom.  What is stopping the shooter from killing the kids in a small space?  NOTHING.

““A safe learning environment is essential for our children to be successful in the classroom,” said McCarty. “That’s not possible if a school district allows armed civilians to roam California school campuses. [The] approval of AB 424 by the State Assembly is the latest example of California leading the nation’s efforts to reduce gun violence and keep guns out of our schools.”

AB 424 follows Senate Bill 707, which passed in 2015. That law made it a crime to carry a firearm in a school zone unless the person had written permission from the district superintendent.”

Why do Democrats promote these shootings?  Remember the San Bernardino shooting a couple of years ago.  It was in a government building—at the entrance was a very large sign, “This is a gun free zone”.  Guess the terrorists found a shooting gallery and a dozen people died.

Photo courtesy of krazydad/jbum, Flickr.

California bill will ban guns on campuses, period

Sheyanne N Romero, Visalia Times Delta,  9/21/17

Prior to January 2016, anyone with a valid California concealed weapons permit had the right to walk onto a school, college, or university campus with a handgun. In most cases, no one knew.

Lawmakers are working to end that.

California lawmakers approved Assembly Bill 424, which will update California’s Gun Free School Zones law to make schools truly “gun free.” The bill was introduced by Assemblyman Kevin McCarty (D-Sacramento).

The measure was approved 43-23.

“A safe learning environment is essential for our children to be successful in the classroom,” said McCarty. “That’s not possible if a school district allows armed civilians to roam California school campuses. [The] approval of AB 424 by the State Assembly is the latest example of California leading the nation’s efforts to reduce gun violence and keep guns out of our schools.”

AB 424 follows Senate Bill 707, which passed in 2015. That law made it a crime to carry a firearm in a school zone unless the person had written permission from the district superintendent.

Most local districts debated the pros and cons and ultimately voted to ban guns on campuses, except for school resource officers.

More: Some local schools unprepared for gun debate

“Our board policy changed almost exactly a year ago to do exactly that. We’re already there,” said Todd Oto, Visalia Unified School District superintendent. “We had deep board conversations on the topic and this is where the board settled.”

Although Visalia Police Department doesn’t take a position on whether CCW holders should be allowed on campuses, officers did have discussions with district administrators prior to SB 707.

“We certainly would like to know if there’s going to be armed security,” said Sgt. Damon Maurice. “We need to be prepared to train our officers.”

The new law also won’t have much stop learning as usual in Tulare.

“The changes in AB 424 will not affect our district as the governing board previously approved the board policy not allowing anyone to get permission to carry a concealed weapon on our campuses,” said Tony Rodriguez, Tulare Joint Union High School District superintendent.

Tulare Police Chief Wes Hensley has met with district officials from Tulare schools.

“[The chief] explained the pros and cons of arming school teachers. This discussion included the recommendations of the legal requirements of ongoing firearms familiarity and training to those allowed,” said Sgt. Andy Garcia. “Additionally, he also discussed the liability the Tulare City School District would incur.”

Tulare City School District, which oversees elementary and middle schools, voted to restrict CCW holders on campus. Assistant Superintendent Phillip Pierschbacher said the district stands by that decision.

There are two school resource officers assigned to Tulare schools and police have guaranteed the district quick response times.

A number of California school districts including Folsom Cordova Unified, Kingsburg Joint Union, Anderson Union, and Kern Unified schools voted to authorize some CCW holders.

The newest bill would cancel their votes.

Assemblyman Devon Mathis (R-Visalia) voted against the measure saying it was “complete nonsense.”

“You’re taking away the ability to protect our children,” he said. “People with CCWs are trained and schools are already soft targets.”

The assemblyman went on to say that a “gun-free zone” will not stop shooters from opening fire on campuses.

Those who oppose AB 424 feel there is no need for the bill with SB 707 already in place. Additionally, many feel that a “gun-free zone” is unattainable.

Scott James, a local gun dealer and CCW instructor, said that schools can never achieve a “sterile environment,” saying schools will never be like an airport.

“You can’t provide that at schools,” James said. “The idea of a gun-free zone, in my opinion, isn’t possible.”

Until schools can provide a truly gun-free zone, CCW holders should be allowed to carry on campus, he added.

“You’re going to come out with laws that stop law-abiding citizens with concealed guns on school campuses,” he said. “You can’t provide a secure area on a campus like you can an airport.”

James holds CCW training throughout the year and has trained several teachers on active-shooter scenarios.

“All CCW training is the same. We add more to it if it’s a specific type of carry,” he said.

Applicants are required four hours of classroom time. It takes roughly four months to get approved for a CCW, which is valid for two years.

“Since the creation of California concealed carry permit in 1923, there have been zero incidents on school grounds involving CCW holders,” said Craig DeLuz, spokesman for the Firearms Policy Coalition. “One has to wonder why there is a need to remove such authority, given that SB 707 has been in effect for little more than a year.”

Since 2013, more than 200 school shootings have taken place in the United States — an average of one a week.

 

California Water Planner Blasted for Sitting on Dam Funds

California Democrats lie.  They told us to agree to $2.7 billion for dams.  Then when proposals were made to repair, expand or build new dams, each one had an excuse as to why not to be done.  But, the people of California, the uninformed masses, think the $2.7 billion is being spent to protect us.

“With a $2.7 billion voter-approved bankroll ready to be spent on new dams and water projects, a California state agency is being accused of sitting on the funds.

The California Water Commission, tasked with dispersing Proposition 1 funds, faces a tidal wave of criticism and skepticism after its staff concluded earlier this month that no water projects proposed so far passed initial cost-benefit muster. The announcement roiled the water and farming districts vying for the state bonds, along with elected officials who helped craft the 2014 proposition.

The State had funds to fix the Oroville Dam.  Guv Brown refused to use the funds, now the State has over $1 billion in lawsuits due to the break of the spillway—and a cost of upwards of one billion to fix the dam—when in 2015 it would have cost less than $300 million.  Too bad we can’t sue Brown and his buddies directly for the corruption of the system.

Oroville Dam 2

California Water Planner Blasted for Sitting on Dam Funds

Nick Cahill, Courthousenews.com,  2/22/18

 

With a $2.7 billion voter-approved bankroll ready to be spent on new dams and water projects, a California state agency is being accused of sitting on the funds.

The California Water Commission, tasked with dispersing Proposition 1 funds, faces a tidal wave of criticism and skepticism after its staff concluded earlier this month that no water projects proposed so far passed initial cost-benefit muster. The announcement roiled the water and farming districts vying for the state bonds, along with elected officials who helped craft the 2014 proposition.

Lawmakers on Wednesday asked the commission to release the funds earmarked for new water projects, urging expediency as California slogs through another unseasonably warm and dry winter.

“The biggest problem in California right now is the people don’t trust their government, they don’t trust their agencies of government,” said state Sen. Jim Nielsen, R-Tehama. “They already feel betrayed with the four-year delay.”

A bipartisan mix of lawmakers lined up to address the commission at its monthly hearing in Sacramento, the first since staff released failing initial “public benefit scores” for 11 water projects.

Proposals range from new groundwater banks, existing reservoir expansions and multibillion-dollar new dam projects. Proponents say the projects will add valuable water storage without damaging the environment.

Passed overwhelmingly by voters at the height of California’s most recent drought, Proposition 1 appropriated $2.7 billion for new lakes and water storage.

The measure, which did not earmark funding for any specific project, requires the commission to grade applications on overall public benefit, relative environmental value, resiliency and implementation risk.

Commissioners assured the crowd that the unfavorable initial round of cost-benefit ratio scores is just the first step in the process and that none of the projects have been summarily denied.

Armando Quintero, chair of the eight-member body, pushed back on the notion that the commission is being stingy with the bonds. He says the 70-member review staff in most cases needed more information about the projects and that applicants can appeal the initial scores. A final decision is expected in July.

“Believe me, this commission is anxious to get the money out the door and get projects funded,” Quintero said.

The two biggest projects have gained support from nearby cities, water districts and lawmakers.

Temperance Flat Dam east of Fresno would add 1.26 million acre-feet of water storage – and flood miles of canyons and Native American heritage sites along the San Joaquin River. It would be the second-tallest dam in California with an estimated $2.6 billion price tag, and be operated by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.

Proponents want the state to pony up $1.3 billion in state bonds to spur construction. The water commission gave the project among the worst grades of the 11 projects vying for state funding.

The competing Sites Project would be built more than 250 miles north in Colusa County, in the foothills of the California Coast Ranges north of Sacramento. It would added 1.8 million acre-feet to California’s water system. Sites is considered an “off-stream” project with most of its water piped in from the nearby Sacramento River. Backers want $1.7 billion of the project’s $5.1 billion cost to be picked up by taxpayers.

While environmental groups campaigned for Proposition 1 in 2014, many haven’t jumped on board with Sites or Temperance Flat.

The Natural Resources Defense Council calls Temperance Flat a “boondoggle” that would have disastrous effects on salmon restoration efforts in the San Joaquin River. The Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations says Sites would damage struggling salmon and other protected species by diverting Sacramento River flows and calls the project a “nonstarter.”

Assembly Republican Leader Brian Dahle presented the commission with a red wagon full of 4,000 petitions in support of the two major proposals. He urged commissioners to act swiftly going forward.

“Farmers like myself, all through the state, are concerned about the shortage of water – we’re seeing another drought cycle,” Dahle said.

Dahle’s plea comes on the heels of more bad news for Central Valley farmers: federal regulators said Monday they will only receive 20 percent of their initial water allocation because of the state’s dismal snowpack.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Director David Murillo said in a statement “If this lack of rain and snow continues, we could very well be right back in drought operations. A situation like this really underscores the need for more storage in California.”

 

Innovative Incarceration: Lower Costs, Safer Citizens

It is safer to have criminals in prison than on the streets.  In California it costs $71,000 a year to keep them behind bars—about $23,000 is for health care–more than most of us pay.  You would think the State would be able to get a volume deal.  There has to be a better way to keep us safe and to stop paying union mandated costs.

“An excellent resource prepared by BackgroundChecks.org shows the costs per prisoner in other states. Nevada, our neighbor to the east, only spends $17,851 per year per prisoner. Alabama has the lowest cost, at $14,780 per prisoner. Arizona, $25,397. Even Oregon and Washington, California’s left coast comrades in bloated inefficient government excess, manage to spend far less than California does, paying per prisoner costs of $44,021 and $37,841, respectively.”

Housing, taxes, health care and every other category California and Californians pay the most.  Now you know what other States pay to be safe—we know that in California unions run the prisons, hence the high costs.

Prison_crowded

Innovative Incarceration: Lower Costs, Safer Citizens

by Edward Ring, California Policy Center,  2/21/18

The average annual cost to house a prisoner in California is $71,000, and according to the California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office, the cost has risen 45% since just 2011. And as costs have soared, California’s policymakers have resorted to creative ways to release inmates from California’s overcrowded prisons. But what if that Californian creativity could be harnessed to lower the cost of incarceration?

This process began in 2011, when the US Supreme Court ruled that California must reduce its state prison population to no more than 137% of its design capacity within two years. In an attempt to comply, the state legislature passed Assembly Bill 109, which required non-violent, non-serious, and non-sexual offenders with sentences of longer than one year to be housed in county jail facilities rather than state prisons.

Because AB 109, the so-called prison “realignment,” merely shifted costs for incarceration from the state to the counties, two additional measures of significance were passed in an attempt to reduce the overall inmate population. These were sold to voters as reform initiatives, and both of them passed with substantial majorities. Prop. 47, passed in 2014, reclassified several felonies as misdemeanors, which had the effect of reducing prison sentences in new cases, and earlier release for prisoners sentenced for crimes no longer classified as felonies. Prop. 57, passed in 2016, granted early release opportunities to inmates with good behavior who had committed non-violent crimes.

These measures resulted in the early release of tens of thousands of inmates onto California’s streets. Since enactment, violent crime has increased in California, although the data is mixed. For example, according to the FBI, while violent crime in California increased in 2015 and 2016, it increased across most of the U.S. in those years. As stated in a recent study by the Public Policy Institute of California, “California’s violent crime rate increased by 3.7% in 2016 to 444 per 100,000 residents. There have been other recent upticks in 2012 and 2015, but the statewide rate is still comparable to levels in the late 1960s.”

More recently – most crime statistics for 2017 are not yet available – the LA Times reports that in 2017 “in Los Angeles, homicides are down, but violent crime is up.” A big picture perspective on crime trends in California can be seen in this graphic produced by Politifact.com using data from the California Legislative Analyst’s Office:

California Crime Trends – Crime Rates per 100,000 Residents
As can be seen, rates of crime in California rose throughout the 60s and 70s, reaching a high plateau that lasted right up until around 1994, when California passed the three strikes law. After that, crime rates fell precipitously for years, reaching historic lows. Since 2014, rates of crime have been rising, even though they remain relatively low from a historical perspective.

But why should we be happy with a 0.4% rate of violent crime? Why should 4% of Californians be victimized by a violent criminal in any given decade? And who’s to say that crime rates would not have continued to decline, if it weren’t for the passage of Props. 47 and 57?

More to the point, whether or not Californians should or should not incarcerate more criminals, or impose longer sentences on criminals, Californians don’t have that option. Because it costs too much to house prisoners in California. How can California house more inmates without building more conventional prisons, which are staggeringly expensive?

An excellent resource prepared by BackgroundChecks.org shows the costs per prisoner in other states. Nevada, our neighbor to the east, only spends $17,851 per year per prisoner. Alabama has the lowest cost, at $14,780 per prisoner. Arizona, $25,397. Even Oregon and Washington, California’s left coast comrades in bloated inefficient government excess, manage to spend far less than California does, paying per prisoner costs of $44,021 and $37,841, respectively.

Why?

When you read up on costs per prisoner in other states, the results are somewhat amusing. Because in those states, the conventional wisdom is that costs are out of control. Alabama’s costs per prisoner have “doubled since 2003.” In Nevada, “overtime costs continue to mount.” Imagine that. But in all states, the same factors contribute to rising costs to house prisoners. California just spends more, in every category. Here is a table from California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office showing details of the cost per prisoner.

California’s Costs per Prisoner – Itemized Costs
It’s likely these costs are understated. Does “Security” include the additional amounts that will be necessary to properly fund the pensions that are due our correctional officers? Does “Facility Operations” include the payments on the billions that have been borrowed by the state to construct California’s 34 state prisons?

In the recently approved California state budget for 2017-18, $11.4 billion is allocated to the Department of Corrections, up another $286 million (2.6%) from last year. But again, this doesn’t begin to represent the true cost to taxpayers. A recent UCLA study estimated the cost of incarceration for just the County of Los Angeles at nearly $1.0 billion last year.

It’s likely the total cost to California’s taxpayers to incarcerate criminals – taking into account state and local expenses – is easily twice the $11.4 billion budgeted by the state. And these inflated costs can be attributed to two causes. First, the excessive costs caused by unionized government – pensions in particular, and excessive costs to build state prisons, caused by a union controlled state legislature requiring needlessly expensive project labor agreements. Second, and arguably even more significant, the overall excessive cost-of-living in California – also a byproduct of policies enacted by California’s union controlled state legislature – which makes everything more expensive.

The burden of realignment – foisting responsibility for state prisoners back onto the counties where they were convicted – is also an opportunity. Because counties, like states in our federal system, are laboratories of democracy, laboratories of policy. Why can’t California’s counties experiment with new modes of incarceration. If inmates are sequestered to Cal Fire to work the fire lines, why can’t they do other tasks throughout the rural regions of California? Why not use inmates to improve rural access roads, remove dead trees from our drought-stressed forests, or even work in agriculture?

While many inmates may be too dangerous to do this sort of work, with new technologies to monitor and control prisoners, it is possible that prisoners who would not be viable candidates for these programs in the past would be qualified today. Electronic monitoring devices are becoming increasingly sophisticated. Why not use these devices to monitor not only location, but heart rate or, who knows, even brain waves or other physical indicators of imminent fight or flight? Wouldn’t adding additional capabilities to these devices allow more effective means to deter escape and even prevent violence? Why not use swarms of inexpensive drones to hover in the vicinity of inmates, reducing the number of guards required, and replacing some or all layers of expensive security fencing? Why not equip these drones with nonlethal means to prevent escape or violence?

Law enforcement has stayed abreast of new technologies and that is one of the reasons rates of crime are down sharply across America. While the impact of new technologies must be constantly scrutinized, and some of them may be problematic, there is no reason not to extend these tools beyond law enforcement into the corrections industry. It’s reasonable to assume most inmates would prefer a virtual prison to the penitentiary. One that afforded them mobility, equal or greater safety, a mission, a chance to engage in a vocation, and fresh air. Such innovation might also bring welcome relief to taxpayers.

 

Silicon Valley’s (other) gender in tech problem: Women in Bay Area biotech are still waiting to break through

The white male hating Silicon Valley loves to hate industries and businesses, government agencies and policies, it considers “white male” run.  But, the Valley itself, is white male run—with a few men from India allowed into the inner circle. Blacks and women serve lunch and clean up, not for leadership in the Valley.

“A Business Times analysis of publicly listed boards at the 20 largest biotech employers in the Bay Area as of mid-February found that men hold an average of 86 percent of board seats, compared to an 80 percent average across the S&P 500. One quarter of those 20 large companies — Genentech, Boehringer Ingelheim, FibroGen, Nektar Therapeutics and NGM Biopharmaceuticals — had zero women on their boards of directors as of this month.”

Why isn’t NOW and the Soros Progressives denouncing this?  Follow the money.  Zuckerberg and friends finance the hate whitey efforts in this nation.

facebook

Silicon Valley’s (other) gender in tech problem: Women in Bay Area biotech are still waiting to break through

“I hate to say it, but I never go anymore to meetings with a male investor without another male,” said Karin Lachmi, now founder and chief scientific officer of the Los Altos company Bioz.

By Lauren Hepler, San Francisco Business Times,  2/22/18

Five years ago, fresh off a post-doctoral fellowship at Stanford focused on immunobiology, Karin Lachmi decided to forge her own path in the biotech industry.

The Israeli-born scientist with a Ph.D. in molecular biology started pitching a startup: a search engine for life science research, which would digitize and summarize articles rated by peers. The Yelp-for-biotech idea quickly captured the attention of Silicon Valley venture capitalists. Pitches to male investors, though, didn’t always go as planned.

“I hate to say it, but I never go anymore to meetings with a male investor without another male,” said Lachmi, now founder and chief scientific officer of the Los Altos company Bioz. “There was one that after a meeting invited me to a Jacuzzi. There was one that forced me to kiss him in the middle of a meeting.”

Interviews with more than a dozen Bay Area biotech founders, executives and analysts reveal an industry that prides itself on empirical data grappling with how to confront a glaring gender divide. Some of those interviewed spoke about blatant sexism, subtle verbal slights and stunted career growth. A San Francisco Business Times analysis of company data shows how board and executive leadership is still largely dominated by men.

A Business Times analysis of publicly listed boards at the 20 largest biotech employers in the Bay Area as of mid-February found that men hold an average of 86 percent of board seats, compared to an 80 percent average across the S&P 500. One quarter of those 20 large companies — Genentech, Boehringer Ingelheim, FibroGen, Nektar Therapeutics and NGM Biopharmaceuticals — had zero women on their boards of directors as of this month.