Democrats Don’t Want ICE Notified When Illegal Aliens Try to Purchase Guns

This is another example of Democrats having a double standard.  Were it not for that, they would have NO standards.  If you are I had an illegal gun they want us jailed for life.  If an illegal alien has a gun, they want to ignore it.

“Last year a record number of illegal aliens, millions of them, tried to purchase firearms in the United States. Not only is it illegal to enter the United States without permission, it’s also illegal to purchase or possess a gun.

The FBI this year has barred a record number of cases of illegal immigrants from buying guns, according to a new report of background checks.

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System listed 7,836,600 “illegal/unlawful alien” as of 2018.
Why are we not enforcing those laws?  Oh, Democrats would be upset

ICE 2

Democrats Don’t Want ICE Notified When Illegal Aliens Try to Purchase Guns

 

Katie Pavlich, Townhall,  2/18/19

As the debate over illegal immigration continues to rage, Democrats continue to prove they are proponents of open borders and lawlessness.

The latest example comes from Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz, who is berating Democrats for protecting illegal aliens who attempt to purchase firearms and fail a background check.

Last year a record number of illegal aliens, millions of them, tried to purchase firearms in the United States. Not only is it illegal to enter the United States without permission, it’s also illegal to purchase or possess a gun.

The FBI this year has barred a record number of cases of illegal immigrants from buying guns, according to a new report of background checks.

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System listed 7,836,600 “illegal/unlawful alien” as of 2018.

That number has been increasing in recent years.

Illegal immigrants rank at the top of those on the FBI’s “prohibited category.”

Democrats on the House Oversight Committee, especially Chairman Elijah Cummings, are vicious advocates for gun control…against law abiding American citizens. In fact they believe “gun violence,” the vast majority of which is made up of suicides, is a national emergency.

Eber: Things I don’t understand

We live in a crazy world.  My good friend Rich Eber asks questions many think about—but he asks them, aloud.

Why is Gavin Newsom mad at Donald Trump for asking for the Federal Government’s 3.5 billion dollar investment in the bullet train back?  The Governor is saying that operating the train between Madera and Bakersfield fulfills the terms of receiving Federal funding.  If President Trump thinks Uncle Sam has been defrauded by the Bullet Train, just think how bad the taxpayers in California feel about what has transpired?”

Write your comments about this article and add the things you think about.  For instance, why do we think spending more money on government education is a good thing, when the government refuses to return to education as a priority at schools—instead of social justice, social issues and politically correct thought?

kamala harris empty suit dress

Things I don’t understand By Richard Eber

Richard Eber, California Political News and Views,  2/20/19

There are many areas of knowledge that baffles me. It is difficult in my world to distinguish between fake news and “Reality” TV shows. I have always wondered why the public is so enamored following the Kardashians.  How come ice cream never has bones except when conspiracy theorists are involved?

In politics I suffer from a similar learning disorder. Very little makes sense to me. For instance:

Why Gavin Newsom is withdrawing the use of National Guard troops at the border of Mexico saying no problem exists?  Is the man crazy or delusional after being elected Governor last November thinking no crisis exists at the border? Does he believe less contraband will cross the border if ICE is abolished and criminals will be welcomed into the Golden State. Is the Opioid Crisis the President talks about a myth?  If so why is it necessary for San Francisco to give out free needles to junkies for public safety purposes?

I can’t believe any affordable housing can be built when it takes almost half a million dollars in permits, studies, waiting, and every delay imaginable before the first shovel can be lifted.  Why would anyone think government subsidies would lower opportunity costs for construction?  Are present CEQA regulations and similar requirements from other state agencies making California a more affordable place to live?

How can naming a street for Oscar Grant be anything but a sham? This just happened in Oakland.  The guy was on parole for a firearms beef and was arrested just prior to his death. Grant was likely going back to jail for a long stint on serious felony charges. While it is unfortunate that Grant died in a tragic accident when fighting with a police officer on BART. However, making this man a hero is ridiculous.

Why are efforts being made to put PG&E out of business as if they were some kind of criminal enterprise?  In general most people think they are doing a good job.  Even in cases where alternative power sources are selling gas and electric to PG&E, they still depend on the company to solve problems when there is a power outage.  Does anyone believe Government takeover of private enterprise providing power will ever be cheaper or more efficient than the present system?

How can we keep pretending that illegal aliens living in California are producing enough tax income with their jobs to offset the billions of dollars in government assistance given them?  Does anyone really believe such a notion is anything but fantasy?  Despite this reality Democratic politicians in California pretend that sales tax is creating revenue neutral situation for undocumented residents.  Are you trying to tell me expenses associated with operating emergency rooms, public schools, welfare, and law enforcement are  a wash?  If this revenue neutral scenario were really true, why would the state always be so broke and demanding new taxes be enacted?

Why is Gavin Newsom mad at Donald Trump for asking for the Federal Government’s 3.5 billion dollar investment in the bullet train back?  The Governor is saying that operating the train between Madera and Bakersfield fulfills the terms of receiving Federal funding.  If President Trump thinks Uncle Sam has been defrauded by the Bullet Train, just think how bad the taxpayers in California feel about what has transpired?

I can’t believe how school boards in Los Angeles, Oakland, and throughout the state can demand new contracts to teachers knowing full well that a major portion of their victories at the bargaining tables are unfunded.  In addition, as educators are fully aware, their pension fund ratio falls deeper in the red each year.  Of course this shortfall is of little consequence because the politically powerful California Teachers Union (CTA) is depending on Governor Newsom to bail them out this year, as has happened under Governor Brown. Is this what Progressives call transparency?

At the same time it’s hard to understand how Charter Schools are being blamed for the failing performance of California’s public school system.  The idea that they are private and are taking good students and families away from underperforming schools is ridiculous propaganda.  Why can’t the CTA just say there are too many educators working at Charters who don’t belong to their union?  Along with this they do not ever want to take accountability for failing schools.  The bottom line is  Bill Clinton’s observation “it’s the money stupid”, still holds true.  This is why there is a movement originating from the CTA and the Legislature to outlaw new Charters and reduce school choice.

It is difficult to understand why Gavin Newsom is bragging about so called California values.  We might we ask what are these attributes?  Could it be highest tax rates in the country?  Maybe these “values” include lowering the crime rate by not prosecuting those who fall under the Sanctuary City umbrella?  Perhaps restrictive building codes and high permit costs should be emulated by the rest of country; or maybe its job killing Cap and Trade laws?  Might our public education K1-12 model which ranks 46th out of 50 States be xeroxed?  The list goes on with the underachievements of Progressive fools who run our state.

It astounds me how anyone could be naïve enough to support the Presidential campaign of Kamala Harris. Her platform of taxing the rich, imposing PC values on her constituents and formulating economic policies makes the Marxists down in Venezuela envious.  The Junior Senator from California is a prime example of an “empty dress”.

I can’t believe why more people are not leaving California.  Large numbers of middle class and upper income residents are immigrating in droves.  More would follow except for wanting to live near to grown children. An example of this is during the present housing shortage, a sinking market for values of single family home sales exists from San Diego to the Bay Area.  Such a reality is countered by the Sacramento liberals who insist there are more jobs being created in the state than ever before.

Unfortunately most of new employment is in the minimum wage fast food sector. This is being countered by higher paying manufacturing and white collar employment fleeing elsewhere.  Indicative of this alarming trend, State Government is projecting lower tax revenues for 2019 compared to last year

It is astounding how the Republican Party is so weak in California when their competition wants to turn the state into another version of the old Soviet Union.  Can anyone reminisce to be about the good old days of socialism when the damn system actually worked?  Was it in Russia, China, East Germany, or some other place?

I thought affirmative action was outlawed a long time ago by the Supreme Court.  Why has it returned under the banner of diversity to discriminate against those who want to be evaluated by what they have achieved?  Hell, just last week the Women’s March in Eureka had to be canceled because there were too many Caucasian females participating in this event.  What is our country coming to?

.

 

 

Want to impoverish the whole world? Just adopt California (lack of) energy policies.

“Other significant legislation followed. SB 107, also passed in 2006, mandated a “renewable portfolio standard,” wherein by 2010 at least 20% of California’s electricity would come from renewable sources.

The legislation has been unrelenting. SB 1, 2006, mandated utilities pay rebates to homeowners that installed photovoltaic panels on their roofs. AB 118, 2007, funded the “Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program,” the first step towards mandating a minimum percentage of electric and hybrid vehicle sales. SB 375, 2008, the “Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act,” directed cities and counties to increase the housing density of their communities.

When Jerry Brown took over as Governor in 2010, legislation accelerated. SBX1-2, 2011, raised the renewable portfolio standard to 33% by 2020. AB 1092, 2013, mandated electric vehicle charging stations in new multi-family dwellings. SB 1275, 2014, set a goal of 1.0 million “zero emission vehicles” by 2020. SB 350, 2015, raised the renewable portfolio standard to 50% by 2030. SB 32, 2016, set a greenhouse gas emission reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. AB 398 extended the “cap and trade” program to 2030.

At the end of the day only the very rich will be able to afford TV’s, lights and refrigerators at home.  The cost of energy will break most families and businesses.  Ready for Texas?

Solar panels

California’s Renewables Mandate Sets an Impossible Example for the World

It’s debatable whether some ‘renewables’ even produce net energy

By Edward Ring, California Globe,  2/14/19

 

“We will never waver on achieving the nation’s most ambitious clean energygoals.”

 Excerpt from Gavin Newsom’s State of the State Address, January 12, 2019

 

California has long been proclaiming itself the leader in fighting “climate change,” and incoming governor Gavin Newsom promises to continue the efforts. The big push began over ten years ago, with Gov. Schwarzenegger, who pivoted left after failing to reform public employee unions in 2005. Schwarzenegger promoted and then signed, AB 32, in 2006. This so-called “Global Warming Solutions Act” set the initial targets for greenhouse gas reduction, empowering the California Air Resources Board to monitor and enforce compliance with laws and regulations aimed at achieving these reductions.

Other significant legislation followed. SB 107, also passed in 2006, mandated a “renewable portfolio standard,” wherein by 2010 at least 20% of California’s electricity would come from renewable sources.

The legislation has been unrelenting. SB 1, 2006, mandated utilities pay rebates to homeowners that installed photovoltaic panels on their roofs. AB 118, 2007, funded the “Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program,” the first step towards mandating a minimum percentage of electric and hybrid vehicle sales. SB 375, 2008, the “Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act,” directed cities and counties to increase the housing density of their communities.

When Jerry Brown took over as Governor in 2010, legislation accelerated. SBX1-2, 2011, raised the renewable portfolio standard to 33% by 2020. AB 1092, 2013, mandated electric vehicle charging stations in new multi-family dwellings. SB 1275, 2014, set a goal of 1.0 million “zero emission vehicles” by 2020. SB 350, 2015, raised the renewable portfolio standard to 50% by 2030. SB 32, 2016, set a greenhouse gas emission reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. AB 398 extended the “cap and trade” program to 2030.

This is just a partial list. High speed rail, water rationing, “urban containment” policies, a virtual prohibition on any conventional energy development, retrofit mandates for trucks and dwellings, and much more – all of it has come down from Sacramento in an attempt to “address climate change.”

But will any of this work? Is California setting an example that the world can follow?

Can Renewables Meet Future Global Energy Demand?

The short answer is no. Renewables alone cannot possibly power the global economy. Using data on energy from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, along with population data from the World Bank, the following graphics make this clear.

In the above chart, row one shows the US population in 2017 of 324 million, which is 4.3 percent of the world total. Over 7.2 billion people are living in the rest of the world “ROW.” Row two shows that in 2017, using million metric tons of oil equivalents, the US consumed 2.2 billion “MTO equivalents,” which was about 17 percent of all energy consumed worldwide. That is, in 2017 the average American consumed nearly 4.5 times as much energy as the average person living in the rest of the world. Expressed as kilograms of oil in row three of the chart, in 2017 the average American burned 6,898 “KGO equivalents,” while the average for someone living in the rest of the world was only 1,561.

Most people would agree that access to cheap energy is a prerequisite for economic development, which in turn sets in motion a cascade of positive effects on societies – individual empowerment, female emancipation, access to clean water, healthcare, education, reduced infant mortality, fewer infectious diseases.

If one accepts that argument, the next chart projects how much more energy needs to be produced worldwide to achieve these positive economic benefits, and the positive effects that would follow from more abundant and affordable energy worldwide. A primary assumption is that Americans become somewhat more efficient in their use of energy, with their per capita KGO/year consumption declining from the 2017 average of 6,898 to 5,000 by 2035. The other related assumption is that the people living in the rest of the world increase their energy consumption from the 2017 average of 1,561/year up to 2,500/year by 2035, which would still only be one-half as much per capita as Americans would be consuming.

Based on these assumptions regarding individual energy consumption trends, as can be seen on the above chart, total global energy production will need to increase by 71 percent, from 13.5 billion metric tons of oil equivalents in 2017, to 23.1 per year in 2035. This is based on World Bank projections for 2035 that estimate the US population at 355 million and estimate the total world population increasing to 8.9 billion.

Can windmills and solar panels make that happen? They’ll have a long way to go. The next chart, courtesy of BP’s most recent Statistical Energy Review, shows the fuel mix of global energy production today.

It’s hard to even find the renewable slice on this graphic that shows global energy production by type for the last 25 years. On the right, where the 2017 mix is depicted, renewables are the minute orange slice, just below coal (grey), and hydroelectric (blue). As is obvious, coal, natural gas (red), and oil (green), constitute the overwhelming majority of energy produced in the world.

It is difficult to imagine 50 percent of this chart to be represented by renewables by 2035, when even under minimal scenarios to provide adequate energy for economic development, global energy production needs to double. But how green are renewables?

IS RENEWABLE ENERGY REALLY CLEAN AND GREEN

To answer this, an unlikely source provides an illuminating perspective. From the website of the “Deep Green Resistance,” a critique of green and renewable power is offered with a lucidity that eludes California’s policymakers. If the “deniers” of the right have no credibility with California’s green movement, perhaps the deep greens do. Consider these excerpts from the Deep Green Resistance website’s “Green Technology & Renewable Energy” FAQs:

“Aren’t renewables better than fossil fuel?

It’s debatable whether some ‘renewables’ even produce net energy. The amount of energy used in the mining, manufacturing, research and development, transport, installation, maintenance, grid connection, and disposal of wind turbines and solar panels may be more than they ever produce.

What about solar power?

Solar panel production is now among the leading sources of hexafluoroethane, nitrogen triflouride, and sulfur hexaflouride, three extremely potent greenhouse gases which are used for cleaning plasma production equipment. As a greenhouse gas, hexaflouroethane is 12,000 times more potent than CO2, is 100% manufactured by humans, and survives 10,000 years once released into the atmosphere. Nitrogen Triflouride is 17,000 times more virulent than CO2, and Sulfur Hexaflouride is 25,000 times more powerful than CO2. Concentrations of nitrogen triflouride in the atmosphere are rising 11% per year.

What about wind power?

One of the most common wind turbines in the world is a 1.5 megawatt design produced by General Electric. The nacelle weighs 56 tons, the tower 71 tons, and the blades 36 tons. A single such turbine requires over 100 tons of steel. This model is a smaller design by modern standards. The latest industrial turbines stand over 600 feet tall and require about eight times as much steel, copper, and aluminum.

What about hybrid and electric vehicles?

The production of electric cars requires energy from fossil fuels for most aspects of their production and distribution. This requirement is perhaps even more extreme with electric cars as there is a need to manufacture them to be as lightweight as possible, due to the weight of the battery packs. Many lightweight materials utilized are extremely energy intensive to produce, such as aluminum and carbon composites. Electric/hybrid cars are also charged by energy that, for the most part, comes from power plants using natural gas, coal or nuclear fuels. A recent study by the National Academies, which analyzed the effects of vehicle construction, fuel extraction, refining, emissions, and other factors, has shown that the lifetime health and environmental impacts of electric vehicles are actually greater than those of gasoline-powered cars.”

These are tough assertions. Not included here is the environmental footprint for literally gigawatt-years of storage capacity, not only to deliver continuous energy on windless nights, but, even more daunting, in winter when there are far fewer hours of sunlight. Most of what the Deep Green Resistance advocates may be considered dangerous extremism, but their assessment of renewable energy is cannot be ignored.

Where California’s mainstream greens depart from the deep greens is in their optimism. But a realistic assessment of renewable energy must combine the optimism of mainstream greens with the lucidity of the deep greens.

Renewables are not necessarily “greener” than conventional energy, particularly if conventional energy is produced using the cleanest technologies available. If the all the governments on earth enforced on their peoples the experiment that California is committed to – 50% renewable energy by 2030 – the likely result would be the collapse of civilization that the deep greens not only predict, but wish to hasten.

An “all-of-the-above” energy strategy is the only way to offer humanity the possibility of peaceful economic development.

Back in the 1990s, when environmentalism had not yet matured into the polarizing climate change bogeyman that it has become, one of the most reputable environmentalist journals was produced by the WorldWatch Institute. Back then, they consistently advocated “methane” (natural gas) as the “transitional fuel” to power the global economy until breakthrough technologies such as fusion power or satellite solar power stations became commercially viable. More recently, environmental activists such as Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore have advocated nuclear power as an essential part of our global energy future.

There is no place on earth more capable of developing clean fossil fuel and nuclear power than California. Californians have a choice. They can impoverish their population by creating artificial scarcity of land, energy and water, enforcing draconian restrictions on all development in the name of fighting climate change. Or they can face reality, and become pioneering partners in a new age of clean energy development from all sources. That would set a viable example for the world to follow.

 

San Fran Museum to Sell $35 Million Rothko Painting to Increase ‘Artistic Diversity’

In San Fran even the museums have to be politically correct.  To do so, they are FORCED to sell a $35-40 million painting to finance the politically correct art allowed in the museum.

“The San Francisco Museum of Modern Art announced this week that they will be selling an untitled work from abstract expressionist Mark Rothko. Proceeds from the painting, which is worth anywhere from $35 to $50 million, will be used to buy paintings from non-white artists.

The decision was made after critics pointed out that the museum heavily features works by German male artists of the 1980s. According to a report from the San Francisco Chronicle, fewer than 16 percent of the artists displayed in the museum are women and six percent are black or Hispanic.

The museum also has Rothko’s “No. 14” in its collection, which is not for sale. Art critics argue that “No 14.” is a better piece of art than the untitled Rothko piece that is being sold to fund the museum’s diversity initiative.”

Nothing is sacred from the haters and bigots of San Fran—even painting have to reflect radical politics.  Another reason to stay away from San Fran.

Photo Courtesy of 401(K) 2013, Flickr

San Francisco Museum to Sell $35 Million Rothko Painting to Increase ‘Artistic Diversity’

Tom Ciccotta, Breitbart,  2/18/19

The San Francisco Museum of Modern Art announced this week that it is selling a $35 million painting by Mark Rothko in order to buy artwork by non-white artists.

The San Francisco Museum of Modern Art announced this week that they will be selling an untitled work from abstract expressionist Mark Rothko. Proceeds from the painting, which is worth anywhere from $35 to $50 million, will be used to buy paintings from non-white artists.

The decision was made after critics pointed out that the museum heavily features works by German male artists of the 1980s. According to a report from the San Francisco Chronicle, fewer than 16 percent of the artists displayed in the museum are women and six percent are black or Hispanic.

The museum also has Rothko’s “No. 14” in its collection, which is not for sale. Art critics argue that “No 14.” is a better piece of art than the untitled Rothko piece that is being sold to fund the museum’s diversity initiative.

The report from the San Francisco Chronicle makes the case that Rothko would endorse the decision to sell his painting to increase representation at the museum.

The choice of a painting by Mark Rothko to, in effect, trade for works by underrepresented artists carries with it a certain sense of justice. Rothko was a Russian Jewish immigrant raised by his widowed mother in Portland, Ore., whose early years were much influenced by leftist thought. He rose to fame as among the most important of the Abstract Expressionist painters, widely revered for luminous paintings that many see as deeply spiritual. He took his own life in 1970, at age 66.

A president from an auction house said that she is optimistic that the Rothko painting will sell. She said that Rothko pieces from that era, the peak of his career, are incredibly popular. They often sell at auction at or above their asking price.

Stay tuned to Breitbart News for more updates on this story.

 

Deckers to Close in Camarillo With 99 Jobs Lost–Another Sign of California Recession?

In the same issue of the San Fernando Valley Business Journal showing 99 jobs lost at Deckers, you also have Bank of America killing 120 jobs in Simi Valley and PayLess closing six stores in Ventura County.  Jerry Brown said California has entered a recession.  San Fran and L.A. have had homes sales drop by 20% each—Orange County is enduring only a 10% drop.

“Deckers Outdoor Corp. will close its Camarillo distribution center this summer, resulting in layoffs for 99 employees.

The Goleta footwear designer and distributor notified the state Employment Development Department early this month that the layoffs started in November and would wrap up by Aug. 31.”

High taxes, high housing costs, gridlock, bad schools, government control of our lives—and Sacramento taking over zoning and building permits for the cities.  No need for an elected city council, the Capitol will control your town.  Could that be why we are in a recession?  Thanks to government folks and businesses are fleeing the State while they can.

u.s.-economy-jobs-resumes-slow-growth-06sept2012-620x413

Deckers to Close in Camarillo With 99 Jobs Lost

By Mark Madler, San Fernando Valley Business Journal,  2/18/19

Deckers Outdoor Corp. will close its Camarillo distribution center this summer, resulting in layoffs for 99 employees.

The Goleta footwear designer and distributor notified the state Employment Development Department early this month that the layoffs started in November and would wrap up by Aug. 31.

“This will be a permanent closing of the entire Camarillo distribution center, and employees will be laid off in stages as the operations of the center wind down,” said the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification sent by Deckers on Feb. 5.

Positions being eliminated include 35 warehouse associates, 32 equipment operators, seven supervisors and four shipping and receiving clerks.

Deckers was founded in 1973 by Doug Otto and Karl Lopker. Its name was changed to Deckers Outdoor Corp. in 1993 when the company went public on the Nasdaq. Its brands include Ugg, Teva, Sanuk and Hoka One One.

 

Unions Extort UC Davis to Hire ONLY Their members—NOT the Best Possible Employees

Unions are claiming that unless you pay dues (bribes) to them, you are not qualified to work in the health field.  Yet, all workers need to have the same PROFESSIONAL qualifications—those do not include being a member of the PTA, Rotary, church group or union—those do not make you a good or bad health care worker.  Note the unions oppose young people to have free choice to join or a union or not—maybe the Republican party needs to speak out to the young and explain the decision to belong to a club or union is theirs, not a mandate to join or no job.  What do you think?

“UC Davis is partnering with a national company called Kindred Healthcare to build the new 40-bed physical rehabilitation center, and that company — which owns 51 percent of the project — will be doing the hiring. When the current rehabilitation units close due to seismic compliance deadlines taking effect in 2020, administration says those workers can apply for jobs with Kindred, or they can take jobs elsewhere in the main hospital or at outpatient clinics. They say no one will be laid off.

Still, labor groups are raising the alarm about what they allege is outsourcing. It’s a practice that involves replacing in-house employees with outside workers, often because they’re cheaper or more specialized. It’s happening increasingly in health care as hospitals feel the financial strain of more patients and lower reimbursement rates. The outsourcing question has been a main point of contention in recent UC-wide strikes.””

Only in a totalitarian State are workers force to pay tribute to outsiders in order to work—California appears to be a totalitarian State?  What do you think?

Unions2

Planned Aggie Square Rehab Facility Has UC Labor Unions Concerned Over Outsourcing

Sammy Caiola, Capitol Public Radio,  2/18/19

The new Aggie Square campus near the UC Davis hospital in Sacramento is being advertised as a hub of innovation for the university, but the new rehab facility there might not be staffed by UC employees.

UC Davis is partnering with a national company called Kindred Healthcare to build the new 40-bed physical rehabilitation center, and that company — which owns 51 percent of the project — will be doing the hiring. When the current rehabilitation units close due to seismic compliance deadlines taking effect in 2020, administration says those workers can apply for jobs with Kindred, or they can take jobs elsewhere in the main hospital or at outpatient clinics. They say no one will be laid off.

Still, labor groups are raising the alarm about what they allege is outsourcing. It’s a practice that involves replacing in-house employees with outside workers, often because they’re cheaper or more specialized. It’s happening increasingly in health care as hospitals feel the financial strain of more patients and lower reimbursement rates. The outsourcing question has been a main point of contention in recent UC-wide strikes.

The therapists, social workers and nurses in UC Davis’s current rehab department say if Kindred hires new staff to take their spots, patients will see a drop in quality.

Jasmine Tobin is a certified occupational therapy assistant who’s been working with local UC labor union AFSCME 3299 on the issue.

“It just feels like such a disservice to our community to not bring us, as skilled clinicians, to this new area to be able to provide that,” she said. “It’s really heartbreaking.”

Steve Telliano, assistant vice chancellor for public affairs at UC Davis Health,says UC Davis wouldn’t have been able to build the new $2 billion facility without partnering with Kindred. And he says it’s not outsourcing, it’s job creation. He expects there will be more than 200 new positions at Kindred, while the existing positions at UC Davis Medical Center stay intact.

Telliano thinks UC employees can find jobs at the new facility, and says the public-private partnership is a key component of the new Aggie Square project.

“Kindred has said they’re really interested in hiring our employees, because they’re very good,” he said. “It’s going to create new jobs doing additional physical therapy, and even, we hope, new kinds of physical therapy, so this is a net job partnership.”

Tobin says she doesn’t want to work for Kindred, and that her colleagues are dubious about the company’s credibility. She says her future — including how she’ll provide for her family — has suddenly become uncertain.

“It’s uprooted a lot of emotions that I never expected, thinking that this was gonna be where I was retiring doing what I absolutely love to do,” she said.

Dr. Richard Sheff, chief medical officer with a healthcare consulting firm called the Greeley Company, said there are times when outsourcing makes a lot of sense, such as when hospitals contract with food companies to hire meal service staff. But some situations are more likely to lead to labor disputes.

“If you’re an employee in a hospital or health care system, and the hospital chooses to outsource what you do to another company, one might feel wronged in the process,” he said. “However, organizations at any business have to figure out how to provide a service at the highest quality and lowest cost.”

Outsourcing could become even more common as jobs that had to be done in person go digital and can be assigned to faraway labor, said Dr. Robert Wachter, a physician at the University of California, San Francisco who studies the way hospitals work.

“We’re beginning to see things like radiology or pathology get outsourced every now and then because the doctor doesn’t need to look at a physical X-ray or a physical pathology slot anymore, they can look at a digital image,” he said.

The labor union is currently voicing concerns to UC Davis administration about staffing at the new facility.

Cities And States Are Scaling Back Their ‘Green’ Ambitions As Costs Skyrocket, Opposition Grows

Socialists want to price you into poverty.  One way is to ban cheap, clean energy and force you to buy expensive, non-reliable alternative energy.

“Georgetown’s green energy ambitions, however, have cost the city roughly $30 million over the past five years. The loss is driven by the long-term wind and solar energy contracts the city entered into, betting that fossil fueled-electricity prices would rise.

The opposite happened, and Georgetown’s municipal utility announced in late January it would increase customers’ bills about $13 a month to recover its bad bets. City officials are currently trying to renegotiate their long-term green energy contracts.

What about high-speed rail? The Green New Deal calls for investments in high-speed rail and other forms of mass transit to make airplanes, and the internal combustion engine itself, obsolete.”

This is what we Californians are going to pay.  Like Cuba, we will not have electricity 24/7, but only when government wants us to have it.  Ready to be a Third World State—or have you called U-Haul yet?

aoc

Cities And States Are Scaling Back Their ‘Green’ Ambitions As Costs Skyrocket, Opposition Grows

Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller,  2/18/19

 

Cities and states are having a hard time trying to implement climate policies laid out in the Green New Deal.

  • Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez introduced the Green New Deal to transform the U.S. economy.
  • One Texas city’s switch to solar and wind has cost millions and added to residents’ electric bills.

Democrats’ Green New Deal legislation envisions a United States that eliminates all greenhouse gas emissions through a massive expansion of government control, which includes a green grid, electrified mass transit and high-speed rail.

Cities and states actually trying to implement these policies, however, are often finding it difficult to overcome political and economic realities.

In the past year, for example, Washington state voters rejected — for a second time — a proposal to tax carbon dioxide emissions. Carbon tax opponents successfully framed the proposal as an energy tax that would raise prices and do nothing for future global warming. The tax was backed by Democrats like Gov. Jay Inslee, who is also mulling a 2020 presidential run.

Inslee, who styles himself as the Democratic “climate candidate,” has also failed to push major climate policies through the legislature and using his own executive authority.

“It shows you how ineffective he’s been even in a state like Washington,” Todd Myers, environmental policy director at the Washington Policy Center, told The Daily Caller News Foundation in a recent interview.

“We’re doing it whether people want it or not,” Myers said of Inslee’s attempts to clamp down on greenhouse gas emissions.

The Inslee-backed carbon tax would have cost households an extra $230 per year in 2020, according to the Washington Policy Center. Energy bills, including gasoline prices, will increase because of the tax.

New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey, both Democrats, recently introduced highly-anticipated resolutions for a Green New Deal. Those bills called for the entire U.S. to be powered by “clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources” within 10 years.

The bill also calls for “dramatically expanding and upgrading existing renewable power sources” as part of Green New Deal supporters’ climate crusade

Even at the local level, however, efforts to decarbonize the grid are easier said than done — and not just for political reasons.

Georgetown, Texas, is one of the biggest U.S. cities to claim to meet 100 percent of its electricity needs with solar and wind power. The city began to switch to solar and wind in 2012, and Republican Mayor Dale Ross quickly became a poster child for environmentalism.

The city was even featured in former Vice President Al Gore’s filmAn Inconvenient Sequel,” which was released in 2017. Gore called the city a “trailblazer” in the fight against global warming.

Georgetown’s green energy ambitions, however, have cost the city roughly $30 million over the past five years. The loss is driven by the long-term wind and solar energy contracts the city entered into, betting that fossil fueled-electricity prices would rise.

The opposite happened, and Georgetown’s municipal utility announced in late January it would increase customers’ bills about $13 a month to recover its bad bets. City officials are currently trying to renegotiate their long-term green energy contracts.

What about high-speed rail? The Green New Deal calls for investments in high-speed rail and other forms of mass transit to make airplanes, and the internal combustion engine itself, obsolete.

However, California put the brakes on its high-speed rail project that voters approved in 2008 to shuttle passengers between Los Angeles and San Francisco. The project, dubbed the “train to nowhere” by critics, was estimated to cost $77 billion to complete.

“Let’s level about the high-speed rail,” Newsom said in his State of the State address in February, announcing most of the project would be halted.

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Gavin Newsom elected governor of California REUTERS

“Let’s be real, the current project as planned would cost too much and, respectfully, take too long. Right now, there simply isn’t a path to get from Sacramento to San Diego, let alone from San Francisco to L.A. I wish there were,” Newsom said.

Newsom said the state would complete the small, 119-mile section of high-speed rail between Merced and Bakersfield in the Central Valley. Though, that line is not expected to be finished until 2022 at a cost of $89 million per mile.

Even electrified mass transit is proving difficult, at least in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The Los Angeles Times reported Sunday the city canceled its $133 million plan for an all-electric bus line through downtown.

Massive construction in downtown Albuquerque hurt local businesses, modernized bus stops were vandalized and the electric buses themselves were found to have flaws that made them unusable.

The city has sued the Chinese-owned electric vehicle manufacturer and contracted with another company for diesel buses, according to The Times.

 

 

Huntington Beach legislator: Newsom housing lawsuit “seemed like selective prosecution”

Gavin Newson has decided to make sure the people in Huntington Beach—and other Republican towns are destroyed.  Instead of having a city council make housing, zoning and permits agreements, Sacramento will substitute itself for local government.  People in Huntington Beach will have to go 400 miles to the North if they want to address housing and zoning issues.  The effect is simple, the end of representative government.  That is the Democrats goals and they are close to reaching it.

“A conservative Huntington Beach legislator called a state lawsuit aimed at compelling the Orange County city to build more housing a “literal cannonball” from Gov. Gavin Newsom—adding that it “seemed like selective prosecution” when dozens of other California cities could be blamed for not doing their share to alleviate California’s housing shortage.

On “Gimme Shelter: The California Housing Crisis Podcast,” state Sen. John Moorlach, a Republican who represents about half of the seaside city of 200,000, wouldn’t go so far as to call the state lawsuit politically motivated. But he repeatedly called out what he perceived as the hypocrisy of the Newsom administration for targeting Huntington Beach when places in Northern California like Marin County—Newsom’s former home—are spared from litigation.”

Will the people of Huntington Beach and the rest oif California take back Sacramento, or just flee to Texas, a Free State.

John Moorlach1

Huntington Beach legislator: Newsom housing lawsuit “seemed like selective prosecution”

By Matt Levin, CalMatters,  2/8/19

 

A conservative Huntington Beach legislator called a state lawsuit aimed at compelling the Orange County city to build more housing a “literal cannonball” from Gov. Gavin Newsom—adding that it “seemed like selective prosecution” when dozens of other California cities could be blamed for not doing their share to alleviate California’s housing shortage.

On “Gimme Shelter: The California Housing Crisis Podcast,” state Sen. John Moorlach, a Republican who represents about half of the seaside city of 200,000, wouldn’t go so far as to call the state lawsuit politically motivated. But he repeatedly called out what he perceived as the hypocrisy of the Newsom administration for targeting Huntington Beach when places in Northern California like Marin County—Newsom’s former home—are spared from litigation.

“To shoot a literal cannonball at one city who is presumed to not have met its requirements when there are fifty others seemed like selective prosecution or a different variety of the same,” said Moorlach. “I felt it was ‘brother, heal thyself’ first before you start hammering on a city in Orange County.”

Moorlach and three other state lawmakers—two of which are Democrats— who represent portions of the city are trying to broker a compromise between Huntington Beach and the Newsom administration that would avert further litigation.

Announced two weeks ago, the first-of-its-kind lawsuit alleges that Huntington Beach significantly reduced the number of housing units allowed in its local housing plan, and repeatedly declined to work with the state housing department to bring the city’s housing plan back into compliance with state law.

“My frustration as it related to (Huntington Beach) is not that they’re not building housing—they’re not,”  Newsom told CALmatters. “Not that they’re not entitling housing—they’re not. It’s that they’re not even planning. They refuse to plan, and that just seems to me a basic, fundamental responsibility that we all have.”

On this episode of the podcast, CALmatters’ data and housing reporter Matt Levin and the Los Angeles Times’ Liam Dillon explain everything you need to know about the Huntington Beach case, including how it fits into Newsom’s broader strategy to circumscribe local control over housing decisions. They interview Sen. Moorlach, as well as Assemblyman Miguel Santiago, the Los Angeles Democrat who authored the new law the Newsom administration invoked to sue Huntington Beach.

 

We Cannot Risk Garcetti’s Leap of Faith

The Socialist Mayor of Los Angeles, Eric Garcetti, has decided to make Los Angeles as poor as Cuba and as lacking in energy as any Third World State.  He is giving up on cheap, clean energy and forcing those left in Los Angeles (what is left of the middle class and poor will be forced out of the City) and demanding only the most expensive least reliable form of energy for the families and businesses of L.A.  Of course, the businesses will leave, then the unemployed families not far behind.

“The Garcetti plan not to repower the three coast natural gas power plants was not vetted by the Department’s Power System.  Rather, it was a last minute political decision.  No consideration was given to the reliability of the DWP’s Power System and to the impact on the Department’s ratepayers who are already experiencing much higher bills than anticipated in the last rate case.

While Garcetti mentioned lower rates and bills and huge savings from his plan, this campaign like promise is pure baloney.  According to the independent consultant’s report, the present value of the Garcetti plan will be $4 to $5 billion more than the original plan to repower Scattergood, Haynes, and Harbor.  This amount is greater than the annual revenue of the Power System’s revenue of $3.8 billion.  So just imagine what this will do to our DWP bill.

The Socialist Garcetti wants you to pay DOUBLE for energy—you better make your appointment with U-Haul.  Texas has plenty of jobs and cheapo housing.  Will the last person to leave Los Angeles please turn out the lights (of course the lights will be out much sooner).

Photo courtesy of Eric Garcetti, Flickr.

We Cannot Risk Garcetti’s Leap of Faith

Jack Humphreville, City Watch LA,  2/18/19

LA WATCHDOG–Mayor Eric Garcetti’s hastily called press conference (photo above)  on Tuesday morning, February 12, was essentially a pep rally for the Los Angeles New Green Deal team where he announced the depowering / phase out of the Department of Water and Power’s three coastal natural gas power plants that are a major source of reliable electricity for the City of Los Angeles.

This sudden announcement is a radical departure from the earlier plan to eliminate sea water as a coolant and to repower these three facilities, Scattergood, Haynes, and Harbor, with more fuel-efficient combined cycle power plants by 2029, a negotiated deadline between the State and DWP.

This new fossil free plan is also a significant departure from the recommendations of a year-long study by an independent consultant that would have eliminated a significant amount of natural gas fired power by relying on solar and wind renewables, energy efficiency and demand response programs, and energy storage.  These recommendations that were supported by the DWP Power System were presented to the DWP Board of Commissioners on November 27.

The Garcetti plan not to repower the three coast natural gas power plants was not vetted by the Department’s Power System.  Rather, it was a last minute political decision.  No consideration was given to the reliability of the DWP’s Power System and to the impact on the Department’s ratepayers who are already experiencing much higher bills than anticipated in the last rate case.

While Garcetti mentioned lower rates and bills and huge savings from his plan, this campaign like promise is pure baloney.  According to the independent consultant’s report, the present value of the Garcetti plan will be $4 to $5 billion more than the original plan to repower Scattergood, Haynes, and Harbor.  This amount is greater than the annual revenue of the Power System’s revenue of $3.8 billion.  So just imagine what this will do to our DWP bill.

As for the claim of lower rates and bills, when was the last time your DWP bill was lower!

There are also serious concerns about the future reliability of the Power System given the elimination of coal and natural gas, the main fuels powering the base load, and the increased demand for electricity, especially for emission free electric vehicles.  The Port of Los Angeles and LAX (Los Angeles International Airport) are also demanding more electricity as these proprietary departments aim to lower their emission of greenhouse gas.

The elimination of fossil fuels will require the development of renewable resources, primarily wind and utility scale solar.  This will involve considerable expense as well as significant investments in existing and new transmission lines that will deliver power to the City.

Since the sun does not shine at night, the Department will need to develop massive amounts of very expensive energy storage, whether it be lithium batteries, compressed air, or pumped hydro storage (such as the $3 billion Hoover Dam project).

At the same time, DWP will need to modernize its grid and its communication systems to be able to integrate smart meters into Power System as well as manage thousands of residential and industrial roof top solar systems that are feeding power into the grid.  The Department will also need to improve its demand response and energy efficiency programs which also rely on an improved power grid.

There is also the question of whether DWP has the engineering staff, the organizational and administrative capabilities, and the trained workforce to implement Garcetti’s plan in a timely and economical manner while keeping our lights on, especially during hot summer days.

While Garcetti said that the LAUSD / UTLA settlement required a “leap of faith,” this is a risk that DWP cannot afford to take and is not an appropriate response to his plan to depower the Department’s gas fired power plants.  Without reliable power, the economy will tank.

As a first step, it would be appreciated if the DWP and its politically appointed commissioners would provide us with some basic information about Garcetti’s plan, even if they are preliminary thoughts and estimates.

Before proceeding, we need a detailed plan, developed by the Department and its independent consultants, approved by State and Federal regulators, reviewed by the Ratepayers Advocate, and available to the Ratepayers, that focuses on reliability and rates as well as the environment.

(Jack Humphreville writes LA Watchdog for CityWatch. He is the President of the DWP Advocacy Committee and is the Budget and DWP representative for the Greater Wilshire Neighborhood Council.  He is a Neighborhood Council Budget Advocate.

 

The Left Wants to Transform Our Election System. It’s a Recipe for 1-Party Rule.

If you like the one party State of California, you will love HR1—the Pelosi effort to turn elections nationally into California style elections.

“• Forces states to implement mandatory voter registration, removing civic participation as a voluntary choice, and increasing chances for error.

  • Mandates that states allow all felons to vote.
  • Forces states to extend periods of early voting, which has shown to have no effect on turnout.
  • Mandates same-day voter registration, which encourages voter fraud.

Once approved no need to vote—the fraud created, like in California will assure one-party rule nationwide.

pelosi schumer

The Left Wants to Transform Our Election System. It’s a Recipe for 1-Party Rule.

Jarrett Stepman, Daily Signal,  2/18/19 

H.R. 1 would dramatically change the American voting system among other things. (Photo:

Jarrett Stepman is an editor and commentary writer for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Send an email to Jarrett.

Democrats intend to save “democracy” by putting themselves in charge of elections.

As absurd as that sounds, it really is a part of the inappropriately named “For the People Act of 2019,” or H.R. 1, moving through the House of Representatives.

The Heritage Foundation created a list of the law’s provisions, which you can read here. The Conservative Action Project also provided this quick rundown of the bill:

  • Forces states to implement mandatory voter registration, removing civic participation as a voluntary choice, and increasing chances for error.
  • Mandates that states allow all felons to vote.
  • Forces states to extend periods of early voting, which has shown to have no effect on turnout.
  • Mandates same-day voter registration, which encourages voter fraud.
  • Limits the ability of states to cooperate to see who is registered in multiple states at the same time.
  • Prohibits election observers from cooperating with election officials to file formal challenges to suspicious voter registrations.
  • Criminalizes protected political speech by making it a crime to ‘discourage’ someone from voting.
  • Bars states from making their own laws about voting by mail.
  • Prohibits chief election officials in each state from participating in federal election campaigns.
  • Mandates free mailing of absentee ballots.
  • Mandates that states adopt new redistricting commissions.

The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>

The bill is more or less a grab bag of progressive priorities, much like the Green New Deal.

Like the misguided movement to abolish the Electoral College, H.R. 1, in the name of democracy, takes a blow torch to the concepts federalism and self-government enshrined in our Constitution.

As the above summary makes clear, H.R. 1 has numerous provisions that would undermine free speech rights, upend the way America conducts elections, encourage voter fraud, and turn election oversight into little more than a partisan weapon to bludgeon foes.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., who seems to have positioned herself at the forefront of every piece of radical legislation coming out of the House, dismissed the idea that H.R. 1 is a “power grab” by Democrats.

Democrats took a 1st step to fix the massive, foundational issue of voting reform & money in politics.#HR1 For the People Act by @RepSarbanes was cosponsored by 227 members&passed the House.

Now it’s at the Senate. GOP is calling getting money out of politics a “power grab.” https://t.co/ruzqcN1MgZ

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) February 11, 2019

She had to make an almost immediate correction after that tweet, as the legislation has not yet passed the House. Even if it did, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has said it wouldn’t pass in the Senate, where Republicans hold a majority.

Ocasio-Cortez has a penchant for missteps, but she’s a good barometer for where the progressive base in America is.

In this bill, the left has shown it is willing to make a “naked attempt to change the rules of American politics to benefit one party,” as McConnell noted. But beyond that, H.R. 1 is most concerning for the devastating effect it would have on our federal republic.

National Review’s David French summed it up perfectly:

At its essence, the bill federalizes control over elections to an unprecedented scale, expands government power over political speech, mandates increased disclosures of private citizens’ personal information (down to name and address), places conditions on citizen contact with legislators that inhibits citizens’ freedom of expression, and then places enforcement of most of these measures in the hands of a revamped Federal Election Commission that is far more responsive to presidential influence.

Certainly, the effort to get around the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision through a constitutional amendment to get money out of politics is misguided and an assault on free speech. It is at odds with our right to free speech and, in the end, would mostly benefit insiders and incumbents who know how to play the Washington game of navigating arcane campaign finance laws.

Further, it would require donors to disclose their own private information in the name of “transparency.”

This is how democracy descends into mob rule. It’s why the Founders erected barriers to guard against a tyrannical majority. Given the way progressives brazenly attack and shame dissenters on college campuses—and increasingly in public life—it is all the more urgent that individual privacy rights be protected. Privacy is a cornerstone of liberty.

Perhaps the most concerning aspect of H.R. 1 is what it would do to American election laws and how it would not just undermine, but bulldoze any semblance of federalism left in our political system.

H.R. 1 would stop state legislatures from drawing up their own congressional districts and would mandate independent commissions in their place.

As I’ve written in the past, getting rid of legislative redistricting, sometimes known as “gerrymandering,” is a “cure” worse than the disease. Redistricting will always be partisan, no matter who does it. Laws to prevent this would simply drive partisan redistricting underground, where it would be done in secret by an unelected, uncountable commission rather than openly by a legislature.

Again, even if this were good policy, it assumes that the federal government has the right to dictate how states run their elections. It would take away the right of the citizens of a state to make their own choices on these issues.

H.R. 1 contains other violations of federalism—and the Constitution—including mandates to restore voting rights to felons as soon as they are released from prison and stop states from finding and removing ineligible voters.

And it gets worse.

After nationalizing American election laws, H.R. 1 would put them all under the watchful eye of a “revamped” Federal Election Commission. This is perhaps the most brazenly partisan element of the bill.

The Federal Election Commission currently allows six members (though it currently only has four), with a requirement that four members sign on to any decision in order for it to pass. It has an even number of Republican and Democratic appointees—thus, it takes both parties to agree to prosecute a violation of federal law. This prevents the party in control of the White House from enforcing the law in a partisan fashion.

H.R. 1 would change that by making the commission a five-person body comprised of the president’s appointees, with the president’s party able to appoint three of the five. This would make the commission into a partisan body beholden to the president.

Proponents say this would end the current “deadlock,” but in reality it would turn the commission into a partisan tool to be used by the president. It would be an egregious concentration of power, especially given the way the rest of the bill would nationalize American elections.

While the Framers weren’t unanimous about how much power states should have relative to the federal government, none would have thought it a good idea to give near-tyrannical power to an unelected body of five people, which is what H.R. 1 would essentially do.

The “For the People Act” really is little more than a progressive power grab intended to manipulate election rules to favor liberals, and it is an anti-democratic bill that would upend America’s electoral system.

As with the Green New Deal, it is a vehicle for introducing ideas that would fundamentally transform our republic into something we would not recognize at all.