Government Licensing Equals False Security Editorial by Stephen Frank

Think a professional with a government license means good work or quality? Do you believe a taxi driver, barber, teacher are great because they paid a fee to the State for a license and passed a test that may or may not have any relevance to the job they do in todays world—who knows how old the tests are?

“In 1999 the Institute of Justice brought a lawsuit against the State of California over the mandated licensing of “hair braiders” in the African American community. Under that law those providing services, mostly in the black community, were forced to spend $5,000 on a training program—which did not teach the art of braiding the hair of African-American women. Instead it taught them techniques that harmed the hair of black Americans.”

Seriously most of the licenses are for the purpose of control and making money, very few are involved with quality. Give a teacher a credential today and in 205—35 years from now—they will still be teaching—without another test. Now you know why quality is not a part of the government education system.

Photo courtesy Franco Folini, flickr

Photo courtesy Franco Folini, flickr

Government Licensing Equals False Security Editorial by Stephen Frank

Stephen Frank editorial

 

When you have an illness and need a specialist you ask your friends if they know of a “good doctor”. You go to Google and try to find a specialist and you look for experience, reviews by former patients. You check to see what medical school they went to, where they went for special training. Through the whole process one item was not looked for, if they have a government issued license.

In 1999 the Institute of Justice brought a lawsuit against the State of California over the mandated licensing of “hair braiders” in the African American community. Under that law those providing services, mostly in the black community, were forced to spend $5,000 on a training program—which did not teach the art of braiding the hair of African-American women. Instead it taught them techniques that harmed the hair of black Americans. This is from the Institute for Justice web site:

“California had required that African hairstylists spend nine months (1,600 hours) and at least $5,000 at a government-approved cosmetology school before sitting for the state licensing examination, which allowed braiders to legally practice their craft.  But none of these government-mandated classes actually taught students how to braid hair.  In fact, they taught techniques that were especially damaging to African hair.”

This cost many women their profession until the law was over turned. Think about it. Do you believe that any community woman would ask to see a State license of a professional braider or would they ask their neighbor about the quality of work of the local braider?

I am the President of my homeowners association. Our Board is only able to hire contractors licensed by the State to do work on the property. There are many better vendors, there are many cheaper vendors, but due to our insurance coverage, we are forced to only allow contractors with State licenses and workers comp coverage. Neither the coverage nor the license provides quality.

The State of California issues credentials to teachers. You are not allowed to be in a government school classroom without a credential. Yet no one believes that makes them a good teacher. We know that the tenure laws, if used, will cost between $250,000 to $1,000,000 per teacher to fire a single teacher. Districts find it too expensive to fire the bad teachers, so keep them. Worse, they transfer the teacher to another school. The education community calls this “the dance of the lemons”.

Does holding a government license make you better at teaching, building fences or saving lives? The dental community in California has a problem that dentists with serious complaints have a waiting period of up to five years before an investigation is completed. Feel safer now?

Why do governments issue licenses? Mostly it is to create a shortage of “qualified” vendors. In this way those with the valued licenses have little problem with new vibrant competitors. Based on mandated training, hours of training needed (to braid hair you needed 1600 hours—in a 40 hour week that meant training for 9 months—heck my daughters learned to braid hair in under an hour) cost of “certified” training and lost income, those going for licenses lose a lot of money in the process of meeting government qualifications.

It also keeps people out of a career or a job. My daughters are qualified to braid any hair, taxi drivers know how to drive without government approvals, yet must give up time and income to meet the government’s arbitrary requirements, and pay a fee to government each year to keep the license.

We live in the 21st century. Technology, the internet, friends, can give us more information about a potential vendor, doctor or teacher than government. Want to find out the details of a teachers problems—the State says those files are confidential. So, you go to parents and the Internet to get the information hidden by government. Maybe the time has come to end the government monopoly on realtors, teachers, taxi drivers and those they think can pay a yearly fee to be able to work.

Isn’t it time we get government out of the business of licensing and put people back into control? Can we decide to get the best possible teacher—by parents refusing to have children in the classroom of the bad teachers? The free market works when the people have freedom to choose. We should choose who we want and tell government to stay out of our business. The role of government is not to limit barbers, braiders, taxi drivers or protecting bad teachers. We deserve better.

O.C. Latino Loses Election: Now Latinos Would Laws Changed to GUARANTEE They Win

Like a bunch of little children, some radicals in the Orange County Latino community are trying to imitate Barack Obama. If you lose an election, declare victory and change the laws so in the future no one else can run—kind of like Cuba. Actually, they want racist elections, where Latinos are only allowed to vote for Latinos—except if the Latinos are Republican.

“This month, Vietnamese American attorney Andrew Do was sworn into office as First District Supervisor after beating career Latino politician Lou Correa in a special election by 43 votes.

There are now three Asian American supervisors and two white supervisors.

“(Latinos) have no voice in the county government,” said Latino activist Art Montez. “No voice in health care, they have no voice as to what public parks are going to get.

Latinos make up 34.2 percent of the population in Orange County, according to Census estimates in 2013.  Most live in Anaheim and Santa Ana, the two largest Latino majority cities in the county.”

So, they are clearly saying if we can’t win an honest election, then make it a racist election where only “our types” are allowed on the ballot. Bigotry did not die with George Wallace—it is alive in the White House and the radical Orange County Latino community.

Latino activists consider voting rights lawsuit against Orange County

by Erika Aguilar, KPCC, 2/16/15

Like a bunch of little children, some radicals in the Orange County Latino community are trying to imitate Barack Obama. If you lose an election, declare victory and change the laws so in the future no one else can run—kind of like Cuba. Actually, they want racist elections, where Latinos are only allowed to vote for Latinos—except if the Latinos are Republican.

“This month, Vietnamese American attorney Andrew Do was sworn into office as First District Supervisor after beating career Latino politician Lou Correa in a special election by 43 votes.

There are now three Asian American supervisors and two white supervisors.

“(Latinos) have no voice in the county government,” said Latino activist Art Montez. “No voice in health care, they have no voice as to what public parks are going to get.

Latinos make up 34.2 percent of the population in Orange County, according to Census estimates in 2013.  Most live in Anaheim and Santa Ana, the two largest Latino majority cities in the county.”

So, they are clearly saying if we can’t win an honest election, then make it a racist election where only “our types” are allowed on the ballot. Bigotry did not die with George Wallace—it is alive in the White House and the radical Orange County Latino community.

vote count election

Latino activists consider voting rights lawsuit against Orange County

by Erika Aguilar, KPCC, 2/16/15

Activists in Orange County are considering a voting rights lawsuit after a Latino supervisorial candidate lost a special election last month. Some activist say county district lines split Latino residents and dilute their voting power.

This month, Vietnamese American attorney Andrew Do was sworn into office as First District Supervisor after beating career Latino politician Lou Correa in a special election by 43 votes.

There are now three Asian American supervisors and two white supervisors.

“(Latinos) have no voice in the county government,” said Latino activist Art Montez. “No voice in health care, they have no voice as to what public parks are going to get.

Latinos make up 34.2 percent of the population in Orange County, according to Census estimates in 2013.  Most live in Anaheim and Santa Ana, the two largest Latino majority cities in the county.

But those cities are split among three districts on the Board of Supervisors, with the majority of Latinos concentrated in the First and Fourth Districts.

Montez said he and other activists have been thinking about whether to challenge the district boundaries in federal court.

Registered Latino voters dominate the First District, with 36 percent of the registration, according to statistics from Political Data Inc. In the Fourth District, they make up 30 percent of the registered voters.

Robert Rubin is a civil rights attorney specializing in elections law. He helped write California’s 2001 voting rights law.

He said the county board’s district lines could violate the federal voting rights law that protects minorities from discriminatory voting practices. It prohibits drawing districts that dilute the voting power of minorities.

“If you can show Latinos are a majority in one or more districts,” then there is a potential case, Rubin said.

He said the district must be geographically compact. Minorities must make up at least half of the voting age population in the district.

The Orange County Board of Supervisors redrew district boundaries in 2011 pitting Vietnamese Americans against Latinos in the First District.

Vietnamese American voters are a large block in this district at 24 percent, according to Political Data, Inc. They made up 46 percent of the early mail-in ballots pushing Do to the top in last month’s special election.

Not everyone wants to sue the county for voter discrimination. Democrat political consultant Claudio Gallegos said Latinos still make up the majority in the First District.

“If more Latinos in Santa Ana and east Garden Grove had turned out to vote, the numbers could have swung (Correa’s) way,” he said.

Gallegos said although, a simple majority Latino voter district can easily be drawn in Orange County, it may not solve the problem of voter apathy among Latinos.

Meanwhile, a recount requested by Correa ended late Friday with no change in the final numbers. An attorney for Correa has said they were looking for evidence of voter fraud or inconsistencies in the way vote-by-mail ballots were counted.

Activists in Orange County are considering a voting rights lawsuit after a Latino supervisorial candidate lost a special election last month. Some activist say county district lines split Latino residents and dilute their voting power.

This month, Vietnamese American attorney Andrew Do was sworn into office as First District Supervisor after beating career Latino politician Lou Correa in a special election by 43 votes.

There are now three Asian American supervisors and two white supervisors.

“(Latinos) have no voice in the county government,” said Latino activist Art Montez. “No voice in health care, they have no voice as to what public parks are going to get.

Latinos make up 34.2 percent of the population in Orange County, according to Census estimates in 2013.  Most live in Anaheim and Santa Ana, the two largest Latino majority cities in the county.

But those cities are split among three districts on the Board of Supervisors, with the majority of Latinos concentrated in the First and Fourth Districts.

Montez said he and other activists have been thinking about whether to challenge the district boundaries in federal court.

Registered Latino voters dominate the First District, with 36 percent of the registration, according to statistics from Political Data Inc. In the Fourth District, they make up 30 percent of the registered voters.

Robert Rubin is a civil rights attorney specializing in elections law. He helped write California’s 2001 voting rights law.

He said the county board’s district lines could violate the federal voting rights law that protects minorities from discriminatory voting practices. It prohibits drawing districts that dilute the voting power of minorities.

“If you can show Latinos are a majority in one or more districts,” then there is a potential case, Rubin said.

He said the district must be geographically compact. Minorities must make up at least half of the voting age population in the district.

The Orange County Board of Supervisors redrew district boundaries in 2011 pitting Vietnamese Americans against Latinos in the First District.

Vietnamese American voters are a large block in this district at 24 percent, according to Political Data, Inc. They made up 46 percent of the early mail-in ballots pushing Do to the top in last month’s special election.

Not everyone wants to sue the county for voter discrimination. Democrat political consultant Claudio Gallegos said Latinos still make up the majority in the First District.

“If more Latinos in Santa Ana and east Garden Grove had turned out to vote, the numbers could have swung (Correa’s) way,” he said.

Gallegos said although, a simple majority Latino voter district can easily be drawn in Orange County, it may not solve the problem of voter apathy among Latinos.

Meanwhile, a recount requested by Correa ended late Friday with no change in the final numbers. An attorney for Correa has said they were looking for evidence of voter fraud or inconsistencies in the way vote-by-mail ballots were counted.

 

Does California Need More National Monuments?

 Is it the role of the Federal government to take away land owned by the people of Los Angeles County and State of California, 300,000 acres, so the President can physically control move land. He will decide who can use this land and how. Not the people of California and the County that created the property in the first place. It is like me coming to your home and taking control of your backyard and you can do nothing about it.

“At the same time, environmentalists in California are pressing President Obama to use his own authority to protect hundreds of thousands of acres of federal lands from development by designating them as new national monuments.

There’s been a burst of activity on this front lately, with nearly 350,000 acres recently set aside for the new San Gabriel Mountains National Monument and stretches of the north coast recently added to the eclectic string of oceanside features known collectively as the California Coastal National Monument. While some of California’s 13 national monuments date back more than a century (see map), four were either established or expanded in the past four years.”

I should note the modern day Monument movement is being promoted by the United Nations. In the end, this is just another federalization of our nation, its people and our assets.

Photo courtesy of prayitno, flickr

Photo courtesy of prayitno, flickr

 

Does California Need More National Monuments?

Craig Miller, KQED Science, 2/16/15

Conservationists are hoping to set aside nearly 6,000 acres for a Santa Cruz Redwoods National Monument. (Mike Kahn/Sempervirens Fund)

This month, Congressman Mike Thompson (D-St. Helena) introduced — for at least the third time — a bill to set aside more than 350,000 acres north of the Bay Area as California’s newest national monument. Only this time, the footprint of the proposed Berryessa-Snow Mountain National Monument is minus Lake Berryessa, the man-made reservoir northeast of Napa which opponents say doesn’t merit special protections.

At the same time, environmentalists in California are pressing President Obama to use his own authority to protect hundreds of thousands of acres of federal lands from development by designating them as new national monuments.

There’s been a burst of activity on this front lately, with nearly 350,000 acres recently set aside for the new San Gabriel Mountains National Monument and stretches of the north coast recently added to the eclectic string of oceanside features known collectively as the California Coastal National Monument. While some of California’s 13 national monuments date back more than a century (see map), four were either established or expanded in the past four years.

This month, former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt was in Santa Cruz, stumping for a new monument there.

The push for the Berryessa-Snow Mountain lands is proceeding on dual tracks, seeking both presidential and congressional approval, whichever comes first.

Often, national monuments are established by executive order. Over the years, these designations have been both celebrated — and decried as an overreach of presidential authority.

As recently as this year, Senator Steve Daines (R-Montana) introduced an amendment to limit “unilateral” monument designations under the Antiquities Act.

But public lands expert John Leshy says most presidential designations have withstood the test of time, and have often been affirmed or expanded by Congress, after initial objections.

Leshy is the Distinguished Professor of Real Property Law at the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco. He was also the Interior Department’s top lawyer under President Clinton.

In the interview (click on the audio player above): Leshy clears up the difference between a national park and national monument, and talks about how history has judged the 1906 law that established presidential discretion over new national monuments.

San Fran Site of Legalization of Marijuana Strategy Session

As we know the issue of legalization of marijuana is going to be on the California November, 2016 ballot. Those supporting this initiative are raising money, several PAC’s in the State and outside are raising money. Now those supporting it have had a strategy planning session to coalesce around a single plan and measure.

I expect Big Tobacco to be a serious donor to the legalization cause. Other major interests will do the same. Yet, those that oppose this have not raised a dime, organized or even talked to one another. Why did Prop. 47 pass? Because only late in the game did some in the law enforcement community speak up and start a No on 47 Committee. We could wind up with marijuana legalization by default.

“Smart Approaches” may exist, but who knew that? Kevin Sabet works for the United Nations and Patrick Kennedy. None of the Board lives west of the Mississippi River. No Californians involved.

“She adds that there are lots of different interests involved – such as growers, patients, and business owners. “We’re jostling for position right now amongst those that are supposed to be friends on how to move forward in California in a way that benefits most of us most of the time,” Jones says.

But Kevin Sabet with the anti-legalization group Smart Approaches to Marijuana argues Californians were right to reject a similar ballot measure in 2010.”

marijuana

California Legalization Atop Cannabis Conference Agenda

 Ben Adler, capradio, 2/16/15

The cannabis industry holds its international business conference in San Francisco this weekend, and a November 2016 ballot measure that would legalize recreational marijuana for California adults is high on the conference agenda.

Groups that support marijuana legalization and taxation in California are trying to agree on a single initiative.

Dale Sky Jones with the Coalition for Cannabis Policy Reform says there are lots of details to work out. For example, “Creating a taxation regime that can really benefit the bottom line of the state, but not be so burdensome that we’re creating a secondary black market,” Jones says.

She adds that there are lots of different interests involved – such as growers, patients, and business owners. “We’re jostling for position right now amongst those that are supposed to be friends on how to move forward in California in a way that benefits most of us most of the time,” Jones says.

But Kevin Sabet with the anti-legalization group Smart Approaches to Marijuana argues Californians were right to reject a similar ballot measure in 2010.

“We don’t need to lock people up in jail for marijuana. But we don’t need to create an industry, Big Marijuana, which is exactly what would happen if California legalized,” Sabet says.

State lawmakers, meanwhile, could vote later this year on a regulatory framework for medical marijuana.

 

 

California lawmakers propose work-study program exclusively for illegal immigrants

Who says you have to be a citizen to get the full benefits of being in California? Who says you have to be here legally to get the full benefits of being in California? Who says, violating California and Federal laws is a detriment to getting full benefits?

In California our UC and State College system actually have seats set aside for illegal aliens. At UCLA, illegal aliens have free tutors assigned to them. This may be the case at other schools as well. Drivers licenses, with the amnesty they will get a total of $72,000 from the Feds for income taxes NOT paid, free Medi-Cal health care (which is why few will get to use the card—since in California the amnesty adds 1,000,000 to the roles—also adding hundreds of millions to the cost of California government).

Now, they will be given internships, to get experience for the jobs of Americans they will steal. The Feds still have a law making it illegal to hire illegal aliens—you can go to jail if you do. But Obama and Brown totally ignore this law as well.

Of course it is Democrats wanting to use your tax dollars to make sure your children can not get the experience needed to get a job! “California lawmakers have proposed a work-study program exclusively for illegal aliens enrolled at University of California and California State Universities.

Last Thursday, Assemblymen Mark Stone (D-Monterey Bay) and Jose Medina (D-Riverside) introduced AB 206, a legislative proposal to establish the California DREAM Work-Study program.”

immigration policy

California lawmakers propose work-study program exclusively for illegal immigrants

 

Gabriella Morrongiello Campus Reform, 2/4/15

 

  • Democratic lawmakers hope to create a separate work-study program for illegal immigrants in California.
  • The bill’s sponsors have yet to determine how the program would be funded.

 

California lawmakers have proposed a work-study program exclusively for illegal aliens enrolled at University of California and California State Universities.

Last Thursday, Assemblymen Mark Stone (D-Monterey Bay) and Jose Medina (D-Riverside) introduced AB 206, a legislative proposal to establish the California DREAM Work-Study program.

“Our bill just says here’s a program we want to do and we just want the state to be paying for it.”    Tweet This

Named after the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act—a failed federal bill granting reprieve to illegal immigrants who entered the U.S. as minors—the California program would “provide need-based work-study grants to undocumented students.”

According to Stone’s press release, the grants would be funded by California’s Student Aid Commission which would provide “100 [percent] of funds for work-study for students employed by a UC, CSU or public school district, and 50 [percent] of funds for job placements with other private or non-profit employers.”

Despite being eligible to receive in-state tuition within the UC and CSU systems; state-funded legal aid; valid driver’s licenses; and up to $20,000 in state-based financial aid, Stone and Medina believe undocumented students in California remain disadvantaged.

“In the absence of Washington, D.C., and Congress acting, I think we have shown and shown again that we in California are willing to act and do what we can to make our institutions open to all residents,” Medina told UC Berkeley’s student newspaper, the Daily Californian.

According to a 2014 report by the National Conference of State Legislatures, California is among five states that currently provide state-funded financial aid to undocumented students.

In 2013, UC President and former Department of Homeland Security (DHS) secretary Janet Napolitano announced a $5 million allocation toward financial aid and academic counseling for undocumented students.

“Consider this a down payment—one more piece of evidence of our commitment to all Californians,” Napolitano said at the time, adding that the “UC [system] will continue to be a vehicle for social mobility.”

In addition to the state-funded loans and aid already extended to undocumented students, Medina and Stone believe a separate work-study program would further improve the affordability of higher education for undocumented students.

“This measure helps DREAM Act students succeed in college and build their careers… When students participate in such programs, they receive grants that help offset the cost of tuition,” said Medina.

According to Stone’s press secretary, Arianna Smith, sponsors of the bill have yet to determine how the program would be funded.

“Our bill just says here’s a program we want to do and we just want the state to be paying for it,” Smith told Campus Reform. “We’re going to be engaging with the budget folks to see if it could be an augmentation to the CSU and UC budget.”

Smith estimates the current number of undocumented students enrolled in the UC and CSU system is “around 4,000 to 4,5000,” but notes that not everyone “would be eligible for the program and not all would decide to do work-study.”

“We’re still working on how much students would be eligible and how many would take up the offer,” said Smith.

UC and CSU students enrolled in the federal work-study program earn an average grant of $2,000 per school year, according to Smith. Stone and Medina’s measure would provide a similar sum to undocumented students.

“The idea is [providing] $2,000 in financial aid for a student who California has already legislatively decided we need to help succeed. This is a relatively inexpensive way to provide financial aid for a student,” Smith said.

The program proposal comes at a time when California is still confronted by considerable fiscal problems, despite Gov. Jerry Brown’s recent announcement applauding the state’s budget surplus.

According to a 2014 report by California Common Sense, a nonpartisan think tank dedicated to expanding transparency within the state legislature, California currently faces an estimated $443 billion “wall of debt.”

In January, Brown responded to the UC system’s demand for $220 million in additional funding with a $120 million grant, less than half of the requested amount.

Jon Feere, a legal policy analyst for the Center for Immigration Studies, views the proposal as “yet another example of California’s legislators bending over backwards to accommodate illegal aliens.”

“With President Obama’s lawless amnesty and state-level efforts like this, foreigners who believe they are above the law are increasingly getting access to taxpayer dollars,” Feere told Campus Reform. “States are basically trying to go around federal law in order to help foreigners who are breaking federal law.”

 

Union workers call out others for crossing picket line in rare lack of solidarity

This is a shock. Union workers willing to work when the bosses tell them not to, because other unions are on strike. Guess nobody works for the company any more, if you pay a bribe the union tells you when and if you work. Is San Fran changing? Is it becoming an adult, where people take their responsibilities seriously?

“The rat was out on Friday in front of Trayer Engineering in Potrero Hill, where the Sheet Metal Workers Local 104 union was on strike for the fourth straight week.

The rat — a giant inflatable rodent with an evil smile and money bursting from a pocket — is a staple of many picket lines in The City, but this one had a twist: plastered on the rat was the name of another union, whose workers crossed the line to go to work Friday.

That’s an uncommon occurrence, and a rare lack of solidarity in union-friendly San Francisco.”

Are we seeing little by little (52% of teacher’s nationwide do NOT pay bribes to unions) that the days of extortion/blackmail government protected is over? Is it possible that honesty and ethics could return to the work place? Hard to believe it is San Fran leading the way to freedom.

BART and Unions present before  state panel

Union workers call out others for crossing picket line in rare lack of solidarity 

By Chris Roberts SF Examiner, 2/16/15

As members of the Sheet Metal Workers Local 104 union picketed in a strike against Trayer Engineering, the union lashed out at electrical workers who still went to work Friday.

The rat was out on Friday in front of Trayer Engineering in Potrero Hill, where the Sheet Metal Workers Local 104 union was on strike for the fourth straight week.

The rat — a giant inflatable rodent with an evil smile and money bursting from a pocket — is a staple of many picket lines in The City, but this one had a twist: plastered on the rat was the name of another union, whose workers crossed the line to go to work Friday.

That’s an uncommon occurrence, and a rare lack of solidarity in union-friendly San Francisco.

“I’ve never seen anything like it in 40 years,” said Bruce Word, president of the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers.

Trayer, a family-owned business that’s been in San Francisco for decades, builds medium-voltage electrical switchgear used by utility companies including PG&E and San Diego Gas & Electric.

The company employs a few dozen workers from both the sheet-metal union and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1245 for “good, middle-class jobs” that pay between $20 and $35 an hour, according to Rick Werner, business agent for the local Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

The sheet-metal workers have been without a contract since July 2013 and went on strike — a work stoppage sanctioned and signed off on by the politically influential San Francisco Labor Council — last month.

But IBEW 1245 is not on strike and has a contract in place. The workers who crossed the line to go to work Friday are from the IBEW.

That was the affront that earned them their name scrawled on a sign affixed to the rat. Derisive shouts and hollers from the men and women on strike followed the IBEW workers, as well as the 20 or so nonunion workers hired from out of state to cover the sheet-metal positions as they crossed the picket line to go to work, all under the watchful eye of police and private security at the gate.

Striking workers suggested that the electrical workers were crossing the line in order to keep their jobs. In other words, if they stood with their union brothers and refused to work, their jobs would be in jeopardy.

It wasn’t clear Friday if that was the case. Trayer Engineering executive John Trayer did not respond to a message seeking comment.

Eric Wolfe, communications director for IBEW Local 1245, would not comment on why his members would cross a picket line, saying only that whether or not some decided to cross the picket line to go to work was an individual choice.

“It’s up to them,” he said.

Tim Paulson, executive director of the San Francisco Labor Council, declined to comment.

Organized labor’s political influence is still strong in California, where public-sector workers have historically played a factor in every election. However, labor union membership on the whole is reportedly on the decline in the United States.

In 2014, 11.1 percent of all American workers were in unions, down from 20.3 percent in 1983, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

 

Los Angeles Fights Kern County Over Sewage (Kern County Passes SECRET Zoning Ordinance)

Don’t you loved it when government fight one another? While this article is about a fight between two counties over sludge, that is not the real issue here. Look at this, “Kern County secretly adopted a zoning ordinance that will prevent Los Angeles from running its biosolids recycling facility, Los Angeles and others claim in court.”

Since when do counties change the laws and rules in secret? Why isn’t a DA filing suit, arresting the criminals—this was not done by mistake, it was purposely done to hide government decisions from the public and other governments. Why isn’t the Bakersfield Californian screaming about secret government?

“This action challenges Kern County’s surreptitious adoption of a new zoning ordinance, the sole purpose of which is to impose onerous new requirements on the recycling of biosolids,” the complaint states.

It continues: “County officials concealed the purpose of the ordinance, never once mentioning biosolids in the public notices of hearings on the proposed ordinance. Nor did the county pay heed to the important environmental consequences of burdening the widespread practice of recycling biosolids as an alternative to landfill disposal and a substitute for the use of chemical fertilizer on feed crops.”

This is an example of the open corruption of government—lying to everyone about the goals of its policies. Sounds like Obama is running Kern County—if you don’t like biosolids we will get rid of it for you. How? By lying by omission.

140325-mudslide-dog-jsw-1229p_c21304bac1c07cefc9b4a1fbbd6ce06f

 

Los Angeles Fights Kern County Over Sewage(Kern County Passes SECRET Zoning Ordinance)

By REBEKAH KEARN, Courthouse News, 2/16/15

   

BAKERSFIELD, Calif. (CN) – Kern County secretly adopted a zoning ordinance that will prevent Los Angeles from running its biosolids recycling facility, Los Angeles and others claim in court.
Biosolids, or sludge, include human waste processed at sewage and wastewater treatment plants.
The City of Los Angeles, sanitation district in Los Angeles and Orange counties, two biosolids treatment companies and the California Association of Sanitation Agencies sued Kern County and its Board of Supervisors on Feb. 10 in Kern County Court.
“This action challenges Kern County’s surreptitious adoption of a new zoning ordinance, the sole purpose of which is to impose onerous new requirements on the recycling of biosolids,” the complaint states.

It continues: “County officials concealed the purpose of the ordinance, never once mentioning biosolids in the public notices of hearings on the proposed ordinance. Nor did the county pay heed to the important environmental consequences of burdening the widespread practice of recycling biosolids as an alternative to landfill disposal and a substitute for the use of chemical fertilizer on feed crops.”
After domestic wastewater has been cleaned and disinfected, the resulting biosolids can be recycled and used as an organic fertilizer, according to the Environmental Protection Agency’s biosolids page.
Farmers and gardeners use biosolids because they are rich in phosphorous and nitrogen with trace elements magnesium and zinc that promote plant growth, increase crop yield, and improve the soil’s ability to retain moisture.
Plaintiffs say they have run a biosolids recycling facility at Green Acres Farm in Kern County since the 1990s and have “invested millions of dollars” to comply with the county’s stringent biosolids ordinances.
In 1999, most of the current plaintiffs sued Kern for adopting a new biosolids ordinance without preparing an environmental impact report that complied with the California Environmental Quality Act. Six years later, the Tulare County Court ordered Kern to prepare an environmental study concerning land application of biosolids, but the county never did it, according to the new complaint.
In June 2006, Kern voters passed Measure E, which purportedly banned the use of biosolids in unincorporated areas, but mainly served to prevent the plaintiffs from running their recycling operation, according to the complaint.
Though the plaintiffs successfully challenged the ban in Federal Court, the 9th Circuit vacated the judgment, “solely on the basis that plaintiffs lacked prudential standing to assert their federal claims,” and remanded the case, Los Angeles says.
The Tulare County Court preliminarily enjoined enforcement of Measure E in January 2011, and the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment in September 2014.
Confronted with the possibility of having Measure E struck down, the defendant Kern County Planning Commission announced a public hearing on Dec. 11, 2014, allegedly to consider adding a zoning ordinance to ensure that land use in the county complied with federal water quality pollution standards, according to the complaint.
The hearing announcement, which the plaintiffs say they did not receive, did not mention biosolids. But the proposed revision restricts the use of biosolids to designated areas, and requires those who want to recycle biosolids to “obtain a zoning change and approval of a site development plan, both of which would be subject to potentially lengthy and expensive CEQA review,” the complaint states.
The Kern County Board of Supervisors adopted the revision as Measure G-8533 on Jan. 6 this year. A day later, the plaintiffs say, the board issued a notice asserting that the project would have no impact on the environment and was thus categorically exempt from CEQA analysis.
The plaintiffs claim the county abused its discretion by approving the ordinance without environmental review.
They also claim that Kern County ignored the fact that discouraging the use of biosolids on county land will create indirect environmental impacts by forcing people to use less environmentally friendly alternatives, such as chemical fertilizers, and “shift[ing] biosolids land application activities to more distant locations, entailing greater environmental impacts.”
Kern County purposefully deceived the public about the true nature of the zoning ordinance to prevent the plaintiffs from submitting comments opposing the ordinance, the complaint adds.
If the ordinance is not vacated, Los Angeles’s biosolids recycling facility at Green Acres Farm will be transformed to nonconforming use, “restricting the city’s ability to alter or expand its operations,” according to the lawsuit.
The plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment that the ordinance violates CEQA, and want Kern County enjoined from enforcing it until the county completes an environmental study that complies with CEQA regulations.
The city of Los Angeles is represented by Michael J. Lampe of Visalia and City
Attorney Michael Feuer. Gary J. Smith, with Beveridge & Diamond of San Francisco, represents the other plaintiffs

 

Obama Orders Border Patrol to Put Illegal Alien Drunk Drivers on the Road

Years ago a young girl named Lightner was killed by a drunk driver. That caused her mother, Candy, to form “Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)”,. Looks like MADD needs to take action against the President of the United States, a supporter of illegal aliens driving drunk on our roads.

“Obtained by Judicial Watch this week, the notice is titled “Enforcement Options With Alcohol-Impaired Drivers” and directs the 4,000-plus U.S. Border Patrol agents in the Tucson, Arizona sector to “release” individuals under the influence and “allow them to go on their way.” The document acknowledges that this feels counter-intuitive for Border Patrol agents, but eases concerns by answering a hypothetical question for the officers who have sworn to uphold the law: “If you allow this driver to continue down the road and they kill someone, aren’t you liable?” The answer is no, according to the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) memo. “There is no legal requirement for a Border Patrol agent to intervene in a state crime, including DUI,” the order says, adding that “therefore there is generally no liability that will attach to the agent or agency for failing to act in this situation.”

I would hope that if someone’s loved one is killed by an illegal aliens stopped and released by the Border Patrol, the lawsuits against the officer will force law enforcement officers of the Border Patrol to stop promoting the death of honest citizens because the President protects criminals—even those that will kill. This may be th sickest thing he has every done—promoting drunk driving.

United_States_Border_Patrol_Mexico

Border Patrol Ordered to Release Drunk Drivers, “Allow Them to Go On Their Way”

Judicial Watch, 2/13/15

The Obama administration has ordered federal agents responsible for protecting one of the nation’s busiest and most crime-infested regions near Mexico to stop apprehending drunk drivers, according to an internal government memo that also concedes an officer that elects to detain them is “acting within the course and scope of his employment.”

Obtained by Judicial Watch this week, the notice is titled “Enforcement Options With Alcohol-Impaired Drivers” and directs the 4,000-plus U.S. Border Patrol agents in the Tucson, Arizona sector to “release” individuals under the influence and “allow them to go on their way.” The document acknowledges that this feels counter-intuitive for Border Patrol agents, but eases concerns by answering a hypothetical question for the officers who have sworn to uphold the law: “If you allow this driver to continue down the road and they kill someone, aren’t you liable?” The answer is no, according to the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) memo. “There is no legal requirement for a Border Patrol agent to intervene in a state crime, including DUI,” the order says, adding that “therefore there is generally no liability that will attach to the agent or agency for failing to act in this situation.”

The directive offers another scenario—detaining the impaired individual at the request of state or local law enforcement officers (LEO). “There is no duty to detain the alcohol-impaired individual,” the memo says, “but if you do this option can raise potential liability for the agent and the agency.” The document goes on to say that Border Patrol policy is to cooperate with local and state law enforcement officers who alert of suspected violations under state law. That means the agent would be considered to have been acting within the course and scope of his employment while detaining a drunk driver at the request of local law enforcement officers under Arizona law, the document confirms.

The last scenario offered in the recently issued decree has a Border Patrol agent detaining a drunk driver in Arizona without a request from a state or local law enforcement officer. “This option poses the greatest liability for both the agent and the agency,” according to the order. After revealing that private citizens in Arizona can make felony and misdemeanor arrests, it nevertheless prompts Border Patrol agents to stay away from drunk drivers. “Be advised, this option poses the greatest threat to an agent for a civil lawsuit,” the memo warns.

This preposterous order has not been well received by agents, according to Judicial Watch’s sources inside the agency. The Border Patrol Tucson Sector covers 262 miles along the Mexican border and is one of the country’s busiest in both illegal immigrant apprehensions and marijuana seizures, according to the agency website. During fiscal year 2014 the Tucson Sector Border Patrol recorded 87,915 apprehensions that included members of notorious international gangs and felons convicted of serious crimes such homicide, rape and child molestation. Agents also seized 971,180 pounds of marijuana as well as large quantities of cocaine, heroin and methamphetamines.

As a whole, the Border Patrol is the critical frontline Homeland Security agency charged with preventing terrorists and weapons—including those of mass destruction—from entering the United States. Its primary mission is to protect the nation by reducing the likelihood that dangerous people and capabilities slip into the country through our many ports of entry. It’s beyond belief that the Obama administration has asked the federal officers tasked with this important duty to turn the other way when they encounter a drunk driver.

Zuckerberg, Mayer and Page: Barack Obama Words Can Not be Trusted—Refuse to Attend his “Summit”

Mark Zuckerberg, Marissa Mayer and Larry Page are among the biggest names in Silicon Valley and globally in the world of technology—Facebook, Yahoo and Google leaders did not attend a “summit” on cybersecurity” led by Barack Obama—the man who used technology, and still does, to spy on every person on this Earth—and caused other countries to stop buying U.S. technology when it was found the Federal government put viruses in the products sold overseas, to spy on the users—like the head of Germany—Merkel.

Also, note these people gave hundreds of thousands, and raised millions for Obama and the Democrat Party—which turned around and abused their companies—making them all look like agents of the CIA—when actually Obama made them agents of the NSA.

nsa details

Sour grapes! Zuckerberg, Mayer and Page skip out on Obama’s cybersecurity summit

The UpTake: On the same day when the President is expected to ask for more sharing of information from businesses, past offenses will likely keep influential CEOs from attending the meeting.

Michael del Castillo, Upstart Business Journal Technology & Innovation Editor, 2/13/15

President Barack Obama is hosting a White-House sponsored summit on cybersecurity and consumer protection at Stanford University, but some of the biggest names in the tech industry will be absent from the event. Bloomberg’s Peter Cook reports on “Bloomberg Surveillance.”

U.S. President Barack Obama, delivers a statement on legislation he sent to Congress to authorize the use of military force against the Islamic State with John Kerry, U.S. secretary of state, right, in the Roosevelt Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Wednesday, Feb. 11, 2015. Later this morning the president is expected to give an executive order that would mean increased communication between the government and businesses regarding cybersecurity threats.

A famous photo from 2011 shows Mark Zuckerberg and Eric Schmidt raising a glass with President Barack Obama and a dozen other tech luminaries gathered around a private dinner table. Smiles abound. Oh, what a difference a massive government spying controversy involving many of the largest tech companies in the world makes.

“Not only were Yahoo, Facebook, and Google among the original “PRISM” companies revealed by Edward Snowden to have been forced into turning over information about their customers to the NSA, but France, Italy, the United Kingdom, Mexico, and Germany were among nations the NSA is accused of spying on as part of related programs. Perhaps today is a bit late to ask for a more open policy of sharing information.

We do not need an Executive order—we need to control Obama sneaking around harming freedom and privacy.

Today, Zuckerberg and Schmidt along with Marissa Mayer and Larry Page will be absent from another meeting with Obama at Stanford University as part of the White House’s Summit on Cybersecurity and Consumer Protection, according to a Bloomberg report earlier this week. Late last night we learned that Obama is expected to announced an executive order on cybersecurity threat data at the event.

“We are certainly hearing that an executive order may be announced,” said Nuala O’Connor, president of the technology lobbying group Center for Democracy & Technology, according to a Reuters report. The executive order in response to cybersecurity attacks like the one against Sony Entertainment last year is expected to compel the government and businesses to share more information earlier.

The panels at the Summit, running through 4 p.m., will address both cybersecurity information sharing and international law enforcement cooperation, among other issues. Taken together with the executive order, those subjects could be a tough sell for the president, based on last year’s NSA controversy.

Not only were Yahoo, Facebook, and Google among the original “PRISM” companies revealed by Edward Snowden to have been forced into turning over information about their customers to the NSA, but France, Italy, the United Kingdom, Mexico, and Germany were among nations the NSA is accused of spying on as part of related programs. Perhaps today is a bit late to ask for a more open policy of sharing information.

Though the three CEOs and the chairman are expected to miss the event, according to the Bloomberg report, in their stead, they will send their top information security executives. Apple CEO Tim Cook will be in attendance, and is scheduled to give remarks at 10:45 a.m. PT leading up to the President’s keynote address at 11:15 a.m.

Court Orders More Protected Fish in California–Less Water for People and Farmers

Think about it. The government puts salmon, delta smelt, fairy shrimp on the endangered species list, protecting them. To do that, they have to take water from farmers and cities, creating a loss of income, higher food prices and unemployment. To make sure this gets worse, the State is planning hatcheries, just to create more “endangered species, meaning more water lost to fish.

“California has been developing plans to continue fish hatchery and stocking operations responsibly, while still providing recreational fishing opportunities, amid evidence of declining native amphibian populations and less genetic diversity in salmonids.
Among other things, the plans require the department to stop stocking lakes where threatened or endangered species live, and to assess lakes located within 2 km of the habitats of such species to determine if stocking operations can continue.”

Literally government is trying to harm people by pretending save fish. The fish no longer need saving—it is the families and farms of California that are endangered, by government policy.

delta smelt

California Fishery Plan Survives Massive Appeal

By REBEKAH KEARN, Court House News, 2/13/15

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) – Environmentalists mostly failed to challenge California studies for statewide fish hatcheries and stocking operations, an appeals court ruled.
California has been developing plans to continue fish hatchery and stocking operations responsibly, while still providing recreational fishing opportunities, amid evidence of declining native amphibian populations and less genetic diversity in salmonids.
Among other things, the plans require the department to stop stocking lakes where threatened or endangered species live, and to assess lakes located within 2 km of the habitats of such species to determine if stocking operations can continue.
To maintain genetic integrity and limit wild and hatchery fish from interacting, the department is also developing hatchery genetic-management plans.
So far, the National Marine Fisheries Service has not approved any of the draft plans, court records show.
A 2006 lawsuit by the Center for Biological Diversity prompted a Sacramento judge to find that the hatchery and stocking program should not be exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act.
In 2008, the court ordered the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to prepare the first environmental impact report (EIR) for the program in its 100-year history, which was completed and certified in January 2010.
Using the program’s operations from 2004 to 2008 as its environmental baseline, the EIR found that, among other things, the stocking program harmed frog and native fish populations by forcing them to compete for scarce resources with stocked fish and by introducing pathogens and invasive species into their habitats.
When it certified the EIR, the department chose to continue program operations while adopting the mitigation measures set forth in the aquatic diversity and hatchery genetic-management plans and endangered-species assessment requirements for water bodies proposed for recreational fish stocking.
This prompted separate lawsuits from the Center for Biological Diversity, Californians for Alternatives to Toxics and California Association for Recreational Fishing.
After consolidating their cases in Sacramento, Judge Lloyd Connelly denied the plaintiffs summary judgment. A three-judge panel with the 3rd Court of Appeals affirmed against all but one group on Tuesday.
The California Association for Recreational Fishing persuaded the appellate panel that the department violated the public-notice requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) when it unilaterally adopted mitigation measures affecting the Fishing in the City program, which stocks lakes in urban areas with fish.
Rejecting the department’s exemption claims, the appellate court disagreed that the measures concern the department’s internal management.
Indeed one measure affects a public program administered by the department and the thousands of people who participate in that program, while the other imposes new duties on those who supply fish for the program, the court found.
The court rejected the environmentalists’ remaining challenges, including a claim that state investigators should have conducted site-specific analyses at each proposed stocking location; should have deferred the creation of mitigation measures in favor of enacting protocols established in the aquatic biodiversity and hatchery genetic management plans; and should have considered the cessation of stocking activities as a plan alternative.
Acting Presiding Judge George Nicholson signed the panel opinion, joined by Judges Elena Duarte and Andrea Lynn Hoch.