Illegal Alien who Attacked Wife in Chula Vista with Chainsaw has Been Deported 11 times

This is who Jerry Brown, Gavin Newsom, Dianne Feinstein and the Democrat Party is protecting:

“It was confirmed by immigration officials Friday that a California man who allegedly attacked his wife with a chainsaw is, in fact, an illegal alien who has been deported 11 times since 2005. The man reportedly attacked his wife in their home in front of their children.

Detectives arrested Alejandro Alvarez Villegas, 32, in Chula Vista, California for allegedly trying to kill his wife with a chainsaw in front of their children. Despite Alvarez-Villegas’ attempt to avoid arrest, police were able to take him into custody without anyone being injured, Chula Vista Police Lt. Kenny Heinz told NBC7.

Alvarez-Villegas has an extensive history of being deported and returning to the United States reports Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE.)

“Department of Homeland Security databases indicate Mr. Alvarez-Villegas is a serial immigration violator who has been removed from the United States 11 times since 2005,” an ICE spokesperson said, according to NBC 7 San Diego.”

He used a chainsaw for his crime.  The Democrats use legislation and the courts for their crimes—this is who they are protecting to roam our streets.  Feel safe?  Maybe we should have background checks on the purchase of chainsaws and registration of them.  Of course this is a long time criminal, he would not do it—just as criminals do not register their guns.

ICE-Immigration-Agents

Illegal Alien who Attacked Wife with Chainsaw has Been Deported 11 times

Posted by: Brady Kenyon, CDN,   7/14/18  

 

 

It was confirmed by immigration officials Friday that a California man who allegedly attacked his wife with a chainsaw is, in fact, an illegal alien who has been deported 11 times since 2005. The man reportedly attacked his wife in their home in front of their children.

Detectives arrested Alejandro Alvarez Villegas, 32, in Chula Vista, California for allegedly trying to kill his wife with a chainsaw in front of their children. Despite Alvarez-Villegas’ attempt to avoid arrest, police were able to take him into custody without anyone being injured, Chula Vista Police Lt. Kenny Heinz told NBC7.

Alvarez-Villegas has an extensive history of being deported and returning to the United States reports Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE.)

“Department of Homeland Security databases indicate Mr. Alvarez-Villegas is a serial immigration violator who has been removed from the United States 11 times since 2005,” an ICE spokesperson said, according to NBC 7 San Diego.

Alvarez-Villegas currently is being held in the Whittier jail on charges of attempted murder, child endangerment, hit and run, and grand theft auto, the Los Angeles Times reported. Alvarez’s wife was transported to a local trauma center for surgery but is expected to survive. It’s reported that local officials have separated the children from the family and placed them in protective custody.

 

Texas’s $15 billion Bullet Train on track to roll out next year

California will spends upwards of $200 billion of tax dollars to build a train to nowhere.  Once built, there will be NO money to operate the system.  Texas is building a train 240 miles between Houston and Dallas for $15 billion—not a dime of tax dollars.  Texas is a right to work State, it is a State that is open for business.  Workers, not special interests and unions run the State.  Environmental issues are serious—unlike California not used to extort government and business or the public.

It is a 3.5 hour drive between the towns—up to 1.5 hours for the train trip—but you need a car to get to the train station, and then when you get to your destination town.  But, the Texas project is based on the free market—if business people want to risk their money that is OK by me.  That is what freedom looks like.  California is what a socialist nation looks like—high costs, high taxes and a guaranteed failure at the end.

“Still, not everyone is on board with the rail plan, and landowners along the proposed route have fought and lobbied their state legislators over the company possible use of eminent domain to acquire their property. TCP has outlined their process for picking up the required properties, including offering market value for parcels in the Bullet Train’s path and pledging to minimize the impact on landowners. That hasn’t stopped the opposition from filing a flurry of bullet train bills in the state Senate, though only two of the proposed twenty measures managed to pass. As a result the state will not use taxpayer fund for the project, a move that TCP did not oppose.

The free-market funding requirement hasn’t slowed the Bullet Train’s progress down, and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), a subsection of the United States Department of Transportation, has given the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) the green light. The FRA also proposed an optimal route that would disrupt the least amount of people, and engineering and construction firms WSP, Fluor, Bechtel, and Lane Construction are now all helping to lay the groundwork for the project’s eventual construction.

Texas will continue to grow while California is on the cusp of economic collapse—how much longer can high taxes, high cost of living, strangling traffic allow the Confederate State of California to survive?

texas bullet train

Texas’s $15 billion Bullet Train on track to roll out next year

By Jonathan Hilburg, Archpaper, 6/25/18

It’s no hyperloop, but construction of a 200-mile-per-hour bullet train from Houston to Dallas could begin as early as next year. Add in the recently announced Amtrak partnership that will cover last-mile trips and tie into the rail company’s established interstate network, and Texas is looking at a major mass transit expansion.

Developers Texas Central Partners (TCP) will be privately financing the $15 billion, 240-mile-long high-speed rail line, and have been on a public outreach spree as they attempt to drum up support and garner feedback for their proposal. TCP argues that the Texas Bullet Train will bring in $3 billion in state and local tax revenue through 2040, in addition to the $36 billion in direct spending; not to mention the tens of thousands of projected construction jobs.

TCP is still hashing out the exact station locations but are planning on building the 60-acre Dallas stop south of the Kay Bailey Hutchinson Convention Center, with a footbridge from the station to the convention center. On the other side of the 90-minute trip in Houston, TCP has chosen the city’s Northwest Mall as the preferred location for their station. The mall site will give way to a 45-acre, multi-level train complex with easy access to I-610 and U.S. 290. Additional stops between the two cities, such as in the city of Byran/College Station, have already been confirmed.

Still, not everyone is on board with the rail plan, and landowners along the proposed route have fought and lobbied their state legislators over the company possible use of eminent domain to acquire their property. TCP has outlined their process for picking up the required properties, including offering market value for parcels in the Bullet Train’s path and pledging to minimize the impact on landowners. That hasn’t stopped the opposition from filing a flurry of bullet train bills in the state Senate, though only two of the proposed twenty measures managed to pass. As a result the state will not use taxpayer fund for the project, a move that TCP did not oppose.

The free-market funding requirement hasn’t slowed the Bullet Train’s progress down, and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), a subsection of the United States Department of Transportation, has given the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) the green light. The FRA also proposed an optimal route that would disrupt the least amount of people, and engineering and construction firms WSP, Fluor, Bechtel, and Lane Construction are now all helping to lay the groundwork for the project’s eventual construction.

The Amtrak tie-in certainly won’t hurt the project’s chances, but high-speed rail remains notoriously expensive. Although high-speed rail has historically floundered in the U.S., such as the $77 billion north-south bullet train currently under construction in California, TCP’s business plan, and the use of private funds, combined with the high level of government support, has helped the project avoid the hurdles plaguing similar projects.

“We are working on the train every day,” said TCP spokesperson Holly Reed. “This is the right project being done the right way at the right time –  the Texas Way. That means it will be the safest way to travel in the world, built and operated based on data-driven decisions from free market principles and no state appropriations. Texas is proving again to be a leader in transportation, and the train is a key tool in the state’s infrastructure toolbox as a safe, reliable and environmentally friendly option that efficiently will move our growing population.”

 

More than 60% of San Fran renters have rent control, says city

San Fran is a socialist held city.  The numbers prove it.  This is a town where if you earn $120,000 or less per year you qualify for government rent assistance.

  • Little new housing stock created over those three decades is attainable to most people: “Of all units built since 1990, 28 percent have been affordable to low and moderate-income households.”
  • Most San Francisco renters still live in rent-controlled homes. “More than 60 percent of renters live in housing that is subject to the City’s rent control ordinance.” Since the report also estimates that some 65 percent of city residents rent, that means more than 39 percent of the entire SF population lives in rent controlled housing. While these figures are comparable to some past estimates, the city usually doesn’t quantify or keep track of precisely how many rent controlled units we have, since that figure changes often.
  • But even rent-controlled homes are less and less affordable: “In 2015, almost 100,000 out of San Francisco’s estimated 160,000 rent-controlled units are rented at rates that would be affordable to households earning less than 80 percent [of Area Median Income]. In 1990, more than 140,000 of rent-controlled units were affordable to those households.”

In San Fran if you have to ask the cost of rent or housing, you need to look elsewhere.  This is a town for the very rich and the very poor—even those earning $300,000 are part of the barely surviving middle class.  This is what a totalitarian city looks like.  Good for the rich, bad for the poor.

Money

More than 60 percent of SF renters have rent control, says city

 “The city has struggled to substantially improve housing affordability for low- and moderateincome households”

By Adam Brinklow,SF Curbed,  7/12/18

At today’s San Francisco Planning Commission meeting, city staff will present the first Housing Needs and Trends Report (HNTR)—the first step toward finally devising some sort of effective solution to the housing crisis.

The report is a first step in what City Hall dubs its new Housing Affordability Strategy. But precisely what that will be remains to be seen, as the HNTR is meant to get the powers that be up to speed before decisions are made.

So, what have city staff learned about the housing crisis? Here are a few highlights. (Note that these cover only the executive summary to be presented to the commission tonight and the accompanying memo; more data from the full report will follow.)

  • San Francisco is building more new housing now than anytime in previous generations, despite appearances: “San Francisco new housing construction has averaged 1,900 new units per year since 1990, though the recent rate has increased substantially, to more than 5,000 in 2016 and an average of 4,000 between 2014 and 2017.”
  • And yet, City Hall is aware that despite building more, the problem has not ebbed much: “The city has struggled to substantially improve housing affordability for low- and moderate‐income households and does not have a comprehensive picture of how various policies and resources work together to achieve affordability outcomes.”
  • Little new housing stock created over those three decades is attainable to most people: “Of all units built since 1990, 28 percent have been affordable to low and moderate-income households.”
  • Most San Francisco renters still live in rent-controlled homes. “More than 60 percent of renters live in housing that is subject to the City’s rent control ordinance.” Since the report also estimates that some 65 percent of city residents rent, that means more than 39 percent of the entire SF population lives in rent controlled housing. While these figures are comparable to some past estimates, the city usually doesn’t quantify or keep track of precisely how many rent controlled units we have, since that figure changes often.
  • But even rent-controlled homes are less and less affordable: “In 2015, almost 100,000 out of San Francisco’s estimated 160,000 rent-controlled units are rented at rates that would be affordable to households earning less than 80 percent [of Area Median Income]. In 1990, more than 140,000 of rent-controlled units were affordable to those households.”
  • Wealthier renters are increasingly occupying rent-controlled homes too: “Rent control and provides relative affordability for low and moderate income households with tenures of greater length. […] Though that is eroding over time, as households who have moved more recently into rent-controlled units are disproportionately higher income.”
  • Although SF has grown wealthier on average as of late, most San Franciscans’ incomes remain modest compared to housing costs. “The majority of the increase in workers in San Francisco has been driven by growth in workers earning more than $100,000 per year. However, workers earning less than $75,000 continue to be the majority. […] The number of workers who work and live in San Francisco is at an all-time high at almost 500,000.”
  • Housing burdens do not fall equally on all fronts: “People of color are more likely to be housing cost burdened with more than 40 percent of Black, Asian/ Pacific Islander, and Latino renters cost burdened. […] While owners overall are less cost burdened, homeowners of color are more likely to experience cost burden.”
  • Only five neighborhoods host a huge majority of designated affordable housing: “Five neighborhoods in the eastern part of the city hold 60 percent of all of the city’s affordable units, including Tenderloin (18 percent), South of Market (12 percent), Western Addition (11 percent), Bayview Hunters Point (11 percent), and Mission (8 percent).”

You can read the full summary here, and the Planning Department will publish the larger, more detailed report later today.

 

What Progressives Should Learn From the Left-Wing Anti-Semite Challenging California’s State Assembly Speaker

California Republican Party Chair Jim Brulte has publically denounced the Nazi running as a registered Republican for Congress in the Bay Area.  But the California Democrat Party Chair, Eric Bauman, has so far refused to denounce his own Jew hater running for Assembly in the 63rd district against Speaker Anthony Rendon.

Among other outrageous things she has said, this follower and fan of the notorious anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan is this:

On social media, she has declared that, “I, for one, enjoy listening to Farrakhan’s sermons.” Louis Farrakhan, for those in need of a refresher, is the anti-Semitic and homophobic cult leader who has blamed Jews for everything from 9/11 to the slave trade. (In fact, while this article was being written, Estrada exhorted her Twitter followers to “listen to Louis Farrakhan.”) This past May, Estrada also attacked Eric Bauman, the chairman of the California Democratic Party, telling him to “try keeping your party, your religion and your people in check.” (Bauman is an openly gay Orthodox Jew.) She repeatedly accused Israel of committing Palestinian “genocide,” a blood libel on a national scale given that the Palestinian Bureau of Central Statistics records a four-fold increase in the Palestinian population since Israel’s founding.

The Party just held an Executive Board meeting in Oakland last weekend.  Yet Bauman and the Board issued no statement condemning Maria Estrada.  Is silence acceptance—or are they afraid that they Party that just threw Dianne Feinstein on her rear, is run by the Estrada’s?  If not why the silence when gays and Jews and attacked?

Photo courtesy pd2020@sbcglobal.net, flickr

What Progressives Should Learn From the Left-Wing Anti-Semite Challenging California’s State Assembly Speaker

Maria Estrada promotes Louis Farrakhan and attacked a Jewish politician over his religion. She also claims she’s just ‘anti-Zionist.’

By Yair Rosenberg, Tablet,  7/11/18

It’s been a good election cycle for anti-Semites. From Illinois’ Arthur Jones to Wisconsin’s Paul Nehlen, the rise of neo-Nazis on the fringes of Republican politics has been ably chronicled by reporters like Jane Coaston at Vox and watchdog groups like the Anti-Defamation League. As if that was not enough, this week, another anti-Semite emerged in a prominent political race, this time across the aisle.

Maria Estrada is running as a progressive challenger to California State Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon in the state’s 63rd district. Endorsed by multiple local chapters of the Bernie Sanders-founded Our Revolution, she came in second in the June primary with 28 percent of the vote, assuring her a showdown with Rendon in the general. There’s just one small problem: Estrada is also an anti-Semite, and not a particularly subtle one.

On social media, she has declared that, “I, for one, enjoy listening to Farrakhan’s sermons.” Louis Farrakhan, for those in need of a refresher, is the anti-Semitic and homophobic cult leader who has blamed Jews for everything from 9/11 to the slave trade. (In fact, while this article was being written, Estrada exhorted her Twitter followers to “listen to Louis Farrakhan.”) This past May, Estrada also attacked Eric Bauman, the chairman of the California Democratic Party, telling him to “try keeping your party, your religion and your people in check.” (Bauman is an openly gay Orthodox Jew.) She repeatedly accused Israel of committing Palestinian “genocide,” a blood libel on a national scale given that the Palestinian Bureau of Central Statistics records a four-fold increase in the Palestinian population since Israel’s founding.

Estrada’s particular brand of anti-Jewish invective highlights a challenge for progressives on anti-Semitism. To their credit, leftists find it easy to recognize and call out anti-Jewish bigotry when it appears on the right as undisguised Nazism, which is more than can be said of the president. But many progressives have trouble identifying and expunging such hate when it comes from one of their own and masquerades as “criticism of Israel.”

Indeed, when confronted with her history of anti-Semitic statements, Estrada knew exactly what to say. “To be clear, I am anti-Zionism, not anti-Semitic,” she told The Forward. Estrada did not explain how attacking California Jewish political figures over their religion or promoting Farrakhan were “anti-Zionist” positions. But she knew that by simply throwing Israel into the conversation and bashing it, she might be able to cash a “Get Out of Anti-Semitism Free” card among her compatriots. Similarly, after Women’s March organizer Tamika Mallory was exposed as a longtime promoter of Farrakhan and refused to repudiate him, she belatedly booked herself a trip to Israel and the West Bank with an anti-Israel group, in an effort to gloss over her promotion of an anti-Jewish preacher with some newfound anti-Zionism.

These efforts to disguise anti-Semitism as legitimate political discourse should not surprise. Anti-Jewish bigotry has always followed the path of least resistance in any community, dressing itself up in whatever guise that community considers respectable. As Berkeley’s David Schraub has written, “Anti-Semitism will always be expressed in the dominant language of the place and the time, and it is entirely predictable that people will seek to express anti-Semitism in ways that enhance rather than detract from their social standing.” Thus, in a deeply religious society like medieval Europe, anti-Semitism would be justified through theology, whereas in societies that esteemed science like Nazi Germany, anti-Semitism took on the imprimatur of “race science.” In both instances, the problem was not “religion” or “science,” but how these legitimate endeavors were appropriated and perverted by bigots to serve anti-Jewish ends.

Something similar, writes Schraub, is happening in progressive spaces today: The entirely legitimate enterprise of criticizing Israel is being used by anti-Semites to launder their hate. “Precisely because there are perfectly valid critiques of Israel that are, on their face, wholly laudable from within a progressive paradigm, a speaker harboring antipathy towards Jews and looking for a socially acceptable vector to express them will gravitate toward that issue.” In this manner, anti-Semitism is repackaged as “Israel criticism” in left-wing spaces.

Combating this dangerous dynamic is a challenge that progressives and the Democratic Party must meet. If both groups intend to be credible voices on anti-Semitism and on Israel, they’re going to need to learn to spot bad actors like Estrada who use Israel as an excuse for their unreconstructed Jew hatred. Identifying and casting out these bigots will not only marginalize the bigotry, but will also open up a constructive space for criticizing Israel that isn’t tainted by anti-Semitism.

Needless to say, Donald “Very Fine People” Trump and the Republican Party have not exactly passed this test with flying colors, and have repeatedly failed to ostracize bigots in their midst. Whether the chapters of Our Revolution that endorsed Estrada will do better remains to be seen.

 

As Pelosi increasingly incoherent in public, Dems face a battle over leadership succession

It is not the meltdown of her botox or her radical use of the word NYET for everything—except nap time, that is giving San Fran Nan Pelosi trouble.  It is her public forgetfulness, her gibberish and blabbering in the middle of a speech and sentence, her inability to concentrate.

“Kyle Olsen of The American Mirror red flags Pelosi’s latest lapse into incoherence at a podium. Speaking to reporters Thursday,

Pelosi suffered brain freezes, speech problems and confused Russia and China at least twice.

While attacking Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Pelosi had trouble saying “effectively.”

“His kowtowing to the president, esffect, esffectively saying…” she said.

Moments later, while attacking the Trump tax cut, she said, “…the GOP tax scam for the rich that added 2 children dollars more” to the deficit.

The socilaists in her home State gave Dianne Feinstein 7% of the vote for endorsement, the June primary had progressives to the Left of Bernie Sanders win primaries—and her reason for taking over the House of Representatives is that Democrats are not Trump—no policy—oh, she does want to repeal the Trump tax cuts, raise unemployment and RAISE taxes.  Depression, emotionally and financially, is her goal.  Lady needs help—but the GOP needs to continue to prop her up till after the November elections.

pelosi3

As Pelosi increasingly incoherent in public, Dems face a battle over leadership succession

By Thomas Lifson, American Thinker,  7/15/18

Long-simmering ethnic tensions in a party increasingly defined by identity politics could erupt if Nancy Pelosi’s mental decline forces her to bow out of her leadership of the Democrats’ House  Caucus. With African-Americans the largest loyal base constituency, the fact that there has never been a black minority leader, much less speaker, the choice of her successor could split the party. Potentially at stake is the Speakership that could result if the longed-for Blue Wave produces a Democrat House majority.

Kyle Olsen of The American Mirror red flags Pelosi’s latest lapse into incoherence at a podium. Speaking to reporters Thursday,

Pelosi suffered brain freezes, speech problems and confused Russia and China at least twice.

While attacking Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Pelosi had trouble saying “effectively.”

“His kowtowing to the president, esffect, esffectively saying…” she said.

Moments later, while attacking the Trump tax cut, she said, “…the GOP tax scam for the rich that added 2 children dollars more” to the deficit.

See for yourself in the 83 second excerpt:

Speculation and chatter suggest that the longest-serving African-American member of the House may throw his hat in the ring. Emma Dumain reports for McClatchy:

A whisper campaign is underway to promote U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn of Columbia as the next speaker of the House of Representatives.

Allies of the S.C. Democratic lawmaker, currently assistant House Democratic leader, say the conversations are still in the early stages. They add, however, there are real and active efforts to pitch the idea of Clyburn, the highest-ranking African-American lawmaker in Congress, as a so-called “bridge speaker” should Democrats retake the House’s majority in November and members decide to replace their current leader, California Democrat Nancy Pelosi.

The problem is that:

For years, House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland quietly has sold himself as a Pelosi successor. He has told members he would step in for one or two terms as speaker as a “bridge” between the old guard and a new generation of leaders, promising to groom younger members and facilitate a transition of power.

And the dirty little secret is that fundraising is what brought Pelosi to power and what kept her there through her long decline. I strongly suspect that Hoyer has better prospects than Clyburn when it comes to shaking the money tree.

But of course, the slogans write themselves for  Clyburn speakership. “It’s time!”

 

ADF demands Fresno State reveal vandal’s identity to victim

Should the identity of the vandal that destroyed the pro-life flyers of a Fresno State student be kept secret—as if the offense was a security risk?  The person that did this was just another punk—like the mugger, thief or assaulter on campus.  In this case the person stole the free speech rights of all the students on campus—a crime against humanity.  No free speech is what Castro, China and Putin want.  Fresno State needs to be transparent—not protecting those that steal Constitutional rights.

“Following an initial investigation, one of the pro-life students inquired about the details of the disciplinary action implemented by the university, but the Office of Student Conduct declined to provide any information, citing student confidentiality under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).

According to ADF, however, FERPA “does not prevent Fresno State from revealing the information” that has been requested by the victim.

“If you believe that statutes or regulations prevent the disclosure of this information, please identify all such statutes or regulations and the reason you believe they apply to this situation,” the letter challenges the school.

ADF goes on to list four specific demands from the university, including “the name of the perpetrator,” “the rules or code sections the perpetrator violated,” “the essential findings supporting Fresno State’s decision in whether and how to discipline the perpetrator,” and “what discipline (if any) Fresno State imposed on the perpetrator.”

Shouldn’t the community be protected by this person?  Are they a writer for the school newspaper?  Are they helping a candidate for office—people have a right to know that someone on campus is a thug and totalitarian.  Please explain why not?  What about the students rights of Free Speech?

california_constitution

ADF demands Fresno State reveal vandal’s identity to victim

 

Mason McKie, Campus Reform, 7/12/18

 

  • The Alliance Defending Freedom is demanding that Fresno State reveal the results of a disciplinary investigation to a pro-life student whose fliers were destroyed by a classmate.
  • Fresno State insists that federal law prohibits it from releasing the information, but ADF pointed out in a letter to the school that the law contains a provision allowing administrators to reveal information to the victim upon request.

The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) is urging California State University, Fresno to reveal the results of disciplinary actions against a student who allegedly tore down pro-life fliers on campus.

The letter was penned by ADF attorneys representing Fresno State Students for Life, a pro-life organization on campus, and questions the school’s refusal “to reveal to our clients what disciplinary action was taken against a…student who destroyed their fliers due to the content and viewpoints those fliers expressed.”

“Students deserve to know if and how their administrators choose to deal with acts of vandalism that target them and their point of view.”    According to the letter, the vandalism occurred on April 10, when several members of the pro-life group allegedly witnessed a student tearing down fliers that were posted on a campus bulletin.

“When they attempted to replace it, a Fresno State student walked around the corner, ripped a second flyer out of their hands, and then walked down the hallway, tearing down at least two more,” the letter continued.

Following an initial investigation, one of the pro-life students inquired about the details of the disciplinary action implemented by the university, but the Office of Student Conduct declined to provide any information, citing student confidentiality under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).

According to ADF, however, FERPA “does not prevent Fresno State from revealing the information” that has been requested by the victim.

“If you believe that statutes or regulations prevent the disclosure of this information, please identify all such statutes or regulations and the reason you believe they apply to this situation,” the letter challenges the school.

ADF goes on to list four specific demands from the university, including “the name of the perpetrator,” “the rules or code sections the perpetrator violated,” “the essential findings supporting Fresno State’s decision in whether and how to discipline the perpetrator,” and “what discipline (if any) Fresno State imposed on the perpetrator.”

In a July 3 statement, ADF legal counsel Travis Barham said that “Fresno State has rightly acknowledged the constitutionally protected freedoms of Fresno State Students for Life in the past, and we are hopeful the university will be similarly respectful here.”

“Students deserve to know if and how their administrators choose to deal with acts of vandalism that target them and their point of view,” he added.

In an interview with Campus Reform, Barham further explained that this isn’t the first time the group has had problems with the university, referencing a 2017 incident in which a faculty member recruited students to erase pro-life chalkings on campus.

A spokesperson for Fresno State, however, told Campus Reform that the school “investigated the incident, identified the perpetrator, held a student-conduct hearing, and addressed the issue appropriately.”

“The University only discloses disciplinary action consequences in instances where required by law or in cases of sexual misconduct or potential harm to the University community’s safety,” the official added.

Feinstein iced out by state Democratic Party leaders—they endorse progressive de León for U.S. Senate

The blood bath in the California Democrat Party continues.  The long time, reliable pro-tax, pro-illegal alien, pro-abortion, anti-gun (except for herself) Senator Feinstein has been told by the Bernie Sanders/Socialists in charge of her former Party to pound sand.  Even though she votes against all Trump judicial nominees—that is not good enough for them.  She is not willing to call for the immediate impeachment of Trump, hence she is a secret agent of the right wing conspiracy.

“The state party’s executive committee endorsement suggests its sentiments are further to the left than the larger group of Democratic delegates to the state convention in February, where Feinstein failed to win an endorsement but so, too, did de León.

But progressive leaders cheered him for authoring legislation that made California a sanctuary state, and calling for the impeachment of President Trump. “We have presented Californians with the first real alternative to the worn-out Washington playbook in a quarter-century,” he said.

Feinstein has edged further left herself in recent months, reversing both her opposition to legal recreational marijuana and her support of the death penalty.

How bad was her defeat?  Only 7% of the Democrat Party Board supported her.  The socialist take over of the former California Democrat Party appears complete.  Worse, this is a one Party State—Putin would be proud of the California Democrat Party.  Maxine Waters and her late friend Castro must be celebrating.

Kevin de Leon

Feinstein iced out by state Democratic Party leaders—they endorse progressive de León for U.S. Senate

 

CALmatters editorial,  7/15/18

A rebuke, a snub, a progressive smackdown—these are the terms headlining coverage of the California Democratic Party executive council’s vote this weekend to back liberal state legislator Kevin de León in his longshot bid to unseat veteran U.S. Dianne Feinstein.

Both are Democrats, but while Feinstein has become a Washington D.C. institution with a reputation in the U.S. for moderate, pragmatic problem-solving, de León has fired up the Democratic base by being a relentless, vocal foe of all things Trump. State party activists have long been lukewarm about Feinstein, but as she’s seeking her fifth six-year Senate term, more have grown adamant about replacing her with a younger, more progressive face.

Her campaign had lobbied the members of the state party board to remain neutral, but in this weekend’s vote at an Oakland gathering, 65 percent voted to endorse de León. Just 7 percent voted for Feinstein, while 28 percent opted for no endorsement.

So how much of a boost does de León gain from the decision of some 300 activists in the state party leadership? With the  imprimatur, he can expect to receive some party campaign money, a listing on its official slate card, and access to other party support services like email lists. But the greatest gain is the symbolism of the vote, and the attention it will receive nationwide as evidence of a simmering split between Democratic progressives and moderates nationwide.

Feinstein, conversely, has huge state name recognition and has left him in the dust when it comes to fundraising (campaign reports show she has more than 10 times the cash on hand that he holds.) In the June primary, with 32 candidates on the ballot for U.S. Senate, she swept every county, racking up 44 percent of the vote to de Leon’s 12 percent.

The state party’s executive committee endorsement suggests its sentiments are further to the left than the larger group of Democratic delegates to the state convention in February, where Feinstein failed to win an endorsement but so, too, did de León.

But progressive leaders cheered him for authoring legislation that made California a sanctuary state, and calling for the impeachment of President Trump. “We have presented Californians with the first real alternative to the worn-out Washington playbook in a quarter-century,” he said.

Feinstein has edged further left herself in recent months, reversing both her opposition to legal recreational marijuana and her support of the death penalty.

Because of California’s top-two rules, the two Democrats will be the only candidates on the November ballot.

 

Walters: California vs. Trump over 2020 census

The number of members of Congress assigned to each State is based on the Census taken every ten years.  President Trump wants it based on legal residents and citizens.  Democrats want to tip the scales using illegal aliens, folks not supposed to be here as part of the count.  States like Georgina and Iowa lose representation because they do not have many illegal aliens.  Fair?  Trump is right, ask the simple question—are you a citizen.  What can the harm be to return to honest government?

“We know the state’s population growth has been slowing, due to declining foreign immigration, declining birthrates, rising death rates and net losses in state-to-state population shifts.

California’s current growth rate is substantially below 1 percent a year, scarcely a third of what it was in the 1980s, when a 25 percent population growth, from 24 million to 30 million, earned the state seven new congressional seats after the 1990 census.

As growth slowed, the state gained just one new seat after the 2000 census and none after the 2010 count. Current data indicate that California’s congressional delegation could remain unchanged at 53 seats after 2020, or could drop by one seat, especially if there’s a significant undercount.

The official numbers, moreover, will be used by the state Redistricting Commission to redraw legislative and congressional districts and by local officials to redraw city council, county supervisor and school trustee districts.

The Confederate State of California needs illegal aliens to steal money from other States.  Why won’t Kansas sue California for fraud?  Now, that would be a great case—the people of the United States vs. the Confederate State of California.

california-debt

California vs. Trump over 2020 census

By Dan Walters, CalMatters,  7/15/18

 

There are, more or less, 40 million people living in California now, nearly twice its population when Jerry Brown began his first governorship in 1975.

But is it more, or less?

The 2020 federal census will provide the official answer, but there are rising fears among California’s political leaders, Democrats all, and myriad civil rights groups that the census will severely undercount Californians for political reasons.

The Donald Trump administration and a Republican Congress, they say, is starving the Census Bureau of the money it would need to conduct an accurate census, especially hard-to-count poor, homeless and/or undocumented immigrant residents and children. The current plan relies on computerized responses with fewer census takers being hired to physically count those who don’t respond.

Moreover, critics complain in lawsuits that could reach the Supreme Court, the administration is deliberately discouraging census participation by immigrants with a new question about citizenship status.

The citizenship question was added by the Commerce Department, which oversees the Census Bureau, and the official rationale is that the Justice Department needs the information to better enforce the Voting Rights Act.

However, critics contend that the Justice Department request is a smokescreen to mask the administration’s hope that the question will discourage immigrants from participating, fearing that answers will expose them to deportation, even though federal law requires census data to remain confidential for 70 years after gathered.

It’s one of those instances – which seem to be increasing – in which something that appears benign, or even desirable, blows up into a political confrontation.

Hypothetically, collecting information about citizenship status would add a valuable dimension to the census, especially since the proposed question does not divide non-citizens into those with documentation and those without.

However, given the poisonous relationship between California, home to a huge population of immigrants of both varieties, and the anti-immigrant Trump White House, everything that happens feeds the conflict.

Regardless of how it is conducted, the census results will have heavy political and economic consequences for California.

We know the state’s population growth has been slowing, due to declining foreign immigration, declining birthrates, rising death rates and net losses in state-to-state population shifts.

California’s current growth rate is substantially below 1 percent a year, scarcely a third of what it was in the 1980s, when a 25 percent population growth, from 24 million to 30 million, earned the state seven new congressional seats after the 1990 census.

As growth slowed, the state gained just one new seat after the 2000 census and none after the 2010 count. Current data indicate that California’s congressional delegation could remain unchanged at 53 seats after 2020, or could drop by one seat, especially if there’s a significant undercount.

The official numbers, moreover, will be used by the state Redistricting Commission to redraw legislative and congressional districts and by local officials to redraw city council, county supervisor and school trustee districts.

The financial consequences have to do with federal funds. The state now receives about $100 billion a year from Washington, mostly to underwrite health, welfare and education programs – not counting money flowing directly to local governments.

Much of that federal aid is based on population and the California Community Foundation estimates that “every uncounted resident costs California $1,934 in annual federal funding.”

California is not being passive about the census.

Lawsuits challenging the citizenship question are one response. The new state budget allocates $90 million to encourage census participation, more than twice the $40 million that Brown initially proposed, and that’s being augmented by local governments and non-profit groups.

 

New San Fran Mayor Breed: San Fran is Covered in “Fecal Matter”

At least we know the new Mayor of San Fran is hones.  She has made it clear than her town is literally full of s**t.  But, while unhappy she is going to do what Leftists always do—tax more, spend more, hire more government workers.  Won’t end the problem, but make folks feel food the city is doing something.

“But, when asked if she would impose any harsher penalties for those who leave the results of their bowel movements in public, the mayor declined to mention any new deterrents aside from asking nicely. She just wants the aforementioned non-profits “to talk to their clients, who, unfortunately, were mostly responsible for the conditions of our streets.”

And those conditions are dismal. “I will say there is more feces on the sidewalks than I’ve ever seen growing up here,” Breed told media.

A recent Bay Area NBC investigative “report centered around a 153-block survey of downtown San Francisco, which revealed trash on every block, 100 needles, and more than 300 piles of feces along the 20-mile stretch of streets and sidewalks.”

Visit San Fran—if the illegal aliens don’t get you, if your car isn’t broken into, you can still come home with a gift from the city—an air born disease caused by the streets used as toilets.  Watch you step, what you step on is not what Rover left—probably left by Richard.

homeless

Major Bummer: San Francisco Is Absolutely Covered in Fecal Matter

 

Timothy Meads, Townhall,  7/14/18

 

Augh. Egads. Barf. Gross. Recently elected San Francisco Mayor London Breed says that the city she loves is absolutely covered in fecal matter and “we are not just talking about from dogs — we’re talking about from humans.”

Talking about human feces, folks! Particularly, feces from humans experiencing homelessness right now. Apparently, the city is so overrun by poverty that people are using virtually all public spaces as their toilet because they cannot afford proper lavatories. To this extent, Mayor Breed is asking that homelessness advocacy groups and non-profit encourage those they are helping to clean up after themselves.

“I work hard to make sure your programs are funded for the purposes of trying to get these individuals help, and what I am asking you to do is work with your clients and ask them to at least have respect for the community — at least, clean up after themselves and show respect to one another and people in the neighborhood,” Breed told the local media.

But, when asked if she would impose any harsher penalties for those who leave the results of their bowel movements in public, the mayor declined to mention any new deterrents aside from asking nicely. She just wants the aforementioned non-profits “to talk to their clients, who, unfortunately, were mostly responsible for the conditions of our streets.”

And those conditions are dismal. “I will say there is more feces on the sidewalks than I’ve ever seen growing up here,” Breed told media.

A recent Bay Area NBC investigative “report centered around a 153-block survey of downtown San Francisco, which revealed trash on every block, 100 needles, and more than 300 piles of feces along the 20-mile stretch of streets and sidewalks.”

But, this filth is not for lack of spending money on the problem. The city is slated to spend nearly $280 million this year on housing and services for the homeless — a roughly 40 percent increase compared to just five years ago. Over that same span, however, the number of homeless in the city has largely remained the same at about 7,500 people, according to city counts.”

But, it is unclear how the city plans to stop the issue once and for all. In the meantime for San Francisco denizens, just wear some flowers in your hair to mask the fecal odor.

 

Starbucks Bans Plastic Straws, Winds Up Using More Plastic

Starbucks is just another Liberal do good organization that does BAD by trying to do good.  They do not think about the consequences of their actions, are just concerned about a great press release the Fake News folks will repeat, without questioning the real results.  Starbucks is getting rid of plastic straws—to save the ocean—yet the replacement will create MORE plastic in the ocean.

“The World Wildlife Fund and Ocean Conservancy both provided ebullient quotes for Starbucks’ press releases. Liberal magazine The New Republic praised the move as an “environmental milestone.” Slate hailed the Starbucks straw ban as evidence of as a victory for a bona fide anti-straw movement, one that would hopefully lead to bans of more things plastic in years to come.

Yet missing from this fanfare was the inconvenient fact that by ditching plastic straws, Starbucks will actually be increasing its plastic use. As it turns out, the new nitro lids that Starbucks is leaning on to replace straws are made up of more plastic than the company’s current lid/straw combination.

Right now, Starbucks patrons are topping most of their cold drinks with either 3.23 grams or 3.55 grams of plastic product, depending on whether they pair their lid with a small or large straw. The new nitro lids meanwhile weigh either 3.55 or 4.11 grams, depending again on lid size.

(I got these results by measuring Starbucks’ plastic straws and lids on two separate scales, both of which gave me the same results.)

This means customers are at best breaking even under Starbucks’ strawless scheme, or they are adding between .32 and .88 grams to their plastic consumption per drink.”

Starbucks, by banning the plastic straw is HARMING the ocean, not helping it.  What else would you expect from a politically thoughtless crony capitalist corporation?

coffee latte

Starbucks Bans Plastic Straws, Winds Up Using More Plastic

A Reason investigation reveals that the coffee giant’s new cold drink lids use more plastic than the old straw/lid combo.

Christian Britschgi, Reason,  7/12/18

2018 will forever be remembered as the year that hating plastic straws went mainstream. Once the lonely cause of environmental cranks, now everyone wants to eliminate these suckers from daily life.

In July, Seattle imposed America’s first ban on plastic straws. Vancouver, British Columbia, passed a similar ban a few months earlier. There are active attempts to prohibit straws in New York City, Washington, D.C., Portland, Oregon, and San Francisco. A-list celebrities from Calvin Harris to Tom Brady have lectured us on giving up straws. Both National Geographic and The Atlantic have run long profiles on the history and environmental effects of the straw. Vice is now treating their consumption as a dirty, hedonistic excess.

Not to be outdone by busybody legislators, Starbucks, the nation’s largest food and drink retailer, announced on Monday that it would be going strawless.

“This is a significant milestone to achieve our global aspiration of sustainable coffee, served to our customers in more sustainable ways,” said Starbucks Kevin Johnson CEO in a press release announcing the move.

The coffee giant says that by 2020 it hopes to have eliminated all single-use plastic straws at its 28,000 stores worldwide. It will now top all its cold drinks with fancy new strawless lids that the company currently serves with its cold brew nitro coffees. (Frappuccinos will still be served with a compostable or paper straw.)

As is to be expected, Starbucks’ decision was greeted with universal adulation.

The World Wildlife Fund and Ocean Conservancy both provided ebullient quotes for Starbucks’ press releases. Liberal magazine The New Republic praised the move as an “environmental milestone.” Slate hailed the Starbucks straw ban as evidence of as a victory for a bona fide anti-straw movement, one that would hopefully lead to bans of more things plastic in years to come.

Yet missing from this fanfare was the inconvenient fact that by ditching plastic straws, Starbucks will actually be increasing its plastic use. As it turns out, the new nitro lids that Starbucks is leaning on to replace straws are made up of more plastic than the company’s current lid/straw combination.

Right now, Starbucks patrons are topping most of their cold drinks with either 3.23 grams or 3.55 grams of plastic product, depending on whether they pair their lid with a small or large straw. The new nitro lids meanwhile weigh either 3.55 or 4.11 grams, depending again on lid size.

(I got these results by measuring Starbucks’ plastic straws and lids on two separate scales, both of which gave me the same results.)

This means customers are at best breaking even under Starbucks’ strawless scheme, or they are adding between .32 and .88 grams to their plastic consumption per drink. Given that customers are going to use a mix of the larger and smaller nitro lids, Starbucks’ plastic consumption is bound to increase, although it’s anybody’s guess as to how much.

In response to questions about whether their strawless move will increase the company’s plastic consumption, a Starbucks spokesperson told Reason “the introduction of our strawless lid as the standard for non-blended beverages by 2020 allows us to significantly reduce the number of straws and non-recyclable plastic” as the new lids are recyclable, while the plastic straws the company currently uses are not.

This is cold comfort given the fact that even most of the stuff that is put in recycling bins still winds up at the dump. The company did not address, nor did it dispute, that its transition to strawless lids would increase its overall plastic consumption.

The weight of plastic—not the raw number of plastic objects used, or whether those objects are recyclable or not—is what should really concern environmentalists.

Pictures of turtles with straws up their noses are certainly jarring. However most plastic, whatever form it enters the ocean as, will eventually be broken up into much smaller pieces known as micro-plastics. It is these micro-plastics that form those giant ocean garbage patches, pile up on the ocean floor, and leech into the stomachs and flesh of sea creatures.

Reducing the amount of micro-plastics in the ocean thus requires cutting down on the aggregate weight of plastics entering the ocean each year. It cannot be stressed enough that straws, by weight, are a tiny portion of this plastic.

At most, straws account for about 2,000 tons of the 9 million tons of plastic that are estimated to enter the ocean each year, according to the Associated Press—.02 percent of all plastic waste. The pollution problem posed by straws looks even smaller when considering that the United States is responsible for about one percent of plastic waste entering the oceans, with straws being a smaller percentage still.

As countless experts have stressed, truly addressing the problem of marine plastic pollution will require going after the source of this pollution, namely all the uncollected litter from poorer coastal countries that lack developed waste management systems.

Straw banners have proven stubbornly resistant to this logic. Instead, they have chosen to rely on either debunked statistics (such as the claim that Americans use 500 million straws a day, which was the product of a 9-year-old’s research) or totally unproven notions (like the theory that straws are a “gateway plastic”) in order to justify petty prohibitions on innocuous straws. And they have been helped along by an uncritical media. Coverage of Starbucks’ strawless move saw The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and National Geographic all cite the 500-million-straws-a-day figure.

By adopting a myopic focus on banning straws, environmentalists, city councils, and conscious capitalists are, at best, having no significant impact on the overall problem of marine plastic waste. At worst, they are pushing expensive prohibitions on consumer choice that are counter-productive—at least in the case of Starbucks’ ban—and come with all sorts of unintended consequences.

For instance, straw bans will likely hurt disabled people who lack the motor skills necessary to pull off a flawless cup-to-lip motion. While reusable straws exist, they are hard to clean and not always handy when one needs them. “What if you decide on the spur of the moment to go have a drink with friends after work but forgot your reusable straw that day? [That] doesn’t leave a lot of room for spontaneity—something nondisabled folks get to largely take for granted,” Lawrence Carter-Long of the national Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund told NPR. Senior citizens and parents with young children will likely be affected for the same reasons.

Why not use more eco-friendly disposable straws? Because they are terrible. Paper straws are known to collapse halfway through a drink. Compostable straws cost six to seven times more than their plastic alternatives, don’t keep for long, and fall apart when exposed to high heat.

Straws, although not essential for most people most of the time, are still a wonderful convenience that help people enjoy a drink on the go, preserve their carefully-applied lipstick, or save their teeth from the corrosive effects of some beverage. Just yesterday, we as a nation celebrated 7-Eleven’s “Free Slurpie Day,” a holiday that can’t hope to survive in a strawless world.

Giving up on free slurpies and dignity for disabled people in the pursuit of totally illusionary environmental benefits seems like a poor trade-off, yet that is the trade-off straw prohibitionists are forcing the rest of us to accept.