Good: WHAT SUCCESSFUL BAIL REFORM LOOKS LIKE

In New York, an illegal alien, allowed out of jail without cash bail for one of several crimes he committed, left jail and murdered a 92 year old woman.  In other parts of New York illegal aliens, arrested for drunk driving continue to be released from jail and continue to drive drunk.  One of them, after five arrests and releases, got drunk. Drove and killed someone—thanks to no cash bail.

“A system based upon accountability means there are consequences when a defendant fails to appear for court.  Therefore, if an individual receives a personal recognizance (“PR”) bond and fails to appear or faces additional charges, they would not be eligible for a new PR bond.  If the defendant fails to appear for court multiple times, they may be detained to prevent them from delaying their criminal case from resolution.

A lack of accountability jeopardizes public safety and the lives of law enforcement.  Early last May, Alex Guajardo of Pasadena, Texas was arrested for an alleged DWI (his second DWI charge) and subsequently was granted a PR bond.  On the last day of July, Guajardo was arrested again, this time for assault against a family member — his pregnant wife, Caitlynne.  The following day, the court granted him another PR bond, while simultaneously issuing a protective order requiring Guajardo to stay away from Caitlynne.

While this is article written by a Texan, we Californians are about to allow criminals out of jail to commit more crimes.  Already the Marxist DA of San Fran has ended cash bail—just on his word, no vote of the people or the Board of Supervisors.  California is facing a November vote on whether we want criminals roaming our streets after committing crimes.  The worst part?  There is no way to force these criminals to show up for a hearing or a trial.  All they have to do is move from Clovis to La Mesa and who will know?  Or they can move to Arizona.  Who will come after them?

Photo credit: Michael Coghlan via Flickr

WHAT SUCCESSFUL BAIL REFORM LOOKS LIKE

By Ken W. Good – Board of Directors, Professional Bondsmen of Texas, Exclusive to the California Political News and Views,  1/24/20 

 The Hippocratic Oath calls for physicians to “first do no harm,” a declaration of core principles of the medical profession.  This concept can lend itself to other callings, occupations and situations, including the subject of bail reform.  While advocates argue that we need changes to our criminal justice system to make things more fair, we should keep this same ideal in mind: we should do good…or at the least, not exacerbate the situation.  Unfortunately, many of the changes proposed so far have made the criminal justice system much worse with ever-increasing numbers of outstanding warrants and cases.

Successful bail reform must begin by addressing its proper goals.  Bail was created to allow someone to be freed from jail while their criminal case is prosecuted.  The person’s release is in exchange for their agreement to appear in court any time required by the trial court.  If they do not appear for court, the case cannot move forward.

 Bail was not intended to address social ills such as increased drug use, mental illness, inner city crime, failing families, failing schools and high drop-out rates or lost economic opportunity.  Any jurisdiction attempting to address these issues through bail reform has a distorted and unrealistic idea of the actual purpose of our bail system.

 In our biggest counties, law enforcement arrests large numbers of people annually, meaning there is a constant and heavy flow of individuals moving in and out of our jails.  Because of the sheer volume involved, courts have been pressed to establish systems that processes them effectively.  The reforms attempted so far have made the system worse and in some cases have caused chaos.  The number of pending cases is doubling as processing slows down, while the number of warrants in the queue are increasing sharply along with failures to appear.

For bail reform to work, it must begin with the concept of accountability, which is the cornerstone of our criminal justice system.  After a conviction, individuals with substantial histories usually receive more punishment than first-time offenders.  That is because the system is designed to mete-out only the amount of punishment necessary for them to comply with the law in the future.  Accountability also comes into play in a different manner at the time of arrest, a concept that is often lost on those seeking wholesale bail reform.

A system based upon accountability means there are consequences when a defendant fails to appear for court.  Therefore, if an individual receives a personal recognizance (“PR”) bond and fails to appear or faces additional charges, they would not be eligible for a new PR bond.  If the defendant fails to appear for court multiple times, they may be detained to prevent them from delaying their criminal case from resolution.

A lack of accountability jeopardizes public safety and the lives of law enforcement.  Early last May, Alex Guajardo of Pasadena, Texas was arrested for an alleged DWI (his second DWI charge) and subsequently was granted a PR bond.  On the last day of July, Guajardo was arrested again, this time for assault against a family member — his pregnant wife, Caitlynne.  The following day, the court granted him another PR bond, while simultaneously issuing a protective order requiring Guajardo to stay away from Caitlynne.

 Three days later, he was arrested for capital murder for allegedly killing Caitlynne and their unborn child, stabbing his wife 20 times.  Guajardo said he intentionally targeted her belly to ensure that no other man could raise his child.

 Guajardo was denied bond for the charge of capital murder.  But a week later, separate general order PR bonds were issued for his assault family violence and DWI-2nd offense cases.  Amazingly, Guajardo would have been released yet again except for the fact that Caitlynne had died because of his alleged brutal assault.

The murder of Caitlynne and her unborn baby is a prime example of failed bail reform, which is occurring across our nation.  When defendants receive multiple PR bonds and continue to commit other crimes and/or fail to appear, it is confirmation that reforms are not working.  With no consequences for their actions, accused criminals have no reason to obey the law and will almost certainly offend again.

 Bail reform that works should address several key mechanisms.  When first arrested, an accused would be subject to a bail schedule that would allow for some to be processed out quickly and effectively.  Next, magistrates would see only people asking for a deviation from their scheduled amount.  Adequate time would be allocated to review criminal histories and past actions to determine eligibility for a PR bond or if the accused represented a threat to commit further crimes.

If a defendant is granted a PR bond and subsequently fails to appear or faces new charges, they would not be entitled to another PR bond.  They could still be released but would be required to post a surety bond or cash.

Defendants continuing to pose a threat to public safety or who fail to appear (further delaying their case), would be detained to respond to his or her criminal charges.  These defendants would have effectively forfeited the privilege of release and would have to await resolution of their criminal case or cases.

 Additionally, changes to our system regarding bail must also include a means for tracking who is in jail pre-conviction and how long they have been detained.  If a person is still in jail more than 72 hours after their bail has been set, logic and fairness demand that they be returned to court to find out why they remain in jail and allow the court to re-magistrate them.  Accountability must apply to both the system and those accused of crimes.  The days of someone getting arrested and then getting lost in the system for months at a time must end.

 For bail reform to be successful, it must be multi-faceted and flexible, so it can be implemented across the country in jurisdictions of all sizes.  The issues facing many states arise from the high number of arrestees going through the jails on a weekly basis in the largest counties.  Many of the changes proposed for major metropolitan areas recognize the difficulty in addressing how to process large numbers of people.  However, the fix cannot be to merely release everyone.  This has already proven to be a recipe for disaster.

In our eagerness to effect changes to the bail system in America, let us not forget the reason for its very existence, which is to let people of out of jail while they await trial — and to do it in a responsible manner that protects public safety.   Unfortunately, bail reform has become such a buzzword these days that reformers have not  addressed what successful reform should actually entail.  For all their good intentions, the myriad changes they have advocated and succeeded in getting implemented in some areas of the country have produced dubious results.

 As much as some may feel that our criminal justice system is in need of an overhaul, we must not be reckless in plunging ahead with reforms that may result in catastrophe.  Changes must be made to make the system better and not allowed to create chaos.

 About Ken W. Good – Board of Directors, Professional Bondsmen of Texas:

Ken W. Good graduated from Hardin Simmons University in 1982 with a Bachelor of Arts Degree.  He received a Master of Education Degree in 1986 from Tarleton State University, a part of the Texas A&M System.  In 1989, he received his law degree from Texas Tech School of Law, where he was a member of the Texas Tech Law Review.  Mr. Good has argued cases before the Supreme Court of Texas and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, along with numerous courts of appeals, including the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  Mr. Good is married and has two daughters.

San Fran DA is an Open Marxist

  • Chesa Boudin is the new San DA.  His parents went to prison for being terrorists—his father is still in prison, having been found guilty in the early 1970’s..Killed people.  His mother, also a convicted terrorists, was paroled in 2004.  Chesa worked for Hugo Chavez.  He was raised by Bill Ayres and Bernadine Dorhn—she went to prison for being a terrorist.  He was a founder of the Weather Underground, a terrorist organization—and the guy that create Barack Obama as a political person.
  • “During the campaign, Boudin wrote that if elected, he would establish an immigration unit in the San Francisco DA’s office.
  • He said the unit would “investigate and prosecute crimes ICE agents commit against members of the community, which include illegal arrests, racial profiling, child endangerment, kidnapping, and even human trafficking.”
  • Boudin’s campaign website said that ICE is not above the city’s sanctuary law, which he helped craft as a deputy public defender. 
  • “That’s why the Immigration Unit will investigate these abuses, and when ICE agents break California law and endanger our communities, they will be prosecuted,” the campaign site said. “In addition, if any agents violate our Sanctuary City Ordinance or our State Sanctuary laws and hold our community members for ICE agents, they will be prosecuted.”
  • Chesa will use the power of his office to prosecute ICE agents for enforcing Federal law.  Marxist?  To the Max.

San Francisco DA Touts Progressive Ambitions for Already Troubled City

Fred Lucas, Daily Signal,  1/20/20   

Chesa Boudin spent his childhood influenced by members of a radical left and violent domestic terrorist organization. During college, he worked as an English translator for Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez. 

Today, Boudin is the top prosecutor in one of America’s largest cities, gaining laudatory endorsements from a U.S. Supreme Court justice and a U.S. senator, vowing to revolutionize the office to stop what he considers “mass incarceration,” and prosecuting federal immigration agents. 

Within days of being sworn in Jan. 8 as San Francisco’s district attorney, Boudin cleaned house—targeting those in the criminal division in charge of the homicide unit, the general felonies unit, and gang units. 

Boudin, 39, the son of two Weather Underground radicals who were convicted of murder, replaced those officials with former colleagues from the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office.

In a campaign that he won by fewer than 3,000 votes, Boudin was clear that his top priorities were decreasing incarceration, eliminating cash bail, and refusing to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.

“Our criminal justice system is failing all of us. It is not keeping us safe. It is contributing to a vicious cycle of crime and punishment. More than any country in the history of the world, we have the longest sentences, the largest prison populations, the most bloated law enforcement budgets, and the highest recidivism rates,” Boudin said in a speech after being sworn in.

 “We consistently fail to address the needs of survivors of sexual assault; to offer restitution to victims of property crime; to include non-English speakers; to heal the trauma caused by violent crime,” he said. “These failures have led us, as a community, as a nation, to accept the unacceptable.”

During the campaign, Boudin wrote that if elected, he would establish an immigration unit in the San Francisco DA’s office.

He said the unit would “investigate and prosecute crimes ICE agents commit against members of the community, which include illegal arrests, racial profiling, child endangerment, kidnapping, and even human trafficking.”

Boudin’s campaign website said that ICE is not above the city’s sanctuary law, which he helped craft as a deputy public defender. 

“That’s why the Immigration Unit will investigate these abuses, and when ICE agents break California law and endanger our communities, they will be prosecuted,” the campaign site said. “In addition, if any agents violate our Sanctuary City Ordinance or our State Sanctuary laws and hold our community members for ICE agents, they will be prosecuted.”

Sotomayor Hails ‘Commitment to Reforming’

Boudin promised that his office would not prosecute based on “quality-of-life” issues, including crimes such as public drug use, vandalism, public defecation and urination, and public solicitation of sex. 

San Francisco faces a growing crisis of homeless residents camped on sidewalks and elsewhere, often engaged in these type of offenses. Other crimes such as car break-ins and thefts also plague the city. 

Boudin’s response to homelessness is a crackdown on what he has called “corporate landlords.”

As a candidate, Boudin said in an ACLU questionaire: “Crimes such as public camping, offering or soliciting sex, public urination, blocking a sidewalk, etc. should not and will not be prosecuted.”

Among his first acts was implementing a new “local option” law under which parents charged with a crime may participate in a diversion program to avoid jail time in order to be with their children. The law covers all misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies. 

On the day Boudin was sworn in, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered a video message expressing her support:

Chesa, you too are an example that gives hope to so many. It is uncommon for a former public defender to become a district attorney of a major city like San Francisco. Especially a district attorney who spent his childhood visiting parents incarcerated for committing serious felonies.

Your personal strength and commitment to reforming and improving the criminal justice system is a testament to the person you are and the role model you will continue to be for so many.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., also heralded Boudin’s victory in November. 

“Now is the moment to fundamentally transform our racist and broken criminal justice system by ending mass incarceration, the failed war on drugs and the criminalization of poverty,” the self-professed democratic socialist said in a tweet. “Congratulations @chesaboudin on your historic victory!”

Although it was a close race, it isn’t surprising that someone on the far left would become district attorney in San Francisco, said Will Swaim, president of the California Policy Center, a conservative think tank. 

“As an observer of San Francisco politics, this is to be expected given his pedigree of a who’s who of the American left, the family trajectory along with his education and resume,” Swaim told The Daily Signal.

Even as criminal justice reform to reduce recidivism has gained bipartisan support, Swaim said, Boudin’s views on incarceration are well out of the mainstream. 

“I don’t judge someone because his parents were part of a terrorist group, but I would note he views himself as a victim of incarceration,” Swaim said. “These were acts by his parents.”

On Oct. 20, 1981, Boudin’s mother, Kathy Boudin, dropped off the 14-month-old with a babysitter. She then joined Boudin’s father, David Gilbert, as part of a joint operation of the Weather Underground and Black Liberation Army to rob an armored truck in Nanuet, New York. 

The failed robbery ended in the deaths of two police officers and one security guard. Both parents were convicted of murder charges, although they didn’t pull the trigger in the slayings. 

Parents ‘Focused on Love’

Boudin’s mother attended his inauguration, and he addressed both parents in his remarks:

The crime you both participated in when I was an infant cost innocent men with families their lives. It did not matter to the DA or the judge that neither of you was armed nor that you did not personally hurt anyone. Those details matter to me. What matters even more is that since that terrible day you and my father have focused your lives on love.

When both his parents were sentenced to prison, two other leaders of the Weather Underground movement, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, took care of Boudin in Chicago. 

Ayers and Dohrn were instrumental in the political rise in Chicago of Barack Obama before he became a U.S. senator. Both Ayers and Dohrn participated in bombings and other domestic terror activities, but their cases were dropped because they were tainted by illegal FBI surveillance. 

Boudin’s mother, now 76, was paroled in 2003, but his father, 75, remains in prison. 

Boudin went on to graduate from Yale and Oxford. During graduate school, he traveled to Venezuela, where he worked as a translator for Chavez. In 2009, he wrote an article praising the socialist dictator for doing away with term limits. 

Afterward, he traveled back to the United States to work in the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office. 

Boudin was quoted in The New York Times in 2002 as saying: “Now I’m not angry. I’m sad that my parents have to suffer what they have to suffer on a daily basis,” simply because they were “dedicated to fighting U.S. imperialism around the world.” 

Upbringing ‘Rigorously Marxist’

Swaim said he understands the allure of extremist ideologies firsthand. 

“I was a Communist Party member in my early 20s, but I had a family to go back to,” Swaim said. “If it takes a village, Boudin’s village was rigorously Marxist. … I had to see the failures of socialism even as I tried to acquire the worldview. I doubt he has had that struggle. Also, San Francisco usually finds ways to make bad things worse.”

The San Francisco District Attorney’s Office did not respond to phone and email inquiries for this report. 

For several years, a national trend has seen election of  progressive prosecutors focused on curbing incarceration and pursuing fewer drug crimes. 

Those elected include Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx in Chicago, Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner, Bexar County District Attorney Joe Gonzales in Texas, and Suffolk County District Attorney Rachael Rollins, who prosecutes cases in a Massachusetts jurisdiction that includes Boston.

Moving from a public defender’s office to become district attorney is unusual, noted John Malcolm, director of the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation. 

“Anybody whose platform is not prosecuting quality-of-life crimes is taking a very political position that is ominous,” Malcolm told The Daily Signal. “If you don’t prosecute people for having sex in public, defecating [in public], and drug use in public, then San Francisco will be a magnet for lawlessness.”

FACTS FROM SAC: How Can Easing Renewables Mandates Actually Cut Emissions?

The cost of the State policy mandating energy companies buying “renewable” energy is $800 million a year.  That money could have gone to forest maintenance—if it had we would not had the massive fires.  What does this mean for the environment?

“ FACT: Over the last decade, California’s renewable mandate for utilities cut 40 million metric tons of GHG emissions.

 FACT: Those GHG savings were completely wiped out by the 2018 wildfires.
 

BOTTOM LINE: If California wants to cut GHG emissions, it needs to stop the wildfires. The Republican plan from Gallagher and Nielsen can provide more than $800 million per year to stop fires, protect property and most importantly, save lives.”

Read that carefully, the facts are clear—problems with the quality of our air is not because of factories, but because of government.  Government policies are killing our Earth.  Ready to roll this back in November?

FACTS FROM SAC: How Can Easing Renewables Mandates Actually Cut Emissions?

Assembly Republican Caucus, 1/22/20 

Republican Assemblyman James Gallagher (Chico) and Senator Jim Nielsen (Tehama) have introduced legislation to curb greenhouse gas emissions by pausing California’s renewable energy mandates.

 Sounds crazy, but unlike some critics of this plan (lookin’ at you, Sierra Club), the numbers don’t lie.

 FACT: The Gallagher/Nielsen plan could free up more than $800 million for vegetation management and grid hardening by pausing the requirement that utilities buy overpriced renewable energy.

FACT: The California Air Resources Board has determined that vegetation management is THE SINGLE MOST COST-EFFECTIVE WAY TO REDUCE GHG EMISSIONS.

 FACT: Over the last decade, California’s renewable mandate for utilities cut 40 million metric tons of GHG emissions.

 FACT: Those GHG savings were completely wiped out by the 2018 wildfires.
 

BOTTOM LINE: If California wants to cut GHG emissions, it needs to stop the wildfires. The Republican plan from Gallagher and Nielsen can provide more than $800 million per year to stop fires, protect property and most importantly, save lives. And it does all that without taking an extra dime from consumers.

Union membership falls to record low of 10.3 %

Workers are voting with their feet.  In the last year unions lost about 170,000 members.  The number of people who are forced to join a union is at a historic low.  The better news is that young people going into the job market do not want unions.  The better news is that the older workers, union members, are leaving the workforce.  A trend that over time will force unions to become honest—or they will dissolve.

““The decline in union density is not surprising. Despite the talk of a boom economy, the climate for organizing has become much more hostile in the last year under the openly anti-union Trump NLRB,” she said.

Declines in unionization, she added, were concentrated among white private sector workers.

According to the data, older workers were more likely to be unionized than younger workers by a 4-point margin, while men were more likely to be in unions than women by a 1.1-point margin.

BLS found that over half of all the nation’s 14.6 million union members were concentrated in just seven states, even though those states only accounted for a third of the workforce.

Those states included California with 2.5 million unionized workers, New York with 1.7 million, Illinois with 0.8 million, Pennsylvania with 0.7 million, and New Jersey, Ohio and Washington, each with 0.6 million.”

Maybe even the schools will return to education when unions stop controlling them.  Better sooner than later.

Union membership falls to record low of 10.3 %

By Niv Elis,  The Hill, – 01/22/20

The percentage of salaried workers in labor unions fell 0.2 points in 2019 to a record low of 10.3 percent, almost half the 20.3 percent rate in 1983 and a 2-point drop from a decade earlier, according to data the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released Wednesday.

Membership in unions, a key base of support for Democrats, remained significantly higher in the public sector, where local unions for police, teachers and firefighters helped push rates up to 33.6 percent, compared with just 6.2 percent in the private sector.

With $1,095 in median weekly earnings, union workers out-earned nonunion workers’ median $892 salaries by 22.7 percent.

Kate Bronfenbrenner, director of labor education research at Cornell University, said the decline followed naturally from anti-labor policies in the Trump administration.

“The decline in union density is not surprising. Despite the talk of a boom economy, the climate for organizing has become much more hostile in the last year under the openly anti-union Trump NLRB,” she said.

Declines in unionization, she added, were concentrated among white private sector workers.

According to the data, older workers were more likely to be unionized than younger workers by a 4-point margin, while men were more likely to be in unions than women by a 1.1-point margin.

BLS found that over half of all the nation’s 14.6 million union members were concentrated in just seven states, even though those states only accounted for a third of the workforce.

Those states included California with 2.5 million unionized workers, New York with 1.7 million, Illinois with 0.8 million, Pennsylvania with 0.7 million, and New Jersey, Ohio and Washington, each with 0.6 million.

The AFL-CIO, the country’s largest union group, argued that unions were on the up-and-up despite the drop in numbers.

“The numbers reflect both the tremendously difficult barriers workers seeking to form a union continue to face and the unmatched resilience of working people in our desire to win bargaining power on the job,” said AFL-CIO acting Communications Director Tim Schlittner.

Schlittner pointed to successful teacher strikes, a 50,000-worker General Motors strike, and unionization efforts by graduate students leading to higher wages and benefits as markers of the enduring strength of unions.

The Center for Union Facts, an anti-union group, pointed to the United Auto Workers as a reason for falling membership, noting a federal corruption probe that ensnared 12 top union officials with allegations of corruption and fraud.

“In the last year, the union failed to win an election in the South, launched a controversial strike that ended with a contract almost half of UAW members voted against, and let’s not forget the ongoing corruption scandal at the union, which has resulted in federal charges against 13 officials,” said Charlyce Bozzello, the group’s communications director.

The GM contract was approved by 57.2 percent of members.

“The UAW has become a case study of why not to join a union, and workers are clearly taking notice,” she added.   

But public support for unions has only grown in recent years.

Gallup polls in August found union approval at 64 percent, near a 50-year high.

Trump administration allows Texas to receive family planning funds while excluding Planned Parenthood

President Trump today is speaking to the march on Life in D.C.  He is the first sitting President to do so.  In fact, he is the most pro-life President in our history.  As President, based on Federal regulations he put in place, he is authorizing  funds to go to Texas for family planning—with zero dollars of that allowed to go to Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry.

“Texas had given up Medicaid funding for its program, Healthy Texas Women, in 2013, after the Obama administration had disapproved of its plan to deny funding to organizations that perform abortions. On Wednesday, the Trump administration granted a waiver effectively reversing that decision and restoring funding.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said that the decision meant that “Texas is once again in partnership with the federal government to provide family planning and health services through the Healthy Texas Women program while fostering a culture of life.”

Through the Healthy Texas Women program, the state provides certain healthcare services, such as contraception and cancer screenings, to lower-income women.

Women’s health is a priority.  Killing babies is a tragedy caused by tax dollars.  Trump is stopping that.

Trump administration allows Texas to receive family planning funds while excluding Planned Parenthood

by Anthony Leonardi, Washington Examiner,  1/22/20 

Texas had given up Medicaid funding for its program, Healthy Texas Women, in 2013, after the Obama administration had disapproved of its plan to deny funding to organizations that perform abortions. On Wednesday, the Trump administration granted a waiver effectively reversing that decision and restoring funding.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said that the decision meant that “Texas is once again in partnership with the federal government to provide family planning and health services through the Healthy Texas Women program while fostering a culture of life.”

Through the Healthy Texas Women program, the state provides certain healthcare services, such as contraception and cancer screenings, to lower-income women.

The Obama administration cut off funding from Texas because federal law requires all states to provide Medicaid beneficiaries their choice of providers. The Department of Health and Human Services said Wednesday, though, that the restrictions imposed by Texas were justified because they help provide services to women “who would otherwise not have such coverage.”

The Susan B. Anthony List, a national anti-abortion organization, praised the administration’s decision, asserting that “abortion is not health care.”

“Restoring Texas’s decision regarding use of federal funds is an acknowledgment that the Lone Star State was right all along,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, the group’s president. “We thank President Trump and Secretary [of Health and Human Services Alex] Azar and urge them to immediately free all states to act on the will of their citizens to support women’s health care without encouraging abortion.”

Clare Coleman, the president and CEO of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, accused the administration of issuing an “illegal waiver” to allow Texas to discriminate against providers.

“If other states follow suit to replicate Texas’ request, or similar, more expansive pending waivers are approved, it will disrupt the existing public health infrastructure and limit critical care for patients in communities across the country,” Coleman said.

Joe Biden Claims DACA Illegal Aliens ‘More American than Most Americans’

Joe Biden hates Americans.  He has no respect for the people that make this country a success.  Instead he praises law breakers and claims Americans are not as good as illegal aliens.  Wonder how that is going to play.

“The 77-year-old former vice president said:

These kids have come, they’ve done well, most of these kids there’s a lot of them, and they’re not just Hispanic, they’re Asian-Pacific Islanders as well. and they in fact have done very well. In many cases, they’re more American than most Americans because they have done well in school.

Biden proceeded to claim that DACA recipients believed in the “basic principles” which we all share and deserved a pathway to U.S. citizenship.

The former vice president’s praise of illegal aliens marks a stark contrast to the tone he has generally taken since jumping into the 2020 race. Although Biden favors giving healthcare to migrants residing in the country unlawfully, he has taken a more nuanced approach to border enforcement and deportations.

Lawbreakers do not have the same “principles” as honest American citizens—they are law breakers.  Maybe he has been too busy scamming the Chinese and Ukrainian people for his son and family to understand what being “honest” means.

Joe Biden Claims DACA Illegal Aliens ‘More American than Most Americans’

Haris Alic, Breitbart,  1/21/20 

Former Vice President Joe Biden claimed on Tuesday that illegal immigrants in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program are “more American than most Americans” because they had “done well in school.”

Biden, who recently said he believed drunk driving should not be crime that warrants deportation, made the statement during a campaign rally in Ames, Iowa.

The 77-year-old former vice president said:

These kids have come, they’ve done well, most of these kids there’s a lot of them, and they’re not just Hispanic, they’re Asian-Pacific Islanders as well. and they in fact have done very well. In many cases, they’re more American than most Americans because they have done well in school.

Biden proceeded to claim that DACA recipients believed in the “basic principles” which we all share and deserved a pathway to U.S. citizenship.

The former vice president’s praise of illegal aliens marks a stark contrast to the tone he has generally taken since jumping into the 2020 race. Although Biden favors giving healthcare to migrants residing in the country unlawfully, he has taken a more nuanced approach to border enforcement and deportations.

This was on display in July 2019, when the former vice president was confronted by an immigration activist when campaigning in New Hampshire. The activist, who claimed to be undergoing deportation proceedings, demanded that Biden “apologize to the three million immigrants that were deported and separated from their families under the Obama years.” The former vice president simply smirked at the cameras taping the altercation, before telling the activist he would do no such thing.

“I will not apologize for the deportation of people who have committed a felony,” Biden said at the time.

California governor aims to block PG&E’s bankruptcy plan

  • San Diego has a Socialist Mayor, Faulconer.  He wants the city and county to BUY the local utility and have government control the supply and cost of energy in that county.  Guv Newsom, the Socialist Governor wants to bankruptcy PG&E, so the State of California can buy it on the cheap—then have total control of energy and electricity, availability and cost—enough control to control the economy of the families and businesses of the entire State.
  • “In a court filing Wednesday, Newsom’s lawyers gave a sternly worded rebuke of PG&E’s plan, escalating the intrigue in the year-old case that will determine the fate of the nation’s largest utility. PG&E is trying to dig out of a financial hole created by more than $50 billion in claims stemming from a series of catastrophic wildfires that have been blamed on the San Francisco company.
  • The Democratic governor’s misgivings cast more uncertainty on PG&E’s hopes to emerge from bankruptcy by June 30 even as it makes progress on other fronts. The San Francisco company rid itself of another irritant Wednesday by striking a deal with a group of bondholders that had been pushing a competing reorganization plan that had been opposed by PG&E’s management.
  • The good news is that once government control the availability and cost of energy in the State, there will be a massive shortage—and what is left of the middle class will leave the State as if a natural disaster was coming—oh, government is not natural, but it is a disaster.

California governor aims to block PG&E’s bankruptcy plan

KGET,  1/22/20 

California Gov. Gavin Newsom is urging a federal judge to reject Pacific Gas and Electric’s blueprint for getting out of bankruptcy and renewing his threat to lead a bid to turn the beleaguered utility into a government-run operation.

In a court filing Wednesday, Newsom’s lawyers gave a sternly worded rebuke of PG&E’s plan, escalating the intrigue in the year-old case that will determine the fate of the nation’s largest utility. PG&E is trying to dig out of a financial hole created by more than $50 billion in claims stemming from a series of catastrophic wildfires that have been blamed on the San Francisco company.

The Democratic governor’s misgivings cast more uncertainty on PG&E’s hopes to emerge from bankruptcy by June 30 even as it makes progress on other fronts. The San Francisco company rid itself of another irritant Wednesday by striking a deal with a group of bondholders that had been pushing a competing reorganization plan that had been opposed by PG&E’s management.

The truce requires the bondholders to drop their alternative proposal in exchange for PG&E paying them more money than it had originally intended. The company didn’t immediately disclose all the financial details, but said it included raising money through a refinancing that would save its customers about $1 billion.

Now Newsom appears to pose PG&E’s most formidable stumbling block.

Although he doesn’t have the power to block PG&E’s preferred route out of bankruptcy, the Democratic governor has tremendous leverage because the company’s plan hinges on its ability to draw upon a special insurance fund California created last summer to help insulate utilities from potential wildfire losses in the future. PG&E needs the approval of its top California regulator, the Public Utilities Commission, whose current president, Marybel Batjer, was appointed to the job by Newsom last summer.

In Wednesday’s filing, Newsom asserted that PG&E is trying to pressure the Public Utilities Commission into accepting a ‘sub-optimal plan.”

In a statement, PG&E promised “additional changes to the plan are forthcoming. We will continue to engage with the Governor’s office to address his concerns.”

Newsom fired his latest salvo on the eve of a scheduled hearing before U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali that will cover a wide range of unresolved issues in the complex case.

Newsom told Montali that PG&E’s current plan doesn’t meet the requirements needed to participate in the state’s wildfire fund, echoing a point he first made in a Dec. 13 letter to the company informing management the proposal needed a dramatic overhaul.

In his latest objection, Newsom expressed frustration that PG&E hasn’t budged much since he sent that letter nearly six weeks ago despite further talks with representatives from his office. “He is clearly not happy with what has been going on behind closed doors, and he is trying to telegraph that to Judge Montali,” said University of California Hastings College of the Law professor Jared Ellias, who has been closely following the PG&E case.

Newsom fired his latest salvo on the eve of a scheduled hearing before Montali that will cover a wide range of unresolved issues in the complex case.

Although PG&E has won Montali’s approval of settlements that will pay a total of $25.5 billion to wildfire victims, insurers and government agencies, the company is still working on the financing to cover those deals while also leaving enough money to pay for billions of dollars in improvements needed for its electricity transmission system.

Newsom blasted PG&E’s agreement to pay more than $1 billion in fees to secure financing that he fears will saddle the company with too much debt and undercut its ability to pay for the badly needed upgrades. Without those improvements, PG&E would be more likely to ignite even more fires in the future and probably resort to deliberate blackouts inconveniencing hundreds of thousands of customers to reduce the risks during hot, dry and windy conditions that are expected to become more intense amid climate change.

The governor also has demanded that PG&E replace its entire 14-member board of directors, including current CEO Bill Johnson, even though the company already did a major overhaul of that body responsible for overseeing the utility’s management.

Newsom didn’t provide any details about how California might finance a takeover of a company with a market value that has been fluctuating between $5 billion and $40 billion in recent years. The elected leaders in various cities and counties in PG&E’s sprawling service area also have expressed support for transforming the utility into a non-profit cooperative owned by the government, but analysts still believe that is unlikely to happen.

Voters face hundreds of local tax measures in March

Bob Dylan had a line in a great song that went like this, “everyone must get stoned.”  The California version of that is “everyone must be taxed.  The March ballot alone has 200 different tax increases and bonds, waiting for the people of California to agree to mutual bankruptcy.  On measure, Prop. 13 on the statewide ballot is $15 billion for “education” and $11 billion for Wall Street.  Want to end economic inequality—say NO to bond and tax measures.

“The California Taxpayers Association has counted 231 local sales and parcel tax increases and bond issues (which automatically increase property taxes if approved) on the March 3 primary ballot alone.

Hundreds more are headed for the November ballot as local officials capitalize on the higher voter turnouts of a presidential election year.

Turnout in March will be very lopsided in favor of Democrats due to the state’s increased role in choosing a presidential nominee of their party and November’s turnout also will be heavily Democratic, given the unpopularity of President Donald Trump.

Democrats love taxes—the more we tax, the less money real people have and then must depend on government to bail them out—or leave the State.  What would happen if the people of California said NO 231 times and told government to get real, either live with what we already give you or cut back on the corruption, payoffs to crony capitalists, unions and donors.

Voters face hundreds of local tax measures

Dan Walters,  CalMatters,  1/23/20   

  •  

California voters have seen a deluge of local government tax and bond measures in recent elections and will face even more this year.

The California Taxpayers Association has counted 231 local sales and parcel tax increases and bond issues (which automatically increase property taxes if approved) on the March 3 primary ballot alone.

Hundreds more are headed for the November ballot as local officials capitalize on the higher voter turnouts of a presidential election year.

Turnout in March will be very lopsided in favor of Democrats due to the state’s increased role in choosing a presidential nominee of their party and November’s turnout also will be heavily Democratic, given the unpopularity of President Donald Trump.

Democrats are generally more willing to increase taxes than Republican or no-party-preference voters, so it makes perfect political sense to load up this year’s ballots with taxes.

Do cities, counties and school districts really need all of the new taxes they want voters to approve, given the strong increases in revenues from existing taxes they’ve enjoyed during nearly a decade-long economic boom?

Oddly enough, many do, because their costs, particularly for pensions and health care, have been rising faster than revenues — but don’t expect local officials to acknowledge those costs as they make their pitches to voters.

They will vaguely tell voters that the additional funds are needed for “public safety” or such popular services as parks.

Why the deception? They fear voters will be less willing to vote for new taxes if they are told the money would be spent on retirement costs, and they know their unions are less willing to finance candid campaigns.

The pending measures do comply, at least sketchily, with a recent state law that local officials dislike, requiring them to declare in their ballot summaries the tax effects of their proposals.

Last year, the Legislature voted to partially repeal that law, but Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed the measure.

“I am concerned that this bill as crafted will reduce transparency for local tax and bond measures,” Newsom wrote in his veto message.

Yes, the measure would reduce transparency, and that was the whole point. Its author, Sen. Scott Wiener, a San Francisco Democrat, publicly declared his concern that telling voters how much their tax burdens would increase might discourage them from approving local tax measures.

At least one March tax measure also regenerates a simmering dispute over the vote margins needed to raise taxes for specific purposes.

Long-standing state law says that general purpose local taxes require only simple majority voter approval, but those for specific purposes take two-thirds votes.

A few years ago, the state Supreme Court indirectly hinted that special purpose taxes placed on the ballot by initiative petition might require only simple majority approval. Since then, local judges have both affirmed the two-thirds requirement and ruled that simple majorities are sufficient, creating a legal conflict that only the Supreme Court can resolve.

Overarching the battles over local taxes is whether the high Democratic turnouts this year will also favor a statewide measure to modify the iconic Proposition 13 property tax limit, enacted in 1978, and thus allow increased taxes on commercial property.

At the moment, polls indicate that it’s a tossup, but that’s before public employee unions and commercial property owners spend tens of millions of dollars to sway voters one way or the other.

Intuit Leadership Blasted for Wasting Shareholder Money on Frivolous “Green” Initiatives

When you invest in a company, you expect them to make the product, sell the services and make a profit.  You then expect the profit to come back to you via a dividend or by a rise in the value of the stock because the company expands, grows and is even more profitable.  You do not expect the company to take your money a give to those who want to limit capitalism. Limit your freedoms, end your Constitutional rights and to raise your taxes.  Intuit is a well known, value technology company—it also finances the end of capitalism and freedom.

“Later, Danhof asked about Intuit’s connection to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC). Ostensibly set up to promote LGBT causes, HRC also works to undermine religious liberty, direct corporate philanthropy, influence state laws, advocate in state and federal courts, and influence shareholder proposals. Through its rating system, known as the “Corporate Equality Index,” HRC weaponizes corporate America into all of these extreme campaigns. After noting that Intuit has consistently achieved a perfect score on the Corporate Equality Index, Danhof asked:

To be in line so perfectly with the HRC’s index is to say that the company has basically become an advocacy arm of the far left, supporting only approved liberal causes and events, and kowtowing to HRC regarding support or opposition to shareholder proposals. So my second question is this: Given that Intuit operates in lockstep with HRC’s far-left, anti-religious advocacy demands, why should conservatives or Americans of faith continue to use your products and services?”

It is nice that corporations help the communities.  It is not nice to use corporate money to harm the stakeholders and the community.  Check your investments.

Intuit Leadership Blasted for Wasting Shareholder Money on Frivolous “Green” Initiatives

Free Enterprise Project Also Questions TurboTax Parent Company over Its Complicity with the Human Rights Campaign, Which Opposes Religious Freedom

Free Enterprise Project,  1/23/20 

Mountain View, CA/Washington, D.C. – Intuit CEO Sasan Goodarzi faced tough questions from the Free Enterprise Project (FEP) over the company’s wasteful and destructive “green” spending as well as its ties to anti-religious interests at today’s annual meeting of Intuit shareholders.

“Intuit investors and customers have reason to be concerned about the company’s spending and operations based on the feedback that Goodarzi provided today,” said National Center General Counsel and FEP Director Justin Danhof, Esq., who attended today’s meeting in Mountain View, California and questioned Goodarzi. “Investors deserve more coherent answers, specifically regarding Intuit’s environmental spending and the company’s devotion to liberal social causes.”

Regarding Intuit’s environmental spending and claims that it had reach so-called carbon neutrality, Danhof took the company to task for the manner in which it had done so. He asked:

Intuit claims it has already achieved so-called carbon neutrality by – among other actions – purchasing carbon offsets. Carbon offsets are meaningless. Regularly ridiculed as a way for corporations and the Hollywood elite to cleanse their guilt over production and consumption, even the far-left publication ProPublica wrote last year that: “In case after case… carbon credits hadn’t offset the amount of pollution they were supposed to, or they had brought gains that were quickly reversed or that couldn’t be accurately measured to begin with. Ultimately, the polluters got a guilt-free pass to keep emitting CO?, but the forest preservation that was supposed to balance the ledger either never came or didn’t last.”

…How much shareholder money has the company spent on these worthless offsets that amount to nothing more than green virtue-signaling?

In response, Goodarzi refused to disclose how much shareholder money had been spent to purchase carbon offsets. Goodarzi further claimed that “everything that we do is all in light of making the planet a better place.”

“Putting Goodarzi’s bizarre messiah complex aside, I suspect that if Intuit only spent nominal amounts on these offsets, he would have said so,” noted Danhof. “The fact that he is hiding the number from the investors whose money he is spending raises alarm bells. Shareholders do not invest hard-earned money so CEOs such as Goodarzi can fund personal causes. Goodarzi’s answer was as insulting as it was inadequate.”

Later, Danhof asked about Intuit’s connection to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC). Ostensibly set up to promote LGBT causes, HRC also works to undermine religious liberty, direct corporate philanthropy, influence state laws, advocate in state and federal courts, and influence shareholder proposals. Through its rating system, known as the “Corporate Equality Index,” HRC weaponizes corporate America into all of these extreme campaigns. After noting that Intuit has consistently achieved a perfect score on the Corporate Equality Index, Danhof asked:

To be in line so perfectly with the HRC’s index is to say that the company has basically become an advocacy arm of the far left, supporting only approved liberal causes and events, and kowtowing to HRC regarding support or opposition to shareholder proposals. So my second question is this: Given that Intuit operates in lockstep with HRC’s far-left, anti-religious advocacy demands, why should conservatives or Americans of faith continue to use your products and services?

To this, Goodarzi only gave a non-responsive answer about Intuit’s corporate philanthropy.

Danhof’s entire question, as prepared for delivery, is available here. Danhof’s exchange with Goodarzi is available here.

“When corporate managers receive the Human Rights Campaign’s annual survey used to populate the Corporate Equality Index, we recommend that they throw it in the trash,” suggested Danhof. “Companies should operate out of the best interest of their shareholders first and then the communities where they operate. They shouldn’t operate to appease, or worse support, the anti-religious freedom activists at the Human Rights Campaign.”

Today’s Intuit meeting marks FEP’s second participation in a shareholder meeting in 2020.

To schedule an interview, contact National Center Director of Media Judy Kent at (703) 759-0269.

Launched in 2007, the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project focuses on shareholder activism and the confluence of big government and big business. Over the past four years alone, FEP representatives have participated in over 100 shareholder meetings – advancing free-market ideals about health care, energy, taxes, subsidies, regulations, religious freedom, food policies, media bias, gun rights, workers’ rights and other important public policy issues. As the leading voice for conservative-minded investors, FEP annually files more than 90 percent of all right-of-center shareholder resolutions. Dozens of liberal organizations, however, annually file more than 95 percent of all policy-oriented shareholder resolutions and continue to exert undue influence over corporate America.

California files lawsuit to remain a National Security Risk

Thanks to President Trump opening up oil drilling, allowing fracking and rolling back irrational and junk science created environmental regulations.  When he battles Iran and Iraq, we are no longer held back since we need their oil.  In fact, we are now exporters of oil and natural gas — helping create more American jobs and tax revenues based on the sales.  Oil policy, in the Trump era makes us more secure from foreign blackmail.

“Regarding the crude oil demands for the state. there are scary similarities between Governor Newsom’s goals for California and Vladimir Putin’s objectives. Both support California being more and more dependent on imported foreign oil, and both support anti-fracking in California. Obviously, any successful fracking enterprise would lessen the states’ dependency on that foreign oil. Does the Governor know his actions are supportive of California’s 5th largest economy in the world being a National Security risk to America?

In 2024, When Newsom runs for President, this will be an issue against him. It is safer to drill for oil than fight a war over oil—Newsom prefers war.

California files lawsuit to remain a National Security Risk

By Ronald Stein, Fox & Hounds,  1/22/20    

California has chosen to be the only state in America that imports most of its oil needs from foreign countries and relies on the U.S. Navy to pay a steep price keeping an aircraft carrier with escorts on station to deter attacks on oil tanker traffic operating in and around the Persian Gulf.

The state of California is suing President Donald Trump’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in an attempt to block the opening of more than 1 million acres of public land to oil and gas drilling, including hydraulic fracturing or fracking.

Conservation groups sued BLM over a California fracking plan that would allow drilling and fracking on public lands across eight counties in California’s Central Valley and Central Coast: Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Tulare and Ventura.

Regarding the crude oil demands for the state. there are scary similarities between Governor Newsom’s goals for California and Vladimir Putin’s objectives. Both support California being more and more dependent on imported foreign oil, and both support anti-fracking in California. Obviously, any successful fracking enterprise would lessen the states’ dependency on that foreign oil. Does the Governor know his actions are supportive of California’s 5th largest economy in the world being a National Security risk to America?

California and Hawaii are the only two states who cannot participate in the sharing of excess oil the U.S. is producing and being enjoyed by the other 48 states. Hawaii is a true island, but California is an energy island, as the Sierra Mountains are a natural barrier that prevents the state from pipeline access to any of that excess oil. Hawaii is a different story altogether so let’s focus on California.  

The Golden State’s position on crude oil production fits right in with Putin’s goal to control energy. Russia is adamantly against U.S. fracking efforts and very supportive of any environmentalist group or wealthy individual efforts to slow or stop crude oil and natural gas exploration and production within the U.S. and European borders. Recently a Russian funded environmental group gave millions to anti-fracking groups to stop, curtail or severely weaken US fracking of crude oil and natural gas in states like Texas, North Dakota, Colorado, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Pennsylvania.

California’s love of foreign crude oil is obvious. According to the Energy Information Administration, except for California which remains as the only state that imports most of its crude oil from foreign countries, the nation reduced imports and is now a net exporter of crude oil. In 1992 CA and AK accounted for 95% of the state’s demand for crude oil, today CA and AK account for a lowly 43% with the balance of 57% from foreign countries. California increased imports from foreign countries from 5 percent to 57 percent of total consumption. The imported crude oil cost California more than $60 million dollars a day being paid to oil-rich foreign countries, depriving Californians of jobs and business opportunities. 

In addition to the anti-fracking position of the state, are seriously considering Assembly Bill AB-345 (Muratsuchi), “Oil and gas: operations: location restrictions,” which would require, commencing January 1, 2020, all new oil and gas development outside federal land, to be located at least 2,500 feet (nearly half a mile) from any residence, school, childcare facility, playground, hospital, or health clinic. The bill would define re-drilling of a previously plugged and abandoned well, or other rework operations, as a new development. 

There are more than 8,000 active or newly permitted oil and gas wells located within a 2,500’ buffer of sensitive sites, that represents about 30% of the 30,000 active wells in California.  These setbacks would further reduce California crude oil production to the point that the foreign imports needed to make up for the in-state reduction would drive up the monthly cost to more than $80 million dollars a day being sent to oil rich foreign countries, at current crude oil pricing.

In pursuit of going green at any cost, like Germany does, California continues to decease its in-state crude oil production and its in-state electricity generation. The states’ dependency of foreign countries for crude oil, and dependency on other states for electricity is accelerating.

Obviously, our California leaders have limited knowledge that electricity cannot exist without fossil fuels as all the parts for wind and solar renewables are made with fossil fuels. Noticeable by their absence from turbines and solar panels, are those crude oil chemicals and by-products that account for everything in our society and supports the militaries, aviation, merchant ships, and all the transportation infrastructures needed by commerce around the world.