L.A. creating $10-million legal defense fund for immigrants facing deportation

Here is the proposal that is planned for a vote by the county supervisors in December and the city council in January. Under the joint Los Angeles city/county effort the two government bodies will put up $5 Million towards a legal defense fund to defend illegal aliens facing deportation. The remaining $5 Million will be raised through philanthropic groups. The funds will be called “The L.A. Justice Fund.”

It is estimated that 1 million of the 11 million illegal aliens in the United States are living in Los Angeles County.

The entire article is posted on line by the Los Angeles Times.

It is easy to say that local governments should not be involved in protecting illegal aliens and that the local tax payers are facing an additional burden that has not been approved through a ballot measure.

However, we do have a representative government that authorizes those elected to determine budgets and how money is to be spent.

Because there is a very large minority population in Los Angeles the will of the people is being carried out by those elected officials. Many of them are members of minority groups.

The argument is that many of the illegal alien:
1. Have been in the United States for decades doing jobs that most Americans won’t do for pay that most Americans consider unacceptable.

2. Are working at businesses that are known to ICE to employ them but have done nothing to arrest and deport.

3. Were brought to this country as children and know of no other country. They are victims of their parent’s decisions.

4. Have children that were born in the United States and deporting the parents will break apart the families leaving the children with no caring family. Those minor children may be orphaned and require foster care.

The above reasons are enough for me to believe that the legal defense fund is an appropriate use of government tax money.

Not a Member of a Political Party

I am not registered as a member of any political party. Given my interest in politics it may seem an unlikely scenario. Let me tell you my reasoning.

The Republican Party historically in the 20th century was the party supporting business. They fought for lower taxes and less regulation. Who can be opposed to those objectives? Then the conservative religious groups evolved inside the G.O.P. Instead of being the business party they became the party of Evangelical Christians and other orthodox religious groups that put their religious beliefs ahead of business and the rights of non-believers. Today, thanks to Donald Trump, the G.O.P. has become the party concerned with helping the working classes of the country and the party of the extreme right wing (alt-right/neo-Nazi) hate groups. This is not a pretty picture.

Sadly the Democratic Party is no longer the party of the working class and middle class America. Extreme left wing socialists have become the driving force within the party. Senator Bernie Sanders has become a leader of this socialist perspective. America does have some socialist services but not to the level that the left wing aspires to bring to America. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and welfare for the needy are all socialist programs but I do not support government ownership of businesses that should be operated privately (car manufacturing companies, aircraft manufacturers, etc.).

Third parties have had an inconsequential impact on American politics.

I am left with selecting candidates that have said or done something that catches my attention. I voted for both Democrats and Republicans in November. Some races were left unmarked for any candidate.

Donald Trump appears to be a thin skinned man who takes every slight as a major insult to him. How will he conduct himself as president? His behavior as a candidate has not changed since he won the election. The only thing that might stop him from starting a nuclear war might be the decisions of a wiser military.

How did America get itself into such a predicament?

California Secession #Calexit and #Caleavefornia

The above map shows the national results of the November 8 2016 election by county. It is obvious that the most populace parts of California voted for Hillary Clinton. 54% of the voters chose Mrs. Clinton. 30% Chose Donald Trump.

California holds significantly different views of the world from most of the United States. Immigration and the environment are the two really big differences. Donald Trump by his own words does not believe there is any climate change and he intends to deport millions of “illegal aliens.” He says immigrants will be subject to ‘extreme vetting.‘ Trump intends to end Obama Care. All of these views are diametrically opposite of those held by most Californians.

“If Trump wins,” venture capitalist Shervin Pishevar wrote, “I am announcing and funding a legitimate campaign for California to become its own nation.” That was reported in the Los Angeles Daily News.

California is approximately 38% Latino and 38% White. The rest of the state is a mix of Black, Asian, and other groups. Clearly this is not a White state.

California has more millionaires with over $1million to invest than any other state.

Compared to countries California’s economy ranks 6^th in the world.

40% of America’s imports arrive through the ports of Los Angeles/Long Beach.

http://www.yescalifornia.org/ In the Spring of 2019, Californians will go to the polls in a historic vote to decide by referendum if California should exit the Union, a #Calexit vote.

You will have this historic opportunity because the Yes California Independence Campaign will qualify a citizen’s initiative for the 2018 ballot that if passed would call for a special election for Californians to vote for or against the independence of California from the United States.

Yes California is the nonviolent campaign to establish the country of California using any and all legal and constitutional means to do so. We advocate for peaceful secession from the United States by use of an independence referendum to establish a mandate, followed by a nationwide campaign to advocate in support of a constitutional exit from the Union.

This would be a VERY BIG step. It is worth thinking about.

Trump: ‘I’m afraid the election’s going to be rigged’

Donald Trump is correct. The elections are rigged. It’s not the popular vote that wins the election. It’s the electors who choose the president. With the exception of Nebraska and Maine each state awards all the electors to the winner of the state. It is a decision made by each state. In other words even if Trump won 45% of the popular vote in California and Clinton won 55%, all 55 electors would be awarded to Clinton. Does Trump understand the system? That system is written into the constitution.

Donald Trump reminds me of Captain Queeg. You remember! “The Caine Mutiny” is a 1951 Pulitzer Prize–winning novel by Herman Wouk. Humphrey Bogart starred.

Caine Mutiny – Capt. Queeg Loses It

The news item

Columbus, Ohio (CNN) Donald Trump on Monday took his complaints about the “rigged” political system one step further.

“I’m afraid the election’s going to be rigged. I have to be honest,” Trump told voters in Ohio, a crucial swing state.

Trump’s comments Monday came as he decried Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders for endorsing Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary, even as some Sanders supporters have continued to resist unifying behind the nominee. Trump has sought to siphon off Sanders supporters and draw them to his campaign.

Trump added that he has heard “more and more” that the November election will be rigged — suggesting to his supporters that the outcome of the election is out of the hands of voters.

Trump during the primary repeatedly slammed the “rigged system” he claimed was working against his campaign to capture the Republican nomination for president. He then pivoted to using that language to decry the nomination process on the left, accusing the Democratic Party of colluding with the Clinton campaign to keep Sanders from winning that party’s nomination.

Trump’s comments during the primary bolstered the impression that Trump, a political outsider, was leading the charge against a corrupt political system.

But his latest comments could hurt Trump’s general election campaign as his supporters might decide not to turn out to vote if the election is already “rigged” against their candidate.

Trump continued with the “rigged” theme during a Monday night interview on Fox News. Appearing on “Hannity,” the Republican nominee suggested the potential for foul play in November. Trump pointed to the 2012 presidential election as a cause for concern.

“I’ve been hearing about it for a long time,” Trump said. “And I know last time, there were — you had precincts where there was practically nobody voting for the Republican. And I think that’s wrong. I think that was unfair, frankly” for 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney.

“I’m telling you, November 8, we’d better be careful, because that election is going to be rigged,” Trump added. “And I hope the Republicans are watching closely or it’s going to be taken away from us.”

Are boycotts against Israel anti-Semitism or free speech?

Free speech in America means saying what you want to say no matter who is offended. That translates to the KKK and other extremist groups having the right to hold rallies in public places. That results in demonstrations in big cities by groups wanting to express their demands or frustrations.

Thus the above question posted on KPCC, the large audience NPR, FM station, in Los Angeles. following is their explanation of a proposed law in the California legislature. Although the intent might be pleasing to some people, the proposed law strikes me as unconstitutional. At the end of the article on KPCC’s web site there were comments both for and against the law.

—
A California state bill that would punish companies participating in the boycott, divestment, and sanction (BDS) movement against Israel recently passed the California state Senate Judiciary Committee.

The controversial movement calls on individuals and companies to boycott Israel until it ends occupying “all Arab lands.” Rather than punish boycotts directly, AB 2844 targets “violations of existing anti-discrimination laws that take place under the pretext of a boycott or other ‘policy’ aimed at ‘any sovereign nation or people recognized by the government of the United States, including, but not limited to, the nation and people of Israel,’” according to a Los Angeles Times editorial. It also requires those seeking state government contracts to certify that they haven’t engaged in discrimination through such a policy.

There is disagreement about the strength of the current bill, as language directly referencing BDS has been removed in favor of more general assertions that reference the existing Unruh Civil Rights Act and California Fair Employment and Housing Act.

This has not mitigated the controversy surrounding the legislation.

Proponents of the bill seek to portray the BDS movement as anti-Semitic. Dillon Hosier, senior political adviser for the nonprofit advocacy organization Israeli-American Nexus, said that it has created an insidious anti-Jewish environment across California.

“Californians are being targeted who have zero connection to the government of Israel,” Hosier said. “What BDS has become is not ‘boycott, divestment and sanctions,’ [but rather] ‘bigotry, discrimination and anti-Semitism.’”

Opponents of the legislation argue the bill violates the First Amendment.

Estee Chandler is a founding member of the Los Angeles Chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace, an organization that seeks to end Israel’s presence in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. She finds the California legislature’s actions against BDS “deeply troubling,” saying she sees what the Legislature is doing as punishing political speech.

“From the start, AB 2844 was introduced to single out, stigmatize and suppress the political speech of Californians who criticized … Israeli and U.S. policies,” Chandler said. “Denying state business to an otherwise qualified contractor based solely on their views about Israel and their participation in a legal boycott … goes beyond government exercising its speech, and it impedes on our constitutional rights.”

AB 2844 passed an initial vote in the Assembly, and last week it passed through the Senate Judiciary Committee. Next, it heads to a vote in the Appropriations Committee in early August.

Assembly Bill 2844

Some Guns Need to be Banned

When will the Federal government stop massacres? Why should the public be victim to crimes that can be reduced? When only about 15% of the population owns firearms why must the rest of us hope and pray that no one in our family is a victim when they go to a shopping mall or other public location?

We have an amendment to the constitution that provides for everyone to own a gun for their own protection and for use in a militia. That right does not say that crazy, mad, and the mentally imbalanced have a right to fire arms.

Semi-automatic weapons and assault weapons used in war appear to be the guns used to for massacres in most instances. So why aren’t these weapons banned? The AR-15 assault rifle was among the weapons banned by the federal government up until 2004, when the ban expired. It has not been renewed. The gun lobby and the NRA have done an outstanding job of preventing sensible regulations. It is obvious that our congress is subject to the will of those businesses and gun hobbyist groups that want to stop all regulation.

Both automatic and semi-automatic weapons should be banned.

The following list is not a complete listing. The lives lost and the lives permanently maimed should be sufficient motivation for new enforcements.

Place	Date	Number Killed	Number Injured	Weapon Used
Orlando Fl., nightclub	June 12, 2016	49	17	similar to an AR-15
Virginia Tech	April 16, 2007	32	53	22-caliber Walther P22 semi-automatic handgun and a 9 mm semi-automatic Glock 19 handgun.
Newtown, Conn, elementary school	Dec. 4, 2012	27	1	AR-15 assault rifle
San Bernardino, Calif., community center	Dec 4, 2015	14	21	Smith & Wesson M&P assault rifle
Binghamton, New York, outside the American Civic Association	April 3, 2009	13	4	2 hand guns
Washington Navy Yard	Sept. 3, 2013	12	3	AR-15 assault rifle
Aurora, Colo. Movie theater	July 29, 2012	12	58	AR-15 assault rifle
Charleston S.C. church	April 19, 2015	9	1	45-caliber semi-automatic Glock handgun
Stockton, Calif., elementary school playground	Jan. 17, 1989	5	30	AK-47 and a semiautomatic handgun
Ft. Hood, Texas	April 2, 2014	3	16	5.7-millimeter pistol

Donald Trump is a Racist

June 10, 2016

Since posting The New York Times editorial numerous Republicans have spoken out against Donald Trump’s racist remarks. The best was said on June 7, 2016 by Paul Ryan. “I disavow these comments. I regret those comments that he made. Claiming a person can’t do their job because of their race is sort of like the textbook definition of a racist comment.”

The following New York Times editorial reflects my views in words that I cannot construct in a better way.

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD of The New York Times JUNE 6, 2016

Donald Trump’s Contempt for the Rule of Law

Federal judges have repeatedly and emphatically refused to recuse themselves from cases because of their race or ethnicity. These rulings were driven by two realizations: Ethnically based challenges would reduce every judge to a racial category, which would be racist in itself. And such challenges would make judges vulnerable to recusal motions — for reasons of race, ethnicity, gender or religion — in every case that came before them.

In other words, once these challenges were allowed, there would be no end to them.

The gravity of this matter has clearly eluded Donald Trump, who has cast aside the Constitution and decades of jurisprudence by suggesting both ethnic and religious litmus tests for federal judges. These pronouncements illustrate that Mr. Trump holds the rule of law in contempt.

Mr. Trump started down this road months ago, attacking a federal judge in California who is hearing a lawsuit against the now-defunct Trump University. Last week, he asserted that the judge, Gonzalo Curiel, had an “inherent conflict of interest” because he was “of Mexican heritage.” Mr. Trump implied that Judge Curiel — an American, born in Indiana — was biased against him because he intended to build a wall along the border to stop illegal immigration.

Republican leaders repudiated the remarks and hoped that the issue would disappear. But Mr. Trump went further on Sunday, when he said on the CBS News program “Face the Nation” that a Muslim judge might be similarly biased against him because he has proposed a ban on Muslim immigrants entering the United States.

When the interviewer, John Dickerson, reminded Mr. Trump that this country has a tradition of not judging people based on heritage, the presumptive Republican nominee responded, “I’m not talking about tradition, I’m talking about common sense.”

Republicans who say they disagree with Mr. Trump’s racialist statements have tried to assuage the public by arguing that he doesn’t really believe those views. But if that’s the case, it is pretty cold comfort. Cynically choosing to equate ethnicity with bias is hardly more appealing than simply being ignorant or bigoted.

The Nominees

Neither of these candidates are good for America. I see two Twilight Zone Devils.

In other words they appear reasonable until the until the last moment when they will do their nasty acts. Of course we won’t know that until it has happened.

Hillary Clinton is an insider who has too many donors that will have the final say on her actions as president. She is most likely to follow the philosophy of her husband (former President Bill Clinton). Recall that he signed the law revoking the Glass-Steagall act of 1933 that prohibited commercial banks from engaging in the investment business. He also signed into law NAFTA, a law proposed by Republicans and pushed by President George H.W. Bush that resulted in numerous companies relocating to Mexico.

Donald Trump has no experience in public office and does not appear to understand the workings of the federal government. He clearly does not understand the total significance of the Bill of Rights. “One of the things I’m going to do if I win… I’m going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money,” Trump said during a rally in Fort Worth, Texas. He has limited understanding of the relations the United States has with other countries and like most of us does not know a great deal about our military capabilities. He is a scholar of business.

Let’s start with Hillary Clinton.

There is no explanation to be found where she tells where she was and what she was doing when Benghazi, Libya was attacked.
The use of her private e-mail server does not appear to have compromised anything. However, her use of that device calls into question her judgement.
There is no theme to her campaign for president. Her entire theme seems to be she will continue the Obama administration and the banners saying “She’s with Us” and “Fighting for us.” The number one reason Hillary should be our next president according to her web site is “As a former secretary of state, U.S. senator, first lady, and a lifelong advocate for women and families, no one is more qualified to be president than Hillary.”

Let’s look at Donald Trump.

He has never held any elected office.
People might ask “How is Donald Trump able to file for bankruptcy so many times?” The answer is “He didn’t.” Trump himself has never filed for bankruptcy. His corporations have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy four times. This information from http://thelawdictionary.org/.
Is he a buffoon? A genius? An exploration of the man, his brand, and his chronic bluster at The Atlantic offers a perspective.
Foreign trade is a big part of the Trump campaign. Donald Trump’s trade war could kill millions of U.S. jobs contends Jim Tankersley in The Washington Post.

Go ahead and choose your devil. Just understand that in four years you will be ready for another unacceptable president. Ugh!!

A Supreme Court Nomination Scenario

Donald Trump’s lead to win the Republican Party nomination could easily provide a path to Judge Merrick Garland’s ascent to the Supreme Court.

Here is my logic. Donald Trump has been behind Hillary Clinton in all the polls showing their likelihood to win in a general election. As of now the Clinton lead is relatively small but as the calendar approaches November and Clinton is still leading, the GOP leadership in the Senate may soften. For sure after an election of Clinton the Senate may rush to approve the Garland nomination because they might fear a more liberal nomination.

Garland has an impeccable record and at 63 his time on the Supreme Court is probably limited.