Month: March 2018

Last year Kamala Harris, freshman senator from California, was quoted as saying that she knows what crime looks like, and being undocumented is not a crime. Although this kind of statement could possibly come from a non-lawyer, it seems incredulous to have come from a lawyer, until one realizes that this lawyer is a former attorney general of California. By definition those undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. have committed a crime by coming to the U.S. illegally. Now their crime may not be high on America’s Top Forty Crime List, nonetheless it is a crime.
Unfortunately, it is statements like this from Senator Harris that makes it harder to think clearly about the illegal immigrant issue, and this hinders any progress toward a potential solution. The major mistake of Senator Harris’ statement is that she has grouped all of the illegal immigrants into one big group. Similarly the mistake that some on the right make is also to group all illegal immigrants into one group. In my opinion this is a big mistake on both sides of this issue, and this tendency to “group” is a major impediment to any solution. Again from my perception, in general, illegal immigrants should be separated initially into three categories, and each of these categories should be dealt with differently.
My three basic categories:
1. Hard working immigrants who have a job and are self-sustaining. This would
obviously include their immediate families.
2. Those who are not self-sustaining and who are living on some sort of welfare or are
recipients of some benefits program.
3. Those who are part of a “criminal element.” For example, this would include those
who are in gangs and those who have committed felonies in the past or are wanted
by law enforcement in connection with some criminal investigation.

Let’s deal with category 3 first as this is the easiest. This “criminal element” should be aggressively sought after and arrested. This is the category that benefits from the ludicrous Sanctuary State policies. This is the category that makes the above statement from Kamala Harris absurd. Who actually thinks that it is a good idea to protect and shield this “criminal element?”

In my mind those in category 1 do not need to be dealt with urgently. As long as they are not causing any trouble, I think that they should register and be counted. I realize that there are those who will vociferously object to them registering for a variety of reasons. Why register? There are are multiple reasons why they should register. One is to insure that they won’t be picked up as “innocent bystanders”, and then held in custody by immigration authorities during and after I.C.E. raids. Another reason is to insure that they do not vote, and are not receiving any welfare or benefits, as they are not are citizens. Assuming that they register, and do not slip into category 2 or 3, they stay in category 1 . . . “Live and let live.” I feel bad when these good people are ensnared in the I.C.E. raids which are intended to capture the “criminal element.” Registering would put a stop to that. At some point in the future, those in a category 1 will have to be dealt with on a permanent yet compassionate basis, but really is there any hurry?

Those in category 2 will be more difficult to deal with. I realize that a lot of those in category 2 came to this country with the same hopes and aspirations as those in category 1, but as a country we cannot take in and support all of those people from other countries that aspire to live here. If you want to live here, you must earn your own way. My solution for this category of individuals involves a compassionate deadline. Those presently in category 2 must also register, and then they will be given a “free” category 2 pass for one year. During this period of time their benefits will continue, but only for one year. After one year they must either become members of category 1 or they fall into category 3. I find this solution to be both compassionate and fair, and in a perfect world perhaps those in charge will figure out some way to get them jobs. Perhaps a start would be allowing freer flow of water into the Central Valley of California uinstead of allowing millions of gallons of water to flow into the ocean to save some smelt.

I read an article in the Wall Street Journal on 3/26/18 that immediately reminded me of Adam Schiff (D, Ca). Actually the article never once mentioned Schiff’s name or his “investigation” into his fantasized Trump-Russia collusion. The article that I am referring to was titled “Russia Points Fingers in Poisoning’s Wake.” It described the Russian response whenever it is accused of just about anything. They try to muddy the waters and drown out the facts. Valero Solovei, a political-science professor in Moscow, said, “If a lot of irrelevant information appears, people lose track of what is relevant, become disoriented, and don’t understand what is going on.”

Why, you ask, did this remind me of Adam Schiff?
To me it seemed that Professor Solovei could easily have been referring to Adam Schiff’s modi’s operandi and his Trump-Russia collusion fantasy, as Dem.Rep. Schiff is a master of muddying the waters. The difference with Schiff is that he has no facts, merely his own innuendo. He throws out a lot of irrelevant information hoping that people become disoriented and lose track of what is relevant.

Enough of Adam Schiff!
The news of that same day was President Trump’s expulsion from the U.S. of 60 Russian diplomats in response to the Russian involvement in the poisoning in England
of Sergei Skripal, a Russian double agent, and his daughter .
To be fair, on 3/36 I did listen to the news on multiple channels including MSNBC, but “Surprise, Surprise,” I did not hear Mr. Schiff comment on his Trump-Russia collusion story on any of them!

Alianza Communitaria condemned the 115 arrests made mainly in the northern part of San Diego County by I.C.E. last week. Who or what is Alianza Communitaria and do they have a legitimate beef?
Alianza Communitaria is an organization based in the North County of San Diego that monitors immigration enforcement and sends text alerts about confirmed activity. Are some of their concerns legitimate? I say, “yes!” . . . but read on.
During that same three day span among the 115 individuals arrested on suspicion of violating federal immigration laws, there were 50 convicted criminals including :
– -A 43-year-old Mexican national and Oceanside gang member who had previously been removed from the United States four times and has been convicted for various crimes, including grand theft, possessing a controlled substance for sale and driving while intoxicated.
— A 55-year-old citizen of Kazakhstan who is wanted by authorities in his home country for alleged tax evasion and embezzlement.
— A 52-year-old Mexican national sentenced to 30 months in federal prison in 2009 after being convicted of illegal re-entry after deportation. He has three criminal convictions for spousal abuse, including battery, inflicting injury and threatening to terrorize, was ordered removed by an immigration judge in 1998 and has been deported on 10 prior occasions.

Do those who live in North County object to the arrests of individuals like the three mentioned above? Probably not.
Do the Hispanics who live in North County object to the arrests of these three individuals? Probably not, unless they are relatives.
Does Alianza Communitaria object? Impossible to know. Is seems that Alianza Communitaria is upset with I.C.E. and objects to the arrests of innocent people caught up in this sweep. Innocent people who just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Innocent people who were going to work or taking their children to school. (Never mind that these “innocent” individuals are in this country illegally.)
What is the position of I.C.E.?
“This week’s operation targeted public-safety threats, such as convicted criminal aliens, individuals with final orders of removal, those who illegally re-entered the country after being removed and individuals who have otherwise violated our nation’s immigration law,” said Greg Archambeault, field office director for ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations in San Diego.

The way I interpret this situation is the following:
I.C.E. Is doing its job and some unfortunate “innocents” were caught up in the sweep. I.C.E. is forced to conduct these sweeps, in part, because convicted criminals are “protected” by the policies of the Sanctuary State of California.
California is a sanctuary state because of the Democratic politicians who run the state.

If Alianza Communitaria wants to look out for these “innocents,” it should direct its anger and its protests against the Democratic politicians who are in effect responsible for the Sanctuary State policies and the consequent arrests of these “innocents.”
So does Alianza Communitaria have a legitimate beef? In a way, “yes” . . . however they should be upset with those politicians who are ultimately responsible.
This is just another example of Democrats making policy that hurts those whom they are supposedly trying to help!

Is it the air or is it the water that causes California politicians to lose all sense of logic once they get to Sacramento? There are multiple examples of California Democrat “non compos mentis,” but a recent dingbat law appears to take the cake. This is the law that the Democrats in Sacramento passed a few years ago concerning “disclosure” at pregnancy centers across the Golden State. This law is unconstitutional on so many levels that one wonders what could have possibly caused the altered state of mind of those legislators who passed it. Could the cause be either the water or the air in Sacramento?
The National Institute for Family and Life Advocates argued the case for 110 pregnancy centers in California that are strongly opposed to abortion, but their argument centered, not on religion, but rather that the law was in contra-distinction to the First Amendment in that it mandated speech. They also argued that it unfairly targeted faith based centers as M.D.s and for profit clinics were exempt.
This disclosure law required that pregnancy centers-including those that are faith based-notify women that the state of California offers subsidies for abortion. These non-profit centers had to post a prominent notice that there was no medical provider available and they had to notify clients that the state offered “free or low cost abortion.” These two sentence notices had to be posted in eighteen languages!
This three year old law worked itself through the courts and this week was argued in front of the Supreme Court. What is equally “looney tunes” is that the 9th Circuit of Mistaken Ideals sided with California and Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra. They decided that “the disclosure was professional speech subject to regulation by the state.” This absurd judgement by the 9th Circuit hints that the cause of this lunacy is the air as the water is not the same in San Francisco as it is in Sacramento.
It was interesting that at the Supreme Court, judges on both the right and the left took potshots at this law during the hearing. Ginsberg said that the two sentences in eighteen languages was “burdensome.” Kennedy said that the required notice sounded like “mandating speech.” Alito said that the law set a very strange pattern, and it appeared that the only clinics that were covered were pro-life clinics. Kagan questioned whether or not the law was gerrymandered and said that would be a serious issue. Gorsuch said that it was pretty unusual to force a private speaker to give the states message.
From what the justices said, it sounds like both the air and the water are fine in Washington, D.C. although I will have to withhold judgement until the final verdict which will probably be in June. My prediction is that this law is unconstitutional on so many levels that this decision will not be 5-4, but probably 7-2. (If it is 7-2, it will be interesting to see which of the four lefty Supreme Court Judges make up the dissenting 2, and whether these two have recently breathed Sacramento air or drank Sacramento water!)
If the final decision were to be 7-2 or even 6-3, it should be a slap in the face to the 9th Circuit of Mistaken Ideals and to the California Legislature schmiels, but because of the air or the water in Sacramento, they won’t get that they are being laughed at by those who drink normal water and breathe normal air!

“He actually called him and wished him a happy birthday! String him up. How could he ever call a Russian and say something nice to him? What a disgrace!”
Here I am not referring to President Trump, but to Winston Churchill calling Stalin!
“Oops, never mind!”
“Whadda you mean an innocent phone call? How can a call to Putin congratulating him on his election be anything short of treason? String-up the president! Impeach him!” Here I am referring to President Obama calling Putin many years ago.
“Oops, never mind!”
“How can the president call a ruthless leader and congratulate him on his victory?” Keep in mind that this ruthless leader is causing havoc in the Middle East, and has been responsible for the deaths of many of our troops. There must be some kind of conspiracy going on here. We must investigate.”
Here again I am referring to President Obama. This time he called the president of Iran.
“Oops, never mind!”
I do not recall the press coming down on Obama for these congratulatory phone calls. Could it be that the mainstream media is biased?
To set the record straight, President Trump just called Vladimir Putin and congratulated him on his recent election victory, and the press went ape-shit.
Could it be that the mainstream media is biased?
From my perspective, President Trump did the right thing here. Yes, Russia is not our best bud, especially in light of recent goings-on. These recent developments actually make the call potentially more important, as it can do nothing but help dialog between the two super powers in the future.
“An ex-Republican presidential candidate came out and criticized the president for making this phone call.” But this Arizona Senator lost that presidential election, and no one pays much attention to him anymore since he torpedoed the Republican promise to get rid of Obamacare.
“Oops, never mind.”

Every once in a while there is a story that makes me stop and think. Actually, that is not true, as here in California, there are stories that makes a rational person stop and think at least a few times per week when the California Legislature is in session! So again last week, just when one thinks that he has seen it all . . . Boom, Shaka-Laka! . . . the California Legislature does it again! The following is from the Washington Post via the WAPO wannabe, The San Diego Union Tribune, “Woman in U.S. Illegally Named to State Post,” and the article notes that the California Senate Rules Committee approved to nomination of Lizbeth Mateo to the California Student Opportunity and Access Program Project Grant Advisory Committee (Cal-SOAP).
Now indeed Lizbeth Mateo is no ordinary illegal. She was born in Oaxaca, Mexico and was brought from Mexico to Los Angeles, presumably by her parents, at age 14. When she got here she did not speak English, but eventually was able to finish high school, college and ultimately law school at Santa Clara. Wow! I have to tell you that I am impressed, and have nothing but respect and admiration for her accomplishments. Since she was brought to the U.S.A. by her parents, I am assuming that she is a “dreamer.” If all “dreamers”were like this, thee U.S. might come out a huge winner by accepting all of the dreamers. The problem, however, is that not all of the potential D.A.C.A. recipients are of this caliber. In fact, in general, this is actually far from the case. According to Steven Camarota, the research director for the Center for Immigration Studies, only 1/3 graduate from high school, and only 1/7 have two or more years of college. In addition according to the Congressional Budget Office, granting amnesty to the D.A.C.A. recipients would add $26 billion to the deficit over the next decade. Perhaps this is because 54% of D.A.C.A. families collect some sort of welfare and their poverty rate is twice that of the general population.
Unfortunately, all of talk about dreamers has distracted me from the scary nightmare, which is that the California Legislature has appointed an illegal alien to a state post.

Last week Jeff Sessions announced that the Federal Government in conjunction with the DOJ is suing the State of California, its Governor Jerry Brown, and its Attorney General Xavier Becerra for their defiance of federal immigration law. This suit has to do with California being a sanctuary state and the Supremacy Clause, which says that a state law cannot preempt federal law. There does not seem to be a real question among legal scholars as this doctrine of preemption dates back to 1819, and was recently reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in 2012 in a case involving an Arizona anti-immigration bill, SB 1070. Interestingly with this case, the liberals argued that the Supremacy Clause took precedence and won the case. Now the shoe is on the other foot so to speak, and California is saying that what was good for the left foot in 2012 doesn’t apply to the right foot in 2018. Actually, there is not much doubt as to how this legal skirmish is going to play out. Perhaps the Ninth Circuit will hold a fair hearing, but we all know that it will rule against the Federal Government and in favor of California, only to be reversed the Supreme Court which will actually go with The Law. This will obviously take time as there will undoubtedly be many court dates, delays, and appeals before the Supreme Court decides what perhaps should be obvious to any first year law student in the first place. Although this case should be a slam dunk for the Feds, we will see Jerry Brown and Xavier Becerra fighting it to the bitter end, because California has over two million illegals living within its borders.
Okay, I get all of that. I don’t agree with it, but I get it . . . which Democrat would ever do anything to go against two million voters?
My question is, “Who is to pay the legal bills for the State of California, Jerry Brown,
and Xavier Becerra?” Perhaps Governor Brown and Mr. Becerra will be paying their own legal bills. I doubt it! Perhaps Kevin de Léon (D, LA) who authored the Sanctuary State bill will pay the legal expenses since it was his idea that got us into this mess to begin with. I doubt it! Perhaps the Democrats in the state legislature (No Republicans voted in favor of this legislation)who voted in favor of California being a Sanctuary State will all chip in to fund these legal expenses! That would certainly be the fair thing to do as they are the benefactors of the two million “legal” illegal votes, but I doubt it! Putting all of this frivolity aside, as the Democrats pass laws that feel good but never consider the real life outcomes, it will be the taxpayers of California who will pay for all of this grandstanding by the “B-Boys”, Brown and Becerra. When all is said and done, the losers (the State of California) may also be responsible for the legal bills of the Federal Government. If that happens, perhaps the B-Boys’ voters (notice I did not say ‘taxpayers’) will choose to pay in pesos, but I doubt it!

When I was a kid, we used to play ball in the alley just about every day except in the winter. Inevitably the softball that we played with would end up going into someone’s yard. Usually not a big deal, unless the ball happened to go into Grumpy’s yard. We didn’t know his real name, but called him “Grumpy” because he always seemed to be in a bad mood. It seemed that he would always be sitting on his patio, and as soon as he recognized that our ball had gone into his yard, he would start shouting at whomever was tasked with retrieving it. “Keep that ball out of my yard! The next time I am going to grab it and not give it back!” Sometimes he would sprinkle in a a few swear words, but we all realized that he could never catch us even if he jumped up from his chair, which he never did. Our usual retort was usually something lame like:
“Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed again today, Grumpy Gus!”
“Pipe down, you grumpy old man.”
One day I did not hear Grumpy shouting at me when I bounded over his fence to get the ball. When I looked towards the patio, Grumpy was not in his chair, but he was playing with two little girls. They were frolicking close to him and were giggling, “Grampy, don’t not tickle me. Grampy, can you catch me.” In the presence of these two interlopers, he was smiling. Grumpy had been transformed into Grampy.
I said to him, ”Are those your granddaughters, Grampy?” He nodded his head up and down, smiled, and said, “Yes, when they visit from out of town, we have a grand old time!” As I picked up the ball, I said, “Cute! You’re lucky to have them.” From then on whenever I would climb over his fence to retrieve the ball, I would say, ”How ya doin’ today, Grampy?” Like a miracle, his shouting and his dour look had vanished, and he usually responded in a cordial away. Together we had come a long way, and now we understood each other a bit differently . . . all because of that one friendly encounter.
Does every Grumpy have a Grampy side?
Probably not, but is it worth a try to find out? In most instances, probably yes.
Can the above Grumpy-Grampy story be a segue somehow to Donald Trump?
Of course!
The enemies of Mr. Trump might say that he is the prototypical Grumpy. At times he appears nasty and unfeeling. (Keep that ball out of my yard). He seems to constantly be making threats. (Next time I am going to grab the ball and not give it back!) But there are also many anecdotal stories demonstrating his soft side. (When they visit from out of town, we have a grand old time.)
It seems to me that the way things are going, nothing good can come out of any interaction between the Democratic politicians in California and our President. It appears that all the politicians want to do is play “macho man” to their base. Do they have any real interest in improving things for those in their district? If they really do want to make things better, they could quit grandstanding and do something to try to reduce the widening chasm between California and Washington.
President Trump happened to be in San Diego on 3/13/18. Perhaps instead of saying that Trump “wasn’t welcome here”, Juan Vargas (D-San Diego) could rather have said something like, “Even though we have our differences on immigration, I hope you have a pleasant visit in Southern California.” Which of these two statements could be considered as Vargas grandstanding to his base? Which of these statements could only further destroy any possibility of a truce between California and Washington?
Maybe if Grampy were still alive, I could get him to advise the grumpy Mr. Vargas!

Full disclosure to start off with. I am not a lawyer, and I do not pretend to understand all of the laws that are on the books. I assume that the laws are formulated to apply to everyone. If an individual does something, and there is a bad outcome, then that individual is potentially libel for the consequences of his/her actions.
The one notable exception that I can think of applies to elected officials who are doing their job according to the law. Again, I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that if an elected official pushes a policy that he/she believes to be the right thing to do, and this policy turns out to be a bad policy, the elected official cannot be sued because of damages that occurred because of that policy. The elected official was merely doing his/her job, and did not break any laws. Therefore that elected individual is not legally responsible for the bad things that occurred because of his/her poor judgement. (Again, I am not a lawyer, but in other words it is not a crime to be stupid!) The person and the example that comes to my mind is Barney Frank, the liberal ex-congressman from Massachusetts, who felt in the 2000s that, in essence, everyone should be able to buy a house. It was this type of poor judgement that eventually led to the market crash because a huge number of these loans were not being paid off. Because Barney Frank was an elected representative, and did not break any laws, he could not be sued by an individual because that individual lost his life savings as a consequence of Mr. Frank’s poor judgement. Again, I am not a lawyer, but I think that the key phrases here are “elected representative” and “did not break any laws.”

To shift gears, again I am no lawyer, but someone is deemed to be an accomplice if he/she knowingly helps another in the commission of a crime or wrongdoing. The driver of the getaway car can be prosecuted as an accomplice to the bank robbery, even though he/she was never in the bank. If I call the bank-robber on his cellphone to warn him that the police are on their way, and he is able to escape because of my warning, I am an accomplice and can be prosecuted as such, because that is the law.
I don’t think that one has to be a lawyer to know that if law A applies to ordinary Joe, then law A should apply to everyone else, no matter what that person’s title is . . . even if that person is the mayor of Oakland, Ca. The mayor (his/her name will not be mentioned!) admitted to warning many illegals that ICE was going to be making raids in Oakland area. Now granted, she did not drive the getaway car, nor did she speak to these illegals directly on the phone, but there is little question that she facilitated the escape of some criminals. If one of those who escaped ICE were to kill, maim, injure, or rape someone in the future, would the mayor of Oakland be libel?
Yes, she is an elected official, but did she break the law by warning criminals that the good-guys were coming? I am no lawyer, but my answer is, “Yes, she is an accomplice and thus broke the law, and yes, she should be held accountable for the consequences of her actions.”

When I was working, I would send people to see a guy who was a specialist in his field. Let’s call him Mr. A. Not only was he a specialist, but he was one of the best at what he did. Once I recall a gentleman coming back to me and telling me that he was disappointed with the referral because Mr. A.” was not friendly to he and his wife.”
My response was, “Well it’s unfortunate that you are disappointed, however I referred you to him because I thought that he was the best man for the job. I did not refer you to him because I thought that you two could sing Kumbaya together or go out for coffee and become best friends. Again I specifically referred you to Mr. A., because I felt that he was the best man to solve your complex problem. Did he accomplish the task that he was supposed to accomplish? Are you much better off now that you were before?”
He thought for a few seconds and then responded, “Yes, I am much better off, and so on second thought I think that you are right. His forte is obviously not his friendly outgoing demeanor, but his ability to approach a difficult situation, and make it better. He told me what he was going to do beforehand, and he did it.”
My approach from that point on was to ask potential referrals, “Do you want me to refer you to the best man for the job? One who will tell you what he is going to do, and who gives you the best chance at a resolution of your problem. Or . . . Do you want someone who will talk nice-nice and shoot the bull with you and your wife?” Inevitably, they all chose the former.

Is there any similarity between the above story and anyone in today’s politics ?
Of course, Donald Trump!
When we were electing a president in November, 2016, did the country want someone who would talk nice-nice all the time? Or did we want a straight shooter who would tell you what he was going to do, and then would do it? Did we care if he was brash and outspoken, and perhaps not the easiest guy to get along with or did we want someone who could solve the complex problems of the country? Did the country care if his modus operandi was to speak his mind and not to kowtow to anyone? No, the country did not care if he was abrasive at times as he was abrasive during the debates. Just like with Mr. A. in the above story, the country chose him because he was the best man for the job. Now his enemies, of course, do not care for his policies or his style, and so they try to get the country to focus on his style or his tweets instead of his talents and what he has accomplished. From my perspective, again just like with Mr. A., the country is getting exactly what it voted for – the best man for the job, and we are better off now than before he was elected.