http;//www.Californiacontrarian.com

I just read about another law enforcement official who was killed in the line of duty in California. No, I did not read about it in my local liberal newspaper, probably because his alleged murderer is an illegal alien. On October 23, 2019 in El Dorado County (California) Sheriff Deputy Brian Ishmael was gunned down while investigating some possible marijuana growing violations. Deputy Ishmael had been on the force for four years, and was the father of three. Juan Carlos Vasquez has been arrested on suspicion of murder and assault with a deadly weapon. Rosario Bravo Morales has been arrested and is charged as an accessory. Both are illegal aliens. An interesting sidelight here is that Governor Newsom did not attend the funeral . . . Possibly because he was busy figuring out how to ban something else that is plastic or perhaps discussing with his fellow Dems how to push through another tax while calling it something else – both of the aforementioned for our own good!

To me it is very interesting that these days a crime committed by an illegal is brushed aside as just another everyday occurrence. I usually have a difficult time ascertaining whether the alleged perpetrator is illegal as even if he is, it is not often not mentioned. In 2018 President Trump mentioned Police Corporal Ronel Singh who was killed by Paulo Virgin Mendoza on 12/26/18. He also mentioned Marilyn Pharis, an Air Force contractor, who was killed in Santa Maria, California in 2015. Victor Martinez, an illegal alien, has been convicted in her killing . . . interestingly the reporter here focused on the fact that the other man convicted in her murder was not an undocumented immigrant. (I  am going to go out on a limb here, and guess that this writer was a liberal. Actually this guess is pretty easy as liberals usually refer to these illegal aliens as “undocumented immigrants.”)

How many murders and/or violent crimes are committed  by illegal aliens in California? Actually I looked for and, not surprisingly, could not find this info. However, I did find this data for Texas. A recent report from the Texas Department of Public Safety revealed that 297,000 non-citizens had been “booked into local Texas jails between June 1, 2011 and July 31, 2019.” So these are non-citizens who allegedly committed local crimes, not immigration violations. The report noted that a little more than two-thirds (202,000) of those booked in Texas jails were later confirmed as illegal immigrants by the federal government. According to the Texas report, over the course of their criminal careers those illegal immigrants were charged with committing 494,000 criminal offenses. Some of these cases are still being prosecuted, but the report states that there have already been over 225,000 convictions. Those convictions represent: 500 homicides; 23,954 assaults; 8,070 burglaries; 297 kidnappings; 14,178 thefts; 2,026 robberies; 3,122 sexual assaults; 3,840 sexual offenses; 3,158 weapon charges and tens of thousands of drug and obstruction charges.

Now even though I could not find comparable data for California, if the crime stats are only one-half of what they are in Texas, wow! . . . that’s a lot! On the other hand “researchers” have found that “undocumented immigrants” do not present more of a threat for violent crime than American citizens. However from my perspective one violent crime committed by an illegal alien is one too many.

If I am a baseball player, and need advice on hitting, I would seek counsel from a hitting coach. If I am that same baseball player, and want to learn how to paint, I would probably seek advice from a painting instructor. A prudent baseball player would not accept advice on how to improve his batting average from a painting instructor, as this would not be in the best interest of either himself nor of his baseball team. Likewise, an honest painting instructor would not think that he was qualified to give the player advice on hitting, as he has no training or expertise in that area. To me, this is all common sense! Ahh, but now to the real world.

Why is it that common sense does not seem to hold true with politicians? Why is it that someone who had earned a Bachelor of Arts degree at Johns Hopkins University would think that he is qualified in the financial sphere? Why is it that the same person who in addition earned a Masters in Public Policy and Urban Planning at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government would think that he should be giving advice on which stocks to invest in? Why is it that San Diego Councilman Chris Ward feels that he should giving advice as to where the city should be investing its money? How is he any different from the painting instructor advising the baseball player how to hit a home run? The painting instructor would be doing the entire baseball team a disservice by pretending that he knew anything about hitting a curveball!  

Perhaps Mr. Ward has done something after his schooling that would qualify him to basically give financial advice to the city. Let’s review: He worked as an environmental planner at the firm EDAW, working with local government to develop land use plans and conduct environmental review, and as a researcher at the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research at the University of California, San Diego. None of his job experience seems to make him an expert on anything, much less an expert on where the city should invest its money! 

Does the city employ people who are highly qualified in investing and managing its money? . . . Yes, it does, and these qualified individuals are interested solely on making investments with the best possible return. That’s what they do!

Does Chris Ward realize that he is doing a disservice to the team (those of us who live in San Diego) by pretending that he is qualified to tell the city where to invest its money? Obviously not!

Why is it that he is pretending to be knowledgeable in this realm? Is it because he went to Harvard, or is it because he is a Democrat? Could it be because he is against fossil fuels, the border wall, private prisons, firearms, etc.?  Probably a combination of all three!    

Granted, I do not know Chris Ward, but I know many like him. To all of the know-it-alls, including Chris Ward, I would say, “Please MYOB, and stick to things that you actually know something about! Neither a hitting coach, nor a painting instructor, nor a money manager should you pretend to be!”

I should have seen it coming. We all should have seen it coming. Global warming, saving the planet, and carbon paranoia are three facets of a religion, a lot of which is based on faith. It is not a well thought out religion, but then again how many religions are well thought out? Most religions are based on faith, but unlike other religions, this religion relies strongly on the unbendable and the unshakeable tenet that the use of fossil fuels is a shortcut to Armageddon. There is no place in this California electric-car-worshipping religion for thought or logic . . . we must all have faith!
“Our religion tells us to do this, and we will do it without having any inkling of even a sprinkling of doubt. We will have five million Electric Vehicles (E.V.s) on the road in California by 2030.”
Because it appeared to me there are many common-sense questions, I asked a fervent, well-informed member of this EV-worshipping faith-based congregation a few basic questions:
Q – Who is going to buy all of these five million EVs?
A – “Even though right now they are quite expensive, we know that the cost of E.V.s can do nothing but come down. While the E.V.s are being purchased predominately by upper or upper-middle class people at this time, we ‘have faith’ as this will change. There is an upcoming plan that is very similar to Obama’s “Cash for Clunker’s,” in which the state will persuade poorer people with old cars to trade in their “clunkers” for a price and in turn then apply this money towards the purchase of a used EV, e.g. a used Chevy Volt. This plan rids the roads of older gas-guzzling cars, and, in essence, replaces them with clean E.V.s.  Granted these used EVs will have a diminished battery life, but we ‘have faith’ that in a few years the new owners will probably easily be able to afford new replacement batteries, because we all ‘have faith’ that the prices of these new EV batteries will also come down.”

Q – How are all of these five million EVs going to be charged?
A- The obvious answer is that these EVs will be charged over night by solar panels that are on the EV-owner’s roof. Granted that right now only those who are the more affluent can afford rooftop solar panels, but ‘have faith’ . . . as this will change.”

Q – If the goal is to have five million EVs by 2030, does this mean that there will be well over five million solar rooftop panels by then?
A – “Yes, ‘have faith,’ as for all intents and purposes almost every EV owner will have his/her own rooftop solar panels. Keep in mind that some of the wealthiest among us may well have more than one EV, and so this will probably diminish the number of overall rooftop solar panels necessary to supply the five million EVs.

Q – With the present shortage of affordable housing in California, the resultant focus is now on building multi-family structures. Does that mean that only very few of these future apartment dwellers will be able to have EVs?
A – At present the vast majority of solar panels are on the roofs of single family dwellings. Obviously in multiple family dwellings not everyone will be able to have his own solar panel, and these panels will have to be shared among those who live in these apartments. This may mean that not everyone will be able to drive their own EV every day, but for the sake of the planet this will be an acceptable sacrifice, and do not forget that carpooling is an option for these individuals. We ‘have faith’ that new technology will undoubtedly find ways to have solar panels in places that have only a very limited amount of sun.”

Q – Speaking of having only a limited amount of sun, California has an extremely long coastline with a fair number of people living close to the ocean where there is only a limited amount of sunlight on a lot of days, especially in the winter months. Does this mean that those coastal residents will not be able to own EVs?
A – “Absolutely not! The aim is for almost everyone to own an EV. ‘Have faith’ . . . as many who live on the coast will probably be able to work from home . . . at least a few days per week.”

Q – And finally with many driving more miles per day than is possible on a single full charge will there be charging stations at workplaces or at places where people go on the weekend?
A – “We are glad that you asked this question, as right now there are two pilot projects in San Diego that will address this issue. These projects have been approved by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and will cost only $18.8 million. One of these pilot projects will put chargers for EVs at 22 state beaches and city parks, and the other will put chargers at 30 schools and educational institutions, as ‘the location of these chargers will put a priority on sites disproportionately affected by air pollution.’ The cost of these two pilot projects ($8.9 million plus $9.9 million) will be funded by San Diego Gas and Electric rate payers. Yes, we ‘have faith’ that these SDGE customers will happily pay extra because it is for the good of the planet. No, none of the members of the CPUC live in San Diego.”

 Q – WTF are you all thinking, or perhaps, better said, “What are you all drinking?” No answer to this question is necessary, as like I said in the first few lines, “We all should have seen this coming!”

Winter is coming. Chicago has had two snowstorms prior to Halloween, and Colorado has already had its first accumulation of the white stuff. Now granted I do not live in either place, but have the photos to document the snowflakes and the results.
Of course as we get further into the winter, the snowflakes will become more frequent, but they will also become more vocal and prominent especially on college campuses, where a lot of these snowflakes will be demanding and then more demanding. Most of their protests have to do with freedom of speech, or perhaps more accurately lack of freedom of speech.” Safe zones” on campus and protests against conservative speakers are the most frequent examples of the trampling of the First Amendment on college campuses, and only seem to get more attention as administrators cave to their protests and demands. Why is our nation in this mess?
Frank Vernuccio who serves as editor-in-chief of the New York Analysis of Policy & Government had some thoughts on this subject on Townhall:
“The simple answer is that an entire generation of Americans, perhaps two, has come of age absent the traditional understanding of and appreciation for freedom of speech.
A recent Campaign for Free Speech (CFS) survey found startling results: 51% of Americans think the First Amendment is outdated and should be rewritten. 48% believe “hate speech” should be illegal. (Of those, about half think the punishment for “hate speech” should include possible jail time, while the rest think it should just be a ticket and a fine.)80% don’t actually know what the First Amendment really protects.
Perhaps these snowflakes got their misguided ideas from some of our politicians. For example: In 2012, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) urged “there ought to be limits” on First Amendment rights. At a Senate Rules Committee hearing, Schumer, the senior senator from New York, issued the stunning statement that ”The First Amendment is sacred, but the First Amendment is not absolute.”
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) maintains that, “A culture of censorship has taken root and permeated universities, in part due to some students’ unfamiliarity or disinterest in their rights. A likely culprit is deficient civic education in secondary schools across the nation. In the absence of engaging civics instruction and classroom debate, some students fail to grasp the content or significance of their First Amendment freedoms, allowing those rights to fall victim to restrictions on campus…”
The recent NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) scores, measuring “at or above proficiency” in Civics are in the mid-twenties for all 4th, 8th, and 12th graders, and this documents this “deficient civic education in secondary schools,” both in private schools and even more so in public schools.
The impact on the nation’s future will be significant, and can possibly be traced back to our educational system. With winter approaching it appears that we will have blizzards for years to come, as the snowflakes are only going to become more invigorated as they continue to be less educated.

What do the following have in common?

 #1. An older gramma confined to bed suffering from fever,  joint and muscle pain, headache, and a rash.

#2. A young mother of three young kids, all under the age of five, who is confined to bed with symptoms of fever, rash, and joint pain.

#3. A young severely disabled infant with microcephaly.

All of the above noted individuals live in Honduras, and they all have separate medical issues . . . all of which are related to mosquitos. #1 has dengue fever, and this is not her first episode. Unfortunately there are four different serotypes, and so an individual can get dengue fever more than once, and a recurrent bout is often more severe. Hopefully this recurrent episode will not turn into deadly Dengue hemorrhagic fever with its internal bleeding and liver damage. #2 has Chikungunya, which is a self-limited viral infection spread by mosquitos. She has been in bed and unable to care for her children now for six days. Fortunately she appears to have turned the corner, although it is likely that her joint pains will persist for many months. The only good thing with Chikungunya is that one can only get it once, as there is only one serotype of the causal virus. #3 is an unfortunate baby whose mother had a Zika infection while she was pregnant. This child will probably never walk or talk, and will eventually die in this same orphanage which rescued him after his birth mother abandoned him.
At present Dengue is near endemic in some areas of Honduras. The Dengue virus is transmitted by female mosquitoes mainly of the species Aedes aegypti and, to a lesser extent, Ae. albopictus. This mosquito also transmits Chikungunya, Yellow Fever, and  Zika infection. This same mosquito also plays a critical role in the incidence and the transmission of malaria, which is more potentially lethal than either Dengue or Chikungunya. As best I can tell there is little or no malaria in Honduras, otherwise I am sure there would be a #4.
A recent Wall Street Journal article estimated that worldwide a child dies from malaria every two minutes!! That equates to over a quarter million children dying from malaria each year! Over the last fifty or so years since DDT was banned, that adds up to a lot of people dying of malaria. Some estimate that Rachel Carson and her 1962 book, Silent Spring, have been responsible for more deaths than Hitler.
The deaths from malaria are horrific, but there is also an enormous amount of suffering not only from malaria, but also from Dengue, Zika, and Chikungunya. All of these diseases require the mosquito, specifically the female mosquito, which is a critical part of the transmission and spread of these diseases. 
In a perfect world, the answer would be to get rid of the mosquito! In the past some pesticides proved to be successful in decreasing the population of mosquitos, and subsequently there was a decrease in the incidence of malaria. Unfortunately, especially for all of the dead malaria children, pesticides, specifically DDT, were banned about fifty years ago largely because of the arguments of environmentalists. Giving environmentalists the benefit of the doubt and especially with the increased thickness of some bird’s egg shells, it is probably not totally reasonable to blame them for the yearly quarter million children who die from malaria, in part because there is no DDT! Also, in a non-perfect world, it is probably not totally reasonable to blame them for the daily suffering of thousands of #1s, #2s, and #3s. 
Luckily, according to the same Wall Street Journal article, there is a new front on the war against the mosquito. Target Malaria is a Gates Foundation-supported research effort to develop genetically modified sterile female mosquitos. Target Malaria recently conducted a carefully controlled experimental release of these sterile mosquitos  in Burkina Faso following years of research and successful releases in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Wow it sounds like there is hope. Oops, apparently there is environmental “activist opposition promoted in recent years by United Nations agencies, such as the Food and Agriculture Organization, as well as by European governments, and European Union-funded nongovernmental organizations.” I do not pretend to understand the staunch opposition to relieving the suffering caused by these mosquito illnesses.

In a perfect world, perhaps we could require at least ten different members of each of these activist organizations to spend six to twelve months each year in Africa or in Latin America. Hopefully a fair number of them would contract malaria, Dengue, or Chikungunya, or in a perfect world, each would contract all three of these mosquito illnesses. I do not wish for them to die like the malaria children, but rather I would want them to report back after they had walked in African or Latin American shoes!

This morning after getting gas at 8:30 a.m., my wife went into Von’s, a local grocery store, to buy some milk. While looking at some leftover Halloween markdowns adjacent to the front door of the store, two young men, probably in their twenties, brushed past her and out of the store. Each of them had a significant amount of merchandise in those carry-in-your-hand store baskets that each were carrying. She saw steaks, shrimp, beer and toilet paper in one of these baskets. (They apparently were not stealing so that their small children would not starve!) The 40-something manager of the store yelled for them to stop, but to no avail. 
My wife asked, “Is what I just witnessed, brazen shoplifting, an unusual thing? She was told, “No, it happens three to four times every day.” When she then asked if a security guard would help, she was politely told by the store manager that security guards, who are usually in their 50s and 60s are unarmed and are unable to stop these younger and stronger young men. “What’s next? Get their license plate number, and call the police?”“Actually, we do not call the police anymore, and all of these shoplifters know it. That is why they are so bold!” replied the store manager.“You don’t call the police! Why?”His terse answer, “Proposition 47, and it’s unforeseen consequences!”
From the National Review:
California’s Proposition 47 downgraded a variety of “non-serious, nonviolent crimes” that had previously been considered felonies to misdemeanors. These include shoplifting, grand theft, receiving stolen property, forgery, fraud, and writing bad checks. As long as the total value of the stolen property is under $950, only a ghost of an offense has occurred. A thief may now steal something under that limit on a daily basis and it will never rise to felony status.

In the event that a perpetrator is pursued and apprehended, the consequence can be a small fine or a brief stay in jail, In reality, these repercussions are rare. In addition, DNA samples aren’t collected from misdemeanor offenders. Thus the DNA database has shrunk, making it more difficult for law-enforcement agencies to solve cold cases, including those involving rape and murder.

For law enforcement, however, there is little incentive to chase down low-level criminals. Even if the person is escorted to the station, odds are great he’ll be back on the street in an hour or so.

The underlying premise of Proposition 47 was to free up funds so the state could focus on violent and serious offenders. Savings would be diverted to school-based prevention and support programs, victim services, and mental-health and drug treatment. Therefore petty thieves, who might be drug addicts, would avoid costly and ultimately detrimental incarceration. The referendum had the support of California Democratic party and the American Civil Liberties Union, and the state’s voters passed it into law in 2014 . . . repeat “ had the support of California Democratic party and the American Civil Liberties Union.”                                    
And: “State voters passed it into law.” ( Another example of basically how dumb California voters are! To the typical California voter if anyone mentions the possibility of “unforeseen consequences,” it’s like they are speaking a foreign language . . . any foreign language except Spanish, that is!)

What about that? Do you think that there are any unforeseen consequences to Prop 47? Duh!! Actually the “unforeseen consequences,” are actually foreseen consequences, and they have been a disaster! 

Again from National Review  – “Outrage in these circumstances is apolitical. A liberal Berkeley student studying in a café whose laptop is swiped from a table feels just as violated as the right-leaning visitor to Los Angeles whose luggage is stolen. A struggling small-business owner wonders how long he can withstand the damage done by constant pilfering.” Bike theft . . . epidemic! Package theft . . . epidemic! Theft of anything valued at less than $950 . . . epidemic!

Basically what Prop 47 has done lowered the standards that we who live here have to accept. Personally, I am sick of these liberal, “feel good” Democrat-backed policies like Proposition 47! 

But more importantly: Will California voters ever become smarter? . . . Probably not in my lifetime, unless a lightbulb goes on in the brains of a lot of its citizens as their bikes and cars valued at less than $950 are increasingly stolen with impunity.i

A few weeks ago, it was deja-vu. I thought, “I have heard this song before.” It was when Nancy Pelosi was “concerned“ about the mental health of President Trump, after she had instigated an argument with the President while in the Oval Office. She was arguing about something that was completely different than what the meeting was supposed to be about! This sounded eerily similar to this past May 22, when she did the same instigating before walking out of another Oval Office meeting. She also expressed concern about President Trump at that time . . . a few weeks ago was an instant replay as her lapdog, Chuck Schumer, walked out with her both times. Perhaps Chuckie had also heard the song before. 
Anyway that got me thinking about the present Democrat’s list of candidates and deja-vu. There is a serious concern of those in the know about their chances of success with the uber progressive leading candidate, Elizabeth Warren. Warren’s lead is eerily similar to Sanders’ lead back in 2016. At that time those in the know, notably the DNC, went out of its way to make sure that Sanders did not get the nomination. The question is not if, but when, will those in the know pull the plug on Warren.

At some point they will  realize that Warren is too far left to win over Trump, and those in the know will be forced to assert their authority. They will have to get someone closer to the center in order to win, and so the question at this time is who will those in the know finagle into a front runner spot. This process has already started with the names of some moderates being floated out there to see if there is any hint of a bite – namely Senator Sherrod Brown, Michael Bloomberg, John Kerry, Eric Holder, and yes, even Hillary! This noise will eventually get louder if Biden continues to struggle, and at some point those in the know will be forced to push some moderate candidate into the forefront.
The main question in my mind is whether or not the progressive Democrats will react to this upcoming theft in 2020 like they did in 2016. At that time they felt like they were cheated . . . they were! Because of the actions of those in the know, Hillary got the nomination, and many of the progressives stayed home when it came to voting in November. One can only hope for deja-vu!

I watched a lot of the World Series that just finished, and it was exciting. The camera angles, the replays, and the statistics made the games all the more interesting. At some point during the Series, it dawned on me that perhaps baseball is the only sport in which being successful 1/3 of the time is considered an outstanding achievement. For those of you who are not baseball fans – if a player gets a base-hit one time out of three at bats, his batting average is .333, and he is considered to be very proficient at hitting. However, in football, if a quarterback completes only 1/3 of his passes, he is judged as a sub-proficient quarterback, and in all likelihood will soon be on the bench. Likewise, if a tennis player gets only 1/3 of his serves in, he needs a lot of work on his serve to be judged as proficient. If no improvement, he will not be winning much of anything!  Could it be that batting average in our national past-time, baseball, has clouded our judgement in other areas, such that being proficient 33% of the time is okay? This long lead-in is a segue to the recent results of the “Nation’s Report Card,” which are the results from the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP). The results assess the progress of students nationwide every two years. This years results were obtained from testing mostly about 300,000 fourth-graders and just short of 300,000 eight-graders, mainly in math and reading. The students that were tested attended both public and Catholic schools nationwide. Children from both large city public schools as well as smaller urban and rural area schools were included in the test group. The results nationwide as well as the results for various sub-groups were okay if you compare them to baseball batting averages, but woeful if you compare them to quarterbacks’ completion percentages. For math, as a nation, the percent of students who were “at or above NAEP proficient“ was 34% in eighth-grade. For eighth-grade reading the percent that tested “at or above NAEP proficient” was also 34%! Over the past decade there has been no significant improvement in either math or reading performance, and in fact, nationwide the average eighth-grade reading score has declined three points compared to two years ago!  Help!

Even more depressing, the percent NAEP-“at or above proficient” for twelfth-graders nationwide decreased to 25% in math! ( the twelfth-grade reading proficiency was about the same as in eighth-grade at 37%.). Help! Even more astonishing, the “at or above proficiency” for eighth-grade students was 18% for US History (12% for twelfth-grade) and 23% for eighth grade Civics (24% for twelfth-grade). In a few years these uneducated students will be eligible to vote! Yikes! HELP!
Is this the best we can do as a nation? 
Many years ago, the Beatles sang, “Help, we need somebody. Help, not just anybody.”
Perhaps, we should pay more attention to these Beatles lyrics, and go back to the drawing-board for elementary & middle school education. (Start over from scratch?) “At or above proficient” with regards to the education of our children should not be judged the same as baseball batting averages!

Getting on to northbound I-15 at Mission Gorge Road in San Diego between 7:45 and 8:15 a.m. on weekdays is a nightmare. The backup to get on the on-ramp is usually about a half-mile long with, of course, no separate way to get onto the carpool lane without waiting in the long line. Typically there are close to five-hundred cars lined up in two lanes, spewing car-exhaust fumes into the air for close to twenty minutes before getting onto the I-15 freeway. This is reality. I know as I have been there in the line.So of course what does the city council do? They approve close to 1000 new apartments to be constructed on Mission Gorge Road (MGR) approximately a half-mile east from the end of the present wait line to get onto I-15. Add in an additional at least 500 more cars each morning that will be waiting in line to get onto the same now backed up on-ramp. Does anyone think that any member of our city council has to use MGR? Dollars to doughnuts, none of them ever use MGR to get to work, and in all likelihood none of them have used Mission Gorge Road in the past few years, but they know best! I do not need to use MGR to get to work in the morning, so I am not NIMBY on this issue, but guaranteed the traffic on MGR will be even more of a nightmare in the not too distant future!

In the same vein, the same city council have recently okayed new apartment construction within walking distance of our rapid transit system (the Trolley). The problem here is that they waived the standard requirement of on-site parking accommodations for these new apartments. Because they were to be built within walking distance from the Trolley, they assumed that none of these new tenants would have cars! Once these new tenants begin to take up all of the local street parking spaces, it will be too late. Oops! The reality is that many of these new apartments dwellers will have at least one car per apartment, and if they actually try to use the rapid transit to get to work, they will quickly get dis-enamored. Odds are that none of the know-it-all members of the city council live in the same neighborhood as these new apartments, but they know best!

This “I know what is best for you” philosophy is not restricted to members of the San Diego city council. In fact this attitude is pervasive in California. Those members of the state legislature who passed this state’s exorbitant recent gas tax, in all likelihood do not need to buy gas when they are in Sacramento, and I would bet that they get some sort of “transportation allowance.” They do not have to struggle to pay the state’s inflated gas prices, but they know best!

Likewise how many environmentalists live where the recent conflagrations have destroyed communities? How many of those who adamantly argued against thinning the dead trees and underbrush actually have suffered a live changing disaster because of these deadly fires? My guess . . . very few, if any! However, they have convinced the state legislators that they know best!

I could go on and on about the “we know best” people who are running California, but I am at my word limit for this piece. 
BTW: Does anybody think that it is just a coincidence that the San Diego City Council, the vast majority of California’s state legislators, and the environmentalists of California are all Democrats?

In August 2019 there was an I.C.E. raid on food processing plants in Mississippi, and many illegal immigrants were taken into custody. Unfortunately many of these raids occurred on the first day of school. Consequently, some in the press pointed out the dichotomy of happy children in the morning, going off for their first day of school, and sad children in the afternoon, going back to their now fatherless or motherless home because a parent had been taken into custody. It was sad to see the tearful and often confused children who could not understand why daddy or mommy was not home.
Although most of those taken into custody were in this country illegally, I cannot begrudge them because if I were in their situation, I would have probably done the same thing. Their motives were good, and in this circumstance, the end may well have justified the means. In this case those that were taken into custody were, for the most part, not “bad hombres,” but rather good hard working folk whose only sin was that they came to the U.S. looking for a better life for themselves and their children. Despite what some of the “know-it-all” politicians on both sides say, all illegal immigrants are not the same. There are those who are “good folk,” struggling to earn an honest living like most of those arrested at the food processing plants. Similarly there are those who are “bad hombres,” either criminals before they got here, or who have been caught doing nefarious or criminal things since they have been here. All in these two groups are illegals . . . but they are far from being the same. I do not want the “bad hombres” here in my country, but as far as the “good folks” are concerned . . . “live and let live,” or as Patti Paige sang many years ago, “Que sera, que sera.”

However, these “good folks” did cut the line. They snuck into the U.S. ahead of many of those who had been waiting in line for years to legally immigrate into this country. Many, myself included, do not think that these “good folks” should be treated the same as those who have been obeying the rules, and are still waiting in line to legally immigrate to this country. A dilemma? Perhaps not. My consternation with these “good folks” is twofold. Since they are here illegally, they should never become legal citizens, nor should they ever have same benefits and privileges as legal citizens. (Likewise their D.A.C.A. children would be treated the same as their “good folk” parents.)They should never have the privilege of voting, nor should not be eligible for the same social benefits as legal citizens, including food stamps, unemployment, or disability. However, if they pay into Social Security through their employment, they would be eligible to receive the Social Security and the Medicare benefits at age 65. 

To me this compromise is fair, but how in the world would these “good folk” be identified. Modern technology could actually make this quite easy. First of all within a specified period of time, let’s arbitrarily say within one year, all illegal immigrants and their families need to identify themselves and be fingerprinted (index fingerprints only). Once they have identified themselves their fingerprint would be put into nationwide data base. Then when another food processing plant was raided by I.C.E., it would be relatively simple to fingerprint each possible illegal, and transmit the fingerprint to the national registry. If the illegal’s fingerprint matched his/her “good folk” fingerprint in the system, then he/she would be immediately released, to be home when his/her young child returned from school. However, if the individual involved had not identified him/herself, then he/she would be a possible “bad hombre,” and immediately begin the process for deportation. Likewise if the individual was identified as an actual “bad hombre,” he/she would immediately be deported.
I realize that there are those that would object to the mass fingerprinting of illegals. However, to me, if the alternative is the deporting of hard working “good folk,” I would say that the fingerprinting would be of immense benefit to all of these “good folk,” as they would not be at risk for deportation, if and when they were identified randomly as being illegal. In fact, I would go further and say, put this system into effect and let the “good folk” decide for him/herself!
There is one fly-in-the-ointment with this system. What to do with those illegal immigrants who are neither “good folk” or “bad hombres?” Here I am referring to those who are on the dole. They are not “good folk,” as they are not contributing . . . they are not hard working as they are not working, however neither are they “bad hombres.” If they do not identify themselves and are not fingerprinted, then they are at significant risk for deportation, if they are later identified as being illegal. When this group identifies themselves, they should be labeled as “not presently good folk.” They would then have some previously determined period of time to get off the dole – perhaps one year. Then at the end of one year, they would be taken permanently off of the dole, e.g. no longer eligible for food stamps and simultaneously be reclassified as “good folk.” Because I do not think it would be right to immediately remove someone from food stamps, I would allow a grace period of one year, which I think is enough time to be a productive citizen . . . a true “good folk.” At the same time because they are illegal, they should not be eligible for those benefits after a one year grace period, because these should be limited to real citizens.
Also inherent in this system, if a “good folk” cheats, then he/she should be deported immediately. If the “good folk” votes or attempts to vote, then immediately deportation. The same rule and the same punishment would apply, if a “good folk” were to apply for a social benefit down the road.
Think of all the political squabbles that could be solved and prevented by implementing this system. The situation of the unfortunate “good folk” illegal who is processed for deportation, because he/she just happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time . . . this situation would be avoided. A lot of the controversy over sanctuary cities or states would be potentially avoided because there would no longer be any benefit to protecting “good folk” from being identified, and the only benefit would be to protect the “bad hombres.” The D.A.C.A. dilemma would immediately be resolved. Yes, there would probably be an increase in illegals trying to make it into the U.S. before the end of the one year sign-up deadline, but at least a long term resolution would be tenable. Any illegal that crossed illegally into the U.S. after the one year identification deadline would automatically be classified a “bad hombre” forever. Although any resolution to the illegal immigration problem will inevitably not be perfect, this is a workable plan!