http;//www.Californiacontrarian.com

“WARNING: This product (area) contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.”

This ubiquitous warning sign is a consequence of Prop 65 and the lawsuits that have been brought about by “see what good people we are – looking out for you and the environment” groups, and their lawyers that make millions from these suits that shakedown businesses in California to pay a ransom.
Proposition 65 (“Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act”) was passed in 1986. Who doesn’t want safe drinking water? Who would object to preventing toxins from seeping into our water supply? (As an aside, this is another example of how important it is to call your proposed proposition or law by a moniker that any “normal” person would be for. If it’s name is misleading . . . Oh well; let the buyer beware!)

The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency, administers the Proposition 65 program, and that tells you more than you need to know about Proposition 65 in 2018. Proposition 65 may have started out as a well meaning effort, but has morphed into a way for “do-gooders” to feel better about themselves and their attorneys to make lots of money, as more than two-thirds of the millions paid by businesses to settle Proposition 65 lawsuits has gone to the lawyers. The last big settlement ransom was paid by potato chip makers, and the present ransom is going to be paid by coffee makers, like Starbucks, 7-11, etc., because on 3/28/18 Superior Court Judge Elihu M. Berle ruled that the coffee makers failed to show that the threat from a chemical compound produced in the roasting process was insignificant. (Keep in mind how difficult it is to prove a negative.) Apparently the judge ignored the fact that WHO removed coffee off its “ possible carcinogen” list two years ago. Also the “all-knowing” judge ignored that nutrition expert, Edward Giovannucci of Harvard School of Public Health said, “At the minimum coffee is neutral. If anything there is fairly good evidence of the benefit of coffee on cancer.”

• Now I personally do not like Starbucks coffee as I find it too bitter, but who do you think will end up paying the multi, multi-million dollars that Starbucks will have to pay, in essence, to the plaintiff attorneys? Duh! . . . Those who drink Starbuck’s coffee will pay the ransom!
  When is a judge going to have enough courage to call a spade a spade, and tell the plaintiff attorneys that enough is enough, and find for the defendants – in this case the coffee companies. A judge with fortitude would tell the “do-gooders” and their attorneys that they are also responsible for all of the court costs . . . but I do not think that either Courage or Fortitude are taught in Judge School – at least not in the Judge School that Elihu Berle attended!

The verdict on 4/9/18 from the State Supreme Court was unanimous, 7-0. The judges ruled that D.A.C.A. recipients are not eligible for lower in-state tuition. This will mean an increase in tuition for approximately 2000 students beginning next year. This increase in tuition will effect three state colleges and the largest community college district in the state, the Maricopa Community Colleges District.
You say that you don’t know where the Maricopa Community Colleges are located. Perhaps that is because they are not located in California, but rather in Arizona, where apparently there are judges who actually follow the law.
Of the approximately 800,000 D.A.C.A. beneficiaries in the U.S., about 223,000 live in California. Perhaps this is at least partially because of the very very nice way that California treats this class of illegals. Between 2012 and March 2017 over 242,000 D.A.C.A. immigrants have been enrolled in colleges and universities in California, and at present there are over 72,000 undocumented students enrolled in California’s public colleges and universities. There are 60,000 in community colleges, 8,300 in the Cal. State system, and 4,000 in the Univ. of California system.
Since 2001 California has allowed undocumented students (not necessarily D.A.C.A. students) to pay the discounted in-state levels of tuition, and since 2011, the California Dream Act provides aid to undocumented students whether or not they are D.A.C.A. eligible students. This 2011 Act also provides grants that cover up to the entire cost of tuition at U.C., Cal St, and community colleges, and up to $9,000 for private colleges. Again D.A.C.A.status is not required!
Think about what this actually means. The State of California is subsidizing college educations for thousands upon thousands of young students who are not citizens. Furthermore since there is limited space in the U.C.and Cal St systems, undocumented non-citizens are taking spots that should belong to legal California residents. This hardly seems fair to those who are here legally, but in the minds of the Democratic State Legislators, this is perfectly fair! (Please note that I am using the word “minds” here very loosely.)
What is probably going to happen next? Think logically here . . . (California Democratic Legislators need not even try!) Of course, some of those undocumented Arizona college students will opt not to pay the new increased tuition rate in Arizona, but instead will choose to come to the Golden State to finish their college educations, and thus will displace yet more legal residents from matriculating at a U.C. or a Cal St school. I can almost hear them singing, “California, here I come!”

Beware, as in the following discussion, there are some topics that you may find depressing, but they need to be discussed. Over the last few days two totally unrelated things caught my attention, and form the basis for this discussion.
The first is that over the first three months of 2018, the murder rate in London was more than the murder rate in New York City. This is a surprise because although the populations of the two cities are each about 8.5 million, England has strict gun control laws.
(A lot of the following is taken from The Guardian, one of London’s premiere newspapers.)
At this point criminologists have expressed caution about drawing conclusions from only a few months’ figures, but if the uptick continues, it will amount to London’s highest level of violence in more than a decade. Most of the killings in London so far have been stabbings, most apparently carried out by young people. Knife crime in Britain rose by 21 percent last year, and stabbings in London were at their highest level in six years, according to figures released in September by the Office for National Statistics. The head of the Metropolitan Police Force, Cressida Dick, partly blamed social media for the rise in knife crime in London, which accounts for the majority of killings in the city. In December, she appealed for increased funding for police forces despite overall cuts to public services in order to fight the rise in knife crimes.

My question here is: “Does this imply that those with a penchant for violence in London have found different ways to fulfill their violent tendencies after you have taken away their guns?”

The second totally unrelated issue is potholes.
The other day as we were driving down a major street, my wife commented how bad the potholes were as my right front tire went over a pothole that could have been used to plant a tree! In a city that has arguably the best weather in the U.S., why are there so many unfilled potholes? Apparently the answer, as usual, relates to money, as in . . . there is only so much money to go around. On that same day there was a major spread in our newspaper about funding for suicide prevention measures for the Coronado Bridge. Projected costs for various different models range from $5 million to $137 million with only about 40% of this coming from the state, and the rest coming from local funding and donations. With limited funding in California available for mental health, officials have started looking at “transportation funding” to provide the funds for this project.

Now here comes the tough part. Some uncomfortable questions:
Is “transportation funding” the same local funding that fixes potholes?
Suicide prevention seems like a mental health issue. I am saddened each time someone commits suicide, but shouldn’t the funding for some sort of barrier to prevent people from jumping off the Coronado Bridge come from mental health funding?
And finally, if someone is depressed enough to commit suicide by jumping off a bridge will they just find another means to accomplish their goal if jumping off of the bridge is no longer a feasible option?
In other words, if the bridge is no longer a suicide option will these depressed individuals just find another option, similar to those with a penchant for violence in London have now resorted to knives to accomplish the end results of intimidation, violence, and murder?

News Flash!

Governor Brown said, “No” to President Trump’s request to send National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexican border. (Brown out!) Here I am speaking of governor Kate Brown of Oregon. Now I have never heard of Kate Brown and as best as I can tell Oregon is not a border state, and I thought that this was a request to border states. The fact that she was not invited did not stop Kate Brown from submitting her RSVP! (Gee, I wonder if she is a liberal?)
Oregon is more than 1,000 miles away from the U.S.-Mexico border, but the state has seen an unprecedented number of drug cartels operating in the state over the past few years. In 2015, federal authorities busted a drug trafficking operation that took place in Oregon, Texas, and California, and many of the defendants, in that case, were illegal aliens. So in some circuitous way of thinking to Kate Brown, it is important not to stop illegals from crossing the border and from making their way to Oregon with their drugs!

Governor Kate Brown’s “No” was in response to President Trump’s signing a proclamation on 4/4/18 directing Defense Secretary James Mattis to “request use of National Guard personnel to assist” with the Department of Homeland Security Department’s existing efforts to secure the border.
For those of you not aware of the president’s authority in this situation, he is allowed to call on National Guard units under two different laws passed by Congress in 1956.
Under U.S. Code Title 10, Trump could “federalize” the Guard, ordering federally-funded National Guard troops under the Defense Secretary’s control to report for “active duty.” However, President Trump invoked invoked U.S. Code Title 32 in his proclamation, which directs state governors to order the Guard to report “for operational Homeland Defense.” Under Title 32, state governors can ignore or refuse the president’s order. While Brown has authority to deny Trump’s request under Title 32, the president can invoke his authority to send the National Guard to the Mexican border under other provisions. Of interest is the fact that each of the last two presidents (Bush and Obama) have both used the National Guard at the border.

The more interesting response will be that of the other governor Brown, Jerry Brown of California, which is actually a border state. (Brown in or out?) My prediction is that his initial response will be, “No!” (Brown out!) After all by what circuitous logic could the Governor of California agree to provide the National Guard to help secure the border that he wants unsecured? You can’t make this stuff up! State tuned!

Well it seems that Cal is at it again. In years past he seemed to be such a nice kid, but here recently it seems that his adolescent hormones have taken over, and he has turned into a petulant teenager. It’s almost as if his sole mission in life is to push his parents to the limit. Recently it seems that no matter what his parents say, Cal objects. He resides in their house, but here recently, he seems intent on making his own rules. If his parents say X, he will say NOT-X, no matter what X happens to be. Last month he stated that his friends would be spending the night in his room. His parents objected as what he really insisted on was that these friends would be allowed to spend both day and night in his room, no matter whether they were upstanding citizens or not, and no matter whether or not they were supporting themselves while residing in the parent’s house.
His parents said to him, “Son, this is our house. Yes, you have your own room, but it is still our house, and so when there is a difference of opinion regarding which rules are going to apply in our house, our rules will have precedence. We have allowed you to decorate your room, and arrange the furniture the way that you desire, as what your room looks like on the inside is of no significance to us. However, keep in mind that many of the pieces of furniture in that room actually belong to us. For instance, if we wish to sell that chest-of-drawers that we had when we got married, we do not need your approval. Likewise we do not need your approval to take back that bookcase so that we can find a better use for it. Yes, we understand that you like that bookcase, and that you have grown accustomed to it being in the corner of your room, but in reality, it is ours. We know that you and you cronies are going to get together and complain that what we are deciding to do is not fair. However, in the end we both know that, in essence, while it is your room . . . it is our house!”

Wow, that Cal certainly seems like a spoiled brat. Who is Cal?
The parents seem to be losing patience with Cal . . . understandably!
Could the bookcase and the chest-of-drawers be metaphors for 78 acres of Army land in Dublin, Ca. and Navy property in Alameda, Ca., called Admiral’s Cove?
Is Cal using the “Public Lands Protection Act” to back up this new petulant behavior?

If a small city or town has an ordinance that says XYZ, can a small portion of that town say, “No, we are not going to abide by that ordinance?” Most of us would agree that everyone who lives in that town has to follow the rules of the town, otherwise chaos would reign. Likewise if one district in a big city refused to abide by the city’s laws, again chaos would reign, and so this cannot be allowed. If one portion of a state says, “No we are not going to follow this state law,” would we agree that chaos again would be on the menu? Well welcome to California where the most recent developments include some portions of the state saying, “No, we are not going to abide by that XYZ (Sanctuary state) law.” The Orange County Board of Supervisors, Los Alamitos, a small city in Orange County, and the city of Yorba Linda, again in Orange County have come out against the sanctuary state policies passed by the Democratic State Legislature. Orange County Supervisor, Lisa Bartlett, stated, “ If they are undocumented and they commit crimes, they should be deported.” Also two counties in NorCal as well as the city of Anderson have declared their jurisdictions to be “non-sanctuary” areas of the state. Chaos!
I am going to assume that our Democratic governor will not stay quiet on this issue, and is basically going to tell these rebel jurisdictions that they cannot choose to not follow the policy of the state. However, there is a dilemma here. Can the State of California mandate that all jurisdictions in the state have to follow the state’s sanctuary policies when the state is not following the federal laws of the country of which it is a part? Can the cause of one type of chaos claim the high road when dealing with other chaos within its borders? As the mayor of Los Alamitos said, “I think that the state has overstepped its boundary. This type of issue should be dealt with by the U.S. Government and not the state.”
State tuned as “Days of (California)Our Lives” is just beginning a new chaotic season!

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!