Catalina Island's Water Restrictions: Update

The Catalina Island Chamber of Commerce CEO responded to my phone call last week.

He emphasized that the Stage Three water restrictions are not yet in place. Yet.

"There are a lot of layers to this onion."

The city of Avalon will be working in partnership with Southern California Edison to allow for water reusage. The city manager can provide more information on this matter.

An Avalon press release earlier this month details the steps that the island community is taking to deal with the California drought:

City Manager/City Attorney’s Offices – Proposed Southern California Edison Additional Desalination Unit at Pebbly Beach Generating Station

In what is very likely the LEAST best-kept "secret" in town, the City has been working closely with Southern California Edison regarding the proposed addition of a second desalination unit at SCE’s Pebbly Beach facility, with output capacity of approximately 150,000 to 200,000 additional gallons of freshwater per day – twice Avalon’s required off-peak water demand. The proposal for the additional unit stems from the community’s desire to stave off Phase 3 water rationing, that comes with the accompanying requisite fifty-percent reduction in water use from the baseline period. While residents and visitors to the City of Avalon and greater Catalina Island have done an exemplary job of doing their part to reduce water usage – realizing at least a thirty-three percent reduction at last report from SCE – it is widely believed that additional conservation beyond what is currently being done will be difficult. Further, certain important components of the local economy – notably hotels – would be hard-pressed to achieve a reduction in water usage of fifty-percent without having to limit their available inventory.

Phase three would mean a 50% reduction. That strict measure is a stunning direction for any community to take in order to deal with the water problems afflicting California. Hotels and restaurants, the major sources of revenue, would be hard hit by such restrictions.

Desalination plant in Barcelona, Spain

The bottom line is that Phase 3 water rationing would likely have a significant impact on the island’s economy, with the trickle down impact on the municipal organization being a reduction in revenue. Accordingly, City staff is pleased with the cooperative effort being undertaken with SCE. A proposal for a significant City of Avalon contribution to the desalination project – to be proposed at $500,000 – will be coming forth for City Council review and consideration in the near-term. City staff is aggressively reviewing potential grant sources (including the Prop 1 water bond, which contains proposed funding for desalination) to backfill the cost of the project, or at least, a portion of the cost of the project.

Municipalities face great expenses to generate more water.

Meanwhile, SCE is completing and submitting the requisite permitting required. This afternoon, in fact, SCE filed its permit for the project with the California Coastal Commission. Many additional important steps remain to bring this project to fruition – including potential challenges related to the plant’s discharge. Both SCE and the City of Avalon hope that this additional desalination unit could be online as early as the Fall, around the time that Phase 3 water rationing is predicted to commence. Should the project timeline and the onset of Phase 3 water rationing not coincide, SCE is also pursuing regulatory relief to prevent the inevitable lower reservoir levels with automatically triggering a required use in water reduction (with the thought that the reservoir level trigger could be relaxed if the additional desalination plant was close to coming on-line).

One comment I had read about Catalina Island and their water rationing predicament discussed that the island community had a desalination plant. "What about it? What happened to it?" The truth is that a desalination plant already exists there, but instead of relying exclusively on drastic water reductions, the city wants to construct another.

Desalination plant (Catalina Island Blog)

And yet a second plant will not serve as a long-term solution for the severe water shortage.

It is important to recognize that this additional proposed desalination unit is not the solution to the island’s water challenges; instead, it is only a short term resolve to prevent the onset of Phase 3 water rationing. However, with a "patchwork quilt" approach of other remedies – including proposed additional potential wells, reclaimed water and advanced technologies, ultimately Catalina Island and the City of Avalon will have a more sustainable and promising water-related future.

Major reports have related that San Diego is discussing construction of a desalination plant, but one already exists within the South Bay/Harbor region. Worse still, however, this plant is not going to solve the water needs for a busy community which relies on travel and tourism.

More to follow.

Breitbart Fail: Rove Does NOT Favor Second Amendment Repeal

Bait-and-switch of gotcha journalism still occurs, in great numbers from the Marginalized Media, but also in conservative and New Media sources from time to time. A conservative, a Republican pundit will make a statement, and the blogosphere will jump on it as proof of liberal pandering. This blog-blasting occurred last year, when Mitt Romney discussed "taking care of those here illegally" as though he favored amnesty.

Romney did not say that at all.

This "Blog First, Ask Questions Later" also occurred at great length against Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and his nuanced stance on illegal immigration.

Now, the latest attack claims that Bush 43 advisor Karl Rove now favors repealing the Second Amendment, or that "Violence will continue until the Second Amendment is repealed".

Before launching into an extended criticism, I recognize the deep fault lines between Rove and Tea Party activists around the country. Many conservatives have slammed Rove for standing by Establishment Republicans, and consider his connections with George W. Bush a liability rather than an asset (They should also consider his recognition for Tea Party support to win the US Senate). This analysis does not serve as a boost for Karl Rove, nor seeks to diminishing the concerns that he is a Big Government conservative. All of that is inessential.

Furthermore, I have great respect for Awr Hawkin's reporting for Breitbart, as he reports the stories about the saving graces connected with concealed-carry (the lives saved, the crimes prevented), which the Marginalized Media loves to bury.

Now, from Hawkin's anti-Rove article on Breitbart:

During the Sunday airing of Fox New Sunday, host Chris Wallace asked Karl Rove how America can stop violent attacks like the one the country witnessed in Charleston, South Carolina.
Rove said “acts of violence” will continue, until someone can force America to “repeal the Second Amendment.”

He quickly added his belief that such a repeal is an impossibility, and therefore not a viable idea — yet.

That word "yet" is quite a teasing element, as though Rove is quietly plotting to strip away the right of gun ownership. If anyone has been following the gun-control fights in this country, they will see that the Second Amendment has won every fight. "Gun Grabbing" Michael Bloomberg lost many major elections he targeted in 2014 throughout the country. Even left-wing Democratic contenders like Bernie Sanders side with the Second Amendment. In Colorado, Democrats who attacked firearms found themselves getting shot down. Even in California, concealed-carry is on the rise.

Karl Rove

Now, the full transcript of Karl Rove's comments suggest a more nuanced response to dealing with gun violence. Here is Rove's answer to "Wallace's exact question":

KARL ROVE, FORMER BUSH WHITE HOUSE ADVISER: Well, I wish I had an easy answer for that. I don't think there's any easy answer. We saw an act of evil, racist, bigoted evil. And to me, the amazing thing about this is it was met with grief and love.

Rove was the first and only person to mention the issue of "evil". Conservative LA Radio Host Larry Elder also talked about the lack of fathers and Executive Director of Gun Owners in America Larry Pratt discussed "the evil in the human heart", which gun control legislation will never eradicate. This matter of human failings is essential to any serious policy debate, particularly gun control. James Madison recognized human frailty as the basis for a Constitution defined by checks and balances, with diffusion of government power and expansion of individual and local authority. Rove mentioned the matter of evil, and that matters a great deal. Rove's other statement deserves a second glance: "The amazing thing about this [the Charleston atrocity] is it was met with grief and love".

What amazing grace, that the victims' families could confront the assailant and say: "I forgive you." Let us also consider that President Barack Obama was surprised by the level of forgiveness from the families of the Charleston victims.

Rove continued:

And think about how far we've come. 1963, the whole weight of the government throughout the South was to impede finding and holding and bringing to justice the men who perpetrated the [Baptist Church] bombing and here we saw an entire state, an entire community, an entire nation come together grieving as one, united in the belief that this was an evil act.

Why won't Breitbart and other conservative sites highlight the strong, well-founded rhetoric demonstrating how far this county has come in fighting bigotry and violent racism?

So, we have come a long way. Now, maybe there's some magic law that will keep us from having more of these. I mean, basically, the only way to guarantee that we would dramatically reduce acts of violence involving guns is to basically remove guns from society, and until somebody gets enough oomph to repeal the Second Amendment, that's not going to happen.

Boom. Rove was speaking of a fantastic scenario, a line of argument which a number of pro-gun supporters advance. Left-wing, gun-control proponents want to diminish violence and gun deaths. The number one proposal, then, would be to eliminate all firearms. Not going to happen. The legislative apotheosis for this utopian ideal would certainly include repealing the Second Amendment. Of course that would never happen. The recognition of gun violence in our communities

 I don't think it's an answer.

Awr Hawkins did not quote this statement. Rove does not favor repealing the Second Amendment. Not now, not "yet", not ever.

I think there were so many warning since here. A friend who knew of what was in Dylann Roof's heart, parents who didn't pay attention, a community that had given up on him, and a loner who had fallen into the clutches of racist organizations and had come to believe in their ideology and put things up on the Internet that we didn't give any credence to whatsoever.
Conservatives who care about ending gun violence and firearms massacres usually point to the need for great community investment, and better interventionist methods against men and women who pose a threat to themselves and to others. US Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-New Hampshire) relied on similar arguments to (rightly) justify voting against the Toomey-Manchin compromise bill in 2013. These measures will not stop the dangerously insane individuals in our cities from committing these snap atrocities.

And so, there were a lot of warning signs here and I wish that some of those people had spoken up and said, here's somebody who is in trouble and a danger to himself and others.

Rove never suggested "Let's repeal the Second Amendment" and never suggested that getting rid of that Bill of Right would ensure an end to violence.

Granted, well-connected Republican politicos have made the expansion of the federal government a priority, or they have simply ignore the pleas and plights of Main Street. Rove may in fact belong to that Insider Beltway club. However, criticism must depend on proper quoting and reference within context.

In the case of Hawkins' piece against Rove, that did not happen. Once again, Rove does NOT support repealing the Second Amendment.

Target's Free Market Approach to Plastic Bag Use

Last night, I went shopping briefly at the Target on Sepulveda Blvd. next to the Ralphs in the Del Amo Fashion Center.

The store is neat place where you can get a lot of goods at one time.

Usually, I walk through as part of a daily walk when I want to exercise.

They also opened a section of "One Dollar" items, including candies. Sometimes, I buy one before I walk and go on the next part of my walk (which often takes me through what's left of the Del Amo Fashion Center.

When I approached the counter to purchase my candy, the lady asked me if I needed a plastic bag.

I told her know, without considering that I would need the bag to through the trash away from the candy I would be eating.

She then told me: "That will save you five cents".

The cashier then explained to me every time a customer decides not purchase a bag, or they bring their own bags, they save money.

I was really impressed with that idea. "That is brilliant with a capital B!" I told her.

Once again, the  marketplace does a better job presenting and promoting real reforms, whether dealing with trash, pollution, or protecting the environment.

While government regulations want to ban everything, businesses in the business of actually turning a profit will look for the best means to increase business, to encourage customers to keep coming back.

Instead of banning plastic bags and charging people an extra tax or fee to have a brown bag, this store decided to give customers an incentive if they brought their own bags or declined to take one in the first place.

Instead of one dollar, I paid $.95 cents. Not much of a savings for one piece of candy, perhaps, but the idea was worth so much more in itself. Imagine the savings for this company when customers with large orders decline bags, and thus allow for great savings.

I contacted one of the floor supervisors at the store, and she explained to me that customers can save five cents for every bag that they bring. Most stores have enacted this policy, even though some no longer use bags because those municipalities ban them already.

Most people do not realize this, but grocery and retail stores do have to eat the cost of using plastic bags. Grocery stores will train their employees to avoid using more bags than necessary because of the long-term costs to the company as well as the potential harm to the environment.

Until researchers and inventors develop a biodegradable plastic bag, most activists are convinced that the best way to diminish plastic bag litter is to ban them entire.

Target is on target with a better proposal: offer customers an incentive not to use their plastic bags, but to bring their own.

Once again, the free market provides better means for solving problems than government rules and regulations ever could.

How Not to Defend Marriage: McCain and DeGeneres in 2008

Even among conservatives, there is a penchant to view difficult, controversial issues through a prism of self. This individualist take has turned critical matters into a debate of preferences. No one can win if assent or group agreement is the final standard for resolving any conflict.

One example of individual preference replacing truth and principle occurred when Presidential contender John McCain explained to Ellen DeGeneres his opposition to homosexual marriage. Aside from his grimaces and eye-rolling, clearly the Senator felt uncomfortable addressing the contentious issue, which DeGeneres wittily called "The Elephant in the Room".

DeGeneres stated:

"I can legally get married, as everyone should."

Loud applause followed. Already we can see who was going to be the winner and the loser in the discussion about gay marriage in America. Well, at least we would see based on the audience's approval and clamor who would seem more favored.

For the record, should "everyone" be able to get legally married? Does that including siblings? Adults and children? More than two people?

The lesbian comic justified her stance with frequent references to her own thoughts and feelings. From that standpoint, the Arizona US Senator could have rebuffed a  number of talking points with the truth.

McCain gave a desiccated response:

"I think that people should be able to enter into legal agreements.  And I think that is something that we should encourage, particularly in the cases of insurance and other areas. Decisions that have to be made."

"Decision". . ."Decide" these terms require actions in response to facts, not personal feelings, not inferences, not even opinions. Here, McCain -- all conservatives and culture fighters for liberty and truth -- need to uphold the existence, relevance, and necessity of absolutes.

McCain did not do that.

"I just believe in the unique status of marriage between man and  woman."

When McCain said "I believe", he was diminishing the argument to one of personal preference and feeling, just like DeGeneres. Arguing on the same terms as one's opponent, who has set the issues according to his or her own dictates, guarantees failure. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher understood this principle in politics and policy-making.

Too bad Republicans like McCain have not learned from her example on this core cultural issues.

"And I know that we have a respectful disagreement on that issue."

McCain and DeGeneres in 2008 (Rodonline.typepad.com)

There can be no discussion of "respectful disagreement" when the hostess defiantly announced that her "marriage" to a woman was certified illegally. The same year of this interview, 2008, California voters defined marriage as one man and one woman in the state constitution by initiative.

DeGeneres did have a respectful tone when responding to the Senator, yet she reverted back to personal preference and individual assent as the final determinant for the argument:

"I think that it is looked at, and some people are saying the same, that blacks and women didn't have the right to vote. I mean, women just got the right to vote in 1920. Blacks didn't have the right to vote until 1870"

Women "just" got the right to vote? They have been able to vote per the 19th Amendment for nearly a century. In fact, in a number of states and territories, they had been voting since the late 1800s. Wyoming was technically the first state engaged women in the right to vote, and even as far back as the early 1800s, women were voting in New Jersey, before suffrage was taken from them.

Furthermore, comparing the voter privilege to marriage is fraught with problems, and not analogous on many levels.

"It feels that there's this old way of thinking. . .'not all the same'. We are all the same people. All of us. You're no different than I am. Our love is the same."

Wild applause broke out, affirming DeGeneres' talking points. McCain squirmed.

"To me what it feels like, I will speak for myself. It feels when someone says 'You can have a contract, you can have insurance, you can get all that', it sounds like 'You can sit there, you just can't sit there.'"

Wow. The hostess wants to redefine marriage, an institution long in place before senators, hosts, television, the United States, or any government whatsoever. And she is comparing her "struggle" to be married to another woman with the invidious discrimination imposed upon minorities in the Deep South, individuals forced to sit in the back of the bus or congregate in separate places because of the color of their skin.

So many logical, moral, and historical fallacies to decimate. Yet McCain refused to take her down on those fallacies.

"That's what it feels like. It doesn't feel inclusive."

Feel. Feel. Feel. Does anyone feel like screaming, yelling, or throwing up?

McCain obviously did not feel like confronting this discussion head-on:

"Well, I've heard you articulate that position in a very eloquent fashion."

No she didn't. No she did not. Her rationale was all feelings, poor judgment, false comparisons. Nothing eloquent about "I just" and "I feel" either.

McCain could have rebuked her sloppy logic and weak grasp of history. Instead, he tried to reduce the distinction to "differences of opinion":

"We just have a disagreement. I along with many, many others wish you every happiness."

As long as you feel good, Ellen, it really doesn't matter. No wonder this man failed to win the Presidency. More importantly, no wonder conservatives in politics are losing the argument.

Marriage is not about feelings. It's not about our opinions or preferences. The truth and error of any matter cannot be settled with "we just disagree". Either 2 + 2 = 4, or it does not.

Either marriage is one man and one woman, or it is not. In the discussion above, and in debates and controversies on the matter since, the appeals to individual opinion and preference, to tradition and custom in support or marriage continues to fail.

Why? Because the argument for marriage "equality" proceeds from that flawed, and ultimately false foundation. The proper discussion about marriage must upend the litany of false premises, from homosexuality as a genetic as opposed to acquired condition, to the true origins of the institution.

Appeals to sentiment, feelings, and personal preference will inevitably turn over another win to the "gay marriage" proponents.

It's time for conservatives, for freedom advocates, for defenders of truth and faith to summon the courage to state the reality of absolute truth, of recognized institutions, and the error of reducing major issues and matters to a non-essential standard of "I believe that. . ."

"Henry Waxman Jr." Chairman Jason Chaffetz: Big Govt Sellout?

In the latest blowout between conservatives and establishment Republicans in Washington, John Boehner has punished key leaders who voted against the Fast-Tract Authority deal with demotions or removal from key committee assignments.

Rep. Mark Meadows of North Carolina shared with The Daily Signal:

A conservative House lawmaker angry at “a culture of punishment and fear” created by Speaker John Boehner and his leadership team has had enough.

“For the last six months they have doled out small punishments in a variety of forms,” said Rep. Mark Meadows of the conservative House Freedom Caucus.

Mark Levin has declared war against Boehner for this retaliation. He has also targeted Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz:

The shrimp I guess would be Jason Chaffetz,” Levin said. “Jason Chaffetz is a fraud. Jason Chaffetz pretends to be conservative but is John Boehner’s boy. He’s his lap dog.

Those are some very pointed remarks from a controversial conservative radio host.

 Has Chaffetz allowed his new chairmanship to get to his head?

One would have to consider this terrible transformation.

First he took this unappealing picture with a prior Democratic Chairman, Henry Waxman:

Chaffetz posing with Waxman the Taxman

He then commented on Facebook:

"Moving offices, but I was honored to have Rep Henry Waxman stop by for a visit."

Granted, National Review entitled Chaffetz as "Henry Waxman's Republican heir".

Chaffetz openly admitted his admiration for Waxman's Oversight tactics from 2007-2009, if nothing else:

Chaffetz, who is now entering his fourth term in Congress, says he sought out Waxman when he arrived in Washington in 2009. “I just proactively went up and shook his hand and said I care about this and I admire what he’s done,” Chaffetz says. “Although I disagree with him on just about everything,” Chaffetz says, Waxman is “passionate about [Congress as an] institution, the process by which you do oversight, and the elements and keys to success.”
Should Waxman's oversight legacy serve as a guiding example for any principled conservative, however? Aside from inane investigations in steroid abuse in baseball, as well as adding "Oversight" to the House Committee title, Waxman was viewed by many as a shill for the lawyer lobby opening up easy avenues for class action lawsuits.

He was in many respects ill-prepared for investigations, like his embarrassing interview with a constituent in the documentary "Bigger, Faster, Stronger". (He also admitted in a budget committee hearing that he did not know that General Motors went bankrupt).

So one has to wonder: Chaffetz Honored?

The comments on his Facebook page under this photo rebuffed this "honor":

Lee Nidd I would not post that on Facebook....

Like · Reply · 123 · December 10, 2014 at 12:25pm

and

Duane Langenberg Why on earth would you be honored to have this weasel visit, sir?

Like · Reply · 23 · December 10, 2014 at 12:35pm

and also

Jeannie Lawson Don't mess yourself up Jason by even talking or hanging out with this crooked Demorat Harry Waxman...he's a traitor to the people he represent's..hope he's voted out in California the next time around..we Americans in the know knows who's a traitor and who isn't.....

Like · Reply · 10 · December 10, 2014 at 12:43pm

 

His constituents and supporters were already worried about this decision to pose with Waxman, a hardline, hard-nosed progressive who forced the Affordable Care Act on the American people (even though he had never read the regulations).

Worse, Waxman's lack of decorum in committee hearings was also well-known, not just with his fireworks against Ed Whitifield of Kentucky, but against former ranking member then chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA).

 

Speaking of Chaffetz' purported power complex and Issa. .

 

In one of the Utah Congressman's first moves as newly installed chairman, Chaffetz removed Issa's portrait from the committee room.

Breitbart's Rich Tucker reports:

The Republican from Utah recently took the gavel as head of the House Oversight Committee. One of the first things he did, news reports say, is remove portraits of previous chairmen from the walls of the committee hearing room.
 That includes the portrait of 

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), who chaired the committee through December. His portrait had only been on the wall for about two months.

 

(Well. Issa was recently escorted from another oversight hearing into Benghazi, too. Why all the attacks against the California Congressman?)

Now, Daily Signal reports that Chaffetz presented a bad-worse option for Subcommittee Chairman Mark Meadows for voting against Obamatrade:

"The leadership team wants to create a culture of punishment and fear without a culture of debate and dialogue. But there is no honor in bowing to a bully. There is only honor in fighting a good fight—win or lose. This is not a fight I will back down from.”

Meadows, R-N.C., was greeted in his Capitol Hill office last Thursday by Rep. Jason Chaffetz, the House Oversight and Government Reform chairman, and given a lose-lose choice.

He could resign as chair of the Government Operations subcommittee or be removed from the role.

So, these are the tactics which Chaffetz learned from Waxman: "I will have you removed if you do not stop fighting our agenda." This past week, Chaffetz followed through on his threat.

The Republican Congressman has turned into Henry Waxman Jr., a bully who bulldozes anyone who doesn't agree with his views, who removes any challenge to his authority, and blasts dissent to his lock-step agreement with out-of-step House leadership. This intra-party shove-match does not match up with his remarks about taking away the personalities and conflicts from his investigations, either.

And for what other purpose but to advance a Big Government agenda? His constituents wanted more, and our country deserve better.

It's time for real oversight, which holds all members of Congress accountable, especially the President, and requires open debate and dissent within party ranks, so that conservatives in Washington can speak for the concerns of all Americans.



Slate: Left-Wing Sanders a Right-Wing Gun Nut

My first article for Townhall.com targeted left-wing online magazine Slate for dressing up Election 2014 Republican wins as subtle left-wing victories. While the column claimed that Republicans had adopted liberal views on key issues, the fact is that many Republicans, whether winning federal or state office, pointed out (effectively) that liberal, Democratic, “progressive” politicians and their policies were not just creating but exacerbating the problems of wage inequality, overregulation for the benefit of the few at the expense of the rest of us, and the prosperity of Big Labor, Business, and other special interests against the General Welfare, Main Street, and the Little Guy.

Slate Magazine Logo

This past week, Slate Magazine published another intriguing attack, but this time against the left-wing Grandfather wowing crowds and wooing Hillary supporters: Democratic socialist Bernie Sanders. An anti-capital populist who decries the Koch Brothers, hates big money in politics (even though he raised $1 million in the first twenty-four hours of his campaign), Sanders wants Social Security and Medicare for everyone. He wants to break up Big Banks and end business as usual in Washington aiding Big Business. And he is a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment. This revelation triggered my interest. A left-wing candidate with a right-wing voting record?

Slate contributor Mark Joseph Stern reports:

Sanders, an economic populist and middle-class pugilist, doesn’t talk much about guns on the campaign trail. But his voting record paints the picture of a legislator who is both skeptical of gun control and invested in the interests of gun owners—and manufacturers.

Sanders opposes gun control? He respects gun owners and their makers? Bang. “Feel the Bern” has now turned into in the flaming wounds of gunshot victims.

Sterns’ article then details that as Independent Congress from Vermont, Sanders voted against the 1993 Brady Act. As US Senator, he voted to allow Amtrak passengers to pack heat in their carry-on language (have concealed-carry, will travel). He also voted to block funding for any foreign organization which registers or taxes gun owners. Sanders campaign may play out very well (better than Hillary) in gun-grabbing Connecticut, where 300,000 gun owners faced felony charges for failure to register their firearms, or in Clinton’s deep-blue New York, where Governor Andrew Cuomo attempted to impose a gun registry.

OnTheIssues.org lists Sanders’ numerous pro-gun ownership votes, including a successful tort reform measure to block lawsuits against gun manufactures, i. e. the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Strangely enough, Sanders received an “F” rating from the National Rifle Association. Liberal elements are still asking about that one.

How has the Vermont Senator’s gun stance affected his campaign so far?

CNN and Politico indicate that Senator Sanders is gun shy about discussing the Second Amendment. The Boston Globe claims that Sanders has a “lighter touch” on gun control.

Following the Charleston, South Carolina atrocity, Sanders issued the following press release:

"This senseless violence fills me with outrage, disgust and a deep, deep sadness," Sanders tweeted. In a longer statement, the Democratic presidential contender said the killings, which were blamed on a white suspect whose victims included state Sen. Clementa Pinckney (D), showed that the U.S. had a long way to go in escaping its history of racial violence.

"The hateful killing of nine people praying inside a church is a horrific reminder that, while we have made significant progress in advancing civil rights in this country, we are far from eradicating racism," he said.

"Our thoughts and prayers are with the families and their congregation," Sanders added.

Bernie Sanders said nothing about gun violence
in the Charleston, SC aftermath

Discussions against race and racial violence, but not one statement about gun control. Then he held a large rally near a Charleston prayer vigil. Ouch!

What can we derive from this debate within the Democratic Party and throughout the country?

Already divided on trade, and to a lesser extent on marriage, the gun issue is shooting up the Democratic Party rank-and-file. Even in liberal Rhode Island, the most Democratic state in the Union, the firearms community commands considerable influence, and pushes back against gun-grabbing and gun control legislation year after year.

Furthermore, the National Rifle Association remains not just informative but influential, and with the rising crime rates in Democratic, despotic urban communities, more citizens recognize that Wayne LaPierre was on target when he fired back at Second Amendment critics: “The best defense against a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”.

With this gun element exposed about Sanders (The New Republic pooh-poohed his illicit-explicit rants from 1972), left-wing activists are taking shots at Senator and Presidential contender Sanders. For Stern, the sorest pro-gun vote aims at PLCAA, a Republican and conservative (aka right-wing) talking point not just on gun ownership, but tort reform. Stern goads the US Senator on this issue, while trying to bolster Hillary Clinton’s now-flagging campaign:

Several liberal congressional representatives have recently spoken out against the PLCAA, and if Democrats retake both houses of Congress, they may make repealing the law a priority. Hillary Clinton, who voted against the act as a senator, would almost certainly sign a repeal bill. Would a President Bernie Sanders? Until he says otherwise, we have every reason to believe the ostensible progressive hero would stand behind the vile legislation he championed just a decade ago.

Hillary would repeal PLCAA, Stern claims. Really? With the might of the NRA derailing Obama’s repeated gun control measures and exposing his unconstitutional executive orders, will any Democratic candidate dare take on the NRA?

Bernie Sanders, Right-Wing Gun Nut

Not even Sanders dares shoot back at the firearms community. Weekend at Bernie’s has turned into another circular firing squad within the Democratic Party, and left-leaning elements are targeting Sanders for his staunch stance in favor of firearms. Will his record on gun rights blow a big hole in his campaign? Not just Sanders’ run for the White House, but the entire slate of prospective Democratic contenders will be shooting at each other to augment their credentials on gun control, only to shoot themselves in the foot for the general election in 2016.

MoveOn.org Response to Charleston Shooting: Ban the Stars and Bars!

Twenty-one year old Dylann Roof busted into the  Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston during their Bible study earlier this week. Nine African-Americans were killed, although the mass-murderer waited for an hour and almost decided against the violent plot on account of the parishioners' kindness.

Yet he fired away, then fled the bloody scene. He was captured in North Carolina, now held on $1 million bail, and even his uncle is calling for his execution.

With the recent explosion of race riots throughout the country, from Ferguson to Baltimore, and hatred toward law enforcement and authorities in general, there is a growing fear in this country that racial hatred will not just divide but destroy this country. In fact, Roof wanted to create that kind of social hysteria through the execution of nine pious African-Americans.

Sadly, instead of mourning with the victims and their families, and seeking to bring the country together in a sense of common tragedy, bonding, and restoration, President Obama has played the race card, and the gun-control card, still trying to score political points, playing off the list of goals first assigned by his mentor Saul Alinksy.

Just like President Obama, in his stern demand for stricter gun control following the massacre of nine churchgoing South Carolinians, so to MoveOn.org is not letting a crisis go to waste, this time advocating for the full-fledged ban on the Confederate Flag, otherwise known as "The Stars and Bars".

Their latest eblast, sent by Karen Hunter, proclaimed the following:

Dear MoveOn member,

I'm Karen Hunter, a fellow MoveOn member, and I started a petition to the South Carolina Legislature and Governor Nikki Haley.


On the heels of the brutal killing of nine black people in a South Carolina church, it's time to put a symbol of rebellion and racism behind us and move toward healing and a better United States of America.¹ Can you join me in telling South Carolina lawmakers:

The Stars and Bars

 

Symbols of hate and division have no place in our government. It's time to stand up for what's right and take down the Confederate flag!

The Confederate flag is not a symbol of southern pride but rather a symbol of rebellion and racism.Tell South Carolina lawmakers: Symbols of hate have no place in our government.


A few comments:

The removal of the Confederate Flag is not going to end gun violence. Neither will removing guns from law-abiding citizens or in other public places, but that is another discussion.

Come to think of it, if MoveOn.org wanted to put together a serious petition on a social issue in connection with the South Carolina tragedy, why not put together something about gun ownership, gun control, or firearm regulations?

Playing the race card is the cheapest, yet easiest shot from the Left. Totally irrational, impossible to disprove, completely puts the other side on the defensive.

Conservatives and liberals across the country have tried to avoid turning this terrible (terrorist?) tragedy into a political move. President Obama, however, has disappointed millions for turning this sad tragedy toward short-term gain.

Another thing about the latest eblast: Hunter included no picture of the Confederate flag. How many people  even know what it looks like. Most history books have become so thin on details and symbols. One has to wonder how historically literate the majority of Americans are.

This is the pettiest, most unserious petition yet. MoveOn.org should move on from political activism of any kind, or at least offer an apology for its brandished, blatant  politicization of this gut-wrenching slaughter.

Nine people were killed by a deranged gunman, who had been planning this attack for months. Instead of a robust discussion on the administrative limits for incarceration dangerous individuals, instead of discussing the need for expanding concealed carry into churches, public schools, and another general areas, MoveOn wants to ban a flag.

Why does anyone take this group seriously? President Obama worked with Organizing for America turned Organizing for Action. Perhaps liberals should start rethinking their affiliation with these unthinking interest groups altogether.
Perhaps conservatives should not allow this crisis to go to waste either, but instead of looking for political points and electoral gains, conservatives can reach out to untouched, uncared for communities, like the black churches of the South and throughout the United States. They can send a message of: “We cannot begin to know what you are going through, but we will go through it with you as best as we can.”

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal explicitly rebuked anyone for politicizing the Charleston, South Carolina massacre. Leading selected audiences in prayer throughout the past month, Governor Jindal inadvertently demonstrated what true leadership looks like.

Instead of banning a flag, instead of grabbing guns, it’s time for hugging the family members of victims. It’s time for embracing one another and reminding each other that we are “Out of man, One”, that we are not just united in good times, but even in bad times, when bad people do bad things to otherwise good and wholesome people.

We are better than our leaders much of the time, and in the case of MoveOn.org, Americans are clearly more centered on what matters, not looking to remove a regional flag, but rather seeking to cover and recover the blessings of liberty and security on which this country was founded.

In other words, the American People and the United States of America, are moving on from the bitter, petty “Social justice” rantings of groups like MoveOn.org, and seeking better ways to know justice, and to know peace.

Phase Three Water Restrictions on . . . Catalina Island?

Catalina Island: a destination resort, may be facing not just Phase Two, but Phase Three water restrictions, according to one source.

Speaking with local residents and visitors to the island off the coast of the South Bay, I have learned that the limitations on water usage have increased to such an extent, that restaurants and hotels must now send their dirty launder and other cleaning needs off the island and to the mainland in order to be taken care of.

Wow! And I though that the water restrictions in Torrance were severe!

Phase One restrictions in Torrance outlined limited watering of lawns.

In the city of Torrance, Phase Two included limits on water service. In restaurants, for example, patrons would have to request water before it would be served.

What would Phase Three look like?

Aerial view of Catalina Island (D Ramsey Logan)

I spoke with one individual working on the island. She commented that Phase Three restrictions will start in September. Either residents and businesses decrease water usage, or pay higher prices.

A little perspective will help us to understand the hardships facing Catalina Island and likely to face more regions in the state, if reforms are put in place to spare residents.

Catalina Islander Logo

In May, 2015, the Catalina Islander reported on Phase One restrictions:

According to Harvey [Southern California Edison spokesman], Phase One will require Islanders (and visitors) to reduce water by prohibiting the washing of streets, driveways, parking lots, piers and other hard surfaces. Phase One will also prohibit washing vehicles such as golf carts, trailers and boats. Fresh water from fire hydrants may only be used to fight fires. Watering landscapes would be limited to 7 to 9 a.m. and 5 to 7 p.m.

When would Phase Two commence?

According to the presentation, Phase Two begins when the reservoir’s water level drops below 300 acre feet. In Phase Two water rationing, Edison’s Island customers would have a limit placed on the number of gallons they could use daily.

Amazing. Catalina Island, the illustrious getaway that was a playground for Hollywood celebrities, is losing water fast, and now residents will find their usage rationed.

Local communities throughout the state are running out of water, and residents are struggling to figure out how to deal with the widespread lack.

The New American Media has detailed the hardships of Central Valley Farmers struggling to put food on the table for their families.

CBS News reported on Mountain House, California (a planned community in San Joaquin County, an hour outside of San Francisco):

The faucets for thousands of Californians could run dry within the next few days as new statewide restrictions may cut off water supplies in response to the historic drought.

In the community of Mountain House, California, leaders are desperate for a solution to keep the water running, reports CBS News correspondent John Blackstone.
 
The busy water park in town is a place where residents can briefly forget the community of 15,000 is threatened with having its only source of water cut off . . .

Now, resort town Catalina Island will face Phase Three restrictions.

Residents of the South Bay need to recognize not only the water crisis across the country, but they need to see that the drought is directly and deeply affecting us in our own backyard. Not only have restrictions forced homeowners to plead for exemptions to prevent their homes getting red-tagged, but even the vacation destination off our coasts is feeling the water pinch.

I have contacted the CEO of the Catalina Island Chamber of Commerce, and I plan to have more updates on the draconian water restrictions to face a Avalon in the near future.

It's hard for me to imagine, that even ritzy Catalina cannot run or ignore the water crisis drying up the state of California.

Kevin De Leon: One Illegal Alien, One Vote

California State Senate President
Kevin De Leon (Source: Neon Tommy)

State Senate President Kevin De Leon and the Democratic cabal have behaved in an undemocratic fashion for some time.

Four state senators were arrested, indicted, or convicted of serious crimes last year. One, Roderick Wright, did wrong in false listing one address as his own within the district he represented, when in fact he lived outside the district, in violation of the law. Perjury and voter fraud were the charges, and he spent a little over one hour in jail after his conviction then removal from office.

Then there's Kevin De Leon, who is still under suspicion for living somewhere besides his district. Aside from allegations of voter fraud and perjury connected with his questioned residence in his state senate district, De Leon has been carrying water for Big Green and Big Amnesty in Sacramento.

With state senator Ricardo Lara and the "team" efforts of Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins and her Democratic caucus, Kevin De Leon has pushed California further into becoming a sanctuary state for illegal aliens, instead of a prosperous locale for legal residents, born and naturalized, in the United States.

One major case before the Supreme Court, Evenwel v. Abbott, will determine whether Congressional Districts can be determined by counting the living residents within the district, or must count only those residents eligible to vote: i.e., citizens.

Senator De Leon claimed in an op-ed in the Daily News that many of the residents would no longer have any representation if the Supreme Court recognizes "one person, one vote" for citizens instead of anyone:

"I fear that tens of thousands of my constituents will wake up one morning in 2016 without political representation. Chefs, nannies, janitors, gardeners, valets, maids, restaurateurs, writers, artists, social workers, lawyers would lose their voice in the Capitol with the stroke of a pen.

How does Kevin De Leon get elected if all the people who support him, as he alleges, are not even permitted to vote? Is the problem of illegal immigration so great, that the people whom De Leon cares about are in fact not even legal residents? What about them? Do they not count? Or is the US Constitution just a piece of paper with no binding power or enforcement over state and federal legislatures?

What is really at stake here? Politicians like De Leon, and the interest groups which support him, rely on the Amnesty ideology and the lobbies which bolster them. They foresee in the near future that non-citizens will start voting, too, thus ensuring their political power for decades to come.

The truth is that  State Senate President Kevin De Leon mischaracterizes “one person, one vote” in a brazen, blatantly political, and ultimately immoral and unconstitutional fashion.

In the United State Constitution, “We the People” is followed by “of the United State of America”, thus referring to citizens: not illegal aliens. Indeed, Article One had recognized slaves as 3/5 of a person, but the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution removed that unjust status and restored their citizenship.

Unfortunately, Senator De Leon now wants illegal aliens to have the same rights and privileges as  US Citizens, yet citizenship, by law, legacy, and limited governance can mean nothing more (and nothing less) than legal status, or citizenship means nothing at all.

Furthermore, De Leon’s hysteria that scores of his “constituents” would lose representation is a false and fatuous argument. State legislators swear to uphold the Constitution. They represent “We the People”: legal residents, naturalized citizens, natural-born Americans.

 

Hopefully, the Supreme Court will decide to recognize all future redistricting efforts on the basis of "one citizen, one vote" since "We the People" has always been about citizens. The Constitution did unjustly recognize slaves as three-fights for political purposes, but also Native Americans not taxed were not counted.

Still, legal status is the basis for political participation in the United States, and representation in Congress or in any state legislature must rest on that basis. Senator De Leon has already worked with crony elements within Sacramento to expand government and public services for illegal aliens, at the expense of legal residents, born and naturalized. At least the Supreme Court may check, if not outright halt, this politicized self-aggrandizement but redirecting redistricting efforts to their proper focus: We the People.

Illegal Alien Advocate Senator Lara Shuts Out "We the People Rising"



State Senator Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens)
 

State Senator Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) has not only ignored the best interests of his California residents. He even refuses to listen t the concerns and outrage of his constituents and California residents in general fed up with illegal immigration, and the pandering of the California State legislature to dishing out taxpayer dollars to illegal aliens, instead of providing the basic services required by law (and the Constitution state and federal) for citizens.

 

The Los Angeles Times reported:

Illegal-immigration opponents say lawmaker barred them from public meeting

 

Members of a group that opposes public benefits for immigrants in the country illegally have filed complaints with the state alleging that a lawmaker violated their civil rights by excluding them from a public meeting on the issue.

The rhetoric from Los Angeles Times writer Patrick McGreevy is blatant and offensive: "Immigrants in the country illegally". The term "immigrant" implies legality. If the individual is in the country illegally, then that person has become an illegal alien. The war of words has led to a war against citizenship, immigration, and border security.

The state Department of Fair Employment and Housing is looking into complaints by four activists alleging that they were improperly excluded from a recent meeting in South Gate to which the public had been invited by state Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens).

The public was invited to the meeting. The Public. Was Invited. Could not be much clearer. The First Amendment could not be clearer. Individuals have the right to petition their government through peaceful assembly.

The complaints come as state lawmakers have worked to increase public benefits to immigrants who live in California illegally, including the right to driver's licenses, college financial aid and healthcare coverage for those 18 and younger.

Notice the language change in this passage: "Immigrants who live in California illegally". So, does the columnist suggest that migrants can live in Arizona or Oregon legally, but not California? That language trick makes no sense at all. They are illegal aliens, period, regardless of which state they reside in, if they have not followed the proper -- legal -- naturalization process.

"We have four complaints against Sen. Ricardo Lara," said Fahizah Alim, a deputy director of the agency. "They are open and under investigation."

 

One has to wonder how far this investigation will go. Does anyone really believe that any government agency in the state of California is going to expose let alone hold a Democratic state senator accountable for anything? It would be better for the We the People Rising group to determine whether Lara actually lives in his state senate district in the first place. Or maybe find out if he has been running illegal firearms to gangs and terrorist groups. That kind of crime seems to get people run out of office much faster.

The activists accuse Lara of violating California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, according to Alim. The Act prohibits certain kinds of discrimination.

 

The accusations were made by Raul Rodriguez Jr., Robin Hvidston and other members of a Claremont-based group called We The People Rising. Rodriguez said complaints had also been filed against the California Highway Patrol, which provides security for lawmakers and whose officers kept activists out of the South Gate meeting.

 

This passage exposes one of the lies of the Amnesty Advocate movement. Many of them claim that anti illegal-immigration groups are racist enterprises, comprised mostly of old, white residents looking for any excuse to discriminate against Hispanic individuals or people of diverse ethnic status. First, one Hispanic - Raul Rodriguez, was himself discriminated against, in large part because Senator Lara would not permit him to protest Senator Lara and his hand-outs to illegal aliens.

Rodriguez's complaint, like the others', alleges that Lara took "adverse actions" against him and denied him "full or equal accommodations" on the basis of his political affiliation.

 

Wow! Political discrimination. When does this inanity end? I have experienced similar discrimination, when Congressman Henry Waxman (D-retired) shut me down in an open forum in Redondo Beach. Democrats do not like permitting people with different or opposing views sharing their upset or outrage with unaccountable, unelected leaders.

 

"He violated our rights, and I want to hold him accountable," Rodriguez, an Apple Valley resident, said in an interview.

Members of the group said they responded to an RSVP request for the March 27 event in advance. When 12 members showed up for the 6 p.m. gathering, California Highway Patrol officers told them they could not attend because Lara and his staff feared they would be disruptive, according to a video of the encounter.

 

They were afraid. The state senator feared that these twelve individuals would cause a disturbance. In effect, anyone who disagreed with anything agreed upon in the state legislature is automatically viewed as a threat. Lara overplayed his hand, to put it plainly.

Officers ordered the activists to move away from the building or face being handcuffed, the video, made by a group member, shows.

 

Rodriguez said the group had attended other events and had not been disruptive.

 

Exactly. Protest is always deemed as "disruptive" when the protestors call to people's attention the poor decisions and immoral actions of our representatives.

A hundred other people were allowed into the event, according to a report by Lara's office. When a Highway Patrol commanding officer showed up an hour and 45 minutes after the event started, members of the group were allowed inside for the final 15 minutes, Hvidston said.

 

"We were discriminated against," she said. "We were only let into the event at the end under police escort and under the threat of being removed."

 

No one should ever feel threatened when speaking to their elected officials. Such behavior is inexcusable. So, this is what California has become: a haven for illegal aliens, but a labyrinthine hell for legal residents.

Rodriguez said some people in the audience who were sympathetic to immigrant benefits were allowed to make comments, but his group was not. "We could not exercise our 1st Amendment rights," he said.

 

WHAT?!

Lara said in a statement Wednesday that he was familiar with We The People Rising, whose members have "met on several occasions with my staff ... and have had the opportunity to express their views.

"They have also attended Senate events and at times disrupted official Senate business," the senator said. "Without having reviewed this alleged complaint, I cannot comment on this matter further."

 

A state Justice Department fact sheet on the Unruh Civil Rights Act says it covers discrimination by businesses and other entities on grounds including race, gender, sexual orientation and disabilities but adds: "The Unruh Act also prohibits discrimination based on personal characteristics, geographical origin, physical attributes and individual beliefs."

 

Wow! Finally, conservatives are fighting back against government discrimination, and demanding that their leaders respect the opinions of conservatives, patriots, and freedom loving advocates of secure borders and legal immigration.

 

Members of We The People Rising have been in the news before. Some attended heated protests in Murrieta last year against the transfer of Central American immigrant detainees from Texas to the city's Border Patrol station.

Their stance against the busing illegal aliens into California caught national attention, and inspired pride and respect from conservatives across the country. Breitbart reported on the incident (hyperlinked in the quote above). The main picture showcases that opposition to illegal immigration includes young minority residents, too.

Final Reflection

This disrespect is untenable. I am surprised that The Los Angeles Times even reported on this matter, yet even within the text, the editorializing stands out, and offensively at that.

The First Amendment is now applicable to. . .illegal aliens, but not legal residents? Apparently, State Senator Lara thinks so.

Senator Lara and the Democratic caucuses in the California state legislature have effectively silenced the will of the California voter, and supported causes contrary to the best interests of the state. The last thing that any government should do, particularly debt-ridden, overspending, under-funded and badly-resourced California, is expand public benefits to illegal aliens. The whole process has become marred with corruption, waste, and bad faith.

Immigration must be safe and legal, with emphasis on the second part in order to enhance the first part. Safety counts not just for the migrants, but for the legal residents, both born and naturalized.

Now, with the allegations that State Senator Lara has shut out "We the People Rising", let us hope that more people will rise and remind our legislators, and all residents, that we are indeed a nation of immigrants, legal immigrants, citizens, and should not see our welfare and posterity seized and redistributed by legislative fiat.

So, what has it all come to? Government for the illegal alien instead of "We the People"?