Category Archives: Central Coast

Sanctuary Cities for Criminals | Feb 25, 2017

Santa Cruz police chief, feds in immigration probe spat | Apologizes for cooperating with federal govt

– Yahoo News

“SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A California police chief and a mayor accused federal agents Thursday of duping local officers assisting in the takedown of suspected members of a notorious El Salvador-based gang into helping make immigration arrests.

Santa Cruz is a so-called sanctuary city, which prohibits its police from cooperating with federal authorities investigating immigration violations.

Santa Cruz Police Chief Kevin Vogel and assistant chief Dan Flippo said Thursday that Department of Homeland Security officials lied when they assured them a Feb. 13 joint operation in the region would not include immigration-related arrests during the gang raids. Flippo said he learned a “number” of immigration arrests were made the next night when dozens of protesters disrupted a Santa Cruz City Council meeting to voice their displeasure.

But James Schwab, a spokesman for the San Francisco field office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said in a statement that agents did only what they agreed to before the raid, and that any suggestion otherwise are “completely false, reckless, and disturbing.”

Santa Cruz police and immigration agents arrested 10 people allegedly associated with the MS-13 gang, also known as Mara Salvatrucha. Seven were charged with extortion and three with drug dealing.  Some of those arrested have been connected to four Santa Cruz homicides, the chief said. The chief said the department no longer trusts DHS and will no longer work with the agency. ICE is a subsidiary of DHS.

“We can’t cooperate with a law enforcement agency we cannot trust,” Vogel said.

Flippo said the gang-related arrests were the culmination of a five-year investigation launched when a Santa Cruz resident called police to complain about gang members extorting local businesses. Flippo said his department enlisted the help of DHS because of the gang’s notoriety and global reach. He said the raids were made Feb. 13 because it appeared gang members were planning a murder.

Flippo said at press conference Thursday that an additional 10 or more people agents encountered at the dozen residences raided Feb. 13 were arrested on immigration charges. Flippo says it appears most of them were later released after being ordered to wear GPS monitoring devices and given future court dates in immigration court.

Schwab, the federal spokesman, acknowledged that 11 people were detained on immigration charges, but that police had agreed before the raid that some foreign nationals might be briefly held until their identities and case histories could be determined. Schwab said that’s exactly what happened, and 10 of the 11 immigrants were released. One of them remains in custody because of his criminal history and possible ties to the gang investigation.

Santa Cruz Mayor Cynthia Chase said she is “deeply disturbed and upset. I’m outraged.” The police chief and mayor each apologized to city residents for unwittingly violating Santa Cruz’s sanctuary city policy.

President Donald Trump threatened in January to withhold federal funding from some 400 cities nationwide that have adopted similar policies.

But federal officials also denied that the new administration had anything to do with their plans or actions.”

….Continue reading @ Yahoo

More @ CaliforniaJimmy.com

 

Univision’s Jorge Ramos Tells Latinos America Is “Our Country, Not Theirs”

– theGatewayPundit

“They say after a drinks, the truth always comes out. Not with Univision’s Jorge Ramos, as all he needs is a latino audience and a camera. The television anchor let it be known who he thinks the United States really “belongs to” at the Univision Music Awards.

From NewsBusters:

Further ramping up his open opposition to President Trump’s immigration law enforcement policies, Univision anchor Jorge Ramos has let loose with an outrageous tirade that could best be described as equal parts nationalistic identity politics, racially-driven demagoguery, and yet another instance of the irresponsible conflation of legal and illegal immigration.

Here’s how the Univision/Fusion anchor kicked off his participation in the 2017 edition of the network’s annual entertainment awards show, Premios Lo Nuestro (“Our Awards”):

JORGE RAMOS, SENIOR NEWS ANCHOR, UNIVISION: I am an immigrant, just like many of you. I am a proud Latino immigrant here in the United States. My name is Jorge Ramos, and I work at Univision and at the Fusion network. And you know exactly what is going on here in the United States. There are many people who do not want us to be here, and who want to create a wall in order to separate us. But you know what? This is also our country. Let me repeat this: OUR country, not theirs. It is our country. And we are not going to leave. We are nearly 60 million Latinos in the United States. And thanks to US, the United States eats, grows and, as we’ve seen today, sings and dances. So when they attack us, we already know what we are going to do. We are not going to sit down. We will not shut up. And we will not leave. That is what we are going to do.

This certainly isn’t the first time Ramos has gotten fired up about immigration or anything Trump related, for that matter. The anchor was swiftly removed from a Trump presser over the summer.”

…..Continue reading @ theGatewayPundit

– Interesting to note, Ramos entered the United States on a ‘student’ visa to study journalism at UCLA Extension in Los Angeles. He had already been employed as a journalist in Mexico. He proceeded to start working immediately at KMEX in LA. He never attended classes as a student. Both actions made his visa fraudulent. Ramos is in fact an illegal alien working in the United States. /CJ

 

 

Family Argues Mexican National Killed by Border Patrol Had Constitutional Rights

– Breitbart

“A Mexican family whose son was killed by a U.S. Border Patrol agent told the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday that the agent violated their son’s constitutional rights by using unnecessary deadly force. A preliminary issue is whether the Constitution applies to someone who is not a citizen of the U.S. and was standing on Mexican soil at the time of the shooting.

The incident occurred in 2010 on the Mexico-Texas border at El Paso, Texas, and Juarez, Mexico. Fifteen-year-old Sergio Hernandez Guereca was shot on the Mexican side when the agent was on U.S. soil. The family argues that the area was “controlled” by the United States. The federal government, through the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), maintains that the agent is entitled to qualified immunity.

In their petition filed in the U.S. Supreme Court, the family of the teen states “This Court should make clear that our border is not an on/off switch for the Constitution’s most fundamental protections.”

The oral argument came right after the Trump Administration issued directives calling for the immediate construction of a border wall, as reported by Breitbart Texas. President Trump signed an executive order on January 25th to build the promised border wall.

The federal case of Hernandez v. Mesa has made its way up the federal court system since the case was filed in 2011. The incident occurred in 2010.

Advocates for the family claim that Hernandez Guereca and others were playing a game in which they would illegally cross onto U.S. soil, run up to the barbed wire border fence and then run back, as reported by Breitbart Texas. U.S. Border Patrol agent Jesus Mesa was patrolling on his bicycle. Mesa said he acted in self-defense and the U.S. Justice Department determined in 2012 after an investigation that the shooting “occurred while smugglers attempting an illegal border crossing hurled rocks from close range at a CBP [U.S. Customs and Border Patrol] agent who was attempting to detain a suspect.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that Agent Mesa was entitled to qualified immunity “because he did not violate any clearly established rights flowing from [the Constitution.]” Hernandez, as a Mexican citizen, “had no ‘significant voluntary connection’ to the United States,” and cannot assert an excessive force claim they held. The court of appeals dismissed the case and a well-respected justice nominated by President Ronald Reagan Justice Edith H. Jones wrote, “We should discourage this litigation before it takes root.”

….Continue reading @ Breitbart

 

 

History | Victor Hanson Davis | California’s Eerie Simularities to Antebellum South | Feb 10, 2017

California Goes Confederate

– Townhall.com | Victor Hanson Davis

“Over sixty percent of California voters went for Hillary Clinton — a margin of more than 4 million votes over Donald Trump.

Since Clinton’s defeat, the state seems to have become unhinged over Trump’s unexpected election.

“Calexit” supporters brag that they will have enough signatures to qualify for a ballot measure calling for California’s secession from the United States.

Some California officials have talked of the state not remitting its legally obligated tax dollars to the federal government. They talk of expanding its sanctuary cities into an entire sanctuary state that would nullify federal immigration law.

Californians also now talk about the value of the old Confederate idea of “states’ rights.” They whine that their state gives far too much revenue to Washington and gets too little back.

Residents boast about how their cool culture has little in common with the rest of the U.S. Some Californians claim the state could easily go it alone, divorced from the United States.

Sound a bit familiar?

In December 1860, South Carolina seceded from the Union in furor over the election of Abraham Lincoln.

Lincoln did not receive 50 percent of the popular vote. He espoused values the state insisted did not reflect its own.

In eerie irony, liberal California is now mirror-imaging the arguments of reactionary South Carolina and other Southern states that vowed to go it alone in 1860 and 1861.

Like California, South Carolina insisted it could nullify federal laws within its state borders.

Like California, South Carolina promised to withhold federal revenues.

Like California, South Carolina and other Confederate states bragged that their unique economies did not need the Union.

They boasted that “King Cotton” had created the wealthiest class in the United States. Silicon Valley now often assumes that Google, Facebook, Apple and others are near-trillion-dollar companies that are a world unto their own.

Slavery and the extravagant income from cotton warped the Southern economy and culture. A wealthy plantation elite, with its millions of exploited slaves, ensured that there would be virtually no middle, working or small-business class.

Huge estates were surrounded by the impoverished shacks of servants. Hardscrabble farmers or small businessmen often fled westward to escape the shackles of wealth disparity.

The export-dependent Southern elite demanded unfettered free trade. It offered bitter resistance to Northern protectionism.

South Carolina elites were opposed to federal infrastructure projects such as the building of roads, canals, bridges and reservoirs, and other such unwelcome “progress.”

Confederates boasted that their antebellum culture was more romantic, natural, pristine, healthy and moral than was the bustle, grime and hyper-capitalism of Northern industrialism.

Southern aristocrats believed that they were culturally superior — in terms of music, art and literature — to other Americans.

Of course, this is 2017, not 1860, and California is super-liberal, not an antebellum slave-owning society.

Nonetheless, what is driving California’s current efforts to nullify federal law and the state’s vows to secede from the U.S. are some deeper — and creepy — similarities to the arrogant and blinkered Old South.

California is likewise becoming a winner-take-all society. It hosts the largest numbers of impoverished and the greatest number of rich people of any state in the country. Eager for cheap service labor, California has welcomed in nearly a quarter of the nation’s undocumented immigrants. California has more residents living in poverty than any other state. It is home to one third of all the nation’s welfare recipients.

The income of California’s wealthy seems to make them immune from the effects of the highest basket of sales, income and gas taxes in the nation. The poor look to subsidies and social services to get by. Over the last 30 years, California’s middle classes have increasingly fled the state.

“Gone With the Wind”-like wealth disparity in California is shocking to the naked eye. Mostly poor Redwood City looks like it’s on a different planet from tony nearby Atherton or Woodside.”

….Continue reading more @ Townhall.com

 

California’s Undocumented Kids—Why They Could be First to Lose Medical Care Under Trump

– KQED

 

 

“On a recent rainy morning in Los Angeles, Maria Bernal’s stove clicks to life with a bright blue flame to toast bread on a griddle for her 9-year-old son Edwin to smear with peanut butter. As she scoops papaya chunks into the blender for a smoothie, she recalls her worry during all the years when she couldn’t afford health care and he suffered painful ear infections.

The waiting six months to get an appointment for Edwin at a county facility. The nights trying to calm him as he cried in constant pain. The months-long wait for each of three surgeries to insert tubes into his ears. The fear when the medical bills arrived.

At the time, she couldn’t afford health care, and he wasn’t eligible for regular government-funded Medi-Cal coverage because she had brought Edwin to the United States illegally from Mexico when he was 1. He qualified for a local program and emergency Medi-Cal, but that didn’t provide all the care he needed. Then last year, she heard on TV that California was creating a new program under Medi-Cal to fully cover poor undocumented children. Relieved, she rushed to sign Edwin up. As a result, she says, “I can take him in whenever he needs to go.”

Now, however, the ability of Edwin and some 164,000 poor undocumented California children to see a doctor for regular medical care hangs in the balance—with several experts predicting they could be among the first to lose health coverage if the Trump administration carries out its promise to end much of Obamacare, leaving California to try to make up the difference.

To be clear, the federal government does pay limited medical costs for kids in the country illegally under the restricted-scope Medi-Cal program, which is available to anyone regardless of immigration status for emergency and prenatal services only. Last May, however, California became one of a handful of states to provide state-funded full-scope Medi-Cal, California’s Medicaid program. About 71 percent of the program is funded by the state, according to the state Department of Health Care Services, with 29 percent paid for out of federal funds for emergency coverage. Also of note: Because the federal government funds emergency services, the state shares enrollee information with federal health officials.

In his most recent budget proposal, Gov. Jerry Brown allocated $279.5 million to cover approximately 185,000 kids in the coming year in what the state has dubbed its Health for All Kids program—double what the program was estimated to cost when it was approved.

With the election of Donald Trump, who took office last week, some health policy experts and advocates say the fledgling program is in danger. Assuming the new administration carries out plans to change how Medicaid is funded, California could stand to lose $17 billion the federal government currently provides for the Medi-Cal expansion that California adopted under the Affordable Care Act.Such a cut would leave state leaders unable to fully make up the funding difference—and could force them to revisit a decades-old debate over whether the state has an obligation to care for sick children regardless of their immigration status, or should focus limited resources on citizens and legal residents.”

….Continue reading more @ KQED

 

 

Gov Moonbeam states his case for New State Nullification and His Alternate Universe | Jan 24 2017

Gov. Brown’s State of the State: ‘California Is Not Turning Back. Not Now, Not Ever’

– KTLA

“California Gov. Jerry Brown on Tuesday decidedly pitted the state against the Trump administration, in a call to prepare for “the battle ahead,” during the annual State of the State address.

Instead of focusing on California, Brown pointed to the East, warning Washington that the most populous state in the union views the future as “uncertain” after the election, and that “dangers abound.”

Brown said while federal law may overrule state law on immigration, California would use its enacted protective measures for undocumented immigrants. A variety of state measures offers the undocumented access to higher education and limit the state’s cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

“We may be called upon to defend those laws and defend them we will,” said Brown. “We will defend everybody — every man, woman and child — who has come here for a better life and has contributed to the well-being of our state.”

Brown’s promise comes as President Donald Trump has pledged to cut federal funding for so-called sanctuary cities, which could be millions for California’s major cities.”

….Continue reading @ KTLA

We note the striking and eerie similarity of Gov Brown’s claim that, “California is not turning back, not now, not ever….” to Gov George Wallace’s boast of “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.”

    Brown has thrown down the guantlet of nullifcation, of state’s rights in support of illegal immigration, just as Wallace did for segregation 60 years ago. It didn’t work then, and it surely will not work now.

    Moreover, he tries to make the case that the state will welcome all who wish to come to the state, yet can only do so with the federal govt paying for almost all the costs. That is an alternate universe. /CJ

 

 

California schools may face cuts amid skyrocketing pension costs

– SF Chronicle

“Public schools around California are bracing for a crisis driven by skyrocketing worker pension costs that are expected to force districts to divert billions of dollars from classrooms into retirement accounts, education officials said.

The depth of the funding gap became clear to district leaders when they returned from the holiday break: What they contribute to the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, known as CalPERS, will likely double within six years, according to state estimates.

CalPERS, a public pension fund with $300 billion in assets that is the country’s largest, manages retirement benefits for 1.8 million current and former city, state and school district employees, though it does not cover teachers, who fall under a different pension system.

School district officials say that unless the situation changes, they will have to make cuts elsewhere, possibly leading to larger class sizes, stagnant worker pay, fewer counselors and librarians, and less art and music in schools. Insolvency and state takeover are not out of the question for some districts.
The depth of the funding gap became clear to district leaders when they returned from the holiday break: What they contribute to the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, known as CalPERS, will likely double within six years, according to state estimates.

“This was a very difficult decision to make, but it is an important step to ensure the long-term sustainability of the fund,” said Rob Feckner, president of the CalPERS board. He said the board was committed to a “phased approach” that would allow agencies to deal with wounded budgets.

Currently, districts pay the equivalent of 13.88 percent of payroll for CalPERS employees into the pension fund — already the highest-ever rate. For Oakland, that’s about $14 million this year. But the payroll rate will jump to 28.2 percent over the next six years.

“There is still a lot of speculation at this point, but this would likely create a significant increase in expenditures for school districts,” said Raul Parungao, associate superintendent for the Fremont Unified School District. “The resulting impact to budgets will require very careful planning in the immediate future.”

Yet the state’s education budget has increased significantly over the last several years, with a projected $2 billion increase next year to $73.5 billion — a big jump from the $47.3 billion allocated to schools at the height of the recession in 2011, said H.D. Palmer, deputy director of the California Department of Finance.

School districts, as employers, are responsible for workers’ retirement plans, he said.

“This is an effort to make a more solvent and sustainable retirement system for public employees over the long haul,” Palmer said. “These increases are not going to be immediate, they’re going to be phased in.”

“Why is it the school districts are having to pay for the inability of CalPERS to make money?” asked Enrique Palacios, the deputy superintendent and chief business officer. “You tell me what business in the state of California contributes that level of funding for retirement benefits. No one.”

Pittsburg expects to pay about $2.2 million of its $100 million budget this year into CalPERS. Doubling the cost will hit hard, Palacios said, requiring districts to pull money from academic programs and limit staff raises.

“Who gets the black eye in the public opinion? The local agency. Not the state,” Palacios said. While the state has increased education funding over the last few years, he said, “The financial impact to districts will compromise all the education reforms that Jerry Brown has been trying to do. The state needs to step into this.”

…Continue reading @ SF Chronicle

Happy New Year 2017 | Jan 01 2017

CALIFORNIA WAY – TIM BLUHM

– Youtube

More on Tim Bluhm here @ TimBluhm.com

Historic Jobs and Company Exodus from California Since 2008 | Aug 2016

9,000 Companies Have Left California Since 2008

– Breitbart

jb2

“At least 9,000 companies have left California from 2008 to 2015, according to the 378 page study by Spectrum Location Solutions titled, California’s Forty Year Legacy of Hostility to Business.

Joseph Vranich, president of site selection consultants Spectrum Location Solutions (VLS) in Irvine, found that roughly 9,000 California companies moved their headquarters or diverted projects to out-of-state locations in the last seven years due to the Golden State’s “hostile” business environment. 

Vranich reports that the bitter negative perceptions of California for business began during Jerry Brown’s first chaotic two terms as California Governor from 1975 to 1983. Things got so bad that the Governor instructed his aides in 1977 to begin wearing “California Means Business” buttons.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Brown tried to convince reporters on a late 1970s junket to Japan that “Our economic climate is very good.” He added, “I think this is dissipating a good deal of the political rhetoric surrounding the business-climate talk.”

VLS points out that despite the growing anti-business environment, California’s economy grew for the next three decades due to wonderful scenery and climate, a workforce with technical expertise, and trade access to Asian nations.

But since the start of the Great Recession and accelerating after Brown’s election as governor in 2009, a mass exodus of businesses from the not-so-Golden State to more “friendly” locations like Texas and Nevada occurred.

Vranich told the Dallas Business Journal that companies that are leaving California to escape escalating costs and regulations can move to Texas or Nevada that have no income tax and high relative purchasing power. According to Vranich, “I even wonder if some kind of ‘business migration history’ has been made.”

VLS estimates that many former California companies that moved to more business friendly locals have experienced “astonishing” operating cost savings of 20 up to 35 percent.

The top 10 states that California businesses have relocated to over the last seven years are in the following order: (1) Texas; (2) Nevada; (3) Arizona; (4) Colorado; (5) Washington; (6) Oregon; (7) North Carolina; (8) Florida; (9) Georgia; and (10) Virginia.

Los Angeles was at the top of the list of the 10 California counties that suffered the highest number of disinvestment events. L.A. was followed by: (2) Orange, (3) Santa Clara, (4) San Francisco, (5) San Diego, (6) Alameda, (7) San Mateo, (8) Ventura, (9) Sacramento, and (10) Riverside counties.

The Tax Foundation using data from The Bureau of Economic Analysis estimated the difference in purchasing power for $100 in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Only Washington D.C., New York, and New Jersey got less purchasing power than California’s $88.97. That compares to $103.73 for neighboring Arizona and a national high of $115.34 in Alabama.

VLS has found that on a national basis, Democrat-leaning northeast and west coast areas get less purchasing power for their dollars, compared to the Republican-leaning southeast and mid-west.

The Tax Foundation established a direct inverse correlation between purchasing power and the percentage level of state tax rate. California, with a 13.3 percent top state tax bracket, leads the nation.”

…Continue reading @ Breitbart

The Trump Critique of a Politicized Federal Judiciary | June 2016

Donald Trump Is Correct To Hit ‘La Raza Lawyers of California’ Federal Judge For Latino Identity Politics

– Breitbart

GettyImages-501657394-640x480

So why blast Trump for his Jeffersonian view of the judiciary?

“Trump’s suggestion that a Hispanic judge may treat him unfairly because of Trump’s border security proposals, such as the wall, challenges the claim that liberal judges engaged in identity politics are never biased against non-liberals. And while Democrats were enraged by Trump’s challenge, Trump struck fear into the hearts of establishment Republicans not accustomed to challenging the politically correct code to which they have previously surrendered.

Hillary Clinton immediately launched a political advertisement. The ad claimed that Trump’s questioning of Judge Curiel’s impartiality was “the definition of racism.” It also incorporated the growing list of Republicans condemning Trump’s Curiel criticism.

But what exactly had Trump done wrong? How was it unreasonable to suggest that a judge belonging to a group pledging to advance Latino interests might be biased against the man who wants to build the wall that hinders the interests of Latino politicians?

Had we not just witnessed Latinos in San Jose throw eggs and sucker punches at Trump supporters, and wave the Mexican flag? Had not McConnell himself, by hoping Trump would change his standard rhetoric, conceded that liberal Latinos – of which Curiel belongs – viewed Trump’s proposals with animus?

If one listened to Hillary and her cabal of Republicans, Trump is a modern day version of Orval Faubus – the Arkansas governor who resisted court ordered integration of schools. But that conclusion is based on left-wing fan fiction that holds any time a white male questions a protected minority the motivation must be rooted in discriminatory animus.

Judge Curiel’s integrity is not being questioned by Trump just because of his Hispanic heritage. Trump is merely asserting that a person’s heritage does not foreclose a proper inquiry into their political activism and potential biases; he is suggesting that Curiel – a man who supports awarding an illegal alien a scholarship – might not view favorably a man who wants to deport the said scholarship recipient.

Recusal is a common theme when pro-choice advocates run up against pro-life judges. Recently, some scholars wanted Justice Antonin Scalia to recuse himself from McCullen v. Coakley; a case concerning abortion clinic buffer zones. But such requests are rarely viewed in a negative light.

The fact is seeking recusal – even if just discussing it – is a great way to preserve the integrity of the bench. Federal judges are appointed for life, unelected, and reviewed by other unelected judges. It is why Thomas Jefferson warned the federal bench could easily become a “despotism of an oligarchy.”

So why blast Trump for his Jeffersonian view of the judiciary? Democrats know Hillary is in trouble. They know the economic outlook is bleak and for almost 8 years the party has had no answers. It is why Hillary is making much ado about nothing and, frankly, the voters don’t care about the judicial politics of one class action lawsuit.

But this debate is not just about Trump or Trump University; it is about a politically correct double standard that permits liberals to use the faith of pro-life judges to boot them from a case, but calls questioning the ethnicity based activism of a liberal judge racism. And this is a concept the voters understand.

Liberals made Trump’s comments about race because they know a reasonable personmight conclude Curiel’s activism creates the appearance of impropriety. The sad thing is Republicans, much like a battered spouse, are so accustomed to the politically correct abuse they accept it as the new normal.

By validating Hillary’s race card, Republican leaders have exhibited one of the worst examples of Stockholm syndrome. And when the dust settles, Newt will see that he and his fellow Republicans are the ones who made the “inexcusable” mistake.”

…Read more @ Breitbart

 

What Would Thomas Jefferson Say?

 

thos jefferson

Jefferson was plainly alarmed by the possibility of judicial tyranny. 

You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges … and their power [are] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and are not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves … . When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough. I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves. …. — Letter to Mr. Jarvis, Sept, 1820

Jefferson plainly had an answer against judicial tyranny. 

This case of Marbury and Madison is continually cited by bench and bar, as if it were settled law, without any animadversions on its being merely an obiter dissertation of the Chief Justice … . But the Chief Justice says, “there must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.” True, there must; but … . The ultimate arbiter is the people …. — Letter to Judge William Johnson, June 1823

He saw where judicial tyranny was leading. 

When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated …. —Letter to C. Hammond, July 1821

…Continue more @ the Tenth Amendment Center

 

 

Meet The Pro-Illegal Immigrant Groups The La Raza Lawyers Of San Diego Consider Part Of Their ‘Community’

– DailyCaller

“The San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association (SDLRLA), the group which Trump University lawsuit Judge Gonzalo Curiel is a member of, considers various pro-illegal immigrant organizations as part of its “community.”

The SDLRLA’s website includes a side-panel on their site titled “Community” which includes links to a variety of groups, including the National Council of La Raza.

“Please note, the San Diego Lawyers Association is not affiliated with the National La Raza Council,” the president of the SDLRLA, Luis O. Osuna, told The Daily Caller in a statement. However, this link is not the only connection between the SDLRLA and the National Council of La Raza. The San Diego previously publicized a La Raza announcement in 2012 about gay marriage.

The SDLRLA is also an affiliate of the Hispanic National Bar Association. The former president of this group, Rafael Santiago, was on the board of the National Council of La Raza. ”

…Continue reading @ DailyCaller

 

Activist Trump University / La Raza Judge Now Attempts To Re-Seal Court Documents…

– theConservativeTreehouse

“Candidate Donald Trump previously accused Judge Gonzalo Curiel of having a bias, a specific political and agenda bias, to the benefit of the plaintiffs in the case; and it appears he is correct.

Yesterday it was discovered that Judge Curiel, an activist for illegal immigration, works on behalf of San Diego La Raza immigration activists to select illegal aliens for scholarships.

judge gonzalo curiel 2

Today his inherent rush to judgement surfaces once again, as Judge Curiel now tries to reverse course on a decision to unseal court records.

His original order unsealed court documents which were unredacted and exposed the personal information of people within the civil lawsuit.  Today, claiming it was a “mistake“, Judge Curiel tries to put the toothpaste back in the tube:

…More @ theConservativeTreehouse

– It should be noted the idea for Judge Curiel’s appointment to the Federal Court was Barbara Boxer’s idea./CJ