Category Archives: Corruption

UC President Napolitano Hid $175 Million Office Slush Fund While Raising Tuition| Apr 28, 2017

Napolitano Deserves Boot Over Latest UC Scandal

|| Spectator.org

“The University of California warned Californians early this year that if tuition weren’t significantly raised or public funding increased, education at the 10-campus system — with its staff of 200,000 and $28.5-billion-plus budget — would suffer. “We’re at the point where if we don’t do this, if we don’t invest, the quality of education is going to suffer,” a UC spokesperson told the media. The Board of Regents promptly approved tuition hikes.

I’m the parent of a UC student, but the main reason the deal upset me was that it spotlighted the system’s waste-filled bureaucracy. There’s insufficient oversight of UC’s spending. Instead of cutting back on programs battling micro-aggressions” and other PC nonsense or trimming obscene levels of pay and benefits for UC employees, officials spend like crazy and then take it out of the hide of students and taxpayers who fund about a quarter of its budget.

As it turns out, conservative critics of the university and its President Janet Napolitano, the scandal-plagued former head of the Department of Homeland Security under President Barack Obama, were just scratching the surface. A report released Monday by the California State Auditor detailed plenty of waste, but also alleges that the Office of the President did not disclose $175 million in reserves.

This scandal should lead to the firing of Napolitano and others at UC who took part in this alleged budget-hiding game. Basically, the state audit argues that UC officials were sitting on a budget that was not disclosed to regents, legislators, or the public. That’s at the same time they were crying poormouth, and hitting up students for an additional $88 million annually to assure that the university could continue to provide the same level of “quality” education.”

….Continue reading more @ Spectator.org

 

UC President Janet Napolitano hid $175 million while raising tuition, paying excessive salaries to personal staff

|| HotAir

“A state audit released Tuesday concludes that the University of California Office of the President, led by former Obama administration DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, hid away $175 million while paying excessive salaries to staff and raising tuition on students. Auditor Elaine Howle also says someone from Napolitano’s office interfered with questionnaires sent to various UC campuses as part of the audit. From the San Francisco Chronicle:

The UC Office of the President amassed millions in the secret reserve funds in part by overestimating how much it needed to run the 10-campus university system — and then spending less than budgeted, the audit said. From 2012 to 2016, the office sought increased funding based on the inflated estimates, not actual spending, according to Howle…

About $32 million of the $175 million that Howle’s audit found in the secret reserve came from campus assessment fees — money that the auditor said could have been spent on students and should be returned to the campuses.

Even as it accumulated the campus fees, Napolitano persuaded the Board of Regents to increase those fees in two of the four years audited, Howle said.

There are nearly 1,700 people working in the Office of the President. The audit notes that number is significantly higher than other similar offices. This chart makes the comparison. Note that the California State system has more than twice as many campuses and nearly twice as many students but manages to get by with 1/3 the amount of staff of the UC system:

In addition to having an outsized staff, the Office of the President was also paying significantly higher salaries than comparable state workers were earning, plus offering a special retirement plan, and other questionable expenses. From the LA Times:

The audit said: “10 executives in the Office of the President whose compensation we analyzed were paid a total of $3.7 million in fiscal year 2014-15 — over $700,000 more than the combined salaries of their highest paid state employee counterparts.”

On benefits, the Office of the President provided a regular retirement plan but also offered its executives a retirement savings account into which the office contributes up to 5% of the executives’ salaries—about $2.5 million over the past five years, the audit found.

“The Office of the President also spent more than $2 million for its staff’s business meetings and entertainment expenses over the past five years—a benefit that the State does not offer to its employees except in limited circumstances,” the audit said.

.. ..

For the record, Napolitano has denied the claims made in the audit. She says the reserve fund was only $38 million which was set aside as a reserve in case of emergency. But needless to say, all of this stinks to high heaven. Howle, the auditor, told the SF Chronicle, “I’ve never had a situation like that in my 17 years as state auditor.” Lawmakers plan to hold a hearing on the results of the audit next week.”

….Continue reading more @ HotAir

| Note: For the record Janet Napolitano had no administrative experience running an academic institution the size, reputation and importance like the University of California. She needs to resign. /CJ

 

| U.S. Constitution: Bill Clinton lost the Line Item Veto in 1998

That pesky Presentment Clause of the Constitution

|| Heritage.Org

“The Presentment Clause is commonly viewed as a provision that protects the President’s veto power, an association reinforced by the clause’s name. Yet, the Presentment Clause has a broader function: The clause prescribes the exclusive method for passing federal statutes, indicating that all bills must pass both Houses of Congress and be subject to the President’s veto. Thus, with some justification, one might call the provision the Lawmaking Clause.

Recently, the Supreme Court has reviewed a different departure from the traditional lawmaking process—the conferral of cancellation authority on the executive—and held it to be unconstitutional as a violation of the Presentment Clause. Clinton v. City of New York (1998). In 1995, Congress enacted the Line Item Veto Act, which despite its name, did not provide the President with veto authority, but instead authorized him to cancel certain spending provisions. This cancellation authority was similar to an ordinary delegation of administrative authority in that it conferred discretion on the executive, subject to a statutory standard, to take certain actions. Cancellation authority, however, differs from an ordinary delegation since it is generally narrower. Whereas an ordinary delegation allows the executive to promulgate a rule of his choosing, cancellation authority permits him only to accept or reject a statutory rule. For example, in the appropriation law area, ordinary delegations under traditional appropriation laws permit the President to spend any sum between the amount appropriated and zero, whereas cancellation authority only permits him the choice to spend the appropriated amount or to cancel the appropriation and spend nothing.

Reviewing the cancellation authority provided by the Line Item Veto Act, the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional. In the Court’s view, cancellation authority was similar to the power to repeal a law, because the authority could eliminate an appropriation. The exercise of cancellation authority therefore needed to conform to the Presentment Clause. Of course, if cancellation authority is similar to repealing an appropriation, then the executive’s authority under a traditional appropriation to decide how much to spend is similar to enacting an appropriation, because the executive can “legislate” the amount that should be spent. Under the Court’s reasoning, then, ordinary delegations may also logically violate the Presentment Clause, but the Court continues regularly to permit such delegations. The Court has yet to resolve this double standard whereby cancellation authority is unconstitutional even though such authority is generally narrower than ordinary delegations.”

….Continue reading more @ The Heritage Foundation

 

Can the President Legally Not Spend Funds Appropriated by Congress?

|| Justia

Impoundment of Appropriated Funds

“In his Third Annual Message to Congress, President Jefferson established the first faint outline of what years later became a major controversy. Reporting that $50,000 in funds which Congress had appropriated for fifteen gunboats on the Mississippi remained unexpended, the President stated that a “favorable and peaceful turn of affairs on the Mississippi rendered an immediate execution of the law unnecessary… .” But he was not refusing to expend the money, only delaying action to obtain improved gunboats; a year later, he told Congress that the money was being spent and gun-boats were being obtained.628 A few other instances of deferrals or refusals to spend occurred in the Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries, but it was only with the Administration of President Franklin Roosevelt that a President refused to spend moneys for the purposes appropriated. Succeeding Presidents expanded upon these precedents, and in the Nixon Administration a well-formulated plan of impoundments was executed in order to reduce public spending and to negate programs established by congressional legislation.629

Impoundment630 was defended by Administration spokesmen as being a power derived from the President’s executive powers and particularly from his obligation to see to the faithful execution of the laws, i.e., his discretion in the manner of execution. The President, the argument went, is responsible for deciding when two conflicting goals of Congress can be harmonized and when one must give way, when, for example, congressional desire to spend certain moneys must yield to congressional wishes to see price and wage stability. In some respects, impoundment was said or implied to flow from certain inherent executive powers that repose in any President. Finally, statutory support was sought; certain laws were said to confer discretion to withhold spending, and it was argued that congressional spending programs are discretionary rather than mandatory.

There is no satisfactory definition of impoundment. Legislation enacted by Congress uses the phrase “deferral of budget authority” which is defined to include: “(A) withholding or delaying the obligation or expenditure of budget authority (whether by establishing reserves or otherwise) provided for projects or activities; or (B) any other type of Executive action or inaction which effectively precludes the obligation or expenditure of budget authority, including authority to obligate by contract in advance of appropriations as specifically authorized by law.” 2 U.S.C. § 682(1).”

.. ..

On the other hand, it was argued that Congress’ powers under Article I, § 8, were fully adequate to support its decision to authorize certain programs, to determine the amount of funds to be spent on them, and to mandate the Executive to execute the laws. Permitting the President to impound appropriated funds allowed him the power of item veto, which he does not have, and denied Congress the opportunity to override his veto of bills enacted by Congress. In particular, the power of Congress to compel the President to spend appropriated moneys was said to derive from Congress’ power “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” the enumerated powers of Congress and “all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or officer thereof.”

The President’s decision to impound large amounts of appropriated funds led to two approaches to curtail the power. First, many persons and organizations, with a reasonable expectation of receipt of the impounded funds upon their release, brought large numbers of suits; with a few exceptions, these suits resulted in decisions denying the President either constitutional or statutory power to decline to spend or obligate funds, and the Supreme Court, presented with only statutory arguments by the Administration, held that no discretion existed under the particular statute to withhold allotments of funds to the States.633 Second, Congress in the course of revising its own manner of appropriating funds in accordance with budgetary responsibility provided for mandatory reporting of impoundments to Congress, for congressional disapproval of impoundments, and for court actions by the Comptroller General to compel spending or obligation of funds.”

….Continue reading more @ Justia

Question: A question that seems to present itself is for example, if the executive decides in the event of a major flood for example to defer or reserve funding from discretionary funding of a program to another more tactical in nature or by deletion of the funding by line item of the now uneeded program.  How could the Court hamper the powers of the executive in such a way, and in such a permanent fashion as in the Impound Act of 1974?

This is fascinating subject as it includes the question of whether the president can or cannot withhold funds appropriated by Congress. There may be no simple answer to this conundrum, as each ‘solution’ to the problem creates new issues. /CJ

Impoundment of appropriated funds | Wiki 

 

California’s Role in the Rise of Donald Trump | Apr 26, 2017

DONNELLY: Marlow, Lucas Discuss the Rise of Trumpism in California

|| Breitbart

“What may come as a shock to some of the staunchest liberals in California — who wear their Trump “resistance” as a badge of honor — is that California was the birthplace of “Trumpism,” according to Politico writer Scott Lucas.

Lucas called into Breitbart News Daily Show, hosted by Alex Marlow, on Monday, and for about 14 minutes, one of the most conservative radio hosts and one of the most liberal political journalists had an extremely good conversation—one that was both insightful and respectful.

(Something lacking in the current political climate.)

Marlow and Lucas attended Berkeley together — where they battled on blogs and in the school paper — and still talk occasionally to this day.  Lucas recently penned a piece for Politico entitled, “How California Gave us Trumpism”—and Marlow asked him how it was received.

In response, Lucas quoted a conservative friend from high school, who was a contestant on The Apprentice and “knew Donald Trump a little: “Scott, I feel like this piece does a really, really good job of understanding sort of how I see the world, seeing things through my eyes.”

And that sort of sums up Trump’s appeal.

He saw the world through the eyes of the tired, the forgotten, the everyman — who’d been left behind.

In California, conservatives are the truest of true believers, whose isolation has made them all the more ardent about their beliefs. According to Lucas, it was that environment that gave birth to “Trumpism,” described by Lucas as the “marriage of ‘Constitutional Conservatism’ coming out of the Claremont Institute with a sort of ‘Entertainment Populism’ coming out of Breitbart.”

When asked who were some of the names who sparked what Lucas later in the interview calls “an important intellectual moment,” more than 80% of the names are likely familiar to Breitbart’s audience:

  1. Steve Bannon, former Breitbart CEO, now chief strategist to President Trump;
  2. Stephen Miller, an immigration hard-liner from Santa Monica, now White House policy adviser;
  3. Michael Anton, now a high-level National Security Council aide, raised in Northern California;
  4. Julia Hahn, Bannon’s fellow Breitbart alum, who is now an aide in the West Wing, and who grew up in Los Angeles, where she attended the prestigious Harvard-Westlake School;
  5. Alex Marlow, the editor-in-chief of Breitbart News and another Harvard-Westlake alum, the website that has become the primary media vehicle for Trump’s “populist nationalist” agenda.

One name that came up later would bring the entire discussion full circle — and that was none other than Andrew Breitbart himself, who Lucas noted embodied both schools of thought. Breitbart was on a Lincoln Fellowship at the Claremont Institute when he launched the website that would bear his name, and later help launch one of the most unlikely presidencies in modern times.

What is ‘California Trumpism’?

Lucas says, “’Trumpists’ are people who think California — and by extension the United States — are in decline…that there’s something wrong, something’s on the downslope, and they’re very willing to say that, point it out, try to figure out what to do about it.”

For Lucas, there are two seminal moments in the rise of “Trumpism.”  First, the publication of Michael Anton’s “The Flight 93 Election” — in which Anton, under an alias, lays out the perfect case for why a Trump-like figure can only arise as a Phoenix from the ashes of a corrupt, California-like Republic — and the tragic murder of Kate Steinle, the beautiful 32 year-old woman cut down in the prime of her life by an illegal alien set loose on the streets of San Francisco by liberals’ sanctuary policy.

Lucas was very open about the way he and other liberals were taken by complete surprise by Trump’s election — something that many conservatives in California understood intuitively was a foregone conclusion once Trump made it clear he would stand and fight like Reagan did, instead of cutting and running  like the Mitt Romney wing of the party.  But unlike most liberals, Lucas admitted that he believes it is important to understand how we got here, instead of simply demonizing Trump and his supporters.

“We’re all in this country together, we’re all in this state together — who are you people?” Lucas asks, rhetorically.  “What do you think?”

It seems a very important intellectual moment in bringing together these sort of two strands of Conservatism that have emerged in Southern California.

On the one hand, this idea from the Claremont Institute — that the United States was founded as sort of an expression of ancient political theory coming from Aristotle and people like that.  And that we’re in serious trouble with the rise of Progressive Liberal Government in the 20th Century.

And on the other hand, sort of Andrew Breitbart’s idea that culture is ahead of politics — that you had to create a media vehicle that sort of spoke to people where they are — and bring them along politically after that.

And it struck me that was very obviously the formula for Trump…

Lucas decried the violence and death of free speech in Berkeley (the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement’):  “It’s very disheartening to see people [on the far left and the far right] who’d rather punch each other than talk to each other when they have political disagreements.”

When asked by Marlow if life is going to get better or worse for conservatives in California, Lucas had a warning.

“California is always a decade or two ahead of the United States — and…as goes California, so, too, very often goes the United States…”. He suggested that progressive leftism was likely going to take over the rest of the nation in that time.

Not likely in places like Texas or the heartland of this country, at least not anytime soon.

Maybe there’s another takeaway…

Since “Trumpism” was truly born in California, perhaps there’s hope for the Golden State after all.”

….Continue reading more @ Breitbart

 

Immigration | More Judicial Obstruction on Sanctuary Cities | Apr 25, 2017

Judge blocks President Trump’s sanctuary city funding freeze

|| San Jose Mercury News

“SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge Tuesday halted President Donald Trump’s executive order stripping sanctuary jurisdictions of federal funding, dealing a blow to the Trump Administration’s efforts to punish so-called sanctuary cities and counties.

With Santa Clara County and San Francisco’s landmark motion for a preliminary injunction approved, the section of the executive order applying to sanctuary jurisdictions will not go into effect until the court rules on the county’s Feb. 3 lawsuit against the administration.

District Judge William Orrick issued a ruling less than two weeks after a hearing on the case. Santa Clara County Supervisor Cindy Chavez called it a victory for immigrant rights.

“We’re fighting for the United States Constitution and we succeeded after the Trump Administration tried to do an end run around it,” Chavez said in a statement. “The court’s decision is a win for the neediest people in our nation. Seniors in need of food, foster youth in need of shelter and children who need medical care. We’ll continue being a welcoming, safe and diverse community.”

Chad Readler, acting assistant attorney general, said Santa Clara County and San Francisco were interpreting the executive order too broadly. The funding cutoff applies to three Justice Department and Homeland Security Department grants that require complying with a federal law that local governments not block officials from providing people’s immigration status, he said.
The order would affect less than $1 million in funding for Santa Clara County and possibly no money for San Francisco, Readler said. Republican President Donald Trump was using a “bully pulpit” to “encourage communities and states to comply with the law,” Readler said.

The case has placed Santa Clara and San Francisco at the center of a contentious debate about sanctuary cities and counties. Hundreds of jurisdictions around the country have declared themselves sanctuaries for undocumented immigrants, proclaiming they will not turn those immigrants over to federal agents, despite repeated threats from the Trump Administration.

Orrick appeared to sense the ambiguity of the policy, at one point asking, “What would the purpose of the executive order be?”

….Continue reading more @ Mercury News

 

Federal judge blocks Trump’s sanctuary cities executive order

|| Washington Examiner

“A federal judge on Tuesday blocked President Trump’s sanctuary cities executive order.

San Francisco and Santa Clara County both won preliminary injunctions on Tuesday against Trumps’ Jan. 25 executive order that moved to cut off federal funding from cities that limit their cooperation with federal immigration requests.

According to San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick, the loss of funds would cause cities “to suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction.”

Orrick also cited public comments from Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, saying the two “erased” any “doubt about the scope of the order.”

However, the federal government is still able to enforce existing conditions of federal grants and does not restrict it from “developing regulations or preparing guidance on designating a jurisdiction as a ‘sanctuary jurisdiction,'” Orrick ruled.

There are at least three other lawsuits against similar language in the executive order.

Santa Clara County Supervisor Cindy Chavez called it a victory for immigrants.

“We’re fighting for the United States Constitution and we succeeded after the Trump administration tried to do an end run around it,” said Chavez in a statement. “The court’s decision is a win for the neediest people in our nation. Seniors in need of food, foster youth in need of shelter and children who need medical care. We’ll continue being a welcoming, safe and diverse community.”

The federal government has been taking actions targeting so-called sanctuary cities since the January executive order, such has rolling back Justice Department grants that a city can receive contingent on cooperating with immigration requests under Section 1317 of 8 U.S. Code.

The decision comes only months after courts ruled against key portions of two of Trump’s immigration-related executive orders.”

…..Continue reading more @ WashingtonExaminer

The Danger of Sanctuary Cities | Apr 2016

Sanctuary Cities and the Concept of Federal Preemption and the Supremacy Clause | Nov 21 2016

Obama Spied on Everybody Since April 2009 | Apr 25, 2017

The big, amazing list of people Obama spied on | Sharyl Attkisson

|| WND

 

“The Obama administration isn’t accused of gathering intelligence information to spy for political, and other, purposes just once. Or twice. Or even just three times.

A remarkable timeline assembled by ace investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson shows just how often the Obama administration apparently spied on friend and foe alike.

With all of this information gathered in one place, WND then compiled a list gleaned from Attkisson’s timeline of all those whom the Obama administration is suspected of targeting either by spying, or investigating and/or prosecuting using intelligence information.

And the list is impressive.

  • Former U.S. Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif.
  • Pro-Israel lobbyists
  • FBI contractor and whistleblower Shamai Leibowitz
  • Tea-party groups
  • WikiLeaks
  • New York Times reporter James Risen
  • NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake
  • Fox News reporter James Rosen
  • CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson
  • Former U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio
  • Fox News reporter Mike Levine
  • ATF Special Agent John Dodson
  • Former CIA Director Gen. David Petraeus
  • Associated Press reporters
  • Benghazi whistleblowers
  • President Obama’s vice chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff James Cartwright
  • Army intelligence analyst Bradley Manning
  • CIA officer and whistleblower John Kiriakou
  • NSA Whistleblower Edward Snowden
  • Reporter Audrey Hudson
  • FBI agent and contractor Donald Sachtleben
  • Former state department contractor Stephen Jin-Woo Kim
  • The Senate Intelligence Committee
  • Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
  • Former CIA employee Jeffrey Alexander Sterling
  • Unspecified members of Congress
  • American-Jewish groups
  • Trump adviser Carter Page
  • Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn
  • Candidate Donald Trump’s campaign
  • President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team

WND asked Attkisson: Given the sheer number of areas in which it engaged in spying, did it not seem clear that the Obama administration had weaponized the intelligence community?

“I think the facts of the timeline speak for themselves, and people are free to draw their own inferences,” she replied.

But, WND asked, would you not say that what the timeline clearly seems to imply is that spying was a tactic of the Obama administration in numerous areas?

“I think there’s little question that the intel community under the Obama administration utilized its tools tradecraft more aggressively and in a broader scope than had been done previously.”

Attkisson added, “As has been widely reported, it went after more whistleblowers than all previous administrations combined, it targeted reporters in ways that had never been done before, and it vastly expanded permission for itself to spy on members of Congress and ordinary U.S. citizens.”

But she saw more to the picture.

“I will point out that I think some of this is less a product of a specific administration and more an outgrowth of the dynamic of government pushing the limits of authorities granted after 9/11.

“Some of the intel officials and bureaucrats calling the shots persisted from administration to administration, Republican and Democrat alike,” Attkisson observed.”

….Continue reading more @ WND

 

Schock Tactics: How The Justice Department Violated The Constitution In Its Aaron Schock Investigation

|| JonathanTurley.org

“Below is my column in the Hill Newspaper on the investigation of former Rep. Aaron Schock (R-Ill), who attracted notoriety for his use of a Downton Abbey motif for the decoration of his office.  Obviously a preference for haughty interiors should not be enough to generate a massive criminal investigation.  However, the prosecutor in this case has pursued Schock with utter abandon, including trampling over long-established protections accorded to Congress.  Regardless of the merits of the fraud allegations against Schock, the investigation raises troubling questions of constitutional law and Congress should hold hearings into the violation of Article I.

At the start of his famous poem Mending Wall, Robert Frost wrote, “Something there is that doesn’t love a wall.” When it comes to the Justice Department, that statement is particularly true this month. In the prosecution of former congressman Aaron Schock (R-Ill.), the Justice Department did not simply ignore the wall of separation between the legislative and executive branches, it bulldozed it.

In its invitation of possible fraud by Schock, the FBI enlisted a staff member to record conversations in the office, rummage through files and paperwork, and remove documents for investigators and prosecutors to search of any wrongdoing. It is an egregious violation of the protections afforded members of Congress and, if left unaddressed, would constitute extremely dangerous precedent for our constitutional system.”

….Continue reading more @ JonathanTurley.org

Is Using a Fake Social Security Number to Get a Job a Crime? | Apr 22, 2017

Tucker Carlson Destroys Cocky ‘Dreamer’ After She Brags About Using a Fake Social Security Number

|| TheGatewayPundit

“Julissa Arce is a ‘Dreamer’ who was born in Mexico and grew up in the U.S. after her parents brought her here illegally.

She appeared as a guest on Tucker Carlson’s show tonight bragging about using a fake Social Security number to get a job at Goldman Sachs. Julissa Arce said that Dreamers who use fake Social Security numbers are ‘what young people who are incredibly driven are forced to do’. Arce is now a legal citizen.

So driven people are now forced to break the law? That makes you driven? No, that makes you a CRIMINAL.

Here is one of the clips where Tucker Carlson forces her to say just how many immigrants the U.S. should take.

Tucker Carlson: “How many immigrants should we bring in a year? That’s a real question.”

Julissa Arce: “That cap of 85,000 visas should at least be doubled to meet the demands of our country…”

We need to bring in more immigrants when Americans are suffering from years of chronic unemployment? No! We need to put Americans back to work and get tough on illegal aliens! Illegal aliens are criminal invaders and must be deported.”

….Continue reading more @ TGP

 

From the TGP Comments section:

Cocky ‘Dreamer’ Brags About Using Fake Social Security Number

Examples of often violated laws by illegal aliens but under-enforced :

•False Personation of a U.S. Citizen (18 U.S.C. § 911). Illegal aliens often present themselves as U.S. citizens, an act punishable by up to five years in jail, a felony. This law is often cited in immigration prosecutions and may involve, for example, an alien claiming U.S. citizenship to his employer.

•Fraud and False Statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001). It is common for illegal aliens to make false statements to the government or on official documents. An illegal alien violates this law when claiming to be a U.S. citizen on an I-9 Employment Eligibility form and faces a fine and up to five years imprisonment.

•Social Security Fraud (42 U.S.C. § 408). This statute has been invoked where an illegal alien provided a false Social Security number for the purpose of acquiring a job, where an illegal alien used a fraudulent Social Security number for the purpose of acquiring a driver’s license, and when an illegal alien used a Social Security card belonging to a citizen in order to obtain Section 8 housing, for example.

Violation of this statute can result in a fine and/or imprisonment up to five years. The court can also require violators to provide restitution to the victims.

etc etc….”

 

California Senate Leader: Trump Immigration Crackdown ‘Based on Principles of White Supremacy’

|| Breitbart

“California senate leader Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles) has claimed that the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement crackdown is based on the “principles of white supremacy,” after the federal government threatened to withhold $20 million in criminal justice grants from the state of California.

“It has become abundantly clear that Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the Trump administration are basing their law enforcement policies on principles of white supremacy — not American values,” de León said in a statement. “Their constant and systematic targeting of diverse cities and states goes beyond constitutional norms and will be challenged at every level.”

Sen. de León’s comments come after the Department of Justice warned the state of California that it could lose $20 million in criminal justice grants should it fail to enforce policies under the new administration’s immigration crackdown.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has repeatedly warned localities protecting illegals from deportation, known as “sanctuary cities,” that they risk losing federal funding should they fail to comply with federal immigration law. The administration is also publishing a weekly list of crimes committed by illegal aliens residing in sanctuary cities.

On a visit to the southern border on Friday, Sessions described de León’s claim as “kind of extremist statement that I totally reject,” urging jurisdictions such as California and New York to “reconsider” their position.

Meanwhile, Californian Assemblyman James Gallagher (R-Yuba) ridiculed it as a “ridiculous statement.”

“Nobody here is talking about the state becoming an immigration agency or doing ICE’s job for them. It’s about whether you comply with federal law,” Gallagher told The LA Times.

In February this year, de León revealed that “half [his] family are here illegally” under false documents and would be eligible for deportation under government policy. He then went on to push legislation making California a “Sanctuary State,” which prohibits state law enforcement agencies in California from cooperating with federal immigration authorities.”

….Continue reading more @ Breitbart

 

California State Senate Leader: ‘Half My Family’ Here Illegally

|| Breitbart  | Feb 2017

“Everybody has secured some sort of false identification. That’s what you need to survive, to work.” – California Senate leader admits most illegal aliens in California commit identity fraud to survive illegally. 

“California State Senate President Pro Tem Kevin De Léon (D-Los Angeles) said last Tuesday that “half his family” was in the country illegally, using false documents, and eligible for deportation under President Trump’s new executive order against “sanctuary” jurisdictions.

De Léon, who introduced the bill, made his remarks at a hearing in Sacramento on SB54, the bill to make California a “Sanctuary State.”

He said:

… I can tell you half of my family would be eligible for deportation under [President Donald Trump’s] executive order, because if they got a false Social Security card, if they got a false identification, if they got a false driver’s license prior to us passing AB60, if they got a false green card, and anyone who has family members, you know, who are undocumented knows that almost entirely everybody has secured some sort of false identification. That’s what you need to survive, to work. They are eligible for massive deportation.

Testifying before the Senate Public Safety Committee, De Léon defended the widespread practice by illegal aliens of using fraudulent documents to work and obtain taxpayer-paid benefits, dismissing any concerns California citizens may have about being the target of identity theft.

In an interview the following day on KPCC 89.3’s Air Talk with Larry Mantle, De Léon expressed outrage that President Trump’s executive order would include those who possess fraudulent documents or committed identity theft to obtain a Social Security number.

“Someone simply who received or purchased a [fraudulent] Social Security card down at McArthur Park, or elsewhere in my district would be eligible immediately for mass deportation,” De Léon said (at 11:45 in the link above).

“He’s trying to deputize police officers — and with the suspicion of someone being a criminal or having a broken taillight, that they themselves, as a local police officer, could call the ICE agents immediately and have that person deported without even legal due process.”

Host Larry Mantle asked him: “… First of all, I just — I want to make sure I understand correctly: You don’t think purchasing a phony Social Security card and number should be a deportable offense?”

De Léon replied: “I don’t think so … the vast majority of immigrants — hard working immigrants — have done that.  I can tell you I have family members specifically who came here as undocumented immigrants, and they did the same thing. That’s what you need to do to survive in this economy.”

Mantle objected: “But of course the problem is, — and I know people too — who’ve had their Social Security numbers and identities stolen as a result of that….”

De Léon minimized the problem, saying it was not the same as “Russian” hacking.

Breitbart News’ calls to the President Pro Tem’s office were unreturned.”

…..Continue reading more @ Breitbart

This legislative leader is saying that in order to survive in California, you must become a criminal, and therefore we must decriminalize our laws in order to make it easier for criminals to stay. What strange and twisted logic a for ‘lawmaker’ to make, to justify more illegal immigration. /CJ

What Prince’s Death Meant For Jay Z’s Tidal | Apr 21, 2017

What Prince’s Death Means For Jay Z’s Tidal

|| Forbes

“When Prince died suddenly late last month, millions mourned–and raced out to consume his work.

In the three days after news of his passing broke, Nielsen NLSN +1.31% tracked 579,000 digital and physical album sales for Prince’s music, a 42,000% increase over the three days prior. The Purple One sold a total of 2.3 million songs during that time frame.

But many fans looking to stream Prince’s hits quickly found they weren’t available on Spotify and other popular services. That’s because last summer, he pulled the bulk of his catalogue from all the usual suspects–except for Jay Z’s Tidal.

“Tidal is a new company, it’s brand new,” Prince told Ebony in a severely redacted interview last year (he apparently had a habit of refusing to let reporters record their conversations with him and then complaining about being misquoted). “When there’s a company like that, or the OWN network—situations where we finally get into a position to run things—we all should help.”

Tidal did not respond to a request for comment for this piece, but it seems that Prince was offered an equity stake in exchange for making Tidal his streaming home–much like Beyonce, Kanye West and the other artist-owners present at the service’s Avengers-style launch event last year.

Data on the number of streams tallied by Prince’s music in the days following his death is difficult to come by, but the precise total doesn’t necessarily matter. For Tidal, the value is not in the quantity, but in the scarcity.

Just like fans of Beyonce or Kanye West, Prince devotees in search of buffet-style consumption had only one true option: Tidal. This will remain the case for the foreseeable future–as long as the term of Prince’s deal with the service lasts, anyway.

“Once it comes to an end, either side could have an option to extend it,” says attorney Larry Iser, managing partner at Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump & Aldisert. “Both Tidal and [the estate of] Prince, if they were happy, could extend it.”

Iser thinks it’s highly unlikely that Prince technically granted Tidal exclusive rights to his music–intellectual property that he clawed back from Warner after a well-publicized feud in the 1990s. Rather, he suspects Prince simply pulled his music from every other service, effectively granting Tidal exclusivity while giving himself some flexibility.

Now, as Prince’s heirs squabble and search for a will that may or may not exist, Jay Z’s service remains a magnet for Prince fans. That could help Tidal pad its reported 3 million paid subscriber count and possibly lead to a sale to a larger company like Apple AAPL -0.37% or Spotify.

Apple, after all, has already shown its willingness to acqui-hire hip-hop moguls and their businesses. Having Prince’s catalogue on hand certainly wouldn’t hurt Jay Z’s case.”

…..Continue reading more @ Forbes | 2016

 

PRINCE ESTATE TO JAY Z NO DEAL FOR HIS RECORDINGS …Issues with Tidal Deal Too

|| TMZ

Jay Z better be ready for some purple pain — Prince‘s estate wants nothing to do with his offer to snatch up any of the late singer’s music catalog.

Sources involved in the deal tell TMZ the estate fired off a letter to Jay’s team last month, saying it had no interest in signing a deal for “Roc Nation to exploit any of the intellectual property assets of the Estate.”

We broke the story, Jay Z had offered around $40 million to take control of Prince’s unreleased tracks.

More bad news — the estate is calling out Tidal for making 15 Prince albums available for streaming a couple months after his death. Those releases were unauthorized according to the estate.

Translation: You’re gonna owe us some dough.

The estate does acknowledge Prince made a deal with Jay for the 2015 release of his final album, “HitNRun Phase One” — but also says it hasn’t found proof of a $750k payment to close that deal.

Cha-ching, cha-ching, cha-ching.”

….Continue reading more @ TMZ | Nov 2016

 

Prince’s Estate Sues Jay Z’s Roc Nation Over Tidal’s Claim on Streaming Rights

|| Variety

Prince Gets Masters Back, Which Labels Say ‘Scares Us Silly’

Facebook Has the Highest Percentage of H-1B’s of any High Tech Company in U.S. | Apr 20, 2017

Reuters: 15% of Facebook Employees on H-1B Visas

|| Breitbart

“Reuters has found that more than 15 percent of Facebook’s U.S. staff are immigrants employed through H-1B temporary work visas.

Based on a review of U.S. Labor Department filings for 2016 regarding temporary visa programs, Reuters found 3,339 workers of approximately 22,000 Facebook employees working in the U.S. were employed directly through H-1B temporary visas.

At over 15 percent, Facebook had the highest percentage of H-1B contractors of any U.S. tech operating company.

Breitbart News has reported that although there are only new 85,000 H-1B temporary visas granted by the U.S. State Department each year, there are about 650,000 H-1Bs working in the American private sector, roughly 100,000 H-1Bs employed at U.S. universities, and an unknown number of H-1B spouses issued green card work permits.”

….Continue reading more @ Breitbart

 

15% of Facebook employees are vulnerable to Trump’s likely changes for H-1B visas

|| VentureBeat.com

“(Reuters) – Among Silicon Valley’s top tech employers, Facebook could be the most vulnerable to U.S. President Donald Trump’s expected crackdown on guest-worker visas, according to a Reuters analysis of U.S. Labor Department filings.

More than 15 percent of Facebook’s U.S. employees in 2016 used a temporary work visa, giving the social media leader a legal classification as a H-1B “dependent” company. That is a higher proportion than Alphabet ‘s Google, Apple, Amazon, or Microsoft.

That could cause problems for Facebook if Trump or Congress decide to make the H-1B program more restrictive, as the president and some Republican lawmakers have threatened to do.

Both Trump and Attorney General nominee Senator Jeff Sessions have opposed the program in its current form. They have also indicated that they are open to reforming it to “ensure the beneficiaries of the program are the best and the brightest,” according to a draft executive order seen by Reuters. Reuters could not immediately confirm the authenticity of the draft.

The Trump administration has not proposed any new rules that would target companies with the H-1B “dependent” classification. But the fact that Facebook alone among major tech companies falls into that category suggests it is the most exposed in the industry to any changes in H-1B visa policy.

Facebook declined to comment on the matter.

Companies say they use them to recruit top talent. But a majority of the visas are awarded to outsourcing firms, sparking criticism by skeptics that those firms use the visas to fill lower-level information technology jobs. Critics also say the lottery system benefits outsourcing firms that flood the system with mass applications.

H-1B dependent status is mostly held by these outsourcing firms such as India’s Tata Consultancy Services or Infosys. The status was introduced in the late 1990s in an effort to ensure that companies did not use the visas to replace American workers with cheaper foreign labor. The status requires companies to prove they cannot find U.S. workers for the jobs.”

….Continue reading more @ VentureBeat

 

Facebook Will Let Workers Join Glorious May Day Protests

|| Bloomberg Tech

“Facebook Inc. said it won’t punish employees who take time off to join pro-immigrant protests on May 1. And, in a nod to security staff, janitors, shuttle-bus drivers and others who work for Facebook contractors on campus, the company also said it will investigate if any of its vendors illegally crack down on their employees’ protest rights.

“At Facebook, we’re committed to fostering an inclusive workplace where employees feel comfortable expressing their opinions and speaking up,” a spokesman wrote in an emailed statement. “We support our people in recognizing International Workers’ Day and other efforts to raise awareness for safe and equitable employment conditions.”

Facebook notified employees of its policy in a posting on an internal forum April 14. A spokesman said it applies regardless of whether workers notify the company ahead of time. The Menlo Park, California, company also said it would re-evaluate its ties to any vendor if it breaks the law that protects workers’ rights to organize and protect themselves.

“It’s important not just to the engineers and H-1B holders that are traditionally thought of as the immigrants in tech but also to folks who are subcontracted but work side-by-side on those campuses,” said Derecka Mehrens, co-founder of Silicon Valley Rising, a union-backed coalition. “Immigrants play a critical role in the tech sector — both as engineers and coders but also in keeping tech campuses running smoothly.”

Many tech companies have been vocal in their opposition to aspects of Trump’s agenda. Facebook has criticized Trump’s immigration moves. At a rally in January at Google’s headquarters in Mountain View, California, CEO Sundar Pichai and co-founder Sergey Brin spoke against Trump’s executive order that closed U.S. borders to people from several majority-Muslim nations. Both companies, along with Apple Inc., Microsoft Corp. and Intel Corp., are among more than 120 firms that signed a February court filing opposing the travel ban.”

…Continue reading @ Bloomberg

 

|| Spectator.org

“An article in the Guardian last week provides more confirmation that John Brennan was the American progenitor of political espionage aimed at defeating Donald Trump. One side did collude with foreign powers to tip the election — Hillary’s.

Seeking to retain his position as CIA director under Hillary, Brennan teamed up with British spies and Estonian spies to cripple Trump’s candidacy. He used their phony intelligence as a pretext for a multi-agency investigation into Trump, which led the FBI to probe a computer server connected to Trump Tower and gave cover to Susan Rice, among other Hillary supporters, to spy on Trump and his people.

John Brennan’s CIA operated like a branch office of the Hillary campaign, leaking out mentions of this bogus investigation to the press in the hopes of inflicting maximum political damage on Trump. An official in the intelligence community tells TAS that Brennan’s retinue of political radicals didn’t even bother to hide their activism, decorating offices with “Hillary for president cups” and other campaign paraphernalia.

A supporter of the American Communist Party at the height of the Cold War, Brennan brought into the CIA a raft of subversives and gave them plum positions from which to gather and leak political espionage on Trump. He bastardized standards so that these left-wing activists could burrow in and take career positions. Under the patina of that phony professionalism, they could then present their politicized judgments as “non-partisan.”

The Guardian story is written in a style designed to flatter its sources (they are cast as high-minded whistleblowers), but the upshot of it is devastating for them, nonetheless, and explains why all the criminal leaks against Trump first originated in the British press. According to the story, Brennan got his anti-Trump tips primarily from British spies but also Estonian spies and others. The story confirms that the seed of the espionage into Trump was planted by Estonia. The BBC’s Paul Wood reported last year that the intelligence agency of an unnamed Baltic State had tipped Brennan off in April 2016 to a conversation purporting to show that the Kremlin was funneling cash into the Trump campaign.

Any other CIA director would have disregarded such a flaky tip, recognizing that Estonia was eager to see Trump lose (its officials had bought into Hillary’s propaganda that Trump was going to pull out of NATO and leave Baltic countries exposed to Putin). But Brennan opportunistically seized on it, as he later that summer seized on the half-baked intelligence of British spy agencies (also full of officials who wanted to see Trump lose).”

….Continue reading more @ Spectator.org

 

Wellesley Students Editors Endorse Silencing Opposing Speakers and Declare “Hostility May Be Warranted”

|| JonathanTurley.org

“We have been discussing the erosion of free speech on our campuses across the country.  Much of that trend is the result of faculty members who have taught that free speech itself is a threat to students.  The erosion of free speech has come in stages.  First, schools began to declare speech to be hate speech while creating “safe zones” from the exercise of free speech.  Second, schools began to enforce the ill-defined “microaggressions” to punish speech that is deemed as contributing to hostile environments or fostering stereotypes.

Now, faculty and students are increasing declaring opposing views as simply outside of the definition of free speech. That extreme argument was advanced this week by the editors of The Wellesley News who published a column entitled “Free Speech Is Not Violated At Wellesley.”  It is chilling message from the Editorial Board composed of Co-Editors in Chief Sharvari Johari and Michele Lee and opinion editors Maya Nandakumar, Genae Matthews, and Tabitha Wilson.  Once the champions of free speech, students have become the new censors and have adopted the perfectly Orwellian notion that the protection of free speech requires the denial of free speech.

The editors heralded the Wellesley students who refuse to respect the free speech rights of those deemed to be hateful.  Simply defining such people as unworthy of free speech protections then allows the editors to become actual advocates of mob action to silence them:

“Shutting down rhetoric that undermines the existence and rights of others is not a violation of free speech; it is hate speech. The founding fathers put free speech in the Constitution as a way to protect the disenfranchised and to protect individual citizens from the power of the government.”

So speech deemed as “undermining the existence and rights of others” is all that is needed to relieve the conscience of these students and allow them to indulge in their desire to forcibly silence those with whom that disagree.  There is no attempt of course to define what constitute speech that “undermines.” Rather the thrust is to legitimize the denial of free speech in the name of free speech.

Their bizarre understanding of free speech is laid out further in the statement that “The spirit of free speech is to protect the suppressed, not to protect a free-for-all where anything is acceptable, no matter how hateful and damaging.”  Again, there is no definition of what is deemed “hateful” or “damaging” but it clearly does not include things that the editors agree with or have been taught are the products of ignorance: “We have all said problematic claims, the origins of which were ingrained in us by our discriminatory and biased society. Luckily, most of us have been taught by our peers and mentors at Wellesley in a productive way.

Now that the editors have been properly educated that some views are unworthy of protection, they are ready to take the final step in calling for the silencing of those who “refuse to adapt their beliefs.”  If those people still insist on being heard, the editors declared that “hostility may be warranted.”  “Hostility”?

The war on free speech appears to have produced a perfect generation of petty tyrants “mentored” in the necessity — even the moral imperative — of silencing those with whom we disagree.

I suppose this is to be expected at a school with the motto: Non Ministrari sed Ministrare — Not to be ministered unto, but to minister.

….Continue reading more @ JonathanTurley.org

 

Mario Savio: Sproul Hall Steps, December 2, 1964 Berkeley California

|| Youtube