Doing Advance Work

News that doesn't receive the necessary attention.

Friday, June 23, 2017

George HW Bush began destroying coal jobs long before Obama did. Bush #1 Clean Air Act additions knowingly put thousands of coal miners out of work-LA Times, 4/2/1990...Bush #1 also caused Arctic and N. Hemisphere warming by mandating removal of large amounts of cooling sulfates from the atmosphere, per NASA (chart), Houston Chronicle, 2009

Bush #1 EPA chief Reilly loved "global consensus" of Agenda 21 (EPA Journal, 1992).

April 02, 1990|, "EPA Chief Sees Job Losses for Miners," LA Times staff and wire reports 

"William K. Reilly, the chief of the Environmental Protection Agency, acknowledged that a proposed new clean air law will put some coal miners out of work, but said he is hopeful that technology can save jobs. "We are prepared to work very carefully with those workers and with the states to try to ensure that we have as good a safety net and unemployment retraining provisions as possible," Reilly said on NBC's "Meet the Press." To reduce acid rain, the legislation would restrict sulfur dioxide emissions. The new limits are expected to cause thousands of job losses in the coal mines throughout Appalachia and the Midwest. Reilly said he is hopeful that advances in "clean-coal technology" can save some of the jobs in the East."

...................
















George Bush #1 signs Clean Air Act amendments in 1990, making rules stricter than 1970 and 1977 versions. Top left, clapping, Bush EPA chief William Reilly, plucked from his job as WWF president by jackass Bush.

......................... 


2009 NASA graph shows warming of Arctic latitudes resulting from US Clean Air Acts of 1970, 1977 and 1990:

















Image from Nasa.gov

4/8/2009, "Half of recent arctic warming may not be due to greenhouse gases," Houston Chronicle, Eric Berger




 


That’s the conclusion of two scientists in a new Nature Geoscience paper (see abstract), which is more deeply outlined in this NASA news release....Clean air regulations passed in the 1970s have likely accelerated warming by diminishing the cooling effect of sulfates....This is potentially a huge blow to those who advocate immediate action on controlling carbon dioxide.

Finally, for those of you who hate James Hansen: Please note that the author of this study works for Hansen."

...........................

NASA: "Over the past three decades, the United States and European countries have passed a series of laws that have reduced sulfate emissions by 50 percent. While improving air quality and aiding public health, the result has been less atmospheric cooling from sulfates....At the same time, black carbon emissions have steadily risen, largely because of increasing emissions from Asia. Black carbon -- small, soot-like particles produced by industrial processes and the combustion of diesel and biofuels -- absorb incoming solar radiation and have a strong warming influence on the atmosphere."...

4/8/2009, "Aerosols May Drive a Significant Portion of Arctic Warming," nasa.gov/topics

"Though greenhouse gases are invariably at the center of discussions about global climate change, new NASA research suggests that much of the atmospheric warming observed in the Arctic since 1976 may be due to changes in tiny airborne particles called aerosols.

Emitted by natural and human sources, aerosols can directly influence climate by reflecting or absorbing the sun's radiation. The small particles also affect climate indirectly by seeding clouds and changing cloud properties, such as reflectivity.

A new study, led by climate scientist Drew Shindell of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, used a coupled ocean-atmosphere model to investigate how sensitive different regional climates are to changes in levels of carbon dioxide, ozone, and aerosols.

The researchers found that the mid and high latitudes are especially responsive to changes in the level of aerosols. Indeed, the model suggests aerosols likely account for 45 percent or more of the warming that has occurred in the Arctic during the last three decades. The results were published in the April issue of Nature Geoscience....

Sulfates, which come primarily from the burning of coal and oil, scatter incoming solar radiation and have a net cooling effect on climate. Over the past three decades, the United States and European countries have passed a series of laws that have reduced sulfate emissions by 50 percent. While improving air quality and aiding public health, the result has been less atmospheric cooling from sulfates.

At the same time, black carbon emissions have steadily risen, largely because of increasing emissions from Asia. Black carbon -- small, soot-like particles produced by industrial processes and the combustion of diesel and biofuels -- absorb incoming solar radiation and have a strong warming influence on the atmosphere....

The regions of Earth that showed the strongest responses to aerosols in the model are the same regions that have witnessed the greatest real-world temperature increases since 1976. The Arctic region has seen its surface air temperatures increase by 1.5 C (2.7 F) since the mid-1970s. In the Antarctic, where aerosols play less of a role, the surface air temperature has increased about 0.35 C (0.6 F).


That makes sense, Shindell explained, because of the Arctic's proximity to North America and Europe. The two highly industrialized regions have produced most of the world's aerosol emissions over the last century, and some of those aerosols drift northward and collect in the Arctic. Precipitation, which normally flushes aerosols out of the atmosphere, is minimal there, so the particles remain in the air longer and have a stronger impact than in other parts of the world. 

Since decreasing amounts of sulfates and increasing amounts of black carbon both encourage warming, temperature increases can be especially rapid. The build-up of aerosols also triggers positive feedback cycles that further accelerate warming as snow and ice cover retreat.

In the Antarctic, in contrast, the impact of sulfates and black carbon is minimized because of the continent’s isolation from major population centers and the emissions they produce.

"There's a tendency to think of aerosols as small players, but they're not," said Shindell. "Right now, in the mid-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere and in the Arctic, the impact of aerosols is just as strong as that of the greenhouse gases."


The growing recognition that aerosols may play a larger climate role can have implications for policymakers. 

"We will have very little leverage over climate in the next couple of decades if we're just looking at carbon dioxide," Shindell said. "If we want to try to stop the Arctic summer sea ice from melting completely over the next few decades, we're much better off looking at aerosols and ozone."


Aerosols tend to be quite-short lived, residing in the atmosphere for just a few days or weeks. Greenhouses gases, by contrast, can persist for hundreds of years. Atmospheric chemists theorize that the climate system may be more responsive to changes in aerosol levels over the next few decades than to changes in greenhouse gas levels, which will have the more powerful effect in coming centuries."...

..................
  
Added: Above NASA article notes Northern and Southern hemispheres have very different geography: Unlike the Arctic, the Antarctic is isolated from major population centers and emissions they produce. Antarctica isn't exposed to black carbon from Asia which is naturally transported  across North America and the Arctic. Nor was Antarctica warmed by decades of US Clean Air Acts that removed cooling sulfates from the atmosphere. 
 

=============
...................

Added: Bush #1 EPA chief Reilly loved "global consensus" of Agenda 21:

Sept./Oct. 1992, "The Road from Rio," EPA Journal, by William K. Reilly (EPA Chief for George HW Bush)

"The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), the "Earth Summit," (in June 1992) was a watershed event in environmental history....

While the hopes of some developing nations for vast commitments of new foreign assistance did not materialize, what was extraordinary to me was how many expectations were met--and how much the world did achieve....
Agenda 21 represents an extraordinary new global consensus on standards against which to measure the environmental performance of governments. No doubt the press, non-governmental groups, and the business community will mine these documents for years to come. The human rights commitments of the 1970s and 1980s, the Helsinki Accords, and others, offer a model for how committed nongovernmental interests can confer authority on moral obligations and translate them into new policies."...


.........


https://archive.epa.gov/epa/aboutepa/road-rio.html

.............

Thursday, June 22, 2017

Definitely not CNN Fake News, genuine sad faces at Ossoff loss. Then you had potential Ossoff voters living in their parents' basement and on their parents' phone bill which made it harder for Democrat organizers to reach them. Republican parents didn't necessarily run down to the basement to help out the opposition-Rush Limbaugh, 6/21/17

CNN sad faces at Ossoff loss, 6/21/17





6/21/17, "My Bold Pajama Boy Prediction Comes True," Rush Limbaugh

"Somebody sent me a screenshot of CNN right after they had to project that Ossoff was gonna lose. It’s David Chalian, Gloria Borger, some guy I don’t know here, and Dana Bash, and I’m telling you, it is funereal, the look on their faces, utter despondency....

A Democrat consultant...Jessica Ziegler said to Slate.com   referring to the Republican parents of the young Democrats... “When you are targeting their child, or heaven forbid their child might not think the same way as them, it becomes ugly.

So now the parents of these Democrat kids living at home have become the targets of Democrat organizers. Jessica Ziegler, Those were the angriest people,” referring to Republican parents of the young Democrats who are impossible to reach ’cause they still live at home with Mom and Dad. “When you are targeting their child,” when Democrats are trying to reach their children, it becomes very, very ugly because their kids are Millennial Democrats and they’re voting in ways that Mom and Dad don’t agree with and don’t understand.

So Mom and Dad are helping shelter their own kids from Democrat outreach, making it harder for Democrats to reach potential Millennial voters because they’re still living at home and cannot be independently sought.

Ossoff, Pajama Boy
Ziegler, who has been quoted in a number of Slate articles and a NY Times piece, added that the police had even been called on Ossoff volunteers on a number of occasions. Ziegler focused on encouraging young voters to turn out by recruiting recent high school graduates to get in touch with their peers over social media.”

They’re lost. And now in the New York Times they’re openly complaining, “Our brand is worse than Trump’s.” Do you realize for a Democrat to say that, do you know how bottom of the barrel that is?" 

images above from RushLimbaugh.com


----------------------

Rush Limbaugh "Related links"

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

Karen Handel thanked President Trump for his support of her campaign, prompting the crowd to interrupt with cheers and chants of "Trump, Trump, Trump"-CNN, 6/20/17

6/20/17, "Republican Karen Handel wins Georgia House special election," CNN, Eric Bradnor

"Handel thanked Trump, who had tweeted his support for her campaign in recent days, by name -- prompting the crowd to interrupt with cheers and chants of "Trump, Trump, Trump.""...
.....................


Update: Pollsters confounded again:

6/21/17, Update: 259,000+ votes tallied as of Wed. afternoon, 6/21 (updates 240,000 number (below) reported Tues. night)

"GOP turnout confounds pollsters in Georgia election," Politico, Steven Shepard 

"The surge of Republican voters even surprised the only public pollster to predict Karen Handel as the winner."

"The turnout surge surprised the only public pollster to predict Handel as the winner: the Atlanta-based Trafalgar Group, which released a poll the day before the election showing the Republican 2 points ahead. Trafalgar’s Robert Cahaly said Wednesday that their turnout prediction was “in the 230 [thousand] range” and that the surge of additional voters boosted Handel."...

........................ 

Added: Ossoff ended up with the same proportion of the vote, 48%, that Hillary won there in Nov. 2016:

6/21/17, "Why Ossoff Lost," The Atlantic, Molly Ball 

"After a frenzied two-month runoff campaign between Ossoff and his Republican opponent, Karen Handel, the Democrat wound up with about the same proportion of the vote—48 percentas Hillary Clinton got here in November,. If this race was a referendum on Trump, the president won it."...

....................

6/20/17, Added: Of 240,000 total votes, 150,000 had been cast before Tuesday 6/20 election day. "With all 208 precincts reporting, Ms. Handel had 51.9 percent of the vote to Mr. Ossoff's 48.1 percent." 3.8% margin
 
6/20/17, "Karen Handel Wins Georgia Special Election, Fending Off Upstart Democrat," NY Times, Jonathan Martin, Richard Fausset 

"Mr. Trump, Vice President Mike Pence and House Speaker Paul D. Ryan all came to Atlanta to help her raise money....
 

Voter turnout in April was already high for a spring special election, and it soared during the runoff, to more than 240,000, from more than 190,000. Nearly 150,000 voters cast ballots before the polls opened on Tuesday, nearly three times the early vote in the first round. And nearly 40,000 of those people had not voted at all in April.

By Tuesday, the fatigue among voters was palpable. Some residents posted warnings demanding that campaign workers stop knocking on their doors."...

.................

Added:

"In this district, Donald Trump only topped Hillary Clinton in it by 1.5 percentage points." Handel won by 3.8% (see above)

6/20/17, "Don't sugarcoat it--Ossoff's loss is a big disappointment, and a bad sign, for Democrats," Vox, Andrew Prokop


"Democrats need to outperform Hillary Clinton to take back the House. Ossoff did worse than her." [sic]...

"But it’s the Ossoff defeat that’s particularly painful for the party. Though former Rep. Tom Price (R) repeatedly cruised to victory in this district, Donald Trump only topped Hillary Clinton in it by 1.5 percentage points. This meant that, on the presidential level, the district was by far the most favorable to Democrats of those four open seats....

This race was indisputably the highest-profile contest, and therefore perhaps the most like what we’d expect the 2018 midterms to be — Republicans weren’t caught sleeping, like they were in a few of these other races.


Furthermore — and crucially — Donald Trump won the median House district by about 3.5 points. 

That means that if Republican candidates in high-profile contested races slightly outperform Trump or even slightly underperform him, the GOP will keep the House. Handel’s victory shows that, at this point, that’s still a definite possibility....

[Near end of article] Since Trump’s victory, there’s been a debate among Democrats about whether the party’s best chances for retaking power lie in improving their performance in areas full of educated, well-off white suburbanites, or whether the party is better off making a case to the white working class. To oversimplify, the Hillary Clinton wing of the party tends to like the former theory, and the Bernie Sanders wing tends to prefer the latter. 


Ossoff’s disappointing performance is a blow to the Clinton wing’s theory. Despite Trump’s sinking approval ratings, the Republican candidate still won an affluent suburban district that Trump himself barely pulled it out in. 

But the Sanders wing doesn’t have the clearest-cut counter-theory either. Sanders-friendly candidates like Rob Quist in Montana and James Thompson in Kansas have done better than Hillary Clinton did in their respective districts — but so did Archie Parnell, the former Goldman Sachs employee who lost the South Carolina race Tuesday night. 

All special elections are on different turf and have different issues and candidate dynamics at play. The one thing that is clear, though, is that Democrats haven’t found a winning formula for victory yet."




.............

Tuesday, June 20, 2017

A decade ago liberals routinely asserted that low-skilled immigrants depressed wages of low-skilled American workers and strained America's welfare state. Pressure from 2 sources changed Democrat policy: CEOs became activists wanting cheap labor, and Democrats thought Latinos would win elections for them-The Atlantic, Peter Beinart, July-Aug. 2017

July-August 2017, "How the Democrats Lost Their Way on Immigration," The Atlantic, Peter Beinart

"In the past decade, liberals have avoided inconvenient truths about the issue."

"The myth, which liberals like myself find tempting, is that only the right has changed. In June 2015, we tell ourselves, Donald Trump rode down his golden escalator and pretty soon nativism, long a feature of conservative politics, had engulfed it. But that’s not the full story. If the right has grown more nationalistic, the left has grown less so. A decade ago, liberals publicly questioned immigration in ways that would shock many progressives today. 

In 2005, a left-leaning blogger wrote, “Illegal immigration wreaks havoc economically, socially, and culturally; makes a mockery of the rule of law; and is disgraceful just on basic fairness grounds alone.” In 2006, a liberal columnist wrote that immigration reduces the wages of domestic workers who compete with immigrants” and that “the fiscal burden
of low-wage immigrants is also pretty clear.” His conclusion: “We’ll need to reduce the inflow of low-skill immigrants.” That same year (2006), a Democratic senator wrote, "When I see Mexican flags waved at pro-immigration demonstrations,, I sometimes feel a flush of patriotic resentment. When I’m forced to use a translator to communicate with the guy fixing my car, I feel a certain frustration.” 

The blogger was Glenn Greenwald. The columnist was Paul Krugman. The senator was Barack Obama.

Prominent liberals didn’t oppose immigration a decade ago. Most acknowledged its benefits to America’s economy and culture. They supported a path to citizenship for the undocumented. Still, they routinely asserted that low-skilled immigrants depressed the wages of low-skilled American workers and strained America’s welfare state. And they were far more likely than liberals today are to acknowledge that, as Krugman put it, “immigration is an intensely painful topic…because it places basic principles in conflict.”

Today, little of that ambivalence remains. In 2008, the Democratic platform called undocumented immigrants “our neighbors.” But it also warned, “We cannot continue to allow people to enter the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked,” adding that “those who enter our country’s borders illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of the law.” By 2016, such language was gone. The party’s platform described America’s immigration system as a problem, but not illegal immigration itself. 

And it focused almost entirely on the forms of immigration enforcement that Democrats opposed. In its immigration section, the 2008 platform referred three times to people entering the country “illegally.” The immigration section of the 2016 platform didn't use the word illegal, or any variation of it, at all
.
“A decade or two ago,” says Jason Furman, a former chairman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, “Democrats were divided on immigration. Now everyone agrees and is passionate and thinks very little about any potential downsides.” How did this come to be?

A larger explanation is political. Between 2008 and 2016, Democrats became more and more confident that the country’s growing Latino population gave the party an electoral edge. To win the presidency, Democrats convinced themselves, they didn’t need to reassure white people skeptical of immigration so long as they turned out their Latino base. “The fastest-growing sector of the American electorate stampeded toward the Democrats this November,” Salon declared after Obama’s 2008 win. “If that pattern continues, the GOP is doomed to 40 years of wandering in a desert.”

As the Democrats grew more reliant on Latino votes, they were more influenced by pro-immigrant activism. While Obama was running for reelection, immigrants’-rights advocates launched protests against the administration’s deportation practices; these protests culminated, in June 2012, in a sit-in at an Obama campaign office in Denver. Ten days later, the administration announced that it would defer the deportation of undocumented immigrants who had arrived in the U.S. before the age of 16 and met various other criteria. Obama, The New York Times noted, “was facing growing pressure from Latino leaders and Democrats who warned that because of his harsh immigration enforcement, his support was lagging among Latinos who could be crucial voters in his race for re-election.”

Alongside pressure from pro-immigrant activists came pressure from corporate America, especially the Democrat-aligned tech industry, which uses the H-1B visa program to import workers. In 2010, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, along with the CEOs of companies including Hewlett-Packard, Boeing, Disney, and News Corporation, formed New American Economy to advocate for business-friendly immigration policies. Three years later, Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates helped found FWD.us to promote a similar agenda.

This combination of Latino and corporate activism made it perilous for Democrats to discuss immigration’s costs, as Bernie Sanders learned the hard way. In July 2015, two months after officially announcing his candidacy for president, Sanders was interviewed by Ezra Klein, the editor in chief of Vox. Klein asked whether, in order to fight global poverty, the U.S. should consider “sharply raising the level of immigration we permit, even up to a level of open borders.” Sanders reacted with horror. 

“That’s a Koch brothers proposal,” he scoffed. He went on to insist that “right-wing people in this country would love…an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don’t believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country.”...

Unfortunately, while admitting poor immigrants makes redistributing wealth more necessary, it also makes it harder, at least in the short term. By some estimates, immigrants, who are poorer on average than native-born Americans and have larger families, receive more in government services than they pay in taxes. According to the National Academies report, immigrant-headed families with children are 15 percentage points more likely to rely on food assistance, and 12 points more likely to rely on Medicaid, than other families with children....These costs strain the very welfare state that liberals want to expand in order to help those native-born Americans with whom immigrants compete....

Liberal immigration policy must work to ensure that immigrants do not occupy a separate legal caste. This means opposing the guest-worker programs-beloved by many Democrat-friendly tech companies,, among other employers—that require immigrants to work in a particular job to remain in the U.S. Some scholars believe such programs drive down wages; they certainly inhibit assimilation."... 




..................
 

In 2012 Rockefeller Republican George Shultz endorsed a carbon tax--you were surprised? In 2010 'Republican Elder' Schultz partnered with Dem. Tom Steyer to defeat Calif. prop 23. Rockefeller Republicans are self-appointed generals with no armies who can't accept that the Republican Party is a party of the people-July 13, 2012, GlobalWarming.org

6/20/17, "Exxon, BP support Republican elders' climate proposal," Reuters, by Richard Valdmanis 

A carbon tax proposal co-authored by James Baker, Sec. of State for George H.W. Bush, and George Shultz ran as an advertisement in the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday 6/20/17. The ad was paid for by the so-called Climate Leadership Council. These people have spent their entire lives being parasites on Americans.

....................

Definition of "Republican Elder": A parasite who "partners with Democrat Tom Steyer" in global warming scam:

7/13/2012, "George Shultz Endorses Carbon Tax – You Were Surprised?" GlobalWarming.org, Marlo Lewis 

"This pattern is becoming boringly familiar....

There has always been a wing of the GOP — the “establishment,” “Country Club,” or “Rockefeller” Republicanswho care more about controlling the party than about advancing liberty or even about winning elections. AEI’s Ken Green (a colleague of Hassett’s) hits the nail on the head. In a story on Shultz’s endorsement of carbon taxes, Green told Climatewire: (subscrip):

There seems to be an eruption of conservatives — very moderate-seeming conservatives, non-tea party, old country club-style conservatives — who are suddenly enamored of carbon tax,” said Kenneth Green, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

“I think this is mostly vanity and egotism on the part of these people who are coming forward, to try and reassert the Republican establishment over the tea party revolution,” he added.

I wouldn’t be surprised if we have more of these guys weigh in.” (begin parag. 11)...

As noted here, earlier this week, former Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.) launched a new institute with Rockefeller Family Fund backing [oil money] to promote carbon taxes as a ‘Republican idea.’...  

"Yes, that George Shultz, President Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of State. But not everyone who served with Reagan was a Reaganite. Reagan’s VP, G.H.W. Bush, famously campaigned on a platform of “Read my lips: No New Taxes.” Not two years later he raised taxes in a 1990 budget deal that torpedoed the economy and sank his presidency.

Yesterday, in an interview puff piece (July 12, 2012) penned by two associates, Shultz, a distinguished fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, called for a ‘revenue-neutral’ carbon tax. This is unsurprising. As the article reminds us, in 2010, Schultz, partnering with Tom Steyer, a democrat, “led the successful campaign to defeat Proposition 23, a California ballot initiative to suspend the state’s ambitious law to curb greenhouse gases.”"...

........................ 

11/8/2013, "The Sabotage Republicans," Jeffrey Lord, American Spectator 

If Establishment Republicans happen to win, they merely carry out the Democrat agenda. If they don't win the primary, they sabotage the choice of Republican voters. In 1964, Nelson Rockefeller "criss-crossed the nation" warning people of the danger of "extremists" like Barry Goldwater. The popular JFK had been assassinated less than a year earlier, his chosen VP LBJ was sworn in as president standing next to a blood spattered Jackie Kennedy (see below), and no one was going to beat JFK's VP. Goldwater's loss to LBJ was entirely predictable but is used to this day as "proof" that Establishment Republicans like Nelson Rockefeller were right. Sabotage by "fellow Republicans" prevents the US from having an opposition party to the Democrats. Meaning the US is a dictatorship.
......................
 
 

11/22/1963, JFK's VP LBJ was sworn in as US president, a blood-spattered Jackie Kennedy beside him.

.......................

6/20/17, Free Republic comments to so-called Republican elder statesmen who screwed up so badly that we got Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3562614/posts







In addition to leading the Hoover Institution's Shultz-Stephenson Task Force on Energy Policy, Shultz chairs the advisory boards of two energy research umbrella organizations: Stanford's Precourt Institute for Energy and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Energy Initiative. - See more at: http://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/july/george-shultz-energy-071212.html#sthash.GD1t7GG3.dpuf
..........

San Jose, Calif. gov. homeless policy leaves neighbors no choice but to build stronger wall to protect themselves from garbage, drug paraphernalia, and the consequence of their kids not being able to play outside-KPIX San Francisco...(US political class ongoing genocide of America and you're 'mean' if you don't like it)

June 19, 2017, "Crews Build Controversial ‘Homeless Wall’ In San Jose," KPIX San Francisco, John Ramos, San Jose

"Caltrans is building a taller, stronger wall in San Jose to stop homeless individuals from returning to an encampment.
 
Caltrans has repeatedly cleaned up the large encampment under I-280, but the homeless keep returning.

While this new solution has some homeowners pleased, it is generating a lot of anger in the community.

Laura Nunez, who has lived on Macredes Avenue in San Jose most of her life, said everything changed on her street when homeless people began using the rickety chain link fence at the end of the block as a doorway to their encampments along I-280.

“Every time Caltrans would come out and repair itas soon as they left they cut a hole in it and they just use that…that was their main access point to go in and out,” said Nunez. We’ve had to live with their garbage. We’ve had to live with drug paraphernalia. The kids haven’t been able come out to play. 

Caltrans and the city heard the neighbors’ complaints and on Monday, workers were out building a taller barrier at the freeway on-ramp and on Macredes Avenue.

Some critics are comparing the new wall to President Trump’s proposed border wall.

Jaime Foberg, the founder of “In Their Shoes” homeless advocacy said, “I think of Trump. And I think how horrible it is that they would keep people out. It really does make me sad.”"...

[Ed. note: US political class conducts genocide of America via garbage, drug paraphernalia, kids not being able to play outdoors, and if you object you're "mean."]

(continuing): "The new 8-foot-tall fence is rigid and much stronger, with smaller holes to make it difficult to cut or climb.

Neighbors hope it will make the campers move on, but those who work with the homeless argue the city is giving them nowhere else to go....

But Nunez says,Take them to your neighborhood and you live the way we’ve been living the past few years, and then you’ll sing a different tune after that.”

They say good fences make good neighbors. It will be interesting to see if that holds true once this one is completed.

Neighbors say there are about 60 people living at the homeless encampment. It’s believed most moved there after the city closed down the huge encampment known as “The Jungle” two years ago."







......................

Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland say no thanks to poisoned Kool Aid, refuse to commit genocide of their own country by allowing flood of Muslim so-called refugees as ordered by EU genocide crew-Daily Caller

EU actions perfectly fit the definition of genocide as described by the term's creator, Raphael Lemkin: "Genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. 

It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, 
liberty,  health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups."...
 

June 13, 2017, "EU Sues Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic For Not Taking Enough Muslim Refugees," Daily Caller, Jacob Bojesson, Foreign Correspondent 

"The European Union launched legal action Tuesday against Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic over their refusal to take refugees. 

The case stems from a decision to relocate 160,000 migrants proportionally across the EU. Hungary and Poland have refused to take a single refugee under the plan while the Czech Republic let in 12. 

EU is now launching infringement procedures, arguing the three countries are violating their obligations as member states. 

“Regrettably, despite…repeated calls, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland, in breach of their legal obligations stemming … and their commitments to Greece, Italy and other member states, have not yet taken the necessary action,” the European Commission said in a statement. “Against this background…the Commission has decided to launch infringement procedures against these three Member States.” 

The European Court of Justice will decide whether the countries failed to meet their obligations. A financial penalty may be imposed if the countries continue to refuse the quotas after a ruling in favor of the EU. 

Czech Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka said his country has no intention to reverse its immigration policies any time soon.

With regard to the worsened security situation in Europe and dysfunctionality of the quota system, it will not participate in it,” Sobotka said after EU’s announcement, according to Reuters."

 




........................

Followers

Blog Archive

About Me

My photo
I'm the daughter of an Eagle Scout (fan of the Brooklyn Dodgers and Mets) and a Beauty Queen.