Palo Palo firefighters get hosed down

The Daily News
Diana Diamond The Daily News

Good grief, Diana Diamond of the Daily News is having a conniption over Palo Alto firefighters’ new work schedule.

Diamond objects to the two 24-hour working days on duty followed by four 24-hour days off duty schedule being implemented in the Palo Alto Fire Department. Diamond complains that firefighters lounge around most of the time while on duty and therefore don’t deserve nor justify so much time off.

However if you look more closely at the overall situation you will find that Diamond’s rationale is not logical and therefore is more about envy of a group of people who have created an niche industry that pays them what the market will bear than it does with exploiting tax payers.

Diamond points out that each fireman will be working 10 days a month while getting 20 days off under the new schedule. This would amount to working 120 days a year while getting 240 days off.* Diamond compares this to most workers in the private sector that work 5 days a week with 2 days off; or working 260 days a year with 104 days off. *

The problem with Diamond’s logic is she is comparing days to days and not hours to hours. Most professionals work 40 hours a week; or 40 hours every 7 days. Minus two weeks vacation per year that equates to 2,000 hours a year. Firemen are working 48 hours every 6 days. Minus two weeks of vacation per year that equates to 2,784 hours a year.

One could argue how much pay and benefits firemen should receive for their services but that is not the argument here. The argument is over what firemen are being paid to do. First and foremost firemen are being paid to be highly skilled in fire suppression and emergency responsiveness for individual and community needs.

Secondarily firemen are being paid to be available when needed; being paid to be “on-call.” Palo Alto is paying firemen to be on call 24 hours a day 365 days a year. For each 24 hour day fireman slot the city is paying for 8,760 hours of service per year.

Every day for every fireman slot there are three 8 hour shifts that need to be filled. These shifts could be divvied up between three different firemen or between two firemen working one 12 hour shift each or one fireman working one 24 hour shift. Regardless of how the hours are split up between firemen the 24 hours of service from a highly trained fireman is being paid for.

Ultimately Diamond’s complaint is not about firemen being overly compensated for their services but in how firemen are divvying up the hours of service they provide to the people of Palo Alto. What should it matter to Diamond if three different people are working three different shifts in 24 hours or if one person is working the three shifts the same 24 hours of service?

If Palo Alto thought that it was being exploited by the Fireman’s Union collectively bargaining to obtain unreasonable compensation than Palo Alto could just as easily out source all medical emergencies to a private paramedic/emergency medical service provider the same way the city has out sourced the street sweepers while rolling back the fire department’s personnel to a few full time employees and enlist the services of hundreds of Palo Alto residents into a primarily volunteer fire department.

And If that be the case are you Diana Diamond willing to put in 10 hours a month training and cleaning fire equipment in addition to getting up at 2:00am in the morning at a moments notice when your phone rings to help put out a fire on the other side of town knowing full well you will have to get to your own full-time job by 9:00am?

(* Numbers not exact and not including holiday’s or vacation time; rounding off for simplicity.)

Clinton’s Socialism Is More Capitalistic Than You Know

Unchecked socialism and under-regulated capitalism have this in common, both redistribute the wealth of the many into the hands of the few; they just use different means to achieve the same goal.

“I know there’s a lot of smoke, and there’s no fire,”  Hillary Clinton said regarding the ongoing saga of her ever changing emails and the bridge she erected between the State Department and her private charity.

Nobody says “where there is smoke there is no fire.”  People say “there is no smoke and therefore there is no fire.”  If there weren’t any fire, than Hillary would have said there is no smoke.

Had Donald Trump served as Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013 and had he met with 85 people in his official capacity as Secretary of State accepting a total of $150 million from those people to finance his private and personal charity would the democrats give him a pass as they are giving Hillary a pass?  Better yet, would the “Tea Party,” Trumps primary supporters, give him a pass?  I think not.

Why are the democrats, including about 43% of them who actually support Bernie Sanders giving Hillary a pass on this?

Why can’t the democrats rise up and demand that Hillary drop out of the presidential race and let Bernie Sanders slide into the presidential nominee driver seat?  The reason is that not all socialists are the same.  The Clintons have made over $130 million dollars from capitalism; Hillary is worth $31 million alone.

Putting aside the latest conflict of interest lets look at the broader bill-president-5picture of the Clintons’ true political philosophy.  First of all we have to realize Hillary is not running for president, bill-president-7Bill is. Hillary intends to put Bill in charge of fixing the economy.

Hillary is actually acknowledging that the economy needs fixing meaning that she knows Obama did not fix it during his 8 years in office.  Hillary has promised millions of living wage jobs.
Obama has had 8 years to provide millions of living wage jobs yet he has not been able to produce any meaningful increase.  If Obama cannot do it in 8 years neither can Hillary.

“The $4.03-an-hour rate recorded in January 1973 has the same purchasing power as $22.41 would today.”  The $15.00 an hour minimum wage proposal is a slap in the face especially if there is not a corresponding solution provided for the dearth of affordable housing.

Smoke and Mirror Housing

Despite the appearance of economic prosperity during Bill Clinton’s presidency that fact is the purchasing power of the average American decreased during his 2 terms and the years that followed.

Bill used smoke and mirrors to create the appearance of economic prosperity by increasing home ownership not by increasing living wages but by forcing banks through the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), to issue loans to people who would never be able to repay.

Bill signed into law the Gramm–Leach–BlileyAct, (GLBA), which repealed the Glass–Steagall Act enabling his buddies on Wall-Street to get in on the profits.  He then tied the CRA with the Commodity Futures Modernization Act which provided the money for the loans by reclassifying futures as insurance.

The “Con,” an elaborate shell game, was now in play.

Using a fraudulent construction of the law through “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac” policies the Clinton Administration was able to force banks to issue an ever increasing number of subprime loans even if they preferred not to.  If banks did not meet certain quotas and grades they were denied the ability grow their business.  Most people would call this extortion.  Bill Clinton used unchecked socialism to manipulate unregulated capitalism in order to redistribute the money of the masses into the hands of the few.

Bill Clinton created a huge demand for housing by providing money to up to 28 million people who would otherwise not have the money, knowing full well that most of these people would eventually default on their loans because the loans were rigged from beginning to increase in payment amounts beyond their ability to pay.

This newly created demand for housing was created without increasing a corresponding amount of new inexpensive homes resulting in a low supply of housing stock.  High demand and low supply caused property value to skyrocket year after year increasing property owners’ and developers profits to levels never seen.

House flipping became the name of the game due the ever increasing property values.  Houses became tools to create wealth rather than homes to raise families and build communities.  No matter, the banks continued to rake in the money until the clock ran out when the mortgage amounts far exceeded the intrinsic value of property being purchased.

When the millions of defaulted loans threatened a global economic collapse the government bailed out the financial institutions that made the fraudulent loans and security sales.  In the end the banks walked away with 28 million down payments in addition to tens of millions of 12 to 36 monthly payments and the property too to boot.

The end game was exactly what they got.  The “too big to fail banks” got bailed out by tax payer money, socialism, in order to remain in business rather than allow free-market capitalism decide their outcome.  The big banks swallowed up the smaller banks decreasing market competition which hurts everyone.  Bill Clinton used socialism to make capitalists rich while increasing their monopoly in the market place.

If Bill Clinton truly wanted to increase home ownership in the U.S. then he would have repeated what has worked numerous times in the past; and that is to increase the supply of inexpensive private property to the point that people can afford it on the wages and salaries that they currently earn.  But he deliberately chose not to do what had worked in the past.

And then you have Hillary chastising Bernie Sanders for voting for the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, (CFMA), that Bill created and signed into law, yet she is going to put Bill in charge of fixing the economy.

It should be noted that the CFMA floated through the morass of Congress modified for a year until it was finally attached to the 11,000 page omnibus bill that funded the government.   It is conceivable, probable, that several senators did not know the full scope of the deregulation that was being enacted.

Just Another Arkansas Business

Hillary Clinton sat on the board of Wal-Mart for years because she happened to be the governor’s wife.  Alice Walton just gave Hillary’s Democratic National Committee Victory Fund $353,000 right after she gave $25,000 to the Ready for Hillary political action committee.

Wal-Mart is a U.S. company that will take the extreme measure of shutting down a store as means of preventing its employees from unionizing Wal-Mart is a company that refuses to pay its employees a living wage requiring its employees to seek billions of dollars in government subsidies for food, healthcare and housing.

Why is Hillary taking money from a company that doesn’t want to allow its employees to become empowered from unionizing?  Why is Hillary taking money from a company that refuses to pay a living wage?  Hillary is taking money from Wal-Mart because Hillary is helping Wal-Mart increase its profits by passing off a portion of its labor costs to tax payers, socialism.

Hillary is taking money from Wal-Mart in order to force the people of America to seek aid from the government rather than enabling the people to provide for themselves through collective bargaining.  By forcing the citizens of America to seek help in the form of food, housing and healthcare from the government, the government can force its top down ideological views upon its citizens.

The more the government controls the less the freedom the people have.  Hillary Clinton does not want to set people free economically; she wants them dependent upon the government so that she can control them.

Hillary is using the play book of the World Bank and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).  Check out John Perkins book, The New Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.

The Nightmare Of Obamacare

Why is Obamacare failing, it’s failing because people don’t make enough money to afford it even with the aid of the government subsidy.  Why isn’t there enough money to subsidize those who cannot afford Obamacare, again they don’t make enough money to provide the government with the required tax revenue to finance the subsidies.

This is always the end result of overbearing economic socialism that seeks to enrich those at the top.

If the majority of Americans were making a living wage, that is bearing the majority of the fruit of their labor, there would be enough tax revenue to make Obamacare work, yet if the majority of Americans were earning a living wage then Obamacare would be unnecessary for then the majority of Americans would be able to afford health care on their own without any government subsidy.  The people would not need the government’s assistance.

“Obamacare” and a “living wage” are mutually exclusive.  If Hillary Clinton were truly for a living wage then she wouldn’t be for Obamacare.  If Hillary Clinton truly wanted everyone to have cheap health care she would seek to regulate capitalism in such a manner to produce greater competition between insurance companies while simultaneously empowering employees through collective bargaining to obtain living wages and greater health benefits.

The Payoff

People don’t give you money for nothing in return.  When people give you money they expect something in return.  Bill and Hillary Clinton received $153 million in speaking fees from 2001 to 2016.  This included at least $7.7 million for 39 speeches to big banks, including Goldman Sachs and UBS.  Hillary collected at least $1.8 million for eight speeches to big banks, the free market profiting capitalistic banks that rely on socialism to pay off their debt when they fail in the market place.

“Bill Clinton Cashed In When Hillary Became Secretary of State  A typical speech would net Bill $150,000 upon retiring from the White House.  Then when Hillary became Secretary of State his paydays for speeches increased upwards of $500,000 and beyond which included the likes of a Russian investment bank and $750,000 to address a telecom conference in China.

Nobody pays $750,000 to hear someone talk for an hour unless there was something else to be exchanged.  Perhaps some of it is pay back for services rendered when Bill was in office.

And some of it is a little pay forward for what both Bill and Hillary will do when reelected.  Hillary Clinton appointed former Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to head of her transition team.  Salazar works for one of Washington’s most powerful lobbying firms, WilmerHale.  Salazar is a fervent supporter of fracking, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, (TPP), and the Keystone XL pipeline; all pro Republican policies.

NAFTA: The North American (Fraudulent) Trade Agreement

“Yesterday, Sen. Clinton also said I’m wrong to point out that she once supported NAFTA,” Obama said. “But the fact is, she was saying great things about NAFTA until she started running for president.

A couple years after it passed, she said NAFTA was a ‘free and fair trade agreement’ and that it was ‘proving its worth.’ And in 2004, she said, ‘I think, on balance, NAFTA has been good for New York state and America.’ “The Clinton campaign says Obama is wrong, that Clinton was critical of NAFTA “long before she started running for president.”  Politifact

Clinton wrote positively of her husband’s efforts on NAFTA in her memoir “Living History,” published in 2003: “Creating a free trade zone in North America — the largest free trade zone in the world — would expand U.S. exports, create jobs and ensure that our economy was reaping the benefits, not the burdens, of globalization. Although unpopular with labor unions, expanding trade opportunities was an important administration goal.”  Politifact

At a debate hosted by CNN in November 2007, Hillary Clinton said, “NAFTA was a mistake to the extent that it did not deliver on what we had hoped it would, and that’s why I call for a trade timeout.”  Hillary supported NAFTA, then she said she said it was broken. Now Hillary wants to create a much bigger version of NAFTA called the TPP which Bernie Sanders ardently opposes.

How do you know when someone is lying, they keep changing her story.  If Hillary is opposed to NAFTA and claims that it failed why in the world would she be promoting the TPP given that it is the same policies as NAFTA only with different nations covering a much greater economic area?

NAFTA has hurt American citizens as well as citizens from participating nations.  During her convention speech Hillary espoused the TPP to the nation in such a manner as if it is something that people want; as if it is something that would be good for American citizens and the citizens of the participating nations.  Why is she lying to the American people and the world?

“Democrats and Republicans have come together for trade agreements which have resulted in America losing over 60,000 factories in the United States over the last 13 years.”  Bernie Sanders  Why does Hillary want to enact the Trans Pacific Partnership, the TPP?

“Now We Know Why Huge TPP Trade Deal Is Kept Secret From the Public”  One way President Obama and the Chamber of Commerce sell the TPP is by saying it will change everything and will rewrite the rules for doing business for the 21st century.  This leak shows us that they are right about the TPP changing everything and rewriting the rules.

But the leak shows that the people and organizations opposing the TPP were right too, because the changes give corporations vast new powers to overrule democratic governments.”  Huffington Post  The TPP eliminates the Constitutional Rights of U.S. Citizens subjecting them to an international court not bound by elected officials.  The TPP eliminates Democracy and a Republican form of government.

(Five Scary Things About the Trans-Pacific Partnership)

(The TPP could make the environment even worse.)

NAFTA Fallout

The Clintons destroyed the livelihoods of millions of Latin hillary-2Americans.  In his book and movie, “Harvest of Empire,” Juan Gonzalez of Democracy Now illustrates point by point how the corporate elite working through governmental institutions have exploited the poor in Latin America as well as the U.S. using the policies associated with NAFTA.

NAFTA has resulted in greater income inequality; a $181 billion U.S. trade deficit with Mexico and Canada; the related loss of 1 million net U.S. jobs; the displacement of more than one million Mexican campesino farmers and a doubling of desperate immigration from Mexico.  For the full report of NAFTA’s devastation read Public Citizens’ Report on this failed economic policy.

(NAFTA at 20: Lori Wallach on US Job Losses, Record Income Inequality, Mass Displacement in Mexico)

The Clintons intend to do to the Pacific Rim nations what they have done to the Americas.

Voting for Hillary Clinton is voting for your worst economic self interest.

Voting for Hillary Clinton is voting for your worst social interests.

The “free-trade” moniker is a euphemism used to deceive people about what the truth is behind “free trade” agreements just like when the government used the moniker, “collateral damage” to describe the deaths of innocent citizens in a war zone.  According to stats obtained by Public Citizen, “Trade deficits grew 418 % with FTA countries, but declined 6% with Non-FTA countries.”

The Evidence

In 1994 27 million Americans were on food stamps. Today, more than 46 million Americans are on food stamps.  There are massive soup lines in America we just don’t see them the way we did during the great depression.  In 2014, 46.7 million people (14.8 percent), including 15.5 million children were living in poverty to which 15.3 million children were not being adequately nourished for a healthy life.

The ability for the average American to own a home and enjoy the so called “American Dream” is at an all time low.  If Obama could not stop this tragedy neither can Hillary.

Keeping Them In The Dark

Then to make sure the public is kept in the dark Bill Clinton signed into law the Telecommunications Act of 1996.  The act, signed into law on February 8, 1996, was “essentially bought and paid for by corporate media lobbies,” as Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) described it, and radically “opened the floodgates on mergers.”  truthout

“Never have so many been held incommunicado by so few,” said Eduardo Galeano, the Latin American journalist, in response to the act.”  truthout

Broadcasting and telecommunications services in the U.S. are now controlled by six corporate conglomerates: Disney, CBS, News Corp., Viacom, Time Warner, and Comcast.  Gannett Company owns over 1,000 newspapers and 600 magazines nationwide, including USA Today. iHeartMedia owns 850 radio stations in the U.S. alone.

According to Bernie Sanders, this violates the core principles of American government as: “we cannot live in a vibrant democracy unless people get divergent sources of information.” To combat this problem, Bernie has consistently called out media conglomerates on their dishonest practices.”

Once again Bill Clinton decreased competition in the market place which increases costs for the product and in this case that would be advertising space.  Holding a monopoly these media companies can increase the cost advertising unchallenged by competitors.

These increased costs to the companies that buy the ad space pass on this cost to their customers who purchase their products.  The rules of the marketplace have been manipulated to force a majority of people to hand over more of their money to a minority of companies unnecessarily.

The Best Democracy Money Can Buy

Now you know why Hillary Clinton can take in $19 million in 72 hours and $143 million for the month of August in campaign donations from the wealthiest people in America; like Republican Meg Whitman who have endorsed Clinton for President.  And now you know why Donald Trump is the Republican presidential candidate.  Trump is the only person in America whom Hillary can beat in an election.

The Clinton Foundation

The Clinton Foundation has taken in over $ 2 billion.  People don’t give you $2 billion for nothing, they expect something in return.

(The Clinton Bush Haiti Fund is Lying to You)

Hillary Clinton is telling America what they want to hear in order to get elected and then she will implement laws, treaties and policies that are in your own worst interests.  Bill and Hillary Clinton talk the talk but they don’t walk the walk.  They make hundreds of millions of dollars by exploiting the poor through their foundation and pandering to big business and heads of state in exchange for political favors.

According to a May 31, 2015 story from the ultra-liberal publication “” there was a steady stream of cash to the Clinton Foundation from 20 foreign governments who relied on Hillary to approve of weapons exports to their nations.

While Clinton was secretary of state, her department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors which was twice the amount allocated during the same time period of George W. Bush’s second term.

Another $151 billion in separate pentagon deals, (a 143% increase over the Bush’s administration), went to 16 countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation.

Hillary slammed Algeria on human rights violations one year and then the next year increased military exports to Algeria by 70% after Algeria donated $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation.  Those exports included “toxicological, chemical and biological agents.”

Hillary the War Hawk?

There are mixed reviews on the Clinton Foundation by charity watchdog groups yet one group, “Charity Navigator” had to remove the foundation from its charity list due to the foundation’s atypical business model which could not be accurately rated according to Charity Navigator’s methodology.

The Clinton Foundation does not have a typical charity business model.

Bill’s Piggy Backing Profit College

Hillary Clinton has blasted for profit universities promising to crack down on their predatory tactics.  Bill Clinton received $17.6 million from for profit university, Laureate International to be its honorary Chancellor for five years beginning shortly after Hillary became Secretary of State.Doug Becker, the founder of Laureate Universities, has made large donations to both Hillary Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s political campaigns.

Becker has donated between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation.  Laureate, “the fastest growing college network in the world,” has partnered with the Clinton Global Initiative on various educational causes throughout the world.

Becker is the chairman of the board of the International Youth Foundation, (IYF), which is a non-profit organization run out of hte State Department, yes Hillary’s Department.  The IFY is involved in international education that provides job and life skills to disenfranchised youth throughout the world.

The IYF is funded by the State Department through the U.S. Agency for International Development.  In the three overlapping years beginning in 2010 State Department funding of the IYF shot up dramatically to an average of $19 million a year.

The year after Hillary left the the State Dept. grants to IYF fell to about $6 million a year.  “The only scam in education that I am aware of is the scam of Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton,”  said Stephen Miller, a senior adviser to Donald Trump. “Secretary Clinton was funneling State Department grants to this university.”

No Uranium For You

Vladimir Putin personally thanked Bill Clinton for giving a speech to a Russian investment bank, Renaissance Capital; Clinton received 500k for the speech.  Renaissance Capital was promoting stocks in a uranium mining company, Uranium One, that was acquired by the Russian Atomic Energy Agency, Rosatom.  One catch, Rosatom needed the U.S. State Department’s approval to purchase Uranium One’s mining rights.

The Clinton Foundation received $2.35 million from Uranium One’s chairman and family foundation leading up to Hillary Clinton signing off on the deal; a the deal that handed over 20% of the United States’ Uranium to Russia.

According to Clinton Cash, the total donations from Uranium One shareholders to the Clinton Foundation exceeded $145 million.

How You Make $6 Billion Disappear

$6 Billion vanished from the U.S. State Department primarily under Hillary Clinton’s watch.

The Inspector General concluded in it’s alert that such failures create “conditions conducive to fraud, as corrupt individuals may attempt to conceal evidence of illicit behavior by omitting key documents from the contract file. It impairs the ability of the department to take effective and timely action to protect its interests and, in turn, those of taxpayers. Finally, it limits the ability of the government to punish and deter criminal behavior.”

So in the final analysis, Clinton’s Socialism Is More Capitalistic Than You Know

Kaepernick Defends Retired Marine From Donald Trump

Donald Trump publicly castigated San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick for Kaepernick’s refusal to stand for the National Anthem and the American flag.

“I think it’s a terrible thing, and you know, maybe he, (Kenneth Chamberlain Sr.), should find a country that works better for him, let him try, it’s not gonna happen.”  Donald Trump  (parenthesis mine)

Mr. Trump, Kenneth Chamberlain Sr. a Marine Veteran will not chamberlainstand for the National Anthem or the U.S. Flag.  Should he leave America too?  Oh ya, that’s right he physically cannot do so because he was shot and killed by White Plains police officers and is lying  six feet under at a military cemetery.  And why did these officers, one of whom who was recorded using the “N-Word” just prior to Mr. Chamberlain being shot and killed?  They killed him because Mr. Chamberlain exercised his Constitutional Right to refuse medical attention.

Because of that White Plains police officers exerted themselves for an hour breaking down Mr. Chamberlain’s door all the while Mr. Chamberlain repeatedly and clearly informed them to go away; that he was physically and mentally fine.  But rather than leave as they were required to do according the law and the Constitution they broke into Mr. Chamberlain’s private residence under color of law and killed a man for defending his freedoms; a man who defended the very freedoms that the officers themselves enjoyed, including the right of privacy; of equal protection of law; and of free speech.

These officers committed breaking and entering, assault, battery, false imprisonment, excessive force and murder yet they were never charged with a crime by local or state prosecutors.  These White Plains police officers violated the Constitution that the officers swore and oath to protect, defend and uphold but the U.S. DOJ has refused to hold them accountable.

There are many radio tower, insulated critics denigrating Kaepernaick for not honoring the flag and the National Anthem which represent the Constitution and the freedoms and liberties that the Constitution is supposed to guarantee.

When the critics refer to the flag and the National Anthem they are actually referring to the U.S. Constitution for the flag and the National Anthem are nothing more than representations of the Constitution and the guarantees contained therein, thus anything asserted to about the flag and the National Anthem is an assertion about the Constitution.

The critics claim that the flag represents veterans who have put their lives on the line; who have died for the flag and that which the flag also represents, the Constitution, the liberties bestowed upon American citizens.  If veterans represent the flag and the flag represents the Constitution and the freedoms guaranteed to American citizens than Mr. Chamberlain is a representation of the flag.

Since the National Anthem and the flag are just representations of the freedoms of America  and the sacrifices that people have made to guarantee those freedoms; what is the more egregious offense to those freedoms; to those patriots; to the flag: sitting down during the National Anthem to bring attention to the fact that the Constitution is not living up to its word or saying nothing as the government covers up its murder of one of its own citizens who represents the very same Constitutional rights and freedoms that the flag does?

When those White Plains, NY police officers murdered Kenneth Chamberlain under Color of Law they did not just sit down when the Constitution was being honored for what it claims to be; those officers murdered the Constitution for Kenneth Chamberlain is the Constitution in living form, just as all citizens are.

I find these critics’ outrage toward Kaepernick hypocritical and disingenuous, they and the media give front page attention to Kaepernick for sitting down during the playing of the National Anthem yet  I heard not one word from these same people over how the justice system has covered up the murder of Kenneth Chamberlain.  Where was their outrage over the Unconstitutional, state condoned, execution of Kenneth Chamberlain?

These critics assert with their words that the flag is sacred yet their actions, or the lack there of, reveal that they don’t believe in that which they preach.  They arbitrarily decide when they are going to defend the Constitution based upon their personal bias just as the justice system does rendering the Constitution to inferior status; to a mere tool to be used to at the dictates of personal bias and prejudice.

They claim the flag is sacred, is Mr. Chamberlain’s life not sacred?    Why is the flag sacred; is it not because it recognizes the sacredness of human life and the liberty of human life?  If the flag did not uphold the sacredness of human life and the liberty of human life the so called “unalienable rights” would it still be sacred?

These critics put more value in a flag and a song than they do the human life whose value and sacredness imbue the flag and song with value and sacredness and without would render both meaningless.

Well did Jesus say: “Woe to you, blind guides! You say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gold of the temple is bound by that oath.’ You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred?” 

For the Constitution, the flag, to be what it claims to be it must first and foremost be applied equally to all.  If the Constitution is not applied equally to all than it does not exist at all, for it no longer is that what it claims to be.

The evidence is overwhelming that the Constitution is not applied equally to all and therefore is not what it claims to be.  Kaepernick is revealing to his critics that they honor a flag that does not represent that which they claim it represents.  Rather than acknowledge this truth they brow beat him with their ire generated from living in an insulated world protected from the realities of which those without such protection are subjected to on a daily basis.

The Use of Force / Two heavy users of force end group’s night out on the town

“Brooke Duthie said he has completely rethought his view of police.”  “Being a white man who doesn’t live in the inner city,” he said, “you hear stories of injustice done to minorities and about people picked on by police, but I never understood it until after that night.”

Sean Connolly, a deputy city attorney who handled the case, pointed to another factor affecting the March 2003 settlement. “Most plaintiffs who sue the cops come out of a world that usually deals with cops,” Connolly said. “These were good-looking, middle-class folk, articulate. Two of them were models.”  “You always have to assess the credibility of the witnesses and how a jury will see their testimony,” Connolly said. “This was not a run-of-the-mill case.”

Hillary Clinton has said: “We have systemic racism that is really at work inside of the criminal justice system. And, we have got to be willing…To stand up – and question these inequities, and then go about the business of ridding them.” 

“…the states have proven themselves incapable of carrying out fair trials;…that give the defendant all the rights that the defendant should have…”  Hillary Clinton

Hillary’s husband Bill had eight years to remedy these problems and did not; President Obama, Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch have had eight years to fix the justice system and have not.  Hillary Clinton is not going to fix the justice system and she couldn’t even if she wanted to.

Cops Beat Man Bloody Then Arrest Him For Bleeding On Them

Police arrest and beat wrong man; destroy video and federal judge says perjury and injuries too minor to rise to constitutional violation.

Rosa Parks refused to stand up for the Constitutionally supported law of her day and she was vilified for doing so.  When marching in protest is not enough, when calling on elected officials who pay lip service is not enough, when seeking a redress in federal court has no affect the only place left is the silent majority who are resistant to have their comfortable lives invaded by the oppression of others.

“The ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and cruelty by the bad people but the silence over that by the good people.”  Martin Luther King, Jr.

Those who have criticized Kaepernick not for his message or motivation but for the method Kaepernick used to deliver the message to them just prior to playing a game; for interrupting their party and for rocking their sphere of comfort are completely ignorant to what the Frist Amendment of free speech means and guarantees.  It does not mean that you can say whatever you want so long as you say it somewhere else, where I don’t have to hear you.  The First Amendment guarantees the right to say what you want where you want so long what you say does not incite violence.  The First Amendment guarantees the right to say to others what they don’t want to hear and for that to happen the hearers need to be in ear shot.

When the critics of Kaepernick state that he should not be using the venue of the National Anthem and a stadium full of people to make his statement they are disagreeing with the First Amendment and are opposing the Constitution, they are opposing the flag and the National Anthem which they claim to honor.

If Kaepernick’s critics demonstrated just as much public outrage as to why the government whitewashed the murder of Kenneth Chamberlain by police officers as they have about Kaepernick sitting down during the National Anthem then the government could no longer sweep under the rug the thousands of Constitutional violations committed every day.

The University of Michigan’s National Registry of Exonerations has documented 1,874 people convicted of crimes they have not committed.

A study completed by Professor Marvin Zalman concluded that 5,000 to 10,000 people a year are wrongfully convicted each year.

If a prosecutor does not want to convict an innocent person of crime is it possible for him/her to do so?   Remember to convict someone of a crime a prosecutor needs enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.  It is obvious that the justice system relies on evidence that produces wrong convictions the same way that it uses evidence to exonerate guilty cops.

“For anyone who has practiced criminal law in the state or Federal courts, the disclosures about rampant police perjury cannot possibly come as a surprise. “Testilying” — as the police call it — has long been an open secret among prosecutors, defense lawyers and judges.”  “Without the complicity of judges, police perjury would be reduced considerably. Officers know that in many courtrooms they can get away with the most blatant perjury without judicial rebuke or prosecution.”  Alan M. Dershowitz

Kaepernick is speaking up for Mr. Chamberlain and those like Chamberlain who cannot speak for themselves for their 1st Amendments Right to free speech has been permanently stolen from them not by some other private citizens but by the government that is supposed to guarantee that freedom.

People debate back and forth whether or not Mr. Chamberlain was attacking the officers when he was shot, the evidence is coming out that he was not, but that is beside the point.  Mr. Chamberlain was never the aggressor, the police officers were.  The White Plains police officers laid siege to Mr. Chamberlain’s private property for an hour before they killed him, if any other citizens in America did what these officers did they would have been prosecuted and convicted of murder.  Mr. Chamberlain was exercising his Constitutional right to defend his life and his property and his free speech.

If these White Plains officers had done to Donald Trump or great americaMichael Jordan what they did to Mr. Chamberlain both Trump’s and Jordan’s children would ensure that the government would swiftly send the culpable officers to prison.  And it is this revelation that points to the solution.  If officers would simply enforce the law on everyone the same way they would enforce it upon Trump or Jordan the problem of bias policing, of selective enforcement and abuse would dramatically decrease.

(Police Beat Father to Death in Front of His Wife and Daughter, Steal Daughter’s Camera Afterwards)

Kaepernick’s stance most likely cost him of what remained of his NFL career.  If not, perhaps he could work with Drew Brees and others to set some goals in establishing the fundamental tenets of the flag/Constitution to the least powerful citizens of the nation.  Perhaps both could provide public attention to the Innocent Project and raise awareness about those who are unconstitutionally and wrongly convicted.

Kaepernick created a national commotion for being silent at time when everyone else expected him to speak up yet everyone else remains silent for very same reason they want Kaepernick to speak up.

The other day I heard a radio host criticize Kaepernick for his stance throwing out the challenge of just naming one person who was murdered by the police and not held accountable.  To that I say:   Kenneth Chamberlain Sr.

Kenneth Chamberlain Sr.


National Anthem






Related Article: Grand Jury Determines Not to Bring Charges Against White Plains Officers Who Killed Kenneth Chamberlain Sr. 

Palo Alto – The Detroit of Tomorrow ?

Welcome to Palo AltoThere’s no reasonable place to rent or live in Palo Alto, that’s a fact Jack. It’s the home of the self-made rich and God help the poor. The problem is that for decades the City has allowed more office buildings and jobs to be created than housing. Businesses don’t require much in the way of Parks, Police, Fire Department or other services.

Then there were taxes

Yet businesses pay lots of taxes. So it’s been an easy decision for the City to welcome business and ignore housing which demands much more careful planning and support. Generally Palo Altans advertise themselves as caring, generous and smart thanks to the association with Stanford. But this is no college town. Hardly anyone from the university lives in town or can afford to live in town.

And the look and feel of the town is changing as streets become crowded with office buildings. Judging by the housing results, Palo Altans do not care about poor people either because there’s no place for the poor to live here. We talk about it. Yet instead of housing, we build more offices. Offices pay, poor people don’t.

But things change. For example: How did the United States thrive for 124 years with almost no Income Tax, no real estate taxes, building permits, fees, architectural review boards, planning commissions, Environmental Impact Reports, EPA and so on into the night ? You could say that the economy was much simpler in the 1800s and we didn’t need tax revenue for roads, schools, a military, but that’s not true.

The country expanded first with the construction of canals and then railroads and the growth of world straddling monopolies like Standard Oil and US Steel. In 1789 Manhattan island in New York City was a farming community with narrow winding roads, former cow paths. 124 years later, thanks to the good fortune of location and timing, by 1913 Manhattan was an international port with high-rise apartment and office buildings. Real estate values skyrocketed.

Give the land back to Native American

People fought it. But money talked. And that is what’s been happening in Palo Alto for the past 40 years. As long as people remember the past, there will be those who prefer it and resist change. But young people, new to the area and recruited for high-tech jobs, are interested in their future, not the past of Palo Alto. Heck, if we really cared about the land and were really concerned about justice, we’d give it all back to the Indians.

Wait a minute right there, I can hear the whole city shouting, ‘let’s not go crazy.’ Those of us who have property in town are doing pretty damn good, we’re way ahead of the game and we’re not giving anything back like that.

Well it’s all thanks to the good fortune of location and timing that the Palo Alto area, like Manhattan, is experiencing wild growth and land value increases. This could change tomorrow. Google, Facebook, Akami, Intel, all face competition and a series of missteps could doom any or all of them.

Could Palo Alto become Detroit?

Who knew that Chicago would become the bankrupt murder capital of the United States or that Philadelphia, practically the birthplace of the nation, would become a sprawling slum. This time, right now, may be this towns chance to become great which means it must change. Good ideas have been proposed but City politicians seem too concerned about their little careers to take a bold stand for major changes.

I’ve seen ideas in the local papers such as: A high-rise Business Park along the 101 Freeway where there is already transportation and room for parking and transit. Higher Density re-zoned areas in the city and street widening for more people and cars. Other areas of the city could remain ‘frozen’, like Greenwich Village in Manhattan. But let’s not kid ourselves, the way things are going, Palo Alto will not ever be affordable.

Fifth Avenue in New York is not affordable, The Champs d’Elyse in Paris is not affordable, so how and why can Palo Alto go back in time. If the town is to retain a spot near the top of the Tech world, the town needs to think deeper. The past was wonderful but unless you want to risk becoming another Detroit, we’re going to have to change. Get out your ‘smart phone’ and take a ‘selfie’ of your street now before it’s too late.

An Alternative to Trump and Clinton

Gary Johnson You’re a Democrat and you don’t want to vote for Clinton. You’re a Republican and you don’t want to vote for Trump. Vote for the Libertarian presidential candidate, Gary Johnson. Since both Clinton and Trump are worse, why would you vote for them instead? Johnson is picking up speed in the polls and has taken in a third party record $3 million of campaign contributions over the first two week of August.

You may not like all of Johnson’s positions; not to worry, Congress will be controlled by the Democrats and the Republicans so whatever Johnson would like to accomplish will be mitigated by the Capital Hill gauntlet.

What electing Gary Johnson president will do is send an emphatic message to Congress that they need to change; that they need to root out corruption from their own ranks; that they need to live within their means by spending less than what they take in as everyone else must do; and ultimately stay out of our lives.

Are you a Bernie supporter living in fear that Trump will be elected if you vote for someone other than Clinton? The fact is Hillary will be elected regardless of who you vote for. Trump is sliding faster and father every day. He has just rearranged the deck chairs on his own Titanic.

Bernie stabbed you in the back when he capitulated to Clinton’s nomination. Hillary claims she is going to reform the justice system and provide millions of living wage jobs. Obama did not reform the justice system; Obama did not provide millions of living wage jobs. For those of you who are clinging on, Hillary cannot do any more than what Obama attempted to do over the last eight years. Hillary is making false promises just so she can get elected.

The only thing you have to be concerned about is what kind of Supreme Court Judges Johnson will appoint. Based upon his political philosophy he will appoint judges that benefit those on the “Left” and the ”Right.” More than likely Trump will not be elected no matter who you vote for. Send a message to Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party by voting for Johnson; in doing so you will put them on a short leash. They will know that if they do not make significant changes over the next 4 years their time will be up.

If for some reason Trump does get elected as a result of votes going to Johnson, the Democrat controlled Congress will stand in his way preventing Trump from enacting most of his policies. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain by voting for Gary Johnson for President.

Even Bill Maher gets it.

Where Johnson Stands on the Issues:

As a two term governor Johnson brought New Mexico into fiscal sustainability. He seeks to do the same for the nation. Governor Johnson seeks to eliminate all income and payroll taxes with a single consumption tax which would remove special interest tax loopholes, (think Warren Buffett paying less in taxes than his secretary), and to get rid of the double-taxation on small businesses.

Basic family necessities would be excluded in any restructured consumption tax. No more IRS. No more pay roll taxes. No more costly and time burdensome tax preparation. Clinton and Trump; The Democrats and the Republicans cannot and will not implement this reform that benefits everyone.

Johnson would seek to establish term limits freeing Republicans and Democrats to vote in favor of their constituents’ interests rather than than their party’s interests. With a democratically controlled legislature, Johnson vetoed 739 bills during his eight years in office.

Johnson is not soft on crime, however he recognizes that the “War on Drugs” has completely failed society and that hate crimes are crimes against thoughts and therefore would work to eliminate both from the nation. He has promoted private prisons to save money, asserting that whatever problems have arisen are due in large part to the over criminalization of drugs and therefore the overcrowding of prisons. Reducing the prison population would eliminate the necessity of private prisons.

Johnson is a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment pointing out that the founding father’s intent of the right to bear arms was not only for self-defense but also to ensure that the citizenry be well armed in order to deter any government from becoming too tyrannical.

Johnson would repeal Obamacare and overhaul Medicare and Medicaid both of which will result in the economic collapse of the country. He believes in government helping the poor and those over 65 years old, however everyone else should obtain health care from a highly competitive free market.

“Health care in this country is about as far removed from free market as it possibly can be,” Johnson said. “Government restricts the choices that we have. Government restricts the number of doctors that we have.”

“Wouldn’t we like to have a safety net for health care for those who are poor and over 65 as opposed to a monetary collapse of government where no health care would be delivered at all to those that are poor and those over 65?” he said.

Johnson is pro-choice. Johnson believes in making immigration to the U.S. easier so that not only most of the 11 million undocumented workers can stay but to motivate more people to immigrate to the U.S. Decriminalizing the immigration process while securing the border will make America safer and more prosperous overall than any proposal by Clinton or Trump.

The Motorless Electric Bike

The motorless electric bike, well not quite, but close.  “Lightweight,” a manufacturer of high pic 2quality carbon fibre bicycle wheels and components  has been working on a first of a kind electric bike, the Velocité, in which the wheel and frame act as the motor as opposed to attaching an electric motor to the transmission, (bottom bracket or hub), found on all other electric bikes.  Lightweight hasMag Lev Train Technology taken the linear technology of the Mag-Lev propulsion system found on mass transit Mag-Lev trains and incorporated it into the circular vector of the rear wheel of a bicycle.

This greatly reduces the excessive weight enabling the bike to accelerate much faster than typical e-bikes, up to a company estimated top speed of a 100 kph, (62mph).

The company has fastened dozens of permanent magnets to the rear wheel while incorporating inductive coils into a flange which wraps around the rear wheel.  During normal pedaling power the magnets and coils act as a generator storing power in a battery for later use.  Additionally the push-pull technology of the magnets and coils becomes a powerful regenerative braking system upon flipping the polarity.

pic 3Lightweight calls this “Maglev Transrapid technology”  and asserts that their Velocité ebike will produce 500 watts of power for assistance to the rider upon activation.

The greatest advantage of the Velocité over existing ebikes is the elimination of a transmission.  The power goes directly from the battery, located in the tube, to the wheel and the road.  This results in no loss of power which occurs in common electric motors that move power through gears.  The Velocité is an extremely efficient machine compared to all others of its kind.

The Electric Bike of the 21st Century, GeoOrbital, has got some serious competition.

Lightweight’s Velocité ebike has yet to hit the market but no doubt there are enthusiasts eagerly waiting to get their hands on this urban blazer as soon as it becomes available.  Once the kinks have been worked out one can imagine that this magnetic propulsion system will become the industry standard in the years to come.

Remember Fukushima?

Remember Fukushima, the wild boars do.  Since the catastrophe they have boars 2been reproducing like rabbits albeit with one significant side affect, they are all contaminated with high levels of caesium-137.  With no natural predators and no human consumers the radioactive boars have overrun the countryside.

With the plethora of news stories being disseminated to the public on a daily basis Japan’s nuclear power plant disaster that occurred 5 years ago and continues to occur has faded into the into the shadows.

On March 11, 2011 the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant suffered catastrophic meltdown.fukushima 1

Here is an update:

“What we found is the wind and the rain and the movement of radioactive dust everywhere is recontaminating areas that TEPCO claims are clean … and Fukushima fishermen take their contaminated fish and seafood further south to markets that don’t know the sources are Fukushima waters.”                          – Arnie Gundersen, Nuclear Engineer, Fairewinds
Nuclear Energy Education, Burlington, VT

Five years after the accident Fukushima and the surrounding areas remain a ghost towns.

600 tonnes of reactor fuel is still missing.

It will cost upwards of $240 billion and 40 years to decommission the plant.

10 million bags of contaminated soil has been collected and stored several stories high in and around Fukushima.

800,000 tons of radioactive water are being stored onsite.

Every day 300 tons of radioactive water continues to enter the Pacific Ocean.

Experts have found very high levels of cesium-137 in plankton living in the waters of the Pacific Ocean between Hawaii and the west coast of the U.S.

Radioactive cesium originating from Fukushima has been detected in several species of fish that have been sold to consumers in Canada.

Trace amounts of cesium-134 have been detected within several hundred miles of the U.S. west coast as well as offshore from Canada’s Vancouver Island.

The radiation levels are so high within the Fukushima power plant that the robots sent in to scope out the disaster and clean up spent fuel rods have died.

Fukushima forests, dubbed ‘radiation reservoirs,’ are full of mutated life forms.

Greenpeace has seen evidence of DNA damage in worms and mutations of fir trees indicating that the radiation contamination is so extensive the forest cannot be decontaminated.

Thyroid cancer rates in the Fukushima prefecture have been detected at 20 to 50 times higher than the national level.

Tokyo Electric Power Company, TEPCO, is in the process of freezing the ground soil surrounding the power plant with the hope that such an ice wall fukushima 4will create a barrier preventing fresh ground water from entering the site and thereby stop the contamination of the ocean and environment.

It will take another 4 years before TEPCO knows if the ice wall will be successful; a $300 million gamble in which the results will not be known until the commencement of the 2020 Summer Olympic games being held in Tokyo, Japan.


Proposition 66, The “Death Penalty Reform and Savings Act of 2016,” is Fool’s Gold for Californians

Californians for Death Penalty Savings and Reform“—an advocacy group spearheaded by district attorneys and several family members of murder victims—has collected enough signatures to qualify the “Death Penalty Reform and Savings Act of 2016“[PDF] for placement on the November 8 ballot. On July 1, California’s Secretary of State officially certified the measure, issuing it a number, “Proposition 66.” The group claims this initiative will “reform” California’s fractured death penalty and “speed up” executions in our state where currently 748 [PDF] men and women wait to die.

On the other side of the issue is “Justice That Works,” lead by Mike Farrell, the actor who starred in MASH, a longstanding death penalty abolitionist and internationally renowned human rights activist. Joining Mr. Farrell are an impressive array of politicians from across the political spectrum, religious leaders, attorneys, writers, artists—and just like the Californians for Death Penalty Savings and Reform group— influential law enforcement leaders and the family members of murder victims. They too secured enough signatures to qualify proposed new legislation, Proposition 62, “The Justice That Works Act of 2016,” for the November 8 ballot. Proposition 62, they say, would: (1) replace the death penalty with life in prison without the possibility of parole; (2) require death row inmates to work and pay wages to their victims’ families; and (3) save California taxpayers a projected 150 million dollars a year.

With these basics in mind about the grave and complicated choice Californians are soon to make—a decision that will greatly influence the continued existence of the death penalty in America—I respectfully submit that, despite its fanfare, Proposition 66 is no “Eureka!” moment for Californians. Instead, unlike carpenter James Wilson Marshall’s historic discovery of gold at the base of the Sierra Nevada Mountains in 1848, Proposition 66’s proposed turbo-charging of California’s “machinery of death” is, underneath its sheen, twenty-four carat fool’s gold.

Out of the gate it needs saying that this “speedy death penalty” initiative, if it were to become law, would do absolutely nothing to reduce the current massive backlog of condemned state prisoners to whom it could not retroactively be applied without a long, bruising, legally dubious and extremely expensive fight.

Perhaps of equal or greater importance, voters need to remember that, when we talk about a “backlog” of death row inmates, we are not talking about curtailing an exploding population of coyotes. We are talking about a population of human beings, many of whom suffer from serious mental illness, a frequent byproduct of a childhood where poverty, abuse, violence, and neglect were the norm. Moreover, it bears noting that in order to clear this “backlog” of 748 souls, California would have to execute a person a day—every day, including Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays—for more than two years.

If ushered into law, Proposition 66, intended to rev up California’s “machinery of death” to similar macabre-type output, would do anything but. Not only would it deprive Californians of their rightful seat at the table of civilized, just and peaceful people around the world—whose countries long ago rejected capital punishment—it would result in a flurry of even more death penalty appeals (sucking money from voters’ wallets and exhausted state coffers at a faster clip than wildfire burns).

Here are just three of the more obvious cataclysmically-bad provisions in the initiative:

1. The proposed law would “require attorneys who are qualified for appointment to the most serious non-capital appeals and who meet the qualifications for capital appeals to accept appointment in capital cases as a condition for remaining on the court’s appointment list”; this provision will open a floodgate of new ineffective assistance of counsel cases due to an increased number of incompetent, unqualified, and/or improperly trained lawyers taking death penalty cases—some motivated solely by financial need.

Forcing lawyers to take cases they otherwise would not is death penalty proponents’ wrongheaded way of addressing the fact that there are not enough willing and qualified lawyers in California to take these kinds of cases—the most difficult, emotional, time-intensive, resource-draining cases our legal system has. Clearly the logical answer is not the forced conscription of lawyers in these, the most serious of cases.

2. The initiative’s express language seeks to snatch the independence the law currently gives California’s Habeas Corpus Resource Center (HCRC) to decide which attorneys are qualified to represent death row inmates in postconviction proceedings; specifically, the proposed language of the bill provides “that the final determination of whether to include an attorney in the roster shall be made by the Supreme Court and not delegated to the center.”

The first of many problems with this provision is it constitutes a per se violation of Guideline 3.1.B of the 2003 American Bar Association’s (ABA) Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel in Death Penalty Cases[PDF]. The ABA Guidelines are standards established by a blue-ribbon panel of experts in the capital defense arena including lawyers, judges, scientists, think tanks, and many other accomplished individuals and organizations. Guideline 3.1.B very explicitly makes clear that the HCRC “should be independent of the judiciary and it, and not the judiciary or elected officials, should select lawyers for specific cases.”

Second, it is hard to see this provision as anything but a desire by death penalty proponents to punish the HCRC for its longstanding and effective efforts advocating for the condemned—such as its litigation before United States District Court Judge Cormac Carney—leading to Judge Carney’s ruling in Jones v. Chappell. (In that heralded case, Judge Carney vacated the death sentence of Ernest Dewayne Jones declaring “California’s Death Penalty System Unconstitutional”[PDF] because it is arbitrary, it serves no penological purpose, and it violates the Constitution. Judge Carney’s order was subsequently overruled on procedural grounds, and not on the merits, by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.)

The insertion of this vindictive-minded provision, which does nothing but hurt the quality of California justice, underscores why the bill as a whole is not reform-centric and should be defeated.

3. The bill arbitrarily ramps up filing periods and adjudication timetables for death row appeals and post conviction motions when more and more states—including California, which in 2012 lead the nation in exoneration’s of wrongfully convicted citizens, are realizing the horrific mistakes caused by a rush to justice atmosphere these new deadlines would duplicate. (As just one of many examples of what can happen when there is a rush to judgment in the death penalty context, take the case in which “Scalia Once Pushed Death Penalty For Now-Exonerated Inmate Henry Lee McCollum.”)

To sum up, the choice voters have to make in November—one that goes to the core of who we are as Californians—Proposition 66, the “Death Penalty Reform and Savings Act of 2016,” is a wolf in sheep’s clothing; it would yield no savings, and it does not reform.

Reform and savings will only be realized when California’s barbaric, antiquated, and failed experiment with the death penalty, ends. For this reason, and for many others, Californians would do much, much better to vote for Proposition 62, “The Justice That Works Act of 2016.”

Liberated from Britain to be Bound Once Again

“Men fight for liberty and win it with hard knocks.  Their children, brought up easy, let it slip away again, poor fools.  And their grandchildren are once more slaves.”  D.H. Lawrence

240 years ago today the Declaration of Independence was adopted legally constitution 2severing all ties between the U.S. Colonies and the British government.  The main reason why the colonists bolted from their own government was that their own government refused them representation in Parliament, the equivalent of our Congress.  The British countered the colonists by asserting that the colonists had “virtual” representation through the men already elected to Parliament.

The colonists and their supporters in England responded by declaring that there is no representation if a man is not allowed to vote.

Fast forward to the present and we in America have a government in which most Americans do not have a vote over their affairs; their laws; their policies.

When America was created; when America was young, the people residing in the states and specific political/geographical locations, the Congressional Districts, shared common interests and values so that when they elected a person to the Senate and the House of Representatives the interests of most every individual of each Congressional District was represented in Congress.

When the Senator or Representative in Congress voted on a Bill he was voting exactly how the vast majority of his constituents would vote if they themselves were the person in Congress voting.

Today, due to the immense population growth, the interests of the people in every state as well as the majority of congressional districts are so diverse and in great degree opposite one another that it is impossible for two Senators and one Representative to represent the interests of a large percentage of their constituents and sometimes they don’t even represent the interests of the majority of the people of their particular states or districts.

In 1792 there was one Representative for every  33,000 persons.

In 1811 there was one Representative for every  42,613 persons.

In 1911 there was one Representative for every 238,230 persons.

In 2014 there was one Representative for every 733,333 persons.

One person cannot represent the widely varied interests of 733,333 persons.

For all intensive purposes, every given day close to 50% of the people of America are not represented in Congress.

There will be no Republican candidate running for Barbara Boxers’ California Senate seat this year.  There has not been one Republican Senator representing California’s Republicans in over 24 years, not since John F. Seymour.  Including Boxer’s Senate seat this year that tally increases to 30 years.  In 2013 there were 5.2 million registered Republicans in California, that’s approximately 5 million people who have not had representation in the Senate for 24 years.

If the person[s] elected to office from your Congressional District consistently and persistently vote against your interests year in and year out then you are not represented in Congress.  And that is the case for many Congressional Districts across the nation.

In the 2008 Minnesota Senate Race:

Democrat Al Franken received 1,212,629 votes 41.99%

Republican Norm Coleman received 1,212,317 votes 41.98%

Independent Dean Barkley received 437,505 votes, 15.15%

Franken beat Coleman by .01%, 312 votes out of  2,862,451 votes cast.

To put that in perspective:

1,649,822 Minnesotans voted against Franken and

1,212,629 Minnesotans voted for Franken.

For six years 57.13%, the majority of voting Minnesotans’ interests were not represented in the Senate

Most election results are not as extreme however this example illustrates the blatant problem with the current election process inherent in every state and district.

In the 2008 election for Senator of South Carolina :

Republican Graham received 1,076,534 votes and 58% of the votes cast.

Democrat Conly received 790,621 votes and 42% of the the votes cast.

For six years 790,000 South Carolina Democrats will not be represented by a Senator in the government.  That’s not Democracy nor a Republic.

Notable columnist Charley Reese penned a poetic farewell article titled, 545 people are responsible for the mess, but they unite in a common con,” 545 PEOPLE Vs 300 million” in which he points out the failures of Congress and that the solution is for the people to vote them out of office.

There is one major flaw with that logic, we could vote every Senator and Representative out of office but each and every one would be replaced by someone no better and possibly worse for what Mr. Reese fails to see is that it is impossible to eliminate the stranglehold that the special interest groups have over the 435 seats in Congress, the 100 seats in the Senate, the 9 seats on the Supreme Court bench and the 1 seat in the White House.

How did these special interest groups commandeer Congress in order to monopolize public policy; they did it by changing the Constitution without ever legally amending the Constitution.

In 1911 Congress enacted Public Law 62-5 which limited the number of Representatives to 435 and thereby destroyed the Republican and Democratic form of government the Founding Fathers envisioned and framed into the Constitution.  This law was cemented into existence with the Reapportionment Act of 1929.

Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution states:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…

A Republican government is one in which a group of People with shared interests andconstitution 1 needs appoint one person from among the group to represent and advocate for all of the others members of the group in the government’s system.

Article I Section 2 of the Constitution states: “Representatives…shall be apportioned among the states…according to their respective numbers….”   “The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand.”

In 1792 President George Washington signed into law the “Apportionment Act of 1792” which set the number of Representatives at the ratio of 1 for every 33,000 persons in the respective states.”

In The Federalist, No. 57, James Madison wrote,

“The house of representatives … can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as the great mass of society. This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together. It creates between them that communion of interest, and sympathy of sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny.”

Elsewhere in the Federalist letter:

“The members of the legislative department … are numerous. They are distributed and dwell among the people at large. Their connections of blood, of friendship, and of acquaintance embrace a great proportion of the most influential part of the society…. They are more immediately the confidential guardians of their rights and liberties.”

The intent of the authors of the Constitution is clear in that they determined for there to be a high percentage of representatives per citizen.

“A pure democracy is a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person.”  John Adams

Public Law 62-5 violates Article IV Section 4 and Article I Section 2 of the Constitution eviscerating the representative form of government that was created.

Question: would the majority of the founding fathers look upon the present American government and its excessive power, taxation, corruption and lack of representation and approve of it or disapprove of it?

The answer is self-evident in the response given by Americans today.

90% of Americans give Congress a negative rating.

60% of Americans give the President a negative rating.

67% of Americans say the country is on the wrong track.

Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, the two candidates that have been provided to the people to elect for president, have record high disapproval ratings.

This is nothing new; the majority of Americans’ approval rating of Congress has been negative for decades.

The only way to restore representation in Congress and eliminate the power that lobbyists and special interest groups hold over American politicians is to repeal Public Law 62-5 and the Reapportionment Act of 1929 and reenact proportional, Republican representation pursuant to Article IV Section 4 and Article I Section 2 of the Constitution.

The problem is the only people who can repeal these laws are the ones currently residing on Capitol Hill and they have absolutely no incentive to reduce the power they possess by sharing it with more American citizens which in and of itself reveals that they are not true Americans of and by and for the People for true Americans would do anything to increase democracy, to increase representation in government; not decrease democracy,  not eliminate representation in government as our Congress has done by enacting and perpetuating Public Law 62-5.

Just as the British Parliament once brushed off the Colonists’ grievance with “virtual representation” so too do today’s U.S. Congress toward the American people.  The lack of representation in government that existed in 1776 exists today.

Ponder this while you partake of this Independence Day’s festivities:

The National Debt is $19,338,225,000 and rising $1.68 million every minute.

A child born, today, on the 4th of July 2016 owes the U.S. government $59,977.74.

That is not liberty; that is perpetual servitude.

This is what happens when there is taxation without representation.  Do you think that if there were 1 Representative per every 30,000 citizens we would have a $19 trillion debt?  Do you believe that lobbyists and deep pocket special interest groups could dictate public policy if Congress was saturated with thousands of Representatives?

Contrary to Charley Reese’s assertion, we cannot vote out 435 seats of Congress but we can create 10,000 more seats if we so choose.  We’ve been riding this vehicle for 240 years perhaps it’s time to put in a new and more powerful engine.

Donald Trump wants to “Make America Great Again.”  Well here is a way to do it, if he is up to sharing the power of the government with more citizens.

A few more stats:

In the 2012 Congressional Election:

Democrat Julia Brownley received 52% of the vote

Republican Tony Strickland received 48% of the vote.

So 48% of the voters in the 26th District of California were NOT represented in Congress for at least 2 years.

That is not a Republican form of government.

Democrat Daniel Val Demings received 48.2% of the vote

Republican Daniel Webster received 51.8% of the vote.

So 48.2% of the voters in the 10th District of Florida were NOT represented in Congress for at least 2 years.

That is not a Republican form of government.

Democrat Sean Patrick Maloney received 51.7% of the vote

Republican Nan Hayworth received 48.3% of the vote.

So 48.2% of the voters in the 18th District of New York were NOT represented in Congress for at least 2 years.

That is not a Republican form of government.

You should know the rest of the Jisser family story

Jisser familyShould retiring rental property owners be forced to give up more than a decade of their property’s income simply for the right to close their business and withdraw their property from the rental market? That is what the City of Palo Alto (“City”) is demanding in this case, which dramatically illustrates an increasingly common property rights abuse by government: predatory attacks on property owners by cities grasping for money to solve a housing crisis that government officials are in fact responsible for creating.

The Jisser family has owned and operated the Buena Vista Mobilehome Park in Palo Alto, Calif., for the past three decades. During that time, they have provided the lowest-cost housing available to residents in the city. When they decided to close the park, Palo Alto shockingly demanded that they pay their tenants more than $8 million dollars or be forced to forever run the business they want to close.

In effect, the Jissers are being forced to remain landlords unless they provide their tenants with enough money to acquire new housing at inflated values reflecting the acute lack of affordable housing in Palo Alto. It is the City, however, and not the Jisser family that has created the housing shortage that makes it all but impossible for young families, retirees, and people of modest means to live here. Shamefully, the City is scapegoating the Jissers for its own failure.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that individual property owners should not be forced to pay for public benefits that, in fairness, should be borne by the public as a whole. Forcing the Jisser family to bear the cost of providing affordable housing in Palo Alto is not only wrong, it’s unconstitutional.

Property rights are among the most important rights protected by our Constitution. The right to decide for oneself how best to responsibly and productively use one’s own property is a basic civil right that is increasingly under attack in America. That is why the Jissers have joined with Pacific Legal Foundation to file a federal constitutional lawsuit against the City.

By vindicating their own rights, the Jissers hope also to establish a precedent that protects the property rights of entrepreneurs everywhere.

The Jisser Family’s American Dream

Toufic (“Tim”) and Eva Jisser moved to the United States from Israel in search of a good life for their family in 1973. Tim worked for a police department in Israel but went into the restaurant and grocery business on arrival in America, moving between California and Alabama to pursue opportunity. The family ultimately made their home in Silicon Valley, where they leased a small grocery store in Menlo Park in 1977.

The grocery business required long hours and difficult work, but it flourished and they expanded. The Jissers soon opened a second store in a leased building on El Camino Real in Palo Alto: the All American Market. Tim, Eva, and their children ran the store, adjacent to the Buena Vista Mobilehome Park.

In 1986, the owner of their store’s building decided to sell his property, which included both the grocery-store and the mobilehome park next door. The Jissers decided to take a leap as entrepreneurs: They poured in their life savings, borrowed yet more, and arranged partners to purchase the entire property. And for the past 30 years the Jisser family has owned and operated the Buena Vista Mobilehome Park, providing the lowest-cost housing available in the city during that period.

The All American Market was closed in 1998 due to health issues that made it untenable for Tim to continue the long hours required. Tim and Eva’s son, Joe, refurbished the old grocery store building for new tenants and soon took over management of the mobilehome park, which he continues to run today.

The Jissers’ experience has been the quintessential American Dream: a hard- working immigrant family makes good in two businesses; they took on big risks, passed their ambitions on to their children, and the family has prospered. That dream turned into a nightmare, however, when the Jissers decided that closing the park and doing something different with the land best served their family’s future.

A Nightmare Begins: Palo Alto Holds the Jissers’ Mobilehome Park Hostage

In 2001, soon after taking over operations of the park, Joe faced a substantial property tax increase and asked tenants for a small rent increase to cover the cost. The Palo Alto City Council held hearings about the proposed increase at the behest of tenants and quickly enacted a rent control ordinance that included provisions for how and when a mobilehome park could be closed in the City. Notably, Buena Visa was and remains the only mobilehome park in Palo Alto.

The Jissers never did go forward with their proposed rent increase in 2001. In fact, they have raised rents infrequently and never as high as that allowed per year under the city’s rent control ordinance until the present dispute began to fester. But during the 2001 hearings, Joe noted that the park was showing signs of its nearly six decades of operation. Despite making substantial investments to replace sewer, electric, and other infrastructure, he explained, the park’s economic life was not likely longer than 10 years. In 2012, the Jisser family finally filed a Development Review Application with the City, indicating their desire to close the park.

Tim and Eva Jisser have retired and, as predicted, the park is deteriorating and will soon again require yet additional substantial investment. At the same time, the neighborhood has gone through tremendous change and there is demand for higher density development. The family’s hope has been to keep the land for the next generation by partnering with a developer for a new, larger housing development.

In their quest to close their business and make room for a new use, the Jissers have endured years of administrative bureaucracy ending with the present lawsuit. Between 2012 and 2014, they filed five separate “Relocation Impact Reports” required by the city, in which they were instructed to explain what they would give to tenants in exchange for the right to close the mobilehome park and take back possession of their own land. With each filing, the City sent them back to the drawing board with a demand to give yet more.

These relocation reports, revisions, and subsequent hearings required the hiring of expensive consultants, appraisers, and attorneys at the costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars to date. Ultimately, on May 26, 2015, the City issued a final decision allowing the park to be closed but only on the payment of approximately $8 million dollars to Buena Vista’s tenants.1

In effect, Palo Alto has put a modern twist on the highway robber’s creed: instead of “your money or your life,” the city council has told the Jissers they must pay what amounts to nearly all of their earnings from the past decade of work and ownership of the property, or be forced to forever run the business they simply want to close.

Individual Property Owners Should Not Be Forced to Bear The Cost of Public Benefits That Are the Responsibility of the Public as a Whole

The City of Palo Alto’s demands are not only wrong, they are unconstitutional. The payment represents full moving costs for all tenants, but also massive rent subsidies and the outright purchase of all of the mobilehomes on the property for inflated values reflecting the acute housing shortage in Palo Alto.

The city is essentially forcing the Jissers to become permanent landlords by making it financially oppressive to withdraw their land from the rental market. Moreover, the money taken from the Jissers is misleadingly termed “relocation” assistance: in fact, the money they are required to pay doesn’t have to be used by tenants for relocation at all.

At worst, the City’s demand is out-and-out extortion; at best, it is a thinly veiled attempt to hold the Jissers alone responsible for mitigating the city’s notorious lack of affordable housing — a problem that, in fairness, should be solved by all of Palo Alto’s taxpayers and residents.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution “was designed to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.”2

In some circumstances, governments may impose special costs — called “exactions” — on individual property owners; fees that are meant to offset public expenditures directly caused by a property owner’s use of his property. For instance, as a condition of receiving approval to build homes or a shopping center, a city may demand that a developer provide land or money to the city to offset public costs associated with the new development — such as roads, or schools, or the development of a city park. It is unconstitutional, however, for a city to leverage its permit power by conditioning approval of a new use on a property owner’s payment of money to provide general public benefits or mitigate social problems not caused by the use of the property.

Pacific Legal Foundation won the landmark “unconstitutional conditions” case establishing this principle, Nollan v. California Coastal Commission,3 at the U.S. Supreme Court in 1987; PLF reaffirmed the principle in a follow-on U.S. Supreme Court case in 2013, Koontz v. St. Johns Water Management District.4 The principle has been applied in scores of federal and state cases across the nation in the years between the two High Court victories.

Most recently, the United States District Court for the District of Northern California (the same court in which the Jisser family’s case has been filed) struck down a San Francisco ordinance late last year that imposed oppressive fees on small landlords seeking to withdraw their homes from the rental market in that city.5

In this case, the city is in effect demanding that the Jisser family give their tenants enough money to afford alternative housing in overpriced Palo Alto as a condition of withdrawing their land from the rental market. But it is not the Jissers that have caused the high cost of housing in Palo Alto; in fact, they have been instrumental in supplying low-cost housing for 30 years. Rather, it is the city itself that has created a housing shortage that makes it all but impossible for people of modest means — including the current residents of Buena Vista — to live in the City.

Palo Alto is Ground Zero for California’s Housing Crisis

One can hardly understand the current conflict without considering the role of restrictive land use regulations in causing Palo Alto’s astronomical housing costs. According to Zillow, Palo Alto’s median home price is a blistering $2.46 million dollars.6 That price will typically buy an older, single family home less than 1800 square feet. A home of nearly the same profile in Dallas, Texas will run $128k7; the national median is about $180k.8 By comparison, the median home value in California as a whole is $448k.9 The most basic cause of Silicon Valley and California’s lack of affordable housing relative to other locations is their land use policies.

The booming technology sector no doubt contributes to the problem,10 but a serious discussion of Palo Alto’s lack of affordable housing must begin with the recognition that a government-imposed housing shortage is the major, persistent cause. Simply put: Palo Alto’s City Council has refused for decades to permit enough housing to be built to meet the skyrocketing demand; it is now shamefully scapegoating the Jissers for its own failure.

Harvard economist Edward Glaeser has observed that the perverse effects of restrictive land use regulation is an issue on which “libertarianism and egalitarianism are on the same side,” concluding that “the surest way to a more equitable housing market is to reduce the barriers to building.”11 It should not be a partisan issue: Left-leaning economist Paul Krugman similarly points out that California’s high housing prices “owe a lot to policies that sharply limit construction.”12 Wharton economist Joseph Gyourko’s major study on the subject suggests that prohibitive local land use regulations amount to an effective tax on housing prices “in many coastal markets, sometimes reaching over 50 percent” of the price of the homes; he singles out California’s coastal regions.13

Whatever one’s opinion, the empirical literature documents the fact that California coastal cities, and particularly in the Silicon Valley area, have a new- housing-permit rate that has continuously failed to meet the demand for housing by existing and immigrating residents during the past 40 years. It is the refusal of municipal governments to permit homes to be built that has driven the lack of affordable housing in the region.14 Recent research even pins the lion’s share of America’s intensely debated growing income inequality on the striking barriers to affordable housing produced by “land-use regulations in rich states.”15

An authoritative report put out in March 2015 by California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office (a non-partisan governmental agency tasked with studying California legislative policies), California’s High Housing Costs, Causes and Consequences, flatly concludes: “First and foremost, far less housing has been built in California’s coastal areas than people demand.”16 The basic cause of the lack of affordable housing? Local government’s abuse of “land use authority to slow or stop housing from being built or requir[ing] it to be built at lower densities.”17 The report highlights the San Jose metro area, which includes Palo Alto, as a particular example of the problem.

Palo Alto has a tragic and outrageous housing crisis. But it is the City’s policies — sadly shared by too many of California’s coastal cities — that are the primary cause of its high cost of housing. The truth is that Palo Alto’s City Council has all the power it needs to permit more homes to be built and provide affordable housing if it wants to do so; what it may not lawfully do is hold the Jisser family’s property hostage on the condition that they mitigate a lack of affordable housing that they in no way created.

The Legal Challenge: Defending the Right to Private Property

 This is a federal civil rights action filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose Division). The Jisser family has raised two federal constitutional claims and a California state-law challenge.

First, the millions of dollars in payments to tenants demanded by Palo Alto is an “unconstitutional condition” on the Jisser’s right to close their mobilehome park. The City has determined that either the Jissers pay the money demanded or be forced to continue operating a business they want to close, including the unwanted, permanent occupation of their land by tenants. That demand has nothing to do with any public costs caused by the Jisser’s closure of the park; rather, the City is attempting to make the Jissers pay to mitigate the City’s acute lack of affordable housing — costs that, in fairness, should be borne by the whole public of Palo Alto. The condition violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Second, the money taken from the Jissers will go not to the City, but directly to tenants who may use the funds for any purpose at all, anywhere they choose. This is not a “public use,” but a command by the City for a direct transfer of money from the Jissers to other private individuals for their own personal use. This violates the Public Use Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which permits the taking of private property with just compensation for genuinely public uses but forbids the forced transfer of property from one private party to another, politically favored private party.

Finally, the City’s Mobilehome Park Conversion Ordinance requires mobilehome park owners who wish to withdraw their property from the rental market to provide “reasonable relocation assistance as a condition of closing and converting a park.”18 As applied to the Jissers, the money demanded from them to exercise their right to close their park far exceeds any notion of “reasonable relocation assistance,” thereby violating the terms of the City’s own ordinance.

Further, the City’s application of its ordinance violates California state law, which unequivocally declares that conditions imposed on property owners who wish to close a mobilehome park “shall not exceed the reasonable costs of relocation” of a park’s tenants.19

The Jissers are not seeking compensation or monetary damages; they seek only a declaration that the conditions imposed on their right to withdraw their property from the rental market are unlawful, and an injunction prohibiting the City from enforcing those conditions.

The Parties to the Lawsuit

The Plaintiffs are Tim and Eva Jisser, and their family trust that holds title to the Buena Vista Mobilehome Park. Their son, Joe Jisser, who has managed day-to- day operations of the park for the past decade, is a spokesman for the family. The Defendant is the City of Palo Alto.

The Litigation Team

Pacific Legal Foundation Attorney Larry Salzman20 is lead counsel, working with PLF Principal Attorney J. David Breemer.21 Mr. Breemer successfully defended the Levin family in their lawsuit last year against the City of San Francisco,22 in which San Francisco was enjoined from imposing unconstitutional fees on landlords who wished to withdraw property from the rental market. PLF’s attorneys are assisted by local counsel Margaret Nanda, of Los Gatos, Calif., who also represented the Jisser family in the administrative process preceding this lawsuit.

Since 1973, PLF has been the most frequent and successful public-interest champion in the nation’s courts for individuals and small businesses whose property rights are violated by government. It represents the Jissers without charge.


1 The final sum may grow, as the City’s conditions include a requirement to reappraise the value of each mobilehome and calculate rent subsidies based on the date of the actual close of the park. The $8 million figure is based on appraisals and rent calculations done in 2014 and considered by the City Council.

2 Armstrong v. United States, 364 U.S. 40, 49 (1960).
3 Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987).
4 Koontz v. St. Johns Water Management District, 133 S. Ct. 2586 (2013).

5 Opinion & Order, Levin, et al. v. City and County of San Francisco, No. 3:14-cv- 03352-CRB (N.D. Cal. Filed Nov. 21, 2014), available at



10 Laura Kusisto, Apple Pay – One Reason for High Home Prices [in San Fransciso and Silicon Valley], WSJ, October 25, 2015, available at 1445801810).

11 Edward L. Glaeser, How to Make San Francisco’s Housing More Affordable, BloombergView, December 13, 2013, available at francisco-s-housing-more-affordable.

12 Paul Krugman, Wrong Way Nation, N.Y. Times, August 24, 2014, available at nation.html.
13 Joseph Gyourko, National Bureau of Economic Research: NBER Reporter, The Supply Side of Housing Markets, 2009 No. 2, available at

14 See, e.g., Mathew E. Kahn, Do Liberal Cities Limit New Housing Development? Evidence from California, 69 J. Urb. Econ. 223 (2010); Derek Thompson, Why Middle- Class Americans Can’t Afford to Live in Liberal Cities, The Atlantic, Oct. 29, 2014, available at liberal-cities-so-unaffordable/382045/.

15 Binyamin Applebaum, Housing Prices and Income Inequality, N.Y. Times, October 17, 2012, available at prices-and-income-inequality/.
16 CA Legislative Analyst’s Office, California’s High Housing Costs, Causes and Consequences at 10, published March 17, 2015, available at

17 Id. at 15.
18 Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 9.76.130.

19 CA Government Code, Section 65863.7.
21 22