Emperor Jerry Brown' issues first major fines against Beverly Hills For $61,000? failed to cut water use That It Fine Beverly Hills $61,000 That The Best do You Can do Emperor Brown?

California’s urban water customers collectively reduced their water use by 26 percent in September, continuing to surpass the statewide mandate, but at slightly lower levels than were seen during summer, the State Water Resources Control Board reported Friday.

Gov. Jerry Brown earlier this year ordered that urban water customers statewide reduce water usage by an average of 25 percent compared to 2013. The state water board then set a range of conservation goals for water agencies for June through February, targeting higher per capita users with the biggest cuts.

While most communities continue to hit mandated conservation targets, a few have consistently missed. State officials announced their first fines on Friday against cities that haven’t met their mandates. All four were in Southern California: Beverly Hills, Indio, Redlands and Coachella Valley Water District. Each was fined $61,000.

“Up and down the state, residents and water suppliers are making the necessary sacrifices needed to help California meet its water conservation goals,” said Cris Carrigan, the agency’s director of enforcement. “For these four suppliers, it’s been too little too late to achieve their conservation standard.”

State residents cut water use by 26.1 percent in September compared to the same month in 2013, down from nearly 27 percent in August. Since June, Californians have cumulatively reduced water use by 28.1 percent.

Most Sacramento-area water agencies were told to cut water use by 28 percent to 36 percent, and they mostly hit those targets – with room to spare – during the summer. But in September, several local agencies slipped.

The city of Sacramento cut water use by 26.5 percent, missing its target of 28 percent. The city of Davis cut use by 18.2 percent, well below its target of 28 percent. The city of Lincoln cut use by 26.4 percent, off its target of 32 percent.

According to the Sacramento Regional Water Authority, the region’s water agencies saved 27 percent on average in September. That was 3 points below the region-wide mandate of 30 percent. Even with this slippage, the cumulative savings since June for the region was 34 percent through the end of September.

Most water used by local residents is applied to their yards. Sacramento residents have dramatically reduced outdoor watering this year, as evidenced by the prevalence of brown grass across the region. But outdoor irrigation starts to slow around September, making it harder to post gains over prior years just by turning off sprinklers.

Additionally, Californians are being asked to conserve amid reports of a strong El Niño, which forecasters say likely will produce more rain than normal for much of the state this year.

“We need to keep it up as best we can, even as we hope for as much rain and snow as we can safely handle,” said Felicia Marcus, chair of the State Water Resources Control Board, referring to water conservation targets.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article41953827.html

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article41953827.html#storylink=cpy

Jeremiah Wright Helped Obama Accept Christianity Without Having To Renounce Islam?.,Wrong Jeremiah Wright Obama Most Renounce Islam Here Why? Read This Matthew 6:24 No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot Serve Both God And Cult of Islam

 Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. was like a second father to Barack Obama and helped shape his political philosophy, author Ed Klein explains based on his interview with Wright.

In his book “The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House,”, Klein interviewed Wright for three and a half hours. Wright told him of Obama’s secret efforts to keep him quiet during the presidential campaign. But the more significant material spotlights how important Wright was to Obama’s thinking even before the future president began going to Wright’s church in 1988.

It’s one thing for Obama to sit in the church and listen to the Rev. Wright spew his hatred against whites, Jews, and America,” Klein says. “But in my view, having spoken to the Rev. Wright, that paled by comparison with the personal relationship that Obama had that went way beyond his simply being a member of the church listening to all this stuff.”

Obama began his relationship with Wright, whom he has called a mentor and sounding board, three years before he began attending Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.

“Obama went to the Rev. Wright at every stage of his career whenever things went wrong,” says Klein, a contributing editor of Vanity Fair and a former editor-in-chief of the New York Times Magazine.

“For instance, when he lost the 2000 congressional election for the seat that Bobby Rush, the former Black Panther, holds from the South Side of Chicago,” Klein says. “He was in a state of terrible depression, and he owed a great deal of money, and his marriage was on the rocks. Who did he go to? He went to the Rev. Wright for marriage counselling. He went to the Rev. Wright about what shall I do next, Rev? Every step of his career, every step of his development as a political figure was made in conjunction with conversations that he had with the Rev. Wright personally.”

As revealed in the book “In the President’s Secret Service: Behind the Scenes with Agents in the Line of Fire and the Presidents They Protect,” just before Wright spoke at the National Press Club, Obama secretly met on April 4, 2008 with Wright at Trinity’s parsonage where Wright then lived.
So that they would not be noticed, agents made a point of driving Obama in a mini-van instead of the usual Suburban. They parked their other vehicles a block away. Obama spent an hour with Wright and then left.

“At this secret meeting with him, Obama practically begged him not to go on and speak any further,” Klein says. “This was after one of Obama’s best friends had sent an email to a member of the church saying that he was prepared to give the Rev. Wright $150,000 if he would shut up. The Rev. Wright told me that he has saved that email.”

In the recorded interview, Wright says he basically could not afford to shut up for $150,000, Klein says.

“Wright explained he had expenses that he had to pay,” Klein says. “He had a child and a couple of grandkids in college that he was paying for. And so he goes around the United States giving sermons and making speeches, and he gets paid for that.”

Klein says Obama originally sought out Wright to discuss community activism.
“Quickly the conversations turned from picking up garbage on the street and getting streetlights put up on street corners to political matters and religious matters,” Klein says. “And the Rev. Wright turned into really a substitute father figure, who guided Obama in the two major areas of his life.”
The first area was Obama’s identity — just who was he?
http://www.israelislamandendtimes.com/obamas-former-pastor-i-helped-obama-accept-christianity-without-having-to-renounce-islam/

Retailers, Manufacturers Go Gender-Neutral

Segregation along gender lines in the toy category had worsened over the past decades before the recent pushback, said Elizabeth V. Sweet, a lecturer in sociology at the University of California, Davis who has written extensively on gender stereotypes in children’s toys. She puts much of the blame on the dismantling, in 1984, of restrictions on television programming aimed at children
http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/10/27/retailers-manufacturers-go-gender-neutral

Twice-Deported Honduran Man Charged With Rape, Kidnapping

Camden, NJ –  A Honduran man who has entered the United States illegally three times kidnapped his estranged girlfriend and repeatedly raped her at knifepoint on a drive from Missouri to New Jersey, federal prosecutors said.

Jose Amaya-Vasquez was arrested in May at a motel in Bellmawr, near Philadelphia, after law enforcement officers tracked the woman's cellphone. He was charged by federal prosecutors on Oct. 14.

Amaya-Vasquez, 30, was scheduled to appear in federal court in Camden on Monday. It wasn't immediately clear if he had an attorney to comment on the charges.

He kidnapped the woman at knifepoint in Kansas City, Missouri, in May and sexually assaulted her at a vacant house in Missouri, an Ohio motel and a Bellmawr motel, FBI special agent Nicole Canales wrote in court documents. Their 2-year-old child was also brought along on the ride.

http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/10/27/twice-deported-honduran-man-charged-rape-kidnapping?cmpid=NL_foxnation

Obama We affirm that we cherish our religious freedom and are profoundly respectful of religious traditions School Threatens to Fire Praying Football Coach?

A school district in Washington State has decided to play hardball with a football coach who refused to stop his mid-field, post-game prayers.

I received an exclusive copy of a three-page letter sent to Bremerton High School Coach Joe Kennedy from Superintendent Aaron Leavell.

The nutshell? Coach Joe must stop praying or he will be punished.

CLICK HERE TO JOIN TODD’S AMERICAN DISPATCH - A MUST-READ FOR CONSERVATIVES!

“Any further violations will be grounds for discipline, up to and including discharge from District employment,” Leavell wrote in an Oct. 23 letter.

I can only imagine what might happen should the coach have to call a Hail Mary play.

“I was really shocked, Coach Joe told me. “I went out of my way to accommodate them. All I wanted to do was pray -- and now I can’t even pray at all.”

Jerry Brown War On The Protestant Right, Calvary Chapel, Sue California Over Abortion Mandates

Three churches are filing a federal lawsuit against the California Department of Managed Health Care, claiming that the state’s insurance laws are forcing them to betray their deeply held religious beliefs. Calvary Chapel, Foothill Church, and The Shepard of the Hills Church argue that California has crossed a line by mandating abortion-inclusive healthcare plans.

“Churches should not be forced to pay for the killing of innocent human life,” said Erik Stanley of the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing the churches in their suit. “The government has no right to demand that church health insurance plans contain coverage for abortion – something that violates these churches’ most sincerely held religious beliefs. California is violating the Constitution by strong-arming churches into having this coverage in their plans.”

According to the ADF, the churches have been caught in a quandary thanks to federal and state insurance laws. Obamacare requires that employers provide coverage and California law requires all employer health plans to include elective abortion. Without judicial interference, these churches are being given a dark choice: financially support abortions or break the law.

-This is one instance where it wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world for California to win. There has to be judicial disagreement for a case to make it to the Supreme Court, and it’s high time that we heard a landmark decision on this divisive issue. Otherwise, this is going to keep happening time and again. If the Supreme Court excused Hobby Lobby from providing health insurance that covered certain types of contraception, logic dictates that they’ll rule for religious freedom in this case as well.

Of course, nothing is ever certain when it comes to political hot buttons like this one.

But there you have the difference between healthcare law and gay marriage. It’s easy to get these liberals to ignore the Constitution when they have visions of glorious rainbow flags dancing in their heads. The boring reality of insurance mandates isn’t nearly as exciting, making it less likely that the Justices will betray their oaths.

The truth is, elective abortion coverage shouldn’t be a part of any health insurance plan because abortion has nothing to do with health care. It’s a medical procedure, to be sure, but so is elective amputation. That doesn’t mean an employer should be forced to pay for it.

But the bigger issue is where the government’s power ends. The founding fathers tried to limit that power, but it keeps expanding. This might be a California lawsuit, but it stems from the federal Obamacare mandates. Every year, we are a little bit less free than we were the year before. If we’re really going to push back on these outrageous assaults on the Bill of Rights, we need to start by shrinking the federal beast.

- See more at: http://www.fixthisnation.com/conservative-breaking-news/churches-sue-california-over-abortion-mandates/#sthash.vRjYLwjy.dpuf

Obama Defends Black Lies Matter Movement: 'We Have To Take This Seriously'

 Defending the Black Lives Matter movement, President Obama said Thursday the protests are giving voice to a problem happening only in African-American communities, adding, "We, as a society, particularly given our history, have to take this seriously."

Obama said the movement, which sprung up after the deaths of unarmed black men in Florida, Missouri and elsewhere, quickly came to be viewed as being opposed to police and suggesting that other people's lives don't matter. Opponents have countered that "all lives matter."

At the conclusion of a White House forum on criminal justice, Obama said he wanted to make a final point about the nexus of race and the criminal justice system before launching into his defense of the movement.

"I think everybody understands all lives matter," Obama said. "I think the reason that the organizers used the phrase 'Black Lives Matter' was not because they were suggesting nobody else's lives matter. Rather, what they were suggesting was there is a specific problem that's happening in the African-American community that's not happening in other communities.

http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/10/23/obama-defends-black-lives-matter-movement-we-have-take-seriously

Stop Jerry War On Pro Life Women:Three lies NARAL’s Boss Told About California’s Anti-Pregnancy Center Law

Somebody needs to get Ilyse Hogue some facts about California’s Reproductive FACT Act, and quick.

In her appearance on Tuesday night’s “The Kelly File” on FoxNews, NARAL’s national boss squared off against Lila Rose, president of Live Action, to debate the merits of the so-called “Reproductive FACT Act,” an edict ratified by California Governor Jerry Brownback on Oct. 9. The new law, which is already being challenged in court, specifically forces the 150-plus pro-life non-profit pregnancy help locations in the state to post signage and distribute disclaimers connecting clients to state-funded abortions.Ironically enough, even as Ms. Hogue’s organization was a chief sponsor of Assembly Bill 775—a law its authors said was necessary to combat what they called “misinformation” from life-affirming nonprofit groups—she showed up to yet another public venue armed with nothing but misinformation about the new law itself.

This comes on the heels of Ms. Hogue’s tag-team effort with NARAL Pro-Choice California’s state-level director to pen an op-ed in the influential San Jose Mercury News that, while it would have been better suited for the creative writing section of a library, appeared just a day before Gov. Brown signed the law into effect.

In last night’s appearance, Ms. Hogue was still beating the same drum, arguing in favor of the law that is almost certain to follow the way of its predecessors in New York City, Austin (TX), Baltimore (MD) and Montgomery County (MD) and be struck down in court, costing California’s taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars along the way.

The law will force more than 150 local pregnancy help non-profits, including the 74 state-licensed free ultrasound facilities, to give each of its clients the following disclaimer, which includes the phone number of a county social services office where a client could obtain an abortion covered by Medi-Cal.

The notice, which the law specifies must either be posted as a public notice in “22-point type,” “distributed to all clients in no less than 14-point font” or distributed digitally “at the time of check-in or arrival,” applies to all of the entities—even those licensed by the state.

California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services (including all FDA-approved methods of contraception), prenatal care, and abortion for eligible women. To determine whether you qualify, contact the county social services office at [insert the telephone number].

Meanwhile, pregnancy help centers that do not offer medical services will be required to post the following signage in two “clear and conspicuous” places—“in the entrance of the facility and at least one additional area where clients wait to receive services,” as well as in “any print and digital advertising materials including Internet Web sites”.

The font required is to be “in no less than 48-point type” and will read as follows:

This facility is not licensed as a medical facility by the State of California and has no licensed medical provider who provides or directly supervises the provision of services.

Those facts notwithstanding, it only took Ms. Hogue her portion of a 4-minute appearance on air to spin a trio of yarns in defense of a law that singles out and forces pro-life pregnancy help centers and medical clinics to essentially refer and advertise for state-sponsored abortions.

1. No, Ms. Hogue, this law isn’t about “information,” it’s about endorsement.

As the name of the law indicates, the strategic intent of the Reproductive FACT Act is to back pro-life opponents to the bill into a corner by forcing them to argue against the self-evident truth that a person with more information is more likely to make better choices. After all, who doesn’t want women to have more information?

Armed with a, frankly, invincible argument, Ms. Hogue tried to turn the screws on Ms. Rose during the interview: “I would ask Lila what she’s so frightened of for women to have all the information about all of their options.”

Herein lies is the issue: is the Reproductive FACT Act about mere information, or is it about endorsement? Read back through the first disclaimer above and picture it, in 22-point font, in the waiting room of pregnancy center. As a woman waits to talk through her options in the face of her unexpected pregnancy, the state of California mandates that she must see that not only is abortion an option, it is the option endorsed and made available at no charge by the state.

Beyond that, a pro-life pregnancy center must, according to the law, be about the business of advertising and referring clients to their nearest state-sponsored abortion facility, or else. Hence the phone number.

Ms. Hogue’s question denies the fact that pregnancy help organizations—including the 74 state-licensed medical clinics in California—already discuss the option of abortion with their clients. One of Heartbeat International’s top-selling resources, for example, is titled, “Talking About Abortion,” a conversation that includes information on the many serious physical and psychological dangers of abortion.

On the flip side, as both Ms. Rose and host Megyn Kelly pointed out in the exchange, the state-dictated signage represents a one-way street. No parallel disclaimer is demanded of abortion facilities, where, as Ms. Rose said, “over 90 percent of women walking into a Planned Parenthood are going to end up having an abortion.”

2. No, Ms. Hogue, not a single Republican voted for this bill.

Ms. Hogue’s op-ed in the San Jose Mercury News back on Oct. 8 eluded to what she mistakenly claimed as bipartisan support for the Reproductive FACT Act. Tuesday night, she bore in deeper to what can only be described as a bald-faced lie.

“There is a reason that a self-identified super-majority of self-identified Catholics, Republicans and Conservatives support the Reproductive FACT Act,” Ms. Hogue said. “It’s because we know that women do better when we have access to all the information about all of our options. And California should be proud that they’re leading the way on this.”

Was this legislation supported by a “super-majority of self-identified Catholics, Republicans and Conservatives”?

The simple answer is an unqualified “No.”

As we’ve said before:

As the bill made its march from the State Assembly to the State Senate, passing three committee votes along the way, not a single Republican ever voted in favor of the measure. In fact, the only cross-over vote came from Democrat Rudy Salas, Jr., a Democrat from Bakersfield.

Pro-life advocates in both houses of the legislature, as well as private citizens representing pregnancy centers and religious groups, have vehemently opposed the bill as a direct assault on the rights to free speech and free exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment.

In fact, the bill gave rise to impassioned pleas from pro-life politicians at every stop along the way. Asm. Jim Patterson and Sen. Sharon Runner both cited their experience leading pregnancy help organizations as first-hand evidence for the good that pregnancy centers do every day, while Patterson blasted the legislation as “an effort to force objectionable, state-mandated speech on pro-life pregnancy care centers.”

To claim a single Republican or Conservative has ever supported this bill is an out-and-out lie. To claim a “super-majority” is a damned lie. To claim self-identified Catholics (spoiler alert:Catholics for Choice was the group) is a statistic.

3. No, Ms. Hogue, the problem with this law is exactly its infringement on free speech and free exercise of religion.

Which leads us to our final point. Ms. Hogue asserts that the law does not, in the words of Heartbeat International’s Jor-El Godsey, “trample on the First Amendment rights of locally funded grassroots organizations.”

More specifically, Ms. Hogue said the following: “It’s not about freedom of speech. It’s not about freedom to worship, however anyone chooses to worship.”

Whether or not the courts strike down the law as unconstitutional on First Amendment rights—again, following the trend of similar government-speech disclaimers struck down in other states and municipalities—Ms. Hogue is right about one thing: This has nothing to do with “freedom to worship.”

In fact, the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights did not envision the First Amendment as protecting a “freedom of worship.” The word “worship” does not appear in the First Amendment, nor in the Bill of Rights, nor in the Constitution itself.

Ms. Hogue’s straw man about the “freedom of worship” ignores the fact that the guarantee is that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” That phrase, “free exercise thereof” is far more robust than “freedom to worship,” as if the Founding Fathers were guaranteeing the right to a contemporary service with drums and an electric guitar.

The question is not whether the Reproductive FACT Act violates some imagined “freedom of worship.” It’s whether its demands on community supported pro-life nonprofits violate their rights to non-government compelled speech and the “free exercise” of their religion. Time and the courts will tell.

In the meantime, it’s past time for Ms. Hogue and the abortion industry to brush up on their facts.

http://liveactionnews.org/three-lies-narals-boss-told-about-ca-anti-pregnancy-center-law/

Obama’s latest plan to rewrite immigration law

 

The wait-time between filing an I-140 application and being allowed to file for adjustment-of-status (getting you the golden EAD) is regulated by the State Department and depends not only on one’s filing date, but also on one’s country of origin. But for the millions of aspiring alien workers from overpopulated countries like India, per nation visa quotas have meant a typical wait of 8 to 10 years to get their EADs—Non-skilled workers from any country are also given lengthy wait-times, as there has never been a shortage of poor Americans who need employment. This per-country wait-time is now what Obama’s unilaterally arranging to slash. From now on, filing an adjustment-of-status application won’t be necessary to receive an EAD and any alien who merely has an I-140 petition that’s been approved for a year can obtain the prized work permit.

The new executive action will cut the line of people waiting to get an EAD dramatically, a backlog of hundreds of thousands of people who would otherwise have to wait patiently in line. This action will be a major encouragement to come here by any means possible, with a likely surge of thousands of EAD applications hitting an already backlogged USCIS in the first week alone. For the weak labor market faced by most American workers, it’ll be like a dam bursting.

This is a major coup for the axis of open immigration and Big Tech lobbyists. Big Tech would prefer to hire millions of temporary workers on H-1Bs over American workers because their visas are tied to their employer making them docile and unlikely to unionize. But flooding the labor market with current and future computer technicians, even with workers who’ll have greater flexibility, is much more important—it also gets rid of H-1B renewal and administrative costs.
Perhaps the most striking part of Obama’s move: illegal aliens will also be able to get EADs. All one needs to file an I-140 petition is an official ID; proving lawful presence isn’t required. The thousands of business-owners around the country who knowingly hire illegal aliens can cynically sponsor petitions whether or not the underlying applicant is legal. Ultimately, the USCIS bureaucrats will reject his or her adjustment-of-status application (after 10 plus years), but they’ll still be able to get that golden EAD.

Generally, I-140 petitions require aliens to submit a so-called Labor Certification showing that the petitioning employer has advertised for the position in a newspaper. This is meant to ensure that foreigners are not hired over American workers. As immigration attorneys have admitted, however, they show employers how “to do exactly the opposite”, for instance, by creating deceiving advertisements or disqualifying American interviewees on false pretences.

Filing costs for I-140 visa petitions are not cheap; with attorney costs, they can be several thousand dollars. But petitioning for an illegal alien-employee, with a promise to take the cost off his wages, could create a beneficial indentured servant relationship for employers. Larger employers may also file the petitions en masse if they feel a big crackdown coming (highly unlikely, of course). Furthermore, what’s to stop open-borders advocates, like La Raza, MALDEF, or LatinoJustice (where Justice Sotomayor was a board member) from creating a fund to finance the petition costs on behalf of employers? What about those groups’ billionaire-backers, like George Soros, Paul Singer, or the Ford Foundation?

The legal authority proffered by DHS in the leaked memo is predictably a deliberate misinterpretation of the law. These are the same DHS attorneys of course who, with help from immigration attorneys, produced the 2010 memo “justifying” the DACA executive amnesty program. They claim that two provisions of the Immigration & Naturalization Act, §205 and §274A(h)(3), give DHS Secretary Johnson discretion to issue unlimited numbers of EADs. Note that this is the same argument they’re employing in an attack against Texas’s amnesty injunction. The organization I work for, the Immigration Reform Law Institute, has eviscerated this argument in briefs submitted in support of Texas. Additionally, DHS has claimed the same authority for a separate move that would give work permits to spouses of H-1B-holders. We’re in the process of litigating against that rulemaking, which, if we’re successful, will be utterly disastrous for Obama’s amnesty as well as this new rule change.
Unlike the DACA executive amnesty program being challenged in the courts, USCIS is apparently opting to go through the normal regulatory process (although no details are up yet), complete with an opportunity for the public to submit comments. If enough patriotic American workers and their families flood the comment database, the agency may react like the ATF did when their proposed rule banning “green tipped” bullets was deluged with angry comments forcing them to rescind the proposal. If Americans care about their sovereignty like they do about their guns, Obama’s new immigration re-write won’t see the light of day.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/the-administration/257041-obamas-latest-plan-to-rewrite-immigration-law