Beat your wife and she seeks USA ‘refugee’ status?

Beat your wife and she seeks USA ‘refugee’ status? Yep.

Women born and raised elsewhere –whose husband beats them up —  can seek and get ‘refugee status’ in the USA.  How long will that continue?

We grant ‘refugee status”  because of a law Clinton got passed — 45 CFR 400.301 This law  applies to foreign born persons  seeking refugee status.

USA Attorney General Sessions is deciding yes or no on this issue.  The case Sessions is deciding involves   a case of domestic abuse brought by a woman from El Salvador. She seeks “refugee status” here.

Big bucks are involved in this decision.

The current USA   law — passed by President Clinton –gives lifetime entitlement of all federal programs  to refugees.  45 CFR 400.301.

This gives  a lifetime entitlement for  refugees who become citizens.    Currently, contractors can continue to deposit refugees where they choose regardless of state objection.

When Obama increased the Refugee admission quota in 2017 to 111,000 four states withdrew. But the numbers of refugees that actually settled in those states did not decline.  That’s because of CFR 400.301.

Currently the resettlement programs are on automatic pilot without the States able to say no effectively.  

If you think that freedoms for Americans  — including the right not to be beaten by your  husband — should be protected without extending that USA right world wide …. then petition your government to abolish CFR 400.301

President Trump lowered the immigration quota to 45,000.  The next President could increase it to 250,000.  It’s time that citizens of the USA spoke up and get control of how many “refugees”  are allowed in and on what basis refugees will be admitted.

The USA can and should seek to strengthen women’s rights abroad.  And we can and should be  be a beacon of freedom world wide.

written by Cameron Jackson




Gender police strike fear [insult a Brussels woman cop & one month jail]

Gender police strike fear:   Insult a woman cop because of her gender  in Brussels?

You will either pay  a huge fine or  spend one month in jail.

First time ever a person is convicted of  sexism in the public square.

A court in Brussels fined a young man   €3,000 for insulting a police officer because of her gender, Le Soir reported.

It comes as France prepares to create an offence of street harassment, described as “sexist and sexual outrage”.

The Belgian case involved a driver who was stopped for breaking the highway code. The young man – who has not been identified – insulted the police officer because of her gender, the court heard.

He was reported to have said she would be better off doing a job “adapted to women”, in a scene witnessed by several other people.

The driver was found guilty of three charges: contempt of a police officer, making threats and sexist remarks in public, and a serious violation of another person’s dignity because of her gender.

He was reported to have said she would be better off doing a job “adapted to women”, in a scene witnessed by several other people.

The driver was found guilty of three charges: contempt of a police officer, making threats and sexist remarks in public, and a serious violation of another person’s gender.

He was warned that if he failed to pay the fine, a prison term of a month would be imposed.

“This is the first time we have used this law to prosecute someone,” said Gilles Blondeau, spokesman for the public prosecutor’s office. “It is quite common for people arrested by the police to insult and threaten. But to personally blame a policewoman because of her sex is different.

“It was a good case to test this law: a concrete and very clear case, with many witnesses. This is obviously not always the case.”


Firenze Sage:  Imagine her breaking up a barroom brawl


What becomes of illegal unaccompanied children from central america? 2,4,6 years later?

Who are the “unaccompanied alien children (UACs) ” in California?

The accompanying image is far different from the typical picture of “unaccompanied alien children (UACs).

Most are young men ages 15-17 who flee from central america. Here’s the statistics for California:

95% of the unaccompanied children illegally entering the USA come from central america, the most (45%) from Guatamala in 2017.  Two thirds (68%) are male and 70% are age 15 – 17.  In 2017,

In  California, in 2017  6,252 UAC’s (unaccompanied alien children) were released to sponsors.

Information about the process:

When a child who is not accompanied by a parent or legal guardian is apprehended by immigration authorities, the child is transferred to the care and custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). Federal law requires that ORR feed, shelter, and provide medical care for unaccompanied alien children until it is able to release them to safe settings with sponsors (usually family members), while they await immigration proceedings. These sponsors live in many states.

“Sponsors are adults who are suitable to provide for the child’s physical and mental well-being and have not engaged in any activity that would indicate a potential risk to the child. All sponsors must pass a background check. The sponsor must agree to ensure the child’s presence at all future immigration proceedings. They also must agree to ensure the minor reports to ICE for removal from the United States if an immigration judge issues a removal order or voluntary departure order.


Aptos Psychologist:   So what happens to these unaccompanied alien children as the become older?  Do these “unaccompanied alien children” get sucked into the “gang culture”?

The Arizona statistics are not encouraging:  roughly half of DACA youth  are functionally illeterate in English  and expected that they will use Food Stamps to make ends meet.

Information on the Arizona statistics for DACA:

We calculate shares of the prison population based on the age at which the criminal entered prison. So undocumented immigrants between 15 and 35 make up 2.27% of the total population and 7.94% of convicts. While the legal population between 15 and 35 represents 26.7% of the total population, they account for just 54.7% of the legal population in prison. Young undocumented immigrants make up a 71% greater share of their group’s share of the prison population relative to their group’s share of the general population than the same ratio for legal residents. . . .

Unfortunately, if the goal of DACA is to give citizenship to a particularly law-abiding group of undocumented immigrants, it is accomplishing the opposite of what was intended. As Table 8 in the paper shows, DACA age eligible undocumented immigrants are 250 percent more likely to be convicted of crimes than their share of the population. Those too old for DACA status are convicted at relatively low rates (45.7 percent more than their share of the Arizona population).



Immigration Policy: New immigration data portal launched puts govt statistics in one location


USA immigration data portal launched 2018

Launching of New Immigration Data Portal

Washington, D.C. (March 12, 2018) – The Center for Immigration Studies announces the creation of a new immigration data portal. The portal consolidates government agencies’ most recent immigration statistics in one location, allowing easy access to detailed information on a multitude of key topics in immigration such as crime, illegal immigration, and labor.

logo CIS

Visit the data portal at:

The Center’s goal is to lessen the challenge of finding important immigration statistics so that fact-based research can play a larger role in informing the national debate on immigration policy. Whether the user is searching for specific numbers on refugee arrivals by country of origin, E-verify statistics reports, or the jobsite location and wage data of requested foreign workers, this portal will make finding the data dramatically easier.

Mark Krikorian, the Center’s executive director, said “It is my hope that the immigration debate will benefit from the launching of this data portal. It is imperative that immigration policy be formed by accurate data; this initiative will make it easier for all parties to access crucial immigration statistics.”


Trump funny? Pelosi out of it? America more free in 2018? You decide

Freedoms Americans experience as of March, 2018

Trump funny? Pelosi out of it? America more free in 2018? You decide.

Where are American freedoms in 2018?
Thump  was supposed  be history by summer 2017.
The  Clinton/ Steele dossier, which   was used to get a FICA  warrant to spy on Trymp, continues to  unravel  as 2018 progresses.

Some of the freedoms  Americans experience as of March, 2018 include:

A ‘funny’ President who pokes fun at himself and ridicules his opponents.  Trump provides  better entertainment than Late Night TV. Catch Trunp’s rendition of how to be Presidential.
The tax cuts were heralded as ‘crumbs’ by Pelosi and the Democrats.   The 2018 Tax cut from 35% ti 21%  for large corporations means much more freedom for them  compete throughout the world.
  • Companies and corporations are  free to give employees  raises and bonuses.
  • And freeom  to hire — 300,000 in Feb 2018.
  • Freedoms which encourage more to participate in the work force.
  • Freedom to spend more personal income as less is taken away by federal government— for 80% othe f Americans.
How about freedom to think other thoughts?
Freedom to believe America is exceptional and  to  take back  to control our borders.
Freedom to leave CA which now has the lowest s quality of life in USA.
Freedom for US Steel to hire back 500 workers.  More coal workers are needed in the coal mines to produce electricity to make steel.
None of this would have happened  with Hilary and the Clinton Foundation in the White House and shaping economic polities.
Who lurks in the background?   Obama and  Michelle?
written by Cameron Jackson 3/12/18

Married white women are deplorable [do what men tell them says Hilary Clinton]

white women voted for Trump because men told them to do so —

Why white married women voted for Trump?

Hillary Clinton said that white women voted for President Trump during the 2016 presidential election because their husbands told them to, during a discussion at the India Today Conclave on Saturday.

The moderator asked Clinton why she thinks almost 52 percent of white women voted for Trump, despite them knowing about the controversial “Access Hollywood” tape.

“[Democrats] do not do well with white men and we don’t do well with married, white women,” Clinton explained. “And part of that is an identification with the Republican Party, and a sort of ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son, whoever, believes you should.”


Firenze Sage:  Will this hag ever broom her way under the carpet?  


A TAX on TEA started the American Revolution. Freedom from Government.Now CALIF proposes TAX on WATER. Reasons NOT to tax water?


WATER TAX SB 623 – Speak Up!

A TAX on TEA started the American Revolution. Freedom from government.

Now the State of California proposes a TAX on WATER.

Why should  all California households pay roughly a  $12 WATER Tax per year?

Tell  Santa Cruz County Supervisors NO on SB 623.

Speak up! Write your representatives.

Speak back to  State Senator Bill Monning who started this nonsense!

Here’s  reasons why it’s  important to speak up:

  1. The proposed rate can be INCREASED when the government  chooses. All taxes typically go up …
  2. Twenty-five percent (25%)  of money collected  can be — will be?–spent on administration.
  3.  Lower income families  will be overly  impacted. Why charge more for water than it costs?  Lower income persons  can  sign up for an exemption — but will they?   This tax is one more burden on those with lower incomes.  California already has the biggest disparity between RICH and POOR already.
  4.  Who will really pay? Consumers.   All costs of government are  passed on and the State of CA is not required  to pay back agencies for costs to collect.
  5. Polluters of ground water can continue to pollute and not affected by this law.  Makes no sense.  Polluters are off the hook until 2035.
  6. This law turns water providing agencies into tax collecting agencies. This is wrong.

Becky Steinbruner  says NO on proposed  Water Tax. 

Here’s Becky’s Letter to the  Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors:  

Dear Board of Supervisors and Clerk of the Board,
I was not able to register public comment using the Agenda Portal system on the Board of Supervisor website, so am writing you with my concerns regarding Consent Agenda Item #18.  I request that my letter be included for the Public Record as written correspondence regarding this issue and included with Board agenda communication available to the public at the mARCH 13, 2018 Board of Supervisor meeting.
I oppose Consent Agenda Item 18, a resolution to support SB 623 and ask that the Board NOT adopt a resolution, as recommended by Supervisor Zach Friend, for Santa Cruz County to endorse SB 623.  I request that Supervisor Friend publicly explain why the Board should  consider supporting it.
I have read the text of the proposed SB 623 legislation, re-introduced this year, and have the following objections:
1) While the water tax is currently proposed to be $.95 per month per household, the rate can be increased in the future if the State Board determines that the funding need is greater to assist communities with problematic water supplies.
Water is a basic requirement for life…should it be taxed even more than what it costs to produce it (Prop. 218 stipulates water sellers cannot charge more than the cost of supplying the water).  Any one who declares themselves impoverished (below 200% of the federal poverty limit which would be roughly $98,000/year for an individual) is exempt, but must file with their local water agency for exemption.  Will the poor all apply for exemption?
2)  Public water agencies would be mandated to collect and administer the tax monies to the State but on page 19 of the SB623 text, Section 6 says the State is not required to re-imburse local agencies unless the Commission on State Mandates determines it necessary.
SB 623 would ignore the California Constitutional mandate that local government be re-imbursed for collecting and administering state mandates.
3)  Polluters would “not be subject to enforcement undertaken or administered by State Board or regional boards under Chapter 5 (section 13330) for causing or contributing to an exceedance of a water quality objective of nitrate in groundwater” if the proposed Fertilizer Safe Drinking Water Fee or Dairy Safe Drinking Water Fee gets paid within 90 days of the contamination determination.  Why allow the polluters to continue contaminating the groundwater??? (see page 17 of the SB 623 text)
4)  Again, in Section 5, SB 623 would erase the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act that mandates the State and regional boards oversee and enforce pollution control regulations to protect groundwater drinking supply safety for the public.  This bill would PROHIBIT the State Board or a regional board, until January 1, 2035, from “subjecting an agricultural operation, as defined, to specified enforcment for causing or contributing to a condition of pollution or nuisance for nitrates in groundwater if that agricultural operation demonstrates that it has satisfied other requirements of the timely payment of the fertilzer safe drinking water fee or the dairy safe drinking water fee, as applicable, into the fund.”
5)  SB 623 states the money collected with all these new taxes must only be used for projects addressing problematic groundwater supplies, but COULD  be transferred to other uses with a 2/3 vote of the legislature (section 116771 (f) on page 13 of the text).  I do not trust legislators not to dip into this fund for other “public benefit projects”
6)  SB 623 would allow community water systems to apply for exemption from collection of the per-household water tax, based on the finding that the amount that would be required to be remitted to the Board to be minimus, but the water company cannot appeal if the State denies their application. (116771 (d) on page 13.  Under 116772 (a) a public water system can apply to use an alternate assessment method for charges imposed by SB 623, but that alternate method, if approved, could only be used for five years maximum.
7)  SB 623 would require County Environmental Health Agencies to submit a list of all small water systems to the State Board by
January 1, 2019.  Again, this is requiring local government to spend time on meeting the State requirements but not getting re-imnbursed.  Santa Cruz County Environmental Health Agency staff does not have a comprehensive list of all small water companies but is working to collect that information for another State mandated program, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan, required to be submitted  and approved by the State by January 1, 2020.
8) SB 623 would mandate all fertilizer manufacturers, handlers, transporters and sellers to allow State Board access to any and all accounting practices, facilities and related information.  It would also mandate all dairies allow State Board access to any and all buildings and facilities as well as accounting practices and information.   NONE of this information however, including the audits of Safe Drinking Water Fees by the polluters, would be public information. (section 116772 (d) and (e)).   I do not trust that big corporations that may be contaminating groundwater would be held accountable for money paid in order to continue polluting.  Under SB 623, members of the public would not be able to file a Public Records Act request to find out.
9)  How much of this new tax money would actually get spent on improving problematic groundwater drinking supplies?  SB 623 allows the State Board to spend 25% of the fee money on administration.
10)  How will the State determine who gets the money?  SB 623 requires reports of problems by all water agencies to be submitted for consideration.  The money can be spent for “settlements from parties responsible for contamination of drinking water supplies” (Section 116768(1c), and in Section 116768 (2) states :” funds shall be prioritized for CONSOLIDATIONS”.  SB 623 removes mutually-owned water companies from the list of eligible applicants for project money.  These systems should also benefit from the possibility of grant assistance to improve water quality for safe potable use.
 Why would the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors want to support SB 623???.
Thank you Becky Steinbruner for your above Letter.

Monerey Bay Forum

127 Jewell Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
United States (US)
Phone: 831 688 6002
Fax: 831 688 7717

Santa Cruz CA traffic solutions: Greenway multi-modal roadway & walkway scores BIG on flexibility, takes people where they want to go, moves more people, provides choice

  Santa Cruz CA traffic solutions: Greenway multi-modal roadway & walkway scores BIG on flexibility, takes people where they want to go, moves more people, provides choice.

The East Bay got money from California to do a Greenway — let’s do likewise in Santa Cruz CA?

East Bay Greenway Awarded Active Transportation Program Grant

Sep 19, 2014 at 11:23am

$2.656 million state grant will help fulfill community vision to transform 15 miles under the BART tracks from Oakland to Hayward into a bicycle and pedestrian path.

The following is a comment from Rail Trail post written by Will 3/12/18  

“Westcliff  [Santa Cruz CA’s] multi-use path is not wide enough to function as a active transportation facility, period. At 10 feet wide it has built in conflicts for all user groups.

“This is why the Monterey coastal recreation trail is being widened to a width of 26 feet. 16 feet for the Bikeway allows for faster wheeled vehicles to pass in each direction. The separated 10 foot wide pedestrian sidewalk allows groups of two or more walkers walking side by side and pass each other.

“The plan is for the Greenway to use this same 16 + 10 formula wherever possible.

“The 26 feet needed for a proper active transportation facility does not fit over most of the rail corridor, particularly within the “Central Reach” of the system.

“From a Active Transportation perspective there is no comparison of the functionality of the bike and pedestrian facility embodied in the MBSST plan and what has been the proposed Greenway multi-modal roadway and walkway facility.

“As far as mass transit goes, the use of buses in a dedicated transit lane on Hwy 1 is three times faster than the headways predicted by the RTC for passenger rail between Santa Cruz and Watsonville (16 minutes vs ~42 minutes). Likewise for Santa Cruz and the Pajaro Station (20 vs ~60 minutes).

“There are over 220,000 trips daily on Hwy 1 today vs a prediction of 4,500 trips with the most ambitious plan described in the RTC’s rail feasibility study.
Do the math.

“The Greenway + a highway 1 based Bus Rapid Transit could serve 10 times the number of users and goes to where people are going to today: Cabrillo College, the greater Dominican Hospital complex, UCSC, Santa Cruz City and County government buildings, downtown Watsonville and Santa Cruz, etc.

“The existing freeway corridor is more central to the major employment and population centers than the rail corridor.

“From the standpoint of “social equity”, reductions of GHG emissions, active transportation users, health, sustainability and recreation all favor the Greenway and the democratization of the freeway to support and prioritized bus transit.   written by Will-


Aptos Psychologist: Consider traffic needs of our  most vulnerable  residents and build  solutions  into the overall transportation/  Greenway plan:  how mothers get two small children to school in AM, how the elderly get to medical appointments, how the very sick get to hospitals.

So far, I’ve not heard how to creatively use the frontage roads on either side of Highway #1 and integrate those roads in how better to allow people to move.

Consider ALL ways to move traffic NORTH in the AM and SOUTH in the PM.   For example, we could usse Soquel Avenue as done on the Golden Gate Bridge  — more lanes in AM versus PM.  We could use Traffic Persons rather than Lights to move the traffic on Soquel Avenue.

What say you?  How solve our traffic mess?

written by Cameron Jackson   

Monerey Bay Forum

127 Jewell Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
United States (US)
Phone: 831 688 6002
Fax: 831 688 7717


Santa Cruz CA Traffic mess –YES a Rail Trail, NO Train says Jack Brown

Cyclists on Otago Rail Trail – New Zealand

written by Jack Brown

“Unfortunately most of the other commenters are part of the trail advocacy groups that spread misinformation about the trail and  couldn’t care less if the trail is built at all.

“They are rail advocates plain and simple.

“For those of us that do ride know that the the trail design advocated by the rail group is substandard.

“A good percentage of the trail would be diverted back onto the road where the trail will not fit with a train. Their train (unfunded and not scalable) takes priority.

“Also note that all of us of that support a trail only on the rail corridor are not seeing it as an ‘end all’ solution.

“We know a trail by itself will not solve Santa Cruz County’s transportation crisis.

“A trail will not solve the problem, but a train definitely will not solve the problem.

“Those of us on the Trail only in the corridor would like to see Bus Rapid Transit along Soquel Avenue,


bus on shoulder of Highway #1 can reduce conjustion

Bus on Shoulder  on Highway 1 along with on ramp metering and other transportation technology improvements to improve flow between all parts of our county.

“A train that is unfunded will not be of the most expensive electric one noted by others on this thread. It will be a noisy, dirty diesel.

“Most of the rail advocates are now pushing for Progressive Rail to take over and to start moving frieght and hazardous materials through the corridor.

“A trail will best protect our environment and keep commuter and freight traffic where it is already allocated, but moving at a higher speed. This has a far greater impact than trying to place a commuter train where there simply is not the width, nor the population to support it.

“The cost for rail will be astronomical with no relief to current traffic. The current proposals run well over $100M to $600M and history of rail projects are massively overshooting their budgets.

“A simple example is the California High Speed Rail project where it was sold to the people as only costing $33B with the federal government paying a third and private business investment covering the rest. Today the cost if esitmated at $77 to $98B with the federal government only proviiding $3.5B in grants and no private investment.

Rail in Santa Cruz is a sham.

There are better, more efficient ways to solve the problem and it’s time we stop spending more good money on a bad idea for Santa Cruz.

written by Jack Brown March 11, 201

Aptos Psychologist:  What do the Rail Trail advocates suggest  for managing health and safety issues? Our hospitals are hard to get to  due to traffic issues.  What about   human feces, people  sleeping along the  Trail,  drug needles? For certain kinds of crimes   Santa Cruz County has some of the highest crime rates in CA.

Cameron Jackson, Ph.D. Licensed Psychologist PSY14762

Monerey Bay Forum

127 Jewell Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
United States (US)
Phone: 831 688 6002
Fax: 831 688 7717

firenze sage–free quiet vacation in Syria or Yemen? [most safe country for Muslim women and children is?]

safety of Muslim  women — where most safe?

The most safe county for Muslim women and girls? The USA says one American professor.

An Ohio music professor who said Muslim women and girls are safer in the U.S. than in any Middle Eastern country has been forced to retire.

The Cincinnati Enquirer reports University of Cincinnati assistant professor Clifford Adams has been placed on administrative [leave] for the remainder of the semester and will retire May 1.

He made the comment online to a Muslim student who had criticized Donald Trump’s presidency and spoke about freedom and diversity. Adams wrote “how dare” she complain.

Adams didn’t respond immediately Friday to a request for comment. He earlier wrote a letter to The Enquirer saying he was “deeply sorry” and was trying to have a “lively, provocative, scholarly argument.” School spokesman Greg Vehr says the university is “committed to excellence and diversity.”


Firenze  Sage:  Funny how diversity means everything but common sense.


Next Page »

Translate »