Logo

President Donald Has a Farm

| Opinion | 4 mins ago

President Trump’s latest assault on undocumented aliens reached a new low last week when he said, “These aren’t people; these are animals.”

Essentially, the president believes undocumented aliens are subhuman, or untermensch, which was part of the justification used by leaders of Nazi-Germany to herd “undesirable” groups into death camps. These undesirables included Jews, Roma (Gypsies), Jehovah’s Witnesses, homosexuals, political opponents of the Nazi hierarchy, and anyone else Adolf Hitler and his cronies didn’t like.

Whatever most normal people’s opinion of undocumented aliens is – positive or negative – it’s unlikely that the majority of Americans view them as “animals.” The exception to that statement, of course, is if they concur with the opinion of the president. Or Adolf Hitler.

But why resort to sticks, stones, and names that never hurt you? That would merely put those of us who disagree with the president’s perception of humanity – or inhumanity – on his level. Which is a place on earth most Americans have indicated they would rather not be.

Note to the president: You lost the popular vote and, according to numerous polls, less than half of all Americans approve of you or your regime.

It’s mind-boggling that this president has called many of the supporters of the neo-Nazis and white supremacists who marched in Charlottesville last year “very fine people.” Clearly, in his worldview, undocumented aliens are not. Because they “aren’t people,” they’re “animals.” And while the president subsequently back-peddled a bit, saying he was referring to the violent, predominantly Latino gang MS-13, he fails to recognize that gang members are people as well.

In the president’s mind and in the minds of many around him, including John Kelly, his Chief-of-Staff, it’s perfectly acceptable to separate children from their undocumented parents, should they all be rounded up at the border and routed to immigrant detention facilities; or, as Kelly said, “foster care or whatever.”

Attorney General Jeff Sessions summed up the administration’s policy on undocumented migrants succinctly: “If you’re smuggling a child, then we’re going to prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you. If you don’t want your child separated, then don’t bring them across the border illegally.”

The terminus – literally and figuratively – for many of those arriving at Nazi concentration camps was frequently the scene of children being separated from parents. Infants didn’t fare as well. On more occasions than not, they were immediately “eliminated.” That’s a tame euphemism for what actually happened.

What the attorney general fails to recognize is that he is referring to human beings. They are not smuggled contraband; not animals. Then again, AG Sessions isn’t exactly known for his sensitivity regarding race, culture, or sexual preference.

The president’s attempts to muster compassion and emotion at a so-called “immigration round-table” last week devolved, yet again, into an opportunity to play politics. As usual, his failings as a leader, policymaker, and as a human being were – according to him – the fault of the Democrats, a majority of whom do not agree with most of the president’s immigration decrees.

Our beneficent leader had this to say to those attempting to cross the border without proper documentation, “I know what you’re going through right now with families is very tough, but those are the bad laws the Democrats gave us. We have to break up families. The Democrats gave us that law.”

No. They did not. The president and his administration did.

The president doesn’t have a clue about the plight of undocumented aliens. He should. According to published accounts in The Guardian and on CNN, historian Roland Paul notes that President Trump’s grandfather, Friedrich, left Germany, the president’s ancestral homeland, illegally; failing to notify authorities of his intention to emigrate. And escape the draft. Apparently, Friedrich Trump – unlike his grandson – didn’t have bone spurs on the heels of his feet.

A document Paul found in local archives in Bavaria notes that Friedrich Trump, having already become an American citizen, should leave the area by “1 May… or else expect to be deported.”

Imagine that, the Trump family was punished for leaving a country illegally rather than arriving in one.

Perhaps if this nation hadn’t welcomed the Trump family to America, we wouldn’t have the leader we have in office today. Well, as the president told the knights of his round-table, the U.S. has “the dumbest laws on immigration in the world.” Touché.

Letters

| Opinion | 2 hours ago

Re: Trump and the economy

There are three major areas of economic activity viewed by researchers and scholars when assessing economic performance: the GDP growth rate, unemployment and regulation.
 
The GDP growth rate for 2017 was very good, but GDP rates vary significantly, and 2017 wasn’t generally better than 2015 (also a very good year for GDP rate), when Obama was in office. Also, remember that Obama inherited the worst GDP and unemployment situation since the Great Depression from G.W. Bush, but Trump inherited one of the best GDP and unemployment environments from Obama. It’s just Econ 1A to say that “getting to a very good economy is a lot easier and faster when you start from a good one.”
 
Also, he did succeed in pushing through a major tax cut, however, that major tax cut comes with an equally major expansion of the national debt, which conservatives feel is catastrophic for the economy in the long-run. Getting a big tax cut is equivalent to the feeling you get from eating a big carton of ice cream; it’s sooo decadently pleasing. The debt that it causes, though, is equivalent to the feeling you have a few days later when you’re miserable that you’ve put on five pounds.
 
Conservatives have also made a lot of hay about the low unemployment rate recently. But, put into context, the fall of the unemployment rate is part of a long-term trend that began in Obama’s first term and sustained a remarkably consistent rate of improvement from the fall of 2009 – 7.5 years of which occurred in Obama’s tenure.
  
The people Trump has appointed to the executive branch institutions have noticeably reduced federal government regulations, and there are a lot of Americans who believe that’s a good thing. However, there’s a lot of debate about the economic effect of regulation. Very conservative scholars think reducing it is always a good thing. There are no scholars I know who believe that enlarging it is always a good thing, but there are many who make a persuasive case that there’s a fairly broad sweet-spot, where some regulation actually improves economic performance (it’s important to remember that the recent, so-called “Great Recession,” the Great Depression, and the terrible depressions earlier, including the Panic of 1907, 1893, 1873, 1857, etc., were all caused by too little regulation, not too much).
 
It’s now very clear that the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Banking Act in 1999 led directly to the global crash of 2008-2009. In hindsight, repealing that piece of regulation was one of the worst, if not THE worst, public policy blunders of American history. It took nearly 9 years for the disaster of Glass-Steagall repeal to create the conditions that nearly led to the nation’s first depression, after nearly 70 years without one.
 
So, to cheer Trump’s regulatory repeal efforts might be a little like a passenger on the Titanic, two days into the voyage, saying, “We’re making great time! Isn’t our captain courageous, running the ship at full steam ahead! Those iceberg fear mongers are such sissies!”
 
In sum, economic trends and forces are always long-term things, and as for what he’s done for the country, you are probably just as familiar with how his rude, crude, crass, juvenile, petulant, bigoted, and mean-spirited behavior has debased our culture.

– Stuart

RE: Santa Clarita’s Sanctuary Vote is an Embarrassment By Sebastian Cazares

About the only honest and relevant statement made in the above article is: …”(the sanctuary state bill that bars cooperation with federal immigration authorities to protect certain undocumented immigrants)” … but unfortunately the certain folks protected are CRIMINAL illegal aliens being released from custody and set free in OUR communities to prey upon legal and illegal immigrants and American citizens of Hispanic ancestry like me. My parents came here legally, and were law abiding people who loved this country. My parents were willing to go through the rigorous process to be granted legal entry and loved this country enough to become proud Naturalized citizens. They did not expect anyone to allow them to break the law with impunity. Folks like you continuously trying to make SB54 about immigration and not about shielding criminals in the USA also here illegally from deportation is dishonest and a disservice to the immigrant community you proport to want to protect.
Berta Gonzalez-Harper

AND

Sounds like you need to move to a different city. I will help you pack.
Mark

Before we get more frustrated over SB 54 maybe we should consider what our neighboring countries do?

I understand Canada wants to know what skills immigrants will bring. If they are compatible with what Canada needs they are welcome.

Mexico has strict immigration policies at their southern borders. Should we adopt similar standards? Or those for Americans wanting to live in Mexico?

Bob Comer
Valencia

As I was home, sick, today, I seized the opportunity to write concerning an Op Ed in issue 1025. Written by Josh Heath (I thought you all sluffed him off to The People’s Rag), he took issue with an Op Ed by David Hegg in TPR from April 14th, titled “Calling Every Man to be a Man”.

The beginning of the 2nd paragraph, Mr. Heath cites “a raft of evidence” that disprove Mr. Hegg’s opinion, the 1st of which is “the fact that young people today are the most educated cohort in American history”. This, along with “put(ting) in as many hours at their jobs as prior generations”, puts young men on a par with “working masses” in the “19th century”. Really? While I might agree that young people today are more “educated” than their predecessors, I think it’s in-arguable that far more college courses now, as opposed to those in the past, don’t have a lot to do with a productive career. And as far as toiling “an 80 hr work week practically year-round” goes, the FIRST thing a freshman learns his 1st quarter is; DON’T overload yourself! As they near the finish line, with confidence & experience under their belts, they may increase their loads.

Mr. Heath asserts at the start of the 4th paragraph that “there’s nothing a young man can do to counteract this”. Here lies a substantial part of the real problem: There’s nothing he can do?! This is exactly the mind-set that atrophies so many today. A major part of maturing is; pick yourself up & go at it again! Life lessons are MUCH more valuable than formal education. And there are many resources available for support, chief among them, I would say, are encouragement & empowering of family & friends, which Mr. Heath cites in the 1st part of paragraph 6.
Unfortunately, Mr. Heath chooses to get personal with a lot of unnecessary comments in the remainder of the article. He may have been “short” on his Op Ed article or just resorting to a Standard Operating Procedure of the left, which is personal destruction. In any case, I can assure him & anyone else that David Hegg does not “mock the downtrodden” nor is he “unthoughtful”, “contempt”uous, or a “Pharisee” towards anyone. In fact, he strives to be more like Christ in every way & he has a great heart for young people. And you’re right, Mr. Heath. Christ reaches out to ALL with justice & love.

BTW, David Hegg is my friend, brother, & pastor. Come to a service sometime, would you Mr. Heath.
Homer Temple

The Great Rift

| Opinion | 4 hours ago

by Stephen Smith

For the last two weeks I have been in Israel, Jordan and Palestine on an organized tour entitled “The Land of the Gods.”

Fighter planes flew over our hotel at the Sea of Galilee when missiles struck the Golan Heights. Our hotel in Jerusalem was near the new American Embassy. We left Jerusalem just before the opening. Our tour bus was blocked by a staged Palestinian protest in Bethlehem.

Believe it or not, on our first day of touring in Tel Aviv we were caught in a brief, but strong, hail storm. Another storm came up while we were on a tourist boat sailing on the Sea of Galilee. Jesus must have raised his hands to protect us, for after a short while the waters were calmed. The tour guide said there had been no rain all winter. These events gave us pause when we visited the archeological site of Megiddo, the place that Revelations declares will be where Armageddon begins. By the way, in James Michener’s remarkable book, “The Source,” the chapter entitled “The Psalm of the Hopo Bird” describes the incredible tunnel dug through solid rock to the wellspring which was outside the city wall. A very good read.

Everything in this part of the world revolves around the word “rift.” The Great Rift contains The Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea (the lowest elevation on the planet) connected by the Jordan River. This geography defines the land. On the Jordan side of the rift stands Mount Nebo, which overlooks the Rift Valley, the Jordan River and in the distance, one can see Jerusalem and Jericho. This is the view that Moses saw just before he died. It is also one of the dividing lines of the great political and religious rifts we are experiencing today. In my next submission to the Gazette I will give my observations on the political situation in this part of the Middle East, however now some quick perspectives on history and circumstance.

Here we find human habitation sites thought of as being the oldest in the world. This troubled part of the world is the birth place and current home of three of the great Abrahamic western religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam.  Along the way, many forms of Paganism were practiced from Baal, and local deities to both the Greek and Roman gods. The groups that have conquered these desert lands seem nearly endless. To name a few, there are the Babylonians, Persians, the people of Moses, Greeks (Alexander the Great) Romans, Byzantium, Muslims, Crusaders, the Turkish Ottomans, and more recently, the British.

Israel has a diverse population with Jews, Christians and Muslims serving in elected office. Non-citizens may vote in local elections. Israel is a very modern country. Your cell phone will work here. Eighty percent of water comes from desalinization plants. Sales tax is 17 percent. Everywhere you see officers carrying M16s.

Bethlehem is under Palestinian control and shares a border with Jerusalem with a wall. Palestinians may not cross over into Jerusalem and Israelis may not enter Bethlehem. In Bethlehem there is a small, but accepted, Christian community. Life in the Palestinian side is difficult. Israel’s neighbors have failed in developing good infrastructure. In Bethlehem and in Jordan many homes have no water hookups, or only have water service twice a week. Every home has a water storage tank on its roof.

The population of Jordan is 10 million, with nearly 4 million living in the capital of Aman. Jordan has taken in around 3 million refugees. Quite a feat for a small and poor country with severe water shortages. The capital is a much more tolerant and open city compared to many Muslim countries in the Middle East.
It was in Jordan, with the rift valley acting as a metaphor, that I gained a better insight into the rift between Israel and its neighbors. During our visit the Palestinians were protesting “The Great Catastrophe.” Our guide, Mohamed, in Jordan is also a history professor. I took every opportunity I could to learn his insights into the conflicts. I will discuss his perspective. I can only say that I do not see much room for negotiations. We must instead embrace our common humanity and if you are so inclined, pray for peace so that we will not experience the predictions in Revelations about what will start in the ancient site of Megiddo, Armageddon.

Always Advocating Alan – Why Won’t Santa Clarita Build A BMX Track?

| Opinion | 4 hours ago

When a person ponders the responsibilities of Santa Clarita city government, public safety is normally the first thing on our minds. Without the services of a well-functioning police and fire department, our community would be defenseless against criminal elements preying on the public, dangerous accidental situations, as well as natural disasters. While public safety is a number one priority for our city to address, providing public recreational facilities should also be high on city government’s priority list.

Before Santa Clarita was a city, recreational facilities were provided as a team effort by our public schools and the County of Los Angeles. Probably the best example of this partnership was at North Oaks Park, where the county provided the swimming pool and the school provided the softball diamond. Each governmental agency was able to use these amenities when appropriate. Unfortunately, the North Oaks agreement is a thing of the past. Plus, due to the need to provide school security, school-owned areas previously used by community members are being fenced off and are no longer available for the public’s use, thereby making it even more urgent for the city to step up and fulfill its obligations.

But what tuned me in on this issue again, was a result of the May 8 City Council meeting, where in Public Participation a resident rose to ask the City Council to build a Bicycle Motocross Track (BMX) in Santa Clarita. As it turns out, this request has (fallen) on deaf ears for over 10 years, even though it has been an item on the Parks Master Plan wish list for all that time. I have witnessed this request being made at previous meetings and listened as he was told about the lack of $250,000 of public money to fulfill his request.

Interestingly, at this same meeting, one of the items on the agenda was a proposed increase of the Open Space Assessment District fee. While the current Executive Summary states “the city faces a deficit of approximately 734 acres of active parkland,” we have users who have been waiting over 10 years for a facility which costs one-quarter of a general-purpose sports field.

It took two attempts to get the voters to pass the Open Space Assessment District. To gain public support and confidence the money would be spent as advertised, the city published a list of “frequently asked questions.” It asks, “Does the Open Space District just have provisions for the purchase of land for open space and parks, or does it include construction and maintenance of parks and land as well?” Answer: “The Preservation District would (be) used solely for the purchase and preservation of land for Open Space and Active Parkland.” Question: “What is the breakdown for expenditures of these district funds?” Answer: “At least 90 percent of the acres purchased will be preserved natural open space, and no more than 10 percent of the acres will be used for improved active parkland.” The district is now 10 years old and no land has been purchased for active use. Maybe it is time for staff to start looking and reduce the 734-acre deficit.

Next, I took a look at how this year’s Open Space District fee is proposed to be spent. There’s $723,606 for debt service, $592,000 for administration, $658,000 on a yearly operational estimate, and $68,000 on a capitol project. Doing the math and including this year’s increase, the District will be collecting $2,715,149 from our taxpayers. However, Staff is estimating the District will only gain $674,149 because they will be using the majority of the funds in ways other than being “used solely for the purchase and preservation of land for Open Space and Active Parkland.” Not one question about these expenditures was brought forth by our City Council members. The Open Space District has lived one-third of its allotted lifespan, spent over $17,000,000, while the task is nowhere near 30 percent complete.

It is embarrassing our city’s BMX enthusiasts are lacking a place to practice their sport. The city already owns the required land, and for a municipality which spends over a half million dollars per year to fund a contractor, whose job it is to monitor its landscape contractors, there must be sufficient funds available.

It is high time our elected leaders start thinking younger, asking more questions and working to accommodate the changing recreational needs of our 225,512 residents.

Awesometown from Afar

| Opinion | May 17, 2018

While on an out-of-town assignment, I missed being here for the City Council’s vote to make Santa Clarita a “Sanctuary City.”

For white people.

I found out only after being asked where I was from. When I offered up the name of our fair city, most people first responded by saying, “Oh, yeah … the place where they do that diet show about cannibals and zombies.”

I responded that the only people eating their own in Santa Clarita were disaffected Democrats so inured to the unfettered antics of their elected officials, that they’d come to resemble shell-shocked survivors of some cataclysmic event. Others, more abreast of current events than I, proceeded to tell me that our civic leaders decided by a 5-0 vote to oppose SB 54, California’s “Sanctuary State” law, and planned to file a brief in support of the Trump Administration’s lawsuit against the state – meaning a lawsuit against those of us who live here. All of us. Not just brown or black, or of Asian descent, but white folks too. Their vote made Santa Clarita first among equals. Or at the least, makes our city the first to formally stand in opposition to the law. Which makes many who dwell here very happy. Santa Claritans who have made this community their home for more than a few decades might recall the glittery billboard that was once visible from the northbound 5 Freeway, the one that resembled the sequined costume of an oversized Vegas showgirl. It was an invitation to those seeking refuge from the city down below, specifically, tempting them to settle in Stevenson Ranch. The sign proclaimed that the valley’s newest community was a “masterpiece in master planning.”

That catchy slogan was somewhat discomfiting to many, as it sounded as though it had been penned by a member of some master race. One who believed that the recently-hatched City of Santa Clarita and its surrounding environs would be tempting to those quietly migrating north as part of some massive white flight, ostensibly in hopes of settling in a place with good schools, relatively affordable housing, quaintly coiffed lawns, one that is now among the top 10 safest cities in the state. Given all those wonderful qualities, Awesometown sounds so much better than “masterpiece.”

Our city fathers and mothers would have us believe they aren’t “anti-immigration,” just “anti-illegal immigration.” They seem to forget that restrictions on immigration were the creation of many politicians as like-minded as themselves, who forged laws specifically targeting those who were not like them, meaning White Anglo-Saxon Protestants from Western European countries, and that our doors were once open to people of all races, colors, and creeds.

Many members of this community, indeed members of our City Council past and present, are descendants of some of those groups targeted by immigration laws and religious intolerance: Asians, Eastern Europeans and Russians (read: Jews), Italians and others of Mediterranean (read: Latin) descent, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints … all encountered persecution by their very own neighbors. American neighbors. As for black Americans, many came involuntarily and were subjected to even greater persecution and racism.

There’s a key point upon which I agree with the council. Anyone who has entered this country illegally and is convicted of a serious crime should not be permitted to remain in the U.S. That just makes sense. But it doesn’t mean a floodgate should be opened to hunt down anyone and everyone who has crossed our borders in hopes of creating a better life for themselves and their families. To a degree, this is what the Trump administration is proposing and what our City Council appears to support.We are in dire need of immigration reform. Without question. But not at the expense of innocent children being separated from their families and placed into what White House Chief of Staff John Kelly calls “foster care or whatever.” Note to General Kelly: During the 1800s those of Irish descent such as yourself were persecuted by groups who preceded them – Europeans who referred to themselves as “native Americans.” Tell that to the original Native Americans.

Many on the council have made clear that they are merely adhering to the Constitution which they took a sworn oath to uphold. And that’s a very fair argument. In opposing SB 54, they are violating state law with the intent of staying true to one that may very well supersede it. Note to council members: Donald Trump also swore he would uphold the Constitution, yet appears to be in the process of gutting as much of both it and the rule of law as he possibly can. All five members of the City Council who voted to oppose SB 54 clearly did so with the best of intentions, small-minded as those intentions may seem to many Santa Claritans. No matter. The council’s vote is, by-and-large, symbolic. The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department is not going out of its way to make undocumented residents’ lives miserable. They have far more important things to do. Like keeping Santa Clarita one of the U.S.’s top 50 safest cities in which to live (caveat: with populations over 200,000).

So, why do it? Really? Because in voicing its opposition to SB 54, the council is playing to its base, just as President Trump plays to his. Long term, the council’s actions may be irrelevant, but not to those who voted for them. And therein lies the rub. The political composition of the City of Santa Clarita is not what it once was. The city’s Awesometown marketing campaign is partially responsible for that. In a state that is increasingly comprised of Democrat and Independent voters, those who bleed blue (or remain neutral) are also increasing in number in our own community. They seek the very things that have attracted families to the Santa Clarita Valley for generations. Just as those who’ve made their way to the U.S. from south of the border have also sought a better life. To find their own Awesometown, as it were. By and large, those protected by SB 54 are not criminals. They are not here to suckle greedily at the breast of the federal and state governments. They are here to work; at jobs most of us choose not to do. They want safety and security.

Symbolic or not, the leaders of this community have sent a clear message that undocumented residents are not welcome in the City of Santa Clarita; any undocumented resident, not just those who break the law. The council has voted its collective conscience. But, on many matters of policy, they speak for a dwindling number of residents here.

To those who may not like what members of the current City Council have to say, a few words of advice. Show up or shut up. At council meetings, at the ballot box, and at community organizing events. As former House Speaker Tip O’Neill frequently noted and is famously quoted as saying by politicians from both parties: “All politics is local.” So, all you Awesome people, if you want to see change nationally or globally, start small. And act locally.

Santa Clarita’s Sanctuary Vote is an Embarrassment

| Opinion | May 17, 2018

By Sebastian Cazares

As a lifelong resident of Santa Clarita, the City Council meeting on SB 54 (the sanctuary state bill that bars cooperation with federal immigration authorities to protect certain undocumented immigrants) was one of the most intense and embarrassing moments I have ever experienced in SCV. Polarizing partisan politics didn’t make our community safer; it sent a divisive message that will alienate and infuriate many.

Arriving at the protest around 4 p.m., I entered a battleground – a true reflection of a split nation. The pro-SB 54 protest I was a part of tried not to engage the anti-sanctuary group. While the Sheriff’s Department made sure the rally was safe, hateful rhetoric from the Trump protesters was nothing close to peaceful and respectful. Some of them yelled bigoted remarks, slurs, damned us to hell, and even sexually inappropriate comments were made to an activist during the meeting itself.

You would think once the meeting started, that decorum would be enforced. Not at all. I respect Mayor Weste and the council members’ efforts to quiet the audience when disruptive, and their commitment to hear both sides and give each speaker a full three minutes. But even when the anti-sanctuary group was incredibly loud, disrespectful, and openly making terrible comments to speakers, not a single individual was removed.

People on the left that instigated confrontation should be condemned as well. However, one of the reasons the meeting was so disturbing was the fact that dozens of Trump supporters came from other cities to intimidate Santa Clarita residents. Many were social media activists who came from areas like Northridge, such as Kira Innis, harassing speakers and making the media paint a false narrative that all of the SCV populace is against SB 54.
While SCV is more Republican, it is still an almost split community. CA-25 has more registered Democrats than Republicans, and voted blue in the 2016 presidential election. The May 8 City Council meeting actually had speakers with a more even stance on SB 54, yet the large group of Trump protesters from other areas that stacked this meeting provided the perfect opportunity for Bob Kellar to advance his polarizing agenda on Fox News. Kellar claimed on Laura Ingraham’s show that the room favored challenging sanctuary “nine to one.”

So what will the amicus brief accomplish? Will it reduce crime? Every single council member said that this issue was only about criminal aliens, even though the bill was revised to provide many crimes that were exceptions to sanctuary. Its main intentions are to protect non-violent immigrants. Speakers read countless data and investigations on non-sanctuary cities leading to distrust of law enforcement and causing the undocumented to report crimes at incredibly low rates out of fear.

Was it about morality and humanity? My speech to the council discussed my family’s immigrant experience from Mexico and Puerto Rico, the need to consider ICE’s spike in deportation for immigrants with no criminal records, and the rape, abuse, and torture at detention centers. I pleaded to them to consider an anonymous classmate of mine who recently received DACA status and the fear she lives in for her family. They didn’t care. The council still voted unanimously to defy SB 54. The individuals who harassed us were emboldened. They won.

I’ve never been so embarrassed of my city.

Sebastian Cazares is a member of Students NextUP, a coalition of progressive high school and college students from throughout the 25th Congressional District and beyond.

Democrats Set the Bar

| Opinion | May 17, 2018

By Betty Arenson 

Democrats claim to be the party that champions women’s causes; however, their actions heartily counter that.

The Women’s March of January 21, 2017 was promoted as being about, of course, women. It emerged convoluted with causes of healthcare, immigration, the environment, LGBTQ, racial matters, etc. Quite notably and significantly, what it did not include were conservative women and pro-life women.

It evolved that more subtle exclusions of women are the victims of liberal men like Harvey Weinstein. We eventually learned of the attitude that they knew what they were getting into with him. It finally crept out with the celebs, like Oprah, “we all knew.”

At the 2003 Oscars, Meryl Streep leapt to her feet and wildly applauded convicted child rapist Roman Polanski. The majority of the audience followed.

Liberal women are forceful about putting women in high places. Their exceptions of course are Betsy DeVos, Secretary of Education, and current nominee for the first woman to head the CIA, Gina Haspel.

The anti-DeVos people argue that she had no experience in the field of education. That’s hollow considering that neither did Janet Napolitano, currently the president of the University of California System. Her former titles were Arizona Governor and Secretary of Homeland Security under President Obama.

The anti-Haspel people argue that she should not take the post because of her alleged part in the torture scandal of the war with Iraq with regard to the destruction of tapes (although there are written accounts preserved).

That’s a vacant excuse. She was not in any lead position to give any direction or act on her own. Haspel has a career of 33 years as an intelligence officer, with numerous prestigious awards, and is held in high esteem by former CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper.

Gina Haspel’s confirmation hearings were a spectacle.

Kamala Harris D-CA and wanna-be-presidential candidate, acted like a prosecutor versus accomplishing any kind of professional inquiry.

A third display of disrespectful treatment of a Trump cabinet female was the brutal confrontation of Cory Booker D-NJ to Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen in January over alleged comments made by Trump about third world countries.

Booker was utterly irate because he couldn’t bully Nielsen into an answer he wanted in a hearing about an alleged comment by President Trump about third world countries. Booker’s unfettered temper was highly ugly and should not bode well for him as a future presidential candidate. He came off as a bigot and a misogynist.

The maltreatment and offensive attacks on White House spokes-woman Sarah Huckabee Sanders and (our) First Lady Melania Trump are commentaries on their own.

The latest vogue word for the Democrats is “moral.” Moral is now the bar when speaking about immigration, California’s SB54, Trump sitting in the oval office and when questioning Trump’s cabinet nominees.
Neither party, nor undoubtedly very few people, has the market cornered on morality and it’s therefore laughable that many Democrats are choosing this theme.

When they cannot argue facts, they pull out “morals” for an argument.

There’s nothing moral about touting “women’s rights” when only selective woman are included.

Always Advocating Alan: What A Difference A Council Meeting Makes, Santa Clarita City Council Votes to Oppose SB-54

| Opinion | May 17, 2018

I started putting this column together just before Mother’s Day, and it made me think about some “pearls of wisdom” my mother shared, as I grew up. Remember when your mom told you never run with scissors, or always wear clean underwear in case you get in an accident? I’ll bet you do. Yet, one of the most profound bits of advice my dear old mother would tell me was, “You may not be right, because there are always two sides to every story.” Now, those have been words to live by. I have tried to heed her advice by not cementing the positions I take so deeply; it would prevent me from acquiring more information, or carefully listening to those who have conflicting views, or using what I learn to appropriately modify my position.

While I love my mother, I have come to understand, in some cases, there are not just two sides to every story, there can be even more differing opinions to consider. If you find this concept hard to visualize, think about a triangle or other geometric shapes with more than two sides. Discussions related to SB-54, the so-called California Sanctuary State law, at the last City Council meeting proved again the concept, “There may be more than two sides attempting to influence a City Council decision.”

Plus, what a change from the April 24 City Council meeting, when Mayor Weste reduced speaker time to one minute, made doubly sure each speaker knew when they were out of time, and did not answer any questions raised by the public. In contrast, at the May 8 council meeting, as the council chambers bulged containing over 300 members of the public, and with prime-time news media cameras recording, Mayor Weste turned on the charm telling the audience, each of the 150 speakers would be given their three minutes to express their opinion, no matter if it took all night.

If you have read SB-54, the Agenda Item 16 Staff Report, the memo written by our city manager to the council, or have just been following the issue in the Gazette, you already know this piece of legislation sets “maximum limits” relating to cooperation of local law enforcement with immigration agents. My main concern with the bill is, understanding the degree which SB-54 implementation would allow individuals who are in the country illegally and are also convicted felons to be released back on the streets to commit additional crimes rather than being deported. I am also very much aware immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility, and the Feds have not been effective in operating an efficient system of immigration. But, I am also concerned about the State of California exceeding its authority, and intentionally interfering with federal responsibilities.

Even though I thought I knew what the issue was, I was not surprised the majority of speakers laid out additional diverse opinions. Some on the extreme left felt, all people in our country, no matter if they entered legally or not, should be allowed to stay. Some laid out heartfelt stories of undocumented immigrants who had since obeyed our laws and who have been productive members of society and had been unfairly targeted for deportation. While those on the extreme right indicated their feeling, SB-54 circumvents federal immigration law and sends the message, illegal immigration into California is acceptable and our state welcomes an explosion of the illegal immigrant population. We heard familiar (tales) of murders, rapes and other crimes committed by illegal immigrants, many of whom had been deported several times. Lastly, there were individuals recanting the lives of relatives who had immigrated to this country for the purpose of finding a better place to live.

Finally, at about 1 a.m., the City Council took the issue of SB-54 under consideration. Council Member Miranda was first to speak and went right to the heart of the matter. He reiterated the overall discussion was not about sanctuary cities or immigration. The issue is about SB-54 and only SB-54; “it’s about Criminals,” and “those criminals are hurting the Latino community more than anybody else.” Then came the 11-minute Smyth two-step, where he revealed 442 emails and written comments opposing SB-54 and 69 in support, were received at City Hall. We also learned about his travels to Cuba, and finally that he also opposed SB-54. Council Member McLean was silent. Bob Kellar indicated he “had no problem with this issue and asked his fellow councilmembers to join him” in opposition to SB-54 and sending the Santa Clarita resolution, with an appropriate cover letter, to the governor, attorney general and members of the California Legislature. After a bit more discussion, the motion passed unanimously, 5 to 0.

I support those who have immigrated to our country in good faith and I have compassion for those who are placed in the middle of the immigration debate because our elected officials have failed to address these issues for so long. But, I also support the council’s decision. Even with our city government not having a direct say in this decision, remembering the phrase “all politics is local” and having the “Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances” granted by the U.S. Constitution, we as individuals, as well as our local representatives, have a responsibility to make it known whenever we feel an unjust or illegal piece of legislation has been enacted.

Yet even more importantly, be advised, you are reading this just a few days after Mother’s Day. So, if you did not send your mother a card, or flowers, or at least called, you had better get busy and do so with a good excuse, because, if you think it’s not a good idea to fool with Mother Nature, you are about to find out there are even worse consequences when you forget to tell your mom “you love her” on Mother’s Day.

Creativity Advocacy – Creativity’s Enemies, part 1

| Opinion | May 11, 2018

Creativity is not an actual person with friends and enemies, per se. But if Creativity had a form or a body, she would most likely possess some dear friends and a few foes. She would cuddle up to life’s Dark Space and have lots of lunches with Open Schedule. She’d possibly be besties with the much-overlooked Curiosity. She’d chill into the night playing with Game and Puzzle; she’d slumber party with Laughter and coddle Tears of Sadness. She’d be pretty cool that way. But if her foes approached her, she’d probably fling up her fist like humans do to vampires about to strike. Certain elements aim to suck the life out of Creativity, drain her, and she’d do all she could to keep them at bay.

In movies like “Twilight,” the protagonists know exactly how to stave off the dreaded enemy. It has something to do with the power of the cross held up in the face of the fanged monster. In real life, however, most of us don’t know what to do when these bloodsuckers come at us and deplete us of our Creative juices. We don’t even see them coming most of the time.

These forces of evil come in the form of routine and naysayers.

When it comes to routine, most of us would think Routine is a good friend. He’s stable and consistent and lovingly pats you on the back when it comes to exercise and hard work. But something we may not know about Routine is that he can be possessive and power-hungry. Creativity and Routine have rendezvoused for millennia, and when she sees this tendency in him, she packs up and dismisses herself. She knows better than to tango with his mistaken sense of entitlement.

When we team up with Routine, we can be on top of our game, doing life the way we’ve set our intentions. We feel so good that our brain patterns carve out a groove and all is right with the world. We follow a known and expected path of activity, measure our Creative productivity with a smile and then enjoy the rush of dopamine. But every groove starts out as a perfect pathway, much like the wheel had shaped an easier ride for covered wagoneers across the prairie long ago. After too many trips, though, a healthy groove potentially becomes a rut and passengers end up stuck somewhere, wondering where Creativity ran off to. Routine seems to have taken over and left no room for her. He seems to do that with Unpredictability and Imagination, too.

Instead of getting stuck in our relationship with Routine, perhaps we could treat him like a prearranged Airbnb guest – welcomed, but not permanent. If we make enough changes to our Routine to keep our pathways fresh and less automated, then Creativity still has a chance to join us in our journeys. Routine is not a bad guy; he just needs to be kept in his place.

Metaphors aside, it’s crucial for us to keep the literal, physical pathways open that encourage brain plasticity. Our attentional circuits need variance or they begin to rust. Columbia University’s new study in neurogenesis suggests that we can create new neurons up to age 79. Without challenges, though, our brains get lazy. We can contribute to the making of new cells by breaking routines and employing our five senses whenever possible. Creativity is responsible for these shifts in behavior, as well as the resulting new brain cells. By endeavoring novel experiences (hiking instead of going to the gym, taking a new trajectory on your commute, picking fresh fruit off the tree instead of buying packaged), we can live healthier, longer. Creativity is on our side and she tends to help us do more than paint pictures or sculpt masterpieces or craft a screenplay. She’s pretty cool that way. And as for the next enemy – the naysayers – there are two kinds: Experts and Family Critics. We›ll visit them in the next column. We must pace ourselves as we put these antagonists in their place.

Letter

| Opinion | May 10, 2018

Dear Editor,
As a longtime resident in this valley & as a person that has participated in the local journalism community I find it un-acceptable that a contributor to your publication & the local paper has been found to be blatantly plagiarizing others work & his response & the publications response is to allow him to hide behind his veteran status as a means to excuse what in journalism & academic circles is the highest form of ethics violation.

Furthermore the response from William Reynolds, the violator in question has been to insult & threaten those that question his journalistic integrity. Social media is always a black hole of intention but when you call folks idiots or mentally sick & so on & so on I would think that the publication he contributes to would re-evaluate his ability to contribute. Plus the intention is very clear, he does not care that he has stolen others work & plans to continue to do it.

I think that this publication & our local paper should take a hard look at Mr. Reynolds work & decide if their reputations as information providers for our community is worth using stolen work from an in-apologetic contributor. Veterans are to be thanked & respected, when one uses that label they should be carrying themselves with dignity & pride. Mr. Reynolds is tainting his service by stealing work & using stolen work to honor our dead & living heroes.
I (for) one, will not be reading this publication nor the paper until this issue is addressed officially.
Thank You. Your Loyal Reader,
Kris Kelso

Council OKs Court-Ordered ‘Time-Outs’

| Opinion | May 10, 2018

After a rather raucous council meeting concerning Santa Clarita’s stance on sanctuary cities, Mayor Laurene Weste quickly discovered the need for order in the chamber. Her solution: time-outs designed for grown adults.

At future council meetings, Weste reserves the right to “put naughty men and women in the corner until they learn how to behave.” If public participation gets out of hand, offenders will be escorted by sheriff’s deputy to the corner of the room until they have thought about what they’ve done.

“We will not have name-calling in public,” Bob Kellar said. “We reserve that kind of talk for the grown-ups in my cigar room.”

This initiative will take much-needed sheriffs off of the streets and put them in the council chambers where they will kindly ask the public to put signs away – over and over again.

“Our sheriffs have been training vigorously to perfect stern looks and ear-grabbing techniques,” Weste said. “I’m excited to see it carried out at our next meeting when we, as a city, take a stance on the war in Iraq.”

Milennials – Who Needs Them? Inspired by Richard Hood’s The Lamest Generation

| Opinion | May 10, 2018

We’re morally bankrupt, we complain too much, and we don’t know how to work hard. Please – not too many compliments at once. But, before you publish those kind words on the Facebook page we taught you how to use, let’s take the logs out of our eyes.

Come on, you all remember what it was like to be young. Picture this: It’s spring; the flowers are blooming, and the dinosaurs are hatching from their eggs. … Okay, all jokes aside, you remember what it was like to look at an older generation and have opinions about the way you were raised. You learned to take things with a grain of salt, and experienced rude awakenings when your parents turned out to be right. We have a lot in common.

The disdain many older folks have for the young people they helped raise reeks of insecurity. Correct me if I am wrong (which I know many of you will in heated letters to this publication), but the strong reactions toward the current generation seem somewhat self-centered – inward feelings projected onto those who resemble aspects of yourselves. Call us know-it-alls, and we see the people who won’t admit wrongdoing. Call us morally compromised, and we see people who lack compassion towards those who are different from them.

The moment a young person has a contrasting opinion, they are labeled inexperienced. The credentials for a valid opinion are:

•Be older than 40

Hmm – it’s like the opinions that matter to you are … just yours. And, most young people are not afraid to acknowledge that your views are valid and have been shaped by life experience. But, that does not mean that ours aren’t too. We are growing up in a different world, and that means that times are changing. What worked for your generation might not work for ours, and it’s our turn to deal with them, mess up, and become entirely irrelevant to the next generation.

Let’s not pretend like this whole process doesn’t happen over and over again. It’s the circle of life. Before I know it, I’ll be writing letters – excuse me – teleporting messages to the local weblog, complaining about how the young whippersnappers want me carted off to the robot-run nursing home.

Of course, I know that what I’ve said in this column isn’t anything new, either. You have all heard these things, had a panic attack, and reassured yourselves that people like me have no idea what we’re talking about. And I don’t blame you. I’ll do the same thing when I am old. But, your turn on life’s political carousel is slowing down, and you’re running out of tokens because you spent them all on wars.

I digress.

I guess what I am trying to say is “chill.” And take turns listening. You’ve told us our whole lives that God gave us two ears and one mouth for a reason. Show us what a great generation is, rather than telling us – and we will compete with you to do the same. May the best generation win.

Please disregard anything I’ve had to say and direct all scathing hate mail to sarah@santaclaritagazette.com.

Always Advocating Alan – It Is Always Best When We Choose For Ourselves

| Opinion | May 10, 2018

Everything we do in life, is all about the choices we make. From where we live, to where we shop, to the friends we gather with and the lifestyle we lead, we make life changing choices every day. Sometimes those choices are placed in front of us simply by the changing times, the awareness of new ideas, the implementation of new technologies, or just because we have stumbled across products or services which enrich our daily life. Accepting these changes are in many cases difficult, we always tend to want to do what we have always done, and get what we have always got.

For example, when I first moved into my house, it was shown to be in Saugus, the house did not change location, but now, while I live in that same house, it is in Canyon Country. I remember not being happy when the change took place, yet I got used to the idea, and today it is no big deal.

When I first arrived in the Santa Clarita Valley, we shopped at Safeway and Newberry. If you walked into Safeway and looked left, you could buy plants and other nursery type items, look right and they sold some general-purpose auto parts, go straight and you entered the market and filled your grocery needs. Newberry had a lunch counter which attracted a lot of our locals for breakfast on Saturday and Sunday.

In the 70’s we entered the big time with K-Mart opening on Bouquet and Soledad. The voices of controversy were deafening. They are going to put everyone else out of business and destroy the rural feel of our area. When I think back about it, I have to chuckle. People shopped at K-Mart because they received better value for their money, and yet K-Mart is no longer there. Today, Walmart and COSTCO are competing for your business and as long as they continue to provide you a perceived high degree of value, they will continue to thrive. However, if their business model becomes outpaced by another retailer and they lose the perception of providing value, they will go the way of Newberry, Safeway, K-Mart, Builders Emporium or any of the rest of the “so called” Big Box retailers which are no longer in business. The reason is obvious, if you can find a better deal elsewhere, you will take your business there.

While all I have said thus far is obvious to most people, the same ability to choose is not available to you when the government makes the “what is best for you” decision. Seems, before the City of Santa Clarita was a city, residents got to decide which Trash Company they would hire. In my area we had three choices, with Blue Barrel, Waste Management and Atlas all competing for our business. Now I have got to admit, it got a little hectic with 3 Trash Companies trucks rolling down our streets on trash pickup day. Then the City decided they could negotiate a better deal and limited residential operation to one company. Unfortunately, we have about the same congestion as before, with separate Trash, Recyclable and Green Waste Trucks rolling on our streets.

As residents, we also no longer have a say in where our Trash is dumped. The Chiquita Landfill became predominant, even with the health and odor problems cited by Val Verde residents. In 1997, to satisfy the complaints and mitigate the situation, the landfill agreed to close in 2019 or when they had accumulated 23 million tons of trash. But when the landfill reached permitted capacity, the operators did not want to close, and the County approved a variance. Attorneys for the Landfill also applied for a new permit, doubling the landfill size, making it one of the largest operations of its type in the country. Community members, from all over the Santa Clarita Valley, opposed to continuing the landfill’s operation, voiced their objection for health reasons, proximity to local schools and their feeling our valley should not become the dumping ground for the entire county. In July 2017 the County Supervisors approved a new 30-year Conditional Use Permit allowing the landfill to proceed. It is easy to understand why. There is a large amount of money for the County to receive in tipping fees, bridge and thoroughfare fees and campaign donations. Plus, they do not reside close enough to suffer from the odor and health problems encountered by our local residents, and their children do not go to the schools which are impacted by the landfills presence.

Even after making additional promises and getting their way, Landfill Attorneys filed suit again in October 2017 challenging the Conditional Use Permits conditions of approval. While Richard Cleghorne, LA County Regional Planning Assistant stated fees were established “to discourage waste from out of the area and to fund programs and activities as described in the (permit’s) condition,” Landfill attorneys wrote in the lawsuit, fees charged are “unconstitutionally discriminates against communities outside of the Chiquita Canyon area,” indicating the Landfills desire to make the Santa Clarita Valley the county dumping ground.

So, I ask you, if you had a choice would you still be doing business with Chiquita? This is an example of business placing a profit motive first, and elected officials placing their desire for political contributions ahead of our communities’ well being. When the county government takes over your ability to choose, because “they know better,” you most often realize it is not true because, as in this case, “county government is not operating with our local community’s best interest in mind.”

Opinion Letters

| Opinion | May 5, 2018

Let’s Fix It

In a recent issue of the Gazette, Lee Barnathan and Tammy Messina wrote interesting articles about issues and communication. However, presenting solutions to specific issues and communications won’t help the Republican Party in California because voters are not going to buy into those approaches. There are internal problems within the party that MUST be fixed before the GOP can be effective in California.

The first problem within the GOP is the idea that only the right and far right are true Republicans. The right and far right believe there is no place in the party for moderates or liberals and they call moderates and liberals “RINOS.” That is really, really dumb – NO, it is really, really STUPID. What does the far right want the moderates and liberals in the party to do – join and vote for Democrats? I am a moderate Republican, and I find the term “RINO” repulsive and insulting. Public Perception: Far right, unyielding, no compromising, no place and no voice for moderates and liberals.

How many different Republican organizations are there in Santa Clarita? Do they have the same agenda or belief systems? Do they publicly disagree? Do they agree or disagree with other GOP organizations within the counties, and state? I believe there is too much infighting within the party. Public Perception: If the GOP can’t even manage their own party, they are not capable of running our state or national government.

There is a real need for clear, individual thinking within the Republican Party; after all, nobody is entirely right or entirely wrong on all issues. Most of all, Democrats foster the
”sheep mentality” among young voters who actually believe the GOP is wrong on all issues and Democrats are correct on all issues – the fact is, no political party is right all the time or wrong all the time – both the GOP and Dems included. Public Perception: The GOP is always wrong and too rigid in their thinking.

How is it that there are so many different Republican organizations throughout Southern California and in the state? Do they ever meet to settle their differences (compromise)?
There is factionalism within the GOP throughout the state, and this leads to a scattered approach to campaigning and preventing an honest, cohesive message to the voters.
Public Perception: The GOP needs an organizational overhaul from the state level right down to the local level

The GOP needs an inclusive team building approach that includes the far right, the moderates and liberals; this would create a cross-sectional approach to the party platform
that represents all elements of today’s society. As much as some elements of the party would hate that, it must be done if the party wants to be a party of the people.
Public Perception: The GOP does not understand the needs and wants of today’s society.

We can talk about what issues we want to present to voters or setting up a replacement for Facebook, but that is putting the cart before the horse. We need to face reality and fix things within the party before we can tell the voters what we want to do and why the GOP is a better choice for their votes. Right now, the GOP in California is in disarray.

Let’s fix it.

Earl Kangas, Newhall

Re: Bill Reynolds’ Letter to the Editor

Dear Veterans and those who appreciate Veterans,

If you monitor several local social media sites you may have noticed the ranting of a local radical left wing, gadfly and Hollywood entertainment magazine writer who covers super hero movies and such. His current beef stems from a previous Gazette article I submitted regarding Mexico’s stringent immigration laws. This fellow vigorously supports illegal alien immigration into our United States of America and the creation of sanctuary cities of which their protection includes illegal alien criminals from deportation. It’s noted that this unnamed fellow is a valued member of CA25UP, a local radical progressive political organization founded (following Crooked Hillary’s devastating November 2016 Presidential loss) by a local COC student.

This CA25UP member’s latest series of rants pertains to our Signal Newspaper’s Veteran Pages of which I interview local Veterans, collect their photographs and prepare their profiles for submittal to management. He claims that I am a prolific plagiarizer. Mind you, my role with the Signal, which I was recruited for, is purely voluntary. I have never presented myself as a trained journalist nor do I consider myself as such. I’m simply an amateur writer and a Vietnam combat Veteran. I was honored to join the Signal as it was clear that their intentions were to feature and honor SCV’s Veterans with their own full page every Friday. It’s a time consuming effort which I am dedicated to honor our Veterans to the very best of my ability. It’s an endeavor that I thoroughly enjoy every week and I know it’s fully appreciated by our Veterans community. Most of our Veterans are so pleased with their Signal Veterans Page that they obtain extra copies for family and friends and many have their page framed and hung in their homes and businesses. I give The Signal Newspaper and its management huge kudos for truly championing our Veterans.

Preparation for every week’s deadline is accomplished out of my home office excluding interviews and I periodically visit the Signal office to chat with my friends and associates there. One day in 2016, I arrived in the Signal’s lobby just as a 95 year old WWII Veteran entered as he was seeking several extra newspapers whose page appeared the previous Friday. He said to me with tears in his eyes, “Bill, thank you and the Signal so much for telling my story. My family doesn’t even know about this stuff.” That’s when I knew without a shadow of a doubt that we were onto something very significant.

This CA25UP person has claimed that he supports Veterans however his current desperate attempts through social media to shut me down along with the Signal’s Veterans Pages clearly contradict his claims. This assertion can be fully validated with a simple search of our local social media sites. It’s abundantly clear that his left wing agenda flies in the face of him championing Veterans.

Attention Face Book/CA25UP left wing agitators: My standing with the Signal and Gazette Newspapers has never been stronger.

Bill Reynolds – Valencia Resident
Vietnam Combat Veteran

Re: Bill Reynolds’ Letter to the Editor

Dear Editor,

That letter you published last week from Bill Reynolds lifted text verbatim from at least one other source without attribution.

When this was brought to the author’s attention, he became defiant and combative, accusing his critics of being mentally ill. Further exploration into his previously-published articles in another publication found widespread plagiarism akin to that contained in his letter.

I trust that you will agree that a writer who defiantly and knowingly submits stolen work is not suitable for your pages.

Your Obedient Servant,

Mike Devlin
Valencia

The Lamest Generation

| Opinion | May 4, 2018

by Richard Hood 

Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) are misguided in viewing “social” justice (atheistic neo-communism’s view of justice) as actual justice, while seeing real justice as bad. Are you surprised? When it comes to real human suffering from real evils, SJWs seem to have zero concern or compassion. For the innocent, the crime victim, the defenseless baby? Nope. To them, hunting or being a Republican is bad, but innocent babies being killed in grotesque ways for body parts is not on their SJW/Antifa radar of outrage. No spark of intellect or feeling for the starving, the malnourished or the prisoners tortured worldwide for their faith. Yet parents think it’s prestigious rather than sick to send their kids to universities like Princeton, where faculty are honored for saying a baby isn’t a person with the right to life for a month “after” they are born.

At their own developmental stage, awareness of society’s deficits and their desire to make this a better world has to be channeled somewhere. They also desire significance. Their channelers – the media and education rackets, use all this energy for their own agenda. The channelers’ beliefs and actions testify of a mindset foretold in the same scriptures used to bring radically beneficial change in individuals, yet are repugnant to prideful professors and their Antifa minions, because they are a mirror showing our true state of moral ugliness.

These kids’ “God shaped hole” wasn’t attempted to be filled by being the reflections we parents are supposed to be, even though flawed and broken reflections. Parents are supposed to point the way to significance and direction via the fulfilling relationship with our eternal parent. A shattered reflection is better than none. While the attitudes and wrong definitions of SJWs make them hard to listen to, they have never been told God loves them, hears them, and is their real Father. SJWs are looking for personal significance, but significance is uncomplicatedly found in being a son or daughter of the eternal Father, period. Any other add-on is a false idol that derails and confuses. They have received nothing but confusion and the purposely twisted definitions and misteachings of their channelers.

So they fight the wrong fight, but at least are willing to fight. They know in their gut they were created for better things, for good works, and for blessing others. But they are not happy, because it isn’t working, isn’t going to work, and because they are not grateful for what they have been gifted.

Society is in part to blame. In India, children are stolen and maimed by criminal rackets, and sometimes even by their own parents so as to look more pitiful and make more money from begging – make life more convenient for their family. Who could do such a thing? Well, being fallen, we all could. We have become so afraid of being called “haters” by the haters of decency that we’ve allowed avowed America-haters to not only stay in, but advance, in publicly funded schools and the media – the channelers of our youth. All because the convenience and cost of public schools enhanced our own lifestyles, and we lack discernment and discipline in entertainment and media choices, not to mention educational ones. We have morally and mentally crippled this generation, whose attitude and choice of college majors may leave many of them begging, if not for rupees, then for direction and true significance.

These fascists with eugenicist roots, actually see themselves as anti-fascists, and are storm troopers of the left. They act like secular puritans who want to control every one of our actions, words and thoughts. But what they need are personal mentors – those willing to live and share their lives that are undeniably purposeful. But they’ll have to replace with the truth all the lies we paid for them to be taught.

For those who wish to see, who want to know what God has for them, there are great awakenings ahead. All things are possible to those who believe in the one who healed the lame, and can heal the lamest generation, so crippled by the previous generation’s inaction and lack of fight. SJWs desire to be used, and are screaming for attention. They have been trained to target “patriarchy.” The real reason is their channelers’ misguided hatred of the Patriarch – the Father. If we want to show them the way, we have to be willing to seek it, and walk it ourselves. We are all busy, all concerned with investing for our own and our kids’ earthly futures. Let me suggest we all invest some time thinking about this: Eternal investments are the only real ones.

Richard Hood is a retired teacher whose school union wanted to use his dues to war against his Judeo-Christian values. He succeeded in having his dues go to evangelical and pro-life charities of his own choosing. Contact Pacific Justice Institute to find out more.

The Views and Opinions expressed in these columns are those of the writer, not necessarily those of Valley Publications/Santa Clarita Gazette

California Elephants Face Extinction

| Opinion | May 4, 2018

Many disheartened (read Republican) Californians are awaiting Gov. Jerry Brown’s departure with glee. It’s understandable. Brown’s last two terms in Sacramento have certainly leaned in a more moderate direction than his previous two terms back in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s, yet he’s still a thorn in the side of many conservatives who continue to view him as Governor Moonbeam, or some variation of a “snowflake.”

While Brown remains committed to the environment and believes climate change actually exists, while he supports sanctuary states and cities, while he has pushed for prison reform, and stands firm on any number of other hot-button liberal policies and philosophies, Brown has been more of a dealmaker and practitioner of realpolitik than many of his predecessors from either party.

Gov. Brown’s a fervent fiscal penny-pincher, much in the mold of traditional GOP conservatives. Though firm in his opposition to blanket deportations and crackdowns on Dreamers and undocumented residents, he recently demonstrated a willingness to use the state’s National Guard to enhance border security (security, not to supplement enforcement). The point is, Brown, despite what alt-right stalwarts say, is a player who’s ready to cut a deal if it’s in what he perceives to be the overall best interests of Californians.

The same might be said about incumbent Sen. Dianne Feinstein. No Barbara Boxer-style liberal, and certainly no Nancy Pelosi, Feinstein has also been vilified by the far right. Yet, she too has shifted her stance on many issues near and dear to Republicans over the years. So much so, that many liberal critics have assailed her as being an enabler to a fascist regime – you know to whom they’re referring.
Feinstein’s been accused of being soft on the NSA’s domestic spying program, she voted for the Iraq War, has views on immigration that lean a little too far right for some supporters, and is considered out-of-touch with a new generation of voters who would prefer exchanging experience for responsiveness. She is considered by many to be the most conservative member of the Democratic Caucus. And she’s vulnerable to a challenge, both in the primaries, and in a general election. She couldn’t even manage to win her party’s endorsement at the state’s Democratic Convention. Despite her liabilities, however, a weak Republican Party doesn’t stand a chance this coming November because they are incapable of fronting a candidate who is moderate enough to tempt more middle-of-the-road and independent voters. An opportunity is being squandered.

Republicans in California are a different breed. Though many voted for President Trump, a considerable number did not. And lest we forget, the 25th Congressional District swung left, favoring Hillary Clinton over her opponent. Do Republicans opt for a more Trumpian candidate or one who is reflective of the state itself? Good question, because even those who bleed red politically aren’t particularly enamored by some of their options. Take one Republican candidate in particular: Patrick Little.

For those who may be unaware of who Patrick Little is, he is an avowed White Nationalist and a raging anti-Semite. Last month, Newsweek reported that Little’s social media account on Gab included a statement that included, among other diatribes, the proposal that “government makes counter-Semitism central to all aims of the state.” Of a people “free from Jews.” A government that forbids “all immigration except of biological kin, where no person of Jewish origin may live, vacation, or traverse.”

Hmm … wonder what the small-minded Mr. Little thinks about people of color and members of the LGBTQ community. He espouses anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, believes in racial segregation, and falls just short of calling for the extermination of Jews and anyone else he may not like. This man – and I use the term lightly – is, according to a SurveyUSA poll, running fourth behind other candidates running for Sen. Feinstein’s seat in the state’s open primary in June. He currently has 18 percent among likely primary voters, second only to Feinstein’s 39 percent. And make no mistake, Little relishes the opportunity to beat a Jew out of her Senate seat; if not literally, then figuratively. Scary stuff.

Despite winning the endorsement of former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, Little is not overly enamored with what he calls alt-right media outlets like The Daily Stormer, whose editorial team has not warmly embraced him. Some comfort. This guy is outperforming many of the other candidates he’s challenging. What does that say about us as Americans? As boisterous as many of the opinions expressed in the pages of this paper may be, it is highly unlikely Mr. Little’s views are in step with those held by most conservatives in the Santa Clarita Valley. Nor is his outright bigotry in keeping with this community’s values. More corrosive than his rhetoric, however, is the danger he is to the party he professes to represent.

While it’s unlikely he will ultimately secure the GOP nomination, or a place on the general election ballot come June, Patrick Little is one more threat to the fragile existence of California’s Republican Party. If reclaiming the state Capitol is truly their goal, the party may very well face extinction long before the emblematic elephant it claims as its mascot.

The Views and Opinions expressed in these columns are those of the writer, not necessarily those of Valley Publications/Santa Clarita Gazette

The Problem Isn’t Young Men

| Opinion | May 3, 2018

by Joshua Heath 

In Pastor David Hegg’s recent Signal piece “Calling Every Man to Be a Man,” he rails against the mass of young men nowadays who allegedly lack the virtues that define noble living: hard work, self discipline, courage, and the ability to protect others.

There’s a raft of evidence that goes against his thesis, such as the fact that young people today are the most educated cohort in American history (that takes hard work) and put in as many hours at their jobs as prior generations, according to a study from Wayne State University. Now, is it true that some men today lead shiftless, unproductive lives? Absolutely. But Hegg spends little time considering the structural factors that cause this to occur.

For example, due to the high cost of college, one in four students must work full-time, in addition to taking a full load of courses, which equates to an 80-hour work week practically year-round. That’s the kind of regiment the working masses had to endure in the 19th century, before labor laws and the protections afforded by the New Deal, and it is guaranteed, medical research shows, to break down your body, leading to depression, anxiety, chronic fatigue, obesity, and a host of other maladies.

There’s nothing a young man can do to counteract this; biologically, as human beings, we all have limits. Forced to press on under such circumstances, he will burn himself out and become the kind of listless “sissified man” that Hegg writes about in his piece.

Is it fair to hastily scorn such an individual and spend no time constructively thinking about the social problems that led him to his broken state? No moral person would say yes.

The right course is to encourage those suffering among us to overcome their circumstances and persevere, while at the same time considering what reforms may be necessary to prevent more young people from falling into unproductive lives.

In Hegg’s piece, he does neither, but instead has composed 800 words of intellectual onanism that serves no purpose other than to give himself the pleasing ego boost that comes from mocking the downtrodden.

The real problem in our country is not an epidemic of “sissified men” too wimpy to carry the burdens of civilization, but the crowds of unthoughtful men who direct their contempt solely at the broken among us and give no thought to the broader forces that turn young people into shells of who they used to be.

I encourage Mr. Hegg to be less of a Pharisee, with his nose turned downwards at the lowly, unwashed masses, and more like Christ, who would surely reach out to young men today with feelings of justice, empathy, and love.

The Views and Opinions expressed in these columns are those of the writer, not necessarily those of Valley Publications/Santa Clarita Gazette

Letter to the Publisher from John Musella

| Opinion | May 3, 2018

Doug…
I wanted to send you a quick note to thank you for creating another outlet for people to read about LGBTQ leaders in our community. As I mentioned to you last year when the Chamber announced I was the first openly gay Chair in 94 years, I felt it was important for LGBTQ youth and their families to know there are role models in the SCV for them.

So much misunderstanding of the LGBTQ community comes from a lack of education and personal experience.  Like Harvey Milk, I believe it is important to live out and proud. That doesn’t mean everything in my life revolves around being gay, but it is an important part of who I am, and my life experience.

A few short years ago in the SCV, as I worked the circuit of community events, I introduced my husband to people as just that, my husband. I wasn’t shy about it and didn’t hesitate. It took some people by surprise and made some uncomfortable. And that was the point: to change people’s perceptions through personal experiences. I wanted people to see that being openly gay in a traditionally conservative, suburban community was normal and no big deal. But it took someone to say it and do it to make it normal.

There are still some today who don’t appreciate a community’s diversity. I’ve seen it first hand. And while it is unpleasant and beneath basic human dignity, it underscores the need for people to tell their personal story.

When it comes to our youth, I think we would all agree that they need good role models. Our youth need to see themselves in someone else. Especially youth that don’t identify as straight and white. I grew up in a majority straight, white world with very few gay role models. Being gay was not widely (accepted). So to live in a time when there are so many LGBTQ role models, more education and greater acceptance, love and equality is amazing.

Being gay and coming out is part of someone’s personal story. We all have a personal story which identifies us as being special and who we are. I love to know people’s personal story. Doug, I would love to know more of your personal story and what makes you unique and who you are.

You never know when telling your personal story is going to help others see something of themselves in you and be able to gain strength from you and result in something positive in their lives. It could be anything from a personal rise from financial distress to losing weight to coping with a loss of a loved one.

Often, when you publicly share your story and experiences, you don’t know who is listening and whom you might make a positive impact on. That’s the power and the beauty of it.

I’m proud of Katie Hill for coming out and publicly identifying as bisexual. I didn’t know that about her. It’s an empowering moment for her and others in the LGBTQ community and our families and demonstrates personal strength. And frankly, it should be an empowering moment of strength for everyone. No matter what your politics, I hope we can all find the good in people and their stories to lift all of us up.

Part of running for office is not just why you’re running, but sharing with voters who you are. Our country, more than ever, needs to believe that our diversity is our strength and that all of us, with each of our personal stories, can come together in some small way and do good for our community, state, nation and the world.

Best,
John Musella
President | The Musella Group

California Tramples Your Constitutional Rights, It Is Time to Make Your Voice Heard.

| Opinion | May 3, 2018

Normally, I prefer to pick a new subject for my column every week, but this Gazette edition will be the last time I have an opportunity to share information about the so called “Sanctuary City” debate, which will go on at City Hall, next Tuesday evening, April 8. It will be a time when our City Council will be forced to come out from behind the curtain, and let the public know how they feel about immigration issues. This is one discussion they cannot escape. Even not showing up for the meeting, or not verbally taking a position, or babbling on while not providing anything of substance, will reveal how they really feel.

It is an election year for 3 of them, and based on the council’s behavior at the last meeting, they appear concerned. I attend almost every City Council meeting. There are times after attending a meeting I have felt proud to live in Santa Clarita, but the last meeting was not one of those times, and in my opinion, they hit an all-time low. Not only did Mayor Weste clearly demonstrate a disregard for the public wanting to speak on the immigration issue, she also showed a mindset of believing she could learn nothing from the public and would prefer not to listen to what they had to say. All while the rest of the council in attendance, Miranda, McLean, and Kellar, said nothing in opposition.

You might remember a time long past, when the Council wanted to put a Material Recycling Facility (MRF) on Sierra Highway south of Golden Valley Road. The plan was for trash trucks from all over the valley to be headed to the site and deposit their trash, for sorting and recycling. When the neighbors became aware of the plan, over 100 of them descended on City Hall to speak in opposition during Public participation. They repeated their attendance and voicing their opposition for 3 meetings in a row until the plan was changed. Just for the record, the MRF was never built.

Well, the Council Members and particularly Council Member Ferry were incensed having to listen to all those citizens. To prevent it from happening again, he proposed only the first 10 public participants would get their 3 minutes to speak at the start of the meeting, and the remainder would have to wait until the end of the meeting to make their voice heard. His plan was accepted and has been the norm ever since.

But at the last meeting, Mayor Weste took it one step further. There were approximately 30 speaker cards and she arbitrarily reduced each presenters time to 1 minute. In that way, she could dispatch all 30 speakers in the time it normally took for the first 10. Then when it was all over, the Council Members and Staff had no comments and did not answer any questions. It was done in such a disrespectful way, for the first time, I just got up and left the meeting.

While the Constitution’s first amendment gives all citizens the right “to petition the government for a redress of grievances” and California’s Brown Act also reinforces a citizen’s right to address local government, a legal requirement does not exist for our elected officials to discuss any issue raised by the public, or answer any questions asked. The norm in Santa Clarita is to give each public speaker 3 minutes. For most citizens, it is hard enough to express their concerns in such a short amount of time. It becomes even more frustrating when a person takes time out of their daily life to attend a council meeting, prepares their 3-minute speech, drives to the meeting, and at the last minute is told their allotted time has been reduced to 1 minute.

But the rubber will meet the road at the May 8 City Council Meeting. I expect a large turnout and will be even further disappointed in our Council Members, if they allow speaker times to again be reduced to 1 minute. If you are looking for an overview of SB-54, the so called “Sanctuary State” law, you can look to my last week’s column. But, we still do not know the extent Los Angeles County Sheriff Department will implement the section of SB-54 which authorizes cooperation with Immigration Agencies, relating to individuals who have been previously convicted of the specified 31 crime categories, or if the Sheriff Department believes they need additional options to keep us safe. Why, because the Staff and Council Members did not reply to the question.

With the California legislature passing additional laws such as; AB-450 which establishes fines and prohibits business owners from cooperating with Federal Immigration Agents, while also requiring employers to notify employees of potential immigration raids, and while SB-54 prohibits use of California State funds to aid Immigration Enforcement, AB-103 authorizes the expenditure of your tax dollars to oversee the health and safety of Federal Immigration Detainees in California and provide them legal services, plus Assembly Member Low proposing AB-2943 which has the potential to ban the sale of religious material, the California Legislature is trampling on our citizen’s Constitutional Rights.

They say all politics are local, and it is time our local government officials stand up to protect their law-biding constituents. Yet, no matter what your view on any of these issues, I urge you to be at the May 8, 2018 City Council meeting, fill out a speaker card and be ready to make your voice heard. The meeting starts at 6 PM at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Blvd, Valencia. I hope to see and hear you there, so we can all show support for our American way of life.

The Views and Opinions expressed in these columns are those of the writer, not necessarily those of Valley Publications/Santa Clarita Gazette

The Alternate States of America

| Opinion | April 26, 2018

We, in America, are living in alternate states of reality. They are neither red nor blue. They are states of consciousness and perception.

Like those drawn on a map, lines of division may be solid or dashed. Dashes, those lines with spaces between them, tend to be more fluid and porous, divides within a single body where people, commerce, and ideas flow readily and tend to be true. Solid lines demarcate more profound divisions. They’re often geographic – rivers, oceans; or topographic, like mountains, plains, and canyons. Some are made by people: Toll booths. Fences. Lines in the sand. Walls. These lines are often harder to navigate. They may be in place to deter outsiders, barriers against those who, in crossing, may bring with them differing, undesirable worldviews or experiences.

New boundaries have been erected over the last two decades. They are often numeric in nature; rising and falling with every stroke of a keyboard, button-push of a television remote, and swipe of a touchscreen. They open the gates of consciousness, while simultaneously shutting the door on reason. How we perceive our world is increasingly defined by the cable channels we view, the websites we surf, and to a lesser extent – sadly – the newspapers we read. For as long as the printing press has existed, journalists have expressed differing points-of-view. In their earliest incarnations, books and newspapers were put out by individuals who voiced their opinions in hopes of moving their readers to take a similar stance, even more than factually covering events. The “news” was an extension of those who had the means to publish.

Newspapers in this country historically followed this same pattern, in cities and towns, both large and small. People “took” papers that reflected their personal values and worldview. Multiple print news outlets existed, whose coverage and advertising targeted specific consumers. Many broadsheets appealed to traditional conservatives, some for more progressive audiences. Tabloids often spoke to the working class and, sometimes, the radical fringe. For the most part, reporters who wrote for these periodicals covered the same stories, fought for the same scoops, and spun their coverage based primarily upon those readers their owners and publishers hoped to influence. The papers were run by upstanding citizens, leaders of their communities. They wielded power but were not demagogues. Most sought to open readers’ eyes to new realities and societal changes. Few of them propagated lies and deception. If only this were true today.

Demagoguery does exist and it is motivated by both profit and perspective, no matter how distorted that prospect may be. Major media outlets whose leaders have included families with names like Murdoch, Sinclair, and Breitbart, open doors to those who, oftentimes, are not beyond expressing outright lies; at the same time, they accuse other mainstream outlets of purveying “fake news,” no matter how well-substantiated the facts may be. There lies (literally and figuratively) the rub. Brakes are rarely applied to the editorial content of many of these news outlets. It’s even worse online, where bloggers, creators of what are truly “fake news” sites, and some that are more legitimate, preach to choirs comprised of the angry and disaffected, giving voice to extremist positions. And let’s not forget those sites under the control of foreign intelligence services and other outside influencers whose sole intent is to foster discord among us.

It would be disingenuous to avoid examining the voices of other cable networks, those whose ownership is associated with corporate logos more so than surnames, the usual suspects, like MSNBC and CNN, that are targeted by right-leaning ranters. Sorry to disillusion their critics, but what is seen interspersed with opinion on those channels is news; based on hard, well-documented facts. And when mistakes or errors in judgment occur (and they sometimes do), those responsible are subject to intense scrutiny, with public apologies, corrections, or retractions being made.

While many mainstream conservatives may cringe when extremist or ignorant sentiments are expressed by colleagues, by the president, or the channels and sites that serve as their platforms, they are loathe to publicly denounce them. The swamp may very well be deeper than any of us – liberal or conservative – might imagine.

Ongoing cries of “fake news” and the constant repetition of lies and half-truths only strengthen the borders and boundaries that divide us. Those on both sides oftentimes remain cloistered, living in separate states of reality to the detriment of us all. In the days before cable news and online websites run amok, a legendary journalist named Walter Cronkite ended his television broadcast each weekday evening with the phrase: “And that’s the way it is …” And we believed him. These days, many of us don’t really know who or what to believe.

It’s Time to Listen to These Immigrants!

| Opinion | April 26, 2018

by Stephen Smith

Sunday, we had a small political event at our home to support conservative candidate and naturalized citizen, Mario Nablila in his race for U.S. Senate against Dianne Feinstein. In talking with Mario prior to this event he expressed to me his concerns about what has been happening in China and how the United States, until President Trump, has not been dealing with them well. Quite coincidentally one of our guests was Kai Chen. You may remember Kai, he was a professional basketball player in Communist China. You can read about his experiences in his book “One in a Billion-Journey Toward Freedom” (The story of a pro-basketball player in China). Frustrated with the abuses and lack of freedom in China, he traveled to the shores of the United States seeking a new life. He has adopted as his personal motto “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death.” He was at Tiananmen Square during the protests. Mr. Chen told me that when he came to America, he knew that he was finally where he belonged. He had, at long last, come home.

Kai Chen has lived the life of an activist. He has organized many events around the country protesting various atrocities committed by the Chinese communists and especially those who were directed or inspired by Chairman Mao. With a clarity which seems to only come to those who have left the horrors of Marxist/socialist dictatorships, he has fully embraced that which has truly made America great and looks with fear at the changes we are experiencing at the hands of the progressive left in education, the press and political leadership. I saw this same passion for America and our fundamental values from the business people and elected officials, at a forum attended by President Trump, for people who have immigrated to Florida from Marxist/socialist Cuba.

These immigrants seem to always come to the same conclusions. Interestingly, they are often the same as those made by our founding fathers when seeking independence and establishing a new form of government that never had been seen on the face of the earth. They all understood that the ultimate result of socialism, Marxism, dictatorships or monarchies is tyranny. The result of these utopian dreams, no matter how marketed, intolerance for diversity of thought and the people being in service to the will of the state always end up being at their core. The only way these systems of government survive, in the long run, is at the point of a gun. In the end they end up having no respect for human life and only for the continuation of the power possessed by the ruling elite. Your job as a citizen is to serve the will of the state and not for the state to serve the will of the people. Be wary of the messages they use to promote their ideas. Wealth redistribution, fairness, promoting divisions by race, class and gender are often at their core.

For Kai Chan, who was raised by the state to be an atheist, our most basic values as expressed by our Judeo-Christian heritage is key to what makes us a free and moral people. Kai has become a Christian and worships at a church in Santa Clarita. Only with this as a foundation can our most basic economic system of free-market capitalism blossom and be the most successful instrument of wealth creation, financial security and general prosperity in the history of the world. Included in these values are our most sacred principles of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness as well as our enumerated rights such as freedom of speech and religion. In America we hold that we are created equal but are not guaranteed equal results due to differences in talent, knowledge, work and good fortune.

Dear reader, our Constitution was designed to protect and promote these most basic ideas by establishing a limited government to avoid the tyranny of state dominated governments. We the people have failed to carry a love and understanding for these most basic ideas to our rising generations. People who have immigrated here from Marxist/socialist government have come to embrace those basic principles of freedom which many of our leadership from the progressive left no longer do. If you do not understand that embracing socialism and Marxism puts us on the road to economic serfdom, loss of rights and tyranny, I suggest that you sit down and have a conversation with someone such as Kai Chen who has lived in both worlds and considers it his duty to carry this message of freedom to the people of the United States.

LETTERS

| Opinion | April 26, 2018

Let’s Adapt Mexico’s Immigration Standards

When considering America’s illegal immigration issues, illegal aliens and sanctuary zones, I urge you to review Mexico’s immigration and visa laws. Their immigration standards seem fairly complicated and restrictive. There are several types of immigration methods: Non Immigrant Permits are for people who visit Mexico for a specific purpose and then depart. Immigrant Permits are for those who wish to gain long term permanent residence in Mexico. Permanent Resident Visas are issued to foreign nationals who have intentions of living in Mexico for long periods of time (over six months) AND who intend to settle permanently (indefinitely) in Mexico. Each requires a Visa. I have done a bit of research as highlighted below.

A Visitante Permit is for visitors (tourism and business trips) to Mexico for short term visits of six months or less. This permit costs $22 and is valid for up to 180 days and cannot be renewed.  Upon its expiration you must leave the country.

Temporary Resident Visa is for people who wish to live in Mexico for more than 6 months and not longer than 4 years. A Temporary Resident Visa is a renewable, long-term permit which provides temporary residency status. Temporary Resident Visas cannot be issued to you in Mexico. You must apply for it at a Mexican consulate outside of Mexico. This visa is issued for one year, and can be renewed for a further 1, 2, or 3 years. This visa also can optionally give work permissions as it allows unlimited entries and exits from Mexico. Applicants must prove that they have sufficient funds to sustain themselves while in Mexico. When applied for from outside Mexico a Temporary Permit (card) itself is not issued by foreign consulates. Instead, they process and pre-approve applications and place a Visa sticker in your passport. When you arrive in Mexico you have to attend a local immigration office within 30 days of arrival, and undertake a procedure to exchange your temporary resident visa (passport stamp) for a Temporary Resident Permit (a plastic card). Once applied for and granted you can hold the Temporary Resident Permit for up to four years, and after this it cannot be renewed. At the end of four years you must exchange the Temporary Resident permit for a Permanent Resident permit, or leave the country.

Visa de Residente Permanente (Permanent Resident Visa)
The Permanent Resident Visa is intended for people seeking permanent residency status in Mexico and/or those who may seek eventual Mexican Citizenship. You do not need to be a Temporary Resident first to become a Permanent Resident later, provided that you fulfill one of the other requirements needed for permanent residency. To apply for and be granted a permanent resident visa, the applicants must:

  1. Have close family connections in Mexico, or apply for retirement status and prove they have sufficient monthly income (or substantial assets) to support themselves, or
  2. Have 4 consecutive years of regular status as Temporary Resident, or
  3. Have 2 consecutive years of regular status as Temporary Resident where that Temporary Visa was issued through marriage to a Mexican National or a foreign permanent resident, or
  4. Be granted residency on humanitarian grounds or through political asylum.

    Upon receiving immigrated status, you will receive a plastic card that looks like a driver’s license. This card enables you to pass through Mexico’s borders as if you were a Mexican national.

Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison. Immigrants who are deported and attempt to re-enter can be imprisoned for 10 years. Visa violators can be sentenced to six-year terms. Mexicans who help illegal immigrants are considered criminals. Per Mexico’s laws, law enforcement can deport foreigners who are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” violate Mexican law, are not “physically or mentally healthy” or lack the “necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents.

Bill Reynolds
Valencia Resident
Vietnam Combat Veteran

In Response to Last Week’s Article by Blair Bess: Wishy-Washy White House

We get it your not a Trump supporter. you never were.

The stock market did not Tank, we are not going to have a nuclear war with N Korea. unemployment did not spiral out of control.

All of the pre Election things did not happen so now it is time to move on to picking apart every move to make it look like government is out of control. Does not know what it is doing, sending us down a path of destruction.

None of the other things happened so excuse me if i disagree with your opinion on where things are going.

Business as usual is not going to change quietly. the poor deals and pacts we were tied to benefited others much more than it benefited the USA. Trump won the election because people wanted to see these kind of things change. and really the pendulum only need to move slightly in our favor for the changes to be substantial.

You may not like the way things are being negotiated; but the alternate opinion is that it is working. and I noticed you did not mention N Korea would that be because the unorthodox way it took to get Kim Jong un to the table of disarmament was also bumpy but but looks like it will be more successful than any past president in the last 40 years dealing with N Korea. The scare Tactic of Trump shooting off nukes is getting tired.

The bottom line is.

#Taxreform is working. Business is reinvesting and hiring, companies are moving manufacturing as well as other business back.

Unemployment is at an all time low. That is now driving wages up.

The stock market may have a dip right now but it is still up 14% from 1 year ago today from 20,996 on 4/25/17 to 24,024 today 4/24/18 with a total gain of 33% gain since election day when it was supposed to tank.

People need to think about what direction you want things to go. Ignore the noise being put out and look at the results. we are moving in the right direction for the country and its citizens.

You are a Never Trumper who is not looking for solutions only complaints to push your narrative. And no matter how much you complain he is still your president much the way President Obama was mine. If I agreed or not he was my president.
The election you are still fighting was lost almost 18 months ago.
Don’t worry you will get another chance in 2020 to fight for an election that is the more appropriate time for this. That is when we will reflect on how all of these things pan out.
Scott

Re: “It’s All About the Money” by Lee Barnathan in last week’s Gazette

At first blush, it reads like just another article about the first quarter’s fundraising efforts by the leading candidates. Then I realized that it was a point-by-point argument that the Katie Hill campaign and its supporters have been crowing about for the last week. The only point missing was the accusation that the Caforio and Phoenix campaigns are working together to take Hill down.

Candidate Jess Phoenix’s name was never mentioned until Barnathan dropped my name, seemingly out of nowhere, into his story. Immediately, Hill supporters and staff started in with the accusations, alleging the aforementioned collusion between campaigns. There is no collusion between the campaigns. Phoenix and Caforio are not working together, though they are both trying to take Hill down separately, but, thus is the nature of a primary.

The bits about me are flat out incorrect. I was asked about this $738 payment from the Caforio campaign. I never said I worked for Caforio – I know that Jen Buonantony and Nicole DeMont told Lee that – he printed the lies anyway. I volunteered on his 2016 campaign, but this cycle, I have been with Phoenix since last May. I have never been employed by Caforio. I make and sell unique chocolates. Caforio ordered some 35-ish boxes to send to supporters as Thank You’s. Nothing nefarious about it. And I was not working for Caforio at the time (again, I never have). If Katie Hill (or even Steve Knight, for that matter, bought chocolates from me, I’d happily fill those orders). These lies are affecting my business and I’m taking a hit on my integrity. I am requesting that you please have Barnathan retract those statements about me.

Best,
Gretchen Zovak

Response from the Gazette:
Gretchen Zovak volunteered for the 2016 Bryan Caforio campaign; she did not work for the candidate. The $738 referred to as “event supplies” were chocolates Zovak sold to Caforio as gifts for his supporters.

Re: last week’s Now and Then About the Boys & Girls Club

I moved to Santa Clarita 50 years ago and remember a lot of her reflections. The vacant church was at the corner of Newhall Avenue and 6th Street. It was temporary quarters of the Boys Club of Newhall-Saugus . For about the last 20 years or so, Queen of Angels Traditional Catholic Church has been there.

Linda’s description of Scott and Ruth Newhall as well as the Piru Mansion are spot on! Those folks were so “down to earth.”

Thanks Linda!

Bob Comer
Valencia

Always Advocating Alan – California, a Sanctuary State Where Legislators Squander YOUR Tax Dollars

| Opinion | April 26, 2018

With Governor Jerry Brown signing SB-54, and declaring California a Sanctuary State, the subject of Sanctuary has become a hot topic, not only in California, but all across the country. Local municipalities are protesting this action, by opting out, passing resolutions, filing law suits and legal briefs. Yet the City of Santa Clarita has been silent, until several community members spoke at the podium during a recent City Council meeting. Councilmember Bob Kellar picked up the gauntlet to champion having staff research the issue and put it on the May 8 City Council Agenda. To prepare for the meeting, City Manager Ken Striplin generated a memo to the Council Members to provide information on SB-54.

Simultaneously, SB-54 and other recent California initiatives became the topic of conversation at a Canyon Country Advisory Committee Board meeting. While the board members realized SB-54 is a hotly contested issue, they decided to go ahead, and provide for a discussion at the April CCAC meeting. Format for the meeting was unique, as it was geared to having the audience provide a large portion of the discussion material. The evening was attended by residents on all three sides of the issue, and I want to congratulate the attendees for having honest, respectful dialog. Each individual’s opinion was heard, and I believe we all left with a better understanding of SB-54’s content.
To start with, we looked to find the definition of a Sanctuary City. We did it because, nowhere in SB-54 does the word “Sanctuary” appear. In fact, in doing my research, I could not find any official California definition of Sanctuary City. Therefore, using the Webster and Legal Dictionary definitions, we agreed a California Sanctuary State would determine, “How much state law enforcement agencies will, or will not, do to help federal immigration authorities.”

Moving to the SB-54 text we noted some key provisions. First, the Bill prohibits state and local law enforcement from using any of their money or personnel to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes, from asking anyone about their immigration status, from sharing information with federal immigration authorities that is not available to the general public, from allowing federal immigration authorities to use space in their facilities, from participating with Immigration joint actions where Immigration Enforcement is the primary goal, and limits state and local law enforcement contact with federal immigration authorities. The group appeared to accept, without difficulty, the idea, local Law Enforcement was not going to be used as Immigration Enforcement Agents.

Next was a discussion of how SB-54 allows holding illegal aliens based on federal immigration detainers and transferring them to federal custody. Such action is authorized when they’ve been convicted in the last 15 years for one of a list of 31 crime categories, or are a registered sex offender, or a re-entrant alien who was previously deported. This area of the bill generated the most support. Everyone seemed to welcome the idea of removing hardened criminals from our midst.

But, then came the controversy, when discussing FAIR’s (Federation For American Immigration Reform) claim SB-54 wording “grants discretion to state and local law enforcement to cooperate even less with federal immigration authorities than the bill authorizes them to, but not more.” Since less can be nothing, it disturbed some attendees, while others wanted to wait and see how well the law worked.

In reviewing Mr. Striplin’s memo section titled, “Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department and CVA,” I found his response rather vague. To clarify the matter, I will be asking if the public could be provided a written position paper from the LACO Sheriff’s office indicating, if they intend to provide the maximum cooperation on immigration activities specified by SB-54 and for them to comment on areas they feel are lacking and putting our Safety in jeopardy.

While understanding SB-54 content seems to make me relax a little, other California Bills are being enacted which cause me to worry a great deal more. There is AB-450 which conflicts with rights granted by the fourth Amendment, relative to illegal search and seizure. In this situation, our California Legislature wants to seize control of business owner’s property and fine anyone who provides voluntary consent, to an immigration enforcement agent, allowing entrance to any nonpublic areas of a place of labor.

Then there is also AB-103, which authorizes the Attorney General to inspect facilities under contract by the Federal Government to hold immigration detainees. While the California Lawmakers did not want to spend any money on enforcing immigration rules (SB-54), they are more than willing to spend money to insure the health and safety of the illegal aliens detained, including providing due process for civil detainees and reviewing circumstances about their apprehension. If anything was going to cement the position of those who feel California has become a state, which values its criminals, more than lawful residents, here it is, right in front of your eyes.

So, if you believe we are headed in the wrong direction and want to see California return to be the Golden State, we will need your voice and your vote to make it shine again.

Page 1 of 321 2 3 32

Doug’s Rant – Video Edition

  • WatchDoug's Rant May 18, 2018
  • WatchDoug's Rant June 16, 2017