Skip to content

Parent Trigger and Open Enrollment – San Bernardino Failing Schools

Parent Trigger and Open Enrollment – San Bernardino Failing Schools published on


Parent Trigger and Open Enrollment – Ways to Cope With Union Controlled Schools

By Ed Ring
In January 2010 the California’s legislature passed into law, perhaps uncharacteristically, an excellent new law. Entitled “Public schools: Race to the Top,” SB 54 created two mechanisms for parents to exert greater control over the education of their children.

There are two components:

(1) The Open Enrollment Act mandates that the California Department of Education to annually create a list of 1,000 schools ranked by their Academic Performance Index. Parents whose children are enrolled in these schools have the right to transfer them to a better performing school.

(2) The “Parent Trigger” Law, which allows parents to transform their own schools if 50% of parents sign a petition to seek a change at their chronically underperforming school.

Open enrollment has had an immediate benefit to California’s parents in poor schools, both because individually parents have been able to get their children out of poor schools, and also because the mere ability of parents to remove their students from poor schools provides a powerful incentive for school management to try harder to improve. From the California Dept. of Education, pursuant to SB 54, here is the list of the bottom 1,000 schools in California (Excel spreadsheet): Open Enrollment Schools List 2015–16. To view this list in PDF format, here is the the same list as posted by former state senator (and co-author of SB 54) Gloria Romero’s California Center for Parent Empowerment (PDF file): Open Enrollment Schools List 2015–16.

The parent trigger law has a potentially much greater impact, because it literally empowers parents to take over management of an underperforming school if a majority of them sign a petition. It is important to clarify that the criteria for an “underperforming school” is not the same as the criteria used for the 1,000 K-12 schools with the lowest Academic Performance Index scores. Here is how these lists are compiled:

Open Enrollment List:

Every year the results of standardized academic achievement tests, administered to every K-12 public school student, are compiled by school and by school district. In the most recent academic year, thecomposite score for these tests for all K-12 students in California was 790. The open enrollment list was supposed to be the 1,000 schools with the lowest scores. For example, on the current list, the lowest score belongs to Oakland International High School with an API of 374. But in the compromises made in order to pass the bill, among other things, the published list of open enrollment schools cannot include more than 10% of the schools in any given school district. This gives the worst school districts in the state a pass, and actually leads to some schools getting onto the list that probably don’t deserve to be there. Nonetheless, at least those parents whose children attend these 1,000 schools have choices, and that is a very good thing.

Parent Trigger Eligible List:

The parent trigger list is compiled according to a more complicated formula. In summary, the criteria is as follows: Any school that has an API lower than 800, AND has failed to improve its API score in each of the last four years, is a parent trigger eligible school. The process of accurately compiling this list is tedious, requiring the analyst to research multiple CA Dept. of Education reports for multiple years while navigating several exclusions that complicate the selection process. But there aren’t carve-outs that prevent, for example, 90% of the schools in an underperforming district from any accountability, such as is the case with the open enrollment list. Here is a list of Parent Trigger Eligible schools in Orange County, compiled by the organization Excellent Educational Solutions (PDF file):Trigger Eligible Schools in Orange County. The entire list is also posted on the table below – note that Palm Lane Elementary is not on this eligibility list because they have already been “triggered.” Also, some schools on the Orange County list have 3 year API averages that exceed 800. This can be because their most recent API has fallen below 800 even though the three year average is still above 800, or due to other complexities in the actual formula.

The parent trigger eligible list is a powerful resource that ought to be prepared and posted online every year by the California State Board of Education. As can be seen, there are 125 schools just in Orange County where the management of these schools can be potentially taken over by parents if 50% or more of them sign a petition. Imagine how many thousands of schools in California must be on a statewide list?

To-date, parent trigger has only been tried three times in California. In Compton, the effort ultimately failed. In Adelanto, the effort was successful (ref. Wikipedia “Parent Trigger” – Compton, Adelanto). Now the battle has moved to Palm Lane Elementary School in Orange County, where on January 14, 2015, petitions representing over 50% of the parents of the enrolled students were turned in.

When one examines the political consensus that was forged in the California Legislature back in 2010 by Democratic senator Gloria Romero and her Republican co-sponsor Bob Huff, what is evident is the astonishing power of bipartisanship on the issue of quality education. When one considers the parents who recently turned in petitions to transform Palm Lane Elementary School, and the broad spectrum of community activists who support them, again what is evident is the astonishing power of bipartisanship on the issue of quality education. SB 54 triggers not only parent empowerment, but alliances that transcend conventional politics. It is something to be watched and nurtured.

Ed Ring is the executive director of the California Policy Center.

List of San Bernardino Under-Performing Schools

Updated November 6, 2014
California Department of Education

2015–16 Open Enrollment Schools List – Based on 2013 Growth Academic Performance Index (API)
Posted on November 4, 2014
School Type: E = Elementary, M = Middle, H = High
CDS Code County District School School Type 2013 Growth API
36676786035588 San Bernardino Chino Valley Unified Walnut Avenue Elementary E 750
36676786061840 San Bernardino Chino Valley Unified Ramona Junior High M 745
36676786098347 San Bernardino Chino Valley Unified Dickson Elementary E 738
36676786098362 San Bernardino Chino Valley Unified Anna A. Borba Fundamental Elementary E 772
36676866035679 San Bernardino Colton Joint Unified Paul Rogers Elementary E 719
36676866035745 San Bernardino Colton Joint Unified Woodrow Wilson Elementary E 714
36676866101034 San Bernardino Colton Joint Unified Alice Birney Elementary E 727
36676946035752 San Bernardino Cucamonga Elementary Cucamonga Elementary E 775
36677103630019 San Bernardino Fontana Unified Birch High (Continuation) H 584
36677103630480 San Bernardino Fontana Unified Citrus High (Continuation) H 534
36677106035836 San Bernardino Fontana Unified North Tamarind Elementary E 720
36677106068761 San Bernardino Fontana Unified Cypress Elementary E 716
36677106102933 San Bernardino Fontana Unified Tokay Elementary E 735
36677366035935 San Bernardino Helendale Elementary Helendale Elementary E 784
36677776035984 San Bernardino Morongo Unified Joshua Tree Elementary E 760
36677776036016 San Bernardino Morongo Unified Palm Vista Elementary E 797
36678016036115 San Bernardino Needles Unified Vista Colorado Elementary E 720
36678196036164 San Bernardino Ontario-Montclair Central Language Academy E 737
36678196036206 San Bernardino Ontario-Montclair De Anza Middle M 733
36678196036289 San Bernardino Ontario-Montclair Ray Wiltsey Middle M 735
36678196036297 San Bernardino Ontario-Montclair Kingsley Elementary E 735
36678436036537 San Bernardino Redlands Unified Lugonia Elementary E 809
36678436036594 San Bernardino Redlands Unified Victoria Elementary E 784
36678506036602 San Bernardino Rialto Unified Bemis Elementary E 717
36678506036636 San Bernardino Rialto Unified Dunn Elementary E 711
36678506059448 San Bernardino Rialto Unified Frisbie Middle M 720
36678686036743 San Bernardino Rim of the World Unified Valley of Enchantment Elementary E 780
36678760125450 San Bernardino San Bernardino City Unified Indian Springs High H 635
36678766036768 San Bernardino San Bernardino City Unified Arrowhead Elementary E 676
36678766036826 San Bernardino San Bernardino City Manuel A. Salinas Creative Arts Elementa E 677
36678766036867 San Bernardino San Bernardino City Unified Del Rosa Elementary E 691
36678766036958 San Bernardino San Bernardino City Unified Lincoln Elementary E 680
36678766037022 San Bernardino San Bernardino City Unified Mt. Vernon Elementary E 686
36678766059489 San Bernardino San Bernardino City Unified Del Vallejo Middle M 634
36678766061923 San Bernardino San Bernardino City Unified Martin Luther King Jr. Middle M 676
36679186105860 San Bernardino Victor Elementary Liberty Elementary E 720
36679186110522 San Bernardino Victor Elementary Green Tree East Elementary E 719
36679340125419 San Bernardino Victor Valley Union High Adelanto High H 657
36679596037410 San Bernardino Yucaipa-Calimesa Joint Unified Dunlap Elementary E 730
36679596037428 San Bernardino Yucaipa-Calimesa Joint Unified Valley Elementary E 718
36738906035455 San Bernardino Silver Valley Unified Yermo Elementary E 793
36739570110718 San Bernardino Snowline Joint Unified Vista Verde Elementary E 761
36739576036461 San Bernardino Snowline Joint Unified Phelan Elementary E 740
36750446035968 San Bernardino Hesperia Unified Eucalyptus Elementary E 736
36750446059547 San Bernardino Hesperia Unified Hesperia Junior High M 712
36750446108112 San Bernardino Hesperia Unified Hollyvale Elementary E 731
36750516035976 San Bernardino Lucerne Valley Unified Lucerne Valley Elementary E 719
36750696037220 San Bernardino Upland Unified Citrus Elementary E 801
36750696037287 San Bernardino Upland Unified Upland Elementary E 809
36750770122945 San Bernardino Apple Valley Unified Phoenix Academy E 720
36750773631009 San Bernardino Apple Valley Unified High Desert Premier Academy H 490

CAN YOU NAME THIS OLD TOOL?

CAN YOU NAME THIS OLD TOOL? published on


CAN YOU NAME THIS OLD TOOL? >

Thought you would enjoy this educational moment in American history.
Do you know what it is?
Give it a guess, then look below for the answer.

Hint:

Used by a physician ………. It’s a medical tool ………

Tobacco Smoke Enemas (1750-1810)

The tobacco enema was used to infuse tobacco smoke into a patient’s rectum for various medical purposes, primarily the resuscitation of drowning victims.

A rectal tube inserted into the anus was connected to a Fumigator and bellows that forced the smoke towards the rectum. The warmth of the smoke was thought to promote respiration, but doubts about the credibility of tobacco enemas led to the popular phrase “blowin’ smoke up your ass.”

It has been reintroduced in Washington, by the Obama Administration as an integral part of the new Health Care program.

Why Obama Fails – The National Interest

Why Obama Fails – The National Interest published on



Why Obama Fails – The National Interest

Obama has always talked in the abstract about transcending partisan conflict and pettiness. He has just never been able to do it. The reason seems quite obvious.

There was a telling moment in the State of the Union address.

President Obama had just finished paying homage to the 2004 Democratic convention speech that made him a national sensation. “You know, just over a decade ago, I gave a speech in Boston where I said there wasn’t a liberal America, or a conservative America; a black America or a white America–-but a United States of America,” he said.

Obama acknowledged he had failed to deliver the different kind of politics he had promised back then, partly due to his own flaws. But he urged the American people not to give in to cynicism, that it was still possible to appeal to our better angels.

Then Obama noted he had “no more campaigns to run.” Some Republicans applauded sarcastically. Then the president couldn’t resist, ad libbing, “I know, because I won both of them.”

Sure, on some level the applauding Republicans had it coming. But Obama has always talked in the abstract about transcending partisan conflict and pettiness. He has just never been able to do it.
The jab at the party that was unable to beat him in two consecutive presidential elections was just the most obvious example.
“Understand—a better politics isn’t one where Democrats abandon their agenda or Republicans simply embrace mine,” Obama said. “A better politics is one where we appeal to each other’s basic decency instead of our basest fears.”

That didn’t stop the president from dismissing debates about immigration that are going on right now as the debates of the past. It didn’t stop him from suggesting that some of his opponents might be the equivalent of poll taxers. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush signed into law the last two extensions of the Voting Rights Act.
Obama has always had a masterful way of framing issues as if he is being gracious to the other side, while demanding agreement with his own position. Example: “We still may not agree on a woman’s right to choose, but surely we can agree it’s a good thing that teen pregnancies and abortions are nearing all-time lows, and that every woman should have access to the health care she needs.”
Translation: you are free to disagree with me on the broad legality of abortion, which is unlikely to change anytime soon, but you must surrender on the issues actually in play, like abortion coverage mandated or funded by the government.

Obama challenged opponents of his proposed minimum-wage increase to live on the current minimum wage. But how many people could live on the income of a job eliminated by the minimum-wage hike? For that matter, wouldn’t it still be hard to live on Obama’s suggested minimum wage? Why not raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour? The answer is that there is something to the argument that there is a jobs trade-off involved.
Or consider the fact that Obama has not reacted to electoral setbacks, like the 2010 and 2014 midterm elections, with a Bill Clinton–like feint to the center. Clinton had been rebuked by the electorate for being too liberal once before 1994, when he lost a reelection race for governor of Arkansas. Obama had never had that experience in Illinois.
More importantly, Obama never wanted to be a Clinton-style Democrat. He didn’t want to triangulate. When advised to cool it with Obamacare, he said, “I wasn’t sent here to do school uniforms.”

In some ways, that’s laudable. But it does sit uneasily with the president’s stated desire to bridge the partisan divide. You can’t govern like Franklin D. Roosevelt or Lyndon B. Johnson in something closer to a 50-50 country.
When dealing with congressional Republicans, Obama seems dejected and disinterested. When fighting them, he seems to have an extra spring in his step. That’s been evident since he decided to take the fight to Congress, pledging to use executive authority and the bully pulpit to fight for his priorities.
There’s a place for fighters in politics. That’s just not the guy we were promised in the red states, blue states speech.
No matter how convinced Obama is of the rightness of his ideas, there are still two houses of Congress. Republicans should know. They won both of them.

W. James Antle III is managing editor of the Daily Caller and author of the book Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped? He tweets at @jimantle.

27 Economic Facts Obama Should Avoid

27 Economic Facts Obama Should Avoid published on



;start

27 Economic Facts Obama Should Avoid Mentioning

If President Obama follows script in his State of the Union tonight, he will once again paint a rosy picture of America’s “recovering” economy, only noting struggles of Americans as rationale for his tax hike proposals supposedly designed to redistribute the wealth of the One Percenters to the middle class. While this might force him to admit indirectly the middle class is struggling somewhat, he will certainly not reveal just how dramatically the situation for both the middle class and lower class has darkened under his presidency.

Some alarming facts: for the first time ever the total number of small businesses closing has exceeded the number opening; Americans living in the middle 20% on the income scale say they now earn less money and have a lower net worth than six years ago; 52% of Americans cannot afford their current home; a third of Americans currently have a debt in collections; and the median household income is 8% lower than before the recession.

The Economic Collapse Blog’s Michael Snyder provides the following 27 facts that reveal the true state of the middle class in America under Obama:

#1 American families in the middle 20 percent of the income scale now earn less money than they did on the day when Barack Obama first entered the White House.

#2 American families in the middle 20 percent of the income scale have a lower net worth than they did on the day when Barack Obama first entered the White House.

#3 According to a Washington Post article published just a few days ago, more than 50 percent of the children in U.S. public schools now come from low income homes. This is the first time that this has happened in at least 50 years.

#4 According to a Census Bureau report that was recently released, 65 percent of all children in the United States are living in a home that receives some form of aid from the federal government.

#5 In 2008, the total number of business closures exceeded the total number of businesses being created for the first time ever, and that has continued to happen every single yearsince then.

#6 In 2008, 53 percent of all Americans considered themselves to be “middle class”. But by 2014, only 44 percent of all Americans still considered themselves to be “middle class”.

#7 In 2008, 25 percent of all Americans in the 18 to 29-year-old age bracket considered themselves to be “lower class”. But in 2014, an astounding 49 percent of all Americans in that age range considered themselves to be “lower class”.

#8 Traditionally, owning a home has been one of the key indicators that you belong to the middle class. So what does the fact that the rate of homeownership in America has been falling for seven years in a row say about the Obama years?

#9 According to a survey that was conducted last year, 52 percent of all Americans cannot even afford the house that they are living in right now.

#10 After accounting for inflation, median household income in the United States is 8 percent lower than it was when the last recession started in 2007.

#11 According to one recent survey, 62 percent of all Americans are currently living paycheck to paycheck.

#12 At this point, one out of every three adults in the United States has an unpaid debt that is “in collections“.

#13 When Barack Obama first set foot in the Oval Office, 60.6 percent of all working age Americans had a job. Today, that number is sitting at only 59.2 percent…

#14 While Barack Obama has been in the White House, the average duration of unemployment in the United States has risen from 19.8 weeks to 32.8 weeks.

#15 It is hard to believe, but an astounding 53 percent of all American workers make less than $30,000 a year.

#16 At the end of Barack Obama’s first year in office, our yearly trade deficit with China was 226 billion dollars. Last year, it was more than 314 billion dollars.

#17 When Barack Obama was first elected, the U.S. debt to GDP ratio was under 70 percent. Today, it is over 101 percent.

#18 The U.S. national debt is on pace to approximately double during the eight years of the Obama administration. In other words, under Barack Obama the U.S. government will accumulate about as much debt as it did under all of the other presidents in U.S. history combined.

#19 According to the New York Times, the “typical American household” is now worth 36 percent less than it was worth a decade ago.

#20 The poverty rate in the United States has been at 15 percent or above for 3 consecutive years. This is the first time that has happened since 1965.

#21 From 2009 through 2013, the U.S. government spent a whopping 3.7 trillion dollars on welfare programs.

#22 While Barack Obama has been in the White House, the number of Americans on food stamps has gone from 32 million to 46 million.

#23 Ten years ago, the number of women in the U.S. that had full-time jobs outnumbered the number of women in the U.S. on food stamps by more than a 2 to 1 margin. But now the number of women in the U.S. on food stamps actually exceeds the number of women that have full-time jobs.

#24 One recent survey discovered that about 22 percent of all Americans have had to turn to a church food panty for assistance.

#25 An astounding 45 percent of all African-American children in the United States live in areas of “concentrated poverty”.

#26 40.9 percent of all children in the United States that are living with only one parent are living in poverty.

#27 According to a report that was released late last year by the National Center on Family Homelessness, the number of homeless children in the United States has reached a new all-time record high of 2.5 million.

Women Overwhelmingly Supported 20-Week Abortion Ban

Women Overwhelmingly Supported 20-Week Abortion Ban published on



Women Overwhelmingly Supported 20-Week Abortion Ban

Commentary By

Katrina Trinko @KatrinaTrinko

Katrina Trinko is managing editor of The Daily Signal and a member of USA Today’s Board of Contributors. Send an email to Katrina.

Americans care.

Washington, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to realize that Americans believe 5-month-old unborn children deserve have to their right to life protected. Or that as a nation, America says that when a child is moving, can hear and has a heartbeat, that child deserves the right to live—and deserves a nation that honors that right.
Americans care—but Washington isn’t hearing them.

On Wednesday night, House Republican leaders canceled plans to have a vote Thursday on the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. The legislation would have banned abortions after 20 weeks, except in cases where rape or incest had been reported to authorities.

“The evening switch comes after a revolt from a large swath of female members of Congress, who were concerned about language that said rape victims would not be able to get abortions unless they reported the incident to authorities,” reported Politico.
But this bill passed in the House in 2013 without controversy over the exceptions. Furthermore, polling about this legislation specifically mentioned how the exceptions would work.
“In 2013 the House of Representatives approved legislation that would ban virtually all abortions nationwide after 20 weeks of pregnancy, except in cases of rape and incest that are reported to authorities,” Quinnipiac University told poll respondents. “Would you support or oppose such legislation?”
In response to that specific question, 60 percent of Americans, including 59 percent of women, said they would support such legislation in response to the poll, which was released in November.

They knew exactly what the exceptions were—and they still backed the legislation.
It’s unclear if the exception is even the true reason some GOP members revolted. It may have been over an unwillingness to pursue the social issues.
“Rep. Renee Ellmers repeated her critique from the GOP’s retreat in Hershey, Pa., last weekend that voting on abortion bills so early in the session would turn off millennial voters,” reported National Journal.
Ironically, the Quinnipiac poll found that 57 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds backed the 20-week ban on abortion.
When’s the last time GOP has backed a policy that has had nearly 6 out of 10 millennials supporting it?

Yes, people care about taxes and personal freedom and bread-and-butter issues.
But they also care about life. They care about making the United States a humane nation, a nation that says no, we will not tolerate the legal killing of children who are this developed, who are as a little as a week away from being able to survive outside of the womb if born premature. (In 2011, Frieda Mangold, born at 21 weeks, survived.)
Virtually every other country says it is unacceptable for a child this old to be aborted. Only seven countries in the world—including United States, North Korea and China—allow elective abortions after 20 weeks.
Americans have spoken—and have said loudly and clearly they care about this. They care about making the United States a country good enough to protect the right to life for these children.

It’s time for Washington to listen.

Mental Disorder and The Disaster Ahead…

Mental Disorder and The Disaster Ahead… published on



start:

Mental Disorder and The Disaster Ahead…

Written by Dr. Michael A. Haberman, M.D. Addiction Psychiatry
This Israeli doctor says Obama has a mental disorder. Labels him apathological narcissist and there is no greater insanity than electing one as President said Dr. Sam Vaknin who is an Israeli psychologist.
Dr. Sam Vaknin States, “I must confess I was impressed by Obama from the first time I saw him. At first I was excited to see a black candidate. He looked youthful, spoke well, appeared to be confident, a wholesome presidential package. I was put off soon, not just because of his
shallowness but also because there was an air of haughtiness in his demeanor that was unsettling. His posture and his body language were louder than his empty words.
Obama’s speeches are unlike any political speech we have heard in American history. Never a politician in this land had such quasi “religious” impact on so many people. The fact that Obama is a total incognito with Zero accomplishment, makes this inexplicable infatuation alarming.
Obama is not an ordinary man. He is not a genius. In fact he is quite ignorant on most important subjects. Dr. Sam Vaknin, the author of the “Malignant Self Love,” believes Barack Obama appears to be a narcissist.
Vaknin is a world authority on narcissism. He understands narcissism and describes the inner mind of a narcissist like no other person. When he talks about narcissism everyone listens. Vaknin says that Obama’s language, posture and demeanor, and the testimonies of his closest, dearest friends suggest that the man is either a narcissist or he may have narcissistic personality disorder (NPD).
Narcissists project a grandiose but false image of themselves. Jim Jones, the charismatic leader of People’s Temple, the man who led over 900 of his followers to cheerfully commit mass suicide and even murder their own children was also a narcissist. David Koresh, Charles Manson, Joseph Koni, Shoko Asahara, Stalin, Saddam, Mao, Kim Jong Ill and Adolph Hitler area few examples of narcissists of our time.
All these men had a tremendous influence over their fanciers. They created a personality cult around themselves and with their blazing speeches elevated their admirers, filled their hearts with enthusiasm and instilled in their minds a new zest for life.
They gave them hope!
They promised them the moon, but alas, invariably they brought them to their doom. When you are a victim of a cult of personality, you don’t know it until it is too late. One determining factor in the development of NPD is childhood abuse “Obama’s early life was decidedly chaotic and replete with traumatic and mentally bruising dislocations, “says Vaknin. “Mixed-race
marriages were even less common then. His parents went through a divorce when he was an infant two years old. Obama saw his father only once again, before he died in a car accident. Then his mother re-married and Obama had to relocate to Indonesia , a foreign land with a radically foreign culture, to be raised by a step-father.
At the age of ten, he was whisked off to live with his maternal (white) grandparents. He saw his mother only intermittently in the following few years and then she vanished from his life in 1979. “She died of cancer in 1995.”
One must never underestimate the manipulative genius of pathological narcissists. They project such an imposing personality that it overwhelms those around them. Charmed by the charisma of the narcissist, people become like clay in his hands. They cheerfully do his bidding and de light to be at his service..The narcissist shapes the world around himself and reduces
others in his own inverted image. He creates a cult of personality. His admirers become his codependents. Narcissists have no interest in things that do not help them to reach their personal objective. They are focused on one thing alone and that is power. All other issues are meaningless to them and they do not want to waste their precious time on trivialities. Anything that does not help them is beneath them and does not deserve their attention. If an issue raised in the Senate does not help Obama in one way or another, he as no interest in it. The “present” vote is a safe vote. No one can criticize him if things go
wrong. Those issues are unworthy by their very nature because they are not
about him.
Obama’s election as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review led to a contract and advance to write a book about race relations. The University of Chicago Law School provided him a lot longer than expected and at the end it evolved into, guess what? His own autobiography! Instead of writing a scholarly paper focusing on race relations, for which he had been paid, Obama could not resist writing about his most sublime self. He entitled the book Dreams from My Father. Not surprisingly, Adolph Hitler also wrote his own autobiography when he was still a nobody. So did Stalin.
For a narcissist no subject is as important as his own self. Why would he waste his precious time and genius writing about insignificant things when he can write about such an august
being as himself?
Narcissists are often callous and even ruthless. As the norm, they lack conscience. This is evident from Obama’s lack of interest in his own brother who lives on only one dollar per month. A man who lives in luxury, who takes a private jet to vacation in Hawaii, and who raised nearly half a billion dollars for his campaign (something unprecedented in history) has no interest in the plight of his own brother. Why? Because, his brother cannot be used for his ascent to power. A narcissist cares for no one but himself.
This election was like no other in the history of America . The issues were insignificant compared to what is at stake. What can be more dangerous than having a man bereft of conscience, a serial liar, and one who cannot distinguish his fantasies from reality as the leader of the free world? I hate to sound alarmist, but one is a fool if one is not alarmed.
Many politicians are narcissists. They pose no threat to others. They are simply self-serving and selfish. Obama evidences symptoms of pathological narcissism, which is different from the run-of-the-mill narcissism of a Richard Nixon or a Bill Clinton for example. To him reality and fantasy are intertwined.
This is a mental health issue, not just a character flaw. Pathological narcissists are dangerous because they look normal and even intelligent. It is this disguise that makes them treacherous. Today the Democrats have placed all their hopes in Obama. But this man could put an end to their party. The great majority of blacks voted for Obama. Only a fool does not know that their support for him is racially driven. This is racism, pure and simple. The downside of this is that if Obama turns out to be the disaster I predict, he will cause widespread resentment among the whites. The blacks are unlikely to give up their support of their man. Cultic mentality is
pernicious and unrelenting. They will dig their heads deeper in the sand and blame Obama’s detractors of racism. This will cause a backlash among the whites. The white supremacists will take advantage of the discontent and they will receive widespread support.
I predict that in less than four years, racial tensions will increase to levels never seen since the turbulent 1960’s. Obama will set the clock back decades. America is the bastion of freedom. The peace of the world depends on the strength of America , and its weakness translates into the triumph of terrorism and victory of rogue nations. It is no wonder that Ahmadinejad,
Hugo Chavez, the Castrists, the Hezbollah, the Hamas, the lawyers of the Guantanamo terrorists, and virtually all sworn enemies of America are so thrilled by the prospect of their man in the White House. America is on the verge of destruction.
There is no insanity greater than electing a pathological narcissist as president.

Michael A. Haberman, M.D.

California Promotes Socialism Disguised as Prosperity

California Promotes Socialism Disguised as Prosperity published on



California Promotes Socialism Disguised as Prosperity

by Assemblyman Tim Donnelly 14 Jan 2015 10
Want to know why the growth of government is the greatest threat to our future?

The latest example is a grant that came from the department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which gave almost $5 million dollars to the Bay Area’s Metropolitan Transit Agency (MTC) in order to carry out the socialist dictates of a plan entitled the “Bay Area Regional Prosperity Plan.” This Thursday in Redwood City, a coalition of “community organizations”–many of which are front groups for the socialist labor movement, including churches, social justice and living wage nonprofits, unions, local governments, housing collaboratives, and others who profit off the massive, growing labor-poverty-government industrial complex—are hosting one of their 5 launch meetings for their “Regional Economic Prosperity Strategy.”
You might think that sounds harmless, even beneficial–and you’d be right if they were advocating for less government restriction to unleash the power of the free market.
But they’re not. And they’re not doing it with their money. They are lobbying our state and local government with our tax dollars handed over by agencies of our federal government.

Yes, that’s right. Government is using money funneled through an innocuous-sounding grant to advocate for the following (and these are just a few of the juicy ones):
.Organize and professionalize industries to improve wages, benefits and career ladders. (So now the government is now officially in the business of subsidizing the unionization of entire industries?) …

93. Remove barriers to unionization. (Really? Shouldn’t the goal of an effort at creating prosperity be to remove barriers to economic growth so that companies can prosper, expand and hire more workers?)
95. Enacting living wage ordinances. (Translation: Force private businesses to pay above-market wages to compensate some individuals while reducing opportunity for others.)

96. Passing prevailing wage ordinances. (Make government contracts for services such as janitors and security guards as grossly overpriced for taxpayers as public works projects are now.)

97. Establishing project labor agreements (PLAs). (Force all those wishing to work on a project to join a union, and legally discriminate against smaller contractors, who are usually non-union and might be willing to work for less, costing the public more.)
Yet what’s so bad about wanting economic security? Isn’t prosperity desirable?
Sure, but the key is in how you achieve it.

If you wake up one morning and decide you are going to rob a bank because you can’t find work, that might get you prosperity, but it’s illegal and could also get you 20 years behind bars.
By robbing a bank, you put the lives and economic prosperity of others in jeopardy, and that’s immoral. You wouldn’t steal your neighbor’s car either, but why is it OK if the government robs your neighbor’s business by forcing him to pay a “living wage” instead of whatever the market will bear?
Theft is theft, even if the government is the agent of it.
At its core, this is really a moral question.
“Is it moral for the government to take from those according to their ability and give to those according to their needs?” Karl Marx thought so, and pushed for a fully communist society, in which the government controlled everything–all means of production–and where every individual belonged to and was dependent on the state.
That’s economic servitude—slavery—the antithesis of freedom.
And yet, little by little, California is funding this socialist labor movement, so that outcomes are equalized and controlled by the government.
It all started with a coalition of governmental bodies who crafted a regional plan entitled Plan Bay Area. It is a blueprint to implement “social justice” initiatives disguised as a pathway to prosperity, which empower unelected “regional” bureaucrats to dictate what you can do with your property, your business and your capital.
By forcing Project Labor Agreements (PLA’s) on every public project–and pushing for more public projects as a means of “job creation” for “low and middle wage” workers–all job creation is put at risk.

It is ironic that by instituting PLA’s, the bureaucrats almost guarantee that those jobs will never go to any of the people they claim they want to help; those jobs will be parceled out by powerful unions in union halls based on seniority, not need.
Pushing for “living wage” ordinances might sound noble, but it’s not government’s job to fix prices for labor or anything else. In order to give that raise to someone by legislative fiat, you must first take that money from the business owner.
In a completely free market, If you don’t work, you don’t eat. And being hungry is a powerful motivator. It forces you to learn new skills in order to meet the demands of the market.
If you believe that government ought to keep its hands out of your pockets, and stick to its proper role–which is protecting our right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”; securing our borders; maintaining infrastructure; and achieving a handful of other things enumerated in the Constitution–then you cannot be silent in the face of an attempt to seize what little freedom you have left.

Read More Stories About:

Copyright © 2015 Breitbart
Advertise With Us
Copyright © 2015 Breitbart

Shortage of Legally Compliant Shell Eggs Sends Prices Soaring in California

Shortage of Legally Compliant Shell Eggs Sends Prices Soaring in California published on



Shortage of Legally Compliant Shell Eggs Sends Prices Soaring in California

America’s $30.7-billion egg market is being scrambled — at least for awhile — by California’s new space requirements for laying hens that became effective on Jan. 1.
The law, part ballot initiative and part the work of the California Assembly, applies to any producer supplying raw shell eggs to California consumers.
And not enough law-compliant egg producers are now available to meet California’s demand and, according to the Iowa State University Egg Industry Center, this reality has translated into retail egg prices that are 66-percent higher in the Golden State than in other parts of the West.
On Wednesday, Jerry Hagstrom, editor of The Hagstrom Report, distributed pictures to subscribers showing egg prices of $4.49 to $5.99 per dozen in a San Francisco Safeway store. By contrast, Walmart was delivering eggs in the Denver area on Wednesday at prices ranging from $1.84 per dozen to $3.88 per dozen, depending on consumer options.

To the extent that California’s new law has priced some people out of the egg market, demand will fall. And, to the extent that producers invest in the larger hen houses to serve the California market, the supply of eggs eligible for sale in the state will grow, and prices should eventually drop back some.
“In the short run, we will likely experience all sorts of variations as the market tries to find new equilibrium, “explains Maro Ibarburu of Iowa State University. He did a special report on “The California Situation” for ISU’s Egg Industry Center just four days before the new law took effect, which estimated eggs costs would go up by 10-40 percent.
He estimated a 15-percent increase in production costs for becoming compliant with egg sales in California. A 73-percent increase in space over conventional housing systems is required.

As 2015 began, California was short by 2-3 million laying hens without legally compliant housing to meet the residents’ demand for eggs, according to Terry Pollard, vice president of North American sales for Big Dutchman, the Holland, MI-based company that designs and builds housing systems.
Ibarburu says there are many unknowns that make it impossible to predict when egg markets might digest all the changes, especially in California. Egg consumption, and especially egg-white consumption, was on the upswing in 2014 largely from consumers looking for high-protein, low-calorie options. It remains to be seen how consumers react to record high shell-egg prices.
The law applies to all shell eggs sold at retail — not processed eggs that are already pasteurized, which account for almost one third of all eggs consumed in the U.S. Processed eggs are those that, for example, might be contained in a product mix.
The U.S. egg industry provides about 128,000 jobs, pays $7.2 billion in wages, and contributes $2.2 billion in government revenues, according to economic output figures released by the industry on Wednesday.

(Editor’s note: Language in the next-to-last paragraph of this story was changed because some readers thought we were saying that shell eggs that are pasteurized and therefore the safest option for the consumer are exempt from the California law. They are not exempt if sold at retail.)

© Food Safety News
Copyright © Marler Clark

The Surprising Speech on Marriage From the Creator of The Affair

The Surprising Speech on Marriage From the Creator of The Affair published on


The Surprising Speech on Marriage From the Creator of The Affair

Commentary By

Ericka Andersen @ErickaAndersen

Ericka Andersen manages The Heritage Foundation’s social networking platforms and strategy as well as online outreach as the think tank’s manager of digital media.

It was just like Hollywood to create and flaunt a show around the premise of an affair—and then actually call the show “The Affair.”
But, after winning the award for best TV drama at the Golden Globes last night, the show’s co-creator Sarah Treem had something refreshing to say about the institution of marriage.

She thanked her husband in her acceptance speech, noting that, “If I have learned anything from writing a show about an affair, it’s how sacred and valuable and essential our marriages are.”
In Hollywood, where divorce is common, it was nice to hear someone uphold the importance of marriage—especially in a time when the ravages of divorce and single parenthood are fueling inequality in our society.

Treem’s remarks came near the same time that George Clooney spent a few moments praising his new wife Amal Clooney, saying, “It’s a humbling thing to find someone to love” and that he “couldn’t be more proud to be your husband.”
Showtime’s “The Affair” co-creator Sarah Treem and the rest of the cast during the 72nd annual Golden Globe Awards. (Photo: Jim Ruymen/UPI/Newscom)
Marriage is great for Clooney and Treem, but its benefits extend across educational, racial and socio-economic backgrounds as well. Studies have shown that marriage helps the economy and prevents child poverty.
In the quest for a juicy story line, Hollywood has discovered something even more important: the benefits of marriage.

McCain – Petraeus investigation mishandled

McCain – Petraeus investigation mishandled published on



McCain: Petraeus investigation mishandled

Tea Party Command Center

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) blasted the FBI’s recommendation for criminal charges against former CIA Director David Petraeus on Saturday, one day after news from the investigation was leaked to The New York Times.

“While the facts of the case involving General David Petraeus remain unknown and are not suitable for comment, it is clear that this investigation has been grievously mishandled,” McCain said in a statement issued jointly with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).
“It is outrageous that the highly confidential and law enforcement-sensitive recommendation of prosecutors to bring charges against General Petraeus was leaked to the New York Times,” the statement continued.
“No American deserves such callous treatment, let alone one of America’s finest military leaders,” it concluded.

read more:

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/229133-mccain-petraeus-investigation-grievously-mishandled

EX-FBI Agent’s Epic Open Letter to Eric Holder Stuns Administration

EX-FBI Agent’s Epic Open Letter to Eric Holder Stuns Administration published on



EX-FBI AGENT’S EPIC OPEN LETTER TO ERIC HOLDER STUNS ADMINISTRATION

Posted by Staff on January 06, 2015

Former FBI Special Agent K. Dee McCown wrote an open letter to Eric Holder. The response has been epic.

Here is the letter:

K. Dee McCown
College Station, Texas
December 28, 2014

Attorney General Eric Holder

U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Dear Attorney General Holder,

It is unlikely that we met while I served in the FBI. That being said, we served at the Department of Justice (DOJ) during the same years and on the same “team” conceptually speaking. During my service in the FBI I worked with a number of U.S. Attorney Offices in the United States to include a tour at FBIHQ where I worked with the Department of Justice (Main) on a daily basis.

I begin my letter with this comment to highlight that I am not a bystander on the topic of law enforcement in the United States. I worked and managed a variety of federal investigations during my 12 years of service in the FBI, to include the management of several Civil Rights cases in the State of Texas. In fact, during my last tour in the Bureau, I was an FBI Supervisor responsible for managing federal investigations in nine (9) Texas counties, many of which were rural; in places where one would suspect racism to flourish given the narrative often pushed by Hollywood and urban progressive elites like yourself. I performed this mission diligently and under the close supervision of two FBI managers; an Assistant Special Agent in Charge (ASAC) and Special Agent in Charge (SAC,) both of which happened to be African American and outstanding law enforcement professionals. I also performed this mission serving side by side with a variety of law enforcement agencies at the Federal, State and local level.

I have observed you closely during your tenure as Attorney General and notably during these last tumultuous years; watching you negotiate a number of controversial public matters to include the ATF Fast and Furious scandal, Black Panther Party intimidation at voting booths, IRS targeting of American citizens (citizen groups opposed to the Obama Administration,) the ignoring of US Immigration laws, DOJ criminal indictments of select news reporters and your management of several high profile criminal investigations involving subjects of race, notably African Americans.

Until today, I chose to hold my tongue. However, with the assassination of two NYPD Lieutenants last weekend in New York City, at the hands of a African American man with a lengthy criminal record, fresh from his participation in anti-police activities; coupled with numerous “don’t shoot, hands up,” and “black lives matter” anti-police protests (some of which are violent) occurring daily around the nation, I am compelled to write you this letter.

To be blunt Mr. Holder, I am appalled at your lack of leadership as the Attorney General of the United States and your blatant politicizing of the Department of Justice. Your actions, both publicly and privately, have done nothing to quell the complex racial issues we face in our country and have done everything to inflame them. As the “top cop” of the United States, you share in the blame for much of the violence and protests we are now witnessing against law enforcement officers honorably serving throughout our nation.

During one of your first public speeches as Attorney General you made it a point to call America “a nation of cowards” concerning race relations. That speech, followed by other public announcements where you emphatically opined that the odds were stacked against African Americans in regard to the enforcement of law, your intention to change the law and permit convicted felons to vote after incarceration, and your changes to federal law ending “racial profiling,” are poignant examples of how detached you remain from the challenges faced by law enforcement officers serving in crime ridden neighborhoods throughout the nation. These opinions are also indicative of a man that lives and works in the elitist “bubble” of Washington D.C.

Your performance, as the nation’s Attorney General, during the Trayvon Martin case in Sanford, Florida and the Michael Brown case in Ferguson, Missouri clearly highlights your myopic view on this topic. Contrary to your embarrassing prejudgment in the Brown case and evasive post trial remarks on the Martin case, neither Brown nor Martin were targeted and/or killed because of their African American race. Rather, as non-emotive investigations determined, both teens died as a consequence of their own tragic and egregious behavior; behavior that involved a violent assault on a law abiding citizen in the Trayvon Martin case, and a violent assault on a young police officer in the Michael Brown case. Yet you, as the number one spokesman for law enforcement in the country, blame the deaths of these men on years of institutional racism and the alleged epidemic targeting of African American men by police departments around the country; nothing could be further from the truth. Following the Michael Brown case Grand Jury decision all you could muster was the following comment:

“The Department of Justice is currently investigating not only the shooting but also the Ferguson police department in what is called a “patterns and practices” inquiry to determine if the police department has engaged in systematic racism.”

So, let’s get this straight. At a decisive moment in history when our nation required a strong and unbiased voice from its’ senior law enforcement official, you Mr. Holder, made it your personal mission to join with other racial antagonist and politicize a tragic event, accusing a young white police officer of a racially motivated killing in what we now know was a justified self-defense shooting of a predatory felon. Your behavior is unbelievable. You sir, have sacrificed your integrity on the altar of political expediency. You, Mr. Holder, are the “coward” and hypocrite you so loudly denounce when speaking of broken race relations in America.

Further to this point Mr. Holder, law enforcement officers around the country remain dismayed and shocked at the counsel you keep; that being your close relationship with none other than Al Sharpton, a racist “shake down artist” who spreads hate, divisiveness and the promotion of anti-law enforcement sentiment throughout the country; a tax evading fraudster who has unbelievably visited the White House over 80 times in recent years. It is simply beyond my comprehension as a former federal law enforcement professional, that you, the Attorney General of the United States, joined arms in common cause with a charlatan like “the Reverend” Al Sharpton; and it speaks volumes to your personal character and lack of professional judgment.

Violent crime, out of wedlock births, drug abuse, rampant unemployment and poverty found in many low-income minority neighborhoods are not a result of racist community policing and racial profiling as you so quickly assert, and frankly most law abiding Americans are exhausted of hearing this false narrative repeated time and again by you and others in the racial grievance industry. While no one, me included, would ever suggest that African Americans have not suffered from institutional racism in the past, I would strongly argue that we no longer live in the Mississippi of 1965, nor do we live in a country that even closely resembles the “Jim Crow” South of yesteryear. Those days, thankfully, are in the past as are the generations of Americans that supported such egregious behavior and endured such suffering.

Rather, Mr. Holder, we live in a day and time where the root cause of many problems faced in our African American communities can be attributed to the breakdown of civil order due to the rejection of institutional and family authority and the practice of counter-culture values; and most notably, from the absence of strong male leadership in fatherless black families. The reason that our local police officers are so often entwined in tragic events in black communities is because it is the police that have filled the void in these communities that should be occupied by moral and strong black men leading family units with Godly values. You, Mr. Holder, especially, should be thanking the police rather than persecuting them for the gap they fill in these communities because if it were not for the intervention of local police many African American neighborhoods would be in a state of total anarchy.

Yet tragically, you and your race-baiting colleague Al Sharpton (a paid media personality under contract with MSNBC news) choose to remain silent because to publicly speak this self-evident truth threatens to not only alienate and offend the most loyal voting constituency of the Democratic Party but diminish your and Al Sharpton’s self-serving power base in these suffering communities. God forbid that you would suggest individual citizens accept responsibility for their own behavior and the collective failure of their communities; it is so much easier for you and others like you to make excuses, play the victim card, and pander rather than address the real root causes that plague many low income neighborhoods.

Mr. Holder, the public is aware of FBI statistics that tell a different story than the one you and Sharpton preach. We know that young African American males, representing a tiny fraction of the U.S. population, are by far the greatest perpetrators of violent crime in America when compared to their peers in other ethnic groups, and, we know that citizens of African American descent overwhelmingly make up the majority of their victims. We also know that incidents where white police officers shoot and kill black perpetrators are rare and on the decline. We know further that although there are legitimate and bona fide Federal Civil Rights investigations in the United States worthy of pursuing, they are miniscule when compared to the false narrative portrayed by you, President Obama and Sharpton declaring rampant discrimination against African American men by police officers throughout the country. You are just plain wrong.

In closing Mr. Holder I will leave you with this thought; you were given a rare opportunity to lead with integrity during a variety of divisive and controversial issues during your tenure as the 82d Attorney General of the United States and rather than be a man of moral courage you chose instead to cower, further inflame racial tensions, advance false narratives and play progressive political activist.

Time and again you chose to “politicize” the mission of the Department of Justice rather than pursue justice and now, tragically, we are witnessing the fruits of your irresponsible behavior in the murder of two innocent police officers in New York City, assassinated by a man motivated by the flames of racial hatred that you personally fanned. How many more police officers will be injured or die in the coming days because of the perilous conditions you helped create in this nation. You, President Obama and Al Sharpton own this problem lock, stock and barrel and now it is your legacy.

As thousands of NYPD officers turn their collective back on New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, another dishonest politician and Sharpton disciple, so too do countless Federal law enforcement officers turn our backs on you.

K. Dee McCown

FBI (1997 – 2008)
CC: Senator Mitch McConnell
Senator John Cornyn
Senator Ted Cruz
Senator Harry Reid
The Honorable Bill Flores
The Honorable John Boehner
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi

http://www.politicalears.com/blog/exfbi-agents-epic-open-letter-to-eric-holder-stuns-administration/

California newspaper office vandalized over use of illegal immigrant label

California newspaper office vandalized over use of illegal immigrant label published on



California newspaper office vandalized over use of illegal immigrant label

A California newspaper will continue to use the term “illegals” to describe people who enter the U.S. without permission, despite an attack on its building by vandals believed to object to the term.

The Santa Barbara News-Press’s front entrance was sprayed with the message “The border is illegal, not the people who cross it” in red paint, sometime either Wednesday night or early Thursday, according to the newspaper’s director of operations, Donald Katich. The attack came amid wider objections to a News-Press headline that used the word “illegals” alongside a story on California granting driver’s licenses to people in the country illegally.

“The vandalism and the damage speak for itself, as well as the motivation behind it,” Santa Barbara Police Officer Mitch Jan said. “At this point in time, I don’t really have any suspect information. Without cameras or an eyewitness, we really don’t know who would be responsible.”

In addition to the writing on the building, graffiti espousing a no-borders mentality was scribbled on the walkway through Storke Placita and the sidewalk near Santa Barbara City Hall. Police were braced for a protest in front of the paper later this week. Jan said hundreds could show up, and the Police Department is aware of the call for a protest.

read more:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/01/09/california-newspaper-office-vandalized-over-use-illegal-immigrant-label/

Sharp new critique of same-sex marriage rulings

Sharp new critique of same-sex marriage rulings published on



Sharp new critique of same-sex marriage rulings

Three judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sharply protesting a three-judge panel’s October ruling in favor of same-sex marriage in two states, argued on Friday that courts at that level of the federal judiciary have no authority to decide that question. The Supreme Court, those judges argued, took away that power forty-two years ago.
The critique, one of the strongest dissenting statements yet issued amid a wave of federal and state court rulings striking down bans on same-sex marriages, came as the en banc Ninth Circuit refused to reconsider the panel’s combined decision in cases from Idaho and Nevada. Circuit Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain wrote the dissenters’ opinion, joined by Circuit Judges Johnnie B. Rawlinson and Carlos T. Bea. It is unclear how many judges on the full court voted to deny rehearing.

Perhaps by coincidence, the fervent judicial protest came on the same day that the Supreme Court considered anew whether it should step in now to resolve the constitutional controversy over same-sex marriage. (The Justices examined that issue in private Friday but did not act on it.) The O’Scannlain opinion bluntly argued that “the same-sex marriage debate is not over.” It could have the effect of building resistance within the Supreme Court to moving soon toward a nationwide ruling in favor of such unions.

The heart of the dissent was its argument that lower courts are still bound by the Supreme Court’s one-line decision in 1972 in the case of Baker v. Nelson, declaring that a claim to same-sex marriage did not raise “a substantial federal question.” Judge O’Scannlain wrote that the Baker precedent remains binding on lower courts, and he added that the Supreme Court had made clear that “federal courts must avoid substituting their own definition of marriage for that adopted by the states’ citizenry.”

The dissenting opinion used much stronger language than a majority of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Sixth Circuit had used in November in upholding bans on same-sex marriage in four states — an opinion that also had relied upon the Baker precedent.
Judge O’Scannlain did make some of the same other points that the Sixth Circuit panel’s majority had, such as the argument that an issue as sensitive as same-sex marriage should be left to the people and the state legislatures to resolve, and that it will be better for the nation and for its people to have it worked out by representative government rather than by the courts.
The panel’s decision in the Idaho and Nevada cases, Judge O’Scannlain wrote, “shuts down the debate, removing the issue from the public square. In doing so, it reflects a profound distrust in — or even a downright rejection of — our constitutional structure.”
The Ninth Circuit dissent, though, added another point that went beyond the Sixth Circuit’s ruling against same-sex marriage. The dissenters said that the courts simply have no authority to decide any question about marital policy, because there is a flat “domestic relations exception” to federal court jurisdiction over that field of law, since it is to be left to the states.
That notion dates all the way back to a Supreme Court decision in 1890 in the case of In re Burrus. That jurisdictional argument, although picked up by some state attorneys general in recent same-sex marriage cases, had not been embraced by any court as a reason not to rule on the constitutional issue. It has received some recent support in academic literature.
The three-judge panel decision so forcefully opposed by the dissenters Friday was written by Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt. He and Judge O’Scannlain have been long-time philosophical adversaries on the Ninth Circuit. Judge Reinhardt’s opinion for a panel majority against the Idaho and Nevada bans went further in its constitutional reasoning than any other federal court had in the lengthy series of decisions against state bans.
The Ninth Circuit took almost three months to reveal its vote on whether it would reconsider the panel decision before a full eleven-judge court. The governor of Idaho had asked for such a rehearing of the case involving that state’s ban, as had the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage, a group opposed to same-sex marriage, in the Nevada case. State officials in Nevada had abandoned a defense of their state’s ban.
The Idaho governor and the state’s attorney general have filed separate petitions asking the Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s panel decision. Those petitions were not among those that the Justices considered at their private Conference on Friday, because they were not yet ready to be submitted to the Justices.

Recommended Citation: Lyle Denniston, Sharp new critique of same-sex marriage rulings, SCOTUSblog (Jan. 10, 2015, 7:46 AM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/01/sharp-new-critique-of-marriage-rulings/

DHS spending bill to ID sanctuary cities; Obama amnesty fight looms

DHS spending bill to ID sanctuary cities; Obama amnesty fight looms published on



DHS spending bill to ID sanctuary cities; Obama amnesty fight looms

The House GOP’s new homeland security spending bill released Friday would require the Obama administration to name-and-shame so-called sanctuary city jurisdictions that refuse to hold illegal immigrants for federal authorities to deport.
The get-tough bill boosts funding for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement by 10 percent, signaling the desire by the House GOP to pressure President Obama to step up, rather than cut, enforcement against illegal immigrants.

Still, the bill does not explicitly halt President Obama’s deportation amnesty. Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, California Republican, said lawmakers will have a chance to amend the bill to try to halt the amnesty next week, when the bill reaches the House floor.
“We will also consider a series of amendments which respond to the president’s executive action,” Mr. McCarthy said on the House floor.
The spending bill is designed to fund the Homeland Security Department for the rest of fiscal year 2015. The department is currently operating on a short-term bill that expires on Feb. 27.
Funding for airport security, the Coast Guard, cybersecurity, the Secret Service and a host of other operations is included, but most of the attention will go to immigration, because of the battle with Mr. Obama over his new policy to grant amnesty from deportation to 4 million more illegal immigrants.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/9/dhs-spending-bill-id-sanctuary-cities-obama-amnest/

California Taxpayers to SUBSIDIZE Auto Insurance for Illegal Aliens

California Taxpayers to SUBSIDIZE Auto Insurance for Illegal Aliens published on



California Taxpayers to SUBSIDIZE Auto Insurance for Illegal Aliens

Stephen Frank
Californians are the most charitable people on Earth. Government is making sure that illegal aliens, criminals that break our laws every day, have low cost auto insurance, issued by the State (the taxpayers). This is subsidized by your taxes, money meant for education will instead be used to assure law breakers get a break on insurance, when they get their phony drivers licenses, which will be used—you know they will—to allow the illegal aliens to vote—illegally.

This is why you should never vote for any tax increases or bond measures. If Sacramento has enough money to subsidize auto insurance for illegal aliens, it has enough money for roads and education. They are NOT immigrants—they are illegal aliens. Immigrants come here legally, with permission.
“State officials hope a new law that offers California driver’s licenses to immigrants in the country illegally will also encourage them to buy insurance.
To encourage the practice, the California Department of Insurance is aggressively marketing its Low Cost Auto Insurance program to the large pool of immigrants projected to seek licenses under the AB 60 law taking effect Jan. 1.”

Calif. to offer low-cost insurance to new immigrant drivers

by Josie Huang, KPCC, 12/31/14

State officials hope a new law that offers California driver’s licenses to immigrants in the country illegally will also encourage them to buy insurance.

To encourage the practice, the California Department of Insurance is aggressively marketing its Low Cost Auto Insurance program to the large pool of immigrants projected to seek licenses under the AB 60 law taking effect Jan. 1.
“It would be a tragedy if after all this effort, the 1.4 million people who are getting driver’s licenses for the first time don’t have auto insurance,” said Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones.
Jones and others recognized that the cost of getting licensed — $33 — is a lot cheaper than buying insurance for hundreds of dollars a year. So, Jones, working with Senator Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, got the state Legislature to open up the low-cost insurance program to the new category of immigrant drivers.
“The price will be less than $450 a year, which is less than $38 a month,” Jones said. He said that’s about a third of what it costs to get private auto insurance in many markets across California.
Jones said more than 90 percent of AB 60 applicants are expected to be Spanish speakers. So the state’s been pushing its low-cost insurance through Spanish-language media and ads like this:
Los Angeles-based insurance broker Susan Rocha said the state program likely offers the lowest prices for low-income immigrant drivers, especially since they have no official driving record.

“Any place else it’s going to be much more, because they are considered a new driver,” Rocha said.
But Rocha cautioned that the state’s low-cost program is very basic, and those who can afford more might want to join a private plan with beefier coverage. If they can jump on a relative’s plan, they may be able to enjoy loyalty discounts, Rocha said.
For years, California law has allowed immigrants in the country illegally to buy insurance even without a license. But day laborer Alfredo Vidal said he just didn’t see the point.
“Why?” said Vidal, who borrows his friend’s pick-up truck for construction gigs around L.A. “I don’t have a driver’s license.”
But going without insurance can lead to hundreds of dollars in fines, not to mention losing one’s driver’s license, and car registration. In a crash, a driver might not be able to afford thousands of dollars in repairs. Some drivers might be apt to leave the scene. And this could raise insurance costs for everybody.
Vidal was willing to accept the risks.

“I have to take people with materials to the houses,” Vidal said. “I have to be driving all the time.”
Immigrant advocates have largely avoided handing out insurance advice. Ana Garcia gives workshops on the new law for the Central American Resource Center, and said her priority is helping immigrants get their license.
“We only went over insurance when they take the driving test,” Garcia said. “I let them know that whatever car they need to use for the driving test needs to be insured.”

For his driver’s test, Vidal said he’ll borrow his friend’s car, which is already insured. If he passes and gets his license, Vidal says he’ll take all the proper next steps.
“We’re going to get insurance – everybody,” Vidal said. “We know it’s the law.”