More California Insanity

As I write this, California is still part of America. The U.S. Constitution protects the rights of Americans who live in California. The military troops of America would defend California if necessary. However, it seems as if some Californians have forgotten that they are Americans.

Yesterday Fox News reported that the University of California-Davisstudent senate voted to allow the Stars & Stripes to be removed from its meetings. I wonder how much federal money supports the University of California-Davis. Would they notice if that money were gone?

The article reports:

Writing that “patriotism is different for every individual,” the student senate made the appearance of the flag optional.

Pete Hegseth pointed out that the senate appeared to say that there would be instances where the flag’s presence was inappropriate.

“We’ve got patriotism triggering people now,” Campus Reform reporter Cabot Phillips remarked.

In a statement, Student Senator Jose Antonio Meneses further clarified that the flag was not banned from meetings, but only had its mandated presence lifted.

Phillips said the vote was not an isolated incident, recalling a situation in New Mexico where a student was forced to remove a flag from his dormitory window.

What have we taught our children? Can America stand as a nation if its children are not even willing to tolerate or display its flag? Do the students realize that the flag was part of the freedom that allowed them to get an education and hold their meeting? It is time to start teaching the history and blessings of America in our schools. Obviously some of our students do not understand how fortunate they are to be here.

 

Why Is This Man Still In America?

People do horrible things when they are desperate, and maybe that has something to do with the actions of George Soros as a teenage Jew in Nazi Germany. During an interview with 60 Minutes, Mr. Soros admitted to helping the Nazis steal from the Jews in World War II. (video here). That was a long time ago, and one would hope that Mr. Soros has changed. One might want to keep hoping.

The Gateway Pundit posted an article today about some of the recent protests around America. Actually I am not sure protests is the right word–what happened at UC Berkeley was not a protest–it was a riot. The so-called women’s march was a protest, but left a mountain of trash.

The article at The Gateway Pundit reports:

The left-wing group that helped organize the violent shut down of the Milo Yiannopoulos event at the University of California, Berkeley on Wednesday is backed by a progressive charity that is in turn funded by George Soros, the city of Tucson, a major labor union and several large companies.

…Soros was also reportedly behind the airport protests last weekend in the US.  A week before that Soros was reportedly behind 50 Groups involved in the ‘Women’s Protests’ the day after the inauguration.  Before that, Soros was connected to the groups demanding election recounts after the November 8th election and Soros money was funding more protests during these efforts.  And DCLeaks released information showing that Soros funded Black Lives Matter protests across the country.

Former Nazi George Soros is connected to every major protest since the election and many, if not all leading up to the election, including Black Lives Matter.

Again, if the man is organizing protests, that is fine, but a number of these protests have turned violent and destructive. I think it is time to ask Mr. Soros to take himself and his money elsewhere and bar him from funding groups that encourage the kind of behavior we have seen at UC Berkeley and other protests he has funded.

Marijuana Is Not Really Harmless

The U.K. Daily Mail posted an article today about the long-term impact of consistently smoking marijuana.

The article reports:

International research has revealed that the more cannabis you smoke, the more likely you are to be lower paid and have relationship difficulties.

The study followed children from birth up to the age of 38 and found people who smoked cannabis four or more days a week over many years ended up in a lower social class than their parents.

It also found that regular and persistent users ended up with lower-paying, less skilled and less prestigious jobs than those who were not regular cannabis smokers.

Financial, work-related and relationship difficulties were further experienced by those taking the drug, which worsened as the number of years of regular cannabis use progressed.

The study, conducted by a team of researchers led by Magdalena Cerda at the University of California and Avshalom Caspi and Terrie Moffitt at Duke University, appeared in the journal Clinical Psychological Science.

‘Our research does not support arguments for or against cannabis legalization,’ said Cerda. ‘But it does show that cannabis was not safe for the long-term users tracked in our study.

One of the things that amazes me is the move to legalize marijuana in America while stigmatizing smoking tobacco. Both are damaging to the lungs, both ingest various toxins into the body, but smoking tobacco does not generally impact your social or financial success. Marijuana is not a harmless drug, and it is not a good idea to legalize the use of recreational marijuana until there is more study of its long-term effects. It is also very naive to believe that saying that recreational marijuana, legal in some states for people over twenty-one, will not be used by those under twenty-one. Teenagers using marijuana on a regular basis will not be of benefit to our society.

We Need To Shut Down 90 Percent Of Our Colleges And Replace Them With Places Where Students Actually Learn Useful Things

On Wednesday, National Review reported that the student senate at the University of California at Berkeley has passed a resolution to make abortion on demand available on the campus.

The article reports:

The Berkeley student senate has passed a resolution demanding that abortion, referred to as “medication abortion,” be made available on-campus so that female undergraduate and graduate students could “continue their education with little disruption.”The resolution explains that the university’s Tang Center used to perform abortions in the 1980s, but now there are no longer trained abortionists at the center.

Abortion is a right, their logic goes, and so abortion access is a right, too.

The resolution does not suggest how to fund its demand. But Aanchal Chugh, primary sponsor of the bill, told Campus Reform that school administrators should be willing to take pay cuts in order to fund on-campus abortion services. Students, she says, should not bear any financial burden.

This is the kind of logic that amoral, feeling entitled, uneducated in the value of life students come up with. Their parents are paying good money for this. It is so sad.

The article also notes:

There are five abortion providers within 15 miles of the Berkeley campus, all of which accept MediCal health insurance. FPA Women’s Health, four miles from the campus, performs free abortions for women who lack health coverage for the procedure.

 

Who Gets Green Energy Money

Yesterday Steven Hayward posted a story at Power Line about a Haas School of Business at the University of California at Berkeley study showing who gets the tax credits associated with green energy. The results of the study are not surprising, but provide another example of excessive government spending helping people who really don’t need help.

The article reports:

Since 2006, U.S. households have received more than $18 billion in federal income tax credits for weatherizing their homes, installing solar panels, buying hybrid and electric vehicles, and other “clean energy” investments. We use tax return data to examine the socioeconomic characteristics of program recipients. We find that these tax expenditures have gone predominantly to higher-income Americans. The bottom three income quintiles have received about 10% of all credits, while the top quintile has received about 60%. The most extreme is the program aimed at electric vehicles, where we find that the top income quintile has received about 90% of all credits. By comparing to previous work on the distributional consequences of pricing greenhouse gas emissions, we conclude that tax credits are likely to be much less attractive on distributional grounds than market mechanisms to reduce GHGs.

Logically this is not surprising. Lower income people are not likely to pay the extra money for an electric car (or have a charging station). Lower income people are less likely to own their own home. People on welfare have no incentive to reduce their energy bills–welfare is paying for them. On the other side of the equation, most upper income people are in the habit of taking advantage of any ‘free’ money offered to them. Many upper income people have financial advisers who are paid to follow government tax programs and rebate programs. Upper income people may also have the money on hand to do the capital improvements required to get the tax credits, lower income people may not. Generally speaking I favor tax credits, lower taxes, etc., but I resent the fact that the tax code is used to control behavior–that is why it is so long. It really is time to build a tax code with two or three deductions that everyone can understand and that results in everyone paying some taxes. We all need skin in the game so that when our legislators start giving money away to people who do not need it, everyone will complain,.

Sometimes The World Is Just Upside Down

I am a grandmother to nine grandchildren. Some of them are directly related to me, some married into the family. They are all great kids and their parents are working hard to educate them and help them become worthwhile members of society. None of their parents are wealthy, but all of them are hard-working and care about their children’s education. Some have been saving since their children were born, and some have not been so frugal. Hopefully, all of these grandchildren will find a way to get the education they need to get the jobs they want. Meanwhile, not everyone struggles to put an education and a life together. I’m fine with that, but sometimes benefits are taken from those who deserve them and given to people who are simply not legally entitled to them.

Investor’s Business Daily posted an article yesterday about a recent graduate of the University of California San Diego. Indira Esparza, an illegal alien, who waved the Mexican flag at her graduation. So why do I have a problem with this?

The article explains some of Ms. Esparza’s background:

First, she won a coveted place at UCSD’s cushy La Jolla-based Preuss charter school, displacing a legal resident in an elite, taxpayer-funded school. After that, she was showered with resources for illegals.

“She received a scholarship from the Patricia and Christopher Weil Family Foundation to help support her undergraduate studies at U.C. San Diego,” the UCSD public relations website reads. Still better, she got $10,000 cash from the Chancellor’s Associate Scholars program launched in 2013.

“The program essentially provides a full-ride and loan-free UC San Diego financial aid package to eligible students from several underserved high schools,” UCSD said.

Esparza called it “ridiculously awesome” in a 2013 interview with the San Diego Union-Tribune. “I don’t have to worry so much about my finances. I always have money for books. I have money to buy my parking pass. I have gas money.”

Unusual? Not really. Just this month, Facebook billionaire Mark Zuckerberg donated $5 million for college tuition for 400 illegals through the TheDream.US foundation.

She may be totally deserving of every honor in the book, but because of the benefits she received as an illegal alien, a child who is in this country legally was denied those benefits. I wouldn’t have cared if those benefits went to a non-American child as long as the child receiving the benefits was in America legally. Our first priority in giving aid to students in America should be to students who are here legally. Ms. Esparza came here (or may have been brought here as a chld) illegally and has now chosen to throw the Mexican flag in the faces of the people who provided for her education. How rude. Let’s help American children get an education before we spend millions of dollars on benefits for people who are not legally entitled to them.

 

These People Have Way Too Much Time On Their Hands

Have you ever wondered about the country we will leave our children? They will never know the smell of burning leaves in autumn or the experience of walking to the corner store to get penny candy (penny candy causes obesity and one Maryland couple is being investigated for letting their two children walk home from the neighborhood park). Now the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has a new target–backyard barbeque grills.

The Washington Examiner posted an article yesterday about the latest meddling by the EPA into our everyday lives.

The article reports:

The agency announced that it is funding a University of California project to limit emissions resulting in grease drippings with a special tray to catch them and a “catalytic” filtration system.

The $15,000 project has the “potential for global application,” said the school.

The school said that the technology they will study with the EPA grant is intended to reduce air pollution and cut the health hazards to BBQ “pit masters” from propane-fueled cookers.

Charged with keeping America‘s air, water and soil clean, the EPA has been increasingly looking at homeowners, especially their use of pollution emitting tools like lawn mowers.

I wonder how much the addition of a catalytic converter will add to the price of a barbeque grill, making cook outs a luxury only the rich can afford.

The article explains:

But, total capture isn’t “practical,” so a filter and fan are proposed for installation. “The secondary air filtration system is composed of a single pipe duct system which contains a specialized metal filter, a metal fan blade, a drive shaft, and an accompanying power system with either a motorized or manual method. This system can be powered by either an exterior electric motor with a chain-driven drive shaft, directly spinning the fan blade, or a hand-powered crank,” said the project write-up.

The grant is part of the EPA’s “National Student Design Competition for Sustainability Focusing on People, Prosperity and the Planet (2014).”

Good grief!

I Realize That I Am Probably In The Minority Here, But…

CNN reported today that University of California officials said Tuesday they will pay the medical expenses of students who were pepper sprayed during an Occupy Davis protest last week. Accuracy In Media posted a story on Monday about the media distortion of the event. I tend to fall more on the side of Accuracy in Media than CNN.

There is an extended video of the pepper spraying incident which shows the police asking the seated protesters numerous times to move. The protesters ignored the police. At that point, the protesters were breaking the law. As someone who has been at the scene of right-to-life protests, I can tell you that the police were very patient with the University protesters. Protest is a right under our constitution; blocking a road or pathway is not.

If the police have no way of moving protesters, where is the enforcement of law? The police are asked to keep order in our communities, do we really want to take the ability to do that away from them?

I am sorry that the students were pepper sprayed, but had they moved as they were asked to do when they were asked, they would not have been. Was this entire incident a set-up to try to gain support for the Occupiers? Are we being manipulated by the press? Those are the questions we need to ask.

Enhanced by Zemanta