LA Now Requires Ethnic Studies For High School Graduation

Screen Shot 2014-12-09 at 12.02.40 PM

By Brian Anderson, December 9, 2014.

California ranks near the bottom in terms of education and the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) is one of the worst in the state. Rather than find a way to boost academic achievement and prepare its students to succeed, the district has decided to require ethnic studies classes for high school graduation.

The LA Times tells us the hilarious reason why:

The idea, brought forward by Board of Education members Bennett Kayser, George McKenna and Steve Zimmer, is aimed at narrowing the academic gap between minority students and their white and Asian peers by pushing students to achieve through the exploration of different perspectives in literature, history and social justice.

In other words, they want to give Latinos a softball class they can ace to make it seem like they’re doing well in school. Also, please note how Asians are no longer considered minorities. This interesting new phenomenon is also going on at Brown University, which excludes Asians from minority consideration.

So just what are these ethnic study classes going to be? Well, the school district has no idea. Sure, they have made them a requirement, but they don’t know what the classes will deal with specifically. An educator involved with the decision says that teachers will be free to tailor ethnic studies classes to their students.

“In East L.A., it might be Chicano history. In Koreatown, it might be Asian American courses,” said Jose Lara.

Will the white students get to take a European culture class? Ha ha. I’m just kidding. There are barely any white students in LAUSD. Check out these demographics:

In L.A. Unified, 74% of students are Latino and nearly 10% are African American.

If you factor in the Asians (which I do) and the other races, whites make up only 9% of all LAUSD students. My guess is during ethnic studies, the token white kid will be told to sit in the corner while the rest of the class discusses la raza and landscaping.

Putting this ethnic studies mandate into practice might be a tall order. The LA Times says there are more than 90 languages spoken by students in the district. Is LAUSD going to design over 90 different ethnic study courses? I doubt it. In fact I think the whole point of this requirement is to give Spanish-speaking students an easy class.

In fact this move was pushed by Latino teachers and students in an effort to get an expansion of Mexican American heritage classes.

This whole thing reminds me of a song Cheech Marin sang in the film Cheech & Chong’s Next Movie:

Mexican Americans love education so they go to night school and take Spanish and get a B.

Even with these classes, it’s still not a guaranteed A.

Is it a coincidence that when pronouncing the LAUSD acronym it sounds like “lost?” This school district is lost and completely clueless. The reason Latino students do so poorly and are unprepared for college isn’t because they don’t get enough Mexican Heritage classes. It’s because they have terrible math and reading skills.

Making ethnic studies a graduation requirement is not going to help anyone succeed in college or the real world. Admissions officers rarely look past low SAT scores and GPAs for ethnic studies credits. Employers are not impressed with how in-tune an applicant is with his or her own ethnicity. How about making math, science, and English a requirement for graduation instead?

Illegals flooding attorneys’ offices with calls…

Screen Shot 2014-11-20 at 7.44.28 PM

Immigrants wait, hope, plan for Obama order

SANTA ANA, Calif. (AP) — Immigrants in the country illegally already are flooding attorneys’ offices with calls to see if they can qualify under President Barack Obama’s yet-to-be-announced plan to shield as many as 5 million immigrants from deportation.

Obama facing opposition to immigration plan being outlined Thursday night Associated Press
President Obama To Announce Immigration Steps Thursday CBS Dallas Fort Worth (RSS)
Republicans consider government shutdown to thwart Obama on immigration MarketWatch
Here Are The Limits Of Obama’s Immigration Action Huffington Post
Immigrants face major hurdles in signing up to new Obama plan Reuters
Obama said he’ll reveal the long-awaited order on Thursday. Alex Galvez, an immigration lawyer in Los Angeles, said he’s going to need to add phone lines to keep up with the demand. Orange County, California-based immigration lawyer Annaluisa Padilla said she’s getting twice as many calls as usual since buzz intensified over the plan, which would also grant the immigrants work permits.

“It’s like the golden ticket,” she said. “Everybody who is calling my office is asking how can I get a work permit under Obama’s program? I am like, there is no Obama program yet.”

Obama is expected to take executive action to protect many of the estimated 11 million people in the country illegally from deportation after Congress failed to pass an immigration overhaul. Republicans are vehemently opposed to the president’s likely actions, with some conservative members threatening to pursue a government shutdown if he follows through on his promises to act on immigration before the end of the year.

While Obama has yet to reveal the details of his administrative order, immigrant advocates are gearing up to help millions determine if they are eligible to apply and steer them clear of fraudulent consultants and so-called notarios, who have been known to take immigrants’ money and promise to deliver even when they don’t qualify for benefits.

Immigrant advocacy groups in Southern California are planning workshops to inform community members about the order, including a 12,000-person forum at the Los Angeles Convention Center in mid-December, said Jorge-Mario Cabrera, a spokesman for the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles.

The New Mexico Immigrant Law Center is planning a to start a text messaging system targeting immigrants across the state, especially those in rural areas where legal services might not be easily accessible. Immigrant advocates in Florida are planning the same, and will also start a hotline in English and Spanish to keep community members informed.

In New York, immigration lawyers and nonprofits are preparing to hold clinics to help screen immigrants for the program.

Mayra Gallegos, a 33-year-old mother of two and trained nurse, is pinning her hopes on Obama’s plan. She came from Mexico a decade ago to join her husband, who has since gotten a green card. Her younger son was born here, and is an American. But she and her elder son have not been able to get their papers.

“What Obama is going to do, if he does it, would really help me and my son,” said Gallegos, who hopes to find a job as a nurse should she receive a work permit. “We’re always watching to see if there’s any news.”

But some advocates warned immigrants not to get their hopes up yet — especially with lawmakers threatening to thwart Obama’s plan.

“What I am telling my families to do is be prepared for war. We’re going to see a legislative arm do whatever they can to stop the president,” said Jessica Dominguez, an immigration attorney in Southern California. “I am not going to let my community be saddened again by words. We need action.”

Guess How Much California Taxpayers are Paying in Welfare Benefits to Illegals this Year…

Screen Shot 2014-11-20 at 12.05.35 PM

By Greg Campbell

Though California remains deeply in debt to the tune of $423 billion dollars, taxpayers in the Golden State are forking over a tremendous amount of money to illegal immigrants each year. This is happening as the Democrat governor maintains that California should remain a refuge for those who wish to come to this country illegally.

According to CBS News, California is on pace to be paying out $650 million this year to illegals in welfare benefits.

Using the sanitized term “undocumented” that mutes the inherent criminality of their actions, CBS Los Angeles reports:

Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich announced the latest figures from the Department of Public Social Services, which showed more than $376 million in CalWORKs benefits and food stamps combined have been distributed through July to illegal alien parents for their native-born children.

Approximately $54 million in welfare payments are issued each month, consisting of nearly $20 million in CalWORKs and $34 million in food stamp issuances, according to the data.

An estimated 100,000 children of 60,000 undocumented parents receive aid in Los Angeles County, according to Antonovich, who said this year’s projections — up about $1 million from the nearly $53 million in total benefits issued in July 2012 — underscore the economic impact of the nation’s immigration debate.

“When you add the $550 million for public safety and nearly $500 million for healthcare, the total cost for illegal immigrants to county taxpayers exceeds $1.6 billion dollars a year,” Antonovich said in a statement. “These costs do not even include the hundreds of millions of dollars spent annually for education.”
When Democrats (and soft, moderate Republicans) discuss this issue, they weave a narrative that hinges on some supposed humanitarian duty to open our borders to those who wish to come here illegally and the assertion that doing so will somehow strengthen our economy.

In reality, illegal immigration is not only an abuse of our national sovereignty, but with so many receiving welfare assistance, it’s undeniable that illegal immigration hurts our economy on a state and national level.


Screen Shot 2014-11-06 at 5.27.18 PM

Evidence and justice irrelevant in politically charged case

A law professor in Indiana is predicting a repeat of the Rodney King riots that wracked Los Angeles if Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson is not brought up on charges.

“The LA riots with Rodney King is what should be expected to happen in Ferguson,” Jeannine Bell, a professor of law at Indiana University Maurer School of Law, told CBS St. Louis. “Brown’s death was very detrimental to the community. The individuals who are protesting now have suggested in speaking to the press given the ongoing protests in Ferguson that that could happen.”

Autopsies have shown that Wilson was attacked by Michael Brown and the teen had tried to grab the officer’s firearm.

“I think he’s unlikely to be indicted, based on the leaks in recent weeks,” said Clarissa Hayward, an associate professor in the political science department at Washington University in St. Louis. “There’s been much apprehension about that. The local police have purchased more riot gear and some of the local school districts have requested that the announcement not come on a school day. What I have observed about the protesters is that they are peaceful day in and day out. I think we need to be very careful about using the word ‘riot,’ which suggests that’s not the case. But could see violence following the announcement of the grand jury decision? Yes, that’s a real possibility.”
“Surely people will be angry if Wilson is not indicted, but people are already angry,” Hayward said. “And with a large group of people who are angry, especially if the police don’t handle the situation well, there likely will be conflict. In St. Louis there are protests every single day. If he is indicted those are not likely to stop. Still, I think that would be a positive thing for the city, because a public trial would introduce much-needed transparency. The reason that Ferguson has captured the nation’s attention is that it stands for a larger problem that exists all over the United States.”

In other words, it is irrelevant if a grand jury decides there is not enough evidence to indict Wilson. According to Brown’s supporters the political dimension of the Michael Brown shooting with its attendant social issues are more important than justice.

This situation is now possible in America due to a political orthodoxy developed over the last three decades by the left – in particular, the development of a victimhood culture – have skewered centuries of common law.

If Wilson is indicted and convicted despite evidence showing he acted in self-defense, a message will be sent not only to police but to all Americans – killing a member of a government protected minority in self-defense will not be excusable and will be considered tantamount of murder.

Who Do They Think We Are? The administration’s Ebola evasions reveal its disdain for the American people.

Screen Shot 2014-10-17 at 4.56.30 PM

The administration’s handling of the Ebola crisis continues to be marked by double talk, runaround and gobbledygook. And its logic is worse than its language. In many of its actions, especially its public pronouncements, the government is functioning not as a soother of public anxiety but the cause of it.

An example this week came in the dialogue between Megyn Kelly of Fox News and Thomas Frieden, director of the Centers for Disease Control.

Their conversation focused largely on the government’s refusal to stop travel into the United States by citizens of plague nations. “Why not put a travel ban in place,” Ms. Kelly asked, while we shore up the U.S. public-health system?

Dr. Frieden replied that we now have screening at airports, and “we’ve already recommended that all nonessential travel to these countries be stopped for Americans.” He added: “We’re always looking at ways that we can better protect Americans.”

“But this is one,” Ms. Kelly responded.

Dr. Frieden implied a travel ban would be harmful: “If we do things that are going to make it harder to stop the epidemic there, it’s going to spread to other parts of—”

Ms. Kelly interjected, asking how keeping citizens from the affected regions out of America would make it harder to stop Ebola in Africa.

“Because you can’t get people in and out.”

“Why can’t we have charter flights?”

“You know, charter flights don’t do the same thing commercial airliners do.”

“What do you mean? They fly in and fly out.”

Dr. Frieden replied that limiting travel between African nations would slow relief efforts. “If we isolate these countries, what’s not going to happen is disease staying there. It’s going to spread more all over Africa and we’ll be at higher risk.”

Later in the interview, Ms. Kelly noted that we still have airplanes coming into the U.S. from Liberia, with passengers expected to self-report Ebola exposure.

Dr. Frieden responded: “Ultimately the only way—and you may not like this—but the only way we will get our risk to zero here is to stop the outbreak in Africa.”

Ms. Kelly said yes, that’s why we’re sending troops. But why can’t we do that and have a travel ban?

“If it spreads more in Africa, it’s going to be more of a risk to us here. Our only goal is protecting Americans—that’s our mission. We do that by protecting people here and by stopping threats abroad. That protects Americans.”

Dr. Frieden’s logic was a bit of a heart-stopper. In fact his responses were more non sequiturs than answers. We cannot ban people at high risk of Ebola from entering the U.S. because people in West Africa have Ebola, and we don’t want it to spread. Huh?

In testimony before Congress Thursday, Dr. Frieden was not much more straightforward. His answers often sound like filibusters: long, rolling paragraphs of benign assertion, advertising slogans—“We know how to stop Ebola,” “Our focus is protecting people”—occasionally extraneous data, and testimony to the excellence of our health-care professionals.

It is my impression that everyone who speaks for the government on this issue has been instructed to imagine his audience as anxious children. It feels like how the pediatrician talks to the child, not the parents. It’s as if they’ve been told: “Talk, talk, talk, but don’t say anything. Clarity is the enemy.”

The language of government now is word-spew.

Dr. Frieden did not explain his or the government’s thinking on the reasons for opposition to a travel ban. On the other hand, he noted that the government will consider all options in stopping the virus from spreading here, so perhaps that marks the beginning of a possible concession.

It is one thing that Dr. Frieden, and those who are presumably making the big decisions, have been so far incapable of making a believable and compelling case for not instituting a ban. A separate issue is how poor a decision it is. To call it childish would be unfair to children. In fact, if you had a group of 11-year-olds, they would surely have a superior answer to the question: “Sick people are coming through the door of the house, and we are not sure how to make them well. Meanwhile they are starting to make us sick, too. What is the first thing to do?”

The children would reply: “Close the door.” One would add: “Just for a while, while you figure out how to treat everyone getting sick.” Another might say: “And keep going outside the door in protective clothing with medical help.” Eleven-year-olds would get this one right without a lot of struggle.

If we don’t momentarily close the door to citizens of the affected nations, it is certain that more cases will come into the U.S. It is hard to see how that helps anyone. Closing the door would be no guarantee of safety—nothing is guaranteed, and the world is porous. But it would reduce risk and likelihood, which itself is worthwhile.

Africa, by the way, seems to understand this. The Associated Press on Thursday reported the continent’s health-care officials had limited the threat to only five countries with the help of border controls, travel restrictions, and aggressive and sophisticated tracking.

All of which returns me to my thoughts the past few weeks. Back then I’d hear the official wordage that doesn’t amount to a logical thought, and the unspoken air of “We don’t want to panic you savages,” and I’d look at various public officials and muse: “Who do you think you are?”

Now I think, “Who do they think we are?”

Does the government think if America is made to feel safer, she will forget the needs of the Ebola nations? But Americans, more than anyone else, are the volunteers, altruists and in a few cases saints who go to the Ebola nations to help. And they were doing it long before the Western media was talking about the disease, and long before America was experiencing it.

At the Ebola hearings Thursday, Rep. Henry Waxman (D., Calif.) said, I guess to the American people: “Don’t panic.” No one’s panicking—except perhaps the administration, which might explain its decisions.

Is it always the most frightened people who run around telling others to calm down?

This week the president canceled a fundraiser and returned to the White House to deal with the crisis. He made a statement and came across as about three days behind the story—“rapid response teams” and so forth. It reminded some people of the statement in July, during another crisis, of the president’s communications director, who said that when a president rushes back to Washington, it “can have the unintended consequence of unduly alarming the American people.” Yes, we’re such sissies. Actually, when Mr. Obama eschews a fundraiser to go to his office to deal with a public problem we are not scared, only surprised.

But again, who do they think we are? You gather they see us as poor, panic-stricken people who want a travel ban because we’re beside ourselves with fear and loathing. Instead of practical, realistic people who are way ahead of our government.