5 Injured at Terrifying Rally in Sacramento

At least five people injured including some in critical after ‘mass stabbing’ at neo-Nazi rally in California

  • Authorities say they responded to a ‘mass casualty’ event in Sacramento 
  • At least five people are in hospital, some reported to be in critical condition
  • Stabbings happened at event organized by the Traditionalist Worker Party
  • Members are believed to have clashed with counter-demonstrators

At least five people have been rushed to hospital including several in critical condition after a mass stabbing at a neo-Nazi rally in Los Angeles today.

The attacks are thought to have come amid clashes between the far-right activists and counter-demonstrators outside the Capitol building in Sacramento.

Police were eventually forced to use tear gas in order to disperse the demonstrators, according to local reports.

At least five people have been rushed to hospital, some in critical condition, after clashes between members of a neo-Nazi political party and counter-demonstrators in Sacramento (pictured, injured neo-Nazis)

Emergency crews responded to the scene of the attacks at around 11.45am, with local stations reporting that tear gas was used to break up the demonstrations after people were stabbed (pictured, a victim is treated on the ground)

Emergency crews were called to the area at 11.45am and found victims strewn across the grounds outside of the Capitol building.

Around an hour later police had cordoned off parts of the area and most of the demonstrators had left, according to the LA Times.

Demonstrations by the Traditionalist Worker Party had been planned for several weeks, while posts on social media suggest counter-demonstrations were also well-organized.

Images from the scene show dozens of counter demonstrators lined up in front of the Capitol building, vastly outnumbering the the neo-Nazis protesters gathered in the park opposite.

Video from the scene suggests the clashes took place in the park, with footage showing people being dragged, kicked and punched as violence broke out.

 

More here from DailyMail.

Who is behind this? Check out their series of videos.

 

Entitlements for Dreamers, There is an App for That

Play this short video. Ever wonder about the dreams of Americans who would like to attend schools of higher education that cant because the class size limits are met by foreigners? If these ‘dreamers’ need aid and assistance then how about their home countries paying for it? Rhetorical for sure.

Another rhetorical question….How about home countries provide internal dreamer conditions?

 

Related reading: Facts, numbers and charts

Last year from the White House:

Summary:
The President met with six young “DREAMers” in the Oval Office, all of whom were brought to America by their parents, and — until recently — faced a difficult situation because of their immigration status. The President’s executive action on immigration is changing that.
President Barack Obama shows the Resolute Desk to a group of DREAMers, following their Oval Office meeting in which they talked about how they have benefited from the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, Feb. 4, 2015.

President Barack Obama shows the Resolute Desk to a group of DREAMers, following their Oval Office meeting in which they talked about how they have benefited from the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, Feb. 4, 2015. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)


“I don’t think there’s anybody in America who’s had a chance to talk to these six young people … who wouldn’t find it in their heart to say these kids are Americans just like us, and they belong here, and we want to do right by them.”

President Barack Obama, 2/4/2015


Each of the young people who stood in the Oval Office yesterday had one thing in common: They were all brought here by parents dreaming of a better life for their children in America.

Some of them arrived when they were simply months old. They were raised in American communities, often not realizing their status was any different from that of their classmates or neighbors. Many of them, as the President noted in remarks at the end of the meeting, didn’t discover that there was something different about them — something that might prevent them from giving back to their community and their country — until they were about to go to college.

There is also a Dreamer Portal.

The DREAM Act

Over three million students graduate from U.S. high schools every year. Most get the opportunity to test their dreams and live their American story. However, a group of approximately 65,000 youth do not get this opportunity; they are smeared with an inherited title, an illegal immigrant. These youth have lived in the United States for most of their lives and want nothing more than to be recognized for what they are, Americans.

The DREAM Act is a bipartisan legislation ‒ pioneered by Sen. Orin Hatch [R-UT] and Sen. Richard Durbin [D-IL] ‒ that can solve this hemorrhaging injustice in our society. Under the rigorous provisions of the DREAM Act, qualifying undocumented youth would be eligible for a 6 year long conditional path to citizenship that requires completion of a college degree or two years of military service.

For reference on your tax dollars and foreign aid:

In part by Devex: A number of U.S. agencies specifically target private sector partnerships and reforms to drive economic growth, and each of them received a budget increase — some quite significant — under the president’s proposed plan.

The U.S. Trade and Development Agency would see its budget increase by 22 percent if Obama’s request finds traction, a “plus-up” that comes after USTDA’s budget already jumped 19 percent last year. The relatively small agency, which seeks to connect U.S. companies with infrastructure investments in emerging markets, has been lauded from both sides of the political aisle.

The Millennium Challenge Corp., the Overseas Private Investment Corp. and the Export-Import Bank likewise saw budget increases in the 2015 budget request.

Each of these agencies is involved in the whole-of-government Power Africa initiative, a $7 billion U.S. government commitment to help double access to energy in sub-Saharan Africa.

The accompanying budget justification describes a robust role for using the additional funding provided under the president’s request in support of Power Africa’s goals, although some observers have wondered where the $7 billion will come from, and whether it really represents concrete administration commitments or merely aspirational targets.

Each agency’s specific contribution to the initiative cannot be parsed out of the 2015 numbers. However, the budget — together with the recent congressional vote in favor of the bipartisan “Electrify Africa Act,” which directs the president to create a strategy for alleviating energy poverty in Africa –—suggests Power Africa transactions are poised to represent a substantially larger percentage of the U.S. development portfolio next year.

Climate change

The issue of global climate change has risen in profile since Secretary of State John Kerry took office last year, but funding for the Global Climate Change Initiative remained at a flat $840 million in the 2015 request.

The administration has maintained that a significant portion of Power Africa transactions will target clean energy development on the continent, but attempts to strip OPIC of a controversial cap on carbon power investments has led some observers to question whether Power Africa is truly committed to a balanced blend of clean and conventional fuels.

Just as the President’s budget request does not specify how much it will spend directly on Power Africa, it also sheds little light on what portion of Power Africa’s transactions will focus on non-carbon energy sources.

That could leave climate change advocates wondering what’s in it for them — and whether the funding will ever match the rhetoric — when it comes to foreign affairs spending in 2015 and beyond.

Operating expenses, Middle East democracy

USAID receives a more than 20 percent increase to its operating budget in the president’s request, after a 10 percent reduction to that same account in 2014. While agency officials were confident they could sustain current operations using carry over funding this year, they also maintained that surplus funding will be gone by 2015 and that staffing and programs would suffer if the OE budget was not restored.

The agency will have to wait and see if Congress agrees with Obama’s show of support for investing in the agency’s ability to hire new staff and continue funding the USAID Forward agenda, which seeks procurement system reforms and increased agency capacity.

One past administration request — the Middle East North Africa Incentive Fund — has been scrapped in favor of a new, scaled-back version, the Middle East North Africa Initiative Reforms, which will use $225 million to support ”targeted programs that will advance the transitions under way across the region.”

Such pro-democracy language and overt funding for “locally-led change and emerging reformists” could be read as a response to criticism some have leveled at the administration that it has not done enough to support opposition groups and popular movements against entrenched autocrats.

Next steps

The president’s budget request marks the first step in an appropriations process that will play out for months and ultimately determine how the U.S. government prioritizes spending next year.

The proposal is strong on its message about a “new model of development,” which sees opportunities for partnerships with the private sector in spurring development gains, as well as an obligation for U.S. action to respond effectively when global hot spots ignite.

Some signals — the Electrify Africa Act and USTDA’s continued budget plus-ups, for example — suggest bipartisan support exists for the partnerships model of development, at least in some sectors. But it will be important to watch closely to see if the administration is nearly as successful in defending those priorities within the foreign affairs budget — like new emphases on maternal health and child stunting, and global climate change — that do not appear to lend themselves so easily to the mutual economic benefit argument.

California is real generous: Read the full document here.

California Dream Act AB-130 and AB-131
Allows students eligible for state financial aid to apply for and
receive;
* Institutional scholarships such as the UC
Grant, State University Grant & Educational
Opportunity Program funds;
* California Community College Board of
Governor (BOG) Fee Waivers;
* State financial aid, including Cal Grants and
Chafee Foster Youth for use at qualifying
public and private institutions

Dreamers California

 

 

 

 

Bill Clinton was a Chancellor of a University eh?

An online university at that and oh…imagine it is has been sued as well.

In 2015, Bill Clinton ended his role with a for-profit college system on Friday, nearly two weeks after his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, began her second presidential campaign and singled out that industry for criticism. More here from the New York Times.

  

The Clinton University Problem: Laureate Education Lawsuits Present Problem For Clintons

225px-Laureate_International_Universities_Logo220px-Clinton_and_jiangWhile largely ignored by the media, the Clintons have their own university scandal. Donald Trump has been rightfully criticized and sued over his defunct Trump University. There is ample support for claiming that the Trump University was fraudulent in its advertisements and operations. However, the national media has been accused of again sidestepping a scandal involving the Clintons that involves the same type of fraud allegations. The scandal involves the dubious Laureate Education for-profit college and entails many of the common elements with other Clinton scandals: huge sums given to the Clintons and questions of conflicts with Hillary Clinton during her time as Secretary of State. There are distinctions to draw between the two stories, but the virtual radio silence on the Clinton/Laureate story is surprising.


I have long been a critic of most online courses, though I am increasingly in the minority even on my faculty. However, the rise of online courses has allowed for an increase in dubious pitches and practices that prey upon people who cannot afford or attend a traditional academic institution.

Laureate Education has been sued over such programs as its Walden University Online offering, which many have alleged is a scam designed to bilk students of tens of thousands of dollars for degrees. Students says that they were repeatedly delayed and given added costs as they tried to secure degrees, leaving them deeply in debt.

The respected Inside Higher Education reported that Laureate Education paid Bill Clinton an obscene $16.5 million between 2010 and 2014 to serve as an honorary chancellor for Laureate International Universities. While Bill Clinton worked as the group’s pitchman, the State Department funneled $55 million to Laureate when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. That would seem a pretty major story but virtually no mainstream media outlet has reported it while running hundreds of stories on the Trump University scandal.

There was even a class action — like the Trump University scandal. Travis et al v. Walden University LLC, was filed in U.S. District Court in the District of Maryland but dismissed in 2015. It is not clear why it was dismissed. However, the size of the contract to Clinton, the payment from State and the widespread complaints over alleged fraud should warrant a modicum of attention to the controversy. The controversy has many of the familiar complaints over fraudulent online programs that take advantage of hard working people.

As an academic, I find both Trump University and Laureate to be deeply troubling stories. Yet, only one has been pursued by the media to any significant degree. I am not suggesting that Laureate as a whole is fraudulent. Moreover, there are distinctions that can be drawn with a university like Trump that is based entirely on the presumptive nominee and his promises in advertising. However, the money given to the Clintons, the involvement of the State Department, and the claims of fraud make this an obviously significant story in my view.

What do you think?

Time to Challenge Separation of Church and State

He is 7 years old. The schools don’t know the law. Political correctness has our country completely sideways. Beyond schools, how many other places are Constitution free zones?

Click here to see how this phrase of separation of church and state came to be.

Elementary School Calls Police on 7-Y-O Boy for Sharing Bible Verses

ChristianNews: First grader Adam Kotzian (C) does a spelling drill with classmates in his classroom at Eagleview Elementary school in Thornton, Colorado, March 31, 2010.

A California public school called a Los Angeles Deputy Sheriff in Palmdale to reprimand a 7-year-old student for handing out Bible verses, warning that such actions are “offensive.”

Santa Monica Observer reported that the student, who attends Desert Rose Elementary, had been handing out Bible verses given to him in the form of short notes from his mother, Christina Zavala, alongside his lunch.

The young boy distributed the Bible verses while standing on a public sidewalks outside the school.

He also shared other verses and short Bible stories among his friends, until a first-grade teacher saw one of those notes. The teacher reportedly publicly rebuked the boy, and then called his parents, warning them that such actions go against the separation of church and state.

The boy, however, allegedly continued to distribute Bible verses out at the school gate, and subsequently he and his parents were told by the school’s principal that what they were doing is not permitted.

Later that day, a Los Angeles deputy sheriff went to the family’s home to inform the parents that Desert Rose Elementary School had filed a report against the child for sharing Bible verses.

The Liberty Counsel, a nonprofit litigation organization which specializes in defending religious freedom, has since sent a letter to the Palmdale School District to inform the administration of the correct interpretation of the clause establishing separation of church and state, arguing that pupils have the right to exercise freedom of speech through printed materials.

“Therefore, it was improper to ban student religious discussion during lunchtime. The district cannot suppress and censor this discussion, or the one-page notes consisting of Bible stories and verses placed by C’s mother in C ‘s lunch for his own personal enjoyment and edification; which he voluntarily chose to share with his little friends during non-instructional time; which interested classmates were free to accept or refuse, at their own discretion,” the letter stated.

“The additional copies requested by C from his mother, for his friends (who had specifically requested them from him), are likewise protected, and fall into no classification of material that might be lawfully prohibited by the school district,” it added.

“The consigning of C’s speech to the ‘schoolhouse gate,’ and then the prohibition of it even there, is unconstitutional, and must fall. Finally, if being censured for religious expression by one’s First Grade teacher in front of one’s classmates is not intimidating and humiliating enough, the message of hostility to a child’s religious expression is underscored by the District calling law enforcement for a ‘follow-up visit ‘ to his house.”

Public schools in America often face questions regarding the separation of church and state when it comes to Bible verses used on school campus.

Some compromises include allowing the distribution of biblical material have allowed other groups to hand out their religious, or anti-religious material, such as atheist handbooks, and satanist pamphlets.

 

Public School Costs/Results

It would be important for all owners of real estate regardless of whether there are school aged children to ask some hard questions of the respective school system. Chicago is a symptom of a big problem where results are quite questionable.

The Real Cost of CPS Borrowing: District Now Owes $38,000 per Student

ManhattanInstitute: By all accounts, Chicago Public Schools has made significant academic progress over the last 15 years. Since 2003 the district’s proficiency rates on the National Assessment of Educational Progress exam have more than doubled in math and have nearly doubled in reading.

But this progress is now threatened by severe financial mismanagement. The district faces a budget crisis driven by the rising cost of past, unpaid bills that is crowding out spending on today’s teachers and students.

CPS’ budget crisis was not created overnight. For more than a decade, the district has struggled with a widening structural budget deficit. Since 2001, inflation-adjusted spending per pupil increased by nearly 40 percent. In 2001, CPS spent close to $12,000 per student; in 2015, $16,432. Yet revenue has not kept pace: CPS per-pupil revenue has not matched per-pupil spending, with revenue falling short, on average, by $1,000 per pupil since 2001. More recently, the revenue gap has widened to nearly $3,000 per year.

CPS has papered over its annual shortfalls by borrowing vast sums from bond markets. As a result, CPS bonds are now rated as “junk” and the district has to pay a huge premium to get anyone to buy them (three times the rate for benchmark government bonds).

What’s more, by failing to make the necessary pension contributions, CPS has borrowed even larger amounts from its current and former teachers through the pension fund—today the district owes the fund billions upon billions. CPS owes bondholders and the pension fund more than $38,000 for every student, up from less than $10,000 in 2001.

Rising debt service costs are beginning to take a real bite out of district resources. And CPS has scrambled to keep pace while protecting classroom spending. Since 2011, CPS has made nearly three-quarters of a billion dollars in budget cuts “away from the classroom,” with administrative and programmatic spending hit especially hard. Nevertheless, from 2001 to 2015, annual per-pupil inflation-adjusted spending has been hit hard as well:

  • Spending on textbooks has declined by 36 percent.
  • Spending on classroom supplies has fallen by nearly 60 percent.
  • Budgets for elementary school sports (coaching stipends and equipment) have been cut by the millions.
  • Annual per-pupil spending on capital repairs and replacement has dropped by 55 percent.

Because the majority of a school district’s spending is on salaries and benefits, there is only so much that can be cut beyond that. Which is why Chicago’s teachers are feeling the budgetary pressure. Since 2001, CPS teacher salaries, as a share of total CPS spending, have fallen by more than 10 percentage points, while pension contributions have jumped, from 2 percent of total CPS spending to more than 10 percent.

Teachers’ retirement benefits have also been reduced. Changes for new teachers instituted in 2011 represent an average total compensation cut of about 10 percent compared with teachers who began working before the changes took effect. For career teachers the drop is even larger—representing a reduction of more than 40 percent of the total potential benefit value.

There are only three ways to right CPS’ sinking financial ship: Secure additional revenue, reduce teachers’ retirement benefits, or cut services for current students. Start with revenue. Given that the Legislature is mired in a long-running budget standoff, securing significant additional state aid seems unlikely. Raising more local revenue faces another constraint: Chicago’s property tax increases are capped at the rate of inflation.

As for cuts to retiree benefits, the Illinois Supreme Court has prohibited pension reductions for all but future hires, thereby disallowing even the modest changes to teachers’ benefits. For these reasons, major service cuts to Chicago’s public schools—however undesirable—appear most plausible.