Tuesday, January 7, 2014

Capitol Hill vote on unemployment benefits delayed

reid_harry_041510.jpg


A preliminary Senate vote to extend unemployment benefits was postponed Monday night after the extreme cold across much of the country prevented some senators from traveling back to Washington.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid -- who vowed to make the vote his “first item of business”upon returning to Capitol Hill from winter break -- rescheduled the vote for Tuesday.
The bipartisan bill to extend long-term benefits to 1.3 million unemployed Americans will cost $26 billion and needs 60 votes in the Senate on its way to a final vote.
However, Reid will need at least four Republicans to votes yes in the 100-member upper chamber, which has 45 Republicans, 53 Democrats and two Independents, who typically vote with Democrats.
Eighteen senators missed the vote earlier Monday night that confirmed Janet Yellen as chairman of the Federal Reserve, which appeared to make the jobless benefits vote too close for Reid, whose decision to postpone received unanimous consent.
Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins, among the Senate Republicans considered likely to support the bill, said Monday that she got a call in the morning from President Obama looking for her support and that she would vote yes in the first round.
But whether she would cast a final vote in favor of the extension was unclear.
Collins told Fox News she would like to restructure the unemployment program, particularly linking the extension to job training for workers in dwindling industries and that she expressed her disappointment to Obama that Reid was not allowing amendments.
Illinois Sen. Mark Kirk, another Senate Republican who was considered a possible yes vote,  suggested Monday afternoon he is against the extension because the spending is not being offset by cuts.
Senator Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said he will vote against the bill, as expected.
“Unfortunately, this bill is being jammed through, has not been considered in committee and will not be able to be amended on the floor,” he said. “Spending [billions] in three months without trying to find ways to pay for it or improve the underlying policy is irresponsible and takes us in the wrong direction.”
The money for Americans unemployed for at least six months was cut from a budget deal passed in late December, but not before Republicans made clear they would not restore the money unless Democrats agreed to the so-called offsets.
Reid and Obama have led the Democrats in calling for passage of the legislation that is sponsored by Nevada Republican Sen. Dean Heller and Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Jack Reed.
“Instead of celebrating the beginning of a new year on January 1, more than a million Americans …were left wondering how they would feed their families,” Reid said Monday on the Senate floor before delaying the vote. “I hope a few reasonable and empathetic Republicans will join my colleague from Nevada and help us advance this bill today.”
The extension faces an even more uncertain future in the Republican-led House, where leaders say the cost must be offset.
"I would like to find a way to get a compromise to extend unemployment insurance, at least for a brief period of time, but at the same time, the Democrats should make compromises," Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., told CBS on Sunday.
Critics of the plan also argue the benefits have been in place longer and paid out more than in past recessions.
Obama earlier called the cuts “just plain cruel,” and is scheduled to give a White House speech Tuesday, surrounded by unemployed Americans, to push for the benefits.
Restoring the money appears critical to Democratic lawmakers who need to energize core voters in the midterm elections, which typically have low voter turnout. It also is part of their large, emerging pl

Sunday, January 5, 2014

Romney accepts MSNBC host's apology

MSNBC host apologizes for jokes about Romney baby     
 Bailey comment:  "Seems like someone up there in the ranks has a little class"!

A day after MSNBC's Melissa Harris-Perry issued a tearful on-air apology to Mitt Romney for joking about his adopted black grandson, the former Massachusetts governor accepted it as "clearly heartfelt."
“I recognize that people make mistakes," Romney said on "Fox News Sunday." “And the folks at MSNBC made a big mistake. They’ve apologized for it. And that’s all you can ask for.”
On her show last week, Harris-Perry showed the Romney family Christmas card: a photo of the family and his grandchildren — including Kieran, an African-American child adopted by one of Romney's sons. Harris-Perry and her guests then joked that it was the 2012 Republican nominee's "token" attempt at diversity.
On Saturday, Harris-Perry apologized. "Showing the photo in that context, that segment, was poor judgment," she said. "Adults who enter into public life, implicitly consent to having less privacy, but their families, especially their children, should not be treated callously or thoughtlessly. My intention was not malicious, but I broke the ground rule that families are off-limits. For that I am sorry."
“People like me are fair targets," Romney said on Sunday. "If you get in the political game, you can expect incoming. But children, that’s beyond the line. And I think they understand that."
He added: “I think it’s a heartfelt apology. And for that reason, we hold no ill will whatsoever.”
Also Sunday, Romney, who managed the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, said he's confident the upcoming games in Socchi will be safe from a terrorist attack.
"I'm convinced, the case of a nation like Russia, they have the resources to do their very best to protect people from that kind of attack," Romney said.

I’m madder than hell and I’m not going to take it anymore

I’m yelling at the top of my lungs, I’m madder than hell and I’m not going to take it anymore. We all should know this little refrain. Yet how many of us are so damn fed up we are throwing open our windows, shouting into the street, and telling the world, this is insanity—we as a nation do not deserve this!
How anyone in their right mind, not some hallucination of smoking marijuana and retarding their minds ability to think, cannot and is not beyond screaming about the attack occurring on this nation is beyond me. Today, thanks to not only the leadership of the dumbest man to ever walk upright on this planet, but a congress that has no more idea of this nation’s design that----? There is no one anywhere else on the face of this planet that doesn’t understand this nation more than the absolute ideocracy of the actions and proposals of this nation’s political parties. I mean ‘both’ political parties, the communist dyed in the wool Democrats, and the damn ignorant communist light of the Republicans.
When I think of this nation’s wonder, I wonder what in the hell are the people, the citizens of this nation thinking. How can any society, of people who profess to be civilized, who make the façade they are homo sapiens—with the ability to think and reason—elect the cause of our demise, the political parties that are politically motivated for their own self-interest than this nation’s wonder.
Every American, who is part of our society—you work providing goods and services—trading you wealth…your life…in exchange for earnings, exchanging your life for currency wealth of transfer can sit idly by while the government is stealing all they can is inconceivable. The government in every way possible uses the corruption of economics to steal from each and every individual every single second, of every hour, of every day and year of your life. While the government is indebting, your progeny into debt they will never be able to pay!  Reducing our society to slaves of the government, and the citizens, the people of this nation do not react is beyond the reasoning of rational man.   
This nation isn’t ignorant, or are we? The man who developed the communist design of destroying this nation—John Maynard Keynes—told us how it works. ‘The design is simple, for the process engages all the hidden force of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million can diagnose!’  What tripe, anyone, any man or woman who has watched the absolute debauchery, the destruction of the value of wealth by this administration and this congress that cannot identify how it destroys is in cognitive of reality? Who in the hell is so ignorant to not realize that the prices of groceries hasn’t been going up exponentially since this absolute disgrace has been elected. Your electric bill, has it gone down? I won’t even mention the absolute fiasco of the medical servicing destruction occurring, for if you don’t know that you can qualify as a Coloradan—worrying about legalizing marijuana so you can destroy your ability to think—than the reality of living in this world.
It ain’t even begun. The bureaucratic communist attack of central planning on the books designed for initiation this year will make the last 5 years of tragedy seem like an interlude of serene calm.
Well I’m not going to take it! I’m going to do everything in my power—shout at the top of my lungs, refuse to acquiesce, lie down like the spineless Republican Party and imitate a door mat. I’m standing with Dwayne Stovall.
You see, Dwayne Stovall as Texans do, has followed the path first identified by Colonel Travis at the Alamo. Travis’s request was simple, while identical with the same position that Swayne Stovall is taking today, ‘if you stand with me, you stand for Texas, and you stand for this nation cross this line and join me.’
We don’t have to meet in San Antonio and man the walls, but what we must do is just as important. We must become the agents for this nation’s preservation. We must be the campaigners to wake up the ignorant, the naïve, and the complacent to the danger this nation is in. We also must open our wallets; contribute our wealth, of our exchange of life for currency, to fight the powers of the political parties. For the political parties only put up their puppets for the political parties self-interest, the hell with Texans, the hell with this nation. As long as their greed, their crony capitalism, their debaucher of the monetary value of this nation satisfies their wants—and their wants only.
You have a choice; you can stand idly by and watch the government through taxation steal the wealth in your wallet. Alternatively, you can become pro-active and cross that line, stand with Stovall, and do every damn thing you can to insure the ‘Preservation of This…WONDROUS…Nation.’
Cross that line, learn “HOW TO KEEP THE GOVERNMETN FROM STEALING FROM YOU!’ Remember that after March 4th, if we don’t succeed, this nation will once again have a senator from Texas not for Texans, but for the Political Party of acquiescence, the door mats of the current communist intrusion destroying this nation.
http://texansforstovall.com/12_steps_to_beat_government_theft.pdf  
My names Dan Short,
I not only approve this message, I wrote it.
I’ve not gained any position of our society by government dictate advancing inequality. I’ve not been allowed into Harvard where I smoked marijuana, and studied Marx. However, I’ve learned that the last thing this nation requires is any damn fundamental transformation.
I also know, that I stand with any American who stands for the ‘Preservation of this Nation.’ For if you don’t you are as much of an enemy to me—as any other enemy this nation has, foreign or domestic. 

Exposing the world's great lie about ObamaCare and socialized medicine




In health care, 2013 was a year of great irony. In the United States, the Obama administration bullheadedly forged ahead in advancing the most controversial and expensive law in recent memory, the deceptively named Affordable Care Act.
The law, opposed by a clear and consistent majority of citizens, immediately caused millions of Americans to lose their health insurance along with their choice of doctor and hospital, and millions more to pay far higher insurance premiums.
While the focus has been on the embarrassing roll-out that, at a minimum, demonstrated both the incompetence and the poor judgment of this administration, the true harm of this law is still to come as new government authority over U.S. health care dramatically increases.
Concurrently, Britain’s National Health Service (NHS), the paradigm of government-controlled health care, turned 65 years old in 2013 and officially entered senior citizenship.
The NHS received its review by the British press this past year on an almost daily basis.
Headlines blared across the UK, endlessly documenting scandalous patient care, shameful waiting lists, catastrophic hospital practices, and financial debacle.
Directly undermining those who advocate for an even stronger role for government in U.S. health care, the British press has instead been documenting the disgraceful state of the NHS.
Despite what Americans are led to believe about nationalized health systems, including the claims that everyone is insured and care is free under such systems, the facts about what’s really important in health care --- actual medical care access and quality -- showed the harmful impact of government control on health care.
One critical distinction generally lost amid the naïve but passionate backers of nationalized insurance is the difference between being insured and having access to care.
Despite the chest-thumping that everyone is insured, U.K. citizens relying on the NHS experience unconscionable problems with access to care, problems not even remotely found in the U.S.
How poor is access to care in socialized systems like the NHS? Access problems are so widespread that the government was compelled to issue England’s 2010 “NHS Constitution” in which it was declared that no patient should wait beyond 18 weeks for treatment.
It is noteworthy enough that the UK government felt so much pressure from the systemic failures of its NHS that they were forced to issue “rights” to patients about receiving medical care.
But should it not bring chills that the government of free people, in the 21st century, had the authority to define those rights about seeking and receiving personal medical care? And even more Kafkaesque is the government’s boldness to define lengthy target times and then to claim that standards have been met. Indeed, designed to propagate the illusion of meeting quality standards, the government decreed that targets were met, even if patients waited a full four months after the diagnosis was made for treatment to begin.
What is the current status of access to care, now that the rights of NHS patients to medical care were enumerated?
At the end of June, the number of people waiting in England to start NHS treatment was 240,000 higher than the same time last year.
NHS England figures for July showed that 508,555 people in London alone were waiting for operations or other treatment to begin — the highest total for at least five years.
Almost 60,000 more patients were waiting for treatment at the capital’s 34 NHS hospitals than one year ago. According to NHS data released in August, hospital waiting lists soared to a five-year high, with almost 2.9 million patients with a known diagnosis in the queue for treatment.
In Wales, the number of patients waiting more than nine months for hospital treatment in November had more than doubled in six months. The Welsh government also reported their NHS is still failing to treat 8 to 13% of the most urgent cancer cases within 62 days – two full months after diagnosis.
Even given a laughably long leash of an 18 week standard, the number of patients not being treated within the target of 18 weeks soared to 39,145 — up 16 per cent on the previous month -- in London alone.
The BBC discovered even more scandalous news back in February --  many patients initially assessed as needing surgery were subsequently re-categorized by the hospital so that they could be removed from waiting lists to distort the already unconscionable delays.
Royal College of Surgeons President Norman Williams, calling this “outrageous,” publicly charged that hospitals are cutting their waiting lists by artificially raising thresholds.
Though long proven by facts documented by the UK government and in scientific journals, these shocking waits for care, whether for specialist appointments, heart surgery, stroke treatment, diagnostic scans, or cancer care go virtually unreported by the U.S. media.
Ironically, U.S. media outrage was widespread when time to appointment for Americans averaged 20.5 days for five specialties in 2009. Escaping American media coverage was that those requests were for healthy check-ups in almost all cases, by definition the lowest medical priority.
It remains unreported that the U.S. wait for routine check-ups was significantly less than for sick Brits needing heart surgery (57 days), or Canadians with “probable cancer” of the gastrointestinal tract (26 days) or proven GI bleeding (71 days).
Even for purely elective routine physicals, U.S. waits are shorter than for seriously ill patients in countries with nationalized insurance.
The disgrace of nationalized insurance systems extends far beyond limited access to care.
Comparing data for cancer, heart disease, and stroke, the most common sources of serious illness and death in the U.S. and Europe, and the diseases that generate the highest medical expenditures, we see the overt failure of the NHS and its socialist relatives compared to the U.S. And the same bottom line is true for the most important chronic diseases that portend long term morbidity and mortality, including high blood pressure, diabetes, and high cholesterol.
All have better access to care and better treatment results in the U.S. than in the U.K., proven by studies in the world’s leading medical journals.
Adding to those undeniable facts is a long list of inexcusable scandals in NHS hospitals that were repeatedly discovered, investigated, and catalogued with promises of change this past year.
These outrages were epitomized in 2013 by the Staffordshire Trust debacle, where between 400 and 1,200 neglected and abused patients died in squalid and degrading circumstances, where patients were left so thirsty that drinking from the pots of watered plants was necessary.
Although unreported here in the U.S., the 2013 Francis report about Staffordshire NHS hospital, containing more than one million pages and 64,000 documents, and costing British taxpayers about $20 million, caused outrage even for those wedded to government-controlled health care.
While forcing the resignation of the NHS chief, the report more importantly officially called out the insidious negative culture in the NHS, involving a tolerance of unacceptably poor standards and patient neglect , a preoccupation with cost-cutting, targets and processes while losing sight of its fundamental responsibility to provide safe patient care.
Yet, the greatest deception of all about NHS-style socialized medicine, the silly canard that it provides “free” health care for everyone, was visible for anyone interested in facts in 2013.
The cost to British patients and taxpayers for their dismally performing NHS has been enormous and has increased by 94 per cent in real terms between 1999-2000 and 2009-2010. And even in the face of such outrageous money-wasting as reported in September that millions of non-existent “ghost” patients were registered at NHS surgeries costing taxpayers £750 million over five years, Secretary of State for
Health Jeremy Hunt intransigently argued against any restraints on the 2014 NHS budget of £114 billion ($175 billion), despite its shameful performance and lack of accountability.
And that cost still does not prevent a growing number of British taxpayers from looking elsewhere for medical care. About six million Brits now buy private health insurance, including almost two-thirds of Brits earning more than $78,700.
According to The Telegraph, the number of people paying for their own private care is up 20 percent year-to-year, with about 250,000 now choosing to pay for private treatment out-of-pocket each year.
Isn’t it notable that more than 50,000 Britons travel out of the country per year and spend £161 million to receive medical care due to lack of access, even though they are already paying for their NHS insurance?
Despite all of these realities, just as in America, many in positions of power refuse to accept the facts and continue to deceive the public.
Even the hard-hitting 2013 Staffordshire report still insisted near the top of its list of summary points that “the NHS is a service of which the country can be justly proud, offering as it does universal access to free medical care, often of the highest order.”
In a truly offensive effort to further manipulate the public about their failing system of socialized medicine, the NHS in London separately spent even more taxpayer money -- almost £13 million, or about $20 million -- on public relations in the last three years, as reported by the BBC.
Eerily echoing that disgraceful waste of hard-earned taxpayer money, our own Obama administration will spend about $684 million, as cited by the Associated Press, mainly on a massive campaign to convince young people to sign up for ObamaCare exchanges and purchase unnecessarily bloated, highly expensive insurance they don’t need or want.
Finally, the system often heralded as the model for US health care reform, offers access and quality of care so poor that Britain is now experiencing a serious brain drain of their young doctors.
The NHS has become hugely reliant on doctors trained outside the UK. An estimated 94,833 of the 259,719 doctors of all doctors registered with the General Medical Council, 36.5% of the total, are from foreign medical schools. And what is the solution to the disastrous waiting lists and disgraceful care in the NHS in the face of a considerable outflow of UK medical professionals?
The U.K. government is now considering sub-contracting operations to private firms from other countries.
Is anyone in the U.S. government watching this socialized medicine debacle unfold?
Yet, the stubborn pursuit of an overtly failed system like the NHS, where government controls medical care, is the model for ObamaCare, so the inexorable progression towards what we see in the U.K. should be in the minds of American voters as more components of the law unfold in 2014.
Ultimately, the only way out is for taxpayers and all U.S. citizens who care about choice, access, and quality of health care to make their voices heard.
Thankfully, another election is approaching.

Saturday, January 4, 2014

McCain, Graham blast Obama for Al Qaeda-related takeover of Fallujah, call situation 'predictable'

Fallujah_AQ.jpg


Republican senators on Saturday blamed the Obama administration for Al Qaeda affiliates over-running parts of Iraq, including the city of Fallujah, which the United States secured before President Obama removed all U.S. forces from that country in 2011.
Sen. John McCain, Arizona, and Lindsey Graham, South Carolina, called the recent turn of events “as tragic as they were predictable” and suggested Obama misled Americans into believing that Iraqi leaders wanted U.S. forces out of their country.
“While many Iraqis are responsible for this strategic disaster, the administration cannot escape its share of the blame,” the senators said in a joint statement. “When President Obama withdrew all U.S. forces … over the objections of our military leaders and commanders on the ground, many of us predicted that the vacuum would be filled by America's enemies and would emerge as a threat to U.S. national security interests. Sadly, that reality is now clearer than ever.”
The Al Qaeda-affiliated fighters took over Fallujah on Friday after a bloody three-day battle, raising their flag over government buildings as a sign of victory, according to The Washington Post.
At least eight people were killed and dozens injured Friday night as the Iraqi army tries to regain control of the city. The army, which lobbed mortar bombs in its response, has been joined in the fray by tribesmen from Ramadi, a Sunni stronghold.
U.S. forces secured Fallujah in 2004 after one of the deadliest battles of the Iraq war. Fallujah became notorious among Americans when insurgents in 2004 killed four American security contractors and hung their burned bodies from a bridge.
After the recent takeover by Al Qaeda-tied fighters, the Obama administration on Saturday called the attacks barbaric and said it is working with the Iraqi government and the tribal leaders.
“We are … concerned by efforts of the terrorist Al Qaeda/Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant to assert its authority in Syria as well as Iraq,” said State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf. “Their barbarism against civilians of Ramadi and Fallujah and against Iraqi Security Forces is on display for all to see.”
Major Sunni tribes turned against Al Qaeda before the American withdrawal at the end of 2011. But they do not support the Shiite-led government in Iraq, creating an odd alliance in the battle against militants.
“The administration's narrative that Iraq's political leadership objected to U.S. forces remaining in Iraq after 2011 is patently false,” said McCain and Graham, military hawks with an active interest in Middle East affairs. “We know firsthand that Iraq's main political blocs were supportive and that the administration rejected sound military advice and squandered the opportunity to conclude a security agreement with Iraq."
On Friday, the Al Qaeda affiliates tried to win over the population in Fallujah with a militant commander appearing among worshippers holding Friday prayers in the main city street, proclaiming that his fighters were there to defend Sunnis from the government, a resident said.
There have been no reports on the total number of people injured or killed in the fighting that started earlier this week.
The overrunning of Fallujah and Ramadi, another Sunni stronghold, by Al Qaeda’s Iraqi branch in the Sunni heartland of western Anbar provinces is a blow to the Shiite-led government of Prime Minister al-Maliki. His government has been struggling to contain discontent among the Sunni minority over Shiite political domination that has flared into increased violence for the past year.
Anbar province, a desert area on the borders with Syria and Jordan, has almost an entirely Sunni population. The area served as the heartland of the Sunni insurgency that rose up against American troops and the Iraqi government after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein. Authorities earlier this week arrested a senior Sunni politician and dismantled a months-old sit-in in Ramadi sparking anger among Sunnis.
In an effort to ease tensions, al-Maliki pulled the military out of Anbar cities to transfer security duties to local police, a top demand of Sunnis who see the army as a tool of al-Maliki’s rule. Al Qaeda militants then erupted in Fallujah and Ramadi overrunning police station, driving out security forces and freeing prisoners.
“Thousands of brave Americans who fought, shed their blood, and lost their friends to bring peace to Fallujah and Iraq are now left to wonder whether these sacrifices were in vain,” said McCain and Graham, who argued the administration’s failure in Iraq has been compounded by its failed policy in Syria.
That country is involved in a years-long civil war in which tens of thousands have been killed or driven from their homeland, which the senators say has resulted in a regional conflict that now threatens U.S. national security interests.
The senators also called on Obama to learn from the Iraq experience and promptly decide on the troop levels needed to secure U.S. national security interests in Afghanistan and to keep out Al Qaeda and its terrorist allies.

Michael Moore

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Administration to high court: Don't exempt Catholic groups from contraception mandate

Bailey comment: " This is our federal government out of control ".


The Obama administration on Friday asked the Supreme Court not to exempt Catholic groups from an ObamaCare requirement to offer contraceptive coverage, after the high court gave them a temporary reprieve earlier this week. 
The court filing comes in response to a surprise order -- issued shortly before coverage under the law went into effect -- by Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. The justice issued a stay late Tuesday preventing the government from enforcing the so-called contraceptive mandate against the Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged.
The group of Catholic nuns argues that the contraceptive coverage requirement violates their religious beliefs. To get around the mandate, they claim they'd have to sign a "permission slip" authorizing others to provide contraceptives and "abortion drugs" -- or pay a fine.
Lawyers for the group made one more plea for emergency relief late Friday, filing a 17-page brief with the court saying the reprieve spared the nuns from having to choose between violating their faith and facing IRS penalties. The brief claimed the government is "simply blind to the religious exercise at issue: the Little Sisters and other Applicants cannot execute the form because they cannot deputize a third party to sin on their behalf." 
But the Justice Department, responding just before the Friday morning deadline, reiterated its argument that the group has no foundation for its case. The administration says religious nonprofit groups such of this one can certify that they don't want to provide contraceptive coverage. In that case, it would be up to a third-party administrator to decide whether to provide it.
The DOJ filing noted that the administrator in this case "says it will not provide contraceptive coverage."
"Applicants have no legal basis to challenge the self certification requirement or to complain that it involves them in the process of providing contraceptive coverage," the administration claimed.
The Catholic group, though, has argued that even signing the certification form would violate the nuns' beliefs.
A lawyer with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing the group, blasted the administration over the filing.
"The government demands that the Little Sisters of the Poor sign a permission slip for abortion drugs and contraceptives, or pay of millions in fines. The Sisters believe that doing that violates their faith, and that they shouldn't be forced to divert funds from the poor elderly and dying people they've devoted their lives to serve," senior counsel Mark Rienzi said in a statement.
Government lawyers say the nuns' insurance is a "church plan" that is not required to provide contraception coverage and has decided not to, so they have no legal basis to complain.
It is not known when Sotomayor will make a decision.

Friday, January 3, 2014

Illegal Immigrant Allowed to Practice Law in California

Image: Illegal Immigrant Allowed to Practice Law in California  Bailey comment: "Unbelievable ".

 The California Supreme Court granted on Thursday a law license to an illegal Mexican immigrant who graduated from law school and passed the bar, a precedent setting decision and a key victory for immigration rights advocates, the New York Times and other news outlets reported.

The undocumented immigrant, California resident Sergio Garcia, 36, had challenged a 1996 federal law that bars illegal immigrants from obtaining professional licenses from government agencies or with the use of public funds, unless the state ruled otherwise.

In October, California was the first state in the nation to pass legislation that allows children who were brought to the U.S. by their undocumented parents to become lawyers.

Urgent: Do You Approve Or Disapprove of President Obama's Job Performance? Vote Now in Urgent Poll

The California Bar Assn. and California's Attorney General agreed that the status of citizenship should not be a requirement to receive a California law license.

But it was the State Supreme Court, which finalizes requests of applicants to be licensed as lawyers, which granted Garcia's application.

In its ruling the court wrote, "In light of the recently enacted state legislation, we conclude that the committee's motion to admit Garcia to the State Bar should be granted."

The federal government's opposition to granting Garcia a law license seemed to fly in the face of President Obama's program that allows illegal immigrants to avoid deportation and work here as long as they were brought to the U.S. as children, graduated high school, don't have a criminal record and are under 31. Garcia was too old.

In this case, the government had argued against Garcia practicing law because the court, which oversees the licensing of lawyers, is funded by public money.

Garcia was brought to the U.S. by his father to work in the almond fields. He later attended Cal Northern School of Law and passed the bar in 2009. He applied for citizenship 10 years ago.


Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/california-immigration-jerry-brown-law/2014/01/02/id/544908#ixzz2pO6MPBXN
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

CartoonDems