http;//www.Californiacontrarian.com

 

Well it’s happened again. Another study demonstrating the downside of the minimum wage increase – this time from a group at the University of Washington.
As I have asked multiple times in the past, “Do Democrats purposely do things that will hurt the poor the most?” . . . or. . . Are Democrats just dumb? Do they purposely embark on crusades that will have the outcomes opposite to what they say that they will have? Lest you think that I am being snarky, recall that the ACA, the Affordable Care Act, was far from affordable – in fact it is the dramatic rise in the cost of health insurance that is leading to its demise.
This leads me to one of the recent liberal crusades, the minimum wage; the increase of which the Democrats say will be beneficial for the poor. Just like the Affordable Care Act is not affordable, the increase in the minimum wage is not beneficial for the poor.

On 6/26/17 The National Bureau of Economic Research, in a new paper, notes that Seattle’s minimum wage ordinance has lowered low-wage employees earnings by $125 per month in 2016, as they are no longer working as many hours as they used to. The Seattle Times reported that there would be 5000 more jobs in the city without the law. The response from low-wage Seattle workers to the Democrats should be, “Thanks for the help, but please butt out!”

The most noticeable deleterious effects of the increasing minimum wage appear to be in the restaurant industry. New York State has lost approximately 1000 restaurants in the last year due primarily to the increasing minimum wage, and likewise in the winter of 2016-17 sixty-four San Francisco Bay Area restaurants have closed – again due to . . . you guessed it, the increasing minimum wage. The Harvard Business School stated that for every $1.00 increase in the minimum wage, there was a 14% increased likelihood of a medium-priced restaurant closing. They forecast that in the next two years the San Francisco restaurant industry would shrink, and workers thus would lose their jobs. The response from restaurateurs and their employees to the Democrats should be, “Thanks for the help, but please butt out!”

Not to be left out the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has said that with the increasing minimum wage that approximately 500,000 workers across the U.S. would lose their jobs. All of these potentially soon unemployed workers should say to the Democrats, “Thanks for your help, but please butt out!”

The American Enterprise Institute (using stats from the Bureau of Labor) recently said that the rising minimum wage has been disastrous for black male teens. The unemployment rate for this group has gone from 28.1% (May) to 40.1% (June) – the largest monthly increase since 1972. The Foundation for Economic Education’s Mark J. Perry connected this higher jobless rate to hikes in the minimum wage in fifteen states and cities across the U.S. The response from black teens to the Democrats should be, “Thanks for the help, but please butt out!”

The prominent black economist,Thomas Sewell, has said, “Low income minorities are often hit the hardest by the unemployment that follows in the wake of minimum wage laws.” Perhaps the low income minorities should say to the Democrats,”Thanks for the help, but please butt out!”

What you have to understand is that this is not rocket science!
It is basic economics that the Democrats refuse to try to understand.
N.B. If you artificially increase the cost of labor beyond the market value, businesses must pass this increased operational cost to employees (less hours, less benefits, or less jobs) or to customers (increased prices or decreased quality of goods), and when the prices go up or the quality goes down, the customers don’t come back, and so the restaurant has to close.
Again, not rocket science!

Is it possible that perhaps the Democrats do actually understand economics, but for whatever reason continue to push policies that hurt the poor!? How, when they continue to do the same thing, could they believe that the results would be different?
It seems to me that we are increasingly hearing the Democrats again implying that they know best, and they are, in effect,saying to the economists, “We don’t want your help, butt out!”

Apparently Al Franken (D,MN) has some concerns over the psychological state of President Trump. It is difficult to be sure if Mr. Franken is serious or if this is merely some comic relief from his usually tedious speeches. This astute commentary is from an ex-SNL writer and performer, who has demonstrated that anything is possible in the state of Minnesota. Unlike Franken, I do not have any concerns about Donald Trump’s sanity, however I do have some serious concerns about the mental stability of Governor Jerry Brown of California, because some of what he says and some of what he does appear to run counter to reality.

First, his newest pet project – an increased gas tax. Remember that he has been California’s governor now for six-plus years. Are we supposed to believe that “all of the sudden” the infrastructure is in dire need? How did all the money that was supposed to be allocated for infrastructure disappear? Where did it go? Does he not remember that when he was running for governor, he proclaimed that he would not raise taxes without a vote of the people? Starting in November of this year, it is going to cost Californians a lot of money as they will be paying even more for gas even though at present they already pay about 30% more for gas than the national average.
Legacy or lunacy?

Speaking of costing more money, housing prices in California are 230% of the national average, and more people are leaving the state than are coming. Those that are leaving are predominately those who earn $100K – 200K, and these are the people that will be needed to sustain the economy and pay the taxes in the future. This, per se, is not Jerry’s fault, but the increased taxes and regulations (lunacy) are all his, and this exit of thousands could be his legacy!

Let’s move on next to Governor Brown’s worshipping at the altar of climate change. As it stands now, by 2030 California will be required to produce 50% of its electricity from renewable sources. Does it make any sense for the state of California to change the way it gets its electricity, if the rest of the U.S., or the world is still using fossil fuels? Remember that this form of Brown’s hero worship is going to costs Californians a lot of money as they will be paying even more for their electricity.
Legacy or lunacy?

Next on the list is Brown’s “twin tunnels” which at this point appears to be a $17B boondoggle. At this point it still has a long way to go, but in the end, if it goes forward, it is going to cost many Californians a lot of money as they will be paying even more for their water – this so that environmentalists can save some shrimp!

Finally, the “bullet train to nowhere.” It will cost billions to complete and if it is ever finished, the polls show that few plan to use it. In a state that has so many problems, why would you spend billions on this boondoggle? Some postulate that this could be his legacy project, but I contend that his nickname, “moonbeam”, has already sealed his lunacy legacy!

In my opinion the three best 30 minute TV sit-coms were Seinfeld, Mash, and Friends. I recall an episode of ‘Friends’ in which Chandler was about to marry Monica and thus was moving out of the apartment that he and Joey had shared for a long time. Chandler did not think that Joey could afford to pay the rent and the utilities, etc. and so he tried to give Joey $1000. Joey would not take charity, so Chandler invented a game through which he could ‘slip’ Joey some money without Joey feeling that he was a charity case. It was a card game that Chandler called “Cups”. As you might recall Joey was lovable but dense and Chandler had to ‘teach’ him how to play. On the first hand Chandler dealt himself 2 Queens, while Joey got a 7 and a 3 . . . and Chandler said something like, “Wow, that’s the second best Cups’ hand; you win!” They played for increasing amounts of money, double-or-nothing, etc. As the game progressed, Chandler made up increasingly more ludicrous rules, but he had to in order to be sure that what Chandler wanted to happen, would happen.

Alas, there another Chandler-esque card game, called “Pea-Knuckle” that is also played with some bizarre rules:
the deck had 48 cards instead of the usual 52 ,
you deal 3 or 4 cards to each player at once instead of one at a time
there is “Trump”, “marriages” (K-Q), and “Royal Marriages” (K-Q of Trump)
the highest card is an Ace, but then the second highest card is 10
a “pea-knuckle” is Jack of diamonds-Queen of spades , while the  9 of Trump is called a Dix.

Interesting and perhaps nostalgic, especially if you had watched Friends, but what does Pea-knuckle and Cups have to do with anything?
Both appear to be games with very “unusual” rules, but while Cups  was a fiction of Chandler’s imagination, Pea-Knuckle (Pinochle) is a real game.

Follow me with this analogy:
Let’s compare Chandler to ex-President Obama, who in essence, made up the rules as he went along. He appointed czars – many more than any other past president . . . a czar for this, a czar for that, etc. He made up what in essence were like laws that he did not submit to Congress (guidelines for who could use which bathroom; guidelines for how to handle illegal immigrants; guidelines on how to handle perceived sexual misconduct on college campuses). He entered into obvious treaties (The Paris Accord and the Iran Nuclear Deal) that he said did not have to be ratified by the Senate, because they were not treaties!?
In essence he made up his own rules, and all of the Joeys did not know any better.
He ‘knew what was best’, and if he had to invent stuff . . . so be it, as the rules  were never written down.

Pea-knuckle (Pinochle), however, is a real card game with its rules written down. In fact the rules are explained in detail in many books, including Bicycle Official Rules of Card Games which is analogous to the Constitution in real life. Though the rules appear complicated, the Constitution (the book of official rules) can be read at any time so that anyone should be able to ascertain exactly what the rules are. There is no “making it up as we go along”, as there was with Cups. The present president had not played pinochle before January of this year, but his advisors are very familiar with the rules of the game, and he appears to be a quick learner!
Unfortunately there are people out there (liberal judges) who are supposed to be familiar with the real rules according to Hoyle or Bicycle, but who seem to be intent on making up their own rules.
However at tournament time (there actually is a “World Series of Pinochle”), the Supreme [Court] judges will be familiar with the real rules and the Constitution will prevail.
Too bad for Joey, but good for America, and the rule of law!

I presume that you are getting bored with my recurrent theme that “Democrats seem intent on doing things and passing laws that harm the poor the most”.
Well here we go again!

First a little background. In 2010 the Parent Empowerment Act (aka Parent Trigger Law) was passed in California. This allows parents of students in low performing public schools to change the administration typically by changing the school to a charter school. Actually with at least 50% of the school’s parent’s signatures, the parents can opt for a replacement of the school’s administration, replacement of the entire staff, or conversion to a charter school. Actually this is one of the few good laws that every so often come out of Sacramento, as it attempts to insure that the state does what is best for the children.

Palm Lane Elementary School in Anaheim, Ca. has approximately 700 students, mostly Latino, with >50% “English learning” students, and it qualified as an academically low performing school. In 2015, Cecilia Ochoa and 67% of the parents at Palm Lane Elementary voted to petition to have the school converted to a charter school because of its poor performance. To a novice, this would seem to be the perfect situation for the Democrats to stand behind the poor Latino immigrants, their ‘compadres’.

But wait!! . . . as now begins the all-to-familiar saga of the progressives doing all they can to actually keep the poor and the down-trodden . . . poor and down-trodden.

The Anaheim School District denied their petition, and in 2015 Orange County Superior Court Judge, Andrew Banks, found that the district’s rejection of the parent’s petition
“procedurally unfair, unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious”, and he ruled in favor of the parents. The attorney for the parents summed it up nicely when he said, “[this is about] low income parents who wanted to do something about a chronically failing school, but instead they found a hostile school district trying to find every way to stop them”.
Interestingly, the “progressive activists” in Orange County were either apparently silent or voiced active opposition to the parents, while local Anaheim elected officials, Kris Murray and Lucille Kring (both Republican), championed the parent’s cause.

As you would expect, the Anaheim School District appealed, and on 2/23/2017 the case went before California Court of Appeals. Perhaps with the long delay before the Appeals Court trial, the Anaheim School District figured that the original parent litigants would have given up as their children possibly would have moved on to middle school.
In late April, 2017 the three judge panel on the Appeals Court ruled in favor of the Palm Lane Elementary School parents, however, after the verdict, Supt. Linda Wagner said that she did not “anticipate any changes for the 2017-2018 school year”. WTF!!
Is it over?
Is it possible that the Democrat-controlled Teachers Union . . . er . . . The Anaheim School District will next appeal the verdict to the California Supreme Court?
Perhaps the Anaheim School District is still intent on going against the spirit of The Parent Empowerment Act, and will still try to do what is best for the Teachers Union rather than what is best for the children.
Keep in mind that cost of a continuing litigation is seemingly no object to the Anaheim School District as thus far the school district has spent $778,176 on this case in order to insure that the poorly educated Latino students at Palm Lane Elementary continue to remain poorly educated!
Stay tuned!

 

In general if someone says that he/she likes going to the dentist, that person is going to be considered a bit unusual or bizarre. I have nothing against dentists, and am not an “anti-dentite”, but what kind of normal person actually likes going to the dentist??

Me, I like going to the dentist, or more precisely, I like going to the dentist’s office. Today I went for my six month cleaning and check-up, and got there forty minutes early. No, I am not super-compulsive about arriving on time, but rather I wanted to be able to read some of the magazines that he has in his waiting room. I always look forward to reading Sports Illustrated and if there is time, glancing at National Geographic. Was forty minutes going to be enough time?

Shortly after opening S.I., I came upon a letter complaining about an article in the prior issue that unnecessarily criticized Donald Trump, and “what was that doing in a sports magazine?” Now I did not read the article in question (as I had not been in the dentist’s office for six months), but what was that doing in a sports magazine? I then closed the Sports Illustrated, and then opened National Geographic.

Upon opening it, I saw an article about why people lie. It sounded like it could be interesting so I started to read it. The initial example was about a pathological liar who had gotten into an Ivy League school in large part because of all the exaggerated lies on his resume. Then, “Boom!” Out of the blue, the author was talking about Donald Trump! I did not read the rest of this article, but as I skimmed it, I saw that Mr. Trump’s name was mentioned two or three more times. Interestingly, Barack Hussein Obama was not mentioned, even though he had said on multiple occasions, “If you like your doctor, you can keep him.” and he had also promised that our insurance premiums would go down, although it was apparent from the git-go that that was going to be impossible!

There are so many problems with National Geographic that I do not know where to start. First of all, what is an article about liars and lying doing in National Geographic? Did they dramatically change their format over the last six months? Be that as it may, why was Donald Trump essentially called a liar, but B.O. was not even mentioned? Why mention Mr. Trump in the context of other obvious pathological liars? Could it be that the author of this National Geographic article was a biased leftist?! Duh!

I then closed National Geographic, but since all that was left to read was Time and Woman’s Day, I stopped reading altogether. I then started thinking, “Are all of today’s magazines being infiltrated by liberals?” I do not get any magazines at home and I now congratulate myself on my spend-thriftiness. It’s bad enough that our newspapers are infiltrated by liberal opinions, but I had assumed that Sport’s Illustrated and National Geographic would be non-political and thus safe to read. This was not the case, and because I am a man of principle, I vow not to read either Sports Illustrated or National Geographic for the next six months!

On 6/30/17 our local newspaper printed an op-ed article in the form of a letter written by “California” addressed to “U.S.A.” on its birthday. In this letter California comes down hard on The U.S.A. –  essentially totally shifting blame for its quirky ideas onto the more responsible party. Although I did not agree with the point of view of the author, I thought that it was cleverly written (albeit probably with his left hand).

What if California and U.S.A. were real people? Would U.S.A. respond to the original letter?   Probably, yes. Would U.S.A. respond by tweeting?  Probably,no. I think that U.S.A. would respond to the comments of California in a gentle, almost paternalistic rebuttal type of letter, and it would go something like this:

Dear California,

I just received your lengthy and somewhat rambling letter on this my 241st birthday. I am sure that you did not mean any disrespect even as you were telling me that I was going through a nasty meltdown. The missus was a little taken aback by your tone, but I assured her that you were just going through a phase similar to puberty. I agree that we have been drifting apart, but to claim that it is solely due to my midlife crisis, is a bit simplistic, don’t you think? Surely, even you cannot think that all of your spouting off about sanctuary cities and not doing what the constitution says is anything other than classic passive aggressive behavior. In addition the “I’m right and I am not going to listen to you” attitude sounds as if you are seven years old, although to me I’ll bet that it’s your hormones getting the best of you!

You also mentioned that I have turned against things I, the U.S.A., used to love. Perhaps it is the drugs out there on the left coast, but you forgot some key elements in almost all of the following accusatory hallucinations about things “that I used to love”:

Immigration – I have not turned against immigration, but rather I have turned against illegal immigration!

Trade – I am not against trade, but I am against trade deals in which I, the U.S.A.,is getting screwed, and our ‘trade deal’ with South Korea is next up for a critical evaluation.

International Alliances – Things are actually looking up as President Trump has met with more foreign leaders in six months than the prior president did in the last four years.

Voting Rights – What I am against is non-citizens voting. It is very interesting that the Trump team is having a very difficult time getting the actual voting data in states with Democratic governors!  Why is that?

Women’s Rights – I hope that you have noticed that President Trump has a very capable woman in his Cabinet and also at the U.N. I am a bit perplexed that I am not hearing any comments from you on the rights of women living in Moslem Countries compared to the rights of women living here.

Infrastructure – President Trump just set up a committee to work on fixing our infrastructure in the U.S.A. Correct me if I am wrong but didn’t you, California, just have to finagle  a new gas tax on your citizens, despite the fact that your governor had promised not to raise taxes without a vote of the people. These new taxes all in the name of repairing your infrastructure, as the previous funds to fix your infrastructure seem to have vanished into your smog.

Treating People with Respect – I guess your Hollywood elites have not gotten the message that everyone needs to be treated with respect, starting with President Trump!

While you have always been an independent child, your pouting does nothing to benefit our family unit. I have known for years that your rebellious streak would eventually get you in trouble, but isn’t your verbally striking out against the others in our family taking your recalcitrance just a bit too far?  Granted you have always had a vivid imagination, but now your interpretation of reality on things like “only citizens being allowed to vote” and “legal” immigration appears to be in la-la land!

I still love you, and I will try to continue to be tolerant of your tantrums as I recognize the telltale effects of adolescent hormones. However I do hope that you come to your senses soon, because my patience is being stretched thin.

With love,

The United States of America

 

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals covers most of the western United States, Hawaii, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and Alaska. It has 25 active judges and 4 openings – i.e. 29 in total. Of these 25 now active judges 18 were appointed by Democratic presidents including 7 having been appointed by Barack Hussein Obama. So it should come as no surprise that the 9th circuit is a very liberal circuit.  It has been referred to as “The 9th Circuit Court of Schlemiels” as well as “The 9th Circus Court of Appeals”, as from 2010-2015, 79% of its reviewed decisions were reversed by U.S. Supreme Court.

As I am sure many of you are aware that it was the 9th Circuit that ruled against President Trump’s executive order on immigration – apparently because of things he said as a candidate!?

It is the Circuit Court for 20% of the U.S. population, and is by far the largest Circuit Court in the U.S. For the year ending on 3/31/2016 almost 12,000 cases were filed in the 9th circuit, which is 4000 more than the next highest circuit. Is it too large? Many think so, as efforts to split the 9th circuit go back to 1941. In 2007 Supreme Court Justice Kennedy, who was previously a sitting judge on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, testified that it was too large and unwieldy, and should be split. Recently the two Senators from Arizona (McCain & Flake) are again on a mission to split up the 9th, and add a 12th Circuit Court, because it takes too long for a case to be heard and then decided by the 9th Circuit – it typically takes 15 months to hand down a decision.

How would this proposal affect those of us who live in California? Actually, it would not make too much difference to us, since if the 9th Circuit were to be split, both the Northern and the Southern California districts would remain in the 9th Circuit, and probably remain liberal. What would be more prudent to do is to appoint 4 conservative judges to fill the 4 present vacancies in the 9th Circuit, and to do it A.S.A.P.

 

Today(6/30/17) President Trump suggested that Obamacare be repealed first and then subsequently replaced. Do you all think that he is reading my blog? Of course the Never-Trumpers will chime in that he is changing his tune from what he said in January – but at that point there was no way for him to foresee that he was going to be dealing with Republicans ninnies in Congress!

See blog titled, “No CPR on ACA.”

Also today Sen. Ben Sasse (R, Neb) suggested repealing the ACA with a time delay so that Americans will not lose their healthcare immediately. Do you think that he is reading my blog?

Again see blog titled “No CPR on ACA.”

Again the reason to do it this way is to put pressure on the recalcitrants  in the Senate to compromise, and perhaps to even encourage some Democrats to join into the Replace effort (but not Schumer or Pelosi!). Remember if there is then no cooperation, both sides will be at risk in the 2018 elections. Once it is repealed the Republicans will have about a year before the s*** hits the fan, and they will be no worse off in the interim, as they will have fulfilled 1/2 of their promise.

“Mirabile dictu” is a Latin phrase often used many years ago by my freshman Algebra teacher, Father Conway. Although Father Conway had multiple eccentricities and was known affectionately as Crazy George to his students, he was an excellent algebra teacher. I recall that I had him in first period, and he was my initial exposure to high school on my first freshman day. After about five minutes into that first class on that first day, I surely thought, “What have I gotten myself into?”He used multiple other Latin phrases, but “mirabile dictu” was his favorite. Loosely translated it means, “It’s a miracle!”, and he would use it most often when a student would do something unexpected, like solving a problem on the blackboard or having all the correct answers on his homework.

Today when initially looking at the front page of my local liberal “newspaper”, I said to myself, “Mirabile dictu!”, as there actually was an article on the front page (albeit in the lower left-hand corner) that was a pro-Trump article. Although I do not keep a running tally, in my recollection, this was the first pro-Trump article on the front page of my local WaPo wannabe – on this the 158th day of the Trump presidency.                                                                                              Surely, this was close to a miracle . . . “Mirabile dictu.”

Why would the front page of a “newspaper” seemingly purposely not print positive stories about Mr. Trump?

From my perspective there are limited answers, and all of them include biased reporting and an intense dislike for our president – but why this intense dislike?

Could it be that the animus against President Trump is because he IS actually fulfilling or attempting to fulfill his campaign promises? He is keeping his word to those who voted for him, and I think that each kept promise just infuriates the left more!

 

What campaign promises has he kept thus far?                                                            Let’s list a few:

– Suspend immigration from terror prone places (Supreme Court)

– Reverse B.O.’s Cuba policy (scaled back)

– Terminate B.O.’s immigration executive orders (DAPA rescinded)

– Create private White House veteran’s hotline (announced start on 6/1)

– Cancel Paris Accord (cancelled)

– Invest $550B in infrastructure and create infrastructure fund (rough outline)

– Appoint conservative Supreme Court Justice (Neil Gorsuch)

 

Like I said earlier, Father Conway was eccentric, but he got the job done. His job was to teach us algebra, and when we were finished with his yearlong class, we knew and understood algebra – indeed he was successful at his job.

Donald Trump is a bit eccentric, and is getting the job done. His job is to fulfill his campaign promises, and he is moving right along on this, and thus far he has been successful. Remember that he has only been in office for 158 days, and thus I foresee many more days with him accomplishing what he said he would accomplish with no corresponding  positive front page headlines.

Illegals Voting

“On the picture ID, the one thing I have thought of in that space is that if you show up on Election Day with a driver’s license with a picture, attest that you are a citizen, you have a right to vote in an Federal election”. (This quote was referring to the potential of illegals voting in a presidential election.)

To this the liberals would say, “balderdash” as this must have been said by some “right wing nut job”, after all it is only conservative Republicans that imply that there could be any voter fraud in any U.S. elections. Actually this was said by John Podesta, former chairman of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, in a February 2015 email. This email was leaked by Wikileaks, and it was written one day after Donald Trump said that the system was rigged. (Keep in mind that the Democrats never disputed the veracity of the contents of the Wikileaks emails.)

Is it a surprise that a prominent Democrat like Podesta would think, in essence, that driver’s licenses provide a potential for illegals to vote?  No, no surprise here, as it is common sense that providing driver’s licenses for illegals opens the door to these illegals voting. The only real question is, “How wide is this door opened, and how many illegals are passing through it”.

How many, indeed?

An editorial in Investors Business Daily (Nov. 2016) stated that there could be as many as 20-30 million illegals in the U.S., instead of the often quoted number of 11-12 million. The Electoral Studies Journal postulated that there may have been 2.8 million illegal votes in the 2008-2010 elections, and there are certainly many more illegals residing here than were in 2010.

So perhaps in response to his suspicions that the system may be rigged, on May 10, 2017, President Trump issued an executive order creating a commission to investigate voter fraud. The Democrats condemned this new commission as a ‘witch-hunt’, and academics have rejected the notion that fraudulent voting is widespread. All I need at this time to make me sure that there is some truth in Trump’s allegations is for the ACLU to chime in  . . . Oops, the ACLU has just chimed in! It filed a legal request to the White House for records showing “concrete evidence” of fraudulent voting that would warrant the creation of such a commission. Indeed with this trifecta (Democrats, academics, and the ACLU) arguing against the possibility of voter fraud, you can almost guarantee that there is some truthfulness to Trump’s allegations.

So what is the situation in California?

How will the new “Motor-Voter” law affect voting in this state?                                    First off as a result of Cal. AB60, implemented in 2015, approximately 806,000 illegal immigrants have received driver’s licenses.                                           Then AB1461 (the “motor-voter ” law) which took effect in 2017 greased the skids for these illegals to vote. The “estimate” is that there are about 2.4 million illegal immigrants in California! How many of these will eventually get driver’s licenses, and how many of these will end up voting?

From the LA Times in June, 2016 on AB 1461:                                                                   “The new law, slated to take effect next year, is supposed to streamline the way citizens register to vote at Department of Motor Vehicles offices. Once fully implemented, drivers applying for or renewing licenses and completing other DMV transactions will have their information electronically transmitted to the secretary of State, as long as they’ve confirmed they’re eligible to vote and don’t opt out of registering.”

The key here is the last part which means that these illegals are asked if they can legally vote – they have broken the law by being here, and so, of course, the best thing to do is to ask them if they are eligible to vote?!

“If you are talking about California, the state is apparently relying on the illegal alien to tell the state they shouldn’t be registered. This is still an honor system,” said Mr. Hans A. von Spakovsky, co-author of the book “Who’s Counting? How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk”.                          In other words, applicants can check a box affirming they are citizens, and this is not checked against any other government database such as federal immigration records.

I say this is insanity! But then when you have a Democratic legislature and a Democratic governor, this is the kind of insanity that we, in California, have come to expect. Since illegal aliens vote overwhelmingly Democratic, the question in California is not “if” – but how many Republican votes are nullified by illegal immigrants voting for Democrats?