I Vetoed Vot ? !

Shown is Kahleeforneea Governor Arnold "Conan the Librarian" Schwarzenegger shortly after vetoing SB1460 which would have granted in-state tuition and fees to illegal immigrants seeking the additional benefit of a California state university or state college education. This means Californians will temporarily be spared more people feeding at the public trough who can't pronounce the name of the state that pays their wages.

Another sign of desperation for the Democrats and a rare display of guts by the Governator. The Democrats know that one out of five registered voters in California is of Hispanic descent. The Democrats have decided that it's better to alienate the rest of the population in order to hold on to their usual 2/3 of the Hispanic vote than to be honest about illegal immigration versus genuine, planned legal immigration. So despite last week's inability of the leftist, amnesty-loving Congress to pass the similar DREAM Act by attaching it to a defense appropriations bill, the Democrats decided to go for broke.

The federal bill and the California bill would have been another fast-track to amnesty. The federal act included giving citizenship to illegals who served in the military or spent two years in an accredited college or university. See how that works? First, misuse the taxpayers' money for "educating" illegals, then make them citizens. Since most college students, native or foreign, legal or illegal, white or Hispanic, can't read their own diplomas, the state funds used to educate the illegals would require teaching them only to be able to recognize the word "Democrat" on a ballot. Fortunately, both bills are dead ducks for now.

Even most Californians don't understand how their state colleges and universities are funded. The majority of Californians instinctively reject the idea of reducing tuition for illegals to the level of California residents and taxpayers, but there's much more to it. The cost and quality of an education at UC Berkeley is roughly comparable to that of Harvard. But at Harvard, all tuition money comes from private sources, and most university programs are paid for by immense endowments, with a little federal money thrown in for good measure.

At UC Berkeley, the tuition is approximately one-quarter that of Harvard, though the actual cost of the university programs are nearly identical. So the difference between the tuition and the actual cost is picked up, unlike Harvard, by the taxpayers of the State of California. So the illegals would not only be paying the same tuition as legal California citizens, the remainder of the cost would be picked up by the California taxpayers.

California college and university students from other states pay a much higher tuition than California residents (because their parents don't pay taxes in California), but the Democrats thought it would be a great idea to give better treatment to illegals than to give it to American citizens who inconveniently happen to be from another American state.

California is essentially bankrupt, and the infighting goes on daily as California's debts increase, its income decreases, and the budget remains undone. So since we don't have any money anyway, why not reduce the income even farther by charging lower tuition for illegals? I'm astounded, time and again, by the Alice-in-Wonderland logic of the Democrats.

But there is a catch. In order to qualify for the in-state tuition, the illegal must first have attended three years of California high school education before applying to the given college or university. In other words, after being here illegally, and illegally taking advantage of the free public schools, they should be rewarded in exactly the same manner as kids and parents who have lived legally in California and paid taxes to the state (including property taxes) for their entire lives. And they should pay less than American citizens from other states. Get it? Good. Explain it to me.

Schwarzenegger made a lengthy and windy speech, extolling the virtues of immigration and immigrants (natch), and reassuring the public of his love for Hispanics. But in separating the wheat from the chaff, you can actually find some real reasoning. I would sum up Schwarzenegger's position as "in-state tuition for illegals is not such a bad idea, just not a good idea right now." Typical RINO reasoning. Below is the reason I draw that conclusion:

"Unfortunately, given the precarious fiscal situation that the state faces, it would not be practical to adopt a new policy that would limit the financial aid available to students that are in California legally, in order to provide that benefit to those students who are not." In other words, if California were financially fat, it would be OK to grant reduced tuition and financial aid to illegals, but not just now.

"I am hoping that the funding level that I have proposed for higher education will still be enacted. However, with that uncertainty coupled with the ongoing fiscal liabilities California will continue to face in the coming years, the State needs to be especially cautious in even thinking of enacting a measure like this." Or, said another way, when times are good and the gummint has lots and lots of money, it's a good idea to be wildly incautious about considering such a measure. Well, half a loaf is better than none.

A side issue that Schwarzenegger didn't mention was both student loans and scholarships to pay the already-reduced tuition. California law requires that any student loan originating in California, and any scholarship funded by the State, must include an affidavit/declaration under penalty of perjury that the borrower/scholarship recipient is a legal resident of the State of California and the United States of America. Somehow, I think that requirement would have been routinely ignored had the federal and California bills been successful.

So Californians have temporarily dodged one small bullet in a very large leftist arsenal. Secretary of State-Governor-Mayor-Attorney General-Gubernatorial candidate Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown considers higher tuitions for illegals to be discriminatory. Republican opponent Meg Whitman is looking to cut costs, stem the tide of illegal immigrant benefits, and raise tuitions for all University of California students, and most California State University and Colleges students. The Democrats are likely to hold on to both houses of the California legislature, albeit by a much slimmer margin. If Brown wins, the bill will be resubmitted and will become law. If Whitman wins, the Democrats will no longer have a veto-proof legislature.

Given all that, the Democrats used stalking-horse pain-in-the-ass leftist/feminist lawyer Gloria Allred to create a late campaign ambush of Whitman. Tossing out common sense and the canon of ethics, Allred actually advised her client to admit publicly that she is here illegally, but had used forged documents at an employment agency to obtain employment with Whitman. That shows how much Democrats actually care about "undocumented workers." They will use an illegal as a sacrificial lamb just to throw mud at the Republican.

The public announcement and MSM coverage was almost laughably drowned in bathos. The weeping "victim" describing how she worked for twelve years at Whitman's residence at about $23 per hour (all under false pretenses, of course). She got caught when Social Security found a possible discrepancy in the records. Upon announcing to Whitman that she was indeed in the United States illegally, Whitman terminated her services forthwith. Then, says this phony victim, "Ms Whitman she not help me." Well, my dear, maybe you should have saved up some of that $23 per hour that she was generously paying you and set aside a legal fund for the inevitable criminal proceedings against you.

That one's going to backfire on the Democrats. First of all, it's not a legal matter, it's a political ambush. Second, if Allred and the Democrats actually cared about illegals, they would have quietly tried to find a way to save her butt instead of advising her to go public and practically beg to be arrested. Third, it was only very recently that Social Security even sent a tentative query about the "victim's" Social Security discrepancy, so the "victim's" elaborate ruse fooled a whole lot of people for many, many years. Fourth, Whitman denies that she ever saw the letter from Social Security, and there is absolutely no evidence that she knew about it before she saw the political hit-piece and saw the face of the ingrate that she had supported for over a decade.

Allred distorts the facts, and ignores the evidence that Whitman's husband saw the letter, wondered what it meant, and made a note in his handwriting on it asking "what does this mean?" But instead of making sure that Meg Whitman got it, he absently handed it to the poor, oppressed victim to pass on to Meg. Which essentially proves that Meg Whitman never saw it and never knew about it because the "victim" hid it from her. That's the so-called "damning document" that Allred thinks is going to make all Californians vote against Whitman. Whitman never saw it because the "victim" hid it, then after getting fired, boo-hooed her way into Allred's office.

So Thursday was just a bad day for liberals, leftists, amnesty-liars, Democrats, and illegal immigrants all the way around. Ah, if only every day were Thursday.