Just a few miles down the road from IHateTheMedia.com’s intergalactic headquarters you’ll find the lovely little village of Orcutt, California. There’s trouble in Orcutt.
A private group raised $60,000 to erect a 60-foot flagpole and monument at the entrance to the community’s Old Town section. Since it’s located right between a freeway exit and a park-and-ride lot, it may not be the most picturesque spot. But no one ever said patriotism had to be picturesque.
Plans for the monument show a 60-foot American flag surrounded by pillars representing each branch of the military.
So far, so good. But now The Weekly Standard reveals what happened when the State of California got involved:
The California Department of Transportation (CalTrans), however, has stymied the effort, calling it an impermissible act of “public expression.”
The Orcutt Pioneer reports that, although the Old Town Orcutt Revitalization Association (OTORA) “intends its flag as a tribute and symbol of freedom” — which would seem to be how most Americans would view their nation’s flag — “CalTrans sees it as a form of speech or expression, something more personal than patriotic.”
OTORA, a typical Tocquevillean-style private civil association, has been fundraising for over a year to collect the necessary $60,000 to build the flagpole and monument, above which would wave a 12-by-18-foot iteration Stars and Stripes. But CalTrans has declared that its policy forbids such efforts. In a letter to OTORA, CalTrans explains that it developed its policy in response to a ruling released by a 3-judge panel of the notorious Ninth Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, a ruling that was issued in response to impromptu flag-hanging in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals? Who ever would have expected those patriots to make a decision like this?
Hang in there, Orcutt.
Source: Weekly Standard
This post was last modified on January 26, 2021
View Comments (108)
I know this is picky, but... learn how to spell!!! You call yourself an EDITOR and you can't spell Caltrans? There is not now, nor has there ever been a capital "T" in the middle of the word. Don't you check anything? Where is your work ethic?
You are not correct, either. The sequence of letters is c-a-l-t-r-a-n-s. In order to spell the name properly, you need to have the correct letters in sequence. Capitalization is not part of spelling. It instead is an observation of convention in the treatment of a proper noun. A made-up proper noun, as it were.
The capitalization of this proper noun* is a choice made by Caltrans, and has nothing to do with spelling. Your choice of the terms "illiterate boobs" and "morons" as a result of your erroneous use of the term "spelling" is what we call "ironic", which has the same three syllables as "moronic". It suits you to a "T". The only conclusion I can draw is that you wish to carry water for them, and chose this particular argument as the acme of your literary genius.
* Made-up proper nouns are the bastard brainchildren of semiliterate hacks inhabiting the marketing department purgatories of Corporate America, and deserve frequent beatings for their bastardization of the language.
You do realize the editor is literally citing an article, capitalizations and all, yes?
That are what those indentations mean.
And.... you fail.
That is the stand that California Transportation takes (Cal Trans), not Californians!
Another illiterate boob. Caltrans, Caltrans, Caltrans. NOT Cal Trans. NOT CalTrans. Morons.
If we could just weaken the geographical hold that the rest of the state has on Los Angeles and San Francisco, so that they would drift off into the ocean in the next big quake, California would be a Red State. These two big cities are dragging down the rest of the state.
I bet they wouldn't mind erecting a mexican flag.
Apply for the permit, and see. Then we'll know.
Okay, I know I'm going to really irritate some people on here - but please hear me out all the way through and try to understand the subtleties of what I'm saying.
Alien- I do agree with the 9th circuit to the extent that flying the flag CAN be a form of political expression. Not that it always is.
My relationship with the flag can probably be summed up by the famous Samuel Johnson quote "Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels". Others might say of my relationship with the flag "...it's complicated". But before I go further into this question, make sure you understand I think the United States is a great nation (I won"t say "greatest nation" because I haven't studied ALL nations, past and present) and I'm glad I'm an American.
There are some incidents that have influenced my flag relationship.
One was while I was on a exchange program to a Bureau of Indian Affairs boarding school for Navajos in high school. During the weekend, the school officials would provide a van for the kids to go into Gallup to shop, etc. I went into town too, and I noticed the local police rounding up the local inebriates. Coming from suburbia, I was curious about this phenomena, and I followed the cops around, always staying at least 25 feet away - my camera was around my neck, but I did not take any pictures. Finally, at one point, one of the cops came over and asked me "Do you want to get arrested for interfering with a police officer?" Now of course the only interference I was doing was maybe I was limiting them from being rougher with the drunks, but as he turned away, the irony of his shoulder flag patch kind of burned in my mind.
I came of age during the Watergate era, and while our president was lying through his teeth, breaking the law, and violating the constitution, all his supporters in Congress would wear those flag lapel pins as though they were the true Americans, when if they were true Americans they would have used the constitutional provisions to fire Nixon's hind end a hell of a lot faster than they did. The hypocrisy of those flag lapel pin wearers again was another influence on me, truly one of those "...last refuge of scoundrels" moments. Really turned me cynical about those who wave the flag without questioning what goes on in our country.
And yes, I remember the Vietnam War protest era. I initially was a supporter of the war, domino theory and all. But I came to change my mind, particularly after talking with some kids from Vietnam who had been wounded and were getting medical treatment in the US. They explained there wasn't a whole lot of support for the corrupt S. Vietnamese government among the population, they would really rather just farm and go about their business, and they didn't want to be pawns for either side. Some of the bombing and tactics they described were pretty horrific (think along the lines of the famous picture of the naked girl burning from napalm), and that really made an impression on me. And I realized that the war was being done "in my name." And of course, during the Vietnam era, there were those who stood behind the war (without questioning whether or not what our country was doing was right or wrong) and would prominently display the flag. And of course there were those who were angry enough to burn the flag. Those two sides are clearly the epitome of flag flying/flag burning as a form of political expression.
Another moment I want to relate is when I was listening to the radio, and the subject was flag burning. One caller came on, and said that he and his friends, after a long discussion, felt that the country was not living up to it's constitutional ideals, so they, in effect, had a funeral for their country, and quietly and respectfully burned the flag. The way he described it, it was so sad that they had come to this conclusion. And yes, I do support the right to burn the flag, although I haven't had that sort of anger at my country lately (well, maybe I will have that anger as I read about politicians taking campaign contributions and then voting to turn this country into nothing but a playground for the corporate interests....but that's for another day).
Yes, I do have some proud moments with the flag - the moon landing, going to vote with the flag at the poll site - but I don't want our country to get too nationalistic. Or maybe I should say "full of ourselves". We're not always right.
After all that I've written above , you might be surprised to read that I think it's okay to say "My country right or wrong" - but be sure to actively work to correct whatever wrongs you perceive.
perlcat - Caltrans is not hiding behind the judicial robes. They have literally been left exposed by the court. And I'm not really in favor of building monuments all over. Yes, I thank warriors for their service, but I don't want our military side to be the main focus of our country. My wife visited the old Soviet Union as a teenager, and they have very prominent military monuments in every town. It was such a focus that it was a tradition for brides and grooms to go have their pictures taken in front of a war monument in their wedding attire. Yeccch. Let's not go there. This country has a lot of other things we can be proud of.
kb- I think the Vietnam war era was the best example of flying the flag as political expression. If you weren't around for that, then you probably would not understand.
You make some interesting points.
I do not completely agree with your perception of the police officers. Take a look at it from another perspective -- they are rounding up inebriates -- some of them are possibly even their relatives or friends -- this is not their favorite job, and in fact, many police officers are very unhappy about certain portions of their job. However, as professionals, following orders, they have to do what they have to do.
It is not uncommon for people to follow police officers around when they are doing odious jobs like this, looking for a way to portray them in the least flattering way in order to pursue their political agenda. You, following them around with a camera, are perceived as one of those people, and they handled it in a poor manner.
However, from their perspective, the first hostilities were actually done by you, and they responded to hostility with hostility. Maybe you did not see it as such from your perspective -- but I can tell you that there is more to any story than just the one perspective. I would bet you any sum of money that if you had instead spent a few minutes before you followed them around by actually *talking* to them, and getting their permission, you would have had a much more valuable and useful insight into the situation. In fact, the richness of the experience may have made you proud of that flag they wore on their shoulders. However, you never gave them that chance. You're not to blame -- but they may not be as bad as you had thought.
I do know that caltrans has been left exposed by the courts. That doesn't make it OK. In fact, it demonstrates my point -- they do not feel it important to defend their flag. As government workers, they have certain obligations to their employers -- the people of the state of California. The state of California has a flag, too, and the state has the obligation to equate their own flag with something other than a nazi flag as you had compared it to earlier. I believe a relativistic culture with no ability to differentiate between the flag of their nation and the flag of murderers are a collection of fools.
I do feel that monuments are needed. Maybe you dislike monuments to wars and such -- but please remember that many monuments are to the memory of lost loved ones -- and especially so in the old Soviet Union, where they lost so very, very many in the War. What you saw as evidence of a warlike culture was to me the natural outgrowth of people reared in the Russian Orthodox church, with a profound respect and sadness for truly epic losses of human life.
Each of those old veterans standing at attention on Victory Day are standing in for their lost brethren, not only keeping them alive in *their* memories, but also in the memories of the people watching. If we had more monuments to those lost in wars, we as a species might take the consequences of wars more seriously. I think that pretending that they did not happen is one of the worst things we can do.
Yes, I stood at the Wall in DC -- I stood there and prayed for the memory of those lost, those who came back broken, and those families and loves who would never be whole again.
Patriotism is more than the refuge of scoundrels -- the US flag is the symbol of the dignity, the pride, and the honor of those who live and died to defend it. A ceremony burning the flag of a nation they feared is lost is not a dignified or a respectful treatment of the flag. It is a capitulation to what is *not* inevitable -- there are millions who still stand to defend the flag, they are not scoundrels, and they do not deserve to be written off so casually.
As long as there is one man in this nation dedicated to the service of freedom, burning the flag is an insult to his character and integrity of purpose -- it is the act of a truly base scoundrel to imply that the representation of an entire nation of such men is somehow no longer valid because of events he does not like.
perlcat -
....relatives or friends
White cops. Native American inebriates.
...you...are perceived as one of these people.
A 17 year old in the mid-70's? That's a stretch....
...but they may not be as bad as you had thought.
I've went on a police ride along Halloween night as a senior in high school. Saw some good police work - we got a call for a man saying there was somebody at his door he didn't recognize. When we arrived, the man peeked out of the door and said everything was okay. The cops made him come out of the house to tell them that, they explained to me they wanted to make sure there wasn't somebody sticking a knife or gun in his ribs. They smelled some wacky tobacky, but they let it go - that was not a priority to them that night.
I've seen good cops and bad cops; I've seen the police beat a handcuffed detainee (not in Gallup). When I reported it to that department's internal affairs unit, I got a call back essentially telling me to get my vision checked. I encountered cops who used confiscated fireworks to put on their own private fireworks show - shooting them off of a railroad tank car of flammable liquid - next to a grain elevator (think "grain dust explosion").
...They do not feel it important to defend their flag.
Their job is maintaining highways - not pursuing court cases so third parties can fly the flag. If you were in their shoes, would you spend money pursuing it if the budget was tight?
Would I defend the flag if money is tight? When isn't it?
A "money crunch" excuse simply isn't credible given the State of California's past spending habits. If they don't give a damn about costs for marginal items, they can't give a damn when it is in a good cause.That would be doublespeak. I hear governments use the "money's tight" dodge when they don't want to do something, and then turn around and consume any budget surplus on truly wasteful things so that they do not get a cutback the next year.
If doing the right thing was easy, then more people would do it. However, I know full well the saying "you can't fight city hall" -- and I've seen literally millions of dollars spent on legal fees to evict a small businessman from his property because it didn't suit the decor of the new downtown. You can't tell me that they have no money for lawyers -- when it is a priority to a governmental body, they just add the legal fees to the tax burden, and the taxpayers pay for the legal assault on their property rights.
They do this because they don't want the press, they don't want the controversy, but mainly because it is the socially acceptable thing to do. In one of the few cases where they have justification to fight to prevent a truly ugly precedent, they cut and run.
Comparing the flag of the US to the nazi flag -- turning it into a thing on a sheet -- will come back to haunt them someday. It is only a matter of time before someone sues to get the state flag banned because the lack of integrity and honor it represents offends them. If the US flag is above the California flag, and the US flag is comparable to the nazi flag, then the California flag is less than the nazi flag. When the dust settles, and the legislature starts to form their committees to find out why their flag is banned from public display, you do not want the blame to stop at your desk. Stop making excuses for bad behavior -- it speaks poorly for you.
Another example of American becoming a country that conforms to everyone else, rather than how it should be. Everyone conform to what America is, afterall if it wasnt special as it was, why risk your life to come here and start anew? Our National Symbol should be expected to be flown everywhere. And we identify ourselves as Americans, not hispanic American, not Afican American, not asian/pacific islander American. Just American. This simple distinction should eliminate alot of cultural divide that alot of msm like to highlight and exaggaerate.
After 9/11, people hung all sorts of flags and banners from overpasses, etc. Caltrans rightfully took those down, so that rubberneckers would put their mind back on the road where it belongs.
The issue at hand here is a group that wants to put up their memorial on Caltrans property at Orcutt. Caltrans actually has a procedure for getting a permit for this. However, they want the content to be politically neutral, because if they allow one viewpoint, they would have to allow all, even if it is offensive to the majority of citizens. Otherwise, they would be exercising censorship based on content.
Court rulings have found that both burning and flying the flag is a form of political expression. Caltrans has been the defendent in one lawsuit, since it took down 'political expression' banners but let flags stand. Court said no, you can't do that , because flying the flag is political expression, and Caltrans would be unconstitutionally discriminating based on the content.
So Caltrans takes the simple bureaucratic route and just says no to all flags. It causes them the least headaches, and saves them from the legal expense of the inevitable lawsuits if they favored one flag over others. And these memorials really aren't what Caltrans is all about, is it?
So give Caltrans a break. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place on this one. If they allow the US flag to fly on this one, they'd have to let every group fly their flag at the next memorials. So they just avoid the problem and ban the flag at all of them.
You are wrong. The flag was not properly displayed when it was drapped over the overpass. And that was a non public forum against Caltrans' policy.
I really don't get it.. but i appreciate your efforts to further clarify Caltrans' position. I can see a Confederate Flag representing a "political expression", or even a Templar Cross or Islam Crescent..
but not Stars & Stripes, man..
Thank you for understanding the problem. Suppose it was a KKK or Nazi flag that somebody wanted to include as part of their "memorial". That is political expression just the same as flying the US flag. And you can imagine Caltrans being in a damned if you do, lawsuit if you don't situation if they were asked permission to put up one of those flags.
Caltrans is about highways, not political expression. Don't say they are not patriotic, because they probably fly the US flag at many of their maintenance bases.
I do agree with Deb that maybe our flags do deserve some special perks, but Caltrans has to operate within the court rulings it faces today, and they probably wish this whole problem would go away so they can concentrate on their main task.
I still don't get it, so i had to dig a little
The one thing i don't want to buy is that flying the U.S. flag is a form of "political expression". Being a godless heathen, i have nothing higher to look upon than America (icing on the cake of Western Civ, birthplace of Science and Liberty and Bacon)
So we have the 9th Circuit to blame for this? http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1249576.html (this is the ruling you speak of?)
Apparently Caltrans policy was to forbid political expression *except* the U.S. flag? Then they got sued. So who the heck is Cassandra Brown (i'll leave that to others.. I gotta get some work done)
Before this, i was vexed, remembering that HOA's like to dig into everything.. even Old Glory: http://www.insidejustice.com/law/index.php/intl/2008/07/04/us_flag_restrictions_laws (and there was a flag defending law passed, which still permits restrictions on private property)
If I flew the flag from my house or did whatever with it, it is a form of expression. No doubt. When the government flies the flag, it is as part of their governmental functions -- and is not expression. That's a permutation of the same logic that says that if a government advertises a service, it isn't political speech -- but if you as a politician advertise the same service, it *is* political speech.
The 9th circuit made another incompetent ruling -- nothing new here. If they were thinking as real judges would, they could have seen how the reductio ad absurdum would have worked here. Having only stayed at a Holiday Inn Express for an hour, their judgely abilities are more limited.
The problem is, this is not your house. As administrator of your property, do whatever you want as long as it doesn't endanger public safety.
This is Caltran's property. Which is all of our property, if you are a California resident. But this case is not Caltrans flying the flag - this is Caltrans deciding if some outside group gets to fly the flag on Caltrans property.
As the administrator of that property, if they pick and choose which flags outside groups are allowed to fly, then they are violating the rules they have to obey as a public entity. They cannot discriminate against less favored flags - that would be unconstitutional prior censorship based on the 'content' (flag) of the free speech.
They are really in the situation of allow all or allow none.
They took the easy route and said "none", which I can understand as the route of least controversy.
I think we understand Caltrans is compelled by the ruling. The 9th Circuit wishes there to be equal protection for all flags. Do you agree that displaying Old Glory is merely "political expression". Perhaps there's precedent, I didn't read every word in the ruling. Still I'm hoping Caltrans at least considered appealing to SCOTUS.
No, I absolutely do not agree that flying the flag of the United States is merely "political expression", it is our country's flag and it represents us ALL! Perhaps the people who do not feel that OUR flag represents them should leave.
i agree.. our Flag should transcend political expressionism.. I want to know what he thinks about the ruling itself.. Caltrans may be compelled by the ruling, but our opinions can not be. He continues to defend Caltrans in the matter, which is fine, but we've dug past that to the 9th Circuit and i want to know where he stands on that..
At some point soon, its likely California will pass a new law to force Caltrans' hand in this, and I expect that'll get run up through the courts again
Yes, they're bound by both the court ruling, and the willing suspension of disbelief required to be unable to say "these judges were wrong." They *have* to do this. What caltrans has done is cowardly and reprehensible, and their only tenable position is to hide behind ideologues in black robes. (That, or take a stand, and we all know they don't have the character for that.) I suppose it helps if they are sympathetic to the ruling.
dw7500 can talk until blue in the face about how the US flag in this instance constitutes political expression -- but caltrans already sanctioned the building of a monument on government property that is itself a form of political expression. I would have an easier time believing that the erection of this monument itself should have not been allowed, as opposed to the installation of the US flag.
If the flag of the US is not worth taking a stand over, then I'd have to wonder what is?
The single best thing Orcutt can do is sue to remove the California flag from wherever it is flown on government property -- take the absurdity to its apex.
...and, yes, dw7500, I know that it isn't *my* house as in the private sense. However, this nation is *our* house in the sense of our citizenry and the vernacular, and flying this one particular flag is not the same thing as my weekly california flag burnings. By the way, you're welcome to come over and roast your weenie over the fire. Just don't face the street when you do it.
You my friend are crazy. It's the flag of the FRICKING UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! It doesn't represent a "group", it represents us ALL. Flying the flag of the United States of America on American soil does not even equate to flying the flags of "outside groups" and OTHER countries on American soil.
You are what is wrong with this country.
What is wrong is all this politically correct crap people spout every single day. People who get their feelings hurt so easily need a wake up call and OUR flag should fly everywhere. We fly a Texas flag in front of our home because we are Texans if someone told us to take it down they'd have a shotgun in their face until they vacated our property.
The American flag is not a form of expression, it is a symbol of freedom, pride and determination. Anyone who thinks otherwise, well, they need a good butt whooping.
"Suppose it was a KKK or Nazi flag..."
That's a false choice -- neither those flags, nor any other flag, with the SOLE exception of the US and appropriate state flag, has a place on government property.* The concept of freedom of speech does not apply in the same way to governments. They are limited in what they can say or do, especially in conjunction with the use and disposition of government property, but the display of federal and state flags is one of the things they are clearly able to do.
Otherwise, what's to stop me from deciding that the flag of the state of California offends me personally, and I want to sue to have it removed from all state property, INCLUDING the governor's mansion, all state buildings, courthouses, city halls, parks, interstate rest stops**, military bases, airports, and other displays? Going by your fractured logic, the only place the 'bear on a sheet' belongs is in a museum right next to the flags of the offensive organizations you equate the federal flag with! After all, it *offends* me.
You and caltrans do not deserve a free ride on this. What was done was arbitrary and reprehensible, and there is no excuse.
* -- yeah, I know, military bases fly other flags. They have that right. Go pick a fight with them if you don't like it. I'll watch -- I'll open a big bag of popcorn, should be a hoot.
** -- gotta love that one. It makes a big, fat, hypocrite out of caltrans.
I'm with you on this one Perlcat! Completely agree with you.
I'm with both of you. But I don't believe the argument is with DW, rather it should be with the courts that come up with such nonsense rulings. DW is just stating the conditions that CalTrans has to work under, not necessarily agreeing with the policies.
I'm sensing a more personal involvement -- dw's reaction appears a bit more visceral than your ordinary bystander would be -- he keeps on coming back to the same essential points -- i.e. caltrans has some justification.
When I call out things like the comparison that he used earlier, he introduces new stuff about how he isn't so proud of the flag anyway.
I'm thinking we're dealing with a caltrans employee, or someone who knows/is related to one. Nobody else would care quite so much about having caltrans be "in the right". (Most hoghway departments do not exactly have fan clubs...) So I've been enjoying the back & forth -- because it all boils down to a poorly made decision that they have to somehow sugarcoat for public consumption.
A non-caltrans person would probably just say "well, that's your opinion. What the **** would you know?" and be done with it. They'd have no skin in the game. Someone with a more personal involvement would want to ensure that the candy coating/spin on this decision remains intact.
So, I leave with this riddle:
Q. What's orange and sleeps two?
A. State truck.
I hear you. I deal with CalTrans every night on the freeway rehab project I'm working on. They're a bunch of useless morons. And I have to assume that the higher-ups are cut from the same cloth. I'm just saying that it's the courts that need fixing first.
If caltrans (and other governmental bodies) simply restricted the flags flown to *sovereign* bodies, the 'flag as speech' issue is over before it starts. Their arbitrarily equating the US and state flag with anything on a sheet is what makes it possible to fly the stars & bars over courthouses*, causing all sorts of easily preventable issues.
*Yeah, I'm against it. Fly it from your house for all I care -- just keep it off government property. As long as you're willing to put up with the property damage, you have the right.
I disagree. This is the United States of America. THe NATIONAL flag for this country should be allowed, no encouraged to be flown ANYWHERE. I cannot think of a reasonable instance in which it would need to be removed or banned. Rahter, I wish it were flown, with great pride, more often and in more places. I live in a multiculural city, and many fly flags of Mexico, Germany, various state flags, the flag of Puerto Rico, etc. Would I could see so many AMerican flags flying proudly in the breeze. Because it is OUR flag, it takes precedence over all others, and deserves some special perks.
That's more than a little backwards.
The US flag is not just any flag. It is the only one of its kind in the nation. There is no equivalence to another flag in this country -- no other nation's flag can fly higher than this one.
While I understand that some people can be offended by this flag being flown, they have a reasonable alternative. Keep their f***ing eyes on the g**d***ed road. Maybe they can hang up and drive as well. Just a suggestion, one of the more printable ones that comes to mind...
We as a nation have to put up with two-bit asswipes burning the flag because they want to p*ss their fellow countrymen off. There is no "speech" here, any more than taking a crap on the mayor's porch constitutes speech, or raising your middle finger at your local policeman is speech. Speech in general involves words. Flag burning is just garden variety assholery as done with someone with the vocabulary and maturity of a six month old. Nobody truly *knows* what they are trying to say if they use no words. Maybe they *like* the US? Maybe they want to send UBL a flag that he can look at for his eternity in hell?
Maybe they have a right to be an asshole, but I have a right to fly the symbol of my nation with pride. And so does Orcutt. If Caltrans wants to find a reason, they have the burden of coming up with a *good* reason why not, and not some lame-assed "we don't want to *offend* anyone." By doing that, they take ownership of the flag's presence, and any groveling to America-haters is their responsibility. If instead, they say that people *have* complained, and that if it becomes a traffic hazard, they reserve the right to have it taken down, then they are at least acting like adults here.
I despise people that think they ought to apologize for our flag every bit as much as I despise people in this nation, taking advantage of our liberty who are somehow offended by the presence of the flag that represents the very liberties they enjoy. If they hate this nation so much, they are welcome to leave. In fact, if they took up a collection, I for one would be happy to kick in a bit to send anyone who hates this nation elsewhere with the sole provision that when they find out that things aren't so nice elsewhere, that we can watch them whine and beg to come back on cable TV. Call it "America's Funniest Dumbass Videos".
However, they want the content to be politically neutral, because if they allow one viewpoint, they would have to allow all, even if it is offensive to the majority of citizens.
Calling the American Flag a "viewpoint" is sad statement on where we find ourselves in this once great country.
Anyone else see the Today show this morning, I don't usually watch it but I had to see the report about our children's social security numbers being used by wait.... illegals, obviously because neither of the guys who racked up $750,000 on some teenage girls social speak English very well or not at all or thats what they want you to think. Check your children's credit reports, yes even your infants they may already be in debt up to their tiny little eyeballs. It's one report I completely believe.
Thanks for the tip Tesslea.
Thats some scary stuff when your 2 yr old has to declare bankruptcy...
The children do not stand a chance.
No they do not this country is going to hell in a hand basket. What kills me is that they say they can not find the people but the reporter found two guys using the teens card not 5 miles from her home, one of them driving a nice new pickup just like I'd like to have if I could afford it, saying i no see no cops, you go get arrest go away... nice English but at least he could speak a little...
I also saw that report. Apparently, some children have their SSN and identity stolen BEFORE THEY ARE EVEN BORN. Don't even ASK me how that is possible, but there you go. I guess as soon as you get the number you should start running credit reports. What I want to know, is how do they steal a child's ID for bills, utilities, etc, when the birthdates are obviously not a match. Shouldn't that be abundant proof that the child is not the perpetrator, but the victim?
As for the Ninth District Court, there is your explanation for stupidity right there. ALL those judges need to be retired and they need to start all over. Last I looked, free expression, whether personal or patriotic (or both) is guranteed under the Constitution. Which Constitution are THEY reading?
I also saw that report. Apparently, some children have their SSN and identity stolen BEFORE THEY ARE EVEN BORN. Don’t even ASK me how that is possible, but there you go.
Deb, if that's true, there's only one way that can happen--someone inside the SSA office is providing them to illegals and identity thieves! I know, because that's how my wife's SSN was acquired while I was stationed in Texas in the late 80's early 90's. Remember when the government decided to join the IRS and the SSA back in, oh, 90 something (may have been slightly earlier)? We got a letter from the IRS telling us that we had filed incorrectly because we were divorced, at least according to their records, and they made me refile my taxes and prove my marriage status. Well, me being me, I pitched a fit and went to the IRS office in town and lodged a complaint about their incompetence. We got the run around for a few days and, all of a sudden, they dismiss their request and pay us our tax refund and give us some bullshit circuitous answer about how the mixup was in the SSA and not the IRS, blah, blah, blah... Any way, after doing a little digging of my own I was able to determine that three individuals of interest were summarily fired within the records and issue department of the SSA in town and nothing more was said of the incident. All hushed up and this at a time when we were just starting to have a real identity theft problem in the US. It's nice to know that your government bureaucracies are there to cover your back when you really need their help...NOT!
Ok, now when we campaign against illegal immigration, we must use the leftist slogan, always expressed in a sorrowful, pleading manner. "It's for the chiiiiildreeeen."
They don't check that because the feds charge them a fee to make sure the name matches the number and they are too cheap to pay it... poor rich bankers don't want to pay the fee, guess that is how they stay rich eh?
I wonder with this happening if there isnt a protection claus against this, for underage children?
In what part of our state do you live, Martin?
We are working to get out of California. I absolutely hate living in this sissy la la land out here. Between the environmentalist whackos and all the rest of the looney left ... this state isn't worth living in any longer. The left destroys everything they touch. California is no exception.
Why didn't OTORA get approval from CalTrans (the owner of the property) before they started raising money? It may be a stupid policy, but it's not OTORA's property, so why would they even plan something for a piece of land they don't own?
They got approval for the monument. Its only when the flag portion became known did they get the rejection. It is utterly f-kking inane