Showing posts with label Maryland. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Maryland. Show all posts

Thursday, September 3, 2015

Man Threatens to Kill 'White People' in 'Purge'-Inspired Tweet: PD

Man Threatens to Kill 'White People' in 'Purge'-Inspired Tweet: PD | NBC4 Washington
A Maryland man is custody after police say he threatened to kill residents in the town of La Plata in a social media post.
Police say 20-year-old Carlos Anthony Hollins posted the threat on Twitter. According to the La Plata Police Department, the tweet read, “IM NOT GONNA STAND FOR THIS NO. MORE. TONIGHT WE PURGE! KILL ALL THE WHITE PPL IN THE TOWN OF LA PLATA.” The tweet also included the hashtag #blacklivesmatter.
"Purge" is a reference to the "The Purge" series. Both the original film and its 2014 sequel depict a night in which crime is legal for 12 hours without any consequences.
Authorities were able to identify Hollins as their suspect and took him into custody. He has been charged with threats of mass violence. 
The La Plata Police Department says they have added extra officers to patrol in an effort to protect the public. 

Thursday, August 20, 2015

Could A Middle-Aged White Man Ever Become President?

Martin-O-Malley-GQ-2015-04.jpg
Martin O'Malley was standing on a chair, shouting in a dark bar in Iowa City. He may have been nearly a thousand miles from Baltimore, but for him, that wasn't far enough.
It was a stormy summer evening, and about 150 people had come to hear O'Malley make the case that he should be president—a case that had gotten frustratingly tricky. Not that long ago, O'Malley, the former governor of Maryland and a perpetually rising star in Democratic politics, seemed like the no-brainer alternative to Hillary Clinton. “The best manager working in government today,” theWashington Monthly called him, a problem solver who had slashed crime as mayor of Baltimore. But now those rosy urban achievements had taken on the stink of controversy, complicating his pitch for the presidency.
A young woman in a peasant skirt raised her hand. “As mayor of Baltimore, you oversaw an era of mass arrests of nonviolent offenders,” she told the candidate, citing statistics—“110,000 arrests were made in one year in a city of 620,000 people”—before getting to her question. “What are we supposed to expect from you on the issue of mass incarceration and institutional racism?”
As he listened, O'Malley's smile grew forced and his jaw began to bulge. He has a temper. Plus, he doesn't like to be called out. As mayor, O'Malley once paid a visit to a couple of radio hosts criticizing him for being insufficiently concerned about crime. “Come outside after the show,” he scolded them, “and I'll kick your ass.”
Now, in Iowa City, O'Malley seemed on the verge of unloading again. He'd been on edge since April, when riots erupted in Baltimore after cops were implicated in the killing of an unarmed black man named Freddie Gray. Years of mistrust between the city's police and its black citizens were glaringly exposed—and suddenly the two terms O'Malley spent as the city's mayor from 1999 to 2007 were subject to brutal re-examination. O'Malley—who had always taken plenty of credit for slowing crime by employing tough “zero tolerance” policing techniques—found himself being blamed for the city's racial acrimony.
David Simon, the former Baltimore Sun reporter and creator of The Wire, declaimed that “the stake through the heart of police procedure in Baltimore was Martin O'Malley.” On Meet the Press, Chuck Todd incredulously asked O'Malley, “Do you think you can still run on your record as mayor of Baltimore, governor of Maryland, given all this?” And when O'Malley launched his presidential campaign, protesters crashed the festivities, chanting “Black Lives Matter” and burnishing NOMALLEY signs. In the wake of police violence in Ferguson, Cleveland, New York, and now Baltimore, the old-school good-governance dictates about getting tough on crime seemed out of touch. Suddenly Democrats were scrambling to take up the mantle of police reform, and O'Malley was stranded on the wrong side of one of the defining issues for liberals today.
“You weren't in Baltimore in 1999, but I was,” he told the young woman, with more than a hint of contempt in his voice. “It looked more like Mexico City than an American city, and the gutters quite literally ran with blood.” There was no applause. These people didn't get it, he seemed to be thinking. What he'd done in Baltimore was worthy of their respect and not, as the woman in the peasant skirt suggested, part of “the long history of brutalization” of “communities of color.” He was the guy, he wanted to tell them, who could save those communities—the guy who knows that you don't stop criminals by asking politely and that turning around a city isn't as easy as replacing open-air drug markets with shabby-chic condos. But that kind of talk had fallen out of fashion. The political hand O'Malley had been planning to play was now a loser. The man who wanted to be president swallowed hard and tried to pivot to something else.

Monday, August 17, 2015

Maryland’s GOP Governor Larry Hogan: Conservative Getting Things Done

Defeating the political machine in one-party Democratic stronghold Maryland, Maryland Governor Larry Hogan went from nobody to overnight (and still going) sensation among conservatives across the country, especially for Republicans in a state where, aside from a Congressman here and there plus a celebrity governor, Republicans never fared well. With “Change Maryland”, his non-partisan interest group with bipartisan support,  Governor Hogan pushed tax and spending cuts, supported education, and killed expensive public projects.

A team player interested not just in furthering his career but helping his fellow Republicans, the son of a former Congressman has invested time and energy improving the Republican brand and increasing GOP outreach to otherwise unknown or untapped constituencies, particularly young voter and minorities. With Republicans nearing majority status in select counties, plus the growing weariness of voters taxed and regulated beyond reason, Hogan declared joyfully on the steps of the state house: “It’s a great day to be a Republican in Maryland”. With majority control over five of nine county executive boards, the new Governor is setting his sights on long-term growth and development for a state which barely survived eight years of uber-liberal Martin O’Malley.

Hogan has issued executive orders to require state officials and legislators to end the endless gerrymandering which marginalizes the most resolute of Old Line State residents. Despite the current push-back from the still Democratically dominated state legislature in Annapolis, Hogan is gaining prestige and strength. People want change, and Hogan is bringing it. One of his most recent and popular measures? Reducing the tolls and fees for Marylanders as well as visitors traversing the state.  Following the Baltimore riots, the governor exulted with national press that Baltimore would celebrate its world famous horse race. Residents stepped out to clean up and improve their city. The port of Baltimore is open for business, and bringing in major commerce with the largest shipping firm in the world.

Law and order has become the order of the day under the Hogan Administration, too. Recently, he has shown some muscle against illegal immigration, particularly in cases where a violent crime has occurred, despite the two-to-one Democratic voter registration in the state and previous Democratic Governor Martin O’Malley’s relentless policies to promote illegal aliens and transform them into “new Americans”.

Departing from the previous governor’s policy of non-cooperation, Hogan informed Marylanders that he would change the course of the state’s non-compliance legacy, comply with the federal government, and detain illegal aliens for Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.

The Washington Post reports:
Immigration advocates in Maryland are criticizing a decision by Gov. Larry Hogan to notify federal immigration officials when an illegal immigrant targeted for deportation is released from the state-run Baltimore City Detention Center.

Advocates consider Hogan’s stance to be a departure from the policy of his predecessor, Democrat Martin O’Malley, who last year joined other elected officials in refusing requests from the Obama administration to coordinate with federal law enforcement whenever a detainee was being released.

With a latent political savvy determined not only to thwart amnesty proponents but coalesce widespread general support for his decision, Hogan’s office responded:

When pro-amnesty group CASA de Maryland protested outside Governor Hogan’s mansion, hisoffice released another statement:

The Baltimore City Detention Center is simply complying with a request from the Obama administration in regard to individuals who have already been detained. If CASA has concerns about Obama’s Priority Enforcement Program, I would recommend they take those concerns to the White House.

“Priority Enforcement” comes in light of President Obama’s executive amnesty in late November last year, when he announced to the United States that he would defer deportation and permit five million illegal aliens to remain in the country who had not broken any other laws.
What a supreme and gratifying irony: A Republican governor in a deep blue state is enforcing the law,, rounding up illegal aliens who endanger the public; an executive —whoa—enhances public safety all while rebuffing critics by referencing the President’s own unconstitutional order to expand immigration and benefits to illegal aliens. Even the “shrilly, shrilly liberal” Washington Post had to concede to the Republican governor’s “common sense” on immigration.

Following those bold measures, Governor Hogan took unprecedented action and shut down a corrupt, inefficient, and dysfunctional detention center in Baltimore City, too. Fiscal prudent and morally sound, Hogan practices fiscal discipline without sacrificing the safety and security of his citizens. Surviving and thriving in spite of non-Hodgkins lymphoma, the (once considered unlikely) conservative Republican Governor of Maryland has become the face of the growing conservative upswing sweeping the country, a nation fed up with government serving itself instead of taxpayers, hardworking men and women who just want a leader who will get things done.


Sunday, August 16, 2015

O'Malley wants to debate Clinton on Wall Street, trade, XL pipeline

O'Malley wants to debate Clinton on Wall Street, trade, XL pipeline | Washington Examiner
Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley wants a debate with Hillary Clinton so that he can get the Democratic front-runner to commit to positions on Wall Street, trade, and the Keystone XL pipeline.
"I would ask Hillary Clinton what sort of ideas she has to make our economy work again for all of us and whether or not she has the independence to rein in the sort of recklessness on Wall Street that has tanked our economy once and threatens to do it again," the former Maryland governor and Democratic presidential candidate said Sunday morning on CBS.
O'Malley, who has strenuously argued for more debates in the Democratic primary, went on to recite a list of issues on which he has staked out a position and Clinton has hedged her responses.
"I am in favor of re-instituting Glass-Steagall," he said of the Depression-Era separation of commercial and investment banks. "I am in favor of putting robust prosecutorial efforts back on Wall Street."

Friday, July 31, 2015

[VIDEO] BALTIMORE: Defense Accuses Marilyn Mosby of Withholding Evidence in Freddie Grey Case

The legal team representing the six Baltimore police officers charged in the death of Freddie Gray have accused State Attorney Marilyn Mosby of withholding evidence they believe can aid their case.


In particular, they allege that Mosby has evidence that Gray tried to injure himself during a previous arrest. “Based upon information and belief, the State’s Attorney’s Office was informed of this fact, yet failed to disclose to the Defendants any statements, reports, or other communications relating to this information,” they write.
They also accuse Mosby of withholding “multiple witness statements from individuals who stated that Mr. Gray was banging and shaking the van at various points” and “police reports, court records, and witness statements indicating that on prior occasions, Mr. Gray had fled from police and attempted to discard drugs.”
If true, the evidence could be crucial in the police officers’ defense. One report early in the investigation into Gray’s death indicated that he was trying to injure himself in the police van, a report that another prisoner in the van has disputed.

Thursday, July 23, 2015

School board member accused of stealing Michelle O’s lunch money

UPPER MARLBORO, Md. – A Prince George’s County school board member is under investigation after she allegedly lied about her income to secure free school lunch for her child.
Lyn Mundey resigned from the board June 1, and her resignation takes effect August 24, but ABC 7 News reports several of her constituents want her gone immediately.
“To take advantage of the system when there are people out here that really need it is ridiculous, it’s sad,” resident Brenda Payne said.
The news site obtained an email from a federal investigator to the suburban Washington, D.C. school district authored in April identifying Mundey as one of multiple Government Accountability Office employees who are allegedly scamming the federal government’s free and reduced price lunch program.
The email states that Mundey, who works as a GAO management analyst, was among several of the agency’s employees “receiving free lunch despite earning salaries much greater than the 133 percent of the poverty rate” required to qualify for the special lunch program.
The email alleges Mundey reported “no income at all in 2011 and 2012,” which infuriated local resident Lee Krulisch.
“I mean that’s a criminal act to me to falsify information,” he said.
Ernest Tuck, another Upper Marlboro resident, seemed to agree.
“There are so many people in the country that need it and so I think it’s terrible,” he said.
ABC 7 News reports that Mundey called into the newsroom about an hour before the story posted around 7:30 p.m. Monday to defend herself.

“She denies any ethical violations, claims she put money in her daughter’s lunch account and said she is unaware of an investigation,” the news site reports.
ABC 7 News confirmed Mundey is the subject of a criminal investigation by the Prince George’s County state’s attorney over the alleged lunch program scam.
The Washington Post reports Mundey was appointed to the school board by the county’s executive, Rushern L. Baker III in August 2013 to fill a seat vacated by Carletta Fellows, who resigned the month prior after only six months on the board.
At the time, Baker said Mundey, a single mother of a high schooler, “will bring a new level of energy and commitment, plus an inspiring story of focus and determination that I am confident will resonate with our students, parents, faculty and staff.”
“Ms. Mundey is invested in our schools as a parent, alumni and true advocate for public education,” Baker said in a 2013 statement.
Mundey graduated from the district’s Bowie High School before gaining a degree from the University of Maryland.
“I am a single parent and I know a lot of families in my district that look like mine,” Mundey said when she was appointed, according to the Post. “I want to assist those parents in any way that I can as they try to get what we all want a quality education for our children.”

Saturday, July 18, 2015

POLITICS Sanders And O’Malley Shouted Off Stage At Progressive Conference

NOTHIN LIKE EATING THERE OWN!!!  GOTTA LOVE IT!!!

Netroots Nation, the annual conference of ultra-left-wing activists, had two Democratic Party presidential candidates in attendance at their event in Phoenix, Ariz., this year… And shouted them both off stage.
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley participated separately in a candidate discussion moderated by journalist and illegal alien Jose Antonio Vargas. Both speakers were interrupted by shouting protesters from the #BlackLivesMatter movement and were unable to continue.
O’Malley was being interrupted by protesters and, after pleas from the stage and event organizers, was allowed to continue. He went on to say, “I know, I know…Let me talk a little bit…Black lives matter, white lives matter, all lives matter,” which the crowd did not appreciate. The chants and boos got louder and the candidate left the stage.
O'Malley gaffes with this crowd: "Black lives matter, white lives matter, all lives matter." Huge groans and boos.
Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading....

Wednesday, July 8, 2015

‘DIRTY DOZEN’ LIBERAL BLUE STATES GOING BROKE

A new study from George Mason University’s Mercatus Center confirms what many of us already knew:

Liberal “blue states” are fiscally irresponsible.

In fact, 11 of the 14 least fiscally solvent states are also on the list of the “dirty dozen” most liberal blue states. In descending order of fiscal irresponsibility, from 50th to 37th, here’s the list of fiscal shame:
#50 ILLINOIS
#49 NEW JERSEY
#48 MASSACHUSETTS
#47 CONNECTICUT
#46 NEW YORK
#44 CALIFORNIA
#42 MAINE
#40 HAWAII
#39 VERMONT
#38 RHODE ISLAND
#37 MARYLAND
The 12th state in the “dirty dozen” list—Delaware—does not fare particularly well either, placing 30th out of the 50 states.
(In an article published at Breithbart on the 4th of July, I offered a definition of these “dirty dozen” to include those states that gave President Obama more than 56.2 percent of the vote in the 2012 Presidential election.)
The Mercatus Center report ranked the 50 states “based on their fiscal solvency in five separate categories:”
(1) Cash solvency. Does a state have enough cash on hand to cover its short-term bills?
(2) Budget solvency. Can a state cover its fiscal year spending with current revenues? Or does it have a budget shortfall?
(3) Long-run solvency. Can a state meet its long-term spending commitments? Will there be enough money to cushion it from economic shocks or other long-term fiscal risks?
(4) Service-level solvency. How much fiscal “slack” does a state have to increase spending should citizens demand more services?
(5) Trust fund solvency. How much debt does a state have? How large are its unfunded pen­sion and health care liabilities?
The Mercatus Center report supports an assertion I made in that earlier article:
One hundred and fifty years after the end of the Civil War, it is becoming increasingly clear that there are two Americas—one [consisting of the “Great 38 States” in flyover country which President Obama either lost or obtained less than 56.2 percent of the vote in the 2012 Presidential election] where the principles of constitutionally limited government and individual liberty are still revered, the other [those “dirty dozen” liberal blue states] where statism and the trampling of individual rights are on the rise.
The “dirty dozen” liberal blue states are headed towards the sort of fiscal insolvency now unraveling the country of Greece, and their fiscal recklessness may well drag down the entire federal government as well. All the more reason for the rest of us in the “Great 38 States” to consider convening an Assembly of the States so that fiscally responsible states can assert their sovereign rights guaranteed by the 10th amendment. Those sovereign rights include the right not to be forced to pay for another state’s profligacy.

Monday, July 6, 2015

TIME FOR THE STATES TO DECLARE INDEPENDENCE FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

“Take this Supreme Court decision and shove it.”

new Rasmussen Poll indicates that a growing number of Americans want state governments to tell the Supreme Court to get out of the business of rewriting laws and telling American citizens how to live their lives.
In a new poll, Rasmussen reported the percentage of Americans who want states to tell the Supreme Court it does not have the power to rewrite the Affordable Care Act or force sovereign states to authorize gay marriages has increased from 24 percent to 33 percent after last week’s Constitution-defying decisions by the court.
A closer look at the poll results indicates that popular sentiment for state defiance of the federal government extends beyond just the Supreme Court’s latest decisions.
“Only 20% [of likely voters] now consider the federal government a protector of individual liberty,” the Rasmussen Poll finds. “Sixty percent (60 %) see the government as a threat to individual liberty instead,” it adds.
“Take this regulation and shove it,” and “take this grant and shove it,” are two additional battle cries which appear to resonate with a growing popular sentiment, especially in “flyover country,” those 38 states outside the dozen in which President Obama won more than 56.2 percent of the vote in 2012.
(In descending order of support for Obama, those twelve states are: Hawaii, Vermont, New York, Rhode Island, Maryland, Massachusetts, California, Delaware, New Jersey, Connecticut, Illinois, and Maine. Arguably, three additional states where President Obama won between 54 percent and 56.2 percent of the vote in 2012 could be added to this list: Washington, Oregon, and Michigan.)
One hundred and fifty years after the end of the Civil War, it is becoming increasingly clear that there are two Americas—one where the principles of constitutionally limited government and individual liberty are still revered, the other where statism and the trampling of individual rights are on the rise.
The Tea Party movement arose in 2009 to restore those principles of constitutionally-limited government. But despite electoral victories that placed Republicans in control of the House of Representatives in 2010, and the Senate in 2014, it is undeniable that the Republican establishment those elections empowered is instead aligned with the forces of statism.
The majority of the members of the Supreme Court itself are also clearly part of the “elitist” camp of anti-constitutionalists. As Breitbart’s Thomas Williams noted, and Justice Scalia himself pointed out in his scathing dissent in the gay marriage decision, not a single member of the nine member court is of the Protestant faith. Not a single member has graduated from a law school other than Harvard, Yale, or Columbia. Nor has a single member done anything other than practice some version of corporate law with “big law” firms, sit on a federal court, work for the federal government, or work in left-wing academia.
With the entire apparatus of the federal government now aligned against constitutionally limited government, some traditionalists have given themselves over to despair and defeatism. That negative view, however, fails to understand the solution provided to usurpations of power by the central government found within the Constitution itself, with origins in the Declaration of Independence, whose signing on July 4, 1776 we celebrate today.
As Rasmussen Reports noted, “The Declaration of Independence, the foundational document that Americans honor on the Fourth of July, says that governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed, but just 25% believe that to be true of the federal government today.”
Even more significantly, however, the recent Supreme Court decisions are a complete rejection of the concepts of state sovereignty articulated in the 10th amendment, the last element of the Bill of Rights, the promise of whose passage by the First Congress was key to the ratification of the Constitution.
The 10th amendment, ratified along with the other nine amendments of the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791, reads as follows:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The concept of popular resistance to the unconstitutional encroachment of the federal government on the rights of individuals and states has been gaining momentum over the past several years.
Conservative radio host Mark Levin, for instance, has advocated on behalf of an Article V Convention of the States to propose new amendments to the Constitution for ratification by the states that would limit federal powers.
Conservative author and intellectual leader Charles Murray has also advocated for a type of civil disobedience to resist unlawful federal regulations through the use of well funded legal challenges to the most egregious of those regulations.
Both concepts have merit, but ultimately lack the power and effective counter-attack available through the simple mechanism offered by the 10th amendment—widespread resistance to federal overreaches by the state governments themselves.
Bolder, constitutionally based resistance at the state level, is a practical and viable remedy, one that already has broad popular support among conservatives.
As Rasmussen Reports noted:
[T]he voters who feel strongest about overriding the federal courts – Republicans and conservatives – are those who traditionally have been the most supportive of the Constitution and separation of powers. During the Obama years, however, these voters have become increasingly suspicious and even hostile toward the federal government.
Fifty percent (50%) of GOP voters now believe states should have the right to ignore federal court rulings, compared to just 22% of Democrats and 30% of voters not affiliated with either major party. Interestingly, this represents a noticeable rise in support among all three groups.
Fifty percent (50%) of conservative voters share this view, but just 27% of moderates and 15% of liberals agree.
Widespread resistance at the state level, however, will require two elements: strong governors and strong state legislatures willing to vigorously assert their 10th amendment rights.
At the local level, we’ve already seen the first indications that a movement may be afoot. In Tennessee, for example, the entire Decatur County Clerk’s Office resigned rather than enforce the recent gay marriage decision announced by the Supreme Court.
Isolated pockets of resistance are springing up around the country.
And yet, even among “The Great 38 States”—flyover country where President Obama either lost or won less than 56.2 percent of the vote in the 2012 election—leadership at the executive level is lacking.
The next electoral battle for the preservation of the constitutional republic will be fought not only for the highest office of the executive branch in 2016—it will also be fought in the gubernatorial races of those “Great 38 States” where the vast majority of voters still believe in America, and still believe in constitutionally limited government.
Freedom of the individual states from the usurpations of the federal government does not mean secession from the constitutional republic. It is, instead, the surest realistic mechanism that remains to preserve the constitutional republic.
By limiting the role of the federal government to the exercise of that very narrow set of specifically “enumerated powers” ascribed to it in the Constitution, state governments can guarantee that our constitutional republic will continue to flourish for generations to come.
The alternative is a constitutional republic in name only, a dystopian oligarchy where words have no meaning, right is wrong, good is bad, truth is deception, and the rule of law is invented anew each day by the ruling class of federal royalty.
As for that dirty dozen of liberal blue states, like California, New York, and Massachusetts? Let them continue on their path of reckless spending and experience the fate of modern Greece.
Meanwhile, the rest of us can continue to choose liberty.

Saturday, June 27, 2015

[COMMENTARY] Obamacare wins one, America loses

The Supreme Court’s ruling Thursday in King v. Burwell has temporarily saved the Affordable Care Act, but millions of Americans are still hurting under Obamacare. The high court’s six-justice majority agreed that the IRS can change the wording of the law to the administration’s liking. No one, however, can change that Obamacare is an expensive failure — unpopular, unworkable and unaffordable.
Obamacare enrollees are facing double-digit premium increases, the opposite of what they were promised. The president’s health-care law was supposed to “bend the cost curve” — and it has, in the wrong direction. Obamacare piled mandates on the insurance industry while drastically increasing uncertainty in the market. Early on, insurers were working with incomplete data when setting rates. They didn’t know how sick or expensive their millions of new enrollees would be. Now they have a better idea and are proposing enormous rate hikes — 30 percent or more in states such as in Maryland, Tennessee and New Mexico.
Commentary: Obamacare wins one, America loses photo
The president has two options: He can ignore these staggering numbers and let the Obamacare juggernaut roll forward. Or he can sit down with Republicans and find ways to offer relief to hardworking Americans.
President Obama should welcome a full airing of ideas. The health care law still lacks the support of most Americans. A June 8 poll by the Washington Post and ABC News put support for Obamacare at 39 percent and opposition at 54 percent. Is it any wonder? The bill was written behind closed doors, with no real discussion of opposing views, and passed on a party-line vote. The plan was far too complicated, with too many mandates and penalties. It was never designed to increase choice and lower prices. The subsidies to buy insurance served only to hide the true costs.
One of the main arguments the law’s defenders made in King v. Burwell was that if the subsidies at issue were struck down, another 6 million Americans would find health care too expensive. In other words, they cannot afford insurance without government help. That is a clear sign that the law has failed to rein in costs and should be replaced.
It’s time for the president to focus on addressing the real problems with this law. Republicans have good ideas about how to lower costs, improve access and help Americans lead healthier lives.

Popular Posts