Sunday, July 12, 2015

ANOTHER COURT LOSS FOR OBAMA’S AMNESTY… NOT THAT IT MATTERS

If the rule of law still meant anything in Obama’s America, the President’s agenda of amnesty for illegal aliens would be in big trouble. It doesn’t, so the Administration just keeps pumping out amnesty documents, no matter how often federal courts order them to stop.

Team Obama even stooped to flat-out lying to a federal judge about the need for a temporary injunction to stop the amnesty printing press. Later they made a “surprise filing” to the judge disclosing that their previous statements were false, and – whoopsie! – they had already tossed 100,000 amnesty packages out.
So the news from Politico that “President Barack Obama appears likely to lose – again – in the protracted legal fight over his executive actions on immigration” doesn’t really mean much.
This all has nothing to do with laws, courts, elections, or the will of the American people. It’s a pure exercise in absolute tyranny. The Ruling Class has decided to import a new electorate, a perfect combination of cheap labor for Big Business and reliable Big Government votes for Democrats. No court, no vote, no crime wave, and no outcry from legitimate American citizens is going to stop them.
It’s all about using executive fiat to change the facts on the ground quickly. By the time courts and voters catch up, riding upon the relatively slow rails of legal and electoral process, hundreds of thousands of people will have been given citizenship and welfare benefits that cannot be taken away from them.
Anyway, for what it’s worth, here’s the latest rusty shriek of outrage from the obsolete legal system:
Two of the three appeals court judges who heard oral arguments Friday on the Obama administration’s immigration programs were skeptical about the legal merits of the directive, which could halt deportations for more than 4 million immigrants here illegally who have family ties in the United States.
The chilly reception from the three-judge panel in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on whether Obama had legal authority to take such action seems to indicate that a lower court decision blocking the new programs would stay in place.
The Obama administration has argued that the executive actions were a standard use of prosecutorial discretion, since the federal government does not have the resources to deport the estimated 11 million immigrants here illegally. But Judge Jerry Smith disputed that contention.
“It puts them one step ahead in terms of being eligible for lots of potential benefits, whether those are Social Security and Medicare, work authorization, earned income tax credits, and on the state level, drivers’ licenses,” Smith said of immigrants who would benefit from Obama’s actions. “Just seems to me that … it really is a lot more than prosecutorial discretion.”
As for the judge who was deceived and defied by the Administration, District Judge Andrew Hanen in Texas, he still seems to be operating under the impression that some sort of “law” applies to King Barack I and his imported supplicants. He ordered the Administration to rescind 2,000 work permits for illegals issued in defiance of his orders, and they simply ignored him. In fact, they issued another 500 three-year work permits after his block orders were handed down.
When last U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services was heard from on the matter, they said they had been reduced to “pleading with the illegal immigrants to return the three-year cards,” but “they are having trouble getting some of the lucky recipients to send them back,” according to the Washington Times.
What an amazing spectacle!
People who broke the law and occupied the United States illegally are refusing to give back the work permits they were issued in error… and the almighty Leviathan State, the same government that will bring its boot down on your neck if you dream of defying ObamaCare or gay marriage orders, just shrugs and whines about how tough it is to persuade those who didn’t surrender their illegitimate permits immediately.

Hillary: Your Nose Is Growing – Dick Morris TV: Lunch Alert!

In this video commentary, I discuss how Hillary has been caught in a web of lies with the release of her private emails. Tune in!


Jack Kelly: Don't blame Trump

Kate Steinle, 32, was walking with her father along the Embarcadero in San Francisco in the early evening July 1 when she was shot – apparently at random -- by Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, 45, an illegal alien from Mexico who’d committed 7 previous felonies in the U.S.
Mr. Lopez-Sanchez had been deported five times. It would have been six, but for the fact San Francisco is a “sanctuary city.”
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement had Mr. Lopez Sanchez in custody after his release from federal prison in March, but turned him over to sheriff’s deputies for San Francisco county, where a drug warrant had been issued for him.
ICE asked to be notified if San Francisco released Mr. Lopez-Sanchez, so he could be deported. But San Francisco does not honor such requests from federal immigration authorities.
In Laredo, Texas, the day after Kate Steinle was murdered, Juan Francisco de Luna Vasquez, an illegal immigrant from Mexico, beat his wife to death with a hammer.
Mr. de Luna Vazquez had been deported four times. It would have been five if Laredo police had informed the Border Patrol of earlier violent episodes with his wife.
In 2013, ICE released back into local communities 36,007 illegal aliens who among them had nearly 88,000 criminal convictions – including 193 homicides, 426 sexual assaults, 303 kidnappings, and 1,075 aggravated assaults.
All were being processed for deportation, but were freed while awaiting final disposition of their cases. Most of the releases were discretionary (not required by law.) After their release, at least 1,000 committed additional crimes.
The 36,000 were in addition to 68,000 other illegal aliens with criminal convictions encountered by ICE in 2013, but released without being processed for deportation.
Last year ICE released 30,558 criminal aliens who, collectively, had almost 80,000 convictions, including 250 homicides, 386 kidnappings, 373 sexual assaults, 994 aggravated assaults.
Illegal immigrants comprise about 3 percent of the population in the U.S., 30 percent the federal prison population, 38 percent of those convicted of federal crimes in FY 2013. More than 40 percent of federal criminal cases filed by U.S. attorneys last year were in five districts along the Mexican border.
These statistics go unmentioned by Democrats and journalists who’ve assailed Donald Trump for remarks he made about illegal immigrants when he announced his candidacy for president June 16.
“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best,” Mr. Trump said. “They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.”
This was a crude statement from someone notorious for making crude remarks. The vast majority of illegal immigrants have broken no other U.S. laws. Most work long hours for low wages at scut jobs to provide a better life for their families.
Illegals are far more likely to be victims of violent crime. As many as 80 percent of illegal immigrant women are raped during their perilous journey here. In every major population group, only a relative handful of people commit violent crimes. The proportion of violent felons among illegal immigrants probably is about the same as for the native born.
But violent felons among the illegal immigrants commit lots of crimes -- crimes that would not have been committed if they hadn’t gotten into the country in the first place, been deported promptly, or kept in custody until they could be deported.
Mr. Trump deserves criticism for how he said it, but the thrust of what he said is indisputably true. Criticism of his infelicitous remark is hypocritical coming from those who’ve asserted or implied Republicans who seek stronger border security measures are “racist.”
I don’t like Donald Trump. I wish he’d said what he said in a more accurate, less provocative way. But it isn’t he who deserves condemnation. It’s the politicians whose policies have made them accessories before the fact in the murder of Kate Steinle, and so many others.

[VIDEO] Judge Jeanine SKEWERS ‘sanctuary cities': ‘Don’t DARE’ demand lawless zones in America

As the Obama administration continues to run for cover over the illegal immigration policies that led to the death of Kate Steinle at the hands of a 5-time deported illegal alien, Judge Jeanine Pirro focused the spotlight on its failures Saturday night.
In the “Opening Statement” of Fox News’ “Justice with Judge Jeanine,” Pirro said “the concept of sanctuary cities” is “wrong” and “fundamentally flawed.”
The judge lamented what she called “politically correct nonsense,” and asked “What is correct about allowing a career criminal, who should not have been here in the first place, to walk the streets?”
Pirro recounted the Steinle case and called her killer, Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez, a “dirtbag career criminal” who was let go by San Francisco authorities in in April when federal immigrations officials asked for him to be handed over.
“Sanctuary cities are safe havens for criminal aliens, not their innocent victims,” Pirro said.
Pirro said Americans are generous but “don’t you dare ask us to create a zone of lawlessness and ignore the murder of innocent victims so some illegal criminal won’t have to go home.”
And she put the blame squarely on the Obama administration, mocking White House efforts to blame Republicans for the illegal alien problem. Obama is forcing his own sanctuary policy, she said.
“The Department of Homeland Security reportedly instructed that California criminal illegals be transferred to San Diego and Riverside counties. Why?” she asked. “Because they are sanctuary cities.”
Pirro pointed out that in 2010, the Obama administration said cities who did not enforce federal immigration laws would not be punished.
“Can you imagine what the president would do if sanctuary cities refused to enforce civil rights laws, integration laws?” she asked. “The federal response would be swift, certain and immediate.”

States, industry groups sue EPA, Army Corps

SALEM, Ohio —  The ink barely dried on new federal rules expanding the Clean Water Act before dozens of states, agricultural and business industry groups filed lawsuits in courts around the country, claiming the changes hand the government an unreasonable amount of authority over land use.
The Clean Water Act already gave Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction over “navigable” waters. The new rule broadens that to include other water bodies, as well as upstream waters, 100-year flood plains and ephemeral streams such as the kind farmers use for drainage and irrigation. It also would encompass lands adjacent to such waters. The new rule was published June 29, and will go into effect Aug. 28.

States sue

The EPA has said the changes, which were rewritten in recent months, should have little impact on agricultural activities and other uses. Dozens of states and industry groups remain unconvinced. Four lawsuits representing 27 states were filed in U.S. District courts in Ohio, North Dakota, Texas and Georgia, starting June 29.
Ohio and Michigan filed suit in Ohio. Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas filed in Texas. Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming filed in North Dakota. Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, South Carolina, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin filed suit in Georgia.

SOUTH CAROLINA: Columbia City Council’s new gun safety law assailed



The president of a prominent South Carolina gun rights group said Friday that an emergency Columbia city ordinance enacted last week to allow police to quickly arrest armed and dangerous people is not lawful.
But a council member said members had checked state law and determined that they were allowed to pass the temporary ordinance.
Council passed the measure Thursday night after hearing warnings from law enforcement that demonstrations relating to the Confederate flag at the State House might attract violent gun-toting people and groups that might do harm.
“It’s illegal,” said Gerald Stoudemire, president of the Gun Owners of South Carolina, who teaches concealed weapons classes, runs a gun shop and has testified on gun laws before various S.C. House and Senate committees.
Stoudemire, 68, said the new city ordinance flies in the face of a state law that says local governments cannot pass ordinances that put more restrictions on firearms than state law.
The city’s emergency ordinance, passed Thursday night, made illegal the carrying of firearms by citizens within 250 feet of the State House. The ordinance will expire around Aug. 9. It basically gives police the right within that zone to check out people they think might be carrying concealed weapons and arrest them if they are.
Council members passed the ordinance after hearing from city police Chief Skip Holbrook that police intelligence units were picking up information that various “hate groups” whose members are known to carry weapons might converge on Columbia for Friday’s lowering of the Confederate flag ceremony.
Police are also concerned that armed and potentially violent people will show up at a planned July 18 Ku Klux Klan rally at the State House, according to the ordinance passed by city council.
While state law prohibits the carrying of firearms by citizens on State House grounds, state law currently allows people to carry guns – including concealed guns if they have a permit – just off State House grounds, Stoudemire said. Thus, council’s action to restrict the rights of people to carry guns around the State House property goes further than state law and is illegal, Stoudemire said.
Council member Tameika Isaac Devine said that city council had weighed Stoudemire’s concern as well as the section of state law to which he is referring.
Devine said city officials determined that under state law, city council does have the right to pass emergency measures when health and safety are at stake.
“We can do this on a temporary basis, but we couldn’t do a permanent basis,” she said.
The ordinance will expire after 30 days, unless council extends it, she said.
“It depends on how things go in the next 30 days, what law enforcement is picking up on the Internet,” she said. “I’m hopeful that we will just let it expire.”
“Irregardless – for one day, it’s illegal,” Stoudemire said.
Stoudemire said he intends to ask a lawmaker to get an attorney general’s opinion on whether the ordinance is legal. Previous attorney general opinions support his position, he said.
Stoudemire also warned that the city might get sued and have to pay damages if it wrongfully arrests someone who has the right to carry a concealed weapon.
“It’s going to look bad if they arrest somebody and they sue the city,” Stoudemire said. “I figure the first fellow who gets arrested, he’s going to be asking for some big figures.”
Under the ordinance, anyone arrested and convicted of carrying a weapon in the prohibited zone would be guilty of a misdemeanor and could be fined up to $500 and put in jail for 30 days.
After Friday’s Confederate flag lowering at State House grounds, Holbrook told The State newspaper that no one had been arrested. State Law Enforcement Division Chief Mark Keel also said officers had made no arrests.

Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/news/local/article27019810.html#storylink=cpy

Obama to free dozens of inmates, tour federal prison this week

President Obama arrives to join first lady Michelle Obama (not pictured) to welcome children to a Kids’ State Dinner at the White House. (Photo: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)
President Obama will use his clemency power to release dozens of inmates from federal custody this week, doubling the commutations he’s granted so far and reassuring advocates that he is serious about using his executive authority to free people serving long decades for nonviolent crimes.
If the president grants another 40 or so commutations as expected, he will have shortened the sentences of more prisoners than any president since Gerald Ford, who extended clemency to thousands of Vietnam draft dodgers. (Obama’s record on pardoning ex-convicts outside of prison, however, has remained stingy by historical standards.)
The commutations will be granted during a criminal-justice-heavy week for the president. On Tuesday, he addresses the NAACP’s annual conference in Philadelphia, where he will speak about the need to reform mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent crimes, which disproportionately affect men and women of color. On Thursday, Obama will travel to El Reno prison in Oklahoma, becoming the first sitting president to tour a federal prison, according to White House spokesman Josh Earnest. The president will also give an interview to VICE magazine at the prison, on his criminal justice reform efforts.
Last year, the Obama administration made a historic call for applications from prisoners serving more than a decade in prison for nonviolent crimes that would have been prosecuted less harshly today. Obama is expected to shorten the sentences of hundreds of these prisoners before he leaves office, though the White House maintains there is no set number of commutations. The president has shown a special interest in people sent away for decades for crack cocaine violations, which were punished 100 times more harshly than powder cocaine until Congress scaled down that gap in 2010.
Obama may cross paths with one such prisoner seeking his clemency when he visits the federal prison in Oklahoma on Thursday. Douglas Dunkins, 49, has served more than 20 years of a life sentence at El Reno for dealing crack cocaine. (If Dunkins had been convicted of dealing the same amount of powder cocaine, his sentence would have been 20 years.) The judge in Dunkins’ case expressed discomfort with the mandatory minimum laws that forced him to put a 26-year-old with no prior felonies on his record in prison for life.

[VIDEO] Donald Trump steering GOP field into tough topics

Donald Trump may be known more for his brazen antics than his presidential potential, but the business magnate could make more waves on the trail than expected by forcing fellow candidates to tackle touchy subjects early on in the race, analysts say.
“He’s an agenda-setter right now in the Republican party,” said Erin O’Brien, associate professor of political science at University of Massachusetts Boston. “Other candidates are going to have to talk in more detail about issues they were hoping would remain off the table, namely immigration.
“It may force them to take more radical positions,” she added.
Trump again brought out his brash immigration rhetoric yesterday at a gathering in Las Vegas, which he hit before heading to a standing room-only event in Phoenix, where flag-waving supporters carried signs reading “Make America Great Again” and “Truth Trumps All.”
“These people wreak havoc on our population,” he said of immigrants who come to America illegally, suggesting that a wall should be built along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Trump took heat last month after his announcement speech when he said that many of the people crossing the border from Mexico are criminals and rapists.
But despite drawing outrage from voters that likely won’t help his chances in the long term, O’Brien said Trump is giving voice to a portion of the constituency, and fellow candidates may try to follow suit.
“Trump is doing damage to the Republican party,” O’Brien said. But, she added, “It would be a mistake to write him off as a total buffoon. He is speaking to a small, but real segment of the population.”
And because Trump’s demeanor is so bombastic, voters may see him as a voice of truth next to his more cautious and curated opponents, said Rob Brown, professor of communications at Salem State University, who has worked as a political adviser.
“He looks authentic, because if you weren’t authentic, why would you be saying these hateful, horrible, bigoted things?” he said. “He speaks what sounds like the unpleasant truth in a world of corporate apologies, political lies and scandals.”
“He’s a ringmaster,” he added, “and everyone likes a circus.”
Both O’Brien and Brown said that, while Trump may push the GOP candidates to extremes, it could also leave room for a hopeful who strays from party lines — like Ohio Gov. John Kasich — to fill the more moderate void.
“It gives them a chance also to move away from home to the center,” Brown said.

[OPINION] Opinion: Fix state? Here are 16 ideas

Silicon Valley tycoon Tim Draper’s quixotic campaign to reassemble California into six new states didn’t go anywhere, so he shifted into soliciting ideas to “Fix California.”
Draper received 427 suggestions and narrowed them to a “stately 16” finalists, one of which will be the winner with “perhaps a chance to get on the 2016 California ballot.”
Some of the 16 are relatively simple procedural changes, such as making the Legislature’s activities more transparent or placing more information on candidate and ballot measures in an online voter guide.
Others are more significant changes with the potential for broader impact, such as allowing ballot measures to qualify via electronic signatures, or giving voters access to public funds to electronically donate to candidates or parties of their choice.
But a few would, if enacted, truly transform California – perhaps not as much as reconfiguring it into six states, but fundamentally nevertheless.
One echoes Draper’s six-state notion by congealing California’s 58 counties into six “super counties.”
Another would replace the current two-house Legislature of 80 Assembly members and 40 senators with a 120-member unicameral Legislature, à la Nebraska.
A third would create thousands of “neighborhood legislative districts,” thus expanding the Legislature from 120 members to 14,000 members, who would then elect 120 members of a “working committee.”
The most far-reaching proposal, however, would replace California’s governmental structure with the parliamentary system used by most of the world’s democracies, with the governor the leader of the Legislature’s majority party or a coalition, like the British prime minister.
All of the 16 are interesting, certainly, and demonstrate, if nothing else, that many Californians sense – accurately – that such a large and complex state is not being governed as well as it should be.
Some of the lesser proposals, such as forcing the Legislature to comply with the same transparency laws it imposes on local governments, are just common sense. And if we can file our income tax returns electronically, we should be able to vote and sign petitions that way.
Fundamental structural changes are more difficult, but it’s high time that we consider them. We have a system that hasn’t changed in more than 150 years, other than becoming more infuriatingly complex and unresponsive. Nor have we changed a county boundary in more than a century.
Six counties may be too few, but replacing counties with perhaps a dozen regional governments that would absorb thousands of single-purpose special districts makes a lot of sense.
Our Legislature is, believe it or not, too small. Some state Senate districts are hundreds of miles long and all have nearly a million constituents, which reduces them to blips on a computer screen. A unicameral Legislature with perhaps 300 members would be better, and we ought to at least consider a parliamentary system, which could be both more empowering and more accountable, with politicians less able to pass the buck.
There are no magic solutions, but California has always been willing to embrace progressive change, and it’s time we made some fundamental reforms in the way we are governed.






Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/dan-walters/article27050479.html#storylink=cpy

[COMMENTARY] Overtime regulations will hurt workplace flexibility, not raise wages

President Barack Obama has pitched his new overtime regulations as a way to raise wages. However, even economists who support the change admit that's unlikely to happen. Instead, they expect employers to cut workers' pay by an offsetting amount.
So how will this new overtime rule affect the economy? Primarily by forcing salaried workers to log their hours. That's right - more work, same pay.
Under federal law, all employees paid hourly rates get overtime - 1.5 times their regular wages - for working more than 40 hours a week. The law exempts some salaried employees.
Employees with sufficiently advanced job duties (generally in executive, professional, or administrative jobs) and who make more than a set amount can get paid a flat salary for the work they do.
The administration just proposed raising that salary level to $50,440 a year and increasing it each year going forward. Employees making less than that amount, no matter what they do, would qualify for overtime pay.
At first glance this looks like a great idea. Who could oppose more workers getting overtime? However, economics didn't earn the moniker "the dismal science" for nothing. The fact is, these regulations will have little effect on pay.
Economists have found that employees and employers care mostly about their overall employment package: total hours worked and total pay offered for those hours. They don't care much about the pay rate for individual hours, provided the overall package doesn't change. So when the government requires employers to pay extra for overtime hours, they do - and reduce base wages by about the same amount. Workers' weekly take-home pay changes little.
Overtime only affects total pay for workers making near the minimum wage. Their employers cannot legally cut their base pay. However, these workers already automatically qualify for it. Overtime has little effect on total compensation for everyone else.
Many economic studies come to this conclusion. One recent study examined what happened when Japanese courts extended overtime to previously exempt salaried employees - precisely what the administration proposes. Japanese employers reduced base pay by an amount equal to the new overtime eligibility. Average hourly pay - including overtime - remained unchanged.
Even the architects of the overtime rule understand this. Jared Bernstein, former chief economic adviser to Vice President Biden, wrote an influential paper last year calling for the administration to expand overtime eligibility. The report drove the administration's decision to promulgate these regulations.
However, Bernstein candidly admits these regulations won't raise pay. As he puts it:
"The costs of increased (overtime) coverage would ultimately be borne by workers as employers set base wages taking expected overtime pay into account."
Yet President Obama and Labor Secretary Thomas Perez are arguing the new regulations will provide a $1 billion raise for American workers. They won't. Worse, the new overtime regulations will make juggling work and family life harder for millions of salaried employees.
Many employees prefer being overtime-exempt. It means they don't have to track their hours - and have more flexibility over when and where they work. Exempt salaried employees can take off work early in the afternoon to be with family, and then make up the work later when their kids are sleep. All they have to worry about is getting their work done - not when or where they do it.
Increasingly technology enables Americans to telecommute. About 3 million employees primarily telecommute to work, and over 15 million more telecommute at least once a month. (These numbers exclude the self-employed). The flexibility of working from home makes it a lot easier for working parents to fulfill their obligations as employees and as parents.
Overtime-eligible employees have much less freedom over when and where they work. They must log their hours. Even if they don't work overtime, they need to prove it. Their employers risk lawsuits if they don't. Trial lawyers filed 8,000 federal Fair Labor Standards Act lawsuits last year.
So employers often forbid overtime-eligible employees from working remotely - much less telecommuting. Instead they must clock in and clock out on schedule so their firm can precisely calculate their overtime liability. As a Pitney Bowes spokesman explained to reporters, the firm denied overtime eligible workers' requests to work from home because "you just don't take the (legal) risk."
That defuses lawsuits, but it also deprives overtime eligible employees of flexibility to balance work and family lives. The administrations' proposal will effectively convert 5 million professional employees into hourly workers. They will lose flexibility at work without getting paid any more. So much for helping middle-class families.

Chicago Racial Mob Attack Woman and Her Children – “didn’t belong in their neighborhood because she was white”…

CHICAGO (WLS) —  Her car damaged, her nerves shaken, the victim of an alleged group attack near the University of Chicago campus with her children in the back seat of her car talked exclusively with ABC7 Eyewitness News about the incident Friday night.
chicago attack
Police say two people were arrested and charged after the incident, but that woman says several dozen people were involved. Her two kids left covered in broken glass. The encounter left several dents in the vehicle, the back window shattered and Susan Pedersen shaken.
“I’m very scared, very anxious, nervous. Just fearful,” she said. Friday night, broken glass still litters the pavement at 60th and King Drive across from Washington Park, where the attack took place around 9 p.m. Thursday night.
Pedersen says she had just dropped off a friend at the University of Chicago, with her daughter and son in the back seat. She said she stopped at a red light and found herself surrounded by several dozen young people.
“They were walking around both sides of the vehicle – in the front, in the back – and as they were walking across, they were hitting my car, using racial slurs and telling me that I didn’t belong in their neighborhood because I was white,” Pedersen said.
The group, all African-American, she says, kicked the vehicle and shook it violently, the kids in the back screaming. (read more with video)

Nevada's Road to Nowhere - and Why You Need to Drive It

 While Traveling From Michigan to Lake Tahoe, One Road Tripping Fanatic Recounts Why US 50 is One of the Greatest Roads He's Ever Traveled 

I first became aware of the Loneliest Road (US 50) when I was planning a trip to Lake Tahoe to attend my niece's wedding.  I found out that in 1968 Life magazine had dubbed US 50 in Nevada the "Loneliest Road in America" and that the State of Nevada would provide travelers of US 50 with a certificate and pin once they had had traversed it.  Well that did it for me, I was going to travel US 50 to Lake Tahoe.  When I traced the route on the map I also found that US 50 would be the shortest route to my destination as it passes right through South Lake Tahoe on it's way into California.  Coming down out of the Rocky Mountains on I-70 you pick up US 50 in Utah at Salinas.  It then passes  I-15 through Delta, Utah before you enter Nevada. 

It was a marvelous experience to get off the interstate on to US 50 and have this marvelous 2 lane blacktop road all to yourself.  I made it to Ely the first day and spent the night and the next day I made it all the way to Carson City. 

What was amazing to me was the 17 mountain ranges I crossed and the spacious valleys between them.  It's like the mountains ripple across Nevada like the waves out on the sea. In December they are mostly show capped and you can see them looming in front of you for many miles before you ascend the pass that crosses them.   The road slithers like a reptile, snaking between mountains like an ancient river bed before disappearing behind the next mountain range you must cross.


The vistas along US 50 are breathtaking. Coming down the Austin Summit pass in the Toiyabe Range was amazing, in my humble opinion. Here, you can see for miles and miles. As I told many a friend and family member, I felt the horizon was 360 degrees and looked like I could see the natural curvature of the Earth. The land seemed to envelope me and I felt naked and exposed as if gravity would fail me and I would float up into the great American west. 





New York City: DeBlasio presiding over rapid decline in NY city quality of life

New York City has never been a paradise, but for 20 years previous to the election of Mayor Bill de Blasio, quality of life had risen dramatically as a result of what's known as "broken windows" policing - enforcing minor crimes to take people off the streets and prevent them from committing major offenses.

But now, with the far left wing mayor leading the charge, more and more minor crimes are not being enforced. Predictably, this has led to a surge in violent crime and an invasion by vagrants and homeless people that hasn't been seen since the pre-Guiliana days.



This urinating vagrant turned a busy stretch of Broadway into his own private bathroom yesterday – an offense that would result in a mere summons if Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito and her pals get their way. 
Wrapped in rags and a Mets blanket the hobo wandered into traffic at around 10:30 a.m. and relieved himself as cabs, cars and buses whizzed by between West 83rd and 84th streets on the Upper West Side. 
He finished his business at a nearby garbage bin, then strolled back to the front of a Victoria’s Secret store at Broadway and 85th Street, where he camped out for the rest of the day. 
Mark-Viverito in April announced plans to decriminalize public urination along with five other low-level offenses: biking on the sidewalk, public consumption of alcohol, being in a park after dark, failure to obey a park sign and jumping subway turnstiles. 
Police Commissioner Bill Bratton — who in the early ’90s implemented a “broken windows” approach to policing to dramatically cut crime — is against the new plan, saying such offenses lead to more serious crimes. 
Bill Caprese, 38, who lives on 82nd Street with his 6-year-old daughter, was appalled by the street urinator. 
“It’s absolutely a failure of government. It’s a total abject failure,” he said. “The mayor could fix it. The governor could fix it. We need asylums.”

[OPINION] COLUMN: Here’s a biased opinion about bias in the news media

Vanilla ice cream is good. Chocolate ice cream is better.


Strawberry? Yuck!
 That’s my taste. Yours is different, and I’m OK with that. Are you OK?

News comes the same way. Some of it is slanted to the right. Some is slanted to the left.
But there is more vanilla out there than most Americans recognize.
Conservative columnist Cal Thomas brought attention to bias in the news media in a column that we published Friday (“Survey says: They hate us, but who cares?”).
The column cited the 2015 State of the First Amendment Survey, a project of the Newseum Institute’s First Amendment Center. The survey said that only 24 percent now think that the news media try to report on news without bias. That’s a 17-point drop from 2014 and a 22-percent drop from 2013.
My conclusion: Many Americans now actually prefer “flavored” news. They seek television networks and websites that spin the news the way they want it. But the left scoffs at what’s out there for the right and thinks it is wrong, and vice versa.
Conservatives listen to Rush Limbaugh. Liberals watch “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.”
Liberals read The New York Times and conservatives read The Wall Street Journal because they get what they want on those editorial pages.
News flash: The “news” on those pages isn’t news. It’s clearly presented as opinion.
Another news flash: I’ve never watched Jon Stewart, but I sometimes listen to Rush Limbaugh. Though he’s bombastic, he’s smart, passionate and entertaining. I would characterize his show more as anti-liberal than anything. If you want to know what liberals are saying, his show is a great source. Just dismiss the spin.
It amuses me when Limbaugh rails against the mainstream media, as if he isn’t media. If he isn’t mainstream, then why are liberal counterparts mainstream?
Local news organizations seem to get caught in the crossfire. Conservatives consider The New York Times a liberal newspaper. The Morning News is a newspaper. Therefore, the Morning News is a liberal newspaper.
I find the news on NBC balanced, but conservatives think the network is liberal. WMBF is our local NBC affiliate. Is WMBF guilty of bias by association?
Some news consumers confuse balance with bias. A news story should tell both sides of a story, but radicals don’t want to see or hear what the other side has to say.
The day after the Charleston church massacre, we assigned a local reaction story on gun control. It was easy for our reporter to find people on one side of that heated issue, but gun proponents either didn’t want to talk that day or didn’t want to go on the record with their thoughts. Because we couldn’t balance the story, we didn’t run it.
Some news consumers confuse news with opinion. The editorials, columns, letters and cartoons on the Opinion pages are biased by nature.
We try hard to balance our Opinion page, and toward that end we seem to confound some of our readers. For instance, some readers still don’t seem to understand the difference between an editorial and a column. This column is my opinion. An editorial is the opinion of an editorial board representing this newspaper.
On June 21, you might have read my column that tried to strike middle-of-the-road thoughts about guns (“Gun control? What we need is people control”). On the opposite page, we ran an anti-gun editorial cartoon. Henry Ham of Leesville wrote to ask: “So, which position does your paper take – blame the NRA, which fights for our 2nd Amendment rights, or true common sense as discussed in your editorial?” The answer: Our paper did not take a position. Two individuals did, and they were differing positions.
In our news coverage, we strive to be objective, but that is an elusive goal. We make subjective calls in deciding which stories to do and not do. Our reporters make subjective decisions in deciding which questions to ask and not ask. They make judgment calls in deciding which facts should be at the beginning of a story, which ones should be at the end and which ones don’t need to be included at all.
Does that mean our news stories are biased? No. We don’t go out of our way to slant the news. News stories are framed, but we want to be fair.
That’s different from flair. In features (and columns), we try to put some sprinkles on your vanilla ice cream.

Popular Posts