Dash Cam Footage Undermines Texas State Rep’s Claim He Was Treated ‘Like A Boy’ During Traffic Stop

A Texas state representative’s recent claim that he was mistreated by a sheriff’s deputy during a traffic stop last month because of his race is coming under scrutiny after the release of dash cam video from the incident.

During a House committee hearing last week to discuss the recent arrest of Sandra Bland in Waller County, Texas, Democrat chairman Garnet Coleman shared a story about a recent encounter with police in which he said the officer treated him “like a boy.”

“He talked to me like I was a child,” Coleman said, describing the July 14 traffic stop on Interstate 10 in Austin County. “He was so rude and nasty. Even when he found out I was a legislator, he became more rude and nasty. And I didn’t understand why this guy was continuing to go on and on and treat me like a child. And basically like I’m saying is treat me like a boy. I want to be very clear about that.”

Coleman, who is black and represents a district in Houston, said he was stopped while speeding while driving from Austin, the state capital, to his hometown.

But what he did not say is that not only did the officer who pulled him over treat him cordially, but he even let the lawmaker off with a mere warning, even though he was driving 94 miles per hour in a 75 mph speed zone.

The Austin County sheriff’s department released video of the traffic stop Tuesday. Houston’s KHOU first reported the footage from the stop.

The nine-minute video shows a sheriff’s deputy pulling Coleman over on the highway and approaching the politician’s vehicle from the passenger side.

“How you doing?” the deputy asks.

“All right. How are you?” Coleman responds.

“Pretty good. What’s the rush?” the deputy asks.

“I’m just trying to go home,” Coleman says.

“You can’t do 94 miles an hour, though,” the deputy tells Coleman, who responds, saying he didn’t realize he was going that fast.

Coleman then informed the deputy that he is a state representative. The deputy politely said he already knew that because of the vehicle’s state representative license plates. The deputy also said that Coleman had a previous speeding violation in Wharton County.

“Mr. Coleman, I’ll let you go with a warning,” the deputy tells Coleman. “This is the same thing Wharton County did with you last year.”

“Yeah, like I said. They didn’t give me a ticket,” Coleman responds.

“If Wharton County had given you a ticket and I gave you a ticket today you’d lose your driver’s license on points,” the deputy says.

He added: “Stop speeding in a state car, OK? You got state plates on here, man. It’s a state official plate. You realize how bad that looks?”

Coleman said that he understood but that “the speed got away” from him.

According to KHOU, part of the exchange after that is inaudible, though Coleman can be heard telling the deputy, “but I’m not a child.”

“I didn’t say you were a child,” the deputy responds. “I’m just trying to make you understand.”

“I appreciate what you’re doing,” Coleman replies.

“OK, just slow down some, OK?” the deputy says.

“I just wasn’t paying attention,” Coleman responds.

“Well, pay attention,” the deputy says while chuckling.

Austin County sheriff Jack Brandes said that the video “shows exactly what happened.”

“I saw nothing that indicated that he put forth any disrespect whatsoever,” Brandes said of the sheriff’s deputy.

Austin County borders Waller County on the west. That’s where 28-year-old Sandra Bland was stopped last month by a Texas Department of Public Safety trooper. Bland was arrested on charges of assaulting an officer after a scuffle with the trooper. Dash cam video from that stop indicated that in that case, the trooper mistreated Bland. She died in Waller County jail three days later after she allegedly hanged herself in her jail cell.

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading.....

[VIDEO] Climate Scientists Question Significance of Obama’s New Carbon Rule

Days after the Obama administration finalized plans to reduce carbon emissions, some climate scientists have criticized the administration for failing to detail how the regulations will lower global temperatures.

These critics suggest the administration used the plan more to inspire global climate action, rather than using it as a concrete step to make the earth cooler.

On Monday, the Obama administration finalized the Clean Power Plan, which would overhaul America’s energy system by striving to reduce carbon emissions from power plants 32 percent by 2030.

Chip Knappenberger, assistant director at the Cato Institute, argues that if the administration’s plan was implemented to perfection, the amount of climate change averted would amount to insignificant levels.

“The Clean Power Plan is only going to avert close to .02 of a degree of future warming over the course of this century,” Knappenberger told The Daily Signal. “What the EPA doesn’t like to advertise is what the mitigation will be.”

Chip Knappenberger‏@PCKnappenberger

Our analysis shows the temperature "savings" directly attributable to the #CleanPowerPlan is 0.009°C. http://www.cato.org/blog/spin-cycle-epas-clean-power-plan … @CatoCSS

• RETWEET1
• 

12:24 PM - 5 Aug 2015

In June, Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, asked Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy to justify the costs of regulations in comparison to the proposed benefit in global temperature reduction.

“Do you consider one one-hundredth of a degree to be enormously beneficial?” Rep. Smith asked.

“The value of the rule is not measured in that way. It is measured in showing strong domestic action which can trigger global action,” McCarthy responded

McCarthy’s response indicated the administration’s intention to use the plan as an opportunity to position itself as a global leader in tackling climate change.

Judith Curry, an American climatologist, argued in a blog post that the Obama administration sold the Clean Power Plan as an economic and public health issue, purposely leaving out specific temperature reduction targets

Via: Daily Signal

Continue Reading.....

Obama Administration Modifies U.S. Oath of Allegiance to Accommodate Muslims

The Obama administration recently made changes to the Oath of Allegiance to the United States in a manner very conducive to Sharia, or Islamic law.

On July 21, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced some “modifications” to the Oath of Allegiance that immigrants must take before becoming naturalized.

The original oath required incoming citizens to declare that they will “bear arms on behalf of the United States” and “perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States” when required by the law.

Now the USCIS says, “A candidate [to U.S. citizenship] may be eligible to exclude these two clauses based on religious training and belief or a conscientious objection.”

The new changes further add that new candidates “May be eligible for [additional?] modifications based on religious training and belief, or conscientious objection arising from a deeply held moral or ethical code.”

These changes serve incoming Islamic supremacists especially well.  For, while Islamic law allows Muslims to feign loyalty to non-Muslim “infidel” authorities, it bans Muslims from living up to the pretense by actually fighting or killing fellow Muslims on behalf of a non-Muslim entity, such as the United States.

The perfectly fitting story of Nidal Hassan -- the U.S. army major and “observant Muslim who prayed daily” but then turned murderer -- comes to mind and is illustrative.

A pious Muslim, Hasan seemed a “regular American,” even if he was leading a double life -- American Army major and psychiatrist by day, financial supporter of jihadi groups and associate of terrorists by night.  However, when time came for this American soldier to “bear arms on behalf of the United States” -- to quote the original Oath of Allegiance -- against fellow Muslims, things got ugly: he went on a shooting spree in Fort Hood, killing thirteen Americans, including one pregnant woman in 2009.

Much of Hasan’s behavior is grounded in the Islamic doctrine of Loyalty and Enmity.  According to this essential teaching, Muslims must always be loyal to Islam and fellow Muslims while having enmity for all non-Islamic things and persons. 

However, whenever Muslims find themselves under the authority of non-Islamic institutions and persons, they are permitted to feign loyalty -- even to the point of cursing Islam and pretending to have abandoned it -- with one caveat: Muslims must never take up arms on behalf of “infidels” against fellow Muslims.  In other words, their loyalty to non-Muslims must be skin deep.

Many are the verses in the Koran that support this divisive doctrine (3:28, 4:89, 4:144, 9:23, and 58:22; the last simply states that true Muslims do not befriend non-Muslims -- “even if they be their fathers, sons, brothers, or kin”).

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading.....

IRS mismanaged Tea Party groups, Senate report finds

The IRS severely mismanaged the applications of Tea Party groups seeking tax-exempt status, a long-awaited and bipartisan Senate report said Wednesday.

But Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee couldn't find common ground on perhaps the central IRS issues of the last 27 months: whether the agency intentionally targeted conservative groups because of their politics, and whether there was White House or Treasury involvement.

The new report did find that Lois Lerner, the central figure in the controversy, "failed to adequately manage" her staff that were processing the tax-exempt applications. 

More broadly, the committee, led by Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), found that the IRS division overseeing tax-exempt groups showed little to no regard for the groups who in some cases faced years of delay on their applications. 

"Not only did those organizations have to withstand delays measured in years, but many also were forced to bear a withering barrage of burdensome and inappropriate 'development letters' aimed at extracting information the IRS wrongly concluded was necessary to properly process the applications," the report said.

Lerner launched the IRS controversy in May 2013, by apologizing for the IRS's treatment of Tea Party groups through a planted question at a law conference. A Treasury inspector general subsequently found the IRS had selected groups with “Tea Party” and “patriots” in their name for extra scrutiny.

Republicans and Democrats have long agreed that Lerner and her division mishandled Tea Party groups' applications, but have quarreled from almost the start over whether conservative groups were singled out intentionally.

The controversy intensified last year after the IRS said it couldn't find an untold number of Lerner's emails because of a computer crash, something that also delayed the Senate Finance report. A Treasury inspector general only recently concluded an inquiry that found that the IRS lost as many as 24,000 of Lerner’s emails.

Hatch said Wednesday that "the administration’s political agenda guided the IRS’s actions with respect to their treatment of conservative groups," and that Lerner's own personal views "impacted how the IRS conducted its business."

Wyden, on the other hand, told reporters that "my judgment is this report points to vast bureaucratic bumbling."

"There is not a single shred of political interference," he added.

The Finance Committee's findings are unlikely to relieve any of the partisan tensions surrounding the IRS, which has seen its budget slashed even further in the wake of the congressional investigations.

House Republicans have raised the specter of impeaching the IRS commissioner, John Koskinen, over his handling of the missing Lerner emails. Koskinen himself has said that it was up to the Finance panel to decide whether the IRS singled out conservative groups for political reasons. 

In a statement, the IRS said that it appreciated the Finance Committee's efforts and that the agency would study the report's recommendations.

"The IRS is fully committed to making further improvements, and we want to do everything we can to help taxpayers have confidence in the fairness and integrity of the tax system," the statement added.

Koskinen has also said the IRS will hold off on releasing new proposed rules that would more clearly define political activity for the 501(c)(4) groups at the center of the controversy, to keep from overly influencing the 2016 campaign.

Democrats have said confusion between tax law and current IRS rules helped fuel the improper scrutiny of tax-exempt applications, an idea dismissed by Republicans.

The findings and recommendations that the Republicans and Democrats agreed upon in the new bipartisan report are broad and, in many cases, likely noncontroversial.

The report, for instance, notes that the extra scrutiny given to tax-exempt applicants reduced taxpayer trust in the IRS, that the exempt organizations unit needed a more centralized command structure and that many staffers in that division didn’t have enough training to do their jobs correctly.

Its recommendations include that the IRS do a better job managing the backlog of tax-exempt cases.

But in their own section, Republicans said the IRS did not hold up liberal groups just because of their name, as some Democrats have said.

GOP senators also criticized what they called an overly political culture within the IRS, in which an employee union has so much influence that it “makes it difficult for the agency to remain apolitical.”

And Republicans blasted not only Lerner but the agency’s senior-most officials — including former Commissioner Doug Shulman and former interim Commissioner Steven Miller — for concealing what they knew from Congress for months.

“The report clearly shows that conservative groups were singled out because of their political beliefs, and gross mismanagement at the IRS allowed this practice to continue for years,” Hatch said on the Senate floor Wednesday.

But Wyden said that wasn’t so in his own floor speech Wednesday. The Oregon Democrat said the Finance panel found no documents showing any link between the improper scrutiny and either the White House or Treasury.

On top of that, Wyden said none of the IRS staffers interviewed by the committee talked of any political bias, and that Republicans were unfairly hyping Lerner’s own political views to make their case that the agency targeted Tea Party groups.

Democrats, Wyden said, found no proof that Lerner’s liberal views influenced how she did her job.

“So, Ms. Lerner’s husband voted for socialists, she is a Democrat, she supports same-sex marriage, and she apparently doesn’t have a lot of Republican supporters among her family or friends,” Wyden said. “What is all of this supposed to prove?”

Via: The Hill

Continue Reading....

MR. OBAMA AND HIS KLIMATE KONTROL KOMMISARS By Ben Stein

Tuesday, Beverly Hills

Now for a few words about current events....

American Airlines needs some work. They consistently mistreat us passengers on the flight from DCA to LAX. Why? I guess we are just considered dog food. But Saturday’s flight was a disaster. Almost three hours late leaving DCA. No apology. AC barely working. Dinner was literal dog food. When we got to LAX, very late at night, the terminal was a scene from hell. Mobs of immigrants and citizens, none speaking English, jostling each other, pushing, shoving, shouting, riding on skateboards through crowds of old people. It was the street scenes from Blade Runner. Neither more nor less. Yes, get Blade Runner and watch it. That’s LAX right now.

Why do we have the worst airport in the world? Why doesn’t anyone there speak English? In Spokane, everyone speaks English. What happened?

Anyway, Mr. Obama’s “clean energy” plan:

1. It has not been proved that the climate is changing by anything more than the most minute amounts, such as one degree in one century. There has been zero global warming since 1991. Even if there were climate change, no one has been able to explain why man’s activities caused it except as one hypothetical among many other hypotheticals.

2. There are plenty of scientists who do not believe in man-made climate change, and many more who don’t believe in climate change at all. They are never in the New York Times. Why? Because “science” is as political as the election for Prom King and Homecoming Queen. There is no climate science that is not political.

3. The USA produces roughly 15 percent of the carbon emissions on this earth. Obama wants to lower that by roughly 25 percent. That would mean a change by 2030 (I will be long dead…) of roughly 3.7 percent in global carbon emissions if the rest of the world stopped adding to coal fired energy creation. But China and India add roughly one new coal-fired energy plant per week. China has not promised any cuts in carbon emissions ever. They promised to stop adding to carbon output in about ten years but never to cut anything.

4. So we in the USA will suffer all of the dislocation, the poor coal miners (mostly white, of course, so who cares about them?) will lose their jobs, and the world’s carbon emissions won’t budge. All in the name of an unproved theory.

Of course the real goal is just to push people around and show how holy and sanctimonious Mr. Obama is. Who cares if the coal miner in Kentucky loses his home if Mr. Obama is worshiped by the Beautiful People who live near me?

Mr. Obama is not too smart, but he’s smart enough to do a lot towards destroying the economy and the rule of law and the livelihoods of hard-working people. I would just like you to know I saw it coming and so did you.

Mr. Obama is a very angry man. As Bob Dylan said, “Some people have knives and forks and they don’t have anything on their plate, so they have to cut something.”

Finally, Donald Trump. For the first time this week I saw why people like him. The New York Times ran a front pager on Saturday about how Mr. Trump was an old hand at racist campaigns. They then did not mention one single word or example or even gossip about his alleged racism or any racist campaigns. Not one word. It was pure unmixed smear. I am not a fan of Mr. Trump for some good reasons. But when the Pretty People just make up lies about a man, even a Donald Trump, I start to have some sympathy for the man.

That story was just pure libel. I hope Trump sues them. He likes to sue and this would be a good case. To libel a public figure you have to act with actual malice or such severe negligence that it’s the same as actual malice.

This, in the eyes of an old man who taught Libel Law for some years, is clear cut.

Well. It’s late. I have to go watch COPS: Reloaded and see my heroes, the cops.

Oh, wait. One final word: Mr. Obama’s Klimate Kontrol Komissars are meant to save the earth and save lives. But that's all totally hypothetical and conjectural. If we could stop abortion, we would save roughly 800,000 actual lives, in real life, every year. But Mr. Obama will go to the mat for keeping the ghastly artifact of abortion up and running like Eichmann’s trains. Why? What makes him hate Israel so much? Hate babies so much? What’s going on inside that head?

Via: American Spectator

Continue Reading.....

Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richard’s Daughter Helps Lead Hillary Clinton’s Campaign

The daughter of Planned Parenthood president, Cecile Richards, has worked on a number of pro-abortion campaigns and is currently helping out her mother’s friend, Hillary Clinton.

Politico reports that Lily Adams joined the Clinton campaign last spring as Iowa’s press secretary. Adams is Richards’ oldest daughter and she previously worked as the Deputy Communications Director for the Democratic National Committee.

In past elections, Iowa has been a battleground for Democrats and abortion groups like NARAL, Emily’s List and Planned Parenthood have dumped tons of money into their political campaigns. For example, in 2012, Planned Parenthood spent $1.4 million on pro-abortion ads in Iowa. In 2008 and 2012, Obama carried the state by 54% and 51.99% respectively. However, in 2012 Republicans won the governorship, and in 2015, they won the Senate race.

Last year, Clinton unsuccessfully tried to convince Iowans that to be pro-woman is to be pro-abortion. At a pro-Braley rally, she said, “It’s not enough to be a woman, you have to be committed to expand rights and opportunities for all women.” Of course, we all know how that turned out; pro-life Joni Ernst took Iowa in the Senate election.

SIGN THE PETITION! We Oppose Hillary Clinton!

In January 2014, Richards bragged about her daughter’s pro-abortion views In an interview with Elle Magazine.

She said, “Lily is blessed with all the right genetic material and she’s rich with DNA [for it]. It’s been wonderful to see her in her various roles since college, and her confidence! I think she was three years old when my mom ran for governor and she seemed to, at a very early age, pick up on a lot of the lessons about that campaign. So it’s been really exciting to see her now use it professionally. I will say one of the funniest things now is to get an email from Lily, and her role at the DNC, talking about the very issues that I work on everyday—Planned Parenthood or women’s rights. That’s pretty gratifying.”

On social media, Adams promotes Clinton and Planned Parenthood every chance she gets just like her mother. In fact, most recently she expressed support for the abortion giant after videos showed their top executives haggling over the price of aborted babies’ body parts, admitting to altering procedures to obtain salable organs and casually discussing ways to perform “less crunchy”abortions to procure intact organs.

Via:Life News

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] 16 states ask Obama admin to put power plant rules on hold

WASHINGTON –  The campaign to stop President Barack Obama's sweeping emissions limits on power plants began taking shape Wednesday, as 16 states asked the government to put the rules on hold while a Senate panel moved to block them.

West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, who is leading the charge against the rules, banded together with 15 other state attorneys general in a letter to Environmental Protection Agency head Gina McCarthy requesting that the agency temporarily suspend the rules while they challenge their legality in court. The letter called for the EPA to respond by Friday.

The EPA and the White House both said they believe the limits are legal and have no plans to put them on hold. But by submitting the formal request anyway, the attorneys general are laying the groundwork to ask the courts to suspend the emissions limits instead.

"These regulations, if allowed to proceed, will do serious harm to West Virginia and the U.S. economy," Morrisey said. "That is why we are taking quick action to bring this process to a halt."

The 16 states and a handful of others are preparing to sue the Obama administration to block the rules permanently by arguing they exceed Obama's authority. Bolstered by a recent Supreme Court ruling against the administration's mercury limits, opponents argued that states shouldn't have to start preparing to comply with a rule that may eventually get thrown out by the courts.

The speedy opposition from the states came two days after Obama unveiled the final version of the rules, which mark the first time the U.S. has ever limited carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. Obama's revised plan mandates a 32 percent cut in emissions nationwide by 2030, compared to 2005 levels — a steeper cut than in his earlier proposal.

Most of the attorneys general signing the letter Wednesday are Republicans. Yet they were joined by Jack Conway of the coal-producing state of Kentucky. Conway and Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear are both Democrats, but have joined the state's Republican leaders in denouncing Obama's power plant limits, which form the centerpiece of his plan to fight climate change.

Although the most serious threat to Obama's power plant rules is in the courts, lawmakers in Congress are also pursuing legislative means to stop them. The first vote came Wednesday in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, where a bill blocking the rules passed the GOP-controlled panel by a voice vote — but not without a bit of drama.

Over the protests of boycotting Democrats, the Senate GOP-controlled panel approved legislation designed to block the Obama administration from implementing the tough new standards.

Democrats walked out of the committee meeting in protest of a separate bill about pesticides, arguing it should have been the subject of a fact-finding hearing. Lacking the necessary quorum for a vote, Republican Chairman Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma reconvened the meeting in a lunchroom just off the Senate floor, where the aroma of a just-completed GOP lunch was still wafting in the air.

The voice vote approving the bill sends it to the full Senate, where a filibuster battle awaits. Obama has vowed to veto any such legislation, and Republicans have yet to prove they can muster the votes to override his veto.

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading.....

CALIFORNIA: Tough Education Reform, not More Borrowing and Spending, is What Students Need

Last week the California Policy Center published a major new study that compiled, in exhaustive detail, both the amount that Californians have borrowed to finance public school construction and upgrades, as well as documented the abuses that have diminished the return on these substantial investments. Californians simply don’t realize how much borrowing is going on.

In 2001, voters passed Prop. 39, which lowered the threshold for passage of a school bond from 66 percent to 55 percent. Prior to the passage of Prop. 39, only 42 percent of school bond proposals would pass – since then, 88 percent of them pass. The scale of this borrowing is amazing: Since 2001, Californians have approved 911 local school bond measures totaling $110.4 billion. In addition to local bonds, voters approved three state measures which added another $38.8 billion.

If the proceeds of these bonds were being spent efficiently, on worthy projects, under repayment terms that were fair and appropriate, there would not be an issue. But they’re not. Thanks to costly project labor agreements, environmentalist lawsuits, and a shocking lack of public oversight, school construction projects – along with all public infrastructure projects – cost far more than they should.

When considering what projects might be considered worthy, at whatever cost, one of the biggest reasons cited for local bond proposals is to fund “deferred maintenance.” For examples of this, view the summary of the2014 Local Elections provided by CalTax (scroll down to “Bond, School”), and read the “description” column. “Upgrade and repair,” “modernize and upgrade,” “fix leaky roofs,” “make safety repairs,” “repair outdated heating and ventilation systems,” etc., etc. But why can’t maintenance work come out of existing budgets? For that matter, why wasn’t the work done using funds from earlier rounds of local school bond proceeds, instead of deferred?

This is not a rhetorical question. California’s K-12 student population has been stable for nearly 20 years. At6.2 million students, it has actually declined slightly. Meanwhile, over the past 14 years, $146 billion has been borrowed and spent to maintain and improve schools for these 6.2 million students.

That’s $10.4 billion in construction spending every year, which based on 30 students per classroom, equates to approximately $50,000 per classroom, per year. Could you maintain one classroom and that classroom’s share of common facilities if you had $50,000 to spend, year after year?

How much is enough? Since 2001, construction bond proceeds have poured $700,000 into every K-12 classroom in California. Why do the roofs still leak?

When it comes to the terms of this debt, the story gets even worse, because these bonds are complex financial instruments with ample room for “gotchas” that harm taxpayers. One of the worst examples of this are so-called “capital appreciation bonds,” which don’t require any payments for 10-20 years, then demand massive sums of principal and interest payments, long after the original promoters have retired, and often after the improvements and upgrades have worn out again.

It is relevant to discuss California’s $146 billion in school bond debt in the context of all California’s state and local debt. A few years ago the California Policy Center attempted tabulate it, including unfunded liabilities for pensions and retirement health care for state and local government employees. Those findings, using a 5.5 percent discount rate to estimate pension liabilities, and using our updated amount for school bonds, come in at $976 billion. That’s $76,250 of debt per household. Just interest payments on this debt, at 5 percent per year, come out to $3,812 per household per year.

The topic of school bond debt is vast and complicated, which is one reason why there is rarely meaningful public debate. The California Policy Center’s complete study on California’s school bond debt, including appendices, came in at 361 pages (view PDF), and took a team of researchers lead by policy analyst Kevin Dayton nearly a year to write. Here are key recommendations from that report:

• Provide adequate and effective oversight and accountability for bond measures.
• Enable voters to make a reasonably informed decision on bond measures.
• Eliminate or mitigate conflicts of interest in contracting related to bond measures.
• Reduce inappropriate, excessive or unnecessary spending of bond proceeds.
• Improve understanding of bond measures through public education campaigns.

And here are a few additional recommendations:

• Make construction bond proposals contingent on enforcing the Vergara ruling – making it possible to fire bad teachers, changing layoff and retention criteria from seniority to merit, and extending the time period required to acquire tenure.
• Hold teachers accountable for the academic progress of their students, and prohibit construction bond proposals for any school districts in violation of the state’s teacher evaluation law, the Stull Act.
• Reduce the number of administrators and support staff, increasing the proportion of public education employees who actually teach in classrooms. This will result in a proportionate reduction in support facilities, at the same time as it frees up budgeted funds to be used to perform deferred maintenance.

The reason Californians have borrowed $146 billion in recent years for school construction is because Californians believe there is nothing more important than educating children. That’s a noble sentiment. It’s why Prop. 39 passed back in 2001, carving out an exception to California’s two-thirds vote requirement for new taxes. And while the process of approving and spending all this money has been riddled with corruption and excess, it would be inaccurate to say all of this money was wasted. But all the money in the world will not improve California’s educational system, if great teachers and principals aren’t given the latitude and incentives to inspire their pupils, and if poor teachers and administrators are not terminated.

Californians should reform their system of K-12 education before borrowing another dime for construction. The return-of-investment is simply far better.

*   *   *

Ed Ring is the executive director of the California Policy Center.

Via: California Political Review

Continue Reading....

Lois Lerner Wanted To Audit A Group With Ties To Bristol Palin

Embattled ex-IRS official Lois Lerner inquired about auditing a pro-abstinence group with ties to Bristol Palin, the daughter of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, according to a Senate report released on Wednesday.

Senate Finance Committee chairman Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican, disclosed Lerner’s email — which she sent in April 2011 — in an addendum to a report detailing the results of a two-year investigation into whether the IRS unfairly targeted conservative groups.

The bi-partisan report concluded that Lerner and the IRS often ignored applications for tax-exempt status submitted by Tea Party organizations and other groups.

According to Hatch, Lerner’s political views influenced the IRS’ handling and processing of tax-exempt applications for the conservative groups.

One example of this was an email Lerner sent to her supervisors asking whether an audit should be conducted on Candie’s Foundation, a nonprofit group which seeks to limit teen pregnancy.

Bristol Palin was paid $332,500 to serve as an “ambassador” for the organization, which was founded by an executive at Candie’s Inc., an apparel company.

After Lerner learned of the payment to Palin from a news article, she wrote in an April 8, 2011, email chain to David Fish, Judith Kindell — two IRS officials — and others:

Thoughts on the Bristol Palin issue? I’m curious that a [private foundation] can pay any amount to someone who is not a [disqualified person]? It is a [private foundation] right? Even if it were a [public charity] – would that be private benefit – what are the consequences? I’m asking because I don’t know whether to send to Exam as a referral.

Hatch noted how unusual it was for Lerner to consider an audit based upon a single news article. He noted that out of 1.5 million IRS records reviewed by his committee staff, there were no other instances where Lerner referred a progressive group for an audit based on a single news article.

“Lerner’s willingness to act on this particular news article – among many that reached her inbox each day – shows that she was paying close attention to conservative politicians and organizations,” Hatch stated in his report.

USA Today noted another partisan comment from Lerner that Hatch cited in his report.

In a March 6, 2014, email exchange Lerner and a friend were discussing the political landscape in Texas. Lerner’s friend criticized Rick Perry and Greg Abbott, the former and current governors of the state, respectively.

“As you can see, the Lone Star State is just pathetic as far as political attitudes are concerned,” the friend wrote to Lerner.

She responded by stating that Abraham Lincoln should have allowed the South to secede from the Union.

“Look my view is that Lincoln was our worst president not our best. He should’[v]e let the south go. We really do seem to have 2 totally different mindsets,” she wrote.

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading....