Thursday, August 13, 2015

Wisconsin man accused of going into home to remove Confederate flag

Generic Police Lights Great Night HD 8-3-2012-NEWBUG
RACINE, Wis. (AP) – Authorities say a Racine man was arrested after forcing his way inside a home to take down a Confederate flag placed in a window.
The Journal Times of Racine (http://bit.ly/1J3lCD5 ) reports 37-year-old Tajaun Boatner has been charged on counts including criminal trespassing and misdemeanor theft.
A criminal complaint says a woman and Boatner told police he had politely asked her to remove the flag from her kitchen window Friday, and she moved it to another window.
According to the complaint, both started yelling, and the woman used a racial slur toward Boatner. Authorities say Boatner pushed the woman down and walked into the house to remove the flag. According to authorities, Boatner later argued with police and struggled to avoid being handcuffed.
A message seeking comment was sent to an attorney listed as representing Boatner.
___
Information from: The Journal Times, http://www.journaltimes.com

The POW MIA Flag Is Racist (because American prisoners of war are racists and deserve whatever they get)

The POW MIA Flag Is Racist

Sometimes the left does things that are so bizarre that at first blush you think you are being trolled. Take this, for instance. In Newsweek “historian” (this is an appellation that, in this particular case, doesn’t seem to require any academic credentials), accused plagiarist Rick Perlstein claims to have discovered yet another “racist” flag:
You know that racist flag? The one that supposedly honors history but actually spreads a pernicious myth? And is useful only to venal right-wing politicians who wish to exploit hatred by calling it heritage? It’s past time to pull it down.
Oh, wait. You thought I was referring to the Confederate flag. Actually, I’m talking about the POW/MIA flag.
I told the story in the first chapter of my 2014 book The Invisible Bridge: The Fall of Nixon and the Rise of Reagan: how Richard Nixon invented the cult of the “POW/MIA” in order to justify the carnage in Vietnam in a way that rendered the United States as its sole victim.
The only hint that it isn’t a clever bit of trolling and clickbait is that is is obvious that Perlstein is bleeding from his eyes and whatever as he writes this.
Perlstein’s claim here is pretty much bull***t. The history of the POW/MIA flag is well documented. It was created by POW families and it was in response to widespread outcry over the treatment of US POWs by the North Vietnamese. Contrary to what Perlstein claims, there was widespread concern about US prisoners long before the Peace Talks started, of course, Perlstein was still pooping yellow at the time and can be excused for substituting what was actually being talked about for whatever be picked up in college. The treatment of US prisoners held by the Koreans and Chinese was well-known. The hugely successful film, The Manchurian Candidate was released in 1962.
There was good reason to be concerned. Over 900 US and allied prisoners were known to have been held by the Koreans and Chinese after the armistice. The Soviet Union held Japanese prisoners will into the 1950s and never provided an accounting of who they held or their disposition. So the idea that no one cared about prisoners until the Evil Tricky Dick dreamed them up is simply a rather grotesque lie.
As Sean Davis writing in The Federalist says:
If you can believe it, that’s actually the most coherent passage in the entire piece. Did you know that prisoners of war are members of a “cult?” Perlstein apparently does. Did you know that mistreatment of American prisoners of war in Vietnam is “a pernicious myth”? Perlstein says it is, so it must be true. If I learned anything from his piece, it’s that there is apparently such a thing as a POW Truther.
From this anti-historical beginning, Perlstein not only jumps the shark, he levitates above the very ocean.
During the Nixon years, the Pentagon moved them into a newly invented “Missing in Action” column. That proved convenient, for, after years of playing down the existence of American prisoners in Vietnam, in 1969, the new president suddenly decided to play them up.
He declared their treatment, and the enemy’s refusal to provide a list of their names, violations of the Geneva Conventions—the better to paint the North Vietnamese as uniquely cruel and inhumane. He also demanded the release of American prisoners as a precondition to ending the war.
This was bullshit four times over: first, because in every other conflict in human history, the release of prisoners had been something settled at the close of a war; second, because these prisoners only existed because of America’s antecedent violations of the Geneva Conventions in bombing civilians in an undeclared war; third, because, as bad as their torture of prisoners was, rather than representing some species of Oriental despotism, the Vietnam Communists were only borrowing techniques practiced on them by their French colonists (and incidentally paid forward by us in places like Abu Ghraib): see this as-told-to memoir by POW and future senator Jeremiah Denton. And finally, our South Vietnamese allies’ treatment of their prisoners, who lived manacled to the floors in crippling underground bamboo “tiger cages” in prison camps built by us, was far worse than the torture our personnel suffered.
Missing in action was a term that was used in World War II and Korea. Anyone can look at contemporaneous War Department, Navy Department, or DoD documents and find it. You can also find it in newspapers and casualty reports throughout the Vietnam War. This should be logical to all but the dimmest bulbs.
Actually, through most of recorded history, prisoners have been exchanged (assuming they weren’t killed outright or sold into slavery) were exchanged on a regular basis. In the US Civil War, for instance, prisoners were paroled and exchanged until the Dix-Hill Cartel ended in June 1863. And not to put too fine a point on it, a peace was being “negotiated.” When you “negotiate” it is customary to ask for more than you expect to get and it is usual to pressure the other side to give in. So the history of how prisoners had been treated (and there is no evidence whatsoever that Perlstein is even vaguely familiar with the subject) is really immaterial to a process of negotiations.
North Vietnam was a signatory to the Geneva Conventions and was obligated to notify the Protecting Power (Switzerland) of the names of prisoners. Bombing civilians so long as they aren’t deliberately targeted is not against the Geneva Conventions. Wars don’t have to be declared but the Vietnam War was approved by Congress. The treatment of North Vietnamese prisoners is immaterial to the discussion as reprisals against prisoners is not allowed by the Geneva Conventions. Viet Cong were illegal combatants and however the South Vietnamese government wanted to treat them under their own laws or policies was not a subject of international oversight.
So the underpinning of Perlman’s story is, as they say in Germany, quatsch.
Now, why is the flag racist?
Racist is the leftwing codeword for “I don’t like it.” Damp toilet paper, for instance, is racist. America, too, is racist. Supporting American troops is racist. Not liking commies is racist. Perlstein is upset that we don’t see POW collaborators like Larry Kavanaugh, Edison Miller and Gene Wilber as heroes rather than as unindicted traitors and that makes the POW/MIA flag racist.
As David French writes, this is about rewriting American history:
It’s not common to see a leftist still carrying the torch for the Viet Cong and the NVA, but it’s a useful reminder of the rage that beats within some leftist hearts, a rage that can even take a symbol meant to honor and remind Americans of the undeniable fact that there are — in fact — men who are missing in Vietnam, men we can’t account for an may never be found, and turn it into a symbol of — you guessed it — racism. Never mind that Americans were dying to defend people of the exact same race as the enemies they fought. Never mind that families fly the flag to remind their neighbors of their sacrifice, and our nation flies it to remind citizens of the men of courage who fought a deadly Communist enemy. It’s not a battle flag, nor is it a flag of conquest. It’s a flag of remembrance.
But that’s the entire point. Perlstein hates that people don’t remember the Vietnam War the way he wants it remembered, as a racist, unlawful enterprise. The POW/MIA flag is merely a pretext for him to repeat the tired arguments of the 1970s, arguments that lost their sting when the NVA finally triumphed, and the world watched a Communist dictatorship work its vengeance on the South Vietnamese population. He won’t bring down the flag, but he apparently does want to re-start a historical battle that the Left has largely and rightly lost since the Fall of Saigon. His piece is further evidence that the defense of history — like the defense of liberty — requires constant vigilance.


[VIDEO] Anchor walks off live broadcast: ‘I’ve had enough Kardashians!’

A Florida news anchor with zero interest in keeping up with the Kardashians stormed off the set during a live broadcast — rather than report that Kylie Jenner has a new bunny named Bruce.
“Nobody cares about this family anymore!” anchor John Brown can be heard screaming off camera in the “Good Day Orlando” clip, which aired last Friday.
“I’m having a good Friday, so I refuse to talk about the Kardashians!” the anchor seethed as he stood up and walked off set. “You are on your own, Amy. I can’t do it, I’ve had enough Kardashians! I can’t take any more Kardashian stories on this show!”
His co-anchor, Amy Kaufeldt, was left sitting alone on the couch, bleakly saying, “He left me.”
A replacement anchor quickly joined Kaufeldt, as the onscreen team attempted to calm down a fuming Brown, who was still wearing his mike.
Rumba 1003 radio host and broadcast guest Jenny Castillo attempted to de-escalate the situation by asking Brown, “How would you like it if your daughter named her pet John? That’s exactly what Kylie Jenner did.”
“I don’t care about this family. I’m sick of this family. It’s a nonstory!” Brown yelled back.
Brown later posted a video of the outburst to Facebook, and included an apology.

[VIDEO] HOW IS ‘STEALING’ BABY BODY PARTS ‘WOMEN’S HEALTHCARE?’

Planned Parenthood and its supporters have insisted that it engages in “women’s healthcare.” But in the latest undercover investigative video exposing the taxpayer-funded organization’s practice of harvesting aborted baby parts for potential sale to biomedical companies, a former StemExpress procurement technician reveals that when she needed certain body parts, Planned Parenthood staff would sometimes “just take what they wanted…and these mothers don’t know.”

In the second episode of “Human Capital,” produced by the Center for Medical Progress, whistleblower Holly O’Donnell alleges that Planned Parenthood often harvests the tissue and organs of aborted babies without the knowledge or consent of likely distressed pregnant women.
Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, the nation’s largest pro-life youth organization, says Planned Parenthood has “betrayed” women, rather than provided them with “healthcare,” as the organization’s president, Cecile Richards, insists.

Rick Sanchez: Lowe's accommodates customer's racist request – but who is at fault here?

LOWES DESCARGANDO.jpg
Finally, a story we can all agree on that takes racism to a whole other level.  A woman in Virginia doesn’t like having “black people” in her house and thereby refuses to have an order from Lowe’s delivered by an African-American driver. 
Marcus Bradley has been working for Lowe's for more than a decade. Last week, while making a routine delivery for Lowe’s Home Improvement in Danville, Va., he received a call from a manager telling him to stop his run and return the shipment.
The Lowe’s manager chose to treat a racist request as if it were something as customary as a change of address. It wasn’t. It is a serious mistake, not one for which the employee should be fired, but certainly new material for the Lowe’s training manual on diversity compliance. 
- Rick Sanchez
Assuming there was something wrong with the order or the merchandise, Bradley asked his dispatcher why the delivery had been called off; that’s when Bradley found out the problem wasn’t the merchandise, it was him.  
The order stayed the same, but a driver with fairer skin pigmentation replaced Bradley.
“I asked him why I couldn’t do it, and he said because you’re black and they don’t want you at the house,” Bradley told ABC affiliate WSET.
At this point in the story it’s hard to figure out which is worse. The fact that Lowe’s abided by the woman’s wishes and replaced Bradley with a white driver or that the woman – whose name has not been released although she’s appeared on camera – would make such a seemingly racist request.
Actually, it’s an easy choice. I defer to the elderly woman, not because I in any way agree with her. Let’s be clear, hers is a racist request, but I give her a pass. You know why?  It’s because of her age and the fear of her surroundings mostly caused by a clamorous drumbeat of violence associated with black people, which she undoubtedly watches night after night on her local news.  
I would guess the only black people she knows are the ones she sees on her talking box, and it ain’t a pretty picture. 
Grandma, you’re wrong. That man you disrespected, Marcus Bradley, is by all appearances a hard worker and good man who was just trying to take care of his family. But we understand from where you’re fear and prejudice arise. 
Unfortunately, we can’t say the same thing about the Lowe’s manager who chose to legitimize her request. The request itself should have made that proverbial bell go off in his head saying to him like the Great Gazoo in a Fred Flintstone shoulder, “This isn’t right!” 
Instead, the Lowe’s manager chose to treat a racist request as if it were something as customary as a change of address. It wasn’t. It is a serious mistake, not one for which the employee should be fired, but certainly new material for the Lowe’s training manual on diversity compliance. It’s a chapter we assumed we no longer had to read or write and which again reminds us how far we still have to go when it comes to race relations in America.
As for Lowe's Home Improvement, they chose to fire the employees who made the mistake and have apologized to Bradley. 
I’ll leave it to others to argue the propriety of that decision. What’s more important is the lesson learned. A lesson we all should heed from the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, “In the end we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.” 

Obama, Clinton Foundation Donors Sold ‘Green’ Fuel to Military for $149 per Gallon

Strains of algae are shown in the strain room of Solazyme in South San Francisco, Calif.
San Francisco’s Solazyme also received millions in stimulus funds from DOE
The CEO and Board of Directors of Solazyme, a company the military paid $149 per gallon for “alternative” fuel, have donated more than $300,000 to Democratic candidates and committees, according to a Washington Free Beacon analysis.
Recipients of significant donations included the Obama Victory Fund and the Democratic National Committee. Additionally, Solazyme donated between $100,000 and $250,000 to the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.
A Congressional Research Service (CRS) report found that the Department of Defense (DOD) paid Solazyme $149 per gallon for fuel made of algal oil, costing taxpayers a total of $223,500 in 2009. The group also received a $21 million stimulus grant from Department of Energy in 2009.
“Based in South San Francisco, Solazyme’s mission is to improve our lives and our planet by producing sustainable, high-performance oils and ingredients derived from microalgae,” the company states. Solazyme claims that their process serves as a better alternative to limited resources such as petroleum, vegetable oils, and animal fats.
Three members of Solazyme’s Board of Directors have donated hundreds of thousands to Dems, which include more than $50,000 in donations that benefited President Obama.
Solazyme’s co-founders, Jonathan Wolfson and Harrison Dillon, have together donated more than $7,000 to Democratic candidates and committees.
A member of Solazyme’s management team, Peter Licari, donated to both Republicans and Democrats before he was employed by Solazyme. Licari donated $16,000 to Republicans and more than $25,000 to Democrats while he was employed by Complete Healthcare Resources.
“Solazyme has been propelled over the years by an extraordinary group of people,” states Wolfson. “Our employees, customers, partners and investors have been and will continue to be our greatest resources.”
DOD has stated that one of its strategic energy goals is to expand its energy supply options by investing in alternative fuels such as the kind Solazyme produces. This type of renewable fuel comes at much higher cost than petroleum fuel.
From fiscal years 2007 to 2014, the DOD purchased 32 billion gallons of petroleum fuel for $107.2 billion, which comes to $3.35 per gallon. This means that Solazyme’s price per gallon was 44 times that of the average price of regular petroleum fuel.
Christine Travis, manager of corporate communications for Solazyme, said the $149 per gallon figure is “incorrect” and that the number is inflated due to research and development costs.
“The dollar amount you cited is incorrect because that total cost includes the R&D portion we performed at the request of the DOD that was part of the testing and certification program with the Department of Defense and the U.S. Navy,” said Travis.
Travis says that this month Solazyme announced they are supplying renewable fuel to UPS and that it has been a few years since they’ve worked with DOD on fuels.
However, she praised the Navy’s effort to increase their use of alternative fuels.
“We applaud the Navy for pursuing the bold goal of supplying its operations with 50 percent alternative fuels by 2020. Our dependence on oil from foreign nations—some of them hostile, some of them unstable—is one of the greatest threats to our security as a nation and to our allies overseas who rely on Persian Gulf oil and have no or insignificant indigenous petroleum resources of their own.”
In regards to co-founders and board of directors donating to Democrats, Travis said Solazyme has no policy on political contributions.
“Our company does not have a PAC, and our company does not have a policy on employee or board member political contributions,” Travis said. “Anyone in our company can support anyone they want.”

Wednesday, August 12, 2015

Will New L.A. Ordinance Turn Gun Owners Into Outlaws?

Gun

If you’re a gun owner in the city of Los Angeles, you may soon be a criminal.
The City Council has passed an ordinance that bans the possession of any firearms magazine with a capacity greater than 10 rounds. With the mayor’s signature Friday, owners of the prohibited magazines now will have 60 days to turn them over to police, destroy them personally or move them to a location outside the city limits. The ordinance says owners can sell them, but don’t try it — state law prohibits the sale of “large-capacity” magazines and has since Jan. 1, 2000.
Because that state law banned the sale but not the possession of large-capacity magazines, existing property was effectively “grandfathered.” The Los Angeles ordinance makes no such accommodation.
“With a stroke of a pen the Los Angeles City Council has not only turned hundreds of thousands of law-abiding L.A. residents into criminals, they have made property that was legally purchased under state and federal law illegal to possess overnight,” said Paul Nordberg, director of the Calguns Foundation and president of Calguns.net, a highly trafficked online forum for California gun owners. “To the best of my knowledge there is no method or funding for informing the public of their change in status from law-abiding citizen to criminal.”
Nordberg says the people who will be hardest hit are those who participate in the sport of competitive shooting, enthusiasts who have spent tens of thousands of dollars on fees and equipment. Magazines with a capacity of 15 rounds are standard in national competitions. “I refuse to call them ‘high capacity,’” he said, “Fifteen rounds is the standard, and words have meaning.”
People who don’t live in Los Angeles are unaffected by the ordinance, unless they drive through L.A. to get to a shooting range or competition in an area outside the city’s boundaries. Then, Nordberg says, they risk “arrest, confiscation of property and possible loss of civil rights for simply doing the same thing they did the day before and have done for years, simply going to the shooting range with the legal property they have owned for over a decade.”
The City Council is working on a second ordinance that would mandate the use of gun locks in the home. That ordinance is modeled on laws in San Francisco and Sunnyvale that have so far been upheld by the federal courts.
But that may not last. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was not happy with the lower courts’ decision to uphold the mandatory gun lock law. “Despite the clarity with which we described the Second Amendment’s core protection for the right of self-defense, lower courts, including the ones here, have failed to protect it,” he wrote.
Still, the Supreme Court decided not to hear a challenge to the mandatory gun lock law — yet. So Los Angeles jumped right in to pass a similar ordinance.
California is one of only six states that has no “right to keep and bear arms” in its state constitution. In Nevada, for example, the state constitution says, “Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes.”
The Arizona constitution says, “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.” In Texas, “Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.”
But in California the state constitution is silent, so gun owners in the Golden State must depend on the federal courts’ interpretation of the Second Amendment to protect their rights from infringement. That means lawsuits will be filed to challenge the two city ordinances, and city taxpayers will incur the costs of defending the ordinances in federal court.
To better protect Second Amendment rights in California, an amendment to the state constitution is needed that secures for Californians the protections that gun owners have in 43 other states. Without that, we’re at the mercy of politicians who like to score political points by criminalizing the actions of people who didn’t do anything to anybody.
____________________
Susan Shelley is a San Fernando Valley author, a former television associate producer and twice a Republican candidate for the California Assembly. Reach her at Susan@SusanShelley.com, or follow her on Twitter: @Susan_Shelley.

Editorial: EPA’s double standard

Sure accidents happen — it’s why we call them accidents. But you can bet if some oil company had been responsible for filling a Colorado river with toxic sludge — rather than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency — the Obama White House would be all over it. The Justice Department would likely have already launched an investigation and company officials marched into federal court.
But the EPA — which in its zealotry to rid our air of pollutants wants to ride herd over every coal- and oil-fired plant in the nation — took 24 hours just to notify the residents of nearby Durango of their major-league screw up.
An EPA crew assigned to clean up the Gold King mine high in the San Juan mountains of southern Colorado accidentally opened up a passage from an old tunnel in the mine, allowing millions of gallons of yellow toxic sludge to spill into a creek, and from there into the Animas River. As of Monday it had already traveled 100 miles south into New Mexico. And from there who the hell knows because it’s still flowing, heading toward Utah, including Lake Powell — an area along with Durango itself jammed with tourists this time of year.
Local officials are furious because it took the EPA 24 hours to warn anyone of the arsenic and lead-laden stew headed their way. And the earlier estimate of a 1 million gallon spill later measured at least 3 million gallons.
Yes EPA officials have apologized, but then so did those BP officials after the Gulf Coast oil spill — before they were given the boot. And there are a host of questions still not answered by EPA officials — such as why was the EPA using heavy machinery in an area known to be filled with toxins. Why was the community not notified in a timely fashion. And who will compensate businesses along the route.
Remember the latter was a key requirement in the wake of the BP oil spill.
So where do the victims of the EPA’s incompetence go to have their lives and businesses made whole in the wake of this environmental disaster?

[COMMENTARY] Contentions Hillary Clinton’s Slow-Motion Implosion

“It is very likely,” Secretary of State John Kerry confirmed when asked by a CBS reporter if he believed the Russians and the Chinese were reading his emails. “I certainly write things with that awareness.” The Democratic Party’s elder statesman and former presidential nominee might have known that he was twisting the knife. While it was perhaps unintentional, his comments reflect an accurate assessment bubbling up from the liberal subconscious that Hillary Clinton has been irreparably damaged by the revelations regarding her scandalous conduct as Kerry’s predecessor at Foggy Bottom.
Hillary Clinton could have surrendered her “homebrew” email server, on which she conducted the affairs of state in violation of both State Department and White House guidelines, to a third party at any time. Indeed, that was the request of the Republican members of the House Select Committee on Benghazi. If she were so inclined, she could have rid herself of the suspicion that she had something to hide. Clinton might not have found exculpation in a third party investigation of the system that once held over 30,000 deleted emails that Clinton assured Americans were of no interest to them, she would have at least created the impression that she had belatedly embraced transparency. Instead, she dug in, closed ranks, and bristled with indignation at anyone who dared question her integrity. In the process, Clinton repeatedly misled the publicand the press on matters both substantial and paltry.
Hillary Clinton could have done many things to mitigate the damage wrought to her political image by the steady stream of information about her behavior at State. Instead, in deference to the sense of entitlement her enablers have cultivated over a quarter-century, she did nothing. Now, Clinton will be forced to surrender her server to the FBI. What’s more, the email communications that were contained on a thumb drive in the care of her attorney, a man without the requisite security clearances who wasdeemed post hoc by the State Department to suddenly be occupying a secure information facility, must also hand over to the Feds what is in his possession.
This final shoe dropped after two inspectors general alleged that, not only did Clinton’s unsecure email server contain sensitive information that was marked as such at the time in which it was received, but some of that information was classified “Top Secret.” Among the communications Hillary Clinton received on her server included references to coded information and imagery obtained via secure methods. Carelessly allowing this material to be sent over an unclassified and unprotected email system is a violation of federal law. Full stop.
But Hillary Clinton’s privilege does not die easy. Reporters have developed a tic that compels them to assert that Hillary Clinton personally is not the subject of any federal investigation. Only her potentially unlawful conduct has captured the attention of investigators.
“There are several investigations into her conduct, not into her, but into her use of personal email and a personal server,” McClatchy reporter Anita Kumar told MSNBCon Wednesday. She was merely echoing a statement in her employer’s report, which averred, “Clinton, herself, is not a target.”
This is an oft-repeated refrain. The Department of Justice to which this investigation had been referred last month has repeatedly asserted, “Clinton herself is not the target of the investigation.” This transparent effort to preserve Hillary Clinton’s rapidly decaying political prospects has roiled even FBI sources.
“It’s definitely a criminal probe,” a source within the FBI told New York Post reporters last week. “I’m not sure why they’re not calling it a criminal probe.”
“The DOJ [Department of Justice] and FBI can conduct civil investigations in very limited circumstances,” but that’s not what this is, the source stressed. “In this case, a security violation would lead to criminal charges. Maybe DOJ is trying to protect her campaign.”
Maybe. Just maybe.
The rhetorical gymnastics required of reporters and public officials who contend that Clinton is herself not a target of an investigation is simply a marvel. It’s also supremely insulting. The contention that only Clinton’s behavior and not her gilded personage is of interest to criminal investigators is a familiar dodge. It’s of a kind with open borders immigration activists who solemnly scold the public with the contention that “people can never be illegal” and then go about high-fiving one another as if they’ve deftly scored some stylistic points. No, people are not illegal, but their behavior sometimes is. No, Hillary Clinton is not the subject of an investigation, but her reckless disregard for America’s state secrets most certainly is. Only in the minds of Clinton’s increasingly desperate defenders is this a distinction with a perceptible difference.
It seems likely now that the swirling controversy around Clinton’s conduct will dog her for the remainder of her presidential campaign. There will be no exculpation for her behavior – merely a slow drip of information regarding her conduct and the jeopardy in which it put American national security. Clinton’s claim to be a competent commander-in-chief is forever tarnished. Even if someone close to her were to fall on their sword, it is too late to avoid the impression that this attempt at damage control was not done at the behest of a Machiavellian political figure failing in the effort to revive her ailing career.
Judging from the tone of the commentary surrounding Clinton’s downfall, it seems as though political observers that they cannot believe what they are witnessing. How could it be possible that a colossus like Clinton who seemed destined to occupy the Oval Office could be undone by such a careless misstep? But in the same way that a mosquito bite can fell the strongest man if left uncared for, what was once a minor scrape for Clinton has grown gangrenous. On Wednesday, a poll of New Hampshire Democrats showed that the eccentric socialist Senator Bernie Sanders has finally eclipsed Clinton. She now faces the prospect of a wounding primary and a competitive general election. If Democrats are forced to choose between advancing the liberal project and Hillary Clinton’s reputation, they will choose the latter. That horrible choice was once mere hypothetical. This morning, it is all too real.

Sharpton *Shocked* At Suggestion That People Who Work Harder Earn More

And I am shocked that he has a TV show. CLICK for VIDEO
I will be even more shocked if I hear that anyone actually watches.

In the liberal universe, there's no correlation between hard work or ingenuity and financial success.  As President Obama recently put it, the rich are simply "society's lottery winners."
Sounding a similar theme, Al Sharpton today declared it "astounding" that Rand Paul believes that income inequality is due to "some people working harder."  Astounding, indeed!  What's wrong with Rand?  How could he possibly believe that someone someone who works, say, 60 hours per week might earn more than someone else who works 20?
Note that Sharpton also recycled the canard that Jeb Bush said people needed to work longer hours whereas the context made clear he was calling for the availability of  more full-time jobs
AL SHARPTON: It's the new 2016 Republican answer to income inequality and it's a doozy. Here is GOP senator Rand Paul saying Americans must, they just need to work harder. 
CHRIS WALLACE: Question, doesn't your plan massively increase income inequality? 
RAND PAUL: Well the thing is, income inequality is due to some people working harder and selling more things. So if voluntarily buy more of your stuff, you'll have more money.
SHARPTON: He said that, that's right, he's claiming income inequality is due to some people working harder? Astounding! Implying that the poor just don't work hard enough. It's also strikingly similar to Jeb Bush last month when he said Americans need to work longer hours.
Via: Newsbusters

Continue Reading....



California DMV employees allegedly traded cash for licenses

0812 cal dmv.jpg
Aug. 11, 2015: Benjamin B.Wagner, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of California, gestures to a chart showing how California Department of Motor Vehicle employees were bribed for providing fraudulent California licenses to commercial truck drivers in Sacramento,Calif. (AP)
At least 100 commercial truck drivers paid up to $5,000 each to bribe California Department of Motor Vehicles employees for illegal licenses, federal authorities said on Tuesday.Officials said up to 23 traffic accidents could be related to the fraud, though there were no fatalities.

Emma Klem, a 45-year-old Salinas DMV employee, and trucking school owner Kulwidner Dosanjh Singh, 58, both pleaded guilty Tuesday to commit bribery and identity fraud, U.S. Attorney Benjamin Wagner said.
Two other DMV employees in Salinas and Sacramento and two other Central Valley trucking school operators have been arrested on similar charges.
The employees changed computer records to falsely show that drivers had passed written and behind-the-wheel tests after they were bribed by the owners of three truck-driving schools between June 2011 and March 2015, according to court documents.
"Individuals who use their positions to obtain commercial drivers' licenses for unskilled and untested drivers jeopardize our nation's security and safety. Allowing unqualified drivers to operate heavy commercial trucks on our highways is honestly quite chilling," said Carol Webster, acting assistant special agent in charge of the U.S. Homeland Security Investigations office in Sacramento.
DMV examiners Andrew Kimura, 30, of Sacramento and Robert Turchin, 65, of Salinas were indicted last week on charges of conspiracy, bribery and fraud in connection with identification documents, along with trucking school owners Pavitar Dosangh Singh, 55, of Sacramento, and Mangal Gill, 55, of San Ramon.
Pavitar Singh and Kimura have pleaded not guilty, while Turchin and Gill are expected to be arraigned on Friday in U.S. District Court in Sacramento.
Kimura's attorney, William Portanova, said his client is a good person caught in an unfortunate situation, "but we're going to work through it and help this young man."
Class A commercial drivers’ licenses are required to operate trucks, including 18-wheel cargo semitrailers. They are tougher to obtain than regular driver licenses. Applicants must pass both a written test and a behind-the-wheel test that is offered at a limited number of DMV locations, including Salinas.
The DMV has canceled or revoked more than 600 licenses that are potentially linked to fraud, including 100 that were pinpointed by investigators, DMV chief investigator Frank Alvarez said. Drivers can retake the tests, sometimes after a hearing, and Wagner said none are likely to be prosecuted during the ongoing probe because investigators are targeting the organizers.
It is the latest in several similar bribery schemes in recent years, including a Fresno case involving 15 people that resulted in a sentence of more than five years in federal prison for the DMV ringleader in 2013.
Alvarez said his department is considering additional safeguards to prevent employees from altering computer records, and it’s attempting to better screen its 10,000 employees and the way it issues commercial drivers’ licenses as it tries to prevent more bribery and fraud crimes.
The charges filed in federal court in Sacramento allege three separate conspiracies. Two of them purportedly involved Gill, who owns trucking schools in Fremont, Lathrop, Fresno and Salinas.
The third involved Pavitar Singh, owner of a school in Sacramento. His attorney, Anthony Capozzi of Fresno, and an attorney for Klem did not return telephone messages.
Christopher Morales of San Francisco, attorney for Kulwinder Singh, said his client is a good family man who recognizes that he erred when he "took shortcuts" to help members of the Indian community who had trouble passing the tests.
His client and Klem face up to five years in prison when they are sentenced Nov. 17.
No attorneys were listed for the two defendants who have yet to appear in court.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Popular Posts