A Democratic National Committee (DNC) tour bus driver decided to dump all the vehicle’s human waste contents into a storm drain in Lawrenceville, Georgia.
And here I thought it was the Republicans who wanted dirty air and dirty water. I thought Democrats cared about the environment.
When police arrived on the scene, there was toilet paper strewn about on the road, and an accompanying foul smell. A local business manager Mike Robins snapped a few pictures of the DNC tour bus, and in the images, liquid can be seen leaking from the side of the bus.
A hazardous materials team showed up to collect as much of the filth in the surrounding area before it entered the storm drain.
Mr. Robins who witnessed photo-documented the event sounded off: “I don’t care who you are. I don’t care if you’re Hillary Clinton. I don’t care if you’re Donald Trump. I don’t care who you are, you don’t throw human waste down a storm drain.”
“Waste water just dumping all out in the street, poured out in the storm drain, and at this time I’ve got my cell phone out, and I’m taking pictures, ’cause I don’t care who you are,” he said. “That’s just wrong.”
CBS46 reached out to the Democratic National Committee for comment. Here was their response:
“This was an honest mistake and we apologize to the Lawrenceville community for any harm we may have caused. We were unaware of any possible violations and have already taken corrective action with the charter bus company to prevent this from happening again. Furthermore, the DNC will work with the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, as well as local and state officials to determine the best course of corrective action.”
Yes, in Hillary Clintonesque fashion, they’re claiming they didn’t know it was a violation to try to dump solid and liquid human waste down a storm drain, causing it and toilet paper to be splattered all around the road, and resulting in an objectionable aroma. Doing what they did was an arrestable offense. But I bet their defense will be that while they may have been “extremely careless,” they had no criminal intent.
Anyone else illegally dumping human waste in a storm drain would go to jail. My guess is that the DNC will get a pass.
According to CBS46, “Gwinnett County’s storm water department is now involved in the investigation along with the State Environment Protection Division.”
New reporting on allegations that Hillary Clinton used her position as Secretary of State to sell access to major Clinton Foundation donorshave led to a flood of calls from left-wing and center-left media for the Clintons to shut down their multibillion-dollar charity.
Below is a list of eleven of these establishment outlets and journalists urging the Clintons either to shutter the Foundation or pass off its assets to some other unaffiliated nonprofit.
The Huffington Post
The Huffington Postbegan the week with a front page banner that read “Just Shut it Down.” The HuffPoheadline linked to a New York Times article that shined the spotlight on several major Clinton Foundation donors who saw their multi-million dollar donations coincide with favorable federal actions while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.
The Washington Post
The Washington Post editorial board wrote Wednesday that “should Ms. Clinton win, all of that work and all of the foundation’s assets should be spun off to an organization with no ties to the first family.”
The USA Today editorial board said Wednesday that “the only way to eliminate the odor surrounding the foundation is to wind it down and put it in mothballs, starting today, and transfer its important charitable work to another large American charity such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.”
The New Yorker
Writing in The New Yorker,John Cassidy argues: “Rather than torpedoing the foundation, it would surely make more sense, at least for the duration of a Clinton Presidency, to separate it from its founding family and turn it into an independent organization run and overseen by people unconnected to the Clintons. The reforms that Bill Clinton announced on Monday go some way in this direction, but not far enough.”
Over the weekend, Slate senior writer Josh Voorhees wrote that “as long as Hillary Clinton is either running for the White House or running the country from inside it, she and her husband should temporarily shutter their foundation.”
The Daily Beast
Daily Beast special correspondant Michael Tomasky wrote Tuesday that “The Clintons should shut the foundation down.”
Huffington Post Senior Politics Editor Sam Stein
In an appearance Wednesday on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Stein said, “[T]hey definitely need to shut this thing down or transfer it to the — to some other foundation. … I mean, can you imagine, the people she’s going to have to meet with as president, assuming she wins, it’ just going overlap constantly. We’ll have stories like this nonstop. There’s too much ethical murkiness here.”
Huffington PostWashington bureau chief Ryan Grim
Grim took to Twitter on Monday and mocked the Clinton Foundation, writing: “If you shut down the Clinton Foundation. How would the world’s oligarchs achieve their main goal in life, eradicating disease and poverty??”
Longtime Clinton ally and former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell
Last week, Rendell told the New York Daily News he believes that if Hillary Clinton wins in November that the Clinton foundation should be disbanded. “It’d be impossible to keep the foundation open without at least the appearance of a problem.”
New York Magazine columnist Jonathan Chait
Oft-celebrated left-wing columnist Jonathan Chait wrote last week that “the Clinton Foundation needs to die.”
The Democratic presidential nominee explained she has had African-American friends for most of her life, including two black female chiefs of staff.
“They’ve supported me, they’ve chastised me, they’ve raised issues with me, they’ve tried to expand my musical tastes,” Clinton said. “So we’ve had – we’ve had a lot of, we’ve had a lot of great, great times because of our friendships. So I can’t really pick one conversation out of, you know, 50 years of conversations.”
That answer may have sounded nice, but it was nothing more than pandering, according to Bill Clinton’s childhood friend Dolly Kyle.
“Hillary doesn’t do anything from a genuine human perspective,” Kyle said. “She is scripted entirely.”
Like virtually all modern Democrats, the Clintons try to portray themselves and their party as champions of racial equality.
However, the truth is far different. The Democratic Party has a long history of institutional racism and Bill and Hillary Clinton have continued that racist tradition, although much of the public does not know it.
For example, although the Clintons may smile in the Rev. Jesse Jackson’s face, behind his back they call him “that G**damned n*gger,” she reported.
In 1974, Hillary erupted at Bill’s campaign manager, Paul Fray, calling him “you f**king Jew bastard.”
When Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas, he was sued multiple times by groups of minorities, both blacks and Hispanics, for violating the 1965 Voting Rights Act. He lost every time.
Kyle explained the Delta area of Arkansas has an overwhelmingly black population, yet as of the 1980s, the voters had not elected a black representative to the Arkansas state legislature in hundreds of elections. This was because the district had been gerrymandered to dilute the black vote.
“Black people sued Billy and other state officials,” Kyle wrote. “Blacks won. The district’s lines were redrawn under court order to something more equitable so that blacks might have a chance to elect one of their own to serve in the Arkansas legislature.”
In nearby Crittenden County, a black Democrat named Ben McGee won his party’s primary for a seat in the Arkansas state legislature in 1988. However, Gov. Bill Clinton tried to replace McGee with a white Democratic candidate of his choice. That case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the court ruled 8-0 against Clinton.
The Clintons did not just discriminate against black people; they singled out Hispanics as well. Three years after Bill’s half-brother Roger went to prison for drug dealing, then-Gov. Clinton gave Arkansas state troopers the authority to stop and search any vehicle that looked like it might be carrying illegal drugs.
“Specifically, the troopers were to stop and search cars driven by Hispanics, especially those cars with Texas license plates,” Kyle wrote.
When Bill Clinton was sued in federal court for this antidrug program, the judge ruled it was unconstitutional. However, Bill threw one of his “infamous temper tantrums,” according to Kyle, and threatened to renew the Hispanic profiling program anyway.
“A few years later, without targeting Hispanics directly, Billy gave the Arkansas state troopers the right to stop and search any car at their discretion,” Kyle wrote. “Subtle, huh?”
Clinton racism sometimes took even subtler forms. Kyle noted Bill and Hillary have always fostered and exploited a “plantation mentality” focused on black people.
According to Kyle, “If you are a person of any color who believes that the government owes you a place to live and food to eat and a monthly stipend to buy clothing, electronics, and cars, then you have adopted a plantation mentality.”
The benefit of this mentality, of course, is that the Clintons receive an overwhelming share of the black vote even when they are not truly helping black people. Even though Clinton’s 1996 welfare reform law had a negative impact on the black community, many blacks still celebrated the cool, saxophone-playing Clinton as “America’s first black president.”
Furthermore, Kyle pointed out Clinton’s “three strikes and you’re out” law led to the near lifelong incarceration of thousands of African American men.
“More than 150,000 inmates are serving life sentences largely because of the Clinton ‘three strikes’ rule,” Kyle wrote. “It did not matter if the crimes were petty ones such as drug possession or major felonies like armed robbery.”
She noted if a defendant was white and wealthy, there was rarely a third strike. Poor blacks, on the other hand, were not so lucky. But their incarceration did allow Clinton to claim unemployment was down, mostly because prisoners are not counted as unemployed.
Kyle said the media are uninterested in reporting examples of Clinton racism for the same reason they are uninterested in most Clinton scandals – they love the Clintons and have been protecting them for decades. Because the media wish to protect the Clintons, it will be hard to spread the truth about their racism.
Kyle believes black preachers may hold the key to educating the black community about the Clintons, but so far they have been dropping the ball.
“It’s unfortunate that the preachers in so many of the black churches are linking with the Clintons for many historical reasons, and a lot of people in the black community take their cues from the preachers on Sunday,” she lamented.
Kyle acknowledged it will be difficult to get African Americans to abandon Hillary Clinton in large numbers, but she draws encouragement from the black people she speaks to about the Clintons.
“My experience has been that every African American person with whom I had conversations in the past couple of months has been quite open to hearing about the racial discrimination lawsuits and about the Clintons’ racial epithets against African Americans, as well as Jews,” she said.
Kyle said it’s mostly younger blacks who have been open to her message, but some older blacks have heeded her warning as well.
“Three different older African American women told me that their nieces had been telling them these things, and now they were going to pay more attention to it,” she relayed. “So I’m happy to see that they’re open to learning the truth about the Clintons.”
In 2010 millions of American tea-party constitutionalists, to include the GOP’s Christian base, united in a remarkable grass-roots effort to rein in our unbridled federal government and return it to its expressly limited constitutional confines. As a result, an unprecedented number of counter-constitutionalist lawmakers (read: liberal Democrats) were swept from office.
The Obama administration wasn’t going to take this lying down. Whether it was by tacit approval or via direct order remains largely immaterial. The president quickly and unlawfully politicized the Internal Revenue Service, using it as a weapon against his political enemies. In an explosive scandal that continues to grow, the Obama IRS was caught – smoking gun in hand – intentionally targeting conservative and Christian organizations and individuals for harassment, intimidation and, ultimately, for political destruction.
Not only has Obama faced zero accountability for these arguably impeachable offenses, he has since doubled down. With unmitigated gall, his administration has moved to officially weaponize the IRS against conservatives once and for all.
Despite the furor over the IRS assault on conservative groups leading up to the 2012 elections, this administration – led by a despotic radical who is turning our constitutional republic into one of the banana variety – has quietly released a proposed set of new IRS regulations that, if implemented, will immediately, unlawfully and permanently muzzle conservative 501(c)(4) nonprofit organizations and their individual employees. (The 501(c)(4) designation refers to the IRS code section under which social welfare organizations are regulated).
The new regulations would unconstitutionally compel a 90-day blackout period during election years in which conservative 501(c)(4) organizations – such as tea-party, pro-life and pro-family groups – would be banned from mentioning the name of any candidate for office, or even the name of any political party.
Here’s the kicker: As you may have guessed, liberal lobbying groups like labor unions and trade associations are deliberately exempted. And based on its partisan track record, don’t expect this president’s IRS to lift a finger to scrutinize liberal 501(c)(4)s. Over at a Obama’s “Organizing for America,” the left-wing political propaganda will, no doubt, flow unabated.
These Orwellian regulations will prohibit conservative 501(c)(4) organizations from using words like “oppose,” “vote,” or “defeat.” Their timing, prior to a pivotal election, is no coincidence and provides yet another example of Obama’s using the IRS for “progressive” political gain.
Although these restrictions only apply to 501(c)(4) organizations for now, under a straightforward reading, they will also clearly apply to 501(c)(3) organizations in the near future.
Mat Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel Action – one of the many conservative organizations to be silenced – commented on the breaking scandal: “One of the core liberties in our constitutional republic is the right to dissent,” he said. “But desperate to force his radical agenda on the American people, Barack Obama and his chosen political tool, the IRS, are now trying to selectively abridge this right, effectively silencing their political adversaries.”
Specifically, here’s what the proposed regulations would do to conservative groups and their leaders:
Prohibit using words like “oppose,” “vote,” “support,” “defeat,” and “reject.”
Prohibit mentioning, on its website or on any communication (email, letter, etc.) that would reach 500 people or more, the name of a candidate for office, 30 days before a primary election and 60 days before a general election.
Prohibit mentioning the name of a political party, 30 days before a primary election and 60 days before a general election, if that party has a candidate running for office.
Prohibit voter registration drives or conducting a non-partisan “get-out-the-vote drive.”
Prohibit creating or distributing voter guides outlining how incumbents voted on particular bills.
Prohibit hosting candidates for office at any event, including debates and charitable fundraisers, 30 days before a primary election or 60 days before the general election, if the candidate is part of the event’s program.
Restrict employees of such organizations from volunteering for campaigns.
Prohibit distributing any materials prepared on behalf a candidate for office.
Restrict the ability of officers and leaders of such organizations to publicly speak about incumbents, legislation, and/or voting records.
Restrict the ability of officers and leaders of such organizations to make public statements regarding the nomination of judges.
Create a 90-day blackout period, on an election year, that restricts the speech of 501(c)(4) organizations.
Declare political activity as contrary to the promotion of social welfare.
Protect labor unions and trade associations by exempting them from the proposed regulations.
Continued Mat Staver: “We would be restricted in promoting conservative values, such as protecting our constitutional rights against these very kind of Executive Branch infringements.
“We would even be prohibited from criticizing the federal bureaucracy. If this new set of regulations goes into effect, Liberty Counsel Action – all conservative 501(c)(4)s for that matter – will be forbidden to ‘oppose’ or ‘support’ anything in the political arena and we’ll be prohibited from conducting our ‘get-out-the vote’ campaigns or issuing our popular voter guides.
“Further,” continue Staver, “individual employees of conservative groups will be banned from speaking or messaging on incumbents, legislation, and/or voting records – or speaking on the nominations of judges or political nominees being considered by the Senate. This also includes taking on state and local politicians.”
“These are the same tactics used by the Obama administration to illegally target conservative 501(c)(4) organizations during the last two election cycles, only now the strategy has been greatly intensified and formalized.
“You may recall that former President Richard Nixon was famously forced to resign for improperly using Executive Branch assets for political purposes.
“Rather than preparing a solid defense to confront these serious allegations, Barack Obama has chosen instead to reconfigure his illegal tactics into a set of ‘regulations’ on nonprofits, opening the door for an IRS crackdown on select organizations,” Staver concluded.
Indeed, once caught abusing his executive authority to target the very U.S. citizens he’s sworn to serve, even a nominally honorable man would immediately reverse course, resign and accept the consequences of his illegal actions.
With the midterm elections just over 300 days away, nervous Democrats reeling from the Obamacare debacle are hoping a big push to raise the minimum wage will be the silver bullet that will spare them from the historic losses they suffered in 2010.
Democrats and unions are busy working to get minimum wage initiatives on state ballots in the hopes of creating an electoral “minimum wage magnet” to attract low-income, minority, and union voters to the polls.
Seven minimum wage facts, however, may diminish Democrats’ high hopes.
1. Just 2.8% of American workers earn at or below the minimum wage.
The U.S. Department of Labor says 1.6 million people make the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. Another 2 million earn below that rate, such as restaurant servers who make tips in addition to a lower base hourly wage which, according to U.S. News and World Report, “in many cases actually puts them significantly above the minimum wage in reality, if not officially.” That means in a nation of 317 million people, just 3.6 million (1.1%) make at or below the minimum wage. As a share of the U.S. workforce, just 2.8% of people working make minimum wage.
2. Half of all minimum wage workers are 16 to 24 years old.
According to the Department of Labor, “minimum wage workers tend to be young,” and “about half of those paid the Federal minimum wage or less” are below age 25. Many of these are students working while in school or teenagers with part-time or summer jobs. That means half of the people most affected by a minimum wage hike are among those least likely to show up at the polls to vote, especially in a midterm election year. Indeed, minimum wage workers who are 16 and 17 years old are not even legally eligible to vote.
3. Labor workers already make well above the minimum wage.
Democrats and unions hoping labor workers will be energized by a minimum wage bump will be sad to know that laborers in every single sector of what the government calls “production and nonsupervisory employees”—like manufacturing, construction, mining, retail, transportation, etc.—already earn well above the minimum wage. In fact, in November 2013, the government reported that the average hourly labor wage across all industries was $20.31—a figure nearly three times the federal minimum wage. And as the unions themselves boast, a union member’s annual salary is already $10,400 higher than a non-union worker.
4. Even those who support minimum wage hikes concede it could kill jobs.
Many economists and conservatives point to the body of economic literature that shows minimum wage increases kill jobs and simply encourage companies to pass along the added cost in the form of higher prices. But even ardent supporters like socialist Seattle City Council member Kshama Sawant, who recently helped pass a $15 minimum wage in the SeaTac, Washington, concede the move could spawn job losses. “There may be a few jobs lost here and there, but the fact is, if we don’t fight for this, then the race to the bottom will continue,” said Sawant.
5. Minorities and the poor are hit hardest by the minimum wage. Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman famously noted that “the most anti-black law on the books of this land is the minimum wage law.” Higher wages mean employers seek higher, more skilled workers. That, said Friedman, puts those with disproportionately less education and experience at a significant disadvantage when looking to put their foot on the first rung of the employment ladder.
6. Even progressives concede the minimum wage is no panacea for America’s economic woes.
President Barack Obama’s former chairwoman of the Council of Economic Economic Advisers Christina Romer says, “economic analysis raises questions about whether a higher minimum wage will achieve better outcomes for the economy and reduce poverty.” As a result, says Romer, “most economists prefer other ways to help low-income families.” Similarly, progressive Daily Beast writer Jamelle Bouie says while he supporters the move, “the minimum wage is a Band-Aid for wage stagnation and income inequality” and “doesn’t make up for our sluggish economy and weak labor market.”
7. 21 states already have minimum wages that are higher than the federal $7.25/hr rate.
Just last week, 13 states boosted their minimum wage rates above the federal minimum wage rate of $7.25/hr. That means 21 states now already have minimum wages that exceed the federal rate.
For these reasons and more, Republicans see Democrats’ minimum wage tactic as a desperate attempt to run from the Obama record.
“If I had a dollar for every time Democrats thought their issue of the week was going to be their pathway to victory, I would have enough money to pay taxpayers back all the money that was wasted on the broken Obamacare website,” said Republican Congressional Campaign Committee spokeswoman Andrea Bozek.
Last Wednesday, President Barack Obama dismissed the scandals that have engulfed his administration as “phony.”
“With an endless parade of distractions and political posturing and phony scandals, Washington’s taken its eye off the ball,” Obama said in a campaign-style speech on the state of the economy. “And I’m here to say this needs to stop. This needs to stop. Short-term thinking and stale debates are not what this moment requires. Our focus has to be on the basic economic issues that the matter most to you – the people we represent.”
Obama didn’t mention any controversies by name, so he may need reminded of a few. Starting with the decision of his Department of Justice to not prosecute members of the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation and the fiasco of Fast and Furious, his administration was off to the races with controversy. Obama’s disregard for the law has been rampant from the auto bailout to the illegal war in Libya to the most recent decision to administratively decide to change portions of the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Throw in the use of the Internal Revenue Service to harass conservative and religious groups, revelations about the National Security Agency spying on American citizens and the Sept. 2012 terror assault in Benghazi, Libya and the associated cover-up have all brought unwanted scrutiny on the White House.
White House press secretary Jay Carney also used the term “phony scandals” earlier Wednesday in an appearance on MSNBC. I would say to the press secretary and even the president that just because MSNBC chooses not to cover the stories of the Obama administration’s misdeeds, does not mean that they didn’t take place.
They were for it before they were against it and now, some of the country’s most powerful union leaders are expressing their full disapproval of ObamaCare.
The leaders of three major U.S. unions, including the highly influential Teamsters, have sent a scathing letter to Democratic leaders in Congress, warning that unless changes are made, President Obama’s health care reform plan will “destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class.”
If that’s not bad enough, the Affordable Care Act, if not modified, will “destroy the very health and well being of our members along with millions of other hardworking Americans,” the letter says.
The letter, signed by Teamsters President Jimmy Hoffa, UFCW President Joseph Hansen and UNITE-HERE President D. Taylor, comes after companies have cut worker hours in order to avoid reaching the 50 full-time employee threshold requiring a business to provide health insurance through government exchanges under ObamaCare. Union leaders are reminding Democrats, not Republicans, about why they originally supported a healthcare overhaul and are expressing buyer’s remorse.
When you and the President sought our support for the Affordable Care Act (ACA), you pledged that if we liked the health plans we have now, we could keep them. Sadly, that promise is under threat. Right now, unless you and the Obama Administration enact an equitable fix, the ACA will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class.
Like millions of other Americans, our members are front-line workers in the American economy. We have been strong supporters of the notion that all Americans should have access to quality, affordable health care. We have also been strong supporters of you. In campaign after campaign we have put boots on the ground, gone door-to-door to get out the vote, run phone banks and raised money to secure this vision.
Now this vision has come back to haunt us.
Since the ACA was enacted, we have been bringing our deep concerns to the Administration, seeking reasonable regulatory interpretations to the statute that would help prevent the destruction of non-profit health plans. As you both know first-hand, our persuasive arguments have been disregarded and met with a stone wall by the White House and the pertinent agencies. This is especially stinging because other stakeholders have repeatedly received successful interpretations for their respective grievances. Most disconcerting of course is last week’s huge accommodation for the employer community—extending the statutorily mandated “December 31, 2013” deadline for the employer mandate and penalties.
Time is running out: Congress wrote this law; we voted for you. We have a problem; you need to fix it. The unintended consequences of the ACA are severe. Perverse incentives are already creating nightmare scenarios.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have been asked to move forward with “fixes” to the healthcare law, or in other words, unions want more waivers.
The very complaints union leaders are bringing to the table now about ObamaCare are the same warnings conservatives and businesses gave before the legislation was signed into law in 2010. Hopefully it won’t be long before unions are calling for full repeal.