Sunday, April 26, 2015

Kris Jenner Tells Perez Hilton 'Fuck Off' After Bruce Jenner Interview

Now that is righteous!

Kris Jenner photo CDaFfqNUgAAK0Z6_zps4cax4nhn.png

Maybe she deleted it, but what a riot.

Here's the tweet from the flaming idiot Perez Hilton, a.k.a., Mario Armando Lavandeira, Jr.

Saturday, April 25, 2015

#FreddieGray Protesters Riot in Baltimore

At CBS News Baltimore, "Protests Take Violent Turn In Baltimore."

And at RT, "Unrest in Baltimore as thousands protest Freddie Gray’s death."

Laverne Cox Exposes Radical Feminist Exclusionism

Seriously. It's hard to keep up with this nowadays.

At Instapundit, "FIGHT THE POWER: Laverne Cox Gets Naked, Exposes Radical Feminist Exclusionism."

Hillary Clinton is All Style, No Substance

With just a smidgen of corruption.

At the Hill:

Also at WSJ, "Carly Fiorina to Launch Presidential Campaign on May 4."

The Moral Case for Capitalism

From James Otteson, at the Manhattan Institute, "An Audacious Promise: The Moral Case for Capitalism":
“The market will take care of everything,” they tell us…. But here’s the problem: it doesn’t work. It has never worked. It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It’s not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the ’50s and ’60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade. I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this theory.

—President Barack Obama, Osawatomie, Kansas, December 6, 2011
Milton Friedman once said that every time capitalism has been tried, it has succeeded; whereas every time socialism has been tried, it has failed. Yet President Obama has oddly claimed that we’ve tried free-market capitalism, and it “has never worked.” This is rather remarkable. Since 1800, the world’s population has increased sixfold; yet despite this enormous increase, real income per person has increased approximately 16-fold. That is a truly amazing achievement. In America, the increase is even more dramatic: in 1800, the total population in America was 5.3 million, life expectancy was 39, and the real gross domestic product per capita was $1,343 (in 2010 dollars); in 2011, our population was 308 million, our life expectancy was 78, and our GDP per capita was $48,800. Thus even while the population increased 58-fold, our life expectancy doubled, and our GDP per capita increased almost 36-fold. Such growth is unprecedented in the history of humankind. Considering that worldwide per-capita real income for the previous 99.9 percent of human existence averaged consistently around $1 per day, that is extraordinary.

What explains it? It would seem that it is due principally to the complex of institutions usually included under the term “capitalism,” since the main thing that changed between 200 years ago and the previous 100,000 years of human history was the introduction and embrace of so-called capitalist institutions—particularly, private property and markets. One central promise of capitalism has been that it will lead to increasing material prosperity. It seems fair to say that this promise, at least, has been fulfilled beyond anyone’s wildest imagination. Yet people remain suspicious of capitalism—and more than just suspicious: as the Occupy Wall Street movement is only the latest to have shown, we seem ready to indict capitalism for many of our social problems. Why?

A widespread consensus is that capitalism might be necessary to deliver the goods but fails to meet moral muster. By contrast, socialism, while perhaps not practical, is morally superior—if only we could live up to its ideals. Two main charges are typically marshaled against capitalism: it generates inequality by allowing some to become wealthier than others; and it threatens social solidarity by allowing individuals some priority over their communities. Other objections include: it encourages selfishness or greed; it “atomizes” individuals or “alienates” (Marx’s term) people from one another; it exploits natural resources or despoils nature; it impoverishes third-world countries; and it dehumanizes people because the continual search for profit reduces everything, including human beings, to odious dollar-and-cent calculations.

The list of charges against capitalism is long. But some of the charges are not as strong as might be supposed. Take community. Capitalism gives us incentives to trade and associate with people outside our local community, even complete strangers, not on the basis of our love or care for them but out of our own—and their—self-interest. So capitalism enables people to escape the strictures of their local communities. But is that bad? Capitalism creates opportunities for people to trade, exchange, partner, associate, collaborate, cooperate, and share with—as well as learn from—people not only from next door but from around the world—even people who speak different languages, wear different clothing, eat different foods, and worship different gods. The social characteristics that in other times and under different institutions would lead to conflict—even violent, bloody conflict—become, under capitalism, irrelevant—and thus no longer cause for discord. Capitalism encourages people to see those outside their communities not as threats but as opportunities. It gives us an incentive to look beyond our narrow parochialisms and form associations that would otherwise not be possible.

Capitalism therefore does not lead to no community but rather to differently configured ones...

Otteson has a new book, The End of Socialism.

I came across it after reading the discussion at AEI, "‘Once you begin to see humans as the interchangeable members of a class, you begin to dehumanize them’..." (Via Instapudit.)

'Pump It Up'

I'm watching Showtime's documentary, "Elvis Costello: Mystery Dance."

Obviously, I used to love Costello back in the day, but he's anti-Israel, which makes him no different than Roger Waters these days, which is a bummer.

In any case, one for the old times, "Pump It Up."

I've been on tenterhooks
ending in dirty looks,
list'ning to the Muzak,
thinking 'bout this 'n' that.
She said that's that.
I don't wanna chitter-chat.
Turn it down a little bit
or turn it down flat.
Pump it up when you don't really need it.
Pump it up until you can feel it.

Down in the pleasure centre,
hell bent or heaven sent,
listen to the propaganda,
listen to the latest slander.
There's nothing underhand
that she wouldn't understand.

Pump it up until you can feel it.
Pump it up when you don't really need it.

She's been a bad girl.
She's like a chemical.
Though you try to stop it,
she's like a narcotic.
You wanna torture her.
You wanna talk to her.
All the things you bought for her,
putting up your temp'rature.

Pump it up until you can feel it.
Pump it up when you don't really need it.

Out in the fashion show,
down in the bargain bin,
you put your passion out
under the pressure pin.
Fall into submission,
hit-and-run transmission.
No use wishing now for any other sin.

Pump it up until you can feel it.
Pump it up when you don't really need it.

Weekend Page 3 Roundup

The British lovelies, via Egotastic!, "Lacey Banghard, Kelly Hall, Lucy Collet, Rhian Sugden, Rosie Jones All Topless Holler for a Page 3 Roundup."

Johns Hopkins Psychiatrist: Transgender is 'Mental Disorder'; Sex Change 'Biologically Impossible'


Click through for the stuff on "mental disorder." I'm just trippin' on Relia's attack on Gramscian Marxism:

Antonio Gramsci photo 50_gramsci1_zpsimzuqdoz.jpg






PREVIOUSLY: "Bruce Jenner: 'I'm a Woman'."

With Collapse of Comcast-Time Warner Deal, Dodgers Fans Still Shutout

It's becoming a protest movement.

At LAT, "For Dodgers fans, the TV shutout continues":
For Dodgers fans, the long wait to see games televised again may be headed into extra innings.

An estimated 70% of Los Angeles-area households don't get the SportsNet LA channel that carries Dodgers games. That situation was expected to be corrected if Comcast Corp.'s planned $45-billion acquisition of Time Warner Cable had succeeded.

With that merger officially pronounced dead Friday, the prospects of a deal to carry the games on other cable and satellite providers were as murky as ever.

"There's no end in sight," said David Carter, executive director of the USC Marshall Sports Business Institute. "There does not appear to be an easy workaround to get this thing done."

With few exceptions, televised Dodgers games can be seen only by customers of Time Warner Cable, which agreed to pay $8.35 billion over 25 years for the rights to distribute the Dodgers-owned SportsNet LA.

Its rivals, including DirecTV and Charter Communications, have refused to pay what they say are excessive fees to carry the games. The standoff began last season and has carried over into the current one.

On Friday, Time Warner Cable chief Robert D. Marcus said he would like to resume talks with other providers.

"It takes willing parties in order to make a deal, and we haven't had much luck getting any of the major distributors to the negotiating table so that we can have productive conversations," Marcus said. "But we are ready, willing and able to have those discussions. We'd love to have the games in front of Dodger fans as soon as we can."

But any kind of resolution is still out of reach as long as pay-TV operators that also include Verizon FiOS, AT&T and Cox Communications continue to bristle at the cost of the channel. Time Warner Cable has asked other cable and satellite TV companies to pay as much as $4.90 a month per subscriber for SportsNet LA, according to industry consulting firm SNL Kagan.

Time Warner Cable and Guggenheim Baseball Management, which owns the Dodgers, overestimated consumer interest and underestimated resistance from other pay-TV operators.

If Comcast had succeeded in acquiring Time Warner Cable, it was expected to cut the price and swallow any losses — partly to curry customer goodwill, and partly because its greater financial clout and assets would have made it easier to horse-trade with DirecTV, the nation's second-largest pay-TV provider.

That could still happen if a new potential buyer, such as Charter, succeeded in acquiring Time Warner Cable...

And for the workaround, "Dodgers fans find ways around local blackout."

The Tolerant Left Responds to Bruce Jenner’s Republican Status

At Gay Patriot.

Nepal Earthquake: Hundreds Dead, Many Feared Trapped

At the BBC, "Nepal earthquake: Hundreds die, many feared trapped."

Plus, "Nepal earthquake 'felt across entire region'", and "Moment Nepal earthquake hit."

More at Memeorandum, "Nepal Earthquake Kills Hundreds and Levels Buildings in Capital."

Bruce Jenner: 'I'm a Woman'

A pretty fascinating interview, you've gotta admit.

At ABC News (via Memeorandum).

More at the Los Angeles Times, "Bruce Jenner and the shifting dynamics of TV's transgender moment."

And of course, the "Republican" controversy, at Memeorandum, "Bruce Jenner: 'I'm A Republican And A Christian'."

Jared Leto is the Joker


At USA Today, "First look: Jared Leto is crazy for Joker."

Bill Nye the 'Science Guy' Isn't a Scientist

What a damned mountebank.

At WaPo, "Bill Nye: Climate change is “not something you should be debating or denying”":

“When James Hansen testified before Congress in 1988, I said ‘Wow, that’s really something,’” Nye says. “My first kids’ book in 1993, I had a demonstration on climate change.” Several episodes of “Bill Nye the Science Guy” also covered the subject.

“It’s not something that’s really debated in the scientific community,” Nye says. “The connection between humans and climate change is about as strong, or a little stronger, than the connection between cigarettes and cancer.”

Not, of course, that Nye is actually a scientist. He trained as an engineer, and worked at Boeing in that role, before trying out his comedic skills in a Seattle Steve Martin lookalike contest — the beginnings of his comedy career. But he says his engineering background is more than sufficient to make sense of the issue.

“I’m not a full time climate scientist, but I know enough about it to know it’s not something you should be debating or denying. It’s something you should be getting-on-with-it-ing,” he says.

Somewhere along the way, Nye also became one of Obama’s favorite science voices. This week, Nye traveled along to the Everglades as the president sought to instill a newfound appreciation not only of the climate change problem, but also for our national parks system, its value to the economy and even, yes, our place-specific memories.

“If you increase the amount of carbon dioxide, the planet’s going to get warmer,” Nye says. “So the president and I sat and talked about all of this.”

The Everglades, Nye says, are “a one of a kind on the Earth’s surface.”
I guess it figures. A movement built on the cult of "scientific" consensus elevates a non-scientist to priesthood status, a man who then becomes a spiritual adviser to President Obama, himself a political hack who maintains power through a ruthless cult of personalty that marshals the media's propaganda apparatus to whip-up the ideological fears and hatred of the left's environmental "bitter clingers" who enable the Democrat downsizing of the American dream.

Bill Nye's fomenting shuttupery of the highest order. And he's a bloody fraud. Man.

Well, as Instapundit would say, "Hit back twice as hard."

No, Farmers Don't Use 80 Percent of California's Water

From Representative Devin Nunes, at National Review, "The statistic is manufactured by environmentalists to distract from the incredible damage their policies have caused":
As the San Joaquin Valley undergoes its third decade of government-induced water shortages, the media suddenly took notice of the California water crisis after Governor Jerry Brown announced statewide water restrictions. In much of the coverage, supposedly powerful farmers were blamed for contributing to the problem by using too much water.

“Agriculture consumes a staggering 80 percent of California’s developed water, even as it accounts for only 2 percent of the state’s gross domestic product,” exclaimed Daily Beast writer Mark Hertsgaard in a piece titled “How Growers Gamed California’s Drought.” That 80-percent statistic was repeated in a Sacramento Bee article titled, “California agriculture, largely spared in new water restrictions, wields huge clout,” and in an ABC News article titled “California’s Drought Plan Mostly Lays Off Agriculture, Oil Industries.” Likewise, the New York Times dutifully reported, “The [State Water Resources Control Board] signaled that it was also about to further restrict water supplies to the agriculture industry, which consumes 80 percent of the water used in the state.”

This is a textbook example of how the media perpetuates a false narrative based on a phony statistic. Farmers do not use 80 percent of California’s water. In reality, 50 percent of the water that is captured by the state’s dams, reservoirs, aqueducts, and other infrastructure is diverted for environmental causes. Farmers, in fact, use 40 percent of the water supply. Environmentalists have manufactured the 80 percent statistic by deliberately excluding environmental diversions from their calculations. Furthermore, in many years there are additional millions of acre-feet of water that are simply flushed into the ocean due to a lack of storage capacity — a situation partly explained by environmental groups’ opposition to new water-storage projects.

It’s unsurprising that environmentalists and the media want to distract attention away from the incredible damage that environmental regulations have done to California’s water supply. Although the rest of the state is now beginning to feel the pinch, these regulations sparked the San Joaquin Valley’s water crisis more than two decades ago. The Endangered Species Act spawned many of these regulations, such as rules that divert usable water to protect baby salmon and a 3-inch baitfish called the Delta smelt, as well as rules that protect the striped bass, a non-native fish that — ironically — eats both baby salmon and smelt. Other harmful regulations stem from legislation backed by environmental groups and approved by Democratic-controlled Congresses in 1992 and 2009. These rules have decimated water supplies for San Joaquin farmers and communities, resulting in zero-percent water allocations and the removal of increasing amounts of farmland from production.

One would think the catastrophic consequences of these environmental regulations would be an important part of the reporting on the water crisis. But these facts are often absent, replaced by a fixation on the 80 percent of the water supply that farmers are falsely accused of monopolizing. None of the four articles cited above even mention the problem of environmental diversions. The same holds true for a recent interview with Governor Brown on ABC’s This Week. In that discussion, host Martha Raddatz focused almost exclusively on farmers’ supposed overuse of the water supply, and she invoked the 80 percent figure twice. The governor himself, a strong proponent of environmental regulations, was silent about the topic during the interview, instead blaming the crisis on global warming.

That is no surprise — President Obama also ignored environmental regulations but spoke ominously about climate change when he addressed the water crisis during a visit to California’s Central Valley in February 2014. Indeed, for many on the left, the California water crisis is just another platform for proclaiming their dogmatic fixation on fighting global warming, a campaign that many environmental extremists have adopted as a religion.

You don’t have to take my word for it; just listen to Rajendra Pachauri, former head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is the United Nations’ foremost body on global warming. After recently leaving his job amid allegations of sexual harassment, Pachauri wrote in his resignation letter: “For me, the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma.”

Utterly convinced of the righteousness of their crusade, environmental extremists stop at nothing in pursuing their utopian conception of “sustainability.” The interests of families, farmers, and entire communities — whose very existence is often regarded as an impediment to sustainability — are ignored and derided in the quest for an ever-more pristine environment free from human contamination. In the name of environmental purity, these extremists have fought for decades to cut water supplies for millions of Californians...

U.S. Sends Commandos Around the World in New Power Projection Strategy

Training local forces to die in the U.S. interest. Actually, that's not particularly novel, although the Obama administration's picked up the pace.

At WSJ, "New Way the U.S. Projects Power Around the Globe: Commandos":
MAO, Chad—“Is this good?” yelled the U.S. Special Forces sergeant. “No!”

He waved a paper target showing the dismal marksmanship of the Chadian commandos he was here to teach. Dozens of bullet holes intended for the silhouette’s vital organs were instead scattered in an array of flesh wounds and outright misses.

The Chadians, with a reputation as fierce desert fighters, were contrite. They dropped to the fine Saharan sand and pounded out 20 push-ups. “Next time, we’re going to shoot all of the bullets here,” one Chadian soldier said, gesturing toward the target’s solar plexus.

Such scenes play out around the world, evidence of how the U.S. has come to rely on elite military units to maintain its global dominance.

These days, the sun never sets on America’s special-operations forces. Over the past year, they have landed in 81 countries, most of them training local commandos to fight so American troops don’t have to. From Honduras to Mongolia, Estonia to Djibouti, U.S. special operators teach local soldiers diplomatic skills to shield their countries against extremist ideologies, as well as combat skills to fight militants who break through.

President Barack Obama, as part of his plan to shrink U.S. reliance on traditional warfare, has promised to piece together a web of such alliances from South Asia to the Sahel. Faced with mobile enemies working independently of foreign governments, the U.S. military has scattered small, nimble teams in many places, rather than just maintaining large forces in a few.

The budget for Special Operations Command in Tampa, Fla., which dispatches elite troops around the world, jumped to $10 billion in the fiscal year that ended on Sept. 30, from $2.2 billion in 2001. Congress has doubled the command to nearly 70,000 people this year, from 33,000 in fiscal 2001. The Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force provide further funding.

Navy SEALs and Army Green Berets, for example, are stationed in the Baltics, training elite troops from Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia for the type of proxy warfare Russia has conducted in the Crimea and eastern Ukraine.

U.S. forces are also winding down what they consider a successful campaign, begun soon after the Sept. 11 hijackings, to help Filipino forces stymie the al Qaeda-aligned Abu Sayyaf Group. And commanders believe U.S. training of Colombian troops helped turn the tide against rebels and drug traffickers.

At times, U.S. special-operations troops take action themselves, as in the Navy SEAL raid that killed Osama bin Laden in his Pakistani hideout in 2011, or the rescue of freighter Capt. Richard Phillips from Somali pirates in 2009.

U.S. special operators roam the forests of the Central African Republic, alongside Ugandan troops, hunting the leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army, Joseph Kony . The rebel group, considered a terrorist organization by the U.S., has forcibly recruited children into its ranks.

But the vast majority of special-operations missions involve coaxing and coaching foreign forces to combat extremists the U.S. considers threats.

Driving the idea are 14 years of fighting in Afghanistan, and the on-again-off-again battle in Iraq, expensive land wars that have sapped the political support of many Americans. At the same time, the U.S. faces threats from such free-range terror networks as al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb in Mali; al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen; Islamic State in Syria and Iraq; al-Shabaab in Somalia and Boko Haram in Nigeria. Most of these militants have no borders, instead concealing themselves among civilians disaffected with their own corrupt or inept rulers.

The special-operations strategy has a mixed record. The U.S. tried it in Vietnam, only to watch an advisory mission metastasize into a costly, full-scale war. The U.S. put years of training into Mali’s military, which crumbled before the swift advance of al Qaeda and its allies in 2012.

The partnership between U.S. and Yemeni special operators to battle al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula was disrupted earlier this year when an anti-American rebel group ousted the U.S.-aligned president.

One skeptic, James Carafano, vice president for defense and foreign policy at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said relying on special-operations forces was akin to saying, “I’m not going to do brain surgery because I’m going to give you an aspirin. The world doesn’t work that way.”

Commandos can hunt down enemy leaders or train small indigenous units, Mr. Carafano said, but they alone can’t build a capable national army.

The strategy isn’t always flexible enough to meet immediate threats. American efforts to enlist, train and arm moderate Syrian rebels have moved so slowly that some potential allies have given up on Washington. Many have been overrun by the same extremist groups the U.S. sought to defeat.

The three-week military exercises in Chad, which ended last month, are a microcosm of the U.S. strategy. The annual event started small a decade ago, and has grown to include 1,300 troops, with special-operations contingents from 18 Western nations coaching commandos from 10 African countries.

“We have a common threat in the form of al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, Boko Haram and other extremist organizations that threaten our way of life,” said Maj. Gen. Jim Linder, the outgoing commander of Special Operations Command-Africa.
Still more.

Friday, April 24, 2015

Hillary's Spin Machine Can't Shrug Off Uranium Scandal


 photo clinton_cash_for_tr_zps7ur4is8c.jpg
On Friday, Hillary Clinton campaign spokesperson Brian Fallon responded to the chaos swirling around the former secretary of state’s dealings with foreign countries and associated entities that donated to the Clinton Foundation.

Fallon wrote that neither Peter Schweizer’s Clinton Cash nor Thursday’s New York Times report detailing ties between Hillary, Bill, the Clinton Foundation, and a Russian-owned uranium company called Uranium One present any “direct evidence.” Fallon claims:
[T]he Times story — like the book on which it is based — wrongly suggests that Hillary Clinton’s State Department pushed for the sale’s approval to reward donors who had a financial interest in the deal. Ironically, buried within the story is original reporting that debunks the allegation that then-Secretary Clinton played any role in the review of the sale.
The problem: all of Fallon’s defenses of Clinton ring hollow.

On Friday, Politico spelled out the Clinton team’s overall three-pronged strategy for quashing the alleged bribery scandal:
We have three rules: (1) You can’t stop the onslaught so just act quickly to defuse it; (2) If there is no ‘there’ there the story will burn hot, fast and out; and (3) No handwringing – [Chairman John] Podesta won’t have it.
That response is insufficient, to say the least. Attempting to simply shrug off serious allegations regarding the chairman of the Russian Nuclear Agency-controlled Uranium One funneling $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation won’t cut it. Despite claims that there is no “bombshell” from the Clinton camp, this is a bombshell: it’s a problem when a Russian-controlled company’s head pays cash to the foundation of the secretary of state at the same time it required Hillary Clinton’s State Department to approve activities. That bombshell becomes even bigger when we recognize that the Clintons did not publicly identify the donors, in violation of a memorandum of understanding with the Obama administration.

Hillary Clinton does not get to decide what constitutes a bombshell. The American people do. And if there truly is no “there” there, then why did Hillary Clinton destroy her emails? Why did she violate that memo of understanding with the Obama administration? Why would the Clinton Foundation have to refile its tax returns? Simply put, Hillary Clinton hid a foreign donation from the head of a company controlled by the Kremlin and seeking access to American and Kazakh uranium – a donation that occurred at the same time as a State Department decision benefiting that company.

Hillary Clinton and her team seem to expect that the media world will resonate to them the same way they did in the 1990s. Matt Drudge changed the coverage of the Clintons by destroying the cozy relationship between the mainstream media, who wanted to kill the Lewinsky story, and the reader; now media are punished for failures to report. Should the media downplay this scandal, the American people will chalk it up to media bias, rather than the notion that there is no scandal to investigate.

And the media have plenty of questions to ask...

Playboy Playmate Gia Genevieve in Terry Richardson Photoshoot

At Egotastic!, "Gia Genevieve Strips Down for Terry Richardson."

BONUS: "Gia Genevieve for Playboy March 2015 (VIDEO)."

Hillary's Culture of Corruption

At IBD, "Hillary Clinton's Culture of Corruption May Doom Candidacy":

Hillary's emails may be only the tip of an iceberg that could include Clinton Foundation donations to shield Boko Haram from being designated a terrorist group and her brother's involvement in a Haitian gold mine.

We doubt Team Hillary was thrilled or her critics surprised Tuesday when the Inspector General for the Department of Homeland Security named Mrs. Clinton's brother, Tony Rodham, in a report about a firm that allegedly received preferential treatment from the Obama administration.

The firm, Gulf Coast Funds Management, with Tony Rodham listed as its chief executive, allegedly benefited from what the report says was "politically motivated" intervention of then-United States Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Alejandro Majorkas, whom president Obama promoted to be the No. 2 official at DHS even as he was under investigation.

Majorkas, according to the IG report, appeared to give "favoritism and special access" to politically connected Democrats who intervened in the application process for the EB-5 (Employee-Based Fifth Preference) visa program, which grants visas to wealthy foreigners who can invest up to $500,000 in U.S. business ventures.

Along with Hillary's brother, Gulf Coast is also linked to now-Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, who served as chair of the Democratic National Committee when Hillary's husband, Bill Clinton, was president. McAuliffe's company was working with Gulf Coast, a firm that specialized in obtaining EB-5 visas for investors.

So we have a high Obama administration official conspiring to grant visas to wealthy investors in a firm run by Hillary's brother, Tony Rodham, that was assisting a firm run by Hillary's political ally Terry McAuliffe.

Now-DHS Deputy Secretary Alejandro Majorkas' intervention on behalf of McAuliffe's GreenTech Automotive company was "unprecedented," according to the IG report.

Last month, the Washington Post reported on another deal involving Rodham that could prove politically embarrassing and damaging for his sister. It seems that he sits on the board of a company that got a coveted gold-mining contract from the government of Haiti after the Clinton Foundation sponsored relief work in Haiti.

In interviews with the Post, both Rodham and the chief executive of Delaware-based VCS Mining said they were introduced at a meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative, which seems more and more to be an unseemly mix of charitable work with the political and business interests of Clinton Foundation donors.

And then there's Hillary's strange dealings regarding the Nigerian terrorist group Boko Haram, which just recently pledged its allegiance to the ever-expanding Islamic State — dubbed the "JV team" by President Obama, who has yet to make good on his pledge to degrade and destroy them.
My god, you'd think the Clinton's care more about the interests of America's enemies more than America's interests!

Keep reading.

Irvine Police Arrest Three BLACK MALE Suspects for Residential Burglary

I never see black thugs like this in Irvine. I seriously cannot recall ever seeing people like this around here. These mofos were from out of town, shakin' down the Irvine locals.

I wish the media would call these people out by race. The press has no problem identifying "white" policeman shooting "unarmed black" suspects. But identifying black criminals on the streets in Irvine. That's racist!

At CBS-KCAL 9 Los Angeles:

And from the press release:
IRVINE, CA – Three suspects have been arrested for burglarizing an Irvine home. Derron Anthony Jefferson, 26, Quincy Carnell Keaton, 25, and Shatavia Sharon Phillips, 18, were arrested by Irvine Police Department (IPD) officers after a City of Irvine employee observed a burglary in progress.

At approximately 9:15 a.m. on April 23, 2015, a City of Irvine Code Enforcement Officer was driving in the area of Lorraine Way and Irvine Center Drive, where she observed Jefferson and Keaton attempting to load a large safe into the front seat of a black Nissan Altima parked in front of a residence. Upon seeing the City vehicle, the suspects quickly got into the vehicle and fled the scene, leaving the large safe on the parkway in front of the home.

The Code Enforcement Officer immediately contacted IPD, reported her observations and provided a description of the suspects and their vehicle. An alert IPD officer observed the suspects’ vehicle driving on West Yale Loop, approximately two miles from the location of the original call.

A vehicle stop was conducted and the three suspects in the car, Jefferson, Keaton, and Phillips, were detained and ultimately arrested for residential burglary. Inside the vehicle, officers located burglary tools, gloves, and stolen property from the victim’s residence. The investigation showed that the suspects had forced entry into the burglarized home by prying open a side window. Once inside, the suspects ransacked the home seeking valuables. All of the property stolen from the residence was recovered from the suspects’ vehicle.

Jefferson and Keaton are on parole for burglary. The investigation is ongoing and anyone with additional information is asked to contact IPD Detective Ramon Lerma at 949-724-7233.

Dognapping Scam — Criminals Posing as Animal Control Officers Steal Beloved Dogs in L.A. (VIDEO)

This is heartbreaking.

Watch, at KCAL 9 Los Angeles, "Police Have Warning to Pet Owners About New Dognapping Scam."

Lesbian Go-Go Dancing

Hmm, maybe they should bring this to the Whiskey in L.A., the original home of go-go dancing.

At the Guardian UK, "Lesbian go-go dancing: subverting the gaze one sexy step at a time":
“I’m going to get naked as we chat,” Caitlyn informs me as she starts pulling off her shirt, rummaging around in a duffel bag for her go-go gear. “Sorry this room is so small. I have to share it with another dancer and a drag queen, and the drag queen leaves her stuff everywhere,” she says. She pulls a pair of fishnet tights out of her bag. “So what do you want to know?”

That’s a good question. It’s around 11pm on a Friday, and I’m perched on a chair in a changing room on the second floor of the Stonewall Inn in New York. I’m here to learn about the world of lesbian go-go dancing.

Caitlyn Seitz, who is maneuvering into fishnets in front of me, has been dancing here for the last three years, hyping up a largely gay-girl crowd at the popular Friday night Lesbo-a-Go-Go parties.

I’ve gone to a bunch of these parties and it has always struck me that the spectacle of a woman dancing half-naked for tips would, in a different context, be considered objectification. And yet, when a woman dances provocatively for other women – when you have lesbians exercising a female gaze – it intuitively feels far more equitable than a woman dancing for men. But is that really the case?
It's not "objectification" if women strip for other women.

The feminist hypocrisy. You gotta love it!

But keep reading.

(And hey, they do have lesbian go-go in Los Angeles, at the Abbey in WeHo, where else?)

Baboons Steal Food from Truck in Tanzania (VIDEO)

Watch: "Baboon burglary! Sneaky baboons steal supplies from truck."

Via London's Daily Mail, "Never leave your truck unattended in Tanzania."

Today's Deals at Amazon

Do some shopping: Gold Box Deals at Amazon.

Also, Shop Amazon - Mother's Day Gifts.

Material Witness in Federal 'Maternity Tourism' Case Caught Trying to Flee to Beijing

I think we should treat the Chinese maternity tourists as enemy combatants.

Lock them up in a prison camp in orange jump suits.

At the Los Angeles Times, "'Maternity tourism' witness held after trying to board flight to China."

Armenians to 'March for Justice' in Los Angeles

Now that is a righteous march!

At CBS News Los Angeles:

Also, at the Washington Post, "Obama’s statement on Armenia avoids ‘genocide’."



Cirque du Soleil Performers Thrown Onto Workman's Compensation After Injury

This is interesting, at WSJ, "The Perils of Workers’ Comp for Injured Cirque du Soleil Performers":
Natasha Hallett was a longtime performer at Cirque du Soleil, playing a key role in the circus giant’s La Nouba show in Orlando, Fla. Then she made a mistake.

Ms. Hallett says she forgot to put a double loop through her harness for a flying trick, and a colleague didn’t notice the oversight during a safety check. She tumbled about 40 feet to the stage during a Cirque performance, shattering 19 bones from the waist down. “Like a horse that broke its leg, once you are injured you are pretty much no good for them anymore,” Ms. Hallett said.

Artists at Cirque du Soleil put their unusually adept bodies at risk to entertain audiences, just as many professional athletes do. But unlike many pro athletes, Cirque performers don’t get special treatment, such as continuing to receive regular pay, if they suffer severe injuries.

Instead, most of them are treated like ordinary workers, thrust into a complex workers’ compensation system that provides limited recompense for lost wages and permanent disabilities.

A small number of injured workers whose contracts provide for it do receive extra compensation after an injury, executives said. But relying primarily on workers’ compensation payments “is the best solution in terms of management,” Cirque spokeswoman Renée-Claude Ménard said. The company declined to comment on specific cases of injury....

Workers’ compensation laws vary widely, but they generally prevent workers from suing their employer for negligence.

Meaghan Muller, a performer from the Atlanta area who was badly injured in a fall onto a concrete floor while training at Cirque’s Montreal headquarters, said that Quebec authorities required her to seek medical treatment in Canada for the first year after her accident. She later needed four surgeries in the U.S. to correct what Canadian surgeons had done, she said.
Heh. Merica!

Keep reading.

'Don't you someday want to see a woman president of the USA? ...'

Watch Gavin McInnes, at the Rebel. (Via Kathy Shaidle.)