Amid a wave of sexual abuse lawsuits, the Boy Scouts of America has filed for bankruptcy. Founded in 1910, BSA is the largest scouting organization, and one of the biggest youth organizations, in the nation.
BSA has faced turmoil from social justice dolts for years, finally caving to demands for admission of girls to the traditionally all boys organization last year.
One former scout claims that the BSA's filing is an admission of guilt (see CBS article here). BSA has already settled tens of millions of dollars' worth of lawsuits in the past, but has over 300 cases still pending.
The scouting programs used to be a place where young boys learned valuable skills, and were exposed to strong moral guidance. Those days are not only gone, but the organization appears to be infested with sexual predators. What a shame.
No amount of money will ease the pain endured by those that have been victimized, but holding those that committed these heinous crimes accountable is certainly important.
BSA needs to clean house, and they need to get back to their roots.
Real estate mogul and reality TV star, Donald Trump, announced that he will be running for President in 2016, followed by statements that point to the fact that illegal immigrants are criminals and need to be stopped. Since his comments vilify an arguably significant portion of the Democrats' voting base, Trump has been, of course, labeled a racist. NBC has also cancelled their dealings with Trump, claiming that he doesn't represent their values...I guess they value criminal activity more than economic success. NBC's ridiculous comments can be seen here. Trump's response can be seen here.
I find it disturbing that many in our society will shout down those that dare to point to the truth, just because the truth doesn't fit the politically correct script that the liberal media attempts to feed us. The horde of invaders that pours across our southern border, seemingly unchecked, brings nothing to our nation but disease, crime, and an enormous economic burden. Trump pointed that out when he stated that Mexican immigrants are, "...bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists and some, I assume, are good people." Not an inaccurate statement, and not something that anyone should be shocked by.
I don't fault anyone for wanting to come to America; it's the greatest nation on the planet, despite the best efforts of those on the left. I do fault them for sneaking into our nation illegally, bringing disease and crime with them, and then demanding that we change our culture and rules to suit them. Those that want to come here need to follow the legal process for doing so, learn our language, obey our laws, and become productive Americans.
I applaud Donald Trump for having the fortitude to speak the truth and stand by his comments. What a breath of fresh air in the political arena.
There is heated debate still taking place over proposed increases to the minimum wage at both the state and federal levels. Some are demanding that the minimum wage be increased to an alluring 15 dollars per hour. Those in favor of a minimum wage hike cite the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) claims that raising the minimum wage to over ten dollars an hour would "lift" an estimated 900,000 people "out of poverty." The desire to implement a massive (over 106% if the 15$ folks get their way) increase in the minimum wage revolves around the argument that anybody that holds a job, of any kind, should be able to handily support a family on the wages paid by that job. I enthusiastically disagree with that argument.
If you choose to spend your adult life as an uneducated and unskilled laborer, don't expect to raise a family in comfort. Who, in their right minds, believes that if you have no marketable skills, you should be rewarded with a "living wage?" I'll tell you who, those that expect a handout (something for nothing) and those that rely on that segment of the population for votes. Granted, the politicians that promise those handouts don't honestly believe that every unskilled dolt deserves a handsome salary, but they'll readily force employers to offer it in exchange for the votes of the habitually needy. What would be the result of lowering the bar in such a way?
In the short term, drastically raising the minimum wage would put more money in the pockets of those that hold entry-level positions, should their employers choose to keep them employed full time. I propose that in the long run, employers would cut their employees' hours, further increase automation, and pass on the cost increases to their customers. As a result, those increased costs would offset the increased wages of the unskilled employees, and have an obvious impact on the rest of us. The same CBO report that claims a wage hike would be a magic cure for poverty also reveals what many of us already knew: Raising the minimum wage would cut jobs, an estimated 500,000 of them.
Economists' opinions on the effects of large increases to the minimum wage differ, as one would expect. Let's face it, calling economics consistent is like calling Bruce Jenner a woman. Gather ten economists in one room, ask them all the same question, and you'll most likely get ten different answers.
Should there be regular increases in the minimum wage? Yes, but they must be reasonable, and based on the increases in the cost of living. A 106% increase is not reasonable, no matter how much those in favor of it shout and stomp their feet.
Some people are monsters and we can only wish that they were chosen for deselection. If only Jodi Arias had died of a childhood disease, stepped in front of a bus, or overdosed on drugs, then we wouldn't be hearing about how she brutally murdered her ex-boyfriend, and cost taxpayers millions of dollars in court costs.
ABC News reports (click here for article) that Arias' trial has cost taxpayers an estimated 3+ million bucks, while a judge now decides whether or not she should someday be released on parole. Paroled? Really? Some would claim that the reason the court costs are so high is that it was a death penalty trial; they'll follow that up with a rant about how we should abolish the death penalty. Reasons for abolishing the death penalty range from its ineffectiveness as a deterrent to its alleged brutality. I'd like to address both of those points.
I wholeheartedly agree that the death penalty, in its current state, is not an effective deterrent to crime. The reasons for this are simple: The sentences are not carried out swiftly or publicly. The current, much backlogged, system of appeals allows a convicted killer to live on death row for decades, probably dying of old age, after costing taxpayers an extravagant amount of money. Death sentences that are carried out are done so in the dark of night, behind closed doors, with no televising of the event. While there is typically a small group of witnesses at executions, the event is not seen by the general public. Would-be killers don't ever see their peers being put to death, and know that their sentence for killing someone won't be much different than their last stint in prison, with gyms, television, and college degrees at their disposal. What about the alleged cruelty and unusual nature of the death penalty?
For all of recorded history, humans have killed other humans that represented a viable threat to their neighbors, and society in general. In later centuries, we required trials prior to the elimination of the vermin. As we became slightly more civilized, we refined the methods that we've used to kill the monsters in our midst. Recent methods in our nation include electrocution, hanging, firing squads, and inhalation of poisonous gases. Of late, we have mostly chosen to use injections of a lethal combination of drugs. The combinations used for lethal injection executions typically involve a starter drug that ensures the killer's lack of any pain, distress, or discomfort. I cannot fathom why anyone would consider lethal injection to be cruel and unusual punishment, especially when compared to the punishment inflicted upon the killers' victims. Please engage in a wee bit of research as to the methods that death row inmates have used to slaughter their victims, and then compare that to the methods in use to, someday, execute those killers. The claims of execution being brutal, inhumane, or cruel are downright insane.
The death penalty, in our nation, is not currently an effective deterrent to crime, but it could be if we choose to eliminate the obstacles to its effectiveness. Streamline the process, stop the absurd number of appeals allowed, and get it done. Publicize it; put it on television with a parental warning. Make it a real and visible punishment, and it will be a deterrent. Make it harsh; if it involves a modicum of pain and suffering, such as that inflicted on a killer's victim, it will leave a lasting impression on those that view it. Wastes of skin, such as Jodi Arias, might think twice about ruthlessly killing someone, if they know that they would face swift and severe punishment and have some idea of what that punishment entails.
Robert Goldstein, a UCLA Law Professor, asked his upper level law students, "...to imagine that they are lawyers in the St. Louis County Attorney’s office..." and cited a report on Michael Brown's stepfather, Louis Head, who shouted, "Burn this bitch down!” after a grand jury decided not to indict Ferguson
Police Officer Darren Wilson in the death of Michael Brown. The students were then faced with the dilemma of deciding whether or not Head should be indicted for inciting a riot. The question read, "“[As] a recent hire in the office, you are asked to write a memo
discussing the relevant First Amendment issues in such a prosecution.
Write the memo.” Seems pretty straightforward and realistic, does it not? Seems like the sort of thing that a lawyer would be expected to do in the performance of his or her duties, right?
Enter the professional victims. In an article on Fox News (click here to read it), Maxiam Lott describes how some (it's not clear how few) of Goldstein's students complained, and a blogger by the name of Elie Mystal wrote that Goldstein's exam question was, "racially insensitive and divisive." Lott writes, "Mystal also incorrectly alleged that the question asked students to “advocate in favor of extremist racists in Ferguson.”
While race certainly motivated those that were demanding Officer Darren Wilson's head on a pike, Goldstein's exam question was completely devoid of racial factors; it was exactly the sort of requirement one could expect to face in the real world. Does UCLA not attempt to prepare their students for future employment in the real world, or do they expect them to spend the rest of their lives languishing in the artificial world of academia?
Goldstein attempted to defend his perfectly rational intentions by stating in an email to his students, "As with many of my exams in this upper-level elective class, questions
may be drawn from current legal issues in the news or from recent court
reports. This helps make the exam educational and relevant.” He goes on to cave in to pressure from the professional victims, and those that cater to them, by writing, "I clearly underestimated and misjudged the impact of this question on
you. I realize now that it was so fraught as to have made this an
unnecessarily difficult question to respond to at this time. I am sorry
for this,” Unnecessarily difficult? Don't lawyers in the real world have to face situations like this on a regular basis?
The professional victims and race baiters don't want the truth to be highlighted. They don't want to have to respond to tough questions, like, "What should be done about the looting, arson, riots and assaults that were incited by Head, Holder, Sharpton, and the like?" They just want us all to shut up, admit our white guilt, and do what they tell us to do (namely pay them). What a farce.
To Robert Goldstein I say, "Grow a spine." To his perpetually offended students and critics I say, "Grow up."
I find it odd that the left is up in arms over voter ID laws (RACIST!), yet they are the only ones that seem to get caught committing voter fraud, voter intimidation, and, well, just plain cheating. They insist that minorities are too stupid to obtain ID cards, but demand that law-abiding citizens provide ID for every other manner of official business. Between the black panthers (I refuse to capitalize that) and the illegal invaders, the left might sway some key election battles with illegal votes. Never mind that the democrat base consists of those that always vote for the biggest handout; what about the effects of illegal immigrants voting (illegally) in some of the closely contested races?
Breitbart has an interesting piece (click here to read it) that asks the tough questions, and posits that Al Franken (liberal douche-bag extraordinaire) might have won his recount as a result of illegal immigrant votes. How much of an effect do illegal immigrants actually have on our elections? I doubt that anyone can say with true certainty, but I believe that it's significant. Look at all of the left's efforts to cater to the illegal invaders; do you really believe that it's done out of kindness? That's a huge chunk of their voter base!
In the Breitbart piece, Joel Pollak states that an estimated 6.4 percent of non-citizens vote, and that 80% of those people vote democrat. I would have guessed a higher percentage on both counts, but his numbers are probably based only on those that answer surveys honestly. He goes on to report that voter ID laws are strikingly ineffective, since obtaining an "official" ID is disgustingly easy for illegal invaders. I believe that while voter ID laws are not as effective as we would like them to be, they are necessary and make sense, despite the left's baseless cries of racism.
The bottom line is that foreign invaders are voting in our elections, and their choices are predictable. Illegal invaders vote for the biggest handouts, which come by way of democrats taking from the producers and giving to the non-producers. Pointing that out is usually decried as racist, insensitive, or whatever other buzzword the left is enjoying this week.
"It's for the planet!"...or something. California Governor Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown signed SB270 into law, making it illegal for retailers to use single-use, plastic bags. Instead, stores will charge a ten cent per bag fee for paper bags.
The starry-eyed fools that supported this steaming pile of crap claim that "most plastic bags end up in the ocean or landfills." If that were true, why would it be so? I'll tell you why; it's because people are lazy. First of all, I don't believe the severity of their claims. Most people have jumped on the recycling bandwagon already, reusing plastic grocery bags for other things, not to mention the fact that "single use" grocery bags are typically made from recycled materials. The lazy minority that refuse to recycle are the cause of plastic making its way into landfills or the ocean. California's typically misguided solution to lazy people is to ban the bags and increase costs; let's also not forget the jobs lost and other economic impacts (see here) of the huge hit the plastic bag industry will take.
Additionally, a recent analysis undertaken by Reason Foundation found that "Lightweight plastic bags constitute less than 1 percent of visible litter, represent only 0.4 percent of all municipal solid waste, and are not a major cause of blocked storm drains. Banning them has practically no impact on the amount of litter generated, the amount Californians pay for waste disposal, or the risk of flooding." Reason's article goes on to discuss the real and measurable impact of alleged "reusable" bags.
Just when you think the discussion in California couldn't get any crazier, in an article from the San Diego UT (click here to read it) supporters of the new law claim that, "Producers are responsible for the end of life impact of their products." That's about the dumbest thing I've heard all week. That's like saying that Jack Daniels is responsible for what your abusive step dad does when he gets liquored up.
Well, since the uninformed voters that seem to make up the majority of California have elected a bunch of crooks and idiots to their state legislature, garbage like SB270 has been the norm. Liberal control over the lives of the voting base continues to grow in California, where the state motto should be changed to, "If we can't tax it, ban it!"
