Two would be Muslim terrorists made to disrupt the free speech event held in Garland, Texas last night. The pair drove up to the event and started shooting at police stationed outside. One officer was slightly injured but the two Muslims were instantly put down in the attack.
As of last night police were still investigating to see whether there was a bomb inside the car in which the pair drove to the event.
The event held at The Curtis Culwell Center in Garland was the “Mohammad Art Exhibit and Contest” sponsored by Pamela Geller, president of the American Freedom Defense Initiative. Geller has been planning the event for months and has said that she is talking a stand for free speech over vociferous whining from some Muslims that images of Mohammad violate their radical, Islamist teachings.
WFAA reports: “The Garland ISD officer, identified as Bruce Joiner, was shot in the lower leg and suffered non-life threatening injuries, according to a spokesman for Garland Police. He was in stable condition at a local hospital.”
The officer was already released from the hospital by late evening.
The Curtis Culwell Center was quickly put on lockdown and the security perimeter extended to 1,000 yards around the building meaning that some nearby businesses had to be temporarily evacuated as a precaution in case the shooters had a bomb in the car.
There was some suggestion that one of the would be killers Tweeted about his actions yesterday evening. His Twitter handle is @atawaawkul and this was the Tweet in question:
Just before 11PM Garland time, the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force had joined the investigation and detained all participants of the event to interview them about what they witnessed.
This is a clash of freedom and the terroristic tenets of Islam and nothing less. If our freedoms survive it will only be because we didn’t knuckle under to the threat of Islam.
One of the would be terrorists has been identified…
From Breitbart: “ABC News reports one of the shooters has been identified as Elton Simpson, who an FBI official stated had been investigated for terrorism in the past. Court records from 2011 show Simpson identified as an ‘American Muslim.’”
As usual, Mark Levin knocks it out of the park on the flimsy excuse for justice in Baltimore.
Mark Levin opened his show tonight with blistering analysis of the announced prosecutions of Baltimore police officers, saying it all amounts to mob rule. He points out that the prosecutor, who brought the charges today against the six officers involved in Freddie Gray’s arrest, based these charges on a complaint as the investigations aren’t even completed yet. Further, he said that some of these charges are utterly absurd and that this prosecution is all about politics.
Levin says this prosecutor a hack and a disgrace and calls into question whether she should even be prosecuting this case.
Former Port Authority official David Wildstein today pleaded guilty to a two count information, admitting to a federal judge that he conspired with Bridget Kelly and Bill Baroni to close lanes of traffic leading to the George Washington Bridge as punishment to Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich.
Wildstein affirmed that he and Kelly — then the deputy chief of staff to Gov. Chris Christie and Baroni, then the deputy chief of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey — came up with the scheme as a response to Sokolich’s decision not to endorse Christie’s 2013 reelection.
The former director of capital projects for the Port and chief of staff to Baroni did not implicate the governor in his appearance today.
Governor Christie maintains he knew nothing about the lane closures until he read about them in the newspapers. Since this is the same lame excuse Barack Obama uses to dodge his administration’s myriad scandals, you’d think the media would buy it this time too.
Nope. Christie is a Republican. The rules are different for Republicans.
And the media smells blood in the water.
So what was basically a frat-boy prank, and certainly not the worst dirty trick ever played by a New Jersey politician, is now a federal crime.
By pleading guilty to the two counts — one detailing interference with Fort Lee residents and the second focusing on his misuse of Port resources — [Wildstein] waived an indictment.
Wildstein admitted to the judge that he had a September 2013 discussion with Kelly and Baroni in which Kelly acknowledged disappointment with Sokolich’s decision not to back Christie. Wildstein said he agreed with Baroni and Kelly to cause traffic problems in Fort Lee by reducing local traffic lanes to the upper toll booth on the bridge from three to one.
Wildstein said he, Baroni and Kelly timed the closure to coincide with the first day of school in Fort Lee — for maximum negative impact. The three agreed to ignore Sokolich’s pleas, he said. He also acknowledged that the trio later misled the public with its “traffic study” story, which Baroni presented to the Assembly Transportation Committee headed by Assemblyman John Wisniewski (D-19), who was in the courtroom today.
Childish and stupid? Yes. Pointless, too, given all the blowback that immediately started heading Christie’s way. If the goal was to hurt Mark Sokolich, these 3 stooges missed their mark, by a mile.
But c’mon already. With all the corruption rampant in our government, this is what’s important? This is what deserves a multi-year investigation costing untold millions of dollars?
Chris Christie already punished Baroni, Kelly, and Wildstein. They’re done in NJ politics. Prosecuting them has only one aim, to get one of them to “flip” on the Big Guy himself.
Like the “John Doe” investigations into Scott Walker’s Wisconsin allies, this prosecution reeks of political undertones. Chris Christie isn’t my first (or 100th) choice for president, but he’s apparently enough of a threat to Her Royal Highness Hillary to warrant special investigative attention.
Now don’t get me wrong. People who break the law should be punished accordingly. But it would help the “optics” if punishments were handed out a little more even-handedly. Lois Lerner is still walking around free even though the dirty tricks she and her IRS cronies perpetrated were far worse than a lane closure.
And speaking of the IRS, Al Sharpton owes them millions of dollars in back taxes. Yet he’s free as a bird too. I supposed it’s just a coincidence that they only have time to crack down on Tea Party groups.
So go ahead. Applaud Chris Christie’s downfall. Just don’t act surprised when the spotlight turns toward Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. Our government has been weaponized by rabid partisan Democrats. And they will leave no stone unturned in their quest to maintain a stranglehold on power. Like a famous man once said, everybody is “guilty” of something, IYKWIMAITYD.
“I think we as a country have to do some soul-searching.” — Barack Obama
“Barack Obama is right – America does indeed have some soul-searching to do, namely regarding the terrible mistake in allowing Mr. Obama to be its president.” — D.W. Ulsterman
But bad as is the current pretender to the throne, it’s not only the man; it’s his Party. From Vietnam to the Iran hostage crisis to the rise of ISIS; from Watts to Ferguson to Baltimore; from “what the meaning of is, is…” to “you didn’t build that,” the tax-and-spend, cut-and-run resumes of Democrats from Lyndon Johnson to Barack Obama chronicle incompetence, malfeasance, and unmitigated disaster enough to make any reasonably sane observer wonder why anyone would continue to vote for such incorrigible jackasses.
Today Obama commented on the Baltimore riots and those who have been “stripped away of opportunity…where there are no fathers” to offer “guidance,” where “manufacturing has been stripped away; and drugs have flooded the community, and the drug industry ends up being the primary employer for a whole lot of folks….” The president intimates that burning buildings, cars, and looting businesses is the result of hopelessness. I assure you, this is not hopelessness.
Drug addictions strip away opportunity, but a future is there if you want it. Robbing neighbors, burning cars, and destroying businesses strips away opportunity for the community as a whole, but a future lies ahead if there is a will to grab it.
Are you a young person fighting a terminal illness? If not, you are not without opportunity. You don’t have the right to be hopeless.
Having an absent father is heartbreaking when the father made the choice to leave. A one-parent home makes it harder, but not opportunity-less; just ask Dr. Ben Carson, Bill Clinton, Samuel L. Jackson, Gene Simmons, Louie Armstrong, Jackie Robinson — or the boy or girl down the street from a one-parent home, who WILL move ahead and make his/her opportunities.
Ask any among those whose “opportunity” has been “stripped away,” if he/she will trade his current opportunity-deprived situation with a person suffering from terminal cancer — a cancer that has nothing to do with lifestyle. Take your pick of any devastating disease. It happens to you. You, a person from wealth, or a blue-collar home, or the poorest among us, and yet you have never had an addiction, or lived an unhealthy lifestyle outside of the occasional double cheeseburger, with bacon, and a side of cheese fries. You made a choice not to hang with a dangerous crowd. You innately know the difference between right and wrong, because, you know, all of us do know the difference.
Your choice: live a productive and lawful life, or die soon of cancer. How fast will you find “opportunity?” In the blink of an eye? Probably.
You picked your friends carefully, and got yourself into a working environment at the first opportunity. You appreciated your minimum wage, and took pride in the job you did. You went to school, graduated, and either went on to higher education or entered the work force — and you liked it, yet the cancer found you, and you know that without a miracle, your life will end at an early age. This is opportunity stripped away, not what’s happening in Baltimore.
Anybody here remember a fellow named Chris Christie? He ran for governor, promising to “do something” about New Jersey’s perennially high property taxes.
Boy oh boy, I sure do wish we’d elected that guy.
Because according to a recent study, 7 of the 10 counties in America with the highest property taxes are right here in the Garden State. Where, rumor has it, Chris Christie is actually the governor.
It’s no secret that New Jersey homeowners are hit with some of the highest property taxes in the nation. But just how high, relative to other parts of the country, might be a bit of a shock.
A typical homeowner in Bibb County, Ala., paid just $228 in property taxes in 2013, according to an analysis by Zillow, the real estate website. Compare that to someone paying the median in Paramus or Ridgewood in Bergen, who shelled out $9,546 — about 45 times as much.
Bergen and Bibb lie on opposite ends of a list of median property tax rates nationally. Bergen was third-highest in the country, and the highest in New Jersey, while Bibb joined several other Alabama counties boasting some of the very lowest property tax bills for single-family homes.
Sigh. I’d be ecstatic if my property taxes were only $9,546. Alas, I’m paying closer to $16,000, and Essex County is supposedly way down the list at Number 4.
One of the things I like to do here at the Worldwide Headquarters of Manhattan Infidel™ is freebase speculate on what might have happened if history had been different. And so I take my readers to December 8th, 1941. America had been attacked the day before by Japan. President Stephanie Rawlings Blake addresses congress and calms a jittery nation.
Mr. Vice President, Mr. Speaker, members of the Senate and the House of Representatives:
Yesterday, December 7th, 1941 – a date much like any other day where white people, clinging to religion attended services to their white god – the United States of America was brought down a peg by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan. Naval and air forces that have a legitimate historical grievance against the former slave-holding United States.
The United States was at peace with that nation. I don’t know how. Perhaps we forgot to attack it like we do other nations.
Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced their righteous bombing in the American island of Oahu, the Japanese Ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to our Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. No doubt a belligerent American message that disrespected an indigenous peoples like the Japanese. And, while this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or of armed attack. The white man is harping on the fact that this reply was delivered an hour after the bombing. But isn’t that like the white man? So obsessed with time. It’s the white man’s privilege. We peoples of color, like the Japanese, do not follow this artificial segmentation of time into minutes, seconds and hours.
The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian Islands has caused severe damage to the American naval and military war machine. Very many American lives have been lost. But it’s their own fault, really.
Regrettably the Constitution makes me Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy. As such I have directed that all measures be taken to allow Japanese, who wish to destroy, space to destroy.
It’s a very delicate balancing act. Because while we try to make sure that Americans were protected from the bombs and other things that were going on, we also gave my Japanese brothers who wished to destroy space to do that as well. And we worked very hard to keep that balance and to put ourselves in the best position to de-escalate.
Hostilities regrettably exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our interests need to humble ourselves and apologize to the Japanese.
With confidence in the Crips and the Bloods, with the unbounding determination of our public servants in the federal government, we will gain the inevitable humility.
I ask that the Congress declare that since the defensive attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7th, 1941, for hereafter the anniversary of December 7th be remembered as a day of penance. Volunteer for something. Plant a tree. Write the Japanese and assure them of your friendship.
That is all.
Well I for one cannot tell any difference between that speech and the one Roosevelt delivered.
Yes, and so do White Lives, and Yellow Lives, and Brown Lives, and Olive Lives…in fact, ALL LIVES MATTER.
Thus the fallacy behind the Left’s newest meme, “Black Lives Matter.” This insinuates that police departments across the nation have defacto declared war on anyone with dark skin.
The only problem with it…?
Well, it isn’t true. Not even close.
Here are some statistics that are being roundly ignored by a media eager to push the lies that ooze out of Al Sharpton’s mouth on a daily basis: The real statistics show that cops kill whites at almost double the rate that they kill blacks.
Talks show host and columnist Larry Elder did some actual research (something the old media establishment avoids) and found that the claim that blacks are killed by cops more often than whites are killed is simply untrue. In fact, he found that the death by cop for blacks is down 75 percent since 1999.
So, not only is the “Hands Up” saying based on a lie, the entire, racbaiting movement against the police is based on a lie.
In 2012, according to the CDC, 140 blacks were killed by police. That same year 386 whites were killed by police. Over the 13-year period from 1999 to 2011, the CDC reports that 2,151 whites were killed by cops — and 1,130 blacks were killed by cops.
Police shootings, nationwide, are down dramatically from what they were 20 or 30 years ago. The CDC reported that in 1968, shootings by law enforcement — called “legal intervention” by the CDC — was the cause of death for 8.6 out of every million blacks. For whites the rate was was .9 deaths per million
By 2011, law enforcement shootings caused 2.74 deaths for every million blacks, and 1.28 deaths for every million whites. While the death-by-cop rate for whites has held pretty steady over these last 45 years, hovering just above or below the one-in-a-million level, the rate for blacks has fallen. In 1981, black deaths by cop stood at four in a million, but since 2000 has remained just above or below two in a million.
So what’s driving this notion that there is now an “epidemic” of white cops shooting blacks when in the last several decades the numbers of blacks killed by cops are down nearly 75 percent?
What’s driving this notion? The Old Media desperate to give Al Sharpton a platform so that they can jointly help destroy America is the reason, Mr. Elder..
Cryin’ John Boehner says he is “open” to eliminating spending and borrowing caps, and thus effectively handing Obama a blank check for the last 2 years of his term. Because our taxes aren’t already too high, and we clearly haven’t borrowed enough money yet.
Oh, but the government might shut down again and The New York Times will be mad about that. Boo freakin’ hoo, right? Wrong. Cryin’ John is scared to death that liberals might be mad at him.
Can we please find some Republicans with balls? Is that really too much to ask?
A school in Maine got in hot water last week for feeding 5,6,and 7 year olds a “lesson” on being transgendered. But can a 5-year-old even be a “transgendered” kid? No. And to impress on them to think so is child abuse.
Officials at a grade school in Kittery, Maine instituted a lesson plan for its Kindergartners and its first through third graders meant to train them on the subject of transgendered kids and to push the idea that being transgendered is perfectly normal. Naturally, many parents were furious at the scheme.
The school had begun reading to these tiny tykes from a book titled, “I am Jazz” by Jessica Herthel and Jazz Jennings. The book is about a transgendered boy who struggles with “a boy’s body and a girl’s brain.”
Many parents didn’t learn of the outrageous LGBT indoctrination plan visited upon their children until Fox News’ Sean Hannity highlighted the story.
After the story broke parents started complaining to the school that no notice of the lesson plan was revealed to parents ahead of time.
The school has since apologized and said it broke its own rules about keeping parents informed about what was going on in the classroom. The school promised to be more attentive to that pledge in the future.
Still, one of the school’s teachers is defended the indoctrination effort saying that “experts” insist that a child is never too young to be trained about LGBT issues.
Wrote school guidance counselor Dana Richerich: “Some people may think primary school students are too young to worry about addressing issues surrounding gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and questioning (LGBTQ) students. Not so, experts say. It’s never too early to begin teaching children about respecting differences.”
But this is nonsense. No kid should be thinking about deviant or non-traditional sexual roles until they are old enough to understand the traditional roles. It is child abuse to begin sexualizing kids in Kindergarten and leaves them open to confusion at least, possible mental aguish as they struggle to grasp it all, and at worse sexual abuse as they seek to put into action the LGBT deviations that are taught them.
K through 3 is way, way too young for this garbage and any teacher or administrator who tries to indoctrinate kids with the LGBT agenda should be charged with child abuse.
The corruption and abandonment of the rule of law is jaw dropping.
Before we begin, the only other person who needs to be put in the spotlight is the above mentioned, DA John Chisholm’s willing and complicit partner in crime, Judge Barbara Kluka.
Not much that I can add to this article, so here it is in its entirety.
They came with a battering ram.
Cindy Archer, one of the lead architects of Wisconsin’s Act 10 — also called the “Wisconsin Budget Repair Bill,” it limited public-employee benefits and altered collective-bargaining rules for public-employee unions — was jolted awake by yelling, loud pounding at the door, and her dogs’ frantic barking. The entire house — the windows and walls — was shaking.
She looked outside to see up to a dozen police officers, yelling to open the door. They were carrying a battering ram.
She wasn’t dressed, but she started to run toward the door, her body in full view of the police. Some yelled at her to grab some clothes, others yelled for her to open the door.
“I was so afraid,” she says. “I did not know what to do.” She grabbed some clothes, opened the door, and dressed right in front of the police. The dogs were still frantic.
…“I begged and begged, ‘Please don’t shoot my dogs, please don’t shoot my dogs, just don’t shoot my dogs.’ I couldn’t get them to stop barking, and I couldn’t get them outside quick enough. I saw a gun and barking dogs. I was scared and knew this was a bad mix.”
She got the dogs safely out of the house, just as multiple armed agents rushed inside. Some even barged into the bathroom, where her partner was in the shower. The officer or agent in charge demanded that Cindy sit on the couch, but she wanted to get up and get a cup of coffee.
“I told him this was my house and I could do what I wanted.” Wrong thing to say. “This made the agent in charge furious. He towered over me with his finger in my face and yelled like a drill sergeant that I either do it his way or he would handcuff me.”
They wouldn’t let her speak to a lawyer. She looked outside and saw a person who appeared to be a reporter. Someone had tipped him off.
The neighbors started to come outside, curious at the commotion, and all the while the police searched her house, making a mess, and — according to Cindy — leaving her “dead mother’s belongings strewn across the basement floor in a most disrespectful way.”
Then they left, carrying with them only a cellphone and a laptop. “IT’S A MATTER OF LIFE OR DEATH.”
That was the first thought of “Anne” (not her real name). Someone was pounding at her front door. It was early in the morning — very early — and it was the kind of heavy pounding that meant someone was either fleeing from — or bringing — trouble. “It was so hard. I’d never heard anything like it. I thought someone was dying outside.”
“It was so hard. I’d never heard anything like it. I thought someone was dying outside.”
She ran to the door, opened it, and then chaos. “People came pouring in. For a second I thought it was a home invasion. It was terrifying. They were yelling and running, into every room in the house. One of the men was in my face, yelling at me over and over and over.”
It was indeed a home invasion, but the people who were pouring in were Wisconsin law-enforcement officers. Armed, uniformed police swarmed into the house. Plainclothes investigators cornered her and her newly awakened family. Soon, state officials were seizing the family’s personal property, including each person’s computer and smartphone, filled with the most intimate family information.
Why were the police at Anne’s home? She had no answers. The police were treating them the way they’d seen police treat drug dealers on television.
In fact, TV or movies were their only points of reference, because they weren’t criminals. They were law-abiding. They didn’t buy or sell drugs. They weren’t violent. They weren’t a danger to anyone. Yet there were cops — surrounding their house on the outside, swarming the house on the inside. They even taunted the family as if they were mere “perps.”
As if the home invasion, the appropriation of private property, and the verbal abuse weren’t enough, next came ominous warnings.
Don’t call your lawyer. Don’t tell anyone about this raid. Not even your mother, your father, or your closest friends.
The entire neighborhood could see the police around their house, but they had to remain silent. This was not the “right to remain silent” as uttered by every cop on every legal drama on television — the right against self-incrimination. They couldn’t mount a public defense if they wanted — or even offer an explanation to family and friends.
Yet no one in this family was a “perp.” Instead, like Cindy, they were American citizens guilty of nothing more than exercising their First Amendment rights to support Act 10 and other conservative causes in Wisconsin. Sitting there shocked and terrified, this citizen — who is still too intimidated to speak on the record — kept thinking, “Is this America?”
“THEY FOLLOWED ME TO MY KIDS’ ROOMS.”
For the family of “Rachel” (not her real name), the ordeal began before dawn — with the same loud, insistent knocking. Still in her pajamas, Rachel answered the door and saw uniformed police, poised to enter her home. When Rachel asked to wake her children herself, the officer insisted on walking into their rooms. The kids woke to an armed officer, standing near their beds.
The entire family was herded into one room, and there they watched as the police carried off their personal possessions, including items that had nothing to do with the subject of the search warrant — even her daughter’s computer.
And, yes, there were the warnings.
Don’t call your lawyer. Don’t talk to anyone about this. Don’t tell your friends.
The kids watched — alarmed — as the school bus drove by, with the students inside watching the spectacle of uniformed police surrounding the house, carrying out the family’s belongings. Yet they were told they couldn’t tell anyone at school.
They, too, had to remain silent. The mom watched as her entire life was laid open before the police. Her professional files, her personal files, everything. She knew this was all politics. She knew a rogue prosecutor was targeting her for her political beliefs. And she realized, “Every aspect of my life is in their hands. And they hate me.”
Fortunately for her family, the police didn’t taunt her or her children. Some of them seemed embarrassed by what they were doing. At the end of the ordeal, one officer looked at the family, still confined to one room, and said, “Some days, I hate my job.”
For dozens of conservatives, the years since Scott Walker’s first election as governor of Wisconsin transformed the state — known for pro-football championships, good cheese, and a population with a reputation for being unfailingly polite — into a place where conservatives have faced early-morning raids, multi-year secretive criminal investigations, slanderous and selective leaks to sympathetic media, and intrusive electronic snooping.
Yes, Wisconsin, the cradle of the progressive movement and home of the “Wisconsin idea” — the marriage of state governments and state universities to govern through technocratic reform — was giving birth to a new progressive idea, the use of law enforcement as a political instrument, as a weapon to attempt to undo election results, shame opponents, and ruin lives.
Most Americans have never heard of these raids, or of the lengthy criminal investigations of Wisconsin conservatives. For good reason. Bound by comprehensive secrecy orders, conservatives were left to suffer in silence as leaks ruined their reputations, as neighbors, looking through windows and dismayed at the massive police presence, the lights shining down on targets’ homes, wondered, no doubt, What on earth did that family do?
This was the on-the-ground reality of the so-called John Doe investigations, expansive and secret criminal proceedings that directly targeted Wisconsin residents because of their relationship to Scott Walker, their support for Act 10, and their advocacy of conservative reform.
Largely hidden from the public eye, this traumatic process, however, is now heading toward a legal climax, with two key rulings expected in the late spring or early summer. The first ruling, from the Wisconsin supreme court, could halt the investigations for good, in part by declaring that the “misconduct” being investigated isn’t misconduct at all but the simple exercise of First Amendment rights.
The second ruling, from the United States Supreme Court, could grant review on a federal lawsuit brought by Wisconsin political activist Eric O’Keefe and the Wisconsin Club for Growth, the first conservatives to challenge the investigations head-on. If the Court grants review, it could not only halt the investigations but also begin the process of holding accountable those public officials who have so abused their powers.
But no matter the outcome of these court hearings, the damage has been done. In the words of Mr. O’Keefe, “The process is the punishment.”
It all began innocently enough. In 2009, officials from the office of the Milwaukee County executive contacted the office of the Milwaukee district attorney, headed by John Chisholm, to investigate the disappearance of $11,242.24 from the Milwaukee chapter of the Order of the Purple Heart. The matter was routine, with witnesses willing and able to testify against the principal suspect, a man named Kevin Kavanaugh.
What followed, however, was anything but routine. Chisholm failed to act promptly on the report, and when he did act, he refused to conduct a conventional criminal investigation but instead petitioned, in May 2010, to open a “John Doe” investigation, a proceeding under Wisconsin law that permits Wisconsin officials to conduct extensive investigations while keeping the target’s identity secret (hence the designation “John Doe”).
John Doe investigations alter typical criminal procedure in two important ways: First, they remove grand juries from the investigative process, replacing the ordinary citizens of a grand jury with a supervising judge. Second, they can include strict secrecy requirements not just on the prosecution but also on the targets of the investigation. In practice, this means that, while the prosecution cannot make public comments about the investigation, it can take public actions indicating criminal suspicion (such as raiding businesses and homes in full view of the community) while preventing the targets of the raids from defending against or even discussing the prosecution’s claims.
Why would Chisholm seek such broad powers to investigate a year-old embezzlement claim with a known suspect? Because the Milwaukee County executive, Scott Walker, had by that time become the leading Republican candidate for governor. District Attorney Chisholm was a Democrat, a very partisan Democrat.
Almost immediately after opening the John Doe investigation, Chisholm used his expansive powers to embarrass Walker, raiding his county-executive offices within a week. As Mr. O’Keefe and the Wisconsin Club for Growth explained in court filings, the investigation then dramatically expanded:
Over the next few months, [Chisholm’s] investigation of all-things-Walker expanded to include everything from alleged campaign-finance violations to sexual misconduct to alleged public contracting bid-rigging to alleged misuse of county time and property. Between May 5, 2010, and May 3, 2012, the Milwaukee Defendants filed at least eighteen petitions to formally “[e]nlarge” the scope of the John Doe investigation, and each was granted. . . . That amounts to a new formal inquiry every five and a half weeks, on average, for two years.
This expansion coincided with one of the more remarkable state-level political controversies in modern American history – the protest (and passage) of Act 10, followed by the attempted recall of a number of Wisconsin legislators and, ultimately, Governor Walker.
Political observers will no doubt remember the events in Madison — the state capitol overrun by chanting protesters, Democratic lawmakers fleeing the state to prevent votes on the legislation, and tens of millions of dollars of outside money flowing into the state as Wisconsin became, fundamentally, a proxy fight pitting the union-led Left against the Tea Party–led economic Right.
At the same time that the public protests were raging, so were private — but important — protests in the Chisholm home and workplace. As a former prosecutor told journalist Stuart Taylor, Chisholm’s wife was a teachers’-union shop steward who was distraught over Act 10’s union reforms. He said Chisholm “felt it was his personal duty” to stop them.
Meanwhile, according to this whistleblower, the district attorney’s offices were festooned with the “blue fist” poster of the labor-union movement, indicating that Chisholm’s employees were very much invested in the political fight. In the end, the John Doe proceeding failed in its ultimate aims.
It secured convictions for embezzlement (related to the original 2009 complaint), a conviction for sexual misconduct, and a few convictions for minor campaign violations, but Governor Walker was untouched, his reforms were implemented, and he survived his recall election.
But with another election looming — this time Walker’s campaign for reelection — Chisholm wasn’t finished. He launched yet another John Doe investigation, “supervised” by Judge Barbara Kluka. Kluka proved to be capable of superhuman efficiency — approving “every petition, subpoena, and search warrant in the case” in a total of one day’s work.
If the first series of John Doe investigations was “everything Walker,” the second series was “everything conservative,” as Chisholm had launched an investigation of not only Walker (again) but the Wisconsin Club for Growth and dozens of other conservative organizations, this time fishing for evidence of allegedly illegal “coordination” between conservative groups and the Walker campaign.
In the second John Doe, Chisholm had no real evidence of wrongdoing. Yes, conservative groups were active in issue advocacy, but issue advocacy was protected by the First Amendment and did not violate relevant campaign laws. Nonetheless, Chisholm persuaded prosecutors in four other counties to launch their own John Does, with Judge Kluka overseeing all of them.
Empowered by a rubber-stamp judge, partisan investigators ran amok. They subpoenaed and obtained (without the conservative targets’ knowledge) massive amounts of electronic data, including virtually all the targets’ personal e-mails and other electronic messages from outside e-mail vendors and communications companies.
The investigations exploded into the open with a coordinated series of raids on October 3, 2013. These were home invasions, including those described above. Chisholm’s office refused to comment on the raid tactics (or any other aspect of the John Doe investigations), but witness accounts regarding the two John Doe investigations are remarkably similar: early-morning intrusions, police rushing through the house, and stern commands to remain silent and tell no one about what had occurred.
At the same time, the Wisconsin Club for Growth and other conservative organizations received broad subpoenas requiring them to turn over virtually all business records, including “donor information, correspondence with their associates, and all financial information.” The subpoenas also contained dire warnings about disclosure of their existence, threatening contempt of court if the targets spoke publicly.
For select conservative families across five counties, this was the terrifying moment — the moment they felt at the mercy of a truly malevolent state.
Speaking both on and off the record, targets reflected on how many layers of Wisconsin government failed their fundamental constitutional duties — the prosecutors who launched the rogue investigations, the judge who gave the abuse judicial sanction, investigators who chose to taunt and intimidate during the raids, and those police who ultimately approved and executed aggressive search tactics on law-abiding, peaceful citizens.
For some of the families, the trauma of the raids, combined with the stress and anxiety of lengthy criminal investigations, has led to serious emotional repercussions. “Devastating” is how Anne describes the impact on her family. “Life-changing,” she says. “All in terrible ways.”
O’Keefe, who has been in contact with multiple targeted families, says, “Every family I know of that endured a home raid has been shaken to its core, and the fate of marriages and families still hangs in the balance in some cases.”
Anne also describes a new fear of the police: “I used to support the police, to believe they were here to protect us. Now, when I see an officer, I’ll cross the street. I’m afraid of them. I know what they’re capable of.”
Cindy says, “I lock my doors and I close my shades. I don’t answer the door unless I am expecting someone. My heart races when I see a police car sitting in front of my house or following me in the car. The raid was so public. I’ve been harassed. My house has been vandalized. [She did not identify suspects.] I no longer feel safe, and I don’t think I ever will.”
Rachel talks about the effect on her children. “I tried to create a home where the kids always feel safe. Now they know they’re not. They know men with guns can come in their house, and there’s nothing we can do.” Every knock on the door brings anxiety. Every call to the house is screened. In the back of her mind is a single, unsettling thought: These people will never stop.
Victims of trauma — and every person I spoke with described the armed raids as traumatic — often need to talk, to share their experiences and seek solace in the company of a loving family and supportive friends. The investigators denied them that privilege, and it compounded their pain and fear.
The investigation not only damaged families, it also shut down their free speech. In many cases, the investigations halted conservative groups in their tracks. O’Keefe and the Wisconsin Club for Growth described the effect in court filings:
“O’Keefe’s associates began cancelling meetings with him and declining to take his calls, reasonably fearful that merely associating with him could make them targets of the investigation. O’Keefe was forced to abandon fundraising for the Club because he could no longer guarantee to donors that their identities would remain confidential, could not (due to the Secrecy Order) explain to potential donors the nature of the investigation, could not assuage donors’ fears that they might become targets themselves, and could not assure donors that their money would go to fund advocacy rather than legal expenses. The Club was also paralyzed. Its officials could not associate with its key supporters, and its funds were depleted. It could not engage in issue advocacy for fear of criminal sanction.”
These raids and subpoenas were often based not on traditional notions of probable cause but on mere suspicion, untethered to the law or evidence, and potentially violating the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against “unreasonable searches and seizures.” The very existence of First Amendment–protected expression was deemed to be evidence of illegality. The prosecution simply assumed that the conservatives were incapable of operating within the bounds of the law.
Even worse, many of the investigators’ legal theories, even if proven by the evidence, would not have supported criminal prosecutions. In other words, they were investigating “crimes” that weren’t crimes at all.
If the prosecutors had applied the same legal standards to the Democrats in their own offices, they would have been forced to turn the raids on themselves. If the prosecutors and investigators had been raided, how many of their computers and smartphones would have contained incriminating information indicating use of government resources for partisan purposes?
With the investigations now bursting out into the open, some conservatives began to fight back. O’Keefe and the Wisconsin Club for Growth moved to quash the John Doe subpoenas aimed at them. In a surprise move, Judge Kluka, who had presided over the Doe investigations for more than a year, recused herself from the case. (A political journal, the Wisconsin Reporter, attempted to speak to Judge Kluka about her recusal, but she refused to offer comment.)
The new judge in the case, Gregory Peterson, promptly sided with O’Keefe and blocked multiple subpoenas, holding (in a sealed opinion obtained by the Wall Street Journal, which has done invaluable work covering the John Doe investigations) that they “do not show probable cause that the moving parties committed any violations of the campaign finance laws.” The judge noted that “the State is not claiming that any of the independent organizations expressly advocated” Walker’s election.
O’Keefe and the Wisconsin Club for Growth followed up Judge Peterson’s ruling by filing a federal lawsuit against Chisholm and a number of additional defendants, alleging multiple constitutional violations, including a claim that the investigation constituted unlawful retaliation against the plaintiffs for the exercise of their First Amendment rights. United States District Court judge Rudolph Randa promptly granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, declaring that “the Defendants must cease all activities related to the investigation, return all property seized in the investigation from any individual or organization, and permanently destroy all copies of information and other materials obtained through the investigation.”
From that point forward, the case proceeded on parallel state and federal tracks. At the federal level, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Judge Randa’s order. Declining to consider the case on the merits, the appeals court found the lawsuit barred by the federal Anti-Injunction Act, which prohibits federal courts from issuing injunctions against some state-court proceedings. O’Keefe and the Wisconsin Club for Growth have petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari and expect a ruling in a matter of weeks.
At the same time, the John Doe prosecutors took their case to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals to attempt to restart the Doe proceedings. The case was ultimately consolidated before the state supreme court, with a ruling also expected in a matter of weeks.
And so, almost five years after their secret beginning, the John Doe proceedings are nearly dead — on “life support,” according to one Wisconsin pundit — but incalculable damage has been done, to families, to activist organizations, to the First Amendment, and to the rule of law itself. In international law, the Western world has become familiar with a concept called “lawfare,” a process whereby rogue regimes or organizations abuse legal doctrines and processes to accomplish through sheer harassment and attrition what can’t be accomplished through legitimate diplomatic means. The Palestinian Authority and its defenders have become adept at lawfare, putting Israel under increasing pressure before the U.N. and other international bodies.
The John Doe investigations are a form of domestic lawfare, and our constitutional system is ill equipped to handle it. Federal courts rarely intervene in state judicial proceedings, state officials rarely lose their array of official immunities for the consequences of their misconduct, and violations of First Amendment freedoms rarely result in meaningful monetary damages for the victims.
As Scott Walker runs for president, the national media will finally join the Wall Street Journal in covering John Doe. Given the mainstream media’s typical bias and bad faith, they are likely to bring a fresh round of pain to the targets of the investigation; the cloud of suspicion will descend once again; even potential favorable court rulings by either the state supreme court or the U.S. Supreme Court will be blamed on “conservative justices” taking care of their own.
Conservatives have looked at Wisconsin as a success story, where Walker took everything the Left threw at him and emerged victorious in three general elections. He broke the power of the teachers’ unions and absorbed millions upon millions of dollars of negative ads. The Left kept chanting, “This is what democracy looks like,” and in Wisconsin, democracy looked like Scott Walker winning again and again.
Yet in a deeper way, Wisconsin is anything but a success. There were casualties left on the battlefield — innocent citizens victimized by a lawless government mob, public officials who brought the full power of their office down onto the innocent.
Governors come and go. Statutes are passed and repealed. Laws and elections are important, to be sure, but the rule of law is more important still. And in Wisconsin, the rule of law hangs in the balance — along with the liberty of citizens.
As I finished an interview with one victim still living in fear, still shattered by the experience of nearly losing everything simply because she supported the wrong candidate at the wrong time, I asked whether she had any final thoughts. “Just one,” she replied. “I’m hoping for accountability, that someone will be held responsible so that they’ll never do this again.” She paused for a moment and then, with voice trembling, said: “No one should ever endure what my family endured.”
– David French is an attorney, a writer, and a veteran of the Iraq War. This article first appeared in the May 4, 2015, issue of NR.
There certainly isn’t a shortage of things to worry about when it comes to our out-of-control government, and it is becoming abundantly clear that we can add CPS (Child Protective Services) to the list. In the past many of the complaints have been about them not doing enough to protect children when it is clear that children are living in unsafe environments. The answer that came from the agency was almost always the lack of funds and staff to handle the case loads. It seems that has been taken care of.
In Kansas, there is a medical marijuana activist by the name of Shonda Banda. She has Crohn’s Disease. It is a very painful digestive problem that causes severe cramping, among other things to its victims. She uses cannabis oil to help with her pain. In Kansas marijuana is illegal in all circumstances. She is working to change that.
One day the school her son attends gave a class on drug use. Since his mother is an activist, one can imagine that this little boy understands the ins and outs of the issue. During this discussion her son made statements when he believed the information that was being told to the class was incorrect. This raised the hackles of the counselors. They called the CPS, who then called the cops.
They show up at the school, take the little boy out of his class to question him. They did not call either parent to get permission to talk to an 11 year-old-boy.
After her son spoke out about medical marijuana, police detained him and launched a raid on Shona Banda’s home. “Well, they had that drug education class at school that was just conducted by the counselors… They pulled my son out of school at about 1:40 in the afternoon and interrogated him. Police showed up at my house at 3… I let them know that they weren’t allowed in my home without a warrant… I didn’t believe you could get a warrant off of something a child says in school.” Banda continued, “We waited from 3 o’clock until 6 o’clock. They got a warrant at 6 o’clock at night and executed a warrant into my home. My husband and I are separated, and neither parent was contacted by authorities before [our son] was taken and questioned.”
They found a small amount of cannabis oil in her home. With the amount being as small as it is, obviously it is for personal use. She isn’t a drug dealer. She uses a substance that helps her deal with chronic pain. For this, she has lost her child.
She has been charged with no crime, yet she still must go into court to prove that she should still have custody of her child. You can feel that pot, even for medicinal use, should remain illegal, and realize how wrong this is.
There is no proof that this child was being given an illegal substance. The boy simply understands the issues surrounding the use of medicinal pot. That isn’t a crime. That isn’t child abuse.
The State of Kansas has done nothing to “protect” this child, they have done quite the opposite. This child has been harmed by the very agency that is supposed to help him in cases of abuse and neglect. When we have a government that is so large that it can walk into a classroom of a child, question him without parental permission, then use those statements of a child to get a warrant to get into the home of the parent, we have a government that is too powerful.
This child has been harmed more by the state than anything his mother has done. That is something that shouldn’t be allowed to stand.
In a post-recession world where many once-familiar occupations continue to automate, move offshore or disappear outright, one of the most basic questions remains:
It turns out the vast preponderance of job openings these days consists of low-skill, hourly wage work with high turnover.
The current slate of “help wanted” ads overwhelmingly involves cashiers, waitresses and waiters, personal care aides, janitors, those who stock store shelves, and the likes of Hardee’s and Taco Bell.
Of the top 10 “Occupations with the Most Openings,” nine fall into government-designated wage categories of “very low” and “low,” according to data from the U.S. Department of Labor.
The proliferation of bottom-rung openings casts a light on an epidemic transformation within the national economy, one that has been accompanied by a long-term contraction of middle-skill occupations that often pay family-supporting wages.
“Workers in many types of middle-rank positions — such as skilled production-line workers and people in clerical or administrative jobs — have had to migrate into jobs as food-service workers, home health-care aides, child-care employees and security guards,” according to a study by David Autor, economics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
For Obama so loved the poor, he made millions more of them.
“This is not an overall improvement in job quality,” Autor said. “The problem with many of these jobs is they require fairly generic skill sets, which means workers have limited negotiating power and are fairly interchangeable. These are not, in general, attractive jobs.”
What’s remarkable is how deeply the low-wage sector — once seen as temporary and transitional — has entrenched itself in the world of work.
According to the Labor Department, the No. 1 employment opportunity in the U.S. is for retail salespeople.
Typical retail work requires “less than high school” education.
Retail jobs do not always pay well, but there are plenty of them: Nearly 200,000 open up on average each year in the U.S.
And who’s competing for those retail jobs? Obama’s DREAMers, illegal aliens, here to ensure you’ll never work again.
No wonder then that so many Americans have simply given up on looking for real work. Why bother? There aren’t any more good jobs out there.
The only other growth sector? Government. Hey, Big Brother is always hiring. And always getting in the way.
Elizabeth Bentivgna, a senior at Oberlin, seems to be completely unaware of the fact that how you dress for a job interview does indeed matter. She is in the process of interviewing for summer internships before returning to school for her final semester in the fall.
She was given a lesson in this after finding out that a company would not be hiring her. Her recruiter was honest with her about why a company wouldn’t be giving her the internship.
“She told me that OnShift would love to hire me based on my technical skills and personality, but that they were not going to. These are the reasons she cited: 1) I ‘looked more like I was about to go clubbing than to an interview.’ 2) I ‘had a huge run in my tights’ 3) I was late.”
So little miss princess decided to vent her frustrations on her Facebookpage.
Using all those F-bombs will also help land her next interview won’t it? What she forgets to mention in this little rant is that she was late to the interview. I don’t know, but I think that showing up on time, or even early, is interviewing 101.
She claims that is a mostly male office and that they wear jeans and T-shirts. Now I wouldn’t be surprised if that were true. But, that doesn’t mean that those men showed up in the interviews dressed that way. You wear the jeans and T-shirts once you have the job, not the day you interview for it. It is unprofessional.
I have had jobs that the dress code was so lax that the only real line seemed to be no bathing suits in the office. I knew that was the policy before I started working there, as it more or less a norm in the field I was working in at the time. I still wore a suit to the interview.
In all seriousness, if I noticed a run in stockings before heading into the interview, I would either find a store and get a new pair, or just take them off all together. I wouldn’t walk into an interview with a huge run. That falls into the attention to detail category. I have this feeling that being a software programming company, that is something that is looked at as a necessity, not a quirk.
I have interviewed people over my working lifetime. I have seen the pettiest little things make the difference between hiring and not hiring. If a man walked into an interview with stains all over his tie or pants or a wrinkled mess, yes it would be noticed. If another candidate who had equal qualifications but presented himself more professionally he would likely be the person who ends up with the job. I once interviewed a woman who had on such strong perfume that it literally lingered in the conference room after she left. My eyes were watering during the interview due to my allergies. That left a lasting impression with me when it came to making the evaluations of all the candidates. We ended up hiring another equally qualified candidate that wouldn’t stink up the office.
In an interview setting you have a very brief window to make an impression. How you are dressed is part of that impression. That doesn’t matter if you are male or female. Yes men have it easier in the dressing department, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t noticed at all.
Do yourself a favor, go to the suit department at Macy’s or Ann Taylor and buy yourself a nice blazer and matching skirt or even a suit. Keep it in the back of your closet and when it comes time to do an interview, make sure it is pressed and cleaned. Don’t show up dressed like this again until you are on your second day of the job. Try to remember a little saying, dress for the job you want, not the one that you have. Another words, be professional when making a first impression, especially when you have a very thin resume that accompanies being a college student.
In her remarks at Tuesday’s meeting, Zuniga addressed how she became a teacher, her efforts to help the local community – and the circumstances that led to the “get well” letters to Abu-Jamal.
After feeling disconnected as a teenager, growing up in a predominantly white community, Zuniga said she decided to become a teacher in her senior year of high school.
“Growing up in a predominantly white suburb, attending a majority white school district, my teachers and peers marginalized me as a first generation immigrant, Peruvian-American,” Zuniga said.
“The cultural gap between my educators and me caused me to feel disconnected from my school work and learning altogether. It wasn’t until my experience in the classroom my senior year of high school that I realized I could be the teacher I never had.”
Translation: I had every opportunity to get ahead, but I decided to become a Marxist because white people didn’t bow down to my multicultural sensitivities.
Remember when immigrants assimilated? Yeah, me neither.
So, our Ms. Zuniga felt “disconnected,” eh? But not in the way that Daniel Faulkner is disconnected from his life. Her disconnect is more metaphorical. And harder to endure, of course. Because, racism.
The poor dear, she had to settle for a second-rate education, too.
Oh, wait, no she didn’t.
After graduating with honors from Montclair State University, Zuniga decided to pursue her master’s degree at Columbia University before entering the \classroom. “I felt that my future students deserved the best and the only way they would receive that is if I was fully equipped as an educator,” she said.
Darn those racist white people! How’d that lowly Peruvian sneak into one of their most esteemed graduate programs? Columbia already graduated that Obama fellow, you’d think that would’ve satisfied the quota gods. But no, they took in a “disconnected” young lady, laid the world at her feet, and were rewarded for their trouble in the only way a Marxist knows. Anger.
Then she brought her politics into the classroom, the better to indoctrinate her charges into the cult of victimhood. She got caught. And her only regret is that she blabbed about it.
Zuniga apologized for highlighting the letters on social media.
“I was very proud of my students’ work and I shared this on social media,” Zuniga said. “I do apologize to parents, students and community members for having done that.”
She’s not sorry she brainwashed a room full of eight-year-olds.
She’s sorry she got carried away with enthusiasm for her success.
Her “apology” isn’t really to the parents and the taxpayers. It’s to her fellow travelers, for outing their insidious agenda. She regrets not keeping the whole sordid affair under her hat, at least until she achieved tenure, when of course she’d be free to assign The Communist Manifesto for summer reading.
And get this, she wants a second chance.
“Given my record, I do not believe this one episode justifies my termination. However, if the board has decided to terminate me, then I am prepared to submit my resignation to avoid the consequences to my career that would follow from termination.”
Oh, I’d say it’s a little too late for avoiding consequences. Not unless Google vanishes from the face of the earth.
As for it being “one episode,” well then, I guess the results of her “hands up, don’t shoot” assignment have already been fed into a shredder. Which is a pity, because I’d really like to have read the radical slogans she undoubtedly fed to her students.
Marylin Zuniga is but a cog in academia’s leftward march. She’s hardly unique. But we need to make an example of her. Show the bastards that we’re not going to take it any more. Prevent her from poisoning any more young minds. Fire her. Today.
Your tax dollars at work: Orange, NJ students write “get well” letters to convicted cop killer
Remember when children were taught to respect police officers?
A group of school children in New Jersey apparently wrote “get well” letters to convicted cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal.
Abu-Jamal, a former death row inmate, was rushed to a hospital late last month to be treated for complications from diabetes, according to family members and supporters.
The former Black Panther was convicted of shooting and killing Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner in 1981.
“Fox and Friends” reported that a group of New Jersey third graders were encouraged by their teacher to write him “get better soon” letters. High school students also wrote letters for Abu-Jamal.
The letters were reportedly delivered to the killer by Johanna Fernandez, a professor of history at Baruch College in New York City.
Of course it’s a tenured public school unionista behind this atrocity.
Marylin Zuniga, who teaches third grade language arts and social studies at Forest Street School in Orange, N.J. was apparently behind the letter writing campaign.
On Apr. 5, she tweeted: “Just dropped off these letters to comrade Johanna Fernandez. My 3rd graders wrote to Mumia to lift up his spirits as he is ill. #freemumia”
She won’t be fired. Or reprimanded. Only teachers who speak out to defend traditional values get fired.
The public school system is a hotbed of radical leftist indoctrination.
You’d have to be an idiot, or a dedicated anti-American communist sympathizer, to belive that Wesley Cook (this “Mumia” character’s real name) didn’t shoot Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner in cold blood.
Their “hero” shot a cop in the back. And then, execution-style, between the eyes. That’s who this teacher wants to “get well.” A cop-killing piece of trash who should have been fried in an electric chair and left to rot in an unmarked grave.
Putting your child in her classroom is parental malpractice.
Way to go Orange, NJ. We see where your priorities lie. Every day that Marylin Zuniga retains her job tells us all we need to know. You’re a town that’s on the same page as the execrable Al Sharpton: “What do we want? … Dead cops!” Thanks for showing your true colors.
Some punishment: Cop-killer-loving teacher Marylin Zuniga suspended, with pay
Her union protects her right to be an America-hating idiot. Marylin Zuniga, the Orange, NJ teacher who forced her third-graders to write “get well” letters to convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal, has been suspended, with pay.
An Orange elementary school teacher has been suspended for having her third-grade students write “get well” letters to an inmate convicted of killing a cop, school officials announced today.
School officials said they “vehemently deny” having prior knowledge of the assignment, and said Zuniga neither sought prior approval nor notified parents about this “unauthorized activity.”
The district is closed for spring break this week, but school officials said they will commence a full investigation into the matter when staff and students return on Monday.
“Ms. Zuniga will be immediately suspended with pay until such time the investigation is completed and based upon the results of the investigation additional action may be taken by the Board of Education,” the statement reads.
Yeah, uh huh, they’re doing the Sgt. Schultz Shuffle — I knew nuh-think! — while trying to cover their butts. Didn’t anyone in the district follow her Twitter feed?
Senator Cory Booker was one of her followers. I guess that says a lot right there, doesn’t it?
And I say “was” because, she’s so dedicated to her revolutionary cause that she’s taken down her Twitter page. Way to stand up for your principles, comrade.
This isn’t her first foray into radical indoctrination either, which also ought to be a clue for the nitwits who hired her:
If a 3rd grader can tell it like it is..never underestimate youth.The mind of a child is where the revolution begins! pic.twitter.com/TBlNBa9ZRT
— Marylin (@Marylin_Zuniga) December 5, 2014
Today my students watched videos from Saturday’s #MillionsMarchNYC and wrote their own creative chants/lyrics to be used at future marches..
— Marylin (@Marylin_Zuniga) December 16, 2014
But hey, they “vehemently deny” any knowledge of her assignments. Or her methods. Or where her “revolution begins.”
Which sounds like the school’s principal is either incompetently not monitoring her staff, or she saw nothing to complain about. Until, of course, sane people noticed what was going on in the third grade.
Sadly, my money’s on incompetence. The school rates a 2 (out of 10). And Marylin Zuniga isn’t doing much to fix that.
Let’s hope she’s fired. Soon. And that she never sets foot in another classroom to brainwash unsuspecting young minds. Our children deserve better. And Mumia Abu-Jamal deserves to rot in hell for all eternity.
In a news conference, Deanna Favre announced she will be the starting Quarterback for the Green Bay Packers football team next season.
Deanna asserts that she is qualified to be the starting QB because she had spent 16 years married to Brett while he played QB for the Packers – even though she has actually never played football at any level from grade school up, never ran the offense of any team, nor ever played the game.
During this period of time, she became familiar with the definition of a corner blitz, the nickel package, man-to-man coverage, so she is now completely comfortable with all the other terminology involving the Packers offense. A survey of Packers fans shows 50% of those polled supported the move.
Does this sound idiotic and unbelievable … or familiar to you?
Hillary Clinton makes the same claims as to why she is qualified to be the President of the United States and 50% of Democrats polled agree.
She has never run a city, county, or state during her “career” as being Bill Clinton’s wife. When told Hillary Clinton has experience because she has 8 years in the White House, my immediate thought was, “So does the pastry chef, and the person who picks up dog shit from the White House Lawn”.
When it comes to running the State Department, her biggest achievement was getting a US Ambassador and 3 other Americans killed, by pretending terrorism had been defeated…..
Her words still echo…“what difference does it make?”