Pelosi: GOP Budget Takes Food Away from People of Color

Pelosi: GOP Budget Takes Food Away from People of Color

April 23, 2014 12:41 pm

TeaParty.org Exclusive

(Breitbart) – It’s never to early to play the race card in an election year for former House Speaker, Democrat Nancy Pelosi.

Today Pelosi took to Twitter to do that very thing using a Pew Research Center survey to make her point.

Over 50% of food stamp recipients are people of color. The #GOPbudget takes food out of their mouths: http://t.co/ErhMxv6ykH

— Nancy Pelosi (@NancyPelosi) April 22, 2014

Forget that fewer Blacks might need Food Stamps were they more supportive of Republican job creating ways. Pelosi wants people to focus in on one finding so she can attempt to label the Republican Party and its policies as racist. Truth be told, that’s a revolting type of politics. Unfortunately, it’s the very type of politics Pelosi and her fellow Democrats rely upon so heavily.

Beyond politics, equally large or larger gaps emerge in the participation rates of many core social and demographic groups. For example, women were about twice as likely as men (23% vs. 12%) to have received food stamps at some point in their lives. Blacks are about twice as likely as whites to have used this benefit during their lives (31% vs. 15%). Among Hispanics, about 22% say they have collected food stamps.

Minority women in particular are far more likely than their male counterparts to have used food stamps. About four-in-ten black women (39%) have gotten help compared with 21% of black men. The gender-race participation gap is also wide among Hispanics: 31% of Hispanic women but 14% of Hispanic men received assistance.

There’s nothing insightful behind Pelosi’s tactic. It’s demagogy at it’s worse. Unfortunately, it’s often effective enough at fooling just enough low information voters of all races and colors to be somewhat effective for the Democrat Party.

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2014/04/22/Pelosi-GOP-Budgets-Takes-Food-Away-From-People-of-Color

- See more at: http://www.teaparty.org/pelosi-gop-budget-takes-food-away-people-color-40287/#sthash.4Src128s.dpuf

Cybergeddon? Survey warns of internet disruption on scale of 2008 crisis

Cybergeddon? Survey warns of internet disruption on scale of 2008 crisis

The world is on the verge of a cyber shock “similar to the 2008 financial crisis,” a new study says, outlining major triggers for potential disruption and urging governments and organizations to learn from the experience gained during the credit crunch.

Zurich Insurance has drawn a parallel between the mortgage market problems, which resulted in the global financial crisis seven years ago, and a potential major cloud provider failure, the consequences of which might be just as grave.

“Just imagine if a major cloud service provider had a ‘Lehman moment’, with everyone’s data there on Friday and gone on Monday,” the report written by the Swiss insurance group in cooperation with the Atlantic Council think tank says. “If that failure cascaded to a major logistics provider or company running critical infrastructure, it could magnify a catastrophic ripple running throughout the real economy in ways difficult to understand, model or predict beforehand.”

Problems in the US sub-prime mortgage market in 2008 led to banking crisis which later resulted in a global economic downturn.

The current “interconnected nature of the internet” leads to the increasing danger of cyber risks, spurring similar type of scenario.

“Few people truly understand their own computers or the internet, or the cloud to which they connect, just as few truly understood the financial system as a whole or the parts to which they are most directly exposed,” Chief Risk Officer at Zurich Insurance, Axel Lehmann, said in a statement.

The new study says part of the problem in 2008 was that before the credit crunch “risks were assessed by financial institutions individually” and urges governments and organizations not to repeat the same mistake when it comes to tackling cyber threats.

The study warns people against being misled by the fact “the internet has been incredibly resilient (and generally safe) for the past few decades.” With the system getting ever more complex and ever more connected to real life, bigger shocks to it are unavoidable.

A company should no longer focus primarily on its own internal cyber security as an threat might be coming from outsourced services it’s getting or from its suppliers. Those are on the list of the seven “risk pools” the study outlines.

Seven hundred and forty million data files were potentially exposed or stolen worldwide in 2013, making the year the worst in terms of the internet security thus far, according to the statistics given by the Online Trust Alliance and cited in the survey, which warns that the situation is only going to become aggravated.

“While our society’s reliance on the internet grows exponentially, our control of it only grows linearly, limited by outdated government procedures and ineffective governance.”

One of the major proposals in the report is supporting the idea put forward earlier by Microsoft, of establishing a G20+20 group, 20 governments and 20 global information and communications technology firms – to work out ways of ensuring viable security in cyberspace.

IRS Employees Who Owed Back Taxes Received Bonuses

IRS Employees Who Owed Back Taxes Received Bonuses

If you or I owe back taxes to the IRS, they will send angry letters, withhold refunds, garnish your wages or send you to prison. But if you work for the IRS, not only do you get off scott-free you get a bonus!

IRS employees who are on the hook for back taxes still received more than $1 million in bonuses, a government report revealed.

About 2,800 employees received bonuses from the Internal Revenue Service despite facing disciplinary action – including 1,150 employees who still owed back taxes. The bonuses were handed out from 2010 to 2012.

J. Russell George, the federal inspector who authored the report, said the bonuses didn’t violate any federal laws ore regulations – merely that they were “inconsistent” with the IRS’ mission to enforce tax laws.

“These awards are designed to recognize and reward IRS employees for a job well done,” he said. “However, while not prohibited, providing awards to employees who have been disciplined for failing to pay federal taxes appears to create a conflict with the IRS’s charge of ensuring the integrity of the system of tax administration.”

Amazingly, a “job well done” deserving a bonus includes the following offenses as well:

Misusing federal government credit cards, drug use while on the job, violent threats and fraudulently claiming unemployment benefits.

Clearly the rules don’t apply for these federal employees.

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

Right?

Police may stop drivers based only on anonymous tip, rules Supreme Court

Police may stop drivers based only on anonymous tip, rules Supreme Court

Law enforcement officials may now stop US drivers based only on the information gleaned in an anonymous tip phoned in by a caller who dialed 911, the Supreme Court ruled in a tight decision Tuesday.

The high court ruled 5-4 that relying only on a comment from a 911 caller is reasonable because “a 911 call has some features that allow for identifying and tracking callers.” In most cases the justices are split along ideological lines but Tuesday’s decision was enough to split the two most conservative-minded justices, with Justice Clarence Thomas writing the majority opinion and Justice Antonin Scalia leading the dissent.

The case considered a 2008 California incident in which an anonymous 911 caller told the police that a pickup truck had forced her off the road, providing the location, as well as details such as the truck’s make, model, and license plate number. Police soon stopped a vehicle matching the description and reported smelling the odor of marijuana as they approached driver Jose Prado Navarette.

Navarette was arrested because officers found 30 pounds of marijuana in his vehicle, although he argued that the initial stop was unconstitutional because police did not have reasonable suspicion to stop his truck. His legal team asserted that the police could not have determined with any accuracy the identity of the caller or challenged her credibility.

The Supreme Court has long maintained that police may act on anonymous tips, although those tips are required to include enough detail so that officers can formulate a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, according to NPR. Justice Thomas used this rationale in his opinion, claiming that police may have felt, based on the 911 call, that the truck driver was intoxicated behind the wheel.

“We have firmly rejected the argument that reasonable cause for an investigative stop can only be based on the officer’s personal observation, rather than on information supplied by another person,” Thomas wrote, although the court heard no evidence that the responding officers witnessed Navarette driving recklessly.

Writing for the majority, Thomas said the anonymous caller’s comments contained enough “indicia of reliability” to give police enough reasonable suspicion to halt the truck.

“The officer was therefore justified in proceeding from the premise that the truck has, in fact, caused the caller’s car to be dangerously diverted from the highway,” he went on. “Running another vehicle off the road suggests lane positioning problems, decreased vigilance, impaired judgment, or some combination of those recognized drunk driving cues.”

Justice Scalia, who usually agrees with Thomas, wrote a stinging rebuke of the majority decision in his own dissent.

“The Court’s opinion serves up a freedom-destroying cocktail consisting of two parts patent falsity: (1) that anonymous 911 reports of traffic violations are reliable so long as they correctly identify a car and its location, and (2) that a single instance of careless or reckless driving necessarily supports a reasonable suspicion of drunkenness,” he wrote, as quoted by US News and World Report.

“All the malevolent 911 caller need do is assert a traffic violation, and the targeted car will be stopped, forcibly if necessary, by the police. If the driver turns out not to be drunk (which will almost always be the case), the caller need fear no consequences even if 911 knows his identity.”