Crash and burn.

Rachel Dolezal, the head of the Spokane chapter of the NAACP, resigned today. She’s been posing as a black woman for many years and her parents finally outed her. In her past, she’s complained about being a victim of racism in a heavily white region. She also sued Howard University in 2002, claiming “race, pregnancy, family responsibilities and gender, as well as retaliation”.

 

I find it ironic and funny as hell, a white woman has made such a mockery of a (in my opinion) inherently racist institution. Sure, the NAACP allows people of differing ethnic backgrounds to join, but their foremost goal is to promote the black race. Rachel Dolezal scammed her way into a leadership role with the local NAACP and they fell for her ruse hook, line, and sinker. And the turmoil it caused within the group, as well as the nationwide ridicule the chapter has garnered, has created a definite schism amongst the members.

 

The recent ‘big story’ has been about Bruce Jenner coming out of the homosexual closet and calling himself ‘Caitlyn’. The media has been clamoring over him and embracing his ‘becoming a woman’. Guess what… Bruce is still a man. He’ll never be anything other than a gay guy prancing around in women’s clothing. I know, I know… I’m being politically incorrect. I should be using the term ‘transgendered’. LOL! Right! Bruce is mentally ill.

 

How does Rachel Dolezal’s ordeal tie in with Bruce ‘Fruit Loops’ Jenner? Simply because the media is now proposing the politically correct term to describe Dolezal’s dilemma as ‘transracial’. Really? What the hell is she??? A black soul trapped in a white woman’s body??? Thank God she isn’t also confused about her gender! She would be a ‘transracial-transgendered-American’. Try finding that box to check off on an application form. All kidding aside, she’s just another nut job with mental issues… another thing she has in common with Bruce Jenner. Rachel-Dolezal

 

Overstepping their elected power?

Bloomberg… what a freakin’ idiot this guy is! Its none of his damned business what people eat or drink. Since when do elected officials know how best to run someone’s life? This ass of a politician needs to be thrown from office.

 

State judge halts Bloomberg ban on large sugary drinks in New York City

Published March 11, 2013

FoxNews.com

A New York judge is forcing the Bloomberg administration to take a big gulp — striking down its groundbreaking and controversial limit on the size of sugary drinks in New York City shortly before it was set to take effect.

Manhattan state Supreme Court Justice Milton Tingling wrote in his opinion that the rules are “arbitrary and capricious,” applying to only certain beverages and only certain stores.

“The loopholes in this rule effectively defeat the stated purpose of this rule,” he wrote, complaining of “uneven enforcement even within a particular City block, much less the City as a whole.”

Mayor Michael Bloomberg said the city plans to appeal, calling the ruling “clearly an error.”

“If we are serious about fighting obesity then we have to be honest about it and courageous about tackling it,” Bloomberg said. “We believe it is reasonable and responsible to draw a line.”

But Tingling said the city’s Board of Health went beyond its authority, and effectively would be “limited by its own imagination” if left unchecked.

“The portion cap rule, if upheld, would create an administrative Leviathan and violate the separation of powers doctrine,” by straying into territory that should belong to the elected City Council, not the board appointed by Bloomberg, Tingling wrote.

That, he wrote, “has the potential to be more troubling than sweetened beverages.

In the wake of the ruling, the American Beverage Association said the decision provided a “sigh of relief to New Yorkers and thousands of small businesses in New York City that would have been harmed by this arbitrary and unpopular ban.”

The city Board of Health approved the measure in September. Championed by Bloomberg, it follows on other efforts his administration has made to improve New Yorkers’ eating habits, from compelling chain restaurants to post calorie counts on their menus to barring artificial trans fats in restaurant food to prodding food manufacturers to use less salt. 

The city has said that while restaurant inspectors would start enforcing the soda size rule in March, they wouldn’t seek fines — $200 for a violation — until June.

Soda makers, restaurateurs, movie theater owners and other business groups sued, asking a judge to declare the measure invalid. In February, they asked Tingling to bar the city from enforcing the regulation while the suit played out.

City officials have called the size limit a pioneering move for public health. They point to the city’s rising obesity rate — about 24 percent of adults, up from 18 percent in 2002 — and to studies tying sugary drinks to weight gain. Care for obesity-related illnesses costs government health programs about $2.8 billion a year in New York City alone, according to city Health Commissioner Dr. Thomas Farley.

The supersize-drink crackdown will “have significant public health effects, and the sooner that happens, the better,” city lawyer Mark W. Muschenheim said in court in February.

Critics said the measure is too limited to make a meaningful impact on New Yorkers’ waistlines. But they said it would take a bite out of business for the eateries that have to comply, while other establishments still will get sell sugary drinks in 2-liter bottles and supersize cups.

Beverage makers had expected to spend about $600,000 changing bottles and labels, movie theater owners feared losing soda sales that account for 20 percent of their profits, and delis and restaurants would have had to change inventory, reprint menus and make other adjustments, according to court papers.

“These are costs which these businesses are not going to be compensated for,” and the money will be wasted if the court ultimately nixes the law, James E. Brandt, a lawyer for the American Beverage Association and other opponents, told the judge in February.

Critics also said the restriction should have gone before the elected City Council instead of the Bloomberg-appointed health board. The city says the panel of doctors and other health professionals had both the authority and expertise to make the decision. 

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/11/ny-judge-halts-bloomberg-ban-on-large-sugary-drinks/?test=latestnews#ixzz2NIqX4WL9

Another Stupid Obama Move

 

Who Ordered Release of 2,000 Detainees?

 

As the Obama Administration spun nightmare scenarios over the impact of sequester cuts, it was revealed that Homeland Security had released from custody illegal immigrants who were charged with crimes. The White House said these actions were taken in expectation of the looming cuts, but dismissed concerns, saying just “a few hundred” criminals were released. The Associated Press, however, reported late Friday that 2,000 detainees had been released, with another 3,000 planned to be released this month. Who ordered the releases?

The White House has stated that they were not informed of the decision to release the criminal detainees. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano also demurred when asked about the releases, “detainee populations and how that is managed back and forth is really handled by career officials in the field.” Napolitano told ABC, “do I wish that this all hadn’t been done all of a sudden and so that people weren’t surprised by it? Of course.”

The problem with plans to release 5,000 detainees is not that it was done suddenly or took people by surprise. The problem is with the plan itself and the fact that it was apparently made without senior management involvement. One would expect that a decision to release more than 16% of criminal suspects held by the Department would rise above “career officials in the field.”

If a local law enforcement agency is facing budget cuts, the Chief of Police or Sheriff doesn’t have the authority to simply release criminal suspects in custody. He or she would at least have to go before a judge and request that the Judge offer the suspects a bail hearing.

There are more questions that Congress needs to investigate, beyond who specifically ordered the detainees release. What other authority do “career officers in the field” have before informing HQ of their decisions? Did these officers notify local law enforcement that they were releasing the criminal suspects? By what process did they decide whom to release? What steps are they taking to keep track of the detainees?

Presumably, the Department wanted to make a political point about the effect of budget cuts. At some point, however, public safety has to trump politics. The Administration’s cavalier approach to the sequester is dangerous.

Twinkies bakers say they’d rather lose jobs than take pay cuts

http://news.yahoo.com/twinkies-bakers-theyd-rather-lose-jobs-pay-cuts-075558559–finance.html

By Carey Gillam and Martinne Geller | Reuters – 11 hrs ago

KANSAS CITY, Mo./NEW YORK (Reuters) – Enough is enough, say bakery workers at Hostess Brands Inc.

After several years of costly concessions, the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco and Grain Millers Union (BCTGM) authorized a walk-out earlier this month after Hostess received bankruptcy court approval to implement a wage cut that was not included in its contract.

With operations stalled, the company that makes Twinkies and other famous U.S. brands said last week that liquidating its business was the best way to preserve its dwindling cash. It won court approval on Wednesday to start winding down in a process expected to claim 15,000 jobs immediately and over 3,000 more after about four months.

Interviews with more than a dozen workers showed there was little sign of regret from employees who voted for the strike. They said they would rather lose their jobs than put up with lower wages and poorer benefits.

“They’re just taking from us,” said Kenneth Johnson, 46, of Missouri. He said he earned roughly $35,000 with overtime last year, down from about $45,000 five years ago.

“I really can’t afford to not be working, but this is not worth it. I’d rather go work somewhere else or draw unemployment,” said Johnson, a worker at Hostess for 23 years.

With 18,500 workers, Hostess has 12 different unions including the BCTGM, which has about 5,600 members on the bread and snack item production lines, and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, which represents about 7,500 route sales representatives, drivers and other employees.

Unlike some non-unionized rivals, the maker of Wonder Bread and Drake’s cakes had to navigate more than 300 labor contracts, with terms that often strained efficiency and competitiveness, Hostess officials have said. In some extreme cases, contract provisions required different products to be delivered on different trucks even when headed to the same place.

Aside from those so-called onerous labor contracts, Hostess has grappled for some time with rising ingredient costs and a growing health consciousness that has made its sugary cakes less popular. It filed for bankruptcy in January, only three years after emerging from a prior bankruptcy.

Lance Ignon, speaking on behalf of Hostess, said the company recognized how difficult the past few years had been for workers and wished it did not have to ask them for more givebacks.

“But the reality was that the company could not survive without those concessions,” Ignon said.

FRUSTRATIONS, COMPLAINTS

Workers had a laundry list of frustrations, from rising healthcare costs to decreased wages and delayed pension benefits. They even cited a $10-per-week per worker charge they said Hostess claimed was needed to boost company capital.

“They have taken and taken and taken from us,” said Debi White, who has worked at Hostess for 26 years, most recently as a bun handler at its bread and roll plant in Lenexa, Kansas.

“They have been walking around stomping their foot saying either you give in … or else we’re going to close you now. Well, go ahead, we’re tired of their threats,” she said. “That’s how we feel.”

Hostess workers are now scrambling to figure out when their health insurance runs out — or if it already has — and where and how to apply for job retraining and unemployment benefits.

Following a summer and autumn spent in labor negotiations trying to find a common path to reorganization, Hostess’ management gained concessions from some unions, including the Teamsters.

The fear of thousands of job losses, for its own members and other unions, led the Teamsters to plead with the BCTGM to hold a secret ballot to determine if bakery workers really wanted to continue with the strike, even with the threat of closure.

Teamsters officials complained that bakery union leaders did “not substantively look for a solution or engage in the process,” and complained that the BCTGM called for its strike on November 9 without first notifying the Teamsters.

They said that, unlike the bakery union, the Teamsters voted to “protect all jobs at Hostess.” Teamsters General Secretary-Treasurer Ken Hall said Wednesday’s court approval for liquidation marked “a sad day for thousands of families affected by the closing of this company.”

Bakery union President Frank Hurt has said that any labor agreements would only be temporary as Hostess was doomed anyway. The union said new owners were needed to get Hostess back on track and the only way they would return to work was if Hostess rescinded its wage and benefit cuts.

“Our membership … just had no confidence in this management group being able to run a business,” said Conrad Boos, a BCTGM local business representative in Missouri.

Hurt was not immediately available to comment on Wednesday but the union said in a court filing its sole objective was to leave Hostess with “a real, rather than an illusory or theoretical, likelihood of establishing a stable business with secure jobs.”

On Wednesday, Hostess’ lawyer Heather Lennox said the company had received a “flood of inquiries” from potential buyers for several brands that could be sold at auction, and expects initial bidders within a few weeks.

(Additional reporting by Peter Rudegeair in NEW YORK; Editing by Paul Tait)

Union protests at Los Angeles airport disrupt holiday travelers

Ok, this is silly. The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) are protesting because workers voted to leave the union. What does the SEIU hope to accomplish? Do they think the workers will rethink their departure?

 

LOS ANGELES –  A labor dispute at America’s third busiest airport turned what was already a bad travel day into a nightmare for some travelers.

One of the nation’s biggest unions snarled traffic as it tried to block two entrances into the Los Angeles International airport Wednesday, in a protest police feared would turn the streets outside into a parking lot at a time when tens of thousands of cars are pouring into the airport.

The Service Employees International Union, or SEIU, claims a company that employs 450 sky caps, cabin cleaners and security workers at LAX illegally broke a contract and is in violation of the city’s living wage ordinance.

That company, Aviation Safeguards, claims that’s inaccurate, saying 52 percent of its workers voted to decertify the SEIU. It also says employee pay has increased by more than $2 million since workers kicked the union out to compensate for changes in their health care policies.

In protest, and with five additional LAX contracts expiring at the end of November, SEIU chose the busiest travel day of the year to bring attention to its cause. “We understand the inconvenience, but workers here are making the decisions of life,” spokesman Ernesto Guerrero said.

“Airport workers, they serve the public,” he told Fox News on Wednesday morning outside LAX Terminal 4. “They are very proud about their job. Unfortunately, they are being forced to do these extreme measures because otherwise no one is listening to them. The airport is not listening to them. The mayor of the city is not listening to them. We are being forced to take these extreme actions.”

The protest began in the afternoon, and police arranged traffic diversions to keep travelers moving, even if roads were blocked. But some people ended up in backups and were delayed as they tried to make their flights, a police commander told the Associated Press.

Airlines reported no major issues with passengers missing flights because of the protest, a LAX spokeswoman said. Thirteen people were arrested in the protest, including a dozen who sat down in the street and disobeyed a dispersal order, the Associated Press reports.

The union planned to bus in roughly a 1,000 union members to march down Century Boulevard, the main entrance into LAX, and Sepulveda Boulevard, the entrance used by motorists coming north from the beach cities and Orange County. An estimated 1.7 million are expected to use LAX over the Thanksgiving holiday.

While the union’s action did bring attention to its cause, as dozens of local radio and TV vans converged on the airport to cover the event, it also could backfire, according to the company the union accuses of breaking a contract.

“There is no dispute from our perspective. Our employees voted by a large majority to decertify from the SEIU,” Aviation Safeguard Vice President Joe Conlon said. “It is voluntary process to join a union. And it is voluntary process to not be part of a union. Our employees in a majority voted they did not want to be part of the SEIU anymore. So we don’t have a dispute. Our employees are happy with the wages and benefits they receive.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/11/21/union-protest-at-los-angeles-airport-threatening-to-disrupt-holiday-travel/?test=latestnews#ixzz2Cv7Kbbas

Texas woman barred from US after swearing she is not American

 

BROWNSVILLE, Texas –  A Texas woman has been stranded on the Mexican side of the US border for more than three months after making a statement saying she was born in Mexico and was not an American citizen, The Brownsville Herald reported.

Brenda Vazquez said her “false” statement to a US border official at the Brownsville international bridge on Feb. 19 came after she was grilled for seven hours when she attempted to re-enter Texas — where she says she was born in Weslaco in 1982.

A petition filed in a US federal court on behalf of Vazquez claims she only signed the statement after a US Customs and Border Protection official seized her Texas driver’s license and US birth certificate and refused to allow her access to a lawyer until she admitted she was not American, the Herald reported in its Sunday edition.

Vazquez has been stuck in limbo in Matamoros on the Mexican side of the border ever since.

Her Brownsville-based lawyer Jaime Diez is attempting to retrieve her documents so she can re-enter the US.

US Customs and Border Protection officials did not respond to the newspaper’s requests for comment.