James L. Paris's Blog, page 108
January 30, 2017
FedEx Says They���re Supporting Uniformed Driver Who Halted Flag Burning at Iowa Protest
Last Thursday, a uniformed FedEx employee did not like what he saw at a protest in Iowa City, and did something about it.
Matt Uhrin, a parcel carrier with the delivery giant, came upon a group of people reportedly protesting racial and social injustice, and doing so, in part by variously ���desecrating and burning American flags,��� according to a report on the incident by Fox News.
As the group was working to set the flags alight, Uhrin rushes into the scene with a fire extinguisher to put out the fires.
Although Uhrin quickly found himself in a tense confrontation with the protesters, he managed to rescue some of the at-risk flags.
At one point, the driver felt compelled to turn the fire extinguisher on one of the protesters who attempted to retrieve one of the flags Uhrin had grabbed from the group.
As video of the confrontation and flag rescue went viral, many people, anticipating that a large company like FedEx might feel compelled, in this politically correct national climate, to fire or otherwise take harsh disciplinary measures against Uhrin, quickly let FedEx know through its various social media platforms that they expected the company to stand by their man.
As it turns out, that���s just what FedEx has decided to do.
On Saturday, FedEx conveyed the following message on its Facebook and Twitter accounts:
���We have reviewed the matter in Iowa City involving driver Matt Uhrin. He remains a FedEx employee & we have no plans to change his status.���
And there you go.
As for the protesters, two were arrested by the police for violating the city���s ordinance against public burning without a permit.
By Robert G. Yetman, Jr. Editor At Large
January 29, 2017
Mikhail Gorbachev Says ���World is Preparing for War���
Well, here���s a cheery thought.
Mikhail Gorbachev, the former, and final, leader of the Soviet Union, is warning that it ���looks as if the world is preparing for war.���
Gorbachev���s comments were made in an opinion piece he wrote last week for Time magazine.
���Politicians and military leaders sound increasingly belligerent and defense doctrines more dangerous,��� Gorbachev wrote. ���Commentators and TV personalities are joining the bellicose chorus. It all looks as if the world is preparing for war.���
Calling the present situation ���too dangerous,��� Gorbachev noted that ���more troops, tanks and armored personnel carriers are being brought to Europe. NATO and Russian forces and weapons that used to be deployed at a distance are now placed closer to each other, as if to shoot point-blank.���
The former Soviet leader also wrote that ���the nuclear threat once again seems real. Relations between the great powers have been going from bad to worse for several years now. The advocates for arms build-up and the military-industrial complex are rubbing their hands.���
Gorbachev wrote, as well, that both Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin have a ���special responsibility��� to ensure global security because they have control of ���over 90% of the world���s nuclear arsenals.���
Putin has spoken on more than one occasion about the prospect of world war, and Trump has offhandedly said in the past that NATO is obsolete, and that he would welcome another arms race. Is any of that suggestive of something truly ominous?
Mikhail Gorbachev certainly seems to think so.
By Robert G. Yetman, Jr. Editor At Large
7 Buried in Wrong Graves at Rhode Island Veterans Cemetery
Sadly, it appears our nation���s veterans can���t catch a break even after they���re dead.
As reported by a number of outlets, including the Military Times, it turns out that seven people were buried in the wrong graves at a veterans cemetery in Rhode Island.
According to the Times, the mix-up at the Rhode Island Veterans Memorial Cemetery can be traced to a series of errors that began back in November 2010, when grave workers left two markers - instead of one - when they began the process of transferring the remains of a veteran���s father at that time. From there, the additional space was never properly accounted for when grave markers were added in the spring of 2011.
The result was 21 misplaced grave markers. There have been seven burials in the affected row since 2010, and each was buried in the plot next to where they should have been interred.
The mistake was discovered by cemetery personnel last week as they prepared for another burial in that same row. Upon discovery of the unfortunate error, the remains and grave markers were moved to their appropriate places.
Kasim Yarn, the Rhode Island Director of Veterans Affairs, issued the following statement:
���We recognize our cemetery is hallowed ground, and we did not meet our obligation to our veterans, their loved ones who are buried here or the families and the veterans who continue to come to our cemetery to pay their respects.���
It should be noted that the state of Rhode Island, not the long-beleaguered Veterans Administration, has oversight of the Rhode Island Veterans Memorial Cemetery.
Nevertheless���
By Robert G. Yetman, Jr. Editor At Large
January 28, 2017
Trump Administration Presence Unquestionably Felt at March for Life
The March for Life, the annual rally that serves to demonstrate against abortion in America, held its 44th edition on Friday, and it is fair to say that this year���s event had perhaps the greatest degree of support from a presidential administration as any that have come before.
The most notable speaker to attend the 2017 march was Mike Pence, the newly-sworn Vice President of the United States. Pence is the first vice president to appear at the March for Life, and is the highest-ranking government official to attend the march since it began back in 1974. Previous to this year���s edition, two sitting presidents addressed the marchers by remote telephone access���Ronald Reagan in 1987, and George W. Bush in 2003���but no president or vice president before Pence has attended the march in person.
Pence���s speech was documented by a large number of news outlets, including Reuters, which quoted portions of what the vice president had to say over at Reuters.com.
Among Pence���s comments, he told the faithful that ���life is winning again in America,��� and spoke admiringly about ���the election of pro-life majorities in the Congress of the United States of America,��� and what that means to the pro-life movement.
���It's the best day I've ever seen for the March of Life,��� said Pence.
Another member of the Trump administration, Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway, was also on-hand to address the assembled, saying, ���We hear you. We see you. We respect you. And we look forward to working with you.���
Other ���name��� attendees at this year���s march included Timothy M. Dolan, Archbishop of New York, NFL player Benjamin Watson, and Corey Stewart, Virginia gubernatorial candidate.
By Robert G. Yetman, Jr. Editor At Large
CA Secretary of State Green-Lights Ballot Initiative for State Secession from the Nation
This may work out for everybody.
There have been rumblings for a while now concerning an effort on the Left Coast to ultimately see California secede from the union. Typically, whenever there is talk of a state seceding, it is largely dismissed out of hand as just talk. However, California has been seen for some time���by Californians as well by those who live everywhere else���as now being so different in values and culture from the rest of America that there might actually be something to the idea of California splitting away from the United States. This difference was emphasized in the results of the recent presidential election, where Donald Trump lost California to Hillary Clinton by the largest margin, both in terms of raw votes and percentage, of any of the states in which he was defeated by her on Nov. 8.
It is, in fact, Trump���s victory that has put the California movement to split from the rest of the country, called ���Calexit,��� into high gear.
Well, good news for the secessionists. As reported by a variety of news outlets, including The Hill, the California secretary of state has said that the principal group behind the secession effort, the Yes California Independence Campaign, may begin the process of collecting the signatures necessary to put the initiative on the ballot in 2018.
According to The Hill, Yes California must gather up 585,407 signatures from registered voters in the next 180 days in order to successfully see the initiative on the 2018 ballot. If that happens, and the initiative actually passes, then it would trigger a special election in 2019, one in which voters across the state would actually decide if California will split from the United States and become its own independent nation.
By Robert G. Yetman, Jr. Editor At Large
January 27, 2017
Can You Be Turned Down For A Loan Because Of A Facebook Post?
On this episode of the members only podcast how your latest Facebook post could be a reason that your loan application was denied, how to save 50 percent on the cost of an Amazon Echo device, fascinating way to profit from the collapse of the Euro, why cash flow is better than a big savings account, how to prevent your tax refund from being stolen, and the 10 words you should not have on your resume. Join ChristianMoneyPlus for just $9.95 monthly (cancel at any time) and gain unlimited access to member's only content and gain direct access to Jim Paris for unlimited Q and A.
Agent���s Assertion She Won���t Take Bullet for Trump Leaves Secret Service Vets Stunned
Veterans of the U.S. Secret Service, the agency responsible for protecting the President of the United States and members of his family, expressed to Fox News their amazement at an active agent���s declaration that she would go to jail rather than take a bullet for Donald Trump.
You may have heard about Kerry O���Grady, the agent in charge of the Denver, Co. office, who wrote in a Facebook post back in October that she would not do her job and defend Trump if he was elected president:
���As a public servant for nearly 23 years, I struggle not to violate the Hatch Act. So I keep quiet and skirt the median. To do otherwise can be a criminal offense for those in my position. Despite the fact that I am expected to take a bullet for both sides.
���But this world has changed and I have changed. And I would take jail time over a bullet or an endorsement for what I believe to be disaster to this country and the strong and amazing women and minorities who reside here. Hatch Act be damned. I am with Her.���
Notably, O���Grady also expressed her support for Hillary Clinton in the post.
The Hatch Act to which O���Grady refers is a law that bans certain federal employees from engaging in public, partisan political activity or expression.
Gary Byrne, a former agent who spent 12 years on the job, expressed to Fox his disbelief over O���Grady���s social media post.
���It is unheard of and unbelievable that someone at her level would comment publicly on being unwilling to protect the president,��� said Byrne. ���Everyone has their own personal political opinions, but this job is not personal. You take an oath to the country, not the person. You are protecting the office, and what makes the country great.���
Another agent, Dan Emmett, now retired, told Fox that ���in my view, O'Grady can no longer function with any degree of credibility as an agent and should retire or be dismissed by the Secret Service.���
Continuing, Emmett said, ���Her stated refusal or unwillingness to do what all Secret Service agents have been willing and expected to do since 1902 when the Secret Service began protecting presidents presents the worst possible example for her agents as well as all young agents Service wide. She has at this point rendered herself completely irrelevant as an agent. Few will be willing to work for her or with her.���
Although a spokesman for the agency has said that ���the U.S. Secret Service is aware of the postings and the agency is taking quick and appropriate action,��� it is not known at this time what discipline O���Grady will face.
By Robert G. Yetman, Jr. Editor At Large
Video Appears to Clearly Disprove Planned Parenthood Claims of Prenatal Care Availability
One of Planned Parenthood���s cornerstone defenses to the attacks against it, particularly the formal efforts at defunding the group, is that PP assists women who actually decide to keep their babies with prenatal care.
However, a stunning video by the pro-life group Live Action appears to show that PP is all talk and NO action when it comes to providing assistance to those women who want to carry their fetuses to term. Live Action says the piece is its first in a series of ���Abortion Corporation��� videos designed to reveal that Planned Parenthood���s lone agenda is in the providing of abortions, not women���s health care, more broadly, and certainly not the facilitation of prenatal care.
The video essentially takes to task Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards and other PP leaders who have repeatedly claimed that prenatal care is one of the services on which their customers depend, and that would be in severe jeopardy if defunding efforts begun around the country gain serious traction.
According to Live Action, their undercover investigators, inquiring about the availability of prenatal care at 97 PP centers they contacted, found themselves turned away at an astounding 92 of those.
Here is a sample of the responses:
���Planned Parenthood offers abortions, so they don���t offer prenatal care.���
��� Tempe, AZ, Planned Parenthood
���No, we don���t do prenatal services. I mean, it���s called Planned Parenthood, I know it���s kind of deceiving.���
��� Merrillville, IN, Planned Parenthood
���No, see, we don���t see pregnant women as a way of giving prenatal care, we see pregnant women, um, you know, if they are considering other options.���
��� Santa Fe, NM, Planned Parenthood
In a statement, Live Action founder and president Lila Rose said, ���Planned Parenthood says it���s a champion of women���s health care, yet prenatal care, which is an essential service for expectant mothers, is virtually nonexistent. Our investigators who wanted to keep their babies were turned away by 92 out of 97 Planned Parenthood centers. It���s clear that despite its claims, abortion is the priority and the only option for pregnant women that visit Planned Parenthood.���
By Robert G. Yetman, Jr. Editor At Large
January 26, 2017
Trump Moves Ahead with Border Security Plans
It begins.
Of all the issues on which President Donald Trump campaigned, it is illegal immigration and border security that resonated earliest, loudest, and most persistently. Now, the newest occupant of the White House appears to be wasting no time in getting to work on fulfilling his promises.
As reported by a variety of news outlets, including the Chicago Tribune, Trump used the tool of executive action on Wednesday to get the ball rolling.
One order essentially re-appropriates money from inside the Homeland Security budget to build a wall on the nation���s southern border. The order also mandates the construction of new detention facilities along that border, as well.
To be clear, the money available presently from Homeland Security is not enough to fully erect the wall about which Trump spent so much time speaking while running for president, and any new money would have to be approved by Congress.
And what about the Trump pledge that Mexico would pay for the wall?
On that, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer told reporters that ���yes, one way or another, as the president has said, Mexico will pay for it.���
In an interview Wednesday with ABC News��� David Muir, Trump himself reiterated that Mexico will be footing the bill for the border wall.
���All it is, is we'll be reimbursed at a later date from whatever transaction we make from Mexico. I'm just telling you there will be a payment. It will be in a form, perhaps a complicated form. What I'm doing is good for the United States. It's also going to be good for Mexico. We want to have a very stable, very solid Mexico.���
An additional executive action signed Wednesday by the president deals with the issue of so-called ���sanctuary cities.��� The order does away with their federal funding, unless the money is specifically earmarked to fund law enforcement agencies.
By Robert G. Yetman, Jr. Editor At Large
