American women played important roles during World War II, both at home and in uniform. Not only did they give their sons, husbands, fathers, and brothers to the war effort, they gave their time, energy, and some even gave their lives.
The utilization of women in an organization such as the Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps (WAAC) offered a “golden opportunity” to solve manpower shortages. So recognizable was the opportunity that Chief of Staff General George C. Marshall himself told the War Department in November 1941, “I want a women’s corps right away, and I don’t want any excuses!” Urgent wartime demands necessitated the use of all able, willing citizens, regardless of gender. In recruiting women, the Army assured them that they would be doing “unusual and exciting work” and that their service “in making available technically trained men for combat service will be of great value in winning the war.”
Judge Sarah Backus needs to be removed from the bench and her law license revoked.
The children discovered at an “extremist Muslim” compound in New Mexico earlier this month were both trained to use firearms and taught multiple tactical techniques in order to kill teachers, law enforcement and other institutions they found corrupt, state prosecutors revealed on Monday.
The prosecutors provided more details about the accusations during a court hearing in which they asked that Siraj Ibn Wahhaj and four other defendants be held pending trial on child abuse charges.
But the judge in the case ruled against prosecutors’ request.
Judge Sarah Backus said although she was concerned by “troubling facts,” prosecutors failed to articulate any specific threats to the community.
She set a $20,000 bond for each defendant and ordered that they wear ankle monitors and have weekly contact with their attorneys.
Siraj Ibn Wahhaj, 39, was allegedly training children to commit school shootings. (Taos County Sheriff’s Office)
It was also announced Monday that 3-year-old Abdul-ghani Wahhaj, who had been missing since December, allegedly died amid a ritualistic religious ceremony intended to “cast out demonic spirits,” Reuters reported.
“It was a religious ritual carried out… a ritual intended to cast out demonic spirits from Abdul-ghani Wahhaj,” Taos County Prosecutor John Lovelace said.
Public defenders argued the boy’s father was trying to heal the child by reading passages from the Quran but prosecutors claimed he was denying the boy medication. One of the children taken into custody claimed that the boy had died in February.
The children said they were told the boy would be resurrected as Jesus and guide them on which “corrupt institutions” to attack, NBC reported citing investigators.
Subhannah Wahhaj, Jany Leveille and Hujrah Wahhaj were arrested on earlier this month. (Taos County Sheriff’s Office)
The defendants were arrested and 11 children were taken into custody during a raid Aug. 4 on the compound near the Colorado state line.
Wahhaj and the others were seated with their public defenders in a Taos courtroom Monday as prosecutors presented books that were found at the compound, documents related to Wahhaj’s trip to Saudi Arabia and a handwritten notebook that appeared to be some kind of teaching manual. They also pointed to evidence that Wahhaj had taken a series of firearms courses while in Georgia.
Defense attorneys, meantime, argued that prosecutors were trying unjustly to paint their clients as armed militants. Public defenders also argued that the rifles and handguns found on the property were common guns that could be bought at retail stores and that their clients made no aggressive efforts to defend their compound.
Wahhaj is the son of a Brooklyn imam, also named Siraj Wahhaj, who was named by prosecutors as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the New York Post reported. The elder Wahhaj, who heads Masjid At-Taqwa mosque, was a character witness in the trial for Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, the notorious “blind sheikh” who was convicted in 1995 of plotting terror attacks in the U.S.
San Fran Nan and Crazy Maxine need to be hung around the necks of the DemocRats like an Albatross.
President Donald Trump taunted would-be Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on Friday evening, urging Democrats not to distance themselves from their unpopular House of Representatives caucus leader because she is a “wonderful person” who “should definitely be given a 4th chance.”
Donald J. Trump
Democrats, please do not distance yourselves from Nancy Pelosi. She is a wonderful person whose ideas & policies may be bad, but who should definitely be given a 4th chance. She is trying very hard & has every right to take down the Democrat Party if she has veered too far left!
Pelosi declared in May that she intended to return as Speaker if Democrats win the midterm elections. However, a poll released Thursday revealed that 73% of registered voters, and 49% of Democrats, want her party to dump her.
NBC News has counted 51 Democratic candidates for House seats who have promised not to vote for Pelosi as Speaker. And the San Francisco Chronicle reported Thursday that Pelosi has become Republicans’ favorite target in attack ads this election cycle.
Pelosi has led the Democratic Party caucus since 2002, and became the first female Speaker in 2007. However, she was criticized for centralizing power and tolerating corruption, and ultimately led her party to a crushing defeat in 2010 after pushing Obamacare through Congress.
Since then, the 78-year-old Pelosi has refused to yield to another leader, even though every Democrat who has defeated a Republican in a special election in this cycle has promised not to vote for her, and several Republicans have held onto their seats by tying her to their Democratic opponents.
“I think I’m worth the trouble,” Pelosi said earlier this year, according to the New York Times.
Crazy Maxine is another gift that keeps on giving to the GOP.
I have a little FYI for Crazy Maxine Trump supporters are going to stick with him.
Sunday on MSNBC’s “AM Joy,” Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) predicted “many” of the people who voted for President Donald Trump were going to “move away from him.”
On Trump saying she has a “low I.Q.,” Waters said, “I’m not going to be diverted in what I’m doing to bring attention to this lying con man. I going to continue to resist him. I going to fight and tell the truth about him. I’m not going to allow him to somehow intimidate me. I don’t care what he says about me. I know who I am. I know what I do. I am the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee of the United States House of Representatives.”
She continued, “I have been after him from the minute he revealed himself and defined himself when he was running for office, when he disrespected women and talked about grabbing women by their private parts. This is a lying, deplorable, divisive, dangerous man who does not deserve to be the president of the United States. He can say anything he wants to say about me, my friends and others like LeBron James or Don, any of these people. I know that he is trying to get us away from pointing out who he really is and defining him for what he is. I’m not going to stop. I’m in this fight.”
Waters said, “Listen, he is trying to frighten, you know, whites about Maxine Waters. Here is this black woman and she is controversial and she said things about me. She does not move away from her position on impeachment. He is trying to frighten them. It’s not going to work. In the final analysis, even some of the people who voted for him who will be hurt by the tariff policies and is going to be hurt by his tax policies are going to see who he is eventually. Many of them are going to move away from him. I know there is a lot of talk about his constituency and the people who are going to stand with him no matter what he does. It’s not enough of them. They are not going to win. We are going to win. Because we are on the right track for protecting our democracy, we are the real patriots who are standing up for what we believe this democracy is all about.”
She added, “He is not truthful. He is a hypocrite. I would wish that we could remove him from office and go about getting the kind of president that we can all be proud of. And if he is not impeached, if he cannot be impeached, 2020 is coming up. I believe that American people are going to do the right thing for our country, stand up for what is right and get rid of this man who is embarrassing us all.”
The paint job of a military vehicle serves a practical purpose. It can identify the side and unit via markings or patterns and it can be used as camouflage to make the vehicle harder to spot or target. Most paint schemes are decided by high-level military planners but today we are going to take a look at a more personal kind of decoration: the nose (and body) art on planes.
Custom schemes appeared alongside aerial combat in World War I and had a number of causes. First, a pilot’s plane was a very personal thing both for him and the ground crew servicing it; so allowing some customization had a positive effect on morale. This was also the important reason why bomber crews, who tended to suffer heavy casualties, were allowed to decorate their planes later in World War II. Interestingly, while some pilots were very keen on having their own paint jobs, the majority of Great War nose art was conceived and painted by the ground crews.
A second reason was the need for identification. Lacking radios, World War I pilots had to rely on visuals to identify their squadron mates and their leader, which squadron-wide insignia and personalized paint jobs made a lot easier. Identification was also important for getting kills credited, especially for the Germans. One of the criteria for accreditation was that another person had to have seen the kill. A pilot with a unique paint job was more likely to be confirmed by a comrade or somebody on the ground than one who looked just like everyone else.
The third reason was a prime example was Richthofen’s famous all-red triplane, which earned him the nickname “the Red Baron.” An extended version of such intimidation was Richthofen’s elite fighter wing JG1, which was named “the Flying Circus.” in part because every member flew a brightly painted plane.
Sometimes such fame could also backfire. World War II German ace Erich Hartmann had an abstract black tulip motif painted on the nose of his plane. This became so feared by Russian pilots on the Eastern Front that they often turned and fled when they spotted the design. At first this seemed like a good thing and Hartmann lent his plane to novice pilots who could use it in relative safety. However, he soon realized that the enemy fleeing meant he wouldn’t be able to get any more kills, so he had it removed.
Such bravado could also take a humorous turn. In World War II, German ace Ernst Udet had the words “Du doch nicht!!” painted on the tail of his plane. The phrase is hard to translate into English but it roughly means “Certainly not you!!” a message that whoever was behind him will not get to shoot him down.
In World War I, full-fuselage paintjobs were generally restricted to Germany, while French and British planes were limited to personal insignia, a few of which survived their owners. The black stork of French ace Georges Guynemer became the symbol of the Spanish Hispano-Suiza engineering company. An even better-known figure is the prancing horse of Italian ace Count Francesco Baracca. He adopted it from his family’s coat of arms and it survives to this day as the emblem for Ferrari.
One of the best-known pieces of nose art is the famous shark mouth. It was first spotted on both German and British planes in World War I, then appeared again in World War II, on both sides. It was made famous by the First American Volunteer Group, the Flying Tigers, who fought for Nationalist China against the Japanese. It survives to this day on such planes as the Fairchild Republic A-10 Warthog and it was even used on some ships and submarines.
The true golden age of nose art came with World War II. Though the Navy forbade its use and the British and the Canadians discouraged it, bombers of the USAAF more than picked up the slack. Nose art wasn’t only painted by talented ground crew; professional civilian artists were also hired to do the job.
Pin-up girls became a ubiquitous sight, with a peculiar detail: the further away a bomber unit was from headquarters or civilian eye, the racier the girls generally were. For example, the girls of Pacific bomber units were generally more scantily dressed and more provocatively posed than European ones.
Other popular themes, also already present in World War I, were depictions of luck through dice or cards, along with the Grim Reaper to intimidate the enemy. Cartoon figures were also frequent and the 834th Bombardment Squadron was consistently decorated with images of the zodiac.
A special subset of art is the recording of kills or missions. On Allied planes, swastikas and rising suns represented German and Japanese planes shot down. However, a much more complex, though not centralized system, was also developed which could relate the entire career of a plane. A great example is the reproduction of the mission marks of Johnnie Walker, a Lancaster bomber from No. 9 Squadron of the RAF.
In addition to the figure and the motto taken from the scotch brand, you can see ribbons for the Distinguished Flying Medals and Crosses awarded to the aircrew. The chevron indicates a year of active service, the three lines below it three wounds suffered during mission. Below those is a ribbon for the campaign medal awarded for serving in World War II, a swastika representing a downed enemy fighter and a searchlight that was shot out with machine guns during a low-level flight. Each bomb represents a bombing mission, most of them at night. The black bomb with a “D” stands for a day mission and the extra-large bomb for a Tallboy superheavy bomb dropped on the German battleship Tirpitz. Under the word “strong” a red star commemorates a visit to the Soviet Union.
You can learn more about the artistic and function decorations of military vehicles on our World War I and World War II historical tours to Europe and the Pacific.
A three judge panel in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled the restrictions of the California Unsafe Handgun Act (UHA) do not violate the Second Amendment. In circular reasoning, the opinion posits the UHA restrictions do not restrict behavior protected by the Second Amendment. They then apply the least restrictive Constitutional test to determine if the behavior is protected. Unsurprisingly, they find that it is not.
The key to the decision is the Ninth Circuit’s hostility to a broad reading of the Second Amendment. The Circuit, in it’s en banc rulings, such as Peruta, Tiexeira v. County of Alameda, and in a three judge panel, Silvester v. Harris, has consistently worked to restrict Second Amendment rights to the narrowest possible box. An analogous reading of the First Amendment would be that the State can restrict certain publications on the grounds that they might impact public safety. For example, that violent video games could be banned. The Supreme Court has rejected that argument for the First Amendment.
California requires that new models of handguns meet certain criteria, and be listed on a handgun roster, before they may be offered for sale in the state. Two provisions require that a handgun have a chamber load indicator and a magazine detachment mechanism, both of which are designed to limit accidental firearm discharges. The third provision, adopted to aid law enforcement, requires new handguns to stamp microscopically the handgun’s make, model, and serial number onto each fired shell casing. Plaintiffs asserted that these three provisions have narrowed their ability to buy firearms in California, in violation of the Second Amendment, and that the handgun roster scheme imposes irrational exceptions, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The panel held that it did not need to reach the question of whether the challenged provisions fell within the scope of the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms because, even assuming coverage, the provisions passed constitutional muster. Applying intermediate scrutiny, the panel held that the Act only regulates commercial sales, not possession, and does so in a way that does not impose a substantial burden on purchasers. The panel held that the requirements for a chamber load indicator and a magazine detachment mechanism reasonably fit with California’s interest in public safety. The panel further held that California had met its burden of showing that the microstamping requirement was reasonably tailored to address the substantial problem of untraceable bullets at crime scenes and the value of a reasonable means of identification. The panel rejected plaintiffs’ claim that they have a constitutional right to purchase a particular handgun and their claim that the provisions violate the Equal Protection Clause.
The Court’s using of the words “intermediate scrutiny” belies the fact that, in the case of the Second Amendment, “intermediate scrutiny” has collapsed to mere rational basis scrutiny. Rational Basis scrutiny is so close to no scrutiny, there is effectively no difference.
Under “intermediate scrutiny” in a Second Amendment case at the Ninth Circuit, to pass Constitutional muster, the State only has to claim some vague governmental interest. “Public Safety” is a favorite. It can be made to fit nearly every circumstance.
Then the State need only claim there is some relationship between the interest and the law in question. The State does not have to show the law actually accomplishes any increase in public safety; nor does the state have to show the law performs better than other, less restrictive, remedies.
In effect, in the Ninth Circuit and in other circuits hostile to a broad interpretation of Second Amendment rights, intermediate scrutiny is used as a sophistry to restrict the Second Amendment to narrower and narrower meanings.
The problem cannot be solved at the current Ninth Circuit. There are too many judges on the Circuit actively hostile to Second Amendment rights.
Given the political situation in California, it is unlikely the California legislature will correct the situation. Citizens in California who resent every greater restrictions on exercise of their Second Amendment rights have one judicial remedy left: appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court may or may not accept the case. The Supreme Court has been unwilling to accept appeals from the Ninth Circuit on Second Amendment grounds. I cannot recall a single case the Supreme Court has accepted from the Ninth Circuit on a Second Amendment challenge.
When and if President Trump’s nominee, Judge Kavanaugh, becomes Justice Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court, the makeup of the Supreme Court may be changed enough so the Court will accept Second Amendment appeals from the Ninth Circuit.
That remains to be seen.
An alternate, and plausible solution would be for the Congress of the United States to pass legislation to enforce Second Amendment rights against the states. A national reciprocity act, as has broad support in the Congress, would go a long way to restore Second Amendment rights to Californians.
Congress could remove the current prohibition on interstate handgun sales, if it so wished.
Chicago can’t pay its bills now just imagine how hard it will be to provide the money for the universal basic income payments.
Officials in Chicago want to test the waters of offering a universal basic income.
A majority of city council members are telling Mayor Rahm Emanuel to form a task force to look into Universal Basic Income programs, which is essentially a periodic check from the government with no strings attached.
The City Council wants to explore a program that would send at least $500 a month to 1,000 Chicago families. The same families also would get Earned Income Tax Credit money on a monthly basis rather than once a year.
47th Ward Ald. Ameya Pawar’s resolution said the money would “help working people and families become more resilient to day-to-day financial emergencies, are able to make rent, cover childcare, and put food on the table.”
At his speech for the annual Nelson Mandela lecture in Johannesburg last month, former President Barack Obama endorsed the idea of a UBI as more jobs are automated.
“We’re going to have to be more imaginative,” he said. “We’re going to have to consider new ways of thinking about these problems like a universal income, a review of our work week and how we train our young people.”
Other U.S. cities are looking at the idea as well. Stockton, Cal., is set to be the first to actually implement a UBI pilot program in 2019. This comes as Ontario’s leadership announced that the province will do away with a program that gives a UBI to people with low-paying jobs.
The issue that Manhattan Institute senior fellow Oren Cass and others have with the idea is that a pilot program won’t give any indication of how a large-scale hand-out would work.
“Choosing a random group of people and telling them they get a bunch of money, we call that a lottery,” he said.
Cass said the fear that robots will take everyone’s job is an unrealized fear.
“Robots are not taking jobs,” he said. “All of the economic data suggests that jobs are being destroyed by automation slower than ever.”
Chicago is not flush with cash. As of 2016, the city had $40 billion in bills, according to Truth in Accounting.
“It’s obviously bizarre that a city that’s already essentially bankrupt to be piloting a program that mails a bunch of money to everybody,” Cass said.
As of 2017, the city had more than 2.1 million residents older than 18. Giving each a $500 check every month would cost about $12.6 billion annually. Chicago’s annual budget for fiscal 2018 was $8.6 billion.
The donations to the DNC must not be coming in fast enough.
The Democratic National Committee will hold a vote to repeal a ban on fossil fuel money only two months after it was first enacted.
In June, the DNC executive committee approved a resolution banning contributions from political action committees (PACs) that represent fossil fuel companies. Forwarded by Christine Pelosi, the daughter of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.), was an expansion of an earlier, broader resolution that banned contributions from companies opposed to the DNC mission.
“Fossil fuel corporations are drowning our democracy in a tidal wave of dark oily money; they have deceived the public about the impacts of climate change, fought the growth of clean renewable energy, and corrupted our political system,” the resolution read.
But HuffPostreported Friday that the DNC was already considering lifting the ban, with a vote scheduled Friday afternoon.
Introduced by DNC chairman Tom Perez, the resolution frames the decision as a means to empower workers in the fossil fuel industry, saying the DNC will accept “the longstanding and generous contributions of workers, including those in energy and related industries, who organize and donate to Democratic candidates individually or through their unions’ or employers’ political action committees.”
During the Barack Obama administration, the DNC had a ban on all corporate PAC donations. That ban was lifted during the 2016 election by the then-DNC chairwoman, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D., Fla.), during which time the energy sector donated $2.6 million. An attempt to reinstate the ban in 2017 was voted down, despite efforts from progressive DNC member and Congressman Keith Ellison (D., Minn.).
When you’re a kid, you’re apt to believe anything your friend tells you. Especially when it involves candy. Maybe that’s why they call lollipops “suckers.” Sugar occupied about 25% of our thoughts in our single-digit years, along with cartoons, toys and, okay, yeah, a little bit of math.
We bought a lot of hoaxes as children, but at least the candy ones were rather harmless. These playground rumors and legends were passed around to such an extent, they became universal. They have lasted for generations.
But we’re here to burst your bubble. None of the following six urban legends are true. We will admit we believed all of them at some point. Did you?
1. Life Savers have a hole to prevent choking.
The round mints were introduced shortly before World War I. Many have wondered about the name, which led to a rumor that creator Clarence Crane came up with the idea after his daughter choked on a mint. The hole in the middle of Life Savers would supposedly allow air to pass through the esophagus if one got lodged in the wrong pipe. Well, that’s poppycock. Crane simply called them Life Savers because they looked like the life preservers found on a boat.
Image: LifeSavers / iStock
2. Bubble Yum was made with spider eggs.
When Life Savers launched Bubble Yum in 1975, it was the first soft bubble gum to hit the market. People wondered how could gum get so soft? Well, some pranksters answered that question with “spider eggs.” The legend became so widespread, that Life Savers had to take out an ad in newspapers, including The New York Times, to reassure folks that their candy was not made of arachnid eggs.
3. It takes seven years to digest a piece of gum.
Let’s stick with gum for a moment. At some point, you were likely warned not to swallow your chewing gum. Because the stuff would treat your innards like the bottom of a school desk and hang out in your gut for seven years. Sorry, but human’s do not have the digestive system of the whale in Pinocchio. While much of gum is indigestible, it, er, passes. In a matter of days, not years.
4. Twinkies can keep for years.
Speaking of longevity, here’s another phony bologna myth about supposedly “indestructible” food. People have said Twinkies can last for years, if not decades, on store shelves. “They” claimed the preservatives and artificial ingredients would indefinitely shield the yellow sponge cakes from decay. Well, don’t stock your shelter with the Hostess treats just yet. The original Twinkies had a shelf-life of just 26 days. When they were brought back from extinction recently, that shelf-life was upped to 45 days. Not 45 years, alas.
5. Pop Rocks and Coke killed the Life Cereal kid.
Popular commercial kid Mikey sure liked his Life. The gossip mill said that the actor grew a bit older and experimented with mixing Pop Rocks and Coke. The mixture of the candy and the cola in the stomach caused an explosion, killing him. This one is rather silly, and yet it stuck around for years.
6. Finding a star on a Tootsie Pop wrapper earned you a free lollipop.
You remember the images of the Tootsie Pop wrappers. A little boy wearing a Native American headdress notches an arrow in his bow. He aims at a five-point star. Everyone told you the same thing — if you found a star on your wrapper, you were entitled to free candy. Hogwash. In fact, the lie became so pervasive that in 1982 Tootsie Roll began mailing kids a story instead, “Legend of the Indian Wrapper.” That being said, there is some truth to this myth. Local stores would occasionally take pity on hopeful children and gift them a free Tootsie Pop in exchange for a star wrapper. While some mom & pops honor it, the company itself does not. It just goes to show you, if you spread an urban legend enough, it just might come true.
Little Danny DeVito turns out to be stupider than he looks.
Actor Danny DeVito falsely claimed in an interview with The Daily Beast published on Saturday that the Trump administration is keeping illegal aliens in “concentration camps.”
“Oh, it’s horrible. They are prison camps,” he said when asked about the situation at the southern border, where illegal aliens are being held in shelters for processing. “It’s awful. They’re little concentration camps. I try to do my part, which is to support progressive candidates who are trying to change the government, and try to be as vocal as I can about it.”
DeVito went on to criticize the “clowns” within Democratic Party, but admitted that having previously supported Bernie Sanders in the 2016 presidential primary he is now excited about the prospects of the far-left New York congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
“This guy [Trump] is a clown. The Democrats are clowns, too. I don’t put too much faith in the Democratic Party,” the Twins star said.
Well, I’m really excited about Ocasio-Cortez. That was great, man. It was very exciting to see that. The thing about it is, Crowley was in there for ten years, and she beat the machine—and we know that because of what happened with Bernie. So now we have Stacey Abrams, who could be the first African-American governor of Georgia. Not only young people but all people are starting to get hip to the fact that we have to take care of healthcare, education and the environment.
The 72-year-old actor, who has starred in major productions such as Matilda and It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, has never made a secret of his political interests. In January 2016, he declared that Hollywood was run by a “bunch of racists” because of the lack of black nominees at the Oscars, before adding that “the entire country is a racist country.”
As well as his support for Bernie Sanders, DeVito has also endorsed the far-left British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn. On Friday, The Daily Mailrevealed that Corbyn laid a wreath for the Palestinian terrorists behind the massacre of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics as his party faces an internal dispute over deep-rooted allegations of anti-semitism.