A California school district has put teacher Gregory Salcido on administrative leave after a video went viral in which he can be heard calling U.S. troops the “lowest of the low” and a “bunch of dumb shits,” according to a new report.
Salcido, who is also a city councilman in Pico Rivera, was also removed from the council’s committees after local officials condemned the comments, which were made to a group of high school students, a CBS News affiliate also reported.
The moves come amid a public firestorm over Salcido’s anti-military rant that prompted the Pentagon to respond on Monday. Phones have been ringing off the hook at the Pico Rivera high school and city hall with demands for him to resign, according to the Whittier Daily News, which first reported the administrative leave decision.
The Pentagon’s top outreach official yesterday called the comments “very uninformed” and said it was an example of why the military needs to better educate the public about its role.
The unidentified student who recorded Salcido told Fox News radio that the teacher had called him out in front of the class for wanting to join the military.
This bastard is a dumb POS.
“I told him it’s a family tradition; it’s something I’ve been wanting to do as a kid,” the student told the radio show. “And he ended up saying, ‘So if it was a family tradition to beat women, would you continue it?’”
The student then sat down and started recording with his cell phone to show his parents.
But supporters, who appeared to be loyal students, popped up on Twitter using the hashtag #JusticeForSauce and called for Salcido to be reinstated.
In the video posted on YouTube, Salcido can be heard repeatedly warning his students not to join the military and criticizing the quality of its troops.
“We all have night-vision goggles, all that kind of stuff, and we can’t freakin’ control these dudes wearing freakin’ robes and chanclas [flip-flops] because we have a bunch of dumb shits over there,” Salcido said. “Think about the people you know who are over there, your freakin’ stupid uncle Louie, or whatever, they’re dumb shits. They’re not like high-level thinkers, they’re not academic people, they’re not intellectual people. They’re the freakin’ lowest of the low.”
He also told his high school students that signing up to serve is similar to prostitution.
“I don’t understand why we let the freakin’ military guys come over here and recruit you at school. We don’t have pimps come into school. Anyone interested in being a ho [whore]? And they’re going to freakin’ lie to you,” Salcido said.
At one point, he addresses a student who is wearing a Marine Corps shirt.
“Why are you wearing that Marines shirt? I thought you were going to college,” he asked the student.
The student tells him, “I am, I just had the shirt.” But Salcido warns him not to wear it to school.
“Why would you wear something that you can’t freakin’ support? Don’t ever wear that again, don’t ever wear it here,” Salcido said.
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) is slated to deliver a televised address immediately following President Trump’s State of the Union speech on Tuesday.
Waters, one of Trump’s most vocal critics, will appear on “Angela Rye’s State of the Union” on BET, according to BuzzFeed News.
Rye, a Democratic strategist and commentator, is set to produce quarterly news programs for the network focused on issues affecting black Americans.
I can’t wait to hear her.
A spokesperson for BET told BuzzFeed that activists and other elected officials will join Waters to discuss the first year of the Trump presidency following his speech, and will discuss “building black politics and the value of engagement across today’s socio-political landscape.”
Waters, who is one of several Democratic lawmakers who have said they will not attend Trump’s speech on Tuesday, has consistently criticized Trump throughout his presidency, repeatedly calling for his impeachment.
She is a communist
While Waters will be delivering an address Tuesday night after Trump’s speech, Democratic rising star Rep. Joseph Kennedy (D-Mass.) is set to give the party’s official response to the State of the Union, party officials announced this week. That speech is also televised.
A group of anti-Trump celebrities, including Mark Ruffalo and Whoopi Goldberg, have also announced plans to hold a “People’s State of the Union” on Monday night.
Liberals are like Nazi Scum. They allow illegals to have sanctuary cities but want you in jail for a straw.
A group of California legislators wants to punish waiters who offer “unsolicited” plastic straws to customers with a six-month jail sentence and a $1,000 fine.
Democratic California Assembly Majority Floor Leader Ian Calderon has introduced a bill that could put waiters in jail for offering their patrons a plastic straw without them asking for one.
“This bill would prohibit a food facility, as specified, where food may be consumed on the premises from providing single-use plastic straws to consumers unless requested by the consumer,” the bill reads. “By creating a new crime and imposing additional enforcement duties on local health agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.”
Yes this looks real dangerous.
“Existing law requires, except as otherwise provided, a person who violates any provision of the code to be guilty of a misdemeanor with each offense punishable by a fine of not less than $25 or more than $1,000, or by imprisonment in the county jail for a term not exceeding 6 months, or by both,” it states.
Calderon estimated that Americans use 500 million plastic straws per day. A report on the bill from Reason revealed that the estimate came from a 2011 survey conducted by then 9-year-old Milo Cress. Cress calculated the number by calling straw manufacturers.
In a press release, Calderon explained that the bill is motivated by a push to create greater awareness about the effects of plastic straws on the environment.
This Sissy Drank From A Straw.
“We need to create awareness around the issue of one-time use plastic straws and its detrimental effects on our landfills, waterways, and oceans,” Calderon said in the release. “AB 1884 is not ban on plastic straws. It is a small step towards curbing our reliance on these convenience products, which will hopefully contribute to a change in consumer attitudes and usage.”
After intense scrutiny, Calderon issued a series of tweets that contradict with the text of his bill. Calderon claims now that the bill would not make serving plastic straws a crime. “I’d like to clarify that #AB1884 (Straws Upon Request) is (a) NOT a ban; (b) should it become law, it will NOT make it a crime for servers to provide plastic straws,” he wrote. “My intention is simply to raise awareness about the detrimental effects of plastic straws on our environment.”
I’d like to clarify that #AB1884 (Straws Upon Request) is (a) NOT a ban; (b) should it become law, it will NOT make it a crime for servers to provide plastic straws. My intention is simply to raise awareness about the detrimental effects of plastic straws on our environment.
This conflicts with the text of your bill. “By creating a new crime…” Why do you need a bill to raise awareness? Go make a TV spot, create a website, get Buzzfeed to do a write-up. Legislation is a last resort. https://twitter.com/IanCalderon/status/956691670522724352 …
Two new studies, one from The Sentencing Project and one from the libertarian Cato Institute, reported that the percentage of immigrants committing crimes is lower than that of United States citizens. However, the underlying methodology used in each was critically flawed.
It is possible that legal immigrants commit crimes at a rate lower than U.S. citizens and that they are incarcerated at a lower rate than U.S. citizens. After all, legal immigrants are well vetted, and if they have criminal records in their countries of origin they are generally ineligible for admission to American.
The same cannot be said for illegal aliens because virtually all adult, illegal aliens commit felonies in order to procure the documents they need to get jobs, to drive and to obtain other benefits that are restricted to U.S. citizens.
The vast majority of illegal aliens use fraudulently obtained Social Security numbers. They possess fake drivers’ licenses, phony “green cards,” fraudulent birth certificates and any other documents that U.S. citizens and legal residents have. In addition, they falsify I-9 forms under penalty of perjury. Thus, the average illegal alien routinely commits multiple felonies –forgery, Social Security fraud, identity theft, and perjury.
This criminal activity is routinely swept under the rug in order to protect the myth of the law abiding illegal alien. However, when pushed, even the strongest supporters of illegal aliens are forced to acknowledge that the vast majority of illegal aliens commit multiple felonies. In fact, the Social Security Administration and New York Times report that approximately 75 percent of illegal aliens have fraudulently obtained Social Security numbers which is a felony. The ACLU accepts this figure and uses it to show that illegal aliens pay payroll taxes.
Furthermore, the Los Angeles Times reports that up to 8 million of 11.1 million (72 percent) illegal aliens commit job-related felonies. La Raza says that illegal aliens contribute $15 billion annually in Social Security payments through payroll taxes [by using illegally obtained Social Security numbers – felony].
Mexican-born American journalist Jorge Ramos admits that many illegal aliens use “fake” documents (a felony).
Even the president of the California State Senate admitted this month that “half” of his family “would be eligible for deportation under [President Trump’s] executive order, because if they got a false Social Security card, if they got a false identification, if they got a false driver’s license prior to us passing AB60, if they got a false green card, and anyone who has family members, you know, who are undocumented knows that almost entirely everybody has secured some sort of false identification (felonies).”
Neither the study from Cato or The Sentencing Project acknowledged these realities. And as a result, they tremendously understated the incidence of illegal alien criminal activity. Even the strongest supporters of illegal aliens acknowledge that 75 percent of illegal aliens routinely commit felonies of the aforementioned variety.
The Cato Institute further limited its study to the incarceration rate for legal immigrants, illegal aliens and U.S. citizens. But it was forced to acknowledge that the numbers of incarcerated illegal aliens are not readily available because “local and state governments do not record whether the prisoner is an illegal immigrant.” Cato was therefore forced to “use common statistical methods to identify illegal immigrant prisoners by excluding incarcerated respondents who have characteristics that they are unlikely to have. In other words, we can identify likely illegal immigrants by looking at prisoners with individual characteristics that are highly correlated with being an illegal immigrant.”
The Cato study consequently excluded felonies routinely committed by the vast majority of adult, illegal aliens as long as they were not incarcerated, resulting in a significant understatement of the overall incidence of crimes committed by illegal aliens.
The study conducted by The Sentencing Project similarly focused on the incidence of crimes committed by foreign born individuals. According to the study, “Major national datasets lack information on respondents’ immigration legal status, and this information has not been systematically collected by law enforcement agencies or state departments of corrections.”
That study’s data was just as questionable as that used in the Cato study. And its conclusion, “A century of research has shown immigrants [including illegal aliens] do not threaten public safety and … are less likely to commit crime than native-born citizens,” was patently false.
Democrats often assert as fact that immigrants are less likely to commit crime than U.S. citizens. That argument is totally wrong, because the vast majority of adult illegal aliens are committing felonies by virtue of being active in America.
The myth of the law abiding illegal alien is just that: a myth.
These idiots want to control everyone on Social Media.
There is a growing drumbeat for tech regulation coming from the establishment, the latest example being Salesforce.com CEO Mark Benioff’s call, made at Davos, for the world to “wake up to the threat from tech giants.” But what kind of regulation are they looking for?
Benioff compared the tech giants to tobacco companies, suggesting that their product is “addictive” and in some cases “bad for people” before alluding to the “manipulation” of elections by “outside forces.”
“I think you’d do it exactly the same way you’d regulate the cigarette industry. You know, here’s a product, cigarettes, they’re addictive, they’re not good for you, maybe there’s all kinds of different forces getting you to do different things …”
The Salesforce.com CEO’s comments echo the narrative of the left, which is that “fake news,” spread through social media and financed by Russia, put Donald Trump in the White House. Aside from the inflated claims and Red Scare-level establishment panic, the subtext of the argument is that users of social media platforms can’t be trusted to choose what information they receive. Unless social media companies limit access to information, they will be manipulated by hostile forces (and many on the left consider Breitbart News and the alternative media to be synonymous with “fake news.”)
It’s a narrative that says the free flow of information is dangerous, because voters are stupid and easily misinformed. It’s a narrative hostile to the idea of human rationality, one that says free speech and the free marketplace of ideas are flawed, because human beings — given the chance — will choose bad speech and bad ideas. Instead, governments and Silicon Valley gatekeepers should act as enlightened overlords, deciding what information the mentally feeble users receive. Rupert Murdoch expressed this opinion last week, when he said Facebook and other social media platforms should pay reputable new sources to atone for the crime of spreading “scurrilous news sources,” referring to the alternative media.
The right wants regulation too, but of a very different kind. Multiple right-wing commentators have called for Google and Facebook, whose market share eclipses old 20th-century monopolies like Standard Oil and the Bell System, to be regulated like utilities.
The impetus is the threat of political bias from companies that now have more influence over the flow of news and information than any other company in history. Facebook, through a recent change to its news feed algorithm, threatens to undercut the success of new media outlets. Google, by tweaking its search results, could swing an election anywhere in the world. Twitter has been the birthplace of entire political movements.
Yet all of these companies are subject to less regulation on viewpoint neutrality than a small-time radio or TV broadcast station, which are subject to the equal time rule (not to be confused with the Fairness Doctrine.) This states that broadcast stations must give equal and equivalent airtime to political candidates who request it. Give a Democrat five minutes, and you have to give his opponent five minutes too.
Unlike Benioff’s suggestion, the equal time rule weakens rather than strengthens the power of information gatekeepers, limiting their ability to choose what the public sees. Instead of one “unbiased” source who claims to offer the whole truth without bias (arguably an impossible feat for anyone, let alone a mainstream news company), the public will see two competing sets of partisan information, and decide for themselves which one rings true. It’s regulation that affirms, rather than denigrates, the intelligence of voters.
Tech companies, despite having political influence that vastly exceed a single T.V or radio station, are subject to no such rule, which means they can kick off or censor political candidates at will — as they’ve done to Roger Stone and Rep. Marsha Blackburn.
In addition to the utility argument, which would subject the tech giants to similar rules on content neutrality that were previously applied to ISPs under Title II regulations, conservatives have also suggested tying social media company’s legal immunity to viewpoint neutrality. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act exempts social media companies from legal liability for posts made by their users — without this protection, there is no way the tech giants could have grown to the size that they have achieved.
The legislation was written with the justification that the Internet offers a forum for “true diversity of political discourse,” and the “user control over what information is received by individuals” must be maximized. Conservatives want to tie the immunity more closely to its justification; if social media companies fail to deliver political diversity (say, by banning their prominent conservative users, as Twitter has done), then they lose the protection of Section 230.
Facebook, by insisting on ranking news content via an algorithm that favors so-called “broadly trusted” sources, instead of letting users decide what they see, is also violating the spirit of Section 230. They aren’t maximizing user control over the information they receive. As with political diversity, this could again be strengthened so that tech companies that meddle too much in their users’ ability to choose their own information sources without giving them a chance to opt-out should also lose the protections of section 230.
This, unlike the “solutions” suggested by the left, is again a type of regulation based on an optimistic view of users’ intelligence. The subtext is that users can be trusted to choose their own information sources, without the need to be protected from nefarious influences by Facebook, Google, and Twitter.
The elites at Davos, terrified of the unwashed masses, don’t think users can be trusted. They’re terrified of the choices being made by ordinary people, from the sites they read to the candidates they vote for, and they desperately want to regain control. Unable to countenance that their worldview might be flawed, they’ve convinced themselves that voters are stupid, and led astray by “fake news.”
Heck, even if they’re right and voters are morons, that doesn’t imply the elites are geniuses by process of elimination. They might be even bigger morons! The reason we have free speech isn’t that everyone is perfectly rational, but because no-one is, and therefore no-one should be allowed to go unchallenged. That’s why restoring their ability to control the flow of information, something now being loudly demanded by the left, must be opposed at all costs. Censorship is caused by people who believe that everyone except themselves are idiots.
Why don’t he interview Peter Strzok, Obama, or Hillary?
Special Counsel Robert Mueller is seeking an interview with President Donald Trump about his decisions to dismiss FBI Director James Comey and National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.
The Washington Post reports that Trump’s team has crafted negotiating terms for his interview with Mueller’s investigative team that could be presented to Mueller as soon as next week, according to two sources familiar with the special counsel’s plans.
According to the report, Mueller’s interest in those firings indicates his Russia probe is focusing on possible efforts by Trump to obstruct the investigation:
The president’s legal team hopes to provide Trump’s testimony in a hybrid form — answering some questions in a face-to-face interview and others in a written statement.
Those discussions come amid signs of stepped-up activity by the special counsel. Last week, Attorney General Jeff Sessions was interviewed for several hours by Mueller’s investigators, according to Justice Department officials.
A spokesman for the special counsel’s office, Peter Carr, declined to comment. A White House spokesman referred questions to the president’s legal team. Two attorneys for Trump, Jay Sekulow and John Dowd, declined to comment
Within the past two weeks, the special counsel’s office has indicated to the White House that the two central subjects that investigators wish to discuss with the president are the departures of Flynn and Comey and the events surrounding their firings.
Trump has been unclear on whether he would meet with Mueller, saying Jan. 10, “we’ll see what happens.” He has repeatedly said there was “no collusion” between his campaign and the Kremlin, and he has reportedly told his lawyers he has no worries about being interviewed since he has nothing to hide.
Trump fired Comey in May of 2017, and Comey has testified about previous conversations with Trump where he said the president asked him about laying off investigating Flynn.
Mueller interviewed Comey last year, the New York Times reported, and Comey was asked about the memos he kept about conversations with Trump while he was FBI director.
Trump fired Flynn in February after revelations that he misled Vice President Mike Pence and other administration officials about discussions with Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the U.S.
Flynn pleaded guilty in December to making false statements to the FBI about his communications with Kislyak. Trump then tweeted he fired Flynn “because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI,” even though the White House had before only cited his lying to Pence as the reason for his ouster.
Mueller is also supposed to be interested in Trump’s prior pressuring of Sessions to quit. Trump reportedly berated Sessions and demanded that he resign for recusing himself from the Russia investigation and the resulting appointment of Mueller.
It was reported that Sessions offered his resignation, but White House advisers convinced Trump that Sessions’ departure would only add to the administration’s troubles.
