I guess he really does not like working the morning shift at Taco Bell.
Taco Bell employee is facing arrest after allegedly throwing a “hot burrito” at his manager because he was “upset over having to work the morning shift,” South Carolina police report.
Spartanburg cops were called to a Taco Bell Monday afternoon after employee Christopher Dalton got into a dispute with Patricia Keeley, his manager.
Keeley told an officer that Dalton was upset over his work schedule and “was getting into several verbal disputes with other coworkers.” Keeley said that when she told Dalton to “stop being a crybaby,” he exploded.
Dalton allegedly “slung” a burrito at Keeley, who told police that “the melted cheese got all over her left arm and went all down her left side and leg.” Keeley added that the airborne burrito “made a mess of the entire kitchen as well, getting cheese over all the appliances.”
Before storming out of the fast food restaurant (pictured below), Dalton “took off his headset and broke it on his knee and threw it on the ground, causing it to break into several pieces.”
After taking photos of “Keeley and the mess made,” police filed for a warrant charging Dalton, a Spartanburg resident, with misdemeanor assault.
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.
Thirty-nine-year-old Alarcon-Nunez, an Uber driver living in the sanctuary state of California illegally (he is from Mexico), is alleged to have raped four college students between the ages of 19 and 22 while they were intoxicated. The total of ten criminal charges include forcible rape, first degree burglary (he is accused of robbing his victims), and rape of an intoxicated victim.
Alarcon-Nunez was already deported once, from New Mexico back in 2005.
The alleged crimes occurred between December 17, 2017, and January 14 of this year. The suspect, who also goes by the name Bruno Diaz, was arrested at his home in Santa Maria, California on January 17.
According to police, Alarcon-Nunez used his job as an Uber driver to specifically target parties where young, intoxicated women would solicit a ride from him. After the alleged rape, he would steal their money, laptops, jewelry, and phones.
Using a Venemo account and the name “Brush Bat,” he would still get paid for the rides while concealing his identity from his alleged victims.
Apparently Alarcon-Nunez was able to obtain work as an Uber driver due to a California drivers license legally issued to him in 2015.
California grants illegal aliens drivers licenses and, beginning on April 1, will register illegal aliens to vote.
Democrats, who have full control of every governmental institution in California, have been bitterly fighting against the Trump administration’s push to enforce federal immigration laws, even going so far as to threaten to prosecute anyone in California who aids federal authorities in enforcing the law.
Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” host Chuck Todd questioned Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) about his claim President Donald Trump did not call some counties “shitholes.”
Thus, Todd accused Cotton of calling Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) “liars.”
Partial transcript as follows:
TODD: I’ve got to ask you about the infamous meeting of ten days ago. Did the president use a vulgarity?
COTTON: Chuck, I’m not going to get into every word that was or was not said. I will say, as many people have said, Kirstjen Nielsen under oath, a lot of strong language was used. I think it is fair to say there was cursing behind closed doors.
TODD: What I don’t understand is in the first 48 hours if there was a controversy about whether it was said, you implied it wasn’t said at all. you didn’t — and it made it seem as if you were accusing Dick Durbin of being a liar and Lindsey Graham of being a liar.
COTTON: As far as I know Lindsey Graham hasn’t spoken on the record about this, Chuck. Here’s the point that Senator Durbin represented that President Trump used repeatedly, repeatedly used vile, racist, lays if the language. That’s not the case. If he was, why didn’t he slam anything and slam his paper up and get up and walk out. What Trump and others in that meeting expressed was astonishment that Senator Durbin and Senator Graham would bring a proposal that won’t move us towards a skill-based system but towards a system where we’re rewarding people based on where they come from, not who they are. the point of immigration reform is to judge people as individuals based on who they are and what they can contribute to society, not who they are and who they are related to.
TODD: But to go back to the issue of trust on both sides, You let it sort of hang out there that Dick Durbin and Lindsey Graham were misleading the public completely and only now are you admitting, well, yeah, there was some vulgarity used. That isn’t what you said a week ago or ten days ago at the time. Why?
COTTON: Chuck, I’ve never denied that there wasn’t strong language used in the meeting by lots of people. You know, I’m not a shrinking violet about these things. I’ve been in a command post overseas and I’ve heard salty language before. What I’m saying it’s a gross mess representation.
TODD: Were you offended? Lindsey Graham appears to be offended. He said his piece. Were you offended by what the president said.
COTTON: I was not offended and nobody in the meeting expressed their offense.
TODD: Lindsey Graham didn’t make his peace?
COTTON: Lindsey Graham made a case about immigration policies, not about what the president was saying.
TODD: He said he said his peace about what American ideals are about.
COTTON: Yes, he did and that’s part of immigration policy because immigration policy is a part of who we are, who we’re going to bring to this country to become new American citizens.
Members of the House on Thursday said they viewed a “shocking” classified memo allegedly detailing abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) by senior Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigations officials in relation to the investigation of the Trump campaign and called for it to be declassified and available to the public immediately.
“It’s troubling. It is shocking,” Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) told Fox News. “Part of me wishes that I didn’t read it because I don’t want to believe that those kinds of things could be happening in this country that I call home and love so much.”
Lock These Bastards Up Also.
“The facts contained in this memo are jaw-dropping and demand full transparency. There is no higher priority than the release of this information to preserve our democracy,” saidRep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), a member of the Judiciary Committee, which oversees the DOJ and the FBI.
Go to Jail’ Over Intel Memo
Another Judiciary Committee member, Rep. Steve King (R-IA), called what he saw in the memo “sickening” and said it was “worse than Watergate.”
I have read the memo. The sickening reality has set in. I no longer hold out hope there is an innocent explanation for the information the public has seen. I have long said it is worse than Watergate. It was #neverTrump & #alwaysHillary. #releasethememo
Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-FL), another Judiciary Committee member, called the memo “deeply troubling” and said it raises questions about the “Obama DOJ and Comey FBI.”
“The classified report compiled by House Intelligence is deeply troubling and raises serious questions about the upper echelon of the Obama DOJ and Comey FBI as it relates to the so-called collusion investigation,” he tweeted.
The classified report compiled by House Intelligence is deeply troubling and raises serious questions about the upper echelon of the Obama DOJ and Comey FBI as it relates to the so-called collusion investigation.
“You think about, ‘is this happening in America or is this the KGB?’ That’s how alarming it is,” Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA) told Fox News.
No Damn get out of jail free cards.
“It is so alarming the American people have to see this,” Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, also said to network.
The viewing of the memo came after all Republican members of the House intelligence committee, whose investigators compiled the classified memo, voted Thursday to make it available to all House members. Every Democrat on the committee voted against it.
According to Gaetz, the memo’s contents could lead to the firing — and perhaps even jailing — of senior DOJ and FBI officials.
“I think that this will not end just with firings. I believe there are people who will go to jail,” he said on Fox News’ Hannity.
He said what he saw in the memo also explains why Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Judiciary Subcommittee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) recently referred the Fusion GPS dossier author Christopher Steele for a criminal investigation.
“I think there will be criminal implications here,” Gaetz added.
The memo also reportedly contains information about the dossier put together by Fusion GPS that alleged Trump and members of his team colluded with Russians in the 2016 election, according to a report by investigative journalist Sara Carter.
It was revealed in October that the dossier was funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Despite being a political document, the dossier was reportedly part of the evidence FBI officials used to apply for and obtain a warrant through a secret FISA court to spy on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.
Page told Breitbart News in a statement: “After over a year of inciting discord and threats of violence across America, it’s encouraging that the individuals in Washington responsible for these efforts to undermine our great democracy may be held accountable soon.”
Breitbart News reported on March 3, 2017, that the Obama administration took steps to undermine Trump’s presidential campaign using “police state” tactics, including spying on the Trump campaign. That report is widely believed to have led to President Trump’s tweet that later accused the Obama administration of wiretapping Trump Tower.
Members of the public and Congress are now calling for the document to be declassified and released to the public.
Immediately #ReleaseTheMemo#FISAMemo & ALL relevant material sourced in it. Every American needs to know the truth! We wouldn’t be revealing any sources & methods that we shouldn’t; only feds’ reliance on bad sources & methods.
DeSantis said the House intelligence committee, pursuant to House rules, should vote to make the report publicly available as soon as possible.
“While the report is classified as Top Secret, I believe the select committee should, pursuant to House rules, vote to make the report publicly available as soon as possible. This is a matter of national significance and the American people deserve the truth,” he said.
“Rule X of the House Rules allows the select committee to publicly disclose any information in its possession after a determination by the select committee that the public interest would be served by such disclosure.”
According to House Rules, if the House intelligence committee votes to make the report public, President Trump would have five days to issue an objection. If he objected, it would take a vote on the House floor.
