Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for May 31st, 2010

Shane McClellan, a 16-year-old from Seattle, Washington, says he was beaten and tortured for hours by two black men because he’s white.

McClellan was walking home from a birthday party at a friend’s house last Tuesday when two men on a staircase hollered to him for a light. He walked over to oblige, and they knocked him to the ground, started kicking him, and beating him with his studded belt saying, “This is for what your people did to our people.”

“They targeted me for being white, and they made it very clear thats [sic] why they were assaulting me.” —Shane McClellan

Then they shoved McClellan’s face into a hole while holding a gun against his head and urinated on him and poured beer over him.

“Put a gun to the back of his head and told him if he said anything they were going to blow his head off while they sat there and burned him with cigarettes on the back of the neck.”—Tim McClellan, Shane’s father.

Move along now … there’s nothing here … just a couple of frustrated black guys detaining the closest white person and slapping him for their mental health

I.M. Kane


 

W. Seattle teen beaten bloody in possible hate crime

By Shomari Stone and Joel Moreno

A 16-year-old boy from West Seattle says he was held hostage and beaten for hours, all because of the color of his skin.

Shane McClellan says two men kicked and whipped him at gunpoint – and told him they singled him out because he is white.

Tim McClellan, Shane’s father, says he barely recognized his son after the brutal assault.

“I didn’t know if he was alive or dead,” Tim McClellan said.

The incident happened as Shane McClellan was walking home from a birthday party at a friend’s house Tuesday around 2 a.m.

Shane says two men called to him from the top of a staircase near the intersection of 14th Avenue SW and SW Holden Street. The men asked for a light, and when Shane walked over to oblige, they knocked him to the ground and started kicking him.

The two men knocked the frightened teen around on the staircase, making racially charged remarks.

“They started bringing up the past – like slavery – being like, white people did this,” Shane said in an exclusive interview with KOMO News reporter Shomari Stone.

The attackers stripped off McClellan’s belt and started whipping his back.

“They said, ‘This is for what your people did to our people.’ They were like whipping me with my belt, my studded belt,” Shane recounts.

One of the men held a gun against the back of his head and burned his neck with cigarettes.

At one point they shoved McClellan’s face into a hole with the gun against his head. They also urinated on him and poured beer over him.

“What he told me, when they were beating him with the belt, they were saying, ‘I don’t like white people,'” says Shane’s father, Tim McClellan.

Shane recalls, “They’re like, ‘Aw, white boy, what are you doing? You can’t hang out this late. What are you doing around here?’ They’re like, ‘White boy has no belonging – being out here at 2 a.m.'”

“They targeted me for being white, and they made it very clear thats why they were assaulting me,” Shane says.

The boy told police that one of his attackers appeared to be black and the other Asian or Pacific Islander.

The victim’s father says this was nothing short of hours of torture.

“Put a gun to the back of his head and told him if he said anything they were going to blow his head off while they sat there and burned him with cigarettes on the back of the neck,” he says.

The two assailants held the victim on the ground for some time, and Shane eventually passed out.

When he regained consciousness, the attackers were gone. They had taken his money, a coat and an MP3 player.

Shane waved down a passing car for help and met his family at the hospital.

Seattle police have referred the case to their Bias Crimes Unit for review as a possible hate crime.

Detectives told the family they are working on a photo montage of possible suspects – and will see if the victim is able to identify his attackers from the line-up.

Shane is now out of the hospital and recovering at home.

But he gets chills when he looks at the photos that were taken of him right after the attack.

“Gets me shaken up every time I see it,” he says. “I don’t know, I just get vibes overall from seeing those pictures.”

He says he has learned not to wander through the neighborhood at 2 in the morning – and he hopes his attackers are caught and charged with a hate crime.

Read Full Post »

Defense Minister Ehud Barak said … the organizers of the Gaza-bound protest flotilla were solely responsible for the outcome of the fatal IDF raid earlier in the day.

IDF soldiers encountered passengers armed with knives, bats and metal pipes. The violence escalated when activists allegedly stole two handguns from IDF soldiers and opened fire and IDF soldiers returned fire to protect themselves.

Israeli Channel 2 (4:45 video) shows the “humanitarians and peace activists” on board the Mavi Marmara attacking IDF soldiers with iron rods and knifes.

[The flotilla] “was an armada of hate and violence. Their intent was violent, their methods were violent and their results were unfortunately violent. The organizers on the ship did not heed the calls of our forces this morning to peacefully follow them …”—Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon

The Foundation for Human Rights, Liberties, and Humanitarian Relief (IHH), a charitable Turkish front group that provides support to Islamic militant groups, sponsored the “humanitarians and peace activists” aboard the Mavi Marmara, the only ship on which violence took place, among those in the Gaza flotilla.

This video shows the “humanitarians and peace activists” chanting, “Intifada, intifada, intifada! Khaybar, Khaybar, ” [Mohammed crushed the Jews of Khaybar and killed their leaders] as the main ship in the IHH flotilla prepares to leave port Saturday in Istanbul, Turkey, for Gaza.

Gemiler İstanbul’dan Gazze’ye Uğurlandı 1 3:23 Video

I.M. Kane


 

Barak: Flotilla organizers to blame for 15 dead activists  

By Tovah Lazaroff, Yaakov Lappin and JPost.Com Sta

Defense Minister Ehud Barak said in a press conference on Monday that while he was sorry for lives lost, the organizers of the Gaza-bound protest flotilla were solely responsible for the outcome of the fatal IDF raid earlier in the day. Fifteen activists were killed and dozens wounded in the violent clashes.

Barak said that the soldiers tried to disperse the activists aboard the ship peacefully but were forced to open fire to protect themselves.

He called the flotilla a provocation, specifically called the IHH, an Islamic aid organization, “extremist supporters of terror.”

The defense minister also called on Arab and Palestinian leaders not to let this “provocation by irresponsible people” ruin the progress made in proximity peace talks.

Netanyahu supports operation

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu,speaking in Canada where he is currently on an official visit, said he ‘fully supported the IDF operation’.

Ashkenazi: Soldiers acted in self defense

IDF Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi said Monday that the violence aboard the Mavi Marmara, one of the ships of the Gaza-bound protest flotilla, was instigated by those aboard the ships and that soldiers who opened fire were defending themselves.

Ashkenazi noted that the Mavi Marmara, the only ship on which violence took place, was different than the other five ships of the flotilla. He said that five ships carried humanitarians and peace activists but the Mavi Marmara was sponsored by the extremist organization the IHH and those aboard acted in “extreme violence.”

Navy chief praises soldiers ‘bravery’

Israeli Navy commander Vice-Admiral Eliezer Marom said Monday that IDF soldiers that raided Mavi Marmara acted with “perseverance and bravery.”

Marom said that the soldiers lives were in danger and that they fired their weapons in self defense. He added that given the situation, many more than ten people could have been killed if the soldiers had not acted with the proper sensitivity.

Ayalon: Flotilla was ‘an armada of hate and violence’

Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon said that the flotilla of ships “was an armada of hate and violence.”

Speaking at a Jerusalem press conference on Monday morning. “It was a premeditated and outrageous provocation” and its organizers had ties to global Jihad, al Qaida and Hamas, said Ayalon.

“Their intent was violent, their methods were violent and their results were unfortunately violent,” Ayalon said.

“Israel regrets the loss of life and did everything it could to avoid this outcome,” Ayalon stressed, adding that Israel had offered to transport the humanitarian cargo on board the ship to Gaza.

“The organizers on the ship did not heed the calls of our forces this morning to peacefully follow them and bring a peaceful closure to this event,” said Ayalon, iterating that the successful arrival of the flotilla in Gaza would have created “a corridor of arms smuggling.”

The Foreign Ministry has convened a noon meeting of all ambassadors in the country. The Turkish ambassador was requested to arrive half-an-hour early for a private conversation.

Political echelons, security and police hurried to respond on Monday to deadly clashes that took place earlier in the day between Navy commandos and members of a Turkish flotilla bound for Gaza.

Livni offers help with diplomatic crisis

Kadima chair Tzipi Livni called Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and Defense Minister Ehud Barak to offer her help in dealing with the diplomatic crisis Israel was likely to face in the aftermath of the violent incident.

Livni’s party mate Kadima Council head Haim Ramon attacked Netanyahu’s government for mishandling the Gaza flotilla affair.

In Canada, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was getting constant updates on the clashes, a foreign ministry spokesman told Army Radio. Netanyahu is in Canada as part of a trip that has him slated to meet Tuesday with US President Barack Obama.

The IDF and police were preparing for the possibility of demonstrations and violence among Palestinians as well as Israeli-Arabs on Monday, amid reports of up to 15 dead.

Northern District police chief Cmdr. Shimon Koren completed an evaluation of the security situation in the North on Monday morning, and ordered a high state of alert and instructed police officers to be ready “for the possibility of any scenario or attempt to cause a disturbance.”

Also Monday morning, Israeli NGO Gush Shalom was set to demonstrate in support of the “Free Gaza” convoy, according to an email circulated by the group.

The demonstrators intend to converge outside the center in Ashdod where the detained international aid activists are supposed to be held.

Meanwhile, Public Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch cancelled a planned appearance at an anti-violence march in Lod scheduled for Monday. The march will go ahead as planned.

Read Full Post »

“Whereas Barack Obama and his party invoke “fairness” as a license to take property from productive people and transfer it to the unproductive, Christie is inviting voters to consider the unfairness of our current arrangement in which government employees enjoy better salaries and benefits than private-sector employees.”—Mona Charen

Christie points out that a retired New Jersey teacher will pay $62,000 towards a pension and nothing for full family medical, dental, and vision coverage over an entire career. New Jersey taxpayers will pay that teacher $1.4 million in pension benefits plus $215,000 in health care benefits over a lifetime.

  • Is it “fair” that New Jersey taxpayers pay all of the health insurance costs of teachers as well as their families from the time they are hired until they die?
  • Is it “fair” that New Jersey teachers have a better, richer health plan than state workers and don’t pay anything for it?

New Jersey’s conservative hero should be heralded as a Republican champion and the poster boy to oust Soros’ Party from power in November instead of the Democrat-lite Scott Brown, a milquetoast Massachusetts leftist.

Before November, Americans need to realize the difference between dire circumstances and politics as usual to vote accordingly.

I.M. Kane


 

Can Chris Christie Fix New Jersey?

By Mona Charen

At a New Jersey town meeting, Gov. Chris Christie, the newest YouTube star for the limited government set, was reproached by an unhappy teacher. The governor, facing a budget shortfall of $11 billion, has proposed, among other economies, a one-year salary freeze for New Jersey teachers. Her voice raised in anger (that’s a normal speaking voice in my home state), Rita Wilson protested that she should be paid $83,000, the only reasonable compensation in light of her “education and experience.” Christie’s reply got an ovation: “Well, you know what? Then you don’t have to do it.”

Meet the newest conservative hero: The Trenton Truth-Teller!

That exchange with the teacher, along with other greatest hits available on YouTube of the blunt yet friendly governor’s first five months, highlight a political opportunity for Republicans.

First, the problem: How can smaller-government Republicans win elections when more and more Americans are receiving government benefits while fewer and fewer are paying taxes? In 2010, 47 percent of Americans paid no income taxes at all. Among those who do pay taxes, most pay comparatively little. Both parties have agreed to make the tax code more steeply progressive in the past two decades, to the point where the top 20 percent of earners, those with incomes above $100,000, pay 70 percent of all taxes. Accordingly, the tax issue has lost some of its political purchase.

But as Christie is demonstrating, voters are open to a new fairness argument. Whereas Barack Obama and his party invoke “fairness” as a license to take property from productive people and transfer it to the unproductive, Christie is inviting voters to consider the unfairness of our current arrangement in which government employees enjoy better salaries and benefits than private-sector employees. Economic historian John Steele Gordon points out that, “Federal workers now earn, in wages and benefits, about twice what their private-sector equivalents get paid. State workers often have Cadillac health plans and retirement benefits far above the private sector average: 80 percent of public-sector workers have pension benefits, only 50 percent in the private sector. Many can retire at age 50.”

Christie spelled it out:

A retired teacher paid $62,000 towards her pension and nothing — yes, nothing — for full family medical, dental, and vision coverage over her entire career. What will we pay her? $1.4 million in pension benefits and another $215,000 in health care benefit premiums over her lifetime. Is it ‘fair’ for all of us and our children to have to pay for this excess? (Is it) fair to have New Jersey taxpayers foot the bill for 100 percent of the health insurance costs of teachers and their families from the day they are hired until the day they die? Is it fair that teachers have a better, richer health plan than even state workers and pay absolutely nothing for it?

New Jersey has been overspending for decades — when the state had the funds and when it didn’t. “Even as we speak,” Christie told the town hall crowd, “it continues in New Jersey at the local level, despite the economic downturn. Consider this fact: In 2009, we lost 121,000 private-sector jobs in New Jersey, while the municipal and school board payrolls grew by 11,300 jobs. The private sector shrank … while the government grew. That’s exactly backwards from how it’s supposed to be.”

That, from a northeast governor! New Jersey’s unfunded pension liability is officially estimated at $32 billion. But Andrew Biggs of the American Enterprise Institute warns that this figure is based on flawed measures. The true number, he says, is closer to $145 billion. The state of New Jersey, in other words, is a little Greece.

Christie’s proposed economies — in addition to the one-year salary freeze, he wants teachers and administrators to contribute 1.5 percent of their salaries to the cost of their medical coverage — have provoked thousands of teachers to take to the streets, Athens style. They’ve started a Facebook page that excoriates the governor to the delight of its 68,000 fans. And the NJEA has spent $1.8 million on an anti-Christie ad campaign since January.

Still, when the question was submitted to voters in April, 60 percent backed Christie’s reforms. His popularity ratings are in dispute (Rasmussen pegs him at 53 percent approval, whereas a Fairleigh Dickenson University poll has him at 43 percent), but he is gaining traction in a state with a 700,000 Democratic registration advantage.

This is one to watch.

Read Full Post »

“[If there's a catastrophic oil spill] where would you rather have one: in the Gulf of Mexico, upon which thousands depend for their livelihood, or in the Arctic, where there are practically no people? All spills seriously damage wildlife. That’s a given. But why have we pushed the drilling from the barren to the populated, from the remote wilderness to a center of fishing, shipping, tourism and recreation?”—Charles Krauthammer

Question:   So why then is BP drilling in 5,000 feet of water in the Gulf where the risks are greater and the impact more severe?

Answer:   Because environmentalists have been successful in banning drilling on land in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for the last 30 years and keeping the Pacific and nearly all the Atlantic coast off-limits.

Any questions?  … Class dismissed!

I.M. Kane 


 

A disaster with many fathers

By Charles Krauthammer

Here’s my question: Why were we drilling in 5,000 feet of water in the first place?

Many reasons, but this one goes unmentioned: Environmental chic has driven us out there. As production from the shallower Gulf of Mexico wells declines, we go deep (1,000 feet and more) and ultra deep (5,000 feet and more), in part because environmentalists have succeeded in rendering the Pacific and nearly all the Atlantic coast off-limits to oil production. (President Obama’s tentative, selective opening of some Atlantic and offshore Alaska sites is now dead.) And of course, in the safest of all places, on land, we’ve had a 30-year ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

So we go deep, ultra deep — to such a technological frontier that no precedent exists for the April 20 blowout in the Gulf of Mexico.

There will always be catastrophic oil spills. You make them as rare as humanly possible, but where would you rather have one: in the Gulf of Mexico, upon which thousands depend for their livelihood, or in the Arctic, where there are practically no people? All spills seriously damage wildlife. That’s a given. But why have we pushed the drilling from the barren to the populated, from the remote wilderness to a center of fishing, shipping, tourism and recreation?

Not that the environmentalists are the only ones to blame. Not by far. But it is odd that they’ve escaped any mention at all.

The other culprits are pretty obvious. It starts with BP, which seems not only to have had an amazing string of perfect-storm engineering lapses but no contingencies to deal with a catastrophic system failure.

However, the railing against BP for its performance since the accident is harder to understand. I attribute no virtue to BP, just self-interest. What possible interest can it have to do anything but cap the well as quickly as possible? Every day that oil is spilled means millions more in losses, cleanup and restitution.

Federal officials who rage against BP would like to deflect attention from their own role in this disaster. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, whose department’s laxity in environmental permitting and safety oversight renders it among the many bearing responsibility, expresses outrage at BP’s inability to stop the leak, and even threatens to “push them out of the way.”

“To replace them with what?” asked the estimable, admirably candid Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, the national incident commander. No one has the assets and expertise of BP. The federal government can fight wars, conduct a census and hand out billions in earmarks, but it has not a clue how to cap a one-mile-deep out-of-control oil well.

Obama didn’t help much with his finger-pointing Rose Garden speech in which he denounced finger-pointing, then proceeded to blame everyone but himself. Even the grace note of admitting some federal responsibility turned sour when he reflexively added that these problems have been going on “for a decade or more” — translation: Bush did it — while, in contrast, his own interior secretary had worked diligently to solve the problem “from the day he took office.”

Really? Why hadn’t we heard a thing about this? What about the September 2009 letter from Obama’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration accusing Interior’s Minerals Management Service of understating the “risk and impacts” of a major oil spill? When you get a blowout 15 months into your administration, and your own Interior Department had given BP a “categorical” environmental exemption in April 2009, the buck stops.

In the end, speeches will make no difference. If BP can cap the well in time to prevent an absolute calamity in the gulf, the president will escape politically. If it doesn’t — if the gusher isn’t stopped before the relief wells are completed in August — it will become Obama’s Katrina.

That will be unfair, because Obama is no more responsible for the damage caused by this than Bush was for the damage caused by Katrina. But that’s the nature of American politics and its presidential cult of personality: We expect our presidents to play Superman. Helplessness, however undeniable, is no defense.

Moreover, Obama has never been overly modest about his own powers. Two years ago next week, he declared that history will mark his ascent to the presidency as the moment when “our planet began to heal” and “the rise of the oceans began to slow.”

Well, when you anoint yourself King Canute, you mustn’t be surprised when your subjects expect you to command the tides.

Read Full Post »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.