Breitbart Feed

NBA Draft News and Notes: Could Alex Len go #1?

Wed, 19 Jun 2013 11:00:00 GMT

Next Thursday, NBA bottom dwellers will finally get the chance to add some fresh talent to their roster and the teams that fell out of the postseason earlier than desired will have the chance to find a missing piece of the puzzle. Leading up to the draft there is plenty of buzz, and here is the latest being reported from around the league:

The Cavs look like they will select Kentucky big man Nerlens Noel with the #1 overall pick, however, there are definitely shopping the pick. DeMarcus Cousins, who averaged 17.1 ppg and 9.9 rpg last season for the Sacramento Kings, is the biggest name being mentioned in connection with a possible trade. This draft is considered one of the worst at the top in a number of years.
If Cleveland cannot trade the pick, their prime option outside of Noel could be Otto Porter. The former Georgetown catalyst is unlikely to slip past the top three with each of those franchises being high on the 6'9" Hoya. In fact, Porter is declining to work out with any team outside of those three, convinced that his status amongst that group is secure.
A wilder scenario being reported regarding Cleveland is that Maryland's Alex Len could be the target. There is no doubt that the seven footer is likely the better fit to go alongside Tristan Thompson in the front court and compliment back court scorers Kyrie Irving and Dion Waiters. Although most see Len as a lottery pick, speculation of the offensively limited prospect at #1 shows the weakness of this draft and would be a real surprise from the Cavs.
At #2, the Orlando Magic are also reportedly actively looking for a trading partner with some speculating the Thunder, in need of a guard like Ben McLemore, could be a possibility. If the Magic keep the pick, Porter, Noel, McLemore, or even Trey Burke, would be the top targets.
Victor Oladipo, perhaps one of the fastest rising players leading up to the draft, has refused to work out for the Wizards. The current back court tandem of John Wall and Bradley Beal as well as the general lack of optimism about Washington's chances for improvement, are likely the reasons why the former Indiana star wants to steer clear of the franchise.
The biggest college star in this year's draft, Michigan's Trey Burke, is hearing he could land anywhere from 2-6 with the Magic and the New Orleans Pelicans being the most likely destinations. A stellar tournament and solid workouts greatly improved his draft status.
Former Pittsburgh center Steven Adams has shot up draft boards despite averaging only 7.2 ppg and 6.3 rpg this past season. Perhaps his ceiling, yet still a realistic spot, could be #5 to the Phoenix Suns who are coming off one of the worst seasons in franchise history.
The Sacramento Kings, who hired Pete D'Alessandro from the Denver Nuggets as their new GM Monday, remain a mystery, but some reports are beginning to link UNLV's Anthony Bennett as an ideal option for the franchise, particularly if they opt to keep Cousins.
A modest crop of international prospects took a hit Monday when Croatian Dario Saric, seen by many as the top foreign prospect in the draft, withdrew his name to wait another year. He had been linked to the Mavericks.
Chris Bosh is widely being viewed as on the trading block although teams would certainly have to package picks in order to get him from the Heat in this lackluster draft class.

IRS About to Pay $70M in Union-Mandated Bonuses

Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:06:00 GMT

Despite a directive from the Obama administration, the Internal Revenue Service will pay out $70M in bonuses, according to Senator Chuck Grassley. "Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa says his office has learned that the IRS is executing an agreement with the employees' union on Wednesday to pay the bonuses."

The Senator said that those bonuses should have been canceled based on a directive from the White House Budget Office.

"The IRS always claims to be short on resources," Grassley said. "But it appears to have $70 million for union bonuses. And it appears to be making an extra effort to give the bonuses despite opportunities to renegotiate with the union and federal instruction to cease discretionary bonuses during sequestration."

The Office of Management and Budget released a statement asserting, "IRS is under a legal obligation to comply with its collective bargaining agreement, which specifies the terms by which awards are paid to bargaining-unit employees."

Grassley sent a letter on Wednesday to Danny Werfel, Acting IRS director, stating that despite being notified by the IRS to reclaim $75 million in bonuses, "his office has learned that the IRS never followed up on the notice. Instead, Grassley said, the IRS negotiated a new agreement with the bargaining unit to pay about $70 million in employee bonuses."

The information about the bonuses came from a "person with knowledge of IRS budgetary procedures."

The Senator went on to write, "While the IRS may claim that these bonuses are legally required under the original bargaining unit agreement, that claim would allegedly be inaccurate," Grassley wrote. "In fact, the original agreement allows for the re-appropriation of such award funding in the event of budgetary shortfall."

Live Stream Tea Party Patriots Rally Beginning 11:30 a.m. ET

Wed, 19 Jun 2013 09:54:00 GMT

State Dept Confirms Taliban Concessions Within Hours of Fatal Attack on U.S. Troops

Wed, 19 Jun 2013 09:49:00 GMT

State Department Spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters on Tuesday that talks between the United States and the Taliban for a "political solution" to the security of Afghanistan will result in concessions from both sides. Within hours of that statement, the Taliban took credit for an attack in Afghanistan that resulted in the death of four Americans.

The Associated Press reported Wednesday morning that the Taliban have "claimed responsibility" for an attack on an U.S. air base in Afghanistan that resulted in the death of four Americans. This attack was facilitated after the Taliban announced the opening of offices in Qatar for the purpose of negotiations for a "political solution" in the Afghan region.

The State Department seems to have put no pre-conditions for the Taliban to come to the negotiation table and suggests that major concessions could be made to the terrorist group in an effort to bring security and stability to the region without the need for U.S. presence.

State Department Spokeswoman Jen Psaki left the possibility open with reporters on Tuesday that upcoming "negotiations" with the Taliban could result in the delisting from the United States' "Most Wanted" terrorists list in order to facilitate stability in the Afghan region. When asked about the Taliban's insistence for leaders to be removed from the "Most Wanted" list, Psaki said, "There need to be negotiations, there need to be discussions. The U.S. will have some, Afghans will have some, but I’m not going to get ahead of what the end results will be."

QUESTION: And several Taliban leaders are on a most-wanted list. Is the U.S. moving ahead in delisting them? That has been one of the conditions for the Taliban.

MS. PSAKI: Again, this is just the first step in the process. There is a journey to go here. So it’s significant because we are taking a step in the process, but there need to be negotiations, there need to be discussions. The U.S. will have some, Afghans will have some, but I’m not going to get ahead of what the end results will be.

Psaki also told reporters that it was no a requirement for the Taliban to renounce Al Qaeda or terrorist activities before coming to the negotiating table to discuss transitions in the Afghan region. "This is not a pre-condition," Psaki confirmed.

QUESTION: And when you look at their statement, there is that line, “will not allow anyone to use the Afghan land to threaten anyone.” So that’s the line that you’re talking about.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: That’s not talking directly about the – about al-Qaida, but ultimately the U.S. wants them to very directly cut their links publicly with al-Qaida, correct?
MS. PSAKI: That is the end goal, yes.
QUESTION: So this is enough?
MS. PSAKI: This is an important statement. This allows us to get the process started. And as you know, there are some end goals in this process.
QUESTION: So just to be clear on Jill’s point, the Taliban are not required to disown, disavow, or disassociate themselves publicly with al-Qaida to have --
MS. PSAKI: That is a part of the end goal of the process.
QUESTION: Right. But to begin the process, to talk with them, they don’t have to do that? This is not a precondition for them participating?
MS. PSAKI: Correct.

It appears that the Taliban are not even required to support the Afghan constitution before coming to the negotiation table for a "political solution" concerning the region. When asked if the Taliban were required to declare up front equal treatment of women and minorities would be an essential cornerstone of the region, Psaki claimed that it was a non-negotiable component of the upcoming agreement. However, the Taliban have yet to agree to those terms.

As Associated Press reporter Matt Lee pointed out, since agreement of equality was not a pre-condition, it was a negotiable clause. Psaki eventually became irritated with the back and forth and claimed that there was a "long process" ahead of the talks to stabilize the region.

It's also worth noting that the Psaki accepted the premise of Lee's assertion that the United States does not consider Afghanistan a "military victory."

QUESTION: Where in their statement does it talk about respecting the rights of women in the Afghan constitution?
MS. PSAKI: Well, that is respecting the constitution, which is an end goal of the process, is – has that included in it.
QUESTION: So that’s up for negotiation?
MS. PSAKI: No, it certainly is not. That’s something that we feel is vital.
QUESTION: Well, then, if that – but if it’s not – I don’t get it. If they haven’t agreed to respect the constitution, then it must mean that it’s up for negotiation.
MS. PSAKI: It’s not up for negotiation. That is the end goal of the process. This is just a beginning. The opening of the office is just a beginning of the process.
QUESTION: Okay. But, I mean, they have to come to that conclusion.
MS. PSAKI: Correct.
QUESTION: Well, then I don’t get why you’re so happy because they – I mean, they’re --
MS. PSAKI: I don’t – don’t indicate my --
QUESTION: Well, the Secretary said – I mean, “It’s good news, we’re very pleased at what’s taken place,” and I’m not sure I get – if they haven’t agreed to do the things that you want them to do, except for these – this one statement with the two parts of it – and – but that those are still the end goal of the – I’m not – it must mean that these are things that are up for negotiation. Otherwise --
MS. PSAKI: I don’t believe – they’re not up for negotiation. Those are – those were defined as the end goal of the process.
QUESTION: All right. So you’re hoping that the Afghans will convince the Taliban, their brethren, to respect the constitution and the rights of minorities and women in their conversations, which means that that is up for negotiation?
MS. PSAKI: It’s not up for negotiation. That is the end goal of the process of reconciliation. This is a first step in the process. I’m not overestimating or overstating what it means, but certainly, a first step is one farther step than we had just a few days ago.
[...]
QUESTION: I guess I’m just not clear on this whole negotiation, but you have a set endpoint. This is not a surrender, clearly. You don’t believe that there’s a – clearly a military victory here, so it’s not like Germany or Japan after the Second World War. So there is, in fact, a negotiation that has to go on.
But if you’ve already decided on what the end goal, the terms – obviously the end – the overreaching end goal is to have Afghanistan at peace and not a threat to anybody around it. But you – up and to that point there has to be negotiation to make it worthwhile for the Taliban. And if you don’t – if you say that – if you’ve already set out what the end goal is in terms of them having to respect the existing constitution exactly the way it’s written with the protections for minorities and women, then I don’t get how it’s a negotiation. Either you think that these are points that can be negotiated, that the Taliban have legitimate concerns that have merit and can be addressed in a negotiation, or you don’t.
MS. PSAKI: Well, our outcome and what we would like to see here, as you mentioned, has not been secret. We’ve laid this out very clearly, publicly and privately.
QUESTION: Well, I’m not saying that it is secret. I just don’t understand what they’re negotiating.
MS. PSAKI: Well, they’re negotiating how to reconcile their efforts on both sides.
QUESTION: Yeah. But the Taliban come in and the Afghans say you have to respect the constitution and every single thing that it means, and the Taliban say well, we don’t like this part or we don’t like this part. And that – but you’re saying that can’t be negotiated. So I --
MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, clearly there are stakes from both sides that are prompting them to move back to the process here. I’m sure they will all have lots to say about that.
QUESTION: All right.
MS. PSAKI: But we feel it’s an important step forward.

State Dept. Unsure if Taliban Still Considered Terrorists

Wed, 19 Jun 2013 09:32:00 GMT

State Department Spokeswoman Jen Psaki said she was "not sure" whether the Taliban is designated as a terrorist organization when a reporter pressed her on negotiations between the United States and the Islamist group during Tuesday's press briefing.

These talks come on the heels of the Taliban opening offices in Qatar, allegedly to aid the Afghan government's progress toward stability without a U.S. presence.

The international coalition recently gave primary responsibility for Afghanistan's security to the country's army and police. Now the Taliban have opened offices in Qatar to facilitate talks for a political solution.

From the Associated Press:

In a major breakthrough, the Taliban and the U.S. announced Tuesday that they will hold formal talks on finding a political solution to ending nearly 12 years of war in Afghanistan but President Barack Obama warned the process won't be quick or easy.

The comments came on a day in which Afghan forces took the lead from the U.S.-led NATO coalition for security nationwide, marking a turning point for American and NATO military forces, which will now move entirely into a supporting role. It also opened the way for the full withdrawal of most foreign troops in 18 months

After months of delays, the Taliban opened a political office in the Qatari capital of Doha, paving the way for talks to begin. The decision was a reversal of months of failed efforts to start peace talks while Taliban militants intensified a campaign targeting urban centers and government installations.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has halted these talks with the United States "to protest the way the Americans are reaching out to the Taliban in efforts to find a political solution to the war." Karzai expressed his disappointment with the U.S. government for holding direct talks with the Taliban before bringing Afghan officials into the negotiations.

When reminded that the Taliban was once labeled a terrorist organization by the U.S., Psaki said that she was "not sure how they’re defined at this particular moment."

QUESTION: I’m going to carry on with what Matt’s question is about – negotiating, the legality of it. I mean, in the eyes of the U.S., is Taliban a terrorist group?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I’m not sure how they’re defined at this particular moment.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. PSAKI: But the important thing here is that we’ve long said that moving toward a reconciliation process, of which they are a key part – the President has said this, the Secretary has said this – is an important part of moving towards a more stable Afghanistan. That’s why we support these efforts. That’s why we’ve been so engaged, why the Secretary has been so engaged, at every level of the government.

Psaki made this statement within hours of a Taliban attack that killed four American soldiers stationed in Afghanistan.

From the Associated Press:

The Taliban claimed responsibility Wednesday for an attack in Afghanistan that killed four American troops just hours after the insurgent group announced it would hold talks with the U.S. on finding a political solution to ending the nearly 12-year war in the country.

The deadly attack underscores the challenges ahead in trying to end the violence roiling Afghanistan through peace negotiations in Qatar with militants still fighting on the ground.

Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid said the insurgents fired two rockets into the Bagram Air Base outside the Afghan capital, Kabul, late on Tuesday. American officials confirmed the base had come under attack by indirect fire -- likely a mortar or rocket -- and that four U.S. troops were killed.

Putin Refuses to Go Obama's Way on Syria

Wed, 19 Jun 2013 09:26:00 GMT

President Obama could not come to an agreement with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Syria when the two leaders met on June 17.

According to The Hill, Obama emerged from the meeting saying he and Putin had a "very useful conversation" but hold "different perspectives."

Obama said he does not want the disagreement on Syria to taint other parts of the U.S./Russian relations--particularly with it comes to "cooperation on counterterrorism, arms control, and other issues."

To that end, he and Putin released joint statements after the meeting, pledging to work together on counterterrorism and to launch a "bilateral working group" on information and communications technologies "in the context of international security." This group will "meet on a regular basis to consult on issues of mutual interest."

Obama also announced plans to sign a new nuclear non-proliferation treaty with Russia. Said Obama:

This, I think, is an example of the kind of constructive, cooperative, relationship that moves us out of a Cold War mindset into the realm where, by working together, we not only increase security and prosperity for the Russian and American people, but we also lead the world to a better place.

Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter @AWRHawkins

U.S. to Provide Almost $1 Billion to Syrian Rebels

Wed, 19 Jun 2013 09:17:00 GMT

State Department Spokeswoman Jen Psaki joined her White House colleague Jay Carney in announcing $300 million in additional aid to the Syrian rebels on Tuesday. National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes told reporters that this would make the total financial "humanitarian" aid from the United States to the Syrian rebels to over $800 million.

Psaki told reporters that the Department was working with "Congress" to facilitate the new commitment by the United States and that the new financial aid would not be on the ground in Syria "overnight."

QUESTION: Jen, can you update us on the delivery of aid that was pledged in April, or anything since then (inaudible)?
MS. PSAKI: I did this a little bit yesterday, but let me provide you an update. So just as a repeat, 127 has been delivered; 123 is in the process of congressional notification.
QUESTION: Right.
MS. PSAKI: That can take some time, and components of it are being notified at different times. And then Congress typically has some time to review what has been proposed, and the specifics of the breakdown of the 123 is all being discussed as part of that process. So that is underway right now.
QUESTION: And the new aid that was announced yesterday?
MS. PSAKI: I don't have – the $300 million in humanitarian aid?
QUESTION: The 300, yeah.
MS. PSAKI: That, of course, will go through a process of working with Congress, but also determining the best way to get it on the ground. So it doesn't usually happen overnight, but we try to do it as quickly as possible.

Ben Rhodes was the first to announce the additional aid to the rebels while traveling with the President during a press briefing overseas. Rhodes said the aid includes "food, medical equipment, water, shelter for people both within Syria and in neighboring countries." Although aid has had trouble getting to Syrians in the past, the White House and the State Department seem confident that the latest pledged aid will arrive with little resistance.

MR. RHODES: I should add just one thing, since I meant to do it in the opening. Tonight in the dinner discussion, the President will also indicate, consistent with a call that has gone out for the United Nations for additional humanitarian assistance into Syria, that the U.S. will be providing over $300 million in additional humanitarian assistance for the Syrian people. And that includes food, medical equipment, water, shelter for people both within Syria and in neighboring countries. And a significant amount of that funding will go inside of Syria -- a little less than half -- and then a significant amount will go to some of the countries bearing the burden of these refugee populations -- Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Egypt as well. Because the international community has an obligation, even as we deal with the political situation and the security situation, to address the humanitarian situation.

So I mention that -- I meant to in the opening.

Q Is that new money, Ben, or is that money that's --

MR. RHODES: Yes, that's new money. So that will bring -- we'll have a fact sheet on that, but that will bring the total assistance that we provided on the humanitarian side to over $800 million.

Rhodes later said that it is the goal of the G8 Summit to give a total of $1.5 billion to Syrian rebels and "surrounding countries."

Baby Snatcher Suspect Arrested

Wed, 19 Jun 2013 09:08:39 GMT

World View: Taliban Prepare for Return of 'Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan'

Wed, 19 Jun 2013 09:07:00 GMT

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

U.S. announces direct talks with Afghan Taliban to end war
Taliban prepares for return of 'Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan'
U.S. dropped some pre-conditions for talks with Taliban
Afghan insurgents kill U.S. soldiers at Bagram base

U.S. announces direct talks with Afghan Taliban to end war

Taliban press conference in Doha on Tuesday (Reuters)

The White House announced Tuesday that U.S. representatives will open direct talks with Taliban representatives within the next few days, aimed at finding a political solution to the Afghan war. At the same time, Taliban representatives opened up a Taliban office in Doha, Qatar, where the talks with the U.S. will take place. According to a U.S. official:

"I think the US will have its first formal meeting with the Taliban, and the first meeting with the Taliban for several years, in a couple of days in Doha.
I would expect that to be followed up within days by a meeting between the Taliban and the High Peace Council, which is the structure that President [Hamid] Karzai has set up for talks of this nature. ...

We'll tell them what we want to talk about and they'll tell us what they want to talk about and we'll both adjourn and consult on next steps, and then have another meeting in a week or two later."

U.S. officials said that this is "an important first step," with no guarantee of success. As everyone knows, the U.S. is committed to withdrawing its forces from Afghanistan in 2014. VOA and AFP

Taliban prepares for return of 'Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan'

As U.S. officials were announcing the start of talks with the Taliban, the Taliban themselves were giving a press conference in Doha, Qatar, at the "Political Office of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan." This was the name of the country Afghanistan when the Taliban ruled it, prior to September 11, 2001. According to the Taliban announcement:

"It is well known to all that the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan has been waging jihad and striving to put an end to the occupation and form an independent Islamic system. To reach this goal, it has utilized every lawful means.
The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan simultaneously follows both military and political options and aims which are limited to Afghanistan. The Islamic Emirate neither wants to pose harms to other countries from its soil nor will allow anyone to pose a threat to the security of countries from the soil of Afghanistan.

The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan wants good relations with all countries of the world, including the neighboring countries on the basis of mutual respect and, while desiring security at the country level, the Islamic Emirate wants security and justice at the world level.

Of course, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan considers its religious and national duty to gain independence from the occupation and, for that purpose, has utilized every legitimate way and will utilize it in future too."

The Taliban said that there were five main reasons why they deemed necessary to open an office in Qatar:

First: To reach understanding and initiate talks with countries of the world for the purpose of improving relations with them.
Second: To support a political and peaceful solution which includes end of occupation of Afghanistan and establishment of an independent Islamic system and true security, which the nation wants and aspires.
Third: To hold meetings with Afghans as time may demand.
Fourth: To initiate contact with the United Nations, as well as with international, regional and non-governmental organizations.
Fifth: To put political statements at the disposal of media regarding current political developments.

Gulf Times (Doha)

U.S. dropped some pre-conditions for talks with Taliban

As the 2014 withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan approaches, the U.S. has been forced to drop some previously announced pre-conditions for peace talks with the Afghan Taliban.

The Taliban made the following commitments:

They would "support" an Afghan peace process.
They would oppose the use of Afghan soil to threaten other countries.

The last is an allusion to Osama bin Laden's use of Afghan soil to launch the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. However, recent attempted attacks on Europe and America have been launched from AQIM (Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb) in northern Africa and AQAP (Al-Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula) in Yemen.

The U.S. has dropped some other pre-conditions for talks:

The Taliban will not forego suicide further suicide attacks or other violence in Afghanistan, as it's pursuing the political process.
The Taliban will not sever links with al-Qaeda.
The Taliban will not accept Afghanistan's constitution and, in particular, will not agree to protections for women and minorities.

The Taliban are expected to demand that all foreign troops be pulled out of Afghanistan in 2014, and that the U.S. not be permitted to leave behind a small force. Dawn (Pakistan)

Afghan insurgents kill U.S. soldiers at Bagram base

Several hours after the Taliban were announcing peace talks with the United States, insurgents killed four U.S. soldiers in an attack on Bagram Air Force Base near Kabul in Afghanistan. BBC

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail

Starbucks Menus to Post Calorie Counts

Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:57:27 GMT

Five File Suit for Contracting Hepatitis from Berries

Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:50:48 GMT

Five LeBron Soundbites from Game Six

Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:43:43 GMT

Chrysler Okays Recall of 1.5 Million Jeeps

Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:35:15 GMT

American Medical Association Recognizes Obesity as 'Disease'

Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:27:20 GMT

Suicide Bomber Kills Dozens at Pakistan Funeral

Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:18:32 GMT

Whistleblower: State Dept. 'Harassed' Her Children

Wed, 19 Jun 2013 06:17:23 GMT

The State Department whistleblower who revealed alleged cover-ups of misconduct under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has paid a price for her honesty, according to her attorney.

Former State Department Office of Inspector General (OIG) investigator Aurelia Fedensisn told Foreign Policy through a legal representative that she has since had "law enforcement officers camp out in front of her house, harass her children, and attempt to [get her to] incriminate herself."

On June 10, Breitbart News reported that Fedenisn pointed to an internal State Department Inspector General memo that showed "recent investigations were influenced, manipulated, or simply called off." These investigations were launched based on allegations of sexual assault and of members of Sec. Clinton's security detail engaging in prostitution while "on official trips in foreign countries."

The memo also included allegations of an "underground drug ring" run near the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, which was used to supply State Dept. contractors with drugs.

After Fedenisn blew the whistle on these issues, current investigators from the OIG went to her house and talked to her children, at least one of whom is a minor--Fedenisn was not home at the time. The investigators asked Fedenisn's son and daughter to tell them where their mother currently works and asked for her cell phone number. They then sat parked in front of the house for hours.

Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter @AWRHawkins.

'Anti-Pervert' Hairy Leggings Catch Fire Among Chinese Girls

Wed, 19 Jun 2013 06:07:05 GMT

In an attempt to keep unwanted male attention at bay, girls in China have embraced hairy leggings...or leggings covered in hair...or hirsute stockings.

On a popular Chinese microblogging service called Sina Weibo, @HappyZhangJiang wrote "Super sexy, summertime anti-pervert full-leg-of-hair stockings, essential for all young girls going out."

There was no evidence given to support a pervert's aversion to hairy legs. However, recently the Daily Mail ran a story showing the unshorn legs of Demi Moore in Los Angeles. And guess what? She was alone in every picture.

Photo Sina Weibo

California Restaurant Requires Women To Wear Heels

Wed, 19 Jun 2013 05:44:37 GMT

A new Southern California restaurant is making news with a strict dress code that requires women customers to wear heels.

According to the Riverside Press-Enterprise, ProAbition posted an online announcement about its June 15 grand opening which included a dress code that made its footwear options for women extremely limited:

"Ladies: No flat shoes or sandals. Must have heels."

The dress code did however make exception for injury although it was not clear if a doctor's note would be necessary for proof of an ankle sprain, corn, or bunion.

Many potential female patrons took to social media to express their dismay which caused the restaurant to walk back its policy:

"As a business, we pay very close attention to our guests' feedback. We had been receiving feedback on all fronts. That's when we decided maybe we need to re-adjust this and not be so strict about this one particular item."

Heritage: CBO Report on Immigration Bill Confirms Amnesty Concerns

Wed, 19 Jun 2013 05:34:43 GMT

The Heritage Foundation issued a preliminary response to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) report on the costs of the Senate Immigration bill late Tuesday, noting that the CBO and JCT report confirms several financial concerns about an amnesty plan.

Derrick Morgan, Heritage’s vice president for domestic and economic policy, wrote that while Heritage is still analyzing the findings of the CBO and JCT report, “already a few items stand out as noteworthy.”

First, Morgan points to the report’s calculation that this bill would only reduce illegal immigration by about 25 percent, something Morgan asserted is “in sharp contrast to the rhetoric of the bill’s sponsors.”

“CBO reports that S. 744 would have only a marginal impact in reducing future illegal immigration,” Morgan wrote, then delved into the numbers behind the claim:

According to CBO, S.744 would reduce the future inflow of illegal immigrants into the U.S. over the next two decades by only 25 percent. CBO estimates that by 2033, 7.5 million new illegal immigrants will have entered the U.S. and taken up residence. The Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector estimates that these new illegal immigrants could cost the taxpayers (federal, state, and local) some $400 billion over 20 years.

In addition, Morgan covered the concerns the CBO and JCT report contain about American workers' wages and jobs. “Congress should pass only immigration reform measures that are good for American workers,” he wrote. “The economic goal should be increased after-tax income for those in the United States lawfully. This bill appears to fail that test in the years following enactment, since per capita gross national product (GNP) would be lower in the bill all the way out past 2030.”

With regard to costs and effects on the national deficit, Morgan wrote that the CBO and JCT report “does little to assuage concern that the amnesty portion of the bill would be very costly to U.S. taxpayers.”

As Breitbart News has previously detailed, the report calculated that the amnesty bill would decrease the federal deficit by about $175 billion over the first 10 years and by another $700 billion over the next 10 years after that.

Morgan objected that those estimates do not take everything into account. “It provides only a look at the first 10 years in any real detail,” Morgan wrote. “(It includes only a sketch of the second 10 years.)”

In addition, Morgan pointed to a Heritage report from about a week ago, before the report came out, that argued "the most significant costs during the lifetime of would-be legalized immigrants are during their retirement years after they qualify for Medicare and Social Security."

“For the vast majority of unlawful immigrants, that is well past the 10-year budget window,” the previous report asserted.

Heritage is planning an event on Wednesday at which its staff and an economist for the Senate Budget Committee GOP staff will further discuss the CBO and JCT report.

Magic on Game 6: One of Greatest Games

Wed, 19 Jun 2013 05:32:00 GMT

Magic Johnson played in some of the greatest NBA games of all time, but he is not sure he has ever seen a game as great as the back-and-forth NBA Finals Game 6 between the Miami Heat and San Antonio Spurs that the Heat eventually won to force a Game 7 Thursday. Johnson initially said it may have been the greatest game he had ever seen, but later in the post game backed off slightly to say it was, "One of the greatest games I have ever seen."

Bill Simmons, one of his ABC co-hosts, added that it was, "The toughest basketball loss I've seen in 25 years."

Johnson added that he did not believe the Spurs could recover to win Game 7, but again backed off slightly by inviting the Spurs to prove him wrong.

One other TV revelation was that the NBA had brought the trophy out and started to set up for the awards ceremony for the Spurs. When asked about the move, LeBron James said that he and most of the Heat were upset by the trophy being brought out early.

Miami Forces Game 7 with OT Win

Wed, 19 Jun 2013 05:09:00 GMT

The Spurs were six seconds from the NBA title until Chris Bosh grabbed an offensive rebound and got the ball to Ray Allen for a three-pointer to force overtime at 95-95. The Heat preserved the win with two unbelievable defensive plays in the final two seconds of the game to preserve a 103-100 win that sets up a decisive Game 7 Thursday.

The Spurs used incredible physical defense to build a double-digit lead going into the fourth quarter, but it was the Heat who sealed the game with two plays in two seconds.

Manu Ginobili drove to the hoop for a potential game-winning shot at the end of overtime when Ray Allen grabbed the ball out of his hands and was fouled with two seconds left. Allen hit two free throws to make it 103-100, but a timeout let the Spurs inbound.

Tim Duncan threw a cross court pass to Danny Green, who had already shattered the record for three-pointers in a Finals. However, Chris Bosh ran him down in the corner and put his hand squarely on the top of the ball for a rejection that left Green one of seven for the game as the horn sounded.

Players from both teams complained about physical defensive plays throughout, but in the NBA if contact is initiated with a hand on the ball secondary contact is not called a foul. This was the case on Spurs' steals and rejections that drew complaints from Wade and James as well as on the two great plays by the Heat in the final two seconds.

The Spurs took a double-digit lead into the fourth quarter with physical, contesting defense at the rim (Kawhi Leonard and Green deny James in photo).

Bosh did almost nothing for the Heat ... until he saved the season. With the Spurs seven seconds from celebrating their fifth title, Bosh grabbed an offensive rebound off a miss from James that seemed to seal defeat. Bosh quickly shuffled the ball to Ray Allen, who got both feet down behind the arc and drained a three-pointer to force overtime.

In overtime, Bosh also blocked the same fadeaway that Tony Parker had hit over James earlier.

In a series in which both teams have blown out the other team twice, they have now both won a thriller. This one came in a game in which the Heat looked dead when they fell behind double digits going into the fourth quarter, then the Spurs looked dead in the final minutes until Parker proved once again that great offense can overcome great defense with a fade away three-pointer over James to tie the score 89-89.

Tim Duncan hit his first eight shots to score 25 in the first half, but with 6:43 he was quickly reminded why James is the best player on the planet. Duncan was on his way to an easy basket off a perfect pass, when James jumped around him to reject his shot, then took the ball at him on the other end to tie the score 82-82.

The home team has won over 80 percent of Game 7s in NBA history, but the Spurs are 14-3 in road games in which they have had a chance to clinch a series.

CBO: Immigration Bill Would Drive Down American Workers' Wages

Wed, 19 Jun 2013 04:45:00 GMT

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) report on the Senate's immigration bill predicts that the legislation would drive down the wages of American workers and make it difficult for Americans to find jobs in an already-damaged economy.

On page seven of the analysis, the CBO and JCT conclude that the "Gang of Eight" bill would drive down American workers’ wages. “Taking into account all of those flows of new immigrants, CBO and JCT expect that a greater number of immigrants with lower skills than with higher skills would be added to the workforce, slightly pushing down the average wage for the labor force as a whole, other things being equal,” the report reads.

On the same page, the CBO and JCT analysis found that illegal immigrants who would receive amnesty, or legalized status, would see a spike in their income while Americans’ incomes dropped. “However, CBO and JCT expect that currently unauthorized workers who would obtain legal status under S. 744 would see an increase in their average wages,” it reads.

Similarly, a bullet point on page nine shows that CBO and JCT believe that demand for workers would “dampen,” meaning it would be harder for Americans to find jobs if the bill passed. “Although the average wage would be lower than under current law over the first dozen years, the minimum wage would keep the wages of some less skilled workers from falling, dampening businesses’ demand for those workers,” the analysis states.

These revelations in the report contradict a statement Gang of Eight member Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) made celebrating the analysis's top-line numbers. “The CBO has further confirmed what most conservative economists have found: reforming our immigration system is a net benefit for our economy, American workers and taxpayers,” Rubio said in that statement.

In contrast, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, has argued the bill would depress American wages, as have several members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

“In light of recent debates on comprehensive immigration reform, we are writing to address a rarely-discussed effect of granting legal status or effective amnesty to illegal immigrants,” three Civil Rights Commission members wrote to members of Congress in April, arguing that the Gang of Eight bill would negatively impact America’s black communities. “Such grant of legal status will likely disproportionately harm lower-skilled African-Americans by making it more difficult for them to obtain employment and depressing their wages when they do obtain employment."

Rubio and his staff are currently facing a controversy over a similar matter, in which two of his aides suggested some Americans are not cut out for the workforce in an interview with the New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza.

Protecting New York's Criminal Class

Wed, 19 Jun 2013 04:09:00 GMT

Scant evidence exists that the favored liberal gun control measures have any impact on crime whatsoever. And, when you think about it, why should they, as the guns liberals want to control are virtually all owned by law-abiding, non-criminal members of society.

But suppose those concerned with controlling crime came up with a plan to take guns away from criminals—the people who actually murder other people with guns. And suppose the system actually worked, and in places where the plan had actually become policy and was implemented, thousands of illegal guns were confiscated from criminals and the murder rate fell by over 80 percent over twenty years. And suppose most of the murder victims, meaning most of the people who as a result of this plan were not murdered, were minorities. You would think that the liberal establishment would be thrilled.

But you would be wrong.

Over the last two decades, crime in New York City has dropped by an astonishing 80 percent. In 1990, 2,245 people were murdered in the city; in 2012, only 414. Much of the reason has been revolutionary police tactics developed by the New York Police Department aimed at stopping crimes before they are committed rather than trying to catch the offender afterwards, arresting him, and sending him off to Sing Sing. As a result, New York now has the lowest crime rate of the twenty-five largest American cities.

But the same liberals who think the Second Amendment is some sort of aberration that should be erased from the Constitution, and who are thrilled with Governor Cuomo’s new tough gun control law prohibiting, inter alia, magazines that hold more than seven rounds, are up in arms that the NYPD actually takes illegal guns away from criminals—in violation of their Fourth Amendment rights.

So a group called the Center for Constitutional Rights (founded by left-wing activist lawyer William Kunstler), with pro-bono assistance from the elite law firm of Covington & Burling, sued the NYPD, alleging that stop and frisk—one of the techniques that helped trigger the drop in crime—is merely racial profiling, is unconstitutional, and should be banned. No less a liberal than New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, whose political fortunes have been immeasurably enhanced by the crime statistics, is a staunch supporter. "I can't imagine any rational person saying that the techniques are not working and that we should stop them," Bloomberg has said.

The trial in the stop and frisk case, Floyd v. The City of New York, wound up a couple of weeks ago in Federal Court in New York City. The judge designated the case a class action, so there are actually about three million plaintiffs (everybody who has been stopped, questioned, or frisked since 2005). If it is decided as many people fear, the NYPD will have to resort to looking for criminals after the fact, and the crime rate will presumably grow back to 1990s proportions.

Under stop and frisk, if a cop on the beat has reasonable suspicions or observes activity fitting established patterns of criminal behavior, he ask the subject questions. Is someone trying to force open an apartment door in a high-crime neighborhood? Is someone loitering near a business that has repeatedly been robbed? Is someone following too closely behind a shopper in an area where there has been a rash of muggings? During 2012, police confiscated no fewer than 8,000 guns from frisk subjects, many of which were illegally possessed. And, of course, the deterrent effect of stop and frisk is incalculable.

The liberal establishment is apparently convinced the police are supposed to sit back and do nothing. New York City’s current policy encourages them to investigate what is going on before the apartment is burgled, the business is robbed, the shopper is mugged, or the murder victim is shot. If nothing wrong is going on, the busy policeman simply resumes his beat.

Liberal ideology has, in this case, trumped reality. Because 88 percent of the stops allegedly involve minorities, stop and frisk is, in the liberal mind, inherently racist. It is, to them, immaterial that young black and Hispanic males are much more likely to commit crimes than other members of society. In 2011, blacks, who make up 23 percent of New York City’s population, committed 66 percent of all violent crime and 73 percent of all shootings.

Even some of the plaintiffs’ supporters reluctantly concede stop and frisk has its benefits. Jonathan More, one of the plaintiffs' lawyers, claims that although police are imposing quotas on stops, he told liberal National Public Radio, “Stop-and-frisk is a legitimate tool for law enforcement to use.”

And it is also immaterial to the liberal elites that if minorities are committing the vast majority of crime, they are also the victims. According to Heather MacDonald of the Manhattan Institute, young black males in New York are 36 times more likely to be murdered than young white males. Since this innovative policing was begun some twenty years ago, 80 percent of the reduction in murder victims was in minority neighborhoods. The result? Neighborhoods that were once crime-ridden and so dangerous that they were virtually uninhabitable are now as safe as the Upper East Side. NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly recently reminded a local public radio station, "Ninety-six percent of the shooting victims in New York City are black or Hispanic.” Minorities have disproportionately benefited from the drop in crime, but there is still much progress to be made.

But why is it that the elite liberal establishment would rather protect the people who commit black-on-black or Hispanic-on-Hispanic crime rather than the victims? This is a perverse form of liberal civil rights advocacy and adherence to liberal ideology that prioritizes the interests of criminals over the rights of innocent people in communities of color to be safe on the streets.

With the trial in Floyd v. The City of New York concluded, those rights are in the hands of Federal District Judge Shira Scheindlin. While the case won’t be decided for months, the judge has ruled against the NYPD before, and the New York law enforcement community is very concerned that she could put an abrupt end to its most effective crime-fighting technique.

Last week, just hours before the time for post-trial briefs expired, who should enter into the fray but Attorney General Eric Holder and the Obama Justice Department. In what the New York Daily News described as a move “sure to send daggers through One Police Plaza and City Hall, and a slap in the faces of Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly and Mayor Michael Bloomberg,” Holder announced that if the case is decided against the City and stop and frisk banned from use, the judge could appoint a “monitor” to oversee the police department, meaning that Holder’s department would, as it has in several other cities, intervene in the internal affairs of the NYPD to see that it is adhering to the Judge’s order.

People living in cities like Boston and Washington, D.C. are more likely to be murdered than New Yorkers. But if stop and frisk is struck down—and there are countless copycat lawsuits against police departments from dozens of urban left-wing groups—whose police practices are cities likely to emulate?

If judges outlaw data-driven law enforcement strategies that have been proven to work, expect to see the old discredited results of reactive policing return to New York. And expect them to arrive, coupled with a wave of new crime, in a city near you.

Bachelorette Party Trend: Group Nude Photos

Wed, 19 Jun 2013 03:52:48 GMT

Exclusive--DENIED: Sarah Palin Turned Down 'View' Gig Before Hosts Defended Attack on Trig

Wed, 19 Jun 2013 03:52:21 GMT

Breitbart News has learned that less than a month before Barbara Walters defended Bill Maher's vicious attacks on Sarah Palin's special-needs son, Walters personally called Palin's camp to ask if the former Alaska governor could be a guest co-host on The View sometime during the months before the legendary anchor retires from TV journalism.

Maher mocked Palin's special needs son by referring to him as "retarded" during a June 8 Las Vegas show.

When Palin's schedule did not allow for her to guest host, Palin's advisers left the invitation as an open question. This backstory makes Walters's refusal to defend Palin's special needs son, Trig, from Bill Maher's "retarded" attacks even more interesting.

Walters, who grew up with a special needs sister, said on June 17 on The View that she did not think Maher was "mean-spirited" when he referred to Palin's son as "retarded." Walters speculated that Maher did not know the word could be hurtful. Maher, it should be noted, has had a history of making degrading and malicious comments toward women and kids with special needs. And as Breitbart News' John Nolte pointed out, even Walters's in-studio audience was not buying this defense and was left silent.

Palin adviser Doug McMarlin told Breitbart News, "A few weeks ago, Barbara Walters invited Governor Palin to guest host The View, schedules didn't work, and now she and Whoopi are defending this despicable behavior attacking Governor Palin's young special needs son."

"I don't imagine the ladies of The View would stand by if Maher attacked Barbara's special needs sister or write it off as if he just didn't realize what he was doing," McMarlin continued. "Bill Maher has made millions off of violent and hateful speech designed to keep him in the headlines; his behavior is indefensible."

Breitbart News documented Walters's comments on the June 17 edition of The View:

Walters: I'm very grateful that it has changed. But there are people who don't know that, and they use the word retarded.

Elisabeth Hasselbeck: Do you think Bill Maher is one of those?

Walters: I don’t know, I don’t. I think that, you know, unless you're a little more familiar, you don't even know the term mentally challenged....Do I think it was unfortunate that he did it? Yes, I do. Do I, do I think he realized what it was? No, I don't. I mean, I don't think he intended it to be mean-spirited. He likes to take on Sarah Palin, a lot of people do. She can fight back. And she did. And I'm glad she did.

Goldberg, along with Walters, also defended Maher:

Goldberg: You know, I think that we, society took the word "retarded" and made it into something derogatory. I think we made it a bad word by utilizing, well because we turned it into, you know, something that you call somebody to make them feel bad, to feel different.

Maher's comments came to to light after Breitbart News contributor Ron Futrell attended and confronted Maher during his show on June 8, after he heard the comic refer to Trig as "retarded."

"I will also always be glad to stand up for those, who many times, have no voice," Futrell said of the incident.

When Palin heard about Maher's attacks, she tweeted the Breitbart News article and then ripped Maher. The "Mama Grizzly" called Maher a "bully" and said, "on behalf of all kids whom you hatefully mock in order to make yourself feel big" she hoped Maher's "lily, white wimpy a**" would get flattened.

Walters did concede, though, that Palin knows how to "fight back" and was "glad" that she did.