District of Columbia Bill Would Pay People Stipends Not to Commit Crimes

ARE YOU KIDDING, WE ARE NOW PAYING CRIMINALS NOT TO COMMIT CRIMES?

District of Columbia Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie is the Democrat who wrote the legislation that would pay residents a stipend not to commit crimes. UNREAL, but this is what you get for liberal logic. Tax payers are supposed to redistribute their money and give it to individuals so they don’t commit crimes. Just curious, what happens if some one receives the stipend and does actually commit a crimes, do we get a refund? Why is it that liberals think using other peoples money and just throwing dollars at issues solves the problem?

Next up, paying kids to go to school, paying people not to speed, paying men not to abuse their wives, paying child molesters not not to commit crimes against the helpless and maybe even paying terrorists not to wage jihad. What do you think libs?

They say crime doesn’t pay, but that might not be entirely true in the District of Columbia as lawmakers look for ways to discourage people from becoming repeat offenders.

The D.C. Council voted unanimously Tuesday to approve a bill that includes a proposal to pay residents a stipend not to commit crimes. It’s based on a program in Richmond, California, that advocates say has contributed to deep reductions in crime there.

Under the bill, city officials would identify up to 200 people a year who are considered at risk of either committing or becoming victims of violent crime. Those people would be directed to participate in behavioral therapy and other programs. If they fulfill those obligations and stay out of trouble, they would be paid.

The bill doesn’t specify the value of the stipends, but participants in the California program receive up to $9,000 per year.

[...]

Richmond experienced a 77 percent drop in homicides between 2007, when the program was launched, and 2014, although how much can be specifically attributed to the stipends is unclear.

The proposal in Washington has generated scant debate as lawmakers have focused on other crime-fighting tools included in the bill. Longtime civic activist Dorothy Brizill was the only person to testify against the stipend program at a lengthy hearing last fall, saying it would waste taxpayer dollars.

 

Was the Correct Winner Called in Iowa for the Democrats Between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders?

Hmm, and the MSM tried to paint the GOP races as the circus, it really looks like that belongs to the Democrat party …

The Des Moines Register writes, Iowa’s nightmare revisited: Was correct winner called? The worst thing happened Monday night for the Democrat party and that is the nightmare scenario played out live and in color, a tie between the establishment candidate Hillary Clinton and the self proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders. Making matters worse, the vote was so close that there is no way to ever know who really won because there is always some form of voter fraud of miscounting inherent in any vote. The division seems to be great among Democrats as the Sanders supporters chanted, “She’s a liar.” Hmm, that’s something you will not heat or see reported by the MSM, there is only turmoil among the GOP.  The nightmare gets worse for Hillary and the establishment Democrat party, how is it possible that Hillary Clinton and her all-powerful team, the ultra-establishment candidate failed to win over Iowa caucus goers and lost a +50 point lead in Iowa to a 74 year old socialist candidate in Bernie Sanders?

It’s Iowa’s nightmare scenario revisited: An extraordinarily close count in the Iowa caucuses — and reports of chaos in precincts, website glitches and coin flips to decide county delegates — are raising questions about accuracy of the count and winner.

This time it’s the Democrats, not the Republicans.

Even as Hillary Clinton trumpeted her Iowa win in New Hampshire on Tuesday, aides for Bernie Sanders said the eyelash-thin margin raised questions and called for a review. The chairwoman of the Iowa Democratic Party rejected that notion, saying the results are final.

At 2:30 a.m. Tuesday, Iowa Democratic Party Chairwoman Andy McGuire announced that Clinton had eked out a slim victory, based on results from 1,682 of 1,683 precincts.

Voters from the final missing Democratic precinct tracked down party officials Tuesday morning to report their results. Sanders won that precinct, Des Moines precinct No. 42, by two delegate equivalents over Clinton.

The Iowa Democratic Party said the updated final tally of delegate equivalents for all the precincts statewide was:

Clinton: 700.59

Sanders: 696.82.

That’s a 3.77-count margin between Clinton, the powerful establishment favorite who early on in the Democratic race was expected to win in a virtual coronation, and Sanders, a democratic socialist who few in Iowa knew much about a year ago.

Can you imagine what Tuesday must have been like to be a part of Team Clinton? In 2008, the presumptive Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton lost to a candidate that no one had really heard from before by the name of Barack Obama. Now in 2016, Clinton stands once again as the overwhelming presumptive Democrat nominee and faces a real challenge from a 74 year old socialist who was never supposed to be much of a factor, let alone have a chance to win.

Thank you. Iowa, thank you. Nine months ago, we came to this beautiful state. We had no political organization; we had no money; no name recognition. And we were taking on the most powerful political organization in the United States of America.

And tonight while the results are still not known, it looks like we are in a virtual tie.

And while the results are still not complete, it looks like we’ll have half of the Iowa delegates. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Secretary Clinton, somebody — yep — and her organization for waging a very vigorous campaign.

And I want to thank Governor O’Malley. It’s never easy to lose. I’ve lost more than one campaign. But he should know that he contributed a whole lot to the dialogue, that he ran an issue-oriented campaign, and he won the respect of the American people. … If I think about what happened tonight, I think the people of Iowa have sent a very profound message to the political establishment, to the economic establishment, and, by the way, to the media establishment.

Simply Amazing … Socialist Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton in a Dead Heat in Democrat Iowa Caucus

NAIL-BITER FOR DEMOCRATS IN IOWA …

In April of 2014 Hillary Clinton had a 58 point lead over Bernie Sanders. But with 91% of the vote in, it is a 50% to 50% race between Clinton and Sanders. UNREAL. What does it tell us about Hillary Clinton and the Democrat party in general. How does a 74 year old, self-proclaimed socialist like Bernie Sanders actually make a race of it against Clinton?

Below is the final tally of the RCP average polling which one cam plainly see that Sanders over-perfomed by 6.1% and Hillary did so by 2.1%.

UPDATE I: Little Separates Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton in Tight Race in Iowa.

The close vote means that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders are likely to split

Iowa’s share of delegates to the Democratic convention, and Mr. Sanders will be able to argue that the Iowa result was a virtual tie.

The Clinton team was counting on its huge, well-trained army of volunteers, covering all of Iowa’s 1,681 voting precincts, to counter the enormous enthusiasm of voters who jammed into events to hear Mr. Sanders. But his well-financed Iowa organization was able to convert the energy of his crowds into voters on Monday night, as he drew huge numbers of first-time caucusgoers, young people and liberals who responded to his rallying cry against the nation’s “rigged economy.”

The virtual tie between the two candidates instantly raised the stakes for their next face-off, the primary next Tuesday in New Hampshire. Mr. Sanders holds a solid lead in polls there and has the advantage of being from Vermont; candidates from neighboring states have won the state’s primary in recent decades, and Mr. Sanders is admired in the state.

Martin O’Malley Suspends Presidential Bid After Poor Showing in Iowa Caucus

Democrat O’Malley Suspends his campaign … Did he ever have one to begin with?

Following a poor showing in last night’s Iowa Caucuses, Democrat Martin O’Malley suspended his campaign and dropped out of the race. One might ask whether he ever had a campaign as in the Iowa Caucus he managed to under-perform his 3% polling. One has to wonder how a former mayor of Baltimore, MD, with all that has recently gone on there, could have ever been considered a viable candidate. Obviously, he wasn’t.

He’s out!

Former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley announced the suspension of his presidential campaign Monday night, following a dismal showing in the Iowa caucuses that effectively ended his long-simmering White House ambitions.

O’Malley, who had started laying the groundwork for a presidential bid following his 2010 reelection as governor, was lagging far behind former secretary of state Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. With 90 percent of precincts reporting, O’Malley registered support from less than 1 percent of caucus-goers.

“I want to thank everyone who came out to our events and lent me their ear and everyone who went out to caucus for me tonight,” O’Malley told supporters as he announced his decision.

CNN Democrat Town Hall Question Proved to be a Fraud, Planted Question to Hillary Clinton … “I can see why they gave you this.”

CNN – DEMOCRAT PARTY TOWN HALL FRAUD …

There is a reason why CNN is called the Clinton News Network and the MSM is called the Democrat-Media complex. One has to look no farther than the recent CNN Town Hall in Iowa where you can plainly see and hear for yourself that Hillary Clinton was asked a planted question. One of Hillary Clinton’s final questions was from a young student named Brett Rosengren where he said prior to actually asking the question, “I can see why they gave you this.” THEY! WHO IS THEY?

Obviously, this was a planted question. Sorry LIBS, as much as you want to try and defend the obvious, you were busted!!! So it makes you wonder how many of the other questions were the same and did the candidates know them in advance to prepare their answers. Kind of defeats the purpose of a Town Hall.