Lone Wolf Cartoon

The Baltimore I know: Can my hometown be saved?

When I walked into work the morning after the riots erupted in Baltimore, I couldn’t believe what I saw on the screens in the newsroom. The place where I learned to drive, met my first boyfriend, started a non-profit organization and made the memories that will last a lifetime was going up in flames. I heard protesters being called thugs, savages and even animals who had no self-respect or dignity.
It literally hit home, because I am a product of America’s concrete jungle, the city of Baltimore.
My mother grew up in the housing projects of Cherry Hill and went on to become a first generation college graduate. My dad – well, he was a country boy/sharecropping high school dropout who moved to Baltimore, got a GED and started his first unsuccessful business there after marrying his hazel-eyed dream girl, my mother. My parents tried to make it work, but their marriage ended when I was 8. Their divorce resulted in my older brother and me becoming instant statistics: young, black, confused children of a single parent growing up in a drug-infested inner city. Thankfully, through her tireless work at Baltimore City Recreation and Parks, my mother exposed us to experiences outside of “the hood.”
Now don’t get me wrong. We didn’t have it the worst. I have friends who don’t know their parents, or who had parents who were addicted to drugs, or – even worse – parents who made them sell drugs. I have friends whose only family income was public assistance. According to America’s rulebook, I was no different from any of them. But somehow my brother and I are two of the 4 percent who actually make it out of poverty in Baltimore. I’m one out of the FOUR out of one hundred whose children won’t die poor.
Every poor kid growing up in Baltimore knows the odds are stacked against her. Over the last 20 years I’ve watched politicians – with their own agendas and developers in their pockets – come into my hometown and suck the life out of communities that were once thriving, leaving 16,000 vacant properties and 14,000 empty lots.
I’ve sat on advisory boards and watched in amazement as members tried to rename the largest historically black school in the city – my alma mater – with the inadvertent result of erasing years of pride and integrity from an entire community.
I’ve watched a blue-collar city full of hope and innovation become de-industrialized, leaving people desperate and so addicted to heroin that Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan in February declared the drug “a statewide crisis that needs immediate attention.”  
I’ve returned, heartbroken, to the streets of Edmonson and Payson, Preston and Broadway, North and ‘Long’wood, wondering: Where’s the life? Where’s the hope? Where’s the history? Where’s the spirit of the Baltimore that taught me how to survive, by any means necessary?
Sadly, Baltimore was in flames well before the riots. Freddie Gray was just the straw that broke the camel’s back.
Needing to see it all for myself, I went to Baltimore last weekend with fear in my heart. But what I discovered was quite different from what I had been hearing and reading.
I saw community activists banding together with the Bloods, the Crips and the Black Guerilla Family – notorious gangs in the city – calling for a truce and an end to black-on-black crime. I attended a prayer rally where Methodists, Baptists, Buddhists, Jews and Catholics joined hands in prayer with whites, blacks … all ethnicities, singing hymns, seeking justice and encouraging residents to register to vote.
I saw strong, educated, cultured black men leading their sons and daughters and those lost in the world in peaceful marches, discussing the pain, hurt, fears and the hope that still resides in the hearts of Charm City residents.
I interviewed the Rev. Jamaal Bryant, the man who delivered Freddie Gray’s eulogy, and he said, “... something great is getting ready to happen, starting fresh and anew.” His sentiment of hope resonated deep within my spirit, so deep that I began to ask … how?
How do we fix the hopelessness, the despair, the fear, the anger, the distrust? How do we, as a community, rebuild and revitalize a city that has been in distress for decades?
 “There isn’t one thing that’s going to ‘fix’ Baltimore or inner city America,” said Quincey Gamble, a political consultant, former executive director of the Maryland Democratic Party and a Baltimore resident.
“People feel the disinvestment and neglect are intentional. Those in power are going to have to do more than throw money at the problems. They must create a plan that engages, educates, feeds, nurtures and protects the people.”
For me, creating that plan is simple.
We must restore economic opportunities by offering job readiness training programs.
We must bring industry back to Baltimore, where one third of the labor force was in manufacturing in 1970, but where those jobs are practically nonexistent today.
Our houses of worship and clergy must continue to be a united front, rallying for the proper treatment and equal opportunities of city residents.
We must push for the creation of affordable housing initiatives and restore hope by demolishing the enormous stock of dilapidated and abandoned homes that create aesthetic and psychological urban decay.
We must hold city and state officials accountable for their massive deficits, misappropriated funds and substandard curriculums that have left children yearning for the only weapon of social and economic empowerment they have access to – a quality education.
We must take this national spotlight and expose improper policing tactics across the nation that have left cities like Baltimore with more than 300 lawsuits over police misconduct, resulting in $5.7 million in settlements and legal fees for the city – in just under four years.
I challenge the poverty-stricken people across this nation, not just Baltimoreans, to hold your elected officials accountable. Don’t vote based on popularity or party affiliation; vote for people who have your best interests at heart.
Baltimore is more than just crab cakes, the Inner Harbor, the birthplace of Billie Holiday and the first black-owned shipyard in the U.S. It is my home. It’s where I learned to read; where I got my first job; where I dreamed of becoming a journalist. It’s the place that pushed me to want to be great, a place of inspiration and innovation that can and will set the standard for how to rebuild and revitalize urban America.
A t-shirt I saw at a rally on Saturday summed it up best. It read, “Baltimore, you have to be the change that you want to see."
What a powerful message. Your voice and/or your silence will determine if and how we can change “the 4 percent.”
Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake said, “If we are going to have real healing and real recovery in our city, we don’t have time to waste.”
To that, I must agree.

Paying for Patriotism? Military takes heat for pricey soldier salutes at stadiums

WASHINGTON –  The Department of Defense and the National Guard are facing growing questions over why they spent millions of dollars on a promotional campaign to salute members of the military at professional football, baseball and basketball games around the country. 
“So far everybody’s just shocked to learn that this, that these feel-good moments are paid for by the U.S. taxpayer,” Sen. Jeff Flake told FoxNews.com on Tuesday.
Flake, R-Ariz., has sent a letter to Defense Secretary Ash Carter and National Guard Chief Gen. Frank Grass demanding to know the financial breakdown associated with the "Hometown Heroes" segments. 
Across several sports leagues, the segments typically are aired at home games, paying tribute to a member of the military on the Jumbotron. After reports first surfaced of taxpayer money going toward these salutes, a defense official initially claimed Monday that the military pays for recruitment advertising in sports stadiums, but not such "outreach." 
However, the New Jersey National Guard confirmed Tuesday that language in its contract with the New York Jets -- which play in New Jersey -- indeed includes the "Salute to Service" honor segment. Under the terms, during each of the Jets' eight home games in 2014, 40 soldiers would take the field in pregame ceremonies. 
Federal contracts show that the U.S. Department of Defense from 2011 to 2014 paid $5.4 million for sponsorship deals with 14 NFL teams. The size of the deals, which cover recruitment and other areas, differ, with more than $1 million going to the Atlanta Falcons and $115,000 going to the New York Jets. 

More on this...

• Paying the NFL to salute our troops?

But Flake said Tuesday "it goes deeper than the NFL. ... There are contracts with soccer teams, big contracts in the past with NASCAR, NASCAR sponsorship.”
Flake, who called the spending wasteful and the honors disingenuous, argued paying for patriotism “leaves a bad taste in your mouth.”
 “We’re hearing all kinds of numbers now with independent investigations and people who have viewed these contracts and so it’s a considerable amount of money, particularly at a time when the DOD is stretched considerably,” Flake said. “To find out money is being spent basically to honor people or salute doesn’t seem right.”
Flake, though, said he doesn’t blame the sports teams but instead blames the government for going about it the wrong way.
He said: “When everybody assumes when you have these feel-good moments, these salutes, that it’s because the NFL team just felt good about the military or about service and then to find out, no, it’s really the taxpayers paying for that. That just leaves you with an empty feeling.”
The New Jersey Army National Guard’s Recruiting and Retention Command defended the spending and said the agreements with sports teams helps educate and promote the military.
Aside from the Hometown Heroes segment, various agreements with teams include a kickoff video message from the National Guard, online advertising and digital marketing campaigns on stadium screens. 
Fox News' Lucas Tomlinson contributed to this report.

Clinton facing new ethics questions on role in Boeing deal

When Hillary Clinton was America's top diplomat, she also appeared at times like a top salesperson for America's biggest airplane maker, Boeing. 
Traveling abroad on official business as secretary of state, Clinton often visited Boeing facilities and made a pitch for the host country to buy Boeing jets. During one visit to Shanghai in May 2010, she boasted that "more than half the commercial jetliners operating in China are made by Boeing." 
A sales plug in Russia in 2009, though, may have proved especially fruitful. While touring a Boeing plant, Secretary of State Clinton said, "We're delighted that a new Russian airline, Rossiya, is actively considering acquisition of Boeing aircraft, and this is a shameless pitch." 
In 2010, Boeing landed the Russian deal, worth $3.7 billion. And two months later, the company donated $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation. 
This chain of events is raising new questions for Clinton, and Boeing, as the former secretary of state launches her 2016 presidential campaign. The Boeing deal only adds to a growing list of business deals involving Clinton Foundation donors now coming under scrutiny. 
Boeing shareholder David Almasi recently confronted CEO James McNerney about the ethics of it. 
"That opens the door to charges of honest services fraud, that there was a quid pro quo between the Clinton Foundation, the State Department and Boeing," Almasi said. 
In prepared answers to questions posed to Boeing by Fox News, a spokesman defended the company's actions. 
"Our contribution to the Clinton Foundation to help the people of Haiti rebuild was a transparent act of compassion and an investment aimed at aiding the long-term interests and hopes of the Haitian people," the spokesman said. The company also pointed out that it gave the American Red Cross $1.3 million after the devastating 2010 earthquake. 
Clinton defenders say there is no smoking gun. "There's zero evidence that Hillary Clinton went to bat for Boeing for any reason other than to benefit the U.S. economy and U.S. workers," said former Clinton/Gore adviser Richard Goldstein. 
But the financial connections don't end there. Boeing also paid former President Bill Clinton $250,000 for a speech in 2012. It was a speech that was approved by the State Department's Ethics Office -- which according to an Associated Press report often approved the ex-president's speaking engagements within days. 
And in another potential trouble spot, Boeing's chief lobbyist and former Bill Clinton aide Tim Keating hosted a fundraiser for Ready for Hillary, the political action committee raising money to help fund a run for the White House. Boeing took no issue with Keating doing so. 
"Employees are free on their personal time and with personal resources -- as was the case here -- to support candidates and causes of their choice," Boeing wrote in its statement. 
The Clinton campaign told Fox News in a statement, "She did the job that every Secretary of State is supposed to do and what the American people expect of them -- especially during difficult economic turmoil."

House votes to block EPA from implementing new water-regulation plan

The House of Representatives on Tuesday voted to block the EPA from implementing a new plan that critics say could significantly broaden the agency's ability to impose environmental regulations over America's waterways.
Many farmers and landowners across the country say rules proposed last year by the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would give federal regulators even more say over waters. The issue had become a hotly contested one for many who say there are already too many government regulations affecting their businesses.
The House bill, approved by a 261-155 vote, would force the EPA to withdraw the rules and consult with state and local officials before rewriting them.
The rules would clarify which streams, tributaries and wetlands should be protected from pollution and development under the Clean Water Act.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said one out of three Americans get their drinking water from sources that aren't clearly protected, and the rules would make sure those waters aren't polluted.
Some lawmakers said it was overreach and was aggravating longstanding trust issues between rural areas and the federal government.
The rule would "trample on private property rights and hold back our economy," read a memo sent out by the office of House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., before the House floor debate.
The White House has threatened to veto the legislation.

A bipartisan group of senators introduced a bill last month that would lay out what bodies of water should be covered and force the EPA to rewrite the rules by the end of next year.

"We've got a whole lot of pent-up frustration and concern because it seems like every time they turn around, there is a new set of regulations for farmers to be concerned about," says North Dakota Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, a Democrat who is backing the Senate bill. Heitkamp, narrowly elected in a competitive Senate race in 2012, says it's the number one issue she hears about from farmers.

"It's the perfect example of the disconnect between Washington and rural areas," says Indiana Sen. Joe Donnelly, another Democrat backing the legislation.

Lawmakers say they believe that the proposed "waters of the United States" rules would expand the government's reach over these smaller bodies of water. They say the proposal is too vague and could be subject to misinterpretation.

Under fire, EPA officials have acknowledged they may not have written the proposal clearly enough, and said final rules expected in the coming months will better define which waters would fall under the law.

"I want to tell you up front that I wish we had done a better job of rolling out our clean water rule," McCarthy told the National Farm Bureau Federation, a staunch opponent, in March.

Still, the agency argues the rules are necessary to make clear which waters are regulated in the wake of decades-long uncertainty and two U.S. Supreme Court rulings on the issue. The 2001 and 2006 decisions limited regulators' reach but left unclear the scope of authority over some small waterways, like those that flow intermittently.

Broadly, the EPA's proposed rules would assert federal regulatory authority over streams, tributaries, wetlands and other flowing waters that significantly affect other protected waters downstream. That means some operations that wanted to dump pollutants into those waters or develop around them would have to get a federal permit.

Senate Dems block key plank of Obama trade agenda

Own Party is weary of him.

President Obama suffered a defeat at the hands of his own party on Tuesday, as Senate Democrats blocked a key component of the president's trade agenda.
After fierce lobbying on both sides of the issue, the bid to start debate -- on expanding the president's authority to negotiate trade deals -- failed on a 52-45 vote. It needed 60 votes to advance.
The president's supporters will likely try again, but the vote nevertheless marks a stinging rebuke of a major Obama priority by members of his own party. Republicans mostly had aligned with Obama on the issue and, after the failed test vote, urged Obama's fellow Democrats to drop their resistance.
"What we just saw here is pretty shocking," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said, accusing congressional Democrats of standing with "special interests."
At issue is Obama's push for so-called "fast track" authority -- which would let him negotiate trade deals that Congress can reject or ratify, but not amend. In the short-term, he wants to use this to pursue a broad trade pact with Japan and other Pacific nations.
But many Democrats aligned with labor unions in warning about the impact on U.S. jobs, and openly opposed the White House. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., recently told reporters he's a "hell no" on the proposal. And Obama and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., for days have traded jabs on the matter, with the president calling Warren's claims "absolutely wrong."

More on this...

• Obama and Warren have 'war of words' over trade deal

• Democrats divided over multi-nation trade deal

Several Democrats later said Obama erred by pointedly criticizing Warren, most recently in an interview with Yahoo News. Democratic senators said they also are tired of seeing the Democratic president cozy up to Republicans on trade.
The issue indeed has left Obama oddly aligned with Republicans, while trying to sway enough Democrats to join in support. With 54 Republicans in the Senate, the White House needed a handful of Democrats on board.
But labor unions, liberal groups and others vehemently oppose the legislation. It faces "poison pill" amendments, showdowns over "currency manipulation" and, eventually, similar confrontations in the House.
Lobbying for and against the legislation hit overdrive this week. Key groups scheduled almost hourly events on Capitol Hill ahead of Tuesday afternoon's vote. Obama devoted much of the weekend to trade, visiting a Nike plant in Oregon. Obama maintains that U.S. goods and services need better access to the 95 percent of world consumers who live in other countries.
If Obama can ultimately get the trade measure passed, he's likely to ask Congress to approve the Trans-Pacific Partnership being negotiated with 11 other countries, including Japan, Vietnam, Canada and Mexico. Other free-trade proposals could follow.
 But several Democrats say they will back fast track only if Republican leaders clear a path for three other trade measures. One, to renew the African Growth and Opportunity Act, is uncontroversial.
The second calls for Trade Adjustment Assistance, which provides federal aid to workers displaced by trade agreements. Republicans don't like it, but reluctantly acknowledge it's the price for winning even modest Democratic support.
The third bill, involving Customs enforcement, is the stickiest. It includes a measure to take actions against countries that keep their currency artificially low, which makes their exports more attractive. The Obama administration opposes the "currency manipulation" measure, saying it could invite international challenges to the Federal Reserve's policies meant to boost the economy.
Some Democrats also want to force Republicans to deal first with a surveillance measure that Democrats consider more pressing. That strategy suggests Obama might have better luck on trade in a month or so.

Brady Cartoon

Boston University condemns prof's racist tweets after Terrier alums bark

Boston University had a weekend change of heart about a new professor's angry tweets about white people, after FoxNews.com and others reported on the racially-charged comments -- and Terrier alumni threatened to stop writing checks.
Saida Grundy, an incoming assistant professor of sociology and African-American studies at the school, tweeted in recent weeks that "white masculinity is THE problem for america’s (sic) colleges," white men are a "problem population,” and that she tries to avoid shopping at white-owned businesses. On Friday, her new employer's spokesman, Colin Riley, told FoxNews.com that the tweets came from Grundy's personal Twitter account and that she was "exercising her right to free speech and we respect her right to do so.”

" ... we are deeply saddened when anyone makes such offensive statements.”
- Colin Riley, Boston University spokesman

Then, amid a deluge of angry emails from former students, the school sought to amend the comment.
“The University does not condone racism or bigotry in any form and we are deeply saddened when anyone makes such offensive statements,” Riley told FoxNews.com Saturday.
The tweets were first noticed by a student at University of Massachusetts Amherst, Nick Pappas, who posted them on his website “SoCawlege.com” and questioned how Grundy could teach a diverse classroom given the racial hostility in her tweets.

Related Image

Expand / Contract

Boston University Professor Saida Grundy's tweets deriding white men are her business, according to the school. (Boston University)

“You have to teach college-aged white males eventually, no?... this seems like you are unqualified to grade their work as you clearly demonstrate some kind of special bias against them,” he wrote.
After the news broke, some alumni and donors wrote the school to complain.
“It is truly a sad day to be a BU alum,” one Boston University graduate from the class of 2008 told FoxNews.com, and shared a letter he had sent to University President Robert Brown and the dean of students.
“In light of the university’s willingness to invite vile rhetoric onto a campus that I spent four wonderful years at, I commit to never donate to Boston University,” he wrote in his letter.
Another wrote, “As a Boston University alumnus and a father of a son who will graduate from BU next week, I am deeply saddened by this revelation. It has become apparent that BU no longer supports a value system in line with human decency.”
Although Riley's condemnation of the racist tweets was new, he reiterated that Grundy had a right to sound off against white males.
“ ... the opinions expressed by Dr. Grundy, in what were seemingly private electronic messages, constitutes her opinion and we must recognize her right to have that opinion whether or not we agree,” Riley said.
Grundy did not respond to requests for comment from FoxNews.com, and has made her twitter account private. She will start working at the university in June.
Those who follow campus politics say they are not shocked.
"I'm not surprised that Boston University is hiring a racist to teach African-American Studies," David Horowitz, author of “Reforming our Univerisities,” told FoxNews.com. "Anti-white racism is rampant in Black Studies programs."
Horowitz added that the university’s reaction betrays double-standards on race.
“If she were a white racist rather than an anti-white racist, she would never be hired. Professors are supposed to be experts in some scholarly field, and professionals in their classroom discourse. They don't have a license to indoctrinate students in their prejudices -- whether those prejudices are right or left,” he said.
Grundy posted a number of other controversial tweets, for instance incorrectly claiming that only whites enslaved entire generations of people. “Deal with your white sh*t, white people. slavery is a *YALL* thing,” she said.
Free speech advocates say that Grundy should have a right to her speech, but say the university speech policy is hypocritical because it allows the university to censor offensive or bigoted speech if it wanted to.
“Professor Grundy should and must have the freedom to publicly express her opinions on controversial topics. Unfortunately, though, [she] could be punished if she were to send such tweets through the BU computer network, as the university bans ‘transmitting...offensive’ material,” Robert Shibley of Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) told FoxNews.com.
“In addition, if she were a student, she could also potentially be punished for violating policies banning ‘bigotry, hatred, and intolerance,’ and for not expressing her opinion ‘in good taste and decency.’ … [BU] should eliminate these policies so that it can defend every student and faculty member's right to free speech – not just Professor Grundy's.”