All Things UnAmerican: Obama to allow eagle deaths - to aid wind power

December 7, 2013

A bald eagle flies off with its catch at Frentress Lake in the backwaters of the Mississippi River Friday, March 19, 2010, in East Dubuque, Ill. People have reported seeing over fifty bald eagles at once. (AP Photo/The Telegraph Herald, Jessica Reilly) MAGS OUT; TV OUT

WASHINGTON - Under pressure from the wind-power industry, the Obama administration said Friday it will allow companies to kill or injure eagles without the fear of prosecution for up to three decades.

The new rule is designed to address environmental consequences that stand in the way of the nation's wind energy rush: the dozens of bald and golden eagles being killed each year by the giant, spinning blades of wind turbines.

An investigation by The Associated Press earlier this year documented the illegal killing of eagles around wind farms, the Obama administration's reluctance to prosecute such cases and its willingness to help keep the scope of the eagle deaths secret. President Barack Obama has championed the pollution-free energy, nearly doubling America's wind power in his first term as a way to tackle global warming.

But all energy has costs, and the administration has been forced to accept the not-so-green sides of green energy as a means to an end.

Another AP investigation recently showed that corn-based ethanol blended into the nation's gasoline has proven more damaging to the environment than politicians promised and worse than the government acknowledges.

These examples highlight Obama's willingness to accept environmental trade-offs - pollution, loss of conservation land and the deaths of eagles - in hopes that green energy will help fight climate change.

The new rule will provide legal protection for the lifespan of wind farms and other projects if companies obtain permits and make efforts to avoid killing protected birds.

Companies would have to take additional measures if they killed or injured more eagles than they had estimated they would, or if new information suggested that eagle populations were being affected. The permits would be reviewed every five years, and companies would have to submit reports of how many eagles they killed. Now, such reporting is voluntary, and the Interior Department refuses to release the information."This is not a program to kill eagles," said John Anderson, the director of siting policy at the American Wind Energy Association. "This permit program is about conservation."

But conservation groups, which have been aligned with the industry on other issues, said the decision by the Interior Department sanctions the killing of an American icon.

"Instead of balancing the need for conservation and renewable energy, Interior wrote the wind industry a blank check," said Audubon President and CEO David Yarnold in a statement. The group said it would challenge the decision.

Wind farms are clusters of turbines as tall as 30-story buildings, with spinning rotors as wide as a passenger jet's wingspan. Though the blades appear to move slowly, they can reach speeds of up to 170 mph at the tips, creating tornado-like vortexes.

Flying eagles behave somewhat like drivers texting on cellphones; they don't look up. As they scan below for food, they don't notice the blades until it is too late.

Until now, no wind energy company has obtained permission authorizing the killing, injuring or harassment of eagles, although five-year permits have been available since 2009. That has put the companies at legal risk and has discouraged private investment in renewable energy.

It also hasn't helped eagles since, without permits, companies are not required to take steps to reduce their impact on the birds or report when they are killed.

The new rule makes clear that revoking a permit - which could undermine investments and interest in wind power - is a last resort under the administration's energy policy.

"We anticipate that implementing additional mitigation measures ... will reduce the likelihood of amendments to, or revocation of, the permit," the rule says.

The wind energy industry has said the change mirrors permits already in place for endangered species, which are more at risk than bald and golden eagles. Bald eagles were removed from the endangered species list in 2007 but are still protected under two federal laws.

The regulation published Friday was not subjected to a full environmental review because the administration classified it as an administrative change.

"The federal government didn't study the impacts of this rule change even though the (law) requires it," said Kelly Fuller, who formerly headed the wind campaign at the American Bird Conservancy. "Instead, the feds have decided to break the law and use eagles as lab rats."

However, the Fish and Wildlife Service said the new rule will enable it to better monitor the long-term environmental effects of renewable energy projects.

"Our goal is to ensure that the wind industry sites and operates projects in ways that best minimize and avoid impacts to eagles and other wildlife," the agency said in a statement.

Last month, Duke Energy Corp. pleaded guilty to killing eagles and other birds at two wind farms in Wyoming, the first time a wind energy company had been prosecuted under a law protecting migratory birds.

A study by federal biologists in September found that wind farms since 2008 had killed at least 67 bald and golden eagles, a number that the researchers said was likely underestimated. That did not include deaths at Altamont Pass, an area in northern California where wind farms kill an estimated 60 eagles a year.

It's unclear what toll, if any, wind energy companies are having on eagle populations locally or regionally. Gunshots, electrocutions and poisonings almost certainly kill more bald and golden eagles than wind farms. But the toll could grow along with the industry.

A recent assessment of the status of the golden eagle in the western U.S. showed that populations have been decreasing in some areas but rising in others.

source

All About Unions and Minimum Wage

December 7, 2013

A Primer on Union Types

There are basically three different types of labor unions. There are tradeunions, who are the oldest, consisting of your electricians, masons, plumbers, carpenters, and so on. These men and women serve a serious function, and the union provides them training in the best construction techniques, safety, project management, and a whole host of other things that make it pretty easy to tell when a building was built by union trades, and when a building was built by a bunch of twits who taught themselves how to bang nails with a hammer.

The second type of union, which we rail on all the time, is the publicsector union. These are your teachers, police, fire, DMV workers, pencil pushers, and break takers who will sue the everloving spook out of you if you ask them to work to 5:01 on a weekday. They might agree to work one weekend a decade if you agree to double their pension. They are, of course, an unskilled bunch of cretins who are an instant and irreversible financial drain on any local, municipal, county, or state government they touch.

The third type, which we do not talk about too much, is the industrialunion: this is a grab bag of service sector employees (janitors, farm workers, nuclear power plant workers, nurses, grocery baggers) as well as organized labor unions, which include everything from teamsters, steelworkers, drivers, postal employees, and on and on.

Union Membership Declines To Record Lows

Now that you know all that, which of the three categories do you think has seen the greatest membership losses? Obviously, trade unions are doing very well. And we regret to concede that public sector union growth is tied to the growth of big government. Yeah, we saw a reduction in membership the last quarter, but public sector unions are still the largest type of union nationally.

Obviously this leave the industrial unions. Membership here is bad; for example, the commercial food workers union in Chicago alone is sliver of what it once was. Frankly, private employers are sick and tired of unions driving up costs and scaring away customers; as soon as they can force a union out, they do.

Closed shops (if you want to work here, ya gotta join the union) are disappearing at crazy speeds. Businesses are literally leaving states that promote union membership and heading to states where closed shops are disallowed. Yes, the tide has turned. People don’t want to be in unions, and others don’t want to deal with union workers.

Imagine a world where a union simply says “We had our day. We did our thing. People don’t see the need for us, so we decided to close up the whole thing and go home. Enjoy the higher wages, former members: you don’t owe us any more dues.” Yeah, us neither.

So unions need to drive up membership. And what better way to do it than to convince undereducated younger fools that they deserve higher pay? You know, for just showing up.

Minimum Wage

The most interesting take on this crap recently is this absolutely moronic notion that fast food workers should be paid a living wage. A living wage means that you can actually live off the money you get paid, in case you wanted to make a career out of shoveling burgers into white paper bags. You laugh at the way we phrased this, but actually that’sexactly what that means by a living wage. A teenager who stabs icons of sandwiches on a register or the perky girl on the drive-thru headset should make enough money to go to college, buy a house, own a car, and set up a diversified 401(k).

The living wage—which theoretically means “just enough to survive on” but practically means anything you associate with survival in the United States—is commonly but inappropriate linked to the concept of minimum wage. Minimum wage, legally defined as the lowest allowable dollar per hour that an employee may be compensated, is an inherently bad idea and severe headache for business. The Czar has previously walked you all through the business logic.

So the AFL-CIO and SEIU—guess which type of unions they are—have been fomenting these minimum-wage walkouts. Basically, if your employer does not equate minimum wage with living wage—popularly but effectively set at a totally arbitrary $15 per hour—you are being encouraged to stage mass walkouts.

You got that right: if you work at a fast food place or coffee shop and aren’t being paid $15 per hour, or $31,200 a year, you and your colleagues should just walk right out the door and refuse to work until the next day.

Okay, can you live on $31,200 a year? Remember, after tax, you would be making about $25,000 a year. That’s a shade more than two grand a month. Think that will pay your rent, pay for Obamacare, cover $15 a day in groceries, your utilities, a car payment, and auto insurance?

Never mind that. Forget we brought it up, because the $15 per hour isnot a living wage. It is pure fiction. So who came up with it? Actually it originates with the Service Employees International Union, or the SEIU. And in nearly every write up you encounter where minimum wage = living wage, you will see the added demand (ready?) that these fast food workers join a union.

And that union, not surprisingly, happens to be the SEIU.

Equally non-shocking is that the vast majority of fast food workers are not interested in this bullshit. The number of fast food employees walking off their jobs ranges between 15% and 20%. Wait—where have we seen that number before?—generally, in any employee labor pool, about that number will be jackass agitators.

Go Ahead, Turkeys

So if you happen to own a fast food establishment, and about 15-20% of your staff turned their noses up at your pay scale and walked off the job, you would likely respond by recording which employees walked off the job. And you would either fire them on the spot, if you could afford the labor debt, or simply advertise that you were accepting applications to work there. And prioritize it so that the same 15-20% were the first positions replaced.

It’s this simple: you don’t want to work for Mr. Amundsen at $10 an hour? Quit and get a better job. Because if you don’t want to work for him, he certainly doesn’t want you as an employee. Maybe you have noticed the 7% unemployment rate. There are a lot of folks who would line up for $10 per hour. A motivated employee is so much more helpful than a stuck-up princess who thinks pressing the PROMO button on the register warrants her a Porsche Cayenne with GPS and Bose sound.

One thing about SEIU members: they never seem to be the heads of major organizations. Because anyone with a lick of sense, like our readers, can see that a business owner will deal with a $15/hour minimum wage pretty simply. In fact, why not let a reader tell the rest of us how she would handle it?

Dear Your Czarness:

I notice that the President is attempting another one of his famous "pivots."

Since the whole roll-out of Obamacare has totally harshed his mellow, hey, let's just change the subject to something all social-justicey, like raising the minimum wage. I imagine the meeting could be summarized with something like this: "All those Ebeneezer Scrouge sorts will knash their teeth (bonus!), but this is just the ticket to rally our base. Double winning!"

So Obama gives a speech yesterday extolling the virtues of hard-working single moms (for some reason he has no sympathy for hard-working married types). And he affirms his solidarity with waiters, fast-food workers, etc.

All the while, the smartest president evah, who's pretty tech-savy (just ask him about Kayak) ignores the technological revolution that has already nearly eliminated bank clerks and is well on the way to replacing grocery-store check-out clerks. Robotic components of assembly-lines is old news, just ask the auto-workers. And now, Amazon wants to use drones for delivery? Wonder how totally stoked my favorite UPS delivery guy is about that?

But what about positions that require more academic expertise? All those professors at colleges and universities are cannot be terribly excited by Coursera's offerings. But here's something I'd never seen before taking our younger son on a visit to look at North Carolina State's engineering school. I think there are some librarians who are not getting hired because of this technology:



Actually this video does not do justice to the Hunt Library's "bookBot." It moves much faster in real-time and is really cool to watch.

If Obama wants to raise the minimum wage, he'll only hasten the process.

Yours from the Doublewide, JAB

Bingo. There is a reason you are being paid $9.50 an hour: you don’t contribute very much. And the owner of the company is being extra nice to you by keeping you on...because for less money, she can replace you with a BookBot. Or an ATM. Or healthcare.gov.

Volgi is squirming in his chair right now, and wants the Czar to address an essay by the respected Alec Torres: Are ‘Fast-Food Worker’ Protests Just Another Gasp of Occupy?

The latest round of protests for higher fast-food wages hit New York City today, but they could have been mistaken for just about any other gathering of the city’s progressive coalition. I finally ran into the 200 or so people (by one organizer’s estimate) in downtown Manhattan, after they’d been shuffled by leaders from Times Square to downtown Brooklyn, over to Upper Manhattan and back down to City Hall, popping up to chant in front of apparently random fast-food restaurants before packing up, hitting the subway, and heading to the next establishment.

The protest — and it was certainly a protest, not a strike or a picket line, since the easy majority of the marchers, by my estimation, were not actually fast-food workers — ostensibly was aimed at a $15 an hour wage and unionization rights for fast-food employees, but the group contained such an array of interests and causes that it resembled the eclecticism of Occupy Wall Street more than a single-issue movement.

After several rounds of invocations for “justice” and “equality,” condemnations of the One Percent, calls for full-day, universal pre-school, and more, I eventually left, unsure if I had observed a demonstration for fast-food workers or an Occupy Wall Street reunion.

Not quite. In fact, this is backward.

The labor unions are pushing for unionization and using the $15/hour fiction as leverage. It is by happenstance that the average Millennial foolish enough to humor this concept is also likely to engage in Occupy-style fantasy. Both living wage = minimum wage and Occupy appeal to the same deluded man-children. Both are symptoms, not the disease.

The disease, of course, is Leftism. A $15/hour minimum wage will (a) not be a living wage—and you can thank the Democrats for the rising cost of living—and (b) almost certainly destroy service businesses or ensure workers are permanently replaced by automatation.

Oh, one thing JAB did not explicitly say in her automation observation because she assumes you are smart enough to catch it: once a business owner automates a job function, he or she never goes back to de-automate. Let us suppose to ask for $15 per hour, and the business owner replaces you with an iPhone app. All right, you grabbed too much and you realize it; you’re actually sorry about being so greedy. Guess what: you won’t be getting your job back.

Also, catch that bit about the iPhone app? The unions will tell you that your boss dreads replacing you. In fact, you can call his bluff at any time because replacing you with a robot will cost him millions of dollars he doesn’t have. Automate your job? What a farce: you know he’ll cough up the do-re-mi.

No, kids: robots are so1970s. It’s almost 2014. For $5,000, he can replace you and all your peers by hiring a coder one time to replace you with an app. Once customers realize they can order cheese and substitute onion rings for fries by tapping on a smartphone icon, you’re smoke. History. If you support a $15/hour living wage, you probably cannot do basic math—so let us help you here. $5,000 is about what you would make during summer vacation at $15 per hour. That’s not much, right? Your protest said as much. Think he’s bluffing now?

How Bad is the NSA Scandal? Even Left Wing Radical Alan Grayson push to hold hearing on NSA actions denied

December 6, 2013

WASHINGTON — Since July, U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson has been trying to do something that should come easily to a federal lawmaker: hold a congressional hearing.

But the months-long effort has repeatedly hit roadblocks, and the Orlando Democrat suspects one reason is the focus of the hearing itself: an investigation into the National Security Agency and reports that federal agents scooped up the phone and Internet records of millions of Americans.

Another reason is the star witness Grayson hopes to invite: journalist Glenn Greenwald, who broke the news of the NSA's wide-ranging surveillance programs earlier this year with the help of leaker Edward Snowden. Grayson wants to have Greenwald appear in person, but the journalist, who lives in Brazil, has been reluctant to fly to Washington because of fears that he will be arrested by U.S. authorities at the airport.

In the months since, Grayson has tried to assure Greenwald's safe passage, even asking the U.S. Department of Justice in October whether agents intend to detain Greenwald, a U.S. citizen, upon arrival. Grayson said he never received a response, though in recent weeks top Justice officials seem to have warmed to the idea of Greenwald's visiting.

In a recent interview with The Washington Post, Attorney General Eric Holder said that, although he disagreed with Greenwald's publication of sensitive information, "I'm not sure there is a basis for prosecution."

A Justice Department spokesman confirmed that account and pointed to new agency guidelines meant to smooth relations with the media following the revelation that federal agents had snagged the phone records of Associated Press reporters.

Even so, Greenwald reportedly remains reluctant to return to the U.S. So Grayson has been trying to find a room on Capitol Hill that could accommodate a video feed.

At the same time, Grayson accused leaders in both parties, including those who sit on Congress' intelligence committees, of not doing enough to oversee the NSA or its controversial activities.

Last spring it was revealed that the NSA was tapping the central servers of the country's biggest Internet companies as well as seizing phone data that included millions of records from Verizon.

"We couldn't get the relevant [intelligence] committees to do this [hearing] because the relevant committees essentially are puppets for the spying industrial complex," Grayson said.

A spokeswoman for the House intelligence committee's top Democrat, U.S. Rep. C.A. "Dutch" Ruppersberger of Maryland, disagreed with that characterization.

"Since June alone, the committee has held nearly 60 meetings and briefings with the NSA, including a number of briefings open to all members of Congress and two open hearings," said the spokeswoman, Allison Getty, in a statement. "The committee has also worked hard to inform members about the technical details and the legality of certain NSA programs, as well as the levels of oversight and accountability each has."

This isn't the first time Grayson has clashed with the House intelligence committee, whose members have access to information not available to most members of Congress. In October, the committee voted to deny Grayson access to classified documents related to the administration's plans to attack Syria.

Undeterred by the setbacks, Grayson said he hopes to finally hold the NSA hearing early next year.

"You have to drill deeply into [this issue]. It's not something the administration is going to do for us," he said. "The NSA is not going to tell us about their own abuses."

source: mkmatthews @ tribune.com

Nevermind Job Creation: White House prefered scare tactic claims 30,000 Louisiana residents could lose unemployment insurance in 2014 if Congress doesn't extend benefits

December 6, 2013

       Rep. Cedric Richmond supports continuation of extended unemployment benefits. ( Associated Press )

By Bruce Alpert, NOLA.com | Times-Picayune 
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration on Thursday stepped up efforts to convince Congress to continue extended unemployment benefits, now scheduled to end in January.

Currently, Louisiana has 6,326 people receiving extended benefits as a result of the federal program. If Congress doesn't act, benefits in Louisiana will end after 26 weeks of coverage. The White House said in a report Thursday that as many as 30,000 Louisiana residents could lose out on extended unemployment benefits, which peak at $237 a month, if the program isn't continued by Congress.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Thursday that he would consider an administration request to extend benefits, but made no commitment.

Some Republicans contend that extended unemployment benefits serve as a disincentive for people to find work.

"That's crazy," said Rep. Cedric Richmond, D-New Orleans. "Unemployment doesn't pay the same amount you are used to on your job. People want a job so they can provide for their families. The unemployment is a pass through. It doesn't get put in a bank account. It goes back out into the economy to pay the essentials."

Currently, Louisiana residents can qualify for an extra 37 weeks of coverage, beyond the traditional 26 weeks.

Rep. Bill Cassidy, R-Baton Rouge, didn't say whether he would support an extension of unemployment benefits, but called increasing jobs the most effective strategy to help the unemployed.

"The way you create jobs is by using America's natural resources," he said in a statement. "When you take oil and gas out of the ground, you create jobs at the wellhead and then all the way down stream, whether it is building pipeline, making the steel to make the pipe that goes into the pipeline; expanding petrochemical plants are then building pipelines from the petrochemical plants onward.

"Now, as regards long-term unemployment, that's a Band-Aid on a problem. We need to address the problem first," he said.

But according to a new report from the White House, unemployment benefits produce jobs. Without the extension, the United States could expect to lose 240,000 jobs because the spending power provided by extended unemployment benefit goes directly into the economy, paying for housing, food and other essential goods and services, the White House report said.

A 2012 Heritage report said extended benefits were appropriate during the 2008-09 recession, when unemployment peaked at 10 percent. It opposed the extension approved by Congress for 2013.

"Some people prefer collecting unemployment insurance to working," the Heritage report said. "However, the main reason UI increases unemployment is because it changes how the unemployed search for jobs. Workers with many months of benefits focus their search on jobs they prefer to find, which often means jobs that pay similarly to what they made before and/or are near where they live. When their unemployment insurance benefits draw down, they widen their search."

The White House said Congress has never suspended benefits when the unemployment rate was as high as the current 7.3 percent rate. It said that more than a dozen economic studies found that any disincentive to find new work that could result from extended benefits is, at most, small.

Not extending unemployment benefits, the White House report said, might encourage some long-term jobless Americans to give up in their job searches -- something they can't do while collecting benefits, because looking for work is part of the program's requirements.

The White House said that currently, 1.3 million Americans are receiving extended benefits, and 3.6 million Americans, including 30,000 in Louisiana, could lose jobless benefits in 2014 if Congress doesn't extend benefits beyond 26 weeks.

Tom Guarisco, spokesman for the Louisiana Workforce Commission, said an unemployed person now receives 26 weeks of regular unemployment benefits, funded by employers who pay UI taxes. After those benefits are exhausted, they can receive extended benefits, up to 37 weeks, which are federally funded. The extended benefits, under current law, are based on an individual state's unemployment rate.

If the program is extended through 2014, and Louisiana's 6.5 percent unemployment rate stays steady or declines, the maximum extended benefits would likely drop to 28 weeks.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cost of extending unemployment insurance benefits for another year nationally would be $25 billion.

source

American teacher Ronnie Smith shot and killed near U.S. Consulate in Benghazi

December 6, 2013

The 33-year-old chemistry teacher had planned to return to the U.S. next week to visit family for Christmas. The Texan worked at the International School Benghazi and was shot while going for a morning jog. The White House put pressure on the fragile Libyan government to find the killers.

BY STEPHEN REX BROWN / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

PUBLISHED: THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2013, 8:42 AM

UPDATED: THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2013, 5:24 PM

TWITTER

American chemistry teacher Ronnie Smith was shot dead Thursday in Benghazi as he jogged by the site of the notorious attack on a U.S. consulate.

Gunmen shot dead an American teaching chemistry in Benghazi Thursday as he jogged by the site of the notorious attack on a U.S. consulate.

Ronnie Smith, 33, of Texas, had planned to return to the U.S. next week to visit family for Christmas, NBC News reported.

He had taught at the school for about 18 months. Before that, he had been a staff member at the Austin Stone Community Church in Texas, according to a pastor.

"It is with a heavy heart that we confirm that our dear friend Ronnie Smith passed away in Benghazi, Libya," said Dave Barrett, executive pastor of operations, in a statement released Thursday.

No one took responsibility for Smith's death, though the Islamic militants active in the notorious city were immediately suspected.

Smith, who received a master’s degree in chemistry from the University of Texas, worked at the International School Benghazi.

He described himself on Twitter as “Libya’s best friend.”

MUSTAFA EL-SHRIDI/EPA

A man holds a gun in the air next to burning buildings at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012. Libyan officials said Thursday an American teacher was shot and killed in the troubled city.

"He was doing his morning exercise when gunmen just shot him. I don't know why. He was so sweet with everyone," said Adel al Mansouri, a manager at the Libyan-owned school that teaches an American curriculum.

A spokeswoman for the Al-Galaa hospital where Smith's body was taken said he had been shot multiple times.

Smith's wife, Anita, and their young son had already arrived in Texas for the holidays, according to the church's statement. "Ronnie's greatest desire was for peace and prosperity in Libya and for the people of Libya to have the joy of knowing God through Christ," it said.

The instructor had stayed behind "out of a sense of dedication" to help his students with mid-terms, then was scheduled to join his family in Austin. "Many of us knew Ronnie and his family well ... (they) were planning to spend time before Christmas with us here in Austin. Anita and their son had returned to the U.S. and are safe with family," the statement said.

RELATED: STATE DEPARTMENT FAILS TO MEMORIALIZE AMBASSADOR ON 9/11

The church's website also said the couple had been married for 10 years, and that Smith was orginally from Michigan. He has three sisters. By late Thursday, that information, which also described Smith as an avid sportsman fond of tennis, had been removed from the site.

The Obama administration quickly put pressure on the fragile Libyan government to investigate Smith’s death.

MOHAMMAD HANNON/AP

Protestors in Benghazi burned an American flag three days after the coordinated attack on the U.S. consulate there in 2012.

"We look to the Libyan government to thoroughly investigate this killing," spokesman Jay Carney said, adding that the State Department was in touch with the victim’s family. 

People who identified themselves as friends and students of Smith grieved on Twitter.

RELATED: STATE DEPARTMENT CLEARS OFFICIALS THAT HAD BEEN INVESTIGATED FOR BENGHAZI SECURITY GAPS

Benghazi, Libya’s second-largest city, was the site of an attack by Islamist militants on a U.S. consulate in 2012 on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

Four Americans were killed, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens.

The attack revealed critical weaknesses in consulates’ security policy. The Obama administration faced withering criticism for its handling of the aftermath of the attack.

Since the death of Muammar Gaddafi in 2011 Libya has been in a perpetual state of instability.

The armed groups instrumental in the overthrow of the longtime dictator now control large swaths of territory, stalling efforts to democratize the oil-rich North African country.

 

With News Wire Services

 

sbrown@nydailynews.com

ON A MOBILE DEVICE? CLICK HERE TO WATCH THE VIDEO.

source