Fool Me Twice

Apr 282015

by Matthew Vadum — April 28, 2015

Baltimore is burning because community organizers and various thugs are tearing the city apart in the aftermath of theTuxedo-Obama-laughing-AFP-600 strange death of a young black man who was in the custody of police — and President Obama is trying to make things worse.

In an incredible non-coincidence the rioting follows a weekend rally by the Occupy Wall Street-like Baltimore Peoples Assembly. There also was a first wave of rioting over the weekend. Outside activists have been flooding into Baltimore, according to reports. Police and civilians have been injured. A CVS store was looted and set on fire. Rioters chopped up fire hoses to prevent firefighters from doing their job. Criminal gangs have declared open season on cops. Rioters have been throwing cinder blocks, bricks, and other objects at police. And there aren’t enough cops to go around. Baltimore police are begging police officers in other states to come to Baltimore to help out. Schools are closed Tuesday.


Baltimore is now a war zone. Understandably, the Baltimore Orioles announced on Twitter at 6:20 last night that the game with the Chicago White Sox scheduled for 7:05 had been postponed. After Democrats dawdled, Maryland’s new Republican Gov. Larry Hogan acted last night, activating the Maryland National Guard in an attempt to restore order. Sensing things were getting out of hand fast, Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake (D), said Monday that as of Tuesday evening she will impose a one-week curfew lasting from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. It’s not clear why the curfew wasn’t to take effect last night while parts of the city were burning.

The looters and rioters have seized on a pretext. They are exploiting the case of Freddie Gray, a 25-year-old black man who was arrested the morning of April 12 in West Baltimore. At that time he was reportedly having difficulty walking. About 30 minutes later when he arrived at a police station, he was reportedly unable to breathe or talk. Somehow he suffered severe injuries to his spine but nobody can say why. He was admitted to hospital and a week later he was dead. Gray was laid to rest yesterday, an event that some took as a green-light to riot.

Thuggery reigns in Baltimore as cops stand idly by.

Thuggery reigns in Baltimore as cops stand idly by.

Gray’s death may be a genuine case of police malfeasance. Eventually investigators will figure out what happened to Gray and we can only hope justice will be done.

Pundits are weighing in on the unfolding events in Baltimore.

On last night’s “John Batchelor Show,” National Review‘s national-affairs columnist John Fund bemoaned “a level of incompetence we haven’t seen since” then-Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco (D) botched the state’s response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

On Fox News Channel, Charles Krauthammer said, “There’s a total failure of leadership here. People can look at the scenes and they know that there’s a city out of control on the ground. But it’s also out of control at the level of governance.”

In the meantime, you can bet this year’s harvest of Chesapeake Bay crabs that the Obama White House is now in overdrive trying to capitalize on Gray’s death. President Obama has single-mindedly pushed hard again and again and again to reduce the country he hates to warring racial factions. This is a crisis he cannot afford to waste. His pen and phone are ready for action.


America’s ambulance-chasing, race-baiting, chief executive is doing his best to make the situation in Maryland’s largest city much more unpleasant than it is now. Predictably, Obama will deplore the violence in Baltimore and then out of the other side of his mouth condone it by saying he understands the anger of the mob that is ripping the city to pieces.

We know Obama is doing these things because after Eric Holder’s dreary ideological twin, Loretta Lynch, was sworn in as U.S. attorney general yesterday, she acknowledged that the Department of Justice’s Alinskyite shock troops are already goose-stepping the dangerous streets of Baltimore.

As she regurgitated the obligatory politically correct recitals, Lynch played the Gandhi card. She perfunctorily shared her hope that the protestors that the media persists in labeling “mostly peaceful” would play nice. She condemned “the senseless acts of violence.”

“As our investigative process continues,” she said in a statement, “I strongly urge every member of the Baltimore community to adhere to the principles of nonviolence.”

Alarm bells should have gone off in the heads of patriotic Americans when Lynch admitted that the Justice Department’s infamous Community Relations Service (CRS) “has already been on the ground, and they are sending additional resources as they continue to work with all parties to reduce tensions and promote the safety of the community.”

Just a little humor amid the deja-vu.

Just a little humor amid the deja-vu.

And what might those “additional resources” consist of? Al Sharpton’s favorite electronic gadget, the bullhorn, is bound to be part of the aid package from Washington.

This is what CRS does. Three years ago CRS dragged an innocent man through the muck and into court.


In February 2012, after 17-year-old Trayvon Martin was shot to death during a physical confrontation with neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman, the Obama administration deployed government-paid community organizers to Sanford, Florida.

CRS’s mission was to foment racial tensions. It succeeded.

For a month and a half after Martin’s death, local police declined to press charges against Zimmerman, who was ultimately acquitted, because they believed the criminal case against him was tissue-thin.

But CRS burned through thousands of dollars helping to plan marches at which its organizers exacerbated racial tensions and loudly demanded that Zimmerman be prosecuted — and he was.

In theory CRS employees are supposed to try to defuse combustible situations in communities but in reality they pour gasoline on raging fires by engaging in political advocacy. It’s never advocacy for conservative causes or positions.

As a result of a Freedom of Information Act request, Judicial Watch discovered that CRS employees were involved in “marches, demonstrations, and rallies related to the shooting and death of an African-American teen by a neighborhood watch captain”; providing “support for protest deployment in Florida”; rendering “technical assistance to the City of Sanford, event organizers, and law enforcement agencies for the march and rally on March 31”; and providing “technical assistance, conciliation, and onsite mediation during demonstrations planned in Sanford.”


In April 2012, CRS “set up a meeting between the local NAACP and elected officials that led to the temporary resignation of police chief Bill Lee, according to Turner Clayton, Seminole County chapter president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People,” government documents state.

This odious government-subsidized rabble-rousing is nothing new. For a half century, the Left has been using taxpayer dollars to fund efforts to advance radical, subversive causes in the United States. Changes in federal social policy in the mid-1960s helped to lay the groundwork for this insidious leftist astro-turfing. Guided by the doomed-from-the-start War on Poverty, since 1965 the federal government has been giving taxpayer money to liberal and radical groups to help them agitate against the status quo.

In the Zimmerman case, the Obama administration got rid of the middleman and in-sourced the work instead of doling out grants to left-wing street protest groups. Field agents for CRS also assisted the Occupy Wall Street and anarchist activists outside the 2012 Republican National Convention in Tampa.

Again, this is what the leftist agitators of the Community Relations Service do and we can only wonder what they are doing on the ground in Baltimore.

It needs to be pointed out that it is not at all clear why Gray was arrested. David A. Graham provides a useful summary of the facts at the Atlantic‘s website. Graham wrote that:

“an officer made eye contact with Gray, and he took off running, so they pursued him. Though he’d had scrapes with the law before, there’s no indication he was wanted at the time. And though he was found with a switchblade, Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake said, ‘We know that having a knife is not necessarily a crime.’”

Gray did not resist arrest and officers say they did not use force, a claim that seems to be backed up video footage shot by witnesses. The young man apparently howled with pain and seemed to have been injured as he was dragged to a police van.

Off-camera a voice can be heard saying, “His leg broke and y’all dragging him like that!” Gray, who was asthmatic, requested his inhaler but it wasn’t given to him.

“Yet it’s not the leg or the asthma that killed him,” Graham observed. 

Freddy Gray sustained serious injuries while under police custody.

Freddy Gray sustained serious injuries while under police custody.

“Instead, it was a grave injury to his spinal cord. Gray’s family said he was treated for three fractured vertebrae and a crushed voice box, the sorts of injuries that doctors say are usually caused by serious car accidents. The van made at least two stops before reaching the police station, but there’s no footage to say what happened during the journey or at those stops.”

Needless to say, at this point things don’t look good for the Baltimore City police department.


For a multitude of reasons, left-wing city officials don’t like putting down riots. They know that social justice enthusiasts like rioters are an important voting bloc in the Democratic Party. They don’t like interfering with the spontaneous outbreaks of redistribution –for example, the smash-and-grab appropriation of consumer electronics– that looters effectuate.

Is this hyperbole? After rioting started on Saturday, Mayor Rawlings-Blake consoled violent activists and even encouraged more rioting.

“I made it very clear that I work with the police and instructed them to do everything that they could to make sure that the protesters were able to exercise their right to free speech,” the mayor said.

“It’s a very delicate balancing act. Because while we tried to make sure that they were protected from the cars and other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well. And we worked very hard to keep that balance and to put ourselves in the best position to de-escalate.” [emphasis added]

Radical left-wingers must be comforted knowing that Rawlings-Blake has their back.

The Mayor of Baltimore, Stephanie-Rawlings-Blake. Be careful what you ask for cause --- you may just get it....

The Mayor of Baltimore, Stephanie-Rawlings-Blake. Be careful what you ask for ’cause — you may just get it….

And she isn’t some fringe figure among her fellow Democrats. She is currently secretary of the Democratic National Committee and vice president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors. Her views are more or less mainstream in her party. The idea of leaving rioters alone is part of the Left’s catechism.


Marylander James Simpson, who chronicles the insanity of the Left, observes in a blistering column that the mayor is the author of her own misfortune. The mayor must be under the illusion that rioting is a constitutionally protected form of political speech.

He writes:

“Under orders, police held back and did nothing while rioters engaged in repeated acts of violence, including smashing car windows, destroying police cars and attacking individuals and private businesses … This was the mayor’s idea of respecting the rioters’ First Amendment rights.

“Predictably, they took her encouragement as opportunity for even more violence and widespread looting,” Simpson writes. “The city is burning and the governor has declared a state of emergency. Now she is calling those very same people, thugs.”

Simpson is right. Rawlings-Blake did an unexpected about-face as the situation grew more grave in Baltimore. She suddenly labeled the rioters “thugs” and said they “only want to incite violence and destroy our city.”

Baltimore riots fueled by racist hatred.

Baltimore riots fueled by racist hatred.

Despite her epiphany, Rawlings-Blake “personifies the mindless, entitlement mentality that has ruined inner cities throughout the U.S. The wild, defiant and often violent behavior of criminals in this city is enabled and encouraged by an attitude always looking to blame someone else.”

Standing down the police in the face of civil unrest has become standard operating procedure for left-wing government officials.

After race riots erupted in cities across America following the April 1968 assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., Washington, D.C. mayor Walter Washington refused to use force to restore order in his city. FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover and others pressed the mayor to authorize police to shoot looters on sight but Mayor Washington stubbornly refused to do his duty.

A strong argument can be made that Washington betrayed his constituents by failing to take necessary steps to restore order and protect human life and property. He wandered the streets and, in his own words, “urged angry young people to go home.” His outreach efforts may have caused some to drop their baseball bats, but by wimping out, Washington condemned large stretches of the nation’s capital to decades of purgatory. Some burnt out neighborhoods took 30 years to recover; some neighborhoods still haven’t.


Riots, of course, are nothing new for Baltimore.

The Pratt Street Riot of April 19, 1861 took place not too far from the current disturbances. The state song, “Maryland, My Maryland,” refers to “the patriotic gore that flecked the streets of Baltimore,” which at least in the earliest days of the Civil War was a hotbed of Confederate sympathizers. Secession supporters and federal troops skirmished all day and in the end four soldiers and a dozen civilians lay dead.

This is the same Baltimore that leftist Martin O’Malley neglected when he was mayor from 1999 to 2007. O’Malley is the egomaniacal guitar-playing, bulging-biceped man who has carefully cultivated an image as one of the cool guys that you’d have to be a major-league grouch to dislike. Citing dubious figures, O’Malley claimed to be responsible for making big-time inroads on his city’s crime rates.

Now after spending eight long, truly awful tax-and-spend years in the governor’s mansion in Annapolis, O’Malley is considering challenging Hillary Clinton as she seeks the White House. Maryland lawyer Richard J. Douglas argues that O’Malley made a mess of Maryland.

“Taxpayers abandoned his state in droves during his tenure as governor, but that’s not dampening the presidential aspirations of Martin O’Malley,” writes Douglas. “In 2014, his final year in office as governor, Maryland had the second-highest foreclosure rate in the nation. Now he wants to ride this embarrassing record to the White House.”

O’Malley won’t be able to become president if Americans manage to connect the current troubles in Baltimore to the failed left-wing ideas, including the shameless race-baiting, he embraces.

And so the suffering of the people of Baltimore may serve as a national civics lesson.

If Barack Obama and his ilk get their way, Baltimore may become a cautionary tale for the ages.


via Baltimore Burns While Obama Plots.

Apr 132015

By Colin Flaherty — April 13, 2015

Louisville has a new hero: A black judge unafraid to stand up to the relentless white racism that is everywhere, all the time, and explains everything.

Judge Olu Stevens - Racist Judge

Judge Olu Stevens – Racist Judge

And the racist at the receiving end of Judge Olu Stevens’ courageous scorn? A three-year-old girl.

This profile in courage began two years ago when two black men burst into the home of Jordan and Tommy Gray, parents of the aforementioned offender. They held the family at gunpoint, making all the required threats about hurting them if they did not turn over all the valuable things that were probably hiding in their modest domicile.

The little girl was watching the Sponge Bob Square Pants cartoon show which, as any capable observer would know, is just another example of the embedded and unconscious racism that is buried so deeply is so many white people, to borrow a phrase from the President of the United States.

Not buried so deeply were the family’s valuables: The home invaders left with a cell phone and $1000 cash the family had been saving for vacation.

This of course was strike two: According to the Seattle public school district, saving is example of “future time orientation,” and that is a white thing.  Only racists would expect black people to “exhibit” that.

Just in case you are not up on the full definition of “racism,” here it is, courtesy of Seattle Public Schools:

“Those aspects of society that overtly and covertly attribute value and normality to white people and Whiteness, and devalue, stereotype, and label people of color as “other”, different, less than, or render them invisible. Examples of these norms include defining white skin tones as nude or flesh colored, having a future time orientation, emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology, defining one form of English as standard.”

Soon after the robbery, the little girl told her mother that she was afraid of black people.  And the mother told the judge in her victim’s statement.

Judge Stevens did not care for that.

Like justice coming down like rain, Judge Stevens poured his righteous indignation down on them. The family, that is. Not the criminals. All on video.


“There’s a victim impact statement here that bothers me, to be honest with you,” said Judge Stevens. “I assume the victims in this case are white?” he asked the prosecutor, who was hoping for a 20-year sentence for the miscreant. (The gun-toting home invader, not the infantile racist.)

“It troubles me greatly,” said the judge, as he read the mother’s account of how this robbery has traumatized her child. Again, just for the sake of clarity, the judge was not troubled at the trauma the little girl experienced, he was troubled at the trauma he was experiencing that anyone would could be aware that black crime and violence in Louisville is wildly out of proportion.

The mother and child’s reaction was similar to what the Reverend Jesse Jackson said about black crime: “There is nothing more painful to me … than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”


“Really?” Judge Stevens asked after reading the mother’s account of her daughter’s fear of black men following the robbery.

“I want to make that part of the record, I am offended by that,” said the judge.

And just in case anyone did not get the message the first several times, the judge took it to a new level: “I am deeply offended by that.”

He blamed the child’s racism on the parents for “fostering” it. And all of sudden the victims of the racial violence were now the perpetrators.

And the perpetrators? They were the victims.

The judge then faced the one remaining home invader that was left to be sentenced and told him he believed he could be redeemed through the saving power of probation. Not prison.

This was the second recent case of toddler racism exposed in the public square in the last two months. The first came on the floor of the Indiana State legislature when Rep. Vanessa Summers presaged the happenings in the Louisville courtroom.

“As an African American female,” explained Rep. Vanessa Summers, “I get discriminated against, you don’t,” she told a white legislator.

“I have told Representative McMillin I love his little son, but he’s scared of me because of my color. And that’s horrible. And that’s something we’re going to work on. We’ve talked about it. And we’re going to work on it.”

“I asked him ‘please, introduce your child to some people of color so that he won’t live his life as a prejudiced person.’ ”

McMillin’s 18-month old racist son was not available to confirm or deny the allegations.

I am going to invoke a bit of author’s privilege here to list my own personal favorite of how another brave black judge stood up to the forces of white racism.

Judge Wayne Bennett - Another racist judge.

Judge Wayne Bennett – Another racist judge.

The judge was Wayne Bennett who, when he is not contributing to his popular Field Negro blog, plies his trade as a jurist in the Philadelphia family court. The occasion was a newspaper column from Dr. Thomas Sowell, saying that before he read White Girl Bleed a Lot: The return of racial violence to America and how the media ignore it (that scintillating best seller from your humble correspondent) he did not really know how bad the problem of black mob violence really was.

Judge Bennett did not like that.

“I call bull s**t,” quoth the judge. “Here is the deal, no matter how violent some young black punks act and wild out towards groups of white people — or a single white individual, it will never make up for all the violence that was practiced against people of color throughout this nation’s history.”

Translation: White people deserve it.



via Articles: Black Judge heaps Scorn on Three-year old Racist.

Apr 082015

By Tom Trinko — April 8, 2015

It’s impossible to win a war with an army of weaklings, cowards, and traitors.

rino cowards

It’s time conservatives realize that the country moving to the tune of liberals, no matter who wins elections, is due not to the domination of the mainstream media (MSM), but to the weakness, dishonesty, or cowardice of Republican politicians.

Media frenzies like the recent one about religious freedom in Indiana are like push polls; they don’t last long.  How many anti-conservative MSM outbursts occurred prior to the 2014 elections, which the Republicans resoundingly won?  If MSM magic were determining elections, Republicans wouldn’t have won.

When the Republican speaker of the House surrenders to Nancy Pelosi and sets up a vote where a Democrat/RINO coalition overrides the majority of Republicans to fund something most Republicans ran against in the last election, we have to realize that it’s not the media that’s the problem.

Speaker Boehner epitomizes the modern RINO.

Speaker Boehner epitomizes the modern RINO.

Think about it: Obama, Reid, and most other Democrats claim to be conservatives at election time.  Obama was for improving the economy and being bipartisan.  No mention of socialized medicine.

The congressional sweep in 2014 resulted from Republicans articulating conservative values: lowering taxes, ending ObamaCare, opposing executive amnesty.

Why do you think that Obama has always put off his biggest liberal actions until after an election?  If the MSM had convinced the voters that liberalism is good, then Obama would have brought out the liberal moves before the election.  Instead, the Democrats realize that the voters aren’t liberal, so they hide, or lie about, what they do.

While the impact of the MSM is real, it’s not what people think it is.  The real impact of the media is on the politicians.  Living in Washington and moving with the Washington cultural “elite,” too many Republicans begin to believe that what they hear from their consultant class friends and the Washington Post is true.

oldest rino

Those politicians begin to think they can’t get re-elected unless they downplay their conservative values.  Or they, like human beings everywhere, start drifting toward the positions held by the people they see and socialize with every day.

The vast majority of people in D.C. depend on big government for their jobs and their wealth; it’s no accident that D.C. is now the richest city in the country.  For every conservative Republican politician, there are probably hundreds of nice people who need a big government to thrive.  That’s the culture Republican politicians live in; they spend far more time in D.C. than back home where their conservative values are nurtured.

Think of how many good teenagers go to liberal colleges where they transmute into irrational liberals.  It’s the same phenomenon we’re seeing with Republicans in D.C.

The problem is that too many Republicans who go to D.C. as conservatives lack the support structure or moral fiber to stick to their beliefs when immersed in the D.C. culture.

Essentially, conservatives need to ensure that Republicans don’t “go native” in D.C.

It takes a tremendous amount of courage to speak conservative truths in D.C., where doing so will result in being mocked and reviled.  Cowardly Republicans will change their stands to avoid that sort of bullying.

Weak Republicans will succumb to the constant drumbeat of liberalism they hear from their D.C. “friends” and the MSM and become liberals.

Traitorous Republicans never believed in conservatism but have no problem lying to the voters in ordno rinoser to get elected.

We’ll never end the MSM faux firestorms – emotions and lies are liberalism’s lifeblood, – but we can work to select strong people for office and build them an environment where their beliefs can be nourished, not condemned.

Three key steps need to be taken to ensure that conservative votes count:

1) Make sure we pick candidates who have the guts to stay the course.

2) Provide a conservative cultural infrastructure for Republicans in D.C.

3) Make sure Republicans realize that no matter how nice a person a liberal might be, the causes that liberal pushes are bad.

The first point means conservatives need better vetting at the primary stage.  Republican candidates have to be principled first and politicians second.  In addition, it means that we need to throw out people like Representative Ellmers who have one set of beliefs at election time and another when they vote in Congress.  It’s better to have a Democrat with Democrat baggage in office than a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

The second point means that conservatives have to work to create a bubble of “flyover country” in D.C., ensuring that Republican politicians aren’t constantly being bombarded by liberal “friends.”  Conservative think-tanks and other groups should get together to provide a climate where Republican politicians can go to parties, play golf, etc. without being condemned in subtle ways for their “backwardness.”

We should also get Republican candidates to eschew the MSM. Between the blurring together of reporting and editorializing and the liberally slanted selection of what news to cover, no one can know what’s really going on in the world by reading the Washington Post or any other MSM source.  With the huge staffs that congressmen have and the information revolution of the internet, there is no reason why Republicans have to use last-millennium news sources.


Additionally, conservatives should work to find ways to keep politicians in their home states a larger fraction of the time.  It’s less likely that Republicans will be corrupted in the real America than in D.C.

The third point means that we need to realize that just as we can’t fight Islamofascism if we can’t even name it, Republican politicians can’t stay conservative and think that liberal politicians are not the enemy.

Sadly, it’s been a long time since the differences between conservatives and liberals were about things decent folks can honestly disagree about.  Liberals in D.C. want to grow poverty, keep blacks poorly educated, bring in millions of foreigners to keep wages down, kill the unborn, destroy marriage, abandon Israel and our allies, fund their cronies Chicago-style, and promote hedonism.  Sure, they’re nice to their wives and children, and to their animal companions, but so were plenty of dictators.

Republicans have to realize that even though Democrats are “nice,” they are not sources of anything trustworthy. Republicans don’t need to demonize Democrats – just view them as being less reliable than used car salesmen.

To win the war with liberals, conservatives need to elect strong people and armor them with a conservative-friendly environment in D.C.


via Articles: An Army of Weaklings, Cowards, and Traitors.

Mar 262015

By Pamela Geller — March 26, 2015

Three of the Taliban Five swapped for the deserter and traitor Bergdahl have already returned to the jihad.

The Taliban Five - Would you bring them home to meet your Momma?

The Taliban Five – Would you bring them home to meet your Momma?

So for the Obama administration, yes, the swap was “absolutely” worth it. Watch here how Psaki pretends that this desertion charge comes after a year of investigation, as if Obama had no way of knowing that Bergdahl was a deserter when he brought him home and praised him at the White House.

Bowe Bergdahl - Deserter!

Bowe Bergdahl – Deserter!

She is lying. AP reported: “A Pentagon investigation concluded in 2010 that Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl walked away from his unit, and after an initial flurry of searching the military decided not to exert extraordinary efforts to rescue him, according to a former senior defense official who was involved in the matter.”This official said that the evidence that Bergdahl had deserted was “incontrovertible.”

** Watch Jen Psaki of the State Department (another one of Obama’s utterly corrupt government agencies) lie about it all below….


via State Dept’s Psaki: Trading 5 Taliban for deserter Bergdahl “absolutely” worth it | Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs: Islam, Jihad, Israel and the Islamic War on the West.

Mar 242015

By Brian C Joondeph — March 24, 2015

Starbucks’ latest offering, after the recently introduced flat white, is their Race Together initiative.

Starbucks Race Together initiative dead on arrival....

Starbucks Race Together initiative dead on arrival….

“As racially charged events unfolded across our country, we felt a responsibility to act,” says Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz. While the campaign was short lived, dropped soon after initiated, its very premise is still worth exploring.

Undoubtedly, the Starbucks initiative is due to recent events in Ferguson, Missouri, where according to the Starbucks store locator, there are no Starbucks coffee shops. For that matter, there are no Starbucks in Selma, Alabama either, ground zero for the civil rights movements and “racially charged events.”

Why doesn’t Starbucks have coffee shops in these “racially charged” cities? Especially if they have a “responsibility to act.” What about Starbucks itself? Does Howard Schultz and company practice what they preach? Are they racing together? Let’s look at the Starbucks leadership team.

Starbucks has nineteen executives, including Mr. Schultz. Of the 19, only 1, or 5 percent of the leadership team, is African American, far less than the rest of country, where African Americans make up 13 percent of the population, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Three women are Starbucks leaders, or 16 percent of their team, hardly reflective of females making up half the population.

The names and faces on the Starbucks corporate webpage reflect no Hispanic Americans, which comprise 17 percent of the U.S. population. Unless of course there are some George Zimmerman type “White Hispanics” lurking. But there is one Indian American executive. What’s striking is that Starbucks, at the corporate level, is run by a bunch of white guys. 14 of the 19 in fact, almost 75 percent of their executives.



The “Race Together” initiative was introduced by Howard Schultz, along with USA Today Publisher and President Larry Kramer. They wrote their op-ed rolling out the initiative, extolling the need for diversity. “Elevating diversity is the right thing to do, but it is also a necessity,” they wrote.

Mr. Kramer has a similar problem to Mr. Schultz in terms of preaching and practicing. The Gannett Company publishes USA Today. How does the Gannett leadership team look under the lens of diversity? It’s a leadership team of 8. One woman and 7 men. All quite white. How’s that for diversity, Mr. Kramer and Mr. Schultz?

Let’s look at CNN, another organization fond of telling us all how to think and act. CNN columnist John Sutter wrote about the recent University of Oklahoma fraternity video. In his article he quotes a University of Connecticut sociology professor, “The U.S. fraternity and sorority system is a form of American apartheid.” Not only fraternities and sororities, but also “the rest of us and our country’s racist history.” Painting with a broad brush.

Is CNN practicing what it’s preaching? Time Warner, parent company of CNN, has 7 senior corporate executives. Two women on the team but all white. How’s that for diversity? War on women, anyone?

The CNN writer wants universities to force Greek organizations, “To report their demographics so we can see exactly how segregated this system really is?” Great idea. Why not show us how it’s done by starting with CNN, USA Today, and Starbucks?

Let’s not leave out the New York Times, another schoolmarm preaching tolerance, diversity, and other feelgood virtues. They too have an executive team of nine. One woman, one African American, and seven white guys. The same NY Times that opines about racial disparities in Ferguson and the war on women falls short on practicing what it preaches. Do as I say, not as I do.

Finally, let’s see how the Washington Post, another publication similar to the NY Times, fond of reminding us how bigoted and intolerant we are as a society, fares in terms of diversity. Their leadership team of 14 consists of two women, one Indian American, and 11 white guys. Much like the NY Times, CNN, Gannett, and Starbucks.

Howard Schultz, CEO of Starbucks, defends Race Together initiative.

Howard Schultz, CEO of Starbucks, defends Race Together initiative.

The Washington Post is not practicing what it preaches. “Benefiting from white privilege is automatic. Defending white privilege is a choice,” writes one Washington Post contributor. There’s no shortage of white privilege among the paper’s leadership team. The elites know better and are happy to remind the rest of us of this.

American society is racist, sexist, and bigoted, according to the smart set at major media outlets, happy to throw the stones of “Race Together” and other initiatives at the rest of us while they themselves live in glass houses.

We are the problem, you see. The self-appointed arbiters of all things race have all the answers. CNN wants to know, “Are certain organizations more integrated than others?”

Is this a question they really want asked and answered? The answers might indeed be interesting. And hypocritical. They remind us, “Racial inequality is not a topic we readily discuss. It’s time to start.” How about starting by looking in the mirror?


via Articles: Starbucks — Practice What You Preach.

Mar 162015

By James Lewis — March 16, 2015

We are financing the jihad against us.

By far the largest funding source for Jihad is oil sales.

By far the largest funding source for Jihad is oil sales.

Jihad war is paid for by OPEC oil regimes, including the Saudis and Iran, and by mandatory “charitable” contributions from fundamentalist Muslims.  In the case of the soi-disant Palestinians, jihad is paid for by our own tax dollars, through the kindly United Nations.

We are financing the jihad against us.

bloodforoil-xGulf oil has been the biggest source of jihad blood money for forty years.  Our dollars go to the Gulf, to prop up war preachers in Iran and Arabia, with billions coming back to sabotage and corrupt our politicians and media, driving massive Muslim immigration, and of course giving the world a steady flow of throat cutting barbarians.

But – we are beginning to see the shape of an answer.

The biggest untold story today is that the Arabs and Iran are losing power over the lifeblood of the industrial world.

The United States is fast becoming energy independent – no thanks to Obama and the Democrats.  We are now net exporters of oil and natural gas, all due to the miracle of new oil extraction methods.  It’s a Texas success story, because Texas is where engineer George P. Mitchell modernized the technology of shale oil extraction.

What’s more, you and I, as individuals, now have a clear shot at squeezing Gulf oil-dependent economies to the point of surrender.

The answer is a grassroots Buy American Oil & Gas campaign, so that millions of consumers can keep their money from going to our primitive enemies in the Jihad War.  Just don’t buy Gulf oil and gas.  It used to be impossible, but today it can be done.

Buying only American Oil and Gas will bring the world Jihad machine to its knees.

Buying only American Oil and Gas will bring the world Jihad machine to its knees.

Oil marketeers might tell you that oil is “fungible” – you can swap a tankerful of heavy crude in the Gulf for a equal tankerful in the Pacific, just by means of an electronic transaction.  Oil is oil.  There’s no practical difference between American and Qatari crude.

The answer is to change that, using existing technology.  Today we can easily mark oil by its origin.

The United States – and our few remaining allies – can “brand” our oil and natural gas, exactly the way ranchers brand their cattle – as a mark of ownership and origin.  If you order a U.S. Prime steak in a restaurant, you can bet that traders in the beef supply chain have ways of making sure they’ve got the right product.  If that steak doesn’t taste right, they will lose their customers.

Chemical engineers know dozens of ways to add tiny amounts of chemicals to oil and gasoline, including nanoparticles that are too small to harm your car.  The same kind of tech has been used for decades to give that distinctive odor to natural gas, to make sure people can smell a gas leak in their homes.syria_oil

With a Republican majority in both houses, the U.S. Congress can pass a law today, making it a legal requirement that domestic oil and gas be doped with tiny amounts of a safe chemical tracer.

Americans and Canadians could then voluntarily choose to use our own oil and gas.  Right now, you do it for fresh milk.  Don’t tell me it can’t be done for fuel.

If Republicans passed a bill today, we could watch Obama try to justify a veto.  Nothing would show more clearly what kind of man we have today in the White House.

It’s a perfect campaign slogan: Who vetoed U.S. oil and gas independence?

Or, in the presidential race, “Who kept the Jihad War fueled up?  Hillary!” 

If GOP candidates run a strong campaign to kill off the jihad money supply, they can beat the Democrats hollow in 2016.  Just think – wouldn’t it be well-deserved?  The Democrats could use forty years dwelling in the desert, to reconsider their hate-America strategy.

Once oil companies see consumers rising up against Suicide Oil, they will stop selling it, if they can find alternative sources – in Montana and Canada.  Gulf oil could be sold to Egypt or Japan, but not here.  As long as we are energy independent, we don’t care where that oil goes.  It will not be as profitable to the gulfies, because the price will stay low as long as more and more nations embark on shale exploitation.

Qatar may become a ghost town, which would be a kind of divine justice for their funding of ISIS mass killers.  Or they might simply choose to purge their war preachers.Not a single U.S. soldier’s life would have to be put at risk.


Gulf regimes would still own big oil fields, but the price would be controlled by the market.  Oil companies stay in business by predicting next year’s sales, and if they see a vigorous consumer boycott of Gulf Suicide Oil, along with a big consumer campaign for Buy American Oil & Gas – they will make the right choice.

When that happens, we can watch the Islamic war preachers turn their rage on each other.

And because they are still trying to kill us, a reverse embargo is an historic opportunity for payback.

  Let them go back to the Dark Ages.  Simply starve their ability to make war on us.


via Articles: Buy American Oil: How to Starve the Jihad War of Money.

Mar 062015

By Rob Bluey — March 06, 2015

Days after President Obama delivered his Nov. 20 speech outlining executive actions on immigration, conservatives pressed Republican leaders to wage a fight while the issue was fresh on the minds of voters.

The Capitol building is in disrepair.  Will it ever shine again as a beacon of freedom?

The Capitol building is in disrepair. Will it ever shine again as a beacon of freedom?


Republicans had just made historic electoral gains in the House and taken control of the Senate. Meanwhile, seven Senate Democrats were on the record voicing concerns about Obama’s unilateral move.

But when lawmakers had the opportunity in early December to stymie Obama’s moves by withholding funding, they punted. Congress approved the so-called “CRomnibus,” which funded the federal government for the full fiscal year and the Department of Homeland Security through Feb. 27.

“Come January, we’ll have a Republican House and a Republican Senate—and we’ll be in the stronger position to take actions,” House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said at a Dec. 4 press conference.

The strategy, proposed by Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., and embraced by Republican leadership, ultimately failed to undo Obama’s actions. This week, a majority of Republicans in the House (167 of 245) and Senate (31 of 54) opposed the Homeland Security bill, forcing GOP leaders to rely on Democrats to pass the measure.

“Unfortunately, leadership’s plan was never to win this fight,” said Sen. Ted Cruz. “Since December, the outcome has been baked in the cake. It was abundantly clear to anyone watching that leadership in both houses intended to capitulate on the fight against amnesty. It was a strategy doomed to failure.”

The Texas Republican was among the most vocal critics of Obama’s immigration actions, invoking Cicero’s warning to the Romans as he railed against the president’s “lawlessness.”


Even though a court case could still derail Obama’s actions, conservatives voiced disappointment with the outcome in Congress. Yet not everyone walked away surprised by how it played out.

The Daily Signal interviewed several of those lawmakers to better understand how events transpired after Obama’s Nov. 20 announcement through Tuesday’s vote.

Republicans United, Then Divided

Just weeks after Republicans swept the midterm elections, Obama outlined executive actions that he would take without congressional approval to defer deportations for up to 5 million illegal immigrants.

Obama’s move sparked a swift rebuke from Republican leaders. Sen. Mitch McConnell, the soon-to-be majority leader, and Boehner vowed to fight Obama using their new clout.

 “We’re considering a variety of options,” McConnell said on Nov. 20. “But make no mistake. When the newly elected representatives of the people take their seats, they will act.”

Within a matter of weeks, however, Republicans found themselves divided over the strategy.

Republican leaders settled on a plan known as the “CRomnibus” to fund the federal government. As part of the package, the Department of Homeland Security would be funded through Feb. 27, giving Republicans an opportunity to fight Obama’s actions when they controlled both houses of Congress.

“We were the ones back on Dec. 7 telling leadership not to do this,” Rep. Raúl Labrador, R-Idaho, told The Daily Signal. “We were the ones who told them this was doomed for failure and we warned them this was going to lead to capitulation at the end of the fight.”

Rep. Raúl Labrador, R-Idaho exposed the doomed strategy.

Rep. Raúl Labrador, R-Idaho exposed the doomed strategy.


Conservatives weren’t united around a particular strategy but many of them had alternatives to the plan leadership ultimately pursued. Some wanted to have the fight in December, risking a government shutdown before Christmas, while others suggested a short-term funding plan for the whole government until early 2015.

Many conservatives didn’t like attaching the immigration fight to Homeland Security funding. Some, including Labrador, even took the rare step of opposing leadership on a Dec. 11 procedural vote that nearly failed when 16 Republicans broke ranks. Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., later accused GOP leaders of misleading him into switching his decisive vote.

Had conservatives blocked the spending bill on that vote, it would have forced leadership to revise the strategy.

“From the onset, we really believed it was a poor strategy,” said Rep. Matt Salmon, R-Ariz.

Heritage Action for America, a sister organization of The Heritage Foundation, expressed similar concerns at the time.

“Some have suggested the short-term funding for DHS will provide conservatives another opportunity to block President Obama’s actions in early 2015, but that approach is problematic,” the organization noted in a key vote alert.

Among the reasons: Republicans would be approving, at least temporarily, Obama’s executive actions, and waiting 100 days until Feb. 27 would allow the administration to get the program up and running.

“The tactic in Washington, D.C., is what they call defer and delay,” Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., told The Daily Signal. “If they can defer the decision and delay the decision, then the passion and outcry of American people lessens. They’re able to capitulate and pass something that is certainly not as representative of the people’s will as it might be when the action initially takes place.”

Disagreement Over Strategy

Several of the lawmakers who spoke to The Daily Signal voiced concerns about leadership’s strategy.

“We’ve been through this time after time,” said Rep. John Fleming, R-La. “We’ve heard the same promises and we’ve seen the same poor results. We’ve come to understand how it works. There are promises to fight but yet the process is created in a way that eventually there’s going to be a cave.”

Rep. John Fleming, R-La said that the writing was on the wall.

Rep. John Fleming, R-La said that the writing was on the wall.


Fleming said conservatives’ frustration led to the creation of the House Freedom Caucus, a group of 30-some members who have vowed to be united on these fights in the future.

This week’s vote was the group’s first test and members of the caucus were optimistic about their impact, even if the outcome wasn’t ideal.

Salmon noted that Republican leadership urged members to vote in favor of the “clean” Homeland Security funding bill, which included no language defunding Obama’s actions. A majority of Republicans ultimately voted against the measure Tuesday.

“When 167 Republicans ignore leadership’s recommendations, that’s got to be a big wake-up call,” Salmon told The Daily Signal. “They voted with us, not with them.”

The Freedom Caucus also put forward several ideas for GOP leaders to consider during the standoff. None of their ideas were embraced, prompting Labrador to rethink the group’s approach next time.

“We need to get our message out, not just to the media but also to the other conference members,” Labrador said. “Every time I told other Republicans about our offers, they were stunned our leadership didn’t accept them. And I’m talking across the spectrum—conservatives and moderates.”

A spokesman for Boehner said the speaker welcomed ideas from members.

“Our strategy was developed working with and listening to our members,” said Boehner spokesman Michael Steel. “This fight was won in the House. Ultimately, we’re going to have to find a strategy to put more pressure on Senate Democrats in the future.”

Will Anything Change?

“Why does our leadership always do the same thing and expect a different outcome?” asked Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan. “They do the same thing knowing it’s going to be the same results.”

Huelskamp, who has been stripped of committee assignments for voting against leadership, was one of a dozen members attacked in ads from the pro-leadership American Action Network. A spokesman for the group, which supported the Homeland Security funding bill, did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment.

Meadows, the North Carolina conservative, was also targeted by the group’s ads.

“The American people have had enough,” Meadows said. “I’ve had dozens of emails since the vote saying, ‘Why should I vote for another Republican when the results are the same?’ That’s troubling for me.”

Salmon shared a similar sentiment.

“The American people are not going to continue to be patient,” he said. “If we have any chance at all of maintaining the Senate and winning the White House, we have got to prove that we are the real deal.”

Despite the frustration, Boehner and McConnell’s jobs appear safe, even if members are displeased with their handling of the immigration fight.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky, are partners in the duping of the Americans who cast their votes and empowered them to double-cross us.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky, are partners in the duping of the Americans who cast their votes and empowered them to double-cross us.

 “The speaker said, I’m going to fight tooth and nail. What that means to me is no stone unturned. Every option on the table. And that’s certainly not what happened,” Salmon said.

 Huelskamp said Republicans managed to give away the only leverage they had to stymie Obama. With no more spending fights until this fall, he fears the president will be emboldened to take unilateral action on other issues.

Meadows suggested the White House is already signaling its next move.

“It doesn’t stop here with amnesty. The same day we’re debating amnesty, the White House is talking about taking action to increase taxes,” Meadows said. “It’s just a total breakdown of a wall of separation of powers of the executive branch and legislative branch.”

While the fight over Obama’s immigration actions now plays out in court, Huelskamp predicted the party’s establishment will ultimately prevail this time.

“The biggest donors to the Republican establishment, they all are happy today. They got their amnesty,” Huelskamp said. “They just hope the issue goes away and somehow they think conservatives are still going to show up and vote for whoever the presidential nominee is.”

This story was updated to include additional details about the December debate over the GOP’s strategy.


via Conservatives Fault GOP Leadership After DHS Funding Fight.

Mar 052015

By Susan Ferrechio — March 5, 2015

A beleaguered House Speaker John Boehner is suddenly relying on Democrats rather than his fellow Republicans.


For the second day in a row, Wednesday, his House leadership team turned to Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s Democrats to help pass major legislation and overcome determined opposition from dozens of GOP conservatives.

It’s a far cry from January, when Republicans took control of both chambers of Congress, and Boehner, R-Ohio, returned to Capitol Hill buoyed by expectations of a fruitful relationship with the new Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell.

And conservatives fear it will swing the Republican agenda to the left, and push them permanently to the sidelines.

“We were hoping to move everything to the right, “Rep. John Fleming, R-La., told the Washington Examiner after casting a “no” vote on a bill authorizing spending on Amtrak, which passed with overwhelming Democratic support and substantial Republican opposition. “Looks like to me they are moving it to the Left. They’ve given up on us so they are going to the Democrats to get votes.”

The House easily passed the Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act, which cuts federal funding authorization for Amtrak by 40 percent, but did not go far enough for conservatives. It also, reforms the railway’s accounting system so that the profitable Northeast corridor routes can keep and reinvest more money.

The bill passed 316 to 101, but 184 of the votes to pass it came from Democrats. The legislation, opposed by fiscal hawks at such organizations as Heritage Action and the Club for Growth, got 132 GOP votes, but 101 Republicans, including eight committee chairmen, voted against it. Those opponents came mostly from the party’s right wing, and Rep. Tom McClintock of California had earlier in the day tried to amend the bill to end federal subsidies for passenger rail entirely.

The vote came just one day after House Republican leaders pushed through a key bill with the votes of Democrats rather than of their own conference members. Tuesday’s bill funded the Department of Homeland Security until Sept. 30 without curbing President Obama’s executive order shielding millions of illegal immigrants from deportation. In that vote, too, conservatives were sidelined.

The $40 billion Homeland Security measure came to the floor after Boehner allegedly cut a deal with Pelosi, D-Calif., last week.

Boehner is looking more like the Benedict Arnold of Republican Party

Boehner is looking more like the Benedict Arnold of Republican Party

“Who is really running the floor over here?” Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan., said. “John Boehner has so lost control of the House. He has to call Nancy Pelosi.”

Republican leadership aides deny a move to shift the legislation to the left in order to win over Democrats and skirt conservative opposition.

Before agreeing to a “clean” bill, Boehner spent weeks holding out for a Homeland Security bill that defunded Obama’s executive actions.

“The speaker and our entire leadership team’s goal is always to work with the entire House Republican conference to get the best possible conservative public policy,” Boehner spokesman Michael Steel told the Washington Examiner.

But dozens of conservative lawmakers have been making it difficult for House Republican leaders.

Last week, conservative opposition forced House GOP leaders to pull legislation from the floor that would have revamped the Bush-era No Child Left Behind Act. Conservatives said it did not go far enough to free local education from federal control. Now the bill’s future is uncertain.

More conservative opposition lies ahead as lawmakers begin grappling with whether to restore spending hikes that were capped under the 2011 Budget Control Act, also known as the sequester. Conservatives don’t want to lift the budget caps imposed by the law, while other Republicans are in favor of lifting the caps to allow more government spending, particularly for defense.

Conservatives are also likely to oppose raising the nation’s debt limit once again, which will be on the table this summer.

Some Republicans say the conservative opposition means the GOP leadership has little choice but to partner with Democrats.

Boehner and Obama playing golf.... - We should have taken him out when we had the chance.

Boehner and Obama playing golf…. – We should have taken him out when we had the chance.

“These are difficult choices for the Republican leadership,” Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., told the Examiner. “Congress has not been productive. They are trying to show the American people we can move things forward in a positive fashion. The reality of it is, sometimes you have to compromise.”

Republicans on Wednesday touted the Amtrak bill as a modernization and reform measure for the money-losing passenger rail system.

The bill authorizes a pilot program that would allow private companies to take over some rail routes and implements new taxpayer safeguards.

Lawmakers from both parties cheered the legislation on the House floor as an example of Congress steering clear of the gridlock that has become customary and passing a bill that has a chance of becoming law.

“Considering what is going on in Congress now, this bill is my idea of a perfect situation,” Rep. Michael Capuano, D-Mass., said. “We didn’t get everything we wanted, they didn’t get some of the amendments they wanted, yet we are moving forward.”

Fire Boehner1But conservatives were fuming.

The legislation was a capitulation to Democrats, they said, because it doesn’t cut actual spending on Amtrak, (authorization merely approves funding). Amtrak funding has remained at about $1.4 billion. And the pilot privatization program involves only two routes.

The bill authorizes $7.2 billion in spending on Amtrak and other rail programs through 2019.

Conservatives said it cost too much.

“We are forgetting our core principles as a party,” Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., warned, as he headed in to vote against the bill. “And I think you need to lead with those core principles. If Boehner continues to reach out to Democrats to pass legislation, it’s going to continue to divide the party. Not just here, but across the nation.”


via Has Boehner taken left turn? |

Feb 262015

by Pamela Geller — February 26, 2015

The internet is already open. The internet is already free.


But this is how the left operates. They use the very thing they are trying to kill as their slogan.
The Zionist Union, a left-wing political party in Israel, is viciously anti-zionist.
Anti-Fascist (Antifa) groups in Europe are most definitely fascist. They are the brownshirts of yesteryear.
The Democrats are anything but democratic.
The New Israel Fund is anti-Israel and pro-BDS.

Atlas reader writes, “As an attorney, I’m dumbfounded by the fact that the Federal Administrative Rules are not being followed. Any Agency (FCC) is obligated to publish proposed Rules and hold publicized hearings regarding those Rules where testimony for and against is given and recorded. Yet, we find “secret” rules being adopted without those requirements being fulfilled. Not only the FCC but other agencies as well. Where’s the outrage? It doesn’t take the DOJ to stop this. Any citizen or group can file suit to block this malfeasance. I would but can’t afford the expense. Where’s the conservative groups that constantly whine about this stuff but do nothing about it?”

It’s a banner day for Obama. Internet and bullets (by executive action)


FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules For ‘Open Internet’ NPR, February 26, 2015

The Federal Communications Commission approved the policy known as net neutrality by a 3-2 vote at its Thursday meeting, with FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler saying the policy will ensure “that no one — whether government or corporate — should control free open access to the Internet.”

The policy helps to decide an essential question about how the Internet works, requiring service providers to be a neutral gateway instead of handling different types of Internet traffic in different ways — and at different costs.

“Today is a red-letter day,” Wheeler said later.

The dissenting votes came from Michael O’Rielly and Ajut Pai, Republicans who warned that the FCC was overstepping its authority and interfering in commerce to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. They also complained that the measure’s 300-plus pages weren’t publicly released or openly debated.

The new policy would replace a prior version adopted in 2010 — but that was put on hold following a legal challenge by Verizon. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled last year that the FCC did not have sufficient regulatory power over broadband.

After that ruling, the FCC looked at ways to reclassify broadband to gain broader regulatory powers. It will now treat Internet service providers as carriers under Title II of the Telecommunications Act, which regulates services as public utilities.

Update at 1:22 p.m. ET: Rules Will Apply To Mobile

“The landmark open Internet protections that we adopted today,” Wheeler says, should reassure consumers, businesses and investors.

Speaking at a news conference after the vote, Wheeler says the new policy will “ban blocking, ban throttling, and ban paid-prioritization fast lanes,” adding that “for the first time, open Internet rules will be fully applicable to mobile.”

Update at 1 p.m. ET: FCC Adopts Net Neutrality

By a 3-2 vote, the FCC votes to adopt net neutrality rules to “protect the open Internet.”

Update at 12:50 p.m. ET: Wheeler Draws Applause

Chairman Tom Wheeler is speaking, meaning a vote is looming.

“The action that we take today is an irrefutable reflection of the principle that no one — whether government or corporate — should control free open access to the Internet,” FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said, drawing applause and whoops of approval from some of those in attendance.

Update at 12:01 p.m. ET: A Dissenting Vote

Saying the FCC was seizing power in “a radical departure” from its earlier policies. Commissioner Ajut Pai, a Republican, spoke against the proposal. He accused the FCC of “turning its back on Internet freedom.”

Pai said that the commissioners were backing the new measure for only one reason: “because President Obama told us to.”

Seeing the new policy as an attempt to intrude on the Internet, Pai predicted higher costs for consumers and less innovation by businesses.

Update at 11:25 a.m. ET: ‘Open Internet’ Portion Has Begun

After dealing with another issue (of municipalities being able to control broadband service), the FCC has turned to the new proposal.

The FCC has just made history by placing broadband under Title II regulation in an attempt to permanently safeguard net neutrality. The 3-2 vote was the culmination of months of back-and-forth between net neutrality advocates — determined to keep the internet free and open — and ISPs, who have accused the federal government of unjustly overstepping its bounds. As the FCC’s huge moment sinks in, we’ll be collecting responses to today’s vote below and updating as more come in.

And reaction:

AT&T hints at litigation and Congress undoing everything

Instead of a clear set of rules moving forward, with a broad set of agreement behind them, we once again face the uncertainty of litigation, and the very real potential of having to start over – again – in the future.  Partisan decisions taken on 3-2 votes can be undone on similarly partisan 3-2 votes only two years hence.  And FCC decisions made without clear authorization by Congress (and who can honestly argue Congress intended this?) can be undone quickly by Congress or the courts. This may suit partisans who lust for issues of political division, but it isn’t healthy for the Internet ecosystem, for the economy, or for our political system.  And, followed to its logical conclusion, this will do long-term damage to the FCC as well.

For our part, we will continue to seek a consensus solution, and hopefully bipartisan legislation, even if we are the last voice seeking agreement rather than division.  And we will hope that other voices of reason will emerge, voices who recognize that animosity, exaggeration, demonization and fear-mongering are not a basis on which to make wise national policies.

Read AT&T’s full statement

Verizon mocks FCC with typewriter font and warns of internet “throwback Thursday”


Read Verizon’s full statement


via Obama Putsch: Without authorization by Congress, FCC approves Net Neutrality rules For ‘Open Internet’ | Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs.

Feb 122015

By Pamela Geller — February 11th, 2015

Once again, under the guise of “World History,” children across the country are being proselytized and recruited to Islam.

Propaganda Textbook

Pro-Islam Textbook in Florida Schools

Children being forced to say the shahada is a form of abuse and a violation of their religious rights. Further, reciting the shahada is required to convert to Islam. The public schools are indoctrinating our children into Islam.

The Five Pillars of Islam taught in our public schools - So much for separation of Church and State.

The Five Pillars of Islam taught in our public schools – So much for separation of Church and State.

The father is grilled in this News 9 video, but he does a very good job. Kudos.

This is going on in public schools across the country. We are under siege — and our children are being held hostage by the left/Islamic elites in our taxpayer funded schools.

Of course, you’ll note,  the media goes directly to terror group CAIR operative Hassan Shibly for comment, who invokes our freedom …. to kill our freedom.

Dad protests Islamic lessons at school,” WFLV, February 9, 2015 (thanks to Creeping)



A history book used in school districts across the state is sparking controversy in Seminole County.

A parent called 9 Investigates after finding out his son was learning too much about the Islamic religion in a public classroom.

Ron Wagner read from part of his son’s world history book, “There is no god, but God. Muhamad is the messenger of God.”

Raw: Dad discusses thoughts on Islamic lessons

Raw: School district spokesman storms out of interview

Raw: Full interview with school district


Wagner is not reading the Five Pillars of Islam from the Quran, but rather his son’s 10th-grade world history book from Lyman High School.

Students were instructed to recite this prayer as the first Pillar of Islam, off of the board at the teacher’s instruction, Wagner claims.

Wagner, who is not religious, said he had no idea the public school was teaching so extensively about religion until he spotted a text on his son’s phone from a teacher reminding him to complete a prayer rug assignment and study an Islam packet.

For it to be mandatory and part of the curriculum and in the textbooks, didn’t seem right,” Wagner said.


Inside of the book is a chapter dedicated to the “Rise of Islam,” including prayers and scriptures from the Quran. What’s more disturbing for Wagner is that the first 100 pages discussing Judaism and Christianity are missing. The district blames a manufacturer defect in 68 books that are only a year old.

According to Wagner, Dr. Michael Blasewitz, who oversees the high school curriculum, said, “The Pillars of Islam are benchmarks in the state curriculum.”

Wagner’s concerns prompted a district investigation that found the teacher never tried to indoctrinate or convert students. (of course not….)

Some other students interviewed by administrators said they were not required to recite the prayer aloud. They did discuss a video played during class about the religion, but Blasewitz got frustrated and stormed out when 9 Investigates asked whether the district is considering changes to the curriculum.

Dr Michael Blasewitz -Pushing the Islamic agenda in America

Dr Michael Blasewitz -Pushing the Islamic agenda in America

“You’re just going to walk away from our interview when we’re trying to get information,” said investigative reporter Daralene Jones.

Before Blasewitz walked out, he further justified the curriculum, saying students learn specific Judaism doctrine, the Bible and its scriptures, in earlier school years.

“If anything, it’s a little imbalanced toward Christianity and Judaism,” Blasewitz said.

Federal law allows schools to teach about religion, because it’s part of history. But public schools may not teach religion.

There’s a difference between teaching of the significance or the impact of a religion and teaching the specific tenets of a religion,” Wagner said.


9 Investigates was told the district will reconsider this book when the contract is up in three years. Some districts in South Florida have requested the publisher rewrite portions because of the controversy.

WFTV received the following statement from the Council on American-Islamic Relations Florida:

“In a diverse society, young people should be taught about a wide variety of beliefs, cultures and faiths, and particularly about a faith practiced by millions of Americans and more than one fifth of the world’s population.

“Denying all students access to vital information based on the biased political or religious agenda of Islam phobic groups or a handful of misinformed parents does a disservice to our school system, our state and our nation. History is not kind to those who censor information or ban books.”

— Hassan Shibly, executive director


via Florida: Another public school forcing kids to learn/recite Islamic prayer, make Islamic prayer rugs | Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs.

Jan 232015

by David Harsanyi — Friday Jan 23, 2015

Evidently, Republicans don’t feel competent enough to make a case against infanticide. Why else would the GOP pull its 20-week abortion limit bill?

Pro-Life March on Washington

Pro-Life March on Washington

Here’s a short list of things that are less popular than banning late-term abortions: “Acting” on climate change. “Free” community college. Taxing the wealthy. Building the Keystone XL pipeline. President Barack Obama. Future President Hillary Clinton. Every Republican who’s thinking about running for president.

A new Marist poll finds that 84 percent of Americans favor some level of further restrictions on abortion. And regardless of their feelings about the legality of the procedure, 60 percent believe it to be “morally wrong.” If you aren’t keen on that poll — it was sponsored by the Knights of Columbus, after all — you can take your pick of others.

A Quinnipiac poll found that 60 percent of women support limiting abortions to the first 20 weeks of pregnancy. A CBS News poll found that 60 percent of Americans think abortion “should not be permitted” or available only under “stricter limits.” A CNN poll found that 58 percent of Americans believe abortion should be legal only in a “few circumstances” or “always illegal.”

Yet the GOP caves on a bill that would prohibit most abortions after 20 weeks and promises instead to pass another worthless ban on taxpayer-funded abortions — which we all know can be ignored by hiring an accountant.

Polls change. Polls don’t make you right. I know. But this week marks the 42nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade. And while the media continue to treat every Obama non-starter and crowd-pleaser as a genuine policy idea, the 20-week abortion ban was predictably framed as another divisive play by zealous conservatives. Controversial. Republican leaders helpfully confirmed this perception by abandoning the only bill their party has come up with in years that has been widely supported.

Pro-Life March

Pro-Life March

Before the GOP pulled the bill, the Washington Post‘s Dana Milbank had argued that Republicans were needlessly reviving the culture war, pulling a bait-and-switch on the electorate — because abortion is not a high priority for voters and it was “rarely” campaigned on as an issue during the midterms.

Now, I can’t find a corresponding piece from Milbank griping about the left’s obsession with climate change, an issue that is also consistently one of the lowest priorities among voters, but I’m sure it exists somewhere. What’s truly absurd, though, is the idea that the GOP alone is responsible for any “revival of the culture wars.” The culture war never ended. Some of you probably remember the Democrats’ gynecocentric 2014 campaign to paint every GOP candidate as a misogynist.

A big part of that attack was focused on abortion. It stopped working. So someone needs to inform House Republicans of this. Because the most mystifying aspect of the GOP’s retreat on the 20-week ban is that the 20-week ban is not new. Most of these same Republicans voted on the same legislation before the midterm elections, including some of the same representatives who reportedly withdrew their support for the bill. Nearly every GOP candidate running in the midterms publicly backed the idea, even in high-profile races in which Democrats made abortion the central issue of their campaign.

Yet at the same time, Obama continues to support unrestricted abortion on demand for any reason at any time by anyone. There is no one to moderate his position. No one to make him veto a bill. No one to ask him about it. The president has no compunctions about supporting infanticide — which, by any moral or scientific standard, is what we’re talking about.



It often seems as if the only time the Obama administration opposes government’s coming between a woman and her doctor is when the latter is extracting a dead human being from the former. (Though, to be fair, occasionally those humans are terminated after extraction.) More than 18,000 viable or nearly viable babies do not have a chance to confer with a physician about the excruciating pain they may be experiencing. The House has better things to do than confront that situation.

This is about politics. Tragically incompetent politics. Even though a veto was imminent, you have to wonder: If the party representing the pro-life position, a party with a sizable majority, can’t pull together a vote on an issue as unambiguous and risk-free as this one, what are the chances of it coming to a consensus and offering compelling arguments on issues such as health care and tax reform? Very little, I imagine.


via Republicans surrender to infanticide | Human Events.

Jan 172015

By Joel Gehrke — January 16, 2015 6:33 PM

Senator Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.) urged colleagues not to oppose the House-passed legislation blocking President Obama’s executive actions on immigration, warning that Congress will be “a museum piece” if they do.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.

“A vote against the House bill is a vote to turn the Congress into a museum piece,” Sessions said Friday following a congressional retreat in which it become apparent that Republicans are nervous about using the Department of Homeland Security funding as leverage to stop the immigration policies. “A ‘no’ vote is to acquiesce to the greatest erosion of Congress’ lawmaking authority in my lifetime. A ‘no’ vote is a vote to leave our immigration system vulnerable to the most dangerous extremists. A ‘no’ vote is a vote to further erode Americans’ chances of getting a job, raise, or promotion.”

Sessions reminded colleagues that Congress refused to pass laws providing the benefits that Obama is conferring unilaterally on people in the country illegally.

“President Obama’s executive amnesty erases the immigration laws we do have in order to impose on the nation the very immigration measures Congress rejected,” he said.


via Sessions: Obama Making Congress ‘A Museum Piece’ | National Review Online.

Dec 182014

By Robert Spencer — December 17, 2014

No violence or hatred directed at an innocent Muslim or non-Muslim is ever justified.



The fact is that there is far less of it than Islamic supremacist groups and the mainstream media would have you believe. We heard it yet again not just after, but during the Sydney jihad hostage crisis: there would be a “backlash” against Muslims, a wave of Islamophobic hate crimes. There has not been, of course. Leftists and Islamic supremacists use the specter of “Islamophobic hate crime” (or Islamophobia) to shut down honest discussion of how jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism, and intimidate people into thinking that there is something wrong with resisting jihad terror.

“New FBI Hate Crime Stats: Another Blow to Islamist Fictions,” by David J. Rusin, Islamist Watch, December 15, 2014 (thanks to Bob):

The FBI’s newly released hate crime statistics for 2013 offer a fresh example of how reality refuses to conform to the dubious narrative of widespread Muslim victimization at the hands of American bigots. As in previous years, most hate crimes were not religiously motivated, most religiously motivated hate crimes were anti-Jewish, and Muslims suffered fewer total incidents than many groups and fewer per capita than gays or Jews. Anti-Islamic crimes did not involve greater violence than others and have not become more frequent. A glance at the details:

  • Of the 5,928 incidents of hate crime tabulated in 2013, 135 (2.3 percent) were anti-Islamic, an increase of five over the prior year but still slightly below the annualaverage of 139 from 2002 to 2011.
  • The small rise in recorded anti-Islamic incidents could be attributable to improved data collection rather than a true uptick. Reports submitted by law enforcement agencies covered a population of 295 million Americans in 2013, 18.6 percent higher than in 2012.
  • There were 1,031 incidents inspired by religion last year, 625 (60.6 percent) of which were anti-Jewish. Anti-Islamic ones constituted just 13.1 percent.
  • Anti-Islamic incidents were also outnumbered by those targeting blacks (1,856), whites (653), gay men (750), lesbians (160), LGBTs in general (277), Hispanics (331), and people of other ethnicities (324). Anti-Asian incidents (135) equaled anti-Islamic ones.
  • Based on a 2013 estimate of 2.95 million Muslims derived from Pew’s 2011 figureand typical growth of 100,000 per year, there were 4.6 anti-Islamic incidents per 100,000 Muslims in 2013, the same as 2012’s rate and lower than the average of6.0 per 100,000 for 2002–11. The 2013 rate for Muslims was less than half that for Jews (9.6 per 100,000 for a population of roughly 6.5 million) and homosexuals/bisexuals (11.0 per 100,000, assuming that they comprise 3.5 percentof the U.S. population). The rate for blacks was similar to that of Muslims (4.5 per 100,000 for a population of 41.6 million).
  • Anti-Islamic hate crimes were no more violent than others in 2013. Of the 6,933 offenses spanning all hate crimes, 734 (10.6 percent) were aggravated assaults and 1,720 (24.8 percent) were simple assaults. The 165 anti-Islamic offenses mirrored this breakdown: 17 (10.3 percent) were aggravated assaults and 41 (24.8 percent) were simple assaults. Further, none of the five deaths in 2013 resulted from anti-Islamic hate crimes.

unicorn islamophobia



via New FBI hate crime stats show yet again that claims about “Islamophobia” are false.

Dec 122014

By Elise Cooper — December 12, 2014

Once again the Democrats and the Obama Administration are throwing the CIA under the bus, while Senator Dianne Feinstein is on a personal witch-hunt.

Dianne Feinstein on personal witch hunt

Dianne Feinstein on personal witch hunt

With the release of the Democrats’ report on the CIA enhanced interrogation program, they seem to enjoy playing partisan politics instead of trying to keep Americans safe. Their most outrageous conclusions were that CIA officials allegedly deceived their superiors at the White House, members of Congress and even sometimes their own peers about the interrogation program, as well as that no actionable intelligence was gained.  American Thinker interviewed former CIA officials to get their side of the story.

It is obvious that the mainstream media is biased, labeling it as “The Torture Report.”  In looking at just the headlines the condemnation becomes obvious: “CIA Report Details Brutality, Dishonesty,” “Torture Was Ineffective,” “Ugly Truth,” “CIA Misled Public On Torture,” and “CIA Abuses A Stain On Our Values.”  Unfortunately it seems that all these media outlets forgot one important point, that during the Bush administration there was not an attack on the US homeland and its embassies. 

Jose Rodriquez Jr., the former Director of the CIA’s National Clandestine Service, told American Thinker, that the enhanced interrogation techniques included sleep deprivation, stress techniques, facial holds, insult slaps with an open hand, and waterboarding of three terrorists.  “Our objective was not to inflict pain, but to instill a sense of hopelessness and despair.  It is more about psychological manipulation than anything else. After being captured, the terrorists eventually will conclude that they have no control over their situation and we are the ones who control their fate.  You may be surprised, but I agree with those people who say torture does not work.  That is because our program was not torture and it did work.  We made sure that we vetted information. Everything was based on legality, a training manual, strict procedures, and guidelines. The bottom line is that the program was very well managed and what was written in the Democratic report is widely exaggerated or never happened.

Jose Rodriquez Jr., the former Director of the CIA

Jose Rodriquez Jr., the former Director of the CIA

All those interviewed regard the Democrats as being highly hypocritical.  They push back that in the wake of the 9/11 attacks Congress urged the CIA to do everything possible to prevent another attack, debilitate, and destroy al-Qaeda.  Congress was briefed throughout, a number of times.  Either members of Congress are lying to the American people or they have selective memories while now taking the moral high ground. For example, Democratic Senator John D. Rockefeller, a high ranking member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said in March 2003 about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

Pelosi lied about CIA intelligence briefings

Pelosi lied about CIA intelligence briefings

being turned over to a third country that permits torture, “But I wouldn’t rule it out.  I wouldn’t take anything off the table where he is concerned, because this is the man who has killed hundreds and hundreds of Americans over the last ten years.” Then there is the famous Nancy Pelosi news conference where she said she was never briefed; yet there are detailed documents supporting the CIA’s position that members of Congress knew about and were briefed continuously on the enhanced interrogation methods.

President Obama also weighs in on the moral issue, recently stating, “The report documents a troubling program involving enhanced interrogation techniques on terrorism suspects in secret facilities outside the United States, and it reinforces my long-held view that these harsh methods were not only inconsistent with our values as a nation, they did not serve our broader counterterrorism efforts or our national security interests.”  Yet, he has authorized the outright killing of a number of terrorists with drones, including Americans who have not been given due process. 

Rodriguez Jr. noted, “It is highly irresponsible for the President of the US to say we tortured some folks.  He says it’s against our values, but does not seem to have a problem killing people.  I don’t understand how this administration and most of the media do not see the contradiction that exists between basically killing and capture, even though some have been subjected to intense interrogation techniques.  I will never understand that one.  Worse yet, dead men don’t talk. Interrogation is a key tool in protecting this country.  You never know what crisis is going to come up for which we will need to interrogate again.  Giving it up unilaterally in such a political way does damage to our country. This administration does not capture people and take prisoners.”

A former operative wonders if the Commander-In-Chief understands the training process those in the military must endure.  The waterboarding and other techniques were based on the training of the SEALs, Air Force pilots, and Special Forces. He noted, “The CIA got it right, and it was an incredible accomplishment. It led to the capture of senior al Qaeda operatives, thereby removing them from the battlefield. Anytime you are putting a human being under duress it is nasty.   Even non-physical interrogation is not a pretty thing to watch.  You have to understand that he (the operative) is attempting to get someone to give up something he doesn’t want to give up to save American lives.”

Regarding the claims the EIT program did not prevent any future attacks those interviewed explicitly say ‘not true.’  They refer to the quotes of President

Leon Panetta former CIA chief

Leon Panetta – Former CIA Director

Obama’s CIA directors.  Leon Panetta stated in his book, “The CIA got important, even critical intelligence from individuals subjected to these enhanced interrogation techniques.”

John Brennan who was a senior officer at the agency at the time of the EIT program and is the current CIA Director commented in the CIA response, “The program did produce intelligence that helped thwart attack plans, capture terrorists, and save lives. Yet, despite common ground with some of the findings of the Committee’s Study, we part ways with the Committee on some key points. Our review indicates that interrogations of detainees on whom EITs were used did produce intelligence that helped thwart attack plans, capture terrorists, and save lives. The intelligence gained from the program was critical to our understanding of al-Qaida and continues to inform our counterterrorism efforts to this day.”

Rodriguez Jr. told American Thinker that everyone felt there was a ticking time bomb that could be heard but not seen.  To prevent a second wave of attacks the detention and interrogation program was formulated.  There were reports that bin Laden had met with Pakistani nuclear scientists, there were attempts to smuggle nuclear weapons into New York City, and al Qaeda was trying to manufacture anthrax.  “This program led to the disruption of terrorist plots that saved American lives.  It contributed to helping us learn more about al Qaeda including the best way on how to attack, thwart, and degrade it.  Information provided by Zubaydah through the interrogation program led to the capture in 2002 of KSM associate and post-9/11 plotter Ramzi Bin al-Shibh. Information from both Zubaydah and al-Shibh led us to KSM. KSM then led us to Riduan Isamuddin, aka Hambali, East Asia’s chief al Qaeda ally and the perpetrator of the 2002 Bali bombing in Indonesia, in which more than 200 people perished.”

He also responded to those critics who said that all the CIA had to do was release the videotapes to prove their points, but that is no longer possible since the tapes were destroyed.  “People under my command and their families were at risk once their faces would have been shown.  Make no mistake those tapes would have been made public. No one is reporting that there is a written record of what was on the tapes, a documentation from the lawyers who reviewed the tapes before they were destroyed.”

The other finding by this Democratic report is that the CIA systematically and intentionally misled each of these audiences on the effectiveness of the program. The media is reporting that Michael Hayden, when he was CIA Director, misinformed Congress regarding the number of detainees.  It appears that it was not Hayden doing the misleading but the Democrats on the committee who formulated the report.  It is very interesting how they never spoke to anyone who ran the program or was in charge of the CIA, having cherry picked the information.  Hayden noted, “Maybe if the committee had talked to real people and accessed their notes we wouldn’t have to have this conversation. This is an example of committee methodology. Take a stray ‘fact’ and claim its meaning to fit the desired narrative, creating a mass deception.” Do Americans even care if the amount of terrorists detained was the number supposedly reported by Hayden, 100, or the committee’s number of 119? What does it matter considering they were high value targets that should never be released? 

Ultimately, Americans should thank those at the CIA, and hope that the final outcome of this report is not going to create an agency that is timid and risk-averse. These men and women who serve in the intelligence agency never get the heroic welcome or thanks they so rightly deserve for the risks they take.   Their names will never be known and they will never receive the public gratitude so many others get. The Democrats and mainstream media need to understand that most Americans feel making terrorists uncomfortable is worth the price of saving American lives. As Jose Rodriguez Jr. summarized, “We need to protect our intelligence organizations, mentor them, and support them.  I hope Americans will see the facts by going to our website,  I have no regrets.  I feel honored I was able to serve my country and had the ability to help keep Americans safe.”


via Articles: Defending the CIA.

Dec 102014

By Matthew Burke — December 9, 2014

With a government shutdown looming, House Republicans, led by Speaker John Boehner, have compromised with Democrats in agreeing on a $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill, a behemoth temporary stopgap that encompasses over 1,600 pages.


Boehner is hoping for a full House vote on the measure by Thursday, which breaks his pledge to give Americans “at least 72 hours” to read every bill, a promise he made on Feb. 18, 2010.

“One of my first orders of business would be to post every bill online for at least 72 hours before it comes to the floor of the House for a vote,”  Boehner then promised.

Considering its massive size, it is extremely doubtful that any congressman will read the entire bill in only two days. Perhaps, Mr. Boehner is saying to the American voter, as Nancy Pelosi did in 2009, “We have to pass the bill to see what’s in the bill.”

The bill, agreed upon by both party’s leaderships, would fund the entire government through the current fiscal year, which ends on September 30, with the exception of the Department of Homeland Security, which will run out of money again on February 27, 2015.

Two-faced Boehner sobbing while he betrays the American people who put his party in power

Two-faced Boehner sobbing while he betrays the American people who put his party in power

“I think the fix is in,” Congressman Matt Salmon (R-AZ) told The Hill  in regards to the establishment of both parties joining together against the will of the American citizen in ramming through the spending bill.

Rep. Salmon said that he wanted Republican leaders to bring the bill to the floor earlier with stronger anti-amnesty language, rather than waiting just days before a shutdown would occur on December 12.

“I’ve implored them [GOP leadership]. I’ve begged them. I’ve spoken in various meetings so that we wouldn’t be up against some crisis…This is not the way it’s supposed to be done,” Salmon said.

“They don’t want you to read it, that’s why! You think they want you to analyze all the mischievous items in there?” Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) told The Hill.

“That’s not to squeeze Harry Reid.” Congressman Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) added. “That’s to squeeze us [conservatives],” he concluded.

A partial government shutdown would have occurred on December 11, without the gargantuan bill.

Despite demagoguery from the leftstream media, the Democrat Party, and so-called “moderate” Republicans previous government shutdown only shut down 17% of the government, with the other 83% operating as normal.


Additional insight into the “stupid” move by Boehner and his GOP establishment can be gleaned from the following video:


Of the 17 prior government shutdowns in American history, Democrats controlled the House during 15 and had control of both chambers during eight of them. All lasted a matter of weeks or even a few days.

Establishment Republican leaders have refused to use the their constitutional power of the purse to stop the Obama dictatorial amnesty, stop massive government deficits, or defund the highly unpopular Obamacare.


UPDATE:  At 7:36 AM ET, the Boehner’s website supposedly revealing the details of the bill were about as functional as Obamacare’s during its disastrous rollout. It had crashed and was displaying this error message:





via Boehner Caves to King Barry; Reaches Budget Deal That Funds Obamacare, Amnesty.