This Washington Post headline states:
“Suspect in Berlin market attack was radicalized in an Italian jail.”
This USA today article is titled:
“London attack: More arrests as detectives probe how killer was radicalized.”
This Wall St. Journal article is called:
“Minnesota Mall Attacker Likely Was Radicalized, Officials Say.”
This New York Post article has the headline:
“Mosque members warned feds that accused killer was radicalized.”
This article form the Local is called:
“Isis suspect was radicalized in Germany, brother claims.”
This article from the Guardian is named:
“FBI and Obama confirm Omar Mateen was radicalized on the internet.”
This Breitbart headline says:
“Spanish Authorities: Arrested Mexican Jihadi Was Radicalized near Texas Border.”
This CNN article is called:
“Why bin Laden was radicalized.”
Using the words “was radicalized” when referring to Islamic terrorists is inaccurate for two reasons.
First, it falsely implies that they are victims. It’s as if while they were walking down the street minding their own business, they ended up breathing in a bacteria or virus and getting an infectious illness.
Secondly, it falsely implies that they don’t have free will. It’s as if they have no choice when they murder innocent people.
Those who work in the media should choose more accurate ways of reporting on Islamic terrorists.
I wrote the dialogue for this. The video’s description contains links to verify every claim:
Officer under investigation for beating accused jaywalker
April 13, 2017
A Sacramento Police officer is under criminal investigation for a “disturbing” incident, captured on two videos, in which he threw an accused jaywalker to the ground and punched him repeatedly.
The two-year veteran of the force, who has yet to be identified, has been placed on administrative leave with pay while his actions are under review.
“I thought I was going to be the next Trayvon Martin to be honest,” Nandi Cain Jr., the accused jaywalker, said later in an interview with CNN affiliate KTXL.
Police released dashcam video of the confrontation, which occurred Monday after the officer exited his patrol car and approached Cain on a residential street in California’s state capital.
In the video, the officer accuses Cain of jaywalking and orders him to stop. After Cain protests, “I looked both ways,” and keeps walking, the officer says, “If you do not stop right now, I will take you to the ground.”
The two men then enter the street. Cain can be heard saying he is unarmed. He removes his jacket and tells the officer to take off his gun “and fight me like a real man.”
“I took off my jacket to let him know I don’t have anything (like a weapon),” Cain said later in the KTXL interview.
A cellphone video, captured by neighbor Naomi Montaie, shows the officer then shoving Cain, slamming him to the ground and climbing on top of him, beating him repeatedly in the head.
Cain was taken to jail and charged with resisting arrest. He also had an outstanding warrant for another misdemeanor charge, police said.
The episode sparked outrage on social media after Montaie posted her video to Facebook.
But after police reviewed the dashcam video and Montaie’s video, Monday’s charges against Cain were dropped.
“The actions of the involved Sacramento Police Officer are disturbing and (do) not appear to be reasonable based upon the circumstances,” the police department said in a statement. “The … actions that were observed are not indicative of the dedicated women and men who work for the Department.”
I have a question for liberals: if you think that euthanasia for medical patients is “painless,” then why do you say that lethal injections for convicted murderers is “painful”?
For as long as I can remember, liberals have supported legalization of euthanasia for consenting adult medical patients. As a libertarian, I agree with liberals on this issue.
Also for as long as I can remember, liberals have been opposed to the death penalty. As a libertarian, I also agree with liberals on this issue.
However, unlike liberals, I believe that euthanasia for medical patients and lethal injections for convicted murderers, have an equal amount of pain. Either both of these things are painful, or both of these things are painless. Since I have never experienced either one, I am not going to comment on whether these things are painful or painless.
Instead, I want to address the hypocrisy that liberals have on these two issues.
So here is my question for liberals: if you think that euthanasia for medical patients is “painless,” then why do you say that lethal injections for convicted murderers is “painful”?
In 2013, Chris Matthews Said Hitler Never Used Chemical Weapons
April 13, 2017
Sean Spicer has spent the past two days apologizing for saying that Adolf Hitler didn’t use chemical weapons.
Unfortunately for MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, that led to people remembering he’d said said the exact same thing back in 2013.
In an August 27, 2013 appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Matthews seemed displeased with Obama’s “red-line” policy in Syria and offhandedly mentioned that Hitler “didn’t use chemical weapons.”
“We didn’t use [chemical weapons] in World War II, Hitler didn’t use them,” Matthews said at the time. “But we don’t use chemical weapons. That’s no deal.”
Matthews then pondered what could stop a country like Syria from using nuclear weapons if mutually assured destruction wasn’t enough of a deterrent.
“If that doesn’t work, what does work?” he questioned.
To Matthews’ credit, he defended Sean Spicer after his Tuesday gaffe, explaining that the White House press secretary clearly “was talking about” the fact that Hitler “didn’t resort to [chemical weapons] in the battlefield.”
FBI obtained FISA warrant to monitor Trump adviser Carter Page
April 11, 2017
The FBI obtained a secret court order last summer to monitor the communications of an adviser to presidential candidate Donald Trump, part of an investigation into possible links between Russia and the campaign, law enforcement and other U.S. officials said.
The FBI and the Justice Department obtained the warrant targeting Carter Page’s communications after convincing a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judge that there was probable cause to believe Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power, in this case Russia, according to the officials.
This is the clearest evidence so far that the FBI had reason to believe during the 2016 presidential campaign that a Trump campaign adviser was in touch with Russian agents. Such contacts are now at the center of an investigation into whether the campaign coordinated with the Russian government to swing the election in Trump’s favor.
Page has not been accused of any crimes, and it is unclear whether the Justice Department might later seek charges against him or others in connection with Russia’s meddling in the 2016 presidential election. The counterintelligence investigation into Russian efforts to influence U.S. elections began in July, officials have said. Most such investigations don’t result in criminal charges.
The officials spoke about the court order on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss details of a counterintelligence probe.
During an interview with the Washington Post editorial page staff in March 2016, Trump identified Page, who had previously been an investment banker in Moscow, as a foreign policy adviser to his campaign. Campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks later described Page’s role as “informal.”
Page has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing in his dealings with the Trump campaign or Russia.
“This confirms all of my suspicions about unjustified, politically motivated government surveillance,” Page said in an interview Tuesday. “I have nothing to hide.” He compared surveillance of him to the eavesdropping that the FBI and Justice Department conducted against civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr.
Sen. Rand Paul: Syria, Trump and another unconstitutional rush to war
By Sen. Rand Paul
April 7, 2017
Every American condemns the atrocities in Syria, and we cannot help but be shaken by the images of innocent women and children dying. It is also true that often in foreign policy, things are not as simple as they appear, and actions often have consequences well beyond the obvious.
It is for this very reason that the Founders wanted a deliberate, thoughtful foreign policy, and when military action was needed, they wanted it debated and authorized by Congress.
Make no mistake, no matter who is president or what their party is, it is my firm belief that the president needs congressional authorization for military action, as required by the Constitution. I call on this president to come to Congress for a proper debate over our role in Syria, just as I did in 2013 when President Obama contemplated acting in Syria.
I believe that nothing about this situation has changed. Military action is not in our national security interest and should not be authorized. Our prior interventions in this region have done nothing to make us safer, and Syria will be no different.
There is no doubt Assad is a brutal dictator. But if we seek to remove him, we must ask what comes next. Assad is fighting radical Islamic rebels, including large parts of ISIS. Who would take over Syria if Assad is deposed? Experience in Libya tells us chaos could reign, and radical Islamists could control large parts of the country.
Make no mistake, bombing Assad means the United States is fighting on the same side as ISIS and other radical Islamists in Syria. This is a dangerous and morally wrong policy.
But no matter your view of the merits of engaging in Syria, every member of Congress should stand up today and reclaim our Constitutional authority over war.
The Constitution clearly states that it is Congress that has the power to declare war, not the president. Even the War Powers Resolution, shoved forward by hawks as justification, clearly states criteria under which the president may act – a declaration of war, a specific statutory authorization, or a national emergency created by an attack on the United States.
That’s it. Absent those criteria, the president has no authority to act without congressional authorization. Congress must stand up and assert its authority here and now.
No president is above the law or the Constitution. I said so when it was Barack Obama, and I will say so when it is Donald Trump.
Our Founding Fathers had this right, and we should heed their wisdom about allowing the president to have war powers. They were concerned the president could rule like a king.
Madison wrote that the Constitution supposes what history demonstrates – that the executive is the branch most interested in war and most prone to it. The Constitution, therefore, with studied care, vested that power in the legislature.
Before any act of war, we should have a serious and thoughtful debate over the ramifications.
In Syria – what is our goal? What happens if we depose Assad? Will the Islamist rebels, as they have threatened, turn their weapons and attention elsewhere, including Israel next door?
I will hold accountable and oppose the actions of any president who takes military action without proper legal authority and congressional consent.
Sarrah Le Marquand: It should be illegal to be a stay-at-home mum
By Sarrah Le Marquand
March 20, 2017
There’s one issue guaranteed to trigger hysteria across the nation every time it comes up in the news, and it has nothing to do with Pauline Hanson, international terrorism or Married at First Sight.
It’s the topic of stay-at-home mums. More specifically, the release of any data or analysis that dares recommend Australian women should get out of the living room/kitchen/nursery and back into the workforce.
So the outcry has been predictable in the wake of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) recent report which had the audacity to suggest stay-at-home mums would be better off putting their skills to use in paid employment.
“One of the areas of greatest untapped potential in the Australian labour force is inactive and/or part-time working women, especially those with children,’’ concluded the landmark study. “There are potentially large losses to the economy when women stay at home or work short part-time hours.’’
Right on cue, hysteria ensued, with commentators from coast to coast howling in indignation at the very idea that the uppity OECD would insinuate Australia might have a tiny bit of a problem with our female workforce participation rates.
For days you couldn’t walk past a television, radio or computer screen without encountering a defensive rant about how the most valuable work a woman can do involves nappies, play-doh, and a strict adherence to only leaving the family home during the hours of 9am to 5pm to attend playgroup or a similar non-work sanctioned activity.
And then we wonder why Australia continues to languish in the bottom third of OECD member states when it comes to female employment. It’s no mystery; our collective support for working women makes Donald Trump’s cabinet look like Women’s March HQ by comparison.
First, a few facts. Anyone who has a child — and this goes for both mothers and fathers — knows that everything else in life becomes a distant second to that child’s welfare, happiness and wellbeing. So this is not a discussion about the importance of parenting — that is beyond dispute.
And yes, the role played by parents in the early months and years following the birth of a child is vital and irreplaceable. It also stands to reason that for many (but certainly not all) families, it is the mother who opts to take time off work during this period to solely focus on caring for her baby.
Once again, there is nothing wrong with this. In fact, that time at home should be a privilege afforded to more new mums, which is why a few years back I was a lone voice in supporting Tony Abbott’s grossly misunderstood and thus ill-fated paid parental leave scheme, which proposed all female employees receive their normal salary for six months.
So it’s not as simple as suggesting that the OECD’s rallying call to utilise the potential of stay-at-home mums is an insult to mothers — on the contrary, it is the desperately needed voice of reason that Australians cannot afford to ignore.
Rather than wail about the supposed liberation in a woman’s right to choose to shun paid employment, we should make it a legal requirement that all parents of children of school-age or older are gainfully employed.
The OECD was right to criticise the double standards applied to Australia’s work-search rules regarding welfare benefits. While young people face strict criteria when seeking to access the dole, those aged over 50 can still receive it despite not looking for a job by citing 15 hours volunteer work a week.
The double standards are even greater for stay-at-home mums, with governments of all persuasions traditionally wary to tackle the unfair tax concessions enjoyed by one-income households for fear of inciting voting fury. (No doubt they refer to Abbott’s aforementioned paid parental leave scheme as a cautionary tale).
But it’s time for a serious rethink of this kid-glove approach to women of child-bearing and child-rearing age. Holding us less accountable when it comes to our employment responsibilities is not doing anyone any favours. Not children, not fathers, not bosses — and certainly not women.
Only when the female half of the population is expected to hold down a job and earn money to pay the bills in the same way that men are routinely expected to do will we see things change for the better for either gender.
Only when it becomes the norm for all families to have both parents in paid employment, and sharing the stress of the work-home juggle, will we finally have a serious conversation about how to achieve a more balanced modern workplace.
Only when the tiresome and completely unfounded claim that “feminism is about choice” is dead and buried (it’s not about choice, it’s about equality) will we consign restrictive gender stereotypes to history.
So long as we as a nation cling to the lie that only a stay-at-home mum is best placed to assume the responsibilities of caregiver then working fathers will continue to feel insecure about stepping off the corporate treadmill to spend more time with their children.
It’s not good enough — and only when we evenly divide the responsibility for workplace participation between the two genders will we truly see a more equitable division between men and women in all parts of Australian life.
I have published an amazon kindle book about Obamacare.
You can buy it at
You can read it for free at
The complete list can be found at https://danfromsquirrelhill.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/obamacare-59/
Here are the new entries:
338) After Obamacare caused Obama supporting graduate students at the University of Missouri to lose their insurance, they falsely blamed it on the school
In August 2015, the University of Missouri issued the following message to its graduate students:
“The Affordable Care Act prevents employers from giving employees money specifically so they can buy health insurance on the individual market. Graduate teaching and research assistants are classified as employees by the IRS, so they fall under this ruling.”
However, in November 2015, left wing graduate students who had voted for Obama, falsely blamed their loss of insurance on the school, instead of on Obamacare.
339) A federal judge ruled that some of the funding for Obamacare was unconstitutional
In May 2016, U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer ruled that some of the funding for Obamacare was unconstitutional, because it had not been approved by Congress.
340) Obama falsely said that opponents of Obamacare did not have a plan to replace it
In November 2016, when talking about Republican opponents of Obamacare, Obama said:
“You watch the press conference and you realize, they got no plan… It’s not like, they don’t even have a pretense of a plan. They don’t even have a semblance of a plan. Not even a hint of a plan. Not even a remote — not even a — there’s no plan. Nothing, zero, nada. You can’t just be against something. You gotta be for something.”
However, several months earlier, in June 2016, the Republicans had announced this plan to replace Obamacare.
341) Obama falsely said that none of the predictions that were made by Obamacare opponents came true
In November 2016, when talking about predictions made by Obamacare opponents, Obama said:
“None of what they said has happened.”
However, in the real world, Obamacare opponents accurately predicted that Obamacare would cause millions of people to lose their insurance.
Iraqi-funded Muslim spy who worked for U.S. House Democrats had Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s email password
The trouble in this new scandal just keeps getting deeper and deeper.
About five weeks ago, it was reported that dozens of Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives had allowed four Muslim spies to have access to sensitive security information that they weren’t legally authorized to see, and had paid each of them a salary of $160,000 a year. The Democrats had ignored various red flags, such as their shady real estate dealings, massive amounts of debt, and criminal activities, because they did not want to be accused of “Islamophobia.” You can read about it here and here.
Then about two weeks later, we were given an update with new information: at the same time that these House Democrats allowed these Muslim spies to steal U.S. security secrets and paid them salaries of $160,000 a year, these Muslim spies accepted a $100,000 payment from an Iraqi politician. And again, these House Democrats looked the other way, because they did not want to be accused of “Islamophobia.”
Now we have another update with more new information: one of these Muslim spies had Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s email password at the same time that the hacked DNC emails were given to WikiLeaks. And yet again, these House Democrats looked the other way, because they did not want to be accused of “Islamophobia.”
Shame on Rand Paul and 22 other Republican U.S. Senators for wanting to let corporations sell people’s private internet history!
Shame on Rand Paul and 22 other Republican U.S. Senators for wanting to let corporations sell people’s private internet history!
These are the 23 Senators that introduced a bill to let telecoms sell your private internet history
March 8, 2017
Protection of your Internet history is up in the air thanks to new, pending legislation. A new bill coming before Senate aims to completely dismantle the FCC’s ability to enact data security or online privacy protections for consumers under the powers of the Congressional Review Act. Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.Res 34) was introduced by Arizona Senator Jeff Flake and cosponsored by 23 other Senators. Its goal is to remove all the hard-earned net neutrality regulations gained to protect your internet history from advertisers and and worse. Specifically, the FCC had been able to prevent internet service providers (ISPs) from spying on your internet history, and selling what they gathered, without express permission. This legal protection on your internet history is currently under attack thanks to these 23 Senators and lots of ISP lobbying spend. While S.J.Res 34 has support from two dozen Republican Senators, Senators willing to champion the privacy of Americans’ internet history have also come out of the woodwork.
These 23 Senators want to let your internet history be sold.
The list of 23 Senators cosponsoring this bill, including Senator Jeff Flake, is:
– John Barrasso (R-Wyo.)
– Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.)
– Roy Blunt (R-Mo.)
– John Boozman (R-Ark.)
– Shelly Moore Capito (R-W.Va.)
– Thad Cochran (R-Miss.)
– John Cornyn (R-Texas)
– Tom Cotton (R-Ark.)
– Ted Cruz (R-Texas)
– Deb Fischer (R-Neb.)
– Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)
– Dean Heller (R-Nev.)
– James Inhofe (R-Okla.)
– Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.)
– Mike Lee (R-Utah)
– Rand Paul (R-Ky.)
– Pat Roberts (R-Kan.)
– Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)
– Richard Shelby (R-Ala.)
– Dan Sullivan (R-Ark.)
– John Thune (R-S.D.)
– Roger Wicker (R-Miss.)
– Jerry Moran (R-Kan.)
We can always count on Nancy Pelosi to provide us with humor and entertainment as she, time and time again, displays proof that she is bat guano insane.
For her latest display, Breitbart reports:
Pelosi: ‘I Would Have Been Gone By Now’ If Hillary Had Won
While speaking with reporters on Friday, House Minority Leader Representative Nancy Pelosi stated of the 2016 presidential election, “I would have been gone by now if she had won.”
Pelosi said that the Affordable Care Act is “a pillar” and that if Clinton was in office, she wouldn’t worry about the ACA going away. Pelosi continued that “we all knew” Clinton would win.
She added that Trump winning “motivated me her to stay.” And “I would have been gone by now if she had won.”
So, here are the facts, according Pelosi:
1) Pelosi “knew” that Hillary Clinton would win the election.
2) If Clinton won the election, Pelosi would no longer stay in the U.S. House of Representatives.
3) Pelosi ran for reelection.
See the contradiction there? If Pelosi “knew” that Clinton would win, and if Clinton winning would mean that Pelosi would no longer be in the House, then why did Pelosi run for reelection in the first place?
If everything that Pelosi had said was true – i.e., if she truly believed that Clinton would win, and if Clinton winning would mean that Pelosi would no longer be a member of the U.S. House – then Pelosi would not have run for reelection.
But she did run for reelection.
Therefore, her statement is completely lacking in logic.