Thursday, August 27, 2015

Loud and Clear Politics For a Change!

Canada Free Press ^ | 08/26/15 | Ray DiLorenzo 

Mr. Trump has given us voice and a reason to hang in there. No teleprompters. No more taking it on the chin. No giving in or backing down. Loud and clear politics for a change
The candidacy of Donald Trump is about much more than The Donald. It is about anger, frustration, dissatisfaction and resentment. It is about the growing anger that nothing gets done, frustration over a deaf and obese Federal Government, dissatisfaction when they do try to accomplish something and resentment when they don’t care when they are found incompetent. It is about a government that asserts that it knows best when it doesn’t. It is about insisting everything is on track when we know that it is off track.
It is about the mainstream news media that has taken sides and has partnered with government to dictate how we should behave and think. It is about cherry- picking news stories that boost your agenda or vice versa. It is about corruption at the highest levels of government, the media and their business cronies.

4th Fort Hood soldier guilty of immigrant smuggling, military IDs shown at checkpoints!

AP/Fox News ^ | 8/26/15 

A fourth soldier from Fort Hood has pleaded guilty to using her U.S. Army identification or military gear to help transport immigrants.
Yashira Marie Perez-Morales, of Killeen, pleaded guilty Wednesday in Brownsville to immigrant smuggling charges. Prosecutors say Perez-Morales hid immigrants while driving through the Border Patrol checkpoint at Sarita (suh-REE'-tuh).
Christopher David Wix of Abilene was sentenced last month to a year and a day in federal prison. Two other Fort Hood soldiers, Eric Alexander Rodriguez, of Odem, and Brandon Troy Robbins, of San Antonio, await sentencing.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...

Retired generals and admirals urge Congress to reject Iran nuclear deal!


Washington Post ^ | August 26 , 2015 | Carol Morello 

A group of nearly 200 retired generals and admirals sent a letter to Congress on Wednesday urging lawmakers to reject the Iran nuclear agreement, which they say threatens national security.
The letter is the latest in a blizzard of missives petitioning Congress either to support or oppose the agreement with Iran, which would lift sanctions if Iran pared back its nuclear program. Letters have come from ad hoc groupings of rabbis, nuclear scientists, arms-control and nonproliferation experts — and now, retired senior military officers, many of whom have worked in the White House during various administrations dating to the 1980s.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...

James O'Keefe: Yes Hillary, I Have Undercover Video of Your Campaign!

Townhall ^ | August 26, 2015 | Katie Pavlich 

Late last week rumors started swirling about an undercover investigation of Hillary Clinton's campaign being conducted by James O'Keefe's Project Veritas, an organization responsible for holding a number of government officials accountable for bad behavior. The Clinton camp was put on high alert, told to look for suspicious behavior and to be aware they may be under video surveillance.
We now know the rumors are true. O'Keefe has confirmed Project Veritas journalists have in fact conducted an undercover video investigation into Clinton's campaign and have plenty of footage to share.
The first video shows a paid campaign staffer telling a volunteer that they only want to register voters who will vote for Hillary, a Democrat, when the law requires voters be able to register regardless of their political affiliation or support for a certain candidate.
New James O’Keefe undercover video shows Clinton campaign playing fast and loose with Iowa election laws, directly contradicting their previous statement to Time Magazine. Hillary campaign organizer Sarah Sterner was captured on hidden camera stating: “We don’t want to make our focus voter registration because then we have to like register everyone regardless of whether they’re supporters or not.” The Clinton campaign “maintains that its policy is to register all voters, regardless of their preference in candidates.” Yet paid organizer Sarah Sterner was caught instructing staffers to ask potential supporters “Hey are you a Hillary supporter? And then if not, then like great move on, you know?”
(VIDEO-AT-LINK)
“Hillary Clinton and her top advisers have some serious explaining to do as it pertains to their campaign’s obligation to honor both the spirit and the letter of the law," O’Keefe said in a statement about the footage. “There are two lessons in this story. First, if you are not doing anything wrong you can’t get caught and second, as Hillary is soon to learn the hard way, if you do something wrong, make sure you don’t get caught on camera." It turns out it isn't just the FBI Hillary has to worry about.
"This is just the tip of the iceberg," O'Keefe says in the video. "In fact, stay tuned Hillary...check your email."
(VIDEO-AT-LINK)

A pint of water before meals is the secret to losing weight, scientists claim!

The London Mirror ^ | August 26, 2015 | Jennifer Cockerell 

A new study by the University of Birmingham revealed that obese adults who 'pre-loaded- with 500ml of plain tap water lost an average of 9.5lbs in 12 weeks!

The key to losing weight could be as simple as drinking a pint of water before mealtimes , researchers have said.
A study in which obese adults consumed 500ml of water half an hour before eating main meals saw them report an average loss of 4.3kg (9.48lbs) over a 12-week period.
Researchers at the University of Birmingham said the simple trick could be hugely beneficial, and easily promoted by healthcare professionals and through public health campaigns.
The trial saw obese adults recruited from GP surgeries and monitored for 12 weeks.
Each of the participants was given a weight management consultation, where they were advised on how to adapt their lifestyle and diet and improve their levels of physical activity.
Around half were also asked to "pre-load" before meals with water, and half advised to imagine that they had a full stomach before eating.
Those in the first group lost 1.3kg (2.87lbs) more than those in the control group on average.
Participants who reported pre-loading before all three main meals of the day reported a loss of 4.3kg (9.48lbs) over the 12 weeks, whereas those who only pre-loaded once, or not at all, only lost an average of 0.8kg (1.76lbs).
They were encouraged to drink tap water as sparkling water, sodas or sweetened drinks were not allowed as part of the study.....
(Excerpt) Read more at mirror.co.uk ...

Democrats to Spend 9/11 Partying w/CAIR and ISNA Terror Supporter

FrontPage mag ^ | August 26, 2015 | Daniel Greenfield 

It's the last place any patriotic American should be on 9/11.

This is like spending Victory in Europe Day dressing up in Nazi uniforms or Pearl Harbor Day playing kamikaze.
But it's business as usual for the Democratic Party, which does treason like it's going out of style.
First up is a very special 9/11 party with ISNA over in Lansing as the Islamic Society of Greater Lansing throws its 9th Annual Mayor’s Ramadan Unity Dinner hosted by two Dems, Mayor Virg Bernero and Nathan Triplett, as Creeping Sharia reports.
Come for the 9/11 ambiance, stay for the party at an Islamic center affiliated with ISNA. As a bonus, you can meet its imam, Sohail Chaudhry, who became infamous for his run-in with Asra Nomani. She claimed that his former mosque had extremist elements.
ISNA was set up by the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the same organization that spawned Al Qaeda. It has extensive ties to terrorism. It's the last place any patriotic American should be on 9/11.
Meanwhile over in Washington, the anniversary of the murder of thousands of Americans by Muslim terrorists means it's time for some quality CAIR time.
A meeting aimed in part at helping Tri-City elected officials become better acquainted with the local Muslim community was planned Friday in West Richland.
The session also was meant to help Tri-City area Muslims become more engaged in government. Similar meetings will be held in the Tri-Cities in the future, with the next one planned for September.
When in September exactly? Funny you should ask.
The next meeting is Sept. 11 in Kennewick
And by "Muslim community", they mean another Muslim Brotherhood terror-linked group.
They’re part of a initiative by the state chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, a civil liberties and advocacy organization.
Here's the kind of civil liberties and advocacy CAIR is best known for...
CAIR was co-founded in 1994 by Nihad Awad, Omar Ahmad, and Rafeeq Jaber, all of whom had close ties to the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), which was established by senior Hamas operative Mousa Abu Marzook and functioned as Hamas’ public relations and recruitment arm in the United States.
On February 2, 1995, U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White named CAIR Advisory Board member and New York imam Siraj Wahhaj as one of the "unindicted persons who may be alleged as co-conspirators" in Islamic Group leader Omar Abdel Rahman's foiled plot to blow up numerous New York City monuments.
CAIR itself was named an unindicted coconspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror finance trial.
In October 1998, CAIR demanded the removal of a Los Angeles billboard describing Osama bin Laden as "the sworn enemy." According to CAIR, this depiction was "offensive to Muslims."
In 1998, CAIR denied bin Laden's responsibility for the two al Qaeda bombings of American embassies in Africa. According to Ibrahim Hooper, the bombings resulted from "misunderstandings of both sides."
This is the sort of folks that some politicians seem to think are appropriate company for 9/11.

Who Are Donald Trump’s Supporters?

The Federalist ^ | August 26, 2015 | Robert Tracinski 

The big, existential question for Republicans right now is: who are Donald Trump’s supporters?
It matters because this will determine the future, and the future prospects, of the party. I heartily agree with Ben Domenech, whose article on this just made it harder for me to fulfill my obligations to his publication, by pre-empting most of what I was planning to write about Trump for The Federalist. Ben argues that Trumpism would turn the Republicans from a “classically liberal right” to a European-style nationalist party that is “xenophobic, anti-capitalist, vaguely militarist, pro-state, and consistently anti-Semitic. If you criticize Donald Trump, it is exactly the sort of hate mail you should expect to receive.” If that happens, he writes, we would be “losing a rare and precious inheritance that is our only real living link to the Revolutionary era and its truly revolutionary ideas about self-government.”
I don’t think this is actually going to happen, because the “classically liberal” wing of the right is too big and too strong. The Republican Party just spent the last six years, during the rise of the Tea Party movement, absorbing a fair portion of the “libertarian” wing of the right, the Rand Paul wing, which I suspect has little overlap with the Trump phenomenon. More widely, the right has benefited from a long intellectual renaissance focused on the universal ideas on which America was founded, which has no need for what Ben calls “identity politics for white people.”
But it would help to have some more exact information on the size and composition of Trump’s supporters. That Trump will not be the party’s nominee is something we can (pretty much) take for granted. Too much of the party hates him, and not just the “establishment”—which critics like myself are somewhat comically assumed to be part of—but the rank and file and a fair portion of the punditry. Thus, we find that about a third of Republicans say they would never support him, far more than any other candidate.
So that leaves us to contemplate what will happen if Trump doesn’t get the nomination. Will he be this cycle’s Ross Perot, who runs a third-party campaign and scoops up such a large portion of disaffected Republicans and independents that he tips the election to a Democratic candidate who only gets 35% of the vote? Will he be this cycle’s Ralph Nader, who persists long enough to peel off a few percentage points of the vote, enough to tip the results of a close election? Or will he be this cycle’s Ron Paul (or Pat Buchanan), who has a loud and fanatical core of supporters and perhaps makes a splash in the early primaries, but is ultimately irrelevant to the outcome?
We can break the question down more exactly, looking at six categories of Trump voters:
1) “Low-information voters” who don’t really know much about Trump or his policies, but hey, he’s a celebrity, so they tell pollsters they’re voting for him.
2) Actual conservatives who like Trump because he’s a tough-talking “fighter” and a businessman who “gets things done.”
3) Disgruntled non-ideological independents who normally don’t vote because “it never makes any difference.”
4) Single-issue anti-immigration fanatics.
5) Archie Bunker types who normally vote Republican because they see it as the party of “identity politics for white people,” the ones who want the country to be run by and for “people like me.” These are the folks on Twitter and in the comments fields of my articles who extol the virtue of “European” immigrants, without realizing that “Hispanic” derives from the word for Spain, and that Spain is in Europe.
6) Outright racists who don’t normally vote because neither party has the guts to embrace White Power.
Obviously, if it’s mostly 1) and 6), we can expect the Trump phenomenon to flame out quickly. Group 1 is large, but their political interest is fleeting and they don’t tend to turn out for actual elections. Group 6 is, thankfully, quite small. And the more Group 1 actually hears about the people in Group 6—say, the guys who were inspired by Trump’s rhetoric to beat up a Hispanic man in Boston, or the guys shouting “White Power” at the Trump rally in Alabama—the more they are going to decide they don’t want to be on this particular bandwagon.
(VIDEO-AT-LINK)

I think the same also goes for Group 2, the conservatives who want an uncompromising champion. The more his opponents hammer Trump about his ideological flip-flops and history of political cronyism, the more he mouths ill-informed and ungrammatical opinions, the more he becomes a cultural laughingstock, the more they are likely to decide that their ideological cause would be best served by a different standard-bearer. And it’s not as if this presidential contest provides no other options. Maybe not Scott Walker, who flubbed the Trump test by offering three different opinions on birthright citizenship in the space of a week. But Ted Cruz and Rand Paul are not exactly establishment sellouts.
At the very least, when it eventually becomes clear he’s not going to get the nomination, these voters are likely to be persuaded to back another candidate.
Group 3, the disgruntled independents, could cause trouble by encouraging Trump to mount an independent presidential campaign, but they’re not really “lost” votes for Republicans, because they don’t normally vote Republican. In fact, history suggests that third party candidates tend to steal away independent voters in roughly equal numbers from both parties.
So we’re down to two groups who are the most dangerous to Republicans in 2016: the anti-immigration fanatics and the genteel quasi-racists. There is obviously some overlap here, though it’s hard to say how much. You don’t need to dislike brown-skinned people in order to think Latin American illegal immigrants are the biggest crisis this country is facing, way more important than anything and everything else. But it helps.
The worst possibility is that these two groups turn out to be large and emboldened and unwilling to compromise now that they’ve found someone willing to pander to them openly. (I won’t give Trump the credit of assuming he sincerely believes his rhetoric on this issue.)
So how many of these people are there, how committed are they, and how bitter will they be if their newfound champion doesn’t win?
There don’t seem to be many good numbers on this, which is part of the reason the Trump story is so big. There are a lot of candidates who loom large during the primary pre-season precisely because no votes have been cast yet and there is little in the way of detailed and reliable poll data. So a candidate who is the favorite of the media (whether they love him or love to hate him) can be magnified in importance.
The only real hint at good data I’ve seen so far is quoted in a New York Times story:
Unlike most public polls, Civis’s relied on a list of registered voters that included their voting histories, allowing it to measure Mr. Trump’s support among those who regularly cast ballots in primary elections. The survey, which was conducted on landlines Aug. 10 through Wednesday and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points, showed Mr. Trump’s support at 16 percent among registered voters who identified as Republicans.
The polls that don’t control for voting history show Trump with more like 25% of the vote. His 16% in the Civis data is still more than any other single candidate, but that’s not really relevant. The non-Trump vote is currently split among more than a dozen people, but it won’t always be. As minor candidates drop out and Trump faces the top two or three alternatives, he could easily find himself in the shadow of candidates who command 20 or 30 percent of the vote.
I am assuming that Trump’s current numbers are more of a ceiling than a floor. Unlike most other candidates, he is already a thoroughly known quantity. Whereas another candidate could use 16% in the polls as a springboard to introduce himself to voters who don’t know him yet, everybody already knows Trump. If they don’t like him now, it’s unlikely he will grow on them.
Here’s another interesting item from that poll data: “Mr. Trump performed best among less-frequent voters. He had the support of 22 percent of Republican-leaning adults who did not vote in the 2012 general election.” This confirms that a fair bit of Trump’s support is from those who are swayed by his celebrity, or from the disgruntled independents—voters that Republicans won’t “lose” if the party dumps Trump, because they didn’t have them in the first place.
The final interesting item:
[Trump’s] support is not tethered to a single issue or sentiment: immigration, economic anxiety, or an anti-establishment mood. Tellingly, when asked to explain support for Mr. Trump in their own words, voters of varying backgrounds used much the same language, calling him “ballsy” and saying they admired that he “tells it like it is” and relished how he “isn’t politically correct.” Trumpism, the data and interviews suggest, is an attitude, not an ideology.
This is encouraging in one respect: it implies that a fair bit of Trump’s support is from my Group 2 above, the conservatives who want a tough-talking “fighter,” rather than the single-issue anti-immigration voters or the Archie Bunker contingent. Those other groups are more likely to be Trump dead-enders who will follow him through an independent challenge. While Trump’s appeal is based more on personality than on the issues, his cult of personality is disturbingly strong. The New York Times report observes that many Trump voters “don’t have a second choice.” And a Frank Luntz focus group of Trump supporters found that “nothing disqualifies Trump” in the eyes of his supporters. They are in it for the Trumpiness and don’t really care about anything else.
By contrast, the conservatives looking for a tough guy are going to be more likely to accept a second choice. So by the time we whittle off a little more of Trump’s 16 percent, he starts to look less like a new Ross Perot and more like a new Ralph Nader: someone who commands a few percentage points of the vote and can only make a difference if the race is really, really close, as it was when Nader peeled off a few thousand Florida votes from Al Gore in 2000 (though even then, it’s still not certain whether the Nader Effect tipped the balance).
In short, Trump is likely to be relevant only if the non-Trump Republican nominee ends up being particularly weak and uninspiring.
You don’t suppose there are any chances of that happening, do you?
Which is to say that perhaps the wise thing to do is to spend less time focusing on Trump and more time figuring which is the strongest, most principled, and most inspiring of the other nominees.

How Republicans Can Win Back Conservatives - Passing the emotional purity test.

Front Page ^ | August 26, 2015 | Daniel Greenfield 

The GOP is panicking. And it should be.
Conservatives are sending an angry unambiguous message to the party. The message can be read not only in the rise of Donald Trump, but also in the rise of Ben Carson. Republican voters are choosing candidates who don’t talk or seem like politicians. They have lost all faith in the Republican Party.
And it’s hard to blame them.
Conservatives poured time, energy and money into a party that promised to counter Obama and take back America. The GOP controls both houses of Congress and conservatives have nothing to show for it.
Support for Trump and Carson really isn’t about the issues. Attacking them for their past liberal positions is a waste of time. This isn’t about what Trump or Carson believe. It’s about what the base believes.
There has been a profound loss of faith in the Republican Party and the larger political establishment orbiting around it. Faced with a bewildering number of candidates, convoluted flip-flopping on the issues (trying to track the immigration positions of most GOP candidates alone requires a flowchart), a great many Republicans are opting out of politics by trying something else.
Trump and Carson have diametrically opposite personalities, but what they bring to the table is a completely different attitude. Their biggest appeal is that they aren’t politicians.
How do you run against that?
Trump’s biggest draw is the fight. Republican voters want a man who won’t pull his punches, won’t back down at the last minute and won’t walk out of the room with his head down and promise to try harder next time. They’ve had too much of that already and they’re sick to death of it.
That was what Ted Cruz understood with the shutdown. It didn’t matter whether it would succeed or fail. Sometimes an army needs to attack to keep up its morale. It can’t wait endlessly or it will fall apart. Cruz understood that Congress could not conduct business as usual while the voters would wait around patiently for them to act. It’s a truth that few of his Senate colleagues were willing to listen to.
This is a truth that many in the establishment busy strategizing indefinite endgames have forgotten. Their concept of victory is fundamentally different than that of the base. Trump is the reckoning. He is the base’s payback for the breach of trust. His poll numbers show the lack of faith in the GOP.
It isn’t necessary to take a specific position on birthright citizenship to compete with him. There’s no real point in taking a political position that much of the base no longer pays attention to because it doesn’t believe that the politicians taking those positions will stick to them once they are elected.
We’re not dealing with think tank checklists here. What voters want is someone with the right attitude, not the right ideology. They’re willing to overlook Trump’s past positions, his flip-flops now, because he has an uncompromising attitude. This is not an ideological purity test; it’s an emotional purity test.
Trying to show them that Trump doesn’t pass an ideological purity test is pointless. Instead Republican candidates have to pass an emotional purity test. They have to show that they’re willing to fight as hard as it takes with nothing held back. They have to stop being politically cautious and get angry.
Because their base is mad as hell.
As David Horowitz wrote in Go for the Heart, "'Caring'” is not one among many issues in an election. It is the central one. Since most policy issues are complicated, voters want to know above everything else just whom they can trust to sort out the complexities and represent them."
Trump has brought that reality home to the Republican Party.
The Republican field suffers from a lack of decisiveness, a lack of forthrightness and a lack of anger. That’s normal for politicians running for public office, but non-threatening personalities and memorized applause lines are not nearly as effective as they used to be. The base trusts passion more than professionalism.
Even before Trump, Republican candidates were advancing not on their merits, but on their willingness to be abrasive, to offend and to tell it like it is. Conservative candidates who want to edge out Trump will need more than a plan. They will need an attitude. And they will need character.
On the other side of the spectrum, Ben Carson passes the emotional purity test by avoiding the slick preparedness of the professional politician. If Trump is running on attitude, Carson is running on character. He speaks softly, he sometimes seems unprepared and his manner is casual. It should doom him, but instead it convinces voters of his integrity. He’s trustworthy because he isn’t a politician.
Carson brings sincerity to the table. In his own way, so does Trump. Both candidates engage emotions. They aren’t running on their records and they sometimes seem unsure what their own positions are.
But what people want is candidates who pass the emotional purity test.
Trump and Carson don’t like to get bogged down in details. They lay out ideas that are both big and simple. That is something that most of the rest of the field has forgotten how to do.
And both of them harness moral outrage. They don’t exist in a universe of policies, but of principles.
That is where Reagan was. That is where the rest of the field needs to be. The issues aren’t details, they’re moral choices. They’re not abstracts, but people’s lives. The obstacles are enemies. Credibility is more about conviction than another ten-point plan that few voters have the time or interest to parse.
Republican voters are looking for passion and character. Candidates who put them first will succeed. They want candidates who are as outraged about the state of things as they are. That desire isn’t limited to Republicans. Bernie Sanders’ rise is being powered by the same sense of frustration and anger.
In a landscape of antiseptic politicians, anger and clumsiness seem authentic. They humanize political candidates. Many conservatives have come to see the GOP as a mindless unfeeling machine, much like the government they are contending with. They want someone to fight that machine for them.
Republican candidates have to stop thinking about positions and start thinking about people. Inspiration has become cheap. The path to it is through principled outrage that creates the hope for political change.
David Horowitz wrote, "Because Democrats regard politics as war conducted by other means, they seek to demonize and destroy their opponents as the enemies of progress, of social justice and minority rights. Republicans can only counter these attacks by turning the Democrats’ guns around — by exposing them as the enforcers of injustice."
Injustice is the key word.
Countless millions of Americans carry the conviction that something is deeply wrong. They sense that their lives, their freedoms and their futures have become precarious. They need more than a plan. They need someone who will express the outrage they feel and fight for them.
One way or another, this election will be a referendum on the Obama years.
Republican voters do not want to be represented in that referendum by another mild-mannered politician who will sell them out and fail to give voice to the outrage at what has been done to them. They want their pain, their anger and their fear for the future to be heard. That is what Trump is doing.
That is the emotional purity test. The primaries are only a rehearsal. The real test will come in a national election when the Republican candidate will face down Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden. And all the men and women, the families that helped put him there, that spent their time and energy working to help him, will wait to see if he finally calls out their oppressors for the injustices committed against them.
They waited in vain in 2012. They don’t want to make that mistake again.
If the professional Republican candidates want to be standing there on that day representing them, they had better show them that they can do it now.
Before it’s too late.

Gun Rights Advocate: 'We Don't Have a Gun Problem...We Don't Teach a Respect for Life'!

CNS News ^ | 8/27/15 | Susan Jones 

Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) was calling for new gun control laws on Wednesday, even before the man who killed a reporter and cameraman on live television was in custody. Those calls for gun control were later echoed by the grieving father and boyfriend of WDBJ reporter Alison Parker, as well as President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and others.
But Dana Loesch, the author of "Hands off My Gun" and a staunch Second Amendment supporter, said her life was once saved by a gun. "I don't want that right taken from me," she told Fox New's Megyn Kelly Wednesday night.
"We don't have a gun problem. We have a criminal problem," Loesch said. "We have a society that thinks it's completely permissible to shirk responsibility. We have people who have no problem with what Planned Parenthood does in terms of fetal parts harvesting. We don't teach a respect for life.
"We glorify violence in movie, music, film and books. This is what our society is. This is Frankenstein's monster. This is what society has created. It is a reflection of us. And as I said, criminals are always going to be with us. I've had my life protected with a gun. I don't want that right taken from me."
Loesch said the gunman is proof that evil exists. And she said if he bought his gun legally -- which he apparently did -- the problem becomes one of identifying people with mental illness.
"And if he passed a background check, and there had already been questions about his behavior, then the question becomes, why wasn't this reported as we saw in the Gifford shooting. You had an individual who had been kicked out of the community college that had been reported to the sheriff's office, nobody followed up on it. Virginia Tech, same thing.
"The problem, Megyn, that we see each and every single time is that you have an abundance of laws and you have people, including states and local officials who do not follow those laws. And I want to bring up something really quickly as well. Everyone is focusing on the gun. Can we also bring up the fact that this is a racially charged, racially motivated crime by somebody who had a grievance? And I think there is all too often a focus on the tool instead of the hate in someone's heart."
In a lengthy letter the gunman faxed to ABC News after the shooting, he admitted to being a very angry man: "I've been a human powder keg for a while...just waiting to go BOOM!!!"

According to the Associated Press, when the gunman was fired from Roanoke, Virginia, station WDBJ in 2013, he had to be escorted from the building by police "because he was not going to leave willingly or under his own free will," the station's former news director, Dan Dennison, was quoted as saying.

Not a smart man!

cjvuXod.jpg

No feelings?

lGRPKyq.jpg

Anchor Baby!

Foden20150823-Anchor%20copy2015082309502

Black Pride

BLACKPRIDE.jpg

Another VE Day

8uXI9L6.jpg

FACT

E7JyWAf.jpg

NOPE

nope.jpg

The Winner!

1pTExdk.gif