Monthly Archives: January 2013

Be Prepared: Dollar Sell Off Within 4 Months

It looks like mid-May 2013 is the end of the road. Will this be the end of America?

YouTube Description:

If Congress does not get its financial house in order by the new deadline in mid-May 2013, John Williams of Shadowstats.com contends, “It will be the end of the road . . . . They are not going to have another opportunity . . . they are pushing the limit as it is now.” Williams says he expects, “. . . a negative reaction in the next 3 or 4 months to the dollar.” Williams adamantly continues to predict hyperinflation to the U.S. dollar by the end of 2014. Join Greg Hunter of USAWatchdog.com as he goes One-on-One with economist John Williams.

He Said She Said with Demetrius & Stacy

When: Wed, Jan 30, 10PM EST/7PM Pacific

Where: Listen live here: He Said She Said with Demetrius 

What: Have you ever wondered what Black Conservatives think about the political issues of today? Well wonder no more, “He Said, She Said” with Demetrius and Stacy. brings you an inner peek into the mind of the conservative: bold, full strength, and unfiltered.

Tonight: Special guest: Carli Eli, Media & Communications Professional, Hispanic Strategist,member of the Urban League and CORE (Congress of Racial Equality) and Leah Sargent (@gopfirecracker), teacher and editor-in-chief of Misfit Politics.

carlieli  leah

Do You Smell a Rat?

The Environmental Protection Agency announced it will ban the sale of D-Con mouse and rat poisons in 30 days if Reckitt Benckiser Group, the maker of the products, fail to request a hearing before an EPA judge.

D-Con traps and poisons help keep disease carrying rodents out of millions of homes and businesses throughout the United States and beyond. Though no known human deaths have been recorded by the EPA, an agency spokesperson told Bloomberg Businessweek the ban will “prevent completely avoidable risks to children.”

This latest move by the EPA to ban Reckitt Benckiser products is just one in a long list of actions taken against the UK based business.

Reckitt Benckiser has not published a statement and did not respond to Businessweek’s request for comment. The company also produces popular products by Calgon, Clearasil, Delsym and French’s mustard.

Rejected ad shows Detroit’s religious hypocrisy

Despite backlash from a variety of Christian groups, atheist billboards and ads have gone up across the nation in an attempt to bring their anti-God message to the public.
One such ad, sponsored by the Detroit Coalition of Reason, has been displayed in Detroit’s public transportation system, the Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transport, in recent months.
The ad, featuring white letters over a backdrop of a clear, blue sky, simply says, “Don’t believe in God? You are not alone,” and includes the group’s website for those seeking more information.
Seeing an opportunity to test the agency’s First Amendment fortitude, Pamela Gellar of the American Freedom Defense Initiative submitted a design effectively duplicating the Coalition of Reason ad with one change: the word “God” was replaced with “Muhammad.”
AFDI has created waves in the past with ads critical of Islam, though this particular attempt proves how duplicitous regulators can be in determining whose speech is protected.
“Since [the anti-God ads] were accepted, I modeled this ad after them to see if the freedom of speech applied to criticism of Islam in our cowardly and politically correct age,” Gellar said.
She explained this is not the first battle AFDI has fought with the Detroit transit system over such issues.
“SMART is the same government agency that refused to run our ‘Leaving Islam?’ ads that have helped many Muslim girls who want to lead more Western lives escape dangerous, devout households,” Gellar said. “When we tried to run them, SMART refused. We sued. We won.”
She is not taking the defeat lying down, as plans are already in the works to bring this recent decision before a judge.
Whether one personally agrees with an advertisement’s message is wholly irrelevant, as evidenced by SMART’s decision to plaster posters bashing God throughout its buses.
Decisions such as this originate from the complete spinelessness of government officials afraid to anger powerful Islamic groups. In Detroit, especially, that particular lobby hold incredible sway among local lawmakers.
Fortunately for the defenders of our Bill of Rights, groups such as AFDI will stand up for universal free speech rights even in the face of inconceivable opposition.
Click here to get B. Christopher Agee’s latest book for less than $5! Like his Facebook page for engaging, relevant conservative content daily.

Why Our Schools Are At Risk

gun-free-zoneIt would behoove us to consider, when pondering the option of equipping teachers with fire-arms, that Americans in favor of such proposals are not suggesting the distribution of weapons in the same manner that the students receive their books on the first day of school.

No one recommending that administrators call the teachers down to the shop class to pick up their Glocks, holsters, and loaded bullet cartridges before the students arrive in the morning.

What is being suggested (and not strongly enough, for it is this writer’s opinion that it should be DEMANDED) is for teachers to be permitted to carry in states whose laws prevent such measures.

I have learned of only four states that allow individuals to carry licensed concealed weapons to school: Utah, New Hampshire, Oregon, and Hawaii. In fact, ABCNews.com posted an article in December displaying pictures of teachers during a training session.

If there are only four states in this union that permit the lawful carrying of concealed weapons on school property, then that means there are forty-six states that do not.

Do Americans; do YOU, fully realize the implications of this? Do we stop to count how many children are at risk, I wonder…?

In taking measures to protect our children from harm, (banning guns on school property) we have indirectly placed them, along with their administrators and teachers, in the cross-hairs of the lunatic’s scope.

There are unstable individuals in this nation whose behavior can not be predicted.

Heartless, brutal, bloody, evil people…

They are people who have found a place to take out their frustrations on defenseless people of all ages in a most aggressive manner.

For the government of forty-plus states to deny their adult men and women the ability to defend themselves – and our children at the same time – with the insulting assumption that they will not be able to handle the same simple fire-arm that many twelve year old children can shoot, is not only preposterous, it is evil – a sabotaging of the safety of the American man, woman, and child.

At that point it becomes, not the unstable aggressor that is the killer, but the one who wrenched a means of self-defense out of the hands of the victim, before they could wrap their more than capable fingers around it.

For one to willfully deny an adult the ability to defend themselves properly, is to indirectly thrust them into the line of fire with their own hands.

I would not want that on my conscience.

As each new day dawns, there seems to be a new argument against allowing responsible adults the ability to protect themselves and our own children.
If we do not speak up – if we do not make the phone calls to Congress that need to be made – then not only will the rights of stable adults continue to be at risk, but their very lives, and the lives of our children as well.

Obama Supporters Don’t Know Obama

YouTube Description:

On January 21, 2013 WeAreChange went to Washington DC for Barack Obama’s second Presidential Inauguration. While we were there we hosted a quiz show where we offered $100 to anyone who could correctly answer 3 out of 5 questions about the man they were there supporting. This was an opportunity for us to possibly educate some people on things his administration has done that they were most likely unaware of. Unfortunately, most people were more concerned about the money than some of the things they learned about their President.

Living 40 Years Cut-off From Civilization

Lykov Home Photo courtesy Wikimedia

Lykov Home
Photo courtesy Wikimedia

Do you imagine yourself living off the grid? Are you a survivalist? Could you go days, months or even years without travel into town for supplies? Imagine raising a family and living 40 years without seeing any other humans. It happened.

Facing persecution and death for their religion by the atheist Bolsheviks in the 1930’s, the Lykov family left their home village in Siberia and fled into the deep woods. There they survived with no further human contact for 40 years until scientists on a geologic expedition discovered their lone cabin.

Dependent only on their own skills and what the forest provided they managed to create shoes and clothing, hunt and grow food, and taught their children to read using only an ancient family bible. With no outside contact the family did not know about World War II or the rise and fall of the Soviet Union. It was an unimaginable life.

This week the Smithsonian chronicles their tale of survival and desire for religious freedom. It is an amazing story to read: Smithsonian There is a documentary video link with fascinating photos; however it is narrated in Russian.

A book was published about the family in the 1990’s: Lost in the Taiga

Book Review: Sun Tzu and the Art of Modern Warfare

Last month, I read a brilliant and edifying book by Mark McNeilly titled Sun Tzu and the Art of Modern Warfare. Although it was published in 2003, regrettably, I had not heard of it (or of McNeilly himself) until last year, and did not pay much attention to Sun Tzu and his work (The Art of War) until last year, either. Once I did start paying attention to him and had read his work – which was a short but illuminating read which changed the way I think about military affairs – I had learned a lot. And once McNeilly’s book was delivered to me, I began reading it and finished the read in 2 days.

A native of Chicago, Mark McNeilly is a former US Army infantry captain, a graduate of the 101st Division’s Airborne Assault School, a former strategist for a major global corporation, and now an adjunct professor at the University of Northern Carolina (UNC). As such, he has had ample time to study The Art of War and think about it, and through that process he has found what he believes are the six most important principles taught by Sun Tzu in his ancient masterpiece. The purpose of McNeilly’s book is to demonstrate these principles (as well as others laid out in The Art of War), how they fit together, how they apply to warfare (past, present, and future), and to illustrate these principles with historical examples. This is because every theory is worthless if real world practice proves it to be wrong. Sun Tzu’s principles have been put to a test numerous times, and usually (though not always) were proven right.

The book is organized into seven chapters. The first six deal with each of Sun Tzu’s six key principles:

1) Win All Without Fighting: Achieving the objective without destroying it;

2) Avoid Strength, Attack Weakness: Striking where the enemy is must vulnerable

3) Deception and Foreknowledge: Winning the information war

4) Speed and Preparation: Moving swiftly to overcome resistance

5) Shaping the Enemy: Preparing the battlefield

6) Character-Based Leadership: Leading by example

The seventh chapter explains how to apply these principles in the future and thus how to prepare the US military for the wars of the future.

The first chaper, Win All Without Fighting, teaches the important principle of “achieving the objective without destroying it”, that is, winning without firing a shot if possible, and if not possible, winning with the least possible destruction to one’s own military, the country being attacked, and its civilian population, and at the least possible fiscal, material, and human cost. Here, McNeilly, like Sun Tzu, challenges the conventional wisdom that one should do as much damage to a hostile country and its civilian population as possible. McNeilly shows that such policy, regardless of whether it’s moral, is counterproductive: it dramatically reduces the value of what you’re invading while engendering the hostility of the targeted country’s population (to say nothing of its political class) and sets the stage for more conflict down the road. And it does nothing to achieve victory, for, in war, killing enemies or destroying their country is not the goal; indeed, killing enemies is only the means, and not necessarily the best means.

The second chapter counsels military leaders to attack the enemy where he’s weakest: the weakest sections of a front, the least-defended site, city or province, the weakest wing/flank of an army, etc. Naval commanders, instead of trying to wage a headfirst battle with an enemy navy, should attempt to wage unconventional warfare by e.g. cutting the hostile country off its sources of supplies by controlling the sealanes on which it depends, as the US did against Japan during WW2. Again, McNeilly, like Sun Tzu, challenges conventional wisdom here, including Clausewitz’s theory that one should try to engineer a decisive battle (Hauptschlacht) with the enemy.

The third chapter deals with the all-important issues of deception and foreknowledge; and as spies are needed for both, McNeilly cites Sun Tzu’s advice on these and explains how to apply it. He also gives historical examples of victors fooling their enemies of their intentions while gaining great insight into their enemies’ minds.

Chapter four deals with the necessity to attack, fight, and win quickly, not slowly, to overcome resistance as well as gain and maintain momentum (like water). The classic example McNeilly uses to illustrate this is Germany’s successful invasion of France. He’s right; Heinz Guderian, the inventor of Blitzkrieg, said that a tank’s engine is worth as much as its gun.

Chapter five reminds military leaders not to allow their enemies to shape them, and to shape the enemy instead: hold out baits, fool them, lead them into fields unfavorable to them, annoy their leaders if they are of choleric temper, etc. This also involves building, maintaining, and when the right time comes, dissolving alliances, as well as choosing the right allies and avoiding entanglements with the wrong ones. It also involves offering the enemy a face-saving way out of a war to avoid further conflict. Here, McNeilly makes a credible claim that the Allies should’ve offered Germany a face-saving peace if the Wehrmacht would topple Hitler and the Nazis and give up Western Europe. That would’ve allowed a lot of bloodshed and destruction while resulting in Hitler’s toppling (which German officers tried to do anyway) and Germany turning against the Soviet Union.

Chapter six shows how military leaders should lead by example. As McNeilly rightly says, “Leadership starts at the top and both good and poor examples of leadership trickle all the way down the chain of command.” McNeilly also deals with caring for, disciplining, rewarding, and punishing the troops, among other issues.

The book is, overall, a great work. It makes a strong, convincing case and backs it up well. McNeilly has, in my opinion, succeeded in making Sun Tzu’s work more readable and accessible to 21st century readers by explaining how Sun Tzu’s principles should be applied, especially WRT the six most important ones, which he explains in great detail and illustrates with germane, interesting historical examples from many different eras.

However, the book is not without flaws. And by that, I don’t even mean the few spelling mistakes that are here and there (e.g. “Clauswitz” instead of “Clausewitz”), but far more important issues.

Firstly, while the author underlines how pointless wars of attrition and headfirst attacks on the enemy are, he nonetheless fails to acknowledge that the Allies’ campaign against Nazi Germany was such a campaign throughout WW2. The Allies did implement some of Sun Tzu’s advice – as McNeilly documents – but despite the deception, the foreknowledge, and knowledge of daily weather patterns, the invasion of Normandy was nonetheless a headfirst attack and a huge blunder. Although the Allies were eventually victorious, they met fierce German resistance and suffered serious losses (about 30,000 men KIA, over 200,000 troops wounded, thousands of others missing). The Allies eventually liberated France and won WW2, of course – but only through their sheer advantage in numbers, not due to any strategic genius or implementation of Sun Tzu’s advice.

In fact, had the Allies TRULY listened to Sun Tzu’s advice, they would not have invaded northern France directly – that is exactly the kind of a head-on assault that Master Sun always counseled against. They would’ve instead invaded Italy and then the Balkans, advancing to Germany through Austria and liberating Central Europe as well. Thus, they would’ve won with far fewer casualties, far fewer destruction, faster, and without suffering a suprise German counterattack such as the Ardennes Offensive. Moreover, they would’ve significantly limited the Soviets’ conquests. France would be liberated afterwards, eastwards from an occupied Germany.

Churchill advocated such an invasion, as he wanted to win the war as easily as possible and to limit Soviet conquests. However, President Roosevelt was utterly naive about the USSR and Joseph Stalin, and refused to do anything that might upset the Soviets, and thus, he and Stalin insisted on a landing in France. Normandy was thus chosen as the landing site for purely political reasons.

McNeilly also wrongly claims that Germany made a mistake by invading Poland. However, it wasn’t a mistake. Although France and Britain did declare war on Germany over Poland, they did nothing effective to help Warsaw, or the Lower Countries and Denmark, when invaded by Germany. Furthermore, the Germans, as McNeilly documents, won overwhelmingly in France, while the British and General de Gaulle’s men were forced to withdraw to Britain. Soon after, the UK itself came under German bombardment. London then made the mistake of rejecting repeated German peace overtures.

Last but not least, there are a few things which I believe McNeilly should’ve said but didn’t. Firstly, he doesn’t provide much advice on how to use Sun Tzu’s advice to counter the growing Chinese military threat. Secondly, he does not acknowledge (nor deny) that WW2 and the Civil War were also wars of attrition in which even the winners, including the US and the USSR in WW2, paid a heavy price for victory.

Thirdly, McNeilly does not account for the few cases where a leader went against Sun Tzu’s advice and won anyway. For example, during the Battle of Austerlitz, when Coalition troops went down from the Pratzen Heights to attack French Marshal Davout’s divisions, Marshal Davout decided to oppose and stop them – and won despite his troops being outnumbered 4:1. Sun Tzu wrote that if your enemy is charging downhill, you should never oppose him – but Davout did oppose the enemy and won anyway. How does McNeilly explain that?

Nonetheless, McNeilly’s book was a quick, enjoyable, and fascinating read from which I have learned much. Having already read Sun Tzu’s Art of War several months prior, I now have read a book which nicely explains his work and applies it to past and future wars alike. It’s well-researched, well-written, interesting, and instructive about the past and potentially the future alike. I would give it a 9/10 rating.

CORRECTION: While the title of Sun Tzu’s original treatise was indeed The Art of War, Mark McNeilly’s book is titled Sun Tzu and the Art of Modern Warfare (emphasis mine).

Here We Go Again: A Discussion with Numbers USA’s Rosemary Jenks

Screen Shot 2013-01-30 at 10.12.17 AMWith the “Gang of Eight” announcing their immigration reform package yesterday, I’m sure many American found the deal sensible, rational, and fair.  It’s a bipartisan deal, which pleases the independent segments of the electorate, and has Sen. Marco Rubio endorsing it wholeheartedly.  Immigration keeps the United States economically vibrant, unlike Europe, which has become older, grayer, and more Islamized.  We should welcome immigrants, but not at the cost of undermining our economic interests – which is what NumbersUSA, an organization dedicated to common sense immigration reform, is trying to tell members of Congress.  I was able to speak with Rosemary Jenks, NumbersUSA’s Director of Government Relations, about the new proposal last night.

On NumbersUSA’s website, they lay out the details of the package:

 1. Create a tough but fair path to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants currently living in the United States that is contingent upon securing our borders and tracking whether legal immigrants have left the country when required;

2. Reform our legal immigration system to better recognize the importance of characteristics that will help build the American economy and strengthen American families;

3. Create an effective employment verification system that will prevent identity theft and end the hiring of future unauthorized workers; and,

4. Establish an improved process for admitting future workers to serve our nation’s workforce needs, while simultaneously protecting all workers.

It doesn’t sound like snake oil, but anything from government that sounds too good to be true – tends to be that way.  Case in point, the passing of Obamacare.  However, to low-information voters, or those who aren’t privy to immigration data, it represents, as Jenks said:

…part of the problem with the immigration debate because when you see an outline of a proposal, and you don’t know a whole lot about the issue, it tends to look pretty reasonable.  It’s only when you get into the details that things start to fall apart. So, you know for example – the bottom line is that this proposal is virtually identical to the proposal from the Gang of Eight in 2007. And I actually like Sen. Sessions’s title for them better, which is “masters of the universe.”  They basically have been meeting behind closed doors.  They don’t allow anyone else into the meetings – anyone who might disagree with them – and then they come out with this grand announcement, and assume that everyone will fall in line and vote for it. But the problem is that this proposal is not well thought out in terms of what’s best for America. And part of the reason for that is that involved in their little secret meetings, and closed-door negotiations, are groups like the AFL-CIO, the Chamber of Commerce, and organized religion, the ethnic advocacy groups – special interest groups have all had their say, but the one group that’s always left out of these negotiations is the America people. So, here we go again – starting this whole process, and we’re looking at essentially the same proposals with the same meaningless so-called triggers that aren’t actually triggers – and massive amnesty.

Closed-door negotiations? It’s a bit ironic that comprehensive immigration reform that intends to keep us an open, immigrant friendly nation needs to be fleshed out in secret meetings.  However, what shocked me was the involvement of the AFL-CIO.  The Democratic wing that’s beholden to union interests have usually opposed illegal immigration since they allow, for example, contractors to underbid union contracts.  Why are they for amnesty? Jenks explains that:

basically, the unions have an interest in amnesty because immigrants, legal or illegal, is the only growing population of union-dues paying members. If they want to continue their dues, the need to legalize the illegal population to keep them here, keep them unionized, and keep them paying dues.  So in exchange for that amnesty, they’ve made a deal with the Chamber of Commerce, in which the unions give up on guest workers – to get amnesty – and the Chamber gives them amnesty to get guest workers.  So, everybody wins, except the American worker.

However, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) did say, at the close of the press conference yesterday, that the proposal will tie  immigration the influx of legal immigration to the nation’s unemployment rate.  However, Jenks wasn’t convinced that this item in the package will be taken seriously.

 Well, the fact that they’re talking about giving expedited amnesty to AG workers [agricultural workers] and to dreamers – and then some kind of extended amnesty to all of the rest of the eleven million illegal aliens in the country, despite the fact that we have 7.9% unemployment tells me whatever they have in mind for the future is certainly not going to happen because they’ve already vastly exceeded the ability of our economy to employ these people. We’ve already got twenty million Americans who can’t find full-time jobs.  So, we’re going to add eleven million more?

The growth industries in the U.S. economy are mostly highly skilled, high-tech occupations.  So, why would we then be giving a massive amnesty –expedited amnesty – to AG workers, and creating a new guest worker program for low-skilled labor?  It doesn’t make sense.  We should be reforming our legal immigration system to meet the needs of the 21st century. Instead of doing that, they’re basically just packing on a whole bunch of new programs that will continue to flood the labor market, primarily the low-skill labor market, and increase the competition for our own most vulnerable workers. And who’s going to pay for it?  The taxpayers.

Yet, Brad Plumer posted on The Washington Post’s WonkBlog yesterday – and said that illegal immigration has “slowed since 2007.”  So, what’s the big deal?  Isn’t that a positive indicator?

there has been – it appears – through some Census data – that the number of new illegal aliens coming into the United States slowed somewhat during the recession, but there’s also evidence that the number has started to pick up again.  It’s entirely possible that’s because of all this talk of amnesty – but the bottom line is illegal immigration is going to be affected by some small degree by economic changes in the United States.  But the fact is that the illegal population has stayed at about an estimated eleven million. It hasn’t actually dropped.  We still have a huge problem, and you can’t stop illegal immigration by redefining it as legal.   That’s not a long-term solution.

What alternative policy does NumbersUSA endorse to solve this crisis?  Jenks said that since its inception, NumbersUSA has supported the proposals laid out from the 1995 U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, which was chaired by former Texas Congresswoman Barbara Jordan.  Jordan, a Democrat, and her commission had these key points in their report.

  • a scale back of family chain-migration by implementing a prioritization of family relationships to determine who will be admitted through family-based immigration. Spouses and minor children of US citizens would continue to be admitted as first priority;
  • elimination of other family-based admission categories, including:
    • Adult, unmarried sons and daughters of U.S. citizens;
    • Adult, married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens;
    • Adult, unmarried sons and daughters of legal permanent residents; and
    • Siblings of U.S. citizens.
  • a focus on the admission of highly-skilled individuals to support the national interest by bringing to the U.S. individuals whose skills would benefit our society. Recommended the elimination of the admission of unskilled workers and elimination of the diversity visa lottery;
  • immigration admissions level of 550,000 per year, to be divided as follows:
    • Nuclear family immigration 400,000;
    • Skill-based immigration 100,000;
    • Refugee resettlement 50,000.
  • Stressed deportation is crucial. Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: those who should get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave.

Without a doubt, amnesty will be unpalatable to Republicans in the House.  As a naturalized citizen, who immigrated via adoption from South Korea, I want America to remain an open nation.  However, there are rules.  It’s unfair to the legal immigrants to be cast aside because millions of illegals broke the law.  They’ve waited patiently, and now they’re about to be cut in line.  There’s something unethical about it, but we shall see how conservatives react to this new amnesty push – even with the stringent standards attached to the pathway to citizenship.

Originally Posted on PJ Tatler.

Liberal Chick Says God Hates Guns and Gun Owners Need to Repent!

Unbelievable! Are these people for real? Is this a parody? Sadly, even if this is a parody, there are really people out there like this!

YouTube Description:

She’s back and as loopy as ever. Liberal Chick says Jesus wants gun owners to repent. She says women should not resist assault and should wait for angels to protect them. Whacked!

A couple of comments from the YouTube video:

From altops: Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword (gun/weapon), let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Mitch Swoboda Exodus 22:2 “If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed

What Makes A Successful Broadcaster? Chris Baker Shares His Views!

By Jeremy Griffith

There’s exciting news for fans of CDNews Radio! Steve Hamilton and Stevie West joined the programming lineup Monday with their show “Getting Hammered”. Their first guests were Dark Side Host Kira Davis and Virginia’s Chapter of Americans For Prosperity Rep Audrey Jackson. It was a great premiere! Hear it for yourself  on the podcast here.

Steve and Stevie join a team of talented amateur blog radio hosts on CDNews Radio. Other popular shows include “In Deep” with Michelle Ray, “Married to the Game” with AI Politics, and “The Dark Side” with Kira Davis, just to name a few. Check the schedule to find your favorite show, or listen to one you haven’t heard yet.

Radio Host Chris Baker

Radio Host Chris Baker

As CDNews radio expands its lineup, we wondered, what does it take to make a successful, entertaining show? Well, I remembered an interview I did a few years ago with some great advice for broadcasters. Here is radio broadcast talent Chris Baker, formerly of KTLK FM in Minneapolis with advice for the new broadcast enthusiast. His interview is both enlightening and entertaining. Watch the never before seen interview here.

Breitbart TV Editor-In-Chief Larry O'Connor

Breitbart TV Editor-In-Chief Larry O’Connor

Breitbart TV Editor-in-Chief and Blog Talk legend Larry O’Connor successfully made the transition from one of the highest rated Internet radio shows to terrestrial radio recently. So, we wondered if that was a future possibility for some of our favorites, like our own Kira Davis for example. Time will tell, so tune in and listen! Conservatives and libertarians are not alone as long as we have great Internet Radio hosts like those on CDNews Radio, available on Blog Talk Radio.

Baker announced he will host the new afternoon drive time for Omaha, Nebraska radio station, 1110 KFAB. His first day as host will be February 11, 2013.

Larry O’Connor can be heard on FM 105.9 WMAL in Washington DC.

Sotomayor’s autobiography whitewashes radical college years

People in general – and leftists specifically – have a tendency to view their own past achievements through rose-colored glasses and many go as far as to completely rewrite history.
Bill Clinton’s autobiography all but ignored the Monica Lewinsky scandal that triggered the downfall of a morally bankrupt president. Al Gore, in addition to his steady stream of lies concerning the environment, infamously took credit for the creation of the Internet.
In the continuous orgy of self-congratulation that is American politics, an autobiography might be the only place to find a more sickening whitewash of history than accounts from sycophants in the media.
Such is the case with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s recently released tome.
Instead of the familiar “tell-all” book, Sotomayor apparently wrote a “tell-all-she-wants-us-to-know” book leaving out key experiences during her college years.
To be clear, she wrote in great lengths about her time at Princeton University, but her association with openly racist organizations and other left-wing fringe movements are conveniently absent.
She does describe her involvement in groups such as Puerto Rican organization Accion Puertorriquena and the civil rights association the Third World Center.
What the book fails to reveal, however, are the radical policies and ideologies espoused by members of those two organizations.
As co-chair of Accion Puertorriquena, Sotomayor pushed relentlessly for racial quotas in her quest for affirmative action.
Accusing Princeton of “an attempt … to relegate an important cultural sector of the population to oblivion,” she stoked backlash from campus newspaper The Daily Princetonian’s editorial staff.
“Affirmative action should not mean positive efforts to reverse a historical pattern of minority under-representation at the expense of traditional standards of excellence,” the paper published at the time. [Emphasis in original.]
Her pro-minority bias seemed to morph into an anti-white bias with her involvement in the Third World Center at Princeton.
In addition to a radical agenda put forth in the group’s founding documents, Sotomayor added her own leftist fingerprint by inviting speakers such as Manuel Maldonado-Denis, who reported the “only solution” to the U.S. “exploiting” Puerto Rico is “through the establishment of national liberation and the establishment of socialism.”
If this was her inspiration back then, is there any wonder Barack Obama chose her to sit on the highest court in the land – possessing the power to change public policy without worrying about re-election.
Perhaps most relevant to her current position of power, Sotomayor showed partiality toward minorities as a student judge in college.
After inappropriately disparaging eight students who broke into the dorm room of two gay individuals in a letter to the Daily Princetonian, Sotomayor heard the case and demanded those involved be expelled, sources familiar with the incident report.
In the end, the eight students were given two years of probation and were stigmatized with a permanent mark on their records.
Even the victims of the break-in said at the time the punishment was too severe.
While I certainly want a Supreme Court sensitive to injustice, Sotomayor’s past seems to indicate she is receptive to only the suffering of her favorite minority groups.
Click here to get B. Christopher Agee’s latest book for less than $5! Like his Facebook page for engaging, relevant conservative content daily.

Hillary and Obama’s 60 Minute Commandment: Cover Thy Negligent Ass

 Obama-Hillary one

 

During Sunday’s 60 Minutes interview, Hillary Clinton and President Obama morphed into one another while covering each other’s negligent asses.

The one-time presidential opponents, who tore each other to shreds during the 2008 presidential run, are now in a race to hide their September 11th disgrace and save themselves.

When caught in a lie, lie. And behave like two star-crossed lovers.

 

hillary obama umbrella kiss

 

Four years-ago these two progressive cutthroats went for the jugular, hurling  racial accusations and insults that make military combat look like a well-mannered “Downton Abbey” dinner.

Who really believed either one of these snake oiled, back-stabbing progressives during that farce of an interview? Both have thrown their own families under the biggest bus to save their own careers.

The entire 60 Minutes interview with Steve Kroft was a sham.

 

60 min

 

Kroft posed gentle questions, never bothering to put either cold and calculating bureaucrat on the spot for the obvious disdain and indifference  that caused the September 11th massacre of four Americans by Islamic militants.

Kroft’s interview enabled Obama and Hillary and helped them cover for each other.

The interview was nothing more than a left-wing love-fest by two people who obviously found the best plastic surgeon available and had their lips surgically attached to each other’s rear-ends.

Concerning Hillary Clinton’s term as Secretary of the State, Obama said:

Well, the main thing is I just wanted to have a chance to publicly say thank you, because I think Hillary will go down as one of the finest secretary of states we’ve had. It has been a great collaboration over the last four years. I’m going to miss her. Wish she was sticking around. But she has logged in so many miles, I can’t begrudge her wanting to take it easy for a little bit. But I want the country to appreciate just what an extraordinary role she’s played during the course of my administration and a lot of the successes we’ve had internationally have been because of her hard work.

 

Take it easy a bit! Hillary avoided the press for months. The only time she spoke about Benghazi was to blame an innocent filmmaker for the slaughter. Because of Hillary and Obama, that innocent filmmaker was thrown in prison–where he remains–for exercising his First Amendment rights.

Not until last week’s Senate and Congressional Hearings, where Hillary was given a verbal concussion by Republican Senators Rand Paul, John McCain and Ron Johnson, did she finally open her mouth. And then Hillary let the world know it doesn’t make a difference to her that four men are dead.

It obviously doesn’t make a difference to 60 Minutes either, because Steve Kroft went easier on Obama and Hillary than a blue dress on Bill Clinton.

Kroft had one hour to grill the two and failed as miserably with this interview as Obama and Hillary did with Benghazi.

The adulation fawn-fest set the stage for both to cover each other’s behinds and dodge Kroft’s easy questions about Qaddafi, Syria, Arab Spring, while turning Libya into an accident.

Worse, Kroft facilitated both frauds by making the majority of the interview about the phony working friendship and a Hillary-health-issue. After all, what difference does it make that four Americans were massacred in Benghazi, we need to know if Obama loves Hillary and if Hillary’s brain is doing well? And its imperative we know why Hillary’s wearing those bizarre Bette Davis horror movie magnifier glasses: “I still have some lingering effects from falling on my head and having the blood clot.”

Just listening to this rubbish gave me a concussion.

Obama swooned:

I was a big admirer of Hillary’s before our primary battles and the general election. You know, her discipline, her stamina, her thoughtfulness, her ability to project, I think, and make clear issues that are important to the American people, I thought made her an extraordinary talent. She also was already a world figure…Hillary’s been one of the most important advisors that I’ve had on a whole range of issues.

 

Hillary adoringly said she and Obama are “very warm, close.”

You weren’t “warm” or “close” during the 2008 South Carolina Primary Debate.

Hillary in 2008:

You know, Senator Obama, it is very difficult having a straight-up debate with you, because you never take responsibility for any vote, and that has been a pattern.

 

Obama slapped back at Hillary:

I can’t tell who I’m running against sometimes, Senator Clinton and President Clinton.

 

Hillary shouted:

I’m here, not my husband!

 

And who can forget Bill Clinton’s remarks to Charlie Rose about Obama’s lack of experience:

I mean, when’s the last time we elected a president based on one year of service in the Senate before he started running? I mean, he will have been a senator longer by the time he’s inaugurated, but essentially once you start running for president full time you don’t have time to do much else.

 

Measure those comments to Hillary’s 60 Minutes kiss-up to the man who stole her chances at being president.

Hillary:

[W]hen I got to Chicago and he [Obama] asked me if I would consider being his secretary of state, I immediately said, ‘Oh, Mr. President, there’s so many other people. Let me give you some other names.’ Because it just took me by surprise…And he kept saying, ‘Well, I want you to think about it again…’ I’ll tell you what I finally thought. I thought, ‘You know, if the roles had been reversed. And I had ended up winning. I would have desperately wanted him to be in my cabinet. So if I’m saying I would have wanted him to say yes to me, how am I going to justify saying no to my president?’ And it was a great decision, despite my hesitancy about it.

 

We can heave a sigh of relief! Had Hillary won the 2008 presidency, events in Washington and Benghazi would still be the same.

And we can relax knowing Hillary and Obama have some emotions concerning the four massacred men.

Hillary told Kroft she “deeply regrets what happened to those men,” whom she and Obama ignored. Benghazi has made Obama “realize what makes a team succeed and fail.”

I feel much better now. Benghazi is explained and finally solved!

America, we need not ask further questions about why four men were left begging for help while being slaughtered. We don’t need answers telling us why those men never received aid or answers to their pleading calls to the president and State Department.

Just knowing Hillary feels “regret” in her lingering blood clotted mind, and Obama understands “failure and success,” should tell Americans: Stop worrying about security and military might. Just move on and get over Benghazi. Our backs are covered by “thoughtful” and “warm” people who have enough “stamina” to fail us successfully.