Daily Archives: October 16, 2015

Middle School Assignment: Would You Save Whites or Blacks from Sinking Ship?

Students also asked to choose between President Obama, Trump, a Hispanic woman, rabbi and minister

by Mikael Thalen


Middle school students in Florida were asked to choose between saving the lives of whites or blacks from a sinking ship in a controversial school assignment stirring outrage among parents.

Valerie Kennel, whose 11-year-old daughter Leah attends Giunta Middle School near Tampa, says sixth grade students were presented a “Lifeboat Test” in which they were forced to save only nine people out of 15.

“It’s racist in every form,” Kennel told WFLA-TV. “This had nothing to do with history, nothing to do with it. What is it teaching them?”

Several high-profile figures including President Obama and Donald Trump were included on the test alongside whites, blacks, a Hispanic woman, a male and female doctor and a rabbi and minister.

“Leah is 11. How is she supposed to pick people based off of what they’re saying? To her, everybody matters. Everybody should have a chance,” Kennel said. “They didn’t do anything wrong. Everybody deserves to be saved.”

According to Leah, she and her fellow classmates immediately protested the assignment.

“Everybody in the classroom got upset about it and said, ‘This is racist. This is racist,’” Leah notes.

One student, Leah adds, became so upset that they ripped up the assignment before being forced into “time-out” for opposing the test.

In response to protest from both parents and students, the Hillsborough County School District stated that the assignment was merely a “team-building exercise” and denied any racial connotations.

“This school has a culturally diverse population,” a school district representative said. “The test brought up good debates on how to work together, building relationship.”

Kennel, who now plans to meet with the school’s principal, argues the school’s leadership needs to better monitor what is being taught to students.

“They need to be careful with what their teachers are putting out there,” Kennel said.


Nixon Resigns, Hillary Runs for President


Mother of Benghazi Victim NOT Sick & Tired of Hillary’s ‘Damn Emails’

“Why can’t I find anything out about my son?”


While Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton yukked it up at the Democratic debates complaining that they are “sick and tired” of hearing about those “damn e-mails,” Patricia Smith, mother of Benghazi victim Sean Smith, would like to hear a lot more about them. Specifically, what happened to cause her son’s death.

Mrs. Smith appeared on Fox News this week and said that Clinton promised her on the day Sean’s casket was delivered to Washington, D.C. that she would let her know exactly what happened. Well, it’s been three years and no answers have been given.

“She promised me to my face that she would call and tell me what happened, because I don’t know exactly what happened,” Smith said. “She’s got to let me know!”

“I am the mother,” she added. “Or I was the mother. She wasn’t! Why does she know and I can’t find out about my son?”

“Yes, it’s only been three years,” Smith continued angrily. “How long is it going to take before I find out something? Somebody in the government should let me know something.”

Smith said that because Benghazi was Clinton’s territory as Secretary of State and wasn’t providing proper security, “she allowed it to happen.”

“Everything,” Smith said, “this was her bailiwick. She was the State Department. Now she caused all this to happen, why shouldn’t she have to give an answer?”

Mrs. Smith settled on the only conclusion that any grieving mother in her position could:

As far as I’m concerned, Hillary is anti-mother. She will not give me an answer to anything. I think that Hillary and her department should stop sitting on the pot and give answers to some of these things instead of saying, “Ahh, it’s not my fault!”

Western Journalism provided a great highlight reel of Smith’s appearance and Clinton’s apparent lack of concern.

Local Community Rejects Federal Militarization of Police, Shows Path Forward


BURLINGTON, Vt. – The Burlington police department unilaterally decided to sever ties with a U.S. Department of Defense program that allows law enforcement agencies to procure surplus military equipment, freeing the department from one significant form of federal influence and control.

A Burlington TV station reported on the move, saying the department had obtained two night vision devices through the program before deciding not to participate.

“There are times when military-style equipment is essential for public safety, but they are very rare,” Burlington Police Chief Brandon del Pozo said. “We have the resources to handle all but the most inconceivable public safety scenarios. Amassing a worst-case scenario arsenal of military equipment results in officers seeing everyday policework through a military lens. When I realized what a small role the military played in equipping our police, I concluded it was better to return the items.”


Through the federal 1033 Program, local police departments procure military grade weapons, including automatic assault rifles, body armor and mine resistant armored vehicles – essentially unarmed tanks. Police departments can even get their hands on military helicopters and other aircraft.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) runs the “Homeland Security Grant Program,” which in 2013 gave more than $900 million in counterterrorism funds to state and local police. According to a 2012 Senate report, this money has been used to purchase tactical vehicles, drones, and even tanks with little obvious benefit to public safety. And, according to ProPublica, “In 1994, the Justice Department and the Pentagon funded a five-year program to adapt military security and surveillance technology for local police departments that they would otherwise not be able to afford.”


“Arming ‘peace officers’ like they’re ready to occupy an enemy city is totally contrary to the society envisioned by the Founders,” Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center said, echoing del Pozo’s thoughts. “They’ve turned ‘protect and serve’ into ‘command and control.’”

In the 1980s, the federal government began arming, funding and training local police forces, turning peace officers into soldiers to fight in its unconstitutional “War on Drugs.” The militarization went into hyper-drive after 9/11 when a second front opened up – the “War on Terror.”

By stripping state and local police of this military-grade gear and requiring them to report on their acquisition and use, it makes them less likely to cooperate with the feds and removes incentives for partnerships.


Very few police chiefs have the moral clarity demonstrated by del Pozo. We can’t rely on local police departments to turn their backs on all the free gear dangled in front of them by the feds. The vast majority won’t – not on their own.

But state and local governments can stop militarization of their police departments through laws and ordinances.

Earlier this year, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie signed a bill into law requiring law enforcement agencies to get approval from a local government body before applying for military equipment. This creates a transparent process and gives area residents an avenue to stop militarization altogether through local action.

Montana took things a step further, passing a law prohibiting police agencies from procuring certain types of military equipment at all.

Local governments don’t have to wait for the state to act. They control their local police departments, and they can generally restrict or even ban militarization on their own initiative.


To take action to push back against federal militarization of police in your state, click HERE.

The Growing Bipartisan Consensus for Rolling Back the Failed War on Drugs

Bill Piper



In the Democratic presidential debate on Tuesday Bernie Sanders came out for marijuana legalization. Hillary Clinton supported medical marijuana. Jim Webb talked proudly about his groundbreaking effort to create the first national commission in 45 years to look at America’s failed crime policies. And it is not just Democrats. A major bipartisan political shift on numerous drug policy issues is underway that has gone largely unnoticed in the press.

The Republican-controlled House passed numerous amendments in the last year letting states set their own marijuana policies. The Senate Appropriations Committee has passed similar amendments. Senate Republicans included marijuana reform in their recent “minibus” spending package, including prohibiting the DEA from undermining state medical marijuana laws, requiring the Veterans Administration to allow veterans to use medical marijuana, and prohibiting the Treasury Department from blocking banks from providing checking accounts to state-legalized marijuana dispensaries.

These are spending limitation amendments, so they expire in a year and are limited in their impact, but it is remarkable that Republican leadership is under such pressure that they had to include them. Our challenge now is to find a way to translate bipartisan support for marijuana reform into lasting legislative change. The Drug Policy Alliance is coordinating a grassroots and lobbying campaign to pass full legislative reform, most notably the CARERS Act, the sweeping medical marijuana bill we worked with Senators Rand Paul, Cory Booker, and Kirsten Gillibrand to introduce earlier this year.

The Republican spending bill also eliminates the congressional ban preventing the city of Washington, D.C. from taxing and regulating marijuana like alcohol. Our political arm, Drug Policy Action, worked with the DC Cannabis Campaign to pass a ballot measure legalizing possession and home cultivation of marijuana. The ballot measure took effect but Congress prohibited the city from going further. If we succeed in repealing this congressional ban, we probably have the votes on the D.C. Council to establish Colorado-style marijuana stores in the nation’s capital.

In other exciting news, Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley and House Judiciary Chairman Robert Goodlatte, two traditional drug war supporters, have struck bipartisan deals on comprehensive sentencing reform. And they also appear close to striking deals on civil asset forfeiture reform, the un-American drug war policy that allows law enforcement to take people’s money and property without convicting them of a crime and keep the profits for their own agencies.

In July we planned a summit with the White House and several foundations that brought community leaders and law enforcement officials from more than 30 city, county and state jurisdictions together to discuss an innovative program that provides help to people caught with drugs instead of jail. Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion, or LEAD, was pioneered in Seattle. We worked to establish similar programs in Santa Fe, New Mexico and Albany, New York and are now working to take money from failed drug war programs to invest in LEAD in other cities.

Finally, it is looking like Congress is close to reforming or eliminating the notorious federal syringe exchange ban, which prohibits states from using their share of federal prevention money on syringe programs that reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis C, and other infectious diseases. The devastating impact of injection drug use in red states has made sensible harm reduction politically viable. In addition to syringes, numerous bills that have been introduced in Congress that would make naloxone, the antidote to opiate overdoses, more widely available.

It is not all good news, of course. Buried in sentencing reform legislation are unnecessary penalty increases in a few areas. Numerous states wrestling with rising heroin overdoses are considering new mandatory minimums or other failed law enforcement approaches. There is still a knee-jerk tendency in both journalism and politics to demonize drugs and the people who use and/or sell them.

Overall it is clear though that the failed drug policies of the last 40 years are giving way to smarter thinking. It is time for an exit strategy from America’s longest war.


Bill Piper is Director of National Affairs for Drug Policy Action. Follow him on twitter @billjpiper.

Europe is Burning

This filth is coming to America, please be aware of what is being allowed by this administration.  Please vote Trump.


The Invasion of Europe by Pat Condell



Bernie Sanders Tweet


Trump: Germany’s Angela Merkel has ‘insane’ policy


GOP frontrunner calls Syrian refugee crisis ‘a Trojan horse’ in the makingREFUGEESRefugees are flooding Germany many U.S. politicians say America should take more of the refugees off of Germany’s hands. Donald Trump says that would be unwise.

Has German Chancellor Angela Merkel lost her mind?

Based on her decision to accept upwards of 1 million refugees from Syria, Afghanistan and other jihadist hotbeds, Donald Trump says the German leader’s policy is definitely “insane.”

Republican front-runner for Republican presidential nomination Donald Trump

“They’re going to have riots in Germany,” the GOP presidential hopeful said in an interview Sunday on CBS’s Face the Nation. “I always thought Merkel was, like, this great leader. What she’s done in Germany is insane. It’s insane… letting in that many people.”

“I’ve been watching this migration. And I see the people. I mean, they’re men, they’re mostly men, and they’re strong men,” Trump said. “What I won’t do is take in 200,000 Syrians who could be ISIS.”



According to United Nations data 69 percent of the migrants flooding Europe this year have been men between the ages of 18 and 45 and only 54 percent of them are from Syria. The others are coming from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Africa — all Muslim-dominated areas.

President Obama has agreed to take 85,000 refugees in fiscal 2016 including at least 10,000 from Syria, and that number will likely increase in 2017 when Obama plans to increase the overall number of refugees accepted into the U.S. to 100,000.

Several refugee lobbies, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, have been pushing Obama to take more Syrians and more refugees in general. The U.S. Catholic Bishops, for example, have a statement on their website calling for the U.S. to take 100,000 refugees from around the world and another 100,000 just from Syria for a total of 200,000 per year.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops gets paid hundreds of millions of U.S. tax dollars per year to resettle refugees in American cities and towns. It is one of nine primary contractors who act as essentially an arm of the federal government for the refugee resettlement program.

Meanwhile, in apparent acquiescence to Pope Francis’s call for the U.S. to be more welcoming toward refugees the U.S. Catholic Bishops have announced the Parishes to Welcome Refugees program, which provides community volunteers to help sponsor newly arriving Syrian and other refugees and provide for their critical needs.

The U.S. has already taken in 1,865 Syrian refugees since January 2012, almost all of them within the past year.

In a recent statement, Archbishop Joseph Kurtz of Louisville, Kentucky, and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops urged:

” … all Catholics in the United States and others of good will to express openness and welcome to these refugees, who are escaping desperate situations in order to survive. Regardless of their religious affiliation or national origin, these refugees are all human persons—made in the image of God, bearing inherent dignity, and deserving our respect and care and protection by law from persecution.”

Trump: ‘Where are the women’

Trump said if he were president he might take a few thousand women and children from Syria but that’s not what he’s seeing in Germany.

“These are physically young, strong men. They look like prime-time soldiers. Now, it’s probably not true. But where are the women?” the GOP frontrunner asked on Face the Nation.

“What she’s done in Germany is insane. It’s insane,” he repeated. “They’re having all sorts of attacks.”

Trump also called the refugee crisis “a Trojan horse” in the making.

“I love a safe zone for people,” Trump said. “I do not like the migration. I do not like the people coming. This could be the greatest Trojan horse. This could make the Trojan horse look like peanuts if these people turned out to be a lot of ISIS.”

Germany’s welcoming attitude toward Muslim asylum seekers has already produced a surge in violent crime in cities and towns across Germany. German authorities, however, are downplaying the lawlessness, apparently to avoid further fueling the growing anti-immigration sentiment, according to a report by the Gatestone Institute.

A confidential police report leaked to a German newspaper reveals that a record-breaking 38,000 asylum seekers were accused of committing crimes in the country in 2014.

Analysts believe this figure — which works out to more than 100 a day — is woefully under-reported.


Refugees line up at a German migrant center where they are being fed and cared for.

“The current spike in crime — including rapes, sexual and physical assaults, stabbings, home invasions, robberies, burglaries and drug trafficking — comes amid a record-breaking influx of refugees from Africa, Asia, the Middle East and the Western Balkans,” Gatestone reports.

According to a classified document obtained by the German newspaper, Bild, the government now estimates that Germany will receive as many as 1.5 million asylum seekers in 2015, including 920,000 in the last quarter of 2015. This figure is nearly double the previous estimate of 800,000 from August. By comparison, Germany received 202,000 asylum seekers in all of 2014 which at the time was considered a huge number.

With family reunifications included, the document warns the actual number of asylum seekers could swell to more than seven million, based on the assumption that individuals whose applications are approved will bring between four and eight additional family members to Germany.

Merkel last week defended her strategy against growing criticism saying, “We will manage.”

Merkel has welcomed the flood of mostly Syrian and Afghan refugees saying it’s her “damned duty” to help those running for their lives

The Gulf States “who have nothing but money” and others should find a big swath of land in Syria and create a safe zone to harbor families, Trump suggested. The U.S. could help economically, but should limit taking in Syrian refugees because they could be terrorists, he said.

Trump said he supports the idea of a no-fly zone inside Syria.

“I love a safe zone for people. I do not like the migration. I do not like the people coming,” he said. “Frankly, look, Europe’s going to have to handle it.”

Another solution he posed is that the Gulf States would “all get together and they should take a big swath of land in Syria, and they should do a safe zone for people…where they could live. And then ultimately, go back to their country, go back to where they came from.”

Asked about his relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, he told Face the Nation that, “I would probably get along with him very well. And I don’t think you’d be having the kind of problems that you’re having right now.”



“How Islam Creates Psychopaths,” by Nicolai Sennels