Category: Shoe on the other Foot

Pope Francis and the anti-Trump Wall speech

Pope Francis decries President-elect Donald Trump’s Wall…

Meanwhile churches continue to build them. Here is Sacred Heart in Lawrence, MA a year earlier and a year later.

See any difference??:


One year later… after Pope Francis condemns Donald Trumps wall of Mexico:


This new wall is almost 20 feet high complete with huge doors fronted with wrought iron gates.

Remember, it’s OK when they do it.



THIS is how you protect citizens… certainly not the way things are done now:

“Even before the operation had ended, President Reagan went on national television to discuss the air strikes. “When our citizens are abused or attacked anywhere in the world,” he said, “we will respond in self-defense. Today we have done what we had to do. If necessary, we shall do it again.”

READ MORE From the History Channel

Continue reading

HIDDEN CAMERA: Gay Wedding Cake At Muslim Bakery

Yes folks, I did this. I went there. You have this now. Actually, I taped this video a long time ago but, due to audio corruption issues, was never able to upload it. Now that my in-house whiz kid, Jared, was able to salvage the footage, I am now passing it on to you.

What do you think happens when a gay, like SUPER gay, Crowder tries to get a super gay wedding cake baked at a Muslim bakery? I’m pretty sure you can guess, but you might as well watch this week’s adventure to Dearborn, Mich., to find out!


Here are the 10,535 pages of ObamaCare condensed to 4 sentences

...and then I told them If they like their doctors, like their health plans, they could keep them...

…and then I told them If they like their doctors, like their health plans, they could keep them…

Here are the 10,535 pages of ObamaCare condensed to 4 sentences
As humorous as this sounds…..every last word of it is absolutely TRUE!

1. In order to insure the uninsured, we first have to uninsure the insured.

2. Next, we require the newly uninsured to be re-insured.

3. To re-insure the newly uninsured, they are required to pay extra charges to be re-insured.

4. The extra charges are required so that the original insured, who became uninsured, and then became re-insured, can pay enough extra so that the original uninsured can be insured, which will be free of charge to them.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is called “redistribution of wealth” ,or, by its more common name, SOCIALISM, and of course the Architect Jonathan Gruber absolutely admitted it.  Breathtaking coverup by the self-proclaimed “most transparent Presidency ever”.

Click here for the Gruber Confession by the Washington Post.

Watch Obamacare Architect Jonathan Gruber Explain Why “Lack of Transparency” Was Key to Passing the Health Care Law

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor Jonathan Gruber was, by most accounts, one of the key figures in constructing the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare. He helped designed the Massachusetts health care law on which it was modeled, assisted the White House in laying out the foundation of the law, and, accordingto The New York Times, was eventually sent to Capitol Hill “to help Congressional staff members draft the specifics of the legislation.” He provided the media with a stream of supportive quotes, and was paid almost $400,000 for his consulting work.

Jonathan Gruber, in other words, knows exactly what it took to get the health care law passed.

And that’s why you should take him seriously when he says, in the following video, that it was critical to not be transparent about the law’s costs and true effects, and to take advantage of the “stupidity of the American voter” in order to get it passed:

(Via the Daily Signal.)

Here’s the full quote:

“This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO [Congressional Budget Office] scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. Okay, so it’s written to do that.  In terms of risk rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in – you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed… Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical for the thing to pass….Look, I wish Mark was right that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not.”

This validates much of what critics have said about the health care law, and the tactics used to pass it, for years.

For one thing, it is an explicit admission that the law was designed in such a way to avoid a CBO score that would have tanked the bill. Basically, the Democrats who wrote the bill knowingly gamed the CBO process.

It’s also an admission that the law’s authors understood that one of the effects of the bill would be to make healthy people pay for the sick, but declined to say this for fear that it would kill the bill’s chances. In other words, the law’s supporters believed the public would not like some of the bill’s consequences, and knowingly attempted to hide those consequences from the public.

Most importantly, however, it is an admission that Gruber thinks it’s acceptable to deceive people if he believes that’s the only way to achieve his policy preference. That’s not exactly surprising, given that he failed to disclose payments from the administration to consult on Obamacare even while providing the media with supposedly independent assessments of the law.

But it’s particularly revealing in light of Gruber’s recently discovered comments regarding the way the law’s subsidies for health insurance are supposed to work. In a 2012 video unearthed this summer, Gruber said explicitly that the tax credits to offset coverage costs were conditioned on state participation in the law’s exchanges—a contention that the administration denies, and is at the heart of a legal challenge on its way to the Supreme Court.

Gruber, who by 2014 was making vehement arguments in support of the administration’s position, said that in the video he misspoke. That excuse was hard to believe. For one thing, he elaborated on the argument at length, and for another, a second recording surfaced soon after in which he said almost the exact same thing.

It’s even harder to believe now that he has admitted that he thinks it’s fine to mislead people if doing so bolsters the policy goals he favors. It’s really quite telling, about the law and also about Gruber. Gruber may believe that American voters are stupid, but he was the one who was dumb enough to say all this on camera.



How Did the Clintons Become So Rich?

The real scandal is not that the former president and first lady are so wealthy, but how they got that wealthy.

NEW YORK - SEPTEMBER 24: Hillary Clinton, Chelsea Clinton and Bill Clinton attend the Clinton Global Initiative Annual Meeting at The Shertaon New York Hotel on September 24, 2013 in New York City. (JStone /

NEW YORK – SEPTEMBER 24: Hillary Clinton, Chelsea Clinton and Bill Clinton attend the Clinton Global Initiative Annual Meeting at The Shertaon New York Hotel on September 24, 2013 in New York City. (JStone /

“Is Hillary our Mitt Romney?”asked MSNBC’s Krystal Ball in a recent segment of her TV show. Ball’s statement came on the heels of several comments by Clinton that made her seem completely out of touch with ordinary Americans — that she is not “ truly well off,” that she and her husband were compelled to give speeches for six figures apiece because they were “ dead broke” upon leaving the White House.

Indeed, considering that Bill and Hillary Clintonhave made more than $100 million since leaving the White House in 2000, it’s not surprising that many Americans see the former first couple as hopelessly detached from the problems of ordinary Americans despite presenting themselves as going through the very same struggles as other Americans.

“We had no money when we got there [to the White House],” explained Hillary Clinton in comments to ABC’s Diane Sawyer. “And we struggled to piece together the resources for mortgages for houses, for Chelsea’s education. It was not easy. Bill has worked really hard. And it’s been amazing to me. He’s worked very hard.”

Yet many Americans have also worked very hard, and they have not amassed the same kind of wealth as the Clintons, with multiple homes and over $100 million of earned income in the past decade. But underneath the social distance their wealth creates, there is a much deeper and more troubling truth. The real scandal is not that the Clintons are so wealthy but how they got that wealth.

Poor rascal

In 2009, Bill Clinton addressed the Campus Progress National Summit, a gathering of progressive students in Washington, D.C. “I never made any money until I left the White House,”he told the students. “I had the lowest net worth, adjusted for inflation, of any president elected in the last 100 years, including President [Barack] Obama. I was one poor rascal when I took office. But after I got out, I made a lot of money.”

Clinton didn’t just make “a lot of money” when he left the White House. Together, the Clintonspulled in $111 million from 2000 to 2007 — far more than what most people would consider a lot.

Thanks to the Office of Government Ethics (OGE), which compiles personal financial disclosures from federal public officials, and the ethics laws governing the U.S. Senate, we know a little bit about how the Clintons made their money. Federal disclosure laws require not only officeholders to disclose their finances but also their spouses, since spousal income is shared. Thus Hillary Clinton’s disclosures both as a U.S. senator and as secretary of state are a window into this shared fortune, one that was gleaned from the very same interest groups and corporations over which the Clintons had authority.

In 1999, Bill Clinton made repealing the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act — which separated commercial and investment banking — a priority. He commanded a bipartisan push in repealing the law, which was primarily advocated for by Wall Street lobbyists. Not long after his pen hit the paper to repeal the law, Citigroup, a top beneficiary of the repeal, recruited Clinton’s Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin to join as an executive at the firm. Rubin went on to be one of Citigroup’shighest-paid officials, pulling in $115 million in pay from 1999 and 2008.

While Rubin was made rich from Wall Street deregulation, his boss went on the lecture circuit. In February of 2001, Clinton had been out of the White House for less than a month when he gave his first paid speech, to none other than Morgan Stanley — another beneficiary of and advocate for Clinton’s Wall Street deregulation — for $125,000. His next address in Manhattan was at Credit Suisse First Boston, which gave him an additional $125,000. His paid speaking arrangements took him around the world, from Canada to Hong Kong, speaking to a variety of interest groups with major public policy interests, including the American Israel Chamber of Commerce and the investment banking giant CLSA. Clinton had also made passing the North American Free Trade Agreement a priority during his presidency, so it is no surprise that major Canadian firms such as the Jim Pattison Group ($150,000) were happy to pay to hear a few remarks from him as well.

The Wall Street payments were significant in that they represented a form of gratitude not only for Bill Clinton’s deregulation of Wall Street. That year Hillary Clinton, now a senator from New York,voted for a bankruptcy bill that made it much harder for people to qualify for Chapter 7 bankruptcy; the bill was backed primarily by banks and credit card issuers.

Bill Clinton in his spree of speeches repeatedly returned to two of the banking giants at the heart of political power in Washington: Citigroup and Goldman Sachs. In 2004 he took home a quarter-million dollars for a Citigroup address in Paris; Goldman Sachs gave him $125,000 for a New York City address. That address must have been a real hit for the former president, because Goldman invited him back for a series of lectures the next year, at Kiawah Island, South Carolina ($125,000); Paris ($250,000); and Greensboro, Georgia ($150,000). The next year, Citigroup Venture Capital invited him for a $150,000 speech, and the Mortgage Bankers Association — representing the folks at the very heart of the financial crisis — gave him $150,000 for a speech in Chicago.

Goldman and Citigroup repeatedly paid Clinton for the next few years, and a number of other major corporate interest groups — such as the National Retail Federation ($150,000) and Merrill Lynch ($175,000) — also joined in the fun.

After Hillary Clinton lost her presidential bid and was appointed to the State Department, she and her husband had brought in more than $100 million from books and speeches. By any measure, they had far more wealth than they needed to pay debts and to take care of their daughter’s future — the reasons Hillary Clinton cited to Diane Sawyer.

Friends and enemies

In June of 2010, months after the Affordable Care Act was signed into law and the regulatory battle over the health overhaul was set into motion, the former president took $175,000 from the main health insurance lobbying organization, America’s Health Insurance Plans. A year after Hillary Clinton called Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and his family “friends” of her family, Bill Clinton was paid $250,000 to speak to the American Chamber of Commerce in Egypt, which was closely tied to the Mubarak regime. As Hillary Clinton grappled with foreign policy issues in Pakistan, Turkey and the Middle East, Bill Clinton took home $175,000 from the Middle East Institute, a think tank that does work in those areas. In 2011 she filmed a video congratulating Kuwait on its independence; a few months later, he was paid a $175,000 honorarium from the Kuwait America Foundation.

Shortly after stepping down from her post, the she then embarked on her own spree of paid speeches, which don’t have to be disclosed because neither Clinton is a public official anymore. But from voluntarily disclosures and press reports, we know that she gave at least two paid speeches to Goldman Sachs for $200,000 each. Although she has not disclosed her full remarks at these events, a number of attendees talked to Politico about her tone and content. “Clinton offered a message that the collected plutocrats found reassuring, according to accounts offered by several attendees, declaring that the banker-bashing so popular within both political parties was unproductive and indeed foolish,” read the article. We won’t know the full extent of payments for speeches unless Clinton chooses to release them or she officially declares for president and has to release her personal financial documents since 2013.

Common people

What has been laid out here is only a small sample of the vortex of wealth that Hillary and Bill Clinton have received from corporations, foundations, foreign organizations and others with an interest in U.S. public policy. No one with any knowledge of politics believes these payments to be disinterested or impartial; they are part of a larger political system that rewards politicians for fealty and obedience. The Clintons were simply following a path laid by other politicos, such as former U.S. Rep. Billy Tauzin of Louisiana, who raked in millions of dollars as a drug lobbyist after crafting an industry-friendly Medicare overhaul, and former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, who has leveraged his experience in government to enrich himself influence-peddling for a variety of corporate clients without ever having to officially register as a lobbyist.

Given their immense wealth and how they got it — politicized kickbacks from the most powerful political forces in Washington, on Wall Street and around the globe — the Clintons would do well to admit that they are unusually wealthy and stop trying to pass themselves off as ordinary folks. If they don’t, their fate may very well resemble Romney’s, as mounting public anger over growing income and wealth inequality could prevent them from returning to the White House in 2016.


Massachusetts gives first-of-its-kind parole approval

Eventual release for man convicted of murder as juvenile

Continuing the liberal trend of “convicts are really the victims”…


Frederick Christian, shown during a May 29 hearing before the state’s parole board, faces prerelease steps.

Frederick Christian, shown during a May 29 hearing before the state’s parole board, faces prerelease steps.

The Massachusetts Parole Board, for the first time in its history, approved Thursday the eventual release of a man convicted as a juvenile of first-degree murder, in a decision that was hailed by advocates but that outraged family and friends of the victims of a 1994 double slaying in Brockton.

The board, in a 6-to-0 vote, found that Frederick Christian, now 37, is a “suitable candidate for parole,” the first of as many as 65 inmates in Massachusetts convicted of first-degree murder as teenagers who are or will become eligible to seek their release under two recent court decisions.

Before going free, Christian must successfully complete an eight-week motivational enhancement program, followed by one year of additional confinement in a lower-security Massachusetts facility and prerelease program. Then he will be released to his home state of Tennessee, where he will be required to complete at least three months in a residential program.

“It’s exciting in the moment, but I think he also really appreciates the gravity of the whole situation,” said John A. Fennel, a lawyer for Christian. “This is really by grace that he has gotten this, and he really needs to show that he isn’t going to cause any problems and lead a quiet life. And hopefully he’ll be able to give something back to society.”

According to legal filings, Christian was 17 when he and a friend, Russell Horton, 18, got into a car with three other men on May 25, 1994. The five drove around Brockton before Horton told the driver, Manuel Araujo, to stop at a house so that he and Christian could rip off drug dealers they thought lived there.

When the two men got back to the car, Horton told Araujo to drive to a nearby park. Without warning, he shot Araujo, his brother Carlos, and the man in the passenger seat, Kepler Desir. Carlos Araujo survived and later identified Horton as the shooter.

On Thursday, Carlos Araujo, now 39, blasted the Parole Board’s ruling.

“This right here is not right,” he said. “Obviously these Parole Board members don’t care much about life or they have never really lost somebody. This is not justice at all.”

Araujo, who was shot in the head but survived by pretending to be dead, said the 20 years Christian has already served is far too little for his crimes.

“It wasn’t a robbery,” Araujo said. “It was a setup, and he killed two people. Now he gets out just because he was 17 at the time? That’s ridiculous. That’s the last law they should have changed.”

Horton was tried separately and convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and one count of assault to murder. He is serving a life sentence.

Thursday’s decision on Christian came after the US Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that it was unconstitutional to automatically sentence defendants to life terms without parole for crimes they committed as juveniles. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued a similar ruling in December.

Specialists said relatively few prisoners convicted of murder as juveniles have received parole, with many states still wrestling with how to comply with the Supreme Court ruling.

“To the best of my knowledge, this is very unusual,” Mary Ellen Johnson, executive director of the Pendulum Foundation, a juvenile justice group in Colorado, said of the Parole Board decision. “Massachusetts is in the vanguard.”

In Thursday’s ruling, the Parole Board noted that while Christian admits he agreed to watch Horton’s back once Horton decided to rob the other three men in the car, he denies that he knew Horton planned to shoot them.

The board said that “the best evidence supports that denial” and also noted Christian’s lack of any violent infractions while incarcerated, his religious activities as a practicing Muslim, commitment to drug and alcohol counseling, and completion of several rehabilitative programs that teach “attitudes and strategies to avoid violence,” among other initiatives.

“Through this commitment and effort, Christian has rehabilitated himself,” the board wrote.

But that reasoning was small comfort to Carlos Araujo, who said news of Christian’s probable release filled him with a sense of dread.

“I think I just became a gun owner,” he said. “I’m not going to let that happen again.”

Barbara Crowder, the former girlfriend of Kepler Desir, who was slain in the car, also expressed shock.

“He deserved to stay right where he was,” she said. “He knew what he was going to do that day. This was premeditated.”

Christian is currently incarcerated at the Old Colony Correctional Center, a medium-security facility in Bridgewater.

In a statement, Josh Wall, chairman of the Parole Board, said the panel is “working diligently” to implement the SJC’s December ruling.

“There are a number of individuals who are eligible for parole under the court’s ruling, and we will consider each petition with thoughtfulness and rigor, consistent with our practice and the court’s instruction,” the statement said. “Our deliberations involve considerations of public safety, rehabilitation, and whether petitioner, if placed on the proper path with the proper programming and supervision, has the potential to successfully reenter society.”

Christian testified last week before the Parole Board and expressed regret for his role in the slayings, telling the panel that he was “very ashamed.”

Another man convicted of murder as a juvenile, Joseph Donovan, now 38, also asked the board for release last week. It was not clear when the board will issue a ruling in that case.

Joshua Dohan, director of the Youth Advocacy Division for the Committee for Public Counsel Services, which represented Christian, said the board recognized Christian’s attempts to atone for his crime.

“Christian spent 20 years trying to improve and redeem himself,” he said.

The office of Plymouth District Attorney Timothy J. Cruz said that the panel ignored damaging evidence against Christian presented at trial, including that he brought the murder weapon with him that night, leaned back in the car to give Horton a clear line of fire, and told a witness to keep his knowledge of the murders “under his hat.”

“I am shocked and disappointed at the actions of the parole board in setting this double murderer free,” Cruz said. “I am still reviewing their findings, but even a cursory review demonstrates that the Parole Board’s findings fly in the face of the evidence at trial and the findings of the jury.

“The board has apparently accepted Christian’s version of events, which he crafted 20 years after the murders of Kepler Desir and Manuel Araujo and the shooting of Carlos Araujo.”