Clinton and Holder Already Suspended the War on Terror -- in 1999

by Joseph F. Connor

 

Naturally the State Department, led by Hillary Clinton, would proclaim the War on Terror over. To Hillary and Attorney General Eric Holder, the War on Terror was obviously over when politics demanded: two years before the attacks of 9/11/01, when they unleashed sworn, unrepentant terrorists on the American public. In an attempt to gain support from New York’s Hispanic community for Hillary’s run for Senator Moynihan’s vacant senate seat, then-Deputy AG Holder engineered the Clintons’ August 1999 politically craven pardons of 16 unrepentant members of the Puerto Rican terrorist group, FALN.  Incredibly, two terrorists were so committed to their cause that they refused the clemency offer.

Further:

• the FBI and other agencies recommended against clemency,  
• the terrorists never requested clemency,
• the terrorists were provided 30 days to decide to accept the offers,
• the terrorists were not obligated to provide information for unsolved crimes as a condition of release,
• terror advocates were granted at least 9 meetings with DoJ staff including then Deputy AG Eric Holder
• victims and families of victims were ignored.

FALN remains the most prolific terrorist organization ever to wage war against the American people, proudly claiming responsibility for over 130 bombings and incendiary attacks in the U.S. and Puerto Rico between 1974 and 1983, killing six and wounding scores.

Among these vicious, cold-blooded attacks was the January 24, 1975, lunchtime bombing of New York City’s historic Fraunces Tavern. Four innocent men were murdered that day, including my 33-year-old father, Frank Connor.  Our father had been very excited to get home from work that night to celebrate my brother’s and my recent 11th and 9th birthdays with his young family. Instead, after my father’s funeral, mourners shared a dinner in our home that was meant for our birthday celebration.

Members of the FALN threatened Judge Thomas McMillen’s life during their Chicago trial. Carmen Valentine told the judge, “You are lucky that we cannot take you right now,” and called the judge a terrorist. Dylcia Pagan warned the courtroom: “All of you, I would advise you to watch your backs.” And Ida Rodriguez told the judge, “You say we have no remorse. You’re right. … Your jails and your long sentences will not frighten us.” These terrorists convinced McMillen that they would continue being terrorists “as long as you live. If there was a death penalty, I’d impose the penalty on you without hesitation.”

Indeed, after 18 years in prison, FALN member Ricardo Jimenez explained to Tim Russert on Meet the Press, just days after his September 10, 1999 release, that people died at Fraunces Tavern because “measures were not taken that were necessary by the people who owned those establishments.” As I watched this surreal interview I thought, “My father was eating lunch in a crowded restaurant in New York City. What precautions should the owners have taken?”

In 2011, I led a group of family members and a Fraunces survivor to FALN leader Oscar Lopez’s parole hearing in the federal prison in Terre Haute, Indiana.  Lopez was one of the two who turned down the Clinton release in 1999 and remained as unrepentant, if not more pathetic, in 2011 as he was as a young revolutionary (and self proclaimed community organizer from Chicago) in the 1970s.

These are the people the Departments of State and Justice unleashed on the American people!

So to the Obama Administration, the War on Terror is over because it suits their current political needs, as it did the Clintons and Holder in 1999.

As I said in testifying at Eric Holder’s AG senate confirmation hearing in 2009, he and the Clintons played Russian Roulette with the American people by releasing  sworn terrorists into the population.  Unfortunately, I was proven prophetic by Holder's next game of Russian Roulette, Operation Fast & Furious, which resulted in hundreds dead, including heroic Border Agent Brian Terry.

We warned during the 1999 Congressional investigation into the pardons that the release of unrepentant terrorists would only embolden terrorists to strike us again.  Never did we think it would happen to our family again.

Incredibly, almost two years to the day from their release, the savage attacks of 9/11 occured.  My father’s god son and nephew, my closest cousin, Steve Schlag, was one of 3,000 innocent souls murdered as I and so many others watched helplessly from our downtown offices only blocks from the World Trade Center and Fraunces Tavern.

For Holder, the Clintons, and now Obama, terrorism is a tool to be used for political gain; families, victims, and the citizenry be damned.

Big Peace

Barack Obama 'Making History' Again

April 28, 2012
By Jeannie DeAngelis

America has had 43 presidents, but only a handful of them are considered truly great.  First, of course, is the humble general and commander-in-chief of the Continental Army, George Washington, and certainly right behind him is Abraham Lincoln, who saved the Union and whose actions led to the abolition of slavery.

Then there was foundational figurehead Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence and doubled the size of the country; a surprising wartime leader named Harry Truman whose bold decision brought the end of WWII; and the incomparable Ronald Reagan, communism-buster and Cold War victor.

Now, after just three years, a new name is being bandied about as a possible addition to the short list of presidential notables, and that name is Barack Obama. 

Recently, while campaigning for her husband's re-election in Omaha, Nebraska, Michelle Obama declared, "We made history."  After less than one term, it might seem a bit premature to claim historical preeminence, but truth is, by being identified as America's first African-American/biracial president, Obama has in fact made history.

In addition to his initial achievement of surmounting racial prejudice, according to his wife Michelle, in less than one term, not only has the president led America "out of the dark and into the light," but his pioneering leadership has also catapulted him into the realm of presidential greatness.

Oddly enough, when backing up her "making history" claim, the first lady chose not to cite Obama's economic, foreign, or social policy endeavors.  Instead, the first lady focused her attention on Obama's $950-billion signature legislation, the Affordable Healthcare for America Act.

Expounding upon the president's signature achievement, Michelle Obama said, "Two years ago, we made history together by finally passing health reform. And because we passed this law, insurance companies will now have to cover basic preventive care -- things like prenatal care, mammograms, contraception -- at no extra cost."

If "making history" includes trying to accommodate the sexual activities of American citizens, exhibiting intrepid leadership when standing against the United States Constitution, imposing an antagonistic mandate upon religious organizations, and placing contraceptive availability above the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, then Barack Obama certainly has made his mark. 

Moreover, when compared with great moments in history, listening to Michelle Obama laud her husband's legislative victories makes the Louisiana Purchase pale in comparison to the monumental magnitude of dispensing morning-after pills and condoms free of charge.

To be fair, if for nothing else, with fortitude and courage similar to those of five-star general and 34^th President of the United States Dwight D. Eisenhower, Barack Obama certainly does deserve a medal for prevailing in a Democrat-contrived "war on women" and for his unflinching insistence upon "a regulation mandating that insurance companies provide women with free contraceptives." 

However, for some historical perspective, consider the words of limited-government proponent and Sage of Monticello Thomas Jefferson.  When Jefferson made the observation that "[i]f we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy[,]" what he probably wasn't anticipating was the government offering to take care of happy people by promising them taxpayer-funded medical care and free birth control.

Moreover, when Thomas Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence, the foundational premise of self-government hinged upon the objection to Britain's oppressive king doing things like sending "swarms of officers ... hither ... to harass [the colonists], and eat out of their substance."

At the time, little did Jefferson or any of the Founding Fathers know that one day there would be a czar-appointing, tax-loving, regulation-imposing president counted among their ranks, whose policies are the antithesis of the founding principles they established and, for lack of a better comparison, who would be America's very own modern-day George III.

Try as the Founders might, two centuries ago it was impossible to foresee a big-government bureaucrat type as president, a man teetering on the edge of despotism who would sidestep the Constitution and seize for the federal government the power to mandate that "nearly all health insurance plans in the United States must provide women with sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives (including those that can induce abortions) without any fees or co-pay."

Nor could the founders of our nation fathom that a faux-exuberant version of Abigail Adams would justify her husband earning a second term by characterizing free access to birth control as "making history."

In over 200 years, 42 history-making presidents have come and gone -- but never has our nation's hard-fought heritage been subject to a leader who dares profess historical greatness for implementing policies that force American citizens to fund insurance coverage for free contraceptives and abortion on demand.

Furthermore, say what you will about unwavering spousal support, but Mrs. Obama handing out kudos for squelching freedoms established upon the tenets of the U.S. Constitution is downright extraordinary.  Maybe someone should inform both the president and the first lady -- not that they would care -- that it was Thomas Jefferson who cautioned, "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

Therefore, in keeping with Michelle Obama's historical vision of her history-making husband, as the 2012 election rapidly approaches, there's no better time for America to honor Barack Obama this Election Day than by sending him a message of historical proportions.

Author's content: www.jeannie-ology.com

American Thinker

Obama and His Donors Block Relief for Families of Beirut Bombing Victims

by Dan Riehl

 
 A high-powered Wall St. CEO and early, influential Obama supporter, Donald F. Donahue of the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC), may be using his significant clout on behalf of the Obama administration and a questionable Iranian-linked strategic partner to stand in the way of American military families trying to recover billions of dollars to which they are legally entitled after being victimized by the infamous 1983 Iranian-sponsored bombing of a U.S. Marine Corp barracks in Beirut. Since the 1983 bombing, there have been numerous court rulings siding with those victimized by state-sponsored terrorism, allowing them to sue foreign governments for damages. The estates of the Marines killed in Beirut were recently awarded $2.16 billion in damages by a Federal judge. Lawyers have already attached nearly two billion dollars of Iran's money, which sits frozen at Citibank in New York.

The key question is, will that money simply flow back to Iran, will it do that as part of an Obama foreign policy initiative, or will it be handed over to the families who have sued and won a right to it being paid out as damages for the terrorism in 1983? Legislation currently working its way through Congress is just one more attempt to resolve the issue in favor of the families by simplifying their route to justice despite objections by Iran and the Executive branch. DTCC seems intent on weakening the legislation.

Understanding the connections and mutual interests of Obama, Clearstream and Donahue's DTCC is key to understanding why representatives for the military families find current, pertinent facts and events so troubling and bizarre.

Defeating, or simply weakening, a widely-popular anticipated piece of legislation that now enjoys bi-partisan support could substantially benefit both DTCC and its recently acquired highly-controversial strategic partner, Luxemberg-based Clearstream--with established ties to Iran--while also proving very beneficial to Barack Obama's fundraising in an election year. Consequently, advocates for the families share growing concerns over any possible collusion among the powerful parties with most to gain from preventing military families from collecting that to which they're morally and legally entitled based upon both an act of Congress and a court ruling.

The relationship and similar goals of all three--DTCC, Clearstream and Obama--are causing military families to begin to doubt if justice will ever be served in their so far fruitless 30 year-long quest in the wake of a horrific act of terrorism which took the lives of family members.

In foreign policy terms, it's believed that Obama and his State Department would prefer the flexibility of being able to allow the $2 billion plus in question to flow back to terrorist-supporting Iran as a fig leaf of sorts in Obama's most recent appeasement campaign. A release of the funds back to Iran--whether overtly, or through a wink and a nod, potentially with the assistance of Clearstream--is thought to represent leverage for Obama's State Department to use in the nuclear negotiation process, whether it ever became public knowledge, or not.

However, in addition to that, any potential meaningful legislation also presents an extremely difficult domestic political problem for Obama, given the timing. 2012 is an election year, and publicly taking on military families seeking only that to which they've been deemed legally entitled, as Obama and Holder at DOJ have done previously in 2009, presents Obama with a potential public relations disaster as he seeks a second term. Worse, were a combined bill to emerge from Congress, Obama would be forced to choose between the families of dead military members killed in an act of Iran-sponsored terrorism, and vetoing any legislation on behalf of an Iran he presently seems intent on appeasing through negotiations.

Consequently, any public statements or closed-door lobbying by DTCC, in reality opposing current legislation as it exists, while feigning support, would seem more designed to weaken, or derail Congressional efforts on the part of the military families involved, as opposed to being supportive, as DTCC claims to be.

To the extent DTCC may be able to accomplish a weakening, or defeating of, current legislation, that would serve its interest, its partner's interest, and Barack Obama's interest--not those of the families of military personnelwho gave their lives as peacekeepers in 1983.

That seems to be playing out as Donahue, Obama, and significant portions of major media, are all but ignoring impassioned pleas for help on behalf of the victims. Beirut Families, an advocacy group supporting the military families terrorized by Iran, recently released a full statement addressed to DTCC CEO Donahue:

After so many years of fighting for justice against all odds, now that we seem to be in the home stretch in our efforts to collect the judgment, your company is working on Capitol Hill to keep that from happening. The American military service persons families who have suffered directly from Iran's attack on America in 1983 find DTCC's position on S. 2101 and H.R. 4070 downright unconscionable.

I am a suburban housewife and mom who lost my brother, Capt. Vincent Smith, in the 1983 bombing. The people in my group have similar backgrounds. We are not bankers. We are not globally connected businesspeople. We are simply Americans, whose lives have been forever changed by Iran's wrath of terrorism directed against unarmed members of the U.S. military on a peacekeeping mission and as such, we cannot understand why DTCC is trying to undermine us.

While DTCC's opposition to pending legislation is based upon what experts in and outside of government have termed "specious" claims, in recent years its has also significantly ramped up its lobbying efforts through a powerful DC-based lobbying firm, Patton Boggs, and cultivated a relationship with the Obama administration.

DTCC CEO Donahue invested early in Obama, donating $2,300 to Barack Obama in January 2008 in the Democratic primary, followed by another $2,300 in September for the 2008 general election, based upon a search of FEC filings.

Donahue's other political donations to Democrats are mostly insignificant as compared to his investment in Barack Obama.

Insiders with knowledge of events insist DTCC's actual goal is to weaken any legislation by limiting it to smaller financial services firms, thereby itthem the freedom to transfer Iranian assets back to Iran, potentially with the help of their now strategic partner, Clearstream--and potentially with the overt, or tacit approval of the Obama administration.

Clearstream's past is so clouded that, in November, Forbes actually castigated Citibank for simply doing business with it. Its past includes allegations of shifting Iranian assets so as to remain undetected, along with money laundering and tax evasion. Were someone interested in shifting Iranian assets, overtly or covertly, DTCC partner Clearstream would at least appear to be the firm to call:

By doing business with Clearstream, and through these transactions in particular, Citibank has exposed itself to an immense amount of risk. Citibank shareholders should ask whether the risk of handling these transactions was worth a potential $4 billion fine, let alone the damage that Citibankís reputation might incur as a result.

Unfortunately, as too often happens in Washington, anything akin to actual justice for the proverbial little guy either collides with powerful interests, or simply hits the wall of Washington politics as usual--only to be denied again and again.

For any wishing to support the families, the website for Beirut Families is Beirut Justice. They also maintain a Twitter feed for supporters interested in keeping abreast of new developments. In the end, it may yet take broad citizen support to move an adequate measure forward for Obama's signature.

What current Commander-In-Chief Barack Obama may then do is anyone's guess at this point.

Big Peace

Limited Government Is Essential to Economic Growth

by Of Thee I Sing 1776

 

We do not know who will be the next President of the United States.  As we opined last week, Republican nominee-apparent Mitt Romney is not likely to win if he doesn’t soon articulate an inspiring message or vision.  President Obama, on the other hand, very well may win re-election with his strategy of pitting the vast majority of voters (90%) who barely pay 30% of personal income taxes, against the much smaller (10%) who pay 70% of all personal income taxes.  Such an outcome, we believe, will set the country on a potentially irreversible path to ever-expanding government, at the expense of sustainable economic growth for the country and its people. We do not believe President Obama is opposed to economic growth, but we do believe he is staunchly opposed to limited government and he has said as much.  Sadly, he doesn’t seem to understand, that he can’t have it both ways.  As the size of the government’s debt (including what the government owes to those who are on, or will be on, social security) continues its steady growth well beyond the size of the entire economy, economic growth will become more and more elusive.  In this respect, his vision of the role of government is fundamentally opposed to what the founders envisioned and gifted to their contemporaries and to their posterity.  They understood that limited government was essential to the growth of the country and its economy.   With all due respect to President Obama, we believe the founders had it right and he has it wrong.

Politicians and economists talk and often write in a very esoteric language. Economic theorems, models and projections consist largely of language that cross the eyes and numb the mind.  But people know when they are better off or worse off, or feel things are headed in the right direction or the wrong direction, or whether unsustainable (and unrepayable) debt is okay or not so okay.  Common sense still trumps elitist mumbo-jumbo.

Most Americans understand that when the government grows it requires money to fund that growth and that government acquires that money from those who pay taxes, or by borrowing the money or by printing the money.  They also understand that when government goes into the capital markets to borrow money, whatever they borrow is less than is then available to the private sector to borrow for expansion of an existing business or for starting a new business.  If government taxes its citizens to acquire the money to expand, then there is less money in the hands of private citizens to spend or save or invest as they wish. 

They also understand that when government simply prints money to fund its own expansion, their own money is eventually cheapened or devalued.

Many liberal economists argue that our economy is under performing because people and companies in the private sector aren’t spending. Therefore, they conclude, government must spend in order to increase the velocity of money (the rate at which people spend and cause money to change hands) thereby stimulating the economy.  Well, if we had an Administration in Washington whose top priority was to encourage economic growth, they might have a point.  But we don’t, as evidenced by the President’s sandbagging of the recommendations of the strong pro-growth Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (Simpson-Bowles), which he himself empanelled.

In the interest of fairness, the Republicans weren’t much help either, having been thoroughly spooked by Grover Norquist’s no-tax-no way-under-no-circumstances campaign.  Nonetheless, strong support from the President could have tilted the balance among the Democrats on the Commission, three of whom voted against the Co-Chairs’ recommendations. The reader will recall that the Simpson-Bowles recommendations were accepted by a solid majority of the Commissions members with 11 of 18 Commission members voting “aye” but not by the super majority of 14 required.  There is, of course, little chance that the Commission’s recommendations would have made it through Congress, but the President’s very cool reception to Simpson-Bowles, which would have simplified the tax code, lowered individual and corporate tax rates and eliminated a whole host of preferential tax treatments for various special interests clearly revealed his distaste for tax reform other than as a campaign issue.

Concurrently, the Administration has hastily unleashed an orgy of new regulations from every federal agency running into tens of thousands of pages.  Stopping any further consideration of the Keystone Pipeline (until after the election) and effectively putting a hold on any drilling on public lands are all indicative of the low priority economic growth enjoys within this Administration.

When Candidate Obama, just before capturing the Presidency, audaciously promised at an Ohio campaign stop, “we are just…days away from fundamentally transforming America,” he meant it.  It was only his early waste of political capital pursuing Obamacare that derailed that promise.  We now know what that promised transformation would have wrought.

Indeed, given the three years of trillion dollar deficits, breathtaking increases in our national debt, and the avalanche of new bureaucratic regulations, we now know precisely what President Obama’s vision for America is.  It is a vision of big, very big, government ministering to the needs and wants of, well, just about everyone with the exception of those who Obama, and those who share his vision, relegate toWealthyland, somewhere beyond the pale.  We know, of course, that the number of middle-class families who will be relegated to Wealthyland will grow as fast as those who were relegated to AMTland a generation ago.

Government, with a role carefully limited by its very founding charter was, for all practical purposes, unheard of in all of prior history.  The affairs of the body politic were, for the first time ever, left to the body politic.

That first-ever meritocracy the founders created unleashed the greatest display of human industriousness and economic growth the world has ever known.

There is, of course, a proper balance between the role of government and the role of the private sector (from which the government extracts its operating revenue). With no government we have anarchy, and with no private sector we have social collectivism.  Both extremes are pathetic organizing paradigms for a modern society.   The ideal government role is no greater and no less than that which is required for private enterprise, private initiative and private investment to safely and fairly progress, while providing a safety net for those who are not capable of participating and progressing in such a society.

We have probably never functioned, beyond that very first generation, at that precise proper balance.  Special interests and politicians from both parties with differing views of what that proper role of government is have tilted that balance one way or the other for most of our history. But, by and large, most historians would, we believe, concur that the body politic in America generally gravitates to the center of the political/economic spectrum. The nation’s comfort zone is in the middle, and when we have gravitated too far right or too far left during our historical odyssey we have always rushed back toward center.

Many, perhaps most, Americans are, understandably, confused when articulate or charismatic politicians or economists advocate one course of action or another. But Americans have a pretty good inherent guidance system that tells them when the country is tilting too far one way or the other.  The same electorate that overwhelmingly said “no” to Goldwater in one election cycle, overwhelmingly said “no” to McGovern a few years later. Both candidates were too far out of the country’s center-based comfort zone.

President Obama is still, throughout much of the country, personally very popular.  Virtually all polls show, however, that voters’ confidence in his management of the economy is weak and that can be a real (to use an Obama expression) game changercome November.  The country is desperate for economic growth they can believe in(to use another Obama expression).  The president’s policies have so far done little, and promise to do even less, to stimulate impressive growth not withstanding the lip service his campaign gives to that common-sense objective.  Economic growth must be the over-riding national imperative, and the President doesn’t get it.

By Hal Gershowitz and Stephen Porter

 Big Government

Rush Limbaugh, Romney Contributors, and the Alinsky Way

by AWR Hawkins

 
 When Gibson Guitars was raided by Obama’s DOJ last August, it was surreal. After all, the spotlight at that time was on Obama’s DOJ—particularly Attorney General Eric Holder—for the now infamous Operation Fast and Furious. Yet while Holder & Co. sat ensconced comfortably in their DC offices, a message was being sent to others: the Chicago Way is the Obama Way. Scratch that—the Alinsky Way is the Obama Way. In other words, Obama will "pick, personalize, and polarize" anyone and everyone who does not play along with his charade: who does not tip their hat when Obama passes by the way.

If you think I’m wrong, just ask Rush Limbaugh. Only days after taking office, Obama had already “picked” and “personalized” the king of talk radio by telling members of Congress, “You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done.” And since that time, Obama or members of Obama’s administration have been part of crowd of voices “polarizing” Limbaugh over stands he’s taken, comments he’s made, and the un-budging conservative line he continues to toe. This is very Alinsky like. But Alinksy not only taught Obama to isolate his enemies in this fashion, but also to call them out in order to learn who’s associated with them.

Although scurrilous in its application, it’s a very smart tactic. When Obama calls Limbaugh out and Mark Levin runs to Limbaugh’s defense, or Walter Williams or Sean Hannity or Thomas Sowell, Obama immediately knows who’s for him and who’s against him: he can mark friend and foe for future endeavors.

We’ve seen this same thing with the way Obama has called out Romney contributors. In the past week, the “Obama campaign named and shamed eight private citizens who had donated to” Romney. And while that move was clearly an attempt to intimidate others who were considering donating to the Romney campaign, it was also an Alinsky move whereby Obama “picked, personalized, and polarized” those eight people and then sat back to see which media figures, politicians, journalists, etc., would step in to defend them.

As Alinsky wrote in Rules for Radicals: “As you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all of the ‘others’ come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target.”
 Thereafter, you can know “the face of the enemy” and “the character of [the] opposition.”

This is the Alinsky way, so it's also the Obama way.

Big Government

Rosenbaum Rep: 'Why Does MSNBC Compensate a Racist Like Sharpton?'

by Joel B. Pollak

 

Isaac Abraham, spokesperson for the family of Yankel Rosenbaum--the Jewish student murdered by a mob during the Crown Heights riot in 1991--contacted Breitbart News today to express his outrage that Al Sharpton would claim not to have incited the violence. "That's Al Sharpton, distorting the facts. He was there inciting the riots," Abraham says.

Earlier today, Breitbart News posted an exclusive interview with Sharpton after he left a rally for Trayvon Martin in Los Angeles last night. Christian Hartsock asked Sharpton about the riots, and he denied his role:

HARTSOCK: Excuse me, Reverend...Given your role in inciting the Crown Heights riots--

SHARPTON: I wasn’t in the Crown Heights riots.

HARTSOCK: You weren’t involved in the Crown Heights riots?

SHARPTON: No, I came after the Crown Heights riots. Read the state report. We got there three days later and brought the peace. So get your facts right.

Abraham responded: "Al is lying. He was there, he called Jews 'diamond dealers.'....Maybe he doesn't think it was incitement, but he was so close to being charged by District Attorney Charles Hynes with incitement.

He wasn't charged--but then he continued his venom and hatred in Israel. He basically keeps distorting the facts."

The news of Sharpton's denials today reached the Rosenbaum family, who had expressed their concern about the remarks, Abraham said. He could not understand why Sharpton was taken seriously as a media personality.

"Why does MSNBC keep on compensating a racist like that? The companies that advertise on his show--what do they think they're getting? He was hoping that when MSNBC took him on that Crown Heights will not come on the agenda.

"He's a fraud, he's a race hustler. To walk the streets and incite prior to judgment--if he can be so sure about that neighborhood watch man [George Zimmerman], why didn't he say that about the man who stabbed Yankel Rosenbaum--an innocent person that was killed by a mob that yelled 'Let's kill the Jew'?"

Big Journalism

Breitbart Is Here – The Video