Thursday, May 25, 2017

Shane Cory

Shane Cory
40 POSTS 0 COMMENTS
Shane Cory is the Editor of Liberty News Now. A husband and father, Shane is also a veteran of the United States Marine Corps and has been involved in politics, publishing and marketing for the past fifteen years. He has served as the Executive Director of the Libertarian National Committee and Project Veritas.

by -

What do Battletoads, Double Dragon, citizen journalists and a Texas politics have in common?

Byron Cook.

Cook is a Texas State Representative representing a few small towns in Central Texas, including Anderson, Texas.

Last month, Cook who was chairing a committee hearing had mother and citizen journalist Amy Hedtke forcibly removed from the hearing – dragged down the hallway like a overbooked passenger on United Airlines.

The Texas state constitution permits public access and filming of government meetings. Cook chose to violate the law by having Amy Hedtke removed.

Cook is serving as a Republican but stands with Democrats in support of sanctuary cities and even proposed giving driver’s licenses to illegal aliens in Texas.

Byron Cook appears to be a fan of political games which may come as his background as the publisher of the 1980’s video games Double Dragon and Battletoads.

Like the opening scene from Double Dragon where the woman in the red dressed was punched in the gut and carried away, Amy Hedtke (also clad in a bright red dressed) was dragged out under the orders of Byron Cook.

Enter James O’Keefe to save the day.

O’Keefe, founder of Project Veritas, saw the incident on YouTube and took a flight down to Texas to investigate the matter.

Upon his arrival, O’Keefe proved the nature of Cook as he was also forced to leave the representative’s office while Texas law enforcement was called in to intimidate the leader of Project Veritas.

Watch the story unfold in the video above and comment below.

by -
Susan Rice wishes upon a spy satellite: "I want to be a real spy"

Barack Obama’s National Security Advisory, Susan Rice, has been outed by reporters as being behind the order to “unmask” Trump campaign staffers.

The spying operation goes as far back as July of 2016 and picked up pace following Donald Trump’s win on Election Day.

Rice previously denied involvement saying she “knew nothing” about the spying.

Rice also told the public that the attack of a United States embassy in Benghazi was instigated by a “heinous and offensive video.”

That turned out to be a lie.

But Susan Rice is REALLY good at lying.

Days before she was exposed as the source behind the spying order, the former Ambassador to the United Nations (yes this woman represented us in the UN), penned a piece in the Washington Post lambasting Trump’s “utterly ridiculous” insinuation that the British spied on the campaign.

Susan Rice went on to write in a serious tone:

The foundation of the United States’ unrivaled global leadership rests only in part on our military might, the strength of our economy and the power of our ideals. It is also grounded in the perception that the United States is steady, rational and fact-based. To lead effectively, the United States must maintain respect and trust. So, when a White House deliberately dissembles and serially contorts the facts, its actions pose a serious risk to America’s global leadership, among friends and adversaries alike.

Candidly, either this crazy chick likely believes what she’s writing or is so devoid of principles that lying is so commonplace to her, that she thought nothing of her words.

But to write this op/ed in a prominent publication was brazen.

It’s comparable to John Wayne Gacy writing a column to say that bi-sexual clowns make the best friends . . . just before they found bodies in his crawl space.

Susan Rice’s lack of any ethical foundation sends a very clear message that Trump and other leaders appear to ignore: No one can be trusted with this power.

While Congressional leaders talk about “tightening procedures” on who can be “unmasked” the only real solution is to do this: STOP SPYING ON AMERICANS!

No matter who is in power, the power to spy on Americans will be abused in some manner . . . whether legally or illegally.

The only way to prevent future abuses is to adhere to the Fourth Amendment and conduct “searches” only with probable cause that is supported by a true Court of Law (not a secret FISA court).

Otherwise, while it’s Susan Rice today, tomorrow it could be some Trump official.

If that doesn’t get you scratching your head, imagine California’s Jerry Brown being sworn in on January 20, 2021. Could his administration be trusted?

Stranger things have happened.

Please add your comments below.

by -
This won't end well.

On Thursday morning, President Donald Trump drew a line and put himself and the Establishment on one side, and the fiscal conservatives and libertarians of the Freedom Caucus on the other.

Trump thumbed onto his Twitter account, “The Freedom Caucus will hurt the entire Republican agenda if they don’t get on the team, & fast.”

He closed the 140-character rant with, “We must fight them, & Dems, in 2018!”

I’ll repeat that, “We must fight them.”

Trump’s tirade stems from the Freedom Caucus successfully blocking Trump and Paul Ryan’s attempt to forego repeal and instead pass a costly amendment to the Affordable Care Act.

For those who praised the selfless actions of the Freedom Caucus, Trump’s tweet was a shot heard round the nation.

Trump is vowing to defeat the leaders who stopped him from passing a $1.4 trillion bill that would raise insurance costs and create yet another entitlement program.

The threat is directed at Virginia’s Dave Brat who threw out Establishment icon Eric Cantor. The threat is directed at Texas’ principled Louie Gohmert and the most conservative member of Congress, TEA Party favorite, Ken Buck.

To put this in perspective, if you take a look at the Heritage Foundation’s Congressional Scorecard, the President of the United States just vowed to defeat eight of the ten highest-rated conservatives and libertarians in Congress.

While threatening members of the Freedom Caucus who hold ratings 90% or higher with Heritage, President Trump strongly stands by Speaker Paul Ryan who holds a pathetic lifetime score of 58%.

Paul Ryan is closer to Elizabeth Warren than he is to Dave Brat according to the Scorecard.

And Donald Trump wants us to defeat our only principled members of Congress in 2018?

Something is simply twisted in Trump World, or we were twisted to trust him.

Please comment below.

by -

Since Donald Trump took his escalator ride to announce his candidacy for President of the United States, the media has been accurate with at least one fact: Trump is a populist.

The concept is great. A leader who looks out for the “ordinary” folks is a leader we could all get behind right?

Eh, not so fast.

Who speaks for the “ordinary” people? More importantly who would a populist President be listening to as the voice of everyday Americans?

How many regular Joe’s have been sitting around that White House conference room table and have they been more than a PR moment for the cameras?

I think you see the point.

The White House has been filled with political strategists and their politicians.

The only Washington outsiders that have the President’s ear are his own daughter and her husband, who sadly have a long history of supporting liberal causes and politicians.

While President Trump may sincerely think he’s looking out for the interests of working class Americans, it would appear that he as lost access to “the little people” who elected him.

Instead, he is being told what the will of the people is through the filter of Paul Ryan, Fox News and his closest, and closeted advisors.

Trump’s support of the American Health Care Act is the primary indicator of what’s going on within his mind.

If you tack on Trump’s wading into Identity Politics at the urging of his daughter and former campaign manager, the picture becomes much more clear:

Trump is a man who wants to make good on his word and is sincere in his desire to serve the interests of all Americans.

The President’s weakness comes from his lack of an ideological foundation. Politically, Trump, while a patriot, has no idea who he is . . .

. . . and that’s where the vultures start picking.

That’s also the fatal flaw of governing by popular opinion – which is nothing new.

Since Ronald Reagan boldly stood behind the podium to nominate Barry GoldWater in 1964, Republicans have been attempting to maintain power through populist compromise rather than standing by principle.

Without principles, you’ll stand for anything . . . and you’ll stand for nothing.

In a modern age where popular interests can be so easily faked and manipulated, the flaw of populist governance without solid principles becomes wildly dangerous to those who are governed.

An industry that wants to influence public policy only has to spend a few million bucks on a Twitter campaign and, voila, a strategist whispers into the President’s ear with a slithering voice, “Misssster Presssident, the people have sssspoken . . .”

You can be rest assured that similar manipulations are occurring each day.

For President Trump to publicly denounce the Freedom Caucus, Freedom Works and the venerable Heritage Foundation (that worked with President Reagan to break the back of the Evil Empire), he is clearly listening to the wrong people.

While the above sounds dire, all is not lost.

For the first time in my career in the world of politics, the people who fervently supported a candidate have not become parrots who will say and do anything that they’re told.

The reaction of Trump supporters when the American Health Care Act came to light, was heartwarming. It was motivating.

For a Trump supporter to stand their ground against RyanCare and President Trump proves that, while Trump may have never built his ideological foundation, his supporters have beliefs built on an unshakable bedrock of granite.

With that and some effort, America can be made great again.

For those who truly know and love Liberty, this is our “rendezvous with destiny.”  Are you in?

by -
The jig is up.

Under the Obama Administration, Republicans attempted to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) a total of 52 times.

The repeal bills easily passed both the House and the Senate and then were predictably vetoed by President Obama.

Now with a Republican in the White House who would sign any repeal bill put in front of him, Republicans in Congress all of the sudden have no ability to repeal ObamaCare despite controlling both the House and the Senate.

What type of wizadry is going on here?

How did Republicans members of Congress all of the sudden lose the ability to pass a repeal bill after pulling it off 52 different times?

They didn’t.

Establishment Republicans never wanted to repeal ObamaCare.

For the last seven years, they knew that Obama would never sign a repeal bill. They also knew that “Repeal and Replace” was a beautiful wedge issue that could be used for years against Democrats.

Most importantly, the Finance, Health Care and Insurance industries are the GOP’s biggest backers (and the Democrats).

In the 2016 campaign season, the Insurance, Finance and Real Estate sectors contributed a massive $1.1 billion to candidates, parties and outside groups. Of that billion, 55% went to Republicans.

The Health Care Industry piled on another $268 million.

In the House of Representatives alone, candidates raised $554 million in 2016 for their campaigns . . . with the bulk of the funds being raised by incumbents.

In 2016, the Health Care, Insurance and Finance sectors contributed $118 million to House Republicans. That’s 21% of the campaign contributions.

It’s needless to say that if someone donates 21% of your revenue, you’re going to make them happy.

Why else would they be donating?

One question may remain about this industry influence over Congress. That is, do those industries benefit from ObamaCare?

An astounding, YES!

Take a look at the stock price of just about any company in those industries since March of 2010 (when ObamaCare passed).

Amgen (AMGN), which donated $1.5 million in 2016, had a stock price of $60. Today the price stands at $164.

United Health’s (UNH) stock went from $32.91 to $170.

The list goes on and on, and doesn’t even include the corporations who donated through industry associations such as the American Medical Association that donated $1.8 million or the American Hospital Association that also donated $1.8 million.

Paul Ryan and other Establishment Republicans showed their hand in the past weeks by proposing a bill that was nothing more than a reworded version of ObamaCare, while trying to confuse the public about their real intent.

It didn’t work.

Instead, they showed their hand and flat out proved that they never intent to repeal this $1.72 trillion entitlement program.

Angry yet? Comment below.

by -
"Repeal and Replace! That's the ticket!"

Last week was an eye opener for many Americans as they were able to see the partisan faces of their elected officials.

Over 200 Republican members of Congress were willing to not just support a continuation of ObamaCare, they were willing to lie to you and say with a straight face that it was “repeal.”

Last year, nearly every Republican candidate hit the campaign trail to make a promise to voters that they would “repeal and replace” ObamaCare.

Instead, many of these same men and women aggressively lobbied to slap a fresh coat of paint on the $1.72 trillion entitlement program with their support of Paul Ryan’s American Health Care Act.

Louisiana Congressman Clay Higgins, a tough talking former cop took to the House Floor on Friday to shout, “A vote against the American Health Care Act is a vote against FREEDOM!”

When I watched Rep. Higgins shout into the microphone as if he were a Drill Instructor dressing down recruits, I laughed out loud.

Higgins truly believes that RyanCare is better than ObamaCare based on the fact that ObamaCare is 8,000 pages and RyanCare is “124 pages of freedom.”

Higgins and many others within Congress are so distanced from reality that they don’t even get that RyanCare is an amendment to ObamaCare, thereby extending the monstrous legislation.

They were sold a bill of goods by the Establishment and told to go out and loyally toe the line . . . and like good little sheep, they fell in line.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of Republican members of Congress, along with our populist President, do not grasp that the expectation of voters for the last seven years was to REPEAL ObamaCare.

What’s worse, politicians like Paul Ryan believe that the American voter is so dumb, that they can call an apple an orange and we’d fall for it.

But are you really surprised?

Since at least 4,000 years ago, politicians have been making promises to voters and then betraying them.

Within American history, with the exception of the Civil War, Americans have continued to fall for it and every year, the federal government grows in expense, size and power.

While I had a sliver of hope that Donald Trump would shake up the Establishment and at least pause the growth of the Federal behemoth, his support of RyanCare shows how easily he can be manipulated.

If we are ever going to get back on a path toward liberty, politicians will have to be held accountable for their promises to the public.

In the past, thousands of “pledges” have been signed and in 1994 the GOP even created a “Contract with America.”

All fine and dandy, but what was the penalty when a politician violated their pledge or promise?

Not much . . . a few lost endorsements and a few lost votes.

Wash, rinse, repeat and a politician is back in office for another term and another round of disloyalty to voters.

To break this cycle, we need something more . . . something that includes both the carrot of support and the threat of a large and heavy stick.

Let me introduce you to the concept of the “Liberty Contract.”

The Liberty Contract is a theoretical binding civil contract between a non-profit organization that represents a voting base, and a candidate.

Here’s how it works.

THE CONTRACT:

During an election, a candidate enters into a negotiated, LEGAL and voluntary contract with his or her own constituents through a non-profit organization.

The terms are clear and simple. For instance, if a candidate says they won’t vote to raise or create taxes, or that they will vote to repeal ObamaCare, that’s the deliverable product.

Of course the contract will have to include provisions that would allow a work around in the event of an extraordinary event. For instance, if a candidate vowed not to raise taxes, but we entered another World War, that’s a legitimate exception that would deserve arbitration.

A team of legal experts would do their best to ensure that the contract is legally binding and does not violate any current laws.

THE CARROT:

Upon taking office and serving a term, if the contract is adhered to a SuperPAC will legally spend enough money for that candidate to win re-election. Basically, the politician doesn’t have to worry about the major issue of raising campaign dollars – a very gracious carrot.

For purposes of this theory, the SuperPAC would agree to spend at least what was spent in the last election of that specific winning race . . . and more if facing a greater challenge.

The SuperPAC (which would be separate from the non-profit) would use adherence to the Liberty Contract as its guide.

Another significant benefit of the contract is the cover it provides to a politician. This would have been useful last week within the back rooms of Congress.

When Establishment powers use every threat possible to rally support for their cause, politicians who are contracted to maintain a position, are provided with strong cover to stand their ground.

And that gets us to the stick.

THE STICK:

For far too long, politicians have easily been able to walk away unscathed when they break their promises. They have one excuse after another and, as with any good politician, they are very convincing.

If government were a business, 90% of politicians would be out of a job after their first term.

The Liberty Contract makes “firing” enforceable.

If a “signed” politician violates the contract, they agree to not seek reelection.

Pretty simple? No, not really because what would stop them from violating an agreement to not run again?

Constitutionally, they can’t be stopped.

However, by signing the contract, they agree to a financial fine of half their net worth if they breach the contract and seek subsequent terms.

That may sound harsh, but without a penalty, there is no point to a contract.

While a politician may violate the contract every which way till Sunday, it would become a personally painful experience.

Theoretically, the Liberty Contract sounds great, but honestly who would sign it?

A true statesman who is grounded in his or her beliefs wouldn’t have an issue with the agreement.

A politician who ebbs and flows in whatever direction would likely never agree to a contract like this . . . and they would have to compete against another politician who has signed put their future on the line and signed the contract.

While the concept of the Liberty Contract may sound exciting, that excitement should be met with resignation over our current circumstance.

Even with the awakening of the “Silent Majority” that supported Donald Trump, in 2016 97% of the members of Congress — who have failed us for years — were reelected.

Will they finally deliver on their promises?

No, they won’t. You can bet on that.

But by organizing a new standard that will hold politicians accountable, we can make headway in 2018 and be in a position to finally shrink government by 2020.

Please share your thoughts below.

by -
Have we jumped the tracks or is their still hope to MAGA?

To the surprise of many of his own supporters, President Donald Trump came out as the biggest advocate for the American Health Care Act (RyanCare) and was also its biggest defender.

Trump, who campaigned on a promise to “Repeal and Replace” ObamaCare, settled on a plan that didn’t replace any of the regulatory framework of ObamaCare and still carried a $1.42 TRILLION price tag, while guaranteeing that insurance premiums would increase by another 20%.

The move by Trump has many at least scratching their heads, while others are fuming with anger.

While libertarian leaning members of the Freedom Caucus refuse to support the bill as it creates new entitlements and does not repeal ObamaCare, even moderates are refusing to support the bill.

Republican moderate Congressman Charlie Dent refuses to support the bill because it will drive up the cost of health insurance, making it unaffordable to many.

Dent told Politico, “After careful deliberation, I cannot support the bill and will oppose it.”

Among Trump’s grassroots supporters, another reality is starting to sink in: Trump is not a conservative.

Those who are attracted to Trump during the election made an assumption that the then candidate supported a pro-liberty agenda and would shrink the size and power of government.

The assumption was based on Trump’s disdain for the establishment and aggressive, protectionist views on immigration.

However, if supporters look back at his messaging, Trump very rarely used the words “small government,” never opposed the rampant spying on Americans (until it happened to him), and even praised socialized medicine.

When asked about “Universal health care” then candidate Trump responded, “I am going to take care of everybody, I don’t care if it costs me votes or not . . . the government’s gonna pay for it.”

For those who paid attention to the details during the campaign, Trump’s support of RyanCare should come as no surprise as it is yet another step close to socialized medicine.

A minority of supporterss want blind allegiance to the President in order to maintain his power, credibility, and ability to win future elections.

Here’s an example of that thinking from online commenter “wren”:

Everyone needs to let him do his job. You may not like it, but in 2 years we could lose the majority and that’s it folks because Dem’s don’t break party lines. So when your congressmen vote remember this. They are either voting for Obamacare or against Obamacare. This bill is either better than Obamacare or it is worse than Obamacare. Your congressmen will be showing you what they prefer soon and I think a bunch of them will need replacing.

So basically, toe the party line regardless of consequences? Isn’t that how we got into this mess to begin with.

Others remain in a state of denial and believe Trump’s support of RyanCare is an elaborate plot to undermine and out Paul Ryan as speaker.

Those who are supporting Trump due to party loyalty, or loyalty to his brand, would be wise to go back and read the words of General George Washington that he wrote as part of his Farewell Address in 1796:

Let me now take a more comprehensive view, & warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party, generally.

. . .

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the Administration of the Government and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty.

. . .

But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate & assuage it. A fire not to be quenched; it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest instead of warming it should consume.

Has Trump lost credibility over RyanCare? Vote in our poll.

by -
Support isn't blind.

Typically when a strong “personality candidate” like Donald Trump or Barack Obama rises to the top, a sheep-like mentality quickly emerges to support every move of the politician.

During President Obama’s eight years in office, some called his supporters “ObamaZombies.”

George Bush’s blind backers were called “BushBots.”

With Bill Clinton, they were just called “dipshits.”

Whether under Obama, Bush or Clinton, their supporters who blindly went along with every move were a powerful, vocal force.

But within the first months of Donald Trump’s administration, something radically different is happening among the President’s most loyal supporters.

They are holding him accountable for his campaign promises.

Rather than jumping on board with RyanCare as President Trump has requested, pro-liberty voters are saying, “absolutely not, get it right and repeal!”

In addition to nearly every conservative group opposing the bill, from Heritage Action to the libertarian groups Cato Institute and Liberty Guard, diehard Trump supporters are telling the President to get it right.

When President Trump tweeted this morning, “Big day for healthcare. Working hard!” the response was overwhelming . . . against the President . . . by his own people.

Here’s just a sampling:

Even typically quiet members of Congress like Dave Brat (who led a revolt against the establishment by beating Eric Cantor) said, “We want Trump to be hugely successful, so we don’t want to handle a bill that’s going to fail in a few years.”

The Republican Congressman called RyanCare a “perverse economic system.”

To the credit of the grassroots movement that elected Donald Trump, they’re not going to toe the line just because they were told to do so.

Just as Trump was an unconventional candidate that won the election based on faith in his ability to deliver . . . his support base is also unconventional in that they are showing something rarely seen in politics . . . collective intelligence.

While Ryan, Trump and even Fox News are calling the American Health Care Act the “Repeal and Replace Bill,” nearly all of Trump’s supports can easily see through that lie and know it’s nothing more than a fresh coat of paint on ObamaCare.

Make no mistake, Trump’s supporters are not turning on the President, quite the opposite, they are serving as guiding force to get him on track when he swerves off course.

Comment below.

by -

When Fox News Contributor Judge Andrew Napolitano stated that, “He [Obama] used GCHQ . . . the initials for the British spying agency . . . they have 24 hour access to the NSA database . . . and there’s no American fingerprints” he ended up being sidelined by his corporate bosses.

Napolitano was referring to FISA in the interview on Fox & Friends, however, what he really meant was an agreement known as “Project ECHELON.”

When the Judge was just a 21 year-old, a government project named ECHELON, was formerly established.

ECHELON is a spying agreement between Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States.

The 46 year-old program allows nations that cannot spy on their own people and companies, per their own laws and constitutions to, well . . . spy on their own people and companies.

While the United States government cannot legally spy on citizens without cause and procedure, Australia, Canada, etc., can spy on Americans without any laws stopping them.

In turn, the United States can spy on all of the other nations.

When any of those nations, known as the FIVE, need information on their own people, they simply “share” data.

Project ECHELON, which was investigated by the European Parliament in 2000, and finally acknowledge in 2015 with the release of information by Edward Snowden.

The massive, worldwide spying program is not that big of a secret. Heck, even Hollywood made a movie loosely based on it . . . and even named the film the “Echelon Conspiracy.”

According to the Snowden documents, the program is run through “intercept stations” around the world managed by the NSA, CIA, Air Force, GCHQ (Britain), GCSB (New Zealand), ASD (Australia), and BND (German). As with many other international agreements, Canada doesn’t pull its own weight and does not operate an intercept station.

Germany, while not a member of the original “FIVE” operates an intercept station in Munich with the NSA as support.

Of the 16 known intercept stations, 11 have an NSA presence.

While Andrew Napolitano may have seemed like a conspiracy theorist to Fox News executives when he brought up the possibility that Donald Trump was spied on by the UK, in reality, those executives are simply ignorant of the history and depth of spying by our own government . . . and others.

Of course the UK would respond with “outrageous” when accused of spying on a presidential candidate at the request of a sitting United States President.

Their response is no different in force when the UK was investigating ECHELON in 2001. European investigators flew into the United States to meet with officials with the CIA and NSA.

When it was revealed that the purpose of the meetings were to discuss Project ECHELON, the meetings were cancelled and the delegation was forced to fly home.

Sixteen years later, the program rolls on, but if you dare talk about it like Judge Napolitano did, you may be out of a job.

Comment below.

by -
Big Bird walks he way onto the chopping block.

With the budget proposal submitted by the Trump Administration, backers of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Public Radio, National Endowment for the Arts and PBS are literally freaking out and trying to deceive the public to continue support.

The Corporation of Public Broadcasting defended itself by saying, “The cost of public broadcasting is small, only $1.35 per citizen per year, and the benefits are tangible.”

There we go with fuzzy math.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting receives $445 million a year from the federal government.

Even if we spread that cost across all adults in the United States, the cost is $1.83 per person.

But the reality is that given nearly half of Americans pay no income tax, there are only 122 million taxpayers in the United States.

So the number is actually $3.64 per taxpayer – higher per household.

Big deal right?

It’s only $3.64 a year. That’s a gallon of milk or almost a McDonalds Quarter Pounder.

It’s the cost of a Fast Pass toll.

But let’s really think about that.

If someone were to steal $3.64 out of our wallet, would you shrug your shoulders and say, “eh, it’s just the cost of a gallon of milk.”

No, you wouldn’t. You would be chasing someone down the street.

Stealing $3.64 or even $1.35 from taxpayers to cover the cost of biased reporting and racist programming directed at our children is not just theft, it’s infuriating theft.

Wait, did I just say “racist”?

Yes.

A publically funded organization should at least be representative of America.

Take a minute to google “Sesame Street Cast.”

How many Caucasians do you see over the years? Very, very few.

Watch a few episodes and you’ll notice that the only white kids who are on the show are likely either wearing a helmet or sporting some other type of disability.

Sesame Street is a program designed to force children to think about race. In a supposedly post-racial America (at least up to the election of Barack Obama), Sesame Street, funded with your tax dollars, does nothing more than further racial divides.

For most American taxpayers, I suspect they prefer to keep their $3.64. If America’s non-taxpayers want to keep the alphabet soup of media welfare, they can pony up.

TRENDING STORIES

Residents of Cypress, Texas, Pastor Lorenzo Martinez and his family were subjected to a home invasion by an unknown man in only his underwear....