Study’s have revealed that children who grow up to become criminal psychopaths later in life were raised by parents or caregivers with two “extreme” parenting styles. High-security prisoners were interviewed by The Norwegian University of Science and Technology and they found that many had a history of either total parental neglect, or rigidly controlling, authoritarian parents.

The definition of a psychopath is any person who suffers from a chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behavior. Psychopaths are defined by their lack of empathy and have a tendency to manipulate people without any guilt.

The heartbreaking fact is that most criminal psychopaths also had a history of grotesque physical and/or psychological abuse during childhood. “Without exception, these people have been injured in the company of their caregivers. And many of the descriptions made it clear that their later ruthlessness was an attempt to address this damage, but in an inappropriate or bad way,” commented author Dr. Aina Gullhaugen

“If you think of a scale of parental care that goes from nothing, the absence of care, all the way to the totally obsessive parent, most parents are in the middle. The same applies to how we feel about parental control. On a scale from ‘not caring’ all the way to ‘totally controlling,’ most have parents end up in the middle,” Dr. Aina Gullhaugen added as she explained the types of parents criminal psychopaths typically have. “More than half of the psychopaths I have studied reported that they had been exposed to a parenting style that could be placed on either extreme of these scales. Either they lived in a situation where no one cared, where the child is subjected to total control and must be submissive, or the child has been subjected to a neglectful parenting style.”

There are many children who experience awful upbringings and don’t go on to become psychopaths and we can not blame parents for everything, but it does play a large part in the formation and structure of a child’s developing brain.

Personality traits of a psychopath are not always the callous killer who is obviously a criminal of some sort. The typical psychopath functions very well in society without any cause for alarm. In many cases people with psychopathic traits are highly successful – in fact they are believed to occupy three and four per cent of senior positions. They go undetected as effective leaders and good decision makers. They can be very charming, charismatic, fearless, and exhibit a massive ego but they lack a conscience. Their human conscience has been seared in some way or another, according to Dr Kevin Dutton, a research psychologist at the University of Oxford. There is a major lack of behavioral control and a tendency to boredom.

Kevin Dutton is a research psychologist at the University of Oxford and author of the Good Psychopath’s Guide to Success. Dr Dutton revealed the jobs with the most psychopaths working in them after conducting an extensive survey. Topping the list were CEOs followed by lawyers and those working in TV and radio. Also featured on the list were surgeons, salespersons, journalists and police officers.

Psychopaths are spread throughout the population and there are many degrees of it ranging from extreme criminal psychopaths to everyday people who don’t even know they may be on the spectrum. It can be dangerous to be unaware of this and range on the very top of scale. These individuals lack the emotion and empathy that commonly stops people from committing crime. Crimes committed by psychopaths range from murder to mentally, verbally or physically abusing a loved one. Either extreme is just as bad and occur mainly because these individuals are so emotionally disconnected that they function as if other people are objects to be manipulated and destroyed without any concern for human feelings or emotions.

None-the-less, there is always hope for individuals who suffer from psychopathic tendencies. If they discover that their behavior falls on the spectrum and they are able to take a moral inventory of their inability to feel for others then the first step is admitting it to themselves. Most importantly it is not a psychopaths fault for their inability to feel organic human emotions especially if they experienced an abusive upbringing or non existent caregivers. However, seeking help through a trained professional can always heal the past in a safe environment and lead one back to experiencing what it’s like to be a complete feeling, loving, positively functioning human being, once again.



By Natalia Castro

Kathy Griffin’s imaginary execution of President Donald Trump was “only a joke” but the fear it incited in 11-year-old Barron Trump was anything but funny. As both sides of the aisle condemn Griffin’s actions, this incident serves as a reminder that political violence cannot be accepted — for, in order for liberty to prosper, it becomes a civil duty to reject it when it is popularized in this manner.

Although it might incite a Secret Service investigation, Griffin’s joking beheading of President Trump was likely not illegal. It is well within her First Amendment rights to make such an offensive joke. But her freedoms should not allow society to socially embrace this action, as the implications of political violence are far too great — and dangerous.

Throughout history it is clear that when society begins to accept violence against political opponents as the norm, not just rejecting others opinions but their lives entirely, undemocratic regimes are easily able to gain control.

During the French Revolution, political violence was seen as a necessity to dismantle oppressive power structures, but consistently, rulers attaining power through violent means were subject to the same violence.

As historian David Andress explained at the a keynote to the conference, ‘Living in Violent Times’, University of Warwick in 2013, “The revolutionaries of the 1790s were convinced that they were working against violence. Even Jean-Paul Marat, the journalist whose unambiguous calls for the execution of traitors alienated almost every other political leader, always framed those calls in the context of an active threat of counter-revolution, plotting to restore tyranny by force, and as a prophylactic against greater massacre — hundreds of heads should fall, to save tens of thousands.”

British philosopher, Edmund Burke, theorized in 1790 that the reckless revolution in France would ultimately lead to tyranny. France experienced over a decade of public rioting, political executions, and popular discontent. The country did not have a stable leader until 1799 when a military coup d’etat abolished the executive leaders appointed by parliament and thrust Napoleon Bonaparte into power.

Thus, through the normalization of political violence, France allowed unfettered freedom to dehumanize opposition parties and thus experienced a tumble of increasingly radicalized leaders.As Burke warned, “what is liberty without wisdom, and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint.”

In a more recent example of normalized political violence, the Russian Revolution, Mao’s Cultural Revolution and even the Roman civil wars of antiquity all stand out as other prominent, historical examples of how the destruction of political opponents ultimately resulted in tyranny.

The German and Italian fascists of the early 20th century dehumanized their enemy as well. Germany experienced a period of increased political violence from 1918 to 1933, when the public was left discontent after the first World War. In a similar effort to promote revolution in the nation, German citizens began attacking opposition leaders and holding political rallies that nearly always broke out into violent brawls. The result was eventually a banning of all opposition political parties and the establishment of a Nazi totalitarian state.

In Italy, Fascist violence was used to break the threat of socialism. “Blackshirts” traveled to small towns throughout the Italy and forced political opponents to drink castor oil, before stripping them naked and beating them.

This political violence was justified because the opponent’s ideas made them less than human and therefore, able to be destroyed. Micheal Ebner of Slate Media notes, “Through illegal violence, rather than elections, Fascists controlled government administration and destroyed the offices, newspapers, and cultural and social organizations of the Socialists, trade unions, and peasant leagues. Mussolini occasionally decried the illegal activities…but they operated as the motor that drove his government along the road to dictatorship.”

Even in our own country nearly 100 years later, we must remember the threat of such revolutionary violence.

The most prominent current example is inherent in the Islamist, terrorist message in the United States, following the 2009 shooting at Fort Hood, domestic terrorist Nidal Malik Hasan requested to be a full citizen of the terrorist organization Islamic State, claiming he believed in the establishment of a Muslim caliphate government ruled by fundamentalists.

This sentiment has been mirrored from the Orlando Pulse Night Club shooting to San Bernardino, violence to pursue a political objective is alive and well in the United States. As radical jihadists pursue their own political agenda, American lives are increasingly being placed at risk.

These may seem like extreme examples, but similar sentiment is seeping into the political mainstream. Just this past April, a clash between pro-Trump and anti-Trump protestors led to 21 arrests, 11 injuries, and seven hospital transports for students at Berkley University. A political rally, that quickly turned to political violence — and serve as a warning that it can always get worse.

Kathy Griffin has been fired from CNN and publicly apologized, but her statement calling for the beheading of President Trump was not merely deplorable — it represents a threat to liberty and the constitutional rule of law.

So far, in most domestic cases of political violence public authorities have responded adequately. But as a civil society we must remember that Griffin’s act is not a joke when public beheadings are a trend for Islamic State already overseas. The rejection of political violence is integral to preserving that civil society, and protecting our democracy against tyranny.

Natalia Castro is a contributing editor at Americans for Limited Government. You can read more of her articles at 





The iconic “Daisy” attack ad from the 1964 presidential election led Americans to believe their only hope for survival was a vote for Lyndon Johnson, reminding viewers that the stakes are simply too high. Once again, believe it or not, the stakes are that high.

The latest Hillary Clinton TV commercial, a remake of “Daisy,” featuring Daisy herself, attempts to paint Donald Trump as the greatest fear our nation has this year on nuclear policy, but opposing is Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle PAC’s own “Daisy” remake that presents the truth, which is that when it comes to Hillary Clinton’s air war policy in Syria against Russia, she is the real danger.

The Clinton ad highlights video of Trump supporting other nations receiving nuclear weapons — mind you, to protect themselves from Iran and China — attempting to perpetuate a belief of a World War 3 with Trump as president.

This oversimplification of Trump’s position ignores one obvious reality — the issue of nuclear policy is the issue of U.S.-Russian relations. And when it comes to Russia and in particular Russian satellite Syria, it is Trump’s plan that avoids war, and Clinton’s plan that could provoke war. Clinton wants a no-fly zone in Syria — which is being patrolled by Russian fighter jets. What if she enforce the no-fly zone, wouldn’t that mean war with Russia? That is the terrifying premise the Eagle PAC ad explores.

Clinton is featured in the Eagle PAC ad at the second presidential debate on Oct. 10, reminding viewers that, “I, when I was Secretary of State, advocated, and I still advocate today, a no-fly zone and safe zones. We need some leverage against the Russians.”

The video then cuts to Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein appearing on C-Span on Oct. 12, warning that “It’s now Hillary Clinton who wants to start an air war with Russia over Syria by calling for a no-fly zone. We have 2,000 nuclear missiles on hair-trigger alert, and Mikhail Gorbachev, the former premier of the Soviet Union is saying we are closer to a nuclear war than we have ever been.”

Stein continues ominously, “Under Hillary Clinton, we could slide into nuclear war very quickly from her declared policy in Syria.”

Next up is immediately warn that this is asking for an air war, an air war which can quickly go nuclear as long as Russia is our adversary.

While the Clinton ad effectively compares the current international climate to Cold War worries about the United States and Russia, they paint the adversary incorrectly. While they admit that Trump shows interest in nuclear weapons, the neglect Clintons push for Russia to use them.

Next up in the video is U.S. Marine Gen. James Dunford, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, who just testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee on Sept. 22, “Right now, senator, for us to control all of the airspace in Syria would require us to go to war — against Syria in Russia.”

Then, back to Stein, contrasting Clinton and Trump, “[O]n the issue of war and nuclear weapons and the potential for nuclear war, it’s actually Hillary’s policies which are much scarier than Donald Trump, who does not want to go to war with Russia.”

Next, it replays Clinton, saying, “and I advocate today a no-fly zone,” followed by the shocking footage of a real hydrogen bomb explosion. The video ends with the printed words, “Any questions?”

Clinton’s ad also attempts to elicit an emotional response by bringing back the Daisy girl in 2016. The now adult Clinton supporter endorses Clinton and reminds viewers that her fears are still relevant.

Unfortunately for Clinton, having the former Daisy girl say Trump is a threat is no comparison to the Eagle PAC commercial which features Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein and U.S. Marine General and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff James Dunford explaining how Clinton is actively proposing war, followed by the obligatory nuclear explosion.

If you’re going to do the “Daisy” ad, do the real “Daisy” ad and put the explosion in there.

The fear the Clinton ad is attempting to instill is only relevant in a world in which Clinton becomes President, and by using the former Daisy girl as the credible source on foreign policy the Clintons continue their campaign based on emotion rather than fact.

For millennials accustomed to reading about the fear surrounding the “Daisy” ad in their textbooks, Clinton’s ad falls short, and it is Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle PAC ad that is their real world warning. You watch that ad, and Hillary Clinton is a few votes away from bringing our country to war — a war that will inevitably go nuclear.

Natalia Castro is a contributing editor at Americans for Limited Government. You can read more of her articles at





Earlier this year — during a celebration of “Sunshine Week” — the Associated Press ran a report outlining an alarming escalation of government secrecy.

According to the AP’s analysis, federal bureaucracies claimed they could not find responsive records in more than one out of six Freedom of Information requests. Meanwhile 77 percent of respondents received censored files — or nothing at all.

Both of these figures represented unprecedented stonewalling from what was supposed to be “the most transparent administration in history.”

Josh Earnest — spokesman for this “most transparent” administration of Barack Obama — told the AP at the time he had not seen its Freedom of Information data and could not comment on it. In other words he stonewalled the stonewalling.

Incredibly, Earnest submitted a letter to the editor of The New York Times this week demanding that the media acknowledge the “important and unprecedented steps that the Obama administration has taken to fulfill the president’s promise to lead the most transparent White House in history.”

According to Earnest, Obama’s publication of a White House visitors’ log and his decision to grant limited press access to political fundraisers somehow constitutes unprecedented glasnost.

“If journalists don’t acknowledge steps that the Obama administration has taken to strengthen transparency, then who will?” he lamented.

It’s worth asking: Did Earnest check for storm clouds as he penned his letter? Because it’s frankly a miracle he wasn’t struck by lightning as he typed it.

In fact the day after this letter was published, the Obama administration was busted hiding secret concessions contained in its controversial nuclear deal with Iran.

Just a week before the AP’s damning “Sunshine Week” investigation was released, the U.S. Department of Justice — responding to a Freedom of Information lawsuit, ironically — acknowledged that the Obama administration had actively sought to scuttle tougher Freedom of Information standards passed unanimously by the U.S. House of Representatives.

“The administration views (the proposed standards) as an attempt to impose on the Executive Branch multiple administrative requirements concerning its internal management of (Freedom of Information) administration,” a DOJ memo noted.

Really? The House — by a 410-0 vote — was merely trying to codify Freedom of Information objectives first proposed by Obama upon taking office in 2009.

Nonetheless, Obama’s administration “strongly opposed passage” of the law — going so far as to refute the “presumption of openness” standard Obama ostensibly endorsed in issuing his first executive order!

Should we be surprised? No.

This is, after all, the administration that secretly negotiated a cash payout to Iran in exchange for the release of American hostages. It is the administration that tried to force law enforcement agencies in Florida to conceal information about the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando. It is the administration that continues to stonewall the release of former secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s emails until after the November presidential election.

These are just a few recent examples. From the moment he took office proclaiming historic transparency, Obama has operated instead with unprecedented opacity.

His actions have gone beyond merely keeping public documents out of the hands of the people who pay for them — he’s engaged in a habitual pattern of lying and covering up the truth.

Obama lied about the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack. He lied about “shutting down Iran’s nuclear program.” He lied when he said ISIS was “on the run.” He lied when he promised not to invoke executive amnesty for illegal aliens. He lied when he said his socialized medicine plan would not cover abortions. And of course he lied when he said health care plans would become more affordable under his new law — and that “if you like your health care plan, you can keep it.”

How have these scandals not crippled his administration? Easy: He’s made them disappear.

In the aftermath of the “Fast and Furious” gun running scandal, Obama’s administration “managed an effort to carefully limit and obstruct the information produced to Congress.” Obama’s administration also concealed the IRS targeting of limited government groups in the months leading up to the 2012 election — and hid a damning health care report from the public prior to the April 2010 “Obamacare” vote. Additionally it deliberately delayed disclosing health care premium increase estimates until after the 2014 congressional elections – meaning Americans didn’t find out about this “substantial price increases” until two weeks after they voted. Meanwhile, hard drives have been destroyed at the FEC, EPA and IRS, among other agencies, which obviously makes it much easier to stonewall Freedom of Information requests.

Is any of this transparent? No. But it should be transparently clear at this point Obama will never be held accountable for his lawless actions — or the tragic consequences that have followed from them.

The author is a board member of Americans for Limited Government.




The Jonathan Carey Foundation, an organization that no doubt is founded in good faith and for a good cause, has ripped the Cuomo administration for providing unequal treatment to people with disabilities, specifically by failing to enact upgrades to the 911 calling system. It is unlikely, however, that Cuomo’s administration has been unsympathetic to this cause nor that it is purposefully affording unequal treatment to people with disabilities. In any case, below is an article written by Michael Carey of the Jonathan Carey foundation – readers can make their own call.

The Jonathan Carey Foundation and its founder Michael Carey have taken every imaginable step possible to help the Cuomo administration stop the unequal treatment of people with disabilities in New York State to no avail. It is like running into a brick wall, the opposition for many years has been that great. The Cuomo administration is treating 1,000,000 New Yorkers with disabilities differently, far differently, than other New York State residents and in doing so violating their New York State and U.S. Constitutional rights to “equal protection of laws”.

Civil rights and equal rights are for everyone, not just for hand selected specific groups of people. New Yorkers with disabilities are of no lesser value or importance than anyone else and can no longer be treated differently and denied immediate 911 first responder medical and police services. The Cuomo administration has chosen to look the other way, stonewall and block emergency 911 legislation that directs mandated reporters and witnesses to physical and sexual assault crimes or deaths of people with disabilities to be reported immediately and directly to 911.

Emergency medical and police first responders cannot assist the disabled or ensure their equal privileges to 911 emergency services and their basic rights to “equal protection of laws” like for any other New York State resident if the 911 call systems are purposefully bypassed. Currently, tens of thousands of posters and wallet cards spread out throughout New York State direct mandated reporters that witness abuse and neglect of a person with a disability to report directly to Cuomo’s hotline, wrongfully titled the “Justice Center” not to 911. Here lies the extremely dangerous, deadly and discriminatory issue, the 911 call systems were set up decades ago to protect and assist everyone, not to negate and shun the disabled. Bypassing 911 cost 13 year old Jonathan Carey his life.

These civil rights violations and the clear discriminatory practices of keeping local police and emergency medical personnel out of the picture is only the tip of the iceberg regarding systemic cover-ups in NYS that in many cases lead to “untimely” deaths. Governor Cuomo took significant actions to remove all outside oversight of his abuse hotline to conceal staggering numbers of crimes and deaths from local authorities. Cuomo’s abuse hotline for the disabled receives massive numbers of calls; over 7,000 every month on average and most cases are never criminally investigated. Eleven to twelve people are dying in New York State’s extremely dangerous mental health care system on average every day and most deaths are never investigated as a possible crime, even when large numbers of deaths are individuals dying extremely young. State information obtained through New York State Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) reveals a large percentage of deaths where there was never a cause of death determined one to two years later. Other State documents obtained through FOIL reveal a pattern of most deaths reported to Cuomo’s abuse hotline never reported to medical examiners or coroners as required by law. Most reported suspicious and “untimely” deaths of people with disabilities living in NY State run or privately sub-contracted facilities and group homes are not handled the same as for everyone else. What is going on in New York State is insanity and is illegal.

Instead of finally leading to rectify severe systemic and deadly failures brought to light by the New York Times “Abused & Used” investigative reporting series Governor Cuomo took decisive actions to cover-up more crimes and deaths of people with disabilities than ever before. Federal civil rights and criminal investigations are critical to finally stop these horrific civil rights violations and criminal cover-ups. The Jonathan Carey Foundation and its founder Michael Carey who is Jonathan’s dad is insisting on swift federal investigations by the U.S. Department of Justice.

The Jonathan Carey Foundation “Civil Rights Walk for the Disabled” to Washington D.C. is one of the important battles in the war against the gross civil rights violations and discrimination of people with disabilities. The Jonathan Carey Foundation is following similar steps that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. took to end discrimination and will persevere until the injustices and unequal treatment of some of our most vulnerable citizens is stopped. It is hard to fathom such levels of discrimination still exists over 50 years after Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. began fighting for civil and equal rights, but it does. Jonathan in an entirely different way suffered and died for a great cause which is to help many other innocent and extremely vulnerable people. Jonathan died at the age of 13 because he was disabled and because he was denied immediate 911 first responder medical and police assistance.

Jonathan was in dire need of help, he was ignored, he was shunned and Jonathan was discriminated against and as a direct result he was killed. These egregious human rights, civil rights and equal rights violations can be stopped and great changes can happen when people begin to speak up and stand up against such injustices. Countless lives will be saved if we do.

Stand with us for “equal rights” and “civil rights” for people with disabilities in New York State and throughout our great country by signing our petition at Consider a donation of $9.11 to help 911 become required by law to be immediately called by all mandated reporters regarding all physical and sexual assaults, gross negligence of care, significant and suspicious injuries and when a person with a disability is in medical distress or stopped breathing all together.





Hillary Clinton lied about September 11 – 2012, not 2001. She told the public that the motive behind the Benghazi terrorist attack was anger about a video produced by a wannabe filmmaker. The problem with this proclamation was that – before and after she made this claim – she said the attack was not motivated by the video. Emails written by her, and finally released to Congress, revealed the fabrication. Specifically, in one email to then Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Kandil, Clinton wrote, “The attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack — not a protest.”

Accordingly, the presumptive Democrat presidential candidate told a 9/11 lie. The same is not true about the presumptive Republican presidential candidate – no matter how many foes lob assaults at him. And the July 4th weekend is a good time to re-examine this issue.

At a December Trump rally in Alabama, the Donald recounted personal experiences on September 11, 2001. “I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down,” Trump said, “And I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering. So something’s going on. We’ve got to find out what it is.”

Trump, who not only has a real estate empire in New York City but also across the river in New Jersey and pretty much all throughout the United States, spent that September 11 in Jersey City; his location gave him a direct, unfiltered view of the Twin Towers as they burned and crumbled to the ground. Jersey City, as well as surrounding Hudson River municipalities such as Union City, Hoboken, Weehawken, and Edgewater, allotted hundreds of thousands of people the same bird’s-eye view as Trump. Accordingly, it’s not difficult to believe that a small percentage of those people (i.e. – a few thousand people, which would equal about 1% – 2%) were cheering. Beyond “believing that it could be true”, let’s revisit history. Let’s look at facts.

History and facts tells us it is indeed true that a large number of people on the New Jersey side of the Hudson River were cheering that day. I’ll start with me as witness number one. I clearly remember news reports on September 11, 2001 and immediate days thereafter, chronicling cheering of large groups of people in Jersey City and the cities nearby. But why be a fool and just rely on the memories of The Donald and guy called Jimmy The Saint? How about the memories of thousands of others? Do a basic Internet search and you will find, literally, thousands of people who state that they recall watching, hearing and reading news reports about large groups of people cheering in New Jersey on September 11. Oh, that’s not enough? Well, how about reports from the mainstream media – the same mainstream media who has denounced Trump for making his Alabama rally comment.

The Washington Post, one of the most read newspapers in the country, for example, reported this on September 18, 2011: “Law enforcement authorities detained and questioned a number of people who were allegedly seen celebrating the attacks and holding tailgate-style parties on rooftops while they watched the devastation on the other side of the river.” Again, a simple Internet search will reveal a plethora of news articles, within days of the attacks, which describe this factual phenomenon. Not enough?

How about the fact that law enforcement authorities were – factually – investigating reports of large numbers of cheering people in New Jersey? This includes the FBI and local law enforcement agencies. How do the naysayers rebut this? Were the law enforcement investigations based on nothing? Or were they based on reports of…get ready for this logic…reports of exactly what they were investigating: reports of large numbers of people cheering on the Jersey side of the Hudson River?

No matter how many facts you lay out, those with an agenda against Trump – basically all liberals, the mainstream media, political rivals, and jealous multitudes – will claim that he is lying and that these real incidents didn’t occur.

Steve Fulop, Jersey City’s current mayor, tweeted that Trump “either has memory issues or willfully distorts the truth, either of which should be concerning for the Republican Party.” Although Fulop has an impressive resume, including studying at Oxford and degrees from both Columbia and NYU, he is a Democrat who many believe will be running in New Jersey’s next gubernatorial election. And his memory is no better than Trump’s nor, assuredly, the countless number of other people who remember the reports of the mobs of cheering persons on that horrific day.

Some people just want to distort the truth. But one of those people isn’t Donald Trump.

Comments disabled by site.

You may, however, comment through Facebook.


A press release from the Happy Transgender Center bubbled, “Rizi Timane — recording artist, author, actor, and life coach to the transgender community — has just released three new trans-affirmative singles: “Yeah! It Feels Good to Finally Be Me,” “Let’s Make Love,” and “I’m Beautiful.” Quite honestly, I don’t care if people want to swap sexes with themselves, but let’s get real: these people certainly suffer from a disorder. It’s not normal to change the hammer to the vacuum, and vice versa.

And why do these people – and people from all sorts of odd ball, special interest, racial, ethnic and religious groups – feel the need to constantly proclaim “what” they are?

Note: Jimmy The Saint says “never end a sentence with ‘is” or ‘are’” – whatever.

Back to the Bruce Jenners et al: They’re confused. But I’m also confused. Why do I care that it’s a “transgender”, much less a “happy transgender”, who released these songs? Are these songs somehow better because they come from a sex-changed-individual? What if they came from a normal, run-of-the-mill heterosexual dude? Would they still be worth listening to?

In any case, I wrote about Rizi Timane’s music release, so hopefully it gets him/her/whatever more publicity and accordingly more people (transgender, L, B, G, heterosexual, a-sexual and otherwise) buy her/his/whatever’s music.

Comments Disabled By Site.

You may, however, comment through Facebook.


By: Victoria Emerson

After nearly ten years since the fatal shooting that resulted in the death of two year old David Pacheco, the Bronx County District Attorney Robert Johnson has announced that Darryl Hemphill, the 37-year old North Carolinian responsible for the shooting, has been convicted of 2nd degree murder.

The tragic shooting took place on the afternoon of Easter Sunday, 2006, in the Morris Heights neighborhood of Bronx County, when, Hemphill, who was involved in a street fight, fired a stray bullet that fatally struck 2 year old Pachecho while he was riding in his mother’s mini-van.

“Nothing will ever bring my son back, but this definitely has brought closure to me and my family,” said Joanne Sanabria, the victim’s mother. Hemphill will be sentenced on January 4, 2016 by Supreme Court Justice Steven Barrett and faces 25 years to life in prison.

Comment Disabled Through Site.
You may, however, comment through facebook.



Looks like New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has got it right here. Some goofball New York State Assemblyman is crying that the usual ultra-lib governor isn’t providing enough state aid to homeless shelters in New York City.

Assemblyman Andrew Hevesi, who is also New York State’s Social Services Chair, whined “The Governor’s track record of managing homelessness in New York has included claiming we resolved the problem; drastically reducing the State’s share of costs associated with homelessness and poverty; threatening to eliminate funds for shelters this summer; and casting blame for the crisis. If this is what Governor Cuomo has in mind when he talks about providing management expertise, thank you – but no thank you.”

Heveis also blabbered, “The cost of homeless shelters in NYC was $876.5 million in 2014, of which the Governor paid only $123.8 million, or 14 percent from State funds.”

No way! That’s all Cuomo allocated toward homeless shelters in New York City? Just $123.8 million in a year?!…The aforementioned was sarcasm, if one didn’t recognize the tone.

Why do taxpayers need to fund housing for these – literally – bums, to the tune of over $100,000,000, much less nearly $900 million?

This gi-normous amount of money would be better (and more morally) spent on assisting small businesses throughout the state. You know – for people who are actually working and contributing to society. You know – for taxpayers.

Can the people in Hevesi’s district vote him out of office ASAP? Or are the voters there a bunch homeless people, who are sucking off everyone else around the state?

Comments Disabled By Site.

You may, however, comment through Facebook.



Two brothers were shot at a Mystic Beach home yesterday. Codi Chambers, 22, and Blake Chambers, 28, where found unconscious, with bullet wounds when law enforcement arrived at the house. The pair were pronounced dead at Brookhaven Memorial Hospital Medical Center in East Patchogue after being transported to the hospital by a Mastic Beach Ambulance unit.

Police had responded to the locale of the shooting in the early afternoon, upon a tip of the shooting, by a 911 caller. The Suffolk County Police Homicide Squad are currently investigating the crime.

Anyone with information on this shooting is asked to call Homicide Squad detectives at 631-852-6392 or call anonymously to Crime Stoppers at 1-800-220-TIPS.

Comments Disabled By Site.

You may, however, comment through Facebook.