Rep. Trey Gowdy: Witness list will include Cheryl Mills,Huma Abedin and Sid Blumenthal

On Wednesday’s “Hugh Hewitt Show, House Benghazi Select Committee Chairman Rep Trey Gowdy, the chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, said Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, Sidney Blumenthal, Susan Rice and Ben Rhodes will be on his witness list to testify before the committee or commit to a transcribed interview.

Asked if his witness list would include Cheryl Mills, the former Secretary of State’s chief of staff, Gowdy responded,  “absolutely, and it was always going to include Ms. Mills. But, if you studied the correspondence between the State Department and Secretary Clinton after she decided to return the public record to the public a couple of months ago, that correspondence was directed to Cheryl Mills. So, Cheryl Mills needs to be talked to, not only with respect to Benghazi, but also with respect to the retention of the public records by Secretary Clinton after she separated.”

Huma Abedin will also be included on the witness list, Gowdy said because, “you have to if you want to write the final, definitive accounting of what happened before, during, and after Benghazi.”

He also said that Sidney Blumenthal, Ben Rhodes and Susan Rice will be on the list, “because I think your listeners would be interested in the chronology. We are taking the witnesses from the Department of State and CIA whose identities need to be preserved, we’re doing them first, and those are transcribed interviews. Then we are moving into the people who are more well known, the Susan Rice’s, the Ben Rhodes, and yes, you can include Sidney Blumenthal.”

Hat tip: AoSHQ

Black Judge Shames White Victims Of Home Invasion (Video)

B9316903331Z.1_20150410140540_000_GQRAF50NE.1-0

The reason Judge Olu Stevens of Louisville, Kentucky berated a family that was terrorized by two black home invaders – in court and on Facebook  – will knock your socks off. In all my years, I don’t think I’ve ever seen such an egregious example of race-card abuse.

The judge was “troubled” and “offended”  by the fact that a three year victim was so traumatized by a violent home invasion, she is now fearful of black males.

Jordan and Tommy Gray’s 3-year old daughter was watching “SpongeBob” when two black armed men broke into her home and robbed her family at gunpoint – one of the perps pointing a gun in her father’s face.

Mom and dad honestly noted on the their victim impact statement that she is still afraid of black men 2 years later.

“Whenever we are running errands, if we come across a black male, she holds me tight and begs me to leave,” the mother said. “It has affected her friendships at school and our relationships with African-American friends.”

Via US News:

Tommy Gray also wrote that since the crime, his daughter had been terrified of black males and that probation was not sufficient punishment for Gregory Wallace, 27, who had pleaded guilty to robbery.

“If holding a little girl at gunpoint gets you probation, then our system is flawed,” Gray said.

But when Wallace was brought up for sentencing Feb. 4 in Jefferson Circuit Court, it was the parents, not Wallace, who suffered Judge Olu Stevens’ wrath.

“I am offended. … I am deeply offended that they would be victimized by an individual and express some kind of fear of all black men,” he said.

“This little girl certainly has been victimized, and she can’t help the way she feels,” he said. “My exception is more with her parents and their accepting that kind of mentality and fostering those type of stereotypes.”

The Grays were not in court as Stevens denounced their statements and granted probation to Wallace, whom he said deserved the opportunity to redeem himself.

But they did see when Stevens condemned their statements again, in a post on Facebook.

“Do three year olds form such generalized, stereotyped and racist opinions of others?” he wrote. “I think not. Perhaps the mother had attributed her own views to her child as a manner of sanitizing them.”

That a supposedly unbiased judge would ask such an ridiculously biased  “leading question” does not speak well of him.

It’s obviously true that three year olds generally don’t develop “generalized, stereotyped and racist opinions (as if you could call her fears those things) “on their own.” This young tot had a little help – She was traumatized when a couple of black home invaders terrorized her family.  Is this judge stupid?

The family is obviously unhappy that the ordeal has negatively impacted their daughter’s view of blacks. How did he miss that? It’s why they listed it it on the impact statement.

Later Stevens said, “I wasn’t criticizing the victims, I was criticizing a statement that I thought was a generalization against an entire race of people.”

He was criticizing the feelings of a three year old victim of a crime. Shame on him. #SMDH

Meanwhile – –

Wallace and his accomplice, Marquis McAfee, both 27, were arrested about three weeks after the robbery. Both pleaded guilty and McAfee, who was on probation for a prior crime, was sentenced to 10 years in prison, which he is serving.

Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Richard Elder objected to probation for Wallace, who pleaded guilty to a 20-year sentence, saying he was “guilty as hell” and “put a gun in that little girl’s father’s face.”

Huge Palette Cleanser: 

WISTV: Man’s candid, honest video about race and traffic stops goes viral:

This is a heart-warming story and I’m glad it’s getting some attention. I wish the young man had worded a thing or two differently in his video – but his heart was definitely in the right place so kudos to him.

Pat Caddell Trashes Holder on Menendez Indictment: DOJ “Is Run By A Political Hack”

On Fox News’ Political Insiders, Easter Sunday, Doug Schoen, John LeBoutillier, and Pat Caddell joined host Julie Banderas to talk about the federal charges against Senator Bob Menendez, which came the same week the DOJ decided not to prosecute Lois Lerner.

The insiders all agreed that the indictment is politically motivated and designed to send a message to the rest of congress.

“It sends a chilling feeling to any other Democrats who are thinking about crossing the Obama White House,” LeBoutillier said.

Democrat pollster Pat Caddell claimed that the Political Insiders was the first show to predict that the Menendez case would become politicized by the “Criminal Injustice Department” which he added, “is run by a political hack – who when he’s not playing the race card, he’s covering up scandal after scandal – be it Solyndra, the IRS, or whatever. They did this to Menendez … to chill the other members. They went after the one Democrat who was speaking with great conscience on this issue. They had this three years ago – the public integrity section – which is itself an oxymoron – is the same section that took out Senator Ted Stevens and got reprimanded after he lost his election, by withholding  evidence.”

Caddell continued, “76% of the American people want congress to have a say. Barack Obama intends to bypass the congress to the UN.

Later Caddell pointed out that the charges against Menendez involve women and trips, and so forth, but, “you got Bill Clinton out there going to Orgy Island with a convicted pedophile. You don’t hear anything about that,” he said.

“The corruption on the Hill is unbelievable – This cover-up of Lois Lerner and the cover-up of Benghazi are worse than anything covered up in Watergate.”

SEE ALSO:

Breitbart TV: ABC’S KARL: MENENDEZ INDICTMENT LIKELY TO QUELL CHALLENGES TO IRAN DEAL:

Sunday on ABC’s “This Week,” chief White House correspondent Jonathan Karl said the indictment of  Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ), who is a strong supporter of Israel and opposes President Barack Obama going ahead with an Iran nuclear deal without congressional  approval, will make it harder for Republicans to persuade other Democrats to go against the president and override a veto on Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) legislation calling for congressional oversight.

DOJ: No Contempt Charges For Lois Lerner – Sen. Menendez Indicted

Let’s see. We’ve got two corrupt individuals, here, but two very different treatments under the law.

One of the above did everything she was asked to do and more, kept her mouth shut and destroyed evidence. She gets a gold star.

The other person did bad. He was critical of the administration’s negotiations with Iran and embarrassed the president. He gets indicted.

As Ace says, The masks are all off now.

The DoJ won’t press contempt charges against her for her busted attempt to plead the fifth (Here Is a Statement of Alleged Facts I Want to Introduce Into the Record/Having Done That, I Now Say I Don’t Want to Speak for the Record).

Supposedly the DoJ is still considering bringing some sort of charges against her over the Tea Party Targeting.

(Pssssst: There will be no meaningful charges. You read it here, first!)

As for Democrat Bob Menendez, (who earlier this year suggested that the  White House gets its talking points from Tehran) we have this: 

This is the the quasi fascist state of law enforcement in America today where the DOJ selectively and capriciously decides to enforce the law to the benefit of some and the detriment of others – depending on political considerations.

SEE ALSO:

Judicial Watch: Judicial Watch Accuses Obama Administration of Misleading Court on Hillary Clinton Email Scandal:

Judicial Watch accused the Obama administration of stalling and withholding information from a federal court in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit seeking former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and top aide’s emails.  Last week, Judicial Watch attorneys sought a status conference over the issue of the Hillary Clinton’s and other secret email accounts in order to “avoid further undue delays, prejudice and potential spoliation.” In response, the Justice Department, on behalf of the State Department, told the federal court handling the matter (U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth) that there was no need for a hearing until at least late April and that, contrary to statements by Mrs. Clinton and various administration spokesmen, it was not aware of the secret email issue until recently.  In its response (Reply in Support of a Motion for a Status Conference), Judicial Watch cited Mrs. Clinton’s press statement:

Secretary Clinton was the head of the agency and the State Department cannot claim it was unaware of the State Department’s failure to records-manage agency emails from the Office of the Secretary. In fact, the “Statement from the Office of Former Secretary Clinton” states that “[h]er usage [of non-“state.gov” email for State Department business] was widely known to the over 100 Department and U.S. government colleagues she emailed.”

Judicial Watch also accused the Obama administration of continuing to thwart the FOIA:

The State Department has yet to demonstrate how it is satisfying its obligations under FOIA in light of recent revelations that Secretary Clinton’s emails were not being properly managed, retained and produced. This also applies to emails received or sent by other officials or employees within the Secretary’s office to conduct government business who used non-“state.gov” email addresses. To determine the adequacy of the State Department’s search, both Judicial Watch and the Court should be informed by the Department directly of the details surrounding the retention of agency emails within the Office of the Secretary and the extent of the Department’s ability to search, request and retrieve those records …

Had Judicial Watch not challenged the State Department’s search, this case would most likely have been dismissed before any public revelations were made about the unlawful arrangement relating to the State Department’s handling of agency emails during Secretary Clinton’s tenure at the State Department …

Video: Sheriff David Clarke Slams DOJ’s “Junk” Ferguson Report: “Bogus Use of Statistics,” “Misapplication of Data”

Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke is one of the few people in law enforcement willing to come out in public and forcefully say what he thinks Barack Obama and Eric Holder are really up to with their false racial grievance narrative. He has been calling them out in the media for many months, while most in the the media have meekly and cravenly accepted the Bravo Sierra coming from the Regime.

On Saturday’s Justice with Judge Jeanine, Clark said he wasn’t surprised by the recent police shootings in Ferguson, Missouri.

“That’s what I knew this was going to come to,” he declared. “I knew that stoking this flame would cause individuals to blatantly now, come out and attack law enforcement officers – like the ambush in NYC with officers Ramos and Liu, like the incident in LA where a police squad was patrolling a neighborhood and took on sniper fire – as well as San Francisco. So this isn’t the first time it’s happened, and I believe it’s going to continue until these individuals stop this witch-hunt – the president and Eric Holder – this witch-hunt on the American police officer and American law enforcement agencies.”

Clarke said that the DOJ’s report on the Ferguson Police Department was payback for not being able to bring charges against Officer Darren Wilson – the implication being that the Ferguson Police Department didn’t play ball and help the DOJ railroad Wilson.

“He (Holder) knew that he was going to be able to do it – and when he found out her didn’t, he figured he’d get them back, this way,” the sheriff charged, calling the DOJ’s report “a junk report” with a “bogus use of statistics” and “misapplication of data.”

As for the racist emails, he said, “I’d like to know the methodology he used for this report. Did he find a couple of racist, or off color emails combing through 25,000, 50,000, he saw a few? Or was this two out of maybe 10 or 12? There’s a lot that hasn’t been explained about this report, judge.”

Paging Obama, Holder, Sharpton: Two Cops Shot in Ferguson #CopsLivesMatter

Obama_Blood_Hands_Hope

Two cops were shot in an assassination like attack in Ferguson, Missouri, last night.

Do you think it ever crosses Al Sharpton’s, Eric Holder and Barack Obama’s minds than when they demagogue racial issues, that their rhetoric might inspire violence? When they smeared the entire Ferguson Police Department as racist, did they not realize it could lead to violence against the city’s (“racist”) police force? Because there were people who predicted this would happen the moment the DOJ’s bogus report, “Investigation of the Ferguson Police Department,”  came out.

(I see they took their video down. Yeah – I’d be embarrassed, too. What follows is a description of what you can no longer see):

Did you hear that taunt from that jackass “protester” after the officers were shot – one in the shoulder and the other in the face –  one of them screaming in pain:  “Acknowledgement 9 months ago would have kept that from happening!” Huh?

And how about that moron who took the video – laughing that her friend, Carl,  who is BBQing nearby (they appear to be in the parking lot across the street from the protest), is undeterred from his culinary activities.

Let us count the ways this video appalls: The false victim mentality of the protesters with their unearned moral superiority – encouraged by the racial grievance industry and political demagogues like our president and attorney general, the white guilt (idiot taunter who joined the fray in “solidarity” with the “oppressed” blacks) the apathy of the onlookers, the abject stupidity of all of them…. It’s all there – everything that is wrong in America today captured in one awful video.

Here, via Vocativ, is a video timeline of the events in Ferguson, last night.

There are no suspects yet in custody, but don’t hold your breath waiting for Holder to send 50 FBI agents to Ferguson to investigate the shooting of these cops.

By the way – It was only yesterday evening – mere hours before the shootings that MSNBC’s Big Ed urged the Ferguson police Dept. to lay down their weapons if they want to see ” real change.”

“I’ll give you this one: What about disarming the police?” Mr. Schultz asked panelist Michael Eric Dyson, according to a video provided by The Daily Caller. “What about just having them carry nightsticks and the authority to arrest?”

Mr. Schultz then mused that there are places around the world that employ unarmed patrol men, such as in the United Kingdom and New Zealand.

“I mean, it would take a brave person to do something like that,” he noted. “I know the right wing’s gonna think I’m crazy for saying that, but if you really want change, you have to institutionally show it to the people that you want to do this. And that would be part of a big social engineering project if Ferguson’s going to turn around. That’s how I see it.”

Brilliant timing.

Democrats Calling 47 GOP Senators Traitors is the Pot Calling the Kettle Black

ayers-wright_obama

Democrats are in high dudgeon over an open letter 47 United States Senators sent to the Iranian regime on Monday which warned that any deal brokered by the president could be revoked by Congress.

Soon after the letter was made public, an incensed Obama suggested that the senators were in league with mad mullahs of Tehran:

“I think it’s somewhat ironic to see some members of Congress wanting to make common cause with the hard-liners in Iran. It’s an unusual coalition.”

Here is what the letter stated, and you tell me if they are making common cause with our enemies:

“The next president,” the letter stated, “could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen, and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”

It would seem the Republicans in Congress are in agreement with the Prime Minister of Israel and the leaders of the Arab world who fear that the Obama administration is brokering a terrible deal with the mad mullahs – a deal of appeasement and capitulation. A deal that allows Iran to go nuclear.

This is not what any sane person would call “making common cause with hard-liners.”

But taking their cue from the man at the top, Vice President Joe Biden,  WH Spox Josh Earnest, The New York Daily News, former WH speechwriter Jon Lovett, and others have hysterically accused the 47 republican senators of high treason. The hashtag #47Traitors is currently trending on Twitter.

This is a disgusting twisting of the facts but all part of a well coordinated campaign – as laid out by Ace of Spades on Twitter:

There is someone who appears to be making “common cause with the hardliners in Iran.” And it’s not the Republicans.

It is the president himself who has sent secret love letters to the ayatollahs.

Obama has made it manifestly clear that he doesn’t like our longtime ally, Israel –  as Ralph Peters so succinctly put it – “if Israel disappeared from the face of the earth tomorrow, Obama would not shed a single tear.”   It is feared that Obama administration has already accepted that Iran will get the bomb and create a new hegemony in the Middle East – and is just hoping that the first blast happens on someone else’s watch.

But in Obama’s America where black is white, up is down, right is wrong – it is those who stand up for America and the free world – who are the “traitors.”

Hyperventilating Democrats are trying to claim that the GOP letter may have violated the Logan Act – which “has never actually been used for prosecution, nor has its Constitutionality been seriously reviewed in two hundred years” according to Breitbart’s Ben Shapiro. If Republicans violated the Logan Act, so did the Democrats – who have a disgusting history of colluding against Republican presidents with our nation’s enemies:

Senators John Sparkman (D-AL) and George McGovern (D-SD). The two Senators visited Cuba and met with government actors there in 1975. They said that they did not act on behalf of the United States, so the State Department ignored their activity.

Senator Teddy Kennedy (D-MA). In 1983, Teddy Kennedy sent emissaries to the Soviets to undermine Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy. According to a memo finally released in 1991 from head of the KGB Victor Chebrikov to then-Soviet leader Yuri Andropov:

On 9-10 May of this year, Sen. Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow. The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.

What was the message? That Teddy would help stifle Reagan’s anti-Soviet foreign policy if the Soviets would help Teddy run against Reagan in 1984. Kennedy offered to visit Moscow to “arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA.” Then he said that he would set up interviews with Andropov in the United States. “Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews…Like other rational people, [Kennedy] is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations,” the letter explained. The memo concluded:

Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988. Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president.

House Speaker Jim Wright (D-TX). In 1984, 10 Democrats sent a letter to Daniel Ortega Saavedra, the head of the military dictatorship in Nicaragua, praising Saavedra for “taking steps to open up the political process in your country.” House Speaker Jim Wright signed the letter.

In 1987, Wright worked out a deal to bring Ortega to the United States to visit with lawmakers. As The New York Times reported:

There were times when the White House seemed left out of the peace process, uninformed, irritated. ”We don’t have any idea what’s going on,” an Administration official said Thursday. And there was a bizarre atmosphere to the motion and commotion: the leftist Mr. Ortega, one of President Reagan’s arch enemies, heads a Government that the Administration has been trying to overthrow by helping to finance a war that has killed thousands of Nicaraguans on both sides. Yet he was freely moving around Washington, visiting Mr. Wright in his Capitol Hill office, arguing his case in Congress and at heavily covered televised news conferences. He criticized President Reagan; he recalled that the United States, whose troops intervened in Nicaragua several times between 1909 and 1933, had supported the Somoza family dictatorship which lasted for 43 years until the Sandinistas overthrew it in 1979.

Ortega then sat next to Wright as he presented a “detailed cease-fire proposal.” The New York Times said, “Mr. Ortega seemed delighted to turn to Mr. Wright.”

Senator John Kerry (D-MA). Kerry jumped into the pro-Sandanista pool himself in 1985, when he traveled to Nicaragua to negotiate with the regime. He wasn’t alone; Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) joined him. The Christian Science Monitor reported that the two senators “brought back word that Mr. Ortega would be willing to accept a cease-fire if Congress rejected aid to the rebels…That week the House initially voted down aid to the contras, and Mr. Ortega made an immediate trip to Moscow.” Kerry then shilled on behalf of the Ortega government:

We are still trying to overthrow the politics of another country in contravention of international law, against the Organization of American States charter. We negotiated with North Vietnam. Why can we not negotiate with a country smaller than North Carolina and with half the population of Massachusetts? It’s beyond me. And the reason is that they just want to get rid of them [the Sandinistas], they want to throw them out, they don’t want to talk to them.

Representatives Jim McDermott (D-WA), David Bonior (D-MI), and Mike Thompson (D-CA). In 2002, the three Congressmen visited Baghdad to play defense for Saddam Hussein’s regime. There, McDermott laid the groundwork for the Democratic Party’s later rip on President George W. Bush, stating, “the president of the United States will lie to the American people in order to get us into this war.” McDermott, along with his colleagues, suggested that the American administration give the Iraqi regime “due process” and “take the Iraqis on their face value.” Bonior said openly he was acting on behalf of the government:

The purpose of our trip was to make it very clear, as I said in my opening statement, to the officials in Iraq how serious we–the United States is about going to war and that they will have war unless these inspections are allowed to go unconditionally and unfettered and open. And that was our point. And that was in the best interest of not only Iraq, but the American citizens and our troops. And that’s what we were emphasizing. That was our primary concern–that and looking at the humanitarian situation.

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV). In 2002, Rockefeller told Fox News’ Chris Wallace, “I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.” That would have given Saddam Hussein fourteen months in which to prepare for war.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). In April 2007, as the Bush administration pursued pressure against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went to visit him. There, according to The New York Times, the two “discussed a variety of Middle Eastern issues, including the situations in Iraq and Lebanon and the prospect of peace talks between Syria and Israel.” Pelosi was accompanied by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Tom Lantos (D-CA), Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY), Nick J. Rahall II (D-WV), and Keith Ellison (D-MN). Zaid Haider, Damascus bureau chief for Al Safir, reportedly said, ‘There is a feeling now that change is going on in American policy – even if it’s being led by the opposition.”

And let’s not forget post-presidential meddlings of Jimmy Carter:

In November 1990, two months after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, Carter wrote a letter to the heads of state of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. He urged the countries to drop their support for Bush’s proposed military solution.
Right up to Bush’s Jan. 15 deadline for war, Carter continued his shadow foreign policy campaign. On Jan. 10, he wrote the leaders of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Syria and asked them to oppose the impending military action.
During the Clinton administration, Carter had similar difficulties coming to grips with the fact that he was not president. In 1994, President Clinton dispatched Carter to defuse an impending war with North Korea over that country’s nuclear program. Again, Carter confused the foreign policy of the U.S. government with his own personal inclinations and conducted some free-lance diplomacy, this time on CNN. After meeting with Kim Il Sung, Carter went live on CNN International without telling the administration. His motive: Undermine the Clinton administration’s efforts to impose U.N. sanctions on North Korea. Carter believed sanctions threatened the agreement he had worked out. By speaking directly to the world about the prospects for peace, he knowingly encouraged countries like Russia and China, which were resisting a sanctions regime. According to Brinkley, a Clinton Cabinet member referred to Carter as a “treasonous prick” for his behavior.

These Democrats did not contact foreign leaders in an effort to undermine an enemy’s nefarious goals (like the Republicans did.) They met with foreign enemies to undermine the Republican president and by extension – our national interests.

If Obama’s nuke deal was in the nation’s best interest, he would abide by the Constitution of the United States which clearly states in Section 2: “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…”  But Obama refuses to do that. Instead, he goes over their heads, while disturbing details about the deal are leaked out.

MORE:

Speaking of “making common cause with hardliners”

Via Gateway Pundit:FLASHBACK: Obama Sent Ambassador to Tehran to Assure Mullahs He Was Friend of Regime (Video)

Michael Ledeen wrote about Obama’s secret meetings with Tehran on August 29, 2014.

During his first presidential campaign in 2008, Mr. Obama used a secret back channel to Tehran to assure the mullahs that he was a friend of the Islamic Republic, and that they would be very happy with his policies. The secret channel was AmbassadorWilliam G. Miller, who served in Iran during the shah’s rule, as chief of staff for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and as ambassador to Ukraine. Ambassador Miller has confirmed to me his conversations with Iranian leaders during the 2008 campaign.

Lt. Col Ralph Peters (Ret) weighed in on Hannity, last night, bringing up “the Naval hero of Chappaquiddick’s outreach to the Soviet Union to undermine President Reagan’s anti-Communist policies.

SEE ALSO: 

Roots HQ: The Left’s Unprecedented and Shocking Outrage Machine