Sunday, March 29, 2015

Deranged Leftist Pleads Guilty to Tweeting Violent Threats to Gov. Scott Walker’s Son...aren't they all deranged and self absorbed?

robert peffer
In this July 7, 2014, photo provided by the Milwaukee County Sheriff’s office is Robert C. Peffer, 31, of Milwaukee. Peffer, 31, charged in a July criminal complaint, is accused of sending dozens of threatening and obscene tweets to Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s adult son. Peffer told investigators he was angry at the governor, and that Walker’s son was just an “innocent bystander,” according to a criminal complaint. (AP Photo/Milwaukee County Sheriff)
Robert Peffer, using the twitter handle @RepublicPrince2,  made 419 tweets, 36 of which were threats against Matthew Walker, son of Governor Scott Walker. Peffer says he posted the tweets from his mother’s house and a friend’s house.
Matthew Walker began receiving threatening tweets on his birthday last year in June.
JS Online reported:
A Milwaukee man has pleaded guilty to threatening Gov. Scott Walker’s adult son on Twitter.
Online court records show Robert Peffer pleaded guilty Friday to four misdemeanor counts of using a computer to send threatening or obscene messages.
Judge Dennis Flynn sentenced him to 90 days in jail and ordered him to pay a $1,000 fine on the first count. He stayed 90-day jail stints on the other three counts in lieu of probation. The judge also banned Peffer from using social media for anything besides looking for work.
Prosecutors have said the tweets were sent to Matthew Walker, a Marquette University student, in June 2014. Over a span of six days, Peffer sent 36 tweets threatening violence to Matthew Walker or making lewd sexual references about him and his family.

Dinner, With a Side of Self-Righteousness

Back when I was a vegan, there was a joke I heard a lot, and which nonetheless always made me laugh. "I'm a Level 5 Vegan," they'd say. "I don't eat anything that casts a shadow." It's an all-too-telling poke at a tendency among vegans to suggest their lofty superiority over other mere mortals because whatever your dietary restrictions are, theirs are even more stringent.
I'm not against restricting your diet for moral reasons. Obviously, the fact that I was a vegan suggests that I think eschewing animal products is a perfectly swell way to live. I still buy certified humane eggs whenever possible, and get our meat from the sort of twee hippy CSA that my commenters think is no end of funny. I fast for Lent every year, and have friends who keep kosher. I'm not against applying moral principles to food. What I'm against is thinking that what you eat makes you a better class of person, and smugly lecturing those who don't follow your lead -- a phenomenon that, as Phoebe Malz Bovy points out, is hardly restricted to vegans.
Elite food writers aren’t just out of touch with the working and middle classes. They are out of touch with people who aren’t elite food writers. They’re oblivious not just to those who struggle to put food on the table, but to those whose jobs don’t send them on tours of Paris’s finest restaurants
The true villain for the food movement isn’t someone who buys fast food when they should be eating lentils. It’s someone who, despite having the resources to do so, hasn’t researched where his or her food comes from. Grocery shoppers’ desire to purchase fruits and vegetables -- a seemingly admirable, or at least innocuous, one -- is recast as consumer demand for out-of-season produce -- the height of decadence.
As Bovy notes, asking people to "eat local" who live in northern climes where "local" means "nothing green" for six or seven months out of the year, and do not get to spend a few months each winter in Sicily teaching a cooking class, is pretty rich. A food writer who is telling other people how they could eat, if they wanted to, is doing a great public service. A food writer who is telling other people how they should eat (just like me, except without my access to ingredients) is just obnoxious. You can't possibly know how they should eat, unless you have spent some time living their lives.
It is well to remember that people who spend time professionally writing about food have quite a bit more time in their day for acquiring and cooking food than most people. They also have more resources and recipes at their disposal. And you know, they can move to California to enjoy the produce.
Nor is it just the tyranny of localism; it is the list of ingredients that you ought to like, and the list of ingredients that you shouldn't, and what the hell is wrong with you troglodytes and your Twinkies? Now, personally, I hated Twinkies before Hostess went bankrupt, and I'm sure I'd hate them now, along with Hostess cupcakes, Ho Hos, Devil Dogs, Snowballs, and whatever other tasteless cake substance they've filled with that disgusting white goo that tastes like rubberized confectioner's sugar. I also despise anything made with canned cream-of-whatever soup, detest marshmallows in any form, and would rather eat paste than Cool Whip. You know what these are? Personal preferences. They are not signs that I have achieved a higher level of food consciousness. There is no such thing as a higher level of food consciousness. There is stuff you like to eat, and stuff you do not like to eat.
And if I may insert a personal plea: could the bittermongers please knock it off with the sneers? Somehow, in the collective cocktail consciousness of America's hipsters, "bitter" has become synonymous with "sophisticated". Bitter beer is good beer, bitter cocktails are good cocktails, and the louts who like things thin or sweet deserve what they get, which is everyone else at the bar struggling to conceal their bemused smile. Yet there are many of us who hate, hate, hate bitter flavors not because we haven't been exposed to them, nor because we're unadventurous slobs who would really rather be hooked up to a glucose IV. Personally, I find bitter flavors like Campari so strong that even a sip is on the verge of being physically aversive, as if you were punching me in the tongue. That's not a matter of sophistication, but a matter of personal chemistry. There are people who can taste bitter compounds in broccoli and soapy-tasting substances in cilantro that make it completely unpalatable, while the rest of us dig into our veggies and say they don't know what they're missing. In fact, we've got it exactly backwards: we don't know what we're missing -- and we're moralizing our deficits.
The most maddening example of this is, of course, the case of thin people, or folks who could really stand to lose ten pounds, lecturing the obese on how stupid they are for letting themselves get fat. A recent passage from a Vox article on obesity showcases what I'm talking about:
Keeping your weight down requires daily consideration. It requires planning and thought to choose foods carefully and make time for exercise. This indeed takes up "mental real estate."
But I would ask Brown: does being obese require any less mental energy?
Is it really more mentally freeing to feel tired when you walk up a flight of stairs, to have to buy two seats on an airplane because one won't do, to not be able to play with your children because you're too unfit, to continually worry about whether your clothes are going to fit in the morning ... the list goes on.
As a friend who really struggles with his weight points out, the author seems not to understand that for people with a weight problem, weight loss often involves both: you're tired and miserable and overweight, and also, you're spending a huge amount of mental energy counting calories and making time for exercise.
Moreover, this really underplays the amount of mental energy we're talking about. When you talk to people who have successfully lost really large amounts of weight as adults -- amounts that bring them from the really risky "super-obese" category into something more normal -- you find two things. First, that most of them don't keep it off, unless they have bariatric surgery, in which case, 50 percent of them keep it off. And second, that the people who are keeping the weight off without surgery are going to extreme lengths to maintain their weight loss, lengths that most of us would probably find difficult to fit into our lives: weighing every ounce of food they consume, counting calories obsessively, exercising for long periods every day, and constantly battling "intrusive thoughts of food." 
It's not quite fair to say that most of the public health experts I've seen talking about obesity are thin people brightly telling fat people that "Everything would be fine if you'd just be more like me!" But it's not really that far off the mark, either. In the words of another friend who struggled with his weight, and got quite testy when I suggested weight loss was easy, "You've hit the pick six in the genetic lottery, and you think you earned it."
I spent much of my life being really skinny, and now I'm a middle aged person who is still in the normal range but wishes she could fit into the clothes she wore when she was twenty five -- and probably could, if she would spend more time eating salad, and less time making elaborate meals for her family. I am, in other words, exactly the sort of person who often lectures obese folks on their weight.
But here's the thing: in neither situation have I felt anything like the struggles my overweight friends describe, where getting their weight down to anything approaching doctor-approved levels, and keeping it there, requires an ironclad will and monotonous focus on never eating anything you want. I doubt that I'd do better in their situation -- but more importantly, I recognize that I'm not in their situation, and won't be if I lose fifteen pounds, either. Obese people who have lost weight are not like thin people; they are like people whose bodies want to be much heavier, and constantly cry out for food (also known as: "intrusive thoughts"). Hunger is an imperative biological signal on par with pain, and overriding it is a titanic act of willpower, which luckily many of us don't have to exert. Moralizing that difference would be daft.
And so is moralizing the food you had the time and resources to put on your table this evening. Of course, we could all do better with our eating: our meals could be thriftier, or tastier, or more scrupulously in line with our conscience. These are all goals worth striving for. But we shouldn't chide other people for failing to reach our goals. Especially when we got to start the race miles ahead.
  1. Except for what the soy did to my thyroid, I mean. 

Harry Reid and the Democrat culture of corruption. Don't let him off the hook


Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) explains his shocking decision to not seek re-election and retire when his term ends in 2016 by telling the New York Times, “he was worried his race would consume campaign money that would be needed in other competitive states as Democrats try to regain control of the Senate.”

“I think it is unfair for me to be soaking up all the money to be re-elected with what we are doing in Maryland, in Pennsylvania, in Missouri, in Florida,” Reid told the Times.
Reid said neither his recent eye injury nor concern over his chances of winning played a factor in his decision.
But the real reason Reid is retiring may have nothing to do with any of these excuses and everything to do with his concerns that a possible Republican Presidential victory in 2016 would lead to the appointment of a Republican Attorney General in January 2017.
A Republican Attorney General would be almost certain to initiate a criminal investigation into Reid’s abuse of his political power in a brazen intervention in the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) issuance of EB-5 visas to investors in a Las Vegas casino and hotel that was represented by his son, Rory Reid, as was highlighted in a report released by the Inspector General of DHS last week.
“I think Harry Reid’s getting out of town ahead of the posse,” former U.S. Attorney Joe diGenova tells Breitbart News.
On Thursday, the non-profit group Cause of Action called on the Department of Justice (DOJ) to launch a criminal investigation of Reid. Citing the specific federal statutes that were violated, the group said Reid “participat[ed] in unlawful political activity, possible coercion and fraud related to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program.”
The DOJ under President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder is so highly politicized it would never launch a criminal investigation into the many scandals in which Harry Reid is at the center.
But, as diGenova told Breitbart News on Friday, “[t]here is no doubt in my mind that an independent Department of Justice or an independent U.S. Attorney would open a preliminary criminal investigation into Harry Reid’s intervention into the expediting of EB-5 visas and would in addition convene a grand jury.” (emphasis added)
Reid announced his surprising decision to retire just days after the DHS Inspector General released a report that concluded: “Reid pressured a compliant DHS official to override normal departmental procedures and rush through 230 EB-5 foreign visa applications, thereby freeing up $115 million the applicants invested in the SLS Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas.”
As Breitbart News reported, “the owner of that casino project had hired Reid’s son, Rory Reid, to provide legal representation for the project.”
Then there’s Reid’s complicity in Senator Robert Menendez’s (D-NJ) abuse of his political office by intervening in an ongoing Department of Health and Human Services adjudicatory process involving $8.9 million in Medicare overbilling by his friend and campaign funds donor, Dr. Salomon Melgen.
As Breitbart News reported, Reid “hosted a meeting between Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius. At the meeting, Menendez made the case for his friend and donor, Dr. Salomon Melgen, who was at the time embroiled in what was supposed to be an independent adjudicatory process at HHS involving $8.9 million the department said he overbilled Medicare.”
Reid’s intervention came “immediately after Melgen donated $300,000 to the Senate Majority PAC, a Super PAC that has close ties to Reid. By the end of 2012, Melgen’s donations to the Senate Majority PAC totaled $700,000.”
For his part in that intervention, Senator Menendez has been the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation by the DOJ. Press reports indicate that Menedez is expected to be indicted on charges of public corruption very soon, though last minute negotiation efforts by his attorneys may delay or possibly forestall such action.
The damaging information an independent DOJ investigation could turn up with the exercise of subpoena power on hundreds of investors and business associates involved in the numerous Harry Reid scandals could be substantial.
A recent report by ABC News indicates the kinds of embarrassing information likely to turn up when DOJ investigators start turning over the rocks in Reid’s landscape of insider deals.
One of the 230 foreign investors who obtained a visa in return for investing in the SLS Hotel and Casino of Las Vegas, the company represented by Rory Reid, was linked to child pornography in China. Two others, ABC reported, had knowingly submitted false documentation to the DHS as part of their visa application process.
According to the DHS Inspector General’s report, Reid pressured DHS official Alejandro Mayorkas, (then the head of the department’s United States Citizenship and Immigration Services agency, now Deputy Secretary at DHS) to expedite these questionable visa applications and rush them through without the normal rigorous review.
Given the improper level of scrutiny given these three foreign investors in the casino deal by DHS, it is unclear if the remaining 227 foreign investors in this casino deal are equally suspect.
More ominously, this lack of scrutiny may have allowed foreign investors who pose a national security threat to the country to obtain visas and a path to citizenship.
Reid’s retirement announcement was a sudden and dramatic reversal of even his most recent statements about his plans.
To hear Reid tell it, he was planning to stay in the Senate for many years to come. As recently as two months ago, Reid emphatically declared he was running in 2016.
“We have quite an operation in Nevada that hasn’t lost a step, and we’re off and running. At this stage, I’m fully intending to run,” he told the New York Times on January 22.
Reid’s response to the DHS report has been to double-down with impunity in defense of his potentially criminal conduct.
“If it had it to do over again, I’d try even harder,” he told a Nevada public radio station on Friday about his role in pressuring the DHS to expedite the E5-5 visas for the Las Vegas casino his son represented.
Reid went even further and besmirched the integrity of the Inspector General of the DHS, the author of the report.
“The Homeland Security report came from a bunch of whiners at the Department of Homeland Security,” he asserted brazenly.
(You can hear the full interview at the 13:04 mark here.)
With Barack Obama serving in the White House and Eric Holder as Attorney General, Harry Reid can get away with flaunting the law and attacking the integrity of the “whiner” Inspector General at DHS whose report documents how Reid abused his political power to benefit his political allies and family.
But if a Republican is elected President in 2016, there will be a new sheriff in town. Harry Reid knows the posse assembled by this newly appointed Attorney General is unlikely to consider Reid’s critics at DHS to be “whiners.” In fact, they are likely to be part of the posse.
I think it time to review the entire tax structure for not for profits. The Democrats hidy-hole.

Weather Underground bomb maker unmasked and unapologetic. Just like his bomb throwing friends Ayers, Dorhn. Leftists in our education system

Weather Underground bomber unmasked — as city schoolteacher

The “bomb guru” for the terrorist group the Weather Underground never served a day in jail — but he did spend decades teaching in New York City classrooms, a new book reveals.
Ronald Fliegelman built explosives for the Weather Underground, a far-left group that launched a domestic bombing campaign in the 1960s and ’70s, including one explosion inside NYPD headquarters.
Modal TriggerBut when the group dissolved, Fliegelman managed to safely fade away into the square life. For 25 years, he worked as a public special-education teacher, retiring to a quiet life in Park Slope, Brooklyn, according to “Days of Rage: America’s Radical Underground, the FBI, and the Forgotten Age of Revolutionary Violence” (Penguin Press).
And he’s unapologetic about his past, according to author Bryan Burrough.
“Ron is proud of what he did,” he told The Post.
The Weather Underground first organized in 1969 as a splinter of the Revolutionary Youth Movement within the ’60s protest group Students for a Democratic Society.
Their members were mostly white and middle class, advocating the complete overthrow of the US government.
Under the leadership of co-founder Bill Ayers — who went on to become a University of Illinois professor whose political relationship with then-candidate Barack Obama was scrutinized during the 2008 presidential campaign — the group also pushed for a sexual revolution.
Their slogan? “Smash monogamy.”
 - Brian Flanagan — Former Weatherman
To achieve their goals, the militant group — popularly known as the Weathermen, derived from the Bob Dylan lyric, “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows” — embarked on a years-long bombing campaign, targeting places it considered pillars of US imperialism, capitalism, racism and anything contrary to their “ism” of choice: communism.
To protest the US invasion of Laos, for example, they bombed the Capitol Building in 1971. That same year, they targeted the headquarters of the state Department of Corrections in Albany for the deaths of 29 inmates during the Attica prison riot. They even busted LSD guru Dr. Timothy Leary out of a California jail and helped smuggle him to Algeria in 1970 — the same year they issued a “Declaration of a State of War” against the United States.
“We believed Third World countries would rise up and cause crises that would bring down the industrialized West, and we believed it was going to happen tomorrow, or maybe the day after tomorrow,” a former Weatherman tells Burrough.
“The myth, and this is always Bill Ayers’ line, is that Weather never set out to kill people, and it’s not true — we did,” group member Howie Machtinger tells Burrough. “You know, policemen were fair game.”
Despite the tough talk, the group was already in crisis not long after its formation.
On March 6, 1970, a bomb exploded prematurely inside a town house at 18 W. 11th St. in Greenwich Village. Three Weathermen were killed — the two building the bomb, Terry Robbins and Diana Oughton, and another, Ted Gold, who was entering the building.
Modal Trigger
The scene where a Weather Underground bomb exploded prematurely inside a town house in Greenwich Village.Photo: AP
If the Weathermen were going to wage a war, they needed to do so without killing their own members, Burrough notes.
“No one knew what to do. I gave a thought to giving up, and I had a gun pulled on me and was told I was not leaving,” recalls Fliegelman.
The son of a Philadelphia doctor, Fliegelman got his start with Students for a Democratic Society, where he gained a reputation for being a technically proficient workaholic, once manually printing hundreds of leaflets when the mechanical printer broke down.
“Fliegelman was the one person who knew how to strip down and reassemble guns, motorcycles and radios, who knew how to weld, who could fix almost anything,” writes Burrough.
Modal Trigger
Weather Underground co-founder Bill AyersPhoto: WireImage
He looked the part, too.
One member described him as possessing “a Santa Claus twinkle in his eye that inspired confidence.”
“Everyone was afraid of the stuff, for good reason,” Fliegelman says. “What we were dealing with was a group of intellectuals who didn’t know how to do anything with their hands. I did. I wasn’t afraid of it, I knew it could be handled.”
After the Village town-house explosion, Weather Underground founding member Jeff Jones summoned Fliegelman to a meeting in Central Park.
“You either know how to build something or you don’t,” Fliegelman says.
“[Jones] said, ‘Well, what do we do?’ And I said, ‘This can never happen again. I’ll take care of it.’ And I did.”
From that day on, Fliegelman spent hundreds of hours studying explosives.
“When you’re young and you’re confident, you can do anything. So, yeah, you play with it, and try to build something. The timer is the whole thing, right? It’s just electricity going into the blasting cap,” he says.
“Eventually, I came up with a thing where I inserted a lightbulb, and when the bulb lit, the circuit was complete, and we were able to test things that way. If the light came on, it worked. The rest of it is simple.”
Members recognized his contribution.
“Without him,” former Weatherman Brian Flanagan tells Burrough, “there would be no Weather Underground.”
From then on, Fliegelman says, he built most of the group’s bombs, even jetting off to the San Francisco Bay Area to help members there.
“Maybe they did two or three things without me,” he tells Burrough. “But I doubt it.”
His first attack, in 1970, was the most nerve-racking. And why not? They were going inside NYPD headquarters.
“That first one was the scariest,” Fliegelman recalls. “Going into a public building, there was security, and you had to get past it. We had people who did the casings. We needed people who wouldn’t be noticed, so they went in dressed like lawyers. Still, I was scared. Very scared. We knew if we did this, they would come after us.”
But things went smoothly.
“It wasn’t like they had metal detectors back then. There was just a guy at the desk, and we walked right past him,” Fliegelman tells Burrough.
The bomb — created in an apartment on quaint Amity Street in Cobble Hill, Brooklyn — had a simple design: 15 sticks of dynamite attached to a Westclox alarm clock bought at a RadioShack.
Modal Trigger
Fliegelman’s FBI Wanted poster.
The device, hidden in a hollowed-out law book, was placed above a ceiling tile in a second-floor bathroom at the Centre Street building, about 125 feet from Commissioner Howard Leary’s office.
At 6:40 p.m. on June 9, a warning was called in, and 17 minutes later, the bomb exploded, destroying two walls and blasting a 20-by-40-foot hole in the floor.
Mayor John Lindsay promised a “relentless” investigation, but that didn’t slow down Fliegelman, who built the bomb that blasted a toilet in the Corrections offices in Albany, Burrough writes.
“Tonight we attacked the head offices of the New York State Department of Corrections,” the group boasted afterwards.
“We must continue to make the Rockefellers, Oswalds, Reagans and Nixons pay for their crimes. We only wish we could do more to show the courageous prisoners at Attica, San Quentin and the other 20th-century slave ships that they are not alone in their fight for the right to live.”
Fliegelman’s memory gets hazy when asked about the Capitol bombing of 1971. He says he “believes” he built the device placed in the first-floor men’s room near the Senate, which caused about $300,000 in damage, according to Burrough.
And he says he can’t remember whether he built the bomb that went off in a fourth-floor rest room at the Pentagon in 1972 in retaliation for US raids in Hanoi.
 - Author, Bryan Burrough
Burrough says Ayers, in his memoir, “Fugitive Days,” refers to Fliegelman’s involvement in the Pentagon caper, calling him by the pseudonym “Aaron.”
“Aaron was the backbone of the group — entirely committed and trustworthy, hardworking and dependable . . . A guy we all believed could easily survive in the Australian Outback or the Siberian wilderness for weeks with nothing but a pocket knife . . . The model middle cadre,” Ayers writes.
The group began to dissolve after a peace accord was signed to end the Vietnam War in 1973, and four years later, it was defunct.
By then, Fliegelman was living with fellow Weatherman Cathy Wilkerson, a bomb-maker in her own right.
The two had a daughter and split up. Fliegelman, meanwhile, simply returned to his parents’ home in Philadelphia, working at a school for troubled children, abandoning his bomb-making ways as easily as a snake sheds its skin.
“For me, it was really seamless,” he tells Burrough. “No one — the FBI, no one — ever came looking for me.”
Modal Trigger
Ronald FliegelmanPhoto: J.C. Rice
Fliegelman was among 13 Weathermen indicted on charges of conspiring to commit bombings and assassinations, but the indictment was dropped in 1973 by the Justice Department in the wake of a Supreme Court decision that barred the use of electronic surveillance without a court order.
Fliegelman was underground at the time and never arrested, Burrough notes.
There’s a five-year statute of limitations on most federal crimes except for murder, so by the time he began working for the city in 1983, Fliegelman didn’t have to look over his shoulder.
He started as a special-education teacher at PS 54 in Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn, and later taught at PS 305, also in Bed-Stuy, according to the Department of Education. He retired in 2006.
Now 70 years old, Fliegelman collected $40,035 in pension last year, according to public records.
His life now appears to have taken on all the trappings of the leisure class. On Thursday, he was seen walking a small white dog in idyllic Park Slope before climbing into a Subaru Forester SUV.
Approached by The Post, Fliegelman, who wears a neat ponytail, said: “What happened 40 years ago is different from what’s going on today. War was a big thing. It was on TV every night. You don’t know that with the Iraqi war, the Afghanistan war. There was the draft, as well.”
Asked whether he considered himself a terrorist, he said: “Did you ever notice how many people were hurt by our bombs? People were not hurt by our bombs.”

Saturday, March 28, 2015

Obama's radical egalitarianism as seen through the Iran nuclear talks.

Iranian Defector: 'U.S. Negotiating Team Mainly There to Speak on Iran’s Behalf'

Do you believe this man is any less arrogant and self absorbed at his job.

Exec who mocked Chick-Fil-A now on food stamps

By Ethel C. Fenig

My, what a difference two and a half years and a nasty, self righteous video by a nasty, self righteous man make. In the summer of 2012, an individual who could only accept diversity, pluralism and multi culturalism as long as it agreed with his politically correct notions, posted a video of himself harassing a Chick-Fil-A order taker on Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day. That was the day those who actually believed in diversity, pluralism and multi culturalism chose to support the fast food chain against those who disagreed with the founder who opposed gay marriage. The founder didn't say he would fire gay people or those who were involved in this type of union, merely he didn't agree with it. Hot air ensued.
Although I had never eaten at any of the chain's restaurants because as a Jew who keeps kosher (biblically mandated, rabbinically interpreted food laws) I couldn't eat their specialties, I decided to lend my support to Chick-Fil-A that day by going to the closest one and ordering a soft drink. I then wrote about my excellent kosher adventure. No I didn't video it and no, I certainly didn't bother the pleasant young man taking my small order.
Adam Smithc-- no, not the famed free market historic economistc--cwas not as accepting.
page1image12432 page1image12592 page1image12752
Smith decided to go through the drive-thru at his local Chick-Fil-A, where he ordered a free water -- the fast food chain offers customers free water -- and videotaped himself telling the drive-thru attendant how much he despised Chick-Fil-A.
“Chick-Fil-A is a hateful corporation,” Smith said, in part, to the drive-thru attendant. “I don’t know how you live with yourself and work here. I don’t understand it. This is a horrible corporation with horrible values. You deserve better.”
Smith then posted the video on his personal YouTube channel, but when he got back to work, he received a major shock.
“I got into work and the receptionist, the first thing, big eyes, ‘Adam, what did you do?’ ... she said, ‘The voicemail is completely full, and it’s full of bomb threats,’” Smith said in an exclusive interview with ABC News' "20/20."
Smith was fired that same day. He said at the time he was earning $200,000 annually and had over $1 million in stock options.
“It was taken when I lost my employment,” he said. (snip)
Looking back at the video now, Smith said he was emotional.
“I don’t regret the stand I took, but I regret... the way I talked to her,” he told “20/20.”

He even apologized to the drive-thru attendant he was angry with in another video posted to his YouTube channel, which also went viral. She has forgiven him. But Smith says even people who agreed with his pro-gay opinions won’t hire him.
“I think people are scared,” Smith said. “I think people are scared that it could happen again.” (snip)
Smith, with his spotty digital footprint, is still looking for a job nearly three years later, and has turned to meditation. He has also just written a new memoir, “A Million Dollar Cup of Water,” detailing how his public shaming led him from riches to rags and the intensive soul search for healing.

If I don't like a company's policies or service either I don't patronize them or I politely contact the appropriate personnel. Certainly the highly paid--one per cent--Smith should have realized the probably minimum wage order taker he was bothering
did not set company policy. However, Smith got one thing right--she was very polite to him and did "deserve better" than dealing with customers such as Smith.
His rant continues to haunt him. He later got another job but lost it when his employer discovered the YouTube post. He lost his home, living in an RV (but aren't they bad for the environment or something?) and is now jobless and on food stamps. Sadly, his wife and four children have also suffered from his actions.
Hey, I have a job for him! (All together now!) I'm sure Chick-Fil-A, a tolerant company, will hire him as an order taker. The innocent, minimum wage worker he harassed can train him in kindness, manners and tolerance. Go for it! 

Hirsi Ali exposes the bias and insularity of the feminist movement

‘Wrong’ kind of hero: Why feminists diss Hirsi Ali

Ayaan Hirsi Ali should be the perfect feminist hero.
In theory, she fits the role on multiple levels: She’s an escapee from an abusive patriarchy. 
She’s an African immigrant who made her own way in a Western country, the Netherlands. She’s a fierce advocate for women’s rights. 
She’s a target for deadly violence by angry men who want to shut her up. She left her religion and became a scourge of its repressive practices.
Except for the blemish on her record: Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a dissident from the wrong religion.
Raised a Muslim in Somalia, subjected to genital mutilation and married off to a distant cousin, she is famously a critic of Islam. 
She has excoriated it at extraordinary risk to her own safety, and makes the case again in her latest book, “Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now.”
When she collaborated on a film in the Netherlands in 2004 cataloging abuses against Muslim women, her fellow filmmaker Theo van Gogh was assassinated by an Islamist who left a note threatening her pinned to van Gogh’s chest — with a knife.
But Hirsi Ali wouldn’t be silenced. She is truly a hero of our time. She is defying the jihadi censors, the misbegotten hate-speech laws and the polite conventions of Western debate that all limit what can be said about the relationship of Islam to modernity.
Our society, and especially the left, tends to reflexively celebrate dissenters. But some heretics are more welcome than others. 
In the case of Islam, the pieties of multiculturalism clash with what should be an imperative of feminism (i.e., forcefully standing up for the basic rights of women in Muslim societies), and feminism tends to lose out.
“The concern,” as one feminist wrote of Hirsi Ali, “is that her intervention into the issue of gender equality in Muslim societies will strengthen racism rather than weaken sexism.” 
In the fashionable neologism designed to be a conversation-stopper, she is “an Islamophobe.” Brandeis University notoriously rescinded a planned honorary degree for her last year.
If Hirsi Ali had had a strict Baptist upbringing and left to tell the story of its hypocrisies and closed-mindedness, she would be celebrated in such precincts as Brandeis, without anyone uttering a peep of protest.
This is the “Book of Mormon” effect — no one cares about offending the inoffensive. It’s only debate over a religion that is home to dangerous fanatics that must be carefully policed.
Even people not otherwise known for their solicitude for religious sensibilities are uncomfortable with her criticisms of Islam. 
In his interview with her this week, “Daily Show” host Jon Stewart worried that “people single out Islam,” when Christianity underwent its own difficult reconciliation with modernity. 
True enough, but the horrific intra-Christian bloodletting of the Thirty Years’ War was 400 years ago.
If Islam is on the same trajectory, it is badly trailing the pace. Hirsi Ali’s prescriptions are hardly unassailable. Her notion of religious reform bears an atheistic stamp. 
If change in Islam depends on getting Muslims to admit that Muhammad was not The Prophet, as she writes in “Heretic,” the cause is indeed hopeless. The ummah is not going to dissolve itself into a gooey Unitarian Universalism.
Hirsi Ali recalls the dissidents from communism in the 20th century like the great Whittaker Chambers. Their personal experience redoubled their commitment to the fight for freedom and human dignity. 
They, too, were often dismissed as fanatics and as embarrassments to polite opinion. But their intellectual contributions, and the examples of their own bravery, were indispensable in the long ideological struggle.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not just a heretic; she also is a believer. She has more confidence in Western civilization and its values than people who have never had to live outside it, or face down the enemies who want to destroy it. 
If she doesn’t get the recognition she deserves, so much the worse for her detractors.