Teen Gets Fired From Restaurant After Calling Out Her Employer For Reusing Chips And Salsa

A restaurant in Michigan is under investigation by the health department after a former employee’s mom posted some rather disturbing news on Facebook.

South Haven resident Kristie Bowie’s 16-year-old daughter got a job at Su Casa restaurant as a busser. She worked there for about a week.

Kristie’s daughter was told during one of her shifts that she shouldn’t throw away any “salsa, chips, anything that comes back that looks it hasn’t been touched”.


Kristie’s daughter felt uncomfortable with this and asked the restaurant’s owner, Edgar Suarez, if it was true. When he confirmed it, she decided to quit.

“The owner belittled my daughter, telling her she had no common sense and asked her if she is such a clean freak why her apron is dirty.”

“She finished her shift, like a trooper, then left and called her dad in tears.”

Kristie posted about the incident on Facebook, which got them banned from Su Casa. By then, her post had already spread around their community.


Michigan news channel WWMT picked up the tip and sent a reporter out to investigate. Su Casa owner Edgar Suarez was confronted by reporter Walter Smith-Randolph about Kristie and her daughter’s claims about the reuse of chips and salsa.

Edgar replied that he didn’t realize that that wasn’t allowed.


“I didn’t realize that even if people did not touch them or they were still in the tray, I thought everything was good,” he said in his defense.

Other employees were interviewed and shared that the chips and salsa weren’t the only food items being reused.

“I would rather have the place shut down because this shouldn’t go on,” former employee Anthony Rigozzi said.

The Van Buren County Health Department has cited the problem and is investigating the restaurant, though Su Casa still appears to be open.


7 Types Of Fish You Should Never Consider Eating

With increasing pollution and radiation levels off the charts in our oceans, wild fish are becoming as hazardous to our health as factory farmed meat. Most farmed fish are no longer safe to consume due to genetic modification and practices which have transformed many species into swimming poison. Here are 7 varieties of fish you should avoid without exception.


Many species are so high in contaminants like mercury that their health benefits are outweighed by their health risks. Others are flown in from halfway around the world, but given labels that make you think they were caught fresh earlier that morning. And still others are raised in filthy, overcrowded pools and loaded up with chemicals to keep them alive.

Two years ago, scientists had for the first time discovered Bluefin tuna that were contaminated by the Fukushima nuclear crisis in Japan last year swimming off the coast of California. Radioactive cesium ten times above the normal level was found in the fish. Hazardous radionuclides such as iodine-131, caesium 137, and other isotopes currently being released in the sea and air around Fukushima bio-concentrate at each step of various food chains (for example into algae, crustaceans, small fish, bigger fish, then humans; or soil, grass, cows meat and milk, then humans).

Mercury contamination of all seafood is a widespread public health concern. In fact, pregnant women, children and women who might become pregnant should avoid the consumption of swordfish, tuna and orange roughy due to their high methyl-mercury content. The EUs food safety authority (EFSA) EFSA recommends that women of childbearing age…select fish from a wide range of species, without giving undue preference to large predatory fish such as swordfish and tuna, it said in a statement.

In addition to being toxic for humans, swordfish and many other species of fish are being caught in ways that are devastating ocean habitats and fisheries. Longline fishing, the fishing method used to catch swordfish, kills thousands of sea turtles per year.

If the fish is sustainable, then it is likely to be healthy to eat too, said Leah Gerber, an associate professor and senior sustainability scientist at Arizona State University.

In general, larger longer-lived fish are more likely to have exposure to toxins due to the length of their lives and their place on the food chain, Gerber explained. So you might be best served to stay away from them like Bluefin Tuna or Swordfish. Besides they already are over fished.

Around 95 percent of all salmon in existence are now farmed, and domestication has made them very different to wild populations, each of which is locally adapted to its own river system. Just two years ago a Purdue University scientist urged federal officials to decide favorably on allowing genetically engineered salmon into the food supplyarguing that not doing so may set back scientific efforts to increase food production. The argument came in direct contradiction to statements made by the same scientist who found that releasing a transgenic fish to the wild could damage native populations even to the point of extinction.

A June 2013 report from the Earth Policy Institute noted that worldwide production of farmed fish now not only exceeds the production of beef, but that consumption of farmed fish is soon expected to exceed consumption of wild-caught fish.

There are dozens of species unworthy of consumption, however due to their popularity and accessibility, here are 7 you should stay away from.


Why Its Bad: At .976 ppm (parts per million), it has the highest mercury content of any fish out there. The bio accumulation of methyl mercury is worse the higher up the food chain that you go hence swordfish is fairly bad because its higher up the food chain. The same argument can be justified for shark and marlin. Mercury pollutants have to be made into bio-available methyl mercury by anaerobic sulfur based bacteria. These only exist in certain regions so if you can get swordfish thats from an area without the deep water sulfur based bacteria then you can avoid the high contamination levels. Problem is that these anoxic regions are growing every year due to warmer waters which carry less oxygen thereby favouring anaerobic organisms over aerobic.

#2: TUNA

Why Its Bad: At .639 ppm, its a close second to swordfish, especially big eye and blue fin tuna. The New York Times found that Atlantic bluefin tuna has the highest levels of mercury of any type of tuna. To top it off, bluefin tuna are severely overharvested, to the point of reaching near-extinction levels, and are considered critically endangered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. Rather than trying to navigate the ever-changing recommendations for which tuna is best, consider giving it up altogether.


Why Its Bad: At .554 ppm, orange roughy is still very high in mercury toxicity. Like most deep sea dwelling fish, orange roughy take a long time to grow to maturity, and are easy to threaten with overfishing. Extensive deep sea fishing for over two decades resulted in severe depletion of adult stocks. Orange roughy do not generally breed until they reach 30 years of age. Scientists predict it could take decades for orange roughy populations to recover from heavy fishing which have decimated the species. The Environmental Defense Fund has issued a health advisory.


Why Its Bad: One of the reasons for the popularity of tilapia is that they are short-lived and primarily vegetarian and therefore do not accumulate substantial amounts of mercury by consuming other fish, as other common predatory food fish (such as tuna) do. This factor also means, as reported in a June 2013 National Geographic article, that tilapia are more efficient to farm because they eat lower on the food chain. This causes a world of problems to the detriment of human health.

Dibutylin levels, a chemical used in PVC plastics is said to be 2 times higher in farm-raised tilapia compared to wild ones. Dibutylin is toxic and can impair immune system function while also contributing to inflammation. Dibutylin may be the reason as to why there is a rise in asthma, obesity, allergies and other metabolic disorders in recent years.

Dioxins are also typically higher in farmed tilapia. The problem with dioxins is that once it enters our system, it can take a very long time until it is removed from the body. The half life of dioxin is about 7 to 11 years.

#5: SALMON (Both Wild-caught and Farmed)

Why Its Bad: Although salmon is typically lower in mercury concentrations, the recent devasting events in Fukushima, Japan, have many scientists questioning whether any Pacific salmon should ever be consumed again due to high radioactive isotope levels. Its actually illegal to capture wild Atlantic salmon because the fish stocks are so low, and theyre low, in part, because of farmed salmon. Salmon farming is very polluting: Thousands of fish are crammed into pens, which leads to the growth of diseases and parasites that require antibiotics and pesticides. Often, the fish escape and compete with native fish for food, leading to declines in native populations.

A study with mice proved that a diet high in farmed salmon contaminated by persistent organic pollutants POPs contributes to weight gain and increases the risk of diabetes.

Adding to our salmon woes, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is moving forward with approving genetically engineered salmon to be sold, unlabeled, to unsuspecting seafood lovers. That salmon would be farmed off the coast of Panama, and its unclear how it would be labeled. Currently, all fish labeled Atlantic salmon come from fish farms. Theyre also fed pellets that contain pink dyethats how they get their color.

#6: FLATFISH (Flounder, Sole and Halibut)

Why Its Bad: This group of fish includes flounder, sole, and halibut that are caught off the Atlantic coast. Although flounder and sole have relatively low levels of mercury, halibut still remains on the higher end at .252 ppm. Flatfish have found their way onto the list because of heavy contamination and overfishing that dates back to the 1800s. According to Food and Water Watch, populations of these fish are as low as 1 percent of whats necessary to be considered sustainable for long-term fishing.


Why Its Bad: Considered as a healthier fish due to its high mineral magnesium, mackerel is just as bad as the top five when it comes to mercury. Most of the world eats Spanish Gulf mackerel which is quite high in mercury toxicity at 0.454 ppm. No more than 4 ounces of mackerel should be consumed at one time and preferably on once per month.


Recruitment for medical trials is down and money might be needed to attract future participants

This piece originally appeared on The Conversation.

Clinical trials have been the gold standard of scientific testing ever since the Scottish naval surgeon Dr James Lind conducted the first while trying to conquer scurvy in 1747. They attract tens of billions of dollars of annual investment and researchers have published almost a million trials to date according to the most complete register, with 25,000 more each year.

Clinical trials break down into two categories: trials to ensure a treatment is fit for human use and trials to compare different existing treatments to find the most effective. The first category is funded by medical companies and mainly happens in private laboratories.

The second category is at least as important, routinely informing decisions by governments, healthcare providers and patients everywhere. It tends to take place in universities. The outlay is smaller, but hardly pocket change. For example, the National Institute of Health Research, which coordinates and funds NHS research in England, spent £74m on trials in 2014/15 alone.

Yet there is a big problem with these publicly funded trials that few will be aware of: a substantial number, perhaps almost half, produce results that are statistically uncertain. If that sounds shocking, it should. A large amount of information about the effectiveness of treatments could be incorrect. How can this be right and what are we doing about it?

The participation problem

Clinical trials examine the effects of a drug or treatment on a suitable sample of people over an appropriate time. These effects are compared with a second set of people – the “control group” – which thinks it is receiving the same treatment but is usually taking a placebo or alternative treatment. Participants are assigned to groups at random, hence we talk about randomised controlled trials.

If there are too few participants in a trial, researchers may not be able to declare a result with certainty even if a difference is detected. Before a trial begins, it is their job to calculate the appropriate sample size using data on the minimum clinically important difference and the variation on the outcome being measured in the population being studied. They publish this along with the trial results to enable any statisticians to check their calculations.

Early-stage trials have fewer recruitment problems. Very early studies involve animals and later stages pay people well to take part and don’t need large numbers. For trials into the effectiveness of treatments, it’s more difficult both to recruit and retain people. You need many more of them and they usually have to commit to longer periods. It would be a bad use of public money to pay so many people large sums, not to mention the ethical questions around coercion.

To give one example, the Add-Aspirin trial was launched earlier this year in the UK to investigate whether aspirin can stop certain common cancers from returning after treatment. It is seeking 11,000 patients from the UK and India. Supposing it only recruits 8,000, the findings might end up being wrong. The trouble is that some of these studies are still treated as definitive despite there being too few participants to be that certain.

The science bit.

One large study looked at trials between 1994 and 2002 funded by two of the UK’s largest funding bodies and found that fewer than a third (31%) recruited the numbers they were seeking. Slightly over half (53%) were given an extension of time or money but still 80% never hit their target. In a follow-up of the same two funders’ activities between 2002 and 2008, 55% of the trials recruited to target. The remainder were given extensions but recruitment remained inadequate for about half.

The improvement between these studies is probably due to the UK’s Clinical Trials Units and research networks, which were introduced to improve overall trial quality by providing expertise. Even so, almost half of UK trials still appear to struggle with recruitment. Worse, the UK is a world leader in trial expertise. Elsewhere the chances of finding trial teams not following best practice are much higher.

The way forward

There is remarkably little evidence about how to do recruitment well. The only practical intervention with compelling evidence of benefit is from a forthcoming paper that shows that telephoning people who don’t respond to postal invitations, which leads to about a 6% increase in recruitment.

A couple of other interventions work but have substantial downsides, such as letting recruits know whether they’re in the control group or the main test group. Since this means dispensing with the whole idea of blind testing, a cornerstone of most clinical trials, it is arguably not worth it.

The blue pill or the red one?

Many researchers believe the solution is to embed recruitment studies into trials to improve how we identify, approach and discuss participation with people. But with funding bodies already stretched, they focus on funding projects whose results could quickly be integrated into clinical care. Studying recruitment methodology may have huge potential but is one step removed from clinical care, so doesn’t fall into that category.

Others are working on projects to share evidence about how to recruit more effectively with trial teams more widely. For example, we are working with colleagues in Ireland and elsewhere to link research into what causes recruitment problems to new interventions designed to help.

Meanwhile, a team at the University of Bristol has developed an approach that turned recruitment completely around in some trials by basically talking to research teams to figure out potential problems. This is extremely promising but would require a sea change in researcher practice to improve results across the board.

And here we hit the underlying problem: solving recruitment doesn’t seem to be a high priority in policy terms. The UK is at the vanguard but it is slow progress. We would probably do more to improve health by funding no new treatment evaluations for a year and putting all the funding into methods research instead. Until we get to grips with this problem, we can’t be confident about much of the data that researchers are giving us. The sooner that moves to the top of the agenda, the better.bThe Conversation

Heidi Gardner, Pre-doctoral researcher, University of Aberdeen; Katie Gillies, MRC Methodology Research Fellow, University of Aberdeen, and Shaun Treweek, Professor of Health Services Research, University of Aberdeen

This Model Is Smashing Beauty Stereotypes In The Fashion Industry. When You See Her Figure, You’ll Understand Why.

This is Stefania Ferrario. She’s 23 years old, comes from Australia, and refuses to be classed as a “plus-size” model.


In the fashion industry, a plus-size model is anyone bigger than “average”. Stefania, with her stunning curves, are always classed as plus-size.


But the Aussie girl is hitting back, and campaigning for the fashion industry to #DropThePlus and accept that whatever their shape or size, all models are just that — models.


Stefania slams the modeling world for the effect they have on young girls, as teens are told that any size that isn’t super-skinny is a “plus size” — and that can’t be healthy.


“I am a model,” says Stefania simply, “Unfortunately, in the modeling business you get called ‘plus-sized’ if you’re a little larger than average.”

“I think this can have a negative effect on a model’s chance of success.”


And Stefania isn’t afraid to celebrate her curves — she’s a sought-after lingerie model thanks to her gorgeous figure.


We agree with Stefania — it’s time to drop the plus and accept that every body is a beautiful body.


You can keep up with Stefania on Instagram.

BREAKING: Armed Gunman on Campus, Philadelphia Community College on Complete Shelter in Place Orders

No shots have been fired and there are no reports of anyone injured so far, but it is confirmed that a gunman is active and the Philadelphia Community College is on lockdown. This just days after a mass shooting at Oregons UCC.

ABC 6 has more.

Students and faculty at Community College of Philadelphia have been ordered to shelter in place after reports of a man with a gun on campus.

It happen 10 a.m. Tuesday inside the Bonnell Building on the campus in the citys Spring Garden section.

Authorities tell Action News that a male reported that he was threatened by another male with a gun in the building.

Police are telling everyone in the Bonnell Building and the nearby Winnet Building to shelter in place as officers sweep the area.

Well update this story as it develops.

Budget Deal Averts Shutdown, Ryan Stands Triumphant

Join THE true Liberty Movement alternative to Facebook… set up a FREE social profile now at the new Grassfire.com! CLICK HERE TO GET STARTED.

Speaker Ryan announced earlier this week leaders in Congress, both republican and democrat, have reached an agreement on a massive spending deal which would fund the government until September, opening up votes in the near future to prevent a shutdown. The deal provides 1.1 trillion in spending allowances.

The key components of the deal suspend two major Obamacare taxes, lift the ban on crude oil exports, reauthorize a health insurance program for 9/11 first responders, as well as include cybersecurity legislation and an overhaul the visa waiver program, which would bar anyone who had visited Syria, Iraq or other possible terrorist hotspots in the last five years.

Clearly, the deal provided much needed maintenance in the federal government. Not only this, but negotiators also were able to cut 600 billion in taxes, allowing for less punishment on Americans already empty pockets.

The deal was made at the 11th hour, just prior to legislators holiday break, a break which would have prevented a deal from being made. Instead, on Wednesday, a short term deal was made to sustain the government long enough to vote on the major budget.

The oil export ban will be lifted, a ban which prevented free export of oil and global competition. Furthermore certain Planned Parenthood text has been removed. But the greatest victory was the failure of both Senator Reids and McConnells rider bills.

Whether you like him or you hate him, Ryan has been the first to manage successful negotiations on a major budget deal since Newt Gingrinch. But do you think more concessions could have been won from the democrats? let us know below.

President Trump’s former EPA transition leader wants “substantial cuts”

The former head of President Trump’s transition effort for the Environmental Protection Agency wants to seriously gut the department.

“My own personal view is that the EPA would be better served if it were a much leaner organization that had substantial cuts,” Myron Ebell told The Washington Post on Monday. Ebell also suggested slashing the EPA’s manpower by firing 10,000 employees and reducing its budget by roughly $4 billion (it currently has an $8.1 billion budget), although he added that he could not confirm whether President Trump agreed with these policy proposals.

“You’re not going to get Congress to make significant cuts unless you ask for significant cuts,” Ebell said, arguing that it would be more difficult for the agency to commit “regulatory overreach” with a reduced budget and personnel force.

This isn’t the first time that Ebell has expressed anti-environmental views. In 2011 he referred to global warming as a “fad” that is “waning” due to a “weak scientific case,” even arguing that “many people have realized that warmer climates are more pleasant and healthier.” Last November he accused President Barack Obama of promoting climate change policies that “pose a grave threat to our economy and especially to the health and well-being of poor people.”

While Ebell’s specific predictions may not come to pass, President Trump is almost certainly going to be an anti-environmental president. Last week he put a freeze on EPA grants and contracts and in December he tapped Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to run the EPA, even though he had fossil fuels lobbyists ghostwrite letters to the EPA and (like Trump) is a climate change denier.

Ted Cruz makes nice with GOP, in effort to force Donald Trump to the right on foreign policy

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz was the last man standing against Donald Trump in the Republican primaries, due in large measure to his strong support from Christian Right activists. It wasn’t enough, however, as Cruz’s support among the various other groups that make up the Republican coalition was weak.

Cruz’s cultivation of an angry outsider image and his abrasive personality also meant that even after he became the only person standing between Trump and the GOP nomination, many Republican elites refused to support him. Cruz’s subsequent debacle at the party’s convention — where he was booed by attendees for refusing to endorse Trump — didn’t help his re-election situation, either.

With Trump set to take the oath of office, Cruz is trying a different strategy: making nice with the party elites in a campaign against the United Nations, a bête noire for Republicans nearly everywhere.

The new Cruz was on display Jan. 12 alongside quintessential establishment Republican Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, as the two senators and longtime rivals announced on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” a new bill that would block all funds for the UN until it repeals Resolution 2334. That was a non-binding proclamation that passed the Security Council last month that condemned Israel’s practice of building Jewish settlements inside the West Bank area of Palestine.

The joint appearance was notable given the two men’s history of animosity. Graham, a prominent hawk who also ran for president against Trump, once suggested that if someone murdered Ted Cruz on the Senate floor, that person would never be convicted of the crime.

Graham referenced his earlier insult on the program, saying, “I want to apologize to Ted for saying he should be killed on the Senate floor.”

Cruz deflected with a joke: “At least we’re not on the Senate floor now,” he deadpanned.

As a matter of policy, the Graham-Cruz collaboration isn’t likely to pass both houses of Congress, and even President Trump would not be likely to sign it. (Although with him, who really knows?) As a means of saving Cruz’s Canadian bacon in his 2018 re-election race, however, the newfound bonhomie may be just the right recipe.

But the UN defunding proposal is about more than just making nice with establishment hawks. It’s also part of an apparent broader Cruz strategy of trying to force Trump to the right on foreign policy, an area where Trump has often been willing to appear more moderate than his party.

Unlike some of Cruz’s previous power plays, such as his 2013 government shutdown gambit, this one might not blow up in his face.

One could see Cruz’s new approach at work later in the “Morning Joe” interview as he went on a tirade against Russian president Vladimir Putin. Trump has said he wants to patch up things with Putin, but neoconservatives like Graham are seemingly itching for military action. Given that Republican elites have subjected their voters to decades of conditioning that anything short of “boots on the ground” is a form of weakness equivalent to Neville Chamberlain’s semi-surrender to Hitler, Cruz decided to turn up the rhetoric against the Russian leader: “He’s a thug and he’s committed acts of war,” Cruz said. “I’m not at all hesitant to say so, and we need to stand up to him and resist.”

He continued: “We need a president and an administration that recognizes those who are expressing hostility to America. We need to stand up to that.”

It was music to Graham’s ears. Referring to Rex Tillerson, Trump’s nominee for secretary of state, Graham said, “If he had given that answer, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. So Ted for Secretary of State.”

The New Cruz can also be seen in some of the other bills he’s backing in the new 115th Congress. There’s another Israel bill, this time trying to force Trump into designating the city of Jerusalem as the nation’s capital. Since Bill Clinton, every president has promised to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv into the disputed city, but diplomatic pressures have made it impossible to do so. Both Israelis and Palestinians claim the city as their capital, and it holds sites sacred to both Islam and Judaism.

On the campaign trail, Trump has repeatedly vowed to relocate the American embassy, and his nominee as ambassador to Israel, David M. Friedman, has donated money to West Bank settlers. So there’s a much stronger chance that Trump will follow through on the proposed move.

Another bill designed to force Trump’s hand on foreign policy is one Cruz introduced during the last Congress, a measure to designate the Egyptian-centered Muslim Brotherhood political organization as a terrorist movement. It’s a move that anti-Muslim conservatives have long called for, and one that Trump has also advocated. That wouldn’t be nearly as controversial as moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem — some Democrats would probably support the Muslim Brotherhood designation — but it’s still another area where Cruz could portray himself as ahead of the pack if it happens.

Taiwan is another foreign policy area where Cruz has tried to reposition himself in front of Trump as well. Earlier this month, Cruz and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott decided to meet with Tsai Ing-wen, the president of the disputed island nation (which the Chinese government views as a breakaway province), when she traveled to Houston on other matters. The meeting was denounced by China, and fits in with Trump’s previous overtures to Taiwan. (He ignited a brief international firestorm by accepting a call from Tsai after he was elected).

Trump has slightly softened his tone toward China recently by saying he might be willing to continue past presidents’ refusal to recognize the independence of Taiwan from China if Beijing is more obliging on other matters. The president-elect has also signaled a possible willingness to go back on his campaign trail promise to label China as a “currency manipulator.”

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Trump said about the Chinese relationship that “everything is under negotiation.” Future freelance moves from Cruz could potentially make such conversations with China more difficult.

On the campaign trail, Donald Trump routinely took positions that were both more moderate and more conservative than his party. When it comes to foreign policy, Ted Cruz is looking to ensure that Trump has no room to move to the center. It’s exactly the role the controversial Texan has been waiting for.

BREAKING: Traitor Bowe Bergdahls Has Misbehavior Before the Enemy Added to His Criminal Charges


Bowe Bergdahl the former Sergeant and Army whose 2009 desertion led to the deaths of 6 G.I.s who tried to rescue the traitor, had his charges upgraded by the Pentagon today to reflect those men he put in harms way for nothing.

The charge, one rarely used since World War II, could lead to life in prison if he is convicted.

But if press reports are accurate, Obama is about to cut him an outrageous break.

Bergdahl, who has been accused by the U.S. Army and soldiers who served with him of abandoning his outpost in Afghanistan back in 2009, has now been charged with misbehavior before the enemy in addition to desertion.

The misbehavior charge, which has seldom been used since World War II, carries a stiffer penalty in Bergdahls case when compared to desertion.

Bergdahl was charged with misbehavior before the enemy by endangering the safety of a command, unit or place and prompting the military to launch search operations, said the Army in a statement, adding that the charge carries a potential life sentence.

Six men died during those search operations for a so-called hero that they didnt realize at the time was a deserter.

There were also reports that Bergdahl actively assisted the Taliban meaning he supplied information to help them find and kill his former comrades. But because the charge of treason requires 2 witnesses, the Pentagon spared him that charge.

Bergdahl has also been accused of desertion with intent to shirk important or hazardous duty, a charge that carries a potential five-year sentence, noted the Army statement.

His case now goes to an Article 32 hearing, which is similar to a grand jury and would recommend whether the case goes to a court martial, reports USA Today.

A convening authority will ultimately make the decision whether to refer to a court martial.

After Obama traded Bergdahl for five prized Taliban generals, there was widespread outrage across America. But the Obama cabal insisted he was indeed a hero. And to tell the nation that lie, Obama trotted out the same woman who told us that a YouTube video caused Benghazi: Susan Rice, who said:

We now know better. But according to USAToday is now reporting that :

Legal analysts said it was likely Bergdahl would reach an agreement that would result in a light punishment. Obama officials are reportedly open to a plea bargain.

WHAT? A special break for a traitor with blood on his hands? Unbelievable.

But of course if makes perfect sense, if you are Obama. The president does not want the traitor he swapped for 5 active enemies of America who are at this very moment planning and ordering the deaths of Americans in Afghanistan to be severely punished.

Because that would reflect badly on the malignant narcisisst Obama. And he cant have that.

A light sentence? Tell that to the families of the 6 men who died because of Bowe Bergdahls treachery. Americans should know their names:


They were PFC Matthew Martinek, SSG Kurt Curtiss, SSG Clayton Bowen, PFC Morris Walker, SSG Michael Murphrey and 2LT Darryn Andrews.

God rest their brave souls.

What does Bergdahl truly deserve? I think Donald Trump gets it…