Like PB&J sandwiches? Portland public school teacher says that’s because you’re a racist
Look at this sandwich. It looks delicious, doesn’t it? Well, that’s because you’re a dirty, dirty racist. Well, at least according to a public school teacher at Portland’s public Harvey Scott school.
from Portland Tribune:
Verenice Gutierrez picks up on the subtle language of racism every day.
Take the peanut butter sandwich, a seemingly innocent example a teacher used in a lesson last school year.
“What about Somali or Hispanic students, who might not eat sandwiches?” says Gutierrez, principal at Harvey Scott K-8 School, a diverse school of 500 students in Northeast Portland’s Cully neighborhood.
“Another way would be to say: ‘Americans eat peanut butter and jelly, do you have anything like that?’ Let them tell you. Maybe they eat torta. Or pita.”
Guitierrez, along with all of Portland Public Schools’ principals, will start the new school year off this week by drilling in on the language of “Courageous Conversations,” the district-wide equity training being implemented in every building in phases during the past few years.
Through intensive staff trainings, frequent staff meetings, classroom observations and other initiatives, the premise is that if educators can understand their own “white privilege,” then they can change their teaching practices to boost minority students’ performance.
Last Wednesday, the first day of the school year for staff, for example, the first item of business for teachers at Scott School was to have a Courageous Conversation — to examine a news article and discuss the “white privilege” it conveys.
Most of the staff are on board, but there is some opposition to a drum class being offered to middle school boys of color at Scott School.
read the rest
What a giant pile of stupid stupidity. I don’t even know where to begin. You know where the real racism is here? It’s in forcing all the white kids to feel guilty about eating peanut butter and jelly in order to somehow magically improve the minority students’ bad grades. It’s in providing a drum class exclusively to “middle school boys of color.” Good grief!
Every day, I understand less and less why parents send their kids to public school. Your kids’ heads are being filled with garbage by screwballs and knuckleheads like Verenice Gutierrez.
1:19 am • 22 November 2013 • View comments
VIDEO: Judge Napolitano blasts Juan Williams over government health care and the Constitution
There were fireworks on the Special Report show over Fox News this evening when Judge Napolitano dropped a little Constitutional knowledge on liberal Juan Williams. Williams, who lives in a 24-7 Beltway bubble looked absolutely stunned when the Judge told him that Obamacare, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are all outside the purview of the Federal government under the Constitution.
Here’s the video:
Man, I love Judge Napolitano. About the same time Fox News took his show off the air was the same time I stopped watching Fox News. Glad he’s still around to lay down a good civics lesson on the increasingly statist Washington insiders at FNC.
12:24 am • 22 November 2013 • View comments
South Carolina public school bans Christmas carols, even without lyrics
War on Christmas? What war on Christmas? Nothing to see here…move along….
School officials at York Preparatory Academy, a public charter school in South Carolina have decided to ban the performance of any Christmas carols at the schools “winter concert,” even if those carols are played with no words or singing.
from Alliance Defending Freedom:
School officials claim they received some type of communication from either the American Civil Liberties Union or another group that prompted the ban after students had already begun rehearsing the pieces for a concert.
“Schools shouldn’t have to think twice about whether they can allow their bands to play the music to time-honored Christmas carols like these,” said Litigation Staff Counsel Rory Gray. “School districts can and should allow religious Christmas carols to be part of their school productions.”
York Preparatory Academy’s band director gave older students a choice of musical selections to perform at the school’s Dec. 19 “Winter Concert.” The students chose two songs that included the melodies from “Joy to the World” and “O Come All Ye Faithful.” After students had already begun practicing the music, the director excluded the songs based on what he claims was a communication from either the ACLU or a similar group that warned South Carolina schools against performing traditional Christmas carols and that threatened monitoring of concerts and possible litigation.
The academy’s principal confirmed receipt of the communication and suggested that, in order for students to play traditional Christmas carols, they would need to play songs from other religions as well.
As the Alliance Defending Freedom letter explains, “every federal court to examine the issue has determined that including religious Christmas carols in school music programs fully complies with the First Amendment…. Courts have recognized for many years that Christmas ‘carols have achieved a cultural significance that justifies their being [performed]…in public schools.’
read the rest
When are we going to grow a spine and start standing up to the punks at the ACLU who know all they have to do is send a letter to a school and school officials will crumble. We must start fighting these freedom haters every single time they try to pull this nonsense. They will lose and lose and lose and lose in court because the law simply does not support the things they demand.
But the ACLU and all the nutty atheist groups out there continue to get their way because schools and parents won’t fight back.
5:38 pm • 21 November 2013 • View comments
Today he supports it but in 2005 Senator Obama spoke out strongly AGAINST ending the filibuster
Let’s take another trip back in the way-way-back machine and observe the difference between Barack Obama the Senator and Barack Obama the President. One rule we have learned from the past is that if Obama hold a policy position today, at some point in the past, he probably held the opposite position.
First, up Senator Obama in 2005:
Here’s Obama in a letter to a constituent in 2005:
I recognize that the filibuster can be used for unfortunate purposes. However, I am also aware that the Founding Fathers established the filibuster as a means of protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority — and that protection, with some changes, has been in place for over 200 years.
My, my! How things have changed. Today, after Harry Reid effectively did the very thing that Obama argued against in 2005, President Obama tweeted the following via the White House official Twitter:
Obama conveniently forgets that just like in 2005, each member of the Senate is there precisely because the American people voted for them.
President is not only severely hypocritical in his flip flop, he’s severely dishonest in his reasoning for it.
4:55 pm • 21 November 2013 • View comments
Just fantastic…Obama admin plans to exit GM bailout this year at $10 billion loss to taxpayers
Welfare…not just for poor Democrat voters but also for giant corporations filled with Democrat donors! Yep, The Obama administration is finally planning to exit its corporate bailout of GM, and the taxpayers are on the hook for $10 billion. And what do we have to show for it? Well, not much.
The U.S. Treasury Department said it expected to sell its remaining shares of General Motors Co by the end of the year, a plan that may leave taxpayers with a shortfall of about $10 billion on the automaker’s 2009 bailout.
Treasury on Thursday said it had completed the sale of 70.2 million shares of GM stock and to date had recouped $38.4 billion from the $49.5 billion taxpayer-funded rescue of the Detroit company.
At current prices, Treasury would recoup another $1.2 billion from its remaining stake of 31.1 million shares, bringing its total recovery to $39.6 billion. Treasury said its initial cost basis for the GM shares was $43.52 per share.
Treasury previously said it expected to exit by April 2014, but analysts had expected it to move up the final sale date.
"Our goal was never to make a profit," said a Treasury official who requested anonymity. "It was to save the U.S. auto industry."
read the rest
Did the bailout really “save the auto industry”? No, of course not. Ford Motor Co. decided there were too many strings attached to the bailout and went without. Today, Ford is doing just fine while Chrysler and GM continue to struggle along. When is America going to learn that we have to let people (and giant corporations) fail. The losers will fade into obscurity, and the winners will grow and grow the economy with them.
2:46 pm • 21 November 2013 • View comments
Obama 2009: Americans “going to have to give up paying for things that don’t make them healthier”
CNN’s Jake Tapper has been digging through the archives and found this little gem from Obama in 2009, where he essentially admits that many Americans will not be able to keep their current health plans under Obamacare.
Tapper asked Obama in a news conference about the idea that American people would be willing to “make sacrifices” in order to see Obamacare come to fruition, giving up their ability to have certain kinds of tests and medical procedures done.
from the White House transcripts:
Thank you, Mr. President. You said earlier that you wanted to tell the American people what’s in it for them, how will their family benefit from health care reform. But experts say that in addition to the benefits that you’re pushing there is going to have to be some sacrifice in order for there to be true cost-cutting measures, such as Americans giving up tests, referrals, choice, end-of-life care. When you describe health care reform you don’t — understandably you don’t talk about the sacrifices that Americans might have to make. Do you think — do you accept the premise that other than some tax increases on the wealthiest Americans, the American people are going to have to give anything up in order for this to happen?
They’re going to have to give up paying for things that don’t make them healthier. And I — speaking as an American, I think that’s the kind of change you want.
read the rest
What kinds of “things” is Obama talking about? Well, your current health care plan, it turns out.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is what Conservatives warned about Obamacare from day 1. It’s not about providing affordable health care. It’s about redistributing wealth. It’s about forcing people to “make sacrifices” in order to line the pockets of special interest and buy votes for the Democrat party.
President Obama likes to talk out of both sides of his mouth. At the same time he was saying the above, he was also telling people at rallies that, “If you like your plan you can keep it.” Only one of these can be true, and we’ve learned that it’s certainly not true that you can keep your plan.
All of these insurance cancellations we’re seeing now? Those are the sacrifices Obama was talking about.
12:10 pm • 21 November 2013 • View comments
Harry Reid muscles “nuclear option” through the Senate, banning filibusters of Presidential nominees
Things in the Senate are about to get very interesting. Harry Reid just successfully pushed through a change in the rules that prohibits filibustering of Presidential nominees, including judges that are appointed to lifetime positions. These rules have been in place for over 200 years, and Harry Reid just crushed them.
from the Hill:
The Senate voted Thursday to change its rules to prevent the minority party from filibustering any nominations other than nods to the Supreme Court.
The change was approved after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) triggered the “nuclear option,” which allows a change to Senate rules by majority vote.
The 52-48 vote dramatically changes the rules of the Senate and limits the minority party’s ability to prevent confirmation of presidential nominees.
It will allow all three of President Obama’s nominees to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to go forward, as well as his nomination of Rep. Mel Watt to lead a housing regulatory agency.
Reid said the change was necessary to get the Senate working again.
“It’s time to change the Senate before this institution becomes obsolete,” Reid said on the Senate floor.
“The American people believe Congress is broken. The American people believe the Senate is broken. And I agree.”
The procedural motion is known as the nuclear option because critics warn it would obliterate bipartisan relations in the Senate, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) ripped Reid for trigginer it.
McConnell (R-Ky.) accused Democrats of picking a “fake fight over judges” to try and “distract the public” from the problems of ObamaCare.
“It only reinforces the narrative of party willing to do or say just about anything to get its way,” said McConnell.
“One again, Democrats are threatening to break the rules of the Senate … in order to change the rules of the Senate,” he said.
“And over what? Over a court that doesn’t have enough work to do.”
read the rest
Republicans will likely now have to resort to arcane Senate rules like withholding unanimous consent. Democrats will indeed regret this when they’re no longer in power and have no means to stop Republican Presidents from nominating whoever they want.
11:47 am • 21 November 2013 • View comments
VIDEO: “Knockout game” VS concealed carry permit holder…who do you think wins?
The “knockout game” has been making headlines lately because of its completely senseless violence perpetrated on innocent victims. But when a 17 year old from Michigan tried to knock out a concealed carry permit holder, things didn’t go according to plan.
Here’s video of the local news report:
The victim was attacked by 17-year-old Marvell Weaver. But Weaver did more than try to knock his victim out, he tried to do it with a taser. Luckily for the victim, the taser didn’t work and he was able to protect himself with his concealed-carry .40 caliber pistol.
"He shoved something into my side. I wasn’t sure what it was. It had some force to it. I wasn’t sure if it was a knife or a gun," said the victim.
Weaver was shot twice, in the leg and an inch away from his spine. He’s been sentenced to a year in jail for the attack, but he admits he’s getting off easy.
"It was just a lesson learned. I wish I hadn’t played the game at all," said Weaver.
But Weaver say’s this wasn’t the first time he’d played it. Before he was caught, he and his friends had attacked random people on several occasions.
"Not many, six or seven. It wouldn’t be an every day game, just a certain game to be played on certain days. You don’t even try to rob them or anything. That’s the game," said Weaver.
Weaver says it’s not gang related, teens are playing it because they’re bored. Plus, they’ve been seeing others doing it and getting away with it on the internet.
He says he used to play it because he was usually dared, while high and with a bad group of friends.
"They weren’t my normal group of friends. Someone just throws it out there and people go along with it. One thing leads to another and it just goes all down hill," said Weaver.
Weaver said they liked to target crowds because it would be easier for them to get away. It could be played during the day or night, and it didn’t matter who the victim was, man or woman, old or young; anyone could be a potential target.
read the rest
Nothing like getting shot twice to make your reevaluate your life, right? I’m actually happy to see that 17 year old Weaver seems remorseful for his actions. He had to learn the hard way but at least he appears to have learned his lesson.
11:09 am • 21 November 2013 • View comments
Tyranny: Harry Reid prepares vote on “nuclear option” to end filibusters of Presidential nominees
We have discussed this before at Poor Richard’s News. When one party essentially only runs one half of one branch of the government, effectively they are only a means to stop the agenda of the majority. This ability to put the brakes on is a safety mechanism to prevent tyranny of the majority. Right now, Harry Reid is taking a bold step towards tyranny, doing his best to eliminate the filibuster of Presidential nominees from the Senate.
from Washington Times:
Senate Democrats prepared Thursday to ignite the so-called “nuclear option” to change the chamber’s long-standing rules and eliminate filibusters of presidential nominees, in a move that could further erode an already flimsy veneer of cooperation.
“It’s time to change. It’s time to change the Senate before this institution becomes obsolete,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, said as he laid the groundwork for the move at the beginning of Thursday’s session.
Democrats signaled the final vote that would officially change Senate rules would happen later Thursday, in a test-vote on one of President Obama’s nominees to the federal appeals court in Washington — often viewed as the second-most important court in the country.
The move comes as Democrats are reeling from attacks over Obamacare, and seems in part designed to try to find something else to rally their troops.
Republicans said there’s little they can do to stop Mr. Reid, who has repeatedly threatened to change the rules but, until this week, had always backed down.
“When they don’t get everything they want, they resort to breaking the rules like this,” said Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican.
read the rest
Democrats repeatedly filibustered George W. Bush’s nominees when he was the President, and that is the way the system should work. It’s a simple mechanism of accountability. But Democrats don’t like accountability. They like to rule with with no questions asked.
10:44 am • 21 November 2013 • View comments
40 Congressmen join lawsuit challenging Obamacare’s Constitutionality based on origination
According to a report, 40 GOP Congressmen have joined a lawsuit that will challenge Obamacare’s Constitutionality. But this time, it’s not about the mandate but rather, about its origination.
On November 8, Representative Trent Franks (R-AZ) and thirty-nine other Republican members of the House of Representatives filed a “friend of the court” brief in support of a legal challenge to the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) based on the Origination Clause that will be heard by the District of Columbia Federal Court of Appeals in early 2014.
The case, Sissel v United States Department of Health and Human Services, was filed in the Washington, D.C. District Federal Court by the Pacific Legal Foundation on behalf of Matt Sissel, an Iraq war veteran who lives in Iowa, where he owns a small business, on July 26, 2010.
The Origination Clause of the Constitution, Article 1, Section 7, Clause 1 states "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills." Not a word of the Affordable Care Act originated in the House of Representatives. Instead, using a legislative trick, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) took an innocuous bill that had passed the House unanimously on October 8, 2009 by a 416-0 vote, the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009, removed every word of its text following the first sentence, and replaced it with the Affordable Care Act language.
Read the Rest
In case you’re a bit fuzzy on the details, here’s a short explanation:
If you’ll remember, both houses passed their own versions of so-called health care reform. But after the passing of Ted Kennedy, Massachusetts surprisingly elected Scott Brown to replace him, eliminating the Democrats’ filibuster proof majority in the Senate. This meant that the Senate couldn’t pass the House bill, because the Republicans had the ability to filibuster it. The House would have to pass the Senate’s version.
It was at this point that Obamacare was thought to be all but dead because very few expected that the bill that came out of the Senate would ever pass the House of Representatives. But lo and behold, with a little strong arming and shady, back-room deals, Nancy Pelosi was able to get the job done.
After the law’s passage, 26 states sued the federal government, insisting that the mandate, coercing citizens to purchase health insurance, was unconstitutional. But Justice Roberts and the majority of the Supreme Court ruled that the individual mandate was constitutional because the fines that would be issued for non-compliance weren’t fines at all but were actually “taxes”.
And, by definition, taxes do not exist as punishments for non-compliance, but exist to raise revenue. This means that by calling it a “tax”, John Roberts made Obamacare a revenue raising bill. I now refer you back to Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution:
"All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."
This, of course, means that Obamacare is plainly unconstitutional because it did not originate in the House of Representatives…except that it barely did. All Harry Reid did (or ever has to do) is find any bill that has ever passed the Congress, “amend” it by stripping out all the original language and change it to say anything he wants and bam! it “originated” in the House. These types of bills are called “shell” bills.
So, here’s the problem: did Obamacare (which is a revenue-raising tax) originate in the House of Representatives or in the Senate? Any objective and honest person would say the Senate.
2:04 am • 21 November 2013 • View comments
Supreme Court rejects Planned Parenthood’s request for injunction against Texas abortion law
Good news for the cause of life. Yesterday, the Supreme Court narrowly rejected a request by Planned Parenthood to halt the implementation of Texas’s new law requiring abortion clinics to have doctors on staff with admitting privileges at local hospitals.
from Courthouse News Service:
H.B. 2 bans abortions after 20 weeks, requires doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at local hospitals, imposes a U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved drug regimen for medication-induced abortions and requires abortion clinics to meet the same standards of ambulatory medical centers.
Gov. Rick Perry signed the bill into law this summer. The controversial legislation prompted an 11-hour filibuster by Democratic state Sen. Wendy Davis, who last month declared her candidacy for Texas governor.
In their federal complaint, Planned Parenthood and several affiliated health clinics had claimed that the admitting privileges mandate and the medication abortion restriction place unconstitutional burdens on women seeking abortions.
Though U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel permanently enjoined enforcement of the admitting privileges provision in late October, the 5th Circuit quickly stayed that injunction pending appeal.
Yeakel’s order had upheld the provision on medication-induced abortions.
Planned Parenthood petitioned U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in a 20-page emergency application to vacate the stay.
The application indicated that “in just the few short days since the injunction was lifted, over one-third of the facilities providing abortions in Texas have been forced to stop providing that care and others have been forced to drastically reduce the number of patients to whom they are able to provide care.”
The Supreme Court rejected Planned Parenthood’s request Tuesday, prompting a four-justice dissent signed by Justice Stephen Breyer.
"I would maintain the status quo while the lower courts consider this difficult, sensitive, and controversial legal matter," Breyer wrote.
Justice Antonin Scalia concurred in the denial along with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
read the rest
There have been countless cases of women who suffered severe medical complications during an abortion, and the law requiring abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital only makes sound medical sense. It’s rather ironic that the pro-abortion crowd who constantly masquerades as “women’s health” advocates cares more about the widespread availability of abortion on demand than it does about actual women’s health.
12:38 am • 21 November 2013 • View comments
Obama tells a joke: “We’re not lavishly spending on social programs.”
I really do wonder sometimes if President Obama actually believes all of the nonsense that comes out of his mouth or if he’s just intentionally dishonest. Yesterday, he told a group of business executives that the Federal budget is just hunky dory and that he’s not “lavishly spending on social programs.”
"What we know is, is that our — our fiscal problems are not short-term deficits. Our discretionary budget, that portion of the federal budget that isn’t defense or Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid, the entitlement programs, is at its smallest level in my lifetime, probably since Dwight Eisenhower.
"We are not lavishly spending on a whole bunch of social programs out there," Obama continued. "And in many ways, a lot of these programs have become more efficient and pretty effective," he added.
The U.S. Treasury Department records the following expenditures on a few of the many social safety-net programs for Fiscal 2013 and Fiscal 2012. In most cases, the amounts increased year-to-year:
—Medicaid: $265.392 billion ($250.534B in FY 2012)
—Food stamps (SNAP): $82.548 billion ($80.401B in FY 2012)
—Housing and Urban Development Department: $56.576 billion ($49.578B in FY 2012)
—Supplemental Security Income: $56.489 billion ($50.674B in FY 2012)
—Child Nutrition Programs: $19.325 billion ($18.309B in FY 2012)
—Temporary Assistance to Needy Families: $17.017 billion (16.136B in FY 2012)
—Women, Infant and Children (WIC): $6.557 billion ($6.837B in FY 2012)
As CNSNews.com has reported, Americans who were recipients of means-tested government benefits in 2011 outnumbered year-round full-time workers, according to data released in October by the Census Bureau.
read the rest
Obama’s notions that he has “reduced the deficit” is totally and completely meaningless. It’s Washington speak for “I’m still increasing the debt just not as fast as I did last year.”
Obama was handed an enormous $10 Trillion Debt when he took office but rather than reduce that debt as he promised, he has managed to nearly double it since then. Think about that for a moment. The previous 43 Presidents ran up a tab of $10 Trillion, and Obama has brought that number up to $17 in 5 years all by himself. The numbers are staggering and hard to imagine. In his best year, President Obama has outspent George W. Bush in his worst (and Bush made drunken sailors look like Dave Ramsey).
And what is Obamacare but a massive social program, the biggest in history! President Obama is either delusional or doesn’t know how to open his mouth without telling a lie.
10:34 pm • 20 November 2013 • View comments
Hospital removes custody of child from her parents because they argued with her diagnosis
15-year-old Justina Pelletier has been battling for several years with what her doctors diagnosed as mitochondrial disease. But when she got the flue 9 months ago and had to go to Boston Children’s Hospital, doctors their disagreed with Justina’s initial diagnosis, and told her parents that she had a mental illness, accusing her parents of exacerbating the problem by “over medicalizing” her. Boston Children’s quickly called The Department of Children and Families, and with days, the Pelletiers had lost custody of their daughter.
9 months later, the Pelletiers are still fighting to regain custody of their daughter who has been locked away in Boston Children’s Hospital.
from FOXCT (emphasis mine):
Justina was diagnosed with mitochondrial disease a few years ago. It’s a genetic disorder that can cause loss of muscle coordination and weakness.
Despite that diagnosis she lived a normal life.
But last February, she also got the flu and was admitted to Boston Children’s Hospital to see her specialist.
Almost immediately, a different team of doctors delivered a different diagnosis, questioning the original diagnosis of mitochondrial disease.
“They came in, and they said we cannot take Justina out of the hospital. They called DCF,” says Linda Pelletier, Justina’s mother.
They said Justina had “somatoform disorder.”
In short, they were saying she suffered from a mental illness, not mitochondrial disease.
Her parents, Lou and Linda Pelletier, were escorted out of the hospital by security, and within four days, they lost custody of Justina.
In addition to working with Justina, Dean Hokanson also testified at one of the court proceedings.
“They were actually being accused of being too active in pursuing healthcare matters for their child,” says Hokanson.
“It is kidnapping,” says Lou Pelletier.
Boston Children’s Hospital refused to comment about the case, but internal discharge documents obtained by Fox CT provide insight into why the hospital called DCF.
An April report written by a Boston Children’s physician shows that the hospital pulled Justina off many of her prior medications when she was admitted.
“Due to concerns regarding Justina’s regressive behavior changes around her family, the multiple medical procedures and care episodes she has been through … and both parents’ resistance towards recommended treatment plans for Justina … a child protection team was convened.”
Before entering Boston Children’s Hospital, Justina was on several medications and had undergone complex surgeries. The Pelletiers say Boston Children’s accused them of “overmedicalizing” their daughter.
But the family showed Fox CT proof that every procedure and prescription was sanctioned by doctors, including Tufts Medical Center specialist Dr. Mark Korson.
Tufts wouldn’t let Korson talk to Fox CT, but the Pelletiers did provide an email that Korson sent to their attorney, referring to Boston Children’s Hospital, their team of doctors and the somatoform diagnosis.
“I am dismayed. … It feels like Justina’s treatment team is out to prove the diagnosis at all costs. … The team has demanded that Justina be removed from the home. … This represents the most severe and intrusive intervention a patient can undergo … for a clinical hunch,” writes Dr. Korson.
read the rest
This is an absolute outrage. These parents have been following the direction of doctors for the treatment of their daughter, and now a team of doctors at Boston Children’s Hospital has stolen custody for the sake of proving their own diagnosis. The state’s ability to so quickly and easily remove a child from his or her parents custody should be alarming to parents all across America.
10:02 pm • 20 November 2013 • View comments
Enroll America director conspires to pass personal data from Obamacare to political operatives
James O’Keefe and his Project Veritas group strikes again, this time at the heart of the Obamacare navigator group Enroll America. His cameras caught Christopher Tarango, the Texas Director for EA, conspiring to provide personal information from Obamacare enrollees to Democrat operatives.
Here’s the video (highlight at the beginning, followed by unedited footage):
from Project Veritas:
After meeting with several Obamacare Navigators who openly encouraged our undercover reporters to lie about income status, health history and more, it became clear that personal data was also being “cross-pollinated.”
Enter Enroll America, a Sebelius-linked group dedicated to signing people up for Obamacare and Chris Tarango, Texas Enroll America Communications Director who Project Veritas caught on tape agreeing to help obtain a private list of potential Obamacare enrollee data for election/political purposes. Tarango goes so far to say he’ll “Do whatever it f****** takes.”
read the rest
ACORN, Organizing for Action, Enroll America. Different apples, same tree. All rotten to the core.
9:35 pm • 20 November 2013 • View comments
Obamacare: just about as popular as the Iraq war
Both were sold to the American people using bad information. Both costs the American people trillions of dollars. Both were devastating to the Presidents who led the efforts.
If you look at the polls, Obamacare is looking to be about as popular as the Iraq war, maybe even less so.
from Washington Examiner:
With the 2014 midterm elections now in the horizon, what’s most striking is how closely Obamacare polling is starting to resemble polling on Iraq in fall 2006, when a public backlash against the war enabled the Democrats to take over control of both chambers of Congress.
A Gallup poll taken days before the Nov. 7, 2006, election found that 55 percent of Americans had come to view sending troops to Iraq as a mistake, compared to 40 percent who said it was not.
Yet in the CBS News poll released Wednesday, 61 percent of Americans were found to disapprove of Obamacare, compared to 31 percent who approve. In the Washington Post poll, the numbers were 57 percent to 40 percent.
Granted, asking whether people approve or disapprove of a policy might yield different results than asking whether they think a policy is a mistake.
But in answer to another question asking whether Americans approve of Obama’s handling of the implementation of the health care law, the Washington Post poll found that 63 percent of Americans disapproved compared with 33 percent who approved.
A Time poll taken before the 2006 election found 65 percent disapproved of President Bush’s handling of Iraq compared to 31 percent who approved.
read the rest
With the unpopularity of the Iraq war hanging as an albatross around Republicans’ necks, Democrats shellacked them in the 2006 mid-term elections. One can only hope the Democrats (and statist Republicans who refuse to fight against Obamacare) face the same fate in next year’s mid-terms
9:14 pm • 20 November 2013 • View comments