PK'S NOTE: Those low level employees did it again, dammit.
Who's Tracking Your Children?
By Michelle Malkin
The school year may be over for most American students, but parents must
remain as vigilant as ever when it comes to protecting their children's
privacy. Look no further than the shocking, invasive conduct of the
Polk County, Fla., educational district last week. It's a
surveillance-state sign of the times.
Two days before their Memorial Day weekend break, kids from at least
three different public schools -- Bethune Academy (K-5), Davenport
School of the Arts (K-5, middle and high school), and Daniel Jenkins
Academy (6-12) -- were subjected to iris scans without their parents'
knowledge or consent. The scans are essentially optical fingerprints,
which the school intended to collect to create a database of biometric
information for school bus security.
One mother took to Facebook to decry the outrageous breach after her
son informed her of the unauthorized imaging. She posted a face-saving
letter from Polk County Senior Director of Support Services Rob Davis
notifying families only after the high-definition eye scans had been
conducted.
The mom, April Serrano of Kissimmee, Fla., recounted: "I have been in
touch with the principal at my son's school this morning regarding the
iris scans. She verified everything my son told me. ... She said that
she was following instructions from the Polk County School Board (PCSB),
and that she knew very little, if anything, about this before it
occurred. She just did as she was told."
The principal "did as she was told," no questions asked, just like a
compliant servant of Big Brother is expected to do. Thank goodness for
whistle-blowing parents unafraid to speak truth to mind-numbed power.
I phoned Davis, the school bureaucrat who oversaw the intrusive iris
scan initiative, on Wednesday after education reform activists spread
the word about Serrano's protest across social media. He confirmed to me
that the Orwellian incident indeed took place. Davis sheepishly
admitted that it was "a mistake on our part" that a notification letter
to parents did not go out earlier in the month. He then blamed a
secretary who had a "medical emergency" for the administrative mishap.
But this was far more than an innocent clerical error. Instead of
verifying that parents received the letter and ensuring that any
families who wanted to opt out had a chance to so, the schools allowed
officials from Stanley Convergent Security Solutions into the schools to
take iris scans of an unknown number of students as part of a "pilot"
security tracking program for students who ride the bus. Stanley
operates "identity management" systems using "Eyelock biometric readers"
that "ensure maximum convenience with unprecedented accuracy."
The participating Polk County schools were all notified, but somehow
the parents of students who ride on a total of 17 school buses to the
three schools were all left in the dark. In addition, the district had
planned to conduct a pilot scan program with another security company,
Blinkspot.
Davis says all of the data have been destroyed. So has the trust
parents had in these negligent educrats violating family privacy in the
name of "safety." Parents have asked the school board for proof that the
records have been wiped. Unsurprisingly, school officials have clammed
up now that they are under public scrutiny.
"I am outraged and sickened by this blatant disregard for my son's
constitutional right to privacy and my parental rights over my son,"
Serrano told me this week. Another affected mom, Connie Turlington, also
publicly challenged the school district on local TV station WFLA: "This
is a fingerprint of my child. Where does this information live? Who has
a hold of it? ... My question is: How is it deleted, and how can we be
assured as parents that it's gone?"
These parents are not alone. School districts across the country are
contracting with private tracking firms to monitor students. Some are
using radio frequency tracking technology (RFID) to log movements.
Khaliah Barnes, the open government counsel with the Washington,
D.C.-based Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), spelled out the
chilling implications for freedom of speech, religion and association
in a recent CBN interview: "Imagine for example a student being
dissuaded from attending a political interest group because she fears
that the tracking technology will alert the principal or other
administrators where her political affiliations lie."
Now, add the threat that the nationalized Common Core student
databases pose to students and families. As I've reported previously,
the feds are constructing an unprecedented nationwide student tracking
system to aggregate massive amounts of personal data -- including
health-care histories, income information, religious affiliations,
voting status and even blood types and homework completion.
The data will be available to a wide variety of public agencies. And
despite federal student-privacy protections guaranteed by the Family
Educational Rights and Privacy Act, the Obama administration is paving
the way for private entities to buy their way into the data boondoggle.
EPIC is now suing the federal Department of Education over its
regulatory sabotage of privacy protections.
Those who scoff at us "paranoid" parents for pushing back at Big
Brother in the classroom suffer from an abject failure of imagination
about government tyranny. Control freaks in public education understand
all too well: The hand that tracks our children rules the world.
http://townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/2013/05/31/whos-tracking-your-children-n1609737/page/full
Kindergartener interrogated over cap gun until he pees his pants, then suspended 10 days
In the latest incident of anti-gun hysteria to erupt in a school
setting, a kindergarten boy has been suspended from school for 10 days
because he showed a friend his cowboy-style cap gun on the way to
school.
The incident happened on Wednesday morning at about 8:30 a.m. on a school bus in Calvert County, Maryland, reports The Washington Post.
The kindergartener had brought the toy gun because his friend had
brought a water gun the previous day. He later told his mother than he
“really, really” wanted his friend to see it.
The suspended boy had acquired the menacing, plastic, orange-tipped
weapon at Frontier Town, a western-themed campground with a water park,
mini golf and the like.
School officials at Dowell Elementary School in the town of Lusby
proceeded to question the five-year-old for over two hours before
finally calling his mother, whom The Post also does not name.
The principal eventually called the boy’s mother at 10:50 a.m. By
that time, the five-year-old had wet his pants (which the mother called
highly unusual).
The principal told the boy’s mother that the boy had simulated
shooting someone on the bus with the offending novelty. However, both
the boy and his older sister, a first-grader, say the principal is not
telling the truth.
The Post explains that the principal — Jennifer L. Young, according to
Dowell Elementary’s website — told the kindergartener’s mother that
things would have been even worse had the toy gun been loaded with caps.
In that case, the school would have regarded the plaything as an
explosive and called the police.
“I have no problem that he had a consequence to his behavior,” the
mother told the Post. “What I have a problem with is the severity.”
The mother is also upset about the trauma her son experienced without her knowledge. “Why were we not immediately contacted?” she asked
The 10-day suspension is officially for possessing a look-alike gun,
notes the Post. If the suspension is not lifted, the kindergartener
won’t be able to go to school the rest of the year. The suspension will
also be part of his permanent academic record.
The family has hired an attorney, Robin Ficker, who has managed to
become something of a national legal expert in amazing overreactions by
school officials over things that aren’t actual guns. (PK'S NOTE: Good!!)
Ficker appealed the suspension on the family’s behalf on Thursday. On Friday, there will be a disciplinary conference.
The attorney noted that the the boy’s age is an essential factor when considering the punishment and the school’s actions. “Kids play cowboys and Indians,” Ficker told The Post. “They play
cops and robbers. You’re talking about a little five-year-old here.”
This incident is the second incident of anti-gun hysteria to erupt in
a school setting in as many weeks. There have been many others over the
course of this academic year as well.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/31/kindergartener-interrogated-over-cap-gun-until-he-pees-his-pants-then-suspended-10-days/#ixzz2Ut0M9Vus
The Continuing Wussification of America
I’ve shared some bizarre horror stories about adults being victimized
by anti-gun fanaticism, including the Washington, DC, man who got fined $1,000 for saving a child’s life and a British man who got arrested for finding a gun and turning it over to the police.
But I get more worried about the future of the country when I read
reports of children being subjected to this kind of politically correct
nonsense.
Consider, for instance, these absurd details from a local news report.
A
Massachusetts kindergartener has been given detention and could be
suspended from the bus after bringing a Lego-sized gun to school last
week. …the incident happened on an Old Mill Pond Elementary School bus
in Palmer last week. A 6-year-old had the toy gun, which is slightly
larger than a quarter, on the bus and it was seen by another student,
who alerted the bus driver. The boy’s mother, Mieke Crane, said her son
had to write a letter of apology to the driver, was given detention and
could be temporarily suspended from the bus.
Reading that passage, I don’t know whether to be more angry with the
bratty tattle-tale kid who told the bus driver, or with the bus driver
who obviously must have informed the school.
Both of them could use some serious counseling.
But that’s just part of the story.
The school sent home a letter to parents explaining what happened,
stressing no gun was on the bus and there was never any danger. “(The
driver) said he caused quite a disturbance on the bus and that the
children were traumatized,” Crane told WGGB.
A letter to parents about a tiny plastic toy gun?!? Are the bureaucrats
in this school so under-worked that they have time to waste on such
nonsense? If I was a parent in this school district, I would put my kids
in a private school.
Especially if it’s true that “children were traumatized” by a piece of
Lego. I wouldn’t want to take the risk that wimpiness and poor cognitive
skills could be transmitted by proximity to my kids (perhaps causing
them to need “emotional support” animals in college).
By the way, this is not an isolated example. To get depressed about the
future of the country, read these posts about children being exposed to
foolish thinking.
Stories like this make me wonder whether I should emigrate,
though the rest of the world tends to be in worse shape so the moral of
the story is that we need to save the United States from the brainless
(and overpaid) bureaucrats who are trying to ruin our children.
http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/danieljmitchell/2013/05/31/the-continuing-wussification-of-america-n1609933/page/full
Obama's Underhanded Trick to Undermine Opposition on the Broadcasting Board of Governors
Amidst controversy of secretly monitoring reporters’ phone records
and emails, the Obama Administration is attempting to replace the only
Republican member or the bipartisan Broadcasting Board of Governors
(BBG), which would create a severe imbalance in favor of Democrats.
The BBG—an independent federal agency that has the executive power to
oversee the running of Voice of America and the Office of Cuba
Broadcasting, Radio Free Asia, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and
Middle East Broadcasting Networks—is supposed to be bipartisan with nine
members, four Democrats and four Republicans, the last seat being held
by the Secretary of State or his designee.
Currently, the Board has only four members, Governor Victor Ashe is the
only Republican. The Obama administration is trying to replace Ashe
with Republican and former ambassador Ryan Crocker.
“Crocker is an excellent choice, but should join Ashe, not replace him,” Helle Dale of the Heritage foundation wrote last
Wednesday. “This gambit would leave the board with a four–two imbalance
in favor of the Democrats, and what should be a bipartisan foreign
policy endeavor, a centerpiece of U.S. public diplomacy, could be
accused of becoming a political tool.”
“The BBG has been a mess for a long time but in the context of all these
other scandals—it seems to me this is one very clear that one could way
to look at it--they really are trying to squeeze Republicans who want
to hold them accountable,” Dale told Townhall.
“It’s not necessary for him to be replaced. There are several vacancies.
They want to replace him because he is a real pain in the neck for them
demanding transparency and accountability and demanding people observe
the regulations of their own agency,” she said.
BBG meetings are now shown on the BBG website
because of Ashe’s advocacy for transparency, angering his fellow board
members. Ashe has also held the BBG accountable for waste and
mismanagement at the agency, prompting International Broadcasting Bureau
(IBB) executives to lobby the White House to get him removed from the
BBG board.
But the independent and nonpartisan Committee for U.S. International
Broadcasting (CUSIB) asked Senate Minority Leader to retain Ashe’s
membership.
“Replacing Victor Ashe on the BBG board at this time is
incomprehensible and looks to many as an attempt by bureaucrats and big
financial political contributors to get rid of a Governor who annoyed
them with his demands for accountability, transparency, and good
performance for American taxpayers,” the Tim Shamble President of the
CUSIB wrote.
Republican Matt Armstrong, director of the Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy has also been nominated to the board, along with another Democrat—Jeff Shell, chairman of NBC Universal.
The Chairman of the Board, Democrat Michael Lynton, CEO of Sony
Entertainment, had not attended a board meeting since December 14 and
resigned Sunday.
The BBG’s current state according the is dysfunctional, according to the Inspector General’s (IG) report published in February and needs urgent Congressional attention.
According to Freedom House’s Freedom of the Press 2013 report,
Press freedom has fallen to its lowest level in over a decade, making
the mission of BBG and its broadcasters—to inform, engage and connect
people around the world in support of freedom and democracy—even more
critical.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/aliciapowe/2013/05/30/obamas-underhanded-trick-to-undermine-opposition-on-the-broadcasting-board-of-governors-n1609698
Senate staffers offered classes on forgiveness, relaxation, sleep
Congressional staffers in need of a lesson on how to forgive, sleep,
relax and other lifestyle issues are in luck. The government is offering
lessons to teach
them just that.
“Come learn
the art of forgiveness. Learn how to ‘let go’ and move on!” reads an
announcement for an hour-long June 10 forgiveness event that was sent to
Senate staffers and obtained by The Daily Caller.
The forgiveness session, presented by the Senate Employee Assistance
Program, promises to teach the “Definitions of grudge and forgiveness;
Consequences of holding a grudge; Practical steps to forgiving and
moving on.” It will be offered as a webinar.
“Why should taxpayers pay for Senate staffers to use an hour of their
workday to learn about forgiveness?” Aaron Fobes, spokesman for
Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn, reacted to the event Thursday in an
email to The Daily Caller.
Tuesday, Coburn called on House Speaker John Boehner and Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid, to look at what he believes to be millions
of dollars in wasteful spending at the Capitol, including printing
costs, expensive perks provided to former House Speakers, costs for the
money-losing Senate barber shop and gift shops, staff transportation,
and other kinds of classes for Senate staffers on lifestyle issues.
In a letter to Boehner, Reid, Architect of the Capitol Stephen T. Ayers,
Senate Sergeant at Arms Terrance W. Gainer and the House Chief
Administrative Officer, Coburn pointed out that the Senate and House
have sponsored training programs, like the forgiveness class, that “frequently have little to do with legislation” for Congressional staff such as:
-
“A class to help staffers socially titled “Small Talk: Breaking the Ice in Social Situations”; and
-
A lifestyle class designed to help staffers titled
“Lighten Up! Spring Cleaning for your Body and Your Life,” where
staffers can learn about healthy eating and recipes to be “balanced,
calm and focused and several practices that will support you in
releasing the old and inviting in the new.
“Since Sequestration was implemented,” Coburn noted further, “both
the House and Senate have continued to hold classes for staffers that
have little if anything to do with legislating such as:
-
From Stress to Relaxation to help staffers with “exhaustion and lack of clarity” (Senate)
-
Your Credit Score – Friend or Foe (House)
-
Choose Your Attitude: Attitude is Everything (Senate)
-
What’s My Communication Style? (Senate)
-
Benefits of a Good Night’s Sleep (Senate)
The “forgiveness” program is the second in a webinar series EAP is providing through LifeCare,
a self-described “leader in the Employee Productivity & Loyalty
industry,” the first was the program on better sleep, a Senate EAP
staffer told TheDC.
The staffer added that EAP contracts with LifeCare for their services.
When pressed for additional information about the program, the
staffer declined to comment further, instead referring The Daily Caller
to the EAP director, who referred TheDC to the program’s press office,
which did not respond to request for comment.
Feds torpedo July 4th over 'sequestration'
But still find cash to teach landscaping, buy knitting supplies for inmates
Independence Day celebrations such as the annual public fireworks
display at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst in New Jersey have been
canceled due to sequestration-related cuts.
But somehow the federal government has found millions of dollars to buy yarn for prisoners.
The renowned Blue Angels of the U.S. Navy likewise must cancel shows
throughout 2013 due to sequestration, the automatic budget cuts designed
by President Obama. Critics have charged that the president is ordering
budget cuts in the way that most dramatically hurts the public, such as
closing the White House to public tours.
Surviving the budget ax, however, are U.S. penitentiary
landscape-design classes, technical assistance to “increase climate
resilience” in Mozambique and a planned survey of Indonesian mobile
phone users, according to procurement documents WND located in routine
database research.
The Department of Homeland Security’s seven-year, $22 billion
information technology project, known as Enterprise Acquisition Gateway
for Leading Edge Solutions II, or EAGLE II, also is proceeding
unimpeded.
DHS recently awarded 15 additional contracts, largely to Beltway-area
vendors. The companies stand to gain an unspecified level of contracts
to provide a vaguely defined “full range of business and technical
management services in support of DHS offices or programs.”
Some federal entities, indeed, have demonstrated discernment in the budgetary decision-making process. The Federal Bureau of Prisons, for example, canceled its procurement of nearly three tons of cake mix.
The following list of federal procurement actions
offers an additional snapshot of recent contracts, requests for
proposals and other solicitations, both large and small. The
nation-by-nation compilation is not a comprehensive list, but instead is
designed to enlighten U.S. taxpayers about how the federal government
is spending – or intends to spend – their money.
CHILE
A $514,000 grant
from the U.S. Trade & Development Agency will cover travel and
hotel accommodations for an information and communications-technologies
industry trip to Chile, where that sector will rely on taxpayer support
to assess potential business opportunities.
USTDA is providing the “technical assistance” to the Chilean
Undersecretariat of Telecommunications, which plans to build a National
Emergency Network. The grant will cover Phase One of the project, which
entails the hiring of a U.S. contractor to conduct a project
needs-assessment and to craft medium and long-term plans for the Chilean
government.
USTDA separately
will provide a $610,000 grant to the Chilean company Empresa Eólica
Tablaruca S.A., to carry out a feasibility study of a planned wind farm
on the island of Chiloé.
GHANA
USTDA is funding a feasibility study
at the request of Ghana Grid Company Limited, or GRIDCO, which
tentatively plans to build a power transmission line between the
municipalities of Aboadze, Domunli and Prestea. The agency on behalf of
GRIDCO will pay a U.S. vendor $655,000 to perform the study.
INDONESIA
The Broadcasting Board of Governors wants to survey mobile phone
users across Indonesia to improve its reach via Voice of America radio,
television and social media services.
The board says it wants to tap into additional markets, leveraging
extensive VOA programming that already reaches Indonesians through
hundreds of radio station affiliates, TV programs in dozens of regional
and national stations, and hundreds of thousands of followers via
Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.
Currently BBG is conducting a request for information from providers capable of conducting the mobile phone survey. A request for quotations has not yet been issued.
MOZAMBIQUE
The U.S. Agency for International Development intends to spend about $15 million to strengthen the ability
of Mozambique governmental and private institutions to “deal with
current and future weather-related impacts as a result of climate
change.”
The agency’s Coastal City Adaptation Project endeavor will hire a
contractor to train the institutions to “incorporate climate change
projections into their planning processes and to undertake adaptive
measures.”
SUDAN
The U.S. State Department is buying 100 chaise lounges, 60 outdoor dining sets and 60 outdoor seating sets for the U.S. Embassy in Khartoum. State issued a request for quotations but did not disclose an estimated cost.
UNITED STATES
The Rocky Mountain Region Law Enforcement and Investigation Officers unit of the U.S. Forest Service is purchasing about 100,000 rounds of service and training ammunition.
The acquisition includes 12 gauge 00 buckshot (2,500 rounds), 12
gauge slugs (2,500 rounds), S&W .40 (30,000 rounds ), 9mm. Luger(
4,000 rounds), .45 (2,000 .rounds), .380 (5,000 rounds), .223 (37,500
rounds), 22 long rifle (10,000 rounds) and 600 rounds of 45-70 Govt. 405
grain jacket flat nose/bear load.
Federal Prison Industries/UNICOR, a BOP component, awarded a $2.4 million contract to the Hickory, N.C.-based Shuford Yarns for 1.7 million pounds of yarn.
UNICOR provides job training to federal inmates, while its Clothing
and Textiles Business Group sells textile products to support
prisoner-related activities.
BOP separately is looking for a provider of landscape design and irrigation instruction
for incarcerated students at the U.S. Penitentiary, Atwater, Calif. The
selected occupational- training program provider weekly will offer 25
one-hour sessions to prisoners. BOP did not provide an estimated program
cost.
BOP canceled, however, a national system-wide solicitation for 35,000 pounds of cake mix as well as a separate procurement of 3,000 pounds of garlic, 3,000 pounds of ground black pepper and 100 pounds of oregano.
WORLDWIDE
USTDA will hire a contractor to perform an international “desk study”
of potential opportunities for U.S. power transmission, distribution
and smart-grid technology providers.
Although the procurement document
did not provide an estimated cost for the initiative, it noted that
USTDA, at its discretion, will consider budgeting $20,000 for contractor
travel “to conduct in-region meetings and assessments of the project(s)
under review.”
http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/feds-torpedo-july-4th-over-sequestration/
Protesters explain: Kochs must not buy LA Times because … tolerance
Yes, this is like shooting fish in a rain barrel, as Reason TV
discovered when it began asking protesters in Los Angeles why the Koch
brothers shouldn’t be allowed to buy the Los Angeles Times. Zach
Weissmueller finds that either the protesters couldn’t articulate any
clear reason why the Kochs would be bad owners, or believe (erroneously)
that the Kochs are hard-right activists (they’re actually
libertarians). But the best explanation — by which I mean the most
stunningly hypocritical — comes at about the 50-second mark, as one
protester explains that it’s all about tolerating other points of view.
As long as they’re reliably liberal, of course.
No, I am not joking:
PROTESTER: We’re at a point in our history where we need
to be a little more open-minded. Um, a little bit more liberal on views
all across the board.
WEISSMUELLER: [The] Kochs self-describe as libertarian, and they fund
a lot of groups that are against the drug war. The LA Times came out
against Prop 19, which would have legalized marijuana in LA, and they’ve
pushed anti-dispensary measures. Are you worried that in some sense
they would push the LA Times to the left on those kind of issues?
PROTESTER: Um, I believe that regardless of their views, it’s not what the general populace needs.
Aaaaaand there you have the core of the protest. These
people aren’t interested in becoming more open-minded. They want to
control speech in order to allow the general populace only those points
of view they need … in the opinion of the protesters.
I have no idea whether the Kochs will get the Tribune Company, or if they even really want it. The hue and cry over just the notion
that the Kochs might own a major newspaper has been in itself a very
enlightening experience about the nature of the Tolerance Lords in
American society.
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/31/protesters-explain-kochs-must-not-buy-la-times-because-tolerance/
Dick Morris: Obama Must Have Been 'Deeply Involved' in IRS Targeting
There's no chance President Barack Obama knew nothing of the IRS
targeting conservative groups, says political pundit Dick Morris. Why
else would IRS Commissioner Douglas Schulman have visited the White
House at least once a week?
"The incredible frequency of the White House visits — essentially weekly
— indicate that Obama must have been deeply involved with the inner
workings of the audits and harassment of conservative groups," Morris
writes on his website, DickMorris.com.
Morris asks what other reason would have brought Schulman to the White
House 157 times during the period that groups with "tea party,"
"patriot" and other conservative buzzwords in their names were being
targeted for extra scrutiny.
"Not ObamaCare. Not without having (Health and Human Services) Secretary
Kathleen Sebelius in attendance, you wouldn’t," Morris says. "About
Treasury issues? Deficit reduction? Not without Treasury Secretary Tim
Geithner."
The reason, Morris says, is that Obama was following the IRS actions with an "obsessive, personal involvement."
The Citizens United ruling galvanized Obama into action, Morris says,
and "tapped so deeply into his psyche that he was determined personally
to supervise the castration of the wealthy people and groups whose
access to the political system was opened wide by the (U.S. Supreme)
Court."
Schulman held a subordinate, non-policy making position, Morris said, so
to have seen him 157 times, Obama had to have been "a president on a
mission."
The scandal is not one of a rogue agency, Morris says, but one of a
rogue president using the agency for his personal purposes. "An
instrument of vengeance, or self-defense, and of political influence."
President Richard Nixon was doomed, Morris says, when the public
realized that his own paranoia had infected his entire administration.
"When Chuck Colson led the plumbers unit to investigate leaks and to use
the IRS to terrify and intimidate his enemies, we realized that he was
operating as Nixon’s man doing Nixon’s bidding based on the needs of
Nixon’s psyche," he writes.
The public now realizes that the IRS harassment went deeper than was initally admitted, he said.
"This scandal will destroy him."
An Antidote to Cynicism Poisoning
Restoring public faith will require a full investigation of the IRS's politicization.
By Peggy Noonan
The Benghazi scandal was and is shocking, and the Justice Department
assault on the free press, in which dogged reporters are tailed like
enemy spies, is shocking. Benghazi is still under investigation and
someday someone will write a great book about it. As for the press,
Attorney General Eric Holder is on the run, and rightly so. They called
it the First Amendment for a reason. But nothing can damage us more as a
nation than what is happening at the Internal Revenue Service. Elite
opinion in the press and in Washington doesn't fully understand this.
Part of the reason is that it's not their ox being gored, it's those
messy people out in America with their little patriotic groups.
Those who aren't deeply distressed about the IRS suffer from a
reluctance or inability to make distinctions, and a lack of civic
imagination.
An inability to make distinctions: "It's always been like this."
"Presidents are always siccing the IRS on their enemies." There's truth
in that. We've all heard the stories of the president who picked up the
phone and said, "Look into this guy," Richard Nixon most showily. He got
clobbered for it. It was one of the articles of impeachment.
But this scandal is different and distinctive. The abuse was
systemic—from the sheer number of targets and the extent of each
targeting we know many workers had to be involved, many higher-ups,
multiple offices. It was ideological and partisan—only those presumed to
be of one political view were targeted. It has a single unifying
pattern: The most vivid abuses took place in the years leading up to the
president's 2012 re-election effort. And in the end several were trying
to cover it all up, including the head of the IRS, who lied to Congress
about it, and the head of the tax-exempt unit, Lois Lerner, who managed
to lie even in her public acknowledgment of impropriety.
It wasn't a one-off. It wasn't a president losing his temper with
some steel executives. There was no enemies list, unless you consider
half the country to be your enemies.
It is considered a bit of a faux pas to point this out, but what we
are talking about in part is a Democratic president, a largely
Democratic professional administrative class in Washington, and an IRS
whose workers belong to a union whose political action committee gave
roughly 95% of its political contributions last year to Democrats. Tim
Carney had a remarkable piece in the Washington Examiner this week in
which he looked for campaign contributions from the IRS Cincinnati
office. "In the 2012 election, every donation traceable to this office
went to President Obama or liberal Sen. Sherrod Brown." An IRS employee
said in an email to Mr. Carney, "Do you think people willing to
sacrifice lucrative private sector careers to work in tax administration
. . . are genuinely going to support the party directed by Grover
Norquist?" Mr. Carney noted that one of his IRS correspondents had an
interesting detail on his social media profile. He belongs to a Facebook
FB +0.04%
group called "Target the Shutdown at the Tea Party States." It advised
the president, during the 2011 debt-ceiling fight: "For instance, shut
down air traffic control at airports in Norfolk, Tampa, Nashville."
Wow. I guess that was target practice.
Here is the thing. The politicization of
government employees wouldn't have worried a lot of us 40, 30 or even 20
years ago. But since then, as a country, we have become, as
individuals, less respectful of political differences and even of each
other, as everything—all parts of American life—has become more
political, more partisan, more divided and more aggressive.
There has got to be some way to break through this, to create new rules for the road in a situation like this.
Because people think the IRS has always, in various past cases, been
used as a political tool, they think we'll glide through this scandal
too. We'll muddle through, we'll investigate, the IRS will right itself,
no biggie.
But when a scandal is systemic, ideological and focused on political
ends, it will not just magically end. Agencies such as the IRS are part
of what Jonathan Turley this week called a "massive administrative
state," one built with many protections and much autonomy.
If it is not forced to change, it will not.
Which gets us to the part about imagination. What does it mean when half the country—literally half the country—understands
that the revenue-gathering arm of its federal government is politically
corrupt, sees them as targets, and will shoot at them if they try to
raise their heads? That is the kind of thing that can kill a country,
letting half its citizens believe that they no longer have full
political rights.
Those who think this is just business as usual are ahistorical, and
those who think nothing can be done, or nothing serious should be done,
are suffering from Cynicism Poisoning.
The House wants to proceed with hearings and an investigation itself,
and understandably. One reason is pride. "We are the ones who got the
IRS to do the audit," a congressman said the other night. Another is
momentum: An independent counsel would take time and take some air out
of the story. But Congress is operating within a lot of political
swirls. The IRS certainly doesn't seem to fear them—haven't its leaders
made that clear in their testimony so far? Congress itself is not highly
regarded by the public. Didn't I say that politely?
Some members have been scared into thinking that tough hearings will
constitute "overreach." But when you spend all your time fearing
overreach, you can forget to reach at all. A defensive crouch isn't a
good posture from which to launch a probe. And some members fear that if
they pursue and give time to something that is not an economic issue,
it will be used against them. But stopping the revenue-gathering arm of
the federal government from operating as a hopelessly politicized and
aggressive entity is an economic issue. It has to do with basic
American faith in, and compliance with, half of the spending/taxing
apparatus of the federal government. How could that not be an economic
issue?
There will be more hearings next week, and fair enough. But down the
road an independent counsel is going to be needed because the House does
not have all the prosecutorial powers an independent counsel would—the
powers to empanel a grand jury, to more easily grant immunity to
potential witnesses, find evidence of criminal wrongdoing, indict.
Another reason to want an independent counsel: There are obviously
many good, fair-minded workers in the IRS, people of sterling character.
They deserve to be asked about what they were forced to put up with,
what they felt they had to bite their tongues about. There may even be a
few stories about people who stood up and said: "You know you're
targeting Americans because they hold political views you don't like,
right? You know that's wrong, right? And I'm not going to do it."
It would be worth an investigation that breaks open the IRS to find
that person, and that moment. You have no idea how much better it would
make us feel, how inspiring and comforting, too.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324412604578515673945731506.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
White House: No special prosecutor for IRS scandal, despite public support
The White House will not be pushing for a special prosecutor to
handle the IRS scandal involving the targeting of conservative groups,
even as three-fourths of Americans are calling for one.
Asked aboard Air Force One about a Quinnipiac University poll that showed 76 percent of Americans want a special prosecutor to handle the case, White House deputy press secretary Josh Earnest said the administration isn’t looking at that option.
“We’re not,” Earnest said, according to a transcript. “And the reason
for that simply is that there is a new IRS commissioner in place, Danny
Werfel, who is a career civil servant, who represented — who served in
administrations led by Republican presidents and Democratic presidents.
He’s conducting a 30-day review.”
Earnest said there are plenty of people looking at the matter
— including House and Senate committees — and that the White House will
cooperate with those probes.
“So there are a lot of people looking at this from a lot of different
perspectives,” Earnest said. “And we’re confident that those who need
to be held accountable for the wrongdoing that occurred there will be
held accountable.”
Earnest’s comments echo President Obama’s remarks from two weeks ago,
when he said he would not push for a special prosecutor. Some
Republicans have publicly called for one, though.
As Rachel Weiner and Scott Clement reported today,
a majority of Americans generally favor special prosecutors for major
investigations, though the level of support for an IRS special
prosecutor is higher than for other events from recent years.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/05/30/white-house-no-special-prosecutor-for-irs-scandal-despite-public-support/?wprss=rss_politics
Headline:
"Brokaw seems to be employing a tactic
common among has-been journalists these days. They seem to be afraid
that any story seen as "bigger" than the stories they covered in their
day somehow diminishes their life work, and therefore any suggestion to
this effect must be smacked down immediately."
(PK'S NOTE: More like pushing the liberal agenda, folks. This is my shocked face.)
Obamacare's Slush Fund Fuels A Broader Lobbying Controversy
A little-noticed part of President Obama’s Affordable Care Act channels
some $12.5 billion into a vaguely defined “Prevention and Public Health
Fund” over the next decade–and some of that money is going for
everything from massage therapists who offer “calming techniques,” to
groups advocating higher state and local taxes on tobacco and soda, and
stricter zoning restrictions on fast-food restaurants.
The program, which is run by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS), has raised alarms among congressional critics, who call
it a “slush fund,” because the department can spend the money as it sees
fit and without going through the congressional appropriations process.
The sums involved are vast. By 2022, the department will be able to
spend $2 billion per year at its sole discretion. In perpetuity.
What makes the Prevention and Public Health Fund controversial is its
multibillion-dollar size, its unending nature (the fund never expires),
and its vague spending mandate: any program designed “to improve health
and help restrain the rate of, growth” of health-care costs. That can
include anything from “pickleball” (a racquet sport) in Carteret County,
N.C. to Zumba (a dance fitness program), kayaking and kickboxing in
Waco, TX.
“It’s totally crazy to give the executive branch $2 billion a year ad
infinitum to spend as they wish,” said budget expert Jim Capretta of
the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center. “Congress has the
power of the purse, the purpose of which is to insure that the Executive
branch is using taxpayer resources as Congress specified.”
The concerns are as diverse as the critics. The HHS Inspector
General, in a 2012 “alert,” was concerned that the payments to
third-party groups came dangerously close to taxpayer-funded lobbying.
While current law bars lobbying with federal money, Obama administration
officials and Republican lawmakers differ on where lawful “education”
ends and illicit “lobbying” begins. Nor have federal courts defined
“lobbying” for the purposes of this fund. A health and Human Services
(HHS) department spokesman denies that any laws were broken and the
inspector general is continuing to investigate.
Republicans in both the House of Representatives and Senate have
complained that much of the spending seems politically motivated and are
alarmed that some of the federal money went to groups who described
their own activities as contacting state, city and county lawmakers to
urge higher taxes on high-calorie sodas and tobacco, or to call for bans
on fast-food restaurants within 1,000-feet of a school, or total bans
on smoking in outdoor venues, such as beaches or parks. In a May 9
letter to HHS Secretary Sebelius, Rep. Fred Upton (R,Mich) wrote that
HHS grants “appear to fund lobbying activities contrary to the laws,
regulations, and guidance governing the use of federal funds.” His
letter included the latest in a series of requests for more documents
and complaints about responses to previous requests.
Some Democrats, including Obamacare champion Sen. Tom Harkin (D,
Iowa), are extremely unhappy with another use of Prevention Fund money.
The Obama Administration plans to divert $453.8 million this year from
that fund to use for administrative and promotional efforts to enroll
millions of people in health insurance exchanges that are said to be
vital to Obamacare’s success. Harkin calls this shift, which has not
been authorized by Congress, “an outrageous attack on an investment fund
that is saving lives.”
This extraordinary fund transfer coincides with HHS Secretary
Kathleen Sebelius’s much-criticized solicitation of health industry
officials for large “voluntary” corporate donations — on top of hefty
tax increases — to help implement Obamacare. Together, they give the
appearance of a desperate Administration effort to avoid the kind of
“train wreck” that Senator Max Baucus (D, Montana), a principal
architect of Obamacare, recently said he fears. That’s also one reason
why Republicans who want to kill Obamacare refuse to provide additional
funding for the exchanges.
An HHS spokesperson responded to an inquiry about the “lobbying”
complaints by saying that “HHS is committed to proper oversight and
monitoring of appropriated funds, and to awardees’ compliance with all
applicable regulations and statutes related to lobbying activities.” As
to the shifting of the $453.8 million, the spokesman said that it was
necessary “because Congress did not provide the resources requested” and
it would help individuals “sign up for affordable health coverage by
supporting . . . call centers that provide customer service, consumer
education and outreach.”
The lobbying controversy is akin to conservative complaints about the
2009 “stimulus” legislation, in which HHS directed some $373 million to
a “Communities Putting Prevention to Work” fund to states, counties and
cities and then onto to health advocacy organizations described in a Wall Street Journal editorial as “liberal pressure groups lobbying for fast-food taxes.”
With those stimulus grants largely spent, the Administration has used
Prevention Fund money — dispensing more than $290 million in fiscal
2012 and 2013 combined — for very similar “Community Transformation
Grants.” As in the case of the earlier grants, HHS made the grants
through the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Public documents, including CDC descriptions of grants’ goals as well as
the reports that grantees must file, are honeycombed with references to
seeking state and local policy changes, such as tax hikes on sugary
beverages and tobacco and zoning restrictions on fast-food
establishments.
Congressional investigators point to documents and federal websites,
which detail the spending that critics call “illegal lobbying.” A few of
the more than 100 examples cited by critics:
- In Washington state, the Prevention Alliance, a coalition of
health-focused groups, reported in notes of a June 22, 2012 meeting that
the funding for its initial work came from a $3.3 million Obamacare
grant to the state Department of Health. It listed a tax on
sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB), “tobacco taxes,” and increasing “types
of outdoor venues where tobacco use is prohibited” as among “the areas
of greatest interest and potential for progress.”
- The Sierra Health Foundation, in Sacramento, which received a
$500,000 grant. in March 2013, described its plans to “seek local zoning
changes to disallow fast food establishments within 1,000 feet of a
school and to limit the number of fast food outlets,” along with
restrictions on fast food advertising. A $3 million grant to New York
City was used to “educate leaders and decision makers about, and promote
the effective implementation of. . . a tax to substantially increase
the price of beverages containing caloric sweetener.”
- A Cook County, Ill. report says that part of a $16 million grant
“educated policymakers on link between SSBs [sugar-sweetened beverages]
and obesity, economic impact of an SSB tax, and importance of investing
revenue into prevention.” More than $12 million in similar grants went
to groups in King County, Wash. to push for changes in “zoning policies
to locate fast-food retailers farther from . . . schools.” And Jefferson
County, Ala., spent part of a $7 million federal grant promoting the
passage of a tobacco excise tax by the state legislature.
Among those who have expressed concern about questionable and
possibly illegal use of Obamacare Prevention Fund money to lobby — an
ambiguous term that the Administration interprets narrowly and its
critics broadly — are HHS Inspector General Daniel Levinson; Sen. Susan
Collins (R, Maine); and Chairmen Darrell Issa (R, CA) of the House
Oversight and Government Reform Committee and Fred Upton (R, MI) of the
House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Inspector General Levinson, a respected and veteran independent
investigator, was first appointed to his position overseeing the vast
HHS bureaucracy by President George W. Bush. He was retained in that job
by President Obama, who also named him to the Government Accountability
and Transparency Board. Last June 29, Levinson sent CDC Director Thomas
Frieden an “EARLY ALERT.”
It warned that reports posted by CDC grantees “contain numerous
examples of activities that, on their face, may violate anti-lobbying
provisions,” and that “some of the CDC information, as well as the
non-CDC resource materials posted to the CDC web site, appear to
authorize, or even encourage grantees to use grant funds for
impermissible lobbying.” The “alert” said that the IG would continue to
“evaluate more broadly” compliance with lobbying restrictions. A
Levinson spokesman declined recently to elaborate.
Collins, a leading Senate moderate, cited copious evidence in a May
1, 2012 letter to Sebelius that CDC has provided “official guidance to
grantees that appears to include an expectation that federal funds are
to be used for strategies that result in changes to state and local
policies and laws.”
While stressing strong support for “the wellness and prevention
mission of the CDC,” Collins cited examples including a report to the
agency by the Pennsylvania Department of Health, which received a $1.5
million CPPW anti-tobacco grant in 2010. Thanks to the federal money,
the Health Department reported, “210 policy makers were contacted . . .
31 ordinances were passed . . . there were 26 community presentations
made to local governments .. . and 16 additional ordinances were passed
this quarter, for a cumulative total of 47.”
HHS and CDC say that not only have they heeded these complaints, but
as HHS stressed in an April 1 letter to Upton, they have been committed
all along to “proper oversight and management of appropriated funds, and
to awardees’ compliance with all applicable regulations and statutes
related to lobbying activities.”
Spending to influence state and local legislation, critics claim,
violates a web of overlapping federal laws, beginning with the federal
Anti-Lobbying Act of 1919, as amended in 2002, which says: “No part of
the money appropriated by . . . Congress shall . . . be used directly or
indirectly to pay for any personal service, . . . telephone, letter,
printed or written matter, or other device, intended . . . to influence
in any manner a member of Congress, a jurisdiction, or an official of
any government, to favor, adopt, or oppose, by vote or otherwise, any
legislation, law, ratification, policy, or appropriation.”
This language is clear, unambiguous, and much broader than the HHS
regulations on lobbying. To be sure, these restrictions have long been
interpreted narrowly by the executive branch, a bipartisan tradition
that goes back at least to the administration of President George H.W.
Bush. And the Justice Department has never enforced the law against
anyone.
Still, the Sebelius interpretation of the Anti-Lobbying Act takes
narrow interpretation to extremes, flying in the face of the statute’s
very specific language. Sebelius testified on March 1, 2012 that the
statute’s lobbying provisions don’t apply to “local lobbying” or
lobbying by grantees, while acknowledging that a 2012 appropriation
provision — which unlike the Anti-Lobbying Act provides no penalties for
violators — barred such forms of lobbying.
HHS Assistant Secretary for Legislation Jim Esquea made a more
detailed argument to the same effect in an April 1, 2013 letter to Rep.
Upton, asserting that the statute prohibits “only large-scale,
high-expenditure, ‘grass roots’ lobbying campaigns conducted by federal
agencies that expressly encourage members of the public to contact their
elected representatives with respect to legislative matters.” But
Esquea relied on strained interpretations of obsolete precedents
predating major amendments that, in 2002, explicitly broadened the
Anti-Lobbying Act to cover for the first time lobbying of state and
local officials.
CDC guidelines permit the state and city agencies that it funds “to
work directly on policy-related matters across their equivalent branches
of state or local government.” That sounds reasonable enough. But to
critics it sounds like the guidelines would allow, if not encourage, a
city health department to spend federal money on lobbying (in the
fullest sense of that word) state and local lawmakers to raise taxes on
tobacco and sugary beverages.
Some grants seem to fit this interpretation. A $7.6 million CPPW
grant to the County of St. Louis to fund an anti-smoking “Community
Action Plan” for local activists. Under that plan, “the Leadership Team
will meet with the Governor and state legislators to advocate for the
repeal of [the state law] that prohibits municipalities from levying
their own cigarette excise taxes.” In quarterly reports to CDC for late
2010 through mid-2012 on how it had spent the federal grant, St. Louis
County said: “Leadership Team members . . . met with officials from two
municipalities about adopting a comprehensive smoke-free ordinance. . . .
Coalition members met with two County Council members and the County
Executive about strengthening the County’s new smoke-free ordinance. .
.. Several people, including restaurant owners, testified at three
consecutive County Council meetings in support of removing exemptions
from the County’s smoke-free ordinance.”
Finally, St. Louis County used almost $2 million of its federal grant
to pay the public relations-lobbying firm Fleischman Hillard for a
media campaign to strengthen an anti-smoking ordinance and push related
agendas.'
Many grantees and the federal bureaucrats who finance them maintain
that they can legally engage in efforts to “educate” both the public and
officials about, say, the public health benefits of taxing tobacco and
sugary beverages so as to reduce consumption. Chairman Upton, on the
other hand, rejected in an August 2012 letter what he called “the
improper distinction made by CDC between lobbying and ‘education
campaigns.’ ”
Enlisting other levels of government to do things [the federal
government] can’t do openly on its own is the latest example of
propaganda and politicizing efforts that only pretend to represent
policy reform,” said Tom Miller, an expert in health policy and law at
the American Enterprise Institute.
Other conservative health care policy advocates, such as Dr. Eric
Novack, an orthopedic surgeon in Phoenix, complain that using federal
dollars to lobby for more taxes and other liberal causes at the state
and local levels is an abuse of power that skews the natural balance of
state and local political forces. “With the hundreds of millions of
state and federal dollars annually flowing their way, [health care
advocates] are engaging in the lobbying equivalent of ‘shock and awe’
to get ever more money for themselves and to thwart efforts at real
reform”, said Dr. Novack.
Critics have also suggested that Sebelius (and Obama) “lack the legal
authority,” as Rep. Issa put it in his April 19 letter to Sebelius, to
divert $453.8 million in Prevention Fund dollars to help pay for the
establishment and operation of health insurance exchanges. Argues
Grace-Marie Turner, president of the Galen Institute, an Alexandria,
Virginia-based health-care think tank:
“The Obama administration is being very creative in
devising programs it says fit within the definitions of ‘prevention’ and
‘public health.’ The reality is that this is a slush fund. The
administration is using taxpayer dollars to further its political goals,
without any congressional input. That is an open invitation to misuse
and abuse of taxpayer dollars.”
But short of an unlikely bipartisan agreement, there’s not much that anyone in Congress can do about such complaints.
Strikingly, the most passionate denunciations of the $453.8 million
diversion have come from a senior Democrat, Sen. Tom Harkin,
self-described author of the Prevention and Public Health title of the
Affordable Care Act. Harkin succeeded the late Ted Kennedy, (D, MA) as
Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee
and has vowed to carry on Kennedy’s legacy of seeking universal access
to health care and, especially, full funding of prevention programs.
“It is ill-advised and short-sighted to raid the Prevention Fund,
which is making absolutely critical investments in preventing disease,
saving lives, and keeping women and their families healthy,” Harkin said
in his May 7 floor speech. “When it comes to Prevention, this
Administration just doesn’t get it. . . . To slash money from this fund .
. . is to cannibalize the Affordable Care Act in ways that will cost
both money and lives. It is a violation of both the letter and spirit of
this landmark law.”
In other words, the Democratic Chairman of the Health Committee is
calling the Democratic President’s “raid” on the Prevention Fund
illegal. But an HHS spokesperson counters that “this short term
investment will result in a long-term public health gain by helping
millions of people get access to care and improve our nation’s health.”
Other officials stress that with an October 1 Obamacare deadline to
start enrolling millions of individuals online, finding the money to
create and implement the insurance exchanges is a major challenge to the
success of Obamacare.
And money for setting up the exchanges is very, very short, despite
an overall Obamacare price tag of trillions over coming years. One
reason is that the Administration underestimated the cost, in part
because contrary to its expectation, only 17 states have chosen to
operate their own insurance exchanges. Another reason is Congress’s
refusal to appropriate more money for such administrative expenses.
Meanwhile, it may not be easy
to convince young or healthy people without employer-based insurance —
especially men, and especially with incomes too high to qualify for
Obamacare subsidies — that it would be a rational economic choice to buy
a government-approved insurance policy costing (the Congressional
Budget Office estimated in 2010) over $4,500 a year for an individual.
By contrast, the Obamacare fine will be far smaller for some
individuals.
The alternative choice of paying a relatively inexpensive Obamacare
penalty for refusing to buy insurance may seem more attractive to many,
especially after the Supreme Court stressed last June that such a choice
carries no stigma of law-breaking. The Affordable Care Act set the
penalty (which varies depending on income and the year) at only a
fraction of what the insurance would cost people who don’t qualify for
subsidies. At the same time, it guarantees a healthy person who chooses
the penalty rather than the insurance the right to reverse course and
buy the insurance at no extra cost not too long after he gets sick or injured.
So, as the Administration sets out to recruit enough young, healthy
people to keep premiums from soaring, it may need every dollar it can
find for advertising and outreach.
What some critics call a “slush fund,” may well turn out to be Obamacare’s own insurance policy.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/05/30/obamacares-slush-fund-fuels-a-broader-lobbying-controversy/
Obama fiddles for Democratic money while US and Chicago burn
With
(non--to him) scandals erupting around him our what, me worry?!
president, Barack Obama jetted to his home city, Chicago, for a group of
fund raisers--some hosted by IRS unthreatened liberal organizations--to raise money for the Democratic party to distribute to Democratic candidates.
Speaking to the one per centers--at one funder "Tickets there ran from $10,000 for dinner and photo to $50,000 for a table, photo and preferred seating"--Obama warned the crowd:
Obama said he's willing to work with Republicans, but can get more done with Democrats in charge of the House.
"If
day in, day out, what we confront is obstructionism for the sake of
obstructionism, and what appears to be an interest only in scoring
political points or placating a base as opposed to trying to advance the
interests of the American people, then we've got to figure out a way to
work around that," the president said. "And one of the best ways to
work around it is to have a Democratic House of Representatives.
"We've
got a politics that's stuck right now. The reason it's stuck is because
people spend more time thinking about the next election than they do
the next generation."
The
president faces no more elections, but with some fellow Democrats
criticizing him in the past for not focusing enough on the party's
strength in Congress, Obama has promised to be more involved in the
fundraising push this time out. The president intends to hold at least
eight fundraisers for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
(snip)
The
fundraising is part of a broader strategy by Obama's team. After his
2012 re-election, members of the president's campaign organization
retooled to form Organizing For Action, a nonprofit dedicated to raising
money to get his agenda passed in part by helping congressional
Democrats.
The retooled President Obama campaign organization had no IRS problems forming Organizing For Action.
While
Obama was speaking, some of Chicago's citizens not in attendance at
these funders were unproductively busy with other activities summed up
by the Chicago Tribune headline: "Woman, 56, Among 4 dead 11 wounded in city shootings."
These
shootings took place within several miles of the Obamas' Chicago home.
All the perps and many of the victims resembled the sons he would have
had; the others resembled Michelle Obama. According to real estate blog
NeighborhoodScout, four of the 25 most dangerous neighborhoods in America are in Chicago and that's where most of these incidents occurred.
Although
Obama didn't know about the mayhem when he spoke--apparently, as with
the other scandals, his aides didn't tell him--even he realizes there is
trouble, trouble right here in Chicago.
While
reciting a litany of difficulties the country still faces, Obama
localized his pitch for gun control, noting Chicago's problems with
street violence.
"There
are still kids just a few miles from here who are threatened by gun
violence, who aren't in a school that is giving them what they need to
compete in this 21st century, and whose prospects are dim, if we're
honest, not because they don't have the innate capacity, but because we
as a society have decided that's not our priority," Obama said.
Uhm,
apparently years ago, when Obama served so diligently as a state
senator in the corrupt Illinois legislature voting "present", his aides
didn't tell him that Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws
in the nation along with one of the highest murder rates...with guns.
And surprise!, like immigration laws and Iran sanction laws, most of the
criminals ignore gun control laws. And governments can't and/or
won't--enforce them.
As
for society's priorities, oh dear, once again, his aides haven't
informed our totally oblivious president that billions upon trillions of
dollars have been spent on these "kids...who are threatened by gun
violence, who aren't in a school that is giving them what they need to
compete in this 21st century, and whose prospects are dim..." in the
form of liberal decided and developed income redistribution schemes
"giving them" "free" food, "free" education, "free" health care, "free" housing, "free" i phones, "free" this, "free" that.
Therefore,
by the law of expected consequences, stated by those who the liberals
would scornfully describe as "uncompassionate conservatives," these kids
are not their parents' priority. Not that the parents don't care. Many
of them do. But everything is "given to them." They don't build
anything. The majority of these kids are born into single parent
families--no, not medical miracle births but households with an absent,
non working father; to teen aged or very young parents, minimally
educated, no matter how hard teachers try--and they do. The schools
can't "give them" an education from any century because so many--not all
but enough--of the students are so disruptive, come from unstable,
chaotic homes and communities--re
read the information above about dangerous neighborhoods--that teachers
can't overcome the familial or communal negatives.
Why
work hard when deviant behavior is rewarded and responsible, hard
working behavior penalized? The education messages are in conflict;
cognitive dissonance in elementary (school) action.
Will someone please inform the presidential aides so they can inform the president about the reality?
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/05/obama_fiddles_for_democratic_money_while_us_and_chicago_burn.html#ixzz2UsmhoMwZ
Feds to Spend $472,150 to Teach Fish Survival Skills
A Department of Interior grant will allocate $472,150 to teach bonytails and sucker fish survival techniques, CNS News reports:
The Department of Interior will be spending $472,150 to teach survival skills to bonytails and sucker fish.
“The objective of the proposed project is to determine if training
increases Bonytail and Razorback Sucker survival when exposed to
predators,” the grant abstract states.
“This proposal builds upon the 2012 Bureau of Reclamation assistance
agreement with the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD) tasked with
investigating the potential for training Bonytail and Razorback Suckers
to recognize and avoid predators,” says the abstract for the program.
“One of the early conclusions of the prior work is that the schooling
behavior of Bonytail may allow untrained fish to show improved survival
because they recognize predator avoidance behaviors exhibited by
trained individuals,” the abstract states.
[...]
The abstract gives the three “components” of the almost half-a-million dollar project:
1) Pond restoration
2) Intensive predator avoidance training and marking
3) Remote sensing of marked fish to assess short-term post-training survival
The $400,000 grant to train fish is hardly the only recent example of questionable tax dollar use by the federal government.
A May investigation revealed a Richmond firm has received $500,000 in federal stimulus to build a recycling plant, yet has built nothing and created no jobs.
As of October 2012, the federal government had approximately 1,900 open cases investigating possible misuse of stimulus funds.
http://freebeacon.com/feds-to-spend-472150-to-teach-fish-survival-skills/
Trayvon, George, and the Homeless Man
At a pre-trial hearing on May 28, the attorney for accused murderer George Zimmerman, Mark O'Mara, slipped a time bomb into the public record that no one
in the major media seemed to notice. It had to do with a homeless man,
and the relationship between that man and the victim of Zimmerman's
alleged crime, Trayvon Martin.
O'Mara's
allusion had particular resonance in this case because Zimmerman first
surfaced publicly in Sanford, Florida, in a case involving a homeless
man. As it happened, in December 2010, a police lieutenant's son named
Justin Collison sucker-punched a black homeless man named Sherman Ware
outside a Sanford bar, with seeming impunity.
Although
Ware suffered a concussion, and there was video evidence of Collison's
action, no action was taken against Collison for nearly a month. Upset
at the lack of media attention, Zimmerman and his wife Shellie printed fliers demanding that the community "hold accountable" officers responsible for any misconduct.
They
then drove the fliers around to area churches and passed them out on a
Sunday morning. Later, at a public meeting in January 2011, Zimmerman
took the floor and said, "I would just like to state that the law is
written in black and white. It should not and cannot be enforced in the
gray for those that are in the thin blue line."
This
meeting was recorded on video. As a result of the publicity, Police
Chief Brian Tooley, whom Zimmerman blasted for his "illegal cover-up and
corruption," was forced to resign.
Ironically,
perhaps, Zimmerman headlined his fliers with a famous quote from
Anglo-Irish statesman Edmund Burke: "The only thing necessary for the
triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." He would have been
better off quoting another Anglo-Irishman, Oscar Wilde: "No good deed
goes unpunished."
The
local NAACP, with whom Zimmerman worked on the Sherman Ware case,
instinctively turned its back on him as soon as he was accused of racist
profiling in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin. On March 26, a
month after the shooting, George's older brother Robert sent an
impassioned letter to local NAACP head Turner Clayton asking him to
"call off the dogs. Period. Publicly and swiftly."
As
Robert reminded Clayton, Zimmerman's "was the only non-black face in
the meetings for justice" in the Ware case. "It's time for you to end
the race issue in this matter and call for cooler heads to prevail,"
Robert pleaded -- but without success, or even the expectation of it.
Ware's
attorney, in fact, was Natalie Jackson, now a key player on Team
Trayvon. When the Zimmerman family talked publicly about George's
involvement in the Ware case, Jackson denied that Zimmerman had handed
out any fliers and dismissed the family's attempt to establish
Zimmerman's commitment to racial justice. "It's a PR strategy, a
propaganda campaign," said Jackson. "His friends and family are doing him a big disservice by race-baiting."
Although
Judge Debra Nelson ruled against the inclusion of almost any negative
information about Martin in the upcoming trial, the defense had managed
to get much of that information into the public sphere. CNN, for
instance, headlined its article on the May 28 ruling "Marijuana, fights,
guns: Zimmerman loses key pretrial battles." Below the headline was a
photo of the young Martin, a near-saint only months back, recycling a
lungful of marijuana smoke. If nothing else, the media were catching on
to Martin's less than saintly behavior.
The
media missed, however, O'Mara's reference to homelessness and Martin's
attitude towards it. O'Mara informed Judge Nelson that Martin had a
keen interest in fighting and that he had video proof of the same. The
charmless Nelson made one of her rare stabs at humor by implying that if
attendance at a fight were proof of criminality, half of America would be in jail.
O'Mara
countered by saying that Martin not only attended fights, but that he
also recorded them on video, including "one where two buddies of his are
beating up a homeless guy." The video recorded a crime. The State of
Florida had had this video in possession for months and took no
follow-up action. As O'Mara made clear at the most recent hearing, the
State had concealed critical evidence all along. He even produced a
whistleblower from the state attorney's office to hammer home his point.
Judge
Nelson made no comment on the beating of the homeless man. She had a
case to misdirect, and she wasn't about to quibble over something as
insignificant as justice.
