People will never cease to surprise - and disappoint - me.
I just removed a former friend from my contacts list and deleted his blog from my favorites list.
Why?
Not because we disagree on policy. No. I was forced to ditch him when it became clear to me that he is a hypocrite.
Fakes... phoneys... hypocrites... I simply can't abide them.
Say what you will about me and my faults (and I know I have plenty of 'em), but with me you see what you get and you get what you see. I'm intellectually and ethically consistent. What a wonderful world it would be if most others were.
It's one thing to lack knowledge...
It's one thing to be too lazy to do the research and reading necessary to know what you're talking about...
It's one thing not to be all that bright... after all, IQ is IQ...
But to ignore facts and reason? To lay false charges? To switch on a dime one's supposed principles...?
No. People like that simply aren't worth dealing with.
Nevertheless... today is a sad day for me.
13 comments:
http://www.popecenter.org/commentaries/article.html?id=2714
* BY GEORGE LEAF
On May 23, the Romney campaign released a white paper entitled “A Chance for Every Child.” It sets out Mitt Romney’s thoughts on improving both K-12 and higher education in America. I read through the pages dealing with higher education and found just what I had anticipated — criticism of the status quo coupled with meek changes that won’t rock the boat.
(*SIGH*)
Sadly, the paper’s higher education section begins not with criticism but instead with the boilerplate cheer that American higher education is “the envy of the world” and is our economy’s “greatest competitive strength.” Yes, there are some towering peaks to be found in our colleges and universities, tremendous educational programs that have trained some of the world’s best minds. For the most part, however, our system is one of highly expensive mediocrity. The rest of the world does not envy the United States for the hordes of young people who go to college, enjoy years of partying interrupted by occasional work, then graduate (if at all) with minimal gains in cognitive ability.
(*NOD*)
Romney earns an "A" for challenging the conventional belief that the labor force is changing in ways that require more and more workers to have a college education.
The paper correctly states that “the current emphasis on the standard four-year degree may be misplaced” and that most jobs will call for two-year degrees, occupational certificates, or apprenticeships.
That is an important point. Ever since the Johnson administration, federal higher education policy has been built on the premise that the more students who earn B.A. degrees, the better. Romney apparently is willing to deny that and acknowledge that much of the preparation for work is best done outside of formal college degree programs.
(*TWO THUMBS UP*)
The writers of the paper also grasp that the abundant federal aid (grants and loans) to students helps to drive up the cost of going to college. They grasp that many students are left with large debts whether or not they complete their degrees and that, with default rates rising, taxpayers are going to be “left on the hook” for a lot of unpaid college expense.
(*NOD*)
What would logically follow from those observations is that federal policy should no longer lure young people into the quest for those standard, expensive four-year college degrees. Unfortunately, the paper does not call for any serious change in the status quo.
* FUCKING ROMNEY... (*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)
Its big summary merely says, “A Romney Administration will address these challenges by improving access and affordability, promoting innovation, and ensuring transparency about performance.”
* JEEZUS... THE SAME BOILERPLATE WE'D GET FROM ANY CANDIDATE OF ANY PARTY!
* FOLKS... PLEASE... READ THE FULL ARTICLE!
Getting into the business of financing higher education was one of the country’s worst decisions. Unfortunately, Romney doesn’t show any interest in undoing it, even gradually. ... That Romney doesn’t want anything but cosmetic changes was evidenced in April when he hastened to match President Obama in declaring that the interest rate on federal student loans must not be allowed to rise from the ridiculously low rate of 3.4% to 6.8%. Rick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute accurately labeled this a bipartisan "Panderfest."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303740704577523182666590806.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop
There he goes again. The U.S. Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, Thomas Perez, announced another "fair lending" settlement Thursday. Not that anyone did anything wrong.
* TO REITERATE...
Not that anyone did anything wrong.
(*PURSED LIPS*)
Wells Fargo is coughing up $175 million to atone for alleged discrimination against minority borrowers at the height of the housing mania. Wells admitted no guilt and said it is settling only to curb legal costs. (Given the Obama team's track record in these cases, that sounds right.)
Mr. Perez offers no evidence of intentional racial discrimination under the 1974 Equal Credit Opportunity Act or the 1968 Fair Housing Act. Nor did the government look for it. According to the bank's press release, Justice's case is "based on a statistical survey of Wells Fargo Home Mortgage loans between 2004 and 2009, and the claims primarily relate to mortgages priced and sold to consumers by independent mortgage brokers."
In other words, Justice sampled Wells's mortgage loans, ran a statistical analysis of who received those loans, at what price, and compared the results to a model of what the government estimated that Wells should have theoretically charged minority borrowers. This so-called disparate-impact analysis takes no account of bargaining between lenders and borrowers, or other factors that might relate to credit-worthiness. It also doesn't consider the intent to discriminate, which is required in most other realms of civil and criminal law.
Justice itself has implicitly acknowledged that these types of charges are legally questionable.
* TO REITERATE...
Justice itself has implicitly acknowledged that these types of charges are legally questionable.
(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)
The same Mr. Perez convinced the mayor of St. Paul, Minnesota in February to withdraw a Supreme Court case, Magner v. Gallagher, which challenged the use of disparate-impact analysis under the Fair Housing Act — and by extension, under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, which contains similar antidiscrimination language. (Mr. Perez feared that if St. Paul had won the case, which was widely expected, Justice would lose its disparate-impact hammer.)
* YEP. THAT MAYOR - CHRIS COLEMAN - IS INDEED A DEMOCRAT. (*SMIRK*) FOLKS... THE "GAME" IS RIGGED. (*SHRUG*)
The Wells settlement will ripple through the U.S. housing market. The bank is ditching independent mortgage brokers for fear of more frivolous litigation...
* FRANKLY, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH BANKS DITCHING INDEPENDENT MORTGAGE BROKERS. BANKING SHOULD BE DONE... IN BANKS... BY BANKS... NOT BY INDEPENDENT MORTGAGE BROKERS.
Lenders may also feel pressured to lend to minorities who can't afford the loans in a bid to meet Justice's unofficial loan quotas. Lending to bad credit risks rarely turns out well, as Americans have been painfully learning for five years.
(*RUEFUL CHUCKLE*)
* FOLKS... IT NEVER ENDS! THE INMATES ARE RUNNING THE ASYLUM.
* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/13/morning-bell-obamas-imperial-presidency-guts-welfare-reform/?roi=echo3-12545794707-9134079-711ab131f115b1863c9adfb258fba5f4&utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
The Imperial Presidency has overturned Congress and the law again.
Not content to stop at rewriting immigration policy, education policy and energy policy, yesterday, President Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released an official policy directive rewriting the welfare reform law of 1996. The new policy guts the federal work requirements that were the foundation of the Clinton-era reform.
* TO REITERATE...
The new policy guts the federal work requirements that were the foundation of the Clinton-era reform.
* BTW... THEY WERE ACTUALLY MORE "THE GINGRICH REFORMS." RECALL... CLINTON VETOED THE REFORMS THREE TIMES PRIOR TO FINALLY GIVING IN TO PUBLIC PRESSURE. (*SHRUG*)
While this real news occurred yesterday, most of the media remained fixated on political ads and speeches, letting a major and unilateral shift in America’s welfare system go nearly unreported.
* SO WHAT ELSE IS NEW...??? (*SNORT*)
Welfare reform replaced the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children with a new program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The Heritage Foundation played a pivotal role in building bipartisan consensus for the reform and providing many of the recommendations that became part of the law. The whole point was that able-bodied adults should be required to work or prepare for work as a condition of receiving welfare aid.
TANF became the only welfare program (out of more than 70) that promoted greater self-reliance. It moved 2.8 million families off the welfare rolls and into jobs so that they were providing for themselves. Child poverty fell, and single-parent employment rose. Recipients were required to perform at least 20–30 hours per week of work or job preparation activities in exchange for the cash benefit.
Now, Obama’s HHS is claiming that it can waive those work requirements that are at the heart of the law, and without Congress’s consent.
* TO REITERATE...
Now, Obama’s HHS is claiming that it can waive those work requirements that are at the heart of the law, and without Congress’s consent.
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)
* FOLKS... (*SIGH*)... WHEN I SAY THE CONSTITUTION IS DEAD... THE REPUBLIC IS DEAD... THE RULE OF LAW IS DEAD... I'M NOT BEING MELODRAMATIC!
When it established TANF, Congress deliberately exempted or shielded nearly all of the TANF program from waiver authority.
* TO REITERATE...
When it established TANF, Congress deliberately exempted or shielded nearly all of the TANF program from waiver authority.
* WE CALL THIS "THE LAW."
They explicitly did not want the law to be rewritten at the whim of HHS bureaucrats.
* THUS... "THE LAW."
In a December 2001, the non-partisan Congressional Research Service clarified that there was no authority to override work and other major requirements: “Effectively, there are no TANF waivers,” it reported.
But that did not stop the Obama Administration, which has been increasing welfare spending at an alarming rate already.
Heritage experts Robert Rector and Kiki Bradley explained...
"In the past, state bureaucrats have attempted to define activities such as hula dancing, attending Weight Watchers, and bed rest as 'work.' These dodges were blocked by the federal work standards. Now that the Obama Administration has abolished those standards, we can expect 'work' in the TANF program to mean anything but work. The new welfare dictate issued by the Obama Administration clearly guts the law."
Obama certainly didn’t tell people he was going to gut welfare reform when he was running for President in 2008...
While the 1996 welfare reform successfully moved people from welfare into work, it did not “end welfare as we know it.”
Now, however, the Obama Administration has ended welfare reform as we know it.
President Obama has added millions to the welfare rolls, and his Administration has come under fire lately for its efforts to expand and add more Americans to the food stamp program.
This is a chronic problem: Over the past two decades, welfare spending has grown more rapidly than Social Security and Medicare, education, and defense. The TANF reform was one small step in the direction of reducing Americans’ dependence on government programs and getting them back on their feet.
* AND NOW OBAMA SCHEMES TO REVERSE THE PROGRESS MADE... (*SIGH*)
Cutting its work component is likely to unnecessarily swell the ranks of welfare recipients and with no way to pay for it.
* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_scott_rasmussen/why_obama_s_still_in_the_race_despite_the_bad_economy
* BY SCOTT RASMUSSEN
There are plenty of reasons that the economy is the most important issue of Election 2012.
Unemployment has remained high for a long time, and even 27% of those who have a job are worried about losing it.
Only half of homeowners now believe their home is worth more than what they still owe on it.
Just 16% believe that today's children will be better off than their parents.
These numbers present a real challenge for President Obama. Americans today rate their own financial health just about the same as they did on the day he was inaugurated, but not nearly as well as they did in the fall of 2008. Only 30% believe the country is better off than it was four years ago.
* AND OF THIS 30%... I'M GUESSING THAT 99.999% HAVE SOME SORT OF MENTAL DEFICIENCY! (*SNORT*) (*SMIRK*)
The president does benefit from a belief that he inherited a bad economy and that the recession was created by the Bush administration.
* REMEMBER, FOLKS... THE GOP ISN'T KNOWN AS "THE STUPID PARTY" FOR NOTHING. THE FACT THAT THEY NEVER PUSHED THE FACT THAT NANCY PELOSI AND HARRY REID CONTROLLED THE HOUSE AND SENATE ALL THROUGH 2007 AND 2008 (WHEN THE SHIT HIT THE FAN) IS LARGELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS MISALLOCATION OF BLAME. (NOT TO SAY THAT BUSH AND THE 2001-2006 HOUSE AND SENATE DIDN'T MAKE PLENTY OF MISTAKES... THEY CERTAINLY DID!)
But most voters also believe that his policies have hurt more than they've helped. Overall, by a 50% to 42% margin, voters trust Mitt Romney more than the president when it comes to managing the economy.
* MEANING THAT 42% OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC STILL BELIEVES OBAMA HAS A FRIGGIN' CLUE! (FOLKS... GOD HELP US...)
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)
Still, the president remains very competitive in his bid for re-election. This may be partly due to the fact that there has been some very modest economic growth over the past couple of years.
* NO. IT'S DUE TO THE SHEER NUMBER OF IDIOTS WHO ENJOY THE FRANCHISE. (*SHRUG*)
It also may be because Americans aren't feeling all that good about either candidate.
* WELL... THERE YOU'VE GOT A POINT! (FUCKING ROMNEY...) (*GNASHING MY TEETH*)
If the president is re-elected, just 32% of voters nationwide believe the economy will get better...
* AGAIN... IT'S NOT "THE ECONOMY, STUPID" AS MUCH AS IT'S "THE STUPID... PERIOD." (*RUEFUL SMILE*)
...while 37% believe it will get worse.
If Romney wins in November, 36% expect the economy to improve, but 35% believe the opposite.
(*SHRUG*)
* SERIOUSLY, FOLKS... WE'VE PASSED THE TIPPING POINT. AT BEST... AT BEST... A ROMNEY WIN WILL DELAY THE INEVITABLE.
So Romney has a slight edge, but the emphasis is on the word slight. And among the key block of unaffiliated voters who will decide the election, just one in four expects either man to make things better.
Part of the skepticism comes from the fact that 66% of voters believe that the best thing the government could do to help the economy is to cut spending. But most voters don't believe spending will be cut no matter who wins in November.
* AND THEY'RE RIGHT!
Additionally, voters overwhelmingly trust their own economic judgment more than they either Romney's or Obama's.
* THEY SHOULD TRUST ME. (*WINK*)
Yet there is a larger issue at work here. Politicians and their cheerleaders in the political class assume that the role of government is to manage the economy. Most voters don't. In fact, most think it's more important for the government to protect individual rights than to promote economic growth.
* IF ONLY...
That leaves the business of job creation and economic growth to the private sector, a perspective that makes sense to most Americans. Sixty percent believe job growth will come from business leaders who are focused narrowly on trying to help their own businesses grow. Just 24% think decisions made by government officials focused on public policy will create more jobs.
A politician promising to fix the economy has about as much credibility as a plumber promising to fix your electrical problems.
Most voters recognize the importance of government in providing a healthy business environment, but they believe it's the private sector that creates economic growth. They're hoping to find a president who understands that, as well.
* WE'RE FUCKED...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/geithner-drawn-into-libor-scandal/2012/07/12/gJQArDhbgW_story.html?wpisrc=al_comboNE
Last month, London-based Barclays, one of Europe’s largest banks, admitted that it schemed to manipulate Libor during the financial crisis — and its chief executive has asserted that regulators knew about its activities but didn’t do much to stop them.
The scandal has led to the resignation of Barclays’s senior executives.
* BUT NOT ARREST. (*SMIRK*)
* AND NOW IT TURNS OUT... (KEEP READING!)
While president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Timothy F. Geithner pressed British regulators to "reform" the way a critical global benchmark called the London interbank offered rate, or Libor, is calculated, according to a June 1, 2008, e-mail obtained by The Washington Post.
* IN OTHER WORDS... GEITHNER KNEW THE FRAUD WAS HAPPENING!
It’s unclear what other steps Geithner took and whether his efforts stopped any wrongdoing by banks.
* WHAT NEEDS TO BE "CLARIFIED?" GEITHNER KNEW IN JUNE OF 2008 (AND PROBABLY LONG BEFORE THAT) BUT HE DIDN'T PUBLICLY "OUT" THE CORRUPT BUSINESS PRACTICES!
With the Libor scandal threatening to migrate from London to Washington, pressure is growing on regulators and Geithner, who is now the Treasury secretary, to explain what they knew and when.
(*SMIRK*)
On Thursday, several key Democratic senators called on the Justice Department to "hold accountable" bankers and regulators who failed to “stop wrongdoing that they knew, or should have known, about.”
* NO DOUBT WHILE PROTECTING GEITHNER AND OTHER OBAMA APPOINTEES AND KEY DEMOCRATIC INSIDERS... (*SIGH*)
* HEY, JON CORZINE... WHAT'S UP, DUDE!?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/newt-gingrich-preparing-for-the-next-outage/2012/07/12/gJQAI1QQgW_story.html
* AND THIS GUY COULD HAVE (SHOULD HAVE) BEEN THE GOP NOMINEE AND PRESIDENT COME 2013.
* JEEZUS... THEY DON'T CALL THE GOP "THE STUPID PARTY" FOR NOTHING...
(*SIGH*)
* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)
http://takimag.com/article/bad_days_for_freedom_andrew_napolitano#axzz20WwMxkab
Presently in America, nearly half of all households receive either a salary or substantial benefits from the government.
Presently in America, nearly half of all adults pay no federal income taxes.
Presently in America, the half that pay no income taxes receive the bulk of their income courtesy of the government, but ultimately from the half that do. This money is extracted involuntarily from the paying half by a permanent bureaucracy that extracts and gives away more each year no matter who is running the government.
The recipients of these transfer payments rely upon them for subsistence, so they have a vested financial interest in sending to Washington those who will continue to take your money and give it to them.
(It is no wonder that we are now saddled with the micromanagement of health care by the same bureaucratic mindset that mismanages the Post Office and everything else the federal government runs?)
It should not be surprising to know that presently in America, half of the people actually want the government to take care of their needs.
(The same was the case under Communist regimes, but here those folks vote.)
Hence, we have laws that force us to be "charitable" to those whom the government designates as worthy of our charity, that limit the amount of salt that restaurants can put into our food, that permit the government to watch us on street corners and subways and in the lobbies of buildings, that let the president fight wars of opportunity, that permit the Federal Reserve to print money with no value and inflate prices and destroy savings, that allow the government to listen to us on our cell-phones and use those phones to follow us wherever we go, and, according to CIA Director David Petraeus, that let the government anticipate our movements inside our homes.
(*SHRUG*) JUDGE NAPOLITANO IS EXACTLY RIGHT. HE'S NOT EXAGGERATING ONE BIT. (*SIGH*)
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)
And as of the last week in June, the government has a vast new power that was brought to us by the Supreme Court’s latest attack on personal freedom. Congress can now lawfully command any behavior of individuals that it pleases — whether or not the subject of the behavior is a power granted to Congress by the Constitution — and it may punish non-compliance with that command, so long as the punishment is called a tax.
* THANKS TO GEORGE W. BUSH APPOINTEE JOHN ROBERTS AND THANKS TO THE INABILITY AND UNWILLINGNESS OF REPUBLICAN MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE, THE SENATE, AND STATE LEGISLATURES AND STATE GOVERNORS' MANSIONS TO SAY "NO" TO THIS INSANITY!
Justice Antonin Scalia’s whimsical query during the Supreme Court oral argument on the health care law about whether Congress could make him eat broccoli suddenly isn’t as funny as it was when he asked it, because the answer is: It can fine him for not eating broccoli, so long as it calls that fine a tax.
* THIS... IS... ABSOLUTELY... TRUE...!!!
Quick: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Answer: Four, because calling a tail a leg doesn’t make a tail a leg.
* THAT'S REALITY. BUT WE'RE NOT TALKING REALITY. WE'RE TALKING AMERICA 2012 - THE AGE OF OBAMA. THEREFORE... THE "CORRECT" ANSWER IS... FIVE. (FOUR "LEG" LEGS PLUS ONE TAIL "LEG.")
How did we get here?
* NOT ENOUGH ASSASINATIONS...??? (HEY... JUST... er... KIDDING!) (YEAH... KIDDING... RIGHT...)
We got here because voters and the government we elected, and even the courts the popular branches appointed and confirmed, have lost sight of first principles.
* AS IF THE AVERAGE AMERICAN EVEN KNOWS WHAT THE JUDGE IS REFERRING TO HERE! (*SNORT*) (*PAUSE*) (*SOB*)
When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that our rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are a part of our humanity, and when we fought and won the Revolution under that premise, and when the first Congress enacted that language as the first federal law, this became the irrevocable recognition of the Natural Law as the basis for our personal freedom and limited government. Since our rights come from our humanity, they don’t come from the government.
* YOU'VE ALREADY LOST 90% OF THE COUNTRY, JUDGE... (*SIGH*)
But you would never know that from looking at the government. In New York City, where I work at Fox News Channel, we are all embroiled in two disputes this summer over the constitutional role of the government in our lives. The mayor, a self-made billionaire who likes donuts and has bodyguards but wants to tell others how to live in private and in public, is trying to ban soda pop in containers larger than 16 ounces and wants the police to be able to stop and frisk anyone on a whim — and all in the name of health and safety.
He is actually banning freedom.
Imagine Jefferson being told what to eat or stopped and frisked on a whim.
And then imagine the Supreme Court telling him that he must pay a tax if he fails to comport his personal private behavior as Congress — which doesn’t believe in privacy or personal freedom — commands.
Here is how you can tell that these are bad days for freedom: Does the government need your permission to violate your rights, or do you need the government’s permission to exercise them? The answer is painfully obvious.
Presently in America, what are we going to do about it?
* I SEE VIOLENCE AS THE ONLY ANSWER... AND YET VIOLENCE ISN'T THE ANSWER. BASICALLY... WE'RE FUCKED.
http://immigrationreform.com/2012/07/10/obama-administration-launches-new-end-run-around-congress/?utm_source=iContact&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Top%205%20Immigration%20Stories&utm_content=Top+5+Jul+13%2C+2012
Yet another program designed to identify deportable aliens appears to be on the Obama administration’s chopping block.
* FOR RELATED PRESS STORY, SEE: http://www.postcrescent.com/article/20120708/APC0101/307090047/Less-federal-money-expected-housing-illegal-immigrant-inmates?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|APC-News|s
In its latest move, the administration is again acting unilaterally to slash funding for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP), a $400 million a year program that compensates local jurisdictions around the country for the costs of jailing illegal aliens.
* AS I'VE NOTED MANY TIMES, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD ACCESS FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS FOR THE COSTS OF DEALING WITH THEIR CITIZENS ILLEGALLY IN OUR COUNTRY.
The administration has tried to stop the compensation program all together by cutting it out of the budget sent to Congress, but Congress has resisted and has continued to fund the program.
Now, the administration has decided that if Congress will not eliminate the SCAAP, it will act on its own to eliminate the largest segment of the compensation.
Local jurisdictions receive SCAAP funds – which reimburse them for only a fraction of the cost of incarcerating foreign criminals – by providing information on prisoners who are foreign born and the period of time they are imprisoned. The federal government apportions funds based on the number of aliens recognized as deportable aliens and a share of those aliens who are “unknown” to the immigration authorities. The latter category – the unknown aliens – is the largest group, accounting for 58% of the prisoners.
* THERE SHOULD BE NO "UNKNOWNS." THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD KNOW WHO IS A CITIZEN AND WHO ISN'T; WHO IS HERE LEGALLY AND WHO ISN'T; PERIOD.
The administration claims the cuts are due to budget pressures, but the real reason probably has more to do with furthering its policy of non-enforcement. The SCAAP program alerts the federal authorities of aliens who should be deported when released from prison, and the unknown aliens identified by the program provide a lead for the immigration authorities to investigate to establish their deportability. The administration appears to be trying to suppress this source of information coming from local law enforcement officials about jailed aliens in addition to those already scheduled for deportation.
* AGAIN, FOLKS... WE NO LONGER HAVE A RULE OF LAW IN THIS COUNTRY. IN MANY WAYS WE'VE BECOME A MONARCHY... OR AT LEAST A DICTATORSHIP. DON'T THINK BECAUSE THE STICK IS RARELY EMPLOYED AND THE CUFFS COVERED IN FUR THAT WE'RE NOT TALKING STICKS AND CUFFS WHERE AND WHEN THE OUT OF CONTROL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DECIDES.
http://www.cdc.gov/family/wedding/
* OUR FEDERAL DOLLARS AT WORK, FOLKS...
* NOPE! THIS IS REAL! YEP... DIRECT FROM THE FEDERAL CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION!
* FOLKS...
(*SIGH*)
http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/13/usda-removes-spanish-food-stamp-soap-operas-from-website/
Following The Daily Caller’s expose of the United States Department of Agriculture’s food stamp outreach to Spanish-speakers via radio novelas, or Spanish language soap operas, the agency removed the series from their website.
(*SMIRK*)
Each of the 10 novelas promoting the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or food stamps, had been available as a resource for state and local outreach partners as late as Thursday. The page, formerly containing the audio and Spanish language scripts was “modified” Friday, eliminating the novelas.
(*SNORT*)
* TRYING TO COVER THEIR TRACKS AFTER THE HORSE HAS GOTTEN OUT OF THE BARN; BRILLIANT.
(*SNICKER*)
The series had been promoted as a resource to increase SNAP participation. They were produced and written in 2008.
* AGAIN... THANK YOU GEORGE W. (A--HOLE) BUSH!
The USDA’s scrub of the novelas from their website came on the heels of a Daily Caller series highlighting USDA’s stated mission and campaign to get more people on food stamps.
* I BELIEVE THAT STORY WAS "NEWSBITED" YESTERDAY.
Thursday, Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions, ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, slammed the USDA for its aggressive outreach tactics.
* WOULDN'T IT BE NICE IF ROMNEY, BOEHNER, MCCONNELL, RUBIO, RYAN, AND ALL THE OTHER "LEADERS" OF THE GOP FOLLOWED SESSIONS' LEAD? (FAT CHANCE OF THAT!)
Post a Comment