Latest Entries »

Student sues school district after her forced ‘confession’
By Michael F. Haverluck, OneNewsNow.com December 11, 2014 12:22 pm
courtroomNot long after a student from Loomis Basin Charter School (LBCS) invited her two friends to a Creation seminar held off campus, school officials became livid, summonsing her to the principal’s office four times in the same day in order to force her into writing a “confession” of what she had done.

Pacific Justice Institute (PJI) is now representing the student against Loomis Union School District (LUSD), located in Loomis, California, approximately 30 miles northeast of Sacramento. The legal non-profit organization alleges in the complaint that the school district violated the student’s constitutional rights by prohibiting her from expressing her beliefs.

After ordering the student — who PJI dubbed “Esther” for anonymity’s sake — to confess, school officials in the principal’s office vowed that they would censor any future invitations that she planned to give to friends.

In September, Esther had invited a couple of her friends to a free, off-campus, non-school seminar in response to the teaching of Darwinian evolution in her class, which has its curriculum based in the school-issued textbook Early Civilizations.

“Currently, the class is discussing plate tectonics and the Big Bang theory,” PJI’s complaint on behalf of Esther reads. “[Esther] sought out more information to be able to express her beliefs and understanding on the issue to participate in the ongoing conversation.”

Because evolutionary theory was routinely taught as fact in her class, and as many students in her class began comparing the creationist account of Genesis with Darwin’s biological evolutionary theory, Esther wanted her peers to join her in getting a more comprehensive understanding of human origins — as well as the origins of the earth and the known universe — by attending a Creationist seminar.

During the semester, Esther learned about the three-session Creationist seminar and became intrigued about the issue. She then invited one of her friends from science class — who also expressed a keen interest in the debate — to the second session. The two then invited a third friend to session three.

The seminar presented by the nonprofit Christian organization Genesis Apologetics, based in Folsom, California, has a stated mission of “equipping youth, pastors, parents and students with biblical answers for evolutionary teaching in public schools.”

Esther presented the Genesis Apologetics invitations to her friends during lunch breaks at school in the format of flyers so that their parents would have information to gauge whether or not they wanted them to attend.

It is believed that one of the parents of a student who received an invitation was the one who complained to school officials that her child was given the opportunity to attend an off campus, non-school event.

Not in my school

Esther’s complaint claims that LBCS director Erica Sloane, one of the defendants in the lawsuit, lashed out in anger at Esther when confronting her about the invitation. Sloan allegedly ordered her to submit a written confession and warned her that similar invitations in the future must be accompanied with an official stamp of approval from school officials.

“[Sloane] proceeded to scold [Esther] for bringing the … flyer to school because the content is religious and because it had not been approved by the school district,” the complaint reads. “Sloane told [Esther] that she was not permitted to distribute the flyer to students … and [that] her actions were unacceptable.”

The complaint also indicates that the school director was hostile toward Esther because of her Christian beliefs, which Sloane allegedly attempted to suppress, in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

“[Sloane] expressed her anger, through an intimidating tone and expressions, at [Esther] over the situation … and further directed [Esther] to not talk about religion at school, even during lunch,” the complaint continues.

According to the lawsuit, the second of four summons Esther received to go to the principal’s office within 24 hours resulted in the student being compelled to fill out an incident report documenting her confession of what she had done on school grounds. Within 15 minutes, Sloane declared the confession “inadequate,” spurring Esther’s third summons of the day. After this attempt did not meet Sloane’s approval, Esther was summoned to the principal’s office for the fourth and final time that day.

Inconsistent with the treatment Esther experienced in the principal’s office that day, LBCS has a mission statement that encourages students to “think independently and connect content to real life” while pursuing the quest for knowledge.

“[Loomis Basin Charter School’s aim] is to develop inquiring, knowledgeable, patriotic, honorable, responsible and caring young people who have the background, skills, knowledge and qualities necessary to participate successfully and actively in a changing and increasingly interrelated world,” the complaint reads, quoting the school’s educational goals.

But when Esther interacted with the school’s administration, she witnessed no trace of anything highlighted in the mission statement.

“[Esther] has been disturbed by these events and felt harassed, traumatized and unsafe to the point that she did not want to return to school in the days that followed because of the scolding and harsh interactions,” the lawsuit declares.

After Esther communicated her four office visits to her mother, the concerned parent sought an explanation from school officials, who told her that Esther was prohibited from disseminating any kind of flyer to any students on campus at any time — inside or outside of class, before or after school.

According to the lawsuit, an attached written consent must be attached to any literature Ester wishes to hand to any peer on campus.

“[Esther] cannot personally give printed material to another pupil without first obtaining a district disclaimer affixed to the literature,” the complaint states, expressing the school’s stance on the matter.

Students don’t abandon their rights at the schoolhouse gate

PJI argues that LBCS’s attempt to suppress Esther’s expression on campus violates her free-speech rights under the State of California’s Constitution and the U.S. Constitution.

“[Esther] has a speech right to possess on her person and distribute a flyer expressing a religious viewpoint,” PJI attorneys express in the lawsuit.

They contend that Sloan and other school officials pressured Esther to give up her constitutionally protected rights every time she entered the schoolhouse gate.

“The scolding and intimidation by Sloane as against [Esther] to cease and desist from distributing said flyer, cease and desist from keeping a similar flyer on her person or in her backpack, and to just say no to anyone who may provide her with a flyer to share with her fellow classmates, or face additional administrative action are a form of censorship which is inconsistent with the rights guaranteed to [Esther] as a citizen,” the student’s complaint explains.

The lawsuit, which was filed in early November, also lists LUSD superintendent Gordon Medd and LBCS acting director Katie Messerli, along with other school officials, as defendants in the suit, which was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California by PJI attorneys on behalf of Esther. Media outlets were unable to attain a response from school officials about their alleged violations of Esther’s constitutional rights.

Daily Digest for Wednesday
December 10, 2014 Print

THE FOUNDATION
“Driven from every other corner of the earth, freedom of thought and the right of private judgment in matters of conscience direct their course to this happy country as their last asylum.” –Samuel Adams, Speech in Philadelphia, 1776

TOP 5 RIGHT HOOKS
At Eleventh Hour, Congress Agrees to Spend More Money
One day before the deadline to fund the government passes, congressional leaders introduced a 1,603-page spending bill that will allocate $1.01 trillion. Because the House expects Congress to break the Dec. 11 deadline, it plans to pass a temporary measure to keep the government funded so they can read what’s in the bill dicker over what’s in the bill. In a joint statement, Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) and Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY) said, “While not everyone got everything they wanted, such compromises must be made in a divided government.” The bill seeks to tweak some of the Obama administration’s policies because Congress holds the power of the purse. Most famously, the bill will fund the Department of Homeland Security only until Feb. 27 so the 114th Congress can better attack Barack Obama’s executive action on immigration. The bill also cuts $60 million from the EPA’s budget, and $345.6 million from the IRS — as Republicans seek to reform the organization after it targeted non-profit groups over political beliefs. The bottom line, though, is this is the same as it ever was — spending, spending and more spending. More…

Comment | Share

GOP Mulls Unilateral Disarmament in Senate
Senate Republicans are debating whether to restore the filibuster for presidential nominations. Soon-to-be Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid detonated the so-called “nuclear option” in November 2013 as a means to ram through a few extra of Barack Obama’s nominees — particularly to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, where many federal regulations and laws are challenged. Now some Republicans, led by Sen. John McCain, think the GOP should do the sportsmanlike thing and restore the filibuster. “I think it’s rank hypocrisy if we don’t,” McCain said. On the other hand, wouldn’t that essentially be agreeing to one set of rules when Democrats are in charge and another when Republicans are? In other words, Democrats need only 51 votes for nominees, while Republicans need 60. Like it or not, that’s now the world Democrats have created. More…

Obama Yelled Profanity at Reporters
Before Ann Compton retired from her position at ABC News, she told C-SPAN that when journalists talked to Barack Obama off the record, he yelled and swore at them for how they covered his administration. “I have seen in the last year Barack Obama really angry twice,” Compton said. “Both were off-the-record times. One, profanity-laced where he thought the press was making too much of scandals that he did not think were scandals. Another where he took us to task for not understanding the limits he has with foreign policy and the way he’s dealing with the Middle East and Iraq, and Afghanistan. And I don’t find him apologetic. But I find him willing to stand up to the press and look them in the eye, even though it was off the record, and just give us hell.” For such a narcissistic control freak, we’re almost surprised Obama didn’t stomp his feet and cry, too. More..

Don’t Say ‘All Lives Matter’ When Only Black Ones Do
Kathleen McCartney, the president of Smith College in Massachusetts, sent an email to students advising them that “all lives matter,” and saying she would lead the college in endeavoring to “teach, learn and share what we know” and to “work for equity and justice.” In a normal world, the story might end there — good lesson learned. But we don’t live in a normal world. The email was sent as a response to the unrest over black deaths at the hands of white police officers, but it was unacceptable to suggest that “all lives matter” when, as one student critic admonished McCartney, “This isn’t about everyone, this is about black lives.” After all, “black lives matter” has become a rallying cry. So, naturally, McCartney apologized, saying, “despite [her] best intentions,” she had been properly corrected by those who shared their “wisdom and wise counsel.” Some of that “wisdom” included this dreck from one sophomore: “It felt like she was invalidating the experience of black lives.” By saying “all lives matter”? It is remarkable how successful race-hustlers have been in undermining culture and education. More…

 

Bale: You Know, Some People Might Call Moses a Terrorist
Ridley Scott’s epic interpretation of the biblical story of Exodus hits theaters Dec. 12. Scott is agnostic, and this latest Hollywood retelling is unlikely to satisfy Christians. Rebecca Cusey writes that the movie “plays like an atheist manifesto. Moses, a modern skeptic in sheepherder’s clothes, squares off against God, portrayed as a petulant, vengeful, irrational child. The film at time takes the part of the Egyptians, blaming God for devastating plagues striking the populace as Moses takes God to task for His incomprehensible ways.” Sounds like a real box-office smash. But if that’s not enough, Christian Bale, who plays Moses in the film, opined, “If you’re not religious, you can look at it as one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist. … Moses was a far more human and fallible character than I had imagined before.” The biblical account — written by Moses, we might add — makes no effort to hide his many failings. He was indeed a human in need of a Savior himself. But the story isn’t his, it’s one of God’s justice, holiness, goodness and salvation. If Bale thinks Moses is just “one man’s terrorist,” he may still be stuck in the ninth plague — he’s in the dark. More…

RIGHT ANALYSIS

Senate Tortures the Facts
The United States under Barack Obama is the laughingstock of the world. Earlier this year, Obama traded top Taliban terrorists for an Army deserter. Now the administration and Senate Democrats have released a report spanking the CIA for waterboarding terrorists. All because, Obama says, these interrogation techniques are “contrary to who we are.”

Obama then had the gall to say, “One of the things that sets us apart from other countries is when we make mistakes, we admit them.” When has he ever admitted a mistake?

The report was written by Democrat staffers, whose “expert” findings include:

Enhanced interrogation techniques don’t work.

The CIA provided inaccurate information to the Bush administration about its interrogation program.

Management and oversight was negligent.

The program was more brutal than represented.

All horse manure. Brutal is when you saw off the head of a civilian noncombatant captive, as ISIL is fond of doing.

According to former POW Sen. John McCain, “I know from personal experience that the abuse of prisoners will produce more bad than good intelligence.”

First of all, waterboarding is nothing like what McCain endured at the hands of the North Vietnamese. And as several other highly decorated POWs have noted, waterboarding did work in some cases — and they approve. It did produce “good intelligence,” including, according to the CIA, intelligence that helped to disrupt plots, led to the capture of other terrorists, and led to Osama bin Laden’s courier, who ultimately led to bin Laden.

Former CIA Director Michael Haden confirmed, “Enhanced interrogation contributed to the wealth of knowledge that we needed to [get to bin Laden].” Without such techniques, Obama would not have been able to walk to that microphone and say “we got him.”

Jose A. Rodriguez Jr., a 31-year veteran of the CIA, likewise noted that interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed resulted in more than 2,000 intelligence reports, including contributing info leading to Osama.

And for the record, former CIA directors George Tenet, Porter Goss and Michael Hayden, along with deputy directors John McLaughlin, Albert Calland and Stephen Kappes, recount in The Wall Street Journal many of the CIA’s other numerous successes, as well as criticizing Senate Democrats’ profound errors in producing this one-sided, incomplete and out-of-context report.

No CIA officials were interviewed by the Senate Intelligence Committee because Attorney General Eric Holder refused to coordinate those interviews on the basis that the Justice Department had its own ongoing investigation. (Apparently Rolling Stone followed the Senate Intelligence Committee model by refusing to interview the accused.) Note that the DOJ investigation produced no charges.

The DOJ investigators who reviewed the Senate investigation confirmed they found nothing that would warrant bringing criminal charges against CIA officers and operatives. And that investigation ended two years ago — which is to say Democrats could have called CIA witnesses.

Now Obama administration officials have placed military and law-enforcement personnel on high alert, acknowledging the report may spawn terrorist attacks.

According to Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, “We have U.S. personnel, both intelligence officials and military special operators, in harm’s way. Why would we release [this report] now? What did we have to gain? All of this has been debated. All of this has been settled. … Clearly the administration knew it was going to cause trouble as they sent out warnings all across the world.”

Joe Biden insisted it was just the kind of transparency for which this administration is decidedly not known: “We made a mistake. We made a big mistake. … [This report] is a badge of honor.”

On the other hand, George W. Bush’s vice president, Dick Cheney, described the report as “a crock.” Cheney said of intelligence officials, “They deserve a lot of praise. As far as I’m concerned, they ought to be decorated, not criticized.”

Obama’s current CIA director, John Brennan, agreed with Cheney. According to Brennan, the CIA interrogations “did produce intelligence that helped thwart attack plans, capture terrorists and save lives.” That assessment directly challenges the core assertions in the Senate Democrats’ report. Brennan threatened to resign over the report, but we believe he remained in place to defend the agency.

The White House insists that Obama has full confidence in Brennan as CIA director. But the problem is Brennan has little or no confidence in Obama as president and commander in chief — and he is not alone.

Outgoing Sen. Saxby Chambliss said, “The majority side of the intelligence committee has spent the last five years and over $40 million focused on a program that effectively ended over eight years ago, while the world around us burns.”

Chambliss concluded, “It seems as though the study takes every opportunity to unfairly portray the CIA in the worst light possible, presupposing improper motivations and the most detestable behavior at every turn.”

In fact, the CIA briefed Congress on its efforts roughly 30 times along the way. Senate Democrats were last briefed on the CIA’s methods in 2006 and the last interrogations were in 2007. Democrats could have stopped the interrogations then. Notably, Nancy Pelosi was fully briefed on the CIA operation in 2002, despite claiming later she had no knowledge of it (these memory lapses are an issue with Pelosi).

The administration’s chief talking point on this report is that the CIA’s actions were an affront to “American values.” But that ignominious distinction belongs to Obama, Biden, Pelosi and Reid.

And a footnote: United Nations Special Rapporteur on counter terrorism and human rights, Ben Emmerson, issued a statement: “The US Attorney General is under a legal duty to bring criminal charges against those responsible. … [T]he heaviest penalties should be reserved for those most seriously implicated in the planning and purported authorisation of these crimes.”

So should Obama and administration officials be prosecuted for releasing Gitmo prisoners who wound up back on the battlefield killing people? If this report results in the death of Americans, should Obama and Dianne Feinstein be prosecuted?

In conclusion, the group of former CIA directors and deputy directors wrote, “Between 1998 and 2001, the al Qaeda leadership in South Asia attacked two U.S. embassies in East Africa, a U.S. warship in the port of Aden, Yemen, and the American homeland — the most deadly single foreign attack on the U.S. in the country’s history. The al Qaeda leadership has not managed another attack on the homeland in the 13 years since, despite a strong desire to do so. The CIA’s aggressive counterterrorism policies and programs are responsible for that success.”

Congress Grills Gruber for ObamaCare Candor
It’s impossible to guess how much of the fabrication and disinformation the Obama administration crammed into its first six years will ever be discovered. But thanks to the thoughtless blabbering in front of cameras by an arrogant yet fatuous member of the higher education intelligentsia, the soft underbelly of Barack Obama’s only significant achievement is being sliced open, and the fetid tangle of lies and corruption are gradually being pulled apart.

Rep. Darrel Issa (R-CA), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and other Republican members had the rare pleasure Tuesday of ripping into Obama apparatchik Jonathan Gruber, the MIT health care wonk who contributed much to the design of ObamaCare. Notwithstanding Gruber’s insistence that “I was not the ‘architect’ of President Obama’s health care plan,” he played an enormous role in its construction and was quite proud of that role until Tuesday.

In numerous venues, Gruber arrogantly told many tales about lies Democrats fed the American people about ObamaCare before its passage. Those comments opened a can of worms Democrats would rather have kept under wraps.

To Congress, Gruber offered an apology for saying “mean and insulting,” and “uninformed and glib” things about the intelligence of American voters: “I knew better. I know better. I’m embarrassed and I’m sorry.” Nevertheless, clinging to his popped balloon, Gruber stressed that “my own inexcusable arrogance is not a flaw in the Affordable Care Act.”

But Issa summed up why this is so critical, telling Gruber, “You made a series of troubling statements that were not only an insult to the American people, but revealed a pattern of intentional misleading [of] the public about the true nature of ObamaCare.”

One of the congressmen angriest with Gruber was Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD). “As far as I can tell,” he growled, “we are here today to beat up on Jonathan Gruber for stupid … comments he made over the last few years. … They were irresponsibly, incredibly disrespectful, and did not reflect reality.” But worse, Cummings complained, “Dr. Gruber’s statements gave Republicans a public relations gift in their relentless political campaign to tear down the ACA and eliminate health care for millions of Americans!” But Cummings disclaimed any responsibility for the Democrats’ scamming the American public. “I was in Congress when this law was debated, and Dr. Gruber does not speak for me. … Never once did I believe or did anyone suggest that we were somehow hiding our goals from the American people!”

I see nothing! I hear nothing! I know nothing! Cummings is only mad because Gruber gave the game away.

Rep. Patrick McHenry told Gruber that, in a sense, at least he appreciated the professor’s honesty about the intentional lack of transparency in planning ObamaCare. “Dr. Gruber … as everyone knows … when the president said if you like your plan you can keep it, it turns out it was the lie of the year. This was a very significant thing. … [A]ccording to the North Carolina Department of insurance, 473,000 lost their health insurance because of ObamaCare. … When I think about my constituents, though, did you think that there would be such a large number of folks that would lose their health insurance?”

Gruber replied, “What I was focused on was the net increase in newly insured we had under the law, which has been quite substantial.” So he wasn’t focused on the “folks” (as Obama likes to call us) but on projected statistics of newly insured — or so he said. And the increase has in fact not been substantial.

McHenry continued, “So it’s not relevant to your calculation that there would be people that would lose their health insurance?”

Gruber admitted, “That was part of the calculation.” When asked if that was part of his conversations at the White House, though, he insisted, “I don’t recall.”

Reportedly, Gruber received $400,000 for his consulting services with the administration, but his total haul for health policy consulting is much higher. When asked for specific figures on his income, he referred an astonished Issa to his counsel.

“We’re going to have to serve a subpoena. … It’s amazing you haven’t given us one number,” Issa said. “Likely, you’re going to be back here again.”

The committee members returned to this question repeatedly throughout the remainder of the meeting, getting the same smug response to refer to Gruber’s counsel. No doubt, Gruber will be on the hot seat again, and let’s hope he squirms the entire time.

Economist Milton Friedman (1912-2006): “A society that puts equality … ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom.”

Columnists L. Brent Bozell & Tim Graham: “No parent wants to consider the travesty that when he sends his 18-year-old daughter to college, she could be vulnerable to sexual assault. But in the increasingly punitive atmosphere surrounding sexual-assault allegations, he should also fear sending his 18-year-old son to campus, where he may be falsely accused of rape. The national media are deeply feminist. Their default position is the presumption that ‘the victim’ is the female accuser. Some pundits have even argued in national newspapers that the accuser should be ‘automatically believed.’ This is a serious problem for the left. First, they are the ones who have been exquisitely sensitive about the presumption of innocence for communists, radical Muslim terrorists and violent thugs like Willie Horton. Second, they have forcefully extolled that female accusers of sexual assault are to be automatically disbelieved if they are accusing Bill Clinton or other powerful Democrats. These allegations and any attempt to discuss them or verify them are considered ‘witch hunts’ and ‘McCarthyism.’ … The liberal media never lose their halo as the sympathetic guardians of the public good, no matter how wrong — painfully, harmfully wrong — they are.”

Comment | Share

Columnist Michelle Malkin: “On Wednesday, the White House Summit on Early Education will unveil nearly $1 billion in new ‘investments’ to ‘expand access to high-quality early childhood education to every child in America’ from ‘birth and continuing to age 5.’ It’s a retread of President Obama’s 2013 State of the Union school-spending plan, which was a repackaging of his 2011 Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge program. … Think Obamacare is bad? Well, welcome to TotCare. The goal of the educational central planners, you see, is the elimination of competition. The fact is that the vast majority of Pre-K kids are already happily enrolled in early childhood programs outside of Fed Ed’s clutches. The ‘problem’ isn’t most families’ lack of access to preschool. It’s Washington’s lack of access to your kids for their institutionalized warehousing, data mining and pedagogical propaganda schemes. The Nanny State’s ceaseless quest for control keeps creepily rolling along.”

Comment | Share

Comedian Jimmy Kimmel: “Obama was diagnosed with acid reflux. His approval rating is so low that he’s starting to get pushback from his esophagus. … His doctor said he needs Zantac. Sadly, that’s actually the best news President Obama’s gotten in a very long time. So now, Joe Biden is just a heartburn away from the Oval Office.”

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform — Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen — standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families.

Obama administration claims a right to hide evidence before Supreme Court
| DECEMBER 10, 2014 | 5:00 AM
The United States v. June case boils down to this: Can the federal government actively conceal material evidence in order to escape liability?
The United States v. June case boils down to this: Can the federal government actively conceal…
Today, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in United States v. June, a case that has received little attention, but will have far-reaching implications. The case boils down to this: Can the federal government actively conceal material evidence in order to escape liability? Common sense says no. The Obama administration says yes.

June involves the Federal Torts Claims Act (FTCA) and a doctrine called “equitable tolling.” Prior to 1946, the doctrine of sovereign immunity prohibited citizens from filing suit against the government. That all changed in 1946, when a military plane crashed into the Empire State Building, killing and injuring many civilians. Congress responded by enacting the FTCA, which waives sovereign immunity and allows citizens to sue the government in instances.

However, claimants must file a claim within two years of injury. Equitable tolling freezes those two years under certain considerations, like government officials hiding pertinent facts. Courts across the country have consistently applied the doctrine of equitable tolling to FTCA claims.

In the June case, a minor child was killed in a car crash when a median barrier failed. The barrier had failed safety crash testing; the government knew but installed it anyway. When the plaintiff investigated, the government would not make federal employees — who knew the truth — available for deposition until after the two year deadline to file. The government now argues that equitable tolling should not apply to claims brought under the FTCA. It maintains that it can avoid liability by hiding evidence and waiting for the clock to run out.

The June case raises serious issues for every government agency, especially the Veterans Administration, given the recent scandal where VA employees engaged in fraud and falsified records. If no whistleblower had come forward, VA employees could have waited out the clock. The VA has already demonstrated a propensity toward dishonesty and covering up. It needs no further incentives.

Importantly, some injuries are latent and may not appear for even years after the fact. Take, for instance, the example of veterans exposed to HIV and hepatitis by the VA during routine colonoscopies and dental work. Older vets, having no reason to be regularly tested, may not find out about their exposure until years later when HIV blossoms into full blown AIDS or when their livers malfunction. Moreover, in 2011 a Pittsburgh VA hospital’s water supply tested positive for Legionnaires disease but the hospital did not notify patients for over a year. Only after six patient deaths and 22 infections did the VA facility warn patients and distribute bottled water.

If government has its way in June, the VA and other government agencies would get off scot-free in similar situations. Say goodbye to transparency and the FTCA as we know it. A wrongdoer should not benefit by secrecy calculated to hide the truth and deprive harmed persons of their constitutional right to due process. Sunshine is the best disinfectant and the Supreme Court must rein in government abuse in June. After all, our laws do not allow private citizens to benefit from dishonesty and the same standard should be applied to government, too.

Ms. Miller Rotunda is Professor of Military and International Law at Chapman University and a former Major in the US Army JAG Corps; Admiral Carey is the President of the National Defense Committee; Mr. Carey is Executive Director of the National Defense Committee and a Captain in the Naval Reserves; Mr. Flynn-Brown is an attorney that specializes in military and veteran law. Thinking of submitting an op-ed to the Washington Examiner? Be sure to read our guidelines on submissions for editorials, available at this link.

Obama’s Endless Lies and His Media Accomplices
By Cliff Kincaid December 10, 2014 12:25 pm

Like the use of the word “chokehold” in connection with the death of Eric Garner, the term “torture” has been applied repeatedly by the media to the CIA’s treatment of suspected terrorists. These are examples of how left-wing forces in the Obama administration, the Democratic Party and the media try to control and manipulate the public debate in ways that demonize those defending our nation.
The purpose is to make the American people lose faith in the police and the intelligence community. But it is those using the loaded terms and language that deserve the scrutiny.

A notable exception in the “chokehold” coverage is Margaret Harding of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, who quoted Thomas Aveni, a retired officer and executive director of the Police Policy Studies Council, as saying about the video of Garner’s takedown, “The reason all these people are upset is because they don’t understand what they saw. People don’t understand what they’re looking at.”

She reported that Aveni, a police trainer in deadly and non-deadly force for more than 30 years, said that New York City Police Officer Daniel Pantaleo did not use a chokehold on Garner, but rather a “lateral vascular neck restraint” or LVNR. The difference? “People can’t talk when they are being choked,” Aveni said.

The alleged use of “torture” against suspected terrorists is another example of how the media adopt a term that doesn’t apply to what is actually being described.

Jose Rodriguez, the author of Hard Measures: How Aggressive CIA Actions After 9/11 Saved American Lives, says the term “torture” is inaccurate and that the CIA received guidance from the Department of Justice as to what procedures could be used to avoid “lasting pain or harm” to the detainees. Rodriguez, the former head of the CIA’s Clandestine Service, defends the “enhanced interrogation techniques.”

Rodriguez writes in his book about how Obama’s CIA director Leon Panetta had declared to the Senate that the program had used “torture,” though he had not even been briefed on it.

The media campaigns against the police “chokehold” and the CIA’s “torture” techniques remind me of the communist “Ban the Neutron Bomb” campaign of the early 1970s. The “neutron bomb” was an enhanced radiation weapon designed to counter a Soviet tank build-up in Europe.

Despite the name, the “neutron bomb” was more humane than conventional arms. Appearing at an Accuracy in Media conference at the time, Sam T. Cohen, the inventor of the weapon, noted that it killed people painlessly through radiation rather than a blast with catastrophic consequences. But the Soviets thought it gave the U.S. an unfair advantage and successfully waged an “active measures” campaign, using the U.S. media, against it. Distorted coverage of the weapon led President Jimmy Carter to ban it from the U.S. arsenal.

In the same way, banning a “chokehold,” when it is actually something else, puts American police forces at a disadvantage with the criminal element. Outlawing “torture,” when the techniques were not torture, deprives our intelligence community of procedures that can actually save lives.

When we examined Panetta’s fitness for public office, we found that he was an opponent of the “neutron bomb” when he was a liberal Congressman from California. Perhaps this explains why he was picked for the important posts of CIA director and then Secretary of Defense. He was susceptible to disinformation then and was judged as somebody who could “go with the program” of Obama to ban interrogation techniques that gave the U.S. an edge in the war on terror.

The “torture” controversy also proves to be a diversion from discussing Obama’s alternative—the use of drones to shoot air-to-surface Hellfire missiles and literally obliterate suspected terrorists.

When terrorists die in drone strikes, they yield no intelligence data because they do not end up alive in U.S. custody. Plus, women and children die alongside them.

This is supposed to be more “humane” than alleged “torture” of the individual terrorists, who survive the “torture” and then get fat at Gitmo.

Obama gets away with this because the media, once again, are feeding out of his hands, eager to take his line on foreign affairs when it is nonsensical and counter to U.S. interests.

In his 2013 remarks to the National Defense University, Obama acknowledged that “…it is a hard fact that U.S. strikes have resulted in civilian casualties, a risk that exists in every war. And for the families of those civilians, no words or legal construct can justify their loss. For me, and those in my chain of command, those deaths will haunt us as long as we live, just as we are haunted by the civilian casualties that have occurred throughout conventional fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

Obama declared, “…America’s actions are legal.” Case closed. That’s good enough for the media.

At the same time, he said, “I believe we compromised our basic values—by using torture to interrogate our enemies, and detaining individuals in a way that ran counter to the rule of law.”

Obama’s flimsy justification for drone strikes is a self-serving memo generated by his own administration. It purports to explain why killing Americans does not violate the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution for U.S. citizens accused of crimes. The memo refers to U.S. drone aircraft as “contemplated lethal operations.”

Apparently, however, wiping out terrorists and their families, friends, and relatives, is not something that compromises our basic values.

The fact that Obama gets away with this deception says something about the gullibility of the American media.

It was appropriate that the Democratic Senate report on “torture” was released on the same day that Jonathan Gruber was testifying about lying to the American people regarding the benefits of Obamacare. The Senate report was another form of deception, designed to confuse and mislead about what Obama has used in place of interrogation techniques of terrorists. Obama doesn’t interrogate terrorists, he kills them.

Yet, we are led to believe Obama believes in American values and practices them.

The American people would see through the lies if only they could depend on a media that would lead them out of all the deliberate obfuscation.

the Foundation

The Patriot Post · http://patriotpost.us/digests/31553
Daily Digest
Dec. 8, 2014

THE FOUNDATION
“There can be no greater error than to expect, or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. ‘Tis an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.” –George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

TOP 5 RIGHT HOOKS
Down Goes Another Democrat1
The GOP picked up another Senate seat Saturday. The Associated Press reports, “Republican Rep. Bill Cassidy defeated Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu on Saturday, denying her a fourth term and extending the GOP’s domination of the 2014 midterm elections that put Republicans in charge of Capitol Hill for the final two years of President Barack Obama’s tenure. With Cassidy’s victory, Republicans will hold 54 seats when the Senate convenes in January, nine more than they have now.” Landrieu failed in her bid to stave off the GOP tide, even though she pushed the Keystone XL pipeline. Louisiana voters saw through the charade, however, and opted to aid a higher purpose – stopping Barack Obama. Her loss also means that 30 of the 60 Senate Democrats who voted for ObamaCare are no longer in Congress. Talk about an albatross. More…2

Nearly 12 Million Have Left the Workforce Under Obama3
November’s jobs report4 no doubt contained good news. Payrolls jumped by 321,000, which was far above the 230,000 jobs forecast by economists5. September and October also saw positive revisions. The most recent year with superior job growth was 1999. Add it all up, and the economy has clearly turned a corner after subsequent years in deep shambles. However (how many times have we had to say that?), the economy continues to lag significantly in potential; you can thank the Obama recovery for that. The one particularly troubling statistic pertains to the labor participation rate that remained unchanged last month at 62.8% – meaning 92,447,000 Americans aren’t seeking a job. The cumulative effect of a stubbornly low participation rate is alarming to say the least, as nearly 12 million workers have called it quits during Obama’s presidency. CNSNews.com reports, “When President Obama took office in January 2009, there were 80,529,000 Americans who were not participating in the office, which means that since then, 11,918,000 Americans have left the workforce.” That’s far more than the number of jobs Obama claims to have “created.” So while the headline employment numbers have improved, there are still underlying problems that remain unresolved. That is why speculators remain pessimistic despite the media’s rosy narrative. More…6

Jihadist Relieves Himself, Thwarts U.S. Hostage Rescue7
The Navy SEALs’ attempted rescue of American journalist Luke Somers, who was captured by al-Qaida in Yemen, did not play out like the heroic 1976 Israeli hostage rescue, Operation Entebbe. The jihadists released a video telling the U.S. to comply with their demands (which they didn’t state in the video) or else Somers would die within 72 hours. In a statement, Barack Obama said, “Other information also indicated Luke’s life was in imminent danger. Based on this assessment, and as soon as there was reliable intelligence and an operational plan, I authorized a rescue attempt.” However, as the 40-man special operations team was establishing a perimeter, a jihadist stepped outside – probably to go to the bathroom – and saw the rescue force. U.S. officials say Somers was executed. However, the Wall Street Journal commends8 the Obama administration for taking a hard line against jihadist kidnappers. Terrorists now know if they kidnap Americans, they might wake up to the knock of a U.S. commando team in the middle of the night. More…9

White House Mulls Destroying Relationship With Israel10
The White House and the State Department deflected questions from Washington reporters about an Israeli newspaper story alleging the Obama administration is considering slapping sanctions on Israel. Both White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest11 and State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf refused to talk about the sanctions with reporters because it’s “internal deliberations.” According to Haaretz12, the U.S. may impose sanctions on its ally because it continues to build settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. According to Yeshiva World News13, the U.S. is also considering withdrawing its political protection of Israel at the UN, allowing anti-Israel motions to move through the international body. The Washington Free Beacon14 quotes an anonymous senior congressional aide: “If these reports are true, this would mark a new era of unprecedented hostility from the White House against our strongest ally in the Middle East. It’s impossible not to notice the irony of the administration mulling sanctions on Israel while threatening to veto new sanctions against Iran.”

Deportation Policies Let Almost Anyone Stay15
While an Immigration and Customs Enforcement report shows deportations in general dropped16 during the 2014 fiscal year, the report goes on to say that immigration enforcement officials are lax with illegal immigrants who have committed crimes. According to the Removal Operation Report17 for fiscal year 2014, 30,862 foreign criminals were released into the United States. Of the 315,943 people deported from the United States, the majority were caught at the border and 86,923 were caught committing a crime. The drop in deportations comes as the Obama administration has set high low standards on who it will and will not deport. In a statement, Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX) told the Los Angeles Times, “We essentially tell citizens of other countries, ‘If you come here, you can stay – don’t worry, we won’t deport you.’ The reality on the ground is that unless you commit multiple crimes, the chances of your being removed from this country are close to zero.” More…18

For more, visit Right Hooks19.

RIGHT ANALYSIS
From the Department of Corrections20
The Leftmedia have a story to tell, and they’re generally not going to let facts get in the way. This truth came in to stark relief with Friday’s massive correction21 Rolling Stone issued to its November report on a gang rape at the University of Virginia.

The correction was so big, it may be easier to recount what the original report got right than what it got wrong. A quick recap:

A UVA student given the name “Jackie” recounted21 how a man Rolling Stone calls “Drew” and his fellow fraternity brothers raped her at a party. But among numerous other errors, it turns out Drew belongs to a different fraternity than the one in question, and there was no party the night Jackie says she was raped. Much trouble would have been avoided had reporter Sabrina Rubin Erdely not acceded to Jackie’s request not to interview the accused because she feared retribution. Bad decision.

The story was evidently too good to check because it fit the narrative of a widespread “rape culture” supposedly evidenced by the epidemic of sexual assault on campuses around the country. In fact, Erdely went around looking for just the right story to support that narrative. We’ve already questioned the breadth of the epidemic22 itself, and Rolling Stone’s shoddy and reckless journalism hardly does anything to correct the record, much less help true victims of rape.

Jackie may have been raped, and just because some of the facts were wrong doesn’t mean all of them were. And it should go without saying that this doesn’t invalidate other rape accusations. But truth cannot be a casualty of narrative.

Other media outlets swallowed Rolling Stone’s original story hook, line and sinker, leading to a cascading effect turning a lie into a legend. Media often blindly take up a cause célèbre in pursuit of ratings and the almighty advertising dollar. (We note that this is one reason The Patriot Post doesn’t accept advertising, instead relying on the support of our readers23 for our sustenance.)

It’s noteworthy that, just like the Jonathan Gruber videos24, the UVA story began to fall apart because of the efforts of an independent blogger25.

Worked into a tizzy by Rolling Stone’s story, feminists hammered “rape apologists” who dared ask questions. To them, men accused of rape are guilty until proven innocent. And to many of them, they’d even rather cling to a false story than admit men are innocent.

That recalls the response to rape accusations against Duke University’s lacrosse team several years ago. Those likewise proved to be false, though only after the reputations of those young men were destroyed.

Nevertheless, UVA students protested, while university president Teresa Sullivan responded to the allegations by shutting down activities at all fraternities and sororities. When Rolling Stone essentially retracted the story, Sullivan didn’t apologize for overreacting – she doubled down. “Over the past two weeks,” she said in a statement, “our community has been more focused than ever on one of the most difficult and critical issues facing higher education today: sexual violence on college campuses. Today’s news must not alter this focus.”

Reason Contributing Editor Cathy Young concludes26: “Commentators across the political spectrum have expressed concern that Rolling Stone’s sloppy journalism will damage what Bloomberg View columnist Megan McArdle calls ‘the righteous fight for rape victims.’ But despite its righteous goals, the crusade against rape has leaned too far toward promoting the dangerous idea that accusation equals guilt and that to doubt an accuser’s word is heresy. Finding the balance between supporting victims and preserving the presumption of innocence is a difficult line to walk. Perhaps the lessons of the UVA story will help steer the way toward such a balance.”

In Young’s separate analysis of the Obama administration’s Department of Education push to have colleges and universities more vigorously prosecute sexual assault, she writes27, “The Department of Education has recommended that colleges use the lowest burden of proof – ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ which means a finding of guilt if one feels the evidence tips even slightly toward the complainant. Missing is virtually any recognition of the need for fairness to the accused.”

Bottom line: Sexual assault allegations should be investigated and prosecuted by qualified law enforcement agencies, not on the pages of Rolling Stone or other pop media outlets.

America’s Shrinking28
Days after headlines captured America’s slide from its status as the world’s number one economy to number two behind China29, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report30 spun off a few articles about America’s declining birthrate. Let’s just say if you’re an employed taxpayer, you’d best grab your wallet.

While many in the ranks of high-brow policy don’t want to engage in the discussion of what many deem as so-called cultural “wedge” issues such as abortion, fertility and population, it’s all about the math. And that math has implications in tax policy, foreign policy, health care policy – you name it. The reality remains that if there are fewer babies, there are fewer future workers and consumers.

Let’s look at the math as it relates to our standing economically.

If our population does not replace itself, the labor market – and with it the tax base – will shrink, all while government spending rages on.

What does that CDC report say?

“Childbearing is on the decline in the United States overall and among women under age 30 and women in each of the largest race and Hispanic origin groups.” In 2013, the birthrate his a near-low of 1.86 live births per female.

The big deal?

A birth rate of 2.1 children per childbearing female is necessary just to maintain stasis. The U.S. missed the mark for the first time in 1972, and it has hit “replacement” numbers only twice since then – in 2006 and 2007.

The good news is abortions are down, too. Consistent and intense educational efforts of the pro-life movement through ultrasounds during pregnancy in tandem with state policy efforts to defund “health care” clinics offering abortion on demand has reduced the number of abortions performed.

As for the overall birthrate, the contributing factors have been the economic pressures of the 2007 recession either delaying or cancelling family plans, a more educated population that delays the birth of children, and other things such as gender disorientation pathology31, access to long-acting birth control, and, candidly, selfishness that refuses to include others, such as children, in a myopic definition of success.

In light of this consistent, documented population decline, has our government spending seen appropriate adjustment? Has our need for military might changed? Are the IOU’s repaid in the “Social Security Lockbox” to fund the current retirees? No, no and no.

Still not convinced this is a big deal? Let’s look across the pond at Europe. The nations that currently make up the European Union (E-28) tracked their fertility rate at 1.45 live births per women in 2002 with only a slight increase to 1.58 births in 2012, as published in a May 2014 European Commission report. Clearly, that’s far below the demographically necessary rate of 2.1 for generational replacement.

The nations of the European Union continue to struggle with government spending that averages 49% of gross domestic product32, with its member nations hovering around a 10% unemployment rate.

The National Bureau of Economic Research says it plainly in its online report, “The Cost of Low Fertility in Europe33”: “In the long run, low rates of fertility are associated with diminished economic growth. … If fertility rates stay at current levels … Europe’s share of working-age people will fall from about 70 percent today to somewhere between 50 and 55 percent in the long run … a 25 percent drop in the number of workers per capita.”

Clearly, changes in population cause disruption in the demand for services, produced goods and the volume of money the populace spends in any given economy.

Here in America, this decline is seen most obviously in a single government program, which happens to be the largest federal expenditure after surpassing defense spending back in 1993 – Social Security.

When the first benefits were paid in the Social Security retirement program in 1940, there were 42 workers paying into the system for each retiree receiving benefits. As of April 2014, that number is 2.8 workers per beneficiary.

Furthermore, the U.S. Treasury has borrowed money from the Social Security Trust Fund and, according to the Trustee’s 2014 report, owes $2.8 trillion as of December 2013. According to the same report, due to declining birthrates and increased life expectancy, the trust fund will be exhausted in 2033, just 19 years from now. The Heritage Foundation, meanwhile, says it could be insolvent in just 10 years34.

If America continues pursuing policies that transfer wealth from workers to non-workers, allows mass immigration of a new underclass that will only increase the pressure on government entitlement services, and refuses to recognize there must absolutely be a reduction in spending, we will only remember the good old days when our economy once led the world.

OPINION IN BRIEF

The Gipper: “I do not believe in a fate that will fall on us no matter what we do. I do believe in a fate that will fall on us if we do nothing. So, with all the creative energy at our command, let us begin an era of national renewal.”

Columnist Peggy Noonan: “[Obama’s] executive action on immigration, seen by many as daring and clever, may not prove clever. … In making that move he removed one of the Republican Party’s problems. They were split on immigration, their adversaries said the reason was racism. The whole issue roiled the Republican base. Now the president has taken it out of their hands. And he has united them in their condemnation of the manner in which he did it. At the same time the president took an issue that was a daily, agitating mobilizer of his base and removed it as a factor. He took the kettle off the heat – but that kettle had produced a lot of steam that provided energy to his party. Now the president has to implement his directive, and implementation has never been his strong suit. He has to tamp down grievance from those who came here legally or are waiting in line. He has to answer immigration activists who think they got too little. He has to face all the critics who will experience and witness the downside of his action on the border. He took an issue that was a problem for Republicans, and made it a problem for Democrats. That may well prove a political mistake of the first order.”

Columnist Jonah Goldberg: “[Sen. Chuck] Schumer’s speech at the National Press Club is a marvel to behold. … ‘Democrats must embrace government. It’s what we believe in; it’s what unites our party,’ Schumer explained. ‘If we run away from government, downplay it, or act as if we are embarrassed by its role, people won’t vote for our pale version of the Republican view.’ … The senator has no principled objection to a government takeover of health care; what he objects to now is the timing. Back in 2009-10, he was a vocal champion of the law [ObamaCare]. Last week, he said, ‘Unfortunately, Democrats blew the opportunity the American people gave them. We took their mandate and put all of our focus on the wrong problem – health care reform.’ The senator said he still favors Obamacare’s goals, but ‘it wasn’t the change we were hired to make.’ Voters wanted Obama and his party to fix the economy. Indeed, in a remarkable moment of honest cynicism, Schumer went into great detail lamenting how the law was designed to help mostly poor people who for the most part don’t vote. Morally, this is a fascinating admission. In Schumer’s hierarchy of needs, winning elections for Democrats matters more than helping the truly needy. Call it uncompassionate liberalism.”

Comedian Jimmy Kimmel: “The birthrate in the United States is at an all-time low. Whereas our death rate is still holding strong at 100 percent.”

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform – Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen – standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families.

Links

http://patriotpost.us/posts/31531

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/democratic-louisiana-sen-mary-landrieu-defeated-27419720

http://patriotpost.us/posts/31528

http://patriotpost.us/posts/31506

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102243063

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/labor-force-participation-remains-36-year-low-0

http://patriotpost.us/posts/31544

http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-noble-rescue-attempt-1417991769

http://abcnews.go.com/International/american-hostage-luke-somers-killed-us-rescue-attempt/story?id=27397528

http://patriotpost.us/posts/31522

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/226161-white-house-mum-on-israel-sanctions

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.629876

http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/headlines-breaking-stories/274351/israel-facing-american-sanctions-over-ongoing-construction.html

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/reports-obama-mulling-sanctions-on-israel/

http://patriotpost.us/posts/31535

http://patriotpost.us/posts/31521

http://documents.latimes.com/immigration-and-customs-draft-report/

http://www.latimes.com/nation/immigration/la-na-deportations-decline-20141205-story.html#page=1

http://patriotpost.us/

http://patriotpost.us/articles/31552

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/a-rape-on-campus-20141119

http://patriotpost.us/articles/29893

https://patriotpost.us/donation/new

http://patriotpost.us/articles/30967

http://twitchy.com/2014/12/05/brit-hume-credits-the-power-of-new-media-for-uncovering-holes-in-rolling-stone-story/

http://time.com/3620504/its-women-who-suffer-when-we-dont-ask-questions/

http://time.com/88407/the-white-houses-report-on-campus-sexual-assault-relies-on-the-lowest-common-denominator/

http://patriotpost.us/articles/31536

http://patriotpost.us/posts/31481

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db175.htm

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/3932

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-08-19/european-austerity-is-a-myth

http://www.nber.org/papers/w14820

http://patriotpost.us/posts/31348

http://patriotpost.us/opinion/31505

http://patriotpost.us/opinion/31514

http://patriotpost.us/opinion/31430

http://patriotpost.us/opinion/31489

http://patriotpost.us/opinion/31534

http://patriotpost.us/opinion

Primary Care Doctor Tough to Find Under Obamacare
By Associated Press December 8, 2014 12:20 pm
obamacare_logoMIAMI (AP) — When Olivia Papa signed up for a new health plan last year, her insurance company assigned her to a primary care doctor. The relatively healthy 61-year-old didn’t try to see the doctor until last month, when she and her husband both needed authorization to see separate specialists.

She called the doctor’s office several times without luck.

“They told me that they were not on the plan, they were never on the plan and they’d been trying to get their name off the plan all year,” said Papa, who recently bought a plan from a different insurance company.

It was no better with the next doctor she was assigned. The Naples, Florida, resident said she left a message to make an appointment, “and they never called back.”

The Papas were among the 6.7 million people who gained insurance through the Affordable Care Act last year, flooding a primary care system that is struggling to keep up with demand.

A survey this year by The Physicians Foundation found that 81 percent of doctors describe themselves as either over-extended or at full capacity, and 44 percent said they planned to cut back on the number of patients they see, retire, work part-time or close their practice to new patients.

At the same time, insurance companies have routinely limited the number of doctors and providers on their plans as a way to cut costs. The result has further restricted some patients’ ability to get appointments quickly.

One purpose of the new health law was connecting patients, many of whom never had insurance before, with primary care doctors to prevent them from landing in the emergency room when they are sicker and their care is more expensive. Yet nearly 1 in 5 Americans lives in a region designated as having a shortage of primary care physicians, and the number of doctors entering the field isn’t expected to keep pace with demand.

The Association of American Medical Colleges projects the shortage will grow to about 66,000 in little more than a decade as fewer residency slots are available and as more medical students choose higher-paying specialty areas.

For now, experts say most patients are receiving the care they need, even if they have to drive farther, wait longer or see a nurse practitioner or physician assistant rather than a doctor.

More importantly, many are getting care for the first time. The surge also has forced many doctors to streamline their practice and rely more on mid-tier professionals instead of seeing every patient themselves.

“Family doctors are seeing a pretty significant increase in requests for appointments from new patients,” said Dr. Wanda Filer, a primary care doctor in York, Pennsylvania, and president of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

In response, the academy of more than 115,000 doctors say they’re adding new physicians to their practices, relying more on nurse practitioners and physician’s assistants, adding evening and weekend appointments. Despite the demand, Filer said most patients can get same-day appointments with someone on their team.

Dr. Laura Byerly has seen a surge of more than 2,000 new patients since January at her chain of health clinics in Hillsboro, Oregon, about 30 minutes west of Portland. Many had sporadic or no medical care for many years.

She hired new primary care doctors, receptionists and nurses whose sole role is to see new patients and prepare the chart for the first visit with the doctor. They even opened a new clinic so patients who used to drive 45 minutes for a visit could now see a doctor five minutes from home.

“The new patients required a significant amount of work to understand just what medications they should be on, what are their active diagnoses, what studies are needed now, and just who they are and what their life is like,” said Byerly, who is the medical director of the Virginia Garcia Memorial Foundation health clinics.

Dr. Jack Chou takes patients only during open enrollment. Otherwise, it’s a six to nine-month wait at his Los Angeles-area practice, where most of the new patients were covered through Medicaid expansion.

“The initial visit takes much longer because we’re trying to learn about patients who had fragmented care or no care at all,” said Chou. Despite the staffing struggles, “it’s actually a godsend for some of my patients.”

While most doctors are successfully juggling the influx, there have been cases like that of the Papas, in which consumers call multiple doctors only to find they are not in network or the doctors are not taking new patients.

Insurance agent Anthony Halby heard similar complaints from his clients in Grass Valley, California, a Sierra foothill community about an hour east of Sacramento. He said half a dozen consumers wanted him to switch their health plans as soon as the second round of open enrollment started earlier this month. They told him the plan they chose last year made it extremely difficult to find primary care doctors.

Only two insurance companies in the Gold Rush-era town offer coverage through the state exchange, and just four or five primary care doctors out of about 135 signed up with one insurer.

The other insurer has more doctors, but most are considered out of network. That means patients who use them will pay 60 percent of the bill, he said.

“Coverage does not equal access,” said Halby, who instead recommends his clients choose a plan outside the exchange that has a much broader provider network but also will not come with the government premium subsidies given to most of those who buy insurance through the exchange. “I tell people this up front: The premiums are going to be higher because there’s no subsidy. However, I’m going to guarantee you can keep your doctor.”

SILLY PARENTS. YOU COULDN’T POSSIBLY KNOW WHAT’S GOOD FOR YOUR KIDS.
When I was a kid, my mom would pack our lunches before sending us off to school. Not every day, but a vast majority of the time. She wanted us to have the healthiest food possible when we weren’t at home, and she couldn’t always count on our schools to provide that for us.

I can just imagine how my parents would have reacted if I had come home with a note from school like the one that parents received recently from a Richmond, Virginia, school district. The note from the school board informed parents that from now on, if they wanted to have their kids eat lunches that were prepared at home instead of in the school cafeteria, they would have to provide a doctor’s note explaining why.

I wish I could say I was surprised by this latest attempt by our government to control us, but I wasn’t. Actually, I’m surprised they waited this long to stick their noses in this aspect of our lives. But assuming that it was coming doesn’t make it any easier to stomach. What they’re doing is telling parents that they have to pay for a doctor’s visit in order to give their kids nutritional food to eat for lunch at school rather than the GMO-laden, preservative-filled, deep-fried, fattening foods often served up by our public schools.

But you know what? Even if the schools served fresh fruits and vegetables to the kids every day and I wanted my kid to eat a sandwich and a cookie, I should have the right to do that without a doctor’s note. It should be my right as a parent to feed my kids whatever I want to feed them without governmental interference.

Of course, this isn’t really about food at all. It’s just more of the same garbage that the government continues to dish out and spoon-feed us almost every day. It’s all about controlling people. They want to control what you say and do, where and when you go somewhere, and who you communicate with. It’s all part of their never-ending attack on individual rights.

How would you respond if a school sent home a note such as that with your child or grandchild? I’d love to hear what you have to say about this.

Should Churches Be Subsidized For Preaching Politically Correct Propaganda?
Posted by Frederick Meekins on November 23, 2014 at 9:39amView Blog
In compliance with the state mandate to curb storm water run off, the Prince George’s County Department of the Environment is considering a proposal that would waive the unpopular impervious surface property tax assessment for their properties if churches agree to preach environmentally friendly sermons or engage in other forms of mental conditioning.

What’s the big deal, some will ask.

After all, does the Bible not teach us to be good stewards of God’s creation?

God’s word also instructs the believer to be on guard against wolves in sheep’s clothing.

If governments grant tax code favors to religious organizations for ideological compliance in regards to one issue, what is to prevent them from doing so in regards to more controversial matters?

In the name tolerance and diversity, what if governments granted tax and regulatory relief to congregations supporting gay marriage?

What if a government wanted to promote pluralism and inclusion by lavishing all manner of benefits upon a church that agreed not to lift the name of Jesus above all names but instead only reference a nondescript generic God or no God at all but rather just the Ultimate Concern as formulated by Paul Tillich?

How about putting the shoe on the other foot for a moment?

What if to bolster declining birthrates a government lavished tax favors upon churches promising to preach prolife messages?

It is said that the power to tax is the power to destroy.

Advocates insist that that the program is strictly voluntary.

However, government programs that start off voluntary can easily end up becoming mandatory.

Anybody remember the assurances of if you like your healthcare plan you can keep your healthcare plan?

From one perspective, the program is completely voluntary with no government shocktroops raiding churches failing to put in the environmental upgrades or enunciating church dogma in such a way to win the approval of the state (at least not yet anyway).

Yet from another perspective, aren’t churches that refuse to have their very thoughts policed in this manner punished by having to pay the tax?

Courts have forbidden graduation prayers for being less of a mental intrusion.

By Frederick Meekins

Uh oh: New York Times creates big trouble for tax-dodging Obama ally Al Sharpton
POSTED AT 7:21 PM ON NOVEMBER 18, 2014 BY NOAH ROTHMAN

On Tuesday, The New York Times took its readers inside the city’s exclusive Four Seasons Restaurant where Al Sharpton celebrated his 60th birthday party at what was dubbed his “party for a cause.”

“Mayor Bill de Blasio and Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo hailed him as a civil rights icon,” the profile of New York City-based activist and MSNBC began. “President [Barack] Obama sent an aide to read a message commending Mr. Sharpton’s ‘dedication to the righteous cause of perfecting our union.’ Major corporations sponsored the lavish affair.”

It is a spectacular raise for an agitator who began his career inciting race riots outside of Freddy’s Fashion Mart, ruining the lives of the men who were falsely accused of raping Tawana Brawley, and serving as an FBI informant after affiliating with the mafia and expressing interest in securing a hefty amount of cocaine.

Sharpton has been described as Obama’s “go-to man on race” by the well-connected Politico reporter Glenn Thrush. He was contacted directly in August by Valerie Jarrett amid spiraling violence in Ferguson, Missouri, and was deployed to deescalate the situation. Well before Obama’s reelection, Sharpton emerged as one of the president’s most valued outreach figures. In 2010, The Wall Street Journal revealed that Sharpton was tasked to tamp down the “increasingly public criticism in the black community over his economic policy.”

The value Sharpton represented to the Obama White House perhaps made it easier to overlook the fact that, as The Times reported, the MSNBC host is a serial tax evader and violator of the public trust.

“Mr. Sharpton has regularly sidestepped the sorts of obligation most people see as inevitable,” The Times reported, “like taxes, rent, and other bills.”

Records reviewed by The New York Times show more than $4.5 million in current state and federal tax liens against him and his for-profit businesses. And though he said in recent interviews that he was paying both down, his balance with the state, at least, has actually grown in recent years. His National Action Network appears to have been sustained for years by not paying federal payroll taxes on its employees.
“With the tax liability outstanding, Mr. Sharpton traveled first class and collected a sizable salary, the kind of practice by nonprofit groups that the United States Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration recently characterized as ‘abusive,’ or ‘potentially criminal,’ if the failure to turn over or collect taxes is willful,” The Times report continued.

This is just the kind of economic treason that the president spent much of his reelection campaign railing against, only the public was lead to believe that Obama the populist crusader was railing against businessmen and women who exclusively voted Republican.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 202 other followers