Bad people send their children to private schools

Now the call goes out to sacrifice one’s children on the altar of Progressivism. What Mother Nature has done for us, encoding our DNA to sacrifice for the sake of our progeny, the Progressives apparently have had that particular piece of DNA lose its way into the strand. Perhaps this explains their often incomprehensible view of the world. So here we go, am I the only one who sees some similarity to Hitler’s view of the German youth?

While most would probably argue that prioritizing your child’s future over a collectivist political agenda makes you a better parent, Slate‘s Allison Benedikt argues today that moving your kids from a failing public school to a successful private schools makes you something of a horrible person

Benedikt writes :

You are a bad person if you send your children to private school. Not bad like murderer bad—but bad like ruining-one-of-our-nation’s-most-essential-institutions-in-order-to-get-what’s-best-for-your-kid bad. So, pretty bad.

I am not an education policy wonk: I’m just judgmental. But it seems to me that if every single parent sent every single child to public school, public schools would improve. This would not happen immediately. It could take generations. Your children and grandchildren might get mediocre educations in the meantime, but it will be worth it, for the eventual common good. …

I believe in public education, but my district school really isn’t good! you might say. I understand. You want the best for your child, but your child doesn’t need it. If you can afford private school (even if affording means scrimping and saving, or taking out loans), chances are that your spawn will be perfectly fine at a crappy public school. She will have support at home (that’s you!) and all the advantages that go along with being a person whose family can pay for and cares about superior education—the exact kind of family that can help your crappy public school become less crappy. She may not learn as much or be as challenged, but take a deep breath and live with that

Benedikt seems to agree with MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry: Children don’t belong to families, they “belong to their communities.”   The progressive ideology demands that you bear more responsibility for the collective education of the community than for the educational enrichment of your own child.

More at the The Blaze

Family fights for farm – what is to become of rural America?

This is a story that sure rang a bell with me. We focus most often on the Federal and State governmental intrusion. But for those of us who have had family farms or rural acreage, many of us have seen the wanton destruction of our lifestyle by local officials.

We chose or were born in the boonies. Then one or more of the city types move in. They become active politically because it is the Progressives way. They want to run the Planning and Zoning or be vocal as hell, that too is the Progressives way. They will tell us how to live. Let me cut to the chase.

Our property had been in the family for 6 generations. Zoning came in. Half of our property was zoned “Open Space” which meant pretty to look at but essentially worthless. The commercial portion was zoned Residential. You can guess the value of that portion of land.

The Zoning Officer, much to be feared.

So here we go with a great story for a Labor Day Weekend. I wish the family much success. I hope they have deep pockets.

“The local government can change the zoning of any parcel of land on a whim,” says Reason Foundation’s Adrian Moore, “it’s being played out basically on crony politics rather than any kind of real, objective standard.”

H/T: News Alert

Notes from the video:

Roughly a three hour drive from Detroit, Mattawan is a rural community that is home to many small farms with many farm animals.

Yet Vander Kley Hunter had still checked before purchasing the property to make sure that having animals would be all right, and the township confirmed that farm animals were indeed allowed. But earlier this summer, the Hunters received a letter stating that their farm was no longer in compliance with the township zoning ordinance and that they had 90 days to get rid of more than half of their animals.

“It knocked the wind out of my sails,” says Vander Kley Hunter, “I was pretty depressed for awhile over it.”

Vander Kley Hunter says that her neighbor complained to the township about the animals, thus prompting the township to reinterpret the ordinance and state that the Hunter farm was out of compliance.

“The local government can change the zoning of any parcel of land on a whim,” says Reason Foundation’s Adrian Moore, “it’s being played out basically on crony politics rather than any kind of real, objective standard.”

Moore says that property rights have eroded vastly over the last 100 years in America, and that these kinds of issues should be resolved in the courts, not in the political arena that is far more susceptible to abuse.

“The fact that the neighbors are using the political process rather than the court system already says they’ve got a somewhat suspicious complaint.”

Moore says the only way to fight a political battle is with politics, and that the community has to rise up against the township. Luckily for the Hunters, the community has come to their aid and is speaking out against the township at regular town hall meetings.

“The support that we’ve received from all of this has been completely overwhelming, I’ve never experienced anything like it,” says Vander Kley Hunter.

Vander Kley Hunter is hopeful that the community’s support combined with her family’s persistence will be enough to save her animals.

Obama on MLK day 2002 ‘Does non-violence make sense?’

All that can be said is the man is consistent. It has been class warfare since day one.

I don’t  know if you’ve noticed, but rich people are all for non-violence. Why wouldn’t they be? They’ve got what they want. They want to make sure nobody’s going to take their stuff!

In a speech given just a over a decade ago, President Obama said Martin Luther King’s philosophy of nonviolence “only makes sense” if the rich have sufficient empathy for the poor and the “powerless” are able to see a chance to become like those he says are running society.

Speaking on Martin Luther King Day in 2002 at a church in Chicago, then-State Senator Obama charged there was an “empathy deficit” in America resulting in a failure of the rich to correct society’s inequities. Here is a transcript of the video below:

The philosophy of non-violence only makes sense if the powerful can be made to recognize themselves in the powerless. It only makes sense if the powerless can be made to recognize themselves in the powerful.

You know, the principle of empathy gives broader meaning, by the way, to Dr. King’s philosophy of non-violence. I don’t  know if you’ve noticed, but rich people are all for non-violence. Why wouldn’t they be? They’ve got what they want. They want to make sure nobody’s going to take their stuff!

The well off, Obama suggests, are in fact practicing their own form of violence against the poor through a kind of economic oppression.

But the principle of empathy recognizes that there are more subtle forms of violence to which we are answerable. The spirit of empathy condemns not only the use of fire hoses and attack dogs to keep people down but also accountants and tax loopholes to keep people down.

I’m not saying that what Enron executives did to their employees is the moral equivalent of what Bull Connor did to black folks but, I tell you what, the employees of Enron feel violated. When a company town  sees some distant executives made some decisions despite the wage concessions, despite the tax breaks, and they see their entire economy collapses, they feel violence.

From January 21, 2002. University of Chicago

First picked up at WhiteHouse Dossier  with H/T’s as well to  National Review .

Thanks go to:

Patterico’s Pontifications  who was the original source with additional clips. Here are his additional links:

And the class warfare talk never ends.

What Obama really thought about the Clinton years. Quote: “Among African American males, one third to one fourth caught up in the criminal justice system, so that the number of young men incarcerated exceeded the number enrolled in colleges and universities. Throughout the nation inequality up, trust in mutuality down . . . the evidence was there if we cared to look.”

Obama on empathy, the powerful, and the prison industrial complex. Quote: “It’s hard to imagine that the powerful in our society would tolerate the burgeoning prison industrial complex if they imagined that the black men and Latino men that are being imprisoned were something like their sons.”

Local funding of schools is “fundamentally unjust.” Quote: “And Illinois, like many states in the country, has an education system that is funded  by property taxes. It is fundamentally unjust. So you have folks up in Winnetka, pupils who are getting five times as much money per student as students in the South Side of Chicago.”

The full clip on YouTube.

His usual class warfare drivel, no surprise, but just in case anyone still wonders about the man.

Kerry,Clinton’s sorry Syrian policy has led to this?

During the Bush Administration, the Dems did what they could to undermine his policy in attempting to isolate Syria. From Kerry to Pelosi, they defied him and went waltzing over to meet with their “friend” that they were sure was going to be our go to guy in the Middle East. A butcher with massive amounts of chemical weapons, no mind. What is it with all of these Progressives and their infatuation with dictators? Lets take a spin in the way back machine and review a bit of history not so very long ago.

Reporters aren’t interested in exploring aspects of Clinton’s job as Secretary  of State. One such comment not getting attention is her 2011 labeling of Bashar  al-Assad, the man almost  certainly (maybe) behind a devastating chemical weapons attack, as a “reformer.”

On the March 27, 2011, Clinton insisted, “There’s a different leader in  Syria now. Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to  Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer.” (The Washington  Post gave this remark three Pinocchios. Clinton later backtracked.)  Yet, ABC, NBC and CBS have not reexamined the comments in the wake of the attack  or its accuracy.

Uploaded on Mar 31, 2011. Included in the clip is her take on the wonders of the administration’s actions in Libya as well. Getting rid of one nasty dictator.

On July 27, 2012, National  Review recounted several politicians who have offered hopeful comments  about Assad. Noah Glyn wrote of Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi  and others:

In 2007, Nancy Pelosi, over strong objections from the  State Department, visited Syria, and said, “The road to Damascus is a road to  peace.” Senator John Kerry predicted that “Syria will change as it embraces a  legitimate relationship with the United States.” Read more:  Newsbusters

It wasn’t so long ago that Kerry made repeated pilgrimage to Syria, meeting with Assad five times between 2009 and 2011.

He famously used the adjective “generous” to describe Assad, as the Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stephens recalled in a column:

On March 16, 2011—the day after the first mass demonstration against the regime—John Kerry said Assad was a man of his word who had been “very generous with me.” He added that under Assad “Syria will move; Syria will change as it embraces a legitimate relationship with the United States.” This is the man who might be our next secretary of state.

As Michael Rubin recently wrote in Commentary Magazine, Kerry’s staffers described “their collective cringe when, after a motorcycle ride with Bashar al-Assad, he returned to Washington referring to Bashar as ‘my dear friend.’”

Kerry clearly believed Assad was honest and a force for stability. The National Review quoted a WikiLeaks document which revealed Kerry had told the emir of Qatar in November 2010, “Assad is a man who ‘wants to change’ and that Israel should cede the Golan Heights to the Syrians ‘at some point.’”

The National Review detailed more about Kerry’s positive impression of Assad:

After a “long and comprehensive” meeting with Assad in April of that year, Kerry described it as “a very positive discussion.” A month later, Kerry was back in Syria. His spokesman, insisting that “Syria can play a critical role in bringing peace and stability if it makes the strategic decision to do so,” asserted that Kerry had “emerged as one of the primary American interlocutors with the Syrian government.” Despite the senator’s interlocutions, Assad, it appears, has made the wrong “strategic decision.”

The Washington Free Beacon in an article titled “An Affair to Remember: John Kerry Hearts Bashar al-Assad” called Kerry the Syrian dictator’s “highest-ranking apologist in American politics”:

Kerry thwarted efforts during the Bush administration to diplomatically isolate Syria after the administration’s own efforts to engage the regime ended in failure in 2003. Kerry served as the Obama administration’s envoy to Assad, leading a delegation to Syria just days after Obama’s inauguration. There he listened to Bashar Assad lecture him that Washington must “move away from a policy based on dictating decisions.”

H/T:The Blaze

And why is Kerry so sure Obama will be a success with his Middle East Policies? Please do guess, I am sure you will be surprised! Our savant strikes again. John Kerry interview with SouthCoastToday on 3/19/08

FLASHBACK: Pelosi Visits Assad In Syria, Tells Him “We Came In Friendship, Hope, And Peace”…

April 5, 2007:

DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi held talks with Syria’s leader Wednesday despite White House objections, saying she pressed President Bashar Assad over his country’s support for militant groups and passed him a peace message from Israel.

James Clapper and his NSA ‘task force’ review panel Part two

As promised yesterday, a follow up to the fine fellows who along with Cass Sunstein have been charged by Obama as an “Independent” task force to oversee our NSA. Richard Clarke should be considered equally an anathema to liberty.

The Clapper Investigation: Overseen by a Man Accused of Lying to Congress

The second investigation was announced by President Obama in a Friday afternoon news conference. The President called for the creation of an “independent” task force with “outside experts” to make sure “there absolutely is no abuse in terms of how these surveillance technologies are used.” Less than two days later, the White House followed up with a press release announcing the task force would be led by Gen. Clapper and would also report to him.

What’s even worse: the task force was not tasked with looking at any abuse. It was told to focus on how to “protect our national security and advance our foreign policy.” And just this week, ABC News reported the task force will be full of thorough Washington insiders—not “outside experts.”

For instance, one (Richard Clarke) has advocated the Department of Homeland Security be allowed to scan all Internet traffic going in and out of the US.

And another, while a noted legal scholar on regulatory issues, has written a paper (Cass Sunstein) about government campaigns to infiltrate online groups and activists. In one good act, the White House selected Peter Swire to be on the task force. Swire is a professor at Georgia Tech and has served as the White House’s first ever Chief Privacy Officer. Recently, he signed an amicus brief in a case against the NSA spying by the Electronic Privacy Information Center arguing that the NSA’s telephony metadata program is illegal under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. Despite this, and at the end of a day, a task force led by General Clapper full of insiders—and not directed to look at the extensive abuse—will never get at the bottom of the unconstitutional spying.

Full story over at EFF and why this whole thing is a sham.

Richard Clarke:

Under Customs authority, the Department of Homeland Security could inspect what enters and exits the United States in cyberspace. Customs already looks online for child pornography crossing our virtual borders. And under the Intelligence Act, the president could issue a finding that would authorize agencies to scan Internet traffic outside the United States and seize sensitive files stolen from within our borders.

And this does not have to endanger citizens’ privacy rights. Indeed, Mr. Obama could build in protections like appointing an empowered privacy advocate who could stop abuses or any activity that went beyond halting the theft of important files.

If Congress will not act to protect America’s companies from Chinese cyberthreats, President Obama must.

Cass Sunstein: See yesterday’s post: Obama packs NSA review panel with cronies

 Cass Sunstein wrote a lengthy academic papersuggesting the government should “infiltrate” social network websites, chat rooms and message boards.

Such “cognitive infiltration,” Sunstein argued, should be used to enforce a U.S. government ban on “conspiracy theorizing.”

Among the beliefs Sunstein classified as a “conspiracy theory” is advocating that the theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud.

While the DHS may be monitoring websites for security reasons, Sunstein advocated such actions with another goal in mind.

Sunstein’s official title is administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

As WND was first to report, in a 2008 Harvard law paper, “Conspiracy Theories,” Sunstein and co-author Adrian Vermeule, a Harvard law professor, ask, “What can government do about conspiracy theories?”

Obama packs NSA review panel with cronies

What possibly could go wrong? No doubt the same as with the so-called “IRS” review panel. Cass Sunstein for one? Samantha Power’s hubby no doubt will want to be the voice of freedom. The story first headliner, then the back story.

Via WaPo:

ABC reports that the Obama administration’s surveillance review panel will include former intelligence and White House staffers, including Michael Morell, Richard Clarke, Cass Sunstein and Peter Swire. An official announcement of the members of the panel is expected soon

But let us back up for just one second. Recall this post on dear Cass? I will stick first with just this fine fellow. Tomorrow, more on the rest.

Cass Sunstein behind monitoring of websites

Just prior to his appointment as President Obama’s so-called regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein wrote a lengthy academic papersuggesting the government should “infiltrate” social network websites, chat rooms and message boards.

Such “cognitive infiltration,” Sunstein argued, should be used to enforce a U.S. government ban on “conspiracy theorizing.”

Among the beliefs Sunstein classified as a “conspiracy theory” is advocating that the theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud.

While the DHS may be monitoring websites for security reasons, Sunstein advocated such actions with another goal in mind.

Sunstein’s official title is administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

As WND was first to report, in a 2008 Harvard law paper, “Conspiracy Theories,” Sunstein and co-author Adrian Vermeule, a Harvard law professor, ask, “What can government do about conspiracy theories?”

“We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories.”

Continued Sunstein: “We suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of believers by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity.”

Now back to the regularly scheduled dis-information from the Washington Post.

Via WaPo:

ABC reports 

The review panel was first announced in a White House press conference on Aug. 9, when Obama said the administration would form “a high-level group of outside experts to review our entire intelligence and communications technologies.”

Privacy advocates aren’t happy with the composition of the group revealed so far. Some privacy groups believe that the White House will insist on all members having top secret clearances, effectively barring most independent privacy watchdogs from consideration for the panel.

Amie Stepanovich, director of the domestic surveillance project at the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) found the choices reported by ABC troubling:

An independent evaluation of the NSA’s surveillance programs is needed. But a worthwhile review requires an independent team of evaluators. We continue to learn how each of the oversight mechanisms that the Administration has pointed to have continuously failed. The background of this panel indicates that it, too, is unlikely to be meaningful or effective.

Keep reading…

I.R.S and Lois Lerner going after the American Legion

What is becoming clear is that the IRS is becoming a tool of this regime to intimidate. Lois Lerner is back in the news. She heads up the jurisdiction of Exempt Organizations. No wonder she took the “Fifth.” Despicable that the IRS is going after our veterans. But then again, we know how Obama feels about our military. Harassment pure and simple. These associations have no time for this nonsense. And Lois knows it.

Via Daily Caller:

The Internal Revenue Service is targeting the veterans’ organization the American Legion, and a U.S. senator believes that Lois Lerner — a key figure in the IRS scandal – is to blame.

“The IRS now requires American Legion posts to maintain dates of service and character of service records for all members… The penalty for not having the required proof of eligibility is, apparently, $1,000 per day,” the American Legion stated.

The American Legion was referring to a 13-part section of Part 4, Chapter 76 of  the Internal Revenue Manual pertaining to “veterans’ organizations.”

The section falls under “Exempt Organizations Examination Guidelines,” which is  the jurisdiction of Exempt Organizations head Lois Lerner, who apologized for  improperly targeting tea party groups and tried to plead the Fifth Amendment in  a congressional hearing.

“On the heels of Americans’ anger over revelations that the IRS intentionally  targeted certain groups, it has been brought to my attention that the IRS is now  turning their sights toward our nation’s veterans,” Kansas Sen. Jerry Moran  said. “The IRS seems to be auditing veteran service organizations by requiring  private member  military service forms.”

“If a post is unable or not willing to turn over this personal  information, it’s  possible they could face a fine of $1,000 per day,” Moran continued.

“The American Legion has recently learned of the so-called IRS ‘audit manual’ and is concerned that portions of it attempt to amend statutes passed by Congress and approved by the president,” American Legion legal counsel Philip Onderdonk, Jr. told The Daily Caller.

Keep reading…

DOD says Conservatives are dangerous as well as the Founders

They are keeping right at it on this note. Conservatives are dangerous folks. We are now a “Hate Group”. This from the Dept. of Defense. Now even the founders were dangerous folks as well. First the refresher, then the new training materials that are being promulgated.

West Point Think Tank warns of dangerous “Conservatives” January 19, 2013

The report issued this week by the Combating Terrorism Center at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., is titled “Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right.” And just who are these “Violent Far-Right” folks?

It says anti-federalists “espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government. Extremists in the anti-federalist movement direct most their violence against the federal government and its proxies in law enforcement.”

The report also draws a link between the mainstream conservative movement and the violent “far right,” and describes liberals as “future oriented” and conservatives as living in the past.

“The far right represents a more extreme version of conservatism, as its political vision is usually justified by the aspiration to restore or preserve values and practices that are part of the idealized historical heritage of the nation or ethnic community.”

Now we learn we are considered one of the Hate Groups. Even our founders??. Here we go:

U.S. Military says we are the enemy

Judicial Watch obtained Defense Department training materials on Friday that described conservative and civil liberties organizations as “hate groups.”

The training materials used by the Air Force were created to help students “recognize extremists ideologies.” The materials identified conservative values, such as individual liberties and states’ rights, as recruiting rhetoric used by “extremists.”

According to Judicial Watch:

A Department of Defense teaching guide meant to fight extremism advises students that rather than “dressing in sheets” modern-day radicals “will talk of individual liberties, states’ rights, and how to make the world a better place,” and describes 18th-century American patriots seeking freedom from the British as belonging to “extremist ideologies.”

Under a section labeled “Extremist Ideologies” the document states, “In U.S. history, there are many examples of extremist ideologies and movements.  The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule and the Confederate states who sought to secede from the Northern states are just two examples.”

The documents were published by the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute in January 2013. They cited the leftwing Southern Poverty Law Center repeatedly as a source to use when identifying hate groups.

The documents discussed Islamic extremism only in reference to Sudan  and 9/11.

H/T:Free Beacon

The real reason U.N. Samantha Power is M.I.A.

Of course the real Samantha Power is showing her real persona. Let’s take a look at her past writings to understand why she was a “No Show” at the U.N. meetings regarding Syria. She has nothing but contempt for the U.S. Keep in mind these meetings are on going. She didn’t miss just the only one. First the refresher then we will look at her “Tweet.”

Commentary Magazine: (An excellent piece, well worth the full read on our gal)

 In a 2003 article for the New Republic, Power:  “The U.S,” she wrote, “came to be seen less as it sees itself (the cop protecting the world from rogue nations) than as the very runaway state international law needs to contain.”

Power wrote that America’s record in world affairs had been so harmful to the freedoms of people around the world that the United States could remedy the problem only through profound self-criticism and the wholesale adoption of new policies. Acknowledging that President Bush was correct in saying that “some America-bashers” hate the American people’s freedoms, Ms. Power stated that much anti-Americanism derives from the role that U.S. power “has played in denying such freedoms to others” and concluded:

U.S. foreign policy has to be rethought. It needs not tweaking but overhauling….Instituting a doctrine of mea culpa would enhance our credibility by showing that American decision-makers do not endorse the sins of their predecessors. When [then German Chancellor] Willie [sic] Brandt went down on one knee in the Warsaw ghetto, his gesture was gratifying to World War II survivors, but it was also ennobling and cathartic for Germany. Would such an approach be futile for the United States?

Now we get back to the faux Samantha Power. The schizophrenic Power who first says “get there fast” and then we have a couple of clips of poor Fox’s Rosen trying to find out why Power didn’t get there fast.

Ambassador Power’s twitter account tweets that “UN must get there fast” — and I think, why didn’t she get to the UN EMERGENCY MEETING FAST?  We need our Ambassador.

I hope she has a good excuse for her absence — other work or serious personal matter — because this IS her job, not a junior, to represent the USA in critical international matters:

Screen Shot 2013-08-22 at 5.30.50 PM

H/T: Greta Wire

Published on Aug 22, 2013

Rosen to Psaki: Where Was Samantha Power During the Emergency UN Security Council Meeting on Syria? Snarky Psaki, the face of our State Dept. Am I the only one that notices the change in tone with this administration? They use to hide their contempt for us.

More snarky from this mouthpiece. She has “secure” communication via twitter with the U.N. and her staff. Get out the old laugh meter.

Obamacare: Corruption reigns supreme with millions in handouts

On the face of this, the story may seem to be a yawner. No surprise. Really? Have we become so jaded that the story doesn’t rise to the point of a mention most places? These navigators will come from the corrupt center of Obama’s power base. So let us take a spin and take a look:

In a frightening glimpse of the potential for corruption in Obamacare, the government is giving dozens of leftist organizations $67 million to help people “navigate” health insurance exchanges that haven’t even been fully established.

The money will be divided between 105 mostly leftist groups (surprise, surprise) that will help the uninsured sign up for coverage and understand their options. Here are a few examples of the community organizations receiving navigator grants from the government; an Arizona nonprofit called “Campesinos Sin Fronteras” that provides services to farm workers and low-income Hispanics; a south Florida legal group that will provide navigators in “racially, ethnically, linguistically, culturally and socioeconomically diverse” communities; three Planned Parenthood branches—in Iowa, Montana and New Hampshire—got a combined $655,000 to serve as navigators.

Here are a few other grant recipients worth mentioning; the Arab Community Center in Michigan is getting nearly $300,000 to reach out to and engage uninsured community members through “multicultural” media. A Black Chamber of Commerce in South Carolina is receiving north of $230,000 to “provide outreach around new coverage options” and a Hispanic aging group in Texas will receive over $646,000 help members that are “socially isolated due to cultural and linguistic differences.”

Also, this week HHS announced a contest that awards cash prizes—$30,000 in all—to those who create hip videos promoting Obamacare. More at Judicial Watch if you can stand it.

Where is the GOP? Where is the Media? Where is the outrage?

%d bloggers like this: