Yesterday, Janet Mefferd invited Michael Coffman onto her program to discuss his book, Radical Islam in the House, about how an “Islamist cancer” has “penetrated deeply into the federal government and our culture” in order “to create a global Caliphate or world government.”
Coffman told Mefferd that President Obama might become a dictator and refuse to give up power in order to transform the US into an Islamic state. Once Americans begin fighting back against the dictatorship by the country’s 0.8 percent Muslim population, Coffman predicts that the US will experience a second Civil War that is much like the one taking place in Syria.
He said the Obama administration is building such close ties to “radical Islamists” that they can’t be overturned by the next administration “no matter who is the next president, if we have another president.”
“Actually the Islamists believe that by the end of the Obama administration they will have an Islamic nation here in the United States, they believe very confidently that they will have succeeded within these next three and a half years to make this an Islamist state.”
“The next president, assuming we can get there, is probably going to shut the whole thing down and stop it,” Coffman said of the supposed Islamist takeover. “I think it’s going to become so apparent by that time that it’s going to be almost impossible for them to be able to implement it without going to a civil war type of thing like they do so often like it’s happening in Syria and so forth right now.”
“I don’t think the American people fully understood what they were voting for when they returned Obama back to his second term,” Coffman lamented. “It’s really opened up the United States to so many different things that could destroy us, literally destroy us in the next four years.”
Coffman further alleged that President Obama is sympathetic to radical Islam because his worldview contains only “a little bit of Christianity, just about five percent, not much more than that, and a whole lot of Islam in his background that he has now staked his corner on because there is so much overlap between progressivism and Islam.”
“Not only is Islam diametrically opposed to [Christian precepts] but so is progressivism, but when you have those two things diametrically opposed to what this nation was founded on and what made it such a great nation, you have a tiger forced out and it has to be forced out, it just has to be.”
In a speech Friday, Rafael Cruz, Religious Right activist and father of Sen. Ted Cruz, cited a fake quote from The Audacity of Hope to suggest that President Obama is a Muslim.
In audio obtained by ColoradoPols.com, the elder Cruz told the Adams County Republican Party, “Barack Obama said: If the winds shift, I will side with the Muslims.” When an audience member shouted, “He is Muslim!,” Cruz seemed to agree and replied: “McCain couldn’t say that, because it’s not politically correct. It is time to stop being politically correct!”
The quote of Obama saying he will “side with the Muslims” has been making the rounds on right-wing chain emails. The myth-busting website Snopes.com found that the line is a “rewording of a passage” from his book regarding “the importance of not allowing inflamed public opinion to result in innocent members of immigrant groups being stripped of their rights” and “contains no specific mention of ‘Muslims.’”
In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific reassurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.
Cruz also repeated the thoroughly debunked claim that Obamacare will require people to have “end-of-life counseling” every five years, which he refers to as “suicide counseling.” PolitiFact called the charge an “outright distortion” of a provision that would have allowed Medicare to “cover the cost of end-of-life counseling sessions,” which are optional, and to “cover one session every five years.” The sessions would not have been mandatory and would not have “encourage[d] patients to end their lives.”
But even that provision isn’t currently law: It was dropped from the final bill thanks to far-right conspiracy theories.
Cruz went on to call the majority of Republican Senators “RINOs” for not supporting his son on a cloture vote for a government funding bill.
Now that the House GOP leadership has listened to its far-right Tea Party wing and shut down the government in a failed attempt to block the rollout of the Affordable Care Act, Republicans in Congress are trying to present themselves as American heroes.
They are patting themselves on the back for attempting to stop a law that they claim most voters oppose…despite the fact that voters re-elected President Obama just last November and overwhelmingly oppose the Tea Party shutdown.
We attempted to wade into the Tea Party’s alternate universe to condense Right’s six favorite talking points about the shutdown.
Obama’s Re-Election Had Nothing To Do With Obamacare
Only in the delusional reality of conservative activists was Obamacare not an issue in the last election. Mitt Romney campaigned for a full repeal of the health care law with the message, “Day one. Job one. Repeal Obamacare.” But not according to Heritage Foundation head and Romney backer Jim DeMint, who said that Romney and other Republicans lost because they weren’t conservative enough and “because of Romney and Romneycare, we did not litigate the Obamacare issue.” Sen. Rand Paul maintained that there hasn’t been a “big debate on Obamacare” since 2010, while Fox News anchor Steve Doocy defended repeal efforts by making the dumbfounding claim that “the November election last time was not about Obamacare.”
Obamacare Isn’t A Law!
Congressional Republicans have tried to avoid admitting that Obamacare is even a law, with several GOP lawmakers in the Senate and theHouse — including Speaker Boehner — referring to the Affordable Care Act — signed into law in 2010 — as only a “bill.” The right-wing group FreedomWorks said that it is encouraging Republicans to label the law as a “bill” in order to undermine it by “emphasiz[ing] that the law remains quasi illegitimate, because it has never accepted by one of the two major parties.” It should go without saying that just because one party doesn’t like a law, doesn’t mean that it is not a law.
Obamacare Wrong Because People Will Like It
The GOP is insistent that Congress must repeal Obamacare before people begin enjoying its benefits. Sen. Ted Cruz warned that “it is likely Obamacare will become a permanent feature of our economy” once people become “addicted to the subsidies, addicted to the sugar.” Rep. Michele Bachmann similarly asserted that “it will be virtually impossible for us to pull these benefits back from the people” after “they enroll millions of more” people into health insurance plans and get them “addicted to the crack cocaine of dependency.”
Democrats Need To Compromise On Derailing Obamacare
Republicans and several media outlets have tried to create a false equivalency between GOP hostage-taking and Democratic officials who simply want to keep the government running. Cruz said his anti-Obamacare strategy represents “the essence of a compromise” and asked, “what have the Democrats compromised on? Nothing. Zero.” Rep. Dana Rohrabacher also slammed Democrats for having “refused to even consider the compromise that [Republicans] have offered.” Of course, these notions of “compromise” are based on the absurd premise that simply funding the government is itself a concession on the part of Republicans, and Democrats now should return the favor by agreeing to their objective of undermining the health care reform law.
Obamacare Opponents Emulating Civil Rights Legends
Florida freshman Ted Yoho said that Republicans who shut down the government over the health care law are just like Civil Rights Movement activists Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr., and Polish Solidarity founder Lech Walesa: “It only takes one with passion — look at Rosa Parks, Lech Walesa, Martin Luther King,” Yoho said. “People with passion that speak up, they’ll have people follow them because they believe the same way, and smart leadership listens to that.”
House Republicans Like 9/11 Heroes
Texas Republican John Culberson tried to rally the House GOP by comparing their struggle to the passengers on United Airlines Flight 93, who fought the terrorists who hijacked their plane: “I said, you know like 9/11, ‘Let’s roll!’”
Alan Keyes somehow managed to include a rant against gay rights in a screed against the UN Arms Trade Treaty, which is already the subject of right-wing conspiracy theories. Keyes said that the treaty is—of course—a push to stifle the gun rights, classify “people who support the Second Amendment” as “prospective terrorists” and provide “a pretext for suppressing the constitutional rights of people.”
“Can they figure out a way to reconcile their desire to give arms to Islamic extremists with their equally intense desire to disarm law-abiding American citizens?” Keyes asked. “The problem is that these days, what constitutes human rights abuses, terrorism, and violations of humanitarian law is very much in the eye of the propagandist.”
This all goes back to homosexuality and abortion, you see, because that’s where the Obama administration and the judiciary’s supposed crackdown on liberty began: “These days, elitist faction judges cite human rights violations as they rape the parental authority of Christian parents who seek to raise their children to believe that homosexuality is wrong and sinful behavior. Pro-abortion officials are well-known for their attempts to prosecute pro-life demonstrators as criminals under provisions of law created to target organized crime.”
This evident contradiction between its intended treaty commitments and its actions may keep the Obama faction from pre-empting U.S. Senate action on the UN Arms Trade Treaty. Can they figure out a way to reconcile their desire to give arms to Islamic extremists with their equally intense desire to disarm law-abiding American citizens? However that may be, Kerry signed the treaty while voicing the obligatory assurances that this will in no way affect the constitutional rights of people subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government.
The problem is that these days, what constitutes human rights abuses, terrorism, and violations of humanitarian law is very much in the eye of the propagandist. These days, elitist faction judges cite human rights violations as they rape the parental authority of Christian parents who seek to raise their children to believe that homosexuality is wrong and sinful behavior. Pro-abortion officials are well-known for their attempts to prosecute pro-life demonstrators as criminals under provisions of law created to target organized crime. People who support the Second Amendment, believe in limited government, and champion the sovereign authority the 10th Amendment reserves "to the States respectively, or to the people," have been identified in Obama faction official documents as prospective terrorists.
On the face of it, these claims and legal abuses are absurd. But they are matters of record. So, is it absurd to suggest that the people they target and abuse might, by law, be restricted in their access to firearms in order to satisfy the provisions of the proposed UN treaty? Obama faction officials and members of the U.S. judiciary (including the U.S. Supreme Court) have shown little regard for constitutional reason even when nothing in the Constitution gave them warrant for their decisions and actions. When the provisions of a treaty, ratified to command respect as the Supreme Law of the Land, give them a pretext for their unreason, what should we expect from them?
Of course, the language that gives treaties the sanction of the Supreme Law of the Land need not be construed to make them a pretext for suppressing the constitutional rights of people subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government. Just as provisions of duly enacted U.S. laws that contradict the Constitution are judged to be null and void, so treaty provisions that do so ought to be judged. But the Obama faction and its collaborators are determined to shed the constraints of constitutional government, especially when it comes to the responsibility of the people to maintain among themselves a well-regulated militia, as necessary for the security of their freedom.
Since 2008, End Times radio host Rick Wiles has maintained that bloodshed is on the horizon as a result of President Obama’s plan to drive the country into civil war.
On his Friday show, Wiles pointed to a quote from Sen. Tom Harkin about how he believes the extreme rhetoric and polarizing tactics of far-right Republicans in Congress has brought the US to a point “every bit as dangerous as the break-up of the Union before the Civil War” as evidence that he was right all along.
“I said in 2008 and 2009 that Mr. Obama’s agenda will be to start a civil war and I’m going to be proved right on this issue,” Wiles said. “This is his assignment: divide the country; split the country apart; bring the country to blows; start a civil war.”
After announcing November 19 as the date of his planned uprising against President Obama, Larry Klayman on Friday claimed that the anti-Obama putsch is now even more urgent due to the failure of Sen. Ted Cruz’s non-filibuster filibuster against the Affordable Care Act.
“[I]t is clear that we have no representative form of government,” Klayman remarked on Cruz’s inability to defund Obamacare. “As in 1776, the people must now take action to rid the nation of this new, far more evil tyrant, who makes King George III look like a Boy Scout.”
Now, the only way to stop Obama’s “anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, anti-white, socialist Islamic agenda” is “to mass in Washington, D.C., on Nov. 19, and to engage in peaceful civil disobedience, Ghandi and Martin Luther King style” and force Obama from office “before all is lost.”
The events of this week, combined with the last five years of Obama’s so called “phony scandals” and other outrages designed to subvert the rule of law and our freedoms as a whole – all in pursuit of his anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, anti-white, socialist Islamic agenda – are another reminder why the “Muslim in Chief” must be removed from office without further delay.
Obama and his minions are destroying the country and exposing us to unacceptable future annihilation at the hands of his Muslim brothers. To keep us down while he works his evil plan, he’s using our own NSA in full spying mode against us!
The time has come to mass in Washington, D.C., on Nov. 19, and to engage in peaceful civil disobedience, Ghandi and Martin Luther King style, to finally force Obama to resign the presidency and leave office immediately – or else face the music for his recent conviction for election fraud and other crimes. This week, with the failure of Sen. Ted Cruz’s efforts to block funding for Obamacare in the Senate, and the expected cave-in by Speaker John Boehner, it is clear that we have no representative form of government. As in 1776, the people must now take action to rid the nation of this new, far more evil tyrant, who makes King George III look like a Boy Scout.
Please join me in Washington, D.C., Nov. 19, and let’s demand an end to this president’s “reign” before all is lost and our nation drowns in a sea of corruption and subversion of the freedoms our Founding Fathers fought and died for, which freedoms they bequeathed to us to protect and preserve for future generations.
This is your duty if you are an American patriot!
An “overwhelming majority” of Americans support federal legislation protecting LGBT people from workplace discrimination, new data from Republican pollster Alex Lundry finds – including a majority (56%) of Republican voters. In fact, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is so in keeping with basic American values that eight in ten people think that it is already on the books, according to the poll.
An innovative statistical modeling method…allows us to estimate support for ENDA in all 50 states by combining data from our national survey with state level census data. The result? We estimate that across all 50 states a majority of voters support passing federal nondiscrimination protections.
Politico’s Maggie Haberman writes that the new data comes as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid seeks more Republican support for the bill and as advocates urge Congress to move it forward this fall.
As we have noted in the past, passing ENDA is simply common sense. Employees should be evaluated on how well they do their job, not on who they are or who they love. And as poll numbers increasing show, Americans from all parts of the country of all political stripes agree.
In an interview published today on the conspiracy-theory-happy website WorldNetDaily, Rep. Michele Bachmann likens President Obama to a crack dealer, accusing him of trying to “get Americans addicted to the crack cocaine of dependency on more government health care.”
The Minnesota congresswoman, who has alleged that Obamacare denies healthcare to conservatives, implements death panels and “literally kills” people, even tried to link health insurance exchanges to supposed ACORN-esque voter fraud in which non-existent people will sign up for insurance to make money.
Apparently, Bachmann is afraid that Americans will like the benefits of the Affordable Care Act so much that it will be “virtually impossible” for Republicans to repeal the reform law.
Pulling no punches, Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., told WND exactly why she thinks President Obama and Democrats are unwilling to negotiate with the GOP over Obamacare’s well-documented problems.
“I think the reason is because President Obama can’t wait to get Americans addicted to the crack cocaine of dependency on more government health care.”
“Because, once they enroll millions of more individual Americans, it will be virtually impossible for us to pull these benefits back from people,” the congresswoman explained.
“All they want to do is buy love from people by giving them massive government subsidies,” Bachmann summed up.
That’s why she wants lawmakers to do whatever they can to stop Obamacare, now.
“If it means delaying it, rather than repealing it. I’m for it. We have to do what we can do.”
Warning they are “making it up as they go along,” Bachmann predicted disaster if Obamacare goes ahead, because, “They’re trying to fly a plane they haven’t even built yet.”
WND asked if she heard concern from constituents over turning giving health and financial information to the government?
“Oh, yes. People are extrmely nervous, especially after all of the NSA issues earlier this year.”
“People don’t trust government, at all,” she added. “They don’t trust government’s ability not to be hacked, but they also look at a federal government that would intentionally misuse their data.”
The congresswoman told WND she had learned during a briefing that the navigators, or assisters, who will be signing up people for Obamacare “will be getting something like $59 a head for the people that they sign up. ACORN did that.”
“ACORN signed up Donald Duck and Minnie Mouse,” just making up names, “so people could make money. It was meant to be a scam.”
ACORN, the community organizing and voter-registration organization that Obama worked for in the 1990′s was disbanded after massive allegations of voter law violations and at least 54 ACORN employees and individuals associated with ACORN were convicted of voter fraud.
“We know people will get signed up in a fraudulent way. That’s why President Obama has already waived or deleted 19 different areas for Obamcare. Because they make it up as they go along.”
Bachamann insisited it is “unconstitutional for the executive to rewrite laws at will and spend money that Congress doens’t authorize. That’s competely [sic] unconstitutional.”
“Remember, we were lied to by the president. He told us abortion will not be funded. It is. We were told sterilizations, contraceptives, all that, we were told wouldn’t be part of the bill. It is. So, almost every promise the president has made has turned out to be false.” The tea party rock star declared, “Now is the time to put it out of its misery.”
“I am the author of the bill to repeal Obamcare, we’ve done that (the House has passed it) several times. We have to do what we can do. Whether that means defuding it instead of repealing it, I’m for it. If it means delaying it, rather than repealing it. I’m for it.”
“Whatever we can do to relieve the suffering of this economy and the American people.”
American Family Association radio hosts have a tendency to ignore real journalism and instead to rely on chain emails to back up their absurd conspiracy theories, including claims that Obamacare has a special exemption for Muslims and that President Obama wears a secret Muslim wedding ring.
Last week on Focal Point, AFA spokesman Bryan Fischer mentioned a right-wing chain email that says Japan bans mosques, Qurans and Muslim immigration — all of which are measures that Fischer supports wholeheartedly.
“Japan does not allow any Muslims to immigrate there,” Fischer said. “They cannot become Japanese citizens, the Quran is not permitted in the country of Japan, the teaching of Islam is not permitted in the country of Japan, no mosques are permitted in the country of Japan. If that information is correct, that’s one nation that’s got its eyes open.”
Of course, none of this matters to Fischer, who will likely continue to point to this chain email’s claims about Japan as a model for the United States to harshly curtail religious freedom and ban Islam.
American Family Association spokesman Bryan Fischer, who believes that Muslims worship “a demon God,” alleged today on Focal Point that Satan is using Islam to usher in the End Times. He corrected a caller who said he “thought about getting rid of Islam but it says in the Bible that if we get rid of Islam then the one-world government is going to move in and the bankers are backing up the one-world government,” telling him that, to the contrary, Islam is the “one-world counterfeit religion” prophesied in the Bible.
“That’s part of the End Times mix is Satan is always working to form a one-world government but he’s also working at the same time to get the entire world devoted to a counterfeit religion,” he continued.
Fischer said that while he can’t say for sure if we are living in the Last Days, Islam will be the false, universal religion that will usher in the apocalypse: “If we are in the Last Days, then Islam is clearly the religion that Satan is promoting to be the counterfeit alternative to Christianity.”
Even the right-wing Media Research Center’s Evan Mantel was moved by the Modern Family episode where Cam and Mitch got engaged…which is exactly why the sitcom is so dangerous. “As a conservative blog on entertainment, I’m in a tricky predicament during episodes like these,” Mantel explains. “It moved me like a good art is supposed to do. But that’s the problem. It moved me.”
He said that while he works for an anti-gay group, Modern Family “made me feel joy for Cam and Mitchell after the Supreme Court over-ruled California’s Prop 8.”
These feelings of joy for gay couples being happy and getting hitched, of course, is exactly “what makes this show great. And dangerous. It relies on feelings which mislead.”
According to Mantel, “there is no logical argument in favor of gay marriage,” just the “sweetness” and “touching” feelings of Cam and Mitchell, which he wants viewers to remember is “not a realistic portrayal of reality.”
This was a classic Modern Family. And as such, I am upset. Wanna know why I'm upset? (if you don't, why are you even reading??? Why?)
I'll let you in on a little secret: I write for a conservative blog. (I'll wait for those gasps of shock to die down.) As a conservative blog on entertainment, I'm in a tricky predicament during episodes like these. With a crappy episode, (like this one; HIMYM LINK)it is easy to rip the flawed presuppositions.
But this was a good episode. I laughed. I cried. I felt. It moved me like good art is supposed to do. But that's the problem. It moved me. It made me feel joy for Cam and Mitchell after the Supreme Court over-ruled California's Prop 8.
And that is what makes this show great. And dangerous. It relies on feelings which mislead. There is no logical argument in favor of gay marriage, but the sweetness of Cam and Mitchell trying to outdo each other's proposal is touching. Their simple and spontaneous proposal was as sweet as the portrayal of those who don't agree with gay marriage as spitting babies was subtle.
So what is a person to do?
Watch, I say. Watch a classic sitcom, but know that what you are seeing is fiction and not a realistic portrayal of realty.
A Kansas-based group that “promotes the religious rights of parents, children, and taxpayers” is challenging the state’s science standards because they include the teaching of evolution, which the group claims is a religion and therefore should be excluded from science class.
As the AP reports, Citizens for Objective Public Education (COPE) claims that public schools “promote a ‘non-theistic religious worldview’ by allowing only ‘materialistic’ or ‘atheistic’ explanations to scientific questions.” The group argues that by teaching evolution “the state would be ‘indoctrinating’ impressionable students in violation of the First Amendment.”
COPE’s challenge [PDF] states that the teaching of evolution “amounts to an excessive government entanglement with religion” and violates the rights of Christian parents.
Indeed, COPE’s stated mission is to create “religious[ly] neutral” schools that do not promote “pantheistic and materialistic religions, including Atheism and Religious (‘Secular’) Humanism” - a category under which it includes “Darwinian evolution.”
The National Center for Science Education calls COPE’s lawsuit “silly” and “frivolous,” and the Baptist Joint Committee says COPE’s argument “makes no sense” and that the group is effectively saying schools should be “teaching no science at all.”
Just like the bogus “teach the controversy” or “teach both sides” refrains, COPE’s lawsuit is part of a long line of Creationist challenges to the teaching of evolution.
Religious Right heavyweight John Eidsmoe, a mentor to conservative politicians like Michele Bachmann, wrote in his 1984 book God & Caesar that conservative Christian activists should base their attacks on evolution on the premise that evolution is actually just as much a religious idea as Creationism, and therefore the two should be treated the same way.
Eidsmoe writes that the government “promote[s] humanism” through its “support for evolution.” He decries “secular humanism” as “the religion of the American public schools,” a result of successful push by humanists “to use the public schools to promote a religion of secular humanism.”
As Eidsmoe understands it, science classes that “contain evolutionary thought” are no different from schools that exclusively “promote Christianity or creationism.”
“Why should government ally itself with the faith of humanism?” Eidsmoe writes. “[J]ust as the government cannot actively promote Christianity, so also the government should not actively promote secular humanism.”
He claims that the “religion” of humanism “violates the fundamental beliefs of orthodox Christians,” and urges Christians to “demand that public schools which teach evolution teach creation also” or “ask that the humanistic materials be removed.”
COPE is clearly following the blueprint laid out by Eidsmoe, with its claim [PDF] that it is defending Christians’ “rights to not be indoctrinated by Kansas public schools to accept the materialistic/atheistic religious Worldview which the [Framework and Standards] seek to establish.”
President Obama has nominated three extraordinarily well qualified individuals to serve on the influential U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. But the Republican Party's intransigence and opposition have turned this into one of the most important obstruction fights we've seen in the last five years.
On Tuesday, September 24, People For the American Way hosted a telebriefing with U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) to discuss the matter.
Senator Blumenthal, who sits on the Judiciary Committee, chaired last week’s hearings on the nomination of Nina Pillard to a seat on the D.C. Circuit. He gave a first-hand account of how very qualified she is to serve on this all important court. He explained how important the D.C. Circuit is in the federal judicial system, why it’s important to fill the current vacancies on the court, and how Pillard exemplifies the brilliance and integrity that is so important in filling these vacancies.
Listen to the call for yourself here:
We had a lot of questions from callers about the need to overcome the GOP’s obstruction on these nominees and talked about how important it is for constituents to let their Senators know that it’s time for the obstruction to end.
Thanks to all the PFAW members who the time to join our call. We’ll continue to fight to make sure President Obama's nominees get the simple yes or no votes they deserve.
Conservative talk show host Janet Mefferd is not happy that the Senate, in a unanimous vote, confirmed Todd M. Hughes to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, making him the country’s first openly gay judge to serve on a federal appeals court. “Because he had to be gay?” Mefferd asked. “I mean, that was like a qualification, if you’re going to be on the appeals court you better be gay? That’s how it rolls now.”
“They mention that at least seven gay or lesbian judges now serve or have served on federal district courts; sounds like overrepresentation,” she continued. “I don’t know how many judges are on that system but we’re talking about what, 2-3% of the population? This is overrepresentation but they don’t care.”
Overrepresentation? Let’s see.
There are currently six openly gay judges (and a seventh serving on senior status).
Now, there are 874 federal judgeships. Meaning that openly gay judges occupy a massive… seven tenths of one percent of federal judgeships.
Without counting judicial vacancies, the figure comes to a whopping 0.77 percent.
Phyllis Schlafly is livid about the Los Angeles Unified School District's decision to launch a program last month to put iPads in the hands of every student in the school district. The Los Angeles Times explains that the effort is intended to “put a school district composed mostly of low-income, minority students on an even footing with more prosperous students, who have such devices at home, at school or both.” The program was temporarily halted this week after enterprising students at one test school promptly figured out how to hack the iPads for personal use – but that’s not what concerns Schlafly.
Instead, in her Eagle Forum radio commentary today, Schlafly frets that the “fancy electronics” might be used to educate the children of undocumented immigrants…or any student learning English as a second language:
The superintendent says his goal is to “close the technology gap” for the many low-income students in the district, but technology doesn’t seem to be the central problem. Los Angeles Unified is a very depressed school district, regardless of how much technology students do or do not have. It continually has some of California’s lowest test scores, and almost 1/3 of its students do not finish high school. (Throughout the rest of the state, only 13% of students don’t make it to graduation.) The waste of money on fancy electronics seems even more egregious when we consider what a terrible job Los Angeles Unified currently does educating its students.
To add insult to injury, many of the students who will be receiving a taxpayer-funded iPad aren’t even supposed to be in the United States. Los Angeles has one of the highest illegal alien populations in the U.S. Almost 400,000 illegal aliens live in this district. Almost a third of its students are classified as “English learners.”
You may want to keep these kinds of frivolous expenses in mind next time your own school district asks for a tax increase. In the district I live in, the school board is asking for a tax increase almost every year.
The Heritage Foundation, like Sen. Ted Cruz, has been strongly urging senators to vote against a bill they actually support in order to shut down the government until President Obama and Senate Democrats agree to defund Obamacare.
And, being Heritage, they don’t mind completely reversing a position they held until just last year to do it.
Essentially, Heritage and other right-wing groups like Club for Growth want Senate Republicans to join Cruz in blocking debate (or voting against cloture) on the continuing resolution (CR) until Senate Democrats agree to establish a 60-vote threshold for amendments. Without the 60-vote threshold, Democrats can easily pass an amendment with 51 votes that strikes the Obamacare-defunding measure from the CR.
Cruz alleged that by simply following Senate rules on amendment votes, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is “abusing his power” and using “brute political force.”
Heritage agreed with Cruz’s absurd claim, and urged Republicans to deny cloture in order to “stop Harry Reid’s procedural assault.” The group also framed it as a “procedural trick”; “procedural power play”; “procedural gymnastics” and “Reid’s procedural attacks.”
However, just last year, Heritage called for the same 51-vote threshold that it now opposes to be against on Obamacare. Then-president Ed Feulner in an email, “Join the Fight to Repeal Obamacare,” urged the Senate to use “the 51-vote threshold available” in order to gut the health care law:
There’s also the fact that the individual mandate has acquired the official constitutional status of a “tax”—and if it is indeed a tax, then that is even more reason for the U.S. Senate to repeal it with the 51-vote threshold available under the Budget Act’s reconciliation process. It is a revenue provision. No filibuster problems there now.
Of course, such hypocrisy is nothing new for Heritage, which developed the idea for the individual mandate before it was against it.
Heritage also backed the individual mandate, insurance exchanges and the expansion of Medicaid…under Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts reform law.
Heritage president Jim DeMint even cited Romney’s health care reform law as a reason to endorse his presidential campaign in 2008.
In an amazing attempt to rewrite history, DeMint is now maintaining that Obamacare wasn’t an issue in the 2012 election — and therefore Obama’s re-election shouldn’t be interpreted as support Obamacare — “because of Romney and Romneycare.”