These days Judicial Watch is doing some of the finest work in the nation. It is throwing FOIA requests at the government and continually attempting to expose the rampant corruption and manipulation in the Obama administration.
The Obama administration quietly hired 20 social and behavioral research experts to help expand the use of government programs at dozens of agencies by, among other things, simplifying federal forms, according to records obtained by Judicial Watch. The controversial group of experts is collectively known as the Social and Behavioral Sciences Team (SBST) and it functions under the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP).
In 2015 Obama signed an executive order directing federal agencies to use behavioral science to sell their programs to the public, the records obtained by Judicial Watch reveal. By then the government had contracted “20 leading social and behavioral research experts” that at that point had already been involved in “more than 75 agency collaborations,” the records state. A memo sent from SBST chair Maya Shankar, a neuroscientist, to OSTP Director John Holdren offers agencies guidance and information about available government support for using behavioral insights to improve federal forms. Sent electronically, the memo is titled “Behavioral Science Insights and Federal Forms.”
Ladies and gentlemen, many of you in the US have been manipulated by professional behavioral scientists — purposely — in order to create your continued and expanded dependency on government for more and more assets and instances in your life.
The goal of this is to strip away your discretionary powers, your right to choose, to make independent decisions, to make life choices, to say what you wish about any thing at any time, to defend yourself against governmental intrusion and oppression, to monitor your every move, your every action, your every dollar, your every investment of money, time or sweat equity. The goal is dominance and tyranny.
“When behavioral insights—research findings from behavioral economics and psychology about how people make decisions and act on them—are brought into policy, the returns are significant,” according to the SBST report.
Yes. Significant for the government; less so for you.
And now this isn’t just speculative theory, oh no.
The proof is here.
Obama, Demorats, Leftists, Progressives, Socialists, want you weak, dependent, unable to think critically, brainwashed and sucking at the government teat, in order for them to acquire vaster amounts of power and control over you and your life.
Wisconsin Lawmaker Wants to Drug Test Those Seeking Tax Deductions
by Feroze Dhanoa
Congresswoman Gwen Moore introduced the bill as a response to nationwide efforts by Republicans to drug test welfare recipients.
A Wisconsin lawmaker has introduced a bill in Congress that would require those seeking tax deductions to undergo drug tests as a response to nationwide efforts by Republicans to drug test social welfare recipients.
Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) introduced the Top 1% Accountability Act on Thursday requiring all those claiming itemized deductions in any year over $150,000 to undergo drug tests or take lower standard deductions. The Guardian points out the requirement would only fall on households with a yearly federal adjusted gross income of more than $1m.
Oh my, I cannot wait to respond to this.
The bill is a retort to Republicans in several states including Wisconsin where the recipients of certain welfare benefits have to undergo drug tests. In Wisconsin, Gov. Scott Walker signed off on a rule in November to start drug testing welfare recipients and is currently suing the federal government to drug test food stamp recipients, as federal law prohibits states from imposing any additional eligibility conditions on food stamp recipients. He has even approved a rule which requires those seeking unemployment benefits to undergo drug tests. Walker has defended the requirements, saying they help ensure a drug free workforce.
And further, it ensures that for those who want Moar Free Cheese have at least some form of accountability.
But accountability is absolutely anathema to Leftists. This cannot be tolerated in the slightest.
“Free” should mean free of any responsibilities whatsoever.
Leftists make no differential between those who pay into the system — hosts — versus those who do nothing but take from the system — parasites.
No dispute exists that there are literally generational families who have done nothing but take from the system. Real, actual, honest human beings want to get off the System of Suck and become independent themselves. Generational parasites, enabled and promoted by Leftists and Demorats, not only do not desire independence but seek greater amounts of Free Cheese.
Then claim “victim status” when they are challenged.
When one receives Moar Free Cheese from the federal government — or a state or local government — there should necessarily be an attached responsibility for same. That something so simple as to be unaddicted is so vehemently challenged merely proves the depth and breadth of entitlement expectations in this country.
To the point where, as regaled above, the ridiculous, the Kabuki Theater, the insane, intrudes. Proffered by Leftists. When it’s stupid, when it’s unsustainable, when it’s beyond politically correct, when it’s dangerous, when it’s morally wrong, you can be guaranteed it’s an idea from Demorats and Leftists.
Again, the federal government believes, and worse, acts as though the dollars you make belong not to you, but to them, absolutely and incontrovertibly.
There are parasites in this nation who not only do not pay taxes, they acquire refund checks from the government. The nation has already reached a point where 45.3% pay no federal income tax whatsoever. Can you say “tipping point”?
Ladies and gentlemen, there are bad times coming. I suspect civil unrest; perhaps severe civil unrest. Just how that unrest is addressed and adjudicated will point the clear path for the future of this country. I believe it is not bombastic or immoderate to suggest that the fate of our nation will be decided in the next two years.
“If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify. — Alexander Hamilton
Why Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Deserve the Black Vote
by Michelle Alexander
From the crime bill to welfare reform, policies Bill Clinton enacted—and Hillary Clinton supported—decimated black America.
Hillary Clinton loves black people. And black people love Hillary—or so it seems. Black politicians have lined up in droves to endorse her, eager to prove their loyalty to the Clintons in the hopes that their faithfulness will be remembered and rewarded. Black pastors are opening their church doors, and the Clintons are making themselves comfortably at home once again, engaging effortlessly in all the usual rituals associated with “courting the black vote,” a pursuit that typically begins and ends with Democratic politicians making black people feel liked and taken seriously. Doing something concrete to improve the conditions under which most black people live is generally not required.
Wait. Is there actually a young black female who sees through the Hillary Clinton pandering-to-blacks-bullshit — as exemplified, for instance, with her condescending “accent” here in a black church?
People see what they want to see, and for too long blacks have seen “goodness” in the Clintons, when there really isn’t anything present in the Clintons save that of self-enrichment.
According to some polls, she leads Bernie Sanders by as much as 60 percent among African Americans. It seems that we—black people—are her winning card, one that Hillary is eager to play.
And it seems we’re eager to get played. Again.
Ah, finally an American journalist “gets it.” Because mostly the American Media Maggots, lapdogs for the Clintons and Leftists, don’t want to “get it.”
From the Clinton saxophone on Arsenio Hall to the “our first black president” quote, the Clintons have curried black votes. And mostly gotten them.
What have the Clintons done to earn such devotion? Did they take extreme political risks to defend the rights of African Americans? Did they courageously stand up to right-wing demagoguery about black communities? Did they help usher in a new era of hope and prosperity for neighborhoods devastated by deindustrialization, globalization, and the disappearance of work?
No. Quite the opposite.
Uh oh. This might not be good. For the Clintons.
Alexander asks: if the time under Bill Clinton was good for the Clintons and supposedly for America, what was it like for blacks?
Bill Clinton presided over the largest increase in federal and state prison inmates of any president in American history. Clinton did not declare the War on Crime or the War on Drugs—those wars were declared before Reagan was elected and long before crack hit the streets—but he escalated it beyond what many conservatives had imagined possible. He supported the 100-to-1 sentencing disparity for crack versus powder cocaine, which produced staggering racial injustice in sentencing and boosted funding for drug-law enforcement.
Clinton championed the idea of a federal “three strikes” law in his 1994 State of the Union address and, months later, signed a $30 billion crime bill that created dozens of new federal capital crimes, mandated life sentences for some three-time offenders, and authorized more than $16 billion for state prison grants and the expansion of police forces. The legislation was hailed by mainstream-media outlets as a victory for the Democrats, who “were able to wrest the crime issue from the Republicans and make it their own.”
And that is how Alexander’s slant is now revealed. The Three Strikes law federally and in many state governments was largely responsible for the reduction of crime in the mid-to-late 90s and early 2000s. The streets were calmer, safer, violent crime was down and New York under Giuliani was the safest it had been in at least two decades.
Demorats made crime their issue because, for a few years, Bill Clinton waltzed about in a brief fog of clarity and resolution. He was always a much more insightful politician than Hillary ever was or will be.
Uh-oh; looks like Bill Clinton pissed off Alexander. Because, in her estimation, Bill wrapped blacks in the Clinton cloak of betrayal because he did something about crime. Alexander writes:
All of the presidents since 1980 have contributed to mass incarceration, but as Equal Justice Initiative founder Bryan Stevenson recently observed, “President Clinton’s tenure was the worst.”
Taking a hard look at this recent past is about more than just a choice between two candidates. It’s about whether the Democratic Party can finally reckon with what its policies have done to African-American communities, and whether it can redeem itself and rightly earn the loyalty of black voters.
Oh the shame! Oh the breast-beating! Oh the abject treachery! Crime down, criminals arrested!
An oft-repeated myth about the Clinton administration is that although it was overly tough on crime back in the 1990s, at least its policies were good for the economy and for black unemployment rates. The truth is more troubling. As unemployment rates sank to historically low levels for white Americans in the 1990s, the jobless rate among black men in their 20s who didn’t have a college degree rose to its highest level ever. This increase in joblessness was propelled by the skyrocketing incarceration rate.
Really, Alexander? The truth is, the 90s were when more educated and qualified minorities were hired for law enforcement than at any other time in US history. My department hired more blacks, more Asians, more hispanics than at any time, more than Caucasoids. How do I know this? Because I worked backgrounds, doing checks on potential recruits for our academies. Further, these new black, Asian, hispanic and female graduates were placed, after graduation, directly into plumb assignments with little or no street experience in order to be more “progressive.” Ahead of Caucasoids males, of course.
That’s how we got Rampart, for example, you see. Because behind the scenes law enforcement and other businesses were lowering their standards. How do I know? Because I watched it. I helped do the hiring and was involved in the academy training. I knew how tests and evaluations were jury-rigged because the department wanted to be “more diverse.” All over.
Now, demographically in Fornicalia, the minorities are the Caucasoids.
So stop with the whining, Alexander. What you’re saying is that, for a time, because it was politically expeditious and the public was tired of being shot and raped and murdered and robbed — INCLUDING BLACKS — steps were taken to reduce crime. And guess what? It worked.
But in a way Alexander is quite correct. The Demorats haven’t done blacks any favors for not just years, but decades. Bill and Hillary were just a small portion of the destruction. The greatest destruction came about when Demorats decided to pay young black women to keep fathers away from the once-nuclear black family, resulting in a corrosive black culture and the utter breakdown of the black family, a breakdown that continues today.
Crime is trending up, for the multiple reasons I delineated here. But let’s not just delude ourselves about Moar Free Cheese as Alexander wishes. Let’s point out that today blacks comprise 13% of the US population but commit 37% of all US murders. Let’s call that disproportional, shall we? It is also a fact — all of the above by way of FBI statistics — that 90% of black murders are committed by blacks. Let’s call that also by what it is: startlingly disproportional. But truthful.
Nice try, Alexander, but I happen to be older than you and lived through those times. I know what happened and I have the societal results to prove it.
The initial focus of job elimination will be on unskilled workers primarily because of the recent insistence on a minimum “living wage” of $15 for jobs that were never meant to be anything more than entry-level introductory jobs.
One of the first targeted forms of job elimination will be at what are termed “fast food” type restaurants, where a kiosk can somewhat readily streamline the ordering process. Whereas a human employee once touched the CHEESEBURGER icon, you will be able to do that yourself. These various kiosks are already in operation in Europe and here in the US. McDonalds readily admits they are a response to $15 minimum wage demands.
Of course, there will be “unforeseen consequences” to this wage increase demand — that I readily and easily foresee. More on that in a moment.
Robots are going to steal the jobs of chefs, salespeople and models, researchers say as they unveil full list of likely robot professions
by Andrew Griffin
Scientists have created a huge, in-depth analysis of what jobs are under threat from robots — with salesmen, chefs and even models all in the firing line.
Researchers have assembled a full list of all the things that robots are good and bad at, and so what jobs they are likely to take. In all, about 35 per cent of jobs are likely to have been taken on by robots in the next 20 years, the researchers said.
Some professions — such as therapists, personal trainers and teachers — are safe from the coming robot apocalypse. But those that require repetitive skills, the manipulation of data or manual entering of information could see their jobs taken away.
The first question you must ask: is this me? If you have one of those delineated jobs, that means you likely inhabit an unskilled or semi-skilled job that isn’t long for this earth.
That also means you need to refocus your attention on upgrading your job skills or perhaps moving into a different job altogether.
For the time being, jobs that demand a high degree of human interaction are safe.
But that brings us back to unskilled and/or repetitive jobs.
Like those that illegal aliens used to fill — and jobs the likes of which are being eliminated due to, in Fornicalia, the drought — and in other places by the more rapid introduction of various forms of technology because of increased business costs.
In other words, the argument supporters of illegal Mexican (and other) invaders make on behalf of those invaders — that they do jobs others won’t or can’t — isn’t holding water any more. A greater number of jobs in the agricultural or various service fields are being mechanized. This isn’t speculation; it’s occurring right now.
Therefore, the “need” for more illegal immigrants in order to fill the increasing number of unskilled jobs is a specious one at best, more and more unnecessary with each and every passing week and month.
For real Americans, the writing is on the wall: adapt and educate yourself or become superfluous.
For illegals, we don’t need your unskilled labor. We don’t have enough room to accommodate the unskilled true American citizens in the labor force already.
Which translates to: illegal invaders these days mean only to acquire their portions of American Free Cheese, their own piece of the Entitlement Pie.
Their future is to take and not to produce.
Adding unskilled Syrians who bring only more Islam to the equation?
Report: 42 percent of new Medicaid signups are immigrants, their children
by Susan Ferrechio
Immigrants and their U.S.-born children make up more than 40 percent of new Medicaid recipients at a cost of $4.6 billion, according to an analysis of government data.
The Center for Immigration Studies, a low-immigration advocacy group, released a report early Thursday that found both legal and illegal immigrants and their minor children made up 42 percent of Medicaid growth from 2011 to last year.
Part of the increased enrollment came as a result of the new healthcare law’s expansion of Medicaid to impoverished and low-income adults.
“The high rate and significant growth in Medicaid associated with immigrants is mainly the result of a legal immigration system that admits large numbers of immigrants with relatively low-levels of education, many of whom end up poor and uninsured,” the report says. “This fact, coupled with the extensive supports we provide to low-income residents, unavoidably creates very significant costs for taxpayers.”
God bless ObakaKare and Barack Hussein Obaka, His Imperial Majesty, in all His Glory.
As for you, you racist taxpayer, harder work and more of it. There are, literally, millions of illegal immigrants that will soon demand more free shit next week. Stop reading this and get back to work.