Friday, November 14, 2014

Pine Creek High School Rejects God But Rihanna’s Tattoos OK

One nation under godlessness
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2014
Cheating. Bullying. Cybersexting. Hazing. Molestation. Suicide. Drug abuse. Murder. Scanning the headlines of the latest scandals in America’s schools, it’s quite clear that the problem is not that there’s too much God in students’ lives.
The problem is that there isn’t nearly enough of Him.
With the malfunction of moral seatbelts and the erosion of moral guardrails, too many kids have turned to a pantheon of false gods, crutches and palliatives. They’re obsessed with “Slender Man” and “Vampire Diaries.” Alex from Target’s hair and Rihanna’s tattoos. Overpriced basketball sneakers and underdressed reality stars. Choking games and YouTube games. Gossip and hookups. Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat.
It’s all about selfies over self-control, blurred lines over bright lines.
In a metastatic youth culture of soullessness and rootlessness, the idea of high school teens voluntarily using their free time to pray and sing hymns is not just a breath of fresh air. It’s salvation.
But leave it to secularists run amok to punish faithful young followers of Christ.
Last week, the Alliance Defending Freedom filed a religious freedom lawsuit against Pine Creek High School here in my adopted hometown of Colorado Springs. Chase Windebank, a senior at the District 20 school, had been convening an informal prayer group for the past three years “in a quiet area to sing Christian religious songs, pray, and to discuss issues of the day from a religious perspective.”
Windebank and his friends weren’t disrupting classroom time. They shared their Christian faith during an open period earned by high-achieving students. Other kids used the time to play on their phones, eat snacks, get fresh air outside, or schedule meetings for a wide variety of both official and unofficial school clubs.
A Pine Creek choir teacher had given permission to Windebank and his fellow worshipers to meet in an empty music practice room. No complaints ever ensued from other students or faculty. For three years, the group encountered no problems, according to ADF’s complaint. But in late September, Windebank was summoned to the assistant principal’s office and ordered to stop praying because of “the separation of church and state.”
The school singled out the young man of faith’s harmless activities and banned members of his group from discussing current issues of the day from a religious perspective during an open period in an unobtrusive meeting place.
As Todd Starnes of Fox News, who broke the story of the lawsuit last week, lamented: “Public school administrators and their lawyers have succeeded in suppressing and oppressing the Christian voice at Pine Creek High School.”
It defies common sense that in conservative-leaning Colorado Springs, home to a vibrant faith community and leading evangelical organizations, students would be reprimanded and deprived of basic constitutional rights. As a letter from local parents to the school district decried: “To what benefit does it serve a school to limit the ability for a student to pray with their friends, fellowship with their friends, or discuss daily events from a Christian perspective? It is obvious that School District 20 is taking a freedom FROM religion perspective, not a freedom OF religion perspective.”
Think about it: If the high-schoolers gathered in the cafeteria to listen to Billboard magazine’s No. 1 pop hit “Habits (Stay High)” — “You’re gone and I gotta stay high/ all the time/ to keep you off my mind” — school officials would have no issue.
If they lounged in a courtyard to joke about the latest girl-fight videos or off-color joke memes posted on Vine, no problem.
If they discussed the latest “Walking Dead” episode or napped in the library? All good.
But singing “Amazing Grace” and studying scripture? This subversion must be stopped!
How did we get here? And in Colorado Springs, of all places — not Berkeley or Boulder or Boston? Blame cowardice, ignorance and politically correct bureaucrats pledging allegiance to one nation, under godlessness, without religious liberty, and the occult of extreme secularism for all.

Need Insurance For A Pre-Existing Condition? ...see Nancy Pelosi


Thursday, November 13, 2014

Patriotic Sky in Virginia ~ Is that a coincidence or an omen?

I was headed south on I-95 when an image of the American flag was in the heavens. After staring at it for a moment I grabbed the camera in the seat next to me and attempted to get a picture.  It was fading fast.  Note the time stamp above each picture; it took only 54 seconds to see the apparent changes that were taking place.  The time/date stamp was taken from the picture(s) properties link which can be found on most, if not all, digital photos.  Before this sighting I have never seen a cloud formation such as this...except in pictures.  Which reminds me of this posting "A sign from above...only God can paint!" where someone else did exactly what I did; they took a similar picture while driving. Interesting enough, both pictures, the someone else's and mine, were taken in the state of Virginia but on different dates.  Is that a coincidence or an omen?  ~ Norman E. Hooben

Pelosi: "I don't know who he is." (Yet she has nothing but praise for Jonathan Gruber. What do you think? Do you think she's lying?)

Pelosi cited ObamaCare architect in push for law – now claims she hasn’t heard of him
Source: FOX News

Nancy Pelosi claimed Thursday she didn’t know who ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber is, after several tapes surfaced showing him gloating about how the law was written to take advantage of the stupidity of the American voter.

Problem is, Gruber’s analysis of the law was cited extensively by her office back in 2009. (see below)

Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, tried to downplay Gruber’s role during a press conference on Thursday.

She claimed she doesn’t know who he is, and that he didn’t help write the law. “Let’s put him aside,” she said.

However, Gruber was involved in the process – as his newly surfaced remarks make clear – and his analysis indeed was cited by Pelosi’s office when she was House speaker in late 2009.

At the time, her office put out a “health insurance reform mythbuster” press release pointing to the work of “noted MIT health care economist Jonathan Gruber” in examining the House bill’s impact on premiums. They noted that Gruber found it “would result in lower premiums than under current law for the millions of Americans using the newly-established Health Insurance Exchange.”

Pelosi also mentioned Gruber during a press conference at the time. (see video below)

Still, when the press release was brought to Pelosi’s office’s attention on Thursday, aides indicated she does not know him – as she does not know everyone they have cited on their website.

And her spokesman claimed Gruber was not technically a bill author. "We've cited the work of dozens upon dozens of economists over the years. As the Leader said today, Mr. Gruber played no role in drafting our bill," Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill said.

Democrats have been putting some distance between themselves and Gruber after a series of recordings – mostly from 2012 and 2013 – have surfaced showing him bad-mouthing American voters.

The latest shows him speaking at the University of Rhode Island in 2012 about the law’s so-called "Cadillac tax.” The “Cadillac tax” mandates that insurance companies be taxed rather than policy holders. He said that taxing individuals would have been “politically impossible,” but taxing the companies worked because Americans didn't understand the difference.

“So basically it's the same thing,” he said. “We just tax the insurance companies, they pass on higher prices that offsets the tax break we get, it ends up being the same thing. It's a very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter.”

The new video follows another showing him speaking on a similar topic at an October 2013 event at Washington University in St. Louis. Referring to the "Cadillac tax,” he said: "They proposed it and that passed, because the American people are too stupid to understand the difference." He also has said a lack of transparency helped the law pass.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, traveling with President Obama in Burma, said he disagrees with Gruber's comments.

Earnest claimed the bill was written in a transparent way and that it's Republicans who aren't transparent about how they would replace it.

And then there's this from Nancy Pelosi's official website: (Let's see if she deletes it.)
Health Insurance Reform Mythbuster - ‘Health Reform And Insurance Premiums’
Opponents of health insurance reform continue to spread myths about the recently-passed Affordable Health Care for America Act. For example, they are claiming that health reform would increase premiums for most of America’s families. But the facts continue to knock these myths down—including a brand-new report from the independent Congressional Budget Office.
MYTH: The House health insurance reform bill would result in higher premiums.
FACT: An analysis of the House bill by noted MIT health care economist Jonathan Gruber concludes that the bill would result in lower premiums than under current law for the millions of Americans using the newly-established Health Insurance Exchange – including those who are not receiving affordability credits to help them purchase coverage. (The Health Insurance Exchange is for those without access to affordable employer-sponsored coverage.) As Gruber states: “the premiums that individuals will face in the new exchanges established by this legislation are … considerably lower than what they would face in the non-group insurance market [under current law], due to the market reforms put in place by the House plan, the mandate on individuals to participate regardless of health, and the market economies of new exchanges.”
  • The Gruber analysis shows that, on the Exchange, a family at 425 percent of poverty (whose income of $93,710 means that they would receive no affordability credits) would see their premiums reduced by $1,260 or 12 percent compared to current law. Similarly, the Gruber analysis shows that, on the Exchange, an individual at 425 percent of poverty (whose income of $46,030 means that they would receive no affordability credits) would see their premiums reduced by $470 or 12 percent.
  • The annual savings are much larger for lower income populations that receive affordability credits. Under the House bill, when the bill’s affordability credits are taken into account, a family at 275% of poverty (income of $60,640) would save $5,030, or 47 percent in premiums compared to current law and a family at 175 percent of poverty (income of $38,590) would save $9,050 or 84 percent in premiums compared to current law.
  • Gruber also points out that, even as individuals and families on the Exchange are paying less, they will be getting more:
  • The coverage those on the Exchange get under the House plan would be better than today’s typical coverage in the non-group market.
  • For example, it would protect individuals and families from high out-of-pocket costs.
  • That’s in addition to other consumer protections in the bill – like ending discrimination based on pre-existing conditions and guaranteeing that your coverage won’t be dropped or watered down when you get sick or need it most.
New CBO Analysis
  • Furthermore, for the vast majority of Americans who get their health insurance in the employer-sponsored group market, the Congressional Budget Office has just released an estimate that, under the quite similar Senate bill, premiums would either be reduced or stay the same. Specifically, for the millions in the employer-sponsored large group market, premiums would be reduced by up to 3 percent or stay the same. And for all Americans, copays would be eliminated for preventive care and out-of-pocket expenses would be capped.
  • Like Gruber, CBO found that for Americans using the non-group market, their coverage would significantly improve under the Senate bill. The CBO data indicate that the Senate bill would reduce premiums by 14 to 20 percent for people in the non-group market when comparing plans that provide equivalent coverage.
For the Gruber analysis, please click here.
For the CBO analysis, please click here.
Posted by Norman E. Hooben

Proof...Obama voters “have a lack of understanding”

It is no secret that many of us have referred to those who voted for Obama as low-information-voters, and in some instances, stupid.   We should also note that anyone who chose such notable Democrats as Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Charles Schumer and John Kerry (former senator from Massachusetts now Secretary of State) are probably the least informed people ever allowed to fill out a ballot.  We make these claims without a whole lot of convincing dialogue because either they don’t believe us, or they just don’t read with any degree of rational thought and they keep on voting for the same people over and over again expecting different results.  Now I have used some statistics that may or may not be verified by some highfalutin statistician from some highfalutin university.  I’ve been known to use some high percentage figures such as 95% or even 98% in describing those who number in the ‘I-don’t-know-what’s-going-on’ category.  The only verification of my claims comes when the polls close on Election may be after the fact, but you can’t argue with the results.

Now we have a highfalutin economist (from a highfalutin university) with that ever impressive ‘PhD’ following his name, (which by some standards would indicate he has some so-called smarts) who not only verifies my hitherto remarks but proves undeniably that 100% of Obama voters “have a lack of understanding” or as he says, “Stupid”.

Jonathan Gruber, PhD., the highfalutin guy, who was the main architect of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka, “Obamacare” was paid four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000.00) from the taxpayers trough to intentionally deceive everyone (but some of us were wiser) into thinking they were getting something for nothing.  I should also point out that Obama himself was in the planning stages of the deception.  Gruber made frequent visits to the White House where he kept Obama up to date while they edited the 11,000 page hoax on the American people. 

Before we get to the video where all this gets verified, you should know that the average health insurance costs have not decreased by $2500.00 as promised but now average a whopping $2900.00 increase. Also, if you have been watching some of the newscasts on television you may have heard some reporters saying that Gruber has “insulted” the voters…I disagree, he was just telling the truth, Obama voters are as he described. ~ Norman E. Hooben

And this from
Meet Jonathan Gruber, a professor at MIT and an architect of Obamacare. During a panel event last year about how the legislation passed, turning over a sixth of the U.S. economy to the government, Gruber admitted that the Obama administration went through "tortuous" measures to keep the facts about the legislation from the American people, including covering up the redistribution of wealth from the healthy to the sick in the legislation that Obamacare is in fact a tax. The video of his comments just recently surfaced ahead of the second open enrollment period for Obamacare at
"You can't do it political, you just literally cannot do it. Transparent financing and also transparent spending. I mean, this bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes the bill dies. Okay? So it’s written to do that," Gruber said. "In terms of risk rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in, you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed. Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever...continues

More from FOX News ______________________________________________________

Monday, November 10, 2014

The Choices We Make...

Posted by Norman E. Hooben
 MSgt, USAF Retired
(21 Years)
If I had to do it all over again, I would!