Chuck Schumer: We Shouldn’t Have Passed Obamacare In 2010 [VIDEO]

1 Comment

This is from The Daily Caller.

I find myself in an unusual position of agreeing with Little Chuckie Schumer about Obamacare.×9&widgetId=2&trackingGroup=69017

Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer threw Obamacare under the bus Tuesday, charging that Democrats should not have passed the law in 2010.

Schumer, the third-ranking Senate Democrat, spoke Tuesday at the National Press Club in Washington about the Democrats’ losses in this year’s elections. He encouraged Democrats to embrace government despite their electoral crash but also admitted that the Democratic House and Senate should not have passed Obamacare.

Democrats should have focused on directly helping the middle class, Schumer argued.

“Unfortunately, Democrats blew the opportunity the American people gave them” by electing President Obama and a Democratic-controlled Congress in 2008. “We took their mandate and put all our focus on the wrong problem.”

“The plight of uninsured Americans and the hardships created by unfair insurance company practices certainly needed to be addressed,” Schumer said. “But it wasn’t the change we were hired to make” in the 2008 election. ”Americans were crying out for the end to the recession, for better wages and more jobs — not changes in health care.”

“The Affordable Care Act was aimed at the 36 million Americans who were not covered,” Schumer continued. “It’s been reported that only a third of the uninsured are even registered to vote,” making Obamacare unlikely to win the Democrats any votes at all.

“Even if the uninsured kept with the rate, which they likely didn’t, you would still only be talking about five percent of the electorate,” Schumer said. It made “no political sense” and left the middle class thinking the “Democrats are not paying enough attention to me.”

Schumer repeatedly slammed tea party forces and business, while promoting a “strong government.” He claimed that many Americans aren’t actually anti-government, but only want government to be “on their side.”

“Even though health care had very real benefits, it did for a small slice of the country,” Schumer admitted. “There were even some policies that would help constituencies in the middle class, but not a great deal of people. Those policies should be considered, but shouldn’t be the core of the Democratic platform.”

Schumer also said the new Republican Senate majority’s goal of repealing the medical device tax a focus on the “short term needs of a few, narrow special interests.”

Repeal “might create a few jobs in a certain and small industry. But funding [the National Institutes of Health] would create hundreds of thousands of jobs, not only with medical devices, but pharmaceuticals, biotech and a host of other spin-off industries,” Schumer argued, although he noted even he supports its repeal.


Chuck Schumer Calls for Violating the Constitution

1 Comment

This is from Godfather Politics.

Little Smuckie Schumers’ oath of office to defend the Constitution means nothing to him.

As far as that is concerned the Constitution means nothing to Little Smuckie Schumer and the DemocRats.


The New York Times reported late last week that New York Sen. Chuck-U-Schumer is suggesting a “legislative maneuver known as a discharge petition, that would allow supporters of overhauling the nation’s immigration laws to circumvent the Republican majority in the House by bringing the measure directly to the house floor, bypassing the regular committee process.” Let’s call this “maneuver” what it is — a violation of the Constitution.


The Times continued, “Lawmakers and aides in both parties say that a discharge position, especially one coming from Mr. Schumer, whose views are strongly opposed by many House conservatives, is unlikely to succeed. Even if all House Democrats supported the measure, it would still require more than a dozen Republican signatures.”

Now I’m not certain that the House could do the same to the Senate – issue a discharge position – but I could guarantee Chuck Schumer would be one of the first to the microphone, crying like a stuck pig, saying how dare the House try to meddle in the affairs of the Senate or usurp the leadership’s authority, or some such nonsense.

“This scheme has zero chance of success,” the Times reported. “A clear majority in the House understands that the massive Senate-passed bill is deeply flawed,” said Michael Steel, a spokesman for Speaker John Boehner. “That’s why we will continue to work on a step-by-step, common sense reform.”

Quick tip: when a known dirt bag politician, or anyone affiliated with said dirt bag, mentions a “common sense” solution to anything – hide your wallet and put on your iron chastity belt.

The Times continued, “The Senate bill included a path for citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants already in the country, and House Republicans have largely dismissed it as amnesty. They preferred to take on the issue in a piecemeal approach through a series of narrower bills.”

Undocumented immigrant is so passé. I recently heard a new, even more ridiculous term for people who are in the United States illegally. On NPR, a Democrat strategist told the cheerleader interviewer that politicians should now be using the term “Aspiring Citizen” or “Aspiring American,” although it would more accurately be described as “Aspiring Democrat” or “Aspiring Full Entitlement Recipient.”

“Discharge Positions are difficult, but when they work, it’s because a clear majority of the body that supports a specific proposal, and in this case, that is true,” Chuck-U-Schumer said.

Now Chuck, if there were really a “clear majority” that support amnesty in the House, you must know the spineless Boehner would’ve already pushed this through.

Now, the same Republicans who support action on immigration would not betray Mr. Boehner, the Times reported. “It means you’re putting a thumb in the eye of the Speaker, not just in this issue but any issue,” said squishy moderate Republican from Pennsylvania, Charlie Dent. “You’re essentially handing control of the floor to the minority party.”

It wouldn’t be the first time that Schumer stuck a rhetorical thumb in a Republican’s eye. I don’t think he much cares about that, but it seems he would have little chance with this “discharge petition” idea. Even the squishy moderates are against it, publicly.

So seriously, why the full-court press on immigration? It’s hard to say who’s really driving the ship on this one. Is it the Dems, the RINOs, maybe the White House? Are they trying to force our concentration on to immigration to distract from something else? It wouldn’t be the first time.

Could it be that the Democrats are so afraid of the upcoming 2014 midterm elections that they feel they must get something done right now? Might they have early internal polling that shows them getting swept away? There are a few signs of this with old fools like Henry “Nostrilitis” Waxman calling it quits.

Might the Establishment Republicans be seeing the same polling? Might they feel the icy wind of conservatives breathing down their necks?

It may be any or all of the above. Time will tell, but the pro-criminal alien crowd is pushing extraordinarily hard. They certainly seem to be panicked over something.

House passes ‘Undetectable Firearms Act’ renewal, with 1 ‘No’ vote

1 Comment

This is from The Examiner.

I sent my Congress Critter an email expressing my

disappointment with his vote.

I hope the Tea Party comes up with someone to oppose

Larry Buschon.


On Tuesday, December 3, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 3626, a ten year extension of the “Undetectable Firearms Act,” by voice vote.According to Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), he was the onlyonly “No” vote (although since it was a voice vote, that will be hard to verify).

Not only did House Republicans overwhelmingly support this infringement on that which shallshall not be infringed, the bill waswas introduced by North Carolina “conservative” Republican Howard Coble. Coble has an “A” rating from the NRA. Admittedly, Gun Owners of America have awarded him the same grade, but in their case, there is reason forreason for confidence that Coble will downgrade significantly. In the NRA’s case–not so much.

One interesting aspect of H.R. 3626 is the “Constitutional Authority Statement.” For the last several years, House rules have required that every bill be accompanied with a statement outlining what provision of the Constitution empowers Congress to pass the law in question. Rep. Coble would like us to believe that this bill is justified by “Article I. Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution.” That, of course, is the long-abused “interstate commerce clause.”

Perhaps Rep. Coble would like to explain how an item one produces on a 3-D printer in one’s own home, for one’s personal use, has anything to do with “interstate commerce.”

Ironically, the greatest remaining hope for killing this legislative atrocity lies in the anti-gun Senate Democrats who are most enthusiastically in favor of it. From McClatchy D.C.:

Some Democrats reportedly think the bill doesn’t go far enough and may vote against it.

. . .

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a statement on Monday that the House bill was “better than nothing, but it isn’t good enough.” Schumer said it was necessary to close a loophole that allows guns to be made out of plastic as long as they have some metal in them, even if it’s an easily removable part.

Schumer is referring to what he and the doubly dishonestly named “Think Progress” (which advocates neither thought nor progress) call the “loophole” of the current ban’s requirement that a gun contain a certain minimum quantity of metal, but not requiring that the metal comprise a part of the gun that is absolutely necessary for the gun’s function:

Renewed twice since 1988, the federal law bans firearms that go unnoticed by a metal detector and requires them to be shaped like a gun. However, the law by itself does not fully address the threat of plastic guns made from 3D printers, because a loophole permits some plastic guns even if the small metal piece that triggers detectors is removable. One legal model lets owners carry firearms with a removable nail that would not be picked up by metal detectors and X-Ray machines.

In other words, Schumer and “Think Progress” are asking the American people to believe that someone with murderous intent would print an all-plastic gun in order to sneak it onto an aircraft or into a courtroom (what about ammo?) if it were legal, but will not if the government tells him doing so is verboten. Sure, Chuck.

Schumer and fiends (that’s not a typo) apparently are not without allies in the GOP, according to MSNquoting a Kentucky Republican congressman who shares Schumer’s sick desire to “tighten up” the existing ban:

Representative Hal Rogers of Kentucky, a leading Republican, expressed concerns of his own, and said, “I’ll be looking to tighten up the process.”

Unfortunately for Schumer, he appears unlikely to win the Most Hysterical Panicked Screeching Award, despite his impressive effort. That award appears to be unshakably in the grasp of the Brady Campaign‘s Brian Malte, judging by this quote in the Guardian:

“We can’t let a minute or hour or day go by without having a renewal [of the ban],” said Brian Malte, a director of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. The group’s strong concerns about the availability of plastic guns were “no reason to hold up renewal”, he said.

Malte is evidently of the opinion that our hypothetical aspiring terrorist would print a plastic gun if the the law allows–for a minute (keep in mind that printing guns to date has invariably required a considerable number of hours), but will faithfully obey the law if it never lapses.

As this column has argued repeatedly, the anti-gun zealots’ real objection to printed guns has nothing to do with the silly non-issue of their being “undetectable,” and everything with them being uncontrollable, because a fighting arm that one can make for oneself is clearly not subject to background checks or arbitrary limits on its effectiveness.

And the best news of all is that no law Congress passes can do anything about that. Anyone who has any doubts about that statement is encouraged to check out the Terminal Cornucopia website, featuring weapons designs that can be quickly built from materials one can easily and legally obtain after passing through airport screening measures, with tools that one could legally have brought along. The sidebar video shows the “BlunderBusinessClass” shotgun, but that’s only one of several impressive designs.





Deadline looms on undetectable guns

Leave a comment

This is from The Hill.

This law is a stupid in 2013 as it was in 1988.

The big deal was the Glock pistols and how the

X-ray machines could not detect them as they were

made of plastic.

As a Glock owner I can tell you they not plastic

and they will be detected by X-ray.


Guns that cannot be detected by X-ray machines will no longer be banned if Congress does not renew the decades-old prohibition by Dec. 9.

The 1998 Undetectable Firearms Act will sunset that day, ending the prohibition at a time when new technology has made it easier than ever before to manufacture plastic guns with 3-D printers.
Gun control activists warn that a lapse would allow anyone with a few thousand dollars to build a homemade gun that would be undetectable at airports, government buildings or schools.

That threat was little more than “science fiction,” when Congress overwhelmingly backed the ban 25 years ago,” said Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.), who is pressing legislation to renew the law.

“We didn’t think it would be a good idea to let the bad guys get a gun through metal detectors,” Israel said.

But with Congress away for a Thanksgiving recess and congressional Republicans in no apparent hurry to address the ban, the chances of a lapse in the ban are growing.

“I’m getting more skeptical,” Israel told The Hill.

Before the Senate adjourned Thursday night, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) floated a request for unanimous consent to reauthorize the law for one year. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) objected, effectively blocking any action in the upper chamber until at least Dec. 9, they day the Senate returns and the law is set to expire.

Sessions signaled a willingness to renew the law after the holiday.

“We will be glad to give it serious attention,” he said Thursday evening. “I know it is the kind of thing we probably can clear at some point, but I object.”

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said it was Senate Democrats who were to blame for refusing to work with Republicans on a separate proposal reauthorize the law for either five or ten years.

“Congressional Republicans support a lengthy extension of the ban on firearms that cannot be picked up by metal detectors,” Grassley said Tuesday via a written statement. “The Senate Majority consciously and consistently rebuffed our efforts to continue the prohibition for five to ten more years.”

The law has traditionally enjoyed broad support in both parties, passing the House by a tally of 413 to four in 1988.

It was renewed 10 years later and again five years after that, most recently via a noncontroversial voice vote.

But gun-control legislation has become increasingly controversial in recent years, as evidenced by the defeat in April of a bipartisan Senate measure seeking to extend federal background check legislation to all commercial gun sales.

The amendment from Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) was among a host legislative gun control measures offered in the months after last December’s elementary school massacre in Newtown, Conn.

All failed in the face of fierce opposition from gun rights activists, who said the bills would violate the Second Amendment. Some groups oppose legislation to renew the undetectable gun ban on similar grounds.

“We would say, just leave it be — let it go,” said Erich Pratt, spokesman for the group Gun Owners of America. “We look at even that law as an infringement.”

Pratt argued that the law does nothing to keep undetectable guns out of the hands of criminals with no regard for the law in the first place.

“It’s not going to stop bad guys from making them,” he said.

Earlier this year, a Texas man caused a stir after posting detailed instructions for making a plastic gun with a 3-D printer. Thousands of people downloaded the blueprints, as did the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

The agency built and tested a model, and released videos showing the weapon being fired.

Both Schumer and Israel stressed that they are supportive of 3-D printer technology, which is seen as having major upside for the American manufacturing industry.

Pro-gun groups note that it’s far easier to obtain guns — legally or otherwise — through longstanding channels than it would be to build one.  But gun control advocates say the new technology presents real danger.

“We have a deep, deep concern about 3-D guns,” said Brian Malte, senior national policy director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Malte said the group is communication with legislative staffers about extending the ban. Those discussions could include consideration of whether to attach additional language to the law, he said.

“It’s just a question of whether the votes are there at the very end,” he said.

But any additional restrictions could make extending the ban more contentious, particularly if the language includes targets 3-D printers, said Pratt of the gun owners group.

Israel emphasized that his bill does not single out the printers. The legislation would add language clarifying that all firearms contain metal parts, so that they would set off a metal detector, he said.

Ultimately, the law’s backers appear more focused on keeping in place than expanding its scope.

“We are looking at a world in which anyone with a little bit of cash can bring an undetectable gun, that can fire multiple bullets, anywhere — including planes, government buildings, sporting events and schools,” Schumer said in a written statement to The Hill.

“This ban cannot be allowed to expire.”


Some Senate GOPers look for way out

Leave a comment

This is from The Politico.

You get The Politicos leftist slant in this story.

They try to portray the RINOs as brave people trying to defeat the Evil Conservatives.

When in reality they are traitorous back stabbing undeclared DemocRats.

Susan Collins, John McCain and Rob Portman are shown in this composite image. | AP Photos

Collins, McCain and Portman are eager to take matters into their own hands. | AP Photos


They have been sitting out the budget impasse that led to the government shutdown — and only been a spectator in the bitter battle between House Republicans and Senate Democrats.

But some uneasy Senate Republicans are eager to take matters into their own hands.

Moderates like Susan Collins of Maine, conservatives like Rob Portman of Ohio and deal-makers like John McCain of Arizona have quietly begun to reach out to top Senate Democratic leaders to see if they can help break the political logjam. There’s no indication the informal talks will lead to a resolution, particularly since the White House and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid refuse to negotiate before House Republicans agree to raise the debt ceiling and reopen the government with no policy strings attached.

But as the shutdown drags on, the back-channel discussions are a sign of the growing frustration among Senate Republicans that there is no end to the shutdown in sight — and that their House colleagues appear to be at an unbreakable impasse with the White House.

“We have discussions going on, I’m on my way to one right now,” said Collins, who spoke with two Senate Democrats Friday morning. “I think that the vast majority of our conference believes the shutdown needs to be brought to an end as soon as possible.”

New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, the No. 3 Democratic leader who has helped broker bipartisan deals on immigration and the filibuster “nuclear option” this year, said he’s already hearing from Senate Republicans.

“Look, I think there are a good number of Republicans, even very conservative ones that would like to come to an agreement and get the government open again,” Schumer said. “There are talks going on, but I’m not going to speak about any details.”

Reid added: “I think there are a number of them who have been working very hard to try to get something done. They’ve come to me.”

Portman, the Ohio Republican who was on the short-list to be Mitt Romney’s running-mate last year, said he’s spoken to seven different Democrats and was “trading ideas back-and-forth.” Among his ideas are to push Democrats to lower the spending cap on the continuing resolution from $986 billion to $967 billion, as well as instructions for the House and Senate tax writing committees to produce a tax reform proposal and to find $600 billion in mandatory savings outlined in President Barack Obama’s budget in order to raise the national debt ceiling by a similar amount.

In exchange for that, Portman would agree to a one-year stop-gap resolution, though he would be open to the $986 billion level if the parties agree that the automatic sequestration cuts would continue.

“There’s a growing consensus that we have to do something about spending in the context of the debt limit,” Portman said.

While Portman is not demanding proposals to gut Obamacare, like his House GOP counterparts, his calls for spending cuts go much further than Democrats have thus far been willing to tolerate. For instance, Reid said Friday that the “biggest compromise” he’s made in 31 years on Capitol Hill was agreeing with House Speaker John Boehner to lower federal funding to $986 billion, the level currently in the Senate’s continuing resolution.

And Reid reiterated Friday that he wouldn’t compromise further or offer Boehner a concession to end the shutdown.

“This is not a face-saving deal,” Reid told reporters. “This is not a date to the prom. This is our country.”

Standing in the way of a potential deal is the fact that a number of Senate Republicans are unwilling to undercut Boehner in the high-stakes fight, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who has mostly taken a backseat role but has echoed the speaker’s demands for changes in the health care law.

While Boehner and Reid aren’t talking, Senate and House Republicans are coordinating closely during the bruising fall fiscal fights. McConnell, Portman and Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) huddled with House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on Thursday afternoon, according to a source familiar with the meeting.

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who has been sharply critical of the hardball tactics of tea party Republicans in the government shutdown fight, said it’s still up to the House Republicans and Senate Democrats to lead the charge.

“At the end of the day, we’re dependent on the House to pass good policy,” he said.

Corker was part of a group of Senate Republicans who have previously entertained the idea of a major fiscal deal with the White House. The GOP group repeatedly met with Obama and senior White House officials over fiscal matters this year, though those talks stalled and broke off in August.

Some are renewing those efforts with Senate Democrats.

Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.) said Friday he’s buttonholed Schumer with some thoughts on how to end the crisis.

“It was very informal, it was talking to somebody who actually has the ear of Harry Reid and the president,” Coats said. “Simply saying: This is where Republicans are coming from.”

And with public anxiety growing over the shutdown — and Republicans worried they may suffer more of the blame for the gridlock on Capitol Hill — some are clearly ready for the fight to be resolved.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who joined Senate Republicans in earlier fiscal talks with the White House, said he’s ready for the impasse to end.

“This is not a position I want us to be in,” Johnson said. “I don’t want this brinksmanship — I think the government does enough harm to our economy; we don’t need to put on a whole new layer.”

Read more:


AP ‘real reporters’ spread disinformation to support gun ban agenda

Leave a comment

This is from The Examiner.

The media knows there are sheeple that will believe everything they report.

The media will never be fact  checked by the sheeple.


Those behind a late-night attack … used an assault-style weapon to spray the crowd with bullets, making it ‘a miracle’ no one was killed,”an Associated Press “report” by “Authorized Journalists” Carla K. Johnson and Herbert G. McCann breathlessly declared. “Ballistics evidence shows that those behind Thursday night’s attack used a 7.62 mm rifle fed by a high-capacity magazine, police Superintendent Garry McCarthy told reporters.”

That’s as opposed to “personal defense capacity” magazines when “patrol rifles” are in the hands of government-sanctioned “Only Ones” like Chi-Town’s finest.

That “type of weapon,” McCarthy said, “belongs on a ‘battlefield, not on the street or a corner or a park…’”

If one didn’t know better, one would think he and his media chroniclers were talking about a select fire-capable rifle, the kind that actually are found on battlefields. Or one would think that’s what they want us to think.

Does anyone think Associated Press “reporters” don’t know better, or don’t know that McCarthy’s well-publicized objective is a nationwide semi-auto and magazine ban? Does anyone think Johnson and McCann are unaware of just whose talking point they’re all parroting?

“I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals,” Barack Obama proclaimed, himself parroting a ubiquitous gungrabber meme, “that they belong on the battlefields of war and not on the streets of our cities.”

Does anyone truly think professional reporters are unaware of the well-known and longstanding deception promulgated by the Violence Policy Center — which laid out the strategy back in 1988– by declaring that “The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons”?

Does anyone think that seasoned newshounds, with research skills and all the resources of the mighty AP at their disposal, could possibly be unaware of The Journalist’s Guide to Gun Policy Scholars and Second Amendment Scholars, providing access to any number of recognized experts, listed by specialty, location and name, whom they could consult on any issue imaginable pertaining to guns? If they wanted to…?

Does anyone wonder why “straight news” correspondents didn’t even try to solicit an opinion from someone who might have inputs on why banning semi-automatic rifles will not reduce violent crime? Or someone who might point out that McCarthy is exploiting them as a megaphone toscore political points with? Does anyone think they really believe his opinion is objective, or that they don’t know they’re being used — and approve of it?

Does anyone think the Associated Press — which didn’t even regard Fast and Furious government-facilitated “gunwalking,” where estimated hundreds have been killed, as a big enough story to rate inclusion in their “Top Ten” news stories for 2011 — has any interest in doing anything that doesn’t promote more government control, while ignoring, spinning and suppressing stories that don’t?

Does anyone think Carla and Herbert are lazy, incompetent, agenda-driven, dishonest, or some combination of these (perhaps all), or is there an alternative explanation that could account for the crap quality of their thinly-disguised propaganda piece presented to an unsuspecting public as “news”?

Does anyone have any questions about why Joe Biden refers to such as these using the term “legitimate news media,” and why Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin are so eager to legislate just who the government will recognize as a “real reporter”?




This is from Breitbart’s Big Government.

I look for Dingy Harry to ram through gun control once he

 does away with the filibuster.

The DemocRats are desperate to ram it down our throats.


The Associated Press reports Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is pushing for rule changes to eliminate the 60-vote filibuster threshold in the Senate in order to “win confirmation for some of [President Obama’s] nominees for posts overseeing workers’ and consumers’ rights.”

But the question raised by Gun Owners of America (GOA) is: how long will it be until gun control is heaved upon the American people if the filibuster is done away with?

It was a filibuster that put the Manchin/Toomey background check bill into the light long enough for Senators on both sides of the aisle to realize what was in it and reject it.

The bill was defeated on April 17 because it fell six votes shy of 60. But if Reid is successful in changing the rules, then Senator Joe Manchin‘s (D-WV) gun control bill could “soon be brought up again and passed.”

GOA contends that if Reid successfully drops the Senate threshold to end a filibuster from 60 votes to a simple majority of 51, then it might not be long until the bans pushed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) see the light of day as well. In a worst case scenario, it might also open the door to the unstoppable confirmation of an anti-gun Supreme Court justice who will reverse the Heller or McDonald decisions.

GOA asks everyone to contact their respective Senators and ask them to oppose Reid’s attempt to change the Senate rules.


Feds add Greek yogurt to school lunches

1 Comment

This is from The Hill.

 What would you care to bet Little Chuckie Schumer got

his palm greased?

How many children will actually eat yogurt?


The Obama administration wants to add Greek yogurt to school lunch menus.

On Monday, the Department of Agriculture announced it was looking to buy the yogurt for schools participating in a federally assisted program that subsidizes school lunches.

A department official said in a statement that the introduction of Greek yogurt, which is high in protein, was aimed at helping schools offer a variety of healthy foods to kids.
Because yogurt goes bad easily, the rollout will start with just four states: Arizona, Idaho, New York and Tennessee.


Those states were chosen because they “represent different regions of the country with varying proximity to yogurt manufacturers and will help test distribution through different warehousing models,” according to a USDA spokeswoman.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) has pushed the USDA to add Greek yogurt to the federal program since last June, and cheered the announcement on Monday.

“Schools in New York, and the other three states participating in the pilot, will soon see that Greek yogurt is an affordable and nutritious high-protein option for their menus,” he said in a statement.


Schumer added that the USDA announcement was “a boon for New York yogurt and dairy industries, and it’s beneficial for the health of our kids.”

So far this year, Chobani, a New York-based company that produces the best-selling brand of yogurt in the country, paid $80,000 to Cornerstone Government Affairs to lobby Congress on its behalf, according to federal records. The company first hired the lobbying firm last July, shortly after Schumer petitioned the USDA.

The company, which owns the largest yogurt manufacturing facility in the world, a nearly one-million-square-foot plant in Twin Falls, Idaho, also praised the USDA announcement.

“By offering this nutritious and tasty option to children in schools, it will help fuel their growing minds and bodies and support the development of healthy, balanced eating habits,” the company said in a statement to The Hill.

Once the USDA finds a supplier, the yogurt will be sent to schools in the four states that participate in the National School Lunch Program, which fed more than 31 million children each day in 2011. In exchange for subsidies and food from the USDA, schools that participate must offer meals and snacks that meet federal requirements. All the program’s meals are subsidized to a certain extent, but students with lower incomes can receive free or cheaper food.

The USDA will review whether the program is cost effective and develop the next steps by December.

Read more:
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook



Leave a comment

This is from Breitbarts Big Government.

The Tea will soon be in the IRS‘s cross-hairs.

I am sure Big Ears Obama and The NSA know their phone calls

emails and thought behind closed doors.

Yet another Tea Party group has come out publicly against the “Gang of Eight” immigration bill, as has announced its opposition to the legislation and published online an alternative plan for immigration reform.

“The granting of citizenship is the most solemn honor this country can confer,” TheTeaParty.Net founder Todd Cefaratti said in a statement obtained by Breitbart News. “It is not something that ought to be used to score political points or to win the next election.”

“Before the American people extend this gift they must be assured that verifiable border security has preeminent priority. The Senate bill currently does not have it,” he explained. “Americans will not be bullied, intimidated and steamrolled into accepting this legislation.”

“We have proposed a conservative alternative at for which we will be rallying Congressional support in the coming days.”

The group said in its release it will be briefing members of Congress on the alternative immigration reform plan in the coming days and weeks.

TheTeaParty.Net’s chief strategist Niger Innis added that he thinks the “Senate amnesty bill is a non-starter.”

“But instead of just saying we’re against something, we have put forward eight principles that we believe are the necessary pillars of an America First Immigration alternative,” Innis said. “Over the coming days we will be meeting with conservative Senate and House members about getting them to support the plan.”

“We will not be bullied by a Harry Reid-Chuck Schumer agenda that undermines the Constitution by ramming through a bill that the American people do not support,” Innis promised. “The only way to stop a bully is to confront them.”

Many other Tea Party organizations, like Tea Party Patriots, have already announced their opposition to the Gang of Eight bill. More than 150 of them banded together in recent months to sign a letter sent to members of Congress announcing their ardent opposition to the legislation. did not sign that letter at the time and was fighting suggestions from the office of Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) that it may support the legislation.

Politico previously erroneously claimed that was among groups that had become an “ally” of the Gang of Eight. Politico later quietly edited the story after Breitbart News discovered the groups it claimed supported the bill had not expressed support for the legislation. Rather, the groups had me with Rubio’s team to get his take on the bill before they made a decision.

“We are going to hear him out, rather than rely on the liberal media interpretation of his legislation,” Innis told Breitbart News at the time. “Reports that we have agreed to support the Gang of Eight bill are utter make-believe.”

Rubio introduces amendment to toughen English requirement for immigrants

1 Comment

This is from Yahoo News.

Marco Rubio has lost any credibility he may have eve had

by teaming up with the Gang of eight.

Then he said that the border security would come after

the pathway to citizenship.

Wrong border security comes first.

Does anyone think the amendment to require English will work?



Sen. Marco Rubio and Sen. Chuck Schumer during a news conference on immigration reform in April. (Alex Wong/Ge …

Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida announced Tuesday he will introduce an amendment to the immigration reform bill that would require all immigrants to prove they were proficient in English before they could receive permanent legal immigration status.

Rubio’s amendment would significantly change the sweeping bill and would make it harder for millions of immigrants to get on the path to citizenship. It would remove language from the bill that would have also allowed immigrants to gain green cards if they enrolled in a government-approved English course, a provision that Rubio called a “loophole.”

“This is one of the bill’s shortcomings that came to light, which we can now fix,” Rubio said in a statement.

A tea party favorite of Cuban descent, Rubio has been key in drawing conservative support to the bill, which he helped draft as part of the bipartisan Gang of Eight. But since then, Rubio has said the bill must be reworked on border security and other issues before he will vote for it.

At least one anti-immigration reform group is running ads targeting senators for the provision, criticizing the bill for having “no requirement” that immigrants learn English before gaining legalization.

The new requirement could mean a significantly longer wait time for citizenship for the country’s estimated 11 million unauthorized immigrants. Experts estimate that about 55 percent of adult unauthorized immigrants would not be able to pass the English portion of the U.S. citizenship test if they took it today. It takes about 600 hours of instruction, on average, for someone to move from the bottom levels of English understanding to a conversational level. The bill currently sets aside $100 million in federal funds for English instruction and other programs to help newly legalized immigrants integrate.

Immigrants who speak English well earn on average between 10 and 24 percent more than immigrants who don’t, according to several studies. Currently, immigrants must pass an English test to become citizens, but do not have to prove English proficiency to gain permanent residence, also referred to as a green card. The 1986 immigration legalization bill required immigrants to take 40 hours of English classes before gaining green cards, which critics said was inadequate.

Under the reform bill, immigrants gain temporary legal status for up to 12 years if they passed a background check and paid fines, but then would have to apply for permanent legal status, which would lead to citizenship after five years. It’s unclear what would happen to immigrants who were unable to pass the English test within the 12-year period of temporary legal status.

“This is going to keep millions of people from getting on a path to citizenship,” said Frank Sharry, executive director of the immigrant advocacy group America’s Voice. “The Senate bill is carefully negotiated … When you start to mess around with the core elements of it you’re messing around with the whole compromise.”

Max Sevillia, the director of policy and legislative affairs for the National Association of Latino Elected Officials (NALEO), said the amendment would create a “chilling effect” that would discourage unauthorized immigrants from becoming permanent legal residents. Sevillia said the group’s polling shows that more than 80 percent of unauthorized immigrants say they want to be proficient in English, but that the best way to help them do that is to provide high quality English classes. “They understand that English is really the gateway to improving their lives and the lives of their family,” Sevillia said.

Rubio “should have introduced an amendment to increase the federal support and make that section more robust as opposed to creating obstacles,” Sevillia said


Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: