Ellen is the metaphor.
She sat with President Bush at a ballgame and got called out by the liberals, the lefties, because she was sitting with a Republican. How terrible it was to do such a thing! In their playbook (mostly the Alinsky playbook), the lefties playbook, you’re not allowed to associate with Republicans or conservatives, and are certainly not allowed to be friends with them.
So the lefties chastised Ellen, castigated her, called her out such that she had to defend herself for sitting with President Bush, for being friends with someone on that side.
Ellen defended herself, made a “human” statement. Yay Ellen.
And some people on the left then came out to support her.
But get this!
Those people who came out to support Ellen were themselves castigated such that, for fear of being blacklisted and losing work, they withdrew their support for Ellen by erasing and deleting their social media postings.
Ellen is the metaphor, plain and simple.
What they did to Ellen shows where those intolerant, fascist-like lefties have brought America.
While they say they are the tolerant ones who champion everyone’s rights, their rhetoric and their actions belie what they say they stand for.
If you are a Christian and you believe in God…
If you are conservative and want to speak at a university or college…
If you are a white male…
If you are conservative woman…
If you are conservative politician…
Is it necessary to complete the sentences?
But if you’re the governor, lieutenant governor or attorney general of Virginia…
Or if you are Joe Biden…
Or Bill Clinton…
Or an illegal alien…
The Despicable Democrats have no morals, no standards, no sense of decency or fairness. They claim they have the moral high road and that they speak for the American people. But here too, their actions belie their words and at best they might speak for some of the American people. The facts show they don’t speak for at least more than 60 million voting people.
Ellen is clearly the metaphor. They are with you until you go against them, and once you go against them, even if you don’t really go against them, even for something as little as sitting with a conservative, you no longer have rights, you no longer are liked, you no longer are accepted and they will do their best to destroy you.
It was Maxine Waters who told the Democrat supporters to not let any of the Trump people eat in restaurants, get gas in gas stations, etc. It was the Democrats who fixed the laws so that innocent children, male and female, can no longer be assured that their bathrooms in schools will be gender safe. It is the Democrats who put the rights of illegal aliens above those of American citizens.
As Ellen can now say that according to the Despicable Democrats you only have rights to beliefs that are in accordance with theirs. Whether she will say it or not is a different story.
It is clear that those who profess most to being the champions of human rights and our moral leaders are nothing more than full of hot air. And Ellen is the clear metaphor for what they are.
Posted by Peter Weiss in Friday's Rant, Lighthearted, Musings, nonfiction, Opinion, Politics, Rants, Social Issues, Uncategorized Tags: Beliefs, Fun, nonfiction, Opinion, Politics, Rants, Social Issues
by Brian Shilhavy
Editor, Health Impact News
Imagine a day where every child born in a hospital gets ranked on whether or not their parents will be good enough parents to take care of them, and a risk score is attached to that child based on how the government views the child’s parents.
If the risk score is too low, the parents do not get to take their child home. The child is seized by the government and assigned new parents through the multi-billion dollar foster care system.
Does this sound like something terrible from a science fiction movie? Or something that might happen in other tyrannical countries where parents have little or no choice over how their children are raised?
This system is actually already in place and is already being used in many states all across the U.S.
Richard Wexler from the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform published an excellent piece last week on the topic of “Predictive Analysis” in child welfare, and how Allegheny County, which includes Pittsburgh and surrounding suburbs, is now using a system like this to label every child born in the county with a “risk score” which supposedly tells Child Protective Services how likely parents are to abuse their newborn children.
It is perhaps the ultimate Orwellian nightmare: From the moment your child is born, the child and family are labeled with a “risk score” – a number that supposedly tells authorities how likely you are to abuse your newborn. The big government agency that slaps this invisible scarlet number on you and your newborn promises it will be used only to decide if you need extra help to raise your child, and the help will be voluntary.
But once you’re in the database, that score stays there forever. And if, someday, the same big government agency wants to use the score to help decide you’re too much of a risk to be allowed to keep your child, there is nothing to stop them. The scarlet number may haunt your family for generations. The fact that your child was supposedly born into a “high risk” family may be used against the child when s/he has children.
Welcome to the dystopian future of child welfare – and childbirth – in metropolitan Pittsburgh, Pa.
As we have reported in previous articles, in places where Predictive Analysis software is used for risk assessment for child abuse, poor minorities are targeted as more likely to have a high risk score.
From Wexler’s article
For a couple of years now, Allegheny County, which includes Pittsburgh and surrounding suburbs, has been using something called the Allegheny Family Screening Tool (AFST), a predictive analytics algorithm, to help decide which families should be investigated as alleged child abusers.
The algorithm is weighted heavily toward punishing parents for being poor. In her brilliant book, Automating Inequality, Prof. Virginia Eubanks calls it “poverty profiling.” In her review of Automating Inequality, Prof. Dorothy Roberts (a member of NCCPR’s Board of Directors) extends the analysis to show how predictive analytics reinforces racial bias.
County Starts “Hello Baby” Program in January 2020
According to Wexler, starting in January, 2020, the county plans to start a program it calls “Hello Baby” which will assist them in getting newborn babies into their database. To NOT have your baby included in the database, one has to “opt out,” but how to opt out is apparently not clearly defined yet.
Here’s how the county says it will work.
During some of the most chaotic hours of a family’s life, those hours in the hospital after a baby is born, when one medical professional, volunteer or other hospital-affiliated person after another is traipsing in and out of the room, the family will be handed a packet of information about the help available through “Hello Baby.” A nurse may also discuss the program with the family.
The program offers three tiers of services. Tier 1 is automatically available to everyone without having to surrender their data. That tier is simply information about help that’s already out there. Tiers two and three provide more intensive help to individual families. But to get that help you must accept having the child labeled by an algorithm as at moderate or high risk of abuse.
The program automatically assumes you have given permission for this massive invasion of family privacy – it’s the equivalent of a “default setting” on an app you may download without realizing how much data you surrender in return. (Or just think of all the data you may have given to Facebook to share at will because you didn’t find the right button among the settings.)
The “Hello Baby” document is vague about the whole opt-out process. You get one notice – in the form of a postcard mailed to your home a few days after the child is born. Along with a reminder of the benefits of “Hello Baby” somewhere on that postcard will be a notification that you must specifically opt out of being run through the database – otherwise you and your child are slapped with that risk score whether you really wanted to participate or not.
The material made available by Allegheny County does not mention how much time you have to opt out before your name is run through the database. Nor does it say anything about expunging a risk score if you choose to opt out after the county has already done it.
Can We Trust Government with “Risk” Data?
In his article Wexler points out how government officials are dancing around ethic problems and trying to assure the public that the system will be voluntary, and that they will never misuse the data.
The biggest problem with this promise, of course, is that it depends on health officials and CPS to police themselves.
As an example of how this kind of data can be misused to take children away from their parents, Wexler mentions a case in New York earlier this year where a mother had her children rated as “at risk” simply because she disclosed that during her pregnancy with twins, she used cannabis for medical purposes.
Shakira Kennedy wrote about her experiences in the New York Daily News:
I am a 28-year-old loving mother and a taxpaying citizen. I have a beautiful 7-year-old daughter in a gifted and talented program and two beautiful twin baby boys. I would do anything for my children.
Unfortunately, during my pregnancy with the twins, I suffered from extreme morning sickness and could not keep food or water down. I sought the best medical care, and my doctors told me I needed to gain weight for the health of my babies.
But the medicine they prescribed didn’t work. Nothing did, until I tried cannabis.
Making sure to tell my doctor everything, I disclosed that I smoked cannabis and it helped me eat normally. That’s when I became a victim of circumstance. When my children were born, they tested negative for marijuana. But still the hospital called ACS.
I made clear to ACS that I had to use marijuana under unique circumstances — but that I would not continue to use it. I asked to schedule a drug test to prove that it would no longer be in my system.
They made me go to court or face the loss all three of my children. Then, instead of ongoing drug-testing, I was compelled to go to an outpatient rehab program three days a week for an addiction I don’t have.
Now, I have complete strangers from ACS coming into my home and telling me what to do as a parent.
Unless I am able to win my case in Family Court and get my record sealed at a later hearing, I will be blacklisted for alleged child neglect — and unable to get any job near children until my twins turn 28. (Source.)
With a long history of CPS using whatever means they can to abduct children, Wexler has a healthy skepticism when it comes to trusting government sources who say they will never misuse risk assessment data.
County officials solemnly promise not to use the data that way – they say they’ll use it only to target help, and won’t make it a part of child abuse investigations. But even the promise has a loophole:
As the county’s “Hello Baby” overview puts it:
The County pledges that this Hello Baby analytic model will only be used to provide voluntary supportive services as described here and updated over time. [Emphasis added.]
But there is no institutional safeguard in place. There is nothing to stop the leaders of the agency that created “Hello Baby” and crave having data on every child from birth from changing their minds whenever they damn well feel like it.
When might that be? How about the first time there’s a child abuse tragedy and word leaks out that the family had been labeled “high risk” at the time of the child’s birth? That’s when the demands will come to make this information available immediately to child protective services and to use it to immediately trigger a CPS investigation – or worse.
Read the full article at the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform blog.
They had a commercial—you remember—with the Republicans pushing Grandma-in-a-wheelchair over the cliff. They said if you voted for Republicans you’re killing Granny.
And remember that commercial with the egg and the frying pan that fried the egg and said this is your brain/this is your brain on drugs?
Well take a good look at the media-assisted Democrats. Take a very good look. They were crazed when they produced the Grandma-In-the-Wheelchair commercial and their brains are totally fried now. Their drug is power. They’d do anything and everything for it. Anything and everything includes purposefully working to collapse and/or disable the elected government. Anything and everything means breaking the law, lying to the public, dividing to conquer, and overall, perpetrating a total scam on the American people.
They are currently wholly immersed in and fully committed to this scam. They have adopted the old “I’d rather be dead than red” attitude (from the Cold War) and are clearly in the process of killing the very America they portend to be fighting for.
And so it goes.
Sometimes it seems kind of remarkable that it has to be stated so many times, the old adage that says that when you point a finger at someone three fingers are pointing back at you. Clearly, if you look at what the Democrats have done, and it’s beginning to look, no, not like a lot like Christmas, but a lot like the Obama administration not only knew about but actually helped orchestrate the crazed attempt to delegitimize the duly elected president once they discovered that they couldn’t prevent him from being elected.
As we’re beginning to see, a good part of the reason the Democrats, wholly assisted by the Pravda USA mainstream media, are so crazed is because they are knee-deep in corrupt and illegal doings. It goes on and on and on, all through the Obama administration including things like the uranium deal to the Russians that Hillary Clinton was part and parcel of and profited from.
Remember that pants suit darling? Remember Hillary standing there on that debate stage and asking Donald Trump, her opponent, if he would accept the results of the election?
So smug! So wealthy from all the money that she and her husband, the ex-president, collected into their charity in what we now know was a pay-for-play not investigated by the FBI because the FBI was so deep into her pants suit. Well, that darling in the pants suit has, of course, not accepted the results of the election. She chips away at its legitimacy every chance she can get to speak publicly, the latest of which proclamation of hers was that election was stolen, or, not legitimate.
Her people, inclusive of her lawyer Lanny Davis (who defended Michael Cohen and served as special counsel to her husband, President Bill Clinton for several years) are infused everywhere in this campaign to delegitimize and/or unseat President Trump. It’s incest to the nth degree.
Clinton’s people are active in this to protect what they do not want made public, which is the deep-seated corruption within the Clinton machine which goes way back to their Arkansas Governor days and plods forward to theirs (and the Democrat Party’s) illicit scheme to get her elected president or ruin Trump so that he could not disclose the dirty dealings they’ve been involved in all along the way.
The Crazed-Idiot Democrats and their Pravda USA mainstream media aiders and abettors, their personal propagandists, are so very crazed now because they are only a hair’s throw away from being exposed as trying to effect the take-down of a duly elected president.
In all likelihood, when fully exposed their scheme will be one of the biggest scandals in America’s history, not to mention the crimes involved which are all the more reason for them to keep pointing their fingers without any sense of their fingers, three times over, pointing right back at them.
Run by crazed idiots, the Despicable Dems, all-in now, are cornered cats scratching out at anything and everything. And we, the American people, are nothing more than collateral damage.
Most of the mainstream media and the “Free Press” like to stand behind the notion that they are actually journalists who are unbiased and present stories as they are. However, that is no longer true in America, and a biased press and social media, Pravda USA, is not only here but is America’s greatest danger.
Studies show that a full 92% of stories in the media about President Trump are negative stories. In the first sixty days of his presidency, 62% of the stories about him were negative, that’s only ten percentage points less than the negative stories about Clinton, Bush and Obama in their first sixty days combined.
One thing is clear. No matter how much you might not like President Trump, 92% of what he does is not negative.
So that leads to some questions. What has changed in the media? Where have the unbiased reporters gone? Where is this all leading us?
The Democrats were devastated having lost the election in 2016. You’ve heard the stories about the darkened Hillary Clinton celebration room, about the people crying, about the people, celebrities, walking in, turning around and walking out.
Even before that night, as we’re finding out now, although you wouldn’t know it from listening to the mainstream media, the campaign to de-legitimize Trump had begun. It was an organized campaign reaching back into the Obama-Biden White House. In their last weeks, Obama unleashed the dogs of war by allowing intelligence information to be disseminated among seventeen intelligence agencies instead of the previous three. This paved the way for all the deep-state leaks to occur without them being traced.
By this time the Steele Dossier had been commissioned and written, the FISA warrants were ongoing and those FBI lovebirds were already talking about the insurance policy. On the night of the election, when Trump won, the plot that had already been hatched was simply put into hyper-gear.
Those of you who’ve swallowed the blue pill will deny these things. Of course, that’s your choice because at least for now this is still America.
But here’s the rub. If Pravda USA, our mainstream media and social media, all of which now serve as an arm of the Democratic Party, are allowed to continue unchecked, we will not be America for long. If you don’t believe that, you can stay ensconced in the effects of that blue pill or you can check out what the media does in any socialist country, in any communist country, in any totalitarian country. In fact, for those of you who swallowed the blue pill, please, check out all facts instead of quoting/re-posting the ones the CNN/NBC/Hillary Clinton fact checkers check.
Would be that all of this were only about ideology. But the fight here in America, now a political fight pure and simple, is no longer about ideology. The Democrats, aided and abetted by the mainstream media and social media, much of which is owned by billionaire Trump-haters, are fighting for power and domination. If the woke mainstream media does not wake up, which it doesn’t seem it will, in the scope of things, they will have been nothing more but an instrument of the destruction of this country as we know it.
That’s it in a nutshell. Our mainstream media, Pravda USA, is suppressing a realistic idea of what’s actually going on in this country, purposefully and willfully. They would have you believe things that are nonsensical, things for which there are no facts, things that are simply not true.
This is dangerous pure and simple. Our mainstream media, Pravda USA, is America’s greatest danger.
One thing is certainly clear. Whatever our government is doing right now is surely not what it should be doing.
As Yogi said, “Déjà vu all over again.”
It’s pretty simple really. Governments exist primarily to protect their people from conflicts and to provide law and order.
Basically, that’s it in a nutshell.
And if that’s it, in a nutshell or not, then you have to ask yourself: Is this what our government is doing now?
That answer is pretty simple too. Hardly, if at all.
A friend once said that in regard to rules of civility it was always good to make the least negative assumptions. Or, practically speaking, assume people are doing their best, trying their best, etc.
In general, that’s a good rule to live by.
Come on now, take a look at where the Democrats have been, not just since Trump was elected, but even before then, from the moment he announced his candidacy.
Can anyone really say, at least with a straight face, that the Democrats are doing the best they can for America?
Can anyone really say with a straight face that the Democrats actually have America’s best interests at heart? that they are protecting Americans? That they’re actually doing anything for America and/or Americans?
Of course we know what they say. They say that Trump is destroying America, is corrupt, has colluded with the Russians, disrespects and disregards the Constitution, is a racist, a xenophobe, white supremacist and more. As a result of what President Trump is, they say that what they are doing for America is getting rid of him so America and Americans are protected from people like him. In fact, they say that this is their first and most important duty.
So here we are, aren’t we?
Don’t you think that if the Democrats had one single, provable high crime or misdemeanor that Trump committed they would have already impeached him? Adam Schiff said he had demonstrable proof of collusion. He’s been saying that for two years. But the Mueller report didn’t show anything and Schiff hasn’t presented anything. In fact, he let it slide. He’s moved on to parodies.
The Democrats don’t have anything. They can’t produce anything. Even worse, it’s not even in their best interests to do so. If they really had, at any given time, what they say they have, and if they really felt that the best interests of America and Americans are truly what they are serving, they would have proceeded with impeachment a long time ago.
What the Democratic side of our government is doing now is certainly not what it should be doing.
What they are doing, pretty overtly, with the aid of Pravda USA, the mainstream/social media Consortium, and their Hollywood elite shills, is attempting a coup d’état similar to what happens in other countries when it’s done without the military. Or, what they’re doing is similar to what’s going on in Venezuela, where the party that was ruling is attempting to prevent a duly elected president from doing his job.
The Democrats could have waited another year and let the people, the voting public, the ones who should be making the decision, make the decision with their votes. But as the Democrat from Texas, Al Green, said, they are afraid they can’t beat Trump at the ballot box.
Well, if you do any research into how these people operate, I mean any real research, research not prepared by them or the by the state or Federal governments, you’ll find out what’s really going on, what this whole thing is about. It’s certainly not about kids. It’s all about money and jobs.
Think about it. In my state, the DCF budget is pretty close to 1.2 billion dollars. That’s just for DCF as an agency. It doesn’t talk to anything coming from the Feds or any of the other agencies and contract people they utilize.
That’s a whole game unto itself. And that’s another story.
So apart from the agency, DCF and its workers, there’s all the government lawyers involved, the judges and juvenile courts and all their people, which range from court clerks to police. There’s the police and district attorneys and probation department people, and on and on.
Then there’s the doctors, social work agencies, dentists, specialists, psychological people and their agencies, and their experts, and on and on.
Then there’s the drivers and transportation agencies and all their workers and people, and on and on.
And on and on and on.
That’s how it works if you really look into it. DCF sits atop this big, multi-billion dollar empire like a god. DCF determines who gets contracts, which very often means who stays in business and who doesn’t. It can make or break agencies, even whole networks of agencies depending upon whether or not the people they utilize cooperate with what they want.
Cross them and you’re screwed. That’s how it is.
They can determine things you might never think of. For example, maybe some cops don’t like what they’re doing. Well then they find the cops who will do what they want for money. They can promise a cop a certain amount of overtime a month simply by choosing when to make a removal, what time of day. So twenty minutes before the shift ends, they call for the cops and make the removal so the cop assisting gets the overtime.
It’s a game to them. It’s a Darwin thing, you know, survival of them as an agency. And that’s how they play it. First and foremost is their survival as an agency and keeping their budget, ever expanding it, and their power, which of course is their budget.
That their priority is supposed to be helping kids who need help and families who need help and support, well… f—that.
Think I’m kidding? I’m not kidding at all. Think I’m crazy? That’s exactly what they want you to think. They want you to think I’m a bad parent, that I’ve done something wrong, that I’ve abused my kids.
Well I didn’t do anything wrong. In my whole life I’ve never hurt a fly let alone a person, especially and particularly my children who I so adore and for whom I’m spending my whole life’s everything to get them back. I’ve never done anything but give them the best of everything including the best of me. I’ve never hit them, hurt them, abused them or neglected them.
DCF doesn’t give a shit.
DCF just wants the money. Each of my children is worth about six thousand dollars a month to them. Their total payout for my kids is only about a thousand each, maybe a little less. That’s ten grand a month they’re making on my kids alone.
Here’s the facts. Less than one in four kids actually needs to be removed from a home. Less than one in four kids they remove are in actual physical danger or are being sexually or emotionally abused. More than three in four kids are removed just because DCF needs kids for the money. And the basis for the removals is an arbitrary standard they call neglect, a big blanket thing no one can actually see, feel or define.
Pick up a copy of all my works here: By Peter Weiss
By Richard Wexler
Suppose, hypothetically, you could gather in one room 333 former foster children. Now, suppose you asked how many of them had been abused while in foster care. Does anyone seriously believe that only one of those 333 former foster children would raise her or his hand?
Both common sense and an overwhelming mass of evidence says: Of course not.
But, apparently, Wendy Rickman wants us to believe it. That’s frightening, because Rickman is a high-ranking official in a state child welfare agency. She runs the division of adult, children and family services for the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS).
In an exercise in alternative facts worthy of Kellyanne Conway, Rickman told state legislators in June: “For the kids that reside in foster care in the state of Iowa, 99.7 percent of the time are free from any kind of maltreatment — 99.7 percent.”
That’s one out of 333.
Rickman had plenty of reason to be on the defensive. At the time she made her claim there had been three horrific cases of child abuse, two of them fatal, in less than a year. All of them involved foster parents who adopted the children they allegedly abused. In the brief time since Rickman spoke there’s been a fourth case, again involving an adoptive parent.
Had the alleged abusers in even one of these horror-story cases been birth parents there would have been a wave of attacks on efforts to keep families together. Politicians would be railing about the state supposedly putting family preservation ahead of child safety — and there would be a foster care panic, a huge spike in needless removals of children.
But even after four cases involving foster care, no one is asking whether Iowa should re-examine its take-the-child-and-run approach to child welfare — the state removes children at one of the highest rates in the country.
To help ensure that no one takes a close look at wrongful removal and how it endangers children, Rickman offers up her alternative facts.
She didn’t make up the 99.7 percent figure out of whole cloth — not exactly. Rather these are the official results when DHS investigates allegations of abuse in foster care — in other words, when DHS investigates itself. Other states get similar results when their child welfare agencies investigate themselves — and their child welfare officials make similar claims.
To see the extent to which DHS buries its head in the sand about abuse in foster and adoptive homes, consider the most recent case: There were 68 reports; an older sibling even posted video of the abuse on Facebook and gave it to authorities. But no one responded until the older sibling gave the videos to a newspaper.
That might help explain the 99.7 percent figure.
But compare those figures to studies done by independent researchers. In some cases, they went back and pored over case records. In other cases they really did ask former foster children what happened to them.
Here’s what they found:
- A study of foster children in Oregon and Washington state found that nearly one third reported being abused by a foster parent or another adult in a foster home. That study didn’t even include cases of foster children abusing each other.
- In a study of investigations of alleged abuse in New Jersey foster homes, the researchers found a lack of “anything approaching reasonable professional judgment” and concluded that “no assurances can be given” that any New Jersey foster child is safe.
- A study of cases in metropolitan Atlanta found that among children whose case goal was adoption, 34 percent had experienced abuse, neglect or other harmful conditions. For those children who had recently entered the system, 15 percent had experienced abuse, neglect or other harmful conditions in just one year.
“I’ve been doing this work for a long time and represented thousands and thousands of foster children, both in class-action lawsuits and individually, and I have almost never seen a child, boy or girl, who has been in foster care for any length of time who has not been sexually abused in some way, whether it is child-on-child or not.”
This does not mean that all, or even many, foster parents are abusive. The majority do the best they can for the children in their care — like the overwhelming majority of parents, period. But the abusive minority is large enough to cause serious concern — or at least it should.
When the Arizona Republic found that its own reporting was turning up far more abuse in foster care than the state was letting on, they took a closer look. They found:
“Both in Arizona and nationally, there is a huge disconnect. In 2014, of 46 states that reported data to the Federal Children’s Bureau, all claimed that fewer than 2 percent of children in foster care had been harmed in the prior year. Arizona said that barely a tenth of 1 percent of children in care were verifiably harmed.
“But in surveys going back for decades, from 25 percent to as high as 40 percent of former foster children report having been abused or neglected in care.”
If anything, the problem is likely to be worse in Iowa because the state’s high rate of removal overloads the foster care system, increasing the pressure to ignore warning signs about abuse.
Instead of facing up to this mess, Rickman rubs rhetorical salt in the wounds of all those abused foster children by telling lawmakers the harm done to them never happened.
If Wendy Rickman seriously believes what she told legislators she should be fired for willful ignorance.
If she doesn’t really believe it, she should be fired for misleading lawmakers.