Two-Thirds of Americans Don't Know If They Will Insure Under Obamacare

Break Out the Bandages, Santelli's Tackling ObamaCareCNBC's Rick Santelli maps out the problems he sees with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

The survey, which was conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International, had an overall margin of error of 3.6 percent. At total of 83 percent of those surveyed currently have health insurance, while 17 percent were uninsured—which tracks that national proportions.

(Read More: Uh Oh, Obamacare Math Sinks In for Small Businesses)

Under the ACA, uninsured Americans have until the beginning of 2014 to purchase insurance through health-care exchanges being set up nationwide or other venues—or face a financial penalty. That penalty is equal to $95 per adult, and $47.50 per child, up to a maximum of $285—or 1 percent of household income, whichever is greater.

Those penalties will escalate in future years.

Adams of InsuranceQuotes.com said uninsured people might be holding off making a decision on buying health insurance because "folks are saying that the penalty is low."

"But I have a feeling that it's more that they're not educated," she said.

"It's not surprising that people are confused and uninformed," Adams said. "It's a complicated system. It involves a lot of detail that the average person, unfortunately, is not going to grasp."

That confusion not only could hurt individuals' wallets—by making them pay out-of-pocket for health care as needed—but also put financial pressure on insurers offering coverage through exchanges set up under the ACA.

That system is predicated on the theory that enough healthy people will enroll and buy insurance so that their premiums will offset the costs of benefits for less healthy people in the same plan. If not enough healthy people sign up, Adams noted, insurers will be on the hook for the benefit payouts regardless, cutting into, or erasing their profits.

"If only the sick enroll," Adams warned, "it could be very precarious for the industry and the cost of insurance."

Adams said ignorance could hit lower-income Americans particularly hard.

"There were 68 percent of people who are earning under $30,000, who are not sure what they're going to do," Adams said, despite the fact that "they are certainly eligible" for tax credits to offset the costs of buying insurance under the ACA.

"They should" sign up, she said.

Adams noted that if poor adults without dependents live in states that are not expanding their Medicaid programs under Obamacare, they risk not being covered by that health-insurance program despite making the same low wages as adults who have dependents.

—By CNBC's Dan Mangan. Follow him on Twitter @danpostman.

View the original article here

Cruz: Obama pushing path to citizenship as ‘poison pill’ to kill immigration reform

President Obama is pushing a path to citizenship as a "poison pill" to prevent meaningful immigration reform, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) charged Monday.

"The part that I’ve got deep concerns about is any path to citizenship for those who are here illegally," Cruz said during an interview with Sean Hannity. "I think that is profoundly unfair to the millions of legal immigrants who have followed the rules, who have waited in line.

"I think the reason that President Obama is insisting on a path to citizenship is that it is designed to be a poison pill to scuttle the whole bill, so he can have a political issue in 2014 and 2016. I think that's really unfortunate," continued Cruz.

The Tea Party favorite said Congress could easily pass a comprehensive immigration reform deal if Democrats, and particularly Obama, stopped demanding the inclusion of a pathway to citizenship for immigrants living in the country illegally.

Cruz's comments came as a bipartisan group of senators indicate that it's nearly done crafting a broad immigration bill. The so-called "Gang of Eight" hopes to unveil the legislation in April, with Sen. Lindsey Graham on Sunday suggesting that the group could unveil legislation as early as next week. 

On Monday, the White House said that it was "encouraged" by the progress the group has made. The Senate bill is likely to call for increasing border security, introduce a pathway to citizenship, and increasing visas for high-school workers. A House bipartisan group is also working on its own immigration reform plan.

But Cruz argued that the president knows a path to citizenship effectively kills any immigration reform proposal.

"If he actually really wanted to get something passed, he wouldn't be rolling this out as a partisan attack issue," Cruz said. "You look at the State of the Union, that was a divisive speech, that was in your face. And he knows full well that a path to citizenship won't pass the House."

"He knows that it's a partisan, divisive issue and he holds everything else hostage to that wedge issue," Cruz added.

Asked what exactly he would like to see in an immigration reform bill, Cruz said that legislation should include "tripling the border patrol" and streamlining the immigration process for legal immigrants. 

"I think that it is likely that there could be some bipartisan solution to those who are here illegally if a path to citizenship were taken off the table," Cruz continued. "But as long as the president and [Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)] insist on a path to citizenship they know full well it will never pass the House of Representatives and then it's just a political football rather than actually trying to fix the problem."

Cruz predicted that an immigration reform plan would likely pass the Senate before being defeated in the House and said the White House was prepared to exploit that politically. 

"Look, they have the votes to force something through the Senate. I think whatever mess comes out of the so-called Gang of Eight, all or virtually all of the Democrats will vote for it and it's likely they'll get a fair number of Republicans to vote for it to so they can probably get it through the Senate," Cruz added. "If it includes a path to citizenship, I don't think it'll pass the House, and I think that's exactly what the Obama White House wants."

View Comments

View the original article here

Exxon’s Duck-Killing Pipeline Doesn’t Pay Taxes To Oil Spill Cleanup Fund

A technicality has spared Exxon from having to pay any money into the fund that will be covering most of the clean up costs of its Arkansas pipeline spill.

The cleanup efforts themselves took a sobering turn as crews found injured and dead ducks covered in oil.

The environmental impacts of an oil spill in central Arkansas began to come into focus Monday as officials said a couple of dead ducks and 10 live oily birds were found after an ExxonMobil Corp. pipeline ruptured last week.

“I’m an animal lover, a wildlife lover, as probably most of the people here are,” Faulkner County Judge Allen Dodson told reporters. ”We don’t like to see that. No one does.”

Exxon has confirmed that the pipeline was carrying “low-quality Wabasca Heavy crude oil from Alberta.” This oil comes from the region of Alberta where the controversial tar sands are located. Heavy crude is strip mined or boiled loose from dense underground formations that often contain a large amount of bitumen. This oil is very thick and needs to be diluted with lighter fluids in order to flow through pipelines. Reports have stated that at least 12,000 barrels of oil and water spilled into the town.

A 1980 law ensures that diluted bitumen is not classified as oil, and companies transporting it in pipelines do not have to pay into the federal Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. Other conventional crude producers pay 8 cents a barrel to ensure the fund has resources to help clean up some of the 54,000 barrels of pipeline oil that spilled 364 times last year.

As Oil Change International said in a statement today:

“The great irony of this tragic spill in Arkansas is that the transport of tar sands oil through pipelines in the US is exempt from payments into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. Exxon, like all companies shipping toxic tar sands, doesn’t have to pay into the fund that will cover most of the clean up costs for the pipeline’s inevitable spills.”

Whatever you call it, as Judge Dodson says, “Crude oil is crude oil. None of it is real good to touch.”

The smell of the spilled oil (similar to asphalt) has reached residents five miles out in the country, and will likely keep residents of 22 nearby homes evacuated for several days.
Surreal video:

The Enbridge tar sands pipeline spill in Michigan happened in 2010 and parents are still concerned about the long-term health effects of having such toxic substances seep into areas where children play.

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery('#comment_submit').click(function(){if(jQuery('#comment_check:checked').length

View the original article here

User talk:Brenden

(Difference between revisions)Considering his past record (see relevant block log) I think that if anything his block was not long enough. Increased length of block to one week. If this was his first offense then maybe it could have ended with a warning. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 14:10, 6 June 2013 (EDT)Considering his past record (see relevant block log) I think that if anything his block was not long enough. Increased length of block to one week. If this was his first offense then maybe it could have ended with a warning. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 14:10, 6 June 2013 (EDT)I couldn't help but notice that you are not only frequenting a website dedicated solely for the purpose of attacking Conservapedia (everybody knows which website I'm talking about), but that you are also talking with the other liberals there about me. Care to elaborate? - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 15:05, 6 June 2013 (EDT)

User talk:Brenden/Archive

if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }

I've looked into the Anon/WBC incident before for an essay on freedom of speech as it relates to Internet culture, and while both WBC and Anon showed their typical lack of civility and good manners towards each other they didn't violate the 1st Amendment in any way. I might have made a mistake in the report, though, so if you could show me where one side or the other violated 1st Amendment rights I'd be happy to concede the point. Blessings of the Almighty on you :) 16:25, 3 October 2012 (EDT)

....you'll love this guy's stream of edit comments. Hugs and kisses, MattyD 21:00, 31 October 2012 (EDT)

Why have you just unblocked this user - you better have a good reason! EJamesW 17:23, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

No need to block non-malicious morons. Just let them know that they are being ignored.Brenden 17:39, 2 November 2012 (EDT) DON'T DO IT AGAIN~! Look at the history you moron! EJamesW 17:46, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

You've just made yourself look a total idiot. I can't believe I was the one who recommended for promotion. EJamesW 17:58, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

[Comments retracted by poster]Thank you, EJamesW brenden 18:00, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

What does mean?

Does that mean you're trying to be sarcastic? But you can't think of anything witty or amusing to type?

Brenden, why don't you just say sorry and leave it at that? (Have you looked at the history of User:Reactionary22, you will see that I gave this guy a chance to respond and chandged his block settings.)

I suppose some Christians never can admit they're wrong...

EJamesW 18:17, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

Ease up E, Brendan has done the same on more than one occasion. Normally we frown upon adjusting others' blocks but no harm, no foul.--Jpatt 19:04, 2 November 2012 (EDT) My apologies, I failed to take a look at the history, and the tone you took kind of distracted me from looking. Sorry about that.brenden 16:54, 3 November 2012 (EDT)

Editing is fully restored. Sorry I didn't notice this earlier.--Andy Schlafly 23:55, 11 November 2012 (EST)

Thanks, Mr. Schlaflybrenden 00:39, 12 November 2012 (EST)

If you have a personal problem with a sysop, you take it up with Aschlafly. Karajou 11:12, 19 November 2012 (EST)

Just registered. I think an interesting experiment/test could be to add a few articles copied from wikipedia into the wiki after deleting all the spam and see if the content of those articles changes what is being written in the spam. Dvergne 23:57, 17 December 2012 (EST)

I also think we should start and anti-spam squad here to help combat the spam by collecting the IP's and the like and adding those to such sites as Stopforumspam. I also think that copying the spam IP block list from wikipedia is a good Idea as I imagine they would have to have pretty good countermeasures against spam over there. Dvergne 00:02, 18 December 2012 (EST)

Thank you for your thoughtfulness. My only concern is accuracy and credibility. I think that sometimes, people can't see how a stranger will react to their writing because we all have internal writing voices which remember all of our intentions rather than what is on the page. Wschact 01:34, 6 January 2013 (EST)

Thank you for your tireless work against vandals. Your efforts are appreciated. :-) Regards, Taj 17:27, 13 January 2013 (EST)

It seems the spambots are active again. I might start to port over the new spambot IP blocks from Wikipedia again, as that seamed to be quite efficient at stopping them for a while last time. Dvergne 06:29, 3 February 2013 (EST)

I think I might upgrade that to very active! Have you been getting much spam at your honeypot mate? Dvergne 19:27, 3 February 2013 (EST) It's been ok-ish. I blocked most of the ranges that were targeting my honeypot. brenden 19:50, 3 February 2013 (EST)

I think it is poor form to edit talk page comments left by others. If an editor wishes to run afoul of the rules by speaking their mind, it should be their freedom to do so. If that editor happens to be immune to the rules (as with the user in this case), then I think their unfettered comments should stand as testimony to their true nature. Thanks --DonnyC 21:16, 7 February 2013 (EST)

Well, the last time that specific user left his comments, a lot of people were offended. While I agree, that generally, it is inappropriate to censor users, in certain cases, especially when personal attacks are involved, it should be fine. Furthermore, the use of such tags, causes the poster understand that such attacks are not welcome on Conservapedia.

Thanks for your input anyways, though. brenden 22:04, 7 February 2013 (EST)

Try now - your account has been promoted.--Andy Schlafly 00:25, 19 February 2013 (EST)

Thanks! brenden 14:59, 19 February 2013 (EST)

I still retain my suspicion, but if that contributor wants to reregister we should let him. I probably should have enabled account recreation after the block. - Markman 14:34, 1 March 2013 (EST)

Thanks Brenden. I needed that! AlanE 21:20, 6 March 2013 (EST)

NP brenden 21:30, 6 March 2013 (EST)

Hi Brenden. You do not have the authority to undo admin's blocks. If you have an issue, you raise it. DouglasA 15:30, 7 March 2013 (EST)

KK got it. brenden 13:47, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

Thanks. JohanZ 11:56, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

No problembrenden 13:25, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

Sorry I had been playing around with my signature I have now corrected it. CameronD 13:45, 12 April 2013 (EDT)

If you really do have the ability to implement some technical means to protect this wiki from a certain user's flagrant deletion sprees, I implore you to do so. Asking him to stop won't do a thing. He literally is incapable of changing his ways. --DonnyC 22:57, 23 April 2013 (EDT)

Well I do hope that asking him to change will help him overcome his irritating habit of deleting pages, I am prepared to create a bot. Unfortunately, I have no experience with the MW api, sooo, I see a lot of googling, and asking for technical help in my foreseeable future. brenden 13:42, 24 April 2013 (EDT)

I have no intention of leaving, but between C's actions and Aschlafly choosing to ignore the problem(as well as any message I write to him now), it's hard to stay motivated to keep trying to make the site better. I'll stick around for now and continue to fight for this site, but I have this sinking feeling that it is only a matter of time before I'm perma-banned. Thanks for the support though, hopefully those of us who actually care will be able to prevail in the end. Fnarrow 14:24, 25 April 2013 (EDT)

On a related note... am I the only one who sees the hypocrisy in C's repeated use of the 90/10 rule as a reason for banning (including the block of FWilliamM a mere 40 minutes after your unbanning him) when 38% of his own last 500 edits were to talk pages? Fnarrow 00:28, 27 April 2013 (EDT) I do try to unblock the users unfairly blocked by that admin. brenden 01:17, 27 April 2013 (EDT) I know you do and my earlier comment wasn't aimed at you. I was just frustrated with his antics last night and needed to express that to someone. Thank you for doing what you can. Fnarrow 08:32, 27 April 2013 (EDT)

That is enough from both of you. Brendan, you have no business or authority unblocking users because of a pet peeve against Conservative, especially when I look into the matter and discover they are proven trolls previously blocked for hostility. User Fnarrow, your whining about being bullied is now over and done with. You chose to come into the site, and you chose to put yourself into conflict with another user when you could have chosen otherwise. This site is an encyclopedia; it is not a site where anyone can cause a fight with anyone else. Karajou 13:51, 27 April 2013 (EDT)

Karajou, I've always respected you, and found you to be a fair, and rational person, despite whatever ideological differences we may have. On the other hand, I must protest that contrary to what you said about FNarrow, "you chose to put yourself into conflict with another user when you could have chosen otherwise." is actually an incorrect take on what happened. FNarrow was according to his contributions, merely being a productive editor, when s/he was provoked by User:C's ad-hominem attacks, and blatant violation of the Commandments. As per my authority to undo blocks placed by a superior, I feel, (and I'm pretty sure that Mr. Schlafly agrees with me), that blocks placed to censor users, and to subvert the policies here, are worthy of an immediate unblock. brenden 14:44, 27 April 2013 (EDT) This edit [1] says a lot in support of my argument; this individual also created three additional accounts via a Philippine proxy in order to cause an attack on user Conservative...and you unblocked two of those socks. What you and FNarrow need to do is not only read the Conservapedia Commandments, but read and heed the warnings at the bottom of my user page. Everyone coming in is going to respect this website and the people in it, or they are out. Karajou 01:04, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

Respect,K.? Ha!! Whose wife was implied to be a slut, K; and by whom, and who stood by and let that worm, Cons, get away with it? Who said one thing on Gmail and something else in public when he realised he had to show solidarity with a certain Mexican "gentleman" who backed a coward who has not bothered to do what he said he would do. I am still here, K. Where did Markman go when he realised he had given himself some work to do?

Just one question - why, if lack of citations is such a crime, wasn't I pulled up in 2007? AlanE 02:55, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

Sorry Brenden for smeering your page with my anger. One takes the opportunity when it arises. AlanE 03:12, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

@User:Karajou

I don't have the checkuser ability, so I cannot tell if the people I block and unblock are socks. As per respecting the website, and the people (Especially user:C), I do try to respect the person, even if I cannot respect their actions. brenden 13:37, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

I am a friend of Fnarrow and he asked me to post the copy of this email which he sent to cpwebmaster@conservapedia.com on the user talk pages ofa few people whom he said had always been fair to him.

I got banned for a day and then Karajou immediately changed it to infinite for no apparent reason immediately after it expired. I have cut the dead end pages by nearly half during my short time there and feel i have  made substantive improvements to other articles during that time. While i have had disagreements with Karajou and Conservative, i have always been respectful and adhered to the Conservapedia commandments. Finally, I never had a chance to respond to my accuser and did nothing to deserve this treatment. Please forward this to Mr. Schlafly for review. Thank you, Fnarrow

If my opinion counts for anything, Frank really is a great and passionate guy who could add a lot of valuable knowledge to yosite. That is all, please keep up the great work. JSandler 14:35, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

If you hide another civil discussion that I am having with another editor again, I will ask that you be removed from the website. Thank you. I am sure Karajou and others would agree with me on this matter if I bring up this matter with other Admins. Conservative 16:12, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

How dare you? You insulted Patmac, and a vast host of other anglicans, you dragged me into this fight, and if you don't tone down your insults, I will bring it up with Mr. Schlafly, who certainly agrees that your words are unnacceptable. brenden 16:14, 17 May 2013 (EDT) I don't consider my post to you daring. And I do mean to carry out what I said I would do should you do it again. Conservative 16:15, 17 May 2013 (EDT) That discussion was civil? Calling user:Patmac a untrue christian, who is also a "lying evolutionist"? Really? I have brought this matter with the site's owner already. brenden 16:19, 17 May 2013 (EDT) Stating untruths about the conversation is not going to further your cause. In fact, you are making things worse. For example, I expressly did not answer Pacmac's question on whether or not he was a Christian which is why he repeated this question. You are digging for yourself a deeper hole. I would suggest you stop digging. Conservative 16:28, 17 May 2013 (EDT) Since when is it your right to be implying that any user is not a "True Christian"? And furthermore, can you justify User:Conservative/Patmac dodged this issue?brenden 16:32, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

Brenden, you shouldn't have pushed it so far. All C probably meant was that "no true Christian" would advocate this or that. You'd have to be an idiot to take that personally (in fact, you'd have to be an imbecile not to realize that 'be an idiot' was just a figure of speech).

It may seem unfair that sometimes admins get greater leeway when it comes to personal remarks, but getting into a pissing contest over it will never be productive. If you're really worried about fairness, I suggest you consider all the people in totalitarian dictatorships who have NO ACCESS to the Internet and no way to express themselves without a swift ride to prison. Getting blocked on a pro-freedom site for personal remarks hardly compares.

Chill out, and come back refreshed. --Ed Poor Talk 23:48, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

It is nothing to do with like or dislike. It is for your own good. This is a fight you will NOT win. Rob Smith tried this and he now edits at ratwiki, he is an ex-person here. Keep this up and you will be as well. Davidspencer 16:23, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

Thank you, David. I'm sorry for my choice of words now, but I must say, what User:Conservative did was not acceptable, and I tried to do my best to halt it before it returned to another user:C vs other sysops wheel war like last week. brenden 16:27, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

I do appreciate it, but don't want to cause disruption--Patmac 16:41, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

I don't see why user page edits should not be understood as talk page edits for purposes of enforcing the 90/10 rule. I'm thinking of indefinitely banning Ryancsh for being a parodist anyway. Look up "Ryan Cash" on google, it seems to be some kind of an internet joke. - Markman 11:25, 5 June 2013 (EDT)

I searched up Ryan Cash, and saw that the second result points to a certain "Sonichu.com". However, I don't see how a website dedicated to provoking the creator of "sonichu" has any connection with Conservapedia or editing at Conservapedia. brenden 13:41, 5 June 2013 (EDT)

Considering his past record (see relevant block log) I think that if anything his block was not long enough. Increased length of block to one week. If this was his first offense then maybe it could have ended with a warning. - Markman 14:10, 6 June 2013 (EDT)

Good day,

I couldn't help but notice that you are not only frequenting a website dedicated solely for the purpose of attacking Conservapedia (everybody knows which website I'm talking about), but that you are also talking with the other liberals there about me. Care to elaborate? - Markman 15:05, 6 June 2013 (EDT)

View the original article here

Sequestration Cuts Soon To Hit Long-Term Unemployment Insurance

The automatic budget cuts that went into effect on March 1 will soon begin to affect a new subset of Americans: the long-term unemployed who have been out of a job for more than six months and are dependent on the federal government’s unemployment assistance program.

The federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation program aids workers after they exhaust their state-level unemployment benefits, which typically last 26 weeks. The benefits are modest — about $300 a week on average — and will become even more so this month and later, when sequestration forces cuts of up to 10.7 percent on all benefit checks, as National Journal reports:

These checks—which average $300 a week, without the cuts—go to roughly 2 million people who have already exhausted their regular unemployment benefits, meaning they’ve been out of work for a while. The Bureau of Labor Statistics defines the long-term unemployed as people who have not held a job for 27 weeks.

Moreover, they are people whom the political establishment has largely forgotten. There are no new stimulus programs on the horizon for the long-term unemployed, nor is there anything new to help train them or connect them to jobs. Those still receiving benefit checks will see them whacked by as much as $450 in total between now and the end of the fiscal year in September, according to Labor Department estimates—all due to spending cuts that both parties consider ill-advised and indiscriminate.

The cuts, as National Journal explains, will come at different times based on how they are implemented by states. But in some states, the cuts will carry an even bigger punch to the guts of jobless workers. Eight states have recently made substantial cuts to their own unemployment compensation programs, shortening the amount of time jobless workers are eligible for benefits. That, in turn, reduces the amount of time they are eligible for federal benefits as well, since the federal program is tied to state programs.

The average unemployed worker has been out of work for 35 weeks; 40 percent have been jobless for 27 weeks or longer, meaning they rely on the federal program. But instead of stimulus programs to help create jobs, Congress has focused on cutting the budget, and given that unemployment insurance is good for both workers and the overall economy, these cuts are another misguided policy that won’t just make it harder to be unemployed, but harder to find a job too.

View the original article here

User talk:Aschlafly

(Difference between revisions)

Comment here

Hi! Thank for for creating this website.

Archive Index

if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }

I was a little bit disappointed that Pentecost didn't make the Main Page, even after I had mentioned it: see Talk:Main_Page#Pentecost....

I'd like to see the Christian Feasts being honored on the Main Page, be it by a masterpiece, a link to an article, etc.: the next will be Trinity Sunday. Any ideas?

Thanks, --AugustO 08:42, 21 May 2013 (EDT)

Good suggestions. Often this will depend on what else is in the news, or what other entries editors are spending their time on at a particularly moment. Other websites on the internet are purely religious sites.--Andy Schlafly 10:48, 21 May 2013 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly,
I wanted to apologize if my past edit offended you or damaged the project. It was never my intent to remove information from the table, but only to enhance the layout and supplement the content through additional citations. I have also apologized on the talk page of the article, but I thought I owed you a direct apology as well.

Additionally, I still have a desire to improve the article. I have posted a proposed plan on the talk page, and I would be very grateful for your input. I eagerly await your suggestions.

Sincerely, WilliamWB 11:27, 23 May 2013 (EDT)

Andrew Schlafly, you claimed that „Jesus prayed, often publicly, for people”. I'm still interested in an example for this - as you said that this happened often, you should be able to provide us with one. To be more precise: I don't want examples of Jesus blessing or giving thanks ( e?????? - like in Matthew 14:19) or laying hands upon someone (?p?t???µ? ?e??a? - like in Matthew 19:15), I'd like to see an example of Jesus praying (p??se???µa?) publicly for people.

Could you please give us a verse? Thank you. --AugustO 15:40, 24 May 2013 (EDT)

For example, Jesus routinely prayed in public before each meal.--Andy Schlafly 21:32, 24 May 2013 (EDT) „I don't want examples of Jesus blessing or giving thanks” „I'd like to see an example of Jesus praying (p??se???µa?) publicly for people” „Could you please give us a verse?” As you can see, your answer doesn't match the question. --AugustO 22:45, 24 May 2013 (EDT) Try John 8-14 (Translated)#11:41 - when Jesus very publicly prays to and thanks God prior to raising Lazarus from the dead.--Andy Schlafly 23:45, 24 May 2013 (EDT) I wonder if he'd be satisfied with John 17:11-17: Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one. 12 While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. 13 But now I am coming to you, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves. 14 I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 15 I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. [1] Perhaps there aren't as many transcripts of our Lord's specific prayers as we'd all like. --Ed Poor Talk 19:46, 26 May 2013 (EDT)

I may be a "liberal" Christian but I am devout, but some articles (guess by who?) suggest I am more associated with Satan them I am Jesus. I will not stand for it any longer--Patmac 09:34, 26 May 2013 (EDT)

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

Can you please unprotect this page? I would like to update it with information about VY and Shock's chatroom that has come to light at Talk:Main Page. If this is not desirable, then I would suggest unprotecting the page (which is currently sourced only to a single page on an anonymous blog) so that a more verifiable article can be written in its place (and perhaps if I can get a hold of Conservative, he can point me to reliable sources). Thanks, GregG 21:28, 31 May 2013 (EDT)

Can you do anything with this: Template:Dead link? --JoeyJ 14:02, 1 June 2013 (EDT)

What is wrong with it?--Andy Schlafly 16:20, 1 June 2013 (EDT) Maybe you can expand it. In Wikipedia there is a category for articles with dead links --JoeyJ 09:00, 2 June 2013 (EDT) I've done it. If Mr. Schlafly or someone else wants to change the exact name of the category, they can go ahead. Onward 09:25, 2 June 2013 (EDT)

Could you restore my talk page, actually? A nice little memento from the hoopla. :) Onward 20:24, 1 June 2013 (EDT)

Conservative still goes on with his hatred, I will get blocked for this but here is my promise, I will wait 3 days and if after that time this users hatred is not completely removed from this site I am going to report Conservapedia to the Southern Poverty Law Center and request it is designated a hate group.--Patmac 11:28, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

I would have preferred to send these messages to you in person but I cannot find an email for you so it has to be done here, I have requested you do something before but have been constantly ignored. Lets face it Andy, despite not holding office you are very much a politician, and what does a politician do when a subordinate constantly jeopardizes his position? He gits rid.--Patmac 11:41, 3 June 2013 (EDT) Conservapedia supports and defends the full right to free speech, and urges liberal groups to do likewise.--Andy Schlafly 12:16, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

This is not free speech, this is hate speech. When i read that Jesus eats and spits out moderate Christians that is hate speech, and it also brings the name of our saviour into disrepute. He does not just attack evolutionists and atheists, he attacks Christians, to the extent that we are not Christians at all. "Liberal" Christianity and marital infidelity, "Liberal" Christianity and whore mongering, "Liberal" Christianity and bestiality, need i say more? But if someone dare challenge his position, he blocks them, how is that free speech? I think you personally have some pretty strange ideas but you do allow them to be challenged without going on a hate spree, and you are to be respected for that. But constantly allowing Conservative to post his vile tirade, however free it may be, just undermines Conservatives and by extension your image.--Patmac 12:32, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

This user Pacmac is blocked indefinitely. Apparently, he thinks he can define what hatred is, even so far as to saying that the above reference concerning Jesus constitutes "hate speech". This is the place in the Bible where it comes from, Revelation, Chapter 2: 14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; 15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. 16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. 17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: 18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. What it means is that this user is trying his best to stop any mention of the Bible unless this mention is done in accordance with his liberal philosophy; which means that the above Revelation verses are null and void. He further threatens to call the SPLC on us if we don't behave in according to his whims, i.e. one hate filled individual calling a hate-filled organization to complain about our alleged hate against his own hate-filled ideas. Patmac had also forgotten about our First Amendment RIGHTS to FREE SPEECH, FREEDOM OF RELIGION, and FREEDOM TO ASSEMBLE. He's so filled with hate himself that he would demand the SPLC to try to stop us from enjoying those rights. As far as I'm concerned, he failed. And he can continue failing somewhere else. Karajou 13:12, 3 June 2013 (EDT) Firstly, let me say that I do not endorse user:Patmac`s tactics of legal threats. They have no place on a wiki, and should instead be sent to the site's owner (Mr. Schlafly) by email. However, as per hate speech and the Bible, it is clear that the Bible condemns churches who do not uphold the tenets of Christianity, but on the other hand, who is User:C to decide which churches are not upholding these tenets? brenden 13:43, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

This is an opportunity for Andy to show some leadership in setting a path that de-escallates the conflict here. On the one hand, Patmac is absolutely right about the intemperate nature of User:C's comments. On the other hand, Patmac's frustration with the failure to address that problem led him to make intemperate remarks as well. I suggest that we forgive Patmac for his transgression, and address whether User:C's edits are consistent with the fundamental commandments of Conservapedia. This is not a "Free Speech" issue. User:C is free to express his views on his private blog. Our question is whether CP should endorse and republish some sharp comments as the views of the entire project. Wschact 07:22, 4 June 2013 (EDT)

ReymeDneK's contributions? Thanks, GregG 10:15, 5 June 2013 (EDT)

There is a dispute between myself and user:Markman regarding User:Rafael's block. Could you please provide some guidance? Thanks, brenden 15:34, 6 June 2013 (EDT)

View the original article here

Remarks by the First Lady at "42" Film Workshop

The White House

Office of the First Lady

State Dining Room

11:57 A.M. EDT

MRS. OBAMA:  Well, hello!  How’s everybody doing? 

AUDIENCE:  Good.

MRS. OBAMA:  Welcome to the White House.  (Laughter.)  It’s nice.  Let's do this.  (Applause.)  I know sometimes it’s hard to know how are you supposed to act in the White House.  (Laughter.)  Everybody is sitting with their -- just loosen up, loosen up.  It’s okay.  You all are here.  You’re just going to talk.  I can tell you all talk a lot.  (Laughter.)  So you’re just going to talk a little more right here in the White House.  We are honored to have you.  Welcome, welcome.

Let me start today by thanking Paulette for moderating today’s workshop.  Paulette is the new Director of the Office of Public Engagement right here in the White House, and we’re glad to have her on our team.  I want to give her a round of applause -- Paulette.  (Applause.)

I want to thank Harrison Ford -- I’ve wanted to say that for a while.  (Laughter.)  Harrison Ford.  So you think you trip because I’m here?  I’m tripping out -- (laughter) -- because he’s here.  And look at this stage -- Mr. Harrison Ford, Chadwick Boseman -- he’s as cute as he was in the movie.  (Laughter.)  Just admit it.  (Applause.)  Outstanding -- as well as Brian Helgeland, who is here as well.  You’re going to hear from them. 

And I want to thank all of you young people here, because I want to make sure I know who’s here.  We have students from Gaithersburg, Maryland -- who are you, where are you?  (Applause.)  Maryland in the house.  Alexandria, Virginia.  (Applause.)  You guys are here.  We’ve got some D.C. kids.  (Applause.)  Of course you all are the loudest ones.  (Laughter.)  It’s okay.  We’ve got students from the Animo Jackie Robinson Charter High School in Los Angeles -- where are our L.A. kids?  (Applause.)  There you go.  You can be louder.  (Laughter.)  It’s okay, you all traveled. 

But I want to make sure that you all know how welcome you are here in this house, because the truth is we do these things -- we make sure that we do these workshops so that you all know that this is your house, too.  So we want you to make yourselves at home.  We want you to feel good and relaxed and learn and ask questions, okay?

And finally, I saved the best for last.  I want to pay special thanks to a woman that I am totally in awe of.  And I’m not going to get emotional.  I’m going to say that now, because I can tend to get emotional.  But she’s a woman of strength, of courage, conviction; a woman who paved the way for me, but she paved the way for millions of Americans all across this country.  We have with us Mrs. Rachel Robinson.  (Applause.)

And this is what a beautiful woman looks like.  She is a proud 90-years-old, and I’m telling you that because she told me she’s proud of it.  (Laughter.)  And I told her she wouldn’t have to tell anybody how old she was because she doesn’t look a day over 40 (laughter) -- beautiful, and smart, and gifted, and graceful.  So we are just so thrilled to have everyone here.

Now, the President and I, we watched this movie over the weekend.  It was just us, because our girls were away.  And they are definitely going to watch this movie.  We think that everybody in this country needs to watch this movie.  And I can say with all sincerity that it was truly powerful for us.  I don’t know about you, but we walked away from that just visibly, physically moved by the experience of the movie, of the story. 

And it wasn’t simply the wonderful performances, because the performances were brilliant -- brilliant.  I mean, I’m no movie critic, but you all are pretty good.  (Laughter.)  And it wasn’t the wonderful screenwriting or the directing.  It was the raw emotion that it just makes you feel after the experience.  I mean, watching anyone go through what Jackie and Rachel Robinson did -- the outright discrimination they encountered at every turn, from the fans in the stadium to the airport receptionist, even from some of his own teammates.  And you’re left just asking yourselves, how on Earth did they live through that?  How did they do it?  How did they endure the taunts and the bigotry for all of that time? 

And while so many in this country still face clear challenges, they still exist today.  I was struck by how far removed that way of life seems today.  I mean, there’s work to be done, but things have changed.  Major League Baseball is fully integrated.  You can’t imagine the baseball league not being integrated.  There are no more “Whites Only” signs posted anywhere in this country.  Although it still happens, it is far less acceptable for someone to yell out a racial slur while you’re walking down the street -- it still happens, but not tolerated.  That kind of prejudice is simply just not something that can happen in the light of day today. 

And then on the other hand, for us to be able to sit in the same room as Rachel Robinson -- do you all understand?  We are here with Rachel Robinson -- (applause) -- the woman who lived through that life whose memories and perspectives will forever be shaped by those experiences.  Her presence here today makes us realize just how connected we are to that part of our history.  It is very real and very tangible.  In the end, I can’t help but marvel at just how far we’ve come over the course of this woman’s life.  But it also remind us how far we have to go, how much more work we have to do.

Jackie and Rachel Robinson’s story reminds us how much hard work it takes to move a country forward.  It reminds us how much struggle is required to make real progress and change. 

So as you reflect on this story, not just today, but I hope you keep thinking about it for the rest of your life, I want you to think about how much strength it took day in and day out for Rachel and Jackie Robinson and for thousands of other people just like them all across this country to keep pressing ahead, even though some folks wouldn’t even treat them like they were human beings.  They just kept pressing ahead.

It would have been easy for them to get mad, because I know I was mad just watching the movie.  It would have been easy for them to get mad or to give up.  But instead, they made hate -- they met hatred with decency.  I want you all to keep that in mind -- they met hatred with decency.  And, more importantly, they gave their absolute very best every single day -- do you hear -- they gave their best every single day. 

From the time they were young people just like all of you, they worked hard to prepare themselves for greatness so that when the opportunity came their way, they were ready for that greatness.  This would have been a totally different story had they not been prepared, had they not trained themselves, had they not educated themselves. 

Yes, Jackie Robinson certainly was a tremendous athlete, but he was so much more than that.  He bravely served in our Armed Forces.  He attended college at UCLA.  He competed as hard as he could at everything he did so that his gifts wouldn’t go to waste.  And Rachel Robinson was in every way his equal, ladies -- in every way his equal.  She made her education a priority.  She worked hard in school.  She eventually became a nurse.

So Jackie and Rachel Robinson weren't destined for greatness -- they prepared themselves for greatness, which meant that they could make a difference outside of baseball, as well. And that is the only thing that is important for you to understand.  You can be great in your profession, you can earn a lot of money, you can be famous, but the question is what are you doing for others.

After he retired, Jackie Robinson became a leader in the Civil Rights Movement working with Dr. King, the NAACP.  He helped to start a bank to help other minorities start their own small businesses and to own their own homes.  And after his death, Mrs. Robinson carried on that legacy by starting the Jackie Robinson Foundation, which has provided college scholarships and training and career opportunities for more than 1,400 underserved students.  In fact, I know that we have a few Jackie Robinson scholars here today who are studying at Howard, and Georgetown, and Yale, and Brown, and even my alma mater, Princeton -- righteous.  (Laughter.) 

And I have seen the quality of these scholars firsthand because one of my personal assistants, little Kristin Jones, was a Jackie Robinson scholar in 2003.  And I was couldn’t be more impressed by the work that she has done and the young woman that she has become -- very proud of you.  And more than anything else, that is Jackie Robinson’s legacy -- opening up a whole new world of opportunities to young people like Kristin and every single one of you here today. 

And that's why it was so important for me to have all of you here for this event.  We intentionally did this.  Now, we’re going to have a screening for a bunch of fancy people somewhere later on down the line, but we wanted to be here with you.  Because this isn’t just about watching a wonderful movie about an important moment in history, this is about helping all of you believe that you can write your own history.

And I can't say this enough to enough young people -- you might not be able to hit a ball like Jackie Robinson, but you can get your education.  In fact, you must get your education and demand more of yourself every single day.  You have to do that, and you have to pick up yourself when somebody knocks you down -- because you will get knocked down.  But to do all of that, you have to put the work in.  That's all I have to say. 

All of this is about hard work.  And you have to be willing to face any obstacle you might encounter along the way.  That's what Jackie and Rachel Robinson did, and the same could be said for all the folks on this stage, quite frankly. 

Before he became an actor, Harrison Ford had to overcome a crippling fear of speaking in front of an audience.  So he’s terrified right now.  (Laughter.)  And it took Chadwick 10 years of hard work before landing his first starring role.  So this stuff doesn't come easy.  And then Brian sits down to create a script, and that means hundreds of hours of writing and rewriting, painful doubting and rewriting -- (laughter) -- oh, you can see the pain -- before he comes up with a finished product.  And that's really the secret. 

And I want all young people to understand -- what does it take?  What does it take?  What’s the secret?  The secret is that no one comes out a finished product.  None of us are finished products.  There is no magic that makes someone an actor or a director or a doctor or a lawyer or a President or First Lady.  There is no magic.  That is the one thing I want you all to understand.  If you gain nothing from this movie or any of our lives, there is no magic.  It takes grit.  It takes determination and a whole lot of hard work.  And as you know in the movie, it takes guts. 

So as you think about the obstacles you face in your own life, as you hear someone telling you that you’re not good enough, or that you don't belong, I want you to think about how Jackie Robinson got up and played after he got spiked in the leg.  I want you think about that.  I want you to think about how Rachel Robinson is still working to make this world a better place at 90 years old.  She’s still not stopping.  You can rest a little bit.  (Laughter.)

And then I want you all to put your heart and soul into everything you do -- every single thing you do.  Can you promise me that?  There is no exception to that rule.  Everything you do, you have to do 120 percent.  And you all are capable of doing that.  Everyone is capable of doing that.  And that's going to start right now. 

Your first test of how passionate you’re going to be is right here today.  Because I want you all to take full advantage of what we have for you.  I want you to ask questions.  I don't want you to hesitate.  I don't want you to be shy.  Because the first step in greatness is just using your voice, just knowing that whatever question, whatever thought, whatever ideas that you have have meaning and relevance in the world, and you will not hesitate to make your voices heard.

Take advantage of these folks.  Make sure you understand and ask questions and push and drive.  And when you leave here I want you to promise me that you’re going to keep doing that every single day, no matter what you want to become in life; that that is how you’re going to lead your life -- with greatness, with focus, with drive, determination.  And when you do that, and I know you will, you will be something great.

Don't know what it is.  I still don't know what I’m going to do with my life.  But you will be something great.  You all have everything it takes to make that happen, and it is an honor for me to be here with you guys.

Have fun.  I got to go work.  But I’m going to get a report on what’s been going on here today, so talk and ask questions.  Thank you, guys.  (Applause.)

END
12:11 P.M. EDT

Have questions about the BRAIN (Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies) Initiative? Administration officials will answer during a session of "Open for Questions."

President Obama unveils the “BRAIN” Initiative—a bold new research effort to revolutionize our understanding of the human mind and uncover new ways to treat, prevent, and cure brain disorders like Alzheimer’s, schizophrenia, autism, epilepsy, and traumatic brain injury.

The First Family hosted more than 30,000 visitors for the 135th annual Egg Roll, the largest public event held at the White House each year.

view all related blog posts

View the original article here