Obamacare Call Center Will Not Offer Healthcare Benefits to Employees

call centers

Obamacare Call Center Will Not Offer Healthcare Benefits to Employees

In order to ensure Americans understand how to access the benefits available to them when many provisions of the Affordable Care Act go online October 1, the Obama administration announced last month that it is setting up a call center that will be accessible to Americans 24 hours a day.

One branch of that call center will be located in California’s Contra Costa County, where, reportedly, 7,000 people applied for the 204 jobs. According to the Contra Costa Times, however, “about half the jobs are part-time, with no health benefits — a stinging disappointment to workers and local politicians who believed the positions would be full-time.” The county supervisor, Karen Mitchoff, called the hiring process “a comedy of errors” and said she “never dreamed [the jobs] would be part-time.”

The Times indicates that a job posting advertised all of the jobs as full-time, and one call center employee, who said no reason for the apparent change was provided, told the paper, ”It reminded me of that George Clooney movie where he goes around the country firing people (‘Up in the Air’). The woman said, ‘I know you were led to believe you would be full-time, but things have changed…You are actually ‘part-time intermittent.’”

The Contra Costa employees are currently in training, and the call center — one of three based in California — is set to go live on October 1.

NAVY SEAL’S FATHER: OBAMA SENT MY SON TO HIS DEATH

seal-team-6 copy

NAVY SEAL’S FATHER: OBAMA SENT MY SON TO HIS DEATH

Tells Michael Savage ‘they knew something was up’

Published: 17 hours ago

The father of one of the 22 Navy SEALs killed in August 2011 when their Chinook helicopter was shot down by the Taliban in Afghanistan, told talk-host Michael Savage he believes the U.S. government sent his son and his colleagues to their deaths.

After Vice President Joe Biden revealed that SEAL Team 6 carried out the operation that killed Osama bin Laden in May 2011, Strange said the members of his son’s team gave startling indications to their families they were about to meet their demise.

Charles Strange, the father of slain SEAL Michael Strange, told Savage Wednesday night that in June 2011, on at least three separate occasions his son grabbed him by the bicep and announced that he had prepared his will.

The bewildered father finally was able to find out what it all meant.

 

Michael Strange, his father recalled, said, “Something’s going on with the team. Somebody’s leaking things out. Something’s going on.”

Savage, reacting with emotion, asked: “Your son knew he was being sent to his death?”

“They knew,” Strange replied. “They knew something was up. Every one of them.”

Listen to Michael Savage’s interview with Charles Strange.

Other families of the victims have reported similar experiences with their sons the last time they saw them, Strange said.

Strange said documents related to the crash that he obtained show that, among other anomalies, the rescue team was held back.

“This was all planned,” he said. “I have it in the paperwork.”

Strange affirmed that there was no chase helicopter or any other kind of support for the team.

“So, you’re saying they planned to execute your son and the others on purpose?” Savage asked.

“One hundred percent, sir,” Strange replied.

 

Investigation

Prompted by the concerns expressed by family members, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said his subcommittee on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is investigating the crash.

As WND reported in May, Strange recalled to the National Press Club in Washington his experience with President Obama at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware Aug. 9, 2011, when the remains of 30 U.S. troops were brought home from Afghanistan.

He leaned over to whisper into President Obama’s ear to ask if there would be a congressional investigation into the death of his son.

President Obama whispered back, “We will look very, very, very deep into this.”

But Strange said  he hadn’t heard a word since that encounter.

The families have filed a lawsuit against President Obama, Vice President Biden, the Taliban, the governments of Afghanistan and Iran, because the Islamic regime promises to pay $10,000 for every dead U.S. service member.

Among their many suspicions, the families question the sudden replacement of seven Afghan commandos on board the helicopter just before takeoff. The seven who died in the attack are not the seven listed in the flight manifest. The families say that to this day, they don’t know the identities of the dead Afghans.

Strange noted that the chopper’s black box was never recovered and doubts the explanation that it was washed away in a flash flood.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/navy-seals-father-obama-sent-my-son-to-his-death/#dkyAKDmzp39cSyMh.99

Feds tell Web firms to turn over user account passwords

Feds tell Web firms to turn over user account passwords

Secret demands mark escalation in Internet surveillance by the federal government through gaining access to user passwords, which are typically stored in encrypted form.

Declan McCullagh

July 25, 2013 11:26 AM PDT

(Credit: Photo illustration by James Martin/CNET)

The U.S. government has demanded that major Internet companies divulge users’ stored passwords, according to two industry sources familiar with these orders, which represent an escalation in surveillance techniques that has not previously been disclosed.

If the government is able to determine a person’s password, which is typically stored in encrypted form, the credential could be used to log in to an account to peruse confidential correspondence or even impersonate the user. Obtaining it also would aid in deciphering encrypted devices in situations where passwords are reused.

“I’ve certainly seen them ask for passwords,” said one Internet industry source who spoke on condition of anonymity. “We push back.”

A second person who has worked at a large Silicon Valley company confirmed that it received legal requests from the federal government for stored passwords. Companies “really heavily scrutinize” these requests, the person said. “There’s a lot of ‘over my dead body.'”

Some of the government orders demand not only a user’s password but also the encryption algorithm and the so-called salt, according to a person familiar with the requests. A salt is a random string of letters or numbers used to make it more difficult to reverse the encryption process and determine the original password. Other orders demand the secret question codes often associated with user accounts.

“This is one of those unanswered legal questions: Is there any circumstance under which they could get password information?”
–Jennifer Granick, Stanford University

A Microsoft spokesperson would not say whether the company has received such requests from the government. But when asked whether Microsoft would divulge passwords, salts, or algorithms, the spokesperson replied: “No, we don’t, and we can’t see a circumstance in which we would provide it.”

Google also declined to disclose whether it had received requests for those types of data. But a spokesperson said the company has “never” turned over a user’s encrypted password, and that it has a legal team that frequently pushes back against requests that are fishing expeditions or are otherwise problematic. “We take the privacy and security of our users very seriously,” the spokesperson said.

A Yahoo spokeswoman would not say whether the company had received such requests. The spokeswoman said: “If we receive a request from law enforcement for a user’s password, we deny such requests on the grounds that they would allow overly broad access to our users’ private information. If we are required to provide information, we do so only in the strictest interpretation of what is required by law.”

Apple, Facebook, AOL, Verizon, AT&T, Time Warner Cable, and Comcast did not respond to queries about whether they have received requests for users’ passwords and how they would respond to them.

Richard Lovejoy, a director of the Opera Software subsidiary that operates FastMail, said he doesn’t recall receiving any such requests but that the company still has a relatively small number of users compared with its larger rivals. Because of that, he said, “we don’t get a high volume” of U.S. government demands.

The FBI declined to comment.

Some details remain unclear, including when the requests began and whether the government demands are always targeted at individuals or seek entire password database dumps. The Patriot Act has been used to demand entire database dumps of phone call logs, and critics have suggested its use is broader. “The authority of the government is essentially limitless” under that law, Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat who serves on the Senate Intelligence committee, said at a Washington event this week.

Large Internet companies have resisted the government’s requests by arguing that “you don’t have the right to operate the account as a person,” according to a person familiar with the issue. “I don’t know what happens when the government goes to smaller providers and demands user passwords,” the person said.

An attorney who represents Internet companies said he has not fielded government password requests, but “we’ve certainly had reset requests — if you have the device in your possession, than a password reset is the easier way.”

Source code to a C implementation of bcrypt, a popular algorithm used for password hashing.Source code to a C implementation of bcrypt, a popular algorithm used for password hashing.(Credit: Photo by Declan McCullagh)

Cracking the codes
Even if the National Security Agency or the FBI successfully obtains an encrypted password, salt, and details about the algorithm used, unearthing a user’s original password is hardly guaranteed. The odds of success depend in large part on two factors: the type of algorithm and the complexity of the password.

Algorithms, known as hash functions, that are viewed as suitable for scrambling stored passwords are designed to be difficult to reverse. One popular hash function called MD5, for instance, transforms the phrase “National Security Agency” into this string of seemingly random characters: 84bd1c27b26f7be85b2742817bb8d43b. Computer scientists believe that, if a hash function is well-designed, the original phrase cannot be derived from the output.

But modern computers, especially ones equipped with high-performance video cards, can test passwords scrambled with MD5 and other well-known hash algorithms at the rate of billions a second. One system using 25 Radeon-powered GPUs that was demonstrated at a conference last December tested 348 billion hashes per second, meaning it would crack a 14-character Windows XP password in six minutes.

The best practice among Silicon Valley companies is to adopt far slower hash algorithms — designed to take a large fraction of a second to scramble a password — that have been intentionally crafted to make it more difficult and expensive for the NSA and other attackers to test every possible combination.

One popular algorithm, used by Twitter and LinkedIn, is called bcrypt. A 2009 paper (PDF) by computer scientist Colin Percival estimated that it would cost a mere $4 to crack, in an average of one year, an 8-character bcrypt password composed only of letters. To do it in an average of one day, the hardware cost would jump to approximately $1,500.

But if a password of the same length included numbers, asterisks, punctuation marks, and other special characters, the cost-per-year leaps to $130,000. Increasing the length to any 10 characters, Percival estimated in 2009, brings the estimated cracking cost to a staggering $1.2 billion.

As computers have become more powerful, the cost of cracking bcrypt passwords has decreased. “I’d say as a rough ballpark, the current cost would be around 1/20th of the numbers I have in my paper,” said Percival, who founded a company called Tarsnap Backup, which offers “online backups for the truly paranoid.” Percival added that a government agency would likely use ASICs — application-specific integrated circuits — for password cracking because it’s “the most cost-efficient — at large scale — approach.”

While developing Tarsnap, Percival devised an algorithm called scrypt, which he estimates can make the “cost of a hardware brute-force attack” against a hashed password as much as 4,000 times greater than bcrypt.

Bcrypt was introduced (PDF) at a 1999 Usenix conference by Niels Provos, currently a distinguished engineer in Google’s infrastructure group, and David Mazières, an associate professor of computer science at Stanford University.

With the computers available today, “bcrypt won’t pipeline very well in hardware,” Mazières said, so it would “still be very expensive to do widespread cracking.”

Even if “the NSA is asking for access to hashed bcrypt passwords,” Mazières said, “that doesn’t necessarily mean they are cracking them.” Easier approaches, he said, include an order to extract them from the server or network when the user logs in — which has been done before — or installing a keylogger at the client.

Sen. Ron Wyden, who warned this week that "the authority of the government is essentially limitless" under the Patriot Act's business records provision.Sen. Ron Wyden, who warned this week that “the authority of the government is essentially limitless” under the Patriot Act’s business records provision.(Credit: Getty Images)

Questions of law
Whether the National Security Agency or FBI has the legal authority to demand that an Internet company divulge a hashed password, salt, and algorithm remains murky.

“This is one of those unanswered legal questions: Is there any circumstance under which they could get password information?” said Jennifer Granick, director of civil liberties at Stanford University’s Center for Internet and Society. “I don’t know.”

Granick said she’s not aware of any precedent for an Internet company “to provide passwords, encrypted or otherwise, or password algorithms to the government — for the government to crack passwords and use them unsupervised.” If the password will be used to log in to the account, she said, that’s “prospective surveillance,” which would require a wiretap order or Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act order.

If the government can subsequently determine the password, “there’s a concern that the provider is enabling unauthorized access to the user’s account if they do that,” Granick said. That could, she said, raise legal issues under the Stored Communications Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

The Justice Department has argued in court proceedings before that it has broad legal authority to obtain passwords. In 2011, for instance, federal prosecutors sent a grand jury subpoena demanding the password that would unlock files encrypted with the TrueCrypt utility.

The Florida man who received the subpoena claimed the Fifth Amendment, which protects his right to avoid self-incrimination, allowed him to refuse the prosecutors’ demand. In February 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit agreed, saying that because prosecutors could bring a criminal prosecution against him based on the contents of the decrypted files, the man “could not be compelled to decrypt the drives.”

In January 2012, a federal district judge in Colorado reached the opposite conclusion, ruling that a criminal defendant could be compelled under the All Writs Act to type in the password that would unlock a Toshiba Satellite laptop.

Both of those cases, however, deal with criminal proceedings when the password holder is the target of an investigation — and don’t address when a hashed password is stored on the servers of a company that’s an innocent third party.

“If you can figure out someone’s password, you have the ability to reuse the account,” which raises significant privacy concerns, said Seth Schoen, a senior staff technologist at theElectronic Frontier Foundation.

Last updated at 8:00 p.m. PT with comment from Yahoo, which responded after this article was published.

Disclosure: McCullagh is married to a Google employee not involved with this issue.

College Republicans Denied Admittance to Obama Speech.

 video-dnc-day3-7pm-obama-articleLarge copy

 

College Republicans called ‘security threat,’ banned from Obama speech

 

11:42 PM 07/25/2013

 

Eric Owens

Education Editor

Members of President Barack Obama’s crack security staff like Colombian hookers – a lot — but they proved on Wednesday they are afraid of a few College Republicans.

At a recreation center at the University of Central Missouri, security personnel refused to admit 10 members of the College Republicans to a speech by the president on economic policy,  The College Fix reports.

All 10 students reportedly had tickets to the event.

Staffers told Courtney Scott, the group’s state treasurer, and the rest of the College Republicans that the decision somehow wasn’t about the group’s political views, but about the president’s security.

The problem seemed to be that some of the students were wearing shirts emblazoned with tea party slogans, Republican symbols and even patriotic motifs. They had also had done the protest thing earlier in the day with some signs. The group members said they had long put away their signs by the time they were at the gate for Obama’s 5:30 p.m.

Nevertheless, the contingent of the Show-Me State’s College Republicans was prevented from seeing the president speak — but not for their political views, you understand.

“It just didn’t make any sense,” Scott told The Fix. “A lot of us traveled several hours to watch the speech. We were very disappointed not to be able to attend.”

Some 2,500 other people who were not deemed security threats were allowed to see Obama’s latest speech about the perpetually sluggish economy.

The earlier protest had been part of a larger, completely standard demonstration in a “public speech area” on the Warrensburg campus. It was far enough from the rec center that no one waiting in line could see or hear it. Signs included messages endorsing capitalism and lamenting the growing problem of student-loan debt.

Follow Eric on Twitter and send education-related story tips to erico@dailycaller.com.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/25/college-republicans-called-security-threat-banned-from-obama-speech/#ixzz2a7twHoje

Poll: Race relations have plummeted since Obama took office

Poll: Race relations have plummeted since Obama took office.

1:11 AM 07/25/2013

Public attitudes about race relations have plummeted since the historic election of President Barack Obama, according to a new poll from NBC News and the Wall Street Journal.

Only 52 percent of whites and 38 percent of blacks have a favorable opinion of race relations in the country, according to the poll, which has tracked race relations since 1994 and was conducted in mid-July by Hart Research Associations and Public Opinion Strategies.

That’s a sharp drop from the beginning of Obama’s first term, when 79 percent of whites and 63 percent of blacks held a favorable view of American race relations.

Negative views on race relations have also increased substantially. According to the poll [pdf], 45 percent of whites and 58 percent African-Americans now believe race relations are very or fairly bad, compared with 2009, when  only 20 percent of whites and 30 percent of blacks held an unfavorable view.

Although the NBC/WSJ survey addressed the politically fueled Trayvon Martin controversy only obliquely (asking how the acquittal of George Zimmerman in Martin’s shooting death had affected respondents’ views of the legal system), the survey’s historical time frame — which shows the steepest declines in positives and increases in negatives coming in the last two years — suggests the firestorm over the Martin case played a role in diminishing the high solidarity between whites and blacks that was exemplified by Obama’s election.

By November 2011, three years after Obama’s election, only 22 percent of whites and 41 percent of African-Americans believed that race relations were fairly bad or very bad. Positive views have fallen correspondingly since November 2011, when 75 percent of whites and 57 percent of blacks said race relations were either good or very good.

Obama garnered intense criticism in March 2012 for weighing in on the shooting death of Martin, announcing, “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.” Obama went a step further in July 2013, after the acquittal of neighborhood watchman Zimmerman in Martin’s death, declaring, “Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago.”

As The Daily Caller reported, the Obama administration’s Justice Department sent a unit with a history of anti-white racial advocacy to Sanford, Florida to help facilitate protests in the area calling for Zimmerman’s prosecution in 2012, including a major rally headlined by activist Al Sharpton.

The bitter 2012 election, which saw Obama running on a stagnating economy and his supporters mounting intense attacks on challenger Mitt Romney, may also have contributed to the souring of race relations. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, which steadfastly supports the Obama administration, distributed pro-Obama election flyers in 2012 with lynching and Ku Klux Klan imagery.

Although these efforts may have helped boost African-American turnout to record levels and deliver the key states of Florida and Ohio to Obama, they do not appear to have done much for black Americans. The black unemployment rate in the United States is currently 13.7 percent, more than six points higher than the national unemployment rate, which stands at 7.6 percent.

Overall, the public’s view of race-relations has fallen back to levels reported in 1994 and 2007.

The increased division is a long way from the hope for improved race relations that fueled and accompanied Obama’s 2008 victory.

“It’s all about the coalition of the willing,” Michael Stewart, a progressive activist, told The Chicago Tribune in November 2009. “I’ve come to appreciate people as individuals, not by their race [and] there’s more a focus on what we have in common than what divides us.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/25/race-relations-have-plummeted-since-obama-took-office-according-to-poll/#ixzz2a58CwSe0

Keep Speaking out it is working. We now have Definite Signs of Victory.

VICTORY

I have to say this: Do not grow weary speaking out against the insanity of our, government, the media and the charlatans of race, celebrity and politics.  We now have definite signs of victory.

Abraham Lincoln said, “You can fool some of the people all of the time and you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.”  It appears that a lot of people decided not to be fooled any longer.  Here is how we can tell that we are making headway:

1. No firestorm of retaliation came after civil rights leaders were exposed.   You can always count on a swift and withering assault from the left and the state owned media if any civil rights leader is attacked.  Anyone who dared to challenge the notion that white racism is the black community’s worst enemy was labelled racist and that label has ended many careers.

The race hucksters were not only attacked they were summarily dismissed.  Starting at the bottom with Jesse Jackson, on up to Sharpton and even to the NAACP there were massive amounts of vocal disdain for their hollow arguments against George Zimmerman.

No firestorms, no race cards and no effective slander.  This is because something has changed. An overwhelming majority of Americans are fed up.   The mass media always has come to their defense but not this time.

America is finally speaking out about personal responsibility and this time they will not back down.   Their call for personal responsibility is not just directed at young blacks about drugs, violence and unwanted pregnancy but to all facets of life and to all races.

2. Obama’s tired rhetoric and desperate attempts to deflect from his scandals is failing.

We saw this today.  It was a tipping point when Obama tried to call them “phony scandals” and he strung together a bunch of clichés.  Democrats reacted swiftly to what had to be the worst speech by a politician in living memory.  Obama’s rant smelled exactly like his compatriots in the grievance industry.  He spoke as if he was still running for president.  He spoke as if he could use the same lines and make the same Pollyanna promises, invoke the same enemies, use the same distorted statistics and roll out the usual suspects.  The applause was tepid.  The audience felt an awkward sense that their hero actually does not know what he is doing and has not a clue.

Obama and his cohorts have always counted on the masses and the media to reengage with him after a speech.  Not this time, He has lost his Teflon coating and the criticism is mounting from all directions.  His agenda is badly damaged and his political clout is evaporating.   DEMOCRATS ARE BAILING ON OBAMACARE LIKE RATS FROM A SINKING SHIP.

So keep praying, keep speaking out it is starting to take a toll on the great American Lie.

Bipartisan consensus: Lengthy remarks offered tired rhetoric

Bipartisan consensus: Lengthy remarks offered tired rhetoric

Government Transparency, NSA, "top secret"

AP

BY: 
July 24, 2013 3:46 pm

President Obama’s speech on jobs and the economy Wednesday in Illinois took 1 hour, 6 minutes, making it longer than every State of the Union address of his presidency except the one in January of 2010 when he spoke for 1 hour 9 minutes.

And yet many pundits were left wondering what the point was to Obama’s lengthy remarks at Knox College today.

The Weekly Standard‘s Fred Barnes called it a “predictable bust” with “tired ideas” that proved Obama, whose approval ratings are at their lowest point since 2011, may be older but is anything but wiser:

And remember the “sequester”?  It was his idea to force spending cuts of $100 billion or so for 10 years.  Now, though the sequester’s impact has been chiefly to reduce our military strength, he blames Republicans for “leaving in place a meat cleaver” that’s done everything from costing jobs to gutting education and scientific research.

As usual for an Obama speech, there’s plenty of pie in the sky.  He’ll “rebuild run-down neighborhoods.”  He’s for making preschool available for 4-year-olds—no mention of the cost—and providing “a vital support system for working parents.”  Translated, that means taxpayer paid babysitting.

Forbes contributor Doug Schoen, a Democrat, derided the “much-hyped” address as little more than a campaign-style speech that doubled down on his 2012 approach: division, polarization and moving to the left.

Washington Post‘s political blog “The Fix” said Obama’s address would change very little despite being billed by aides as a major moment for his second term:

And yet, during that same OFA fundraiser, Obama acknowledged that no matter how lofty his goals or his rhetoric, the fundamental realities of the politics of the economy were almost certain to remain unchanged. ”I’m excited about the speech, not because I think the speech is going to change any minds,” he said.

Truer words were never spoken.

“The Fix” editor Chris Cillizza added afterwards, “You could be forgiven if you thought you had heard President Obama’s speech on the economy today before. Because you have.”

Before the speech, liberal Washington Post columnist and frequent MSNBC contributor Dana Milbank pondered whether yet another attempt to “pivot” to the economy showed the chief executive was “fresh out of ideas”:

If he’s to break through the resistance, Obama will need some bold new proposals. That’s why his speech returning to the oldies would seem to confirm that the White House has given up on big achievements.

To build interest in the new series of speeches, the White House scheduled an invitation-only briefing (RSVP required) for Monday, then set cloak-and-dagger ground rules requiring that the briefers not be quoted, even anonymously. Reporters protested, but they needn’t have worried: The official who gave the briefing made clear that there would be no new policies announced, at least not major ones and not initially.

Even the royal baby stole Obama’s thunder. News that the young prince had been named George Alexander Louis of Cambridge came during his prepared remarks.

This entry was posted in Obama Administration. Bookmark the permalink.

Detroit council supports calls for federal investigation of possible civil rights charges against George Zimmerman

Detroit council supports calls for federal investigation of possible civil rights charges against George Zimmerman

10:05 PM, July 23, 2013   |
 
Detroit City Councilwoman JoAnn Watson talks at a City Council meeting on Monday June 11, 2012. Watson sponsored a resolution passed by council supporting an NAACP petition seeking federal civil rights charges against George Zimmerman.

Detroit City Councilwoman JoAnn Watson talks at a City Council meeting on Monday June 11, 2012. Watson sponsored a resolution passed by council supporting an NAACP petition seeking federal civil rights charges against George Zimmerman. / Romain Blanquart/Detroit Free Press

By Joe Guillen

Detroit Free Press Staff Writer

The Detroit City Council on Tuesday unanimously passed a resolution calling for a federal investigation to see whether civil rights charges are warranted against George Zimmerman, who was acquitted July 13 of second-degree murder and manslaughter charges in the killing of Florida teen Trayvon Martin.

The resolution, sponsored by Councilwoman JoAnn Watson, sparked a discussion over the need for city leaders and others to focus more on violence in Detroit.

“We need to have that same level of outrage with respect to the black-on-black crime that takes place in our community,” Councilman Kenneth Cockrel Jr. said. “How many people were shot — maybe even shot and killed this past weekend in the city — mostly likely by folks who look just like them?”

Watson said there are many events held regularly to address violence in Detroit. “Because the so-called major media does not cover all of the expressions does not mean it does not happen,” she said. “So that’s not correct.”

 

CONFIRMED: Left Wing Plant at Houston Pro-Zimmerman Rally Is Far Left Activist.

CONFIRMED: Left Wing Plant at Houston Pro-Zimmerman Rally Is Far Left Activist.

Guest Post by Kristinn Taylor

LEFTIST PLANT INFILTRATES HOUSTON PRO-ZIMMERMAN RALLY– 
Liberal Media runs with it

A photo from the Houston pro-Zimmerman counter-rally of the NBPP anti-Zimmerman rally picked up by the AP shows a woman holding a sign that read, “Racist & Proud.”
racist proud plant
(New York Daily News – AP)

That looked incongruent with the other reports from the pro-Zimmerman side.
The NY Daily News, based on reporting from The Houston Chronicle, identified her asRenee Vaughan:

One woman in the Zimmerman group held a sign that said, “We’re racist & proud.”

Austin resident Renee Vaughan echoed the sign’s ugly sentiments by yelling, “We’re racist. We’re proud. We’re better because we’re white,” at the Martin group as they passed, according to the Chronicle.

The act to smear the Zimmerman supporters as racists with a leftist plant worked as the photo and comment was picked up and spread worldwide.

Scanning the internet we found that a “Renee Vaughn” from Austin worked for a far left environmental group, the Texas Campaign for the Environment.

Renee even has her photo linked to a far left environmental website.

Here are two photos of Renee Vaughan side-by-side:
rachel vaughan

Here’s another shot of Renee at a leadership event for community organizing.
She’s standing up front in the wild dress.
rachel eci

It looks like Renee Vaughan was definitely a racist leftist plant at the Houston rally.
renee vaughan busted

This is how the left operates, folks. This time they got busted.

UPDATE: Thanks to reader Karadion – here is a photo of Renee Vaughan with the same sunglasses she wore while holding the racist sign at the pro-Zimmerman rally.
ughan sunglasses

Yup. They’re the same sunglasses.
vaughan shades

UPDATE: Brandon Darby interviewed Renee Vaughan at the rally. She told him her sign means that “there are people here who are racist and apparently think that’s OK. I’m not one of them. I’m being sarcastic.”

What Do the Microscopic Rallies for Trayvon Mean?

microscopic

Roger L. Simon

by Roger L Simon

What Do the Microscopic Rallies for Trayvon Mean?

July 22nd, 2013 – 12:04 am

According to Reuters, in New York a grand total of 2000 people showed up Saturday to protest in favor of Trayvon Martin in the George Zimmerman trial. That’s .00024257 of the population of our most populous city. More New Yorkers show up for pizza at Ray’s between 6:00 and 6:05 in the evening. (Well, who knows? But you get my point.)

In our second most populous city, my hometown of Los Angeles, the results were even worse, according to the Los Angeles Times. A measly 400 people demonstrated. The totals in Miami, closest big city to the event, were 300.

In other words, the turnout was somewhere between minuscule and puny — maybe, at best, fifteen thousand people nationwide in a country of 314 million. (You do the math on that one…. Okay, I’ll do it. That’s .00005 of the population.)

Reuters and the New York Times blamed the weather for the low turnout, never ceasing to point out the summer heat and that many of the demonstrators brought umbrellas.

They didn’t bother to note that the estimates for recent anti-Morsi demonstrations in (usually rather warm) Egypt were some 16 million people in the streets — in a country with less than thirty percent the population of the U.S. Now that’s a demonstration!

So what are we to make of this astonishingly low attendance after non-stop coverage on cable news and elsewhere, as if this trial were the only serious issue confronting our country?

Could it be that the citizenry, including African-Americans, supposedly so greatly injured, have seen through the media hype (what I earlier called media pornography) and themselves realize this case is simply an accidental, anomalous one-off and not that big of a deal?

I certainly hope so, because what we have been going through is a form of national nervous breakdown, taking us rapidly backwards on race relations, something that has improved consistently in our country over the last fifty years.

What we do not need now is a “national conversation on race.” That’s like taking a scab that’s slowly healing and, just when it’s about to whither away, scratching it as hard as possible until the wound comes back.

We have strong civil rights laws. We have an even stronger national consensus against racism. Racist behavior is a huge social taboo, as it should be.

Now we should just leave it alone— let the scab heal. Morgan Freeman said this best in a famous interview with Mike Wallace on 60 Minutes back in 2006. (Unfortunately, the great actor rescinded this later. But I prefer to believe in this more sophisticated, calmer Morgan.)

Here’s a transcript of the key parts of that exchange:

MIKE WALLACE, CBS`s “60 MINUTES”: Black History Month, you find…

MORGAN FREEMAN, ACTOR: Ridiculous.

WALLACE: Why?

FREEMAN: You`re going to relegate my history to a month?

WALLACE: Come on.

FREEMAN: What do you do with yours? Which month is White History Month? Come on, tell me.

WALLACE: I`m Jewish.

FREEMAN: OK. Which month is Jewish History Month?

WALLACE: There isn`t one.

FREEMAN: Why not? Do you want one?

WALLACE: No, no.

FREEMAN: I don`t either. I don`t want a Black History Month. Black history is American history.

WALLACE: How are we going to get rid of racism until…?

FREEMAN: Stop talking about it. I`m going to stop calling you a white man. And I`m going to ask you to stop calling me a black man. I know you as Mike Wallace. You know me as Morgan Freeman. You`re not going to say, “I know this white guy named Mike Wallace.” Hear what I`m saying?

Yes, I hear you, Morgan. I hear you loud and clear and I know you were telling the truth. In fact, what you were saying is so important that it deserves being quoted again and again.

As one who has had the great fortune to travel the world and visit some sixty countries, the USA, in my view, is the least racist of all.

Is there still racism here? Of course. Will there always be? Most likely, humans being what they are.

But the best way to get rid of what remains is to shut up about it.

The sooner the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman affair disappears in the rear view mirror, the better for all of us.