The Tale Of Why Betsy DeVos Wanted To Cut Special Olympics: Children's Trust Funds & Her Foreign Corporations

Gather round, dearies, for I shall tell the tale of why Betsy DeVos wanted to cut Special Olympics funding.

Once upon a time, Betsy came up with lots of privatized child welfare services with John Engler.

Foster care and adoption turned out to be quite the financially fruitful industry in Medicaid fraud, so they built hospitals to do more research with children because HHS was handing out lots and lots of grant money in children's research, particularly psychological and pharmaceutical, because Michigan is the only state where the State Attorney General cannot sue a pharmaceutical corporation.

Just ask Bill *Smooches* Schuette and his story with the Special Needs Children's Trusts.

Betsy said the Special Olympics cuts were needed, but she did not tell the truth as to why she wanted to slash the funding, so I will.

It is about Medicaid fraud in child welfare.

See, it goes like this.

Bethany Christian Services is moving, quite quickly I must add, to implement full scale claiming of corporate parental rights.

Instead of Special Olympics for kids, there can now be specialized services whose costs can be reimbursed through Targeted Case Management in the expansion of the Families First Act.

Yes, that is correct, when you sign up for these Public Private Partnerships to receive services for your child, that means you are poor, and, as such, shall immediately sign over all your rights, including parental rights, over to the corporate parent, where, the corporation has full control of the children's trust, like the identity, Social Security Number, EITC, to be leverage for more money, that they exfiltrate out the United States through child welfare NGOs to money launder into political campaigns.

I guess Trump did not like Betsy's plan, but hey, what do I know?

I know MiABLE is a foreign corporation  and its name is TSA Consulting Group, Inc., and it is taking all the federal funding for all these special needs children, and is going to help these kids save their money, and you can trust them because they are not even a Michigan corporation.

It looks Australian.

https://www.tsacg.com/

TSA Consulting Group, Inc. Privacy Policy - Michigan MiABLE by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Yes, privatization is the real reason why Betsy wanted to cut Special Olympics funding for children.

Betsy likes to send Medicaid fraud in child welfare money to her overseas children's trusts.

Betsy is doing the work of the christian god, the residuals of the peculiar institution.

And that ends the tale of how Betsy does not realize that I just dry snitched, again.

President Donald Trump says Special Olympics will be funded after fallout with Betsy DeVos on the Hill

President Donald Trump on Thursday said the administration will fund Special Olympics following a whirlwind of criticism this week over the White House's budget proposal that had eliminated federal funding for the program.

"The Special Olympics will be funded, I just told my people," Trump told reporters outside the White House. "I want to fund the Special Olympics and I just authorized funding of the Special Olympics."

Breaking: President Trump says Special Olympics will be funded by Administration. pic.twitter.com/2hRPncRX3c

— John R Parkinson (@jparkABC) March 28, 2019

Prior to Trump's comments on Thursday afternoon, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos faced more backlash at a hearing in the morning on Capitol Hill over the Trump administration’s proposal to cut federal funding for the Special Olympics. Despite Trump's comments on Thursday afternoon, Congress is ultimately responsible for approving the budget that is proposed by the administration.

In a heated back-and-forth with Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., DeVos defended the administration’s “tough choices and decisions,” saying she did not personally approve the cuts, but forcefully pushed back against criticism.

MORE: Education Secretary Betsy DeVos responds to critics over proposed elimination of Special Olympics funding

“Let's not use disabled children in a twisted way for your political narrative,” DeVos said when answering questions from Sen. Durbin. “That is just disgusting and it's shameful.”

Durbin, in response, said the proposed cut was “shameful.”

“I am not twisting it, I asked you to answer yes or no, and you said you did not personally approve this,” Durbin said.

DeVos told the committee that she loved the Special Olympics and had contributed a portion of her salary to the organization.

MORE: Trump administration proposes $7.1 billion funding cut to Education Department

Durbin went on to criticize decision-makers at the Office of Management and Budget, saying, “Whoever came up with that idea at OMB gets a Special Olympic gold medal for insensitivity.”

DeVos has faced significant backlash this week over part of the administration’s budget proposal that would eliminate $17.6 million for the Special Olympics. The full budget proposed a decrease of $7.1 billion for education funding overall.

The proposal to cut funding for the Special Olympics has been part of past Trump administration budget proposals. The chances that the budget will get passed as it is in this first iteration is highly unlikely.

On Wednesday, the chairman of the Senate appropriations subcommittee, Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., issued a statement saying that the subcommittee would “not cut funding for the program."

“I'm a longtime supporter of Special Olympics and proud that Missouri is home to the largest Special Olympics training facility in the world,” Sen. Blunt wrote. "I was just at the World Games and saw, as I have many times before, what a huge impact the organization has on athletes, their families, and their communities. Our Department of Education appropriations bill will not cut funding for the program."

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

House Members Seek Information on Expansion of TSA Behavior Detection Programs

(WASHINGTON) – Today, four House Committee and Subcommittee Ranking Members sent a letter to John S. Pistole, Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), questioning the expanded use of Behavior Detection Officers (BDOs) through the Targeted Conversation program, which is part of TSA’s Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques (SPOT) program. Under the expanded program, passengers who refuse to answer intrusive questions posed by BDOs at airport security checkpoints will undergo secondary screening. The Ranking Members are concerned that TSA is expanding behavior detection programs despite a lack of scientific validation for these methods.

Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS), Ranking Member of the Committee on Homeland Security, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Ranking Member of the Committee on the Judiciary, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-MD), Ranking Member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and Rep. Cedric L. Richmond (D-LA), Ranking Member of the Committee on Homeland Security’s Transportation Security Subcommittee wrote Administrator Pistole that:

“This [Targeted Conversation Proof of Concept] represents an intrusion into the privacy of the flying public through a process TSA has not scientifically validated.”

The Members added: “The expanded use of BDOs subsequent to GAO’s recommendation that TSA limit funding for SPOT until it can provide scientifically validated evidence that behavioral indicators can be used to identify threats to aviation security raises serious concerns.”

Background on Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques (SPOT):

Ø  Over $1 billion has been spent since 2007.

Ø  Zero terrorists have been identified, apprehended, referred to law enforcement or prevented from boarding an aircraft as a result of the program.

Ø  Known or suspected terrorists have passed through screening on 23 different occasions in airports where BDOs were present.

Ø  TSA has not provided any scientific validation for the program.

In 2013, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) recommended Congress consider whether to continue to fund SPOT after TSA disagreed with the recommendation that it limit future funding of the program.

Democrat Letter to TSA Questioning Fundung Funding

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

TSA head: Airport screeners must avoid pat-downs of children

Video of the April 5 pat-down incident was posted on YouTube.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• The policy change is announced at a Senate committee meeting
• Screeners must avoid pat-downs of children 10 and under
• Outrage over the pat-down of a 6-year-old sparks the change

(CNN) -- The Transportation Security Administration is changing its policy on how screeners can search children, the agency's head has said.

TSA Administrator John Pistole announced the change at a Wednesday meeting of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee.

The change was prompted by outrage over a video-recorded pat-down of a 6-year-old airline passenger at the New Orleans airport on April 5. The video, which was posted on YouTube, shows the girl protesting at first to the search, although she complies quietly while it is under way.

Pistole explained to committee members that a female security screener performed a pat-down search on the 6-year-old girl because the child had moved while passing through an airport body imaging machine. That prevented the device from getting a clear reading that the child was not carrying any banned objects through airport security.

"We have changed the policy to say that there'll be repeated efforts made to resolve that without a pat-down," Pistole told committee members.

Should TSA change screening for kids?

April: TSA pats down 6-year-old

Reasons why you might get a pat-down

RELATED TOPICS

• Air Travel
• Transportation Security
• Transportation Security Administration

The new policy will apply to children 10 years old or younger, Pistole said.

The incident renewed debate over the the TSA's security practices, especially their use on such low-risk passengers as young children. A backlash against passenger pat-downs -- an alternative to full-body scans in some locations -- swelled during the holiday travel season last year. Pistole maintained at the time that the agency walks a fine line between privacy concerns and public safety.

However, during the committee meeting, U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, grilled Pistole for erring thoughtlessly too far on the side of safety.

"This isn't to say we don't believe in safety procedures," Paul said. "But I think I feel less safe when we're doing these invasive exams on a 6-year-old. It makes me think that you're clueless, that you think she's going to attack our country, and that you're not doing your research on the people who would attack our country."

Pistole suggested a pat-down of a child is not entirely unjustified.

"Unfortunately, we know that terrorists around the world have used children as suicide bombers," Pistole replied.

8-month-old baby receives TSA pat down while going through airport security check

An 8-month-old baby receives a TSA pat down while going through a security check at an airport. A fellow passenger takes a picture of the pat down and posts it to Twitter. Add caption questioning the parameters of security. Instant controversy.

MSNBC reports that Jacob Jester, a Kansas City pastor getting ready to board a plane, noticed that a woman with a baby behind him had been stopped by members of the Transportation Security Administration. The baby was receiving a pat down by agents. Finding the measures a bit much, Jester snapped a photo of the pat down incident and posted it to Twitter. Along with the photo, Jester captioned: "Just saw #tsa agents patting down a little baby at @KCIAirport. Pretty sure that’s extreme.”If you're looking for the next big controversy -- since you're past the Obama birth certificate and the Osama bin Laden death photos debate -- a revisit to the old TSA pat down controversy might be in order. After a Twitter photo of a infant receiving a pat down at a Kansas City airport went viral, it can only be a matter of time before all that airline-safety-versus-personal-privacy squaring off that occurred over the last year sees the battle lines redrawn in the media once more. And make no mistake. When all the histrionic pundits, politicians, safety analysts, child welfare advocates, psychologists, and civil rights stalwarts have their say over the matter, there will be a controversy -- even if it is one of the media's own making.

The Kansas City airport baby pat down photo went viral.

Jester says he wasn't really thinking of the consequences of his picture-taking. He said, "My thinking was, this is an extreme measure. I wouldn't want that to happen to my own son."

Jester also told MSNBC.com that he wasn't out to embarrass the TSA and that he had a lot of respect for the agency. "But I do believe there has to be a line drawn. I do not believe that an 8-month-old constitutes a security threat."

Jester's beliefs aside, public safety is the TSA's concern when it comes to the security of those that travel in the air. And when that security extends to those who would be helpless against a terrorist attack at 25,000 feet, some precautions that might seem extreme to those who have not thought the situation through might not seem so extreme when viewed from the perspective of a potential victim.

Commonly held sensibilities might not apply when gauging what might and might not constitute a security threat to the flying public. Using children as bombs or to carry bombs is not an unheard of occurrence. In fact, every war has its share of stories where children and women (those that most do not normally think of as combatants or as posing a deadly threat) are used to attack the unwary. In a report to the United Nations Security Council in 2004, The Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers noted that tens of thousands of child soldiers (aged as young as 12) were being used in wars in at least 18 countries around the world. And it is not uncommon for babies andchildren to be used as drug mules (even in the U. S.), their harmlessness used to help transport contraband, the perception of their innocence used to shield them from searches.

So how is it that the baby received the pat down?

On its website, the TSA posted a response to the growing debate over the Twitter photo and the incident in Kansas City: "We reviewed the screening of this family, and found that the child’s stroller alarmed during explosives screening. Our officers followed proper current screening procedures by screening the family after the alarm, who by the way were very cooperative and were on the way to their gate in no time."

The TSA website also notes that children 12 years old and younger receive a modified pat down.

Even with parental permission and cooperation, rest assured there will be controversy. Debate over how far is too far when it comes to security measures at airports has been raging for some time. From backscatter machines that show an image of a human body like an x-ray that detractors say are an indecent invasion of privacy to the aggressive pat downs used on passengers that set off security alarms, there is no end to where individuals believe lines should be drawn demarcating areas of privacy and areas of exception for public safety. Recent incidents of children receiving pat downs, an area of safety where many adults become sensitive and uncomfortable, have only served to heighten the debate between the emotional/psychological aspects of the pat down search and the practical application for the safety of those engaged in air travel.

The concern of individuals like Jester is not to be marginalized. An aware and questioning public helps ensure that the civil liberties cherished by Americans are protected, that the government does not overstep its mandated bounds. At the same time, however, it must be remembered that social sensibilities regarding the most innocent-seeming among us can constitute a security threat in itself, whether one is willing to accept the notion or not.

Helping kids understand that it's not child molestation if the government does it

Helping kids understand that it's not child molestation if the government does it