Monday, June 1, 2015

Barker's Newsbites: Monday, June 1, 2015


OK, folks... I'm back!

 I've been away on vacation, so some of this week's newsbite posts will be "old" in the sense of there'll be posting based upon emails from May that I never addressed.

 In any case... off we go!


Posted by at

13 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://dailysignal.com/2015/05/06/federal-agency-to-regulate-christmas-lights/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=dailydigest&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRojva%2FLZKXonjHpfsX56%2BorWa6zlMI%2F0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4JTMdhI%2BSLDwEYGJlv6SgFQrLBMa1ozrgOWxU%3D

http://dailysignal.com/2015/05/06/federal-agency-to-regulate-christmas-lights/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=dailydigest&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRojva%2FLZKXonjHpfsX56%2BorWa6zlMI%2F0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4JTMdhI%2BSLDwEYGJlv6SgFQrLBMa1ozrgOWxU%3D

On a hot day in Washington, D.C., a federal agency issued 11 pages of new regulations on Christmas lights and other holiday decorations... (If Christmas lights are not made in accordance with these standards, the agency said consumers can be “seriously injured or killed by electrical shocks or fires.”)

* WHY...? (RHETORICAL QUESTION! THE ANSWER IS... "BECAUSE THEY CAN.")

* FOLKS... BASIC TENET OF OUR FOUNDERS' IDEALS: THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD ONLY BE DOING WHAT THE STATES CAN'T DO THEMSELVES. THIS IS THE ANTITHETHIS OF "LIMITED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT."

A voluntary standard, which created safety guidelines for companies that manufacture Christmas lights, was created by Underwriters Laboratories in the 1990s. Underwriters Laboratories is a non-governmental party that provides safety-related guidance to a wide range of industries.

In its justification, the Consumer Product Safety Commission cited 258 deaths that have occurred as a result of dangerous holiday lights since 1980. The vast majority of those deaths occurred before 1994, prior to when Underwriters Laboratories issued its voluntary standard for the industry. Since the voluntary standard was put into place, that number has sharply declined.

In 2014, no deaths were attributed to being caused by Christmas lights. In 2015, the agency cited one death caused by holiday decorations.

* AND YET...

* FOLKS... DO YOU IMAGINE THAT THIS NEW "RESPONSIBILITY" WILL BE COST-FREE? DO YOU SUPPOSE THE "CHRISTMAS DECORATION REGULATORS" ARE VOLUNTEERS...?!

(*SNORT*)

Critics argued the rule “represents government waste, government overreach, or would result in a ‘waste of money,’” but the commission disagreed, citing its mission to protect consumers from “unreasonable” risks of injury or death.

* YES. ONE WOULD EXPECT THOSE BEING EMPOWERED AND ENRICHED TO FAVOR SAID EMPOWERMENT AND ENRICHMENT.

(*SNICKER*)

The rule takes effect on June 3.

June 1, 2015 at 8:47 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://dailysignal.com/2015/05/06/the-government-is-definitely-back-in-the-affordable-housing-game/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=morningbell&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRojvajMZKXonjHpfsX56%2BorWa6zlMI%2F0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4JTMRhI%2BSLDwEYGJlv6SgFQrLBMa1ozrgOWxU%3D

More than six years out from a government-driven housing bubble...

* GOVERNMENT DRIVEN... TRUE... BUT WALL STREET DRIVEN AS WELL! (OF COURSE THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF CRONY CAPITALISM...)

...the chief regulator at the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Mel Watt, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development secretary, Julian Castro are respectively clearing a path to expand the “credit box” for government-backed home loans.

* MEANING "TAXPAYER BACKED."

(*SIGH*)

* AND, FOLKS, IT'S NOT A CASE OF "WILL THEY NEVER LEARN;" NO; IT'S A CASE OF THEY JUST DON'T GIVE A DAMN! WORSE... WHAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY DOING IS RISKING TAXPAYER MONEY FOR PERSONAL AND PARTY POLITICAL GAIN. THEY'LL CAMPAIGN ON "THEIR" SUPPOSED "GENEROUSITY."

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

Two recent examples: Fannie Mae recently started a program guaranteeing loans with as little as 3% down payments...

(*HEADACHE*)

...and, earlier this year, the Federal Housing Administration reduced by 50 basis points the annual mortgage insurance premiums it charges borrowers.

(*HEADACHE TURNING INTO A MIGRAINE*)

We have been down this path before. Using the U.S. housing finance system to try to achieve political ends of broader and “affordable” housing goals ultimately undermines taxpayer safety and the opportunity to build meaningful equity for homeowners.

* DUH!

After all, it was only less than two decades ago that Andrew Cuomo, then-Housing secretary under the Clinton administration, announced that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two largest housing finance companies at that time, would be required to buy $2.4 trillion in mortgages over the next 10 years to provide affordable housing for about 28.1 million low- and moderate-income families.

(*NOD*)

In the same announcement, Cuomo went on to say that “this action will transform the lives of millions of families across our country by giving them new opportunities to buy homes or move into apartments with rents they can afford … it will help ease the terrible shortage of affordable housing plaguing far too many communities.”

* HOW'D THAT WORK OUT, FOLKS?

(*SMIRK*)

To be fair, political leaders in both Democrat and Republican administrations have repeatedly called for arbitrary, vague goals aimed at achieving a “homeownership society” and expanding “affordable housing” even when most qualified homeowners already owned homes.

* BECAUSE MOST POLITICIANS ARE SELF-SERVING SCUMBAGS - AND MANY ARE IDIOTS!

A great irony, though, is that these "affordable" housing initiatives have had the exact opposite of their intended impact: These programs encourage higher levels of debt, increased housing prices (and lower affordability) in many markets, and greater risk within the overall housing finance system.

[A]ll of this direct and indirect government interference in the housing finance system ultimately biases individuals toward certain market segments and particular types of debt instruments, increasing financial risk to homeowners and taxpayers in the process.

* AS... WE'VE... SEEN...!!! (BUT THE POLITICIANS WILL DO IT ANYWAY!)

June 1, 2015 at 8:59 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2015/may/09/are-we-a-nation-of-wimps/

* LET'S JUST CALL THIS... A "MULTI-PART" POSTING:

* BY THE ALWAYS HONORABLE RON PAUL

We now live in a society where safety and security are to be sought at all costs. The sacrifice of liberty is not a concern for most Americans today.

* ABSOLUTELY!

This has prompted many to opt for dependency on government...

* AND IF NOT "OPT" - THAN "ACCEPT." WILLINGLY ACCEPT. WILLINGLY ACCEPT AND DEMAND MORE!

There has been a steady erosion of confidence over the past 100 years as the American people as a whole have accepted the so-called "need" for big government to provide safety and security for its citizens. [T]hey have readily accepted the personal income tax and the abuse of the IRS along with the illegal power of the money manipulators at the Federal Reserve to pay the bills by simply printing money.

[T]hey have also convinced themselves of our “righteousness” by supporting force to spread American “greatness” throughout the world. (This of course is a fantasy and is self-deceptive. This trend has been ongoing since the Woodrow Wilson era up to and including the policies designed by the current crop of neoconservatives.)

* I AGREE IN THE SENSE THAT WE REFUSE TO TRULY PRIORITIZE OUR NATIONAL INTERESTS AND IN THE PROCESS WE OVER-EXTEND OURSELVES - OFTEN FOR "INSIDER" FINANCIAL ADVANTAGE AS OPPOSED TO "NATIONAL GOOD."

Many get a sense of strength and a feeling of patriotism from being able to bomb and kill individuals 6,000 miles away from our home though they have never committed an aggressive act against us.

(*NOD*)

* FOLKS... THE "COLLATERAL DAMAGE" WE'VE DONE ISN'T SO "COLLATERAL." AMERICA HAS MADE A LOT OF ENEMIES OVER THE PAST 15 YEARS. (AND AT THE SAME TIME... LOOK AT SOME OF OUR "FRIENDS" - ESPECIALLY THE "FRIENDS" OBAMA HAS CHOSEN TO BACK.)

(*SIGH*)

Our policies are designed to search for enemies to destroy though they pose no threat to us. We use remotely controlled drones and cruise missiles to perpetuate a sense of power even against powerless Third World pseudo-enemies.

* AND YET... CHINA...

(*SMIRK*)

* TO BE CONTINUED...

June 1, 2015 at 9:44 AM
William R. Barker said...

* CONTINUING... PART 2:

* CHINA IS OUR ENEMY AND YET WE REFUSE TO TREAT HER AS SUCH. (TOO MUCH MONEY AT STAKE FOR TOO MANY INSIDERS.) (OR AS I'D CALL THEM... FELLOW TRAVELERS... AMORAL SCOUNDRELS... EVEN TRAITORS.)

* REMEMBER "THE HAINAN ISLAND INCIDENT," FOLKS? WE WEREN'T SO TOUGH THEN, WERE WE?

* CHINA REGULARLY ENGAGES IN DIRECT CYBER-WAR ATTACKS/INCURSIONS AGAINST NOT JUST AMERICAN COMPANIES, BUT AMERICAN GOVERNMENT AGENCIES! AND YET...

(*SIGH*)

* CHINA IN THE SOUTH PACIFIC...?

(*SMIRK*)

* AND NEED I BRING UP NORTH KOREA...?

(*SIGH*)

* AND YET WE TREAT CHINA AS A "BUSINESS ASSOCIATE."

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

[E]very member of the military is now a "hero," “risking his life defending freedom...," and deserving constant public displays of gratitude and special recognition. This pretense occurs while neglecting the veterans whose lives have been ruined by the senseless wars.

* ISN'T IT TRUE, FOLKS? ISN'T IT...???

[I]nsecurity and fear provide fodder for authoritarians. And they are only too willing to oblige and fill the needs of the weak to feel better about themselves by engaging in the "patriotic defense" of our country, even if the threats are manufactured by the propagandists. The tragic part of all this is that it’s all done at the expense of liberty since loss of liberty was the major source of the problem in the first place.

Although the wimpiness of the American citizenry has been developing for quite a while, on 9/11 nineteen individuals brought America to her knees. This was principally due to the lack of understanding of exactly why 9/11 occurred - and to the successful efforts of our government to perpetuate a fraudulent explanation that those who want to kill us are doing so only because they are angry with us due to our freedoms and our prosperity. We are constantly being frightened of some unknown potential enemy lurking around the corner ready to attack and destroy us at any moment.

The Bush doctrine of preemptive war, which is nothing more than aggression, was met with essentially no resistance from the American people and very little from politicians. This idea of presidents being able to go to war recklessly and ask questions later possibly satisfies those who claim this serves the interest of our national security, but it’s a reflection of a sense of insecurity and contributes to the persistent attitude that we have a great need for Empire to make us safe and free. Nothing could be further from the truth.

* I AGREE.

The ones who suffer most from this policy are those who pay and die without questioning, who actually lack courage and wisdom to resist the forces that push for war that serve the special interests. These special interests include: the political demagogues, financial beneficiaries, the military-industrial complex, proponents of the “sphere of influence argument,” money and power and false patriotism which are all promoted by government lies designed to perpetrate fear to a gullible public suffering from chronic wimpiness.

* AGAIN... THE ONLY FOREIGN COUNTRY WOULD COULD HURT US... WHO WOULD LIKE TO HURT US AND DOES SO WHENEVER IT CAN GET AWAY WITH IT (WHICH IS MOST OF THE TIME) IS CHINA. AND YET WE TREAT CHINA NOT AS A THREAT, BUT AS A "BUSINESS PARTNER." IT'S INSANE!

* TO BE CONTINUED...

June 1, 2015 at 9:45 AM
William R. Barker said...

* CONTINUING... PART 3:

The evidence is overwhelming that our efforts in the Middle East are the best recruiting tool for the jihadist radicals to recruit supporters willing to wage guerrilla war against us. The process has led us to spend hundreds of billions of dollars with the results being that our enemies grow stronger as they end up using our weapons against us.

* ISN'T IT TRUE...??? (RHETORICAL QUESTION; OF COURSE IT'S TRUE!)

The current foreign policy has been an absolute failure in achieving any positive results and it certainly hasn’t removed the need and desire for the American people to feel victorious on the battlefield to compensate for their sense of inferiority and insecurity.

* AT LEAST AN ARGUMENT COULD BE MADE THAT BUSH WAS "WINNING." OBAMA...??? GEEZUS... LOOK AT THE MIDDLE EAST AFTER SEVEN YEARS OF THIS MORON! (HIM AND HILLARY! AND NOW HIM AND KERRY!)

Economic dependency is every bit as bad as [failed foreign policies].

[Dependency] breeds discontent and contributes significantly to the turmoil in our inner cities as the contest between those demanding entitlements are pitched against [those paying for the entitlements.] Rarely is there ever a demand for independence, self-reliance, and free markets - instead it’s for more welfare redistribution for which the recipients believe they are entitled and have a right to. Of course all of this contributes to further wimpiness of our society.

(*NOD*)

Unfortunately dependency destroys the soul, as well as the soul of a nation, by eliminating the satisfaction one gets from producing freely as an individual and assuming responsibility for oneself. And as this lack of self-confidence grows, so does the dependency on the state. Those who seek more government help to alleviate their sense of weakness and fear, conclude that it’s all the government’s fault for failing to provide society with enough security. Seeking more liberty is rarely seen as the answer to the people’s frustrations. Instead this produces a sense of victimization that results in demanding that government do more for those dependent who eagerly grant more power to the authoritarians.

* THE... GOVERNMENT... IS... BROKE...

* THE MIDDLE CLASS IS BEING DECIMATED...

Throughout history there have always been opportunities for the authoritarians to run roughshod over the people. A nation of wimps, dependent on the government for safety and security, opens the doors for the authoritarians who delight in satisfying their needs by controlling others and falsely believing in their own strength and wisdom. Soldiers fighting wars and bureaucrats passing out welfare are emboldened by a sense of satisfaction that they are serving a special purpose by providing the strength that the weak and helpless lack.

The problem is that these efforts are never helpful in dealing with the dependency of the weak. By accommodating the needy, who are all looking in the wrong places for satisfaction, the dependency only gets worse. The solution can only come from understanding the significance of practicing self-reliance. This cannot come from government. If it does not come from within us, it will only lead to frustration and a greater desire to foolishly give up more liberty for safety and security. Those who are dependent will continue to seek security in the entitlement system and “strength” from a national endorsement of the warrior state.

Dependency on government force in redistribution of wealth and militarism around the world as a source of strength has to end. The people have to come to realize that real strength comes from resisting the status quo that preaches the doctrine of a command society, and to recognize that insecurity drives many Americans to support wars that are expensive and futile.

* TO BE CONTINUED...

June 1, 2015 at 9:47 AM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (I HOPE!) PART 4:

The prevailing attitude of the American people today reflects weakness, fearfulness, and dependency. In general, confidence and self-reliance has been lost.

Government failure, false promises, bad economic policy has contributed greatly to this condition. Human nature also is a major contributor to this sense of hopelessness. It is not unnatural to accept unearned benefits when trouble begins. We as a nation have grown to believe that government redistribution of wealth, through force, is a right and an entitlement. Sadly, hard work, savings, production, sound economy, and honest money are of little interest to most Americans.

* DIFFICULT TO SAVE WITH ZERO INTEREST RATES...

(*SIGH*)

* AND OF COURSE BY MAKING IT DIFFICULT FOR INDIVIDUAL AMERICANS TO SAVE... GOVERNMENT FORCES DEPENDENCY UPON THESE SAME INDIVIDUAL AMERICANS LATER IN LIFE! (YES, FOLKS... IT'S DELIBERATE!)

Is the American dream dead? Once it was characteristic of most Americans to believe in the American dream. That meant there was a strong conviction that everyone had an equal opportunity to achieve any goal they sought with hard work and effort. They believed in the work ethic and that determination would ultimately pay off. Achieving the American dream was thought to be a result of hard work.

Today there are still a lot of people who believe in the American dream but too often they are individuals who have recently left countries much poorer than ours and are hopeful that with hard work and effort they too can have a better life for themselves here. It is proven by many who come to this country - both illegal and legal - that they bring with them a work ethic that has become difficult to find in Americans who have become dependent on the “the American dream” being delivered to them by government action and corporate favoritism.

* UNFORTUNATELY THERE'S A MEASURE OF TRUTH IN WHAT PAUL SAYS...

Many Americans have come to the conclusion that hard work and effort is no longer rewarded due to the many obstacles put in their way by an overly intrusive government. And it is for this reason that the numbers are growing of those individuals anxious to expatriate and go to other countries where they believe that their work and effort will not be diminished as they are in our country today.

* THERE'S A REASON KIM IS IN ABU DHABI...

The majority of the American people unfortunately have accepted the idea that it is necessary to be aggressive and dependent and driven by fearfulness to survive in a political-economic culture that rewards political action and lobbying for success rather than being rewarded for hard work and effort. Because of this, most policies in Washington are designed to accommodate this culture. Even though government policy has been the main contributor to the problems we face and the destruction of the American dream, the majority is still supporting the idea that more activism by the government to intervene in our lives and in the economy is the solution.

(*SIGH*)

* ALL TOO TRUE...

Welfare demands drive a lot of politicians to continuously redistribute wealth out of a desire for "fairness" with a policy that does the opposite. The zeal for "patriotism" and for the support of America’s greatness makes the electorate overly anxious and willing to support militarism which has done such great harm to us as a nation and to our moral character.

* TRUE PATRIOTISM WOULD BE TARRING AND FEATHERING 90% OF POLITICIANS!

June 1, 2015 at 9:47 AM
William R. Barker said...

* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2015/may/31/ex-im-bank-is-welfare-for-the-one-percent/

* AGAIN, FOLKS... BY THE GREAT RON PAUL!

This month Congress will consider whether to renew the charter of the Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im Bank).

Ex-Im Bank is a New Deal-era federal program that uses taxpayer funds to subsidize the exports of American businesses.

* CORPORATE WELFARE...

Foreign businesses, including state-owned corporations, also benefit from Ex-Im Bank. One country that has benefited from $1.5 billion of Ex-Im Bank loans is Russia. (Venezuela, Pakistan, and China have also benefited from Ex-Im Bank loans.)

* YA CAN'T MAKE THIS SHIT UP, FOLKS!

With Ex-Im Bank’s track record of supporting countries that supposedly represent a threat to the U.S., one might expect neoconservatives, hawkish liberals, and other supporters of foreign intervention to be leading the effort to kill Ex-Im Bank.

* HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

Yet, in an act of hypocrisy remarkable even by D.C. standards, many hawkish politicians, journalists, and foreign policy experts oppose ending Ex-Im Bank.

* CRONY CAPITALISM DOES TEND TO BENEFIT... er... THE CRONIES...

(*RUEFUL CHUCKLE*)

This seeming contradiction may be explained by the fact that Ex-Im Bank’s primary beneficiaries include some of America’s biggest and most politically powerful corporations. Many of Ex-Im Bank’s beneficiaries are also part of the industrial half of the military-industrial complex. These corporations are also major funders of think tanks and publications promoting an interventionist foreign policy.

* YEP...

Ex-Im Bank apologists claim that the bank primarily benefits small business. A look at the facts tells a different story. For example, in fiscal year 2014, 70% of the loans guaranteed by Ex-Im Bank’s largest program went to Caterpillar, which is hardly a small business.

Boeing - which is also no one’s idea of a small business - is the leading recipient of Ex-Im Bank aid. In fiscal year 2014 alone, Ex-Im Bank devoted 40% of its budget — $8.1 billion — to projects aiding Boeing.

(No wonder Ex-Im Bank is often called “Boeing’s bank.”)

* TO BE CONTINUED...

June 1, 2015 at 2:43 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

Taking money from working Americans, small businesses, and entrepreneurs to subsidize the exports of large corporations is the most indefensible form of redistribution. Yet many who criticize welfare for the poor on moral and constitutional grounds do not raise any objections to welfare for the rich.

* JUST AS MANY WHO CLAIM TO BE FISCAL HAWKS ARE ANYTHING BUT WHEN IT COMES TO MILITARY SPENDING...

(*SIGH*)

Ex-Im Bank’s supporters claim that ending Ex-Im Bank would deprive Americans of all the jobs and economic growth created by the recipients of Ex-Im Bank aid. This claim is a version of the economic fallacy of that which is not seen. The products exported and the people employed by businesses benefiting from Ex-Im Bank are visible to all. But what is not seen are the products that would have been manufactured, the businesses that would have been started, and the jobs that would have been created had the funds given to Ex-Im Bank been left in the hands of consumers.

* EXACTLY...

(*NOD*)

Another flawed justification for Ex-Im Bank is that it funds projects that could not attract private sector funding. This is true, but it is actually an argument for shutting down Ex-Im Bank.

* YES! OF COURSE!

By funding projects that cannot obtain funding from private investors, Ex-Im Bank causes an inefficient allocation of scarce resources. These inefficiencies distort the market and reduce the average American's standard of living.

* FOLKS... ONE MORE TIME... CRONY CAPITALISM IS NOT CAPITALISM!

Some Ex-Im Bank supporters claim that Ex-Im Bank promotes free trade. Like all other defenses of Ex-Im Bank, this claim is rooted in economic fallacy. True free trade involves the peaceful, voluntary exchange of goods across borders — not forcing taxpayers to subsidize the exports of politically powerful companies.

(*NOD*)

Ex-Im Bank distorts the market and reduces the average American's standard of living in order to increase the power of government and enrich politically powerful corporations. ... Shutting down Ex-Im Bank would improve our economy and benefit most Americans. It is time to kick Boeing and all other corporate welfare queens off the dole.

* LET'S SEE WHAT THE "REPUBLICANS" (WHO CONTROL BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS) DO.

June 1, 2015 at 2:44 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/california-661113-covered-obamacare.html

It’s taken longer than it should have, but Covered California, California’s ObamaCare health insurance "exchange," is finally being exposed as a billion-dollar boondoggle.

In 2013, as news about the glitches and scandals in other ObamaCare exchanges became impossible to avoid, the New York Times’ Paul Krugman, former Princeton professor and Nobel laureate in economics, went into a defensive crouch around Covered California: “What would happen if we unveiled a program that looked like ObamaCare, in a place that looked like America, but with competent project management that produced a working website? Well, your wish is granted.”

(*GUFFAW*)

* KRUGMAN...

(*STILL LAUGHING*)

Well, not really. In October, the Associated Press reported that $184 million of “no-bid” contracts were given to firms with professional connections to Peter Lee, executive director of Covered California.

* OOPS...

This April, investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson reported the story of whistleblower Peter Hill, a former project manager at the exchange’s call center. After complaining to the board about waste and cover-ups, Hill’s contract was terminated.

* YEP... THAT WAS A NEWSBITE...

Covered California’s customer service is appalling: On Yelp, it had 205 reviews on April 27, of which 185 were one star out of a possible five – the lowest ranking possible. When tax season rolled around, 100,000 Covered California customers got either inaccurate tax forms or none at all.

(This is important because ObamaCare through the IRS levies a tax penalty on people who do not have government-qualified coverage.)

It is not hard to understand why it took so long for the problems to surface at Covered California. First, the billion dollars that the exchange burnt through were federal grants. Nobody at the state level really cared to be accountable. Second, nine in 10 of Covered California’s enrollees are paying artificially low premiums because of tax credits paid to insurers in the exchange. These people have no choice but to put up with poor customer service because they cannot get covered outside Covered California.

* BUT YET YOU AND I ARE PAYING FOR THIS SHIT, PEOPLE! I CARE! YOU SHOULD TOO!

Fortunately, Covered California’s enrollment has peaked at about 1.4 million people, effectively unchanged from 2014. However, about a thousand people enroll every day because of events (such as job loss or marriage) that qualify them for ObamaCare. And there will be another surge of about half a million people when 2016 open season starts Oct. 15. (There is a lot of “churn” in Covered California. Almost one third of 2014 enrollees did not sign up for 2015. A similar number of new enrollees signed up.)

Every Californian should be concerned, because federal funding is finished.

* MEANING...

Although Covered California’s budget “assumes” $360 million is left for 2015, there will be no more funding after that. The exchange’s operating budget of almost a half million dollars will have to be financed by a fee of $13.95 added to each enrollee’s premium each month.

(Any bets on when Covered California’s board might have to go to the Legislature for more money?)

Here’s the good news: None of this is necessary. The government has no more business running a health insurance exchange than the DMV does running a car dealership. Brokers and agents, either in person or online, are perfectly competent to inform people about their choices and help them make the right one. Indeed, two California businesses, eHealthinsurance.com and GetInsured.com both had a national online presence years before ObamaCare and state exchanges interfered with their markets.

ObamaCare forces us to use unnecessary government-run exchanges to get it. Partisans on both sides of the ObamaCare debate should agree that shutting down Covered California deserves to be a priority for both Congress and the state Legislature.

June 1, 2015 at 2:57 PM
William R. Barker said...

* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)

http://dailysignal.com/2015/05/13/defense-funding-bill-shouldnt-allow-illegal-immigrants-to-enlist-in-the-military/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=morningbell&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRojvKnOZKXonjHpfsX56%2BorWa6zlMI%2F0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4JTctjI%2BSLDwEYGJlv6SgFQrLBMa1ozrgOWxU%3D

Despite the fact that the U.S. House of Representatives has voted down repeated attempts to encourage the recruitment of illegal immigrants into the military, we are seeing yet another attempt to encourage such recruitment recently inserted into a must-pass defense funding bill.

Even worse, the push to recruit illegal immigrants is happening at a time when U.S. citizens are being downsized from the military or turned away by recruiters.

The House Armed Services Committee recently approved an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that encourages the secretary of defense to declare that illegal immigrants categorized under President Barack Obama’s first executive amnesty — Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) — are “vital” to America’s national interest and thus eligible to enlist in the U.S. Armed Forces.

* THE REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE...

(*SIGH*)

Congressman Ruben Gallego’s, D-Ariz., amendment passed the committee with six Republicans joining all 27 Democrats.

* WHO ARE THESE SIX? (WOULDN'T IT BE NICE IF THEY WERE IDENTIFIED BY NAME?)

The recruitment is being encouraged at the very same time the Pentagon is laying off tens of thousands of American troops.

According to Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno, the active Army will be cut by more than 80,000 uniformed personnel by the end of fiscal year 2017.

Moreover, competition for enlistment is already so challenging that American high school graduates now face “more difficulty qualifying for the armed services than ever in the 40-year history of the all-volunteer force,” according to media reports.

Knowing these statistics, do these members of the Armed Services Committee really believe that military service is one of those “jobs Americans won’t do?"

* APPARENTLY AT LEAST SIX (UNNAMED) REPUBLICANS DO... AS WELL AS ALL THE DEMOCRATS...

(*SIGH*)

* TO BE CONTINUED...

June 1, 2015 at 3:21 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

Once again, it seems that some in Washington are more inclined to promote the interests of illegal immigrants at the expense of the American citizens they were elected to represent.

* AGAIN... NOT TO BE A CYNIC... BUT I HAVE TO BELIEVE THAT THE "OUTRAGED" AUTHOR OF THIS ESSAY (CONGRESSMAN DAVID BRAT; R-VA.) DELIBERATELY CHOSE NOT TO "OUT" (TO NAME THE NAMES OF) HIS FELLOW REPUBLICANS WHO VOTED WITH THE DEMOCRATS.

(*SIGH*)

Even more alarming is that certain members of Congress are trying to use military funding as a bargaining chip to cement the president’s unconstitutional amnesty actions with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals - though the House of Representatives has voted to defund this executive order three times: in 2013, 2014 and January 2015.

An additional concern is that enlistment could lead to amnesty. Retired U.S. military leaders wrote last year to the House Armed Services Committee, warning that such a recruitment policy “would enable adoption by the Congress of measures that would confer amnesty on millions of immigrants illegally in this country, and, by failing to secure the borders, ensure that millions more will be headed here in due course.”

* BUT ISN'T THAT THE POINT...? (RHETORICAL QUESTION...)

Beyond the harm that we do to our own citizens already being let go from military service, why would we encourage another surge of unaccompanied minors to make the life-threatening trek across the border in the hopes that they might gain amnesty through enlistment?

* THAT'S... THE... GOAL...!!!

To try to stop this, I am co-sponsoring an amendment with Congressman Mo Brooks, R-Ala., to remove this language from the National Defense Authorization Act before it’s voted on later this week. Congress serves as a body to check and balance the powers of the executive branch in accordance with the Constitution, not to aid the White House in violating the Constitution.

Especially in this time of increased terrorism, the funding of our national security should not be threatened by the inclusion of such a controversial measure in the National Defense Authorization Act.

June 1, 2015 at 3:22 PM
William R. Barker said...

* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)

http://dailysignal.com/2015/05/15/new-report-strikes-serious-blow-against-obama-administrations-defense-in-executive-amnesty-lawsuit/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=dailydigest&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRojs6%2FBZKXonjHpfsX56%2BorWa6zlMI%2F0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4JT8JkI%2BSLDwEYGJlv6SgFQrLBMa1ozrgOWxU%3D

The Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general, John Roth, has dealt a serious blow against the Obama administration’s defense in the lawsuit filed by 26 states against the immigration amnesty plan announced by President Barack Obama on Nov. 20, 2014.

That plan is currently on hold due to a preliminary injunction order issued by Federal District Court Judge Andrew Hanen, an order now being appealed to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals by the administration.

* GOD BLESS JUDGE HANEN!

The crux of the defense asserted by Justice Department lawyers in multiple briefs filed in the litigation is that the president’s actions in this regard are simply an exercise of traditional prosecutorial discretion by executive branch officials.

For example, in its opposition to the motion by the plaintiff states for a preliminary injunction, the Justice Department claimed that exercising prosecutorial discretion by deferring action on millions of illegal aliens allows the Department of Homeland Security to “focus limited resources on higher priority aliens.” Those “higher priority aliens” are aliens who pose “threats to national security, border security, and public safety.”

However, in a report published on May 4, Inspector General Roth says that the Department of Homeland Security “does not gather and analyze prosecutorial discretion data.”

(*SILENCE*)

* FOLKS... RE-READ THAT LAST PARAGRAPH IF NECESSARY.

Therefore, Homeland Security does not have the ability “to fully assess its current immigration enforcement activities and to develop future policy.”

(*SILENCE*)

* YOU'RE "GETTING" THIS - RIGHT, FOLKS?

Because the Department of Homeland Security is not collecting this data and “does not have a mechanism to continuously monitor its use of prosecutorial discretion,” it lacks the ability to “improve future policy.”

* THIS IS THE DEPARTMENT'S OWN INSPECTOR GENERAL...!!!

In fact, because the Department of Homeland Security is not actively monitoring the use of prosecutorial discretion, Roth concludes that Homeland Security may “be missing opportunities to strengthen its ability to remove aliens who pose a threat to national security and public safety.”

* NO SURPRISE THERE...

(*SCOWL*)

Even when the Department of Homeland Security knows about serious criminal violations by illegal immigrants in this country, it is still refusing to deport large numbers of them.

(*GNASHING MY TEETH*)

So the very reason that the administration is using to justify exercising prosecutorial discretion to grant what amounts to executive amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants — the ability to focus on and remove the most dangerous illegal immigrants — seems to be misleading at best and specious at worst because the Department of Homeland Security is not even collecting the information needed to adequately engage in this type of prioritization of its enforcement efforts.

* PRETTY MUCH SUMS IT UP...

* TO BE CONTINUED...

June 1, 2015 at 3:35 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

Even worse, the inspector general identified another “potential issue that could affect DHS employees’ ability to make well-informed decisions when exercising prosecutorial discretion.” Homeland Security field personnel in its Immigration and Customs Enforcement division told the inspector general that they don’t always “have access to an individual’s criminal history in his or her country of origin.” As a result, “aliens convicted of or wanted for a felony committed in their home country, but not convicted of a felony or significant misdemeanor in the United States may not be identified as a DHS enforcement priority.”

(*SIGH*)

This finding by the inspector general comes on top of the fact that even when the Department of Homeland Security knows about serious criminal violations by illegal immigrants in this country, it is still refusing to deport large numbers of them.

(*SILENCE*)

According to information released by the U.S. House Judiciary Committee at an oversight hearing of Immigration and Customs Enforcement held on April 14, 2015, ICE let loose on the American public 36,000 convicted criminal aliens in fiscal year 2013 and 30,558 in fiscal year 2014. These aliens were “convicted of offenses involving dangerous drugs, assault and domestic violence, stolen vehicles, robbery, sex offenses, sexual assault, kidnapping, voluntary manslaughter, and even homicide.” In fact, “27% of the aliens released were so called ‘level 1s’ according to the administration — the worst of the worst.”

* FOLKS... AGAIN... UNLESS YOU BELIEVE THAT OBAMA AND PRETTY MUCH EVERYONE WITHIN THE ADMINISTRATION (AND DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS) ARE JUST PLAIN STUPID... HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THIS OTHER THAN TO BELIEVE IT'S DELIBERATE POLICY...???

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., also pointed out that the “administrative arrests of criminal aliens declined 32% compared to April of 2014."

All of this data appears to contradict the administration’s argument that it is exercising prosecutorial discretion in order to prioritize the removal of aliens who are a danger to public safety.

* THIS... ADMINISTRATION... LIES...!!! CONSTANTLY! AS A MATTER OF COURSE! AS STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE!

Not only is it not collecting the data needed to properly exercise prosecutorial discretion, but it is releasing tens of thousands of dangerous aliens with full knowledge of their criminal convictions and criminal history. That is prosecutorial INDISCRETION of the worst kind.

The report of the inspector general is certainly relevant to the issues now being considered by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is reviewing whether the injunction issued by district court Judge Hanen was both legally and factually justified. Although the report was issued after Judge Hanen held a hearing on the case, issued his injunction, and the case was appealed to the 5th Circuit, it can still be brought to the attention of the appellate court.

Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j), a party to a case (such as the 26 states in this litigation) can file a letter with the clerk of the 5th Circuit advising the court of new “pertinent and significant authorities” that have come to a party’s attention after the party’s brief has been filed.

I would be very surprised if the Texas solicitor general, who is arguing the case on behalf of the states, does not file a 28(j) letter apprising the 5th Circuit of the May 4 inspector general report. There is little doubt that report tends to undercut the strength of the government’s argument.

June 1, 2015 at 3:35 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)