Leading today's newsbites... from ABC News:
* * *
* * * *
The federal government is so overwhelmed by the current
tide of migrants crossing the border it can’t provide basic medical screening
to all of the children before transporting them – often by air – to longer-term
holding facilities across the country, ABC News has learned.
(*CLAP...CLAP...CLAP*)
* SO, NOW... TODAY... ABC NEWS FINALLY CATCHES UP TO BREITBART,
ET AL. (NICE...)
The director of refugee health in the federal Health and
Human Services Department “has identified a breakdown of the medical screening
processes at the Nogales, Arizona, facility,” according to an internal
Department of Defense memo reviewed by ABC News. The “breakdown” a systemic
failure of the hand-off of these children between CBP and HHS.
* OH... IS THAT ALL...?!?!
(*SNORT*)
* YET OBAMA AND REID TELL US ALL IS WELL... THAT THE
BORDER HAS NEVER BEEN AS SECURE!
Inside the government, officials are sounding alarms,
fearing that they and their teams who come in contact with the sick children
face potential exposure to infectious diseases from chicken pox to influenza,
including rare cases of H1N1, more commonly called swine flu.
* HMM... YOU DON'T SUPPOSE THAT'S WHY OBAMA STAYED FAR,
FAR AWAY FROM THE BORDER... TAKING THE HEAT FOR ATTENDING FUNDRAISERS WHILE
AVOIDING FIRST-HAND OBSERVATION OF THE CHAOTIC BORDER SITUATION - DO YOU?
Two unaccompanied children were flown from Nogales to
California despite having 101-degree fevers and flu-like symptoms, according to
the Department of Defense memo. Those children had to be hospitalized.
* NICE...
The memo said pointedly that officials in charge of
moving the immigrants from Border Patrol processing centers to Health and Human
Services facilities are “putting sick [fevers and coughing] unaccompanied
children on airplanes inbound for [Naval Base Ventura County] in addition to
the chicken pox and coxsackie virus cases.”
* YOU'RE READING, THIS... RIGHT, FOLKS?! ABC FRIGGIN'
NEWS...!
The document said three other kids were in the ICU at
local hospitals in California, and two of them were diagnosed with strep
pneumonia.
(*DRUM ROLL*)
Less than a week later, that same Ventura Naval Base
suffered an outbreak of pneumonia and influenza among the unaccompanied minors
inside the shelter.
* THE SHEER INCOMPETENCE OF THIS ADMINISTRATION TRULY
KNOWS NO BOUNDS...
HHS told ABC News the children were supposed to be
screened for sickness before leaving the Border Patrol screening centers. “When
the children arrive at U.S. border stations,” the ACF statement read, “they are
screened for health problems and given medical treatment if needed.”
* BUT...
But, according to the memo ABC News reviewed, “Curi Kim
[the HHS director of the Division of Refugee Health] has identified a breakdown
of the medical screening processes at the Nogales, Arizona, facility. The [unaccompanied children] were initially
screened and cleared upon entry into that facility with no fever or significant
symptoms. They were not however re-screened and cleared for travel and
placement at a temporary shelter.”
(*CLAP...CLAP...CLAP*)
While confirming to ABC News the outbreak occurred, HHS
would not respond to inquiries about the DOD memo showing sick children were
knowingly sent to Naval Base Ventura prior to the outbreak.
* SERIOUSLY... HEADS SHOULD ROLL... BUT I'D BET MY
RETIREMENT SAVINGS THAT INSTEAD MANY OF THESE CLOWNS ARE GOING TO BE AWARDED
"PERFORMANCE BONUSES."
“My biggest concerns are with the health of these
children,” said Richard Besser, ABC News’ chief health and medical editor.
* MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS PREVENTING THE SPREAD OF INFECTIOUS
DISEASES THROUGHOUT THE AMERICAN POPULATION!
“They are victims going through incredibly stressful
circumstances and some will have health issues that need to be treated. Some
come from countries that don’t vaccinate against pneumonia or meningitis. They
need those vaccines. Some come from
countries where it is flu season. They need that vaccine, too. The big health
risks are among these children, not to our communities.”
* BULLSHIT! ONE... MORE... TIME:
The federal government is so overwhelmed by the current
tide of migrants crossing the border it can’t provide basic medical screening
to all of the children before transporting them – often by air – to longer-term
holding facilities across the country...
The director of refugee health in the federal Health and
Human Services Department “has identified a breakdown of the medical screening
processes at the Nogales, Arizona, facility,” according to an internal
Department of Defense memo reviewed by ABC News. The “breakdown” a systemic
failure of the hand-off of these children between CBP and HHS.
Inside the government, officials are sounding alarms,
fearing that they and their teams who come in contact with the sick children
face potential exposure to infectious diseases from chicken pox to influenza,
including rare cases of H1N1, more commonly called swine flu.
HHS would not respond to inquiries about the DOD memo
showing sick children were knowingly sent to Naval Base Ventura prior to the
outbreak.
* SOUNDS PRETTY DAMNING TO ME...!!!
7 comments:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/07/17/microsoft-job-cuts/12772901/
Microsoft confirmed it will cut up to 18,000 jobs over the next year, part of the tech titan's efforts to streamline its business under new CEO Satya Nadella.
* AND THE OBAMA RECOVERY CONTINUES...!!!
The layoffs by Microsoft - which employs 125,000 people - are the company's largest ever.
(*CLAP...CLAP...CLAP*)
Shares of Microsoft were up 3.3% at $45.55 in pre-market trading. Overall, investors have been pleased by Nadella's performance. Microsoft stock surged 25% since Nadella took over.
* GOTTA LUV THE MARKETS, HUH?
(*SPITTING ON THE GROUND*)
Microsoft is the latest tech giant suffering through a round of layoffs. In May, personal computer company Hewlett-Packard announced it would cut an additional 11,000 to 16,000 jobs as part of a massive restructuring.
Earlier this year, IBM said it would take a $1 billion charge for "workforce re-balancing."
Chip maker Intel and network-equipment maker Cisco Systems both said in the past year they were cutting about 5% of their workforces.
* FIVE PERCENT OF THEIR PEOPLE... P*E*O*P*L*E...
* CHANT IT WITH ME, FOLKS... O-BAM-A! O-BAM-A! O-BAM-A!
http://www.wkrg.com/story/26042860/cold-temps-break-128-year-record-in-mobile
MOBILE, Ala. (AP) - Forecasters say Mobile has broken a 128-year-old record with a low temperature of 64 degrees.
* "GLOBAL WARMING," HUH, FOLKS?
* RUBES...
* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)
http://online.wsj.com/articles/michael-boskin-how-washington-whittles-away-property-rights-1405552997
Nine years ago the Supreme Court gutted the Constitution's "public use" restriction on eminent domain (Kelo v. City of New London, 2005), allowing local governments to take the property of some individuals for the benefit of others, especially private developers.
* THOSE JUSTICES VOTING "AYE" SHOULD HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM THE BENCH.
Property rights and the rule of law are essential foundations for a vibrant economy.
* NOTICE, FOLKS... NOT A VERY "VIBRANT" ECONOMY... IS IT?
When they are threatened, or uncertain, the result is inefficiency, rent-seeking, a larger underground economy and capital flight.
* AMERIKA... AMERIKA...
And a much larger battle is looming. Unfortunately, individual rights to capital and the fruits of one's labor are threatened (not just land) — in many cases redistributed from creditors to debtors, from those out of political power to those in power, and especially from young to old.
In 2009 President Obama trampled the legal rights of secured Chrysler bondholders to transfer billions of dollars to unions.
The Environmental Protection Agency issues 1,500 wetlands compliance orders annually to halt land use. (The owner can be stuck in limbo for years pending the agency's final order.)
(At least in this situation, the Supreme Court recently decided 9-0 that land owners can sue to block the EPA from "strong-arming regulated parties into 'voluntary' compliance," with fines up to $75,000 a day.)
The biggest future threat will be to the fruits of one's labor.
The unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare are now several times the national debt; the unfunded liabilities of state and local governments for pensions and other benefits are in the trillions of dollars and mounting. The panoply of other government programs nonetheless continues to expand. The result, according to Congressional Budget Office projections, is that federal spending will reach 36% of GDP in a generation. This implies that taxes will have to double from the current, near-historic average, 18% of GDP. All federal taxes will increase — on income, capital gains, dividends, corporate earnings, employer and employee payrolls.
Left unchecked, many middle-income earners eventually will face marginal tax rates of 70% or higher — reducing them to minority partners in their own additional work and sundering the value of the investments in their own education.
Either the next generation will be saddled with steeply higher taxes on their work and savings, or the growth in entitlement spending will be slowed.
The political battles over this fundamental question will be waged between generations, income groups, high- and low-tax states, taxpayers and retirees, public employees and recipients of every other government service.
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)
The math is unavoidable. The biggest safety-net programs, including Social Security and Medicare, began under far different economic and demographic conditions. But as economic growth has slowed and the population has aged, the ratio of people receiving government benefits to those paying taxes has been rising rapidly. Spending on these two and other entitlement programs will gobble up bigger and bigger chunks of the federal budget. They are already crowding out defense.
Against this unavoidable math is the widespread belief, as the Social Security Administration notes on its website, that many Americans believe that "their FICA payroll taxes entitle them to a benefit in a legal, contractual sense."
(Politicians feed this belief but it is false. As far back as 1960 the Supreme Court ruled that benefits can be changed by Congress at any time — and they have been.)
The notion that people not yet born "own" much larger Social Security benefits in the future is a legal and practical fairy tale. The growth of retirement benefits will have to be slowed.
Most responsible people agree that reducing the growth of benefits should be gradual and protect current non-wealthy seniors. Benefits for the more affluent is the logical place to begin. It makes no sense to destroy their work and investment incentives with high taxes in their most productive years, only to subsidize them heavily a few years later.
Despite the recent hikes in taxes on income, dividends and capital gains, many on the Left are clamoring for more: an 80% top income-tax rate and even a progressive global wealth tax with rates as high as 10%. This is exactly the wrong road to take. Such taxes will only discourage production, encourage black markets, raise far less revenue than proponents claim and — by curtailing capital accumulation — lower future wages and living standards. Over time, such rates would expropriate a sizable fraction of wealth.
Taxes explicitly designed for redistribution — instead of revenue — are "justified" by the fanciful conjecture of writers such as Thomas Piketty, who claim that wealth inevitably will become more concentrated, since the return to capital exceeds the income growth rate. This conjecture rests on a series of implausible assumptions — that the return on capital won't fall as more and more capital accumulates; that these returns will all be saved and not spent; that fortunes won't dissipate by repeated division across generations nor given to charity; and that capital will become far more substitutable for labor.
Ultimately, behind this and other attacks on property rights is the notion that the government owns all income, leaving to you only what it doesn't demand. But as President Reagan said in July 1987, "working people need to know their jobs, take-home pay, homes, and pensions are not vulnerable to the threat of a grandiose, inefficient, and overbearing government."
In particular, taxation "beyond a certain level becomes servitude. And in America, it is the Government that works for the people and not the other way around."
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-more-millennials-moving-home-20140717-story.html
More Americans than ever live in multigenerational households, and the number of millennials who live with their parents is rising sharply, according to a study released Thursday.
A record 57 million Americans, or 18.1% of the population, lived in multigenerational arrangements in 2012, according to the Pew Research Center. That's more than double the 28 million people who lived in such households in 1980, the center said.
About 23.6% of people age 25 to 34 live with their parents, grandparents or both, according to Pew. That’s up from 18.7% in 2007, just prior to the global financial crisis, and from 11% in 1980.
* AND DELUDED IDIOT AFTER BLINDERS-WEARING IDIOT INSISTS "AMERICA HASN'T CHANGED," "NOTHING IS DIFFERENT UNDER OBAMA."
(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)
* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/07/president-obamas-hilarious-lawlessness-109019.html#.U8iZckAkm1u
It’s not the job of the president to defy the law if said law is "inconvenient," nor is it the president's job to create new laws in the absence of congressional enactment. Rather, the opposite!
The constitutional injunction that the executive “take care that the Laws be faithfully executed” is not a suggestion. It is a requirement. It is designed to prevent the executive from unilaterally suspending laws, as English kings claimed the right to do.
As a constitutional lawyer, the president must be familiar with the seedbed of American liberties, the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which states that “the pretended power of suspending of laws, or the execution of laws, by regal authority, without consent of parliament, is illegal.”
The lawsuit against the president undertaken by House Speaker John Boehner targets the serial delay of ObamaCare's employer mandate, just one of a number of seat-of-the-pants delays and alterations in the law. According to the text of the Affordable Care Act, the mandate was supposed to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2014. The administration nonetheless delayed it for an entire year via a Treasury Department blog post in July 2013.
Before his adoring audiences, the president says he has to act because Congress won’t.
In this case, Congress was happy to act.
In fact, the House passed a bill to delay the mandate until Jan. 1, 2015. President Obama threatened to veto it.
Last February, the administration delayed the mandate yet again. It made a distinction between employers with 50 to 99 workers (the mandate won’t apply to them until 2016) and employers with 100 or more workers (the mandate will apply to them beginning in 2015) that has no basis in the law, and layered on additional rules also created ex nihilo.
All of this is indefensible.
* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)
Nicholas Bagley, a University of Michigan law professor and ObamaCare supporter, wrote in a piece for The New England Journal of Medicine in May that the various ACA delays “appear to exceed the scope of the executive’s traditional enforcement discretion.” Even the forceful liberal pundit Brian Beutler of The New Republic concedes that, if the Boehner suit were to clear (formidable) procedural hurdles, the unilateral delays “would be hard for the Obama administration to defend.”
The Left’s reaction to the Boehner suit has been to rip the speaker for, in effect, suing to achieve the complete and expeditious implementation of a law he opposes. It is also pointed out that, even if the suit goes forward and rockets through the courts, there is unlikely to be a resolution before the employer mandate goes into effect anyway. All of this is true, but it suggests that Boehner is trying to vindicate a principle, not achieve a policy outcome.
The principle is rather obvious. As Bagley writes, “the Obama administration’s claim of enforcement discretion, if accepted, would limit Congress’s ability to specify when and under what circumstances its laws should take effect. That circumscription of legislative authority would mark a major shift of constitutional power away from Congress, which makes the laws, and toward the President, who is supposed to enforce them.”
If the next president accepts Obama’s modus operandi, we will witness the effective institutionalization of a chief executive unmoored from the laws.
* ONE... MORE... TIME...
If the next president accepts Obama’s modus operandi, we will witness the effective institutionalization of a chief executive unmoored from the laws.
The key procedural question is whether Congress has standing to sue the president. The courts have strict rules on standing — there must be a specific injury traceable to unlawful conduct, etc. — that are “founded in concern about the proper — and properly limited — role of the courts in a democratic society,” in the words of the Supreme Court.
Even if Congress can establish standing, it is inviting the courts directly into a political dispute with the executive branch, when the Constitution equips it with its own tools to fight such battles, especially the power of the purse and impeachment. That prudential considerations make wielding those powers problematic in this political environment doesn’t mean that the courts should necessarily be the recourse.
At the end of the day, there’s simply no substitute for a political culture that values lawfulness. The president has damaged it gravely, and evidently had a hell of a lot of fun doing it.
Post a Comment