Tuesday, November 10, 2015

Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, November 10, 2015

Yuck! Cloudy... overcast... dismal.

Oh, well - it is November!

As always... newsbites can be found in the Comments Section.



William R. Barker said...


A 12th Obamacare co-op has "decided" to close its doors after receiving more than $71 million in taxpayer-funded loans and enrolling more than 25,000 consumers in health insurance.

Consumers Mutual Insurance of Michigan and the state Department of Insurance and Financial Services announced their decision to wind down the co-op’s operations last week, bringing the total number of closed co-ops initially created under ObamaCare to [an even] dozen.

The consumer-operated...


...and oriented plan...


...or co-op, first posted an announcement on its website notifying consumers it would not be selling health insurance on the federal exchange, HealthCare.gov.

The announcement foreshadowed the non-profit insurance company’s decision to shutter, as the Obama administration told Congress last week that it kept co-ops with questions regarding viability off of the federal exchange.

The Michigan co-op received $71.5 million in loans from the federal government and enrolled more than 25,000.

Since ObamaCare was implemented in 2013, a dozen co-ops, including Consumers Mutual Insurance of Michigan, have closed their doors. Collectively, the failed co-ops received more than $1.2 billion and enrolled more than 700,000 Americans in health insurance, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and regulatory filings.

The federal government awarded $2.4 billion total to 23 co-ops created by the health care law. Since their inception, the majority of the non-profit insurance companies have struggled to turn a profit.

A July report from the Department of Health and Human Services inspector general found that 21 of the 23 co-ops lost money in 2014.


One co-op, CoOportunity Health, had already closed by the time the report was released.

Thirteen of the 23 co-ops, meanwhile, failed to meet enrollment projections for 2014.

William R. Barker said...


The Missouri University Police Department (MUPD) sent an email to students Tuesday morning urging them to call them and report any hurtful speech they encounter on the campus.

In an email that was flagged by several Missouri-based journalists, the MUPD asked “individuals who witness incidents of hateful and/or hurtful speech or actions” to call the department’s general phone line “to continue to ensure that the University of Missouri campus remains safe.” They suggest that students provide a detailed description of the offender, their location or license plate number, and even to take a picture if possible.

In the email, MUPD readily admits that hurtful or hateful speech is not against the law. But, they write, “if the individuals identified are students, MU’s Office of Student Conduct can take disciplinary action.”


In a statement to Mediaite, the MUPD confirmed that the email was real.

When asked about the potential First Amendment implications, a spokesman responded simply, “We are simply asking them to report what they feel is hurtful and/or hateful speech.”


He added that the police did not consider the hateful speech “a criminal matter.” However, “We also work for the University and uphold the Universities Rules and Regulations.”

William R. Barker said...


The Office of Tarrant County Criminal District Attorney Sharen Wilson is working with the Office of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to prosecute a case of repeated voter fraud against the State.

Rosa Maria Ortega of Grand Prairie, has been indicted by a Tarrant County Grand Jury for voting illegally in regional elections.

The indictment details that Ortega, who is not a citizen and therefore not legally eligible to vote, fraudulently registered to vote in Dallas County by claiming to be a U.S. citizen.


Ortega later twice attempted to register to vote in Tarrant County, however her applications were rejected by the Tarrant County Elections Office.

Dallas County records show that Ortega has voted in multiple elections in that county, starting in 2004, and most recently in the 2014 Republican primary runoff.

“Protecting the integrity of elections is essential to our democracy and a top priority of my administration,” said Attorney General Paxton. “As long as there are criminals seeking to exploit our system of elections, we stand ready to investigate, prosecute and restore confidence that the will of the people of Texas is heard.”

“This is a big deal,” said CDA Wilson. “People insist this kind of thing doesn’t happen, but it’s happening right here at home. The principle of one citizen, one vote is one of our most fundamental rights as U.S. citizens, and must be protected.”

The crime of Illegal Voting is a Second Degree Felony, punishable by 2 to 20 years in prison.

William R. Barker said...

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


Were the lungs the seat of wisdom, Fox News host Bill O’Reilly would be wise, but they are not and he is not. So it is not astonishing that he is doubling down on his wager that the truth cannot catch up with him. It has, however, already done so.

The prolific O’Reilly has, with his collaborator Martin Dugard, produced five “history” books in five years: “Killing Lincoln,” “Killing Kennedy, “Killing Jesus,” “Killing Patton” and now the best-selling “Killing Reagan.” Because no one actually killed Reagan, O’Reilly keeps his lucrative series going by postulating that the bullet that struck Reagan in March 1981 kind of, sort of killed him, although he lived 23 more years.

O’Reilly “reports” that the trauma of the assassination attempt was somehow causally related to the “fact” that Reagan was frequently so mentally incompetent that senior aides contemplated using the Constitution’s 25th Amendment to remove him from office. But neither O’Reilly nor Dugard spoke with any of those aides — not with Ed Meese, Jim Baker, George Shultz or any of the scores of others who could, and would, have demolished O’Reilly’s theory.

O’Reilly now airily dismisses them because they “have skin in the game.”

His is an interesting approach to writing history: Never talk to anyone with firsthand knowledge of your subject.


Instead, O’Reilly made the book’s “centerpiece” a memo he has never seen and never tried to see until 27 days after the book was published. Then Dugard asked the Reagan Presidential Library to find it.


William R. Barker said...

CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

Recently on Fox News, O’Reilly put this on the screen from Sue Janzen of Yorba Linda, Calif.: “We went to the Reagan Library, and were told they do not sell Killing Reagan because it’s not factual.” Then O’Reilly said: “You were deceived, Sue. The Reagan Library is angry at Martin Dugard and me because we’re seeking” the Cannon memo. He added: “The memo’s disappeared. But Dugard and I are on the case and the library is not happy about it.”

“Disappeared?" His crude intimation was that the allegedly deceptive library is hiding the memo.



The library, however, has never had it because when James Cannon wrote it, he was not a member of the White House staff, hence the memo was not a “presidential record.”

O’Reilly recently canceled an interview with Meese, who says O’Reilly told him he was “vetting” the memo. (How does one vet a memo one does not possess?) O’Reilly says he canceled the interview because Meese set “conditions.” Meese, who was eager to be interviewed, waived any conditions.


The “centerpiece” memo was written by Cannon at the request of former senator Howard Baker (R-Tenn.) when Baker was about to replace the fired Don Regan as Reagan’s chief of staff. The memo assessing White House conditions apparently included disparagements of Reagan from some unhappy Regan staffers.

The memo was presented to Baker at a meeting at Baker’s home attended by A.B. Culvahouse, who the next day would become counsel to the president. Culvahouse remembers the normally mild-mannered Baker brusquely dismissing the memo: “That’s not the Reagan I met with two days ago.”

Neither Baker nor Culvahouse considered the memo important enough to save. Meeting with Reagan the next day, Baker and others found no reason to question his competence.

O’Reilly impales himself on a contradiction: He says his book is “laudatory” about Reagan — and that it is being attacked by Reagan “guardians” and “loyalists.” How odd. Liberals, who have long recognized that to discredit conservatism they must devalue Reagan’s presidency, surely are delighted with O’Reilly’s assistance. The diaspora of Reagan administration alumni, and the conservative movement, now recognize O’Reilly as an opportunistic interloper.