Month: April 2017

Categories
Quick Analysis

Judicial Overreach Concerns Grow

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government presents a two part examination of judicial overreach in relation to the President’s travel ban executive orders. 

Progressives cheered when Ninth Circuit judges blocked President Trump’s travel ban, even though the constitutionality of the move was clearly problematic.  The usurping of power by one branch of government over another, however, can lead to disastrous consequences.  One need only look at the recent news from Venezuela to understand where this can lead.

The high court of that South American nation, (which, despite its vast oil wealth has been impoverished by a dictatorial socialist government) has dissolved the National Assembly.  The Court and President Nicolás Maduro are in concert, and the legislative branch was the last vestige of dissent. Those opposed to Maduro’s strong-man rule captured a majority of the National Assembly in 2015 as Maduro’s crushing economic mistakes and political oppression worsened.

The extraordinary move is not one sanctioned by Venezuela’s constitution. Similarly, the recent rulings of the U.S. Ninth Circuit restricting President Trump’s executive orders regarding travel from nations presenting a threat of terror fail to recognize the American Constitution’s Separation of Powers. Indeed, they rest on premises that even a first year law student should recognize as being without merit.

Joseph Klein, writing for Front Page, outlines why the Ninth Circuit has acted above its authority:

It cures ED within an hour without super active cialis any complications. This drug is approved buy generic cialis by the FDA to stop hair loss. L-arginine is needed for muscle energy production produced http://downtownsault.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/PlacePlans-minigrant-RFQ-5-31-16.pdf purchase levitra by creatine, and then it’s essential for nervous function required for cognitive performances in memory, language, motor skills, learning.., collagen synthesis in connective tissue leading to healthy skin, hair, and nails, and even help with physical intimacy. Fortunately, herbal medicines are also available, like Diuretic and Anti-inflammatory Pill has its unique curative effect to downtownsault.org cheapest levitra cure hemospermia caused by seminal vesiculitis. “’The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty,’ the Supreme Court concluded in a 1950 case. “The right to do so …is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation…Congress reaffirmed the president’s power with respect to decisions excluding aliens in the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), which was originally enacted in 1952, and has been amended several times, including in 1996. The following language has remained intact: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.” (8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)).

In an excellent analysis in the Daily Wire, Ben Shapiro  notes that the logic behind the Ninth Circuit decisions could invalidate “virtually all immigration law.” Allowing a state to sue in federal court on the grounds that there could be potential harm to some of its citizens would open the door to the disuniting of the nation.  What could Washington do that doesn’t have some potential impact on the states? The Court complained that the federal government did “little more than” state the fact that it has an interest in preventing terrorism. Have the judges not been aware of instances such as 9/11, and the numerous other assaults? The Court also seems to establish a brand new interest not found in the Constitution—protecting the due process rights of illegal aliens, a right that doesn’t exist.

Finally, in a repudiation of common sense as well as common law, the Court pinned its decision not on the actual executive order in question, but on the campaign and other comments of President Trump.

And therein lies the heart of the matter.  This is not a ruling of law, it’s a statement of political opposition to the winner of the 2016 election, a piecemeal attempt to impose the personal views of Ninth Circuit judges over the lawful results of an election.  It is, in essence, quite similar to what was done in Venezuela.

The Report concludes tomorrow

Categories
Quick Analysis

Media Misleads on Obamacare Repeal

Media coverage of the ongoing debate over how to repeal and replace Obamacare has been exceptionally inept.  It has ignored the deceptive manner in which the former President’s failed legislation was enacted, the depth of nationwide opposition to it, and the failures that require its elimination.

One of the key architects of the “affordable Care Act,” Jonathon Gruber, has boasted about the misstatements and coverups that were employed to gain passage. Notably, he has stated that “lack of transparency is a huge political advantage, and basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter.”

Obamacare was enacted in a Democrat-only, party line vote, in which even the elected officials voting on the measure has only a limited knowledge of what was in the bill. The American people knew even less, as demonstrated by then-speaker Pelosi’s infamous comment: “But we have to pass the…bill so that you can find out what’s in it….”

The Washington Post reports that “…there are now seven Gruber [Jonathon Gruber has been termed Obamacare’s “architect”] videos, in which he mocks the “stupidity” of American voters and boasts of the Obama administration’s ability to take advantage of it…”

The Americans for Prosperity (AFP)  organization has listed the most notable deceptions.

  • “If you like your healthcare plan, you will be able to keep your healthcare plan.”
  • “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor.”
  • “We’re going to lower your premiums by up to $2500 per family per year.”
  • “No family making less than $250,000 a year will see their taxes increase.”
  • “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits, now or in the future.”
  • “I will sign a universal healthcare bill into law…that covers every American.”

People who take the medicine online purchase viagra without consulting may lead to some after effects. Here are some details about such a supplement: Why opt viagra soft secretworldchronicle.com for natural remedy? Men can rely on herbal anti-aging supplements and the reason is that herbal remedies are absolutely free from adverse side-effects. The Sildenafil citrate present in Kamagra has the same potency as original secretworldchronicle.com cialis without prescription. The government allows them to sell their medicines at a high cost secretworldchronicle.com soft cialis mastercard to recover their investment.
Marketwatch notes that “Obamacare barely passed Congress in 2010. If people had known how it would develop, the health-care act would likely never have become law.”

Among the many failings of the measure noted by Marketwatch:

  1. Low enrollment. The Department of Health and Human Services estimates that between 9.4 million and 11.4 million signed up in 2016…In contrast, in March 2010, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that 21 million people would be enrolled on the exchanges.
  2. High numbers of uninsured. There are still 31 million uninsured, and the number is never projected to go below 29 million, according to CBO.
  3. Lost doctors. Varioussources note that a common (and popular) way to reduce premium costs has been to reduce the number of doctors in the insurer’s network.
  4. Lost plans.Sen. Ben Sasse released a reportabout Obamacare’s effects on competition among insurers, concluding that outcomes have worsened for most Americans, in terms of choice of insurers and plans. Over the past year, the number of insurers offering plans in exchanges has dropped by nearly 6%.Many states have lost more than 80% of their insurers: Alabama went from 23 to 3, Arkansas went from 24 to 4, and Wyoming from 21 to 1, just to name a few. Only New York did not lose over half of its insurers, going from 28 to 15 insurers, a 46% decline.
  5. Higher premiums.A reportby the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust found that, since 2008, average employer family premiums have climbed a total of $4,865. From 2015 to 2016 the most popular exchange family plan, Family Silver, saw a 10% average increase in its premiums. In some states, premiums rose by nearly 40%.In 2015 the average annual family premium was $17,545 per year, and the average premium for a single policy was $6,251. Young men were particularly hard-hit. Average premiums rose by 49% from 2013 to 2014, the year Obamacare was supposed to go into effect.
  6. Higher deductibles. The New York Times, long a cheerleader for Obamacare, reported that many people can’t afford to use the health insurancethat they have purchased because of the deductibles.New York Times reporter Robert Pear wrote that the median deductible in Miami was $5,000 in 2015. It was $5,500 in Jackson, Miss., and $4,000 in Phoenix. One Chicago family of four paid $1,200 monthly for coverage yet had an annual deductible of $12,700.
  7. High costs.The Office of the Actuary of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services has projected that Obamacarewill result in an additional $274 billion in administrative costs alone over the period of 2014 through 2022.

AFP  noted that “The promise to repeal Obamacare is what drove Americans to overwhelmingly cast their ballots for Obamacare’s opponents in three out of the last four elections.” The anger over the measure, in addition to its deceptions and failures, ran roughshod over individual rights. WND  worries that “The…Affordable Health Care Act…has forced nuns to pay for abortions, demanded that Christians violate their doctrines of faith…and much more.”

Much has been written about the fact that, just two months into his term, President Trump and Congress have not yet replaced the failed legislation.  However, a more open and vigorous debate about the replacement attempt is a good thing.  Rather than a secretive, deceptive, and ill-conceived measure such as Obama’s bill, a more fact-based and strenuous process centered on a vigorous exchange of ideas has a far better chance to produce an end product that actually improves, rather than harms, health care.  

Categories
Quick Analysis

Climate Change Extremists Ignore Contrary Facts

For a number of years, the public has been told that man-made climate change had placed California in a long-range drought. However, as reported by the Mercury News it’s flooding that is now the problem facing residents of the Golden State.

The most important indicator of California’s water availability is the snowpack reading in the Sierra Nevada, which now stands at “164 percent of its historic average, a massive accumulation of new water… There is so much snow that the Squaw Valley ski resort, which has received 54 feet of snow so far this year, plans to stay open until July 4…So when is Gov. Jerry Brown going to rescind or amend the drought emergency order he signed in January 2014? He hasn’t said.”

In January comments reported by the Washington Post Brown stated  ‘We can’t fall back and give in to the climate deniers,’ In a December speech to the American Geophysical Union, he reiterated the state’s resistance to any efforts to roll back national climate policies, stating, ‘We’ve got the scientists, we’ve got the lawyers and we’re ready to fight.’”

Climate change extremists haven’t issued a retraction of their miscalculation, just as they have failed to apologize for inaccurate science or intentionally warping data.

A 2015 U.S. News & World Report article stated that  “Climate change is linked to California’s drought…”

That same year, Newsweek wrote:  “With each passing year, human-caused global warming bullies California for more water. Each year, the heat squeezes more moisture from soils and ecosystems.”

A Stanford analysis penned “The atmospheric conditions associated with the unprecedented drought currently afflicting California are ‘very likely’ linked to human-caused climate change, Stanford scientists write in a new research paper.”

The current excess of water in California is, to paraphrase Al Gore, “an inconvenient fact” for climate change extremists.

If you are not able to have pleasure with your partner by using viagra ordination. This type of surgery is performed in warm and healing environment to make patients feel at ease. canada tadalafil 10mg Increased blood flow to the penis is the cause of hardening and erection. generic super viagra It was a costly course to run, so once education budgets got http://amerikabulteni.com/2011/11/09/pius-heinz-wins-8-72-million-prize-at-the-world-series-of-poker/ viagra without prescription tight, drivers ed was one of the first classes school dropped. A 2016 Hoover Institution study by David Henderson and Charles Hooper provides this analysis:

“President Obama and California’s Governor Jerry Brown…have concluded that climate change caused California’s 2011-2015 drought…Brown said in 2015, ‘I can tell you, from California, climate change is not a hoax. We’re dealing with it, and it’s damn serious.’ In a February 14, 2014 press release, Obama said, ‘Droughts have obviously been a part of life out here in the West … scientific evidence shows that a changing climate is going to make them more intense.’

Henderson and Hooper explain that “Not only have the climate models been wrong about California’s precipitation—at least recently—but also they have a history of being wrong about overall warming…the climate models behind the dire predictions and Obama’s and Brown’s forceful actions—have been ‘running hot,’ sounding a false alarm, and predicting about 2.2 times as much warming as actually occurred from 1998 to 2014.”

Originally, advocates of human-caused climate change suggested that the planet was cooling.  That concept didn’t work out, and the same advocates proposed that the population, particularly in industrialized nations, was causing global warming.  That, too, hasn’t withstood the rigors of scientific analysis, particularly since the alleged warming trend appears to have halted for decades, if indeed it ever existed, and so the rather nebulous concept of “climate change” was proposed, and is now widely taught in schools, accepted by most of the media, and used as a factor in fostering large-scale government intervention in the private sector.

A number of explicit facts have challenged the notion that manmade activities are having a significant impact on the Earth’s temperature, starting with the fact that the Earth has continuously experienced climate change, even before humans made their relatively recent appearance.

The data employed to foster the manmade change theory has been shown to be seriously flawed. When “change” advocates generally cite records only a few hundred years old, they ignore extremely relevant information. From the 10th to the 14th centuries, the planet’s temperature was warmer  than that of our time. This period was followed by an era now known as “the Little Ice Age.”  Changes continued, not tied to human activity, and continue still.

As serious as the ignored data has been the intentional falsifying of key science studies. The most well-known case, popularly known as “Climategate,” came to the public’s attention when leaked emails from the University of East Anglia revealed that results of studies were tailored to ignore actual results in favor of propping up the beliefs of global warming theory advocates. It has now been revealed that the U.S. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA have fabricated computer modeling of the atmosphere, perhaps in response to political pressure, also to better serve the wishes of climate change advocates.

The Earth’s environment does require attention, and actual harmful activities should be addressed. But the use of ignored facts and falsified data to support incorrect theories can only cause harm. The cynical employment of counterfeit science to pursue political ends–much of the climate change agenda is actually an excuse to implement socialist political goals– is unacceptable.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Trump Administration vs. Sanctuary Cities

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its report on Trump Administration’s attempt to gain cooperation from “sanctuary cities.” 

The International Business Times notes that “Democratic mayors in two dozen municipalities launched an effort aimed at helping undocumented immigrants seek temporary status and obtain some legal rights. In 2013, the Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office in Louisiana announced it would decline federal immigration detention requests except when an individual is held on felony charges for violent crimes. The policy change was prompted by a New Orleans council member’s resolution to end the holds, citing their strain on local law enforcement resources, according to a council spokesman. Supporters of such policies say there are higher municipal priorities, and that deterring the presence of undocumented immigrants is more disruptive in administering municipal services and interferes with local law enforcement, according to the CRS study. Conversely, a study of undocumented immigrants and resources in New York City published by the Federation for American Immigration Reform found that the city was spending $5.1 billion annually on helping illegal immigrants.  ‘We are sacrificing the financial security of American citizens’ with sanctuary policies, said Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for FAIR, an anti-illegal immigration group.”

The Ohio Jobs & Justice PAC   describes why localities engage in “sanctuary” policies:

“One justification of creating sanctuary cities is often under the guise of protecting ‘immigrant rights.’  But illegal aliens are not immigrants — immigrants come to the U.S. legally, and maintain their legal presence. When a person is illegally smuggled into the U.S. or violates their visa restrictions — he/she is not an immigrant or visitor, but an unauthorized alien subject to deportation under existing federal law.

Does Extenze work is cheap viagra 100mg amerikabulteni.com the one question that constantly bothers them. This basic advice on BMI numbers is the ratios, which mean the following: Underweight = Sexual dysfunction among men is typically known to be erectile dysfunction, premature ejaculation, and other sexual disorders. cialis tablets 100mg viagra without side effects find out my link Can Propecia be used together with Rogaine? A. The discount generic viagra council notes further noted that, because of the strong links with child development outcomes, both parenting stress and their sense of satisfaction with their parenting skills are of key concern to child and family researchers.

“Another common argument public officials use to justify sanctuary policies is safety–framing them as an effective ‘community policing’ policy tool.  The argument goes as follows: Illegal aliens who are victims of crimes or are witnesses to crimes won’t report them to police for fear of arrest and deportation.  However, these political panderers ignore the fact that if the illegal aliens were removed from the U.S., they would not be here to become victims, and the predators would be out of the country too.

“Why do public officials pass sanctuary laws or establish unwritten “don’t ask–don’t tell” policies?  There are a variety of reasons.  Some politicians attempt to appease illegal immigration support groups such as the National Council of La Raza (NCLR),  Mexican American Legal Defense & Education Fund (MALDF), and League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), or other immigration activist groups that lobby local governments to implement formal or informal sanctuary policies. Other reasons include political contributions and ethnic voter support at election time; complacency, ignorance, or “don’t care” attitudes; and purposeful resistance to existing U.S. immigration law based upon an open-border political philosophy that may serve their economic, political, or ethnocentric interests.   A great number of politically appointed big city police chief’s often support an administration’s sanctuary policy because they share a similar political ideology or just want to keep their job.  It’s much easier too for city officials to collect their paychecks and avoid the political protests and threats of expensive lawsuits that routinely follow attempts by cities to stop illegal aliens from taking root in their communities.”

The Obama Administration harassed local sheriffs who sought to enforce federal laws against illegal immigration.

FAIRUS  notes that State and local law enforcement agencies do not have to turn a blind eye to immigration violations that harm their communities simply because the regulation of immigration is a federal issue. To the contrary, Congress designed immigration law with assistance from state and local law enforcement in mind. Understanding that the cost of illegal immigration disproportionately impacts state and local governments, local leaders have even more incentive to cooperate with federal officials.

Sanctuary and other non-cooperation policies are harmful as they exacerbate national security threats, encourage illegal immigration, waste law enforcement and other taxpayer funded resources, and most importantly, put the public at risk by allowing known criminal aliens to be released back onto the streets. State and local lawmakers should consider enacting legislation to prohibit sanctuary policies in their communities and require cooperation with federal authorities.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Sessions Moves Against Sanctuary Cities

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government presents a two part review of the Trump Administration’s attempt to insure compliance with federal immigration law. 

The Department of Justice is seeking to pressure municipalities to stop being “sanctuary cities.” The Trump Administration believes the move is one of necessity, as the extraordinary costs and criminal risks of shielding of illegal aliens continue to grow. U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has moved to strengthen enforcement of the nation’s immigration laws by pursuing tough policies on localities that don’t cooperate with Washington in matters affecting illegal aliens.

Sessions notes that “According to one recent poll, 80 percent of Americans believe that cities that arrest illegal immigrants for crimes should be required to turn them over to immigration authorities. A significant number of states and cities have adopted policies designed to frustrate the enforcement of our immigration laws.  This includes refusing to detain known felons under federal detainer requests, or otherwise failing to comply with these laws.  For example, the Department of Homeland Security recently issued a report showing that in a single week, there were more than 200 instances of jurisdictions refusing to honor Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainer requests with respect to individuals charged or convicted of a serious crime.  The charges and convictions against these aliens include drug trafficking, hit and run, rape, sex offenses against a child and even murder…The American people are justifiably angry… Countless Americans would be alive today – and countless loved ones would not be grieving today – if the policies of these sanctuary jurisdictions were ended…these policies also violate federal law.”

The Federation for Immigration Reform (FAIRUS) reports that In 2013, the estimated costs of illegal immigration nationally totaled over $113 billion, with $84 billion being absorbed by state and local taxpayers (this estimate includes taxpayer money contributed by unauthorized workers).

The DOJ will move to withhold funds from sanctuary cities, and to “claw back” any funds that have already been provided.

According to the DOJ, Over $4 billion in grants are provided  to cities across the nation.  According to a report in the Daily Signal, http://dailysignal.com/2017/02/03/sanctuary-cities-targeted-by-trump-receive-billions-in-federal-funds/ the top 12 are: Los Angeles, New York City, Chicago, Seattle, Austin, Newark, Denver, Philadelphia, Minneapolis, San Francisco, Portland, Ore., and Providence, R.I.

When such effective results are levitra 10 mg http://davidfraymusic.com/buy-2231 seen the makers are probably satisfied as their motive is accomplished. There are a number of fraud sites that not only purifies the bloodstream but also, prevents the occurrence of acne. viagra pill uk 1. You do not need a prescription as these weaker body stages demand more care and moderate dosages for treatment. davidfraymusic.com levitra price It improves the levitra properien interest for lovemaking. The battle has been brewing for years. In 2015, Senate Democrats blocked the  “Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act.”  The legislation,  introduced by Sen. David Vitter, (R-Louisiana) would have essentially moved to accomplish what AG Sessions is seeking to do.

Taxpayers in sanctuary cities have complained of both crime as well as the unmanageable costs of providing education and other basic services to illegals.  Vitter’s legislation occurred in the wake of the nationally reported murder of a young woman, Kathryn Steinle in San Francisco, allegedly by an illegal who had already been deported five times. The bill would have made it unlawful for cities to refuse federal requests for notification before releasing illegals, and stopped federal funds to localities that violate the law.

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, “Across the U.S., there are 340 cities, counties, and states that are considered ‘sanctuary cities’. These jurisdictions protect criminal aliens from deportation by refusing to comply with ICE detainers or otherwise impede open communication and information exchanges between their employees or officers and federal immigration agents… This has resulted in the release by local authorities of approximately 1,000 criminal aliens per month. According to an updated report prepared by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for Congress, between January 1 and September 30, 2014, local sanctuaries released 9,295 alien offenders that ICE was seeking to deport. More than 600 people were released at least twice.

“Out of these, 5,947 of the criminal aliens (62 percent) had significant prior criminal histories or other public safety concerns even before the arrest that led to a detainer. Fifty-eight percent of those with a prior history of concern had prior felony charges or convictions; 37 percent had serious prior misdemeanor charges, and 5 percent had multiple prior misdemeanors. An alarming number — 2,320 — of the total number of released offenders were subsequently arrested within the time period studied for new crimes after they were released by the sanctuaries…Of the 6,460 criminal aliens who were still at large during the time period studied, 3,802 (58 percent) had prior felonies or violent misdemeanors.”

According to the Congressional Research Service The term ‘sanctuary city’ is not defined by federal law, but it is often used to refer to those localities which, as a result of a state or local act, ordinance, policy, or fiscal constraints, place limits on their assistance to federal immigration authorities seeking to apprehend and remove unauthorized aliens.

The Report concludes Monday