Americans May Now Be Forced to Use Dishwashers That Don’t Clean Dishes

This undated product image released by Kenmore shows a Kenmore Elite 12793 dishwasher. (AP Photo/Kenmore)

When writing about the burden of regulation, I often share big numbers about aggregate cost, job losses, time wasted, and foregone growth.

But I sometimes wonder if such data is effective in the battle for good policy.

Maybe it’s better, at least in some cases, to focus on regulations that affect quality of life for regular people. Lots of ordinary citizens, for instance, are irked that they’re now forced to use inferior light bulbs, substandard toilets, and inadequate washing machines because of regulatory silliness from Washington.

And it looks like we’ll now be forced to use dishwashers that don’t clean dishes thanks to proposed regulations that will reduce water use (which is in addition to a 2012 regulation that already restricted water use).

The Hill reports on the Nanny State’s latest salvo in the war against modern civilization.

“The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers is accusing the Department of Energy (DOE) of a politically motivated drive to increase dishwasher efficiency standards, which are so bad that they would cause consumers to re-wash dishes, erasing any efficiency gains. Rob McAver, the group’s head lobbyist, said regulators are going too far and the new rules will allow only 3.1 gallons to be used to wash each load of dishes. … They then ran standard tests with food stuck to dishes. ‘They found some stuff that was pretty disgusting,’ McAver said. … ‘The poor performance that would result would totally undercut and go backwards in terms of energy and water use, because of the need for running the dishwasher again, or pre-rinsing or hand-washing, which uses a lot of water,’ he said.”

Great, another bone-headed step by the government that will make life less enjoyable.

I’m already one of those people who rinse my dishes before putting them in the dishwasher because I hate the idea that they won’t be fully clean afterwards.

So I can only imagine how bad it will be if this absurd example of red tape is imposed and I have to buy a new dishwasher.

I guess I’ll just keep my fingers crossed that my current dishwasher doesn’t break down.

Especially since the rules make new dishwashers more expensive.

“Ernest Istook, former Republican congressman from Oklahoma, wrote in a Washington Times piece that complying with the 2012 rule, based on DOE estimates, added roughly $44 to the cost of each machine. ‘Now their 2015 proposal will add another $99 to the price tag, even by DOE’s own admission,’ he wrote.”

Julie Borowski has the right assessment. Her column for Freedom Works is from 2012, but it’s very appropriate still today.

“Are you disappointed in every shower head that you purchase? Does your toilet have trouble flushing? Have you noticed that your dishes are still dirty after the dishwasher cycle is completed? … Some of us may be quick to blame the manufacturer of these home appliances. But the manufacturers are just abiding by the costly regulations by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Energy.”

What’s really frustrating is that these regulations reduce the quality of life without even reducing water usage.

“… it has only led to people hacking their shower heads to remove the intrusion that is blocking water flow in order to have a more relaxing shower that actually gets them clean. There is no proof that the water restrictions have actually saved water because many people just end up taking longer showers than they otherwise would.”

Amen. Every so often I wind up at a hotel with restricted-flow showerheads and it’s a hassle because I probably spend twice as long in the shower.

Not to mention problems government has created elsewhere in bathrooms.

“… water restrictions are also the reason that our toilets have trouble flushing. Many of us have become accustomed to flushing the toilet multiple times before the toilet bowl is clear. The 1992 Energy Policy Act states that all toilets sold in the United States use no more than 1.6 gallons of water per flush. These water restrictions are the reason why we have to use plungers far more often than we used to.”

I won’t torment readers with a TMI moment, but I will say that I now routinely flush at the halfway point when seated on a toilet. And even that doesn’t necessarily preclude a third flush at the end of the process.

The only good news is that this gives me a daily reminder that government has far too much power to micro-manage our lives.

Via: CNS News

Continue Reading.....

CALIFORNIA: Pair of Federal Lawsuits Could Undo CTA’s Dominance.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Friedrichsv. California Teachers Association in the fall. The 2013 lawsuit on behalf of Orange County teacher Rebecca Friedrichs, nine other teachers, and a professional association of Christian educators, takes aim at the constitutionality of California’s “agency shop” law, which forces public-school educators to pay dues to a teachers’ union, whether they want to or not. Friedrichs is now front-and-center in a concerted legal effort to constrain the outsize political influence of teachers’ unions in California and around the United States. “This case is about the right of individuals to decide for themselves whether to join and pay dues to an organization that purports to speak on their behalf,” said Terry Pell, president of the Washington D.C.-based Center for Individual Rights, the public-interest law firm that is representing Friedrichs. “We are seeking the end of compulsory union dues across the nation on the basis of the free-speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.”

Earlier this year, the teachers’ unions were hit with yet another lawsuit challenging the current compulsory dues-paying mandate. StudentsFirst, the Sacramento-based activist group founded by former D.C. schools chancellor Michelle Rhee, filed Bain v. California Teachers Association, et al. in federal district court in April on behalf of four CTA members. The case challenges a union rule regarding members who refuse to pay the political portion of their dues. While teachers don’t have to join a union as a condition of employment in California, they must pay dues to the union anyway. Most join and pay the full share, which typically runs over $1,000 a year. But according to the CTA, about 29,000 — or 10 percent — of its active teachers opt out of paying the political or “non-chargeable” part, which brings their yearly expenditure down to around $600. However, to become “agency fee payers,” those teachers must resign from the union and relinquish many perks they had as full dues-paying members.

Unlike the plaintiffs in Friedrichs, the Bain teachers want to remain in the union. But they don’t think they should be effectively forced out of it and lose certain benefits because they’re unwilling to fund the leadership’s political agenda. Some teachers object that union political spending goes in one direction only: leftward. CTA spends millions each year on controversial, non-education-related liberal causes, such as establishing a single-payer health care system, expanding the government’s power of eminent domain, instituting same-sex marriage, and blocking photo ID requirements for voters — while giving virtually nothing to conservative candidates or causes.

The teachers argue that this violates their constitutional right to free speech. Affected teachers lose insurance benefits along with the right to vote for their union representative and contracts. They are barred from sitting on certain school committees. They also lose legal representation in employment disputes and at dismissal hearings, as well as compensation for death and dismemberment, and disaster relief. The plaintiffs in Bain are asking why teachers who pay for union representation won through collective bargaining should lose out on those benefits simply because they refuse to pay for the union’s political campaigns.

That question has generated a great number of half-truths, lies, and general non-answers from the media and union leaders alike. For example, EdSource’s John Fensterwald wrote, “Both the CTA and CFT are obligated to negotiate contracts dealing with pay, benefits and working conditions on behalf of union and non-union teachers.” That’s true; all teachers do become “bargaining unit members,” but only because the unions insist on exclusive representation. The unions would have a better case if they would forego their monopoly status and free dissenting teachers to negotiate their own contracts. A Los Angeles Times editorial claimed the case at its core represents “an attack on the power of any public employee union to engage in politics.” Nonsense. IfBain is successful, unions would remain free to “engage in politics”; they would simply have fewer coerced dollars to spend. Alice O’Brien, general counsel for the NEA, said in a statement, “The Bain lawsuit attacks the right of a membership organization to restrict the benefits of membership to those who actually pay dues.” More nonsense. The teacher-plaintiffs are all dues payers and would remain dues payers if their case is successful.

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the teachers in the Friedrichs case, it’s unclear what may become ofBain. The two cases have a key difference: Friedrichs claims that all union spending is political, and therefore non-member teachers should not be forced to contribute any dues at all. Bain would help teachers who want union benefits but don’t care for union politics. A favorable outcome in Bain could lead to a more flexible membership scenario, whereby teachers could still be union members, with all the benefits of membership, but not be forced to pay for what has been traditionally regarded as political spending. In any event, the teachers’ unions’ heavy-handed tactics seem to be losing force, and their days of unbridled power may be numbered. That can only be good news for those for whom the unions’ presence in education has become an albatross—teachers, kids, parents, and taxpayers alike.

Larry Sand, a retired teacher, is president of the California Teachers Empowerment Network and a contributor to City Journal’s book, The Beholden State: California’s Lost Promise and How to Recapture It.

Via: California Political Review

Continue Reading.....

PLANNED PARENTHOOD’S ‘HACKED’ WEBSITE LOOKS LIKE PR STUNT

Screenshot from PlannedParenthood.org

by SARAH RUMPF30 Jul 2015Austin, TX65

As outcry grows in response to a series of undercover videos revealing Planned Parenthood (PP) employees appearing to engage in selling organs and tissues from aborted babies for profit, the abortion provider claimed that “extremists” had hacked their website.

As Breitbart News reported, PP claimed that it had been hacked on Sunday evening.

The hacking followed several weeks of extremely negative press for PP in response to videos released by the Center for Medical Progress (CMP). So far, three videos have been released (See here, here, and here for Breitbart News’ coverage), and more are promised soon.

At least one other video is known to exist and has been provided to the Texas Attorney General’s Office, where it is the subject of an investigation. Efforts to defund PP of taxpayer dollars — the group reportedly receives more than $500 million each year in federal funding — have been renewed in Congress.

PP initially responded by claiming that the videos were edited in a misleading way, but CMP had also posted hours of unedited raw video with each of their releases. The abortion provider also tried denying the content of the videos, claiming that the interpretations are unfair, but each subsequent video has ended up refuting the defenses PP offered for the one before it. Within the past few days, PP hired a high-powered public relations firm, SKDKnickerbocker, well-known for its work on behalf of liberal causes and close ties to the Obama administration. PP’s latest moves include having SKDK pressure media outlets not to cover the story and filing lawsuits to block future releases.

Unlike most other website hacking events that have made the news, PP’s website was not altered to display any message from the alleged hackers. Nor was it otherwise vandalized. The website that first reported the alleged hacking, The Daily Dot, noted that the hackers were unable to deface PP’s website or access its Twitter account, but that they claimed to have accessed emails and other databases.

Intriguingly, while PP’s website does not show any negative changes from the alleged hackers, it does display a message that many critics are challenging is a public relations stunt. Even if PP was legitimately targeted by hackers over the weekend, there are a number of indicators that at this point, their website issues have been deliberately triggered.

As of Wednesday evening, visitors to www.PlannedParenthood.org would find a nearly empty site with text stating that: “We apologize, but our website is not available because of an extremist attack. 200,000 people a day are now being blocked from information and care by this attack.” The message reflects one of the group’s favorite strategies: to shield the details of their abortion services behind claims that they are simply providing “women’s health” or “reproductive services.”

Screenshot of PlannedParenthood.org homepage on July 29, 2015.

Below the text, a link that says “LEARN MORE,” which directs to Planned Parenthood Action Fund’s Facebook page. That Facebook page implores the reader to “help PP fight back,” by — no surprise here — making a donation. The donation page says:

Planned Parenthood has been the target of hackers seeking to intimidate and silence us. Hundreds of thousands of patients who rely on plannedparenthood.org for health information and services have been denied access.

The attacks on Planned Parenthood are an attempt to cut people off from care, plain and simple. We can’t let that happen, and we won’t. Please chip in what you can to help make sure patients can get the care they need — and ensure that Planned Parenthood can’t be silenced.

Screenshot from Planned Parenthood Action’s donation page (click to enlarge).

Several sharp-eyed Twitter users noted some key quirks in PP’s website that give credence to the theory that this is a PR stunt. As digital media consultant Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) observed, not only did PP maintain control of the homepage of their website so as to put up their sympathetic message, they also had the ability and the time to tweak the font and alignment.

Looking up the source code for the website (accessible by right-clicking the website and choosing “View page source“), PP’s programmers named the landing page “Campaigns,” and identified the page as “Site Down Tempalte,” presumably a misspelling of “template.”

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading....

Words we Cannot say in the White House—On Immigration and Terrorists

Hugh Betcha Interviews Obama—Satire—

—There Are No Illegals or Terrorists in America, says the President

In an effort to justify his refusal to protect the southern border of the United States from the torrent of illegal immigrants, drugs, and the spread of violence that has cost the lives of United States citizens such as Kate Steinle, as well as terrorist attacks on military personnel that resulted in the tragic death of five young Marines in a country they (ironically) served to protect, President Obama summoned “The Most Trusted Name in the News 2015,” CFP’s own Hugh Betcha, for an exclusive interview in the Oval Office.

Hugh, Chief of the International Desk of theStoos Views worldwide media conglomerate, a man who walks with kings and princes (unlike the President, bowing to none), caught a quick flight from Wynstone, South Dakota—where the air is clean, the crime rate low, the people vote red, and the centre still holds—and flew into Foggy Bottom. Ushered into the President’s office after a short ride in the Presidential limousine, Hugh settled down for a frank discussion with the President on the troublesome issue of illegal immigration, terrorism, and the violence that has plagued the country in the recent past.

The President seemed unusually defensive and out of sorts during the interview with his drinking buddy and the winner of MSNBC’s Most Trusted Name in the News Award, 2015—Hugh Betcha.

“I do not want the world to think we are inhospitable racists. I want the world to like us. It is more important to be liked than respected, after all. The influx of immigrants to this country is a good thing and brings in a new wave of Americans who are the future of this country. We need to be friends with Mexico and do not want to anger them.”

“But aren’t the illegals causing a tremendous drain on the economy, medical resources, and law enforcement down south? And how was our failure to imprison alien felons good for Kate Steinle and her family?” Hugh asked. “She died from San Francisco’s sanctuary city policy that you and your liberal Democrat allies encourage.”

“Please do not use that word,” the President bristled.

“What word?”

“Illegal. It is mean spirited.”

“What then?”

“I prefer undocumented,” the President said.

“But these undocumented aliens are wreaking havoc on the border states and you have done nothing to protect it.”

“Please do not use such language in here,” the President winced as he put his fingers in his ears.

“What?” Hugh asked.

“Aliens. That sounds so harsh. We do not use such language here. They are persons from places other than the United States. Again, I have instructed all federal employees never to use such language. It may well offend someone. We no longer use the “I” word or the “A” word in the federal government.”

“Well the point being Mr. President, that if you do nothing to protect the borders, then we face a serious threat not only from the undocumented persons from places other than the United Statesbut also Muslin terrorists. They can easily sneak across our southern border and many say ISIS is here already due to your policies.”

“Once again, please do not use such language,” Obama protested sternly.

“You mean…”

“Yes, Muslim Terrorists.”

“But, weren’t the guys who bombed New York on 9/11 Muslim terrorists? How about the guys who maimed and killed all those Americans in Boston; how about the dirt bag who shot our young Marines in Chattanooga?” Hugh insisted, “what do you call them?”

“No, we do not use such language and there are no terrorists in America. They are simplydisagreeable people of another faith who sometimes randomly hurt people in various ways.I have issued an Executive Order to this effect, effective immediately.” 

“Okay Mr. President, the point is this: You do not want the United States Government to even talk about, much less do anything to protect the citizens from, either the flood of undocumented persons from places other than the United States or disagreeable people of another faith who sometimes randomly hurt people, right?”

“Correct. Such action is preempted by federal law. The protection of the citizens of American is the prerogative of the United States Government. It is my exclusive right as Commander in Chief to do nothing to protect our borders or protect our citizens.”

“But.....”

:...and the right to do nothing is a right I guard jealously.”

Via: Canada Free Press

Continue Reading....

Swiss bank's donations to Clinton Foundation increased after Hillary intervention in IRS dispute

Donations to the Clinton Foundation by Swiss bank UBS increased tenfold after Hillary Clinton intervened to settle a dispute with the IRS early in her tenure as secretary of state, according to a published report.

According to the Wall Street Journal, total donations by UBS to the foundation grew from less than $60,000 at the end of 2008 to approximately $600,000 by the end of 2014. The Journal reports that the bank also lent $32 million through entrepreneurship and inner-city loan programs it launched in association with the foundation, while paying former President Bill Clinton $1.5 million to participate in a series of corporate question-and-answer sessions with UBS Chief Executive Bob McCann.

Though there is no evidence of wrongdoing, ties between the Clinton Foundation, major corporations and foreign governments have come under increasing scrutiny as Hillary Clinton begins her presidential campaign. The UBS case is unusual in that it shows a top U.S. diplomat intervening on behalf of a major overseas bank in a situation where federal prosecutors and the Justice Department had been the lead entity. 

Clinton's campaign acknowledged to Fox News that she did intervene, but maintained that was only because the Swiss -- at the ministerial level -- raised this issue with the secretary of state. 

"Secretary Clinton is proud of her time at the State Department, and about the work she did and the decisions she made for the betterment of our security and our prosperity," campaign spokesman Nick Merrill said. "Any suggestion that she was driven by anything but what's in America's best interest would be false. Period." 

UBS' legal battles with the U.S. government date from 2007, when a whistleblower told the Justice Department that UBS had helped thousands of Americans open secret accounts to avoid U.S. taxes. In 2009, the bank paid a $780 million fine and turned over the names of 250 account holders to U.S. authorities as part of a deferred-prosecution agreement. 

However, that same year, the IRS requested that UBS turn over the names of U.S. citizens who owned 52,000 secret accounts worth an estimated $18 billion. The bank maintained that doing so would be a violation of Swiss privacy laws. The Journal reports that UBS enlisted the Swiss government to settle the matter. Clinton, recently sworn in as secretary of state, first met with her Swiss counterpart, Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey, in March of 2009. 

Over the next three months, the Journal reports, the U.S. and Switzerland engaged in a series of complex negotiations. Citing diplomatic cables published by Wikileaks as well as people involved in the case, the Journal reports that the U.S. pressed Switzerland to work for the release of American journalist Roxana Saberi, who was being held by Iran. Another issue Clinton brought up was alleged violations of international sanctions by a Swiss energy-consulting company thought to be providing civilian nuclear technology to Iran. The Swiss embassy represented U.S. interests in Iran, which has not had formal diplomatic relations with Washington since 1979. 

After Saberi's release that May, the shutting down of the Swiss energy company's Iran operations that July, and the expressed willingness the Swiss government to accept some low-level detainees from Guantanamo Bay, the Journal reports settlement talks intensified. 

Under the terms of the deal, which was announced by Clinton and Calmy-Rey July 31, UBS would turn over information about 4,450 account-holders, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS.

The deal was criticized by members of Clinton's own party in Congress. Then-Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich. called the agreement "disappointing." 

In recent weeks, Clinton's corporate ties have been harped on by Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who has made some gains on her in polls of early-voting states. 

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading....

Local and federal law enforcement can't get their stories straight about illegal alien murderer

Why wasn't Juan Emmanuel Razo-Ramirez, a Mexican national in the U.S. illegally, detained by Lake County sheriff's deputies during a July 7 "suspicious person" traffic stop and turned over to federal authorities for deportation?

If Ramirez had been detained, one woman would be alive, another wouldn't have been shot in the shoulder, and a young girl wouldn't have been terrified by an attempted rape by her uncle.

The finger-pointing between local law enforcement and DHS regarding who's to blame for not holding Ramirez is sickening, and it shows the Department of Homeland Security more interested in PR than actually enforcing the law.

Daily Caller:

On Wednesday, a spokeswoman for DHS told The Daily Caller that Lake County sheriff’s deputies had declined an offer to personally interview the illegal alien, 35-year-old Juan Emmanuel Razo-Ramirez, during a suspicious person stop on July 7. 

But the federal agency’s claim comes a day after Lake County sheriff Daniel Dunlap said in a press conference that Border Patrol told his deputies during that stop three weeks ago not to take Razo-Ramirez, a Mexican national, into custody.The competing claims offered by the two agencies is reminiscent of the discordance between U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE) and the San Francisco sheriff’s department over the detainment of Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, the five times-deported illegal alien who fatally shot Kate Steinle in San Francisco on July 1. Lopez-Sanchez was released by the sheriff’s department despite ICE’s detainer request because San Francisco is a sanctuary city.

Razo-Ramirez reportedly admitted to shooting Margaret Kostelnik in her home on Monday. The killing came hours after Razo-Ramirez allegedly tried to rape his niece, a 14-year-old girl, and then shot a 40-year-old woman in the shoulder in a park near Kostelnik’s house. After killing Kostelnik, who worked for 27 years as the assistant to the mayor of nearby Willoughby, Razo-Ramirez was apprehended following a brief standoff with police. 

In a press conference Tuesday, Sheriff Dunlap said that Razo-Ramirez was stopped July 7 by deputies because he was acting suspicious. According to a police report from the encounter, Razo-Ramirez admitted to the deputies that he was in the U.S. illegally. But Razo-Ramirez was eventually let go after a brief phone interview with a Border Patrol agent. According to the deputies’ report, Border Patrol “decided not to respond to take Emmanuel Razo into custody." 

But DHS provided a statement to The Daily Caller on Wednesday that seemed to dispute the Lake County sheriff’s department’s version of events.

The deputies insist that Ramirez said he was in the country illegally.  DHS says he was "uncooperative" in discussing his immigration status.  I believe the deputies, if only because they have less reason to lie.  They did their jobs – stopping a potential criminal and calling ICE when they found out he was here illegally.  It's not surprising that Ramirez would tell the deputies he was an illegal alien and not ICE, but why didn't the feds believe the locals and have them turn Ramirez over to them? 

Another preventable tragedy brought to you by our immigration enforcement officials.

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading....

Fourth video on Planned Parenthood released

Opponents of Planned Parenthood on Thursday released the fourth in their series of undercover videos against the organization, this time with recordings of a doctor discussing how to avoid the perception of “selling fetal parts across states.”

The tape follows action by a California judge to ban the Center for Medical Progress from releasing any more video of its conversations with a separate tissue procurement company in that state — the first legal response to the extensive sting operation, The Associated Press reports.

The new video shows a discussion between a person it identifies as Savita Ginde, medical director of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, and people posing as tissue buyers. Ginde says she wants to avoid the appearance of impropriety and says that a potential contract on fetal tissue after an abortion should be displayed in the “research vein” rather than a “business venture.”

“Because if you have someone in a really anti state that’s going to be doing this for you, they’re probably going to get caught,” the doctor says, according to the tape. She also says that she has already talked with the organization’s lawyer about how avoid that situation.

“We talked to him in the beginning, you know. We were like, ‘We don’t want to get called on, you know, selling fetal parts across states,” Ginde says on the tape.

The video as posted makes clear that Ginde was concerned with the perception of impropriety, though she does not say explicitly that Planned Parenthood was doing anything illegal there.

The Center says the videos show that the organization has been trying to make money by selling fetal tissue and organs from abortions.

Planned Parenthood has said that the videos have been heavily edited and don’t include important context. The organization maintains that it has done nothing illegal and pays for only the cost of handling and shipping fetal tissue donated with the patient’s consent.

Via: Politico

Continue Reading.... 

[VIDEO] Court bars anti-abortion group from releasing new videos of Calif. company officials

LOS ANGELES –  A temporary restraining order has been issued preventing an anti-abortion group from releasing any video of leaders of a California company that provides fetal tissue to researchers. The group is the same one that previously released three covertly shot videos of a Planned Parenthood leader discussing the sale of aborted fetuses for research.

The Los Angeles Superior Court order issued Tuesday prohibits the Center for Medical Progress from releasing any video of three high-ranking StemExpress officials taken at a restaurant in May. It appears to be the first legal action prohibiting the release of a video from the organization.

The Center for Medical Progress has released three surreptitiously recorded videos to date that have riled anti-abortion activists. The Senate is expected to vote before its August recess on a Republican effort to bar federal aid to Planned Parenthood in the aftermath of the videos' release.

In a statement Wednesday, center leader David Daleiden said StemExpress was using "meritless litigation" to cover up an "illegal baby parts trade."

"The Center for Medical Progress follows all applicable laws in the course of our investigative journalism work," he said.

StemExpress is a Placerville-based company started in 2010 that provides human tissue, blood and other specimens to researchers. Planned Parenthood is one of the company's providers of fetal tissue.

A company spokesman said StemExpress is "grateful its rights have been vindicated in a court of law."

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading....

Democrats replace Fattah Appropriations Committee with Mike Honda (under ethics probe)

You just can’t make this shit up if you tried. Corrupt Democrat Chaka Fattah who has been indicted on racketeering charged. The corrupt Philadelphia Democrat has been replaced by Democrats as their leader on the Appropriations Committee. So who did Democrats select to become their leader on the House Appropriations Committee? None other than California Democrat Mike Honda who is currently under ethics investigation. This your 21st century Democrat party. Replace one crook with another.

Democrats replace Fattah Appropriations Committee with Mike Honda (under ethics probe)

Investigators with the Office of Congressional Ethics are looking into allegations against Rep. Michael M. Honda, the Democrat who has represented California’s South Bay since 2000.

The probe follows a September 2014 report by San Jose Inside that exposed internal emails between Honda’s longtime chief of staff, Jennifer Van der Heide, and his then-campaign manager about the invite list for an upcoming State Department roundtable. The February 2013 emails, given to the newspaper by an ex-Honda staffer, appeared to violate House rules regarding campaign activity by discussing contributors and fundraising efforts related to an official event.

Two days later, supporters of Ro Khanna, the Democrat vying against Honda for his seat in 2014, filed a complaint. Although only one of the 20 people who attended the State Department roundtable had ever contributed to Honda, Khanna and his supporters accused the congressman of a “pay-to-play arrangement,” in addition to pressuring staffers to assist the re-election campaign.

Honda’s office did not comment on the allegations in the letter to OCE, but acknowledged the investigation.

“The congressman and his staff continue to cooperate fully with the OCE’s review of the matter,” Honda spokeswoman Lauren Smith said in an email to CQ Roll Call. “Out of respect for the process, we cannot confirm specifics or discuss any details at this time.”

Via: Fireandreamitchell.com

Continue Reading.... 

How Uber and Small Dollar Lending are Disrupting the Status Quo

Economics always finds a way. Especially in America where the entire system is founded on creatively providing needs to the society at large in hopes of profit. We’ve been doing just that since our inception. And basically, government has been meddling in that thing of beauty since that very moment as well.

Create a better mouse trap. We’ve all heard it. Companies like Uber and Lyft have done just that to the age old taxi-cab industry. These upstarts used the abundance of cars in America and combined it with new technology – app based – and voila an entire new way to get around is born. This new way is embraced by the public, at least the millennials, and everyone wins, except the people clinging to the old ways. The taxi industry hasn’t enjoyed having competition so rather than change with the times an illicit partnership with government has been created to crush their newfound competitors.

Government knows best. Hillary Clinton and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio’s have launched an attack on what is being called the “sharing economy” exemplified by companies like Uber and Lyft. This is a classic example of the abuse of power in government. Politicians rooted in the old power structure found in the incestuous relationship between government and big industry are desperate to stop this change. Big industry and political power go hand in hand.

The old power structure means political support. It means campaign contributions. It means power for those in the established order. With new companies filling grass roots needs, like Uber and Lyft, there are no company bosses to ask for political contributions. There are no union bosses to demand endorsements from. And without the need for a “medallion” or other government regulatory stamp of approval, corporations no longer need to beg bureaucrats for permission to do business. Uber and Lyft represent a decentralization of power.

This kind of seismic shift hits politicians where it hurts, the pocket book. It’s no accident that the mayor of New York tried to limit Uber, despite its vast popularity with the cities residents. As the New York Post noted, blocking Uber means helping the city’s yellow cab monopoly, which “donated more than $550,000 to de Blasio’s mayoral campaign.”

The transportation industry is not the only industry where politicians believe they know better than the public. 12 million Americans, for example, use small dollar short-term lending to help solve their financial problems in times of need. These short-term loans are also known as, “Payday Loans”. Many of the people who use a payday loan could never qualify for a loan from a bank. Most banks are not in the business of lending people $250, $500 or even $1000 to just make ends meet. The risks are too high and the potential for default is too great. The payday loan industry discovered a need amongst society and is fulfilling very nicely thank you.

Americans actually need this service, no matter if the big banking industry or politicians want them to have it or not. When working class Americans have an unexpected expense, a car repair perhaps, they often need a small infusion of capital to make ends meet. These loans are designed to be paid in a week or a month and are statistically being paid back on time from a wide demographic of users actually building their credit history.

Instead of embracing new concepts like the short term loan industry, or Uber and Lyft, these brash new entrepreneurial pioneers have endured constant attack by politicians and establishment industry. It becomes obvious when you see the pattern from politicians. You don’t have to be in the smoky back room to know whose bed they are in. When politicians side with big business repeatedly over the exciting new companies fulfilling a need in society, it is obvious those politicians are the problem.

Steve C. Sherman is a writer, radio commentator and former Iowa House Republican candidate

Via: Human Events

Continue Reading.....

[COMMENTARY] Is Obama taking Hillary out? by Monica Crowley

Illustration on Obama’s designs to undermine Hillary Clinton’s candidacy by Linas Garsys/The Washington Times 

Clinton is not going to be the Democratic nominee for president.

Yes, the conventional wisdom is that she is still the prohibitive favorite, armed with big money, big connections, and the Big Dog, Bill.

But the so-called “wisdom” is “conventional” for a reason.

As a result of endless sordid scandals and predictably Clintonian evasions, her poll numbers on everything from favorability to trustworthiness are in a nosedive. A battery of new polls in key swing states such as Colorado and Iowa show her losing to a number of GOP challengers.

She’s also taking incoming from the left, particularly from Vermont senator and socialist Bernie Sanders, who is scoring major crowds and an increasing percentage of the Democratic vote, indicating that the leftist base sees him as a viable option and not merely a vehicle to register discontent with Mrs. Clinton.

Polls this early in the cycle can be unreliable. But they do indicate a significant downward trend for her that must have her campaign at DEFCON 3.

None of this, however, is her most serious problem. Instead, it’s something much closer to home, much more insidious, much more dangerous than anything else.

It’s President Obama. And he just made his move.

Here’s how it’s likely going down:

The Clintons and the Obamas have a long history of bad blood, dating to the 2008 primary race. After Mr. Obama creamed her, he offered her the plum gig of secretary of state. Friends close, enemies closer. She tried to get her dirty tricks consigliere, Sidney Blumenthal, a top position in the State Department, which Mr. Obama pointedly denied. So she hired him anyway through the Clinton Foundation.

Through Mr. Blumenthal, she was fed all kinds of intelligence on global hotpots such as Libya, much of it inaccurate, as she circumvented traditional government communication chains via her private email server. What was she hiding from Mr. Obama? And why? Perhaps because she trusted Mr. Obama about as much as she trusted Bill.

Mr. Obama didn’t trust her, either. In a recently disclosed email, Mrs. Clinton complained that she heard “on the radio” that there was a “Cabinet meeting” that morning and wondered if she could attend. The secretary of state — fourth in line to the presidency — was frozen out, so she set up her own fiefdom.

Mr. Obama needs a successor whom he can control to ensure that the “fundamental transformation of the nation” continues. He cannot control either of the Clintons. In a revealing “tell” this week, he said, “In 18 months, I’m turning over the keys. I want to make sure I’m turning over the keys to somebody who is serious about the serious problems that the country faces and the world faces.”

He will therefore back the one person he knows will do his bidding: his vice president, Joe Biden, whom he summons to his side for every critical photo op, including the announcement of the Iran deal. There’s more going on there than just symbolism.

So here’s the likely plan: Mr. Biden will announce that he is running for president (the reported dying wish of his late son, Beau). After a respectable amount of time, Mr. Obama will announce that while he admires all of the Democratic candidates, Mr. Biden has earned his particular loyalty.

Via: Washington Times

Continue Reading....