Conservative Happenings

Friday, August 28, 2015

DNC To Vote On Resolution Supporting Black Lives Matter

The Democratic National Committee is expected on Friday to adopt a resolution expressing its support for the Black Lives Matter movement, a DNC official said.

The resolution, the language of which was made available to BuzzFeed News, will be voted on by the full body during the general session on Friday at the DNC’s summer meetings in Minneapolis.

The draft of the resolution mentions by name Patrisse Cullors, Opal Tometi, and Alicia Garza, the founders of the Black Lives Matter organization. They are from “a generation of young African-Americans who feel totally dismissed and unheard as they are crushed between unlawful street violence and unjust police violence,” the draft reads.

The DNC said it resolves “that the DNC joins with Americans across the country in affirming ‘Black lives matter’ and the ‘say her name’ efforts to make visible the pain of our fellow and sister Americans as they condemn extrajudicial killings of unarmed African-American men, women, and children.”

WHEREAS, the Democratic Party believes in the American Dream and the promise of liberty and justice for all, and we know that this dream is a nightmare for too many young people stripped of their dignity under the vestiges of slavery, Jim Crow and White Supremacy; and

WHEREAS, we, the Democratic National Committee, have repeatedly called for race and justice – demilitarization of police, ending racial profiling, criminal justice reform, and investments in young people, families, and communities — after Trayvon Martin, after Michael Brown, after Tamir Rice, after Freddie Gray, after Sandra Bland, after Christian Taylor, after too many others lost in the unacceptable epidemic of extrajudicial killings of unarmed black men, women, and children at the hands of police; and

WHEREAS, we hear the “Black lives matter” cry from the inspiration of creators Patrisse Cullors, Opal Tometi, and Alicia Garza, and from the heart of a generation of young African Americans who feel totally dismissed and unheard as they are crushed between unlawful street violence and unjust police violence; we salute the courageous young people who participate in the #March2Justice, and we repeat the chant “say her name” to acknowledge the Black women whose stories are often untold and whose cases are unresolved; and

WHEREAS, without systemic reform this state of unrest jeopardizes the well-being of our democracy and our nation;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the DNC joins with Americans across the country in affirming “Black lives matter” and the “say her name” efforts to make visible the pain of our fellow and sister Americans as they condemn extrajudicial killings of unarmed African American men, women and children; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the DNC renews our previous calls to action and urges Congress to adopt systemic reforms at state, local, and federal levels to prohibit law enforcement from profiling based on race, nationality, ethnicity, or religion, to minimize the transfer of excess equipment (like the military-grade vehicles and weapons that were used to police peaceful civilians in the streets of Ferguson, Missouri) to federal and state law enforcement; and to support prevention programs that give young people alternatives to incarceration.

Via: BuzzFeed

[VIDEO] Wyoming man files suit over massive EPA fines for building pond

A rancher is taking the Environmental Protection Agency to federal court, asking a judge to stop the agency from fining him more than $16 million because he built a small pond on his property.

Andy Johnson of Fort Bridger, Wyoming says he made sure to get the proper permits from his state government before building the pond. After all, this is America in the 21st century, and nothing done on your own property -- certainly when it involves the use of water -- is beyond government concern.

Johnson is facing millions in fines from the federal government after the EPA determined his small pond -- technically a "stock pond" to provide better access to water for animals on his ranch -- is somehow violating the federal Clean Water Act.

"We went through all the hoops that the state of Wyoming required, and I'm proud of what we built," Johnson said. "The EPA ignored all that."

In a compliance order, the EPA told Johnson he had to return his property -- under federal oversight -- to conditions before the stock pond was built. When he refused to comply, the EPA tagged Johnson with a fines of $37,000 per day.

Dismantling the pond within the 30-day window the EPA originally gave him was "physically impossible," Johnson said.

That was in 2012. Today, Johnson owes the federal government more than $16 million, and the amount is growing as he tries to fight back.

In a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court on Thursday, lawyers representing Johnson argue the EPA overstepped its authority by fining the rancher.

Via: Fox News

NYT Leaves Out Democratic Ties Behind Planned Parenthood's Publicity Stunt

York Times reporter Jackie Calmes has been playing aggressive defense for Planned Parenthood ever since damning undercover videos were released showing staffers using dehumanizing terms to describe aborted babies, and engaging in possibly illegal activity. On Thursday she took dictation from the abortion provider about its supposed exoneration. In a public relations move that may be designed to neutralize the final undercover videos to be released by David Daleiden's Center for Medical Progress, Planned Parenthood commissioned its own report accusing the CMP of selective editing. Calmes treated the stunt as news. But she left out vital information from Planned Parenthood's supposed exoneration -- that it came courtesy of a firm that engaged in pro-Obama opposition research against conservatives.

Planned Parenthood on Thursday gave congressional leaders and a committee that is investigating allegations of criminality at its clinics an analysis it commissioned concluding that “manipulation” of undercover videos by abortion opponents make those recordings unreliable for any official inquiry.

“A thorough review of these videos in consultation with qualified experts found that they do not present a complete or accurate record of the events they purport to depict,” the analysis of a private research company said.

....

The analysis was by Fusion GPS, a Washington-based research and corporate intelligence company, and its co-founder Glenn Simpson, a former investigative reporter for The Wall Street Journal.

....

According to the investigation, the reviewers could not determine “the extent to which C.M.P.’s undisclosed edits and cuts distort the meaning of the encounters the videos purport to document.”

But, it said, “the manipulation of the videos does mean they have no evidentiary value in a legal context and cannot be relied upon for any official inquiries” unless C.M.P. provides investigators with its original material, and that material is independently authenticated as unaltered.

....

The analysis also supported Planned Parenthood’s objection to two allegations that have elicited some of the most outrage from anti-abortion forces, disputing that Planned Parenthood staffers at one point say of fetal remains, “It’s a baby,” and in a second instance, “Another boy.”

But Mark Hemingway at The Weekly Standard focused on what Calmes skipped over: "Politico & NYT Fail to Mention Report Exonerating Planned Parenthood Produced By Democratic Opposition Research Firm."

Hemingway asked: "Just who, exactly, is behind Fusion GPS? Turns out it's an opposition research firm with ties to the Democratic party and has a history of harassing socially conservative Republican donors, possibly on behalf of the Obama campaign."

He quoted a Wall Street Journal editorial:

As [Kim] Strassel has reported in recent columns, Idaho businessman Frank VanderSloot has become the target of a smear campaign since it was disclosed earlier this year that he had donated $1 million to a super PAC supporting Mr. Romney. President Obama's campaign website teed him up in April as one of eight "less than reputable" Romney donors and a "bitter foe of the gay rights movement." One sin: His wife donated to an anti-gay-marriage campaign, of the kind that have passed in 30 or so states.

Now we learn that little more than a week after that Presidential posting, a former Democratic Senate staffer called the courthouse in Mr. VanderSloot's home town of Idaho Falls seeking his divorce records. Ms. Strassel traced the operative, Michael Wolf, to a Washington, D.C. outfit called Fusion GPS that says it is "a commercial research firm."

Fusion GPS is run by a former Wall Street Journal reporter, Glenn Simpson, who wouldn't say who is paying him for this high-minded slumming but said in an email that Mr. VanderSloot was a "legitimate" target because of "his record on gay issues."

Politico was slightly more balanced than the Times.

A report commissioned by Planned Parenthood has found that the sting videos targeting its tissue donation practices contain intentionally deceptive edits, missing footage and inaccurately transcribed conversations. But there is no evidence that the anti-abortion group behind the attack made up dialogue. ...

But the firm also wrote that it is impossible to characterize the extent to which the edits and cuts distort the meaning of the conversations depicted and that there was no “widespread evidence of substantive video manipulation.”

Via: Newsbusters

Group: Emails show Clinton, aides mixed State Department, foundation business

Washington (CNN)Ten days after the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attacks, the top foreign policy adviser at the Clinton Foundation had a potentially lucrative proposal on which to seek guidance from Hillary Clinton's aides at the State Department.

The email from Amitabh Desai to Cheryl Mills, chief of staff to then-Secretary of State Clinton, describes a pitch by Stella O'Leary, a Democratic donor active in Irish American causes.

O'Leary, according to Desai's email, said Clinton had "firmly instructed" her to set up a not-for-profit organization -- one that qualifies for 501(c)3 status under U.S. tax laws -- called Friends of the Clinton Centre.

In his email, Desai says: "I also asked if the new org could be flexible so that any funding raised could be used in whatever manner WJC" -- the initials of former President Bill Clinton -- "and HRC wish in Ireland and Northern Ireland, and not restricted to support only the current iteration of the Clinton Centre in Enniskillen."

The email is among dozens that have been turned over by the State Department to the conservative advocacy group Citizens United, which has filed several lawsuits seeking documents under the Freedom of Information Act. The group says the documents could help provide information about how they allege Clinton and her aides mixed State Department business with the Clinton Foundation's fundraising efforts.

It's an issue that has dented the image of Clinton's presidential campaign. Clinton's use of a private email server for government business while she ran the State Department has now grown into a controversy and has spawned an FBI investigation.

Desai's email from September 21, 2012, provided to CNN by Citizens United, includes details of how the new organization would be overseen by board members drawn from other parts of the Clinton orbit, including officials from the Clinton Foundation, such as longtime Clinton friend Doug Band.

Citizens United did not provide CNN with an exhaustive inventory of all emails it has recovered from the State Department. It first provided some to The Washington Post, which published a story on Thursday afternoon.

But officials at Citizens United say the emails show discussion of a proposal to establish a "slush fund" for use by the Clintons. The email chain doesn't provide any indication of how Clinton or her aides followed up on the idea.

O'Leary, in a phone interview with CNN, laughed at the idea her proposal would be interpreted as a slush fund. She doesn't specifically remember the details of the email but said she established the 501(c)3 organization with approval from the Clintons. She said it has raised about $55,000 for an international summer school program to bring kids from the Balkans and other conflict zones to Northern Ireland.

It was, O'Leary says, "a good-will effort on my part to honor him for everything he has done in Northern Ireland."

O'Leary suggested that Clinton opponents are using the Clinton name and the email controversy to raise money. The Clintons are "the easiest people around which to make money," she said.

The timing of the email discussion is also notable because at the time, Clinton was wrestling with the beginnings of the controversy over the Benghazi terrorism attacks.

Mills sent Desai's inquiry on to Huma Abedin, another Clinton aide at the State Department, with a comment saying that the proposal was new to Mills.

Abedin, in turn, copied another Clinton aide, Jake Sullivan, noting that Sullivan was in the meeting at which Clinton and O'Leary had discussed the Friends of the Clinton Centre proposal. Abedin adds that Clinton hadn't made any commitments to the O'Leary proposal.

The Clinton Centre is a conference facility built on the site of the 1987 IRA Remembrance Day bombing in Enniskillen, Northern Ireland. President Clinton, who helped broker the Irish peace accords, dedicated the building to peace in Ireland.

New York state corporate records list a group called Friends of the Clinton Centre, registered as a not-for-profit organization in 2013. The address for the organization is that of a New York City personal-injury law firm. O'Leary confirmed that was the organization she founded.

A Clinton campaign spokesman referred questions about the O'Leary proposal to the Clinton Foundation. A person familiar with the matter said the Friends of the Clinton Centre isn't affiliated with the Clinton Foundation.

Another batch of emails from 2012 sent by Abedin detail her efforts to help organize dinners in Ireland during a visit by Hillary Clinton.

The emails sent by Abedin on her State Department email account include discussions about dinners with officials from Teneo, a consulting firm that employed Abedin at the same time she worked for Clinton at the State Department. Abedin had left her official role as a State Department employee but was working as a contractor for both the State Department and Teneo.

The outside consulting work was allowed at the time because Abedin was classified as a special government employee. But the arrangement has drawn controversy and is the subject of investigation by Sen. Chuck Grassley, who says he is concerned it may have violated rules against conflicts of interest.

Teneo was founded by Brand, a longtime Clinton friend who served on the Clinton Foundation board.

"These emails illustrate why there are legitimate concerns about the Department's use of the SGE designation and the blurring of the lines between the official business of the State Department, the private interests of Teneo, and the fundraising interests for various entities under the personal control of Secretary and former President Clinton," Grassley wrote in a letter Wednesday to Abedin.

An attorney for Abedin didn't respond to a request for comment.

Nick Merrill, a Clinton campaign spokesman, rejected the idea that there was anything wrong with Abedin's activities.

"This is someone who has spent nearly two decades in public service, and is widely known for her integrity and tireless work ethic," Merrill said in a statement. "After the birth of her son, she took maternity leave. The IG had questions about the details of her leave, Huma answered. Anything beyond that injected into the public sphere is unfounded and from partisans in Congress with a clear agenda. These emails serve to reinforce that these allegations are baseless. It's not surprising, but it is disappointing."

But David Bossie, president of Citizens United, said, "As a result of federal court orders, Citizens United expects to receive more documents from Hillary Clinton's tenure at the State Department and we look forward to sharing those documents with the American people. It's critical that American's understand how the Clinton machine operated inside the State Department."

Via: CNN

The Children of Illegal Immigrants Are Not Born American Citizens

Once again, Donald Trump has managed to open up a robust national discussion about an issue that up to this point had been largely ignored by the political class. This time, the discussion is about so-called “birthright citizenship,” the idea that whenever a foreign national (regardless of legal status and with a very few exceptions) has a child on American soil, this child automatically becomes an American citizen from birth. This approach to citizenship has been thede facto (though not de jure) approach to the issue of “anchor babies,” the children of illegal aliens who come to the United States so that they can have their children here, thus allowing the parents to remain as well, usually helping themselves to generous American benefit monies.

Defenders of unrestricted birthright citizenship - primarily found among liberals, establishment GOP types, and the more uninformed types of libertarians—adamantly argue from the 14^thamendment’s Citizenship Clause that birthright citizenship is not only legal, but is in fact constitutionally protected, and is what the 14^thamendment has meant all along. They often try to buttress their arguments by appealing to English common law with its historical provisions for birthright citizenship. However, is this sort of “swim a river, fill our quiver” approach really what the 14^th amendment meant? Is it really what English common law, which forms the basis for much of our own law and constitutional interpretation, historically upheld? The answer to these questions is, “No.”

The crux about which the discussion revolves is the Citizenship Clause found in the 14^thamendment, Section 1,

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

More specifically, what is at issue is the phrase, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Clearly, the clause was not intended to convey American citizenship to an unlimited pool of children born to aliens on American soil. If this had been the case, then the phrase under discussion would not have been included. Obviously, some limits were intended, those circumscribed by the intent of being “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

So what were these limits? Typically, it will be pointed out that the limits due to this jurisdictional issue were that citizenship was not being conveyed to children born of ambassadors and others aliens employed by their foreign governments, nor was it being conveyed to members of various Indian tribes which exercised sovereign powers within their own territories (this latter was rescinded by an act of 1924 which granted Indian tribes full American citizenship). Were these the only restrictions on birthright citizenship intended by the author and debaters of the 14^th amendment?

No, actually. Let’s understand what the original intention of the 14^th amendment was, which was to grant American citizenship to former black slaves and their children, and to prevent these newly freed citizens from being denied citizenship rights by certain of the southern states. That’s it. This was made clear by Sen. Jacob Howard, who authored the amendment in 1866, who clearly provided the intent for this section of the amendment,

“Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is, by virtue of natural law and national law, a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great issue in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”

Via: Canada Free Press

[VIDEO] MSNBC’s Scarborough: Hillary’s Republican/ISIS Comparison Is ‘Gutter Politics At Its Worst’

Joe Scarborough and Mark Halperin criticized the double standard for Republicans and Democrats, saying that if a Republican said something like what Hillary Clinton argued in comparing pro-life Americans to ISIS the “world would come to a halt.”

On Friday’s “Morning Joe” Scarborough insisted Hillary’s comments “to be so hyperbolic and insulting, and quite frankly, it’s gutter politics at its worst to compare people to radical terrorists that cut off people’s head and blow up grandmoms.”

Mika Brzezinski: All right, the RNC was quick to respond to the comments but I’ll let you do it first.

Joe Scarborough: It was disgusting, it was absolutely disgusting. Hillary Clinton saying—

Brzezinski: I was trying to be careful.

Scarborough: No, I mean, just let’s tell the truth. She wanted us to talk about this. She wanted to throw a bright shiny object out there.

Brzezinski: Look at the bird, is what I said when you were sitting right here.

Scarborough: So they don’t talk about the email scandal. And so she has to be so hyperbolic and insulting, and quite frankly, it’s gutter politics at its worst to compare people to radical terrorists that cut off people’s head and blow up grandmoms.

Brzezinski: Alright.

Scarborough: No, it’s not all right and we have seen by reporting what these terrorists do to young girls. The sexual slavery is absolutely appalling, and what Hillary Clinton did is compare somebody who is pro-life, which is close to 50% of Americans, to radical terrorists. This is like Barack Obama. I mean, is this the radicalism? We have been talking ability the craziness of the Republican Party. But is this the sick radicalism that is now infecting the Democratic Party, that if you’re Barack Obama, you compare Chuck Schumer to people shouting “death to America” in Iran? if you’re Hillary Clinton, you compare pro-life Democrats and Republicans to ISIS? What Happened here yesterday? This is so over the top.

Mark Halperin: If a Republican did this, the world would come to a halt.

Scarborough: The world would come to a halt.

Halperin: It should be condemned in strong terms. And I’m hoping and I’m suspecting she’ll may take it back today.

Via: Daily Caller

OBAMA DEMANDS REPUBLICANS FUND GOVERNMENT ‘WITHOUT TOO MUCH DRAMA’

Fresh from his vacation on Martha’s Vineyard and a trip to Las Vegas, President Obama challenged Congressional Republicans to fund the government when they returned to Washington D.C., demanding that they send him a budget that he could approve.

He warned Republicans against shutting down the government calling it “irresponsible” especially if the budget included items that he would veto.

“You know eventually we’re going to do it anyway, so let’s just do it without too much drama,” Obama said lightly, referring to Congressional Republicans who caved to the White House every time budget season came around.

Obama alluded to some Republicans in Congress who expressed their desire to defund Planned Parenthood, even at the expense of a government shutdown.

“Let’s do it without another round of threats to shut down the government, let’s not introduce unrelated partisan issues,” Obama lectured. “Nobody gets to hold the American economy hostage over their own ideological demands.”

Obama also requested more spending on military, scientific research, infrastructure, education, and public health, warning that he would not sign a budget that included spending cuts that locked in the sequester.

He argued that it was up to Congressional Republicans to keep the “economic momentum” of his second term as president moving forward.

“Pass a budget, prevent a shutdown, don’t wait till the last minute … get it done,” he concluded.

Via: Breitbart

[VIDEO] Some 'Terrorists': For Mrs. Clinton, the Beheaders Are the Victims

So infectious is the boobery of the moment that the vector of contagion has penetrated even the high tower walls behind which dwells Hillary Rodham Clinton, into whose weedy enchanted kingdom few are admitted except discreet deliverymen with the usual weekly bulk shipments of eye-of-newt and toe-of-frog supplements. Herself frequently is banal, insipid, poorly informed, glib, contemptible, and almost always boring, but she’s usually not much of a genuine bomb-thrower, until she accuses her opponents of being genuine bomb-throwers, i.e., declaring that those in the pro-life camp who object to the vivisection of living human beings for commercial purposes are soul mates with “terrorists.”

Via: Fox News

Can Trump Round Up 20 Million Illegals?

Donald Trump recently appeared on Bill O’Reilly’s show and was presented with an emotive scenario intended to bring Trump into the quandary of the establishment.

In context of rounding up illegals for deportation, Mr. Trump was asked about the families. What about the undocumented people living in our country, working hard and raising children? Is Trump going to bust into every home Janet Reno-style and drag families, kids and all, to the southern border?

This scenario creates quite the image and will be used repeatedly by the press to show just how unworkable, unfair, and heartless Trump’s idea really is.

Trump’s response to the scenario was: if we are to have a country, we have to enforce our laws, and the “good” people will be fast-tracked back into our country with legal status.

The first half of Trump’s response is great – we have to enforce our laws. But for Trump and the GOP candidates who are taking a “hardline” stance on those who have broken our laws and disregarded our sovereignty, I would like to take the emotion out of this scenario and present a laconic response for the candidates.

First, under O’Reilly’s lachrymose scenario, the issue of anchor baby citizenship comes to the fore.

It’s axiomatic that the insane policy of granting U.S. citizenship to the offspring of illegal alien parents must be ended (and the 14th Amendment doesn’t need to be amended to stop it – but that’s another article).

So the unasked and unanswered question is: if the policy of indiscriminate birthright citizenship is ended, should children already afforded citizenship be allowed to keep their status? In other words, should they be grandfathered in? Should United States law state that going forward, citizenship will not be awarded to the offspring of illegal resident parents?

Inasmuch as certain individuals were given U.S. citizenship, I tend to think they should be grandfathered in (although the U.S. is not obligated, and an argument can be made to send them all back).

If they are grandfathered in, then the emotive scenario of the press falls flat.

It falls flat because U.S. policy is such that the parents of anchor babies are not deported and become the beneficiaries of de facto legal status. If grandfathered in, O’Reilly’s tearjerker scenario becomes moot.

Once the new law goes into effect (prohibiting anchor baby citizenship), residents south of the U.S. border will be on notice that if they somehow get past the expected border wall, they will face arrest instead of taxpayer benefits (irrespective of hardship stories).

Now a quick word about rounding up millions of illegals for deportation.

The best way to handle this question is to point out the obvious. No one is proposing going door-to-door and collecting and dropping off hundreds of thousands of people at a time at the border.

Deportation will happen naturally, and many will leave voluntarily. As illegal aliens come into contact with the police and other government agencies, they will be arrested and deported. This means that once birthright citizenship for illegals ends, not many new illegals are going to be applying for taxpayer-funded welfare benefits. If they do show up, they will be arrested and deported. Any benefits currently granted irrespective of anchor baby citizenship will not be dispersed – illegals will scarcely apply with the guarantee of arrest and deportation.

About the morality of deporting those who trampled our laws and sovereignty underfoot.

Trump is right. If we are to have a country, we have to enforce our sovereignty, borders, and laws.

Via: American Thinker

NLRB Upends Franchising And Contracting In Landmark Case

In a decision involving Browning-Ferris Industries, federal labor officials Wednesday drastically changed a rule impacting contractors and franchises across the country.

Under the National Labor Relations Act, a company can be considered an employer over a company it contracts with if it has significant control over its employees. Known as the joint-employer standard, the rule helps to resolve labor disputes when it’s not clear what company the dispute arose from. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is tasked with solving such disputes.

“In this decision, we consider whether the Board should adhere to its current standard for assessing joint-employer status under the National Labor Relations Act or whether that standard should be revise to better effectuate the purposes of the Act, in the current economic landscape,” the NLRB decision noted.

Cases involving McDonald’s, CNN, and Browning-Ferris have provided the NLRB the opportunity to revisit the standard. The Browning-Ferris decision means the standard will expand significantly to include more businesses that contract with one another.

Via: Daily Caller

56 WORDS USED BY VOTERS TO DESCRIBE JEB BUSH

In the latest Quinnipiac poll, the pollsters asked a simple question of Americans: “What is the first word that comes to mind when you think of Jeb Bush?”

The survey included responses from 1,563 registered voters nationwide including 666 Republicans and 647 Democrats.

Here is the full list of the top 56 words that voters chose to describe her followed by the numbers of times that voters chose that word.

Bush 136
family 70
honest 53
weak 45
brother 41
dynasty 40
experience 35
George 28
Florida 25
politician 24
republican 24
moderate 21
governor 20
establishment 16
conservative 14
father 14
legacy 13
nice 13
trustworthy 13
untrustworthy 12
decent 11
boring 10
competent 10
education 10
favorable 10
nepotism 10
war 10
idiot 9
immigration 9
unqualified 9
wishy-washy 9
corrupt 8
liar 8
mediocre 8
dumb 7
good 7
liberal 7
unfavorable 7
capable 6
fair 6
honorable 6
inexperience 6
leader 6
likable 6
RINO 6
crooked 5
entitled 5
incompetent 5
intelligent 5
loser 5
ok 5
questionable 5
smart 5
thoughtful 5
uncertain 5
wimp 5

Via: Breitbart

How Hurricane Katrina Made the Feds More Powerful

If you marathoned the most recent season of “House of Cards” on Netflix, you know that one major plot line hinges on a federal disaster-relief law -- the Stafford Act of 1988, which authorizes the use of federal money to respond to hurricanes and other natural disasters. In the show, President Frank Underwood, played by Kevin Spacey, battles his foes in Congress over implementation of the law and just what constitutes a “disaster.”

It’s a testament not only to the arcane machinations that drive “House of Cards,” but also to the increasing importance of federal emergency funding. This month marks the 10th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. Retrospectives on the storm instantly bring back the searing images of a drowned city, the tales of unimaginable chaos inside the Superdome shelter and the misuse of police power in trying to regain control.

Behind the retrospectives, though, are some big questions. How much should we spend on disaster relief? Who ought to pay for it? And when calamity strikes, who should be in charge? Since Katrina, new answers to these questions have emerged -- and they’ve quietly but dramatically shifted the balance of intergovernmental power.

Disaster spending is up in part because disasters themselves are becoming more frequent. In the nine-year period from 1997 through 2005, according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), there were 470 such events. In the following nine-year period from 2006 through 2014, there were 583. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found that the number of severe weather events -- those causing more than $1 billion in damage -- averaged two per year in the 1980s, but more than 10 per year since 2010. Many scientists suspect that climate change has made us more vulnerable to big storms. But, quite simply, there are more of us living in harm’s way, concentrated on the coasts and on floodplains, and where forest fires strike and earthquakes threaten.

Not only is spending on the rise, but the feds account for more of it. According to a 2012 report by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the federal government on average paid about 26 percent of the damage costs for major hurricanes from 1989 to 2004. Since Katrina, that’s increased to 69 percent, along with a rising expectation that the feds will pick up the tab for large-scale multistate cataclysmic events. After all, Congress has an easier political road than state and local governments in getting money for disaster relief.

But there’s no consensus on what restrictions the feds ought to place on post-disaster rebuilding in exchange for providing this greater level of aid. In the past, federal aid programs often encouraged disaster victims to rebuild in the very spots that had suffered damage. Since Katrina, that has started to change, with requirements that homes rebuilt in New Orleans be raised above typical flood levels. Following Superstorm Sandy, some local governments on the East Coast forbade any rebuilding in low-lying areas. Now, FEMA has issued a policy set to take effect next March requiring states to address climate change before they can become eligible for disaster relief.

Federal restrictions on local choices, however, often don’t go down well, especially if they come through FEMA. The agency is so despised in Texas, for example, that, before this spring’s epic floods there, citizens debated how to protect themselves from FEMA setting up detention camps as part of a martial-law takeover. (Nothing of the sort was afoot, of course.) Then, after the floods, victims urgently waited for FEMA’s help. No one really wants the government to tell them where they can live and how they must build their homes, even if the regulations reduce death and damage in future disasters. But when disaster strikes, government help can’t come fast enough.

Katrina’s other major legacy, the dispute over who’s in charge at the moment of impact, is equally tricky. Behind the scenes there’s been an enormous shift in whether and when the feds need to pull the trigger.

The government of New Orleans all but collapsed during Katrina. The Bush administration was also politically embarrassed by FEMA’s problems. In fact, after the storm the president’s political negatives rose sharply and never really returned to their previous levels.

Within FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security, a quiet consensus has emerged: There will never be another Katrina, at least in political terms. If a disaster threatens public order, the federal government will hit fast and hard.

All in all, Katrina’s legacy marks a permanent change in relations among federal, state and local governments. It shifted more of the cost of natural disasters to Washington, and it’s gradually pushed the feds deeper into what had long been mostly local decisions. More subtly, it’s also reset the trigger for federal intervention in other state and local functions, including fundamental ones such as public safety and criminal justice. Hints of these changes have sharply heightened simmering tensions about the federal government’s role, with an expectation of instant relief but an unwillingness to accept Washington’s efforts to control the costs of future disasters.

These shifts have taken place deep inside the corridors of government, without attracting much attention among Americans at large. It took President Underwood to give the general public a hint about what’s really happened in the decade since the storm.

Via: Governing

Judge blocks new federal rule on jurisdiction of waterways

A federal judge in North Dakota on Thursday blocked a new Obama administration rule that would give the federal government jurisdiction over some state waterways.

U.S. District Judge Ralph Erickson of North Dakota issued a temporary injunction against the rule, which gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers authority to protect some streams, tributaries and wetlands under the Clean Water Act. The rule was scheduled to take effect Friday.

"The risk of irreparable harm to the states is both imminent and likely," Erickson said in blocking the rule from taking effect.

Thirteen states led by North Dakota asked Erickson to suspend guidelines that they say are unnecessary and infringe on state sovereignty. The federal government says the new rule clarifies ambiguity in the law and actually makes it easier for the states to manage some waterways. It wasn't immediately clear if the injunction applied to states other than the 13 led by North Dakota."

The other states involved in the lawsuit are Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Nevada, South Dakota and Wyoming.

State officials in North Dakota said the new rule will cost the state millions of dollars and take away from more important programs. State Agriculture Commissioner Doug Goehring said there's "confusion and anxiety" among farmers and other landowners over the initiative.

North Dakota congressman Kevin Cramer called the judge’s ruling a “victory:”

Via: Fox News

Friday, August 28, 2015

In the latest Quinnipiac poll, the pollsters asked a simple question of Americans: “What is the first word that comes to mind when you think of Jeb Bush?”

Popular Posts