Displaying posts categorized under

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION

50 STATES AND DC, CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION, POLITICS Comments turned off

Hillary’s Health Is a Valid Issue By concealing the truth, Camp Clinton turned a minor issue into the biggest story of the week. By Jonah Goldberg

By on September 14th, 2016

One of the most amusing spectacles of this election season has been the whipsawing of the loyalists. Repeatedly, spinners for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have been sent out to hammer this or that talking point, only to be left holding the bag when the candidate goes another way.

So far, Trump has been narrowly ahead in this important competition. But after Sunday, Clinton may have taken the lead.

For weeks, the official position of the chattering classes was that any inquiry into Clinton’s health was “sexist.”

As Democratic senator Amy Klobuchar told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell on September 2, “I have seen her personally. You’ve seen her personally, Andrea. She is in shape. She is strong. She just has a ton of energy. And I find this actually quite sexist when these guys are saying this. I think that that is not an issue at all and the American voters know that.”

Glamour magazine ran an item headlined, “Yes, It’s Sexist to Speculate about Hillary Clinton’s Health.”

Last week, Clinton herself was asked if discussion of her health was sexist. She replied with a long, ironic “hmmmmmm” that typified her gift for political subtlety and nuance.

The same day, the headline for Chris Cillizza’s Washington Post column captured the prevailing attitude: “Can We Just Stop Talking about Hillary Clinton’s Health Now?”

Five days later, after Clinton’s near-collapse at Ground Zero, another Cillizza column carried this headline: “Hillary Clinton’s Health Just Became a Real Issue in the Presidential Campaign.”

Continue reading →
NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION, POLITICS Comments turned off

Following The Clinton Playbook On Hillary’s Health Secrecy The Democratic candidate’s brazen contempt for the public. Joseph Klein

By on September 14th, 2016

According to the Clinton campaign, Hillary is currently ill with pneumonia. That much we finally learned on Sunday, hours after she suddenly left the 9/11 memorial ceremony she was attending at Ground Zero. She had to be escorted away to her daughter Chelsea’s Manhattan apartment to recover from what her campaign spokesperson first described as an “overheated” condition. At the time of the incident, the temperature outside was approximately 80 degrees, with relatively low humidity.

The press traveling with Hillary was first kept in the dark. Had not a video captured her nearly stumbling and being held up to prevent her from falling as she was helped into a van, Hillary’s campaign might not have admitted that anything was wrong at all. Only towards the end of the day did her doctor disclose that she had been diagnosed with pneumonia last Friday.

Health is normally a private matter. If Bill or Chelsea Clinton had taken ill, for example, it would be none of our business what was wrong. But Hillary Clinton is running to become the next president and commander-in-chief of the United States. Physical and mental fitness for performance of the duties of the highest and most demanding job in the land is a legitimate public concern. When one runs for the presidency of the United States, the public has a right to know, before they vote, whether the candidates asking for their votes are likely to be capable of performing under intense stress for at least the next four years.

Doubts about Hillary Clinton’s health were already making the rounds on the Internet and cable TV before this latest episode. Such doubts have been fueled by her prolonged coughing fits, stumbles, fainting spells, a concussion and self-proclaimed memory lapses regarding briefings on the handling of classified information while she was Secretary of State. The Clinton campaign and her supporters have tried to label those who have raised legitimate questions regarding Hillary’s health as conspiracists. Clinton aides had gone so far as to belittle a reporter for saying that Hillary looked “low energy” and sounded “absolutely exhausted” at her press conference last Friday and even issued a veiled threat that the reporter’s job was in jeopardy. The reporter had the temerity to tweet: “I half expect her to slump over and collapse any second now.” Nick Merrill, Clinton’s traveling press secretary, tweeted the reporter the message: “delete your account.”

Continue reading →
NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION, POLITICS Comments turned off

Bill Clinton Says Hillary Faints Frequently, CBS Helpfully Edits Remark By Debra Heine

By on September 14th, 2016

Bill Clinton said during a CBS interview with Charlies Rose on Monday that Hillary Clinton “frequently” faints because of dehydration, but quickly corrected himself to use more Clintonian phrasing: “rarely, but on more than one occasion over the last many, many years.”

Whether the former president made a very revealing Freudian slip or a just a clumsy verbal gaffe is a question those who watched the broadcast last night wouldn’t know to ask because CBS edited out the word “frequently.” In a longer version of the interview that was broadcast on CBS This Morning Tuesday, the word “frequently” was not removed.

Via the Washington Free Beacon:

Rose got straight to the point with the former president during the interview, asking how Hillary was doing after she fainted Sunday at a 9/11 memorial event and confessed that she had been diagnosed with pneumonia on Friday. Clinton said that his wife was doing fine but added that she frequently faints because of dehydration.

“When you look at the collapse, that video that was taken, you wonder if it’s not more serious than dehydration,” Rose said to Clinton.

“No, no. She’s been—well, if it is, it’s a mystery to me and all of her doctors. ‘Cause frequently—not frequently, that’s not—rarely, but on more than on occasion over the last many, many years, the same sort of thing has happened to her when she just got severely dehydrated,” Clinton said.

In the edited version of the interview that initially aired, Clinton is only heard saying: “Well, if it is, it’s a mystery to me and all of her doctors. Rarely, but on more than one occasion over the last many, many years, the same sort of thing has happened to her when she just got severely dehydrated.”

Watch the video on the next page. CONTINUE AT SITE

Continue reading →
NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

American Law? Or Christian Law, Muslim Law, Jewish Law? by Johanna Markind

By on September 14th, 2016

“[A] basic American legal principle [is]: American courts apply American law, rather than one rule for Muslims, one rule for Christians, one rule for Jews, and so on.” — Eugene Volokh, First Amendment law professor at UCLA.

Allowing Islamic shariah law to substitute for state law regarding inheritance and related matters would undercut the values of equal protection of the laws and equality before the law, and in many instances, would violate American law.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals has rejected an argument that would essentially have required a lower court to divide the proceeds of a wrongful-death suit under shariah (Islamic law) rules governing inheritance. The decision was based on technical grounds, leaving open the question of whether a state court would apply shariah in the future.

Nadir Ibrahim Ombabi, a 57-year-old taxi driver, was killed October 29, 2012, in a car accident outside Minneapolis. Ombabi was a native of Sudan, where he was a family doctor, and was working on becoming certified as a medical doctor in the U.S. when he died. He was active in Minnesota’s Sudanese community.

Ombabi left behind a wife, mother, brother, and sisters. He married Nariman Sirag Elsayed Khalil in Sudan, under Islamic law. Reportedly, she was still living in Africa when Ombabi died, and he would “often send back money to help his family.” His brother was living in California and a sister in Canada.

Ombabi’s next of kin brought a wrongful-death claim, which was settled for $183,000. Minnesota law requires the proceeds of a wrongful-death suit to be given to “the surviving spouse and next of kin, proportionate to the pecuniary loss severally suffered by the death.”

Next of kin are basically everyone who qualifies as a potential heir under the state’s intestacy law. States have laws governing how to distribute property when a person dies without leaving a will. In Minnesota, if the decedent has no children (as seems true of Ombabi), or if all of his children are also children of his widow, the widow inherits the entire estate. If, and only if, the decedent leaves neither spouse nor children, the estate passes to his parents. If he leaves no parents either, it goes to his brothers and/or sisters.

The district court found “no credible evidence to prove Mr. Ombabi’s mother, brother, or sisters experienced a pecuniary loss, or more importantly what that pecuniary loss is, because of Mr. Ombabi’s passing.” It ordered that all of the proceeds (less expenses) be given to Ombabi’s widow, Khalil.

Ombabi’s brother objected that the court should have divided the proceeds under Islamic law, giving the widow only 25%, Ombabi’s mother’s estate 16.7%, and the balance distributed among Ombabi’s siblings, with the brother receiving twice as much as each sister. He based this on the claim that “the law of all parties (the decedent, his widow and decedent’s next of kin) is the Islamic Law and they are all Muslims and follow the specifics of the religion.”

The court rejected that argument, on the grounds that it was unsupported by legal authority or argument, and that it was unclear whether it had been raised in the lower court. As a general rule, new issues may not be raised for the first time on appeal.

The court did not prohibit application of shariah to wrongful death suits or other cases. It only held that it found no legal or factual support that would justify applying it to Ombabi’s case.

Continue reading →
NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Chief Obama and the Dakota Pipeline A case study in why the U.S. doesn’t build more infrastructure.

By on September 14th, 2016

Democrats are running for office claiming that the U.S. needs to spend hundreds of billions on infrastructure. If you want to know why they’re not serious, look no further than the Obama Administration’s order halting construction on a sliver of an oil pipeline in North Dakota even after the U.S. won in court.

On Friday federal Judge James Boasberg allowed construction to proceed on the 1,100 Dakota Access pipeline, which aims to deliver a half million barrels of crude a day from the Bakken shale to Pakota, Illinois, for delivery to East Coast and Gulf refineries. Shipping oil via pipeline is less expensive and safer than by rail with fewer carbon emissions.

The Dakota Access would be a boon for the northern Plains, which has suffered more from the rout in oil prices than other regions with better access to markets. The pipeline would make Bakken crude more economical by reducing the shipping cost and supply glut at the source. It was on course to be finished by the end of this year.

But green groups have locked arms with some Native American tribes to block pipeline work around Lake Oahe—a water source for the Standing Rock Sioux—that was permitted this summer by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Nearly half of the clearing and grading for the pipeline is complete including 90% in North Dakota. As Judge Boasberg noted, the pipeline “needs almost no federal permitting of any kind because 99% of its route traverses private land.”

Under the National Historic Preservation Act, federal agencies must follow certain procedures prior to permitting projects that could affect places of cultural or religious significance to Indian tribes. But the law applies only to activities that are subject to federal jurisdiction, not those undertaken on private land.

The company Dakota Access went above and beyond the law’s requirements to mitigate its environmental impact. This meant devising the route to avoid sites on the National Register of Historic Places as well as those identified as potentially eligible for listing. Archaeologists conducted cultural surveys including visual reconnaissance and “shove-test probes” to examine historic sites. The pipeline was modified 140 times in North Dakota alone to avoid potential cultural resources. Around Lake Oahe, the pipeline will run adjacent to the Northern Border Gas Pipeline that was completed in 1982, which reduces the likelihood that construction would harm intact tribal features.

The Army Corps of Engineers bent over backward to consult the Standing Rock Sioux, only to be ignored or rejected. The tribe ignored agency letters requesting comment and belatedly cancelled meetings. “When the Corps timely arrived for the meeting,” the judge noted, “Tribal Chairman David Archambault told them that the conclave had started earlier than planned and had already ended.”

After the Corps issued an environmental assessment of “no significant impact” in July, the Standing Rock sued the Corps for violating the National Historic Preservation Act’s consultation requirements and sought to force a halt to construction around Lake Oahe. CONTINUE AT SITE

Continue reading →
NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION, POLITICS Comments turned off

The Clinton Subpoena Dodge Two witnesses take the Fifth and one fails even to honor a subpoena.

By on September 14th, 2016

The Clinton entourage is known for their faulty memories under oath, but Bryan Pagliano is setting a new standard. The former Clinton aide chose Tuesday to ignore a congressional subpoena.

The House Oversight Committee held a hearing to dig into some of the issues surrounding Hillary Clinton’s private email server. Mr. Pagliano, who worked as an IT specialist for Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 campaign and set up the private server in her New York residence in 2009, was issued a subpoena compelling attendance.

Mr. Pagliano’s lawyers replied in a letter to the committee that their client couldn’t be bothered. They said that since he’d previously appeared before a different House committee and asserted his Fifth Amendment rights, any effort to make him appear again “furthers no legislative purpose and is a transparent effort to publicly harass and humiliate our client for unvarnished political purposes.”

Two other witnesses who helped maintain Mrs. Clinton’s server— Paul Combetta and Bill Thornton of Platte River Networks—did show up. But then they took the Fifth as well.

Mr. Pagliano might think his presence serves no purpose, but that’s not his call. Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz is conducting a legitimate inquiry into Mrs. Clinton’s failure to preserve federal records while Secretary of State. He’s entitled to put questions to those involved with the server that allowed her to take government work off-grid. Mr. Chaffetz says he is considering what action he will take against the subpoena-dodger, but he says that “if anybody is under any illusion that I’m going to let go of this and just let it sail off into the sunset, they are very ill-advised.”

Continue reading →
NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Clinton’s Stealthy Single-Payer Gambit The ‘public option’ could be implemented around the country—without congressional approval. By Scott Gottlieb

By on September 14th, 2016

Dr. Gottlieb is a physician and resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He consults with and invests in health-care companies.
It looks like 2017 will be ObamaCare’s worst year yet. The three major insurers, along with many smaller plans, are largely exiting the health-insurance exchanges, leaving more than half of U.S. counties with only one or two health-plan choices, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Nearly 36% of ObamaCare regions may have only one participating insurance carrier offering plans for 2017, according to health-care analytics firm Avalere Health. Data from analysts at Barclays and Credit Suisse project that health-insurance premiums are expected to rise at least 24% in 2017.

To rescue President Obama’s health-care law, Hillary Clinton has proposed resurrecting the “public option.” This failed idea—a government-run health-care plan to compete with private insurers—can’t save ObamaCare. But introducing it across the country would move the U.S. much closer to the single-payer system progressives have always longed for.

Mrs. Clinton positions the states as vehicles for the public option, and this isn’t because she discovered a late-in-life appreciation for federalism. Section 1332 of the Affordable Care Act, a little-known provision, allows states to renounce almost all of ObamaCare’s dictates. That includes the law’s politically sacred rules governing the medical benefits consumers are promised and the subsidy structure that helps pay for them. States only need to develop alternative schemes that can achieve the same level of similarly priced coverage that they would attain under ordinary ObamaCare.

In 2011 Vermont tried to use this waiver process to introduce a public option, only to abandon it three years later when it became clear that the scheme would yield skyrocketing taxes on small businesses. Minnesota, Maine and Rhode Island are proposing variations of this scheme for implementation after 2017. Maine’s proposed law boasts of its intent to use “federal funds to the maximum extent allowable under federal law.” Colorado is using the 1332 waiver to pursue its own single payer through an initiative on the ballot this November.

The real juice is the funding. To pay for these schemes, the 1332 waivers let states pocket the aggregate subsidies—including premium tax credits, cost-sharing subsidies, and small-business tax credits—that they would otherwise receive under ObamaCare. This federal slush fund could give states billions of dollars annually to subsidize their own publicly run health plan.

The process gives the executive branch broad authority to coax or even coerce states to pursue the creation of these public options—without congressional consent. ObamaCare requires that any new scheme be “deficit neutral” relative to the cost of the law. So long as the new public option won’t add to ObamaCare’s costs, the state can use the law’s subsidies to pay for government-run plans. The waivers give states ample ability to use savings claimed by setting price controls on medical care as a way to meet the budget goals.

Federal regulators would approve new public options based on White House budget office estimates of the program’s cost and impact on a state’s existing insurance market. The Obama administration has abused this broad discretion before: Officials manipulated “budget neutrality” by allowing states like Arkansas to expand their Medicaid programs under ObamaCare. CONTINUE AT SITE

Continue reading →
NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION, POLITICS Comments turned off

MY SAY: “DEPLORABLE” IS WHEN LIARS WITHHOLD CRITICAL INFORMATION

By on September 13th, 2016

Hillary and Bill Clinton have a remarkable history of friends who are willing to lie, obstruct, and withhold information that would expose them. Webb Hubbell, Hillary Clinton’s former law partner and former associate attorney general in the Clinton Justice Department, went to jail and still refused to give evidence against her.

Bernard Nussbaum, a prominent lawyer, then White House Counsel, initially agreed to allow the Department of Justice to review the documents in Vince Foster’s office for evidence that might shed light on the cause of his death. That evening and the next morning, Nussbaum; Hillary Clinton; Susan Thomases, her personal counsel; and Maggie Williams, her chief of staff exchanged 10 separate phones calls. That morning, according to the DOJ employees, Nussbaum changed his mind and refused to allow the DOJ prosecutors to review the documents; instead, he reviewed them himself and segregated several as “personal” to the Clintons. Thomases and Williams just couldn’t remember a thing when subpoenaed.

Federal officials complained that White House counsel Bernard Nussbaum thwarted a proper search of Foster’s office and files. Nussbaum was forced to resign.

Susan McDougal served prison time as a result of the Whitewater controversy for failure to answer “three questions” for a grand jury about whether President Bill Clinton lied in his testimony during her Whitewater trial. McDougal received a full presidential pardon from outgoing President Clinton in the final hours of his presidency in 2001.

More recently, Loretta Lynch, the attorney general, did not dispute Bill Clinton’s outrageous claim that during a “serendipitous” meeting on an airplane, Lynch and Clinton did not discuss anything other than “grandchildren.” FBI director Comey risked a sterling reputation to spare Hillary Clinton any legal consequences for the e-mail and classified information scandal.

Now we have the case of Hillary’s health and the most recent syncope episode on Sunday September 11, 2016.

Why is critical information on Hillary’s health being withheld from the public? And by whom?

Her minions are now flooding the news with pictures of Hillary emerging from her daughter’s home…smiling, chatting and repeating: “I feel fine…such a lovely day in New York.”

Questions remain:

When she fainted and was lifted into the van, was she unconscious?

Was she carried up to her daughter’s home? There are no pictures of her entering her daughter’s home.

Who went inside with her?

What medicine or medicines were administered in her daughter’s home?

If her doctor, a reputable internist named Dr. Lisa Bardack, diagnosed pneumonia the Friday before, why was Hillary still planning a tour of the West, and why did she attend the ceremony at Ground Zero? Any doctor would have proscribed such activities in a senior with pneumonia.

What medications is she taking for “allergies” and pneumonia?

Are both lungs affected? Is she contagious? This is pertinent, since she exchanged hugs and kisses with so many dignitaries.

Is she taking medications other than hormones for hypothyroidism and Coumadin?

What accounts for her strange episodes of documented strange head, eyes, and open-mouth grimaces?

What were her symptoms when she was hospitalized for a blood clot in the brain in December 2012, when her daughter was so visibly shaken? Why did initial reports omit the fact that she had had a previous episode in 1988, after developing a clot behind her right knee? Does she have a medical predisposition to clots? Would that affect her travel and schedule?

Furthermore, a 48-hour stay in the hospital for diagnosis and treatment seems very short for such a complex condition.

Will we ever know? Or will doctors or members of her inner circle succeed in hiding, obfuscating, deleting facts, and lying to keep her candidacy viable?

Continue reading →
NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION, POLITICS Comments turned off

Following The Clinton Playbook On Hillary’s Health Secrecy The Democratic candidate’s brazen contempt for the public. Joseph Klein

By on September 13th, 2016

According to the Clinton campaign, Hillary is currently ill with pneumonia. That much we finally learned on Sunday, hours after she suddenly left the 9/11 memorial ceremony she was attending at Ground Zero. She had to be escorted away to her daughter Chelsea’s Manhattan apartment to recover from what her campaign spokesperson first described as an “overheated” condition. At the time of the incident, the temperature outside was approximately 80 degrees, with relatively low humidity.

The press traveling with Hillary was first kept in the dark. Had not a video captured her nearly stumbling and being held up to prevent her from falling as she was helped into a van, Hillary’s campaign might not have admitted that anything was wrong at all. Only towards the end of the day did her doctor disclose that she had been diagnosed with pneumonia last Friday.

Health is normally a private matter. If Bill or Chelsea Clinton had taken ill, for example, it would be none of our business what was wrong. But Hillary Clinton is running to become the next president and commander-in-chief of the United States. Physical and mental fitness for performance of the duties of the highest and most demanding job in the land is a legitimate public concern. When one runs for the presidency of the United States, the public has a right to know, before they vote, whether the candidates asking for their votes are likely to be capable of performing under intense stress for at least the next four years.

Doubts about Hillary Clinton’s health were already making the rounds on the Internet and cable TV before this latest episode. Such doubts have been fueled by her prolonged coughing fits, stumbles, fainting spells, a concussion and self-proclaimed memory lapses regarding briefings on the handling of classified information while she was Secretary of State. The Clinton campaign and her supporters have tried to label those who have raised legitimate questions regarding Hillary’s health as conspiracists. Clinton aides had gone so far as to belittle a reporter for saying that Hillary looked “low energy” and sounded “absolutely exhausted” at her press conference last Friday and even issued a veiled threat that the reporter’s job was in jeopardy. The reporter had the temerity to tweet: “I half expect her to slump over and collapse any second now.” Nick Merrill, Clinton’s traveling press secretary, tweeted the reporter the message: “delete your account.”

Hillary Clinton’s campaign, following the lead of the candidate herself, is showing utter contempt for the public’s right to know. They are following the same playbook as they have used when addressing questions regarding Hillary’s private e-mail system and the pay-for-play Clinton Foundation scandal. First comes outright denial that anything is wrong. Then, after inconvenient truths begin to dribble out through sources the Clinton campaign cannot control, comes narrative after narrative constructed to reveal the minimum the campaign believes it can get away with. Rationalizations are offered, including the “everyone does it” or “that’s old news” defenses. Trying to shame or marginalize that portion of the press which is not already in Hillary’s corner is also par for the course.

Continue reading →
NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Federal Agencies’ Rampant Incompetence Fuels Zika Outbreak Red tape and waiting periods can be waived if the need is urgent enough. By Henry I. Miller

By on September 13th, 2016

When I was an FDA official, the agency’s lawyers laid down a basic principle: “When public health is at stake, do what you need to, and we’ll find a legal justification. We have plenty of legal tools.” I found that to be true. For example, in order to get a dangerous product withdrawn from commerce quickly, there is the “imminent hazard” provision in the FDA’s regulations that may be invoked when a product or practice poses “a significant threat of danger to health” that “should be corrected immediately to prevent injury.”

Conversely, the FDA can authorize the emergency use of an unapproved product in a situation that poses a public-health emergency, such as an emerging disease, for example a new strain of pandemic influenza. There is a detailed protocol to follow for the FDA to issue an Emergency Use Authorization of Medical Products, which begins with the secretary of HHS (or of defense or of homeland security) declaring that a significant health emergency exists.

Does the Zika outbreak qualify? There is a good argument that it does. There have been more than 16,000 cases of Zika infection in U.S. territories (most in Puerto Rico) and scores of locally acquired cases in Florida. The number of locally transmitted cases is continuing to increase, as are the known modes of transmission. Zika infection is known to cause severe birth defects early in pregnancy and subtler ones later. It can also cause a progressive paralysis called Guillain-Barré syndrome. At the direction of the governor, Florida’s surgeon general has declared a public-health emergency for 29 counties in the state.

Continue reading →