“She said her condition requires the whole plant”. Of course it does!
My boy was recently in a high school lockdown. Watching law enforcement search each classroom one at a time seemed inefficient and dangerous. I think there are ways to make that better. Here is an idea I came up with.
Concerning Republicans concerns over accepting Syrian refugees, Obama says, “apparently, they’re scared of widows and orphans”. The president never ceases to amaze me. He is an expert at poking the opposition in the eye. How dare Americans question bringing thousands of Syrians to America? Sure we have watched Syrians burning American flags for the last 40 years. Sure Syria has been a terrorist sponsor for 40 years but how dare we question bringing in trainloads of their people. Mr. President, we are not just talking about widows and orphans.
The administration says the immigrants face many months of screening before being allowed settlement. According to Obama, “only after subjecting them to rigorous screening and security checks.”
I have zero faith in your “rigorous screening.”
“That process includes biographic and biometric security checks – i.e. checking records and doing fingerprinting.” Biographic security checks are interviews.
“Are you a terrorist?”
“Ok, let’s move on.”
Fingerprinting is only useful if you have previously fingerprinted them. How many people in Syria do we have prints on? Not many.
“Law enforcement, the Pentagon and the intelligence community all vet information provided by and obtained about refugees to help make a determination about whether they will ultimately be allowed to come to the U.S.” A neighbor of mine needed security clearance to work at a local army base. An FBI agent came to my house and interviewed my wife about him. How in the world is the Pentagon going to “vet information provided” by the refugees? Are they going to travel to Syria and interview their neighbors?
What is law enforcement or the Pentagon going to do? Call Bashar al-Assad and ask for birth certificates? I think the administration wants you to believe that the NSA has a voice print of every American flag burner in Syria and that they will match their voice to recorded cell phone conversations with ISIS. Sorry Obama, I don’t buy it.
“The process usually takes between 18 to 24 months.” I believe that. You have a 30 minute interview. The paperwork sits someone’s desk for 18 months and then is accepted. Sitting on a desk for a year doesn’t make the process any more rigorous.
“Syrian refugees go through an enhanced review process on top of that with extra national security checks.” Enhanced! That means the form has a new font.
“All Syrian refugees considered for resettlement in the U.S. are interviewed in person by specially trained staff, mostly in Amman and Istanbul, but also in Cairo and elsewhere.” “Refugees must also undergo health screenings and a cultural orientation before they arrive in the U.S.”
What is there to say about this? If you believe this you are nuts.
“FBI Director James Comey famously admitted last month that the U.S. government has no real way to conduct background checks on refugees. “We can only query against that which we have collected. And so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interest reflected in our database, we can query our database until the cows come home, but there will be nothing show up because we have no record of them,”
“Even Attorney General Loretta Lynch admitted there were “challenges” to vetting the refugees… without saying what those challenges were. Like almost everyone else in the Administration, she offered vague assurances that the American government has a “significant and robust screening process in place,””
“The registration process includes in-depth refugee interviews, home country reference checks and biological screening such as iris scans. Military combatants are weeded out.” How are you checking anything from the home country? Iris scans? Iris scans? How useful is that? They are just trying to throw out fancy terms to fool dumb people. “Enhanced”, “Biometric”, “Iris scanning”, “Pentagon going to vet”. Ok, I feel much better about the whole thing.
“Among those who pass background checks, a small percentage (actually its 50%) are referred for overseas resettlement based on criteria designed to determine the most vulnerable cases. This group may include survivors of torture, victims of sexual violence, targets of political persecution, the medically needy, families with multiple children and a female head of household.” Despite their poor math skills, I am absolutely concerned about people in this situation. But 5,000,000 Syrian refugees are not in this category.
Here is a result from a poll of Syrian Refugees:
“In general, do you support or oppose the military airstrikes by the US-led international coalition against Islamic militant groups including ISIL and other groups in Iraq and Syria?” Result: 15% strongly opposed the airstrikes. Another 22% oppose. Source
Let’s get this straight. You are fleeing your country because of ISIS yet you strongly oppose airstrikes against them? Why would that be? It’s because 1/3 of the refugees hate Americans more than the people who tortured them, kicked them out of their house and raped their wives and daughters. Yeah, that’s the kind of people we want coming to America. How are we supposed to trust them?
Why can’t any of these people go to Brazil? They have a booming economy? Malaysia is a huge Muslim country. They’ve taken 5,000.
Russia has been a Syrian ally for decades. Russia made this mess. They are 100% responsible for the mess. They supported the al-Assad family. Russia also fought against US airstrikes on ISIS. To date Russia has taken about 1,000 refugees. Gee thanks!
Mexico is a huge country. They’ve taken about 30. That’s three zero. Way to go Mexico. The world salutes you.
My great grandparents were immigrants. I’m not opposed to immigration. But I’m pretty cynical about accepting people from Syria. I guess it’s a result of decade’s news stories showing Syrians hating America.
UPDATE – September 19, 2016
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON
Published: September 11, 2003
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.
The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.
“There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,” Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.
Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.
The administration’s proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies’ exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.
The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session.
After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration’s proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall.
“The current regulator does not have the tools, or the mandate, to adequately regulate these enterprises,” Mr. Oxley said at the hearing. “We have seen in recent months that mismanagement and questionable accounting practices went largely unnoticed by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight,” the independent agency that now regulates the companies.
“These irregularities, which have been going on for several years, should have been detected earlier by the regulator,” he added.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was created by Congress in 1992 after the bailout of the savings and loan industry and concerns about regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios.
At the time, the companies and their allies beat back efforts for tougher oversight by the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Reserve. Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families. This year, however, the chances of passing legislation to tighten the oversight are better than in the past.
Reflecting the changing political climate, both Fannie Mae and its leading rivals applauded the administration’s package. The support from Fannie Mae came after a round of discussions between it and the administration and assurances from the Treasury that it would not seek to change the company’s mission.
After those assurances, Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae’s chief executive, endorsed the shift of regulatory oversight to the Treasury Department, as well as other elements of the plan.
“We welcome the administration’s approach outlined today,” Mr. Raines said. The company opposes some smaller elements of the package, like one that eliminates the authority of the president to appoint 5 of the company’s 18 board members.
Company executives said that the company preferred having the president select some directors. The company is also likely to lobby against the efforts that give regulators too much authority to approve its products.
Freddie Mac, whose accounting is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and a United States attorney in Virginia, issued a statement calling the administration plan a “responsible proposal.”
The stocks of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae fell while the prices of their bonds generally rose. Shares of Freddie Mac fell $2.04, or 3.7 percent, to $53.40, while Fannie Mae was down $1.62, or 2.4 percent, to $66.74. The price of a Fannie Mae bond due in March 2013 rose to 97.337 from 96.525.Its yield fell to 4.726 percent from 4.835 percent on Tuesday.
Fannie Mae, which was previously known as the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie Mac, which was the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, have been criticized by rivals for exerting too much influence over their regulators.
“The regulator has not only been outmanned, it has been outlobbied,” said Representative Richard H. Baker, the Louisiana Republican who has proposed legislation similar to the administration proposal and who leads a subcommittee that oversees the companies. “Being underfunded does not explain how a glowing report of Freddie’s operations was released only hours before the managerial upheaval that followed. This is not world-class regulatory work.”
Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.
“These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. “The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”
Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.
“I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.
It’s nice to see that even the liberal media is admitting that they “swoon” over Obama.
Mr. Hastings says reporters, “lose their minds”, “They start behaving in ways, you know, that are juvenile and amateurish and they swoon.” Bashir wondered about Hastings’ own questions to Obama. Hastings admitted that he, too, had taken the soft route when questioning him. “Did I ask him the hard ball questions, did I ask about drones, did I ask about civil liberties? No, I did not.” as he laughs.
This blows my mind. Why on earth does the Pentagon need to get involved in gay pride? How is the relevant to national security?
Washington (CNN) — The Department of Defense announced Thursday that it will be commemorating lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender pride later this month. The event will be the first of its kind for the Pentagon.
“The Defense Department is planning an LGBT Pride Month event for later this month,” Pentagon spokeswoman Eileen Laniez said in a statement issued Thursday.
Press Secretary George Little said senior Defense Department officials will take part in the event, but had no other details.
Just a year ago, a member of the military faced punishment or discharge if he or she admitted being homosexual, but last September the administration scrapped the policy known as “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
How can NYC justify outlawing Big Gulps and not outlaw cigarettes and booze? Big Gulps can increase your weight but they don’t kill. You can’t come close to drawing the cause and effect argument on soda that you can tobacco. Big Gulps don’t impare your driving. They don’t contribute to domestic violence. They don’t impact peoples work. They don’t lead to unwanted pregnancies and STD’s. They don’t destroy families.
What a joke.
My 8th grader has a B- in Algebra. His teacher told the class that they could increase their grade by bringing in pencils. How much do you think it would cost to go from a B- to a B? Would you believe $20? I can’t be the only one who finds that offensive.
It reminds me of the medieval practice of selling indulgences. If you pay the priest you can avoid punishment for sins.
That practice was terrible for many reasons. It disenfranchised the poor. What kind of god can be bribed? Are religions tenants really important if they can be circumvented with a fist full of dollars? What’s the message to the rich? If you have money you are free to indulge. The whole practice is wrong on so many levels.
The same is true in selling grades. It sends a terrible message to our children.
Massachusetts To Ban Bake Sales?
May 7, 2012
Brownies, cupcakes and other sugar-laden contraband will be outlawed in Massachusetts public schools as health officials battle what they call crisis-level obesity in children.
All bake sales will be banned beginning Aug. 1, the Boston Herald reported. The ban would apply 30 minutes before the start of classes and thirty minutes after the school day ends. But health officials are trying to banish sweets from school banquets, after-hours events and even football games.
The Dept. of Public Health and Education insisted they were not attempting to regulate what people eat.
“We’re not trying to get into anyone’s lunch box,” DPH medical director Lauren Smith told the Boston Herald. “We know that schools need those clubs and resources. We want them to be sure and have them, but to do them a different way.”
Smith told The Boston Channel that they wanted to create an environment in schools where kids have an opportunity to make choices among healthy options.
We’re at a place in Massachusetts where one-third of our kids in schools are either overweight or obese,” she told the television station.
Jeff Katz, a talk radio host at Boston’s Talk 1200, told Fox News the ban is simply outrageous.
“Only in Massachusetts would the Attorney General say it’s not illegal to be an illegal alien, but it is illegal to sell a cupcake for the football team,” Katz said. “When they outlaw cupcakes only outlaws will have cupcakes.”
State Sen. Susan Fargo, a Democrat, said childhood obesity has reached “crisis” proportions.”
“If we didn’t have so many kids that were obese, we could have let things go,” Fargo told the newspaper.
But parents and local lawmakers are fuming over the ban on bake sales — many wondering how they will be able to pay for extracurricular activities.
“It helps the schools,” Lana Borstein, a PTO president, told The Boston Channel. “It helps buy books. It helps fund trips. It helps fund things that taxpayers aren’t paying for. That’s the purpose.”
“The goal is to raise money,” Maura Dawley told the Herald. “You’re going to be able to sell pizza. You’re not going to get that selling apples and bananas. It’s silly.”
“My concern is we’re regulating what people can eat, and I have a problem with that,” he told the newspaper. “I respect the state for what they’re trying to do, but I think they’ve gone off the deep end. I don’t want someone telling me how to do my job as a parent.”