Posts Tagged ‘verification’

California insurance commissioner on potential Obamacare fraud: ‘We can have a real disaster on our hands’

by Doug Powers on Monday, July 15th, 2013

This is article 462 of 698 in the topic Healthcare
null

“Obamacare has been wonderful for America.” – Harry Reid, yesterday
*****

Saying “Obamacare has been wonderful for America” at this point is like telling your family “this has been the most relaxing trip ever” as you’re backing out of the driveway to leave for vacation in San Pedro Sula.

Starting in October, California will begin convincing an estimated five million-plus people to sign on the line which is dotted and enroll in Obamacare through a new health care exchange manned at least in part by hastily trained, poorly monitored “counselors” hired after inadequate background checks. What could possibly go wrong?

Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones also said the exchange does not have a plan for investigating any complaints that might arise once the counselors start work. That means consumers who might fall prey to bogus health care products, identity theft and other abuses will have a hard time seeking justice if unscrupulous counselors get hold of their Social Security number, bank accounts, health records or other private information, he said.

“We can have a real disaster on our hands,” Jones, a Democrat, said in an interview.

His department regulates more than 300,000 insurance agents and brokers statewide.

Inadequately monitored and trained counselors combined with consumer eligibility verification on the honor system is destined to be “wonderful for America,” according to Harry Reid. The senator must have a stake in a business that cleans up train wrecks.

Go straight to Post

If Obama can keep making up health care law as he goes, why was it even necessary to pass the law to begin with?

by John Lott on Thursday, July 11th, 2013

This is article 459 of 698 in the topic Healthcare

Just last week, the Obama administration announced that they were going to ignore for one year a requirement that employers with 50 or more full-time workers provide health coverage.  It is nice that you can pick an choose different parts of law and rewrite it as you go along.  Now the Obama administration has decided not to verify consumers’ claims about income and health insurance status for 2014.  It is nice to know that this isn’t the first time that the government as relied “the honor system” for enforcing laws.  One wonders how the CBO would have figured out the costs of the law if they conceived that cheating on the system wouldn’t be investigated.  From the Washington Post:

The Obama administration announced Friday that it would significantly scale back the health law’s requirements that new insurance marketplaces verify consumers’ income and health insurance status.

Instead, the federal government will rely more heavily on consumers’ self-reported information until 2015, when it plans to have stronger verification systems in place. . . .

The verification systems are meant to determine who qualifies for new benefits under the Affordable Care Act. The law includes tax subsidies to purchase health insurance for Americans who earn less than 400 percent of the poverty line, about $45,000 for an individual.Those earning less than 133 percent of the poverty line — about $15,000 — will qualify for Medicaid coverage in the District and 23 states that have decided to expand the program.

The federal government also needs to know who receives health insurance coverage from an employer. Consumers who receive affordable health insurance from their company under a policy that costs less than 9.5 percent of their income do not qualify for tax credits under the Affordable Care Act. . . .

The federal government will, however, conduct an audit for the states where it is managing the new insurance Web portal. . . .

It is not unprecedented for the government to use the honor system in situations in which it collects data on millions of individuals . . .

Go straight to Post

Dissecting the Gang of 8′s enforcement sham

by Michelle Malkin on Tuesday, April 23rd, 2013

This is article 332 of 466 in the topic Immigration

Screen shot 2013-04-23 at 8.24.25 AM

I’ve read through the nearly 900-page “immigration reform” bill released by the Senate’s so-called Gang of 8 last week. Anyone can read it here. The question, of course, is whether non-deluded conservatives can read right through the phony promises, false triggers, and open-borders illusions. As I’ve pointed out repeatedly over the past two decades, the federal government, under both GOP and Democrat majorities, has never bothered to fulfill its legislative mandate to create a functioning entry-exit system — something Congress has promised to do six times over the past 17 years. (Grievance groups helped kill even a limited entry-exit registration system under the Bush administration called NSEERS that specifically targeted terror-friendly countries.)

Here’s an idea: Let’s see Washington and its bipartisan Gang of 8 brigade pass the entry-exit system they all say they support as a stand-alone first. Let’s see Washington actually build and operate that entry-exist system as a stand-alone first and make them prove they can keep even a single one of their promises before entertaining 900 more pages of them.

Prove. It.

As for all those illegal alien lobbying groups demanding “justice” and “pathways” and “processes” now, now, now, it’s time for politicians to tell them that their comfort and security are not America’s number one concern. There are 23 million law-abiding Americans out of work. They come before the “11 million” illegal immigrants “in the shadows.” There are 4.6 million legal immigrant applicants to America waiting to get in the right way. They deserve priority over the “11 million” who bypassed the “pathways” and “processes” that already exist.

At the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing yesterday, immigration enforcement lawyer, NSEERS expert, and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach provided a thorough dissection of the Gang of 8′s enforcement sham. I’m reprinting it in full below. See also Paul Mirengoff at Power Line for a good recap.

Oh, and in case you missed it, according to GOP Sen. Marco Rubio’s staff, if you believe in strict enforcement of immigration laws, you’re just like a slaveholder.

***

Testimony of Kris W. Kobach
Before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform Legislation
April 22, 2013

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, although I serve as Kansas Secretary of State, I come before you today chiefly in my capacity as former Counsel to United States Attorney General John Ashcroft, and as an attorney representing cities and states that have successfully reduced illegal immigration within their jurisdictions. I also represent the ten ICE agents who are suing Secretary Napolitano for the reason that her directive of June 2012 directly orders the agents to violate federal law. That case is Crane v. Napolitano, No. 3:12-cv-03247-O (N.D. Tex.).

The legislation pending before this committee has been portrayed as a balanced bill that combines an amnesty with significant enforcement measures. That portrayal is completely inaccurate. In the testimony that follows I will offer three significant vulnerabilities created by the amnesty provisions and six reasons why the enforcement components of this bill are illusory.

Three Flaws in the The Bill’s Amnesty Provisions.

(1) The Background Checks Are Insufficient to Prevent Terrorists from Gaining Amnesty.

The background check provisions of the bill in Section 2101(b)(8) contain no requirement that amnesty applicants actually provide government-issued documentation proving who they say they are.

1 2 3 4 5 6
Go straight to Post

U.S. government allows naturalized terrorists and spies to keep citizenship

by Jim Kouri on Monday, January 28th, 2013

This is article 305 of 466 in the topic Immigration

A bipartisan group of eight senators plans to announce on Monday that they agree on a set of principles for comprehensive immigration reform, according to Fox News Channel. While the deal covers border security, guest workers and employer verification, as well as a path to citizenship for the 11 million illegal immigrants already in this country, it doesn’t address the threats posed by those who are naturalized but turnout to be terrorists and spies.

An astonishing number of naturalized U.S. citizens have been convicted of grave national security crimes –including terrorism, espionage and theft of sensitive technology — yet the government allows them to keep their American citizenship, according to a shocking report by an Inside-the-Beltway public interest group.

“As unfathomable as this may seem it’s simply business as usual in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the massive agency created after 9/11 to keep the nation safe. The agency rarely strips foreigners of citizenship even when they prove to be national security threats who hustle the system. In fact, DHS has no system in place to examine such cases or weed out future threats” stated officials with Judicial Watch, a non-profit, non-partisan organization that investigates and exposes government corruption and crime.

The shocking facts of this latest Obama Administration operation are outlined by the Center for Immigration Studies, a major think-tank that researches legal and illegal immigration into the United States. DHS rarely denaturalizes individuals, even after they have committed serious national security offenses, the CIS probe discovered.

In the past ten years dozens of foreigners who became American citizens have been arrested, charged or convicted of serious national security-related offenses, according to the study. Incredibly, the government rarely bothered to revoke their citizenship, even though many had associations with terrorist groups or foreign intelligence organizations at the time they naturalized. In fact there is no central government repository of information about naturalized citizens who engage in serious national security offenses, the probe reveals.

Administrative naturalization continues unabated, the study says, with hundreds of thousands being granted American citizenship annually. That’s more than 6.5 million naturalized citizens in the last decade!” CIS researchers claim.

“The consequence of these actions is to place all Americans at greater risk, as shown by the kinds of crimes for which many naturalized citizens have already been arrested, charged, convicted, and sentenced,” according to Judicial Watch investigators.

Years ago the government had a system to administratively denaturalize those who presented a danger to the country. Many of those were gangsters from European nations and in one famous case — mob boss Meyer Lansky – from Israel.

However, a federal appellate court changed that in 2000 when it ruled that the regulation exceeded the authority of the now-defunct agency (Immigration and Naturalization Service or INS) that exercised it, according to CIS.

That left criminal prosecution or civil suits as the only method of stripping a naturalized individual of citizenship, but it’s a lengthy and tedious process that can take years, Judicial Watch noted.

Congress has the authority to change this by passing legislation to reinstate the government’s authority to denaturalize individuals that present a natural security threat.

Click to continue reading “U.S. government allows naturalized terrorists and spies to keep citizenship”
Go straight to Post

EUGENE ROBINSON ON CLIMATE CHANGE: INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST OR JUST DRINKING THE KOOL-AID?

by Stephen Levine on Friday, November 9th, 2012

This is article 207 of 336 in the topic Global Warming

In a stunning display of ignorance, columnist Eugene Robinson puts forth …

Hurricane Sandy: Was It A Climate Change Wake-Up Call?

We’ve had two once-in-a-century storms within the span of a decade. Hurricane Sandy seems likely to be the second-costliest storm in U.S. history, behind Hurricane Katrina. Lower Manhattan is struggling to recover from an unprecedented flood and the New Jersey coast is smashed beyond recognition.

Will we finally get the message?

How, at this point, can anyone deny the scientific consensus about climate change? The traditional dodge — that no one weather event can definitively be attributed to global warming — doesn’t work anymore. If something looks, walks and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. Especially if the waterfowl in question is floating through your living room.

For decades now, researchers have been telling us that one of the effects of climate change would be to make the weather more volatile and violent. Well, here we are.

What message is he speaking about?

  • The message of the far-left socialists and special interests that want to use global climate change to drive ideological public policy?
  • That global climate change is a complex, chaotic process that is basically uncontrollable by man’s efforts?
  • That the real drivers of violent weather are related to deep ocean currents and events such as El Nino/La Nina which are beyond man’s ability to fully forecast, model and control?
  • That it is natural for the planet to warm as it emerges from the Little Ice Age?
  • That our Planet has been hotter, cooler, with more atmospheric CO2 and less atmospheric CO2 with little or no industrial input from man.
  • That the entire issue of carbon dioxide can be explained simply by Henry’s law and the outgassing of carbon dioxide as the oceans warm?
  • That the production of carbon dioxide lags the temperature rise by 600 – 1000 years, so it is unlikely that it is causal?
  • That the climate cycles are so long that the results – even if they could be measured – are unlikely to be seen for hundreds of years?

What consensus is he speaking about?

  • Science is not performed by consensus, but by a controlled process of hypothesis-experiment-verification-re-verification; where skepticism is the rule rather than the exception.
  • Where the most prominent global warming scientists were caught fudging the raw data, the computer models, and the peer-review process in a scandal known as climate-gate.
  • Where there is an inherent bias in global warming research because projects agreeing with their sponsor’s views are more likely to be funded than those of a contrarian nature.
  • Where most institutional scientists are afraid to speak out for fear of institutional, government or financial reprisals.

Yes, some researchers have told us that one of the effects of climate change would be to make for more violent weather. It is all part of the natural variability of our chaotic weather.

If you wish to read more of Robinson’s clap trap, you can find it at Hurricane Sandy: Was The Hurricane A Climate Change Wake-Up Call? – Investors.com To see who claiming what, their statements and their credentials, you can find it at Reality check: Who believes Hurricane Sandy was/was not caused by global warming?

Bottom line …

The Marxists and communists need to exploit environmental issues – that’s the way they achieve political power and funding.

Click to continue reading “EUGENE ROBINSON ON CLIMATE CHANGE: INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST OR JUST DRINKING THE KOOL-AID?”
Go straight to Post

DOJ sues Las Vegas casino for screening non-citizen workers

by Jim Kouri on Saturday, June 2nd, 2012

This is article 258 of 466 in the topic Immigration

While proponents of immigration enforcement have been told that the federal government monitors the hiring of illegal aliens by the private sector, including adherence to the federal employment verification (I-9) program, Attorney General Eric Holder’s Justice Department appears to have made a decision to penalize organizations that zealously comply.

A casino and hotel is being sued by the Obama DOJ for enforcing the federal law regarding hiring of illegal aliens. Photo credit: Las Vegas Tourism Group

For example, on Thursday the Justice Department announced that it filed a civil lawsuit against the Tuscany Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada, accusing the company of engaging in “a pattern or practice of discrimination in the employment eligibility verification and re-verification process.”

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) requires employers to treat all authorized workers equally during the hiring, firing and employment eligibility verification process, regardless of their national origin or citizenship status. However, it is still a criminal offense to avoid the I-9 verification process in the hiring of job applicants.

The DOJ complaint alleges that Tuscany treated non-citizens differently from U.S. citizens during the employment eligibility verification and re-verification process by requesting non-citizen employees to provide more or different documents or information than required during the initial employment eligibility verification process, and demanded specific documents during the re-verification process.

The complaint further alleges that Tuscany subjected lawful permanent residents to unnecessary re- verification based on their citizenship status after requesting and entering into the payroll system the expiration date of their Permanent Resident Cards (green cards) for purposes of re verification.

Some believe this lawsuit is nothing more than payback by the Obama DOJ since earlier this year the Tuscany Hotel and Casino booked a special conference by a law enforcement group that was not favorable to the Obama administration. The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA) has stated their goal is to “take back America from the unlawful incursions and overreach of state and federal governments and their agencies.”

Speakers at the event included Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Sheriff Bradley D. Rodgers, Sheriff Richard Mack, and Larry Pratt, founder and executive director of Gun Owners of America, none of whom are popular in the Obama White House or DOJ.

According to a member of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the casino had an interest in verifying immigration status as part of its loss prevention program and may have exhibited over zealousness in its internal security program, but a casino environment requires more security than most workplaces due to the enormous amounts of cash involved in that industry.

The ICE agent, who requested anonymity, stated that Holder and his illegal alien-friendly department is more interested in protecting illegal aliens than “in protecting Americans from the crimes perpetrated including workplace crimes.”

“Employers must not treat authorized workers differently during the employment eligibility verification process based on their citizenship status or national origin,” said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. “The department vigorously enforces the anti-discrimination provisions of the INA so that authorized workers are treated fairly in the work place.”

According to several sources, Perez is a zealot for protecting illegal aliens as proven by his record of pursuing cases against entities that attempt to control or curtail illegal immigration.

Click to continue reading “DOJ sues Las Vegas casino for screening non-citizen workers”
Go straight to Post

Both Houses in Arizona Pass First Presidential Vetting and Eligibility Bill

by Jayme Evans on Sunday, April 17th, 2011

This is article 13 of 185 in the topic US Constitution
Bill Moves to Gov. Jan Brewer
Bye, Bye, Comrade Obama. No 2nd Term for You!

Both Houses in Arizona Pass First Presidential Vetting and Eligibility Bill 

By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
April 15, 2011

Arizona has become the first state in the nation to pass a presidential vetting and eligibility bill.

Yesterday in the Senate at 20-9 and tonight by 40 – 16 (with 4 not voting) in the House of Representatives, the bill was passed.

It is now time to start calling Governor Brewer’s office. This may need verification, but she has 5 days (possibly as much as 10 but no more than that) to sign it. If she does not sign it at all, the bill becomes law. The only way the bill will not become law is if she vetoes it.

The many other states need to follow the lead of Arizona. Contact your state representatives and urge them to follow the lead of the great State of Arizona.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
April 15, 2011

Source

Go straight to Post

Obama betrayed British allies, Wikileaks reveals

by Jim Kouri on Saturday, February 5th, 2011

This is article 336 of 1254 in the topic International

Wikileaks released documents that indicate Obama threw the British government under the bus in order to get a treaty with Russia. Photo: USA Sentinel

In a stunning story of alleged selfishness and betrayal, the Obama administration is accused of turning over an ally’s nuclear secrets in order to get the Russians to go along with the Startegic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START.

In cables released by Wikileaks and reported in the British news media, information about every Trident missile the U.S. supplies to Britain will be given to Russia as part of an arms control deal signed by President Barack Obama.

WikiLeaks — founded and run by Australian activist Julian Assange — in November 2010 released 250,000 classified diplomatic cables and is now the focus of a probe by U.S. government prosecutors.

With President Barack Obama signing the new strategic arms reduction treaty with Russia last Wednesday, the stage is set for the formal exchange of papers this weekend that will put the agreement into effect, according to Cheryl Pellerin of the American Forces Press Service.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov are scheduled to exchange ratification documents this Saturday, February 5, at the Munich Security Conference, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates’ representative to the treaty negotiations said.

Edward L. “Ted” Warner told the Pentagon Channel and American Forces Press Service that within 60 days of the treaty’s entry into force, both nations will have the right to conduct short-notice inspections of each other’s nuclear facilities.

“One of the crucial pieces of the more recent arms-reduction treaties, beginning with the START I treaty in the early 1990s, has been the provision for verification” of each other’s nuclear claims at operating bases, test ranges and storage sites,” he said.

No inspections have taken place in either nation since START I expired in December 2009, he said, noting that the first START treaty represented “an enormous step forward in verification.”

The United States and Russia — or its predecessor, the Soviet Union — have signed a variety of strategic arms treaties going back to the early 1970s, Warner said. START I was signed in 1991 and ratified and entered into force in 1994. The Moscow Treaty in 2002 built on START I and lowered critical limits, particularly on deployed warheads, Warner said, noting that it expires in 2012.

“In the original START treaty, the limit was 6,000 warheads. In the Moscow Treaty, the limit was between 1,700 and 2,200 — 2,200 being the legal limit,” he said. “In the new START treaty, which was concluded last April, the limit is now 1,550 strategic warheads.”

The U.S. Senate ratified the new START treaty on December 22 in spite of the warnings of military and geopolitical experts.

British defense analysts claim the treaty risks undermining Britain’s policy of refusing to confirm the size of the United Kingdom’s nuclear arsenal.

The allegations — supported by Wikileaks documents — that the Americans used British nuclear secrets as bargaining chips also sheds new light on the so-called “special relationship”, which was strong under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W.

Click to continue reading “Obama betrayed British allies, Wikileaks reveals”
Go straight to Post

A mission revised

by Douglas J. Hagmann on Tuesday, December 14th, 2010

This is article 20 of 129 in the topic National Security

“There is one major difference, however, between our initial focus and our operation of today. It is a difference born of a combination of experience, investigative insight, and the more visible actions of opponents to our security and freedoms. It is our broadened investigative focus of every individual or group who threatens our security and way of life, whether through terrorism or tyranny.  Failure to address the former illustrates a lack of credibility. Failure to address the latter exhibits a lack integrity. Failure to address both will lead to the ultimate destruction of our country. We are committed to addressing all.  Buckle up and stay tuned.” - Douglas J. Hagmann

The birth of an organization

In the immediate aftermath of the 2001 attacks on America, nearly a dozen career investigators located throughout the United States joined together to proactively search for existing threats to the U.S.  Individually and collectively, we were affected by the events of that day and in the days that immediately followed, having lost family members, friends or professional colleagues by these murderous attacks or in the subsequent rescue and recovery efforts.

We were united in not only grief, but in resolve to do anything and everything in our power to protect our nation, our communities, our friends and loved ones from further death and destruction to the best extent of our abilities. Our group ultimately became known  as the Northeast Intelligence Network, a name adopted by our organization based in part on the geographical concentration of investigators in the northeast portion of the U.S.

As a result of an initial conference involving all members of the Northeast Intelligence Network, I was selected to be the spokesperson and primary contact for our organization. Some investigators, due to their roles in undercover assignments in the private sector and in their capacity as commissioned law enforcement officers, are legitimately required to remain anonymous.

As we became more well known inside and beyond law enforcement and intelligence circles, other individuals became involved as volunteer assets, allowing us to expand into military and other areas of intelligence. All such individuals have been thoroughly vetted and provided their bona fides for verification.

Immediately following the establishment of our organization, we provided the U.S. Department of Justice an outline of our organization, our intended course of action, and complete dossiers of our members. In early 2002, we received specific instructions from the USDOJ on the channels to be used to furnish both critical and non-critical information regarding terrorist threats.

Although many of those channels remain active and operational today, we have successfully cultivated other channels to assure that the recipients of our information are truly committed to preserving the security, sovereignty and safety of our nation.  The significance of this will become clear.

1 2 3 4
Go straight to Post

Media Heavily Invested in New Start Treaty

by Roger Aronoff on Wednesday, November 24th, 2010

This is article 187 of 1254 in the topic International

There are plenty of objections, and it would be really helpful if instead of spending time asking these people to blast the Republicans for acting out of narrow political interests rather than national security interests, that they ask them to specifically rebut some of the criticisms

The media are pushing hard to help President Obama succeed in getting the Senate to ratify the New Start Treaty with Russia. Weekend talk shows were filled with Obama administration officials, primarily Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, talking about the urgency for the Senate to ratify the treaty during the lame duck session. But instead of trying to enlighten the viewers by having the objections to ratification answered, the thrust of the questioning by the media has been to make the objections by the Republicans appear to be all about politics, and defeating Obama, even if it means damaging the relationship between the U.S. and Russia.

We need to ratify it, we hear, because Russia is helping us with Iran, and they are helping us in Afghanistan. We’ll be spending enough to adequately modernize our remaining nuclear arsenal, we’re told. And our right to build missile defense as we desire will not be limited. Plus, we don’t have anyone on the ground to verify what the Russians are up to. Vice President Biden said that “Failure to pass the New START Treaty this year would endanger our national security.” So what could be the objection, other than raw politics by the Republicans?

Christiane Amanpour, on ABC’s “This Week with Christiane Amanpour,” for example, played the role of an attorney leading her witness—in this case Chairman Mullen—through all the reasons this must be ratified now, concluding with, “So by a process of elimination, is the Senate playing politics with American national security?” Here is that portion of the transcript:

AMANPOUR: The president and the president of Russia have signed the New START treaty. This week, that has been sort of stopped, stopping START in the Senate by the number-two Republican senator there, Jon Kyl.  Can I ask you — I’m basically going to wave around a veritable “who’s who” of Republican and Democratic former secretaries of state, of defense, all sorts of people who have been studying this for a long time and say that this has to be ratified. Does it have to be ratified? Is this necessary for U.S. national — national security?

MULLEN: I think this is — more than anything else, it’s a national security issue. I was involved extensively in the negotiations with my counterpart in Russia. We have for decades had treaties with them to — to be able to — to verify aspects of the nuclear weapons capabilities that we both have. And from a national security perspective, this is absolutely critical.

1 2 3 4
Go straight to Post

Featuring YD Feedwordpress Content Filter Plugin