The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) gave low-income housing to millionaires, according to a recent audit.
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) found over 25,000 families who earned too much to qualify for subsidized apartments, which will cost taxpayers $104.4 million this year.
“Public housing authorities provided public housing assistance to as many as 25,226 families whose annual household income exceeded HUD’s 2014 program eligibility income limits,” according to the audit. “Most of these families had earned more than the qualifying amount for more than 1 year, were not participating in programs that would allow them to reside in public housing, and occupied units while many families were waiting for public housing assistance.”
“This condition occurred because HUD regulations require families to meet eligibility income limits only when they are admitted to the public housing program,” it said. “The regulations do not limit the length of time that families may reside in public housing.”
Of the 25,226 overincome families identified, 47 percent earned at least $10,000 more than the income limit, and 70 percent lived in subsidized housing for more than a year.
A millionaire in Oxford, Neb., has been able live in low-income housing since 2010. The monthly rent is $300.
“As of April 2014, the single-member household’s annual income was $65,007, while the low-income threshold was $33,500,” the OIG explained. “Also, this tenant had total assets valued at nearly $1.6 million, which included stock valued at $623,685, real estate valued at $470,600, a checking account with a balance of $334,637, and an individual retirement account with a balance of $123,445.”
Category Archives: Government
Violate your vows, or pay up. That’s essentially what the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals told the Little Sisters of the Poor and their attorneys last week. We’ve seen the same mentality over and over lately. Back in 2013, the Attorney General of Virginia took it upon himself to sue a florist who refused to provide flowers for a gay wedding due to religious beliefs.
This sounds eerily like what the Koran and Sharia Law command. Believe what we believe or pay the tax. Yep. If you deviate from the beliefs of Islam and want to continue breathing air and holding onto your religious beliefs, according to the Koran, and Islamic law, you must pay the jizya, or tax. That’s a sobering thought isn’t it?
Hey, it’s working pretty well for ISIS. They managed to get a bunch of Christians to pay up or die.
Without courts that uphold our Constitutional rights to worship (or not to worship) we are simply sitting ducks for the next bunch of lunatics who come along and want to force us into their idea of godliness or godlessness.
The Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty, whose fund attorneys are representing the Little Sisters, released a press release earlier this month confirming the court decision.
President Obama’s executive actions on immigration shield more than 80 percent of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the country from any danger of being deported, a top immigration think tank reported Thursday.
As part of his November amnesty Mr. Obama announced a program to proactively grant a temporary deportation amnesty to as many as 5 million illegal immigrants. But he also directed immigration agents not to bother deporting millions of others, even though they weren’t eligible for the official amnesty, which grants work permits and other benefits.
The directions to immigration agents were deemed enforcement “priorities,” and instructed agents not to bother arresting or deporting anyone who didn’t meet the top priority levels.
“Implementation of the new enforcement priorities is likely to affect about 9.6 million people,” MPI’s Marc Rosenblum, author of the new study, said.
Republican 2016 presidential candidate Ben Carson recently made the assertion on a Iowa conservative radio show that the “purpose” behind Margaret Sanger’s founding of the abortion giant Planned Parenthood was to “eliminate black people,” and also questioned whether or not President Barack Obama realizes that.
While the 63-year-old retired neurosurgeon was going in and out of reception during his phone interview with radio host Jan Mickelson on WHO Radio in Des Moines, Mickelson played a clip of an Obama speech from last year where the president defended Planned Parenthood and even said “Thank you Planned Parenthood. God bless you.”
“You wonder if he actually knows the history of Planned Parenthood and Margaret Sanger, who was trying to eliminate black people,” Carson replied. “That was the whole purpose of it.”
Mickelson then played an audio clip of 2016 Democratic frontrunner and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from 2009, when she was awarded the Planned Parenthood Margaret Sanger Award. In her acceptance speech, Clinton gave high praises to Sanger even though Sanger was known for advocating racist ideals.
“I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision,” Clinton stated. “I am really in awe of her.”
Mickelson responded by saying how hypocritical it is for people to destroy Confederate flags and Confederate tombstones but still continue to honor Sanger.
“We have reached a time where people are so desensitized where they are not horrified by this kind of activity,” Carson said. “We’ve allowed the secular progressive movement to [desensitize society] to the point where things are no longer wrong.”
Carson stated that the pro-life movement should see the recent Planned Parenthood revelation as a “smoking gun” to push for the defunding of the leading abortion company, which receives about $500 million in taxpayer funding each year.
Reimagining the First Amendment:
Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) says the 1st Amendment’s religious liberty protections don’t apply to individuals.
On MSNBC last week, Wisconsin’s junior Senator claimed that the Constitution’s protection of the free exercise of religion extends only to religious institutions, and that individual’s do not have a right to the free exercise of their own religion.
The exact quote form Senator Baldwin is somewhat less dramatic but more worrisome:
Certainly the first amendment says that in institutions of faith that there is absolute power to, you know, to observe deeply held religious beliefs. But I don’t think it extends far beyond that. We’ve seen the set of arguments play out in issues such as access to contraception. Should it be the individual pharmacist whose religious beliefs guides whether a prescription is filled, or in this context, they’re talking about expanding this far beyond our churches and synagogues to businesses and individuals across this country. I think there are clear limits that have been set in other contexts and we ought to abide by those in this new context across America.
So you can have freedom of religion in Sen. Baldwin’s America, you just have avoid talking about your religious views in public. It’s a definition of freedom so narrow it could easily fit within the confines of an authoritarian state. Even the nominally communist oligarchs who rule China don’t really care what you think, so long as you don’t offend the party with your words.
What is being established, under the cover of the gay marriage debate, is a new set of hate crime laws directed at Americans of faith. The Left has done a superb job of framing this issue as one about the rights of homosexuals. This automatically paints any critics as bigots regardless of their personal values or beliefs. Once the dust settles gay marriage will be an established legal and cultural fact. What will become apparent shortly thereafter is that freedom of speech has been dramatically narrowed in modern America.
Federal regulators are directing the eight biggest U.S. banks to hold capital at levels above industry requirements to cushion against unexpected losses and reduce the chances of future taxpayer bailouts.
The Federal Reserve’s action Monday means the eight banks together will be required to shore up their financial bases with about $200 billion in additional capital. The requirements also are aimed at encouraging the Wall Street mega-banks to shrink so they pose less risk to the financial system. The banks include JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and Bank of America.
Most of the banks have already put away the additional capital. JPMorgan is the only one that doesn’t already meet the requirements, which will be phased in from 2016 through 2018 and take full effect on Jan. 1, 2019. It currently falls about $12.5 billion short, according to Fed officials.
The Fed governors led by Chair Janet Yellen voted 5-0 at a public meeting to impose the so-called “capital surcharges” on the eight banks.
The extra capital requirements will increase in proportion to how risky the regulators deem a bank to be. A key risk factor will be how much a bank relies on short-term funding markets to borrow from other banks. Those markets seized up during the 2008 financial crisis.
The government stepped in during the crisis with hundreds of billions of dollars in bailouts of the big Wall Street banks as well as hundreds of smaller U.S. banks.
We Interrupt Our Regular Trump Programming to Announce America’s Surrender to Iran and Global Governance
…In sum, the Obama administration has acceded to these demands by foreign sovereigns – some of which are enemies of the United States, and none of which guards the interests of the United States – that legal action imposing obligations on the American people be taken by those sovereigns not only before action is taken by the American people’s representatives but in violation of our Constitution.
I warned in March that this was where we were heading. Back then, Senator Tom Cotton was under attack by the Obama administration and the media for pointing out that the Constitution did not permit the president to impose enforceable international legal duties on the United States in the absence of congressional authorization (i.e., a treaty or laws enacted under the Constitution’s legislative procedure). Senator Cotton explained that, without congressional authorization, Obama’s deal would be a mere executive agreement which could be rescinded at any time by a future president (indeed, by Obama himself).
As I pointed out at the time, though, Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif could not help himself but reveal the transnational-progressive, jihadist-friendly, anti-constitutional strategy:
According to Zarif, the deal under negotiation “will not be a bilateral agreement between Iran and the U.S., but rather one that will be concluded with the participation of five other countries, including all permanent members of the Security Council, and will also be endorsed by a Security Council resolution.” He hoped it would “enrich the knowledge” of the 47 senators [whos signed the Cotton Letter] to learn that “according to international law, Congress may not modify the terms of the agreement.” To do so would be “a material breach of U.S. obligations,” rendering America a global outlaw….
Clearly, Obama and the mullahs figure they can run the following stunt: We do not need another treaty approved by Congress because the United States has already ratified the U.N. charter and thus agreed to honor Security Council resolutions. We do not need new statutes because the Congress, in enacting Iran-sanctions legislation, explicitly gave the president the power to waive those sanctions. All we need is to have the Security Council issue a resolution that codifies Congress’s existing sanctions laws with Obama’s waiver. Other countries involved in the negotiations — including Germany, Russia, and China, which have increasingly lucrative trade with Iran — will then very publicly rely on the completed deal. The U.N. and its army of transnational-progressive bureaucrats and lawyers will deduce from this reliance a level of global consensus that incorporates the agreement into the hocus-pocus corpus of customary law. Maybe they’ll even get Justice Ginsburg to cite it glowingly in a Supreme Court ruling. Voila, we have a binding agreement — without any congressional input — that the United States is powerless to alter under international law.
This is the scheme that is going forward … today … at the Security Council.
At the U.N. today, the Obama administration is colluding with our enemies and other foreign sovereigns to deprive the American people – through their elected representatives – of the power to determine what obligations they will accept under international law. The Obama administration has taken the position that Russia, China, and, yes, Iran, have a vote on our national security, but we do not. And in this betrayal, Congress has, at best, been a witless aider and abettor.
About 2.5 million illegal immigrants have settled in the U.S. during President Obama’s tenure, according to estimates being released Monday by the Center for Immigration Studies, which said it’s an improvement compared with the Bush administration.
Nearly 800,000 of those illegal immigrants arrived in the past two years, suggesting that the flow has ticked up as the economy has improved and as Mr. Obama has reshaped enforcement policies, focusing on criminals while relaxing actions against rank-and-file illegal immigrants.
Still, the total illegal immigrant population has remained steady at an estimated 11 million to 12 million over the past six years, the report concluded, finding that the arrivals are canceled out by the hundreds of thousands who return home, die or earn legal status through existing channels such as marrying an American.
Steven A. Camarota, research director at the center and the author of the study, said 1.5 million to 1.7 million illegal immigrants arrived from 2009 through 2013, and he calculates, based on Census Bureau data, that an additional 790,000 came between the middle of 2013 and May of this year.
While not a major surge, and less than the annual increases of 500,000 to 600,000 during President George W. Bush’s term, it suggests a porous border and visa system. Indeed, Mr. Camarota said it’s likely that the illegal flow increasingly isn’t people crossing the land border with Mexico, but rather entering legally and then overstaying visas.
More than half of the new driver’s licenses issued in California during 2015 have gone to illegal immigrants.
“Of the 759,000 total licenses the DMV has issued, 397,000–or 52 percent–have gone to [illegals].”
The surge in illegal licensing is the result of AB 60–a California law that went into effect at the beginning of the year. The law allows applicants to get a license by “only [proving] their identity and California residency, rather than their legal presence in the state.”
According to The Sacramento Bee, the number of applicants is far exceeding the numbers discussed when AB 60 was being considered. Bill proponents predicted “1.4 million applicants over three years,” but they have already received “nearly half a million” applications in the first half of 2015 alone.
The California DMV was overwhelmed at first, and applicants faced “longer wait times and had difficulty making appointments.” DMV spokesperson Jessica Gonzalez said, “It did take a little bit of time to get us acclimated, and now we’re seeing wait times trending down.”
There is a disturbance in American politics. But no one in the political class seems to be pinpointing the correct source.
Donald Trump gets all of the credit for it from journalists, pundits and academics. They could not be more wrong.
They are looking only at the surface, seeing the response to his harangues as an affirmation of the man. If they looked beyond the cartoonish image of Trump, they would understand that the true disturbance is the frustration of Americans, not the bluster of one man.Americans are just tired of it all. Tired of no one speaking honestly to them, tired of being told they cannot speak honestly.And don’t even think about expressing your values if those are outside the elite’s standard of everyone deserving equality and fairness (unless, of course, you disagree with that elitist viewpoint, in which case hatred and character destruction are your reward).
No accountability, no transparency — just a pattern of bureaucratic failure that has cost lives and has fueled anger against government.
This is the tip of the iceberg. If you are “out here” — outside Washington, outside of the coastal elites — you are overwhelmed by the incompetency; if you are “inside” those, you don’t understand folks’ skepticism about everything related to government, including cutting a deal with Iran.
When CBS News reporter Major Garrett pressed President Obama at a news conference last week, asking why American hostages in Iran weren’t addressed in the nuclear arms “deal,” the president was insulted that someone would interrupt his victory lap. Garrett’s peers, supposedly all balanced, hard-nosed journalists paid to ask tough questions, retreated predictably; they failed to practice good journalism by pressing the president on that point, perhaps because they are cloistered in their polarized world.
Donald Trump is going nowhere in this election cycle; neither is Bernie Sanders. But there is nothing wrong about the nomination races being a spectacle right now, because it demonstrates the volume of unrest among people looking for leadership.
Populism is lightning in a bottle. It is always bottom-up and always about people looking for a leader, not a circus barker leading a parade of tigers and jugglers on a small-town promenade.
Trump and Sanders are reflections of the unrest, not the leaders we are seeking.