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: “Intelligence”
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.
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.
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.
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.
A key part of President Obama’s legacy will be the fed’s unprecedented collection of sensitive data on Americans by race. The government is prying into our most personal information at the most local levels, all for the purpose of “racial and economic justice.”
Unbeknown to most Americans, Obama’s racial bean counters are furiously mining data on their health, home loans, credit cards, places of work, neighborhoods, even how their kids are disciplined in school — all to document “inequalities” between minorities and whites.
This Orwellian-style stockpile of statistics includes a vast and permanent network of discrimination databases, which Obama already is using to make “disparate impact” cases against: banks that don’t make enough prime loans to minorities; schools that suspend too many blacks; cities that don’t offer enough Section 8 and other low-income housing for minorities; and employers who turn down African-Americans for jobs due to criminal backgrounds.
Big Brother Barack wants the databases operational before he leaves office, and much of the data in them will be posted online.
So civil-rights attorneys and urban activist groups will be able to exploit them to show patterns of “racial disparities” and “segregation,” even if no other evidence of discrimination exists.Obama is presiding over the largest consolidation of personal data in US history.
The Department of the Interior’s computer systems played a major role in the breach of systems belonging to the Office of Personnel Management, and DOI officials were called before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Wednesday to answer questions about the over 3,000 vulnerabilities in agency systems discovered in a penetration test run by Interior’s Inspector General office. But there was one unexpected revelation during the hearing: a key Interior technology official who had access to sensitive systems for over five years had lied about his education, submitting falsified college transcripts produced by an online service.
The official, Faisal Ahmed, was assistant director of the Interior’s Office of Law Enforcement and Security from 2007 to 2013, heading its Technology division. He claimed to have a bachelor’s degree from the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, and a master’s degree in technology management from the University of Central Florida—but he never attended either of those schools. He resigned from his position at Interior when the fraudulent claim was exposed by a representative of the University of Central Florida’s alumni association, who discovered he had never attended the school after Ahmed accepted and then suddenly deleted a connection with her on LinkedIn.
Faisal did not leave government service, however—he took another government job at the Census Bureau, and is apparently still there, according to a report by the National Journal. While his name had been redacted from the official report, Rep. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming mentioned him by name multiple times during the committee hearing.
“I’m a little concerned…no, well, I’m more than a little concerned that he had access to law enforcement sensitive materials and other secure information,” Lummis said, “and that he had falsified his background, and that now it appears that he is working for another federal agency, the U.S. Census Bureau.”
Educational credential fraud has been an issue in the past in the federal government, though previous investigations have largely focused on government employees using government money to obtain unsubstantiated degrees from “diploma mills.” Faisal, ironically, received federal funds to obtain further education through the Harvard Senior Executive Fellows Program in 2011 despite having no previous formal education. The current tuition for that program is $21,200.