Saturday, March 25, 2017

Day 153 - Hillary's Hackers, Awan Brothers Saga Deepens

History Solves Mystery, Starting With Fuller and Mena Airport.

Enter Carl Cameron of Fox and Dennis Montgomery

Enter Midway Airport and Gary (KGYY) to Reagan Int'l Flights and Awan Brothers Pickups

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Friday, March 24, 2017

Bachmanns Profit From Child Trafficking, In The Name Of God

Behold, the same woman who was the face of foster care and adoption human trafficking for the U.S. Congress, and avid Medicaid fraud proponent,  Michele Bachmann, have resurfaced as still continuing her profitable activities of torturing children, in the name of the tax exempt God.

Yes, this power couple has generated a substantial amount of funding from child welfare to put her in office...and take her out.

And yet, despite being told to about the horrors of children being raped, drugged and tortured in foster care, she and her husband  perpetuates these egregious actions, and does not keep billing records.

Marcus Bachmann’s Christian psychiatric clinics sanctioned for failure to keep patient records

Marcus Bachmann — husband of former Minnesota congresswoman Rep. Michelle Bachmann — received a state correction order on Tuesday regarding his Christian counseling center and its failure to keep proper patient records.

Minneapolis Star-Tribune reported that inspectors from the Minnesota Department of Human Services examined 10 sets of patient records from Bachmann and Associates’ two Counseling Care clinics and found that none of them contained proper documentation of patients’ developmental condition, nor did they indicate that patients had been informed of all treatment alternatives as required by law.

Counseling Care received similar sanctions in 2005 and 2009 for failure to follow state guidelines for client assessment and diagnosis. During Michelle Bachmann’s unsuccessful run for president, Bachmann and Associates, Inc. came under scrutiny for administering “reparative therapy,” which purports to change patients’ sexual orientation from gay or lesbian to heterosexual.

The therapy is wildly ineffective and often results in psychiatric and emotional harm to patients who are trying to alter an immutable aspect of their psyche through prayer and traumatic treatments like shocking the patient’s genitals with electricity when they are exposed to erotic images.
Conversion or “reparative” therapy for minors has been outlawed as a form of child abuse in some states.

Bachmann’s clinics were given 30 days to submit records demonstrating that they are in compliance with state healthcare regulations and diagnostic practices.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS & CICILLINE: The Right Approach to Promoting Competition in the Health Care Marketplace

UPDATE:  President Trump just pulled the Bill from the vote.

Dean of the U.s. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.
Healthy competition in the health insurance marketplace is one of the most critical elements in ensuring that Americans can access quality, affordable health care. When insurance companies are forced to compete, the American people win.

Unfortunately, too many families are still paying higher premiums and out-of-pocket costs today because of anti-competitive practices that health insurance giants are allowed to engage in under the law.

One of the reasons? It’s a law few Americans have ever heard of—the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945.

Under this law, insurers can engage in egregious actions like price fixing, bid rigging, and market allocation with total impunity. These practices allow insurers to inflate their costs and impose burdens on middle class families all across our nation.

That’s why House Democrats have supported the full repeal of the McCarran-Ferguson Act since 1988, and passed legislation to end this antitrust exemption for health insurers in 2010 by a vote of 406-19.

This week, we worked with the same Republicans that opposed this measure in 2010 to pass H.R. 372, the Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act, legislation that repeals the antitrust exemption that has shielded health insurers for more than 70 years.

As the Council of Economic Advisors put it last year, robust enforcement of antitrust laws is “an important way in which the government makes sure the market provides the best outcomes for society with respect to choice, innovation, and price as well as fair labor and business markets.”
But make no mistake: while promoting competition in state markets will benefit consumers, the benefits will be lost if Republicans are able to repeal the strong consumer protections that exist as part of the Affordable Care Act.

These protections, which the American people overwhelmingly support, ensure that health insurance markets operate efficiently, lift limits on lifetime coverage amounts, and protect millions of Americans with pre-existing conditions from discrimination.

Furthermore, the Affordable Care Act dramatically increased the number of health insurers operating in local marketplaces, which has helped slow the growth rate in premium costs to their lowest level in 50 years.

In order to protect the progress we have made over the last seven years, it is critical that we work to strengthen the Affordable Care Act.

Yet, since Election Day, Republicans and President Trump have been squarely focused on repealing the law in its entirety and replacing it with a proposal they claim will establish a national marketplace for health insurance.

In fact, the same architects of the Majority’s “repeal and replace” effort—including Speaker Paul Ryan, Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, and Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Bradyvoted against repealing health insurer’s antitrust immunity in 2010.
They now claim that simply allowing the sale of insurance across state lines will serve as a magical elixir that brings down health care costs for good.

There’s only one problem with this claim: it’s already permitted under ObamaCare.
Section 1333 of the Affordable Care Act already allows states to establish “health care choice compacts” to allow out-of-state health insurers to sell health insurance products in-state.

Several states have already enacted statutes to provide for healthcare choice compacts. The National Conference of State Legislature reports that five states have passed out-of-state purchasing laws since 2008.

The fact is that promoting health insurance competition across state lines, as opposed to cracking down on anti-competitive practices, does little to lower costs for consumers. In fact, despite the existing law, few health insurers choose to engage in cross-state sales because there is little economic incentive for them to do so.

President Trump’s repeal and replace proposal will not change this underlying reality.
The president would be wise to withdraw his proposal and instead focus on joining our bipartisan effort to work across the aisle to improve and strengthen the Affordable Care Act.

Today, thanks to ObamaCare, the uninsured rate is at an all-time low, seniors are paying less for their prescription drugs, millions have received coverage under Medicaid expansion, and the number of competitors in local markets is growing.

The Affordable Care Act is improving Americans’ health care coverage and choice. President Trump owes it to the American people to build on this success rather than tear it down.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS, SLAUGHTER, CROWLEY, NADLER & JEFFRIES: GOP Bill To Single Out New Yorkers Represents Worst of Washington

Members Release Legal Analysis Pointing to Provision’s Unconstitutionality

Washington, D.C. – Today, House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), House Rules Committee Ranking Member Louise Slaughter (D-NY), Democratic Caucus Chairman Joe Crowley (D-NY), and House Judiciary Committee Members Reps. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) released a legal analysis, below, prepared by the House Judiciary Committee Democratic staff demonstrating the unconstitutionality of the ongoing Republican plans to single out New York State for sharing Medicaid costs with its counties. The Members  released the following joint statement:

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.
“House Republicans’ Trumpcare bill is nothing more than a tax cut for the wealthy masquerading as a 'healthcare bill.' If this bill were to become law, 24 million Americans would lose their insurance coverage, and seniors would face skyrocketing premiums. Even worse, to appease the extreme conservatives of the House Republican Freedom Caucus, the newly adopted manager’s amendment includes provisions eliminating Essential Health Benefits requirements such as maternity care, prescription drug and emergency coverage – essentially erasing protections for Americans with pre-existing conditions.

“In a desperate attempt to pass this unconscionable bill, Speaker Ryan and the House Republican leadership have offered to include the Faso-Collins amendment in order to gain the support of vulnerable New York Republican members. This blatant vote buying represents the worst side of Washington politics. In fact, many Republican Attorneys General called a similar provision in 2009 ‘constitutionally flawed’ and ‘violating the most basic and universally held notions of what is fair and just.’  

“By singling out New York State – even though 15 other states have similar systems for sharing Medicaid costs -- and forcing New York to give up its core sovereign power to decide how it will raise funds for its own share of Medicaid, this measure is unconstitutional. This is why we believe New York State would be well within its rights to challenge the provision in court, as Governor Cuomo has suggested.

“The irony of this buyout is that the payment supposedly being delivered in exchange for votes is the legislative equivalent of a check on a closed bank account. It will never deliver the promised benefit. 

“Finally, it is also important to note that House Republican Leadership’s reckless attempt to cram Trumpcare through Congress is that according to the most recent CBO report, the Faso-Collins amendment has no or only incidental impact on the federal budget.  It should therefore be struck under reconciliation rules if this bill even reaches the Senate.” 


For the last 51 years, New York State has chosen to fund a portion of its share of the Medicaid Program by using funds from county property taxes.  Fifteen other states structure Medicaid funding through a similar legally authorized system.

The Faso-Collins amendment, being incorporated into the Manager’s amendment to H.R. 1628, the “American Healthcare Act of 2017,”  specifies that any State that had an allotment of Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) funds that was more than 6 times the national average, and that requires subdivisions with populations of less than 5,000,000 to contribute toward Medicaid costs, shall have its reimbursement reduced by the amount of contributions by such subdivisions. This effectively limits the application to New York State, and carves out New York City. Under the amendment, New York State is at risk of losing $2.3 billion of its $32 billion in Federal Medicaid funds.

The amendment would implicate Constitutional limits on the Federal Spending Power, the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses and the Tenth Amendment (reserving all undelegated powers to the States) because it is not related to a legitimate Federal interest; no rational Federal purpose has been proffered for the provision which singles out New York for discrimination; and it severely intrudes on traditional state prerogatives, such as structuring taxing and spending authorities.  Under a series of Supreme Court cases these provisions would exceed Congress’s spending authority, violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses, and violate Tenth Amendment principles. 

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Day 152 - Hillary's Hackers, Awan Brothers Saga Deepens

Following Up on Chicago Sun Times 2014 Fraud Article Against Gulen Concept Schools

Enter the NGA, the NSA From the Sky
Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Thursday, March 23, 2017

Day 151 - Hillary's Hackers, Awan Brothers Saga Deepens

Collect It All - McCabe Can Order Electronic or Physical Surveillance Any Time Without Warrant. You Only Need FISA If You Are Going Public Or To Trial

Managing David Bluhm Organ Donors and Casino Money Cleaner With Physical Surveillance.

Neil Bluhm Fresh Hearts From Homan Square

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS, GOODLATTE, GRASSLEY, FEINSTEIN, LEAHY Call for Quick Action on Legislation to Provide Selection Process for Register of Copyrights

Makes Register a Presidential Appointment with Senate Confirmation 

Washington, D.C. -- House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) and Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)  today introduced the Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act, which is the product of months of bicameral, bipartisan discussions led by Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.), Chairman Goodlatte, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), and Senate Judiciary Committee Member Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.).

The Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act makes important changes to the selection process for the head of the U.S. Copyright Office, known as the Register of Copyrights.  Specifically, the legislation requires the Register to be nominated by the President of the United States and subject to confirmation by the U.S. Senate.  It would also limit the Register to a ten year term which is renewable by another Presidential nomination and Senate confirmation.

Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Senator Leahy released the following joint statement upon introduction of the Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act.

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.
“We are pleased to join together in a bipartisan, bicameral effort to make important and necessary improvements to the selection process for the position of Register of Copyrights. We remain absolutely committed to working on modernizing the Copyright Office. Reforms being considered include public advisory committees, improvements to Copyright Office systems for data inputs and outputs, and copyright ownership transparency.  However, time is of the essence when it comes to the selection process for a new Register of Copyrights.

“America’s creativity is the envy of the world and the Copyright Office is at the center of it.  With the current Register serving only on an acting basis, now is the time to make changes to ensure that future Registers are transparent and accountable to Congress.  We must ensure that any new Register is a good manager and fully qualified to lead and make this office more operationally effective as he or she continues to directly advise Congress on copyrights. The next Register of Copyrights should be dedicated to serving all stakeholders in the copyright ecosystem.”  

The Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act was introduced with twenty-nine bipartisan cosponsors.

Background:  As part of the copyright review, the House Judiciary Committee held 20 hearings which included testimony from 100 witnesses.  Following these hearings, Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers invited all prior witnesses of the Committee’s copyright review hearings and other interested stakeholders to meet with Committee staff and provide additional input on copyright policy issues.  In addition, the House Judiciary Committee conducted a listening tour with stops in Nashville, Silicon Valley, and Los Angeles where they heard from a wide range of creators, innovators, technology professionals, and users of copyrighted works. In December 2016, Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers released the first policy proposal to come out of the Committee’s review of U.S. Copyright law.  Additional policy proposals will be released.
Original Cosponsors:

Karen Bass (D- Calif.) Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) Ken Buck (R-Colo.) Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) Judy Chu (D-Calif.) David Cicilline (D-R.I.) Doug Collins (R-Ga.) Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) Blake Farethold (R-Texas) Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) Hank Johnson, Jr. (D-Ga.) Mike Johnson (R-La.) Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) Steve King (R-Iowa) Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) Tom Marino (R-Penn.) Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) Ted Poe (R-Texas) John Ratcliffe (R-Texas) Martha Roby (R-Ala.) Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.) Lamar Smith (R-Texas)

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS: Chairman Nunes Should Be Disqualified

It Is Past Time for an Independent Investigation into Russia and the Trump Campaign

Washington, D.C. – Yesterday, Chairman Devin Nunes of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence told reporters that, “on numerous occasions, the intelligence community incidentally collected information about U.S. citizens involved in the Trump transition.”  Chairman Nunes then traveled to the White House to share his findings with President Donald Trump.  FBI Director James Comey recently confirmed that President Trump and his associates are the subject of an ongoing counterintelligence investigation. Later in the evening, CNN reported that the FBI may be in possession of evidence that indicates direct collusion between President Trump’s team and Russian officials, possibly to coordinate the release of information damaging to Hillary Clinton’s campaign. 

House Committee on the Judiciary Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. released the following statement in response to these developments:

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.
“An after-the-fact apology is not enough. With his reckless behavior, Chairman Nunes has disqualified himself to lead any legitimate investigation into the actions of the Trump campaign.  Despite what evidence he may have, he is not entitled to share that information with President Trump before briefing his colleagues on the intelligence committee.  President Trump is the potential target of an ongoing federal investigation.  This is more than a breach of protocol – it is a direct threat to the work of the FBI.

“The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee cannot be a surrogate of the White House.  At a minimum, this investigation must be taken out of Chairman Nunes’ hands.

“If indeed the FBI has evidence of collusion or communication between President Trump and the Russian government, then we can wait no longer.  It is past time for Congress to establish a bipartisan, independent panel to uncover the full scope of the President’s allegedly treasonous actions.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS At Capitol In Opposition To "Wealth Care" Bill

Image may contain: 6 people, people smiling, people standing, crowd and outdoorYesterday, I joined my colleagues and former VP Joe Biden in front of the Capitol in opposition to the Republican healthcare bill that I like to call "Wealth Care".

Despite all the wrong that this bill does and opposition from both Democrats and Republicans, Trump and Ryan are continuing to try to bully Republicans into passing this bill. We can't afford to have millions of Americans lose their health insurance.



Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Michigan Daire Rendon Includes "The Poors" In Public Meetings

Without further adieu, I would like to honor Michigan House Representative Daire Rendon (formerly know as LMHM) for her greatest political lifetime achievement, by recognizing this monumental moment of her participation in the concept of open democracy to ameliorate the pervasive situation of childhood poverty in the State of Michigan and to allow the public recording through testimony, of the pandemic patterns of practice with fraud, waste, abuse, and human trafficking through publicly funded child welfare, privatized programs.


Within an hour of the March 23, 2017 Public Meeting of the Michigan House Standing Committee on Families, Children & Seniors, Daire Rendon, has, for the first time in the history of her legislative tenure as the Chair, successfully executed her duties of public office, in the capacity of a public servant, by publishing public notice of the next scheduled meeting, more than 22 hours, in advance.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have ourselves an open meeting, devoid of another skirting in legal semantics of the Open Meetings Act's 18 hour rule.

This is to mean that the primary stakeholders, "The Poors", will have opportunity to submit into the public record, well in advance of the meeting, for the secondary stakeholders, the privatized contractors, state administrators, fellow committee members, and federal oversight authorities, to prepare, review, and simply vet, the matters on the agenda, for the purposes of engaging in logical and ethical discussions to improve the delivery and quality of services, in the most expedient and efficient manner for improvements in the quality of life and the posterity of the state, to about 50% of the state residents, mainly children in poverty.

Madam Chair, welcome to the world of public rulemaking.

I look forward to working with you and your Committee.

Standing Committee Meeting

Families, Children, and Seniors, Rep. Daire Rendon, Chair

DATE: Thursday, March 30, 2017

TIME: 10:30 AM

PLACE: Room 327, House Office Building, Lansing, MI

Presentation regarding an in-house program with the Washtenaw County Sherriff’s office for behavioral healthcare of inmates.

Speaking on the issue is:

Derrick Jackson, MSW
Director of Community Engagement
Washtenaw County Sheriff Office


Allan Wachendorfer, LMSW - Macro
Director of Public Policy
National Association of Social Workers - Michigan


To view text of legislation go to:

Individuals needing special accommodations to participate in the meeting may contact the Chair's office.

Schedule changes or cancellations available at

Notice posted: 3/23/2017 at 12:12 p.m.

Yellen says problems of childhood poverty linger

A new Federal Reserve survey has found that children who grew up in poverty were twice as likely to struggle with financial challenges later in life, Fed Chair Janet Yellen said Thursday.

The survey showed that more than half of young people age 25 to 39 who reported that as children they worried over things like having enough food were currently facing financial challenges, Yellen said. That was double the number with financial troubles who did not face such concerns as children.
Yellen told a Fed conference on community development that the findings underscored the need to provide children with the resources they need to achieve financial success later in life.

In her speech, Yellen made no comments on the current state of the economy or interest rates.
In the survey, which the Fed will publish later this spring, Yellen said there was a clear connection between childhood struggles and financial problems later in life.

"Young adults who regularly or sometimes worried when they were children about care, safety or having enough to eat are also less likely to be employed, less likely to have consistent income month-to-month and less likely to pay all of their current monthly bills in full, compared with those who never or rarely worried about these concerns as children," Yellen said.

Yellen said the research to be presented at the Fed's two-day conference made a compelling case for the need to prepare people starting at an early age for success in the labor market.

"This research underscores the value of starting young to develop basic work habits and skills," she said. "These habits and skills help prepare people for work, help them enter the labor market sooner, meet with more success over time and be in a position to develop the more specialized skills and obtain the academic credentials that are strongly correlated with higher and steadier earnings."

Yellen said a growing body of research showed that greater success was being achieved by addressing workforce development in early childhood education compared to spending on job training later in life.

"Ensuring that all of our kids have 'strong foundations' will help build a similarly strong foundation for the U.S. economy," Yellen said.

(Will update once I have found the Federal Reserve Survey cited in this article.)

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

CONYERS: Our Water Infrastructure Deficit is the Real Crisis

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.
Politicians nationwide are neglecting one of the most pressing challenges of our generation: an unprecedented and ever-increasing deficit. If left unchecked, it will only grow in severity and continue to saddle our children and grandchildren with its devastating effects. It is a deficit that can only be addressed with decisive action from our nation’s leaders.

I am not talking about mere fiscal shortfalls, which can easily be corrected through fair tax policies. I am referring to America’s $697 billion water infrastructure deficit. On World Water Day, we must commit our nation to fulfilling the basic promise of universal access to clean water.

In 1972, Congress passed the Clean Water Act, affirming our government’s commitment to ensuring access to clean water for all Americans. But over the past four decades, Congress failed to fulfill this promise. Funding for water infrastructure peaked in 1977, but fell by 74% in real dollars by 2014. At its zenith the federal government spent $76.27 per person (in 2014 dollars) on water services. By 2014 that number was just $13.68 per person. The sustained lack of funding for water services has led to an aging infrastructure that, according to the latest EPA reports, will require $697 billion in repairs over the next twenty years. In contrast, US defense spending nearly doubled over the same time span to over $700 billion a year, including funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and President Trump says we can afford an additional $54 billion a year in military spending. It is time we acknowledge that a modern, safe drinking and wastewater system is at least as important to American national security as bombs and bullets.

Tragically, the State of Michigan already experienced firsthand the horror of what can happen when aging infrastructure meets the ideology of austerity. Decisions made by the state-appointed officials in Flint resulted in a public health crisis leaving tens of thousands of children exposed to dangerously high levels of lead. Many of the victims will suffer from lifelong impairments because of this exposure.

But the tragedy in Flint is not an anomaly. It is not an isolated incident that merits our thoughts and prayers but little action or accountability. Reports of lead levels in Detroit Public Schools of 100 times the allowable limit caused the Detroit Department of Health to call for lead screening for all students under the age of 6. Flint was a warning sign, a harbinger of a future with a crumbling water infrastructure, a future that looks increasingly like our present situation. Even in the halls of Congress, hundreds of offices lost access to tap water last year due to elevated levels of lead. Without federal funding, the crisis in Flint could very well become the norm across the nation. With over 11,000 community water systems utilizing 6 million lead service pipelines, the risk of another Flint is far too high.

That is why today I am reintroducing an overdue piece of legislation, “The Water Affordability, Transparency, Equity and Reliability (WATER) Act,” which is co-sponsored by 18 members of Congress and supported by over 60 national and grassroots organizations.

The WATER Act will issue grants to ensure homeowners’ service lines that may contain lead are replaced. Our water infrastructure problems extend far beyond lead pipes, however. Over one million miles of piping beneath our streets and homes, a century and a half worth of cast iron, copper, and even wooden vessels, are nearing the end of their lives. The American Water Works Association warns that leaving our decaying infrastructure unchecked will result in “degrading water service, increasing water service disruptions, and increasing expenditures for emergency repairs.” A modern water system may be a challenge for many developing countries – it should not be for the wealthiest nation on the planet.

To directly address the lead found in water at public schools in Detroit and across the country, the WATER Act provides funding to public schools for testing, repairing, replacing, or installing the necessary infrastructure for drinking water. Our children should not endanger their long-term health at the water fountain between classes.

The WATER Act’s $35 billion annual expenditure will be paid for by needed changes to our corporate tax code. The act ends the income tax deferral for offshore corporate profits, a move expected to generate over $60 billion annually. The $35 billion for repairing and replacing our infrastructure will create around one million new jobs here in America—jobs that cannot be outsourced to other countries. I further included Buy America provisions to ensure that the materials used are produced right here, and have indicated that union labor must be given a priority in the construction contracts, so that jobs created by my bill will be family-supporting jobs.

The WATER Act is a win-win-win for the American people. We will no longer feel anxious as we pour our children a glass of water, wondering if it is clean and safe. We will ensure corporations pay their fair share of taxes. And we will put hundreds of thousands of Americans back to work modernizing American infrastructure. Congress should give Americans something to drink to, and pass my WATER Act without delay.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS Statement on H.R. 1393, the "Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act of 2017"

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.
H.R. 1393, the “Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act,” helps to clarify various record-keeping and state income tax liability issues.  Nevertheless, the bill requires further revision before I can support it.

On the positive side, H.R. 1393 attempts to solve a legitimate problem presented by employee tax liability and employer withholding requirements.

Many employers are subject to multiple tax compliance record-keeping requirements for their mobile workers. 

These workers, in turn, are often subject to potentially conflicting and thereby confusing multiple state income tax requirements.

The paperwork that both employers and workers must file can be complicated and time-consuming.

And the filings, especially for sometimes miniscule amounts of income, can even be burdensome to state revenue departments.

Unfortunately, H.R. 1393, if enacted, could result in some states losing millions of dollars in revenue.

In fact, New York could lose upwards of $100 million in revenue.

Fortunately, this legislation only needs some simple changes to eliminate these negative impacts. 

For example, the bill currently has a 30-day threshold before an employee would be required to pay income taxes in a state. A much lower threshold would be fairer to the states and still provide certainty to employers and employees.

In addition, the bill’s timekeeping requirements could be tightened to help prevent tax avoidance.

A solution appears to potentially close and, accordingly, I look forward to working with my colleagues and the various stakeholders to finally achieve this goal.

I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to urge my colleagues to pass a fair and uniform framework to allow states to collect taxes owed on remote sales, rather than proceed with this flawed bill.

By staying silent since the Supreme Court’s 1992 Quill decision, Congress has failed to ensure that states have the authority to collect the sales and use tax on internet purchases.

While this decision may have made sense in 1992, it does not stand up well over time. In 2015 alone $26 billion dollars owed to states went uncollected.

Lost tax revenues mean that state and local governments will have fewer resources to provide their residents essential services, such as education and health care.

This Congress, House Republicans are advancing both TrumpCare and a disastrous budget that would both cut untold amounts of federal assistance to the states.

In light of these looming funding cuts, the loss of billions of dollars in state revenue is more pressing than ever.  This committee should move swiftly to close the internet tax loophole by passing legislation this Congress.

I thank the Chairman and yield back the balance of my time.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

On World Water Day, Conyers Reintroduces Bill To Address Nation's Water Infrastructure Crisis

Washington, D.C. — Congressman John Conyers, Jr. (MI-13) today reintroduced the Water Affordability, Transparency, Equity and Reliability(WATER) Act. This legislation would provide nearly $35 billion annually to modernize U.S. water infrastructure. The WATER Act funds infrastructure projects by closing a loophole on offshore corporate profits. The WATER Act would make these profits subject to U.S. tax in the year they are generated and ensure that all funds would go to publicly-owned water systems, rather than for-profit providers.

Dean of the U.S.House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.
“Today, we mark World Water Day 2017—where we focus on how important this fundamental resource is to life itself. Around the world, people struggle with access to safe, affordable water—sadly America is no different. Thousands of communities depend on water pipes that are a century old, unsafe, and need to be replaced,” Congressman Conyers said. “That is why I’m introducing the WATER Act of 2017, which funds a massive investment in our public water utilities and creates thousands of jobs in every community. It would help places like Flint, where lead has made the water undrinkable—or Detroit, where outdated infrastructure makes water unaffordable. In the richest country in the world—safe, affordable water in every home is a basic human right.  The WATER Act would make that principle a reality for every American.”

More than 11,200 community water systems have lead service lines, some of which provide water to schools. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates roughly $697 billion is needed to upgrade our drinking water and wastewater systems over the next 20 years.  Without adequate federal support, communities often have to compensate for the funding gap by raising service rates, which some households cannot afford, leading some—including thousands of Detroiters—to be cut off from water and sewer service. Current failing service lines pose a danger to the environment, and wastewater overflows threaten public health. Congressman Conyers introduced the WATER Act to help ensure access to safe, clean, affordable water service. The bill reintroduction comes a day after reports indicated that nearly 380,000 Michigan residents get their water from systems that would fail to meet lead-safety standards proposed by Michigan Governor Rick Snyder.

The WATER Act would allow states to issue grants to replace lead service lines and would establish a School Drinking Water Improvement Grant program to provide funding to public primary and secondary schools that wish to test, repair, replace or install the infrastructure necessary for drinking water foundations or bottle filling stations. Additionally, the WATER Act creates a new grant program to help households install, repair, replace and upgrade septic tanks and drainage fields. The legislation also amends the existing Tribal grant program to increase the amount of assistance from 1.5 percent of Drinking Water SRF funds to 3 percent.

The legislation is cosponsored by Reps. Cheri Bustos (IL-17), Yvette Clarke (NY-09), Keith Ellison (MN-05), Dwight Evans (PA-02), Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02), Raúl Grijalva (AZ-03), Jared Huffman (CA-02), Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18), Pramila Jayapal (WA-07), Hank Johnson (GA-04), Brenda Lawrence (MI-14), Michelle Lujan Grisham (NM-01), Betty McCollum (MN-04), James McGovern (MA-02), Gwen Moore (WI-04), Jerrold Nadler (NY-10), Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC), Mark Pocan (WI-02), Jamie Raskin (MD-08), Jan Schakowsky (IL-09), Peter Welch (VT-At Large). It is endorsed by over 60 labor unions, national and grassroots organizations, including:  Food & Water Watch, Public Citizen, AFSCME, UAW, National Nurses United, 9to5, National Association of Working Women, Alliance for Democracy, Center for Biological Diversity, Corporate Accountability International, Hip Hop Caucus, Michigan Unitarian Universalist Social Justice Network, United Church of Christ, Detroit Metropolitan Association Social Justice Mission Team, Michigan United, Water You Fighting For, We the People of Detroit.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

"Lil Miss Hot Mess" Daire Rendon Disenfranchises Michigan, Again!

Lil Miss Hot Mess Daire Rendon,
Michigan House Chair for the
Standing Committee on
Families, Children & Seniors

"Lil Miss Hot Mess" Daire Rendon  [(a.k.a. LMHM) a term of endearment from folks who work with her] has done it again.

With about 239 minutes to spare, LMHM has posted the public notice of an open meeting, 3 hours and 59 minutes past the 18th hour mark of the statute.

But, wait, the best part is that the meeting is about Medicaid, my field of expertise (fraud, waste and abuse) for this committee, but, alas, I am unable to attend, due to the fact that, again, I do not have enough advanced notice to make arrangements for an entire crew of Michigan stakeholders (a.k.a. "The Poors") who wish to, also, share their subject matter expertise.

It is such a shame the minutes of the previous meeting were never published, again.

I wonder if there is some kind of policy, training program, or investigative entity, that would be so kind to engage LMHM in the ways of running a committee.

Perhaps, the committee would like to contract with me to provide, in depth, instruction on the administration of government, well, we will strictly focus on being the committee chair for the law and policies of the largest section of the state's budget.

So, until LMHM Rendon figures out that she cannot disenfranchise the people from public participation of the Legislature, I am going to continue to advocate for democracy, a public concept which seems to sincerely elude LMHM.

This was posted March 22, 2017 at 1:29 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, via email.

Standing Committee Meeting

Families, Children, and Seniors, Rep. Daire Rendon, Chair

DATE: Thursday, March 23, 2017

TIME: 10:30 AM

PLACE: Room 327, House Office Building, Lansing, MI

Presentation from Deputy Director of the Department of Health and Human Services Medical Services Administration

HB 4180 (Rep. Neeley)   Family law; domestic violence; reference to family independence agency in a certain act; revise to department of health and human services.


To view text of legislation go to:

Committee Clerk: Taylor Thrush
Phone: 517-373-7256

Individuals needing special accommodations to participate in the meeting may contact the Chair's office.

Schedule changes or cancellations available at

Notice posted: 3/22/2017  <=== Seriously.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Day 150 - Hillary's Hackers, Awan Brothers Saga Deepens

Faye Turnbull, RT UK Promoted Our Series To @_chrismacguire at RT Dublin

Concept School HQ Next To A Casino? In A Casino?

USDA and FAA Very close to Concept Scoops HQ

Organ Harvesting BRC Directly Across From Rosemont Casino

USDA, FAA, Concept Schools, Casinos, Organ Harvesting, All Together In Hillary's Back Yard, Oh Yeah, Pakistani Mangos

Nunes Cites "Dozens and Dozens" of Surveillance Taskings , At Least Two Whistleblowers More Now

More Muhammed Shah Photos - Iwan Brothers Facebook Likes

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS: For Once, I Agree With Governor Snyder!

Washington, D.C. – Today, Michigan Governor Rick Snyder sent a letter to the entire Michigan Congressional Delegation informing them of his opposition to the American Health Care Act, the House Speaker Paul Ryan and President Donald Trump backed plan to sharply cut Medicaid and reduce taxes for the wealthiest Americans. In his letter, Governor Snyder points out that the bill “shifts significant financial risk and cost from the federal government to states without providing sufficient flexibility to manage this additional responsibility,” and that it “reduces federal resources that our state relies on to assist 2.4 million Michiganders enrolled in traditional Medicaid and the Healthy Michigan Plan …”

In response, Congressman John Conyers, Jr. (MI-13) released the following statement:

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers Jr.
“For once, I agree with Governor Snyder’s views on the Republican healthcare bill — or as I call it, wealth care bill. As Snyder points out, about half of all children in Michigan are served by Medicaid, and those children will suffer if Donald Trump and Paul Ryan pass this massive tax cut for the wealthy.

“The bill is a massive transfer of wealth that takes money from those most in need and gives it to the rich. Under this bill, the 400 wealthiest families in America get a tax break worth $7 million per year. The bill undoes protections that the Affordable Care Act provides by allowing insurance companies to discriminate against cancer survivors or people with disabilities by charging them higher rates, or denying them coverage altogether. This Trump/Ryan backed bill also allows insurance companies to charge seniors five times more than what others pay for the same plan.

“Governor Snyder is right to be concerned about the additional costs this bad bill will shift to the state of Michigan. Because I believe that healthcare is a right for all, not a privilege for those who can afford it, I have long championed a single-payer, Medicare-for-All approach to healthcare that would finally establish truly universal care. If Governor Snyder is serious about reducing the strain on state resources, I call on him to join me in supporting Medicare-for-All, which would virtually eliminate state spending to subsidize care.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS Floor Statement for H.R. 372, the “Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act of 2017"

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.
Although I rise in qualified support of H.R. 372, the “Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act of 2017,” I do not endorse the Majority’s exaggerated claims regarding the bill’s impact on the affordability and availability of health insurance.

H.R. 372 would partially repeal the limited Federal antitrust exemption for the business of insurance established by the McCarran-Ferguson Act in 1945. 

Specifically, the bill only permits Federal antitrust enforcement with regard to the business of health insurance.

House Democrats have long supported a full repeal of McCarran-Ferguson’s antitrust exemption for all insurers, not just for health insurers.

And, in 2010, under a Democratic House Majority, we passed legislation to repeal the McCarran-Ferguson exemption for health insurers by a vote of 406 to 19, even though House Republicans had not previously supported moving any version of a McCarran-Ferguson repeal bill.

But let me be clear.  Enacting H.R. 372 would in no way be a substitute for the many health insurance guarantees of the Affordable Care Act.

To begin with, enacting H.R. 372 would not significantly improve health care affordability or coverage.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, H.R. 372’s effect on health insurance premiums “would probably be quite small,” and enacting the bill will have “no significant net effect on the premiums that private insurers would charge for health or dental insurance.”

And, Consumers Union observes that the application of the antitrust laws to some health insurance activity, by itself, is simply not enough to create a vibrant insurance market because our “long experience shows you can’t expect a health care system to run effectively on competition alone.”

Likewise, the Majority’s claim that enacting H.R. 372 would create major new competition by allowing cross-state insurance sales is unavailing.

Current law, including the Affordable Care Act, already allows states to agree with each other to allow cross-state insurance sales.

Enabling Federal antitrust agencies to police certain forms of anticompetitive conduct will not, in and of itself, incentivize health insurers to offer products across state lines beyond the incentives that already exist for offering such products.

Whatever the incentives for health insurers to offer such products, they have little to do with Federal antitrust law or enforcement.

Finally, enacting H.R. 372 would not ensure that the Affordable Care Act’s prohibitions against discrimination and limits on premium growth would remain in place.

H.R. 372 only applies to certain anticompetitive conduct and does not preserve or enhance existing protections for consumers of health insurance.

For instance, it does not prohibit discrimination by health insurers on the basis of preexisting conditions.  Nor does it reduce premium growth or require health insurers to be accountable for price increases.

Repeal of the antitrust exemption for health insurance is a complement to, not a replacement for, the Affordable Care Act’s many consumer protections.

This is not an “either/or” situation.  We need H.R. 372 and the Affordable Care Act to be in place to maximize benefits, improve quality, and lower costs for consumers.

While I support the bill, I take issue with the Majority’s rhetoric.  It is important that we set the record straight here.

I reserve the balance of my time.


In closing, I want to reiterate my support for H.R. 372. 

As I have already mentioned, House Democrats have long supported legislation to repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act’s exemption for the business of insurance.

Repealing the antitrust exemption for health insurers, as H.R. 372 does, will make the Affordable Care Act even more effective.

I disagree, however, with the Majority’s attempt to use this legislation as a fig leaf for replacing the Affordable Care Act. 

Indeed, the same architects of the Majority’s “repeal and replace” effort—including Speaker Paul Ryan, Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, and Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady—voted against a substantively identical version of this bill in 2010. 
Let us not be fooled. I yield back.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Tuesday, March 21, 2017

9th Circuit Opinion Says Child Welfare Workers Do Not Have"Right To Lie"

On January 3, 2017, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rendered its opinion in the "Right To Lie" case.
9th Circuit Judge Stephen Trott

I can not give this opinion its proper honors due, so instead, I have provided a few highlights of Judge Stephen Trott's opinion.
No official with an IQ greater than room temperature in Alaska could claim that he or she did not know that the conduct at the center of this case violated both state and federal law.  The social workers in this case are alleged to have knowingly and maliciously violated the law in their attempt to sever Preslie’s protected relationship with her mother. Perjury is a crime under both federal and California state law, as is the knowing submission of false evidence to a court.
Then, there was this one.
When asked about these legal facts during oral argument, the following colloquy occurred: 
Judge Trott: Are you telling me that a person in your client’s shoes could not understand you cannot commit perjury in a court proceeding in order to take somebody’s children away? 
Answer: Of course not. 
Judge Owens: Was there anything you know of that told social workers that they should lie and they should create false evidence in a court proceeding? 
Answer: No . . . .
In a nutshell, the Justices ripped these child welfare workers, the county, and the legal community a new one by stating that

Trust me, I will be following up on this one because I want to know if the DOJ is going to follow up with criminal charges and if there exists an attorney, or just a warm body with a valid P number who is game on calling me to assist in bringing forth an action of false claims.

Hell, State can bring forth an action against Orange County.

But, of course, nothing will happen and the child welfare system will continue to operate as usual, well, they may snatch more kids to make up for the settlement of the case.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS Statement At Hearing With DOJ IG & GAO Directors Of Justice & Homeland Issues

Washington, D.C. – House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) provided the following remarks at a hearing entitled, “Examining Systemic Management and Fiscal Challenges Within the Department of Justice” featuring Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz and U.S. Government Accountability Office of Homeland Security and Justice Director Diana Maurer:

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you to our distinguished guests for joining us today.

Mr. Chairman, I understand that you have framed this hearing around management and fiscal challenges at the Department of Justice.

Like you—and like our witnesses from the Government Accountability Office and the Office of the Inspector General—I believe that meaningful oversight of the Department of Justice requires us all to be good stewards of taxpayer funds.

There are many areas we can pursue, including the disproportionate amount of the Department’s budget that is consumed by prison spending.  In addition, the Inspector General has issued a report specifying serious problems with privately operated prisons, which do not maintain the same level of safety and security as Bureau of Prisons facilities and which do not provide an adequate level of rehabilitative services.  These are troubling issues that many of my colleagues, including Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, and I have focused on over the years. 

However, given the roles our witnesses play in more pressing developments at the Department of Justice, I would also like to focus my time today on a few, more discrete issues.

First, on the topic of fiscal management, I wonder if our witnesses can speak to the budget priorities of the Trump Administration.

This Committee has oversight of the United States Secret Service—an agency that provides protection to the President every time he travels to New York or Florida for the weekend, and to his family as they travel the world to advance the interests of the Trump Organization.

It seems to me that the GAO is the right organization to evaluate the cost of that protection to the taxpayer, and to place that cost in the context of a proposed budget that makes deep cuts to a number of important programs.

Second, on February 17, 2017, Mr. Jeffries and I wrote a letter—signed by many of my colleagues—to you, Mr. Inspector General.

In that letter, we asked your office to investigate two matters: (1) whether the Trump Administration has engaged any improper effort to intimidate or threaten whistleblowers, and (2) whether Attorney General Sessions has a conflict of interest that requires his recusal from any matter involving contact between Russian officials and the Trump campaign.

Let me be clear: I do not condone the leaks of classified information to the press. 

But the President has gone out of his way to intimidate virtually any individual hoping to expose misconduct in the Trump Administration—including but not limited to random searches of personal cell phones, and general harassment via Twitter.

I know that the Inspector General agrees that whistleblowers are key to identifying waste, fraud, and abuse, and I hope his office is looking into the matter.

Finally, on March 16, 2017, I again wrote to the Inspector General, this time asking about improper contacts between the White House and the Department of Justice.

We know that the White House Chief of Staff has called the Director and Deputy Director of the FBI, asking them to comment publicly to “knock down” reporting he did not like.

We also know that President Trump placed a phone call to Preet Bharara, former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, the day before the Administration summarily fired all 46 sitting U.S. Attorneys.
And, we know that these calls are in direct violation of standing guidance at the Department of Justice, prohibiting contact between its investigators and the White House except in extraordinary circumstances.

To their credit, none of these officials complied with pressure from the White House.  Knowing the Department’s rules about such contacts, Mr. Bharara did not even take the call.

Nevertheless, I fear that the White House has ignored this important policy—and that further investigation by the Inspector General is warranted.

I look forward to our discussion on these and other matters today, I thank the Chairman, and I yield back.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©