10 things to know today

Your daily look at late-breaking news, upcoming events and the stories that will be talked about Wednesday:
AP Wire
Jul 23, 2014

1. HAMAS ROCKET EXPLODES NEAR ISRAEL'S MAIN AIRPORT

The shelling prompts a ban on many flights to Tel Aviv from the U.S., Europe and Canada.

2. PRO-RUSSIA MILITANTS BLAMED IN DOWNING OF PLANE

Ukraine separatists almost certainly shot down the Malaysian plane, U.S. officials have concluded. But so far investigators haven't found any direct link between the missile launch and Moscow.

3. FRESH CHALLENGE FOR 'OBAMACARE'

Financial aid for millions of health care enrollees can be provided only in states that have set up their own insurance exchanges, a court declares.

4. WHO'S BEARISH ON AMERICAN ECONOMY

David A. Levy, the economist who predicted the severe downturn a decade ago, says he foresees another recession in the U.S. next year.

5. TSARNAEV FRIEND ARRESTED ON DRUG, WEAPONS CHARGES

The man is believed to have provided the gun used by the Boston Marathon bombing suspects to kill an MIT policeman.

6. WHY MOMENTUM'S MOUNTING AT APPLE

Anticipation is building for the release of the next iPhone, which is expected to feature the bigger screen that consumers covet.

7. CHRISTIANS PAINT DIRE PICTURE OF LIFE UNDER ISLAMISTS

They say they left their belongings behind and fled the Iraqi city of Mosul rather than convert to Islam under a deadline imposed by the extremists.

8. WHAT'S EMBARRASSING BUCKINGHAM PALACE

A racehorse owned by Britain's queen has tested positive for a banned painkiller. Contaminated feed might be to blame.

9. DIRECTORS REFUSING TO SAY 'CUT'

Clint Eastwood, who's 84, and 78-year-old Woody Allen are among older filmmakers still hard at work.

10. MICHAEL SAM TAKES THE FIELD

The NFL's first openly gay draftee — participating in the first practice for Rams' rookies — says his focus is on making the team.

Comments

Vladtheimp

11. AS MUCH AS AP THINKS MICHAEL SAM, AGING DIRECTORS, AND THE QUEEN'S RACEHORSE ARE IMPORTANT, THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS STILL THE BIG PROBLEM

a. The inside story of what's happening at the border http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z...

b. ALL OBAMA AMNESTY ALL DAY - HHS: 96% of 45,157 Illegal Alien Children ‘Discharged’ to ‘Sponsor’ in the U.S.

"Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson conceded that some sponsors are themselves illegal when asked by Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) about the fate of children taken into custody by CBP."

Harry Kovaire

Seriously Vlad. America needs these immigrants. They are crucial replacement voters and welfare recipients for the ones we aborted. They are doing the jobs dead American babies won't do.

Lanivan

Wow, Harry. Seriously inappropriate, not to mention way off-topic.

Might I suggest a nice warm bowl of stewed prunes? - (with a second helping for your soulmate, Vlad).

AlexBell

Pretty short list this morning. You running out of steam or does your Mom need to clean the basement and you had to get out?

Vladtheimp

The latter, Little Man - she said Obama has raised her insurance and other costs so much that I have to go out and get a job, hoping she can rent my former space to the feds as a place for illegals to live, or maybe a pied-à-terre for you and Michael Sam.

Lanivan

Nice, Vlad. You managed to encapsulate your every phobia in one neat tidy reply! Hey - isn't it time to break open the Malbec?

Lanivan

#9. I heard Cling Eastwood was in town to present a miniature lawn chair to a private citizen. Did anybody run into him?

#3. Looks like a couple of conservative judges down in DC pulled a whopper of a ruling. Looks bad, very bad, for their reputations, conservatives, and the millions of Americans who will have their insurance suspended and taxes raised because of a couple of bonehead conservative men in robes. When will conservative judges quit ruling based on their personal ideologies, or on those to whom they serve, i.e. the billionaire philanthropists, the Koch Bros (echo5oscar - that was for you. Happy now?), and quit shredding the Constitution, and conveniently forgetting to make decisions based on the precepts of Justice and Intent?

Vladtheimp

#3. Translation - Ignoramus who knows nothing about law and statutory construction except that judges should rule according to their ovaries and their political party dislikes well reasoned decision applying rule of law because, well, she doesn't like it.

Decision concluded with:

""We reach this conclusion, frankly, with reluctance. At
least until states that wish to can set up Exchanges, our ruling
will likely have significant consequences both for the millions
of individuals receiving tax credits through federal Exchanges
and for health insurance markets more broadly. But, high as
those stakes are, the principle of legislative supremacy that
guides us is higher still. Within constitutional limits, Congress
is supreme in matters of policy, and the consequence of that
supremacy is that our duty when interpreting a statute is to
ascertain the meaning of the words of the statute duly enacted
through the formal legislative process. This limited role
serves democratic interests by ensuring that policy is made by
elected, politically accountable representatives, not by
appointed, life-tenured judges."

Very liberal and well respected law professor Jonathan Turley testified before Congress just days ago, echoing the concerns that Obama has usurped such power that we have reached a tipping point. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l...

In response to quote from 4th Circuit decision - from a legal perspective, that decision was based on a wholly inappropriate construction of the statute leading to a decision to defer to the administrative discretion of the IRS - - - in matters related to health care, which actually falls under expertise of Health and Human Services, which was delegated the authority to promulgate regulations relative to the health aspects of Obamacare. However, this decision was o.k. because it was written by a Judge who looks like Obama and a Judge with Ovaries. How liberals determine the law: http://youtu.be/WUcxCEEuwd0

LOL - Support for deferring to the discretion of the IRS - can deferring to ISIS or Hamas be far behind?

Lanivan

As you might imagine, I take issue with your translation, especially calling me an ignoramus, devoid of knowledge of law and statutory construction, and (my?) ovaries. But I recognize and expect this kind of retaliation from you, and will instead address the rest of your reply.

You and some conservative guys in robes are correct. Congress is supreme in matters of policy, and that is crux of the matter. The Republican Congress has nearly abdicated their Constitutional responsibility to matters of policy. A functional Congress would simply apply the "formal legislative process" to the ACA, and with a few lines of legislation fix the ambiguities and unintended consequences that inevitably turn up in the a 1000-page piece of legislation (and that in itself is a topic for another time).

The DC decision serves to highlight the debased dysfunction of the current Congress. It highlights the fact that the Republican Congress is not the least bit interested in the healthcare of the American public, but is solely interested in building a case for impeachment. They are not the least bit serious about addressing national problems, and they are quite open about it.

Congressional Republicans refuse to approve executive branch nominees, they can't or won't pass any substantive legislation, - they can barely manage to keep the government functioning as mandated by existing laws.

They refused to deal with a terribly inefficient, wasteful, and unfair health care system that was adding billions to the federal budget, even though the legislation passed to address this problem - the ACA - was based on a Republican universal health care plan from 1989, and contained 161 Republican amendments.

They refuse to acknowledge the US contribution to global warming; the excessive debt; the broken immigration system; and promote unnecessary unilateral war-mongering and foreign policy adventurism, even when this approach under Bush proved disastrous for the country, or the corruption in the VA system. They are either overwhelmed, lack the ability, or simply don't care to seriously meet the challenges before us all.

Instead, they have chosen a strategy of branding Obama as the dictatorial "Imperial President", even though certainly Nixon and Bush II were the real all-powerful kings. In the next breath, they declare him to be feckless and weak. So which is it? Why the contradiction? Oh yeah! These are terrific red-meat terms to rally the base! The classic sign of narcissism is to claim both sides of an argument. (surprise)

Obama has little choice but to use executive authority in this dysfunctional, polarized political climate. The blame lies squarely with Congress for the present expansion of presidential powers under Bush and Obama; and, in the case of Obama, the Republican script for impeachment calls for it.

I know Turley from hearings back in 2013. I do not understand why he allows himself, a concerned Constitutional law professor, to be used as a pawn for Republicans. Surely a brilliant man like him must know that his concern for the usurping of presidential powers will only be used by narcissistic hypocrites who care less about the usurping of powers due to their abdication of responsibility than they do about the usurping of powers to impeach.

Tri-cities realist

Or perhaps Turley understands the Constitution and what the role of each branch of govt is. Or perhaps he isn't an Obama sycophant. There is hope for you yet.

Vladtheimp

Your inability to understand the position of Jonathan Turley, with whom I disagree on almost everything political but with whom I agree on most matters legal and Constitutional stems from the fact that you misunderstand law and the Constitution. Turley and I and many other attorneys have a deep reverence for the Rule of Law provided by the Constitution - its Government of limited powers shared among three co-equal branches - the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial - with separate and distinct powers and Checks and Balances. We do not see law as a political weapon, like simply another biased poll or power play like overturning centuries of Senate traditions for the same reason that a dog can lick its privates.

For the record, that is one major reason why I take umbrage at being lectured by someone who believes she can substitute years of legal education and over 30 years of the practice of law in an arena that included drafting legislation, interpreting legislation, taking legal positions on Separation of Powers issues with being a card carrying liberal democrat and an ovary carrying human being. I have never questioned your education, experience, or expertise regarding starting, operating, and successfully running a business because I don't have any specific knowledge in that area, and I don't have the huge ego and sense of entitlement to think that I can substitute my meager knowledge and experience in that area with yours.

By the way, your entire Bill of Particulars in your rant against Republicans inadvertently highlights how very little you listened to or understood Turley's latest testimony - they simply reflect the workings of the Constitutional framework of Separation of Powers and divided government, but since it works against what a liberal democrat woman thinks the world should be, we need to throw out all Constitutional law and precedent and just give the legislative powers to Obama (although I doubt you would have the same reaction were the President named Palin or Cruz) and that is the very danger of Constitutionally lawless approach that you endorse, which in the end is reduced to Mob Rule.

Lanivan

I will assume you are replying to me, although I can't be faulted with not being sure, if the content of your reply has anything to do with it. Whether you truly didn't read my comment, or you are deliberately taking my comments out of context (and I suspect the latter), you seem to be stuck in a vapid, vendetta-focused mindset.

Of course I'm not lecturing to you about the law! Why on earth would I ever do that? That would be silly. Of course I don't fully understand Johnathon Turley or Constitutional law! The only thing I've learned on the subject is through our exchange of comments and the reading that has resulted from it. My comment in no way was an attempt to debate the inner workings of statutory interpretation, obvious intent, or the judicial rule that requires one to give meaning to the whole as clearly intended. That would require an "ego and sense of entitlement" that I simply don't possess. In fact, to argue any of the above with you would be an argument that I would lose, and I assure you, I do not deliberately set myself up to lose.

Rather, the 95% of my comment that you, intentionally or not, (I suspect the former) completely overlooked and ignored, is the fact that the Republican Congress is broken, dysfunctional, and has chosen to ignore governing the nation in order to create a situation whereby Obama must govern through executive order, thus providing them with a pathological justification for crying for impeachment during a mid-term election year. Congressional Republicans have no record of achievement to run on, none whatsoever, so they deflect, confuse, and divide (and use Johnathon Turley testimony as justification) their way through the next few months in the hopes that they will succeed in pulling the wool over the eyes of US citizens.

That's what I was talking about, and as you genuflect to the alter of humbug, deliberate misinterpretation, and snark, my concern is not about my "ego", or my "sense of entitlement", but about the future of this country.

And my concern that you feel justified in putting the IRS into the same category as the terrorist groups, ISIS and HAMAS.

Vladtheimp

I was indeed, and clearly replying to your comment, although the gremlins at Mollom didn't care to place it in the "reply" box where I posted it.

My last paragraph was in response to the 95% of your comment that I labeled your "Bill of Particulars"; hard to understand how that escaped you.

For grins, I note that one of your new Heroines, Princess SummerFallWinterSpring Warren has started attacking Hillary via posters in NYC - declaring the Clintons as “America's Most Dangerous Family" and "America's Lannisters."

"Lannisters" - I like the ring of that and may have to steal it for my own use - who knew someone in the Warren Teepee has a sense of humor. http://washingtonexaminer.com/my...

Lanivan

The House Lannister, with all it's clandestine alliances and machiavellian strategies is the perfect allegory for the War on America's Soul by the evil Conservativites. It is a bit disconcerting that the word/concept of Lannister could be easily used against me, although I could get used to being called.."Lady Lanivan". (the best was Harry Korvaire's most clever, "LanivAntoinette" - but I don't want this to go to his head...:D.

Vladtheimp

Having never seen the TV show, I am just amused that Lannister seems to be associated with clandestine alliances like the Soros Hydra, Coal enriched billionaire hedge fund progressive Tom Steyer, and the ill-named "Democracy Alliance." Just found it funny to be promoted by Lieawatha.

Tri-cities realist

Short term memory test, who said this:

"But beyond this, the ruling is a morally repugnant decision, a reductio ad absurdam right-wing approach to literalism. What happened to justice? Intent? This is yet another case where conservative judges find a bit of language in a law that supports their pre-determined conclusion, use the wording to justify a literal reading of the text, and then blame legislators."?

No ego there, move along knuckle draggers!

Lanivan

Yeah - what of it? So now what? Has it gone so far down that any expression of opinion is just the poster flexing their ego? Apparently, you don't understand what I wrote. Please re-read.

Either make your remark clear, or don't make it.

Tri-cities realist

I understood it fully the first time I read it.

Here's another one: "Of course I'm not lecturing to you about the law! Why on earth would I ever do that? That would be silly. Of course I don't fully understand Johnathon Turley or Constitutional law!"

So please take your own advice and only write about things that you clearly understand.

Tri-cities realist

And then there's this gem "That would require an "ego and sense of entitlement" that I simply don't possess. In fact, to argue any of the above with you would be an argument that I would lose, and I assure you, I do not deliberately set myself up to lose."

Please Lanny be a winner!

Lanivan

Having read quite a bit about Halbig, I think I have a rudimentary understanding of the politics, the chicanery, and the conservative neurosis behind the cheers and hurrahs of those who delight in the idea of millions potentially having to forego health insurance, and go back to a life of no preventive care, lousy or no treatments for chronic illness, and ER treatment for strep throat.

I am very well-read on the travesty of a current conservative Congress that spends money like no tomorrow on countless baseless "scandals", shutting down government, 50+ repeal attempts, hundreds of millions on ads and other media efforts based on falsehoods and misinformation to coerce and propagandize, a pathological concentration of hate and disrespect for the President of the USA that allows them to turn their back on Americans and direct their efforts to nullifying Obama's legitimacy.

I can and do argue with Vlad and others on these topics and more. But I wouldn't dream of arguing on the finer points of Constitutional law or vexatious litigation with him.

The fact is that Halbig is a very bad decision, and anyone with even a modicum of common sense and rational thought processes can recognize that this ruling is a political and weak one. That you would allege that I debate this because of ego and sense of entitlement is disturbing. I don't expect to lose this argument.

Tri-cities realist

Well don't expect to win it either. And don't shoot the messenger, I was just reminding you to heed your own advice.

Harry Kovaire

"... putting the IRS into the same category as the terrorist groups, ISIS and HAMAS."

I agree with you on this point. The statement is a terrible defamation against ISIS and HAMAS and all of their members.

Lanivan

How clever of you, Harry!

ISIS Militants Order Iraqi Females to Undergo Genital Mutilation...

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline...

It's just a matter of time before the IRS begins targeting victims of female genital mutilation when applying for tax-exempt status.

Harry Kovaire

Given your team's close association with the Muslim BroHood, you might very well be correct.

Tyranny makes strange bedfellows.

Lanivan

How right you are! Just as "your team" has a close association with the neo-nazis, white supremists, KKKers, potheads, and those other libertarian-leaning folks.

MaHubah

#3 Financial aid me arse! Government subsidies to those who cant afford ACA (aka Odopeincare) are not from the Government! If it so damn affordable why should it be subsidized! Sure they are administrated by the Government because they are so darn good at it, but whenever you hear the word Government, let the switch in your brain translate that into AMERICAN TAXPAYER. Go ahead, it might take some time, but say it with me. Government IS the AMERICAN TAXPAYER! Good job I knew you could do it. Remember that!Especially when you hear the word Government, when it comes to spending money from your unbiased media.

Post a Comment

Log in to your account to post comments here and on other stories, galleries and polls. Share your thoughts and reply to comments posted by others. Don't have an account on GrandHavenTribune.com? Create a new account today to get started.