DIOGENES invites you to pull up a chair on this fine day and read
posts from around the world.
The writing may lean to the right...but that's the way Diogenes wants it!
You may leave your opinion,
but Diogenes rarely changes his! WELCOME!
Semi-News/Semi-Satire ^ | 16 May 2014 | John Semmens
The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) reports that a study comparing out-of-pocket costs under Affordable Care Act health insurance policies will likely exceed costs under employer sponsored plans by an estimated 130%. John Castellani, president and CEO of PhRMA, expressed concern that “millions of Americans may be priced out of receiving the medicines they need. This completely contradicts the Administration’s promise that the Affordable Care Act would provide coverage equivalent to or better than what people had prior to the new law.” Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services Bill Corr disputed the implication that the health of Americans would be negatively affected. “Most of the prescription drugs people take are unnecessary,” Corr asserted. “Some are outright harmful when all of the negative side effects are taken into consideration. So if higher out-of-pocket costs reduce the consumption of these drugs not only will we save money, we will save lives.” “If the general public had known that boosting consumers’ out-of-pocket drug costs in order to discourage consumption was an intended outcome of the President’s health care reform I doubt they would’ve supported its passage,” Castellani observed. “I certainly know our organization wouldn’t have supported it.” “What these outsiders may have believed is not important,” Corr replied. “The key was to reform our nation’s health care system by whatever means necessary. The ACA is now the law of the land. We will carry out its provisions as the President deems appropriate. If this cuts into drug manufacturers’ profits, so be it.” In related news, health insurance executive Marcus Merz, CEO of PreferredOne, says another accomplishment of Obamacare will be “to help people break away from the idea that they should have a range of choices when it comes to who will treat them. Choice adds to the cost of health care. The less of it there is, the more we save.”
Newsmax ^ | 5/16/14 | staff The mushrooming Veterans Affairs scandal is indicative of the Obama administration's "disdain" for the military, U.S. Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia believes. "This administration seems to have a disdain, maybe even a hatred for the military, as well as our veterans," Broun told "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newmax TV. "Just from the military perspective, I was talking … to a three-star Army general. He didn't have enough rounds of ammunition for his troops to go out to the rifle range and just requalify with their rifles." "I've talked to pilots who don't have enough fuel for their helicopters, their jet aircraft, and their transport aircraft to stay current. This is totally unacceptable, and the American people need to rise up and say no to this administration." Doctors working at VA facilities in Phoenix say managers ordered them to place chronically ill patients on a secret waiting list.
Investors.com ^ | May 16, 2014 | Stephen Moore
American history has been profoundly shaped by citizen-driven grass-roots movements that spontaneously combust into seismic political change. This is the story of the Founding Fathers, the abolitionists, the progressives, the civil-rights movement, the 1970s tax revolt and ... it's time to add to that list the oft-maligned tea party movement. We don't fully recognize the earthquake change brought about by these millions of military veterans, housewives, nurses, schoolteachers, construction workers, senior citizens, investment bankers and clergy who saw the recklessness and immorality of debt, redistribution, Washington waste, federal bailouts and ObamaCare. Nancy Pelosi couldn't have gotten it more wrong when she snorted that this was an artificial "astroturf" movement controlled by the Koch brothers and the Republican National Committee. In reality, this was a local and organic movement of mostly political neophytes. Their tactics and goals were sometimes politically naive and a few times counterproductive. But I was on the Washington Mall on 9/12 when at least a half-million gathered to express their rage against a government that had come unhinged. Their common bond was a healthy contempt for the centralized power, arrogance,ignorance and greed of the privileged class in Washington. The tea partiers didn't like the policies of George W. Bush much more than those of Barack Obama. This was never partisan, though the anger was directed at the party in power — the Obama Democrats. What did they accomplish? That question was answered in part by the latest government report on the budget and the debt.
Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | May 16, 2014 | Rush Limbaugh
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT RUSH: We've got veterans dying because they're not getting adequate medical care. Do you remember this name Shinseki, this guy that's running the VA. Eric Shinseki, do you remember why he's famous? Do you remember why he's even at the VA? Shinseki was one of the first uniformed military people to trash Bush and the Iraq war for the Democrats back in the second term of George W. Bush. And I'll never forget, John Kerry, who, you may not know, served in Vietnam, was running around quoting Eric Shinseki day in and day out. I'm gonna have one of my researchers look into it. I'm gonna find out exactly when it was that Shinseki first popped up as a uniformed -- this is key now, active duty uniformed critic. He was one of the first and he became an instant hero of the left and the media. So they put him over at the VA, and just like everybody else in this administration, they can't run diddly-squat. But you tell these people that our troops are raping women and terrorizing children in Iraq, and they'll believe it just like that, and they'll make a move to put 'em on trial just like that. You put 'em in charge of actually doing something for people and they fail miserably. But you put 'em in charge of caring and saying how much they care, and they excel at it. BREAK TRANSCRIPTRUSH: Eric Shinseki. His notoriety began even before the Iraq war began. Eric Shinseki was a uniformed Democrat, actively opposed to Iraq before it started. John Kerry loved him, the John Kerry that served in Vietnam, constantly quoting him. One of the things that Shinseki said, he was the Army chief of staff at the time. I mean, this isn't an insignificant position. General Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, told Senator Kerry he was going to need several hundred thousand troops -- this is in response to a question of the committee -- several hundred thousand troops. General Shinseki said there was no way to win the Iraq war. No way to go in there. No way to occupy unless we sent several hundred thousand troops. And then John Kerry said they retired General Shinseki for telling him that. The president hasn't listened. This was in a debate on October 8th, 2004. This was Kerry talking to the American people in a debate. So Shinseki's been a hero of these people for a long time. If you think you've heard the name, that's why. Army chief of staff opposed Iraq, said it wouldn't work, it's impossible. Bush wasn't adequately prepared, no way. Kerry loved it. Now the guy's running the VA into the ground, patients are dying. New York Times praised Shinseki back in 2009. A second act for General Shinseki. They love this guy. You have to understand, folks, this is classic. The guy's not qualified to run anything except in his own mind and the in minds of these leftists 'cause he cares. He made his bones, he came out, he humiliated Bush, he thought. He criticized Bush. He was anti-war, anti-Iraq. And he was the one that allowed all the Democrats to -- let me reset this picture here for just a second because the vote authorizing use of force in Iraq was a two-phased vote. The Democrats misread the public mood, and when the original vote authorizing President Bush to use force in Iraq was taken, a lot of Democrats voted against it. And then they learned that the vast majority of the American people were for it and they demanded a second vote. Bush acquiesced, okay, if you want to vote again, go ahead. He had the Republicans in Congress, go ahead and let 'em vote again. So the Democrats could all go on record as supporting the use-of-force authorization in Iraq.Now, another thing that you may not remember. This didn't happen overnight. Bush spent 18 months building up his case, making his case, traveling all over the country and making speeches, going to the UN and, you know, General Powell, the weapons of mass destruction. But my point is -- I'm not trying to relive the WMD thing. The point is Bush didn't say on a Friday we're going to war on Monday and do it. It was a year and a half. The president made his case.The American people overwhelmingly supported him in the first vote to authorize use of force. I mean, the president even withheld action until Congress had voted. He gave them an opportunity to be part of it, and the first vote, a whole slew of Democrats voted "no." And the outrage directed at them from the American people was such that they demanded a second vote. Hillary, John Kerry, all of them ultimately in the second vote voted to go to war in Iraq. That's why everything that they did after that is hypocritical and phony baloney, plastic banana, good-time rock 'n' roll because they voted for it. They wanted to act like they never did. They then spent six years saying Bush lied. Well, we went back and found out that Bill Clinton in 1998, in the midst of the Lewinsky scandal, used almost the same statistics and the same reasons. It was uncanny, the words that Bill Clinton used seeking support from Congress to use force in Iraq in '98 that Bush used in 2002, 2003, really was uncanny. And when Clinton wanted the authorization to use force in 1998, every Democrat voted for it without thinking about it, granted, Democrat president, Democrat Congress, you got it. Here comes Bush, four, five years later, same arguments, folks, do not doubt me, same arguments, Democrats want no part of it, 'cause they politicize everything. Then they see that the American people are all for it, they demand a second vote. And after the second vote, General Shinseki pops up and says, well, this doesn't have a prayer. You can't do this without hundreds and hundreds of thousands of troops, we're not ready, this isn't gonna work, and that's all it took. Shinseki gave the Democrats the cover to run away from their "yes" votes on the use of force in Iraq and allowed them to pretend those "yes" votes never happened. And so over the next six years, the Democrats and the media did everything they could to destroy Bush, to secure defeat in Iraq so they could hang that around Bush's neck. You remember the Daily News stories of the body counts, all the stories of terrorism committed by American troops. The now deceased Pennsylvania Congressman had an airport named after him. John Murtha. Some of the stuff that they were saying about our troops, folks, was unconscionable. And it was all political. But the guy that really paved the way for all these Democrats, particularly in the Senate, to run away from their authorization to use force votes was Eric Shinseki, uniformed, Army chief of staff, ripping into Bush gave 'em all cover. Because here's a military guy, expert, he's Army chief of staff. So he was paid back by being named VA -- here's the New York Times story in 2009. "Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, the retired Army chief of staff who presciently predicted that stabilizing Iraq would take more troops than had been committed to the invasion, pledged Wednesday to transform the Department of Veterans Affairs to better fulfill the nation’s promises to those who have served in uniform." As Obama's nominee -- Obama hadn't even been immaculated yet. This is before the inauguration, January 2009. This is two days, in fact, January 14, two days before I went public and said, "I hope he fails." Just to give you some timeline. "As President-elect Barack Obama’s nominee to head the second-largest bureaucracy in the government, behind the Pentagon, General Shinseki said that if confirmed he would streamline the disability claims system, use new information technologies to improve the delivery of benefits and services, and focus on unemployed and homeless veterans. ... When he retired in June 2003 after 38 years as a soldier, General Shinseki was the highest-ranking Asian-American in United States military history." That speaks for itself, too. So that's the guy they sent over there to run the VA that's made an absolute mess of it, as big a mess of the VA as Obama has made of Obamacare. It's such a tragedy. It is a genuine tragedy that these people are in leadership positions. They just don't have the qualifications. And, I'm sorry, folks, but caring just isn't a qualification, not by itself.BREAK TRANSCRIPTRUSH: October 8th, 2004, St. Louis, Washington University. It's the second debate between President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry, the haughty Senator John Kerry, who at one time in his life served in Vietnam. They're talking about the Iraq war. Remember, Kerry was part of the cabal that asked for a second vote. After first voting "no" on the use of force, they all wanted to vote "yes" to get on the right side of public opinion. And then Shinseki came out and said, "You can't do this without multiple hundreds of thousands of troops." And, by the way, he was not right. I mean, the surge, the maximum number of troops we had in Iraq's 170,000, and Shinseki said we needed at least twice that. But we pulled it off with the surge, and we eventually got out of there victoriously. What's happened since is another story, but the Iraq war -- see, the problem is too many people think we lost it. The media has got everybody convinced we lost the Iraq war, that we were humiliated, Bush didn't know what he was doing, because there weren't any weapons of mass destruction. So it was all lost. It was just a humiliating experience for the US and another reason why we shouldn't use our military very much. See, the left loves military failure, particularly when they're not in the White House, because it just gives 'em another bit of ammo to advocate for not using the military, except for Meals on Wheels type thing, social experimentation, this kind of thing. But military failure, "Oh, yeah, man. See that? We have no business being in Iraq." Now, if the hashtag doesn't work to get the girls back you wait, these same people are gonna say we should send maybe some armed drones in there instead of just camera-equipped drones. But I just want to play for you, 2004, St. Louis, presidential debate, here's John Kerry, who just a year earlier had voted for the Iraq war.KERRY: We didn't have enough forces. General Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, told 'em he was gonna need several hundred thousand and guess what? They retired General Shinseki for telling him that. This president hasn't listened.RUSH: Now, my point in playing this is Shinseki has been a hero to the left since 2003. He got the VA gig because of it. Kerry was one of his big champions, loved him, loved him, uniformed military Army chief of staff ripping into Bush. That's all the cover they needed. I got sick and tired of hearing the name Shinseki here, Shinseki there. He was the only person according to the media or the Democrat Party that had any military credibility. Rumsfeld didn't have any, General Myers didn't have any, nobody active duty prosecuting the war had any credibility. Shinseki had all the credibility. And now look at the VA under these people. It's an embarrassment. It's worse than an embarrassment. It's a disaster. BREAK TRANSCRIPTRUSH: Now, one other thing with John Kerry. He claimed that George Bush fired Eric Shinseki for his disagreement statements on Iraq. Not true. Shinseki's retirement was announced in April of 2002, long before he testified about the Iraq war. His retirement was announced easily a year and a half before he said anything about Iraq. So Kerry just made that up.BREAK TRANSCRIPTRUSH: Okay. Shinseki has fired somebody at the VA. They got a scapegoat. Have his name right in front of me but he's gone. Shinseki stays, predictably so. END TRANSCRIPT
The Balze ^ | 16 May 2014 | Billy Hallowell
Ben Carson, the famed neurosurgeon who delivered a bold speech critical of President Barack Obama at least year’s National Prayer Breakfast, is reportedly warming up to the idea of a presidential run. Carson told the Weekly Standard this week that he’s “starting to feel” a tug to possibly run for national office, highlighting the intense response he gets when he travels around the nation speaking about contemporary issues. He spoke specifically about a woman whom he said truly touched him when she implored him to seek the presidency. She just kept clinging to my hand and said, ‘You have to run. You have to run,’” Carson told the Weekly Standard’s Fred Barnes. “And so many people tell me that, and so I think I’m starting to hear something.” But Carson said he’s fully aware that running for president is no easy feat. “It’s a daunting thing,” he said. “I know how vehemently the left will come after you, try to destroy you, try to destroy your family.” Carson continued, “But at the same time I recognize that people like Nathan Hale — he said, ‘My only regret is I have but one life to give to my country’ … and if everybody runs for the hills because they’re afraid that somebody is going to attack them or their family, then [the left] will have won.”
Downtrend.com ^ | 5/13/2014 | Brian Anderson We’ve been told over and over that opposing President Obama’s socialist anti-American agenda is due to deep-seated racism and not any conservative values one might hold.Now, the National Public Radio (NPR), of all media outlets, has posted a piece on their blog saying that there might be something more to disliking Obama than just racism. I know, I’m shocked too. This refreshing revelation from a decidedly left-leaning news source starts out with a great premise: There’s no question we’re living in a time of divisive politics, when roughly half the country is likely to hate the president, no matter whom he or she might be. And back it up with a good quote: “If any white Democrat had pushed through a billion-dollar stimulus plan and a takeover of the health care industry, he would have been equally detested by conservatives and Republicans,” says Whit Ayres, a GOP pollster and consultant.
Now here is another reason not to vote for Hillary.Do we really need another four years of hearing the excuse,"What Difference Does It Make?", and "I Don't Recall"?
Do we really want another four years of monthly scandals&embarrassing debacles where all of the Democrat Leaders will refuse to answer any questions regarding the latest Presidential Oops?,By 2016 we would have already dealt with 8 years of blaming Bush/It's not my fault,"I Know Nothing"and "Dude Excuses".So can we expect to hear "What Difference Does It Make" from Hillary every time someone in her cabinet really screws up under her watch?,or will she just avoid taking questions like most Democrats do.
As this graph illustrates, less than a third of Obama’s 2012 Millennial voters say they’ll “definitely” vote for Democrats this fall. Almost as many have abandoned the party label completely, either by shifting to independent status or by supporting Republicans. When this Democratic pollster tabulates the data, he finds that only half of all the young Obama voters surveyed will definitely, probably, or maybe vote for Democrats in the midterms. The rest plan to sit at home, or to back other candidates. In 2010, Millennial turnout dropped significantly compared to 2008, and the gap between the two parties among those who did vote narrowed considerably. The strategist’s advice to Democrats, therefore, is to “heavily invest” in turning out “progressive Millennials,” pronto. If the party heeds his counsel, expect to hear a lot about gay marriage and birth control over the next six months. Also via WaPo, here’s a chart that employs the (fairly Democrat-friendly) NBC/WSJ polling series to track this year’s fundamentals, comparing the current numbers to surveys conducted before previous midterm waves. Chris Cillizza says the results “should scare Democrats:”
Those indicators — which are also reflected in other public polling — would certainly seem suggest that Democrats are cruisin’ for a bruisin’ this fall. But lest conservatives start counting chickens, allow me to float two friendly reminders: (1) The most vulnerable Senate Democrat incumbent, on paper at least, is leading his (highly impressive) Republican challenger by double digits according to some polls, though others show a very tight race. (2) Republican-held Senate seats in Georgia and Kentucky aren’t necessarily gimmes either. I’ll add one more: Even if young Obama voters do blow off the midterm elections this year, they sure seem pretty susceptible to hype over famous presidential candidates with cool friends and vague, history-making campaign themes. What could go wrong?* *AP, feel free to just FedEx me the Eeyore crown whenever you have a spare moment.
National Review Online ^ | May 14, 2014 | Dr. Benjamin Carson
The recent escalating arguments over whether there should be further congressional hearings on Benghazi are troubling. The fact that there are substantial numbers of people who feel that there is nothing more to investigate when four American lives were lost and no one has answered for this crime provides an indication of how far our sense of justice has slipped. This should not be a partisan issue, because the implications of ignoring or prevaricating about the underlying mistakes will have far-reaching consequences. The United States has diplomatic establishments throughout the world, and if they can be attacked without consequences, it greatly diminishes our influence despite any protestations to the contrary. What does it say about our judgment if we have diplomatic establishments for which we make inadequate provisions for protection? This is especially disturbing because it was revealed that requests by the diplomatic facility in Benghazi for more protection were refused. There had been attacks on the facility not long before the fatal attack, and hostile actions had been taken against the British, which they were wise enough to react to appropriately. Even more confounding was the decision to abandon our personnel at the facility because someone decided that our military forces could not reach them in time to effect a rescue. How could such a decision be made when no one knew how long the hostile action would last? When our top officials make decisions to abandon our own people because they feel the situation is hopeless, they also abandon the concept of American exceptionalism and create doubt in the minds of all future military participants about the intention of their superiors to expend maximum effort to preserve their lives when they have sacrificed everything for our nation.
Hotair ^
by Mary Katharine Ham
In most cases, I have come to realize that the Obama administration is easier to understand if you dispense with the notion that there is some sort of plan other than getting through each day by minimizing immediate political damage to the highest degree possible without regard to long-term goals. But while I’m not always confident there’s a plan for actual policy, there’s always a plan for avoiding questions and blame on scandals. On the VA scandal, that plan has been enacted. Step 1: “We’re just finding out about this ourselves and are as appalled as anyone over these allegations. We vow to get to the bottom of this and, if true, right this wrong swiftly and thoroughly. Nothing less than the honor of our nation and our people is at stake, and that will not come to harm on my watch.” Step 2: “We are investigating ourselves right now to make sure we get to the bottom of this. It’s important that we get all the facts from ourselves, and in the meantime it would be inappropriate for ourselves to answer questions about the investigation we’re conducting on ourselves.” Step 3: “Didn’t I just tell you we started an investigation of ourselves? Also, we noted our outrage. I cannot possibly make any statements about the very obvious wrongdoing that occurred on our watch until the investigation we’re conducting of ourselves is completed, printed on paper and in my hands. Anything else would jeopardize the integrity of our investigation of ourselves. Is that what you want?” Step 3 is where ABC’s Jon Karl found himself today, on the receiving end of White House Press Secretary Jay Carney’s indignation at the mere asking of questions after the administration has expressed grave concern and started an investigation. Up next, Step 4: “Only crazy wingers even ask questions about stuff like this. Are you a crazy winger? Do you think it’s a grand conspiracy in which the President of the United States conspired to personally hurt veterans? Do you think that’s an appropriate question to ask?” Step 5: Wait six months, refer to formerly outrageous scandal as phony. Step 6: Slow walk investigation and especially the release of requested and possibly incriminating documents for a year or more. Step 7: “Oh, that ‘scandal’? Dude, that was a year ago. Who’s still talking about that?”
According to a Fox News survey released on Wednesday, Obama’s approval rating stands at 45 percent among all registered voters. However, among black voters, Obama’s job approval soars to 86 percent.Given Obama’s devastating impact on black Americans, this is even more confounding than the whereabouts of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370.Obama’s election, no doubt, generated considerable ethnic pride. Seeing a black man (or, precisely, a half-black man) inaugurated was a truly exceptional milestone for all Americans — black and otherwise.But Obama reached the Oval Office nearly five years and four months ago. Since then, his performance should have dimmed his halo among blacks, especially considering how much they have suffered on his watch.• When Obama entered office on January 20, 2009, U.S. unemployment stood at 7.8 percent. By April 2014, that Bureau of Labor Statistics figure had fallen to 6.3 percent — a modest improvement. Among blacks overall, joblessness dropped, though less significantly — from 12.7 to 11.6 percent. But for blacks aged 16 to 19, unemployment grew from 35.3 to 36.8 percent.• Obama’s somewhat more sanguine unemployment numbers, such as they are, seem less about job growth and more about people simply abandoning the workforce — whereupon they conveniently exit the unemployment rate. The more revealing labor-force-participation rate thus fell from 65.7 percent in January 2009 to 62.8 percent last month, a portrait of disengagement last witnessed in March 1978. For black adults, that number slipped from 63.2 to 60.9 percent. While 29.6 percent of blacks aged 16 to 19 were working when Obama took power, only 27.9 percent were employed last month.• Poverty has increased under Obama. Overall, 14.3 percent of Americans were below the poverty line in January 2009, versus 15.0 percent in 2012, according to the latest available data from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey. Similarly, the share of black Americans living in poverty expanded from 25.8 to 27.2 percent.• Inflation-adjusted median household income fell across America, from $53,285 in 2009 to $51,017 in 2012, the most recent Census Bureau data indicate. Blacks slid, too, from $34,880 to $33,321 — and at a much lower income level.• America’s population of food-stamp recipients soared overall from 32,889,000 in 2009 to 46,022,000 in 2012, the latest Agriculture Department statistics show. For blacks, the analogous numbers are 7,393,000 when Obama arrived to 10,955,000 in 2012.• In spite of $275 billion in housing-market bailouts that Obama unveiled in his first month in office, home ownership actually has waned. In the first quarter of 2009, 67.3 percent of Americans owned homes. By 1Q 2014, that Census Bureau figure was 64.8 percent. Meanwhile, black home ownership during this interval sagged from 46.1 to 43.3 percent.<<In light of this dismal record, about the best that Obama can say to black Americans is, “Nothing personal.” Obama’s focus on resentment and redistribution — rather than robust growth — has failed the entire country, not just black folks.Also, these sad statistics do not capture the intangible humiliation of watching America’s first black president expose himself as a lazy, incompetent liar. This inescapable truth is confirmed by Obama’s eerily detached demeanor, his& 169 rounds of golf in office, his scores of skipped intelligence briefings, his unforgivable absence from the Situation Room during the Benghazi massacre, and his burgeoning scandals — from Fast and Furious to the IRS’s persecution of conservative groups to the 40 or more war heroes who died without medical care while languishing on secret Veterans Affairs wait lists. And remember, Obama’s oft-repeated “If you like your health-care plan, you can keep it” promise was PolitiFact’s 2013 Lie of the Year.
Save for Senator Rand Paul (R., Ky.), who frequently addresses black audiences, few Republicans bother to share these facts with black voters. Republicans should — early and often. These data are toxic, and the GOP’s growth-and-prosperity antidote is just what black Americans need.Republicans should ask black voters this question: What has Obama done for you lately?— Deroy Murdock is a Manhattan-based Fox News contributor and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University.
On May 21, 2013 the National Republican Senatorial Committee sent the IRS a Freedom of Information Act request asking for "any and all documents or records, including but not limited to electronic documents, e-mails, paper documents, photographs (electronic or hard copy), or audio files," related to correspondence from January 1, 2009 and May 21, 2013 between thirteen different Democrat members of Congress and top IRS officials. Those officials include former IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman, former Commissioner Steven Miller, senior IRS official Joseph Grant and former head of tax exempt groups Lois Lerner. Members of Congress named in the request include Sen. Schumer (D-NY), Sen. Reid (D-NV), DSCC Chair Sen. Bennet (D-CO), Sen. Landrieu (D-LA), Sen. Pryor (D-AR), Sen. Hagan (D-NC), Sen. Begich (D-AK), Sen. Shaheen (D-NH), Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO), Sen. Franken (D-MN), Sen. Warner (D-VA), Rep. Braley and Rep. Peters (D-MI). Since that request was received by the IRS nearly one year ago, IRS Tax Law Specialists Robert Thomas and Denise Higley have asked for more time to fulfill the request six times.
Judicial Watch ^ | MAY 15, 2014
Sen. Ted Cruz recently released a list of 76 “lawless” actions executed by President Obama – several of which highlight the work of Judicial Watch.In the opening of his report, Cruz sets forth his hypothesis:“Of all the troubling aspects of the Obama presidency, none is more dangerous than the President’s persistent pattern of lawlessness, his willingness to disregard the written law and instead enforce his own policies via executive fiat.”Supporters of Judicial Watch are well aware of the evidence to support Cruz’s remarks. Using the Freedom of Information Act, Judicial Watch has been able to turn over many of the documents that make Cruz’s list so extensive including, most recently, two salient items:
“Falsely portrayed the Benghazi terrorist attack as a spontaneous protest against an anti-Muslim YouTube video, and then lied about the White House’s involvement.”
However, as witnessed by article 2 of Cruz’s “Free Speech and Privacy” section, even Judicial Watch’s work to expose corruption is not definitive under the Obama Administration. Article 2 states:“Circumvented the Freedom of Information Act, by requiring White House Counsel review of all documents to be released under the Freedom of Information Act that the Administration believed pertained to “White House equities”—and then delayed in producing many of these documents by FOIA’s statutory deadline, or didn’t produce them at all.”While Judicial Watch is frequently stonewalled by government agencies, article 2 gets to the heart of the problem – President Obama himself is ignoring FOIA requests filed by the public and, in doing so, sets the standard for such behavior. Obama is actively prohibiting the flow of information regarding its activities to the people whom it represents, defying the most fundamental of all laws requiring our government be held accountable to the people.And thus is the most frightening take away from Cruz’s list. With a president who ignores the law and gets away with it, there is no law. When the executive in charge of enforcing the Constitution instead defies it, there is no standard by which the Constitution can be considered valid by officials in any government position if such a president is not held accountable.Cruz outlines the danger in such a notion as it extends well beyond the current administration:“…it is the Obama precedent that is opening the door for future lawlessness…an imperial presidency threatens the liberty of every citizen. Because when a president can pick and choose which laws to follow and which to ignore, he is no longer a president.”
Townhall.com ^ | May 16, 2014 | Donald Lambro
WASHINGTON - It is a sign of Barack Obama's receding presidency that Hillary Clinton is drawing more attention from the national news media and political power brokers. As the president goes through the speech-making and ceremonial motions of what is left in his second term, most of the talk here is about her carefully-calculated, emerging bid for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination. The Washington press corps can become quickly bored by a presidency that seldom makes news anymore, and Obama now rarely makes the front pages of our big city daily newspapers. At least not lately. The Washington Post's front page, lead story Thursday is a case in point. The headline: "Clintons take on critics in GOP," followed by two subheads about the larger story at play here: "Clearer Signs of a Candidacy," and "Next, a book tour that could be a rehearsal." Obama was trying to make news of his own Wednesday, but not the kind that lands on the front page, or leads the nightly news. He was in Tarrytown, N.Y., talking about spending more money on the nation's infrastructure and creating jobs that are in short supply nowadays. He's talked about it before, with little effect. The Post buried the story on page 2. Hillary's politically hot right now and clearly getting more attention -- from Democrats, who see her as the only hope of holding the White House, and from Republicans who say we can't afford eight more years of Democratic rule. The former secretary of State, who stepped down from her post in February, 2013, has been on a whirlwind tour ever since, hitting her party's key special interest groups. Womens' organizations one day, and the Israeli lobby the next. Her husband, former President Bill Clinton, has been making the rounds, too, talking up her credentials and defending her from Republican attacks, like the one GOP strategist Karl Rove fired this week that raised questions about the state of her health. While Obama was out of town for a couple of days, the Clintons were speaking to major venues, and well, clearly campaigning for Obama's job. Bill Clinton was here touting Hillary's work on boosting educational opportunities for low-income children. And talking up his own job-growth record in his second term -- a not so veiled reminder of Obama's failure to strengthen economic growth. Hillary was addressing the pro-Israel American Jewish Committee, struggling to make the case that as secretary of State, she worked to slow Iran's nuclear development. But her record or accomplishments on that score, and as the nation's chief diplomat, is pretty thin. "When I left as secretary and passed the baton on to Secretary [John] Kerry, we were positioned to explore whether we had set the table well enough to see changes that were sufficient to meet out legitimate objections to Iran's behavior," she said. Israel may beg to differ with her recollections on this. We are nowhere near meeting our or Israel's key objections to nuclear threat that Iran still poses. This week, Rove was the first high profile GOP critic to raise questions about what he termed "a serious health episode" -- he never used the term "rain damage" -- in December 2012 when Clinton suffered a concussion after a fainting spell. She was hospitalized for three days, but details of her illness have remained a mystery. She will be 69 years old in 2016, and 70 if she were to become president in 2017. But she faces bigger obstacles in her quest to become the nation's first woman president that go to the heart of her meager experience, flawed by a history of multiple public policy failures. She cannot point to any major achievements during the four years she spent as secretary of State. She traveled widely, gave many speeches, but her record is a limited one. If her years at State are remembered for anything, it will be the deadly and preventable terrorist attack in the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012, when U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed. There have been numerous investigations and hearings by House Republicans who have charged that the State Department tried to coverup the fact this was a terrorist attack. Their initial explanation was that it started as a spontaneous Islamist "protest" against a YouTube video. Not true. But Obama was seeking re-election at this time, on a platform that he had al-Qaeda terrorists "on the run" and that their ranks were "decimated." Stevens sent repeated requests to the State Department for added security but they were denied or ignored on her watch. House Republicans formed a select committee just last week to dig further into the scandal and Clinton will be a major target of their inquiry. Clinton has had a checkered past here, starting with her role as First Lady in designing a national federal health care program that was bitterly branded by GOP leaders as "Hillarycare." It was so complex that even some of her allies said they didn't fully understand how it worked. And in the end, was so unpopular, Democratic congressional leaders refused to bring it up for a vote. She served for eight years as the senator from New York, with no significant accomplishments to speak of. She left behind a record of voting for every big tax and spend Democratic bill that came before the chamber. But there's another bigger issue that may well prevent Hillary from moving back into the White House. After eight years of Obama's failed, leftist, jobless policies, will voters want another eight under Hillary?
Townhall.com ^ | May 16, 2014 | Charles Payne "I'd like to move into management, and maybe even own a franchise." -Leika Reynolds McDonald's Corporation announced in 2011 that it would hire 50,000 people across the country, which unleashed a stampede of desperate jobseekers. That "Hiring Day" event showed people who were hopeful and who had been unemployed for years, or who were out of school, but still not in the labor market, that waited in line for hours for an interview for a chance at being hired. No one in those lines complained about a higher minimum wage, or insisted that their salary be adjusted based on the number of children in their household. 1,000,000 Applicants 938,000 Rejected 62,000 Hired Fast forward, three years later... we have been told that those hired on that day, and since, are being exploited and mistreated, and deserve a 106% pay raise. The same people that are in the business of dependency and dashed dreams are portraying those same people as victims of greedy capitalism. There are many people raising families on fast food salaries, however, many of them live in households with numerous income earners. Moreover, many of the people are like Leika Reynolds; the 11th grader from Atlanta, who saw working at McDonald's as a steppingstone. She was not allowing her minimum wage job to define her, but instead she foresees a future of stepping up the economic ladder. She is a smart young lady, and her goals are not far-fetched. In fact, that same day in Richmond, Virginia, McDonald's franchisee Sue Durlak, watched over the wave of job applicants at her 10 restaurants. Sue had a special interest, because the wave of applicants brought back memories of her filling out her application to work at McDonalds back in 1982. Working back then as a middle- school health teacher in Illinois, Sue was looking for a part-time gig to supplement her income, and she ended up with a lot more. Fast Food Forward
McDonald’s Protest
HDI Rank
Country
3
United States
5
Germany
6
New Zealand
10
Japan
17
Belgium
45
Argentina
85
Brazil
136
India
The Human Development Index (HDI) measures quality of life through a variety of factors. The index was developed in Pakistan, to give a more concise evaluation of how well people truly live, taking into account things beyond basic wealth:
Life expectancy
Literacy
Education
Standard of living
Well-being
Child welfare
Today, an agitation organization is staging a global protest demanding significantly higher wages for fast food workers. Fast Food Forward will protest in 150 cities across 32 countries. The mix throws in the United States in with nations, like Morocco... talk about a farce and shameful pity-party. Morocco is 130 on the HDI scale, while America is number 3, and yet we are suggesting that somehow an entry-level job makes the nations the same. Free markets should dictate wages based on skill-set and demand. And on that note, it will not be long before this fast food minimum wage farce is a moot debate. In 2009, McDonald's unveiled 7,000 touch-screen cashiers in Europe. Fast forward to the present, and consider all the advances made in touch-screen technology and robots. I drive through empty toll booths each morning on my way to work, and I use the self-checkout in a number of stores - it is not far off. The fact of the matter is that America should be focused on maximum wages and the great jobs of the future. I do lament, however, the notion that there will be fewer opportunities for people to start at the bottom and eventually own the joint. The Market That unnerving feeling is reemerging after taking a one-day break on Tuesday. The chorus calling for a correction continues to get louder (of course, if you were looking for a correction when the Dow was at 12,000, you would certainly be looking for one here) as there continues to be large mix of news and data. Inflation is finally emerging in official data. Yesterday, the PPI was hotter than expected and this morning, the CPI number continues to trend higher. Neither is at a level where the Fed would be forced to take action, but they're on the move, and that bothers some people. The action in treasuries continues to be a mystery to me as on one hand, it speaks to a soft economy, but also belies the notion that money printing would spark a massive exodus into equities. It's an antsy time prone to serious overreactions to the downside.
Coach is Right ^ | 5/16/14 | Kevin "Coach" Collins
There are people who believe Elvis is alive and there are those who insist that the phases of the moon effect human conduct; then there are those who believe kowtowing to Hispanics will bring Republicans victory in 2016. The fact that many people believe these things doesn’t make them true. While the first two are harmless fairytales believed by supermarket tabloid readers, the third is a dangerous lie believed by far too many decision makers in the Republican leadership. Like the first two, the supposed connection between capturing the Hispanic vote and insuring victory for Republicans cannot be defeated with evidence that contradicts it. Even in the face of a mathematical formula showing Mitt Romney could have won 70% of Hispanic votes and still lost, the GOPe will not give up the fairytale they believe. Now “just” 18 months before the next presidential election the Republican hierarchy are beginning to show signs...
Townhall.com ^ | May 16, 2014 | Michelle Malkin At least 40 American veterans are dead thanks to bureaucratic delays at Veterans Affairs clinics. But you wouldn't know it from VA Secretary Gen. Eric Shinseki's bland and bloodless demeanor at a Senate hearing Thursday. He droned on like an apathetic office manager fielding complaints about the copier being jammed. Shinseki told the Senate panel he "can't remember" getting warnings from federal watchdogs last fall about ghost clinics and double-scheduling schemes. He said he was "not aware" of explosive book-cooking allegations like the ones at a Fort Collins, Colo., VA facility, where employees were ordered to make their records show that veterans got appointments within 14 days of the day requested, whether or not it was true. In response to bipartisan disgust with the VA's serial incompetence and fatally long wait times, oblivious Shinseki blathered about "customer satisfaction surveys." And when it came time to deliver his calculated sound bite about being "mad as hell" at mounting allegations of criminal fraud and neglect, Shinseki's perfunctory tone echoed a jaded 411 operator: "City and state, please?" Asked whether VA employees who alter records should be fired, Shinseki's deputy Robert Petzel said he didn't know "whether that's the appropriate level of punishment." Shinseki interjected that a whopping 3,000 VA workers, including senior managers, had been "involuntarily removed" for misconduct last year -- only to admit that an unknown number of those had simply been reassigned or allowed to retire. In true paper-pusher form, the VA's top brass have ordered yet another study to assess how and why the VA ignored years of other studies, reports and audits of the department's waste, fraud and abuse. Showing even more tone-deafness, Shinseki bragged openly about his close friendship with top White House aide Rob Nabors, who is now overseeing the kabuki "review" of his department's failures. Can you spell crony whitewash? Pressed on why he hadn't reported illegal data falsification to the FBI, Shinseki demurred that it was the inspector general's call, not his. In other words: The buck stops somewhere else. Attorney General Eric Holder hid behind the VA inspector general, too. There are no plans for a DoJ probe into the secret waiting lists at the Phoenix VA hospital, where scores of sick vets languished for months before perishing. Question: Why is activist zealot Holder so content to wait for the IG? Given this administration's shady record of crushing whistleblowers, railroading IGs and replacing them with dirty lapdogs, Shinseki's vow to "get to the bottom" of this latest deadly scandal while Holder and the FBI sit on the sidelines stinks to high hell. Taking care of the nation's war veterans is an obligation that has existed since the days of the Continental Congress. But for decades, under both GOP and Democratic administrations, the men and women who served our country have been literally left to die by government caretakers. Fifteen years ago, I reported on VA bureaucrats who took better care of administrative buildings and vacant hospitals than their own patients. Back then, an independent General Accounting Office found that the agency was spending more than $1 million a day to sustain unneeded hospital buildings. Another $35 million was squandered annually to perform upkeep on empty space, including unused lots and warehouses, while vets were forced to file malpractice suits over substandard care. We "have created the damnedest country club in America," one VA watchdog activist I quoted said at the time. "Whatever toys they want, they get. Nobody is watching what they spend these millions of dollars on, and obviously, no one cares." Fifteen years later, it's the same old, same old. More empty excuses, feckless denials and deadly red tape. The names change, but the game's the same: "Support the troops" platitudes and photo-ops at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. "Screw the troops" in the bowels of the VA bureaucracy, where book-cookers were busy collecting bonuses instead of saving lives. And everyone at the top refuses to resign. It's self-serving government as usual. I'd ask how "hope and change" is working out for the affected veterans. But they're not around to answer. Their chilling silence speaks volumes.
nypost.com ^ | may 15, 2014 | heather mac donald
The rollback of welfare reform under New York City’s mayor, Bill de Blasio, has begun in earnest. The city’s Human Resources Administration just informed able-bodied, childless adults that they no longer need to do anything in exchange for their food stamps. Sitting at home and watching TV while you collect your benefits is just fine with de Blasio and his new welfare chief, former Legal Aid Society chief Steve Banks. Until this Monday, New York City required able-bodied adults without dependents to work or to participate in a work-placement program for 20 hours a week in order to maintain their food-stamp eligibility. (Mothers with children are exempt from the work requirement.) Federal law limits healthy, childless recipients who refuse to seek work to three months of food stamps over a three-year period. That same law, however, allows states and cities to request a waiver of the food-stamp work requirement, if their economies are less than robust. The Obama administration grants those requests as a matter of course. To the fury of the city’s welfare activists and then-Public Advocate Bill de Blasio, however, the Bloomberg administration refused to request a waiver from Washington, in the belief that the best way out of poverty is work. Now the activists are back in the saddle. The city has just sought a waiver, effective immediately, and joins jurisdictions that treat food stamps as an unconditional entitlement, for which nothing can be asked in return. HRA is not only banning the placement of any able-bodied food-stamp recipient into a city workfare assignment, starting this summer it will also forbid recipients from voluntarily seeking assistance from the city’s most successful job-placement agencies.
Townhall.com ^ | May 15, 2014 | Daniel Doherty The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is on a roll lately. First they endorsed a candidate in Florida’s 13th Congressional District who couldn’t lawfully run as a Democrat. (Who, by the way, later dropped out of the race when it was discovered there were gaping holes in his resume). Now they’re suggesting Republican congressional candidate Lee Zeldin -- an Iraq War veteran and New York State Senator -- is a “coward.” Why, you ask? Because he hasn’t come out in favor -- or against -- the Paul Ryan budget plan yet. “Zeldin is either woefully uninformed, willfully ignorant or a coward,” the committee wrote on its website. Nevertheless, they kicked their criticism up a notch yesterday when they tweeted out this:
Townhall.com ^ | May 16, 2014 | John Ransom News flash to the world: Obama’s a liar. Yeah, all politicians are. I get that part. But not all politicians get pilloried for it in books by their top aides. Tim Geithner appears to be the last of a plethora of administration insiders who say that Obama fibs. A lot. Geithner claims that Obama, through Jack Lew, asked him to blow a “dog whistle” to the Left by claiming that social security wouldn’t contribute to future deficits. Geithner explains that the “dog whistle” was secret code telling the Left that social security wouldn’t be touched according to an account by FoxNews. Having put the story in print, Geithner is now claiming that he’s being misquoted in his own memoirs, which until now, was the only thing distinguishing Terrell Owens' autobiography. Move over 81, you got company. (For personal appearances by Number 81, you need only dial 1-855-Owens81.) Former defense secretary Robert Gates turned coat on Obama earlier this year, saying that despite Obama’s push for surge strategy in Afghanistan, Obama never believed his own strategy. More Americans died during Obama’s guidance in Afghanistan than during the whole Bush presidency. “In fact, according to the CNSNews.com database of U.S. casualties in Afghanistan,” writes Dennis Crowley of CNS, “73 percent of all U.S. Afghan War casualties have occurred since Jan. 20, 2009 when Obama was inaugurated.” Writes the Washington Post: “Obama, after months of contentious discussion with Gates and other top advisers, deployed 30,000 more troops in a final push to stabilize Afghanistan before a phased withdrawal beginning in mid-2011. ‘I never doubted Obama’s support for the troops, only his support for their mission,’” Gates writes. Pretty much the same thing. You can’t ask people to die over remaining steady in polling and still say you support the troops. “The White House seemed to see an actual benefit in not doing too much,” says former administration official Vali Nasr who worked on Pakistan/Afghan issues for the administration according to the Washington Times. “The goal was to spare the president the risks that necessarily come with playing the leadership role that America claims to play in this region,” saying that Obama was more interested in the domestic political effects of foreign policy, and using foreign policy as a tool to hit Hillary Clinton. While not necessarily a lie, certainly running foreign policy for parochial domestic interests was and is counterproductive to American interests. While not penned by an insider, Edward Klein’s book The Amateur, is full of accusations by administration insiders who claim that Obama has lied to Americans about what his real agenda is, about the competency of Obama’s administration, and his inability to get along politically with even his one-time most ardent supporters like Caroline Kennedy and Oprah Winfrey. Insiders have at least been decidedly prescient and consistent in their degradation of Obama. They knew what the rest of us suspected even before the Obamacare fiasco confirmed Obama to be an opportunist who will say whatever he thinks he can get away with. So here’s my question for my liberal friends: At what point do you abandon this president if not on principal at least out of a sense of self-preservation? History won’t be kind to Obama if already the memoirs are so full of brutality. Imagine what will be said when Obama is no longer president. I can’t wait.
Diver Susan Bird works at the bottom of Hoyo Negro, a large dome-shaped underwater cave on Mexico’s Yucatán Peninsula. She carefully brushes the human skull found at the site while her team members take detailed photographs. (Image courtesy of Paul Nicklen/National Geographic)
DNA From 12,000-Year-Old Skeleton Helps Answer the Question: Who Were the First Americans?
In 2007, cave divers discovered remains that form the oldest, most complete and genetically intact human skeleton in the New World
Some 12,000 years ago, a teenage girl took a walk in what’s now the Yucatan Peninsula and fell 190 feet into a deep pit, breaking her pelvis and likely killing her instantly. Over time, the pit—part of an elaborate limestone cave system—became a watery grave as the most recent ice age ended, glaciers melted and sea levels rose.
In 2007, cave divers happened upon her remarkably preserved remains, which form the oldest, most complete and genetically intact human skeleton in the New World. Her bones, according to new research published in Science, hold the key to a question that has long plagued scientists: Who were the first Americans?
Prevailing ideas point to all Native Americans descending from ancient Siberians who moved across the Beringia land bridge between Asia and North America between 26,000 and 18,000 years ago. As time wore on, the thinking goes, these people spread southward and gave rise to the Native American populations encountered by European settlers centuries ago. The skull of Naia on the floor of Hoyo Negro, as it appeared in December 2011, having rolled into a near-upright position. (Photo by Roberto Chavez Arce)But therein lies a puzzle: "Modern Native Americans closely resemble people of China, Korea, and Japan… but the oldest American skeletons do not," says archaeologist and paleontologist James Chatters, lead author on the study and the owner of Applied Paleoscience, a research consulting service based in Bothell, Washington.
The small number of early American specimens discovered so far have smaller and shorter faces and longer and narrower skulls than later Native Americans, more closely resembling the modern people of Africa, Australia, and the South Pacific. "This has led to speculation that perhaps the first Americans and Native Americans came from different homelands," Chatters continues, "or migrated from Asia at different stages in their evolution."
The newly discovered skeleton—named Naia by the divers who discovered her, after the Greek for water—should help to settle this speculation. Though her skull is shaped like those of other early Americans, she shares a DNA sequence with some modern Native Americans. In other words, she’s likely a genetic great-aunt to indigenous people currently found in the Americas. New genetic evidence supports the hypothesis that the first people in the Americas all came from northeast Asia by crossing a land bridge known as Beringia. When sea levels rose after the last ice age the land bridge disappeared. (Julie McMahon)To reach these findings, scientists had to first conclusively determine Naia’s age.
It helped that the cave she was found in—a submerged chamber called “Hoyo Negro” (Spanish for “black hole”) of the Sac Atun cave system, accessible only by divers climbing down a 30-foot ladder in a nearby sinkhole, swimming along a 200-foot tunnel, then making a final 100-foot drop—was littered with fossils of saber-toothed tigers, giant ground sloths, cave bears and even a elephant like creature called a gomphothere. These creatures last walked on Earth thousands of years ago during the last ice age.
But the researchers needed to get more specific than that. So they took a close look at regional sea-level data to get a minimum age at which the cave filled with seawater. Their analysis showed that the site, which is now 130 feet below sea-level, would have been become submerged between 9,700 and 10,200 years ago. Thus, Naia had to have fallen into the cave before then.
Unlike previous skeletons of early Americans, Naia’s included her teeth. Led by co-author Douglas Kennett, a professor of environmental archaeology at the Pennsylvania State University, researchers radiocarbon-dated her tooth enamel to 12,900 years ago.
But Naia’s exposure to seawater within the limestone caves, however, had mineralized her bones. "Unfortunately, we can't rule out that the tooth enamel is contaminated with secondary carbonates from the cave system,” Kennett explains.
Tooth enamel also contains trace amounts of uranium and thorium, radioactive minerals that decay at known rates. But results from those analyses, while they indicated that the remains were at least 12,000 years old, were also inconclusive.
However the scientists noticed something interesting about the bones themselves: they were spotted with rosette-looking mineral deposits. Before the cave was submerged, water dripping from the cave’s roof created a mineral mist that dried on the bones in floret patterns.
"Because the florets grew on the human bones, we knew that dating them would give us a minimum age for the bones," explains Victor Polyak, a research scientist at the University of New Mexico’s Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences. "And again, given that Hoyo Negro pit was dry when Naia made her way to the bottom, the florets had to have grown between the time of her death and 10,000 years ago when the bottom of the pit became submerged by brackish water because of rising sea level. Therefore, the oldest pieces of florets provided the oldest minimum age." Analysis of these florets agreed with other readings—Naia fell into cave no earlier than 12,000 years ago. The upper right third molar of Naia, which was used for both radiocarbon dating and DNA extraction. The tooth is held by ancient genetics expert Brian Kemp of Washington State University, who led the genetic research on the skeleton. (Photo by James Chatters)Naia’s teeth had another role to play: With her age established, scientists then sought to extract her DNA from her molars. "We tried a DNA extraction on the outside chance some fragments might remain," says Chatters. "I was shocked when we actually got intact DNA."
The researchers focused on mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which is used by geneticists to examine how populations are related. mtDNA is more abundant than DNA found in a cell’s nucleus, so it’s easier to study. Researchers focused especially on haplotypes, which are sequences of genes that mutate more slowly than the rest of the mtDNA.
Their analysis showed that Naia’s mtDNA contains a haplotype that occurs in modern Native Americans and only is found in the Americas; scientists believe it evolved in Beringia.
“We were able to identify her genetic lineage with high certainty," says Ripan Malhi, a professor of anthropology at the University of Illinois. Malhi’s lab was one of three that analyzed Naia’s mtDNA; all three analyses yielded the same results. "This shows that living Native Americans and these ancient remains of the girl we analyzed all came from the same source population during the initial peopling of the Americas."
Naia proves that migrations from Beringia made it to southern Mexico. As for why Naia’s skull is so different from modern Native Americans, co- author Deborah Bolnick, assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Texas at Austin has an explanation: “The physical differences between Paleoamericans and Native Americans today are more likely due to changes that occurred in Beringia and the Americas over the last 9,000 years.” Bolnick’s lab was one of the three to confirm the mtDNA findings.
Studies of Naia—namely the fact that she’s a genetic forerunner to modern Native Americans—ironically raises some interesting questions about whether scientists will be able to get access and extract the remains of early Americans yet to be uncovered.
For example, Chatters—who discovered the scientific importance of the ~9000-year-old Kennewick Man in 1996—could not further analyze those remains due to local tribes claiming the body as an ancestor under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), passed in 1990. However, in 2004, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a previous decision that ruled that the remains could not be defined as “Native American” under NAGPRA law, and studies of the body resumed.
Naia’s discovery may open the door to similar struggles in the future. But Chatters dismisses this idea, noting that in the current study, “We’re not looking at an ancestor-descendent relationship here necessarily. We’re simply looking at a common heritage.”
Meanwhile, dive into Hoyo Negro with the project’s cave explorers, courtesy of Mexican government’s National Institute of Anthropology and History and supported by the National Geographic Society:
The 12,000 year old skeleton of a teenage girl was found in Hoyo Negro, an underwater cave system on the Yucatan Peninsula.
CNN ^ | 5/15/14 | Jacque Wilson and William Hudson
A woman with an incurable cancer is now in remission, thanks, doctors say, to a highly concentrated dose of the measles virus. For 10 years, Stacy Erholtz, 49, battled multiple myeloma, a deadly cancer of the blood. Doctors at the Mayo Clinic say she had received every type of chemotherapy drug available.... Then researchers gave her and five other multiple myeloma patients a dose of a highly concentrated, lab-engineered measles virus similar to the measles vaccine. In fact, the dose Erholtz received contained enough of the virus to vaccinate approximately 10 million people.