Obama: Corruption, Deception, Dishonesty, Deceit and Promises Broken

[Soul Crusher]

Obama stimulus cash goes to foreign workers ($7M to four Oregon firms who hired no US workers)
Washington Examiner ^ | October 21, 2011 | Conn Carroll
Posted on October 21, 2011 12:34:17 PM EDT by Qbert

A Labor Department Inspector General report released this week found that $7,140,782 in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds went to four Oregon forestry services firms who hired no U.S. workers. From the report:

Only two Oregonians were listed on the employer recruitment reports, indicating that workers in Oregon were likely unaware these job opportunities were available. In fact, although 146 U.S. workers were contacted by the three employers regarding possible employment, none were hired. Instead, 254 foreign workers were brought into the country for these jobs.
The Labor OIG even interviewed local workers to find out why no Americans were hired. The OIG reports:

We spoke with two workers who reported that the employer used discouraging language, such as references to age and the ability to speak another language, which are not valid conditions of employment.
Reached for comment by The Oregonian, there was bipartisan anger at the what OIG found. "This is a timber area and we hadn't been cutting trees for years," Republican state Sen. Chris Telfer told the paper. "It really ticked off a lot of people here."

Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., who asked the OIG to investigate the program in September 2010, was also displeased: "The goal of the stimulus bill was to put Americans back to work, not foreign nationals. ... Oregonians have been logging for over a century, our workforce is one of the best in the world, and these contracts should have been awarded to companies that hire Oregon loggers."

This is not the first time President Obama's policies have killed Oregonian jobs. In July, the Obama administration rescinded a Bush administration plan to double logging in Western Oregon. “Communities throughout western Oregon are facing extreme economic dislocation that has been compounded by a lack of timber coming from the BLM forests--southwest Oregon has become a sacrifice zone for this Administration,” American Forest Resource Council Tom Partin said in a release.

[Soul Crusher]

GAO: With China dialogues, WH violated law
by Joel Gehrke Commentary Staff Writer
Follow on Twitter:@jsgehrkejr

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/gao-china-dialogues-wh-violated-law




It’s not every day that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports that the Executive Office of the President violated federal law, but that’s the conclusion the GAO released in a report this month, after reviewing bilateral talks with the Chinese government hosted by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP).

The White House Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) disputes GAO’s conclusion, arguing that the law does not constitutionally apply to the OSTP's diplomatic activities.

The disagreement stems from meetings this past May in which officials from the OSTP met with representatives of the Chinese government to discuss technology innovation and economic issues.

After reviewing the meetings at the behest of Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., the GAO "conclude[d] that OSTP’s use of appropriations to fund its participation in the Innovation Dialogue and the [economic issues] violated” a section of the Department of Defense appropriations bill that became law in April.

"The plain meaning of section 1340 is clear," wrote GAO general counsel Lynn Gibson, adding that OSTP "contravened the appropriations restriction." The GAO report provided the text of section 1340:

"None of the funds made available by this division may be used for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration or the Office of Science and Technology Policy to develop, design, plan, promulgate, implement, or execute a bilateral policy, program, order, or contract of any kind to participate, collaborate, or coordinate bilaterally in any way with China or any Chinese-owned company unless such activities are specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of enactment of this division."

Assistant Attorney General Virginia Seitz responded with memorandum in which she argued that section 1340 "is unconstitutional as applied to certain activities undertaken pursuant to the President’s constitutional authority to conduct the foreign relations of the United States."

She also said "most, if not all, of the activities of the activities you have described to us fall within the President’s exclusive power to conduct diplomacy."

Rick Weiss, an OSTP senior analyst and director of Strategic Communications for OSTP, said that White House OLC opinions take precedence over those of the GAO.

"That’s not our understanding,” said Dan Scandling, a spokesman for Rep. Wolf. "GAO is saying they're in violation of the law. GAO is an independent body; [the Department of Justice] is not."

Weiss cited a 2005 memo by Joshua Bolten, then-Director of the Office of Budget and Management under President George W. Bush, as a bipartisan corroboration of his conclusion.

"[T]he GAO does not provide controlling legal interpretations for the Executive Branch," Bolten wrote. "Rather, responsibility for ensuring Executive Branch agencies' compliance with law rests with their respective General Counsels and, ultimately, with the Attorney General."

GAO's general counsel argued that, absent a judicial interpretation of the law's constitutionality, Acts of Congress are "entitled to a heavy presumption in favor of constitutionality."

In any case, the Attorney General's office approved the OSTP meeting with the Chinese government, section 1340 notwithstanding. But Seitz seems to have left open the question of whether the dialogues broke the law.

Four times in her memorandum, Seitz used the phrase "most, if not all" to defend OSTP's activities as protected under the president's constitutional authority.

That ambiguity seems to undermine the defense of OSTP. "OSTP does not deny that it engaged in activities prohibited by section 1340," Gibson wrote for the GAO.

"OSTP argues, instead, that section 1340, as applied to the events at issue here, is an unconstitutional infringement on the President’s constitutional prerogatives in foreign affairs," she said.

But Seitz does not say that "all" of "the events at issue" are protected by the "president's constitutional prerogatives," -- she says, emphatically, that "most, if not all," and thus leaves open the possibility that some of those activities did violate the law.

The phrase might amount to only a minor ambiguity, but she repeated the words -- which get to the heart of her argument -- throughout the memorandum.

When The Washington Examiner asked Weiss if Seitz intended the ambiguity, he declined to comment, referring the question instead to the Office of Legal Counsel.

The Washington Examiner has requested clarification from the Department of Justice as to what Seitz meant and whether OSTP did, in fact, break the law.

[Soul Crusher]

BAGHDAD — Throughout the summer and autumn, as talks on a continued U.S. military presence in Iraq foundered, President Barack Obama and his point man on Iraq, Vice President Joe Biden, remained aloof from the process, not even phoning top Iraqi officials to help reach a deal, according to logs released by the U.S. Embassy here.

The omission is an unusual one, given the high priority that U.S. officials had given to achieving an agreement for some sort of residual U.S. presence in Iraq after the Dec. 31 pullout deadline set in a 2008 pact between the two countries. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and other senior Pentagon officials spoke often about the need for an agreement in a pivotal country in a volatile region and insisted talks were continuing up until Friday, when Obama announced that all U.S. troops would be coming home before the end of December.

A listing of direct conversations provided by the embassy — drawn, the embassy said, from the White House website — indicates that Obama had no direct contact with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki between Feb. 13, when he telephoned the prime minister, until Friday, when he called Maliki to tell him U.S. troops would be withdrawn by Dec. 31.

Also absent for nearly the entire year was Biden. According to the official listing, Biden telephoned Maliki on Dec. 21, the day Maliki formed a new government, and visited here Jan. 18, but had no direct contact after that date, according to the official listing.

U.S. Embassy officials, asked in July whether Biden was coming to help secure the deal, which military officers said needed to be concluded by July 31 for planning purposes, said the vice president was too busy trying to end the donnybrook in Congress over raising the national debt ceiling to visit Iraq.

On Tuesday, a White House spokesman, Tommy Vietor, denied that Obama and Biden had not talked to Maliki during the negotiations. But he did not respond to a request for the dates of conversations between the president and Maliki.

"The VP talked to senior Iraqi leaders multiple times during that period of time," Vietor wrote in an email. "The President also engaged with Iraqi leaders. Your story is totally wrong."

Iraqi government spokesman Tahseen al Shaikhli said he could not explain the lack of contact between Maliki and top-level Americans.

"You'll have to ask (Obama) why he didn't intervene before this, or call before this," he said.

Shaikhli said his government still hopes that an invitation that Obama extended for a meeting with Maliki in December might lead to an agreement between the two countries that would allow uniformed U.S. trainers to deploy to Iraq.

"Maybe when they sit together, they will solve most of the problems," he said, adding, "Or maybe they will complicate it more."

The issue of whether some U.S. troops might remain in Iraq after the Dec. 31 date, which was set by the so-called Status of Forces Agreement that the administration of President George W. Bush negotiated with the Iraqi government, had always been a complicated one — both for Iraqi officials and Obama, who promised as a presidential candidate in 2008 that he would bring U.S. troops home from Iraq.

Maliki announced on May 11 that he would consult politicians at every level before deciding whether to ask the United States to keep troops here, and he said he hoped to reach a decision by July 31, the date set by the U.S. military. Iraqi officials soon were saying that the country was hoping that at least 10,000 to 15,000 troops would stay behind.

Iraqi political leaders, with the exception of followers of the militant Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al Sadr and veteran politician Ahmed Chalabi, indicated that they would favor the continued presence of U.S. forces, but they were less certain about the U.S. demand to provide immunity from prosecution for troops serving here.

The top politicians, already gridlocked on other security issues, including who would serve as ministers of defense and the interior, were unable to agree at the initial sessions.

Panetta flew to Baghdad on July 11, his first trip since becoming defense secretary, but he didn't make any headway. "I'd like things to move a lot faster here, frankly," he told U.S. troops then. "Do you want us to stay, don't you want us to stay? Damn it, make a decision."

A major complication was the insistence by the Obama administration that the accord go before the Iraqi parliament, something that in the end Iraqi politicians decided was impossible. But whether that restriction was necessary is an open question. Many status-of-forces agreements are signed at the executive level only, particularly in countries without elected legislatures.

But the White House turned the issue over to the State Department's legal affairs office, reporters in Baghdad were told on Saturday. The lawyers gave a variety of options, but Obama chose the most stringent, approval by Iraq's legislature of a new agreement, citing as precedent that the Iraqi parliament had approved the 2008 agreement, reporters were told.

By mid-September, Iraqi government spokesmen had lowered their goal for a continued presence of U.S. military trainers to about 3,000. But they were also determined not to give in on the American demand for immunity for U.S. troops.

When the Iraqis announced that they'd reached a decision Oct. 4 to request trainers, the figure was "more than 5,000," according to Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, who told reporters Oct. 10 that Iraqi was seeking a "yes or no" response from the Americans. He said there would be no grant of immunity to Americans who stayed behind, however, something the Pentagon had previously said would be required if any troops were to remain.

Whether an earlier Obama intervention would have changed the course of the talks is unknowable.

Shaikhli, the Iraqi spokesman, said his government still is hoping for an agreement that would provide American forces with "legal protection" rather than "immunity," meaning that the U.S. would retain jurisdiction if a soldier committed a crime against another soldier, but that Iraqi law would hold sway if the soldier were accused of injuring an Iraqi civilian.

Shaikhli said, however, that he didn't think such an agreement should be put before the Iraqi parliament.

"We have to wait until the negotiation is finished," he said, "and we should not jump to a conclusion."

(Steven Thomma contributed to this report from Washington.)

MORE FROM MCCLATCHY


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/10/25/128294/as-us-iraqi-troop-talks-faltered.html






FAIL!

[Soul Crusher]

Obama Admin Seeks Permission TO LIE In Response To FOI Requests - Even To The COURTS



" One of the President Obama's first promises after becoming President of the United States was a commitment to usher in a new era of unprecedented government transparency . http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Transparency... / Instead the Obama administration has exhibited what may be an unprecedented obsession with government secrecy including blocking numerous law suits by invoking the doctrine of "State Secrets." The administration has even come up with an interpretation of the Patriot Act which many in Congress who have seen it claim is overly broad and bestows more power on the Executive Branch than was intended by Congress when they passed it.



Unfortunately those in Congress who have seen this document are not permitted to divulge its content, and we, the public, cannot see it because the administration has chosen to classify it as a "State Secret." In other words, you might be doing something that the Obama Administration believes violates the Patriot Act, but you won't know it until they indict you for breaking a law you did not know existed (I might be breaking it just by penning and publishing this article).



Now the Obama/Holder Justice Department is attempting to re-write the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), empowering or even compelling government agencies to deny the very existence of records they know to exist if they believe they are legitimately exempted from disclosure. Of course they are most likely the sole arbiter of whether they are indeed exempt from disclosure. In effect the Obama/Holder Justice Department wants to be free to legally lie about the existence of records in response to FOIA requests. Apparently they want to avoid the embarrassment and inconvenience of being officially rebuked by the courts for doing exactly that (lying to a Federal judge), as occurred earlier this year http://www.mainjustice.com/files/2011/04/Cormac-Carney-... when, in a strongly worded opinion, U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney wrote that the "Government cannot, under any circumstance, affirmatively mislead the Court." The solution is simple: re-write the law so the government, in many circumstances, can affirmatively mislead the court.



Despite substantial opposition by such groups as the ACLU, The National Press Club, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, OpentheGovernment.org., Judicial Watch, et al to this radical re-write of the FOIA Law , this controversial effort by the Obama Administration to evade the very transparency it so passionately promised to deliver has been virtually ignored by the mainstream media which is supposed to the guardian of the people's right to know. Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican or neither, this move by the Obama administration should trouble you deeply. Is this change we can believe in???



Below are snippets of reports on this controversy, none of them from a mainstream media source. That was not my intent. I just could not find any. I learned about it just this morning in an e-mail from the National Law Journal:





"Under the new Department of Justice proposal, in replying to a request for information under the freedom-of-information law, if the information is allowed to be withheld under certain statutory exceptions, then federal officials "will respond to the request as if the excluded records did not exist"--even if that is not the case.


"No rule or law should allow, let alone require, the government to mislead the press or the public about anything," said Mark Hamrick , a broadcast journalist with the Associated Press who is the 2011 president of the National Press Club. "If enacted, it appears that this proposed rule would offend the precepts that informed the Freedom of Information Act, and it would tarnish the government's credibility.


"What's more, the change seems unnecessary," he said. "If agencies are exercising legally allowable exceptions to the law and withholding certain records, they can just continue to do as they do today: neither confirm nor deny the information's existence.""


http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/national-press-...





"The Justice Department has proposed the change as part of a large revision of FOIA rules for federal agencies. Specifically, the rule would direct government agencies who are denying a request under an established FOIA exemption to "respond to the request as if the excluded records did not exist," rather than citing the relevant exemption. The proposed rule has alarmed government transparency advocates across the political spectrum, who've called it "Orwellian" and say it will "twist" public access to government.




cont'


http://www.opednews.com/articles/Transparency-In-Govern...

 

[Soul Crusher]

Sitter in Chief Barack Obama and the infantilization of America..Article Comments (178) more in Opinion | Find New $LINKTEXTFIND$ ».Email Print Save ↓ More .
By JAMES TARANTO
www.wsj.com




Breaking from the great American journalistic tradition of speaking truth to power, the San Francisco Chronicle publishes this cutesy puff piece on the most powerful man in the world: "President Obama spent only a few hours in San Francisco on Tuesday, but he took just seconds to prove once again why he's the baby whisperer." It seems that when the president arrived at the airport, he "spotted 6-month-old Josie Knight, who was crying while being held by her mother, Gina Odom, 37, of Oakland."

Obama heroically took "the squalling infant into his arms" and repeated, "It's OK," until she calmed down. "Obama bounced gently and held her for about 10 seconds before flashing a smile and returning her to Odom."

But this isn't just a harmless human-interest story about a baby-kissing pol. It's a metaphor.

Here's ABC News, reporting on the speech the president gave in Fog City: "At a million-dollar San Francisco fundraiser today, President Obama warned his recession-battered supporters that if he loses the 2012 election it could herald a new, painful era of self-reliance in America."

Oh no! Horror of horrors! Obama is the only thing standing between us and having to rely on ourselves! And do you know what they call people who rely on themselves?

Adults.

 .Oddly, the White House website doesn't have the text of this speech, but here's a passage from ABC: "The one thing that we absolutely know for sure is that if we don't work even harder than we did in 2008, then we're going to have a government that tells the American people, 'you are on your own. If you get sick, you're on your own. If you can't afford college, you're on your own. If you don't like that some corporation is polluting your air or the air that your child breathes, then you're on your own.' That's not the America I believe in. It's not the America you believe in."

Obama explicitly rejects the American ethos of self-reliance. He sees dependence on government not as an evil, if sometimes a necessary one, but as a goal to be pursued. It reminded us of Peggy Noonan's observation last week that there's something not fully adult about the president himself: "Sorry to do archetypes, but a nation in trouble probably wants a fatherly, or motherly, figure at the top. What America has right now is a bright, lost older brother. It misses Dad."

Perhaps Obama is eager to infantilize Americans precisely because he is not a fatherly figure--a man of unquestioned wisdom and maturity. A strong father continues to command his children's respect even as they too reach adulthood. As Mark Twain observed, "When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years." The "bright, lost older brother," by contrast, can command the respect only of young children.

Fox News, meanwhile, reports on an effort to push nanny-statism even further: "Gov. Dan Malloy has declared Thursday 'Diaper Need Awareness Day' as part of a campaign by The Nutmeg State to pressure Washington into providing free diapers to low-income families." Rep. Rosa DeLauro, like Malloy a Connecticut Democrat, is pushing legislation that "would allow Uncle Sam to . . . provide funding for diapers and diaper supplies."

Maybe Obama should take it one step further and ask Congress to create a new cabinet-level Department of Infant Care to provide free diapers to all Americans. (Would that include the elderly? Depends.) It would certainly resonate with his 2008 campaign theme of "change."

Remedial Writing
It looks as though the Worst Writer in the English Language is making an attempt at self-improvement. Here are the first two sentences of his column today:

Who would have predicted it? Barack Obama has turned out to be so much more adept at implementing George W. Bush's foreign policy than Bush was, but he is less adept at implementing his own.
This leads very similarly to our Friday column: "Who'd have thought Barack Obama would end up killing more Arab tyrants and terrorists in just the past two years than George W. Bush did in three?" A lesser man would take offense at the imitation, but we are happy to be helping make him a better writer.

Along the way, he makes this observation about Obama: "True, he was naïve about how much his star power, or that of his secretary of state, would get others to swoon in behind us." And if this story in the Washington Times is any indication, he still is:

The State Department has bought more than $70,000 worth of books authored by President Obama, sending out copies as Christmas gratuities and stocking "key libraries" around the world with "Dreams From My Father" more than a decade after its release.
The U.S. Embassy in Egypt, for instance, spent $28,636 in August 2009 for copies of Mr. Obama's best-selling 1995 memoir. Six weeks earlier, the embassy had placed another order for the same book for more than $9,000, federal purchasing records show.
About the same time, halfway around the world, the U.S. Embassy in South Korea had the same idea and spent more than $6,000 for copies of "Dreams From My Father."
A caveat: No figure is given for North Korea. If it turns out that more copies went to Pyongyang than Seoul, then the administration's diplomacy may be smarter than the story would suggest.

As for Thomas Friedman, by the end of his column, unfortunately, he has reverted to form. We'll quote the last paragraph, but you might want to pop a Dramamine before reading it:

So, Mama, tell your children not to grow up to be secretary of state or a foreign policy president--not until others have done more nation-building abroad and we've done more nation-building at home.
But listen, Rome wasn't built in a day. With a few more years of determined practice, maybe Friedman will be able to write a column that is better than awful from beginning to end.

Just So You Know, I'm Ignoring You
President Obama appeared last night on "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno," and The Wall Street Journal has some highlights:

Mr. Obama compared the GOP nominating contest to the reality TV show "Survivor." "I'm going to wait until everybody is voted off the island," he said to applause. "Once they narrow it down to one or two, I'll start paying attention."
We suppose people who haven't been paying attention to Obama may believe that he hasn't been paying attention to the Republicans, but in fact he has. Here are some recent headlines:

■"Obama to Perry: 'Be a Little More Careful About What You Say' "--RealClearPolitics.com, Aug. 16
■"Obama Slams Perry, GOP Debates"--USA Today website, Sept. 26
■"In a Preview of 2012, Obama Mocks the GOP"--Time.com, Sept. 26
■"Obama Rebukes GOP Candidates for Not Speaking Up for Gay Soldier"--Washington Times, Oct. 2
■" 'Underdog' Obama on Attack Against GOP"--Washington Times, Oct. 3
■"Obama Campaign Steps Up Attacks on Mitt Romney"--Los Angeles Times, Oct. 12
■"Obama Attacks Perry on Flat Tax"--New York Times website, Oct. 25
It reminds us a bit of the New York Times's bizarre denial that it endorsed John McCain in the 2008 Republican primary. And speaking of the Times, our item yesterday on columnist David Brooks prompted a hilarious reply from reader Greg Schwinghammer--which we should warn you contains a movie spoiler:

"Primal Fear" was a silly thriller in which Edward Norton is arrested for a murder, and is a babbling mentally impaired child named Aaron. After talking with Richard Gere, his public defender, it appears he has a multiple personality disorder, and "Roy" is a terrible killer. Lots of repressed memory business and at trial Gere dramatically convinces "Roy" to come out and show himself which leads to the acquittal of "Aaron."
Then at the end "Roy" is talking to Richard Gere, laughing and saying "You were great. That was perfect. We pulled it off." Gere is upset and screaming for "Aaron" to come out, and says something like, "Aaron, I know you are in there. Come talk to me." Edward Norton is then perfectly evil as he looks at Gere and says, "C'mon, man, you're kidding me. You thought that was real. Hey man, there ain't no Aaron."
We'd say Schwinghammer nailed poor Brooks.

Shariahnoia

Writing on Commentary's website, Max Boot has a useful corrective to some of the distraught commentary you've probably been hearing of late about the rise of Shariah in North Africa in the wake of the Arab Spring:

Saying a country's legal system will be based on sharia law is about as descriptive as saying it will be based on the Ten Commandants [sic] or the teachings of Christ. Like Christianity, Judaism or any other religion, Islam is subject to countless interpretations. Sharia law has meant many different things in many different countries across the ages. Even Islamic fundamentalists are not all alike. Wahhabis rule in both Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, yet liquor is readily available in the latter but not the former.
Islamist parties do not necessarily take their inspiration from the Taliban, Hamas, or the Iranian mullahs. In fact, the failure of all three of those Islamist regimes–in Afghanistan, Gaza and Iran--to deliver economic or social progress has done much to discredit them in the Muslim world. That doesn't mean most Muslims are ready to embrace a strictly secular regime; but then even in Europe, Christian Democratic parties are common, and in the United States many political candidates claim to take their marching orders from the Almighty.
It's also worth noting that a regime can be "strictly secular" and also horrifically oppressive, as Justice Antonin Scalia noted earlier this month in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee:

I ask [law students], "Why do you think America is such a free country? What is it in our Constitution that makes us what we are?" And I guarantee you that the response I will get--and you will get this from almost any American . . . the answer would be: freedom of speech; freedom of the press; no unreasonable searches and seizures; no quartering of troops in homes . . . those marvelous provisions of the Bill of Rights.

But then I tell them, "If you think a bill of rights is what sets us apart, you're crazy." Every banana republic in the world has a bill of rights. Every president for life has a bill of rights. The bill of rights of the former evil empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was much better than ours. I mean it. Literally, it was much better. We guarantee freedom of speech and of the press. Big deal. They guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of street demonstrations and protests, and anyone who is caught trying to suppress criticism of the government will be called to account. Whoa, that is wonderful stuff!
Of course, it's just words on paper, what our Framers would have called a "parchment guarantee."
We are far from confident that the democratic experiment in the Arab world is going to work out well. But if you start telling us that Libya is sure to be worse off than it was under Moammar Gadhafi, merely because he was "secular," we will take you about as seriously as we took people who said the same about Iraq and Saddam Hussein.

[Soul Crusher]

Must-See Video DHS Hearings: Big Sis Gives Secret Clearance to Muslim Brotherhood
Atlas Shrugs ^ | Oct 27, 2011 | Pam Geller et al
Posted on October 27, 2011 7:17:10 PM EDT by combat_boots

(Video)

Homeland Insecurity in the hot seat: Big Sis, Janet Napolitano, with the most most disturbing hairdo/color I have ever seen, admits that she has been given secret clearance to Muslim Brotherhood-tied operatives here in the US at the US Immigration and Enforcement hearings. This is jawdropping testimony. Looking like a character in a John Waters film, Janet Napolitano is either clueless, complicit or downright lying to cover for her Muslim Brotherhood appointments. Napolitano denies being aware of a Muslim Brotherhood-tied operative whom she swore in.

Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas does a spectacular job on pressing Napolitano's knowledge of the story that I posted yesterday concerning Mohamed Elibiary, the Homeland Security Adviser who allegedly leaked intel and shopped classified Info to media. I warned of Elibiary's appointment back in 2010. He asked if she was aware and she said she was not aware. Gohmert further pressed Napolitano of her knowledge of Elibiary's support of the Ayatollah Khomeini. Again she feigned concern and professed ignorance. This is the head of Homeland Security claiming ignorance of the most dangerous threat to the homeland, the global jihad and Islamic imperialism and expansion. All of her answers indicate that she is being led by her not inconsequential nose by those who seek "to eliminate and destroy Western civilization from within."

Gohmert asked her if it concerned her at all and ...... she didn't answer.

(Excerpt) Read more at atlasshrugs2000.typepad. com ...

[Soul Crusher]

Free Republic
Browse · Search   Pings · Mail   News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.

Obama admin renews push for solar energy in West
Associated Press ^ | Oct. 27, 2011 | MATTHEW DALY
Posted on October 27, 2011 7:12:02 PM EDT by Free ThinkerNY

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration on Thursday identified 17 sites in six Western states as prime candidates for solar energy projects on public lands, continuing a push for solar power despite the high-profile bankruptcy of a solar panel maker that received a half-billion dollar federal loan.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said the latest "Solar Energy Zones" refine and improve on a draft released in December that identified two dozen areas in California, Nevada, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and Arizona.

(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...

[Soul Crusher]

Obama's Gets a Failing Grade on Education
American Thinker ^ | November 2, 2011 | Dan Joppich

Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2011 7:30:38 AM by wintertime

This from a Huffington Post article - 2011 National Math, Reading Test Scores Show Sluggish Growth:

On the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress, administered every two years, average scores in fourth and eighth-grade math increased slightly, gaining one point each on a 500-point scale since 2009 and continuing a trend of minimal increases since 2003. Fourth-grade reading scores remained stagnant, staying the same since 2007, and eighth-grade reading scores increased by one point since 2009 on the 500-point scale.

"It is not an enormous increase substantively in terms of what students can do," said Jack Buckley, commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics, the U.S. Department of Education arm that administers the exams.

This year's math scores are the highest to date since 1990, when the test was first administered. But the scores remain dismal: Only 40 percent of fourth graders and 35 percent of eighth-grade students are performing at or above a level defined as "proficient." In reading, despite average scores reaching a similar peak, only 34 percent of students in both grades were rated "proficient."

While the writer is a master of the understatement the article is missing one little fact - The Obama administration has increased Department of Education spending by 40% annually since taking office. If you consider the result of the extra $30 billion in annual spending is a .000667 times average increase in yearly testing scores from 2009-2011, I would say it's more likely a huge failure than a minimal increase.


(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

[Soul Crusher]

Debt Increased $203 Billion in Oct.--$650 for Every Man, Woman and Child in America
By Terence P. Jeffrey
November 2, 2011
Subscribe to Terence P. Jeffrey's posts



President Barack Obama speaking on Oct. 12, 2011. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
(CNSNews.com) - The federal government’s debt increased by $203,368,715,583.63 in the month of October, according to the U.S. Treasury.

That equals about $650 per person for each of the 312,542,760 people the Census Bureau now estimates live in the United States.

At the end of September, the total national debt stood at $14,790,340,328,557.15, according to the Bureau of the Public Debt. By the end of October, it had risen to $14,993,709,044,140.78.

The debt increased far more this October than it did last October. Between the last day of September 2010 and the last day of October, the debt rose from $13,561,623,030,891.79 to 13,668,825,497,341.36—for an increase of $107,202,466, 449.57.

October is the first month of the federal fiscal year. If the debt were to increase by an average of $203 billion for the remaining 11 months of the year, the national debt would increase by $2.436 trillion for the year.

[Soul Crusher]

Subcommittee authorizes Homeland Security subpoena (re: illegals identified but not deported)
Yahoo ^ | 11/2/11 | Henry C. Jackson - AP



WASHINGTON (AP) — A House subcommittee on Wednesday authorized a subpoena against the Homeland Security Department for information about illegal immigrants who have been identified but not deported.

The authorization cleared the House Judiciary subcommittee on immigration policy and enforcement by a 7-4, party line vote. Democrats voted against the measure, saying it was premature to issue a subpoena because Homeland Security, which oversees Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is cooperating with the committee.

House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, says the subpoena authorization is necessary because the Obama administration hasn't responded quickly enough to his request, which was made in August. He had set a Monday deadline that the department failed to meet.

"The administration is obviously not acting in good faith," Smith said. "They're on the verge of obstructing the legitimate work of Congress."

Nelson Peacock, an assistant secretary for Homeland Security, said in a letter to Smith Wednesday that Immigration and Customs Enforcement is working expeditiously to turn over the information the committee has requested but that it will take significant analysis.

"As we have explained, ICE does not track the circumstances of cases where no action is taken," Peacock wrote. But he said the agency is committed to satisfying the committee's request and is working through its records to get as specific a response as possible.


(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...

[Soul Crusher]

(IG: )Trying to Spend Billions in Stimulus Funds Like 'Putting A Lawn Hose on a Fire Hydrant,'...
Cybercast News Service ^ | Nov 2, 2011 | Penny Starr
Posted on November 3, 2011 4:58:21 AM EDT by markomalley

Inspector Generals with the Departments of Energy and Labor told a House panel on Wednesday that reports compiled at Congress’ request show that billions of dollars in stimulus funding given to the agencies to create green jobs have failed to achieve that goal.

DOE Inspector General Gregory Friedman told the House Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight and Government Spending that his agency received $35.2 billion from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, signed into law by President Barack Obama in 2009.

Friedman’s office found that as of Oct. 22, 2011 about 45 percent of the agency’s stimulus funds had not been spent – mostly by state and local recipients of stimulus funds.

The reasons, Friedman said, are that few “shovel ready” jobs actually existed and that the infrastructure and personnel were not in place at the state and local level to put funding and programs in place.

He compared it to “putting a lawn hose on a fire hydrant.”

(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...





Fail. 

[Soul Crusher]

US DOE Inspector General Testifies: "Energy stimulus program plagued by problems"
Watts Up With That ^ | 1102-2011 | Don Penim
Posted on November 3, 2011 2:09:20 AM EDT by Robert A. Cook, PE

U.S. Department of Energy official testifies to committee:

Energy stimulus program plagued by problems

The Department of Energy’s inspector general said Wednesday that the 2009 stimulus program for green energy was so at odds with the realities on the ground that it was akin to “attaching a lawn mower to a fire hydrant.”

Inspector General Gregory Friedman, testifying to the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s panel on stimulus oversight, outlined a range of problems, from a flood of $35 billion in stimulus money that overwhelmed the department’s $27 billion annual budget to weatherization programs of such shoddy quality that more than half of those audited failed inspection because of substandard workmanship.

Elliot Lewis, assistant inspector general for the Labor Department, told the panel that problems also plagued training programs for green jobs that were allocated nearly $500 million. Of the roughly 125,000 workers eligible for training, only 40 percent received it and only 8,035 participants landed jobs.






Fail. 

[Soul Crusher]

Obama Adminstration Opposes Prayer Plaque at WWII Memorial - It Would "Dilute Message"
humanevents.com ^ | 11/04/2011 | Todd Starnes
Posted on November 4, 2011 8:04:38 PM EDT by massmike

Republican lawmakers and conservative activists are expressing outrage after the Obama administration announced its objection to adding President Franklin Roosevelt’s D-Day prayer to the World War II Memorial in Washington, D.C. The objection was noted during a congressional hearing on Rep. Bill Johnson’s (R-OH) bill – the “World War II Memorial Prayer Act of 2011.”

"It is unconscionable that the Obama administration would stand in the way of honoring our nation’s distinguished World War II veterans,” Johnson said. “President Roosevelt’s prayer gave solace, comfort and strength to our nation and our brave warriors as we fought against tyranny and oppression.”

Roosevelt asked the nation to join him in prayer as U.S. and allied troops launched the invasion that led to the defeat of Nazi Germany. He asked God to give the allied troops courage and faith, saying, “With thy blessing we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy.”

But Robert Abbey, the director of the Bureau of Land Management, said any plaque or inscription of the prayer would “dilute” the memorial’s central message and therefore “should not be altered.”

(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...








Everyone voting for this animal needs to be shoved off a skyscraper. 

[240 is Back]

Everyone voting for this animal needs to be shoved off a skyscraper. 

that made me laugh.

Perhaps you and your kin should choose a VP that isn't a ticket-killer this time.

Mccain/Romney woudl have defeated obama.  Try to keep a moron off the VP slot this time, thanks.

[Soul Crusher]

Free Republic
Browse · Search   Pings · Mail   News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.

Congressman: Science 'czar' giving China U.S. technology
WND ^ | November 05, 2011 | By Bob Unruh
Posted on November 6, 2011 2:11:07 AM EST by Never A Dull Moment

A congressman says he's alarmed that President Obama's science "czar," John Holdren, apparently has been collaborating with the Chinese even though Congress specifically prohibited that activity in a bill signed into law by his boss, Obama.

The accusations from U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf. R-Va., came this week in a hearing of the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

The committee was listening to testimony about China's espionage in the United States and "the violation of the law by the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy."

Wolf noted he opposed the idea that the U.S. should work with China in any way regarding that nation's space program.

"The Chinese space program is being led by the People's Liberation Army, and to state the obvious, the PLA is not our friend as evidenced by their recent military posture and aggressive espionage against U.S. agencies and firms," Wolf said.

His concern was raised because NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden had scheduled a trip to China to talk about cooperation between NASA and the Chinese army, and Holdren made multiple trips to China for weeks of meetings.

Holdren's viewpoints have been far afield from traditional American perspectives, with his suggestion that America should surrender to a "planetary regime" and his petitioning for a deliberate reduction in the stocks of U.S. weapons-grade plutonium.

"I was … concerned to learn that Dr. John Holdren, head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), had spent 21 days in China on three separate trips in one year – more than any other country. Very little information about these cooperative agreements with China were being provided to Congress and the American people," Wolf said.

(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...

[Soul Crusher]

Editor’s Note – In this PC world, led in America by the current leftist government where people like Eric Holder, who’s law firm defended terrorists pro bono, its more important to send a known terrorist back to London that we captured in Pakistan. The same place that would not allow Geert Wilders to visit now lauds the release of Binyam Mohammed, the Jose Padilla cohort. has the west lost its mind? The administration that won’t prosecute New Black Panther members who intimidate voters at polling places, and wanted to give terrorists the same rights American citizens have in court. To whom is this administration beholding?

A Terrorist Released

The Obama administration let Binyam Mohamed go.

National Review Online

By Andrew C. McCarthy

Binyam Mohamed is back in the news. You may remember him as the al-Qaeda operative who was slated to help would-be “dirty bomber” Jose Padilla conduct a second wave of post-9/11 attacks, targeting American cities. You also may not remember him. After all, the Obama administration quietly released him without charges.


Binyam Mohamed
Well, there’s a new chapter in this sordid tale. Mohamed is living large — taxpayer-funded large — in Great Britain. For that, we can thank the Lawyer Left’s stubborn insistence that enemy war criminals are really run-of-the-mill defendants. Actually, make that run-of-the-mill plaintiffs.

Unlike Padilla, who actually got into the United States, only to be apprehended in Chicago, Mohamed was captured in Karachi and turned over to the CIA. (Marc Thiessen provides more details about the case here.) Mohamed was interrogated by American and British intelligence.

The U.S. Defense Department wanted to try Mohamed by military commission. Alas, Britain’s Labour government was deathly afraid of the potential for a trial to expose its complicity in “enhanced interrogation” tactics, which an international propaganda campaign had equated with “torture” — and how about a round of applause for Sen. John McCain and Attorney General Eric Holder for sharpening that arrow in every defense lawyer’s quiver? Like virtually all captured terrorists now do, Mohamed claimed to have been tortured with Saddam-style cruelty. And as is virtually always the case, to call the allegation overblown is not to do it justice. Based on disclosures in various court cases, it is now clear that Mohamed was subjected to stress — essentially, sleep deprivation. Compared to actual torture, that is trivial.

Yet, goaded by its base (the leftist and pro-Islamist contingents that now make up the Occupy London crowd), the Blair-Brown government pleaded with the Obama administration to transfer Mohamed from Gitmo to England. The fact that Mohamed, when he was captured in the midst of plotting to kill thousands of people, had been trying to board a flight to London with a fake British passport was apparently of no import. That he is an Ethiopian national who had no legal right to be repatriated to England did not matter. The same British government that slammed the door on Geert Wilders, an anti-Islamist Dutch parliamentarian, rolled out the welcome mat for the jihadist. President Obama acquiesced, and Mohamed was released — free and clear.

Yes, free and clear. The Obama administration said barely a word about Mohamed’s transfer. Odd, since this was early 2009, right when the administration was gearing up its campaign to give enemy combatants civilian trials, and Mr. Holder was here, there, and everywhere, assuring every ear that there was no terrorism case the justice system could not handle. In fact, the officials involved in the decision to release Mohamed understood full well that he would be neither detained nor prosecuted by British authorities. He was to be freed.

To grasp just how outrageous that is, a comparison is in order. After being held for years as an enemy combatant, Mohamed’s accomplice, Jose Padilla, was finally convicted in civilian court. The charges involved terrorism, but not the “9/11 second wave” plot that had led to his capture (about a month after Mohamed’s). This was not because the second-wave conspiracy was fiction. It was because the plot could not be prosecuted under civilian due-process standards. To prove it, prosecutors would undoubtedly have had to cut deals with witnesses who knew its details — al-Qaeda bigwigs such as Khalid Sheikh Mohamed. As if that prospect were not unacceptable enough, such deals require the government to disclose the intelligence debriefings of these witnesses — something that is intolerable in wartime.

That is one of the principal reasons the Bush administration adopted, and Congress later endorsed, a military-justice system for detaining and prosecuting enemy war criminals. The military system makes possible prosecutions that would be impractical under civilian rules: It provides additional protections against unnecessary disclosure of intelligence, and it eases evidentiary standards so that information from witnesses can often be presented by hearsay, rather than by calling the witnesses themselves.

Regrettably, the Bush administration flinched from a Supreme Court challenge to its treatment of Padilla as a military detainee — even though the Fourth Circuit had upheld Padilla’s detention in 2005 (no thanks to an amicus brief filed on Padilla’s behalf by some lawyer named Eric Holder). As it happens, Padilla had been an ambitious enough terrorist that his hands were in multiple schemes, including one in Florida to recruit jihadists to commit mayhem overseas. Had that not been the case, the decision to treat Padilla as a mere criminal defendant would have resulted in his outright release. And because, unlike Mohamed, Padilla is an American citizen, we would have had no recourse against his living in our midst.

Echoing Mohamed, Padilla claimed to have been tortured. But the courts ruled that this was irrelevant: Even if his allegations were true, the abuse was a matter separate from the question of whether he had committed terrorism crimes — at least as long as the government did not attempt to use evidence derived from the alleged abuse to prove his guilt. A federal court in New York City drew the same conclusion in a prosecution against one of the 1998 embassy bombers, who also claimed he had been tortured. Padilla’s indictment thus stood. In fact, the most notable aspect of his case is that a federal appeals court found the 17-year sentence imposed by the trial judge to be woefully inadequate. The jail term has been remanded to the lower court for re-sentencing.

Now, let’s contrast this with the treatment of Binyam Mohamed. Because he is not an American citizen, there would have been no tenable legal objection to trying him for war crimes by military commission. (The Military Commissions Act directs that only alien enemy combatants may be subjected to such military tribunals.) And even if, in slavish deference to its political base’s aversion to commissions, the Obama administration remained hell-bent on resisting a military war-crimes trial, Mohamed could still have been detained indefinitely. Indeed, our military is still holding at Gitmo scores of enemy combatants who are less serious offenders than Mohamed — in the sense that, however threatening they may be, they did not plan to carry out mass-murder plots on American soil. In sum, the Obama administration could have declined to transfer Mohamed — certainly in the absence of a commitment that the Brits were willing and able to keep him under lock and key. If the president had done that, Mohamed would still be detained at Gitmo today.

But instead, Mohamed has hit the jihad jackpot in Albion — or is it al-Bion? I’ve previously noted that British authorities not only released him but also sustained him on public welfare. Now, we learn, that’s not the half of it.

The British government has actually given this al-Qaeda celebrity a cool £1 million payment. Mohamed, you’ll be shocked, shocked to learn, showed his gratitude for being extracted from Gitmo through the intercession of Her Majesty’s government by . . . suing the Brits for being complicit in his “torture.” The £1 million payment is the settlement the government decided it was best to have British taxpayers fork over. Thus, the Daily Mail reports, Mohamed was recently able to plunk down £250,000 for a lovely three-bedroom, two-bathroom terrace house in Norbury, South London — conveniently located near the Croydon Mosque and Islamic Centre.

That makes him one of 16 terror suspects who have scored huge financial payouts by simply claiming to have been mistreated by security and intelligence officials. Why does the British government settle rather than fight these claims by jihadists whose goal is to destroy the very system on which they are feasting? Because the Lawyer Left that makes up the transnational progressive vanguard insisted that enemy-combatant terrorists should be seen as civil litigants, and the Brits went along.

Under prevailing justice-system rules, the jihadist gets to sue and, if the British government tries to contest the case, the jihadist is entitled to discovery of all the intelligence about him in British government files. With this lawfare gun at its head, the government’s choice is to tell al-Qaeda what the West knows (and how we know it) or pay pricey settlements. Justice Secretary Ken Clarke explained that Mohamed got £1 million because, if the government hadn’t settled, the case might have cost British taxpayers £50 million.

One unnamed British government official told the Daily Mail, “The danger is that we have become a cashpoint for terrorists.” Gee, you think?

— Andrew C. McCarthy, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, is the author, most recently, of The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America.

share:         

[Soul Crusher]

Obama -- 1, Sick People - 0

http://www.forbes.com/sites/thesba/2011/11/07/obama-1-sick-people-0


The effects of The Patients Protection and Affordable Health Care Act have begun and Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield confirmed recently that they will eliminate most Small Group Health Plans in New York effective April 1, 2012. In addition, they will be slashing incentives for brokers to sell those products.

Hmmmmm.. What have we here:

1 .Major State in the US economically and business wise.

2. Major Private Health Insurance Carriers killing the good programs and leaving the costly and/or bad ones.

3. Brokers and Consultants now cannot make a living to help business owners with choice

4. Another Government Law mandating pricing controls like in the PPAHCA which says the premium taken in can only be used for a small percentage of cost with the lions share going to claims. This limits profits and increases risk of loss.

Is it clear to you all yet that the Patients Protection and Affordable Health Care Act is BAD and will create havoc amongst Small Businesses owners and their employees at a time where it is disastrous?

[Soul Crusher]

How much damage has Barack Obama done? Far more than the media is telling us; that's for sure
Coach is Right ^ | 11/9/2011 | Kevin "Coach" Collins




United States Census and other publicly available records tell us we may be in worse shape now than most people would believe. Consider these shocking statistics.

The Census Bureau reports that in 84% of our largest metropolitan areas the percentage of “very poor” people increased during 2010.

The Census Bureau, reported the percentage of “very poor” rose 84% of America’s 360 largest metropolitan areas during 2010.

The 2.6 million people who fell into poverty in 2010 was the largest recorded increase since records were first kept in 1959.

Even the number of “poor” has risen from 11.3% in 2000 to 15.1%

During 2010 the poverty rate for children hit 22%.

In at least 314 American counties at least 30% of children live with daily food insecurity.

School lunch programs are an indispensable part of the daily food intake for more than 20 million children.

Over 45 million Americans live off food stamps.

Since the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007 the number of people on food stamps has jumped 74%.

Current projections say that approximately 50% of all American children will on food stamps at some point before he or she reaches 18.


(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...

[Soul Crusher]

Obama Administration Denies Waiver for Indiana's Popular Medicaid Reform
Forbes ^ | 11-11-11 | Avik Roy



In 2007, under Gov. Mitch Daniels (R.), Indiana enacted the Healthy Indiana Plan, an expansion of Medicaid that used consumer-driven health plans to encourage low-income beneficiaries to take a more active role in their own care. Today, Health Indiana is arguably the most innovative and successful reform of Medicaid in the history of the program. Today, we learn that the Obama Administration has rejected the state’s request to extend its federal waiver, which means that over 45,000 Indianans who get their insurance through the program are out of luck.

Medicaid, of course, is the nation’s government-run health insurance program for the poor. In theory, it’s jointly run by the federal government and the states, but in reality, any time a state wants to make the tiniest changes in its Medicaid program, it has to go hat-in-hand to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services with a formal request for a waiver, and these waivers are usually denied.


(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...



________________________ __________________


Only Obama , piss and shit be upon him, could be this stupid. 

[Soul Crusher]

Ten Reasons to Reject State Obamacare Exchange
Capitol Confidential ^ | 11/11/2011 | Jack McHugh



In addition to the lawsuit against Obamacare filed by Michigan and 25 other states, a separate case has been filed by The Goldwater Institute Center for Constitutional Law. Diane Cohen, a senior attorney at the Goldwater Institute, recently told legislators at an American Legislative Exchange Council meeting, "Saying 'no' to a state exchange is absolutely critical to the success of our lawsuit and those pending elsewhere around the country."

The Goldwater Institute has just published “Ten Reasons Why Arizona Must Reject Exchanges.” These apply just as much to Michigan and to the proposed state exchange that Michigan politicians are calling a “MIHealth Marketplace.” The Institute's arguments strengthen the case for postponing action at least until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the law next June, and if necessary, until presidential election voters pronounce their verdict next November.

Here are the 10 reasons the Goldwater Institute cites in a "policy memo" (the citations are omitted):

"1. The federal government controls exchanges. 'An Exchange may not establish rules that conflict with or prevent the application of regulations promulgated by the Secretary [of Health and Human Services (HHS)].' Further, the Secretary and the General Accounting Office will have continuing oversight over exchanges.

"2. The federal government controls the doctors and other providers that are allowed to participate in an exchange-offered plan. The Act mandates that only providers who 'implement[] such mechanisms to improve health care quality as the Secretary may by regulation require' may participate in a 'qualified plan' offered on the exchange.

"3. The federal government controls health insurance plans and benefits. The Act prescribes the minimum essential benefits that must be included in a plan and gives authority to the HHS Secretary to prescribe more. HHS is also required to establish the criteria for the certification of health plans as 'qualified.' As a result, only HHS-approved plans may be sold in the exchange.

"4. While federal mandates remain, federal funds cease at the end of 2014. Both PPACA and the proposed regulations prohibit federal funds for state exchanges after January 1, 2015. No federal grants will be awarded after January 1, 2015. States must ensure that the exchanges are self-sustaining by January 1, 2015, and must find other sources of funding, through 'assessments and user fees,' 'provider taxes,' 'State revenues,' or other sources.

"5. [States] will surrender [their] 10th amendment sovereignty by establishing an exchange. The HHS proposed regulations themselves acknowledge that a state’s submission to an exchange has an adverse impact on federalism principles. In compliance with Presidential Executive Order 13132, which requires agencies to assess whether their rules will affect federalism, HHS reported that the proposed exchange regulations have 'Federalism implications due to the direct effects on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the State and Federal governments.' However, HHS determined that the federalism implications are 'substantially mitigated' because PPACA 'does not require States to certify an Exchange.' Therefore, when a state chooses to establish an exchange, it voluntarily surrenders its sovereignty.

"6. The state must enforce the individual mandate and penalty. State exchanges are responsible for determining whether an individual is exempt from the individual mandate and for granting certification for those who are exempt. The exchange must also 'support and complement rulemaking conducted by the Secretary of the Treasury' with respect to the law.

"7. The state must turn over names of individuals who do not comply with the individual mandate. Obamacare requires the exchange to give to the U.S. Treasury the names and taxpayer identification numbers of individuals who have changed employers and ceased coverage under a qualified health plan during a plan year. The same would be true for an individual unsuccessfully seeking an exemption from the mandate via the exchange or otherwise subjecting himself to the exchange, but then choosing not to purchase insurance.

"8. The state must report citizen information to the federal government. Exchanges must record and report to HHS on a monthly basis all individuals who terminate their enrollment in insurance obtained through the exchange.

"9. So-called state 'flexibility' is belied by the law. Despite a provision in the Act titled 'State Flexibility in Operation and Enforcement of Exchanges and Related Requirements,' the law in fact confers no flexibility to the states, only more authority to the HHS Secretary over the state exchanges. For example, the Act provides that states can establish exchanges, but only as 'prescribe[d]' by the HHS Secretary. The Act also allows states to adopt exchange laws and regulations, but only those that 'the Secretary determines implements the standards within the State.' ...

"10. States are only as flexible as federal law permits them to be. Yes, states can choose whether the exchange will be run by a state agency or a non-profit established by the state, but both are subject to federal approval, regulation, and perpetual oversight. ... States also have so-called 'flexibility' to decide whether to open exchanges to all insurers, or to limit the number and participation to only those plans that meet unspecified 'exchange criteria.' But all this 'flexibility' essentially allows is the creation of a state and federally-controlled market where the state determines which insurers participate and which plans and coverage are available. ..."

[Soul Crusher]

Free Republic
Browse · Search   Pings · Mail   News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.

U.S. may sell precision-guided bombs to UAE-source
Reuters ^ | Nov 11, 2011
Posted on November 11, 2011 10:22:20 PM EST by sukhoi-30mki

U.S. may sell precision-guided bombs to UAE-source

1:32am EST

WASHINGTON, Nov 12 (Reuters) - The U.S. government may soon announce plans for a large sale of precision-guided bombs to the United Arab Emirates, a source familiar with the arms sales plans said late on Thursday, as tensions mounted with Iran over its nuclear program.

The Pentagon is considering a significant sale of Joint Direct Attack Munitions made by Boeing Co , adding to other recent arms deals with the UAE. These include the sale of 500 Hellfire air-to-surface missiles about which U.S. lawmakers were notified in September.

The sale of Boeing-built "bunker-buster" bombs and other munitions to UAE, a key Gulf ally, is part of an ongoing U.S. effort to build a regional coalition to counter Iran.

No comment was immediately available from the Pentagon's press office or the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, which oversees foreign arms sales.

Boeing has sold thousands of JDAM bombs to the United States and its allies in recent months as they have replenished their arsenal of the popular precision-guided bombs.

Boeing spokesman Garrett Kasper said the company was unable to discuss the proposed contract since it would involve a foreign military sale, something that would be discussed at a government-to-government level.

The proposed sale, first reported by the Wall Street Journal, would expand the existing capabilities of UAE's air force to target buildings such as the bunkers and tunnels where Iran is believed to be developing nuclear or other weapons. The newspaper said Washington was eyeing the sale of 4,900 of the so-called smart bombs.

(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...

[Soul Crusher]

Free Republic
Browse · Search   Pings · Mail   News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.

President Obama to CEOs: ‘We’ve Been a Bit Lazy’
ABC News ^
Posted on November 12, 2011 8:33:18 PM EST by Sub-Driver

President Obama to CEOs: ‘We’ve Been a Bit Lazy’

For the second time in as many months, President Obama has taken the nation that elected him president to task for its own lackadaisical economic performance on the global stage.

Obama told a group of CEOs today that the United States has gotten “lazy” and that America lost its hunger in promoting itself in a global marketplace.

“We’ve been a little bit lazy over the last couple of decades. We’ve kind of taken for granted — ‘Well, people would want to come here’ — and we aren’t out there hungry, selling America and trying to attract new businesses into America,” he told the CEOs who are gathered on the sidelines of the annual Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meetings, which the United States is hosting this year in Hawaii.

“I think it’s important to remember that the United States is still the largest recipient of foreign investment in the world and there are a lot of things that make foreign investors see the U.S. as a great opportunity — our stability, our openness, our innovative free market culture,” he said.

Last September, in an interview with an Orlando, Fla., TV station, Obama made similar remarks, saying, “This a great, great country that had gotten a little soft and we didn’t have that same competitive edge that we needed over the last couple of decades. … We need to get back on track.”

(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...







What a fucking moron.   

[Soul Crusher]

EPA admitted — then erased — risk of blackouts associated with new utility rule
Share

POSTED AT 6:05 PM ON NOVEMBER 14, 2011 BY TINA KORBE   
PRINTER-FRIENDLY

The Environmental Protection Agency has long maintained that a new proposed utility rule to reduce mercury and other emissions won’t affect the reliability of the nation’s power grid — but Congressional and industry investigators have found that an early draft of the rule that circulated within the administration included a section that acknowledged the rule might negatively impact reliability, the WSJ reports.

It’s obvious to those who’ve examined the rule at any length that it’s designed to close coal-fired power plants, and, given the prevalence of such plants, it’s easy to infer that a rule to eliminate them would risk blackouts — but supporters of the rule brand anybody who opposes it an abettor of pollution and an accomplice of the industry.

As the WSJ explains, this newly discovered admission by the EPA itself that blackouts are a possible consequence of the rule gives the lie to that characterization:

In a “What are the energy impacts?” section, the EPA concedes that it “is aware that concerns have been expressed by some, even in advance of this proposed rule, that this regulation may detrimentally impact the reliability of the electric grid.” The agency admits that what it calls “sources integral to reliable operation” may be forced to shut down—those would be the coal-fired plants the EPA is targeting—and that these retirements “could result in localized reliability problems.” The EPA insists that it knows how to balance “both clean air and electric reliability,” but all along in public it has denied that reliability is in any way at risk. …

But here’s the kicker: This reliability section was gone when the EPA released its utility rule proposal in May 2011. Why did it vanish? Where did it go?

This matters because the draft report contradicts EPA leaders who have publicly portrayed anyone worried about reliability as an industry shill. More importantly, as a technical and legal matter, issues that are excluded from the Federal Register mean that the public is denied the opportunity to meaningfully comment on them.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson clearly doesn’t want anyone to comment on the reliability issue — not even the EPA. Not only did the agency scrub the reliability section from the proposed rule, but it has also given the White House regulatory office insufficient time to examine the rule, which the EPA plans to finalize by mid-September. The EPA has also repeatedly ignored letters from Sens. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) that ask whether the new regulation will jeopardize grid dependability.

Undaunted, Inhofe and Murkowski have tried yet again, sending a letter to Jackson to ask why the EPA eliminated the reliability section from the rule and also to request the EPA not impair electric reliability and affordability. All bets are against a reply from Jackson.

This rule is one of the most expensive ever proposed by the EPA: According to some estimates, it will cost $184 billion and up to 1.4 million jobs. Coal might be “dirty,” but, at present, the U.S. relies on it heavily. Eliminating it will increase energy costs at a time when the nation just can’t afford it. At least 25 state attorneys general have begged the EPA to delay this rule by at least a year. The EPA would do neither itself nor the energy industry any harm by heeding that request.

Incidentally, this story also underscores the need to ensure congressional oversight of regulations. The REINS Act is the best bill on the table to do just that.

Tags: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, utility rule

[Soul Crusher]

DOJ: Lying on Match.com needs to be a crime
cnet ^ | 14 Nov 2011 | Declan McCullagh



The U.S. Department of Justice is defending computer hacking laws that make it a crime to use a fake name on Facebook or lie about your weight in an online dating profile at a site like Match.com.

In a statement obtained by CNET that's scheduled to be delivered tomorrow, the Justice Department argues that it must be able to prosecute violations of Web sites' often-ignored, always-unintelligible "terms of service" policies.

The law must allow "prosecutions based upon a violation of terms of service or similar contractual agreement with an employer or provider," Richard Downing, the Justice Department's deputy computer crime chief, will tell the U.S. Congress tomorrow.

Scaling back that law "would make it difficult or impossible to deter and address serious insider threats through prosecution," and jeopardize prosecutions involving identity theft, misuse of government databases, and privacy invasions, according to Downing.

The law in question, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, has been used by the Justice Department to prosecute a woman, Lori Drew, who used a fake MySpace account to verbally attack a 13-year old girl who then committed suicide. Because MySpace's terms of service prohibit impersonation, Drew was convicted of violating the CFAA. Her conviction was later thrown out.

What makes this possible is a section of the CFAA that was never intended to be used that way: a general-purpose prohibition on any computer-based act that "exceeds authorized access." To the Justice Department, this means that a Web site's terms of service define what's "authorized" or not, and ignoring them can turn you into a felon.

On the other hand, because millions of Americans likely violate terms of service


(Excerpt) Read more at news.cnet.com ...






Meanwhile no one is held responsible for the financial crimes at wall street or F&F! 



F U every pofs who voted for this nad plans on doing so again.   

[Soul Crusher]

Free Republic
Browse · Search   Pings · Mail   News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.

Holder Wants to Prosecute You for Lying on Facebook
Fox News ^ | 11/15/2011 | Declan McCullagh
Posted on November 16, 2011 5:27:04 AM EST by autumnraine

The U.S. Department of Justice is defending computer hacking laws that make it a crime to use a fake name on Facebook or lie about your weight in an online dating profile at a site like Match.com. In a statement obtained by CNET that's scheduled to be delivered tomorrow, the Justice Department argues that it must be able to prosecute violations of Web sites' often-ignored, always-unintelligible "terms of service" policies. The law must allow "prosecutions based upon a violation of terms of service or similar contractual agreement with an employer or provider," Richard Downing, the Justice Department's deputy computer crime chief, will tell the U.S. Congress tomorrow. Scaling back that law "would make it difficult or impossible to deter and address serious insider threats through prosecution," and jeopardize prosecutions involving identity theft, misuse of government databases, and privacy invasions, according to Downing.

(Excerpt) Read more at nation.foxnews.com ...