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

[333386]

Organizing For Action, Obama Outside Group, Raises Pay-For-Access Questions


By KEN THOMAS and JOSH LEDERMAN 03/04/13 08:38 AM ET EST


WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama learned in his first term that he couldn't change Washington from the inside, saying in the heat of his re-election race: "You can only change it from the outside." Months later, his former White House aides and campaign advisers are embracing Obama's words as a call to action.

Obama veterans are building a wide network of deep-pocketed groups and consulting firms independent of government, the Democratic Party and traditional liberal groups, a sweeping – if not unprecedented – effort outside the White House gates aimed at promoting the president's agenda and shaping his legacy.

From campaign strategists to online gurus and policy hands to press agents, Obama loyalists – including many who discovered that a second term yields fewer administration job vacancies – are slicing his agenda into smaller parts and launching highly targeted efforts on subjects including health care, job creation and electoral politics.

The lynchpin of the effort is Organizing for Action, a nonprofit run by former Obama advisers that has essentially transformed his re-election campaign into a grassroots machine to support his initiatives. In its early stages, the group is raising millions from big and small donors alike and whipping up support for issues like gun control and an immigration overhaul.

Known by its initials, OFA is chaired by Jim Messina, a former White House aide who ran Obama's 2012 campaign, and several former Obama aides sit on its board. David Plouffe, who until February served as Obama's senior adviser, is expected to join the board soon.

OFA's close ties to the West Wing and its control over the former campaign's resources has raised questions about where the nonprofit group ends and the White House starts. The group controls Obama's massive email list and also his campaign Twitter handle, which has more than 27 million followers and frequently tweets links to his government website.

As a tax-exempt entity, OFA by law can't intervene in elections and is subject to strict limits on lobbying. The group accepts unlimited donations from individuals and corporations but plans to release the names of its donors. The corporate funding is a shift: many of the same operatives involved with OFA were once loud critics, along with Obama, of big money- and corporate-fueled entities that emerged after a series of court rulings, especially the Citizens United case, loosened restrictions on money and politics.

The arrangement has also opened the White House to criticism that contributors, in exchange for supporting the groups, could receive special access to Obama that the public is denied. White House press secretary Jay Carney fielded repeated questions last week over whether bundlers who raised $500,000 or more for OFA were promised quarterly meetings with the president – a claim that OFA disputed.

"They have created literally a cottage industry solely devoted to access and making money off the access," said Sean Spicer, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee.




As advocacy groups, OFA and the smaller organizations can coordinate with the White House on messaging and tactics. Carney said the administration interacts with a variety of such groups, adding that administration officials may appear at OFA events but won't be raising money.

An OFA "founders' summit" for donors on March 13 at a Washington hotel will include addresses by Messina, Plouffe and others, according to an invitation obtained by The Associated Press. The next day will include briefings on immigration, gun control and climate change, with former Environmental Protection Agency head Lisa Jackson expected to attend.

But when OFA asks supporters to cut a check, it will be competing with a growing list of pro-Obama factions making appeals to a limited pool of Democratic donors.

Business Forward, a 3-year-old trade group that has facilitated meetings between businesses and Obama officials, is ramping up operation as a liberal counterweight to the conservative-leaning U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Business Forward is funded by corporate money that was banished from Obama's campaign coffers in 2008 and 2012.

More than 50 corporate members pay $25,000 or $50,000 a year to be involved in briefings between Obama administration officials and business leaders, small businesses and entrepreneurs. Its members include AT&T and Microsoft, which donated to Obama's inaugural committee, and Citi, Comcast and Facebook, whose executives served on Obama's jobs council.

"The goal is to bring new people into the process and help them tell Washington how to create jobs and accelerate our economic recovery," said Jim Doyle, Business Forward's president.

On health care, former White House official Anne Filipic recently took control of a nonprofit called Enroll America, which plans a massive push to get people to sign up for insurance under Obama's health care law, a key part of his legacy. The group is preparing for the opening of new insurance exchanges in October with on-the-ground organizing, online efforts and paid advertising.

Another team of Obama campaign aides, including field director Jeremy Bird and battleground state director Mitch Stewart, have formed a consulting firm called 270 Strategies that aims to bring grassroots organizing to political and industry clients. One early project, dubbed Battleground Texas, has set a long-term goal to make GOP-heavy Texas competitive for Democrats.

Although there's no one group formally coordinating the efforts, outside organizations allied with Obama hold regular check-in meetings and conference calls. Representatives compare notes about strategy, priorities and budgets.

"Many of us have spent at this point six years or longer together," said Teddy Goff, Obama's 2012 digital director, who is not affiliated with the fledgling bodies. "I have no doubt that people are talking to their old friends and making sure they're efficient as possible."

And while the various groups supporting Obama's agenda operate independently, the overlap in tactics, messaging and staff is tough to miss. For example, Blue State Digital, a firm founded by the campaign's digital strategist, Joe Rospars, is providing the same technology platform the campaign used to both OFA and Battleground Texas.

The blurring of the lines between outside groups, the campaign and the White House has rubbed some the wrong way. Critics say it's a sign that Obama has reversed course since rebuking the role of money in politics during his first campaign and at the start of his presidency.

"Organizing for Action is unlike any entity we have ever seen before tied to a president," said Fred Wertheimer, a campaign finance reform advocate with Democracy 21, a Washington nonprofit. "This group is so tied to Obama himself, that it creates opportunities for corporations and individuals to buy corrupting influence with the administration – and at a minimum, to create the appearance of such influence."

___

Follow Ken Thomas at: and Josh Lederman at:

Links:

http://twitter.com/AP_Ken_Thomas
http://twitter.com/joshledermanAP

[333386]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9908260/Barack-Obama-a-dithering-controlling-risk-averse-US-president.html



The insider-account of the damaging divisions between the White House and the State Department comes as diplomats around the world wait to see if John Kerry, the new US secretary of state, can persuade Mr Obama to greater engagement on Syria, Egypt and the wider Middle East.

Vali Nasr, a university professor who was seconded in 2009 to work with Richard Holbrooke, Mr Obama's special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, records his profound disillusion at how a "Berlin Wall" of domestic-focused advisers was erected to protect Mr Obama.

"The president had a truly disturbing habit of funnelling major foreign policy decisions through a small cabal of relatively inexperienced White House advisers whose turf was strictly politics," Mr Nasr writes in The Dispensable Nation: America Foreign policy in Retreat.

The book sets out in detail how Mr Holbrooke, appointed with great fanfare in 2009, was systematically cut out of decision making as both he and Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state, tried to argue the merits of engaging with the Taliban and the dangers caused by the overuse of drones.



"The White House seemed to see an actual benefit in not doing too much," Prof Nasr writes, "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."

Admiral Mike Mullen, who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff until September 2011, is quoted lamenting how little support Mrs Clinton received from the White House, even though she remained on good personal terms with Mr Obama.

"They want to control everything," Admiral Mullen is quoted as saying of a White House that Prof Nasr says was "ravenous" in its desire to manage foreign policy, even by the to-be-expected standards of turf wars between diplomatic and national security teams.

As Mr Kerry prepares to return home from his first trip abroad in his new role, Western diplomats in Washington say they are watching carefully to see whether he will be able to put meat on the bones of his promise yesterday to "empower" Syrian rebels in their fight against the Assad regime.

 John Kerry and Moaz Al Khatib in Rome on Friday (AFP)

Last week Mr Kerry pledged $60m in new support, including medical kits and food aid, which will go direct to rebel fighters for the first time, but still falls far short of British and French ambitions to provide more military materials such as flak jackets and night-vision goggles.

William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, is expected to announce a British aid package this week and has done little to hide his impatience on the issue.

Diplomatic sources in Washington say that Mr Kerry had been "left under no illusion" by his European allies of the desire for greater action, but that it was still very far from clear if the White House was serious about stepping up aid. Rebel groups remain openly sceptical.

Analysts looking for signs that Mr Obama might be prepared to be more engaged on foreign policy in his second term found little to suggest a change of heart in his Second Inaugural speech and last month's State of the Union address.

"American foreign policy has been on a four-year autopilot, which I argue has been excessively risk averse and domestically focused. I don't see any clear decision yet to change that," said Mr Nasr in an interview with The Daily Telegraph.

"I wrote this book to problematise the way Obama has approached this whole region, and that it is dangerous to disengage and confuse a low-level foreign policy with success in foreign policy," he concluded.

"My hope is that Kerry will be able to do more, but it is still early. He's definitely trying to create more US engagement, but there has to be a fundamental, strategic decision in the White House to reorientate our approach."

[333386]

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jm-S7k4UqY" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jm-S7k4UqY</a>

[333386]

US citing security to censor more public records
 
Mar 11, 9:51 AM (ET)

By JACK GILLUM and TED BRIDIS


 
(AP) This Tuesday, Feb. 19, 2013 photo shows Cryptome co-founder John Young in New York. "I'm a fierce...
Full Image

 
 
 
 

 

WASHINGTON (AP) - The U.S. government, led by the Pentagon and CIA, censored or withheld for reasons of national security the files that the public requested last year under the Freedom of Information Act more often than at any time since President Barack Obama took office, according to a new analysis by The Associated Press.

Overall, the Obama administration last year answered its highest number of requests so far for copies of government documents, emails, photographs and more, and it slightly reduced its backlog of requests from previous years. But it more often cited legal provisions allowing the government to keep records or parts of its records secret, especially a rule intended to protect national security.

The AP's analysis showed the government released all or portions of the information that citizens, journalists, businesses and others sought at about the same rate as the previous three years. It turned over all or parts of the records in about 65 percent of requests. It fully rejected more than one-third of requests, a slight increase over 2011, including cases when it couldn't find records, a person refused to pay for copies or the request was determined to be improper.

The government's responsiveness under the FOIA is widely viewed as a barometer of the federal offices' transparency. Under the law, citizens and foreigners can compel the government to turn over copies of federal records for zero or little cost. Anyone who seeks information through the law is generally supposed to get it unless disclosure would hurt national security, violate personal privacy or expose business secrets or confidential decision-making in certain areas.

 
(AP) In this Oct. 6, 2010 file photo, Michigan Republican Secretary of State candidate Ruth...
Full Image
 
 
The AP's review comes at the start of the second term for Obama, who promised during his first week in office that the nation's signature open-records law would be "administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails." The review examined figures from the largest federal departments and agencies. Sunday was the start of Sunshine Week, when news organizations promote open government and freedom of information.

White House spokesman Eric Schultz said in a statement that during the past year, the government "processed more requests, decreased the backlog, improved average processing times and disclosed more information pro-actively." Schultz said the improvements "represent the efforts of agencies across the government to meet the president's commitment to openness. While there is more work to be done, this past year demonstrates that agencies are responding to the president's call for greater transparency."

The administration cited exceptions built into the law to avoid turning over materials more than 479,000 times, a roughly 22 percent increase over the previous year. In many cases, more than one of the law's exceptions was cited in each request for information.

In a year of intense public interest over deadly U.S. drones, the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, terror threats and more, the government cited national security to withhold information at least 5,223 times - a jump over 4,243 such cases in 2011 and 3,805 cases in Obama's first year in office. The secretive CIA last year became even more secretive: Nearly 60 percent of 3,586 requests for files were withheld or censored for that reason last year, compared with 49 percent a year earlier.

Other federal agencies that invoked the national security exception included the Pentagon, Director of National Intelligence, NASA, Office of Management and Budget, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Communications Commission and the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Homeland Security, Justice, State, Transportation, Treasury and Veterans Affairs.

 
(AP) This Tuesday, Feb. 19, 2013 photo shows Cryptome co-founder John Young in New York. The website,...
Full Image
 
 
U.S. courts are loath to overrule the administration whenever it cites national security. A federal judge, Colleen McMahon of New York, in January ruled against The New York Times and the American Civil Liberties Union to see records about the government's legal justification for drone attacks and other methods it has used to kill terrorism suspects overseas, including American citizens. She cited an "Alice in Wonderland" predicament in which she was expected to determine what information should be revealed but unable to challenge the government's secrecy claim. Part of her ruling was sealed and made available only to the government's lawyers.

"I find myself stuck in a paradoxical situation in which I cannot solve a problem because of contradictory constraints and rules - a veritable Catch-22," the judge wrote. "I can find no way around the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the executive branch of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reasons for their conclusion a secret."

The AP could not determine whether the administration was abusing the national security exemption or whether the public was asking for more documents about sensitive subjects. Nearly half the Pentagon's 2,390 denials last year under that clause came from its National Security Agency, which monitors Internet traffic and phone calls worldwide.

"FOIA is an imperfect law, and I don't think that's changed over the last four years since Obama took office," said Alexander Abdo, an ACLU staff attorney for its national security project. "We've seen a meteoric rise in the number of claims to protect secret law, the government's interpretations of laws or its understanding of its own authority. In some ways, the Obama administration is actually even more aggressive on secrecy than the Bush administration."

The Obama administration also more frequently invoked the law's "deliberative process" exception to withhold records describing decision-making behind the scenes. Obama had directed agencies to use it less often, but the number of such cases had surged after his first year in office to more than 71,000. After back-to-back years when figures steadily declined, as agencies followed the president's instructions, the government cited that reason 66,353 times last year to keep records or parts of records secret.

Even as the Obama administration continued increasing its efforts answering FOIA requests, people submitted more than 590,000 requests for information in fiscal 2012 - an increase of less than 1 percent over the previous year. Including leftover requests from previous years, the government responded to more requests than ever in 2012 - more than 603,000 - a 5 percent increase for the second consecutive year.

The Homeland Security Department, which includes offices that deal with immigration files, received more than twice as many requests for records - 190,589 new requests last year - as any other agency, and it answered significantly more requests than it did in 2011. Other agencies, including the State Department, National Transportation Safety Board and Nuclear Regulatory Commission performed worse last year. The State Department, for example, answered only 57 percent of its requests, down from 75 percent a year earlier.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services drove a dramatic increase in the number of times DHS censored immigration records under exceptions to police files containing personal information and law enforcement techniques. The agency invoked those exemptions more than 136,000 times in 2012, compared with more than 75,000 a year earlier. Even though USCIS is not a law-enforcement agency, officials used the exceptions specifically reserved for law enforcement.

Under the law, a citizen can ask the government to reconsider its decision to censor or withhold materials. In the roughly 11,000 such instances last year where that happened, the government prevailed just under half the time. In about 3,400 cases the government turned over at least some additional information. These administrative appeals took about five months each.

The only recourse after such an appeal is an expensive lawsuit or to ask the government's FOIA mediator, the Office of Government Information Services, to intervene.

The AP's analysis also found that the government generally took longer to answer requests. Some agencies, such as the Health and Human Services Department, took less time than the previous year to turn over files. But at the State Department, for example, even urgent requests submitted under a fast-track system covering breaking news or events when a person's life was at stake took an average two years to wait for files.

Journalists and others who need information quickly to report breaking news, for example, fared worse last year. The rate at which the government granted so-called expedited processing, which moves an urgent request to the front of the line for a speedy answer, fell from 24 percent in 2011 to 17 percent last year. The CIA denied every such request last year.

Under increased budget pressure across the government, agencies more often insisted that people pay search and copying fees. It waived costs in 59 percent of requests, generally when the amount was negligible or the release of the information is in the public interest, a decline from 64 percent of cases a year earlier. At the Treasury Department, which faced questions about its role in auto bailouts and stimulus programs during Obama's first term, only one in five requests were processed at no charge. A year earlier, it granted more than 75 percent of fee waivers. The CIA denied every request last year to waive fees.

The 33 agencies that AP examined were: Agency for International Development, CIA, Agriculture Department, Commerce Department, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Defense Department, Education Department, Energy Department, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Interior Department, Justice Department, Labor Department, State Department, Transportation Department, Treasury Department, Department of Veterans Affairs, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Communications Commission, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Election Commission, Federal Trade Commission, NASA, National Science Foundation, National Transportation Safety Board, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Management and Budget, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Securities and Exchange Commission, Small Business Administration, the Social Security Administration and the U.S. Postal Service.

Four agencies that were included in AP's previous analysis of FOIA performance did not publicly release their 2012 reports. They included the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Council on Environmental Quality and the Office of Personnel Management.

[Option D]

I saw that yesterday Biden was again blaming the GOP for the economy. These fucking Democrats refuse to accept responsibility for their actions. 2006 = LONG TIME AGO. Will these cowards ever man up?

Get off it...ive seen 3333 come on here and spout his threories on how Obama is to blame over the gas prices (anyone with any remote background laughs at the notion of a US president controlling oil markets) all the way to twinkie closing down. Never have i seen you come at him when you yourself know this shit to be false. Admit it, youre a partisan hack troll that sees the Republican party as an entity for good and democrats as satan. Or as Coach would say "Satin"

When blame is properly and accuratley placed, we'll move on.. but as long as the "one up" game continues... well this is what you get

"oh oh look at this DEMOCRAT sex scandal"...Really bro? you sound like a 14 year old school girl.

[chadstallion]

what a great day for cut/paste!
no ambulances to chase?
slow day at the office?

[333386]

what a great day for cut/paste!
no ambulances to chase?
slow day at the office?

great day as any for exposing the criminal chooming crackhead in the WH!   

[chadstallion]

great day as any for exposing the criminal chooming crackhead in the WH!   

sorry you'll have a bad rest of the day.
i'm spending some of my capital gains today.

[333386]

sorry you'll have a bad rest of the day.
i'm spending some of my capital gains today.

I'm sure the trucker at the rest stop will appreciate it. 

[333386]

Obama's Budget Abdication Breaks 92 Year Tradition
 Bretibart ^ | 3/12/13 | Mike Flynn

Posted on Tuesday, March 12, 2013 2:00:34 PM by Nachum

Barack Obama certainly enjoys the trappings and perks of the Office of President. The actual job of being President, however, doesn't seem to interest him. His desire to avoid being tied to any specifics of any proposal have caused him to do what no modern President has done. He is the first President since 1921 to abdicate the task of drafting a federal budget to Congress.

Congress established the modern budget process in 1921. Under the terms of the law, the President is required to submit a budget for the federal government no later than the first Monday in February. Obama has only met this statutory deadline once during his Presidency, a record worse than any modern President. Obama has missed the deadline 4 times. Prior to him, all the Presidents back to 1921 together missed the deadline twice.

Pentagon officials recently advised the House Armed Services Committee that the President's budget wouldn't be delivered until April 8th, a 9 week delay that trumps any previous delay. Worse, though, the long delay means that Congress will initiate its own debate on the budget, without input from the Executive Branch.

On Tuesday, Rep. Paul Ryan unveiled the House GOP budget proposal. On Wednesday, Senate Democrats will unveil their first budget proposal in 4 years. By the time Obama gets around to submitted his mandated proposal, Congress will have had almost a month to deliberate on its proposals.

As we've seen throughout his tenure, Obama prefers lofty rhetoric over the day-to-day give-and-take required to enact legislation. He spoke in general, focus-tested, words about ObamaCare, the stimulus, financial services regulation and a host of other issues, while leaving the gritty, horse-trading work to Congress.


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

[333386]

Greenberg: Obama Administration Threatened AIG Over Bailout Lawsuit
Breitbart ^ | 3/13/13 | Joel B. Pollak
Posted on March 14, 2013 12:03:36 AM EDT by Nachum

Former American International Group (AIG) CEO Hank Greenberg accused the Obama administration Wednesday of threatening the company not to join a class action lawsuit that he has brought against the federal government over the terms of the 2008 AIG bailout. Minutes of an AIG Board of Directors' meeting in January 2013 appear to support Greenberg's claim.

Frances Bivens, the lawyer who represents the U.S. Treasury in the case, warned AIG's board that if it joined the lawsuit, the company could face "another wave of congressional investigations" and public embarrassment.

Greenberg, who had left AIG by the time of the 2008 financial crisis but remained an AIG shareholder, has consistently argued against the federal bailout. He brought the lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who were shortchanged when the government forced AIG to accept what he argues were unfavorable terms.

This week, a federal judge certified two classes of investors in the lawsuit, ruling that the case potentially involved "tens of thousands" of investors--including unions, pension funds, and individual investors. The suit seeks $50 billion in damages from the U.S. government, to be paid to AIG's shareholders at the time.

On Wednesday evening, Greenberg appeared on Neil Cavuto's show on the Fox Business Network to discuss the threats. He reminded Cavuto that "many people lost their life savings, including pension funds, including many AIG employees who worked for thirty-five, forty years to build the value of the company."

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

[333386]

Obama Administration Plans to Cut Medicare Advantage Reimbursements

March 14, 2013

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-administration-plans-cut-medicare-advantage-reimbursements



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By Matt Cover

 


In this June 19, 2012 photo, Dr. Bruce Stowell examines patient Robert Busch at his office in Grants Pass, Ore. (AP Photo/Jeff Barnard)
 
(CNSNews.com) – The Obama administration is planning new cuts to Medicare, a federal regulatory filing reveals, cuts that could mean higher premiums or seniors losing their coverage altogether.
 
The new cuts come in the form of a planned reduction in the reimbursement rates the government pays to insurance companies that operate Medicare Advantage plans, which are services administered by private for-profit or non-profit providers that offer additional services than can be found in traditional Medicare.
 
In a Feb. 15 regulatory filing, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced the surprised rate cuts of 2.3 percent – meaning it would pay health care providers 2.3 percent less for providing services to patients.
 
CMS said it was cutting payments because it foresaw the overall costs of the Medicare Advantage program shrinking by 3.2 percent, despite the fact that health care costs – the driver of all federal health care program costs – are only rising.
 
Medicare Advantage is like traditional Medicare except that its plans are administered by insurance companies, who are paid a per-enrollee reimbursement fee by the government. If insurance companies can provide care to seniors at less than what the government pays them for it, they make a profit.
 
Medicare Advantage provides coverage for approximately 28 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries, offering them higher-quality services and additional benefits, such as vision and dental care, than the traditional government program at slightly higher cost.
 
The Obama administration already plans to cut the Medicare Advantage program by $200 billion as part of Obamacare. However, the proposed reductions it announced in February are new, and will cut the program in addition to the planned $200 billion in Obamacare cuts, most of which are delayed in 2014.
 
The new cuts are also scheduled to go into effect in 2014, but as a function of the normal rate-setting process for that year, not a political effort to delay financial pain for seniors past an important election, as apparently was the case with the original Medicare cuts that Obama signed.
 
In its regulatory announcement, the CMS said it was assuming that reimbursement payments in traditional, government-run Medicare will be cut, and cited that as justification for cutting Medicare Advantage.
 
However, while those cuts to traditional Medicare have been set into law for more than a decade, Congress has never allowed them to happen, instituting what is known as the Doc Fix every year, to keep reimbursement payments the same.
 
Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) wrote to the CMS urging them to consider political reality and reverse their planned Medicare Advantage cuts.
 
“This assumption is highly problematic because – even though it almost certainly will turn out to be wrong – it translates into lower funding to support the health benefits of the 14 million Medicare beneficiaries who are currently enrolled in MA [Medicare Advantage] plans,” Rubio wrote on March 8.
 
In other words, if the Obama administration continues with its proposed new Medicare cuts, some or all of the 14 million seniors who get health care through the MA program could be negatively affected, that is, paying higher premiums or possibly losing coverage.
 
This is because the proposed cut could make the program unprofitable for insurers, who would be forced to either stop offering MA plans or pass the increased costs on to seniors in the form of higher premiums.
 
One health insurance provider told its shareholders that the proposed rate cuts could mean the end of Medicare Advantage all together.
 
“There are going to be some markets that at these rates, if they go the way they’re going, it’s going to be very hard for Medicare Advantage to survive,” Universal American Corp CEO Richard Barasch said in a February 19 conference call with shareholders, the industry publication Health Plan Week reported.
 
“I think it’s going to be sort of a market-by-market, company-by-company exercise,” Barasch said.

[333386]

Obama Will Use Nixon-Era Law to Fight Climate Change

 By Mark Drajem - Mar 15, 2013 11:50 AM ET.
.

Facebook Share

LinkedIn
Google +1
274 Comments

Print

QUEUE


Q

..

 
Daniel Acker/Bloomberg

Similar analyses could be made for the oil sands that would be transported in TransCanada Corp.’s Keystone XL pipeline, and leases to drill for oil, gas and coal on federal lands, such as those for Arch Coal Inc. and Peabody Energy Corp.
 
President Barack Obama is preparing to tell all federal agencies for the first time that they should consider the impact on global warming before approving major projects, from pipelines to highways.

The result could be significant delays for natural gas- export facilities, ports for coal sales to Asia, and even new forest roads, industry lobbyists warn.

“It’s got us very freaked out,” said Ross Eisenberg, vice president of the National Association of Manufacturers, a Washington-based group that represents 11,000 companies such as Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) and Southern Co. (SO) The standards, which constitute guidance for agencies and not new regulations, are set to be issued in the coming weeks, according to lawyers briefed by administration officials.

In taking the step, Obama would be fulfilling a vow to act alone in the face of a Republican-run House of Representatives unwilling to pass measures limiting greenhouse gases. He’d expand the scope of a Nixon-era law that was first intended to force agencies to assess the effect of projects on air, water and soil pollution.

“If Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will,” Obama said last month during his State of the Union address. He pledged executive actions “to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.”

Illinois Speech

The president is scheduled to deliver a speech on energy today at the Argonne National Laboratory in Lemont, Illinois. He is pressing Congress to create a $2 billion clean-energy research fund with fees paid by oil and gas producers.

While some U.S. agencies already take climate change into account when assessing projects, the new guidelines would apply across-the-board to all federal reviews. Industry lobbyists say they worry that projects could be tied up in lawsuits or administrative delays.

For example, Ambre Energy Ltd. is seeking a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers to build a coal-export facility at the Port of Morrow in Oregon. Under existing rules, officials weighing approval would consider whether ships in the port would foul the water or generate air pollution locally. The Environmental Protection Agency and activist groups say that review should be broadened to account for the greenhouse gases emitted when exported coal is burned in power plants in Asia.

Keystone Pipeline

Similar analyses could be made for the oil sands that would be transported in TransCanada Corp. (TRP)’s Keystone XL pipeline, and leases to drill for oil, gas and coal on federal lands, such as those for Arch Coal Inc. (ACI) and Peabody Energy Corp. (BTU)

If the new White House guidance is structured correctly, it will require just those kinds of lifecycle reviews, said Bill Snape, senior counsel at the Center for Biological Diversity in Washington. The environmental group has sued to press for this approach, and Snape says lawsuits along this line are certain if the administration approves the Keystone pipeline, which would transport oil from Canada’s tar sands to the U.S. Gulf Coast.

“The real danger is the delays,” said Eisenberg of the manufacturers’ group. “I don’t think the answer is ever going to be ‘no,’ but it can confound things.”

Lawyers and lobbyists are now waiting for the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality to issue the long bottled-up standards for how agencies should address climate change under the National Environmental Policy Act, signed into law by President Richard Nixon in 1970.

Environmental Impact

NEPA requires federal agencies to consider and publish the environmental impact of their actions before making decisions. Those reviews don’t mandate a specific course of action. They do provide a chance for citizens and environmentalists to weigh in before regulators decide on an action -- and to challenge those reviews in court if it’s cleared.

“Each agency currently differs in how their NEPA reviews consider the climate change impacts of projects, as well as how climate change impacts such as extreme weather will affect projects,” Taryn Tuss, a Council on Environmental Quality spokeswoman, said in an e-mail. “CEQ is working to incorporate the public input we received on the draft guidance, and will release updated guidance when it is completed.”

‘Major Shakeup’

The new standards will be “a major shakeup in how agencies conduct NEPA” reviews, said Brendan Cummings, senior counsel for the Center for Biological Diversity in San Francisco.

The White House is looking at requiring consideration of both the increase in greenhouse gases and a project’s vulnerability to flooding, drought or other extreme weather that might result from global warming, according to an initial proposal it issued in 2010. Those full reports would be required for projects with 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions or more per year, the equivalent of burning about 100 rail cars of coal.

The initial draft exempted federal land and resource decisions from the guidance, although CEQ said it was assessing how to handle those cases. Federal lands could be included in the final standards.

The White House guidance itself won’t force any projects to be stopped outright. Instead, it’s likely to prompt lawsuits against federal projects on these grounds, and increase the probability that courts will step in and order extensive reviews as part of the “adequate analysis” required in the law, said George Mannina, an attorney at Nossaman LLP in Washington.

Next Administration

“The question is: Where does this analysis take us?” he said. “Adequate analysis may be much broader than the agency and applicant might consider.”

While the Obama administration’s guidance could be easily rescinded by the next administration, the court rulings that stem from these cases will live on as precedents, Mannina said.

Lobbying groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Petroleum Institute and the National Mining Association weighed in with the White House against including climate in NEPA, a law initially aimed at chemical leaks or air pollution.

“Not only will this result in additional delay of the NEPA process, but will result in speculative and inaccurate modeling that will have direct impacts on approval of specific projects,” the National Mining Association in Washington wrote in comments to the White House in 2010.

Leases Challenged

The group represents Arch Coal (ACI) and Peabody, both based in St. Louis. Leases that the Department of Interior issued for those companies to mine for coal in Wyoming are facing lawsuits from environmental groups, arguing that the agency didn’t adequately tally up the effect on global warming from burning that coal.

Given Obama’s pledge to address global warming, “this is a massive contradiction,” said Jeremy Nichols, director of climate at WildEarth Guardians in Denver, which filed lawsuits against the leases.

Arch Coal referred questions to the mining group.

Beth Sutton, a Peabody spokeswoman, said in an e-mail, “We believe the current regulatory approach to surface mine permits is appropriate and protects the environment.”

Since CEQ first announced its proposal, more than three dozen federal approvals were challenged on climate grounds, including a highway project in North Carolina, a methane-venting plan for a coal mine in Colorado, and a research facility in California, according to a chart compiled by the Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University.

Next Target

The next target is TransCanada (TRP)’s application to build the 1,661-mile (2,673-kilometer) Keystone pipeline. The Sierra Club and 350.org drew 35,000 people to Washington last month to urge Obama to reject the pipeline. Meanwhile, the NEPA review by the State Department included an initial analysis of carbon released when the tar sands are refined into gasoline and used in vehicles.

It stopped short, however, of saying the project would result in an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. With or without the pipeline, the oil sands will be mined and used as fuel, the report said. That finding is likely to be disputed in court if the Obama administration clears the project.

“Keystone is ground zero,” said Snape, of the Center for Biological Diversity. “Clearly this will come into play, and it will be litigated.”

Any actions by the administration now on global warming would pick up on a mixed record over the past four years.

Cap-and-Trade

While Obama failed to get Congress to pass cap-and-trade legislation, the EPA reversed course from the previous administration and ruled that carbon-dioxide emissions endanger public health, opening the way for the agency to regulate it.

Using that finding, the agency raised mileage standards for automobiles and proposed rules for new power plants that would essentially outlaw the construction of new coal-fired power plants that don’t have expensive carbon-capture technology.

Environmentalists such as the Natural Resources Defense Council say the most important action next will be the EPA’s rules for existing power plants, the single biggest source of carbon-dioxide emissions. The NEPA standards are separate from those rules, and will affect how the federal government itself is furthering global warming.

“Agencies do a pretty poor job of looking at climate change impacts,” Rebecca Judd, a legislative counsel at the environmental legal group Earthjustice in Washington. “A thorough guidance would help alleviate that.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Mark Drajem in Washington at mdrajem@bloomberg.net

[333386]

“Well then, if the president does it, it’s legal,” Richard Nixon once said. No one would accuse President Barack Obama of being Nixonian. Mr Obama tends to follow the law, would never approve of burgling the opposition and bears no vengeful traits. Yet he has done more than anyone to bury the campaign reforms that were brought in after Watergate. The latest step may be something Mr Obama will come to regret.
Last week he spoke at a fundraising dinner in Washington. The low-key event was the founders’ summit of Organizing for Action – the 2012 Obama election campaign that has been reborn as the de facto fund-raising arm of the White House. The dinner, which included Eric Schmidt, chief executive of Google, did not appear on most of the evening news shows.
More
ON THIS STORY
Global Insight Obama and opponents talk the talk
Obama’s money in politics stance criticised
The World Rand Paul and Republican soul
Rival budgets sharpen divide over US cuts
EDWARD LUCE
A good engineer who knows his own limits
A taste for mutually assured destruction
Corporate tie binds US to a slow internet
Obama is right to resist the Syria hawks
Yet it marks the moment that America’s permanent campaign was institutionalised. Tickets went for $50,000 a head. Those giving $500,000 or more will get to attend a quarterly meeting with Mr Obama. Not even George W. Bush was this audacious. To govern is to choose, went the saying. Now to campaign is to govern.
In Mr Obama’s defence, Democrats point out that he is doing far less than what corporate groups have done – and are planning to do – to defeat his agenda. Since the 2010 Citizens United ruling, in which the Supreme Court extended free speech rights to corporations by defining them as persons, liberals have worried about a tsunami of special interest money.
So-called “super-pacs” are likely to spend millions in the coming months to defeat Mr Obama’s gun control proposals, any steps to curb global warming and even immigration reform (though most of America’s billionaires tend to be in favour of it). They will also hit the airwaves in opposition to any plan to close tax loopholes for the wealthy. It is only natural that Mr Obama would want to create a level playing field, say OFA’s apologists. In the real world, that takes money.
Unlike Karl Rove, Mr Bush’s former electoral maestro, who runs Crossroads GPS, another “non-partisan” group, Mr Obama also promises a degree of transparency. Following an outcry by Washington’s bedraggled army of campaign finance reform groups, OFA now says it will disclose the names of anyone giving more than $250. It has also banned corporate donations. Moreover, there is scant prospect of an end to Mr Obama’s stand-off with Republicans before next year’s midterm elections. Mr Obama can give as many prime time speeches – and invite Republicans to as many dinners – as he likes. But the White House bully pulpit is not what it was. Putting pressure on lawmakers requires a far wieldier tool.
All of which may look compelling at this point. But OFA’s defenders also underestimate its costs. The first is the lasting damage to Mr Obama’s credibility. The journey from idealist to insider is now complete. Mr Obama started out as an underdog in 2007 railing against the “cynics and special interests who have turned our government into a game”. Many succumbed to Obamamania because of his promise to tear up the Washington playbook.
The young senator pledged to forswear private money in the general election if his opponent did likewise. John McCain, the Republican nominee, accepted the offer. But by then conditions had changed. Mr Obama went on to outspend his opponent by more than two to one. Thus died the post-Nixon era of public financing. In spite of Mr Obama’s promise to replace it, the new has yet to be born.
Not even Mr Obama’s opponents expect him to use OFA as a crude “pay for play” in which donors win lucrative contracts – like Halliburton, the oil services group, did during the Bush years. But he is taking a big risk with appearances of conflict. Things will look worse if Mr Obama appoints Penny Pritzker, his former campaign finance chairwoman, as the next US commerce secretary – as is likely. Ms Pritzker is a billionaire whose immense Rolodex helped raise $750m for Mr Obama in 2008.
Second, Mr Obama now routinely deploys the kind of sophistry he built his brand on opposing. Headed by Jim Messina, who ran the 2012 campaign, it has been set up as a “social welfare” organisation that will be strictly “non-partisan” and unable to co-ordinate with the White House, say officials. In practice, it is registered as a charity to escape ceilings on individual campaign donations.
If a hedge fund manager wanted to give $10m there would be nothing to stop it. “As I understand it, as I’ve read about it, it [OFA] will not take a position in elections,” Jay Carney, the White House spokesman, recently told reporters. Mr Carney could have checked with Michelle Obama, who made a video to accompany its launch in January. The group would be a way of “bringing ordinary people into politics”, she said.
But OFA’s biggest cost is still hidden. It sets a new threshold for elected US officials. If the president can raise unlimited private funds for his “social welfare” causes so can any governor or mayor, let alone the next president. Mr Obama’s ends may be laudable. It is hard to condemn any initiative that aims to counter the might of the gun lobby. However, the means are for keeps. Democrats will find it hard to complain when President Marco Rubio taps, say, defence industry money for his own charitable causes in 2016. “Yes he can,” will be the response.
edward.luce@ft.com

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2013. You may share using our article tools.
Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.

[333386]

The More Businesses Learn About Obamacare, The More Reluctant They Are To Hire


http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2013/03/18/the-more-businesses-learn-about-obamacare-the-more-reluctant-they-are-to-hire



Wondering why the unemployment rate has been near or above 8 percent for nearly four years? The Federal Reserve has an answer for you: Obamacare.



(Photo credit: Mike Licht, NotionsCapital.com)


Earlier this month, the Fed released its latest “beige book”  – a monthly report on economic conditions across the country. The book noted that employers across the country have “cited the unknown effects of the Affordable Care Act as reasons for planned layoffs and reluctance to hire more staff.”

The more businesses learn about the president’s health reform law, the more they’re coming to realize that “affordable care” is the last thing it will provide. And that’s in large part due to the multibillion-dollar tax that Obamacare is set to levy on health insurance companies.

Starting next year, insurance companies will have to remit $8 billion to the federal treasury. The tax climbs to $11.3 billion in 2015 and 2016, to $13.9 billion in 2017, and to $14.3 billion thereafter.

Insurance companies will pay based on their share of industry revenues in a given year — the more revenue, the bigger the hit.

And although insurers are responsible for paying it, there’s no question that the tax will “be largely passed through to consumers in the form of higher premiums for private coverage,” as the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office put it.

How much will premiums go up?  The Joint Committee on Taxation figures the tax will add between 2 percent and 2.5 percent to the cost of premiums.

But that estimate is probably too low. Former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin figures that the premium tax will add 3 percent to the cost of family coverage over the next decade. And a study by consulting firm Oliver Wyman figures the tax will boost premium costs by as much as 3.7 percent a decade from now.

That means a family will pay a total of $5,000 more in premiums, and small businesses nearly $7,000, over the next 10 years.

Those are just averages. Individuals and businesses in some states will pay far more, according to Oliver Wyman’s research. Small businesses in West Virginia, for example, will have to deal with  more than $9,000 in added costs for a family plan over the next decade. Those in Nebraska will get hit with almost $8,000 in new costs.

Seniors and state governments will pay the tax, too.

The cost of the private Medicare Advantage plans that about a quarter of seniors currently enjoy is set to rise nearly $3,600 over the next ten years, thanks to the tax. In Florida, for example, seniors will pay an additional $4,000 in premiums.

Costs for the Medicaid managed care plans that cover nearly three-quarters of the program’s beneficiaries will rise by more than $1,500 per enrollee over the next decade.

Obamacare’s premium tax will also distort the insurance market by tilting the playing field heavily against for-profit insurance companies like WellPoint, UnitedHealthcare, and Aetna.

Unlike just about every other tax they pay, for-profit insurers won’t be able to deduct the premium tax from their earnings. So a good chunk of their income will effectively get taxed twice — once to satisfy Obamacare’s premium tax, and then again when they pay the corporate tax. That means they’ll have to raise premiums even higher.

Non-profit insurers like Blue Shield of California don’t pay income taxes, so they won’t face this double whammy when paying the premium tax.

What’s more, the law exempts non-profits that do 80 percent or more of their business with the government from the premium tax altogether. That gives non-profits an even bigger leg up against their for-profit competitors.

And it’s not as if non-profit insurers are barely scraping by. Blue Shield of California, for instance, had reserves of $3.9 billion in the last quarter of 2012.

 Several groups that largely represent small businesses — including the National Federation of Independent Business, the National Retail Federation, the Chamber of Commerce, and the American Farm Bureau Federation — have called for repeal of this tax. And earlier this year, in a rare show of bipartisanship in Washington, Louisiana Republican Charles Boustany and Utah Democrat Jim Matheson introduced a bill in the House that would repeal the tax before it has a chance to take effect.

That’s the right call. Scrapping Obamacare’s burdensome and misguided premium tax would put money back in the pockets of American businesses — money they could use to keep the nation’s unemployment rate a whole lot lower than the 8 percent of the last four years.

[chadstallion]

I'm sure the trucker at the rest stop will appreciate it. 

good one, bro; hats off to your developing sense of humor.
And it never gets old or fails me......

walk around the truck stop, see a hot trucker, go over, kick a tire and say...
"you got a heavy load?"

they are muchly appreciative.

[333386]

good one, bro; hats off to your developing sense of humor.
And it never gets old or fails me......

walk around the truck stop, see a hot trucker, go over, kick a tire and say...
"you got a heavy load?"

they are muchly appreciative.

Once people get to know me they appreciate my jokes and sarcastic nature.  Im every bit the sarcastic jokster in person

[333386]

Skip to comments.
Obama DOD: Use Humor & Dialogue When Confronting Violent Rapists (Video)
 The Gateway Pundit ^ | 3/18/13 | Jim Hoft

Posted on Monday, March 18, 2013 6:01:38 PM by Nachum

A new video released last month by The Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute, an arm of the Defense Department, instructs bystanders on how to react in case of violence, rape or harassment. The video offers a number of actions including using humor and dialogue during an attack. Counter Contempt reported:

The Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI) is an arm of the Department of Defense created in 1971 (and reorganized in 1979 under President Carter). It’s stated mission is to fight “intolerance.” The DEOMI commandant, a political appointee, answers to Obama’s new Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Jessica L. Wright. Wright, you may recall, recently complained to congress about the “devastating” impact of sequester cuts on the “quality of life” of military personnel.

The latest DEOMI video instructs you to use humor and dialogue during a violent attack.


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

[333386]

The Obama administration is demanding the nation’s two biggest shipping companies police the contents of Americans’ sealed packages, and a FedEx spokesman is warning that the move “has the potential to threaten the privacy of all customers that send or receive packages.”

FedEx and UPS are in the Justice Department’s cross-hairs for not flagging shipments of illegally prescribed drugs the companies say they had no way of knowing were in their possession.

Criminal charges could be coming against the carriers, even though the government has not alleged any deliberate wrongdoing by the companies.

FedEx spokesman Patrick Fitzgerald said his company has a 40-year history of actively assisting the government crackdown on any criminal conduct, but he told WND this probe was very different from the start.

“What is unusual and really disturbing is it became clear to us along the way that FedEx was being targeted for some level criminal activity as it relates to these medicines that are being shipped from pharmacies, and we find it to be completely absurd because it’s really not our role,” Fitzgerald said. “We have no way of knowing what is legal and not within the packages that we’re picking up and delivering in this situation.”

“At the heart of the investigation are sealed packages that are being sent by, as far as we can tell, licensed pharmacies. These are medicines with legal prescriptions written by licensed physicians. So it’s difficult for us to understand where we would have some role in this. We are a transportation company that picks up and delivers close to 10 million packages every day. They are sealed packages, so we have no way of knowing specifically what’s inside and we have no interest in violating the privacy rights of our customers,” Fitzgerald said.

In addition to the unrealistic expectation that the federal government seems to have for the companies to know what’s in every package, Fitzgerald said protecting the rights of customers is paramount and the issues go hand-in-hand.

“They clearly are attempting to put some responsibility for the legality of the contents of these packages. That’s why for us it goes far beyond even just the online pharmacy situation. This really has a chilling effect. It has the potential to threaten the privacy of all customers that send or receive packages via FedEx because the government is assigning a role on us as law enforcement or taking on their role in a way that is not appropriate,” Fitzgerald said.

FedEx sought to diffuse the standoff by offering to stop doing business with any pharmacies that the government suspected to be involved in illegal activities. The Justice Department declined, citing the potential for the pharmacies to sue over a lack of due process.

“If the government were to come to us and give us the name of a customer that’s engaged in some level of illegal activity, we can immediately stop shipping for that customer. We will not tolerate any illegal activity within our networks,” Fitzgerald said. “What we want here is a solution that will apply for the entire industry and serve the public’s interest. That’s why we find it completely absurd and, to a large degree, stunning that the government is not working with us on that solution as they have with other problems in the past. As long as they’re not doing that, there’s really no solution even if they were to pursue an investigation or criminal charges against a specific company. There needs to be an industry-wide solution that will put a stop to this problem.”

That leaves FedEx and UPS with the task of stopping illegal shipments from sources the government will not divulge.

“The comparison that we’ve made is a no-fly list. It’s as if the government were to go to major commercial airlines and accuse them of some level of criminal activity if they were to allow somebody on the no-fly list onto one of their planes without providing them a no-fly list,” Fitzgerald said. “What we want here is the no-fly list for online pharmacies. If they are aware of some level of illegal activity by some number of pharmacies, simply provide us that list and we will stop providing service. It’s a very simple solution.”

Fitzpatrick said no other private carriers are being targeted by the Justice Department, and he has no evidence to suggest this probe is designed to boost the financially strapped U.S. Postal Service at the expense of private competitors.

UPS is currently negotiating a settlement with the government, but FedEx is fighting this all the way.

“Settlement is not an option for us when there’s no illegal activity on our part,” Fitzpatrick said.






Because you voted for it.   F Obama

[333386]

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2013/0322/With-US-Russia-relationship-toxic-Moscow-looks-to-strengthen-ties-with-China?nav=87-frontpage-entryNineItem


LOL - Total FAIL   

Obama is a disaster of biblical measure

[333386]

Lanny Breuer Cashes in After Not Prosecuting Wall Street Execs, Will Receive Approximate Salary of 4 Million Dollars



 
font size       Print
MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

It's official, and former Department of Justice (DOJ) Criminal Division Chef Lanny Breuer is bragging about it.  He'll return for the third to time the white collar (now expanding its clients internationally) legal defense firm of Covington & Burling, but this time at a whopping salary.

According to the New York Times: "Mr. Breuer is expected to earn about $4 million in his first year at Covington. In addition to representing clients, he will serve as an ambassador of sorts for the firm as it seeks to grow overseas."

As BuzzFlash at Truthout has speculated before, one can argue (and the same holds true for Eric Holder, also a Covington & Burling alumni appointee), Breuer was building his value in the marketplace at the DOJ, while Wall Street executives who nearly destroyed the American economy went unprosecuted.  And his future value to his old white collar defense firm was dependent, in large part, on him not angering the people who would be the clients of Covington & Burling when he left the Department of Justice. The result, one can contend: no prosecutions of banks "too big to fail" execs as publicly stated as a policy by both Breuer and Holder.

This isn't just a revolving door; one can argue it's a dereliction of legal responsibility by an employee of the people of the United States.  One can proffer that it's a cash-in career move by a resume climber who was careful not to bite the hands that will write the checks that will feed him on a lavish scale.

BuzzFlash at Truthout has written more than fifteen commentaries on the failure to prosecute Wall Street execs in recent months. These include: "Consigliere Lanny Breuer, Head of the DOJ Criminal Division, Leaves Without Prosecuting One Made Man on Wall Street" ; and "The Covington & Burling Trio Overseeing the Department of Justice Criminal Division: An Injustice."

Breuer isn't the least bit sheepish about grabbing the brass ring after failing to hold those responsible for nearly sinking the economy criminally accountable. According to the website Main Justice,

Breuer said that he will also maintain his white collar clients, which he hope to grow following his stint as the Criminal Division's longest-serving leader in recent history. Moving forward, he expects to have individual and corporate clients in areas such as foreign bribery, money laundering, export control and securities law and whistle blower cases. 

Breuer has spent a combined total of approximately two decades at Covington & Burling.

According the Corporate Crime Reporter:

At Covington, Breuer will work with a corporate criminal defense team that includes:

Robert Amaee, the former Head of Anti-Corruption and Head of Proceeds of Crime at the UK Serious Fraud Office.

Bruce Baird, former Chief of the Securities and Commodities Fraud Task Force in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York.

Tom Barnett and Deborah Garza, both a former Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division.

Michael Chertoff, himself a former Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division before becoming Secretary for Homeland Security.

Steve Fagell, former Deputy Chief of Staff and Counselor in the Criminal Division.

Jim Garland, former Deputy Chief of Staff and Counselor to Attorney General Eric Holder.

Nancy Kestenbaum and Lynn Neils, both former Chiefs of the General Crimes Unit of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York.

Ethan Posner and Jean Veta, both former Deputy Associate Attorneys General.

Alan Vinegrad, former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York.

And numerous other former federal prosecutors and enforcement officials, including Stephen Anthony, David Bayless, Casey Cooper, Haywood Gilliam, Geoffrey Hobart, and Simone Ross.

Criticism of Breuer’s exit through the revolving door came quickly from Dennis Kelleher, a former partner at Skadden Arps in Washington, D.C., and currently president of the public interest group Better Markets.

Kelleher told Corporate Crime Reporter that “nothing is more corrosive to the American people’s trust in government than the revolving door where too many officials turn their so-called public service into multi-million dollar riches unimaginable to most Americans.”

“This blatant cashing-in is destroying faith in government and government officials,” Kelleher said.

“Lanny Breuer’s spinning through it is only the latest example: partner at big DC law firm representing corporate clients before the Department, then becomes a senior official at the Department making decisions whether or not to prosecute those same or similar corporate clients, then leaves to go back to private practice representing those same or similar corporate clients with legal issues before, bingo, the Department of Justice,” Kelleher said.

As we noted in one of our previous BuzzFlash at Truthout commentaries deploring the systemic injustice of people who use government service to raise their cash value in DC, this is quite possibly a crime against the American people for personal enrichment.  We are certain Lanny Breuer would deny anything but the purest motives, and that is his right. As he told Main Justice: "So, I love the advocacy system. I'm a zealous advocate, and I look forward to being a zealous advocate for our [Covington & Burling] clients again."

But BuzzFlash at Truthout has a different perspective. At a reported $4 million a year, much of Breuer's salary will have been earned at the expense of not prosecuting justice.

And a lot of perps are riding around in chauffeured limousines because Lanny Breuer didn't lift a finger to take away their keys. Now they are his clients again.

How do you imagine that happened?


Some additional BuzzFlash commentaries of interest on the lack of Wall Street prosecution:

This commentary, "Holder Admits that Department of Justice Believes Big Bankers Are Above the Law," contains hyperlinks to many of the recent BuzzFlash commentaries on the DOJ's negligence in prosecuting Wall Street campaign donors and executives of banks too big to fail.

Also see, "Eric Holder Enables Dishonesty, Fraud and Likely Criminal Activity on Wall Street"; and "In Bank Tax Cut for Job Scheme, Another Bank Gets Immunity by DOJ."

(Photo: Wikipedia)

[333386]

http://truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/17885-lanny-breuer-cashes-in-after-not-prosecuting-wall-street-execs-will-receive-approximate-salary-of-4-million-dollars


Because you voted for it.

[333386]

WASHINGTON, DC, March 28, 2013 - President Barack Obama signed a spending bill, HR 933, into law, the “Monsanto Protection Act,” that strips federal courts of the authority to immediately halt the planting and sale of genetically modified (GMO) seed crop regardless of any consumer health concerns.

“The provision would strip federal courts of the authority to halt the sale and planting of an illegal, potentially hazardous GE crop while the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) assesses those potential hazards,” explains a letter to the House that has been signed by dozens of food businesses and retailers, as well as interest groups and agencies representing family farmers. “Further, it would compel USDA to allow continued planting of that same crop upon request, even if in the course of its assessment the Department finds that it poses previously unrecognized risks.”

Why does Monsanto and other GMO companies need this protection? The corolary question is has there ever been a safe, healthy, non-complicated genetically modified organism?

Genetical engineering is the process of putting genetic material from one species into another in a form that does not exist in nature. In every case of genetic engineered organsims, the product has been less naturally healthy overall than the original host organsims. There may be a single trait that is superior, but the overall health of the organism is less than found in nature. From animals like the sheep Dolly, to the Flavr Savr tomato, to the products you are eating today and don’t even know it, there are inherent problems consuming altered DNA.

In 1994, Dr Joseph Cummins, Emeritus Professor of Genetics at the University of West-Ontario warned that the inclusion in Flavr Savr tomatoes of a genetic sequence from the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus could create virulent new viruses. In October 1991, Dr Edwin Mathews from the Department of Health and Human Services and of the FDA's Toxicology Group wrote to the FDA Biotechnology Working Group saying: “Genetically modified plants could also contain unexpected high concentrations of plant toxicants”.

Modified proteins, new proteins never before eaten by humanity, exist in GE foods. In 1992, Dr. Louis J. Pribyl of the FDA's Microbiology Group warned  that there is "a profound difference between the types of expected effects from traditional breeding and genetic engineering."

There are many explanations of why genetic engineering becomes faulty, but for starters here are two:

DNA does not always fully break down in the alimentary tract. Gut bacteria can take up genes and GM plasmids, opening the possibility of the spread of antibiotic resistance.
Insertion of genes into the genome can also result in unintended effects. Some of the ways the inserted genes express themselves in the host or the way they affect the functioning of the crop’s own genes are unpredictable. This may lead to the development of unknown toxic/allergenic components.
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN, "Substantial equivalence is the embodies the concept that if a new food or food component is found to be substantially equivalent to an existing food or food component, it can be treated in the same manner with respect to safety."

Many GM and parental line crops fall short of the definition of “substantial equivalence.” In any case, this crude, poorly defined and unscientific concept outlived its possible previous usefulness and we need novel methods and concepts to probe into the compositional, nutritional/toxicological and metabolic differences between GM and conventional crops and into the safety of the genetic techniques used in developing GM crops if we want to put this technology on a proper scientific foundation and allay the fears of the general public. We need more science, not less.

There are processes that are locking the agricultural farmer into a business relationship with the seed producers.

"Technology Protection," is how they sell it. "Terminator" technology makes plants that would produce sterile seeds after one season. This means, farmers have to buy more seeds for the next harvest.

"Traitor" technology is a trait-specific technology that develops traits which would remain dormant in crops. Farmers can choose to activate this trait by spraying their crops with a proprietary chemical compound. This means, they'll have to buy the proprietary compound to treat their crops in order to activate it. There are even biochemical companies requiring farmers to sign agreements to not save any of their seeds for re-planting. This means that instead of using the seeds for the next planting season, they have to get rid of them and buy more seeds.

Other possible effects might come from the spread of genes from modified plants to unmodified relatives, which might produce species of weeds resistant to herbicides. 

There are numerous problems with the genetically modified fods you eat. 

CORN- Two research studies independently show evidence of allergenic reactions to GM Bt corn, and farm workers exposed to genetically-modified Bt sprays exhibited extensive allergic reactions.

POTATOES - A study showed genetically-modified potatoes expressing cod genes were allergenic.

PEAS - A decade-long study of GM peas was abandoned when it was discovered that they caused allergic lung damage in mice.

SOY - In March 1999, researchers at the York Laboratory discovered that reactions to soy had skyrocketed by 50% over the year before, which corresponded with the introduction of genetically-modified soy from the US. It was the first time in 17 years that soy was tested in the lab among the top ten allergenic foods. 

A four-year study at the University of Jena in Germany conducted by Hans-Hinrich Kaatz revealed that bees ingesting pollen from transgenic rapeseed had bacteria in their gut with modified genes. This is called a "horizontal gene transfer." Commonly found bacteria and microorganisms in the human gut help maintain a healthy intestinal flora. These, however, can be mutated.

Mutations may also be able to travel internally to other cells, tissue systems and organs throughout the human body. Not to be underestimated, the potential domino effect of internal and external genetic pollution can make the substance of science-fiction horror movies become terrible realities in the future. The same is true for the bacteria that maintain the health of our soil - and are vitally necessary for all forms of farming - in fact for human sustenance and survival.

It is a well-know fact that fish proteins happen to be among the most hyper-allergenic, while tomatoes are not. Thus not labeling such genetically modified tomatoes, with hidden alien or allergenic ingredients, is completely unconscionable. The same applies to the typical GMO that has novel bacterial and viral DNA artificially inserted. 

Superviruses: Viruses can mix with genes of other viruses and retroviruses such as HIV. This can give rise to more deadly viruses - and at rates higher than previously thought. One study showed that gene mixing occurred in viruses in just 8 weeks (Kleiner, 1997). This kind of scenario applies to the cauliflower mosaic virus CaMV, the most common virus used in genetic engineering - in Round Up ready soy of Monsanto, Bt-maise of Novaris, and GM cotton and canola. 

The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) called on 'Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM (genetically modified) foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks.' They called for a moratorium on GM foods, long-term independent studies, and labeling. AAEM’s position paper stated, 'Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,' including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. They conclude, 'There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation,'as defined by recognized scientific criteria. 'The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.' 

Most countries have banned GMOs. Not the U.S. This happens because of public unawareness and politics. 

If you are concerned ask your grocer which foods they carry are GM foods. If you plant foods, ask the seed manufacturer which seeds are GMO. Stop purchasing known GM foods. Contact your state and national congress representatives and voice your concern on this subject. 

GMO’s have never occurred in the history of the world until the past several decades. The timeframe is far too short to understand their impact on nature and human health. 

 

--

Dr Peter Lind practices metabolic and neurologic chiropractic in his wellness clinic in Salem, Oregon. USA. He is the author of 3 books on health, one novel, and hundreds of wellness articles. His clinical specialty is in physical, nutritional, and emotional stress. 

 

For more health tips go to http://www.wellnessreport.net

 

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities @ WashingtonTimes.com. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING TWTC CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

[333386]

Hillary Clinton snagged in Benghazi cover-up
 WorldNetDaily ^ | Mar 31, 2013 | Aaron Klein

Posted on Sunday, March 31, 2013 6:37:59 PM by wesagain

"New reports prompt questions about perplexing security decisions after attack"

JERUSALEM – As media reports present evidence the U.S. has played a central role in arming Syrian rebels, new questions now emerge about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s involvement in the controversial scheme.

The questions prompt a second look at the perplexing security decisions made by Clinton and other top Obama administration officials the night of the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks on American facilities in Benghazi.

One of those key decisions reportedly delayed an investigative FBI team from arriving at the Benghazi site for 24 days. The site was widely reported to have contained classified documents.

WND raised the Thursday of whether Clinton was telling the truth when she claimed in a Senate hearing that she had no information about whether the U.S. mission in Libya was procuring or transferring weapons to Turkey and other Arab countries.

Her claim appears to contradict a New York Times report that the CIA has been aiding Arab governments and Turkey in obtaining and shipping weapons to the Syrian rebels.

The goal of the alleged weapons shipments was to arm the rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

Any training or arming of the Syrian rebels would be considered highly controversial. A major issue is the inclusion of jihadists, including al-Qaida, among the ranks of the Free Syrian Army and other Syrian opposition groups

Now a closer reading of two separate reports from the New York Times paints a picture of Clinton as the ring leader of the plan to arm Syrian rebels.

Confirming WND’s exclusive reporting for over a year, the New York Times last week reported that since early 2012.........


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

[333386]

CURL: The Obamas live the 1 percent life
 


Comments (102)
 Size: + / -
 Print
 


Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on google_plusone_shareShar e on redditShare on linkedinShare on stumbleuponShare on emailMore Sharing Services
 


By Joseph Curl
 
-
 
The Washington Times
 
Sunday, March 31, 2013





Enlarge Photo
President Barack Obama waves to the crowd as he watches the first ... more >
 



Story Topics
 
Politics
 White House
 George W. Bush
 Secret Service
 Tiger Woods
 







Follow Us On
 
Facebook
 




Question of the Day
 
Pope Francis reached out to "Muslim Brothers" on Good Friday. Will his efforts be reciprocated by top Muslim clerics?
 






Yes
 





No
 





Undecided
 





Other
 






View results
 
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
 
Being president of the U.S., the most powerful man in the world, is often most about perception. The man (or, one day, woman) in the job takes actions large and small every day, but it is the perception of the man that seeps into the everyday lives of working Americans.
 
That's why presidential candidates always hit Philadelphia for a cheesesteak during campaigns (Democrats to Pat's, Republicans to Geno's). Sure, they're running billion-dollar operations trying to win the White House, but one picture of them wolfing down a Cheez Whiz-covered glob of meat on a Philly street hits home with millions of voters: "Hey, that guy's just like me! He loves him a Pat's [or Geno's] cheesesteak, too!" (Unless you're John F. Kerry and order Swiss cheese — then everyone hates you.)
 
Sometimes, that perception cuts to the core. Like when President George W. Bush stopped playing golf in 2003, at the height of the Iraq War.
 
"I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal," he said years later. "I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf. I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them."
 
That's also why Mr. Bush did two other things, without fanfare or praise. First, he never headed home to his Texas ranch until after Christmas, instead going to Camp David for a few days. That way, the hundreds of people revolving around him at all times — White House staff, Secret Service agents, reporters, photographers, all the others — could spend the holiday with their families in and around Washington, D.C. No one ever reported that — until this column.
 
Second, he rarely attended sporting events, although he once owned a baseball team and was a self-confessed stats junkie. His thinking there was the same: If he went to a baseball game (right down the street from the White House), his mere presence would mean hours and hours of extra security for fans. He once stopped off at the Daytona 500 and the metal detectors through which every fan had to pass left thousands outside in line when the green flag fell; he didn't attend many sporting events after that.
 
But something remarkable has happened with these occupants of the White House: Neither President Obama nor first lady Michelle appear to give a damn about perception. They won the White House and, by God, they're going to enjoy their time there, no matter the cost. And who cares what you think, anyway?
 
How else to explain the nonstop vacations the pair keep taking during what Mr. Obama calls the "worst financial crisis since the Great Depression"? In 2013, the First Family has already enjoyed three vacations — that's one a month. (Sorry, Joe America, you might have to forget your week at the beach again this year, but make sure you get those taxes in on time!)
 
The Obamas ended 2012 and kicked off 2013 in an $8 million, 6,000-square-foot house in Hawaii (they left well before Dec. 25, by the way). There, the president played five rounds of golf (breaking the 100-rounds-as-president threshold). Scarcely a month into Term 2, Mrs. Obama headed off for Aspen, taking along the couple's daughters. Vice President Joseph R. Biden also hit the Colorado slopes. While the girls (and Joe) were gone, Mr. Obama nipped down to Florida for a four-day boys weekend of golf, teeing it up with his buddies — and Tiger Woods. He hit the links again this weekend, then dropped in for an NCAA tournament game in Washington.
 
Jumpin' Joe, for his part, spent New Year's in the Virgin Islands and popped off over the Easter weekend for a golf outing at the glorious Kiawah Island, S.C. (where rounds of golf on the spectacular Ocean Course run $353 — nearly $20 a hole). His third vacation of the year came the same week as reports that he and his entourage spent $460,000 for a single night in London and $585,000 for a night at a five-star hotel in Paris.
 
Then, last week, reports emerged that the Obama girls were kicking it in the Bahamas for spring break. Days later, a Colorado news station, KMTV, reported that the girls were now skiing in Sun Valley, Idaho. The White House flacks didn't like that one bit.
 
"From the beginning of the administration, the White House has asked news outlets not to report on or photograph the Obama children when they are not with their parents and there is no vital news interest," said Kristina Schake, communications director to the first lady. "We have reminded outlets of this request in order to protect the privacy and security of these girls."
 
At their demand, the station scrubbed the report without explanation. What losers.
 
To be clear, this has nothing to do with the daughters. Never has. They are wonderful girls. The issue is use of taxpayer money, especially since Mr. Obama has shut down the White House to visitors, citing the cost of security. All these trips cost millions for Secret Service protection; couldn't they just skip a few vacations so taxpayers could visit "America's House"?
 
But no, the Obamas don't care a whit about that, or the perception of them living high on the hog while many hardworking Americans are struggling to get by — and hoping to save enough for just one vacation this year.
 
And that perception, juxtaposed with reality, more than nearly anything else, tells you an awful lot about this president.
 
• Joseph Curl covered the White House and politics for a decade for The Washington Times and is now editor of the Drudge Report. He can be reached at josephcurl@gmail.com and @josephcurl.
 
© Copyright 2013 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/31/curl-the-obamas-live-the-1-percent-life/#ixzz2PAzgrSl9
 Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter