Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
April 16, 2014, 06:44:38 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 76 77 [78] 79 80 ... 82   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Obama: Corruption, Deception, Dishonesty, Deceit and Promises Broken  (Read 77142 times)
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5176


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #1925 on: July 08, 2013, 08:46:34 PM »

http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/08/krauthammer-on-obamacare-entire-enterprise-was-a-gigantic-bait-and-switch/?fb_action_ids=10151549075577424&fb_action_types=og.recommends&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%2210151549075577424%22%3A162306017285963%7D&action_type_map=%7B%2210151549075577424%22%3A%22og.recommends%22%7D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D


SUCKERS!!!
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5176


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #1926 on: July 09, 2013, 07:08:50 AM »

http://www.nationaljournal.com/domesticpolicy/white-house-has-known-for-months-obamacare-implementation-wouldn-t-work-20130709


Knew months ago OTWINKCARE does not work. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5176


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #1927 on: July 09, 2013, 08:07:19 AM »

Obama Is Embarrassed by Obamacare
Townhall.com ^  | July 9, 2013 | Phyllis Schlafly

Posted on Tuesday, July 09, 2013 11:04:15 AM by Kaslin



Barack Obama assured us that, after his signature legislation Obamacare went into effect, we would surely like it. Now Obama has decided he doesn't want us to find out how it affects us until after the 2014 elections.

Obamacare is designed to force employers of 50 or more full-time employees to provide comprehensive health insurance that includes a mandate to pay for an abortion-inducing drug. The penalty for non-compliance is a tax of $2,000 per fulltime employee per year (beyond the first 30), and the Internal Revenue Service was supposed to start collecting the penalties on Jan. 1.

Obama apparently thinks he can conceal the mess he created, which even the Democrats who voted for it now call a "train wreck," by simply postponing the effective date of the employer mandate one year. But the Obamacare law, as upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, unambiguously states: "EFFECTIVE DATE ... The amendments made by this section shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013."

Obama has no authority to alter the timetable of the law's implementation. Maybe he should actually read the 2,700 pages of text in the Obamacare law and its 20,000 pages of regulations.

Obama doesn't seem to care whether his order to delay Obamacare is lawful or not. He wants to avoid the trouble the destructive employer mandate would cause for Democratic candidates before the next election of the House of Representatives, an election he deems critical to his plan to "fundamentally transform the United States."

The postponement of the employer mandate is not the first setback to the Obamacare timeline. A few months ago, the Obama administration quietly announced that the federally run state-level exchanges will not offer a choice of plans to employees of small businesses until after the 2014 elections.

The one-year extension for employers will create havoc in the exchanges where individuals are supposed to buy next year's health insurance. The government admitted July 5 that it won't be able to verify whether applicants qualify for the subsidies that are supposed to make the required coverage "affordable" but plans to give out the subsidies anyway.

Meanwhile, Obamacare's expansion of Medicaid is being rejected by the states. After the Supreme Court's June 2012 decision in NFIB v. Sebelius gave states the OK to reject this expansion, 27 of 50 states did not implement Obamacare's Medicaid plan.

States were wise to reject this very expensive Medicaid expansion.

Obamacare required that anyone with income below 133 percent of the poverty level would be eligible for Medicaid and sought to expand eligibility to able-bodied, non-elderly, childless adults, that is, to people without dependents who were able but perhaps unwilling to support themselves.

In addition to having sections of Obamacare postponed and rejected outright, Obamacare is also failing to fulfill Obama's promise that it would decrease the deficit. The funds that were supposed to pay down the deficit included the money anticipated to flow from the penalty payments made by employers who refused to obey the mandate to provide comprehensive healthcare to their employees.

Now that employers will not be required to pay those fines in 2014 for violating the mandate, and indeed will not even be required to report whether they are complying, it is obvious that Obamacare will not produce the promised deficit reduction.

This isn't the first time Obama has taken actions that are clearly in violation of our laws. For example, two federal courts have ruled against him for making recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board while the Senate was not in recess.

Obama unlawfully removed the work requirement from the 1996 welfare reform law signed by President Bill Clinton, even though the law explicitly prohibits waivers to the work requirement. That reform required most welfare recipients to actually work or be in job training in order to receive welfare.

Obama simply used executive orders to pretend to legislate the DREAM Act, which Congress has repeatedly refused to pass. His bypassing of the law was so out of line that even his former economic adviser remarked, "I don't totally get how the president can do this through executive order."

Obama had the Department of Homeland Security implement key measures of the DREAM Act in order to essentially grant amnesty to many illegal aliens. Because of the large number of applications for amnesty, background checks were given up in favor of so-called "lean and lite" procedures.

By the way, that is exactly what will happen to background checks for the 11 million illegal aliens who hope to be granted U.S. residency by the amnesty bill now awaiting action in the House. If the background check of the Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev couldn't discover his obvious terrorist plans, what hope do we have for background checks of the 11 million?
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5176


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #1928 on: July 09, 2013, 03:14:06 PM »

Obama fundraiser tapped as ambassador to Britain

 
stumbleupon: Obama fundraiser tapped as ambassador to Britain    digg: US Works With Sudan Government Suspected Of Aiding Genocide    reddit: Obama fundraiser tapped as ambassador to Britain    del.icio.us: Obama fundraiser tapped as ambassador to Britain 
 
July 9, 2013 06:06 PM EST | AP


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



WASHINGTON — The White House says President Barack Obama has picked the finance chairman for his re-election campaign to be the U.S. ambassador to Britain.

Matthew Barzun, a business executive, has been confirmed by the Senate once before. He served as U.S. ambassador to Sweden until 2011, when he took the position as Obama's finance chairman.

The White House says Obama is also nominating John Phillips, an attorney who raised more than $500,000 for Obama's 2012 campaign, to be the U.S. envoy to Italy and the Republic of San Marino. He's currently the chairman of Obama's commission that selects candidates to be White House Fellows.

John Hoover, a veteran U.S. diplomat who served in Africa, Asia and Europe, is Obama's pick for Sierra Leone.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5176


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #1929 on: July 10, 2013, 05:10:19 AM »

Experts: Obama’s plan to predict future leakers unproven, unlikely to work

      
Insider Threats

     

Share on linkedin Share on reddit Share on stumbleupon Share on tumblr Share on delicious Share on digg Share on pocket Share on instapaper Share on evernote

email this story print this story jump to comments

 

 
         

More on this Story
Story | Obama’s crackdown views leaks as aiding enemies of U.S.
Graphic | The changing profile of a spy
On the Web | Mass Surveillance
On the Web | Reply to McClatchy from the Peace Corps
On the Web | Reply to McClatchy from the Army
On the Web | Reply to McClatchy from the NSC
On the Web | Reply to McClatchy from the National Security Council
   
The changing profile of a spy
View larger image
      
By Jonathan S. Landay and Marisa Taylor | McClatchy Washington Bureau




WASHINGTON —  In an initiative aimed at rooting out future leakers and other security violators, President Barack Obama has ordered federal employees to report suspicious actions of their colleagues based on behavioral profiling techniques that are not scientifically proven to work, according to experts and government documents.

The techniques are a key pillar of the Insider Threat Program, an unprecedented government-wide crackdown under which millions of federal bureaucrats and contractors must watch out for “high-risk persons or behaviors” among co-workers. Those who fail to report them could face penalties, including criminal charges.

Obama mandated the program in an October 2011 executive order after Army Pfc. Bradley Manning downloaded hundreds of thousands of documents from a classified computer network and gave them to WikiLeaks, the anti-government secrecy group. The order covers virtually every federal department and agency, including the Peace Corps, the Department of Education and others not directly involved in national security.
      
Under the program, which is being implemented with little public attention, security investigations can be launched when government employees showing “indicators of insider threat behavior” are reported by co-workers, according to previously undisclosed administration documents obtained by McClatchy. Investigations also can be triggered when “suspicious user behavior” is detected by computer network monitoring and reported to “insider threat personnel.”

Federal employees and contractors are asked to pay particular attention to the lifestyles, attitudes and behaviors – like financial troubles, odd working hours or unexplained travel – of co-workers as a way to predict whether they might do “harm to the United States.” Managers of special insider threat offices will have “regular, timely, and, if possible, electronic, access” to employees’ personnel, payroll, disciplinary and “personal contact” files, as well as records of their use of classified and unclassified computer networks, polygraph results, travel reports and financial disclosure forms.

Over the years, numerous studies of public and private workers who’ve been caught spying, leaking classified information, stealing corporate secrets or engaging in sabotage have identified psychological profiles that could offer clues to possible threats. Administration officials want government workers trained to look for such indicators and report them so the next violation can be stopped before it happens.

“In past espionage cases, we find people saw things that may have helped identify a spy, but never reported it,” said Gene Barlow, a spokesman for the Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive, which oversees government efforts to detect threats like spies and computer hackers and is helping implement the Insider Threat Program. “That is why the awareness effort of the program is to teach people not only what types of activity to report, but how to report it and why it is so important to report it.”

But even the government’s top scientific advisers have questioned these techniques. Those experts say that trying to predict future acts through behavioral monitoring is unproven and could result in illegal ethnic and racial profiling and privacy violations.

“There is no consensus in the relevant scientific community nor on the committee regarding whether any behavioral surveillance or physiological monitoring techniques are ready for use at all,” concluded a 2008 National Research Council report on detecting terrorists.

 

 TSA officers watch for suspicious behavior at airports (Carey Wagner/Sun Sentinel/MCT)

“Doing something similar about predicting future leakers seems even more speculative,” Stephen Fienberg, a professor of statistics and social science at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh and a member of the committee that wrote the report, told McClatchy.

The emphasis on individual lifestyles, attitudes and behaviors comes at a time when growing numbers of Americans must submit to extensive background checks, polygraph tests and security investigations to be hired or to keep government or federal contracting jobs. The U.S. government is one of the world’s largest employers, overseeing an ever-expanding ocean of information.

While the Insider Threat Program mandates that the nearly 5 million federal workers and contractors with clearances undergo training in recognizing suspicious behavior indicators, it allows individual departments and agencies to extend the requirement to their entire workforces, something the Army already has done.

Training should address “current and potential threats in the work and personal environment” and focus on “the importance of detecting potential insider threats by cleared employees and reporting suspected activity to insider threat personnel and other designated officials,” says one of the documents obtained by McClatchy.

The White House, the Justice Department, the Peace Corps and the departments of Health and Human Services, Homeland Security and Education refused to answer questions about the program’s implementation. Instead, they issued virtually identical email statements directing inquiries to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, declined to comment or didn’t respond.

Caitlin Hayden, a spokeswoman for the White House National Security Council, said in her statement that the Insider Threat Program includes extra safeguards for “civil rights, civil liberties and privacy,” but she didn’t elaborate. Manning’s leaks to WikiLeaks, she added, showed that at the time protections of classified materials were “inadequate and put our nation’s security at risk.”

Reply from the National Security Council

Even so, the new effort failed to prevent former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden from taking top-secret documents detailing the agency’s domestic and international communications monitoring programs and leaking them to The Guardian and The Washington Post newspapers.

The initiative goes beyond classified information leaks. It includes as insider threats “damage to the United States through espionage, terrorism, unauthorized disclosure of national security information or through the loss or degradation of departmental resources or capabilities,” according to a document setting “Minimum Standards for Executive Branch Insider Threat Programs.”

McClatchy obtained a copy of the document, which was produced by an Insider Threat Task Force that was set up under Obama’s order and is headed by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Attorney General Eric Holder. McClatchy also obtained the group’s final policy guidance. The White House, the Justice Department and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined requests for both documents, neither of which is classified.

Although agencies and departments are still setting up their programs, some employees already are being urged to watch co-workers for “indicators” that include stress, divorce and financial problems.

When asked about the ineffectiveness of behavior profiling, Barlow said the policy “does not mandate” that employees report behavior indicators.

“It simply educates employees about basic activities or behavior that might suggest a person is up to improper activity,” he said.

“These do not require special talents. If you see someone reading classified documents they should not be reading, especially if this happens multiple times and the person appears nervous that you saw him, that is activity that is suspicious and should be reported,” Barlow said. “The insider threat team then looks at the surrounding facts and draws the conclusions about the activity.”

Departments and agencies, however, are given leeway to go beyond the White House’s basic requirements, prompting the Defense Department in its strategy to mandate that workers with clearances “must recognize the potential harm caused by unauthorized disclosures and be aware of the penalties they could face.” It equates unauthorized disclosures of classified information to “aiding the enemies of the United States.”



All departments and agencies involved in the program must closely track their employees’ online activities. The information gathered by monitoring, the administration documents say, “could be used against them in criminal, security, or administrative proceedings.” Experts who research such efforts say suspicious behaviors include accessing information that someone doesn’t need or isn’t authorized to see or downloading materials onto removable storage devices like thumb drives when such devices are restricted or prohibited.

“If you normally print 20 documents a week, well, what happens if the next week or the following week you have to print 50 documents or 100 documents? That could be at variance from your normal activity that could be identified and might be investigated,” said Randy Trzeciak, acting manager of the Computer Emergency Response Team Insider Threat Center at Carnegie Mellon University’s Software Engineering Institute.

“We’ve come up with patterns that we believe organizations might be able to consider when determining when someone might be progressing down the path to harm the organization,” said Trzeciak, whose organization has analyzed more than 800 cases and works with the government and private sector on cyber security.

But research and other programs that rely on profiling show it remains unproven, could make employees more resistant to reporting violations and might lead to spurious allegations.

The Pentagon, U.S. intelligence agencies and the Department of Homeland Security have spent tens of millions of dollars on an array of research projects. Yet after several decades, they still haven’t developed a list of behaviors they can use to definitively identify the tiny fraction of workers who might some day violate national security laws.

“We are back to the needle-in-a-haystack problem,” said Fienberg, the Carnegie Mellon professor.

“We have not found any silver bullets,” said Deana Caputo, the lead behavioral scientist at MITRE Corp., a nonprofit company working on insider threat efforts for U.S. defense, intelligence and law enforcement agencies. “We don’t have actually any really good profiles or pictures of a bad guy, a good guy gone bad or even the bad guy walking in to do bad things from the very beginning.”



Different agencies and departments have different lists of behavior indicators. Most have adopted the traditional red flags for espionage. They include financial stress, disregard for security practices, unexplained foreign travel, unusual work hours and unexplained or sudden wealth.

But agencies and their consultants have added their own indicators.

For instance, an FBI insider threat detection guide warns private security personnel and managers to watch for “a desire to help the ‘underdog’ or a particular cause,” a “James Bond Wannabe” and a “divided loyalty: allegiance to another person or company or to a country besides the United States.”

A report by the Deloitte consulting firm identifies “several key trends that are making all organizations particularly susceptible to insider threat today.” These trends include an increasingly disgruntled, post-Great Recession workforce and the entry of younger, “Gen Y” employees who were “raised on the Internet” and are “highly involved in social networking.”

Report from Deloitte

Some government programs that have embraced behavioral indicators have been condemned as failures. Perhaps the most heavily criticized is the Transportation Security Administration’s Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques, or SPOT, program.

The program, which has cost $878 million and employs 2,800 people, uses “behavior detection officers” to identify potential terrorists by scrutinizing airline passengers for signs of “stress, fear or deception.”

DHS’ inspector general excoriated the program, saying in a May 2013 report, “TSA cannot ensure that passengers at United States airports are screened objectively, show that the program is cost-effective or reasonably justify the program’s expansion.”

Interviews and internal complaints obtained by The New York Times quoted TSA officers as saying SPOT has led to ethnic and racial profiling by emphasizing certain profiles. They include Middle Easterners, Hispanics traveling to Miami and African-Americans wearing baseball caps backward.

Another problem with having employees report co-workers’ suspicious behaviors: They aren’t sure which ones represent security threats.

“Employees in the field are not averse to reporting genuine security infractions. In fact, under appropriate conditions they are quite willing to act as eyes and ears for the government,” said a 2005 study by the Pentagon’s Defense Personnel Security Research Center. “They are simply confused about precisely what is important enough to report. Many government workers anguish over reporting gray-area behaviors.”

Even so, the Pentagon is forging ahead with training Defense Department and contractor managers and security officials to set up insider threat offices, with one company emphasizing how its course is designed for novices.

“The Establishing an Insider Threat Program for Your Organization Course will take no more than 90 minutes to complete,” says the proposal.

Officials with the Army, the only government department contacted by McClatchy that agreed to discuss the issue, acknowledged that identifying potential insider threats is more complicated than relying on a list of behaviors.

Response from the Army

“What we really point out is if you’re in doubt, report, because that’s what the investigative personnel are there to do, is to get the bottom of ‘is this just noise or is this something that is really going on?’” said Larry Gillis, a senior Army counterintelligence and security official.

The Army implemented a tough program a year before Obama’s executive order after Maj. Nidal Hasan, a U.S.-born Muslim, allegedly killed 13 people in a 2009 rampage at Fort Hood, Texas. Hasan, who has not gone on trial, has said he was defending the Afghan Taliban.

Gillis said the Army didn’t want a program that would “get people to snitch on each other,” nor did it want to encourage stereotyping.

“We don’t have the luxury to make up reasons to throw soldiers out,” Gillis said. “It’s a big deal to remove a soldier from service over some minor issue. We don’t want to ruin a career over some false accusation.”

But some current and former U.S. officials and experts worry that Obama’s Insider Threat Program could lead to false or retaliatory accusations across the entire government, in part because security officials are granted access to information outside their usual purview.

These current and former U.S. officials and experts also ridiculed as overly zealous and simplistic the idea of using reports of suspicious behavior to predict potential insider threats. It takes years for professional spy-hunters to learn their craft, and relying on the observations of inexperienced people could lead to baseless and discriminatory investigations, they said.

“Anyone is an amateur looking at behavior here,” said Thomas Fingar, a former State Department intelligence chief who chaired the National Intelligence Council, which prepares top-secret intelligence analyses for the president, from 2005 to 2008.

Co-workers, Fingar said, should “be attentive” to colleagues’ personal problems in order to refer them to counseling, not to report them as potential security violators. “It’s simply because they are colleagues, fellow human beings,” he said.

Eric Feldman, a former inspector general of the National Reconnaissance Office, the super-secret agency that oversees U.S. spy satellites, expressed concern that relying on workers to report colleagues’ suspicious behaviors to security officials could create “a repressive kind of culture.”

“The answer to it is not to have a Stasi-like response,” said Feldman, referring to the feared secret police of communist East Germany. “You’ve removed that firewall between employees seeking help and the threat that any employee who seeks help could be immediately retaliated against by this insider threat office.”
 

   
Email: jlanday@mcclatchydc.com or mtaylor@mcclatchydc.com

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/07/09/196211/linchpin-for-obamas-plan-to-predict.html#storylink=cpy
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5176


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #1930 on: July 10, 2013, 06:15:27 AM »

Privacy fears grow as Obama weighs expanded gun-buyer database

Tue, Jun 18 2013



http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/09/us-usa-guns-privacy-idUSBRE96815820130709

 

Analysis & Opinion

By Roberta Rampton

WASHINGTON | Tue Jul 9, 2013 4:43pm EDT

(Reuters) - Mental health advocates are worried that the privacy of people who have received treatment for their illnesses could be jeopardized by a White House push to expand a database used to run background checks on gun buyers.

President Barack Obama said he wants to see state governments contribute more names of people barred from buying guns to the database, part of a sweeping set of executive actions he announced after a gunman killed 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, in December.

The database, called the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, is used by gun dealers to check whether a potential buyer is prohibited from owning a gun.

States are encouraged to report to the database the names of people who are not allowed to buy guns because they have been involuntarily committed to a mental hospital, or have been found to have serious mental illnesses by courts.

Many states do not participate. So the administration is looking at changing a health privacy rule - part of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) - to remove one potential barrier.

The Health and Human Services Department has not released a detailed proposal outlining possible changes to HIPAA. When it asked for comments on the idea, it was flooded with more than 2,000 letters and e-mails.

Many of the comments were from gun rights advocates, but a surprising number were from mental health professionals and advocates.

Health care professionals are sympathetic to Obama's goal of reducing gun violence, but worry that the privacy rule proposal could discourage people with mental illness from seeking treatment.

"I think it's a bad idea. It would really put a chill on people getting services," said Daniel Fisher, who was treated for schizophrenia decades ago, recovered, and became a well-known psychiatrist and mental health advocate in Massachusetts.

"They find it very scary, the idea of a national database that the government will keep," Fisher said.

MODEST PROPOSALS

After Newtown, addressing gun violence became one of Obama's top priorities, but Congress rejected his proposals to restrict certain types of guns and a measure that would have closed a loophole and required checks of the NICS database for more types of sales, such as those that take place at gun shows.

Those measures were fought by gun rights lobbying groups, which said they would infringe on their constitutional rights.

So the administration has been left with a series of smaller steps it can take without congressional approval, such as tweaking the health privacy law to make sure it does not prevent states from reporting names to the NICS database.

In some states, mental health data is stored by hospitals or health-related boards that are covered by the HIPAA law. The administration is looking at amending the privacy rule to give those agencies permission to disclose names to the database.

"This action would eliminate the excuse which is used by legislators and other officials for not reporting information to NICS," said Lindsay Nichols, an attorney with the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which advocates for tougher gun laws.

Nichols said privacy concerns are unfounded because only a limited amount of information would be disclosed to the database, and would be used only if someone with a severe mental illness who is not allowed to own a gun tried to buy one.

The Obama administration is conscious of the risk of scaring away people from treatment.

"Our actions will be carefully tailored to ensure patient confidentiality as well as public health and safety," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in April when she asked for comments.

The department is weighing the comments to determine its next steps, said Rachel Seeger, a spokeswoman.

The changes likely will take months to propose and finalize.

FEARS OF DISCLOSURE

The idea of expanding the database comes at a time when the government's collection of citizens' phone and internet data is in the headlines, after a former CIA contractor revealed top secret information about surveillance programs.

Mental health advocates worry that somehow, whether intentionally by a hacker or unintentionally through bureaucratic bungling, mental health data in the background check system could be made public.

"I don't think of myself as at all paranoid about this, but I do think that a lot of people worry that information may not be as secure as we all want to be reassured that it is," said James Jackson, executive director of Disability Rights New Mexico.

Advocates also argue that the inclusion of mental health data in a criminal database is unfair. Having the data included in the database infers that people with mental illnesses are dangerous and violent, even though the vast majority are not.

"The constant chronic coupling of gun violence with mental illness is just devastating," said Marilyn Martin, a policy analyst with Access Living, a group that works with people with disabilities in Chicago.

GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE REMAINS
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5176


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #1931 on: July 10, 2013, 12:27:24 PM »

Op/Ed
 

 7/10/2013 @ 12:35PM |28 views
 
Forget The Rule Of Law, President Obama Presumes To Rule By 'Royal Decree'
 


By Ken Hoagland

We kicked kings, royal decrees and secret courts out of America long ago–or did we?



   Did 'Consent Of The Governed' Deliver Us Obamacare And Bell, CA?  Capital FlowsCapital Flows Contributor

   Why The White House Is Panicking About ObamaCare  John GoodmanJohn Goodman Contributor

   Obamacare's California Insurance Premiums Are Soaring - This Is Fact  Peter FerraraPeter Ferrara Contributor

   Coming Soon To America: A Two-Tiered, Canadian-Style Health Care System  John GoodmanJohn Goodman Contributor

Now we have a President who declares which laws will be enforced and which citizens will be subject to those laws. Now, we have secret courts issuing rulings without public notice or argument. Now we have powerful federal agencies going after citizens who object.

In the imperial Presidency of Barack Obama, the government takeover of healthcare was enacted over the objections of a majority of citizens–even before repeated and solemn promises of no new taxes on the middle class were ruled false by the Supreme Court. And it gets worse.

Now the Administration has decreed that hundreds of billions of dollars in healthcare subsidies will be paid out in states that embrace ObamaCare–with no questions asked about eligibility. Neither income nor existing insurance coverage will be certified before taxpayer money is paid out. It is an open invitation to commit fraud.

In a similar announcement last week, big businesses, like four million citizens (most in pro-ObamaCare unions) are to receive one-year “waivers” by royal decree. There is no legal authority for this decision but that is not stopping him.

Even Congressional staffers and their bosses are now lobbying for their own exemptions. Why not? The committee staffers who wrote Obamacare exempted themselves along with Congressional leadership, the White House and Cabinet officers.

Gone is the very concept of the “Rule of Law” that holds that all citizens are equally subject to federal statutes enacted by representatives of the people. Gone is the concept that those who govern are subject to “consent of the governed”.

When past Presidents tried to seize unconstitutional power we relied on the judicial branch of government to assert the needed “checks and balances”. But this President is now simply ignoring two federal courts who have ruled illegal his appointments to the National Labor Relations Board.

Worse, secret courts are making rulings allowing spying on law-abiding citizens with no possible connection to international terrorism. King George had secret courts that rounded up suspects and condemned them without defense or public notice. It is why our Founding Fathers wrote the Fourth Amendment. And how can the governed give consent to such secret decisions? Until Mr. Snowden, they were unknown. .

Frustrated with a divided government and a divided people, Barack Obama has made war on those who disagree. Rogue IRS agents hardly explain how one citizen, Catherine Englebrecht (who started a group investigating voter fraud) found herself the subject of multiple FBI visits and surprise audits from a range of federal agencies, including the IRS. It is simply not believable that this abuse was not directed by powerful figures within this Administration–but the FBI has still not investigated.

Mr. Obama’s treatment of existing federal laws is equally contemptuous. He recently decreed that 800,000 illegal immigrants are no longer subject to applicable federal statutes. And, unwilling to fight for changes to the No Child Left Behind Act, he decided that the law could be ignored. Now, more than half the states have been granted waivers.

Welfare work rules? It was a monumentally successful policy reform embraced by both parties and strong majorities in both the House and Senate, representing widespread public belief that unrestricted welfare payments were actually increasing poverty and dependency. This President has decided that this law, like others, is optional, shifting the entire concept of the Rule of Law and the will of the people to his discretion. All hail the King.

This President has shown through his many actions that he believes that consent of the governed is an outmoded idea that can be ignored. Congress can be ignored. The courts can be ignored. The Constitution that he is sworn to uphold and the Attorney General is sworn to enforce is optional.

We kicked royalty out of our country long ago but royal decrees are here again. Our grand experiment in personal liberty is in danger of being erased from within.

Ken Hoagland is chairman of “Restore America’s Voice Foundation.” His group has delivered two million petitions and hundreds of thousands of phone calls to the House and Senate demanding a new Senate vote on ObamaCare that honestly describes both the taxes levied for the program and the performance promises that have proven false.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5176


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #1932 on: July 10, 2013, 01:19:09 PM »

Obama's Violating Oath, Constitution in Implementing Obamacare
Townhall.com ^  | July 10, 2013 | Terry Jeffrey

Posted on Wednesday, July 10, 2013 3:24:03 PM by Kaslin



The Constitution requires the president to take an oath or affirmation that says: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Article II, Section 3 says, "He shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

In his unequal and discriminatory implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare), President Barack Obama is now violating both his constitutional oath of office and his constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws.

The Obamacare law mandates that individuals must maintain health-insurance coverage for themselves and their dependents or pay a penalty. Similarly, it requires employers with 50 or more full-time workers to provide those workers with health-insurance coverage or pay a penalty.

The separate sections of the law spelling out these two mandates conclude with identical language: "The amendments made by this section shall apply to periods beginning after December 31, 2013."

For Obama to fulfill his constitutional oath of office and faithfully execute the Obamacare law, he would need to take care that his administration enforced this statutory Dec. 31, 2013, health-insurance deadline on both individuals and employers.

But Obama is not going to do that.

On July 2 -- while Congress was out of town for the July 4 holiday -- a Treasury Department bureaucrat posted a blog on the department's website announcing that the administration was not going to enforce the legal deadline on employers. It said nothing about suspending the deadline for individuals.

In other words, the administration would not apply the law equally on individuals and businesses.

"The administration is announcing that it will provide an additional year before the ACA mandatory employer and insurer reporting requirements begin," wrote Assistant Treasury Secretary for Tax Policy Mark J. Mazur.

Again, the law says: "The amendments made by this section shall apply to periods beginning after December 31, 2013." But the bureaucrat declared: "The administration is announcing that it will provide an additional year ..."

Which trumps which: the law or the assistant secretary's blog posting? Clearly, the Obama administration believes its bureaucratic dictates can overrule the law.

It is not difficult to discern Obama's political rationale for declining to faithfully enforce his own health care plan. Enforcing the legally mandated Dec. 31 health-insurance deadline on businesses could be disastrous for the president's allies in the 2014 midterm elections. That, in turn, could set back Obama's efforts to keep Obamacare from being repealed.

To save his law, he must not fully enforce it -- now. He must only fully enforce it when the chance that the people could achieve its repeal through the processes of representative government has been attenuated as much as possible. That is why Obama and his allies originally wrote the deadlines of Dec. 31, 2013, directly into the black letters of the law. They thought that was safely after the 2012 elections.

But December 2013 turned out not to be as safe as they originally calculated.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports that the national unemployment rate was 7.6 percent in June -- the same as it was in May. That makes 54 straight months -- beginning in January 2009, when Obama first took his oath of office -- that unemployment has remained at 7.5 percent or higher.

That is by far the longest stretch of 7.5-percent-plus unemployment since the BLS started keeping unemployment statistics in 1948. The second-longest period was only 32 months. Obama has already beaten that by almost two years.

Indisputably, Obama has the worst unemployment record of any president in the post-World War II era -- and his signature legislative achievement was about to make his record even worse.

The mandate that businesses must provide health insurance or pay a penalty if they hire a 50th full-time workers is like a Berlin Wall keeping Americans from jobs.

The National Federation of Independent Business has calculated that the minimum fine a business would pay for hiring its 50th full-time employee would be $40,000 per year -- unless it was capable of paying far more than that for Obamacare-approved health insurance for all its full-time employees.

If a business did not insure its employees, it would pay an additional $2,000 fine, on top of the first $40,000 in fines, for each additional full-time worker it hired beyond 50.

The fine on individuals for not buying government-approved health insurance is a penalty on individual liberty. The fine on employers is a penalty on job creation.

Obama figured his allies in Congress could get away with imposing a penalty on individual liberty. But, with unemployment still at 7.6 percent, he figured they could not get away with imposing a penalty on job creation.

So he violated his oath to preserve the Constitution, flouted his duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and decided not to provide equal protection of the law to individuals and businesses.

Obama's edict: Businesses do not have to comply with the Dec. 31 deadline he signed into law. You do.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5176


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #1933 on: July 11, 2013, 01:24:54 PM »


'Signature Strikes' and the President's Empty Rhetoric on Drones

Posted: 07/10/2013 5:56 pm
 

 
On March 17, 2011, four Hellfire missiles, fired from a U.S. drone, slammed into a bus depot in the town of Datta Khel in Pakistan's Waziristan border region. An estimated 42 people were killed. It was just another day in America's so-called war on terror. To most Americans the strike was likely only a one-line blip on the evening news, if they even heard about it at all.

But what really happened that day? Who were those 42 people who were killed, and what were they doing? And what effect did the strike have? Did it make us safer? These are the questions raised, and answered, in a must-watch new video just released by Robert Greenwald's Brave New Foundation.

The attack was what has come to be called a "signature strike." This is when the CIA or the military makes the decision to fire based not on who the targets are but on whether they are exhibiting suspicious patterns of behavior thought to be "signatures" of terrorists (as seen on video from the drone). Given that the CIA is killing people it's never identified based on their behavior, one would assume a certain rigor has gone into defining the criteria for the kinds of behavior that get one killed.

So what's a signature behavior? "The definition is a male between the ages of 20 and 40," former ambassador to Pakistan Cameron Munter told the Daily Beast's Tara McKelvey. "My feeling is one man's combatant is another man's -- well, a chump who went to a meeting." The New York Times quoted a senior State Department official as saying that when the CIA sees "three guys doing jumping jacks," the agency thinks it is a terrorist training camp.

That day in Datta Khel, the signature behavior was a meeting, or "jirga," which is an assembly of tribal elders who convene to settle a local dispute. In this case, a conflict over a chromite mine was being resolved. And, in fact, the elders had informed the Pakistani army about the meeting 10 days in advance. "So this was an open, public event that pretty much everyone in the community and surrounding area knew about," says Stanford law professor James Cavallaro in the video.

Pretty much everyone in the community and surrounding area. But not U.S. intelligence. Or the head of the CIA. Or the president. Or the guy in Virginia or Nevada or some other undisclosed location pressing the button on the drone controller.

And so, almost all the tribal elders of the area were killed by the drone missiles. Akbar Ahmed is a retired Pakistani ambassador to the UK and now a professor at American University. "It's feeding into the sense that no one is safe, nowhere is safe, nothing is safe," he says in the video. "Even a jirga, the most cherished, the most treasured institution of the tribal areas. So we cannot even sit down and resolve an issue -- that is not safe anymore." As professor Cavallaro put it, "the loss of 40 leaders on a single day is devastating for that community."

And far from building stability in places like Pakistan, something the administration talks a lot about, in fact the strike actually removed, in one fell swoop, the most stabilizing forces in an entire community.

Jalal Manzar Khail was at his nearby home that day and remembers the attack, which also claimed four of his cousins. Khail's six-year-old son was later afraid -- not unreasonably -- to sleep in their house. "We cannot go home," Khail recounts his son saying. "We have to spend the night in the tree." Khail adds, "Convey my message to Americans: The CIA and America have to stop ... they're just creating more enemies and this will last for hundreds of years."

Khail's message is not uncommon. "At the end of almost every interview I did," Greenwald told me, "the person would say, 'Please tell President Obama I am not a terrorist and he should stop killing my family.'"

There was a time when President Obama might have been more receptive to that message. In the book Kill or Capture: The War on Terror and the Soul of the Obama Presidency, Daniel Klaidman recounts another drone strike just days after President Obama had been inaugurated. Among those killed were a pro-government tribal elder and two of his children. Obama "was not a happy man," an official told Klaidman.

The concept of the signature strike was then explained to him. "Mr. President," said CIA deputy director Steve Kappes, "we can see that there are a lot of military-age males down there, men associated with terrorist activity, but we don't always know who they are." Obama responded, "That's not good enough for me."

It would appear that he has since warmed to the concept. It's unknown how many have died -- combatants or civilians -- in signature strikes, since the administration still doesn't acknowledge that they happen. In February, Robert Gibbs told MSNBC's Chris Hayes that when Gibbs became Obama's press secretary he was told not to acknowledge the drone program at all. "You're not even to discuss that it exists," Gibbs remembers being told.

Of course, since then, given how increasingly ludicrous -- and insulting to the country -- this stance appeared, the administration has acknowledged the drone strikes, though not much more. But estimated numbers have been compiled by other sources. As Klaidman points out, by the time Obama accepted his Nobel Peace Prize 11 months into his presidency, he'd already ordered more drone strikes than George W. Bush had in his entire presidency. By the end of 2012, he'd ordered six times as many strikes in Pakistan as Bush had. One study, conducted by professors from Stanford (including Cavallaro) and NYU, found that from 2004 to 2012, between 474 and 881 civilians were killed in Pakistan drone strikes. This includes 176 children -- the subject of another Greenwald video, which I encourage you to watch. For fiscal year 2013, the administration has requested $26.16 billion for the drone program -- at least that's the portion that we know about.

In a speech in May at the National Defense University, President Obama gave what was billed as a major national security address meant to clarify his policy on drones, surveillance, and Guantanamo. It seemed to signal a transition in his approach. "With a decade of experience to draw from," he said in the hour-long address, "now is the time to ask ourselves hard questions -- about the nature of today's threats, and how we should confront them." In parts of the speech he even made a good case against the use of drones:

... force alone cannot make us safe. We cannot use force everywhere that a radical ideology takes root; and in the absence of a strategy that reduces the well-spring of extremism, a perpetual war -- through drones or Special Forces or troop deployments -- will prove self-defeating, and alter our country in troubling ways.

He also admitted that "U.S. strikes have resulted in civilian casualties." This was a far cry from the claim made in 2011 by John Brennan, at the time the president's chief counterterrorism advisor, that "there hasn't been a single collateral death" from the strikes. He later amended this to say there's been no "credible evidence of collateral deaths." This ridiculous claim was demolished in an article in Foreign Policy by Micah Zenko, who concluded that Brennan either doesn't get the same briefings given to other administration officials or he doesn't have Internet access. Or "he was lying." In any case, it didn't stop his confirmation as director of the CIA.

In his speech, President Obama also allowed that "America cannot take strikes wherever we choose -- our actions are bound by consultations with partners, and respect for state sovereignty." Pakistan might differ on that one. After the Datta Khel strike, some of the victims' families filed suit, resulting in a ruling by the Pakistan court that the strikes are illegal.

In fact, the president opened his speech by proclaiming that "our alliances are strong, and so is our standing in the world." Well, the world's a big place. And there are some places where our standing has larger implications for our national security than others. In Pakistan, for instance, according to a recent Pew Foundation poll, 74 percent consider the U.S. to be an enemy. In the last year of the Bush administration, the U.S. was regarded favorably by 19 percent of the Pakistan people. By 2012, that had fallen to 12 percent. Bruce Riedel, a former CIA official and now a scholar at Brookings, says the strikes are "deadly to any hope of reversing the downward slide in ties with the fastest growing nuclear weapons state in the world."

The president also claimed that "conventional airpower or missiles are far less precise than drones, and likely to cause more civilian casualties and local outrage." Wrong again. In the Guardian last week, Spencer Ackerman reports on a study by Larry Lewis, of the Center for Naval Analysis, that found that drones strikes in Afghanistan were 10 times more likely to cause civilian casualties than strikes from manned fighters. "Drones aren't magically better at avoiding civilians than fighter jets," said study co-author Sarah Holewinski. "When pilots flying jets were given clear directives and training on civilian protection, they were able to lower civilian casualty rates."

In his speech, President Obama also said that "we must make decisions based not on fear, but hard-earned wisdom." The hard-earned wisdom the drone study was based on -- data in Afghanistan from 2010 to 2011 -- was presumably available to the administration. Had the White House been interested in finding out which method was safer, they could have. But they chose not to and instead just repeated the self-serving, conventional -- and demonstrably wrong -- "wisdom." It's hard to grant the mantle of actual wisdom to that kind of decision-making.

But the president also said that he was going to explore "other options for increased oversight," and that he'd signed "clear guidelines" for "oversight and accountability" just the day before. "Before any strike is taken," he declared, "there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured -- the highest standard we can set."

Though signature strikes were not mentioned, some assumed language like "near certainty" and "highest standard" meant they were no longer going to be used. That assumption was proven wrong as just days later an administration official told the New York Times that signature strikes will continue in Pakistan, a statement the Times' Andrew Rosenthal wrote "seem[ed] to contradict the entire tenor of Mr. Obama's speech."

Two weeks later, on June 9, a drone struck a vehicle in Yemen, killing not only several supposed militants, but also a boy named Abdulaziz. He was 10 years old. "Near certainty" and those new "clear guidelines" apparently weren't enough for Abdulaziz. The administration refused to comment on the boy's death, or the strike itself. So much for accountability and transparency. And just last week, a strike in Waziristan killed 16 people and wounded five others.

In addition to asking some of those "hard questions" about the war on terror, it's time to start admitting some clearly obvious hard truths. And one of those is that the assumption that drone strikes make us safer -- even when they're on target and used with a threshold of absolute certainty -- just isn't true. So, it's not a choice, as the administration would have us believe, between safety and compassion. "As Commander-in-Chief, I must weigh these heartbreaking tragedies against the alternatives," said Obama in his speech. "To do nothing in the face of terrorist networks would invite far more civilian casualties." As if those are our only choices -- killing boys like Abdulaziz or doing nothing.

The president continued: "Let us remember that the terrorists we are after target civilians, and the death toll from their acts of terrorism against Muslims dwarfs any estimate of civilian casualties from drone strikes."

But he says that as if "the terrorists" are some set pool of people, and all we have to do is find them and kill them. Yes, given that terrorists target civilians, how about policies that don't create more terrorists in the first place? After that strike in Datta Khel, what do you suppose happened to the support of any moderate or pro-American or pro-democracy leaders in the community? (I'm speaking of the ones who weren't killed, of course.) Was their standing enhanced? Did the strike help them make their case?

Sure, we killed some people. Some of them were undoubtedly "bad guys" -- but has this made us safer? In the video, Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, says it's not about casualty numbers. "The Vietnam body count as a metric was flawed," he says, "and the drone strikes are the same way ... Tell me how we are winning if every time we kill one, we create 10? That's not a metric that tells you if you're winning. What tells you if you're winning is if Muslims decide not to support the radical fringe." David Kilcullen, former senior advisor to General David Petraeus, agrees: "[T]he blowback and the aspect of political destabilization -- those things ultimately do make us less safe."

It seems clear that the White House doesn't want debate on this issue any more than it welcomed debate, as the president claimed, on the NSA's surveillance program after the Snowden revelations. What the administration seems to want is to make speeches in which they claim good intentions, high standards, and a commitment to transparency -- and then declare everything else classified and off-limits.

That's why Greenwald's new video is so valuable. It gives us a glimpse, even if the White House won't, of what's being done in our name. "We are working," Greenwald told me, "to use the video to get Congress to introduce legislation to ban signature strikes." So watch it, and then start the debate the president claims to want. The missiles from the drones might be exploding in Pakistan and Afghanistan and Yemen, but the fallout will impact us here at home for years to come.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5176


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #1934 on: July 11, 2013, 01:37:28 PM »

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/18-and-counting-plum-ambassador-posts-go-obama-campaign-bundlers


 Angry
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5176


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #1935 on: July 11, 2013, 01:38:33 PM »



http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/07/11/dominicans_rage_against_obamas_gay_ambassador_pick


Dominicans Freak Out Over Obama's Gay Ambassador Pick

 Posted By John Hudson   Thursday, July 11, 2013 - 1:55 PM   Share
 

 
Opposition to President Obama's nominee for U.S. ambassador to the Dominican Republic reached a fever pitch this week as religious organizers stage a "Lunes Negro" or Black Monday protest against James "Wally" Brewster.

If confirmed, Brewster will be the first openly gay ambassador to the country, a prospect that is not going over well with some segments of this conservative Christian country of 9 million people. Local reports indicate that church leaders are pressuring the government to reject Brewster's nomination and calling on the faithful to dress in black on Monday in solidarity against him.

Praise Christian Church Pastor Sauford Medrano is quoted in Diario Libre as saying that Brewster could cause "the U.S. promotion of gender beliefs in the country." That supposedly violates a general education law in the country that "all the Dominican education system is based on Christian principles."

The report was flagged by Cable reader and Dominican expat Will Williams, an architect in New York City. He said he witnessed the animosity toward the ambassador in a visit last weekend. "I could confirm myself that the opposition has been even worse from what have been reflected in the news," he said. "As a Dominican, I feel ashamed this is happening in my country ... The evangelical church is convoking the general public to reject this ambassador ... [It's] asking the public to show a black band, black banner or ribbon on cars or dress showing rejection."

In a statement to The Cable, Monica Trasandes, director of Spanish Language Media at GLAAD, defended the president's pick. "We stand with LGBT advocates in the Dominican Republic, who are calling on leaders to quit categorizing their country's population as homophobic," she said. "We hope that James Brewster will help educate those still adversely affected by homophobia and applaud the work of LGBT advocates in the Dominican Republic."

When news of opposition to Brewster first began, the Dominican embassy in Washington told The Cable that the country supports the president's pick. "The Dominican Republic is a democracy with a vibrant media and a wide diversity of opinions on every conceivable topic," the statement read. "However, it is the position of the Government of the Dominican Republic that a person´s sexual preference is strictly a personal matter and it looks forward to working constructively with Mr. Brewster in his official capacity once his nomination is approved by the U.S. Senate."

In June, the AP spoke with Catholic and evangelical church leaders who opposed the nomination. "If he arrives, he'll suffer and will be forced to leave," Vicar Pablo Cedano, told the AP. He said the pick showed "a lack of respect, of consideration, that they send us that kind of person as ambassador." Rev. Cristobal Cardozo, leader of the Dominican Evangelical Fraternity, said the appointment was offensive. "It's an insult to good Dominican customs," he said.

Brewster was a fundraiser for Obama and currently works at the Chicago consulting firm SB&K. 


 
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5176


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #1936 on: July 11, 2013, 02:26:50 PM »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/10/obama-donors-top-embassy-jobs-rewards


Corruption Defined
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5176


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #1937 on: July 16, 2013, 06:55:21 AM »


Obamacare contractor under investigation in Britain


By Sarah Kliff, Published: July 15 at 10:21 pmE-mail the writer
   
 





















submit to reddit



The British government has launched an investigation of Serco Group, parent company of the firm recently awarded $1.2 billion to manage key elements of the U.S. health-care law’s rollout.

(Photo by Jessica Rinaldi/Reuters)
(Photo by Jessica Rinaldi/Reuters)
 
That contract, announced in late June, is among the largest Affordable Care Act grants made so far, expected to cover the hiring of 1,500 workers who will process a wave of health coverage applications.

In the United Kingdom, Serco Group reportedly overbilled the government by “tens of millions of pounds” under a contract to monitor offenders on parole and individuals released on bail, according to an audit conducted by the country’s Justice Ministry.

The British government plans to review all of its contracts with the U.K.-based firm and put on hold a separate contract Serco had secured with the country’s prison system.

“They do not believe that anything dishonest has taken place,” Chris Grayling, the British justice minister, told Parliament regarding Serco. “But we have agreed that if the audit does show dishonest action, we will jointly call in the relevant authorities to address it.”

The audit will not affect Serco Inc., the Reston-based branch of the global firm that won the health-law contract, according to spokesman Alan Hill. The global Serco Group has said it will comply with the British investigation.



 

“We’re moving forward with the contract,” Hill said. “We’ve got a tight deadline to get everybody trained and do all the testing.”

Hill said there is a “firewall” between the American arm of the company, which often handles sensitive government information, and its overseas parent. “When a foreign entity is involved, I think that means that U.S. interests are protected,” he said.

Serco’s $1.2 billion contract with the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services is the firm’s first health law award, Hill said. The company does, however, have experience handling large U.S. government jobs through contracts with the State Department to process visa applications and with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, where it oversees patent requests.

Serco has already begun recruiting workers for offices that will be in Arkansas, Alabama and Kentucky. Workers will handle applications for health coverage that come in through the state insurance marketplaces, which launch Oct. 1.

“Serco is a highly skilled company that has a proven track record in providing cost-effective services to numerous other federal agencies,” Medicare spokesman Brian Cook said. “The company has provided exceptional records management and processing support to other federal agencies, similar to work they will do for the marketplace.”

The British investigation centers on Serco and another contractor, G4S, which provide the prison system with services to track individuals outside correctional facilities.

An audit found the two companies to have charged the British government “for people who were back in prison and had had their tags removed, people who had left the country, and those who had never been tagged in the first place but who had instead been returned to court,” Justice Secretary Chris Grayling told the British Parliament.

In a small number of cases, he said, the companies continued charging the government for its monitoring services after the individual had died.
Report to moderator   Logged
Rhino
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 1262


Jesus Christ is lord and savior


View Profile
« Reply #1938 on: July 16, 2013, 11:49:39 PM »

I know you already knew this numbers man... but a black president didn't change a damn thing! Or a white black as they say nowadays Smiley I mean what the hell do they want? The most powerful country in the world Sad
Report to moderator   Logged

X
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5176


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #1939 on: July 19, 2013, 05:32:45 AM »

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/on-the-health-care-mandate-obama-reaches-beyond-the-law/2013/07/18/d442aefc-efb4-11e2-a1f9-ea873b7e0424_story.html

Con Law scholar, a real one, says Obama is going beyond Nixon in his crimes
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5176


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #1940 on: July 26, 2013, 10:46:32 AM »

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/26/obama-whistleblower-website_n_3658815.html

More lies and deceptions
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5176


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #1941 on: July 26, 2013, 12:20:59 PM »

Obama Promises Disappear from Web
Sunlight Foundation ^  | 26Jul 2013 | John Wonderlich

Posted on Friday, July 26, 2013 2:56:56 PM



Change.gov, the website created by the Obama transition team in 2008, has effectively disappeared sometime over the last month.

While the front splash page for Change.gov has linked to the main White House website for years, until recently, you could still continue on to see the materials and agenda laid out by the administration. This was a particularly helpful resource for those looking to compare Obama's performance in office against his vision for reform, laid out in detail on Change.gov.

According to the Internet Archive, the last time that content (beyond the splash page) was available was June 8th -- last month.

Why the change?

Here's one possibility, from the administration's ethics agenda:

Protect Whistleblowers: Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government. Obama will ensure that federal agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process. It may be that Obama's description of the importance of whistleblowers went from being an artifact of his campaign to a political liability. It wouldn't be the first time administration positions disappear from the internet when they become inconvenient descriptions of their assurances.


(Excerpt) Read more at sunlightfoundation.com ...
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5176


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #1942 on: July 26, 2013, 07:46:36 PM »

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/07/26/assange-journalism-doomed-if-manning-convicted-of-aiding-enemy

 Angry
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5176


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #1943 on: July 31, 2013, 05:20:19 AM »

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/07/30/the-insiders-does-the-white-house-think-no-one-will-notice-the-obamacare-hypocrisy



Great article - slammed into the mat for his lies
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5176


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #1944 on: July 31, 2013, 10:06:10 AM »

Report: Obama 'hot, rude and snarky" to House Dems in Closed Door Meeting
 Wednesday, July 31, 2013 | Kristinn

Posted on Wednesday, July 31, 2013 12:38:38 PM by kristinn

CNN's Dana Bash reports via Twitter that Barack Obama was incredibly arrogant in a private meeting on Capitol Hill with Congressional Democrats today:

apparently POTUS got hot with dem ed perlmutter for asking about karry summers (sic) for fed chief. POTUS went off about wash game & "huff post"

ALso told POTUS was snarky w/ member asking about jobs in his district. Dem told me "he cant get thru a meeting of dems w/out chastising us"

Dem source tells me POTUS was "rude and dismissive" to freshman dem maloney who asked about a loan guarantee program/jobs for ny district






LOL!!!!!   FAIL FAIL FAIL you Kenyan piece of trash
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5176


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #1945 on: August 01, 2013, 07:14:12 PM »

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/08/01/Obama-Promises-to-Look-Into-Giving-Congressional-Staffers-a-Break-on-Obamacare


Obama deserves to rot in hell for his crimes.  Worthless communist traitor
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5176


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #1946 on: August 12, 2013, 11:29:59 AM »

http://www.infowars.com/official-embassy-attack-threat-had-no-basis-in-fact


Report to moderator   Logged
Option D
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 16106


Landslide Coming?


View Profile
« Reply #1947 on: August 12, 2013, 12:12:01 PM »

what about Ronald Reagon. Does he need to rot in hell for his crimes?
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5176


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #1948 on: August 15, 2013, 01:38:54 PM »

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100963714


Figures - anything Obama ever touches turns to absolute shit
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5176


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #1949 on: August 20, 2013, 07:38:05 PM »

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/08/73971-mindblowing-252-well-cited-examples-of-obama-corruption-cronyism-lying-lawbreaking


 Sad
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 ... 76 77 [78] 79 80 ... 82   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!