Stores hope to boost sales with facial recognition technology
Privacy advocates concerned when faces, names are matched
Feb 23 2012
ORLANDO, Fla.
A decade ago, in the Dreamworks movie "Minority Report," billboards spoke directly to the characters in the movie and even knew their names.
In just weeks, that science fiction plot will become reality as some businesses in Central Florida will know who you are when you walk through their door.
It's thanks to enhanced facial recognition technology.
It's not unusual to see surveillance cameras. They’re inside businesses, outside of homes, even on the streets. In public places, people are comfortable with knowing those cameras are there for safety, but this new technology allows cameras to not just see what people do, but know who they are.
Shops and malls across the country are already taking this a step further.
There are now billboards, made by Immersive Labs in Manhattan, and kiosks that cater ads to your age and demographic.
For example, if a woman was to walk up to a mall directory, a camera inside would take a photo. It will recognize her gender, age and race and instantly provide an ad for the appropriate products. So, if the shopper is a 30-year-old woman, she might see adds for makeup, shoes and clothing.
Industry expert Rafe Needleman believes it's just a matter of time before stores not only to recognize you, but track your spending habits.
“When you walk into a store, it might know who you are just when you walk in and give you deals based on past purchases,” said Needleman.
But not everyone wants to be recognized.
And the Federal Trade Commission worries about the time when technology becomes so advanced that your social media profiles are scraped for information.
Retailers would then have a face, name and maybe much more.
"It's not out of the question that 10 years from now we'll walk down the street and people will be wearing camouflage so they're not picked up by facial recognition trackers all over the place," said Mark Eichorn of the FTC.
In fact, researchers with Carnegie Mellon University used facial recognition technology to identify college students who volunteered to be photographed for their study. By taking those photos and comparing them to photos found on social networking sites, such as Facebook, they were able to identify almost a third of them. That means they had profiles, 'likes,' interests and possibly family information.
Researchers took the study a step further and used other publicly available data to predict partial Social Security numbers.
As for the technology in use now, retailers say they are not saving the photos or the information that is attached to the pictures. They say they're simply using the information to serve you better.
Banks are using it to identify customers and prevent fraud. Hotels are using it to know when honor program guests arrive.
This spring, bars in Gainesville will begin using cameras that will do more than just capture the faces of the people inside. The technology will also determine their gender and age. Using an app called SceneTap on their smartphone, potential patrons can use that data before deciding whether to go inside.
Bars in Orlando and Miami may begin using the software by the end of this year.
SOURCE: Allison McGinley, Lisa Bell, - ClickOrlando.Com
Friday, February 24, 2012
Hey Mr Obama. 2 Murdered over Muslim Book Burning. Is that appology you gave still in valid?
Drudge Headlines:
Afghan soldier kills two American troops at protests...
Taliban: Kill foreigners over Koran burnings...
Riots...
Obama 'deeply regrets'...
Gingrich: Apology to Karzai an outrage...
Question: What kind of leader accepts murder as an acceptable reaction to an accidental book burning?
Answer: A Pansy-ass one?
SOURCE
Afghan soldier kills two American troops at protests...
Taliban: Kill foreigners over Koran burnings...
Riots...
Obama 'deeply regrets'...
Gingrich: Apology to Karzai an outrage...
Question: What kind of leader accepts murder as an acceptable reaction to an accidental book burning?
Answer: A Pansy-ass one?
SOURCE
A Liberal Parent's Guide to Control: Proper Use of Physical and Mental Child Abuse
Thursday, February 23, 2012
STAMFORD -- A North Stamford father trying to make his pre-teenaged son listen to President Barack Obama's State of the Union speech last month was arrested on a warrant Wednesday and accused of striking his son with a coffee mug when the youth would not pay attention.
Mohamed Shohan, 49, of 55 Mather Road, Stamford, was charged with third-degree assault, disorderly conduct and risk of injury to a child. He was released after posting $5,000 bond and will be arraigned on the charges at state Superior Court in Stamford Thursday.
Youth Bureau Sgt. Joseph Kennedy said police were made aware of the assault Jan. 27 when the youth was brought to Stamford Hospital for treatment of an injury to his face. When police interviewed the 11-year-old boy, he told them the two sat down at home to watch the address the day after his father recorded it, Kennedy said.
When the boy kept acting out, the father lost his temper and grabbed a coffee mug his son was holding and hit him in the face with it, causing a bruise to the bridge of his nose, it is alleged.
When interviewed, Shohan could not explain how his son was injured, police said. Police then obtained an arrest warrant for Shohan.
"The father ended up overreacting quite a bit," Kennedy said.
SOURCE: Stamford Advocate
STAMFORD -- A North Stamford father trying to make his pre-teenaged son listen to President Barack Obama's State of the Union speech last month was arrested on a warrant Wednesday and accused of striking his son with a coffee mug when the youth would not pay attention.
Mohamed Shohan, 49, of 55 Mather Road, Stamford, was charged with third-degree assault, disorderly conduct and risk of injury to a child. He was released after posting $5,000 bond and will be arraigned on the charges at state Superior Court in Stamford Thursday.
Youth Bureau Sgt. Joseph Kennedy said police were made aware of the assault Jan. 27 when the youth was brought to Stamford Hospital for treatment of an injury to his face. When police interviewed the 11-year-old boy, he told them the two sat down at home to watch the address the day after his father recorded it, Kennedy said.
When the boy kept acting out, the father lost his temper and grabbed a coffee mug his son was holding and hit him in the face with it, causing a bruise to the bridge of his nose, it is alleged.
When interviewed, Shohan could not explain how his son was injured, police said. Police then obtained an arrest warrant for Shohan.
"The father ended up overreacting quite a bit," Kennedy said.
SOURCE: Stamford Advocate
3 Ways to Take Birth Control Out of the Presidential Race
At least for a few minutes, if not longer...
February 22, 2012
In the heat of a presidential election season, The Washington Post disingenuously asks, "Birth control as election issue. Why?"
The title is disingenuous (methinks) because it's clear that the main reason why we are talking about this is the rightly controversial mandate in President Obama's health care reform plan that virtually all employers, including those for whom contraception is religiously proscribed or not a core business focus, give their employees free-to-them contraceptives.
Well, that and the current leader in the Republican search for a losing presidential nominee rarely seems to miss an opportunity to diss anything that makes getting pregnant tougher. But let's face it, long after the term Santorum exists only under vine-covered ruins of safe-search-off Google queries, we'll still be talking about the beast-with-two-backs in public policy venues. Or at least in JFK-themed memoirs.
But in the hopes of moving past the issue and never having to hear about state-mandated "vaginal probing" at least until tonight's GOP debate (a series that has now tied Gunsmoke and Meet the Press for longevity and coma-induction), I propose three relatively frictionless ways to take birth control out of current political discussion.
1. Scrap the employer mandate, which is just as problematic as the mandate that all god's children need to show proof of health insurance as a condition of drawing a breath. Apart from all the other issues about how to pay for health care, an employer-based system is just a mess (not least of which because most companies can't be expected to know what the hell they're doing in picking and choosing for the needs of all their workers).
If employers want to help their workers pay for health care, they can give them money - preferably taxed or not taxed as normal income to minimize economic inefficiencies - to pick and choose among the myriad of competing health-care options out there (and we all know even more options would come online if workers were en masse picking health insurance like we do car insurance). I think the individual mandate is screwed-up and unconstitutional, but scrapping the employer mandate doesn't even have anything to do with that. So it's something that even reform advocates could get behind.
Think about it: If the goal of Obama's health care reform was to guarantee universal coverage for people (and it won't do that, but never mind), all it has to do is decree that everybody needs to have coverage. Businesses would then be able to either keep offering coverage, give a cashout for at least a big portion of the cost of foregone benefits, or just cut that portion of their expenses. If they chose the latter, their employees would squawk or walk if they didn't get most of what they want. Even in a crap economy.
2. Stop searching for old Rick Santorum quotes. Whether he's talking about Satan's designs on the good ol' US of A or yammering on about the libertinism made possible by Trojan Twizzler-flavored condoms or what have you, Santo has been out of office and on the rubber-chicken (not that kind of rubber!) circuit long enough to provide years worth of oddball quotes.
3. Stop having sex. It's already happening among high schoolers whose frequency rates declined during the Clinton years (can you blame them?), so maybe the children will lead us on this issue, as they do in so many other areas of life (they are, after all and god help us all, the leaders of tomorrow).
A steely-eyed appraisal of each of these options, alas, yields the plain truth that none is likely to happen.
But at the very least, can we acknowledge that forcing all sorts of lifestyle issues into a realm not simply of public discussion but one of legal coercion is a very bad thing? Conservatives and liberals characteristically make an Evel Knievel-style leap from deciding that some activity is good or bad to decreeing with all the force of law that said activity should be banned, subsidized, or mandated.
That's never a good idea, even as that very mind-set pervades local, state, and national politics. If liberals want to keep the Rick Santorums of the world out of their bedrooms, all they need to do is renounce the idea that even people they agree with have the right to sniff around in private quarters. And if conservatives are afraid that Lord Obama is going to force them into sexual-reeducation camps or start wrapping state-sanctioned school lunches in rimming squares made from 50 percent recycled materials or whatever, then they simply need to admit that rendering unto Caesar doesn't give them the right to go all Gladys Kravitz on the neighbors.
It is hard enough to work alongside people on a daily basis without having to wonder about what sorts of health problems, sexual proclivities, and inherited diseases they have. I think about this because I work with people such as Matt Welch, whose life choices, particularly when it comes to rooting for the baseball Angels (what town are they falsely claiming to represent today?), leave me alternating between laughter, sadness, and fear that he's going to shoot up the office. Isn't it enough that two strangers, raised on different coasts by different people, can get along well enough to write a pretty widely praised book that costs just $17.15 (hardcover)/$11.50 (Kindle) at Amazon and has been called "the up-to-date statement on libertarianism," "an inspiring vision," and a better beach read than Ludwig von Mises' Human Action? Must we also be yoked together for all eternity like Holmes and Moriarity falling into Reichenbach Falls because of goddamned stupid health-care policy?
God, I hope not. And I hope that at least for the last 30 seconds or so, you were not thinking about contraception, Barack Obama, Rick Santorum, or the events of this coming fall, when regardless of how you vote, who you root for, and what happens, you will be at least mostly disgusted at the turn of events on Election Day. Just like Angels fans every October but one.
SOURCE: Nick Gillespie - Reason.com
February 22, 2012
In the heat of a presidential election season, The Washington Post disingenuously asks, "Birth control as election issue. Why?"
The title is disingenuous (methinks) because it's clear that the main reason why we are talking about this is the rightly controversial mandate in President Obama's health care reform plan that virtually all employers, including those for whom contraception is religiously proscribed or not a core business focus, give their employees free-to-them contraceptives.
Well, that and the current leader in the Republican search for a losing presidential nominee rarely seems to miss an opportunity to diss anything that makes getting pregnant tougher. But let's face it, long after the term Santorum exists only under vine-covered ruins of safe-search-off Google queries, we'll still be talking about the beast-with-two-backs in public policy venues. Or at least in JFK-themed memoirs.
But in the hopes of moving past the issue and never having to hear about state-mandated "vaginal probing" at least until tonight's GOP debate (a series that has now tied Gunsmoke and Meet the Press for longevity and coma-induction), I propose three relatively frictionless ways to take birth control out of current political discussion.
1. Scrap the employer mandate, which is just as problematic as the mandate that all god's children need to show proof of health insurance as a condition of drawing a breath. Apart from all the other issues about how to pay for health care, an employer-based system is just a mess (not least of which because most companies can't be expected to know what the hell they're doing in picking and choosing for the needs of all their workers).
If employers want to help their workers pay for health care, they can give them money - preferably taxed or not taxed as normal income to minimize economic inefficiencies - to pick and choose among the myriad of competing health-care options out there (and we all know even more options would come online if workers were en masse picking health insurance like we do car insurance). I think the individual mandate is screwed-up and unconstitutional, but scrapping the employer mandate doesn't even have anything to do with that. So it's something that even reform advocates could get behind.
Think about it: If the goal of Obama's health care reform was to guarantee universal coverage for people (and it won't do that, but never mind), all it has to do is decree that everybody needs to have coverage. Businesses would then be able to either keep offering coverage, give a cashout for at least a big portion of the cost of foregone benefits, or just cut that portion of their expenses. If they chose the latter, their employees would squawk or walk if they didn't get most of what they want. Even in a crap economy.
2. Stop searching for old Rick Santorum quotes. Whether he's talking about Satan's designs on the good ol' US of A or yammering on about the libertinism made possible by Trojan Twizzler-flavored condoms or what have you, Santo has been out of office and on the rubber-chicken (not that kind of rubber!) circuit long enough to provide years worth of oddball quotes.
3. Stop having sex. It's already happening among high schoolers whose frequency rates declined during the Clinton years (can you blame them?), so maybe the children will lead us on this issue, as they do in so many other areas of life (they are, after all and god help us all, the leaders of tomorrow).
A steely-eyed appraisal of each of these options, alas, yields the plain truth that none is likely to happen.
But at the very least, can we acknowledge that forcing all sorts of lifestyle issues into a realm not simply of public discussion but one of legal coercion is a very bad thing? Conservatives and liberals characteristically make an Evel Knievel-style leap from deciding that some activity is good or bad to decreeing with all the force of law that said activity should be banned, subsidized, or mandated.
That's never a good idea, even as that very mind-set pervades local, state, and national politics. If liberals want to keep the Rick Santorums of the world out of their bedrooms, all they need to do is renounce the idea that even people they agree with have the right to sniff around in private quarters. And if conservatives are afraid that Lord Obama is going to force them into sexual-reeducation camps or start wrapping state-sanctioned school lunches in rimming squares made from 50 percent recycled materials or whatever, then they simply need to admit that rendering unto Caesar doesn't give them the right to go all Gladys Kravitz on the neighbors.
It is hard enough to work alongside people on a daily basis without having to wonder about what sorts of health problems, sexual proclivities, and inherited diseases they have. I think about this because I work with people such as Matt Welch, whose life choices, particularly when it comes to rooting for the baseball Angels (what town are they falsely claiming to represent today?), leave me alternating between laughter, sadness, and fear that he's going to shoot up the office. Isn't it enough that two strangers, raised on different coasts by different people, can get along well enough to write a pretty widely praised book that costs just $17.15 (hardcover)/$11.50 (Kindle) at Amazon and has been called "the up-to-date statement on libertarianism," "an inspiring vision," and a better beach read than Ludwig von Mises' Human Action? Must we also be yoked together for all eternity like Holmes and Moriarity falling into Reichenbach Falls because of goddamned stupid health-care policy?
God, I hope not. And I hope that at least for the last 30 seconds or so, you were not thinking about contraception, Barack Obama, Rick Santorum, or the events of this coming fall, when regardless of how you vote, who you root for, and what happens, you will be at least mostly disgusted at the turn of events on Election Day. Just like Angels fans every October but one.
SOURCE: Nick Gillespie - Reason.com
The Great Gibson Guitar Raid: Months Later, Still No Charges Filed
February 23, 2012
"They...come in with weapons, they seized a half-million dollars worth of property, they shut our factory down, and they have not charged us with anything," says Gibson Guitars CEO Henry Juszkiewicz, referring to the August 2011 raid on his Nashville and Memphis factories by agents from the Departments of Homeland Security and Fish & Wildlife.
The feds raided Gibson for using an inappropriate tariff code on wood from India, which is a violation of the anti-trafficking statute known as The Lacey Act. At issue is not whether the wood in question was endangered, but whether the wood was the correct level of thickness and finish before being exported from India. "India is wanting to ensure that raw wood is not exported without some labor content from India," says Juskiewicz.
Andrea Johnson of the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) counters that "it's not up to Gibson to decide which laws...they want to respect." She points out that Gibson had previously been raided under The Lacey Act for imports from Madagascar.
This much is clear: The government has yet to file any charges or allow Gibson a day in court to makes its case, much less retrieve its materials. "This is not about responsible forestry and sustainable wood or illegal logging, this is about a bureaucratic law," argues Juszkiewicz, who testified last year before a congressional hearing convened by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). It is, he says, "a blank check for abuse."
About 6 minutes. Written, produced, and narrated by Anthony L. Fisher; shot by Joshua Swain.
Music: "Improvisation: Fast Blues in A" by Rev. Gary Davis
SOURCE: Anthony L. Fisher - Reason.com
"They...come in with weapons, they seized a half-million dollars worth of property, they shut our factory down, and they have not charged us with anything," says Gibson Guitars CEO Henry Juszkiewicz, referring to the August 2011 raid on his Nashville and Memphis factories by agents from the Departments of Homeland Security and Fish & Wildlife.
The feds raided Gibson for using an inappropriate tariff code on wood from India, which is a violation of the anti-trafficking statute known as The Lacey Act. At issue is not whether the wood in question was endangered, but whether the wood was the correct level of thickness and finish before being exported from India. "India is wanting to ensure that raw wood is not exported without some labor content from India," says Juskiewicz.
Andrea Johnson of the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) counters that "it's not up to Gibson to decide which laws...they want to respect." She points out that Gibson had previously been raided under The Lacey Act for imports from Madagascar.
This much is clear: The government has yet to file any charges or allow Gibson a day in court to makes its case, much less retrieve its materials. "This is not about responsible forestry and sustainable wood or illegal logging, this is about a bureaucratic law," argues Juszkiewicz, who testified last year before a congressional hearing convened by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). It is, he says, "a blank check for abuse."
About 6 minutes. Written, produced, and narrated by Anthony L. Fisher; shot by Joshua Swain.
Music: "Improvisation: Fast Blues in A" by Rev. Gary Davis
SOURCE: Anthony L. Fisher - Reason.com
How America’s favorite billionaire plays politics to make money
Warren Buffett: Baptist and Bootlegger
In 19th-century America, there was a concerted effort to ban alcohol sales on Sunday. “Blue laws,” intended to protect the sanctity and sobriety of the Sabbath, were pushed by what seemed like an odd alliance: Baptists and bootleggers. Baptists backed the ban publicly on moral and religious grounds, while the bootleggers lobbied for the ban privately to boost their own bottom lines. Blocking legal alcohol purchases for even one day each week meant more opportunities for their illegal sales. Bans were enacted state by state, and many blue laws still exist (in Arkansas, Indiana, Minnesota, and Mississippi, for example), although restrictions have been steadily disappearing in recent years. Economist Bruce Yandle immortalized the phrase “Bootleggers and Baptists” in a 1983 Regulation magazine article of the same name, making the point that ostensibly opposing sides will happily collude when it serves their mutual interests.
The old paradox continues in modern-day Washington. Politicians enrich their friends and allies—and sometimes themselves—by coming off as earnest “Baptists” for a worthy cause. Lobbyists for big corporate interests, by contrast, are widely considered bootleggers, no matter how nobly they cloak their arguments. This arrangement has created an opening for a third way: What if a capitalist could somehow manage to sound like a Baptist?
Consider Warren Buffett. Often seen as a grandfatherly figure above the rough-and-tumble of politics, Buffett appears to be immune to the folly and excess of finance as well. He lives in Omaha, Nebraska, in a house he purchased in 1958 for $31,000. He made a fortune for himself and his investors at the business conglomerate Berkshire Hathaway through the humble-sounding approach of value-based investing. He uses folksy expressions: “You don’t know who’s swimming naked,” he said during the height of the financial crisis, “until the tide goes out.” He frequently takes to the nation’s op-ed pages with populist-sounding arguments, such as his August 2010 plea in The New York Times for the government to stop “coddling” the “super-rich” and start raising their taxes.
Buffett the Bootlegger
But this image does not always reflect reality. Warren Buffett is very much a political entrepreneur; his best investments are often in political relationships. In recent years, Buffett has used taxpayer money as a vehicle to even greater profit and wealth. Indeed, the success of some of his biggest bets and the profitability of some of his largest investments rely on government largesse and “coddling” with taxpayer money.
During the financial crisis in the fall of 2008, Buffett became an important symbol on television. He filled the role of fiscal adult, a responsible father figure in the midst of irresponsible Wall Street speculators. While pushing for calm and advocating specific market interventions in both public and private, however, he was also investing (sometimes quietly) so he could profit once his policy advice was implemented. This put Buffett in the position of being both Baptist and bootlegger, praised for his moral character while shaking his finger all the way to the bank.
In the summer of 2008, when several investment houses and the government-sponsored mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac teetered on the brink of financial collapse, Buffett was “uncharacteristically quiet,” as the London Guardian observed. It was only on September 23 that he became a highly visible player in the drama, investing $5 billion in Goldman Sachs, which was overleveraged and short on cash. Buffett’s play gave the investment bank a much-needed cash infusion, making a heck of a deal for himself in return: Berkshire Hathaway received preferred stock with a 10 percent dividend yield and an attractive option to buy another $5 billion in stock at $115 a share.
Wall Street was on fire, and Buffett was running toward the flames. But he was doing so with the expectation that the fire department (that is, the federal government) was right behind him with buckets of bailout money. As he admitted on CNBC at the time, “If I didn’t think the government was going to act, I wouldn’t be doing anything this week.”
Buffett needed the bailout. In addition to Goldman Sachs, which was not as badly leveraged as some of its competitors, Buffett was heavily invested in several other banks, such as Wells Fargo and U.S. Bancorp, that were also at risk and in need of federal cash.
So it’s no surprise that Buffett began campaigning for the $700 billion Trouble Asset Relief Program (TARP) that was being hammered out in Washington. The first vote on the bill failed in the House of Representatives on September 29. But Buffett was in a unique position to help reverse its fate.
During the 2008 presidential campaign Buffett was mentioned as a candidate for Treasury secretary by both John McCain and Barack Obama. But it was clear where his loyalties lay: He had been a financial supporter of Barack Obama going back to 2004, when Obama ran for the U.S. Senate. Each had been impressed when they met, and Buffett said at a 2007 fundraiser in Nebraska that the two “had a lot of time to talk.” During his 2008 presidential campaign, Obama made it clear that while he received plenty of advice on the campaign trail, “Warren Buffett is one of those people that I listen to.” Obama added that the Oracle of Omaha was one of his “economic advisers.”
Several senators and congressmen were shareholders in Berkshire Hathaway and therefore in a position to earn big returns by passing the bailout bill. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), for example, held between $1 million and $6 million in Berkshire stock, by far the largest asset in his portfolio. Initially resistant to the bailout bill, Nelson ended up voting in favor of it. Buffett’s support was hardly the deciding factor in passing the bill. But his Baptist-bootlegger position was strong in both directions: Many people heeded his advice, then he (and they) made a lot of money after the bailout.
Throughout the financial crisis and the debate over the stimulus in early 2009, several members of Congress were buying and trading Berkshire stock. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) bought Berkshire shares four times over a three-week period in September and October 2008, up to $130,000 worth. He bought shares during the debate over the bailout, during the vote, and after the vote. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) bought the stock, as did Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), who bought up to $500,000 worth just days after the bailout bill was signed. Some legislators also followed Buffett’s example by buying shares in Goldman Sachs after the bailout. Among them were Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), and Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.).
Early in the financial crisis, Obama, then a senator and his party’s presidential nominee, had been cautious and lukewarm about a possible bailout. But in the days following Buffett’s multibillion-dollar play for Goldman Sachs, and with fears of economic collapse mounting, Obama became a powerful champion of the government rescue. As the top Democrat in the country, he had an important vote. The New York Times reported that Obama “intensified” his efforts to “rally support for the $700 billion financial bailout package” after September 28, 2008. The plan was necessary, said Obama, “to safeguard the economy.”
Publicly, Buffett struck a posture of cheering on the bailout from the sidelines. “I’m not brave enough to try to influence the Congress,” he told The New York Times in a September 24 article. But Buffett’s actions directly contradicted his words. Days later, he participated in a conference call with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other House Democrats during which he pushed them to pass the bill, warning that otherwise the country faces “the biggest financial meltdown in American history.”
The stakes were high for Buffett as well. If the bailout went through, it would be a windfall for Goldman. If it failed, it would be disastrous for Berkshire Hathaway.
The first vote failed, as Congress faced enormous heat from voters angry about the prospect of aiding Wall Street. On the eve of the second TARP vote in the House, Buffett moved toward the fire again, buying a $3 billion stake in corporate giant General Electric (GE). As with Goldman, he was able to negotiate advantageous terms, receiving a 10 percent dividend on his shares. He also purchased the option to buy $3 billion in stock at discounted terms. GE was in even worse financial shape than Goldman, thanks to its financial arm, GE Capital. Eventually it would receive $140 billion in taxpayer capital to stay afloat.
Buffett, a genius at public relations, said he had “confidence in Congress to do the right thing.” He appeared to be the private-sector savior of Goldman Sachs and GE, while giving members of Congress much-needed cover to bail out what had recently been among Wall Street’s most favored firms.
Crony Capitalism Pays
With the passage of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, the Treasury Department was authorized to loan financial institutions a total of $700 billion, which gave it unprecedented authority to pick winners and losers. Access to TARP money was not guaranteed, and the terms of the loans were unclear. The process was opaque. As American Prospect Editor Robert Kuttner put it, the TARP proceedings were conducted “largely behind closed doors, and the design is by, for and in the interest of large banks, hedge funds, and private equity companies. Because there are no explicit criteria, it’s very hard to know” if anyone got special treatment. The entire process, he said, “reeks of favoritism and special treatment.”
Having the correct political connections was critical. A National Bureau of Economic Research study by four researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, documented the power of such connections. Economist Daron Acemoglu and his colleagues found that when Timothy Geithner, a man who had spent his career shuttling back and forth between Wall Street and Washington, was announced as President Obama’s nominee for treasury secretary, it “produced a cumulative abnormal return for Geithner-connected financial firms of around 15 percent from day 0.” The stock market reflects the thinking of all investors, and they clearly believed Geithner would be able to reward his friends directly or indirectly.
Conversely, when there was word that Geithner’s nomination might be derailed by tax issues, those same firms were hit hard with “abnormal negative returns.” Acemoglu et al. systematically examined companies that had corporate ties to Geithner, had executives who served with him on other boards, or had other direct relationships. They found that “the quantitative effect is comparable to standard findings” in Third World countries with weak institutions and higher levels of corruption. In other words, markets react to government actions in the U.S. the same way they do in a corrupt developing country. Crony capitalism pays, and the market knows it.
Buffett, of course, was not the only one with connections in Washington. Goldman Sachs had a direct line to Bush administration Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, its former managing partner, as well as incoming officials in the Obama administration. But Buffett was far better liked by the American public than were the executives at Goldman Sachs. He was therefore a much more effective advocate for bailout funds than Paulson could ever be.
An April 2011 working paper by researchers at the University of Michigan School of Business found that “firms with political connections” were much more likely to get TARP funds than firms that were not well connected. The study looked at how much money companies contributed to election campaigns through PAC contributions and donations by executives as well as how much companies spent on lobbyists. Finance professors Ran Duchin and Denis Sosyura found that politically connected firms, despite the infusion of federal funds, were outperformed by unconnected firms. In other words, poorly run but well-connected companies got the loot.
The fact that politically connected banks got good deals from the Treasury was not lost on the banking industry. Robert Wilmers, the chairman and CEO of M&T Bank, told shareholders in April 2009, “The pattern is clear: The bailout money and the perks are concentrated among the big banks, the ones who pay the lobbyists and make the campaign contributions, while the healthy banks pay the freight.”
Buffett needed the TARP bailout more than most. In all, Berkshire Hathaway firms received $95 billion in TARP money. Berkshire held stock in Wells Fargo, Bank of America, American Express, and Goldman Sachs, which received not only TARP money but also Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) backing for their debt, worth a total of $130 billion. All told, TARP-assisted companies constituted a whopping 30 percent of Buffett’s publicly disclosed stock portfolio. The folksy outsider with his home-spun investment wisdom, the Houston Chronicle concluded in an April 2009 investigative piece, was “one of the top beneficiaries of the banking bailout.”
Buffett received better terms for his Goldman investment than the government got for its bailout. His dividend was set at 10 percent, while the government’s was 5 percent. Had the bailout not gone through, and had Goldman not been given such generous terms under TARP, things would have been very different for Buffett. As it stood, the arrangement with Goldman Sachs earned Berkshire about $500 million a year in dividends. “We love the investment!” he exclaimed to Berkshire investors. The General Electric deal also was profitable. As Reuters business columnist Rolfe Winkler noted on his blog in August 2009: “Were it not for government bailouts, for which Buffett lobbied hard, many of his company’s stock holdings would have been wiped out.”
By April 2009, Goldman share prices had more than doubled. By July 2009, Buffett had already received a return of $2.5 billion from his investment.
Later, astonishingly, Buffett would publicly complain about the bailouts in his 2008 letter to Berkshire investors, claiming that government subsidies put Berkshire at a disadvantage. As he put it, funders “who are using imaginative methods (or lobbying skills) to come under the government’s umbrella have money costs that are minimal,” whereas “highly-rated companies, such as Berkshire, are experiencing borrowing costs that…are at record levels.” Berkshire, of course, is simply a holding company representing a long list of investment assets—including investments in eight banks that were helped by the FDIC’s Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program. As Winkler put it, “It takes chutzpah to lobby for bailouts, make trades seeking to profit from them, and then complain that those doing so put you at a disadvantage.”
Unseemly but Legal
There are two main questions to ask about Buffett’s behavior. First, why do so many people continue to heed his policy advice without considering his enormous self-interest? Second, and more important, how did our politics get so warped by deep-pocketed, heavily invested advisers?
After the bailout bill passed, Warren Buffett sat down and wrote Treasury Secretary Paulson a four-page letter proposing a larger solution to the financial crisis: a quasi-private fund backed by the U.S. government that would buy bad loans and other rapidly sinking investments. He proposed that for every $10 billion put up by the private sector, the federal government would kick in $40 billion. As Paulson put it in his memoir, “I knew, of course, that as an investor in financial institutions, including Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs, Warren had a vested interest in the idea.”
The bootlegger’s interest does not necessarily mean the Baptist’s ideas are wrong. The Treasury Department considered Buffett’s proposal, but with Paulson leaving at the end of President George W. Bush’s term, it would fall to the incoming secretary, Tim Geithner, to act on it. Geithner tweaked the plan and announced the Public-Private Investment Program in March 2009. It was largely seen as a boon to banks, especially large banks with a lot of bad debt.
What did Buffett do in the six months between writing the letter and watching the adapted policy get approved? He bought more bank stock. According to Berkshire’s quarterly reports, Buffett’s firm bought 12.4 million shares of Wells Fargo during this period and another 1.5 million shares in U.S. Bancorp. When Geithner announced the Public-Private Investment Program, bank stocks rallied and Buffett’s holdings did very well. We don’t know the exact price that Buffett paid for these millions of shares because he is not legally required to list the dates he bought them. But we do know those bank stocks all jumped after Geithner unveiled his program. Wells Fargo, which was trading around $20 per share early in 2009, jumped to $30 a share in the weeks following Geithner’s announcement. U.S. Bancorp did even better: It had hit a low of $8 a share in February 2009 but vaulted to more than $20 a share by May. And of course Buffett already owned tens of millions of shares in a host of financial companies, such as American Express and M&T Bank, which also benefited.
Buffett did very well with Goldman Sachs and GE too after they received their bailout money. His net gain from General Electric as of April 2011 was $1.2 billion. His profits from the Goldman deal by then had exceeded the gains of July 2009, reaching as high as $3.7 billion. He had bet on his ability to help secure the bailout, and the bet paid off.
In the fall of 2010, Buffet wrote a “Thank You, Uncle Sam” op-ed piece in The New York Times, praising the role that the government played in stabilizing markets throughout the crisis. There was no disclaimer or disclosure of how much he personally gained from TARP or the Public-Private Investment Program. He simply endorsed both as good public policy. At the bottom of the article he was identified this way: “Warren E. Buffett is the chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway, a diversified holding company.”
With tongue in cheek, journalist Ira Stoll, the former managing editor of the New York Sun (and current columnist for reason.com), suggested the bio might have been more accurate with a bit of rewriting: “Warren Buffett, the largest crony capitalist in the world, shareholder of GE, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, U.S. Bancorp, M&T Bank, and American Express, as well as competitor of private equity and hedge fund firms that have been threatened with new taxes and regulations, and behind the scenes, insider adviser to most of the government officials mentioned above.”
Again, to be clear, even though Buffett was the one who proposed the public-private partnership, there is absolutely nothing illegal about lobbying for a policy while investing in the companies that stand to gain most if that policy is adopted. But consider this: Had Buffett instead pushed a private investment house to make an acquisition that would benefit certain stocks while quietly buying shares in those same stocks, he would have been vulnerable to charges of insider trading.
Indeed, this is what his lieutenant David Sokol was accused of doing in 2010, landing him in legal hot water. Sokol, who resigned amidst insider trading accusations, apparently bought shares in Lubrizol, a chemical company, and then encouraged his employer, Berkshire Hathaway, to buy a large stake in the company, thereby driving up the price of the stock. All Buffett did differently was use the federal government instead of a private company to boost the fortunes of certain stocks. This is why crony capitalism is so perennially attractive to financiers: It’s legal, and it’s often more remunerative than the illegal private-sector version might be. Because government officials are dealing with other people’s money, they are less likely than a private firm to drive a hard bargain.
Buffett has long believed that corporate-government partnerships provide excellent investment opportunities. While he’s famous for owning Dairy Queen and other all-American private companies, two of his largest holdings are in railroads and regulated utilities. He regularly lobbies on their behalf and counts on significant public money to make them more profitable.
After the 2008 financial crisis appeared to be easing, Buffett turned his attention to championing the Obama administration’s stimulus program. When he went on television to hawk the stimulus, he was never asked what he might personally be getting out of the deal. A candid answer would have taken up many valuable minutes of airtime.
Railroad Job
In late 2009, Buffett made his largest investment ever when he decided to buy Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF). It was not just an endorsement of the railroad industry’s financials; it was also a huge bet on the budget priorities of his friend Barack Obama. As The Wall Street Journal reported, “Berkshire Hathaway Inc.’s planned purchase of Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. represents a bet that upcoming Washington policies to improve infrastructure and combat climate change will be a boon to the freight-railroad industry. President Barack Obama has said railroad investment will be a cornerstone of his transportation policies, given the environmental benefits and improved mobility that come with taking cars and trucks off roads.”
Others in the railroad industry saw Buffett’s involvement as very helpful, precisely because he was so politically connected. “It’s a positive for the rail industry because of Buffett’s influence in Washington,” Henry Lampe, president of the short-haul railroad Chicago South Shore & South Bend, told the Journal.
Buffett bought BNSF just as the Obama administration was beginning a series of initiatives to rapidly expand the government’s spending on railroads. After Buffett took over the railroad company, he dramatically increased spending on lobbyists. Berkshire spent $1.2 million on lobbyists in 2008, but by 2009 its budget had jumped to $9.8 million, where it more or less remained. Pouring money into lobbying is perhaps the best investment that Buffett could make.
Obama’s plans to invest heavily in railroads, including a commitment to high-speed rail, put BNSF in a position to benefit handsomely. BNSF already has talked to Seattle officials about leasing or selling its rail lines for an intercity project, and that’s just a start. A map of BNSF lines around the country overlaps nicely with the government’s proposed high-speed rail lines, from Seattle to Florida, California to the Northeast. Buffett is geographically and strategically positioned to profit from those government-funded rail systems, should they be built.
The 2009 stimulus package includes $48 billion (of the total $787 billion) for infrastructure improvement, a chunk of which is headed for railroads. How much will BNSF benefit? It’s hard to calculate. Type “BNSF” on the Recovery.gov website, which tracks grants, subsidized loans, and contracts signed under the stimulus, and you find 1,800 entries, including everything from a $36 million grant from the Department of Homeland Security to money from the Environmental Protection Agency.
Buffett also owns MidAmerican Energy Holdings, which received $93.4 million in stimulus money. General Electric, in which he owns a $5 billion stake, was one of the largest recipients of stimulus money in the country.
Buffett famously puts his folksy investment ideas in an annual letter to Berkshire investors. He rarely mentions the bootlegger stuff involving lobbyists, government funds, bailouts, and stimulus grants, preferring the Baptist language of social good. “We see a ‘social compact’ existing between the public and our railroad business, just as it is the case with our utilities,” he said in his 2010 letter to shareholders. “If either side shirks its obligations, both sides will inevitably suffer. Therefore, both parties to the compact should—and we believe will—understand the benefit of behaving in a way that encourages good behavior by the other. It is inconceivable that our country will realize anything close to its full economic potential without it possessing first-class electricity and railroad systems.” He added that both businesses “require wise regulators who will provide certainty about allowable returns so that we can confidently make the huge investments required to maintain, replace, and expand the plant.”
The term social compact sounds benign. But when did American voters agree to turn one of the richest men in America into one of the biggest recipients of taxpayer subsidies?
In August 2011, Buffett vacationed with President Obama on Martha’s Vineyard, and they discussed the economy. Shortly after that, he agreed to host an Obama re-election fundraiser in New York City where contributors could buy $35,800 VIP tickets to meet Buffett and talk about the economy.
As fellow investor Steven Rattner pointed out in his 2010 book Overhaul: An Insider’s Account of the Obama Administration’s Emergency Rescue of the Auto Industry, “Warren Buffett has shown that superb investing need not entail the months of due diligence and deliberation that private equity firms typically apply to a deal. Buffett has been known to make successful multibillion-dollar bets on the basis of a few meetings or phone calls.” That is particularly true if he calls Washington.
Warren Buffett is a financial genius. But even better for his portfolio, though worse for the rest of us, he is a political genius.
SOURCE: Peter Schweizer from the March 2012 issue - Reason Magazine
Democrats move to buy newspapers in swing state
Feb 21, 2012
Sale of Philadelphia newspapers raises bias concerns
One group led by ex-governor Rendell
Philadelphia’s two daily newspapers have long been accused of liberal bias, but critics say a group of potential buyers led by former Gov. Ed Rendell would turn the papers into mere mouthpieces of the Democratic Party in a 2012 swing state.
Mr. Rendell, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, is teaming with George Norcross, the Democratic Party boss of southern New Jersey, and others in an effort to purchase the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Daily News and the company’s website, philly.com.
There is reportedly at least one other bidder for the media company, the most influential in Pennsylvania, though that party has not publicly identified itself.
“The prospect of Rendell’s group owning the newspapers is like the foxes watching the henhouse and all of the sacred cows,” said Paul Davies, former deputy editorial page editor at the Inquirer. “Essentially, the Inquirer will cease to exist as a legitimate newspaper. It will become the insiders’ house organ.”
Mr. Rendell said on a talk-radio show this week that this deal would not be the first time powerful people with an “ideological bent,” such as Rupert Murdoch, have tried to purchase a media company. He also noted that the 183-year-old Inquirer was owned for decades by Republican businessman Walter Annenberg, and said his group is simply trying to save the financially troubled papers.
“Nobody wants to stifle news,” said Mr. Rendell, a two-term mayor of Philadelphia in the 1990s.
Journalists at both papers are so concerned that nearly 300 of them signed a public statement last week calling on the current and any future owners to protect the integrity of their reporting. They said the current owner, Philadelphia Media Network (PMN), has censored their coverage of the sale.
“As The Philadelphia Inquirer, Daily News and Philly.com have gone up for sale once again, we watched with dismay as our own coverage of the process was compromised and censored,” the statement says.
PMN Publisher Greg Osberg denied any censorship.
PMN acquired the papers in bankruptcy proceedings in 2010 from a local group of owners led by Republican businessman Brian Tierney.
During his turbulent tenure as publisher in the heavily Democratic city, Mr. Tierney came under fire for bringing aboard conservative columnists at the Inquirer such as Rick Santorum, now a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, and John Yoo, a Bush administration official who helped write the legal justification for “enhanced interrogation techniques” against terrorism suspects.
Enhanced interrogation was on the mind of the loquacious Mr. Rendell, who became so exasperated at the uproar about his potential ownership of the papers that he pledged not to talk about it anymore.
“You’re going to have to waterboard me,” he told a reporter.
His vow of silence ended two days later, when he told WPHT-AM in Philadelphia that his group of investors would consider a pledge of noninterference with the newspapers’ coverage.
“Our group, I’m certain, would be willing to enter into some agreement with the reportorial staff that we wouldn’t influence any of their news reporting,” Mr. Rendell said.
Observers say Democratic ownership of the papers probably wouldn’t alter their track records in endorsing candidates. The Inquirer, for example, hasn’t endorsed a Republican for president since at least the 1960s, with the exception of 2008. Four years ago, under Mr. Tierney, the paper took the unusual step of endorsing both Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain for president in the general election.
Mr. Obama carried Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
Journalists say potential conflicts abound with the prospective owners. For example, Mr. Norcross is a kingmaker in New Jersey Democratic politics whose brother, Donald, is a state senator. Other investors in Mr. Rendell’s group include parking magnate Lewis Katz and Ed Snider, chairman of Comcast Spectacor and owner of the Philadelphia Flyers hockey team.
“It’s just a mess right now,” said a member of one of the papers’ staffs, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
Former Daily News editor Zack Stalberg, who led the paper when it was owned by Knight-Ridder Inc., said the turmoil at the papers makes him “nostalgic for chain journalism.”
“Certainly there’s cause for concern when you have highly opinionated and well-connected people in the deal,” Mr. Stalberg said. “It comes down to how they behave and who they put in management positions.”
SOURCE: Dave Boyer - The Washington Times
Iran court convicts Christian pastor convert to death
February 22, 2012
A trial court in Iran has issued its final verdict, ordering a Christian pastor to be put to death for leaving Islam and converting to Christianity, according to sources close to the pastor and his legal team.
Supporters fear Youcef Nadarkhani, a 34-year-old father of two who was arrested over two years ago on charges of apostasy, may now be executed at any time without prior warning, as death sentences in Iran may be carried out immediately or dragged out for years.
It is unclear whether Nadarkhani can appeal the execution order.
“The world needs to stand up and say that a man cannot be put to death because of his faith,” said Jordan Sekulow, executive director of The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ).
“This one case is not just about one execution. We have been able to expose the system instead of just letting one man disappear, like so many other Christians have in the past.”
It is also feared that Nadarkhani will be executed in retaliation as Iran endures crippling sanctions and international pressure in response to its nuclear agenda and rogue rhetoric. The number of executions in Iran has increased significantly in the last month.
“This is defiance,” Sekulow said. “They want to say they will carry out what they say they will do.”
The order to execute Nadarkhani came only days after lawmakers in Congress supported a resolution sponsored by Pennsylvania Rep. Joseph Pitts denouncing the apostasy charge and calling for his immediate release.
“Iran has become more isolated because of their drive for nuclear weapons, and the fundamentalist government has stepped up persecution of religious minorities to deflect criticism,” Pitts, a Republican, told FoxNews.com. “The persecuted are their own citizens, whose only crime is practicing their faith.”
The ACLJ has been a major driving force in keeping Nadarkhani’s case in the international spotlight. Many other advocacy groups and human rights organizations also have mounted global campaigns and petitions against the Iranian government, and experts credit Nadarkhani’s international support for keeping him alive.
The ACLJ recently launched a Twitter campaign to publicize Nadarkhani’s case, asking participants to dedicate a daily tweet to “Tweet for Youcef,” stating the number of days he has been imprisoned (currently 863) and ending the tweet with “ViaOfficialACLJ,” sending readers back to the organization’s website where they could learn more about his case.
Tweets have reached 157 countries and over 400,000 people.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and 89 members of Congress, along with the European Union, France, Great Britain, Mexico and Germany, have condemned Iran for arresting Nadarkhani and have called for his quick release.
Nadarkhani was arrested in October 2009 and was tried and found guilty of apostasy by a lower court in Gilan, a province in Rasht. He was then given verbal notification of an impending death-by-hanging sentence.
His lawyers appealed the decision under the premise that Nadarkhani was never a Muslim at the age of majority, and the case was sent to Iran’s Supreme Court, which upheld the lower court’s decision of execution, provided it could be proven that he had been a practicing Muslim from the age of adulthood, 15 in Islamic law, to age 19, which was when he converted.
The lower court then ruled that Nadarkhani had not practiced Islam during his adult life but still upheld the apostasy charge because he was born into a Muslim family.
The court then gave Nadarkhani the opportunity to recant, as the law requires a man to be given three chances to recant his beliefs and return to Islam.
His first option was to convert back to Islam. When he refused, he was asked to declare Muhammad a prophet, and still he declined.
Iran’s judiciary had delayed in issuing a final verdict, fearing the decision would have far-reaching political implications.
Sources say Nadarkhani has been advised by family members, lawyers and members of his church to remain silent throughout his ordeal, out of fear that authorities may use his statements against him, a strategy commonly employed by the regime.
SOURCE: Lisa Daftari - Fox News
DOJ dismisses leniency request for Border Patrol agent
February 22, 2012
Months after Rep. Duncan Hunter asked the Justice Department to consider leniency for Border Patrol Agent Jesus E. Diaz Jr., who was convicted of using excessive force in arresting an illegal immigrant, the Obama administration has brushed that request.
In October and again in November, Mr. Hunter, a California Republican, asked the Justice Department to forgo collecting a court-imposed fine until after Diaz is released from prison, saying his family would have to struggle to make the payments.
In two short letters sent Feb. 13, Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich responded, dismissing Mr. Hunter's request and saying "the case against Mr. Diaz was fully litigated in federal court." Mr. Weich also sent Mr. Hunter the press release the department issued when the judgment was handed down. Mr. Hunter's office made the letters public this week.
In a statement, Mr. Hunter said the replies were an "embarrassment."
"This response shows the insensitivity and disrespect of this Justice Department, even as a Border Patrol officer sits in jail for reasons that aren’t clear," he said. "The Justice Department has a real problem on its hands, with this case and Fast and Furious, and still there’s no interest in setting the record straight and taking responsibility. What’s most disappointing about this response is what it says to the men and women of the Border Patrol.”
SOURCE: Stephen Dinan - Washington Times
Months after Rep. Duncan Hunter asked the Justice Department to consider leniency for Border Patrol Agent Jesus E. Diaz Jr., who was convicted of using excessive force in arresting an illegal immigrant, the Obama administration has brushed that request.
In October and again in November, Mr. Hunter, a California Republican, asked the Justice Department to forgo collecting a court-imposed fine until after Diaz is released from prison, saying his family would have to struggle to make the payments.
In two short letters sent Feb. 13, Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich responded, dismissing Mr. Hunter's request and saying "the case against Mr. Diaz was fully litigated in federal court." Mr. Weich also sent Mr. Hunter the press release the department issued when the judgment was handed down. Mr. Hunter's office made the letters public this week.
In a statement, Mr. Hunter said the replies were an "embarrassment."
"This response shows the insensitivity and disrespect of this Justice Department, even as a Border Patrol officer sits in jail for reasons that aren’t clear," he said. "The Justice Department has a real problem on its hands, with this case and Fast and Furious, and still there’s no interest in setting the record straight and taking responsibility. What’s most disappointing about this response is what it says to the men and women of the Border Patrol.”
SOURCE: Stephen Dinan - Washington Times
LAPD chief backs licenses for illegals
February 22, 2012
Wading into a politically charged debate, Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck said California should issue driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.
The chief becomes one of the most prominent local figures to support the idea and his stance is certain to further inflame critics who are already angry at Beck’s efforts to liberalize the rules on how his officers impound the cars of unlicensed drivers.
“My personal belief is that they should be able to” have licenses, Beck said in response to a question during a meeting with Times’ reporters and editorial writers. “The reality is that all the things that we’ve done – ‘we’ being the state of California – over the last 14, 16 years have not reduced the problem one iota, haven’t reduced undocumented aliens driving without licenses. So we have to look at what we’re doing. When something doesn’t work over and over and over again, my view is that you should reexamine it to see if there is another way that makes more sense.”
Beck said he does not believe licenses for illegal immigrants should be identical to regular ones. Saying “it could be a provisional license, it could be a nonresident license,” he acknowledged that state officials would have to find ways to address widely held concerns that offering licenses to people in the country illegally could make it easier for terrorists go undetected.
For Beck, however, such concerns are outweighed by what he said would be improved safety on California roads and the ability of police to identify the people they encounter. “Why wouldn’t you want to put people through a rigorous testing process? Why wouldn’t you want to better identify people who are going to be here?” he said. “It doesn’t make any sense to me. And we could increase safety on the roads. When you make things illegal you cause a lot of other things by chain reaction.”
Beck, for example, said he would expect the number of hit-and-run accidents to decrease if illegal immigrants were licensed, because illegal immigrant drivers would not have to fear being caught without a license at accidents.
Beck’s stance on the issue stems from his push in recent months to make controversial changes in the LAPD’s vehicle impound rules for unlicensed drivers. Because illegal immigrants cannot receive licenses in California, they are presumed to make up a disproportionate percentage of the state’s unlicensed drivers and, Beck believes, have been unfairly affected by the current impound protocols.
Currently, officers can opt between two parts of the state vehicle code when impounding an unlicensed driver’s vehicle. One allows an owner to retrieve the car from the impound lot immediately, while the other keeps it impounded for 30 days – a delay that comes with fees and fines that typically exceed $1,200. Under Beck’s proposed changes, officers would be required to use the more lenient approach when impounding cars of unlicensed drivers who have auto insurance, a legitimate form of identification and no previous convictions for unlicensed driving. (People driving on suspended or revoked licenses or those who do not satisfy the department's requirements would have their cars impounded with the 30-day hold.)
Beck has defended the proposed changes against angry rebukes from people who say the new rules would essentially reward people for breaking the law and allow potentially dangerous drivers to remain on the roads. The department is delaying the new changes until city officials can review a recent legal opinion from state lawyers that called into question the legality of the moves.
SOURCE: Los Angeles Times
Wading into a politically charged debate, Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck said California should issue driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.
The chief becomes one of the most prominent local figures to support the idea and his stance is certain to further inflame critics who are already angry at Beck’s efforts to liberalize the rules on how his officers impound the cars of unlicensed drivers.
“My personal belief is that they should be able to” have licenses, Beck said in response to a question during a meeting with Times’ reporters and editorial writers. “The reality is that all the things that we’ve done – ‘we’ being the state of California – over the last 14, 16 years have not reduced the problem one iota, haven’t reduced undocumented aliens driving without licenses. So we have to look at what we’re doing. When something doesn’t work over and over and over again, my view is that you should reexamine it to see if there is another way that makes more sense.”
Beck said he does not believe licenses for illegal immigrants should be identical to regular ones. Saying “it could be a provisional license, it could be a nonresident license,” he acknowledged that state officials would have to find ways to address widely held concerns that offering licenses to people in the country illegally could make it easier for terrorists go undetected.
For Beck, however, such concerns are outweighed by what he said would be improved safety on California roads and the ability of police to identify the people they encounter. “Why wouldn’t you want to put people through a rigorous testing process? Why wouldn’t you want to better identify people who are going to be here?” he said. “It doesn’t make any sense to me. And we could increase safety on the roads. When you make things illegal you cause a lot of other things by chain reaction.”
Beck, for example, said he would expect the number of hit-and-run accidents to decrease if illegal immigrants were licensed, because illegal immigrant drivers would not have to fear being caught without a license at accidents.
Beck’s stance on the issue stems from his push in recent months to make controversial changes in the LAPD’s vehicle impound rules for unlicensed drivers. Because illegal immigrants cannot receive licenses in California, they are presumed to make up a disproportionate percentage of the state’s unlicensed drivers and, Beck believes, have been unfairly affected by the current impound protocols.
Currently, officers can opt between two parts of the state vehicle code when impounding an unlicensed driver’s vehicle. One allows an owner to retrieve the car from the impound lot immediately, while the other keeps it impounded for 30 days – a delay that comes with fees and fines that typically exceed $1,200. Under Beck’s proposed changes, officers would be required to use the more lenient approach when impounding cars of unlicensed drivers who have auto insurance, a legitimate form of identification and no previous convictions for unlicensed driving. (People driving on suspended or revoked licenses or those who do not satisfy the department's requirements would have their cars impounded with the 30-day hold.)
Beck has defended the proposed changes against angry rebukes from people who say the new rules would essentially reward people for breaking the law and allow potentially dangerous drivers to remain on the roads. The department is delaying the new changes until city officials can review a recent legal opinion from state lawyers that called into question the legality of the moves.
SOURCE: Los Angeles Times
Muslims plan 'parallel parliament' in Switzerland
February 22, 2012
A growing immigrant population determined to avoid assimilation.
Leading Islamic groups in Switzerland are seeking to establish a single national representative body that will enable all of the country's Muslims to "speak with one voice."
The organizers say their new "parliament" will be called "Umma Schweiz" and be based on the principles of Islamic Sharia law. The headquarters of the organization will be located in Basel with "representatives" in all 26 cantons (or "states") of Switzerland. The first "test vote" of Umma Schweiz will be held in the fall of 2012; the group will be fully functional in 2013.
Ummah, an Arabic word that means "nation," refers to the entire Muslim community throughout the world. In recent years, Muslims have stepped up efforts to unify the globally fragmented ummah in an effort to revive an Islamic Caliphate or empire. Many Muslim scholars view the political unification of the ummah as a prerequisite to the consolidation of global Muslim power and the subsequent establishment of an Islamic world order.
Swiss analysts say the initiative is an effort to establish a "parallel" legislative body in Switzerland that will be a mouthpiece for Islamic fundamentalists who are seeking to impose Sharia law on the country, according to an exposé published by the newspaper Basler Zeitung.
Umma Schweiz is being spearheaded by two of the leading Muslim groups in Switzerland: the Coordination of Islamic Organizations of Switzerland (KIOS), led by an Iranian; and the Federation of Islamic Umbrella Organizations in Switzerland (FIDS), led by a Palestinian.
The effort to unify Muslims in Switzerland comes amid calls by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) to establish an umbrella organization for all Swiss Muslims to counter discrimination.
The OSCE, which sent three observers to Switzerland in November 2011, warned that Muslims in the country are being exploited by "the extreme right and populist parties." The OSCE also noted that Muslims in Switzerland are increasingly unifying around their religious identity, according to an advance copy of the OSCE trip report, which has been seen by the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation. "Groups like Bosnians and Albanians, who were previously defined by their ethnicity, are now identified by their religion," the OSCE report says.
Currently, there are more than 300 Muslim associations in Switzerland, and several umbrella organizations, but none is regarded as representative of Muslims as a whole.
The Muslim population in Switzerland has more than quintupled since 1980; it now numbers about 400,000, or roughly 5% of the population. Most Muslims living in Switzerland are of Turkish or Balkan origin, with a smaller minority from the Arab world. Many of them are second- and third-generation immigrants firmly establishing themselves in Switzerland.
The new Muslim demographic reality is raising tensions across large parts of Swiss society, especially as Muslims become more assertive in their demands for greater recognition of their Islamic faith.
In September 2011, for instance, an immigrant group based in Bern called for the emblematic white cross to be removed from the Swiss national flag because as a Christian symbol it "no longer corresponds to today's multicultural Switzerland."
The ensuing controversies are fuelling a debate over the role of Islam in Swiss society and how to reconcile Western values with a growing immigrant population determined to avoid assimilation.
Many of the disputes are ending up in Swiss courts, which have been packed with Islam-related cases in recent years. In one proceeding, for example, Muslim parents won a lawsuit demanding that they be allowed to dress their children in full-body bathing suits (aka "burkinis") during co-ed swimming lessons. In another, a group of Swiss supermarkets created a stir by banning Muslim employees from wearing headscarves.
In September 2010, the secretary of the Muslim Community of Basel was acquitted of publicly inciting crime and violence. The charges were pressed after the 33-year-old made comments in a Swiss television documentary saying that Islamic Sharia law should be introduced in Switzerland and that unruly wives should be beaten. The judge said the defendant was protected by freedom of expression.
In January 2011, a 66-year-old Turkish woman living in Bern was sentenced to three years and six months in prison for encouraging the father and brothers of her daughter-in-law to carry out an "honor crime" against her for her "risqué lifestyle."
In August 2010, five Muslim families in Basel were fined 350 Swiss Francs ($420) each for refusing to send their daughters to mixed-sex swimming lessons. In August 2009, the Swiss basketball association told a Muslim player she could not wear a headscarf during league games.
Swiss voters have also been fighting back against the Islamization of their country by means of the ballot box.
In November 2009, Switzerland held a referendum in which citizens approved an initiative to ban the construction of minarets. The initiative was approved 57.5% to 42.5% by some 2.67 million voters. Only four cantons or states opposed the initiative, thereby granting the double approval that now makes the minaret ban part of the Swiss constitution.
In November 2010, Swiss voters approved tough new regulations on the deportation of non-Swiss immigrants convicted of serious crimes. The measure calls for the automatic expulsion of non-Swiss offenders convicted of crimes ranging from murder to breaking and entry and social security fraud.
Also in November, Swiss Justice Minister Simonetta Sommaruga said the approval or extension of residency permits should be closely linked to the efforts immigrants make to integrate themselves. "Compulsory schooling must be respected. Children should attend all courses and exceptions made on religious or other grounds, for example in swimming classes, should no longer be possible," Sommaruga said.
In December 2010, the Federal Commission on Women's Issues called for Islamic burqas and niqabs to be banned in government offices and in public schools. The government-appointed committee said the move would prevent gender discrimination.
In May 2011, voters in canton Ticino, in Switzerland's Italian-speaking region, collected enough signatures to be able to launch a referendum that would ban burqas, niqabs and other Islamic head dresses. If the referendum goes ahead, it will be the first time in Switzerland that citizens have been asked to express an opinion on burqas.
On February 14, 2012, the far-right Swiss People's Party, the country's largest, filed a petition supporting a cap on immigration to Switzerland. The petition, which is the result of a months-long campaign to gather the required 100,000 signatures, is now being reviewed by Swiss authorities. If the proposals in the petition are deemed acceptable, it will then go to a popular referendum, in accordance with Switzerland's unique system of direct democracy.
On February 27, the Swiss Parliament is scheduled to debate a series of proposals to crack down on Muslim forced marriages in Switzerland. There are an estimated 17,000 forced marriages in Switzerland; one-third of the victims are between the ages of 13 and 18, according to a ground-breaking study of the problem conducted in 2006.
The proposals being considered include: amending the Swiss Penal Code to make forced marriage a criminal offense; outlawing the marriages of minors; reviewing all future requests for marriage to ensure that no one is being married against her will; and mandating the deportation of any immigrants found to guilty of forcing someone to marry against her will.
SOURCE: Soeren Kern - Stonegate Institute
A growing immigrant population determined to avoid assimilation.
Leading Islamic groups in Switzerland are seeking to establish a single national representative body that will enable all of the country's Muslims to "speak with one voice."
The organizers say their new "parliament" will be called "Umma Schweiz" and be based on the principles of Islamic Sharia law. The headquarters of the organization will be located in Basel with "representatives" in all 26 cantons (or "states") of Switzerland. The first "test vote" of Umma Schweiz will be held in the fall of 2012; the group will be fully functional in 2013.
Ummah, an Arabic word that means "nation," refers to the entire Muslim community throughout the world. In recent years, Muslims have stepped up efforts to unify the globally fragmented ummah in an effort to revive an Islamic Caliphate or empire. Many Muslim scholars view the political unification of the ummah as a prerequisite to the consolidation of global Muslim power and the subsequent establishment of an Islamic world order.
Swiss analysts say the initiative is an effort to establish a "parallel" legislative body in Switzerland that will be a mouthpiece for Islamic fundamentalists who are seeking to impose Sharia law on the country, according to an exposé published by the newspaper Basler Zeitung.
Umma Schweiz is being spearheaded by two of the leading Muslim groups in Switzerland: the Coordination of Islamic Organizations of Switzerland (KIOS), led by an Iranian; and the Federation of Islamic Umbrella Organizations in Switzerland (FIDS), led by a Palestinian.
The effort to unify Muslims in Switzerland comes amid calls by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) to establish an umbrella organization for all Swiss Muslims to counter discrimination.
The OSCE, which sent three observers to Switzerland in November 2011, warned that Muslims in the country are being exploited by "the extreme right and populist parties." The OSCE also noted that Muslims in Switzerland are increasingly unifying around their religious identity, according to an advance copy of the OSCE trip report, which has been seen by the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation. "Groups like Bosnians and Albanians, who were previously defined by their ethnicity, are now identified by their religion," the OSCE report says.
Currently, there are more than 300 Muslim associations in Switzerland, and several umbrella organizations, but none is regarded as representative of Muslims as a whole.
The Muslim population in Switzerland has more than quintupled since 1980; it now numbers about 400,000, or roughly 5% of the population. Most Muslims living in Switzerland are of Turkish or Balkan origin, with a smaller minority from the Arab world. Many of them are second- and third-generation immigrants firmly establishing themselves in Switzerland.
The new Muslim demographic reality is raising tensions across large parts of Swiss society, especially as Muslims become more assertive in their demands for greater recognition of their Islamic faith.
In September 2011, for instance, an immigrant group based in Bern called for the emblematic white cross to be removed from the Swiss national flag because as a Christian symbol it "no longer corresponds to today's multicultural Switzerland."
The ensuing controversies are fuelling a debate over the role of Islam in Swiss society and how to reconcile Western values with a growing immigrant population determined to avoid assimilation.
Many of the disputes are ending up in Swiss courts, which have been packed with Islam-related cases in recent years. In one proceeding, for example, Muslim parents won a lawsuit demanding that they be allowed to dress their children in full-body bathing suits (aka "burkinis") during co-ed swimming lessons. In another, a group of Swiss supermarkets created a stir by banning Muslim employees from wearing headscarves.
In September 2010, the secretary of the Muslim Community of Basel was acquitted of publicly inciting crime and violence. The charges were pressed after the 33-year-old made comments in a Swiss television documentary saying that Islamic Sharia law should be introduced in Switzerland and that unruly wives should be beaten. The judge said the defendant was protected by freedom of expression.
In January 2011, a 66-year-old Turkish woman living in Bern was sentenced to three years and six months in prison for encouraging the father and brothers of her daughter-in-law to carry out an "honor crime" against her for her "risqué lifestyle."
In August 2010, five Muslim families in Basel were fined 350 Swiss Francs ($420) each for refusing to send their daughters to mixed-sex swimming lessons. In August 2009, the Swiss basketball association told a Muslim player she could not wear a headscarf during league games.
Swiss voters have also been fighting back against the Islamization of their country by means of the ballot box.
In November 2009, Switzerland held a referendum in which citizens approved an initiative to ban the construction of minarets. The initiative was approved 57.5% to 42.5% by some 2.67 million voters. Only four cantons or states opposed the initiative, thereby granting the double approval that now makes the minaret ban part of the Swiss constitution.
In November 2010, Swiss voters approved tough new regulations on the deportation of non-Swiss immigrants convicted of serious crimes. The measure calls for the automatic expulsion of non-Swiss offenders convicted of crimes ranging from murder to breaking and entry and social security fraud.
Also in November, Swiss Justice Minister Simonetta Sommaruga said the approval or extension of residency permits should be closely linked to the efforts immigrants make to integrate themselves. "Compulsory schooling must be respected. Children should attend all courses and exceptions made on religious or other grounds, for example in swimming classes, should no longer be possible," Sommaruga said.
In December 2010, the Federal Commission on Women's Issues called for Islamic burqas and niqabs to be banned in government offices and in public schools. The government-appointed committee said the move would prevent gender discrimination.
In May 2011, voters in canton Ticino, in Switzerland's Italian-speaking region, collected enough signatures to be able to launch a referendum that would ban burqas, niqabs and other Islamic head dresses. If the referendum goes ahead, it will be the first time in Switzerland that citizens have been asked to express an opinion on burqas.
On February 14, 2012, the far-right Swiss People's Party, the country's largest, filed a petition supporting a cap on immigration to Switzerland. The petition, which is the result of a months-long campaign to gather the required 100,000 signatures, is now being reviewed by Swiss authorities. If the proposals in the petition are deemed acceptable, it will then go to a popular referendum, in accordance with Switzerland's unique system of direct democracy.
On February 27, the Swiss Parliament is scheduled to debate a series of proposals to crack down on Muslim forced marriages in Switzerland. There are an estimated 17,000 forced marriages in Switzerland; one-third of the victims are between the ages of 13 and 18, according to a ground-breaking study of the problem conducted in 2006.
The proposals being considered include: amending the Swiss Penal Code to make forced marriage a criminal offense; outlawing the marriages of minors; reviewing all future requests for marriage to ensure that no one is being married against her will; and mandating the deportation of any immigrants found to guilty of forcing someone to marry against her will.
SOURCE: Soeren Kern - Stonegate Institute
Kindergartners forced to 'chant' Obama poem
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Obama poem stirs outrage at Public School in Houston
School officials have pulled what some consider a pro-Obama poem from next week's Black History Month program at Tipps Elementary.
(KTRH - Houston) -- Cy-Fair school officials have pulled what some consider a pro-Obama poem from next week's Black History Month program at Tipps Elementary. This after a parent complained it was too political for his daughter's kindergarten class.
The poem…
Along with the poem mailed home to parents was an internal memo which read:
"Attached is a chant about President Barack Obama. All Kindergarteners will be required to learn the chant for the Black History program."
Parent Joseph Beaver tells KTRH News he doesn't believe the poem provides any educational value to students.
"You're not learning anything from it," he says. "I can't sit there and say in 20 years I'm going to need to know his favorite baseball team was this. That's just useless information."
However, Sylvester Brown at Houston's Black Heritage Society believes the whole thing is being taken out of context.
"Is the teacher using it to express her views?" asks Brown. "I don't think you can look at it from that side unless you're specifically looking for something to complain about."
Brown points out it this is Black History Month and Presidents' Day just passed, and Obama is our first black president.
"If they just sung a song about George Washington in class, would they say the same thing that's political?" he asks. "I mean, where's the contrast?"
Beaver still disagrees.
"The 'cherry tree,' that teaches morals about trying to tell the truth," he says. "This poem didn't teach anything. As a public school system you need to educate people, not teach them little chants and stuff."
Beaver first voiced his concerns to radio host Joe Pagliarulo on KTRH sister station KPRC. And Gayle Fallon, president of Houston's teachers union says he was right to do so.
"Just like you couldn't put something out advocating a specific religion, you can't with politics either," she says.
The Cy-Fair teachers union wouldn't comment, but Fallon says the poem and attached memo never should have been mailed to parents, somebody in the school's administration missed it.
"If the poem is overtly partisan political which it sounds like, they have a problem," he says. "If it was just saying we're having a black history program, it probably would not be a problem."
Cy-Fair ISD officials admit the poem was sent to parents without administrative approval, and the teacher has since apologized.
Assistant Superintendent Kelli Durham issued KTRH News a statement saying:
"There has been a misunderstanding circulating about kindergarten teachers requiring students to recite a chant at Tipps. This resulted when a teacher inadvertently attached a note, intended for other teachers, to a parent communication that was sent home. A teacher reading the note would understand the inference: only kindergarten students whose parents wanted them to participate were "required" to learn a chant.
However, the chant selected by the kindergarten team of teachers was sent home prior to receiving principal approval. Seeking approval is a school practice for school programs and events. After the principal reviewed the poem, along with the selections that would be performed by students at other grade levels, she selected another activity recognizing President Obama --kindergarten's historical figure to recognize.
Last week, the count for participants was less than 150 students compared to school wide enrollment of more than 1,000 students, and of those 25 were kindergarten students."
SOURCE: WTAM.com
'America's per capita government debt worse than Greece'
Feb 23, 2012
The office of Senator Jeff Sessions, ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee, sends along this chart, showing that 'America’s Per Capita Government Debt Worse Than Greece,' as well as Ireland, Italy, France, Portugal, and Spain:
SOURCE: Daniel Harper - Weekly Standard
The office of Senator Jeff Sessions, ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee, sends along this chart, showing that 'America’s Per Capita Government Debt Worse Than Greece,' as well as Ireland, Italy, France, Portugal, and Spain:
SOURCE: Daniel Harper - Weekly Standard
Alinsky-tied group awarded $56 million federal loan for health insurance project
February 23, 2012
Shown here is the late community organizer Saul Alinsky.
A Saul Alinsky-tied group has been awarded a $56 million federal loan to start up a nonprofit health insurance company -- one of several organizations across the country this week tapped to launch a new network of insurers under the sponsorship of the federal health care overhaul.
The Wisconsin group, Common Ground Healthcare Cooperative, was awarded the funding on Tuesday. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, the group is expected to provide coverage statewide within five years after starting on a smaller scale in early 2014.
But Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson questioned the group's credentials -- given its affiliation and lack of experience in the insurance field.
"The indisputable fact is that Common Ground was an outgrowth of the Alinsky operation in Chicago," Wilson said. "We're not giving money to a group with experience in health care issues or in setting up exchanges. ... We're handing the money to people who have been trained by arguably the single most expert individual on community organizing in the last 100 years."
Common Ground, a Milwaukee group that dates back to 2004, is an affiliate of the Alinsky-founded Industrial Areas Foundation.
Alinsky, who died in 1972, is regarded as the godfather of community organizing but has also emerged as a bogeyman of the right. Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has weaved Alinsky's name into his campaign message, repeatedly hammering President Obama as an "Alinsky radical." Like Alinsky, Obama traces his political and activist beginnings to the Chicago world of community organizing.
Alinsky, author of "Rules for Radicals," began as a trained archeologist and criminologist but made his name by working with low-income minority communities for better working and living conditions -- with a distinctly anti-establishment message which called on the masses to seize power from those who held it.
Common Ground, which focuses on social issues in the Milwaukee area, does claim experience in the health care field. The group's top three issues, according to its website, are education, foreclosures and health care.
Common Ground Healthcare Cooperative, an offshoot which technically is independent from Common Ground, is new. According to state records, it incorporated in August 2011, just a few months before the loan applications were due. The group announced its formal launch on Tuesday, along with the $56 million loan decision.
In a statement, the group said it would bring a "new approach to affordable, quality health insurance." The organization said it researched possible health insurance solutions for three years before deciding to apply for the Affordable Care Act funding.
"As a small business owner, I grew tired of the exorbitant increases in health insurance costs with no real additional value. Common Ground Healthcare is a solution to the region's cry for help," board President Bob Connolly said in a statement.
The statement said the organization would start enrolling people in fall 2013 and plans to hire 30 employees over five years.
A representative from the group has not responded to a request for comment from FoxNews.com.
The federal loans announced this week were worth a total of nearly $640 million. Six other organizations in seven states received them. The money is meant for the creation of so-called Consumer Operated and Oriented Plans, which will serve as nonprofit, cooperative-style insurance groups which will offer an alternative to other private plans. The goal is to eventually fund one of these groups in every state and the District of Columbia.
The latest loans will cover start-up costs and cash reserve requirements. Start-up money must be repaid with interest over five years -- the "solvency loans" must be repaid within 15 years. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services stressed in its announcement that the funds can only be tapped "incrementally as milestones are met," and that the program has "extensive provisions to protect against fraud."
CMS said the loans were awarded "on a competitive basis through external and independent expert objective reviews," and following approval by officials with private insurance experience.
But Wilson said some of the other groups awarded appear to have more experience in the field than the Wisconsin organization. He said his group would file a Freedom of Information Act request to the government to find out more about the process.
Wilson described the transaction as a "huge wad of money in a swing state."
Republican Rep. Dave Camp's office also complained that another group, the Freelancers Union, was awarded more than $340 million via federal loans in three states as part of the same program.
In a statement, Camp questioned whether the group was even eligible, describing the loan as a "reward" for "political friends."
SOURCE: Judson Berger - Fox News
A Saul Alinsky-tied group has been awarded a $56 million federal loan to start up a nonprofit health insurance company -- one of several organizations across the country this week tapped to launch a new network of insurers under the sponsorship of the federal health care overhaul.
The Wisconsin group, Common Ground Healthcare Cooperative, was awarded the funding on Tuesday. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, the group is expected to provide coverage statewide within five years after starting on a smaller scale in early 2014.
But Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson questioned the group's credentials -- given its affiliation and lack of experience in the insurance field.
"The indisputable fact is that Common Ground was an outgrowth of the Alinsky operation in Chicago," Wilson said. "We're not giving money to a group with experience in health care issues or in setting up exchanges. ... We're handing the money to people who have been trained by arguably the single most expert individual on community organizing in the last 100 years."
Common Ground, a Milwaukee group that dates back to 2004, is an affiliate of the Alinsky-founded Industrial Areas Foundation.
Alinsky, who died in 1972, is regarded as the godfather of community organizing but has also emerged as a bogeyman of the right. Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has weaved Alinsky's name into his campaign message, repeatedly hammering President Obama as an "Alinsky radical." Like Alinsky, Obama traces his political and activist beginnings to the Chicago world of community organizing.
Alinsky, author of "Rules for Radicals," began as a trained archeologist and criminologist but made his name by working with low-income minority communities for better working and living conditions -- with a distinctly anti-establishment message which called on the masses to seize power from those who held it.
Common Ground, which focuses on social issues in the Milwaukee area, does claim experience in the health care field. The group's top three issues, according to its website, are education, foreclosures and health care.
Common Ground Healthcare Cooperative, an offshoot which technically is independent from Common Ground, is new. According to state records, it incorporated in August 2011, just a few months before the loan applications were due. The group announced its formal launch on Tuesday, along with the $56 million loan decision.
In a statement, the group said it would bring a "new approach to affordable, quality health insurance." The organization said it researched possible health insurance solutions for three years before deciding to apply for the Affordable Care Act funding.
"As a small business owner, I grew tired of the exorbitant increases in health insurance costs with no real additional value. Common Ground Healthcare is a solution to the region's cry for help," board President Bob Connolly said in a statement.
The statement said the organization would start enrolling people in fall 2013 and plans to hire 30 employees over five years.
A representative from the group has not responded to a request for comment from FoxNews.com.
The federal loans announced this week were worth a total of nearly $640 million. Six other organizations in seven states received them. The money is meant for the creation of so-called Consumer Operated and Oriented Plans, which will serve as nonprofit, cooperative-style insurance groups which will offer an alternative to other private plans. The goal is to eventually fund one of these groups in every state and the District of Columbia.
The latest loans will cover start-up costs and cash reserve requirements. Start-up money must be repaid with interest over five years -- the "solvency loans" must be repaid within 15 years. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services stressed in its announcement that the funds can only be tapped "incrementally as milestones are met," and that the program has "extensive provisions to protect against fraud."
CMS said the loans were awarded "on a competitive basis through external and independent expert objective reviews," and following approval by officials with private insurance experience.
But Wilson said some of the other groups awarded appear to have more experience in the field than the Wisconsin organization. He said his group would file a Freedom of Information Act request to the government to find out more about the process.
Wilson described the transaction as a "huge wad of money in a swing state."
Republican Rep. Dave Camp's office also complained that another group, the Freelancers Union, was awarded more than $340 million via federal loans in three states as part of the same program.
In a statement, Camp questioned whether the group was even eligible, describing the loan as a "reward" for "political friends."
SOURCE: Judson Berger - Fox News
Judge Accused Of Dismissing Parking Tickets Recieves a PAID Vacation
Ballentine Faces 2 Felonies, Misdemeanor
February 22, 2012
LANCASTER COUNTY, Pa. -- A Lancaster County District Judge accused of dismissing three of her own parking tickets was suspended on Wednesday.
The Court of Judicial Discipline suspended Kelly Ballentine with pay.
She faces two felony charges and a misdemeanor.
HISTORY: District Judge Accused Of Dismissing Her Traffic Citations
LANCASTER, Pa. -- A district judge in Lancaster is accused of dismissing traffic citations that had been issued for her personal vehicle.
Watch Our News 8 Report On This Story Here
Kelly S. Ballentine, 43, surrendered Monday. She was released on bail and ordered to have no contact with witnesses.
In November 2010, Lancaster police issued three traffic citations to Ballentine – one for an expired registration and two for parking violations in front of her home, according to court documents.
After 30 days, a summons for each citation was mailed to her because she did not pay fines, officials with the attorney general’s office said.
Ballentine dismissed the summonses and there is no record of her paying the fines, officials with the attorney general’s office said.
She is charged with three counts of conflict of interest, six counts of tampering with public records and three counts of obstructing the administration of law or other governmental function.
Ballentine has been placed on administrative leave by Lancaster County's president judge.
SOURCE: WGAL.com.
February 22, 2012
LANCASTER COUNTY, Pa. -- A Lancaster County District Judge accused of dismissing three of her own parking tickets was suspended on Wednesday.
The Court of Judicial Discipline suspended Kelly Ballentine with pay.
She faces two felony charges and a misdemeanor.
HISTORY: District Judge Accused Of Dismissing Her Traffic Citations
LANCASTER, Pa. -- A district judge in Lancaster is accused of dismissing traffic citations that had been issued for her personal vehicle.
Watch Our News 8 Report On This Story Here
Kelly S. Ballentine, 43, surrendered Monday. She was released on bail and ordered to have no contact with witnesses.
In November 2010, Lancaster police issued three traffic citations to Ballentine – one for an expired registration and two for parking violations in front of her home, according to court documents.
After 30 days, a summons for each citation was mailed to her because she did not pay fines, officials with the attorney general’s office said.
Ballentine dismissed the summonses and there is no record of her paying the fines, officials with the attorney general’s office said.
She is charged with three counts of conflict of interest, six counts of tampering with public records and three counts of obstructing the administration of law or other governmental function.
Ballentine has been placed on administrative leave by Lancaster County's president judge.
SOURCE: WGAL.com.
Atheist choked by Muslim, Muslim judge drops charges
Offended Muslim chokes atheist, and then ...
You won't believe craziness caused by 'Zombie Muhammad'
A Muslim judge in Pennsylvania – who scolded a local atheist for offending Islam, called him a doofus and accused him of “using the First Amendment” to madden Muslims – dismissed harassment charges against the Muslim defendant who purportedly choked the atheist during a Halloween parade.
District Judge Mark Martin brought a Quran to court and told the alleged victim, American Atheists’ Pennsylvania State Director Ernest Perce V, “I think you misinterpreted a couple of things. So before you start mocking somebody else’s religion, you might want to find out a little more about it. It kind of makes you look like a doofus.”
The judge added, “I think our forefathers intended to use the First Amendment so we can speak with our mind, not to p— off other people and cultures – which is what you did.”
Perce had worn a “zombie Muhammad” costume and proclaimed that he was the Prophet Muhammad risen from the dead at the Oct, 11, 2011, event in Mechanicsburg, Pa. A “zombie pope” was also featured in the parade that night.
Now the Scranton Atheism Examiner reports that Perce could be arrested for posting audio of the judge scolding him for mocking Muhammad. According to report, the Muslim judge has threatened to hold him in contempt of court for releasing the recording. Perce has claimed he was given permission to post the audio.
The Examiner reports that Perce said he posted the audio because the judge treated him unfairly and showed preferential treatment for the Muslim defendant.
According to reports, the atheists were marching when Talaag Elbayomy, a Muslim, stormed out of the crowd and assaulted Perce, grabbing a sign around his neck and pulling until the strings choked him.
The men caught the attention of a nearby police officer.
Mechanicsburg Police Officer Bryan Curtis told Pennsylvania’s WHTM-TV, “Mr. Perce has the right to do what he did that evening, and the defendant in this case was wrong in what he did in confronting him.”
He added, “I believe that I brought a case that showed proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and the case was dismissed, and I was disappointed.”
Elbayomy – who said he believed it was illegal to mock Muhammad – was charged with harassment. He denied touching Perce at trial, but Officer Curtis said Elbayomy admitted grabbing Perce’s sign and beard the night of the incident.
The following is a dark and distorted video posted of the alleged attack:
However, Judge Martin dismissed the charges and purportedly belittled the atheist victim.
The audio of the judge lecturing Curtis for insulting Muhammad (starts at 28:30) is available here:
The following is an excerpt of the Muslim judge’s lecture in which he scolded Perce for offending Islam:
Well, having had the benefit of having spent over two-and-a-half years in predominantly Muslim countries, I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. In fact, I have a copy of the Quran here, and I would challenge you, Sir, to show me where it says in the Quran that Muhammad arose and walked among the dead. I think you misinterpreted a couple of things. So before you start mocking somebody else’s religion, you might want to find out a little more about it. It kind of makes you look like a doofus. …
In many other Muslim-speaking countries, err, excuse me, many Arabic-speaking countries, predominantly Muslim, something like this is definitely against the law there, in their society. In fact, it could be punished by death, and frequently is, in their society.
Here in our society, we have a Constitution that gives us many rights, specifically First Amendment rights. It’s unfortunate that some people use the First Amendment to deliberately provoke others. I don’t think that’s what our forefathers intended. I think our forefathers intended to use the First Amendment so we can speak with our mind, not to p— off other people and cultures – which is what you did.
I don’t think you’re aware, Sir, there’s a big difference between how Americans practice Christianity – I understand you’re an atheist – but see Islam is not just a religion. It’s their culture, their culture, their very essence, their very being. They pray five times a day toward Mecca. To be a good Muslim before you die, you have to make a pilgrimage to Mecca, unless you’re otherwise told you cannot because you’re too ill, too elderly, whatever, but you must make the attempt. Their greeting is ‘Salam alaikum, wa-laikum as-Salam,’ uh, ‘May God be with you.’
Whenever it is very common, their language, when they’re speaking to each other, it’s very common for them to say, uh, Allah willing, this will happen. It’s, they’re so immersed in it. And what you’ve done is, you’ve completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very, very, very offensive. I’m a Muslim. I find it offensive. I find what’s on the other side of this [sign] very offensive. (Editor’s note: Reverse of sign said, “Only Muhammad can rape America!) But you have that right, but you are way outside your bounds of First Amendment rights. …
I’ve spent about seven years living in other countries. When we go to other countries, it’s not uncommon for people to refer to us as ‘ugly Americans.’ This is why we hear it referred to as ‘ugly Americans,’ because we’re so concerned about our own rights, we don’t care about other people’s rights. As long as we get our say, but we don’t care about the other people’s say.
The judge later added, “Because there was not, it is not proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant is guilty of harassment, therefore, I am going to dismiss the charge.”
Carl Silverman of the Parading Atheists of Central Pennsylvania told WHTM-TV, “We understand that Muslims are extremely sensitive. But this is America, and you need to get over the sensitivity and take out your opposition in peaceful ways – not by attacking people physically.
SOURCE: by Chelsea Schilling - WND
You won't believe craziness caused by 'Zombie Muhammad'
A Muslim judge in Pennsylvania – who scolded a local atheist for offending Islam, called him a doofus and accused him of “using the First Amendment” to madden Muslims – dismissed harassment charges against the Muslim defendant who purportedly choked the atheist during a Halloween parade.
District Judge Mark Martin brought a Quran to court and told the alleged victim, American Atheists’ Pennsylvania State Director Ernest Perce V, “I think you misinterpreted a couple of things. So before you start mocking somebody else’s religion, you might want to find out a little more about it. It kind of makes you look like a doofus.”
The judge added, “I think our forefathers intended to use the First Amendment so we can speak with our mind, not to p— off other people and cultures – which is what you did.”
Perce had worn a “zombie Muhammad” costume and proclaimed that he was the Prophet Muhammad risen from the dead at the Oct, 11, 2011, event in Mechanicsburg, Pa. A “zombie pope” was also featured in the parade that night.
Now the Scranton Atheism Examiner reports that Perce could be arrested for posting audio of the judge scolding him for mocking Muhammad. According to report, the Muslim judge has threatened to hold him in contempt of court for releasing the recording. Perce has claimed he was given permission to post the audio.
The Examiner reports that Perce said he posted the audio because the judge treated him unfairly and showed preferential treatment for the Muslim defendant.
According to reports, the atheists were marching when Talaag Elbayomy, a Muslim, stormed out of the crowd and assaulted Perce, grabbing a sign around his neck and pulling until the strings choked him.
The men caught the attention of a nearby police officer.
Mechanicsburg Police Officer Bryan Curtis told Pennsylvania’s WHTM-TV, “Mr. Perce has the right to do what he did that evening, and the defendant in this case was wrong in what he did in confronting him.”
He added, “I believe that I brought a case that showed proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and the case was dismissed, and I was disappointed.”
Elbayomy – who said he believed it was illegal to mock Muhammad – was charged with harassment. He denied touching Perce at trial, but Officer Curtis said Elbayomy admitted grabbing Perce’s sign and beard the night of the incident.
The following is a dark and distorted video posted of the alleged attack:
However, Judge Martin dismissed the charges and purportedly belittled the atheist victim.
The audio of the judge lecturing Curtis for insulting Muhammad (starts at 28:30) is available here:
The following is an excerpt of the Muslim judge’s lecture in which he scolded Perce for offending Islam:
Well, having had the benefit of having spent over two-and-a-half years in predominantly Muslim countries, I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. In fact, I have a copy of the Quran here, and I would challenge you, Sir, to show me where it says in the Quran that Muhammad arose and walked among the dead. I think you misinterpreted a couple of things. So before you start mocking somebody else’s religion, you might want to find out a little more about it. It kind of makes you look like a doofus. …
In many other Muslim-speaking countries, err, excuse me, many Arabic-speaking countries, predominantly Muslim, something like this is definitely against the law there, in their society. In fact, it could be punished by death, and frequently is, in their society.
Here in our society, we have a Constitution that gives us many rights, specifically First Amendment rights. It’s unfortunate that some people use the First Amendment to deliberately provoke others. I don’t think that’s what our forefathers intended. I think our forefathers intended to use the First Amendment so we can speak with our mind, not to p— off other people and cultures – which is what you did.
I don’t think you’re aware, Sir, there’s a big difference between how Americans practice Christianity – I understand you’re an atheist – but see Islam is not just a religion. It’s their culture, their culture, their very essence, their very being. They pray five times a day toward Mecca. To be a good Muslim before you die, you have to make a pilgrimage to Mecca, unless you’re otherwise told you cannot because you’re too ill, too elderly, whatever, but you must make the attempt. Their greeting is ‘Salam alaikum, wa-laikum as-Salam,’ uh, ‘May God be with you.’
Whenever it is very common, their language, when they’re speaking to each other, it’s very common for them to say, uh, Allah willing, this will happen. It’s, they’re so immersed in it. And what you’ve done is, you’ve completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very, very, very offensive. I’m a Muslim. I find it offensive. I find what’s on the other side of this [sign] very offensive. (Editor’s note: Reverse of sign said, “Only Muhammad can rape America!) But you have that right, but you are way outside your bounds of First Amendment rights. …
I’ve spent about seven years living in other countries. When we go to other countries, it’s not uncommon for people to refer to us as ‘ugly Americans.’ This is why we hear it referred to as ‘ugly Americans,’ because we’re so concerned about our own rights, we don’t care about other people’s rights. As long as we get our say, but we don’t care about the other people’s say.
The judge later added, “Because there was not, it is not proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant is guilty of harassment, therefore, I am going to dismiss the charge.”
Carl Silverman of the Parading Atheists of Central Pennsylvania told WHTM-TV, “We understand that Muslims are extremely sensitive. But this is America, and you need to get over the sensitivity and take out your opposition in peaceful ways – not by attacking people physically.
SOURCE: by Chelsea Schilling - WND
Billion-dollar traveler: Obama's Air Force One, Two and Three
Presidential Piggybacking: Obama Trips Combine Official, Political Business
MIAMI, Feb. 23, 2012
President Obama jets to Florida today for a mix of official and political business that will steal some headlines in the Sunshine State and line his campaign coffers with at least $4 million.
The act of presidential piggybacking -- coupling official duties, in this case a speech on the economy, with political fundraising -- was not pioneered by Obama but is prominently on display this year.
Obama has taken four trips outside Washington, D.C., since Jan. 1, including 18 re-election fundraisers interspersed with various activities related to his duties as president. Most recently, Obama concluded a three-day, three-state swing when he attended eight fundraisers and two official events.
The president's jet-setting has drawn the usual criticisms from his political opponents but also raised the curiosity and questions from taxpayers about who bears the sky-high costs.
Official presidential travel has traditionally been paid for by taxpayers as part of executive branch operations, while political trips and events are to be covered by a candidate's campaign committee. On the occasions that they mix, the costs are to be split.
"Most presidents have doubled up on trips and said they followed the law, which is a complex formula no one really understands," said Brendan Doherty, a political science professor at the U.S. Naval Academy and author of the forthcoming book "The Rise of the President's Permanent Campaign."
"And even on a fully political trip, the taxpayer ends up paying part of the bill," he said, citing the nature of the American presidency.
As a rule of thumb, an incumbent president's campaign is expected to reimburse the government the cost of a first class commercial airline ticket for each person riding Air Force One to or from a political event, campaign finance experts say.
But that amount doesn't come close to covering the proportional operating cost of Air Force One, or the army of Secret Service agents, White House advance teams, the fleet of Air Force cargo planes transporting the presidential motorcade or the helicopters that often ferry the president from an airport to a remote site.
Air Force One – known in the military as VC-25 – costs $179,750 per flight hour alone in fiscal year 2012, Maj. Michelle Lai of the 89th Airlift Wing told ABC News.
That figure includes fuel, flight consumables, depot level repairs, aircraft overhaul and engine overhaul. Pilot and airmen salaries are not included because they are paid regardless of the plane's use, Lai said.
Obama's trip to Florida and back today will cost at least $674,000 in Air Force One flight time alone.
His three-day, three-state swing that included two official events and eight fundraisers, netting more than $8 million last week, incurred flight costs of $2.1 million, based on the Air Force figure and flight times gathered from press pool reports.
As for how the proportion of that bill is broken down for Obama campaign to pay, experts say the law is murky and the practice of reimbursement somewhat "on your honor."
"At the end of the day the Federal Election Commission has not been abundantly clear about how the costs of mixed purpose travel should be paid for," said Paul Ryan, an expert in FEC law with the Campaign Finance Institute.
Ryan said a recent advisory case involving Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., who wanted to attend fundraisers while traveling on a publisher-paid book tour, illustrates the lack of clarity in this area of election law.
The FEC deadlocked on the question of whether Brown's campaign committee had to foot any of the travel costs, with the panel's Republican members insisting that Brown shouldn't have to pay any at all.
"The rationale was that he was going to the cities principally for the book tour, and he would be there regardless of whether or not he was holding a fundraising event," Ryan said. "They believed that fact he tacked on a fundraising event didn't trigger a recharacterization of the travel.
"I think the same analysis would apply to Barack Obama's travel," he said.
The Obama campaign has reimbursed more than $1.5 million for travel so far this election cycle, according to FEC records.
White House press secretary Jay Carney explained last week that the administration follows all guidelines and precedent for mixed purpose presidential travel, often "consolidating" events on long-range trips to maximize the value.
"We do it absolutely by the book -- in the same manner that President Bush did, President Clinton did," Carney told reporters on Feb. 16.
Richard Painter, an associate counsel in the George W. Bush administration and chief ethics lawyer for the president between 2005 and 2007, said he believes Obama's travels -- like Bush's -- are legal and necessary, despite the high cost.
"The argument for taking Air Force One and everything else, even for campaign events, is that the president needs to travel in a secure way and have communications capabilities," Painter explained.
Obama in Miami, Orlando
After a speech on his 2013 budget proposal at the University of Miami, Obama will attend three fundraisers for his re-election campaign.
He'll attend a reception with 450 supporters at the Biltmore Hotel in Coral Gables, where DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Sen. Bill Nelson would also join, and singer Deborah Cox will perform. General admission tickets were $1,000 apiece, a campaign official said.
Then Obama will hobnob at a private residence in Coral Gables with 100 donors, who each paid at least $15,000 for a chance to meet the president.
Obama will fly Air Force One from Miami to Orlando for his third event of the evening, at the Windermere home of NBA star Vince Carter. Each of the 70 guests cut a check of $30,000, according to the Obama campaign.
All proceeds benefit the Obama Victory Fund, a joint account of the Democratic National Committee and president's campaign.
Obama Logs 10K Miles
Obama's Florida fundraisers raise his total for the year to 28, including events in Democratic-strongholds of Illinois, New York and California.
Combined, Obama has logged more than 10,000 flight miles this year on trips that have included fundraisers.
SOURCE: Devin Dwyer - ABC News
MIAMI, Feb. 23, 2012
President Obama jets to Florida today for a mix of official and political business that will steal some headlines in the Sunshine State and line his campaign coffers with at least $4 million.
The act of presidential piggybacking -- coupling official duties, in this case a speech on the economy, with political fundraising -- was not pioneered by Obama but is prominently on display this year.
Obama has taken four trips outside Washington, D.C., since Jan. 1, including 18 re-election fundraisers interspersed with various activities related to his duties as president. Most recently, Obama concluded a three-day, three-state swing when he attended eight fundraisers and two official events.
The president's jet-setting has drawn the usual criticisms from his political opponents but also raised the curiosity and questions from taxpayers about who bears the sky-high costs.
Official presidential travel has traditionally been paid for by taxpayers as part of executive branch operations, while political trips and events are to be covered by a candidate's campaign committee. On the occasions that they mix, the costs are to be split.
"Most presidents have doubled up on trips and said they followed the law, which is a complex formula no one really understands," said Brendan Doherty, a political science professor at the U.S. Naval Academy and author of the forthcoming book "The Rise of the President's Permanent Campaign."
"And even on a fully political trip, the taxpayer ends up paying part of the bill," he said, citing the nature of the American presidency.
As a rule of thumb, an incumbent president's campaign is expected to reimburse the government the cost of a first class commercial airline ticket for each person riding Air Force One to or from a political event, campaign finance experts say.
But that amount doesn't come close to covering the proportional operating cost of Air Force One, or the army of Secret Service agents, White House advance teams, the fleet of Air Force cargo planes transporting the presidential motorcade or the helicopters that often ferry the president from an airport to a remote site.
Air Force One – known in the military as VC-25 – costs $179,750 per flight hour alone in fiscal year 2012, Maj. Michelle Lai of the 89th Airlift Wing told ABC News.
That figure includes fuel, flight consumables, depot level repairs, aircraft overhaul and engine overhaul. Pilot and airmen salaries are not included because they are paid regardless of the plane's use, Lai said.
Obama's trip to Florida and back today will cost at least $674,000 in Air Force One flight time alone.
His three-day, three-state swing that included two official events and eight fundraisers, netting more than $8 million last week, incurred flight costs of $2.1 million, based on the Air Force figure and flight times gathered from press pool reports.
As for how the proportion of that bill is broken down for Obama campaign to pay, experts say the law is murky and the practice of reimbursement somewhat "on your honor."
"At the end of the day the Federal Election Commission has not been abundantly clear about how the costs of mixed purpose travel should be paid for," said Paul Ryan, an expert in FEC law with the Campaign Finance Institute.
Ryan said a recent advisory case involving Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., who wanted to attend fundraisers while traveling on a publisher-paid book tour, illustrates the lack of clarity in this area of election law.
The FEC deadlocked on the question of whether Brown's campaign committee had to foot any of the travel costs, with the panel's Republican members insisting that Brown shouldn't have to pay any at all.
"The rationale was that he was going to the cities principally for the book tour, and he would be there regardless of whether or not he was holding a fundraising event," Ryan said. "They believed that fact he tacked on a fundraising event didn't trigger a recharacterization of the travel.
"I think the same analysis would apply to Barack Obama's travel," he said.
The Obama campaign has reimbursed more than $1.5 million for travel so far this election cycle, according to FEC records.
White House press secretary Jay Carney explained last week that the administration follows all guidelines and precedent for mixed purpose presidential travel, often "consolidating" events on long-range trips to maximize the value.
"We do it absolutely by the book -- in the same manner that President Bush did, President Clinton did," Carney told reporters on Feb. 16.
Richard Painter, an associate counsel in the George W. Bush administration and chief ethics lawyer for the president between 2005 and 2007, said he believes Obama's travels -- like Bush's -- are legal and necessary, despite the high cost.
"The argument for taking Air Force One and everything else, even for campaign events, is that the president needs to travel in a secure way and have communications capabilities," Painter explained.
Obama in Miami, Orlando
After a speech on his 2013 budget proposal at the University of Miami, Obama will attend three fundraisers for his re-election campaign.
He'll attend a reception with 450 supporters at the Biltmore Hotel in Coral Gables, where DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Sen. Bill Nelson would also join, and singer Deborah Cox will perform. General admission tickets were $1,000 apiece, a campaign official said.
Then Obama will hobnob at a private residence in Coral Gables with 100 donors, who each paid at least $15,000 for a chance to meet the president.
Obama will fly Air Force One from Miami to Orlando for his third event of the evening, at the Windermere home of NBA star Vince Carter. Each of the 70 guests cut a check of $30,000, according to the Obama campaign.
All proceeds benefit the Obama Victory Fund, a joint account of the Democratic National Committee and president's campaign.
Obama Logs 10K Miles
Obama's Florida fundraisers raise his total for the year to 28, including events in Democratic-strongholds of Illinois, New York and California.
Combined, Obama has logged more than 10,000 flight miles this year on trips that have included fundraisers.
SOURCE: Devin Dwyer - ABC News
Thursday, February 23, 2012
'When Congress refuses to act, Joe and I are going to act'
February 21, 2012
(CNSNews.com) – In keeping with his “We Can’t Wait” initiative, President Barack Obama has once again asserted that if Congress does not enact his policies in the future, he will continue to forge ahead on his own.
“When Congress refuses to act, Joe and I are going to act,” Obama said on Tuesday, with Vice President Joe Biden at his side. “In the months to come, wherever we have an opportunity, we’re going to take steps on our own to keep this economy moving.”
Obama, speaking at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building near the White House, praised Congress for voting to extend the payroll tax cut. He said this helps the middle class, adding that he will fight for middle class voters regardless of what Congress does.
“With or without Congress, I’m going to continue to fight for them. I do hope Congress joins me instead of spending the coming months in a lot of phony political debates focusing on the next election.”
Earlier Tuesday, the White House announced that as part of its “We Can’t Wait” campaign, the Departments of Agriculture and Commerce will expand the federal government’s purchase of bio-based products, promote regional rural job creation efforts, and develop a rural health care workforce.
“The actions we are taking will bring new economic investments to our rural communities, to ensure the people who live in these towns have a better, brighter future,” said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, who chairs the White House Rural Council.
Obama issued a presidential directive calling for a 50-percent increase in the number of federally purchased bio-based products, including items such as paints, soaps and detergents that are developed from farm-grown plants, rather than chemicals or petroleum bases.
The White House also announced the Rural Jobs Accelerator. It is a national competition that will provide about $15 million for projects already appropriated to the USDA, the Economic Development Administration (EDA), Delta Regional Authority and the Appalachian Regional Commission.
Further, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Labor signed a memorandum to connect community colleges and technical colleges that support rural communities with the materials and resources they need to support the training of Health Information Technology (HIT) professionals that work in rural hospitals and clinics.
SOURCE: CNS News
(CNSNews.com) – In keeping with his “We Can’t Wait” initiative, President Barack Obama has once again asserted that if Congress does not enact his policies in the future, he will continue to forge ahead on his own.
“When Congress refuses to act, Joe and I are going to act,” Obama said on Tuesday, with Vice President Joe Biden at his side. “In the months to come, wherever we have an opportunity, we’re going to take steps on our own to keep this economy moving.”
Obama, speaking at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building near the White House, praised Congress for voting to extend the payroll tax cut. He said this helps the middle class, adding that he will fight for middle class voters regardless of what Congress does.
“With or without Congress, I’m going to continue to fight for them. I do hope Congress joins me instead of spending the coming months in a lot of phony political debates focusing on the next election.”
Earlier Tuesday, the White House announced that as part of its “We Can’t Wait” campaign, the Departments of Agriculture and Commerce will expand the federal government’s purchase of bio-based products, promote regional rural job creation efforts, and develop a rural health care workforce.
“The actions we are taking will bring new economic investments to our rural communities, to ensure the people who live in these towns have a better, brighter future,” said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, who chairs the White House Rural Council.
Obama issued a presidential directive calling for a 50-percent increase in the number of federally purchased bio-based products, including items such as paints, soaps and detergents that are developed from farm-grown plants, rather than chemicals or petroleum bases.
The White House also announced the Rural Jobs Accelerator. It is a national competition that will provide about $15 million for projects already appropriated to the USDA, the Economic Development Administration (EDA), Delta Regional Authority and the Appalachian Regional Commission.
Further, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Labor signed a memorandum to connect community colleges and technical colleges that support rural communities with the materials and resources they need to support the training of Health Information Technology (HIT) professionals that work in rural hospitals and clinics.
SOURCE: CNS News
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)