» National News

IMF Says U.S. Financial System May Need $76 Billion in Capital

admin — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:40:13 +0000

By Sandrine Rastello and Rebecca Christie -

U.S. President Barack Obama. Photographer: Joshua Roberts/Bloomberg

The U.S. financial system remains fragile and banks subjected to additional economic stress might need as much as $76 billion in capital, according to the results of International Monetary Fund stress tests.

The findings, released today as part of a broader IMF report on the U.S. financial system, suggested that while the nation’s banking system is stable, it remains vulnerable. Home prices, commercial real estate loans and economic growth have the potential to cause shocks that could expose banks to more losses.

Under one scenario, small and regional banks as well as subsidiaries of foreign banks would need $40.5 billion in additional capital to meet a benchmark capital ratio of 6 percent Tier 1 common equity from 2010 to 2014. Under the adverse scenario, those needs rise to $76.3 billion, according to the report.

“Pockets of vulnerabilities linger,” the fund said in the report. The U.S. is recovering from what the IMF called “one of the most devastating financial crises in a century.”

Because the economic recovery is proceeding slowly, regulators must be especially vigilant in guarding against risks and weak spots, the report said.

The IMF also renewed its call for the Obama administration to push ahead with changes to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored enterprise housing companies. The report suggested a partial privatization strategy, in which the government would take over the GSEs’ public housing mission while privatizing investment operations.

Regulators’ Role

The IMF stopped short of recommending recapitalizing the banks it studied in the report. Instead, it urged regulators to monitor conditions, especially for smaller institutions with less market access.

The numbers “are not frightening,” said Christopher Towe, the IMF’s deputy director of monetary and capital markets who directed the assessment. The review process was created in the wake of the Asian crisis, and the U.S. is the first major economy to undergo it since the global financial turmoil.

“We are particularly concerned about the situation among the small and medium-sized banks, which are most heavily exposed to the commercial real estate sector,” he told reporters in a press briefing yesterday.

The IMF said second-quarter results underscore the balance- sheet risks identified by the stress tests. “Initial releases of second-quarter earnings results have been disappointing,” the IMF report said.

Real Estate

The IMF said about $1.4 trillion of commercial real estate loans will mature from 2010 to 2014, almost half of which are already “seriously delinquent,” with payments 90 days or more past due, or “underwater,” with loan values exceeding property values. Home prices are another concern, as are the spillover effects if problems intensify as they spread among institutions.

U.S. regulators will need to step up their efforts to coordinate oversight after the Dodd-Frank legislation that President Barack Obama signed this month, the IMF said. The report generally praised the new law, while also flagging ongoing concerns.

“In some areas we were a little bit disappointed,” Towe said. “We see the system of regulatory agencies as still remaining exceptionally complex with a very large number of agencies involved and we would have preferred to have seen a much more bold streamlining.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Sandrine Rastello in Washington at srastello@bloomberg.net Rebecca Christie in Washington at rchristie4@bloomberg.net;

Conservative Media Watchdog Issues Ethics Challenge to Washington Post

admin — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:37:36 +0000

Friday, July 30, 2010
By Matt Cover, Staff Writer

L. Brent Bozell III, president of the Media Research Center – the parent organization of CNSNews.com

(CNSNews.com) – Conservative media watchdog L. Brent Bozell III has issued an open letter to Washington Post Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli calling on the Post to fully divulge the involvement of its employees with the controversial Journolist e-mail list.

Bozell, president of the Media Research Center – the parent organization of CNSNews.com – pointed out that several Post employees were members of the liberal email list. This association, he said, put the paper’s credibility and impartiality in doubt.

“The almost constant revelations of political activism and journalistic conspiracy raise an enormous number of questions about Post policies and ethics,” Bozell wrote on July 28.

“The Journolist scandal is getting worse every day and The Washington Post is at the center of it,” he said. “Blogger Ezra Klein ran the operation and at least three other staffers were members.”

Journolist is the email listserv founded by liberal policy blogger Ezra Klein, currently employed by the Post. Klein founded the email list while working for the liberal American Prospect and continued running it after being hired by the Post.

According to Klein, the list was intended to be an electronic meeting place for left-wing journalists, academics, and pundits to share ideas, analysis, and information. However, in a series of stories from the conservative news Web site The Daily Caller, members of Journolist were revealed to be doing more than merely sharing sources and making contacts.

The first in that series of stories led to the firing of Post reporter David Weigel, whom the paper had originally hired to cover the conservative movement. After the Daily Caller published email exchanges showing Weigel attacking conservatives like Matt Drudge and Rush Limbaugh, Weigel was dismissed.

Other stories from the Daily Caller showed liberal journalists and academics pondering whether to organize a coordinated, left-wing message in an effort to use their platforms to help elect Democrats. Also revealed was an effort by liberal journalists to provide cover for then-candidate Barack Obama by diverting attention away from the controversial comments of his long-time pastor in Chicago, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

One journalist suggested that his liberal colleagues pick out prominent conservative figures and accuse them of being racists, so as to discredit them should they criticize Obama over the allegedly racist comments uttered by Wright.

Bozell said the only way the Post could wash its hands of the Journolist affair was to fully disclose not only the involvement of Klein and others, but to divulge the actions of its editorial staff who hired the liberal reporters.

“There is only one way for the Post to move forward from this fiasco – through transparency,” he said. “You need to be forthright about the Post’s failings and give readers enough information so that we know just how serious this really was and what can be done to restore your paper’s credibility.”

Bozell included a list of 20 questions that he and the Media Research Center believe the Post should address if it wants to remove doubts about its credibility:

1) How many Washington Post staffers were part of JournoList and, if there are any currently unnamed, who are they?

2) Will the Post be transparent and either release or order its staffers to release their contributions to the list?

3) Will the Post release the names and affiliations of all those on the list or have its staffers do so?

4) Did the Post know about JournoList when Klein was hired and that it was a “center to left” group? If yes, what does that say about the Post’s claims of neutrality?

5) Did actions on JournoList violate the Post’s ethical guidelines?

6) Has the Post revised or added any ethical guidelines as a result of this scandal?

7) Will the Post permit staffers to belong to or operate such lists in the future?

8) Does the Post often embrace “off the record” email conversations with hundreds of people at a time?

9) Was Klein’s supervisor(s) on the list and were they monitoring what went on?

10) Has the Post examined the possibility that JournoList impacted Post news coverage?

11) How much did the Post look into JournoList before hiring Klein?

12) Were Klein and the other Post members of the list using it and posting to it on company time? If not, when were they doing so?

13) Did Klein and the other Post members write to the list using company equipment and offices?

14) Was Klein aware that some were using the list to boost the Obama campaign, such as adviser Jared Bernstein?

15) Did Klein attempt to enforce a rule against campaigning and, if so, how?

16) Did Klein post written guidelines for all members of the list? If so, what were those guidelines?

17) Klein had said on The American Prospect on March 17, 2009: “There are no government or campaign employees on the list.” That has been proven false. How did he try to monitor this issue? Were there other members of the Obama campaign and administration on the list?

18) Did Klein ban anyone from the list?

19) Has Klein or any other Post staffer (other than Dave Weigel) offered to resign because of their contributions to the list?

20) When Klein shut down the list, did he delete the list? If not, will the Post order him to release it so that readers may decide for themselves?

Obama, Who Ended D.C.’s Voucher Program, Talks About Improving Education for Children ‘Born in the Wrong Neighborhood’

admin — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:26:47 +0000

Friday, July 30, 2010
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer

(CNSNews.com) – The Obama administration is phasing out a program that allows underprivileged children to get scholarships to expensive private schools in Washington, D.C., such as Sidwell Friends, the school the Obama girls attend, where tuition runs about $31,000 a year.

Nevertheless, Obama on Thursday spoke about his “obligation to lift up every child” to help them achieve a quality education.

In addressing the National Urban League’s 100th Anniversary Convention, Obama touted his education reform initiative called “Race to the Top.” The $4.35 billion education initiative encourages states to reform their education laws and policies by making them compete for additional federal grant dollars.

Obama said it has been a success. But the National Urban League and even a major teachers’ union have criticized “Race to the Top” for leaving minority students behind.

On Thursday, Obama said education reform is a top priority for his administration because the “status quo is morally inexcusable, it’s economically indefensible, and all of us are going to have to roll up our sleeves to change it.”

On a personal note, he invoked his days as a community organizer and a state senator, when he represented struggling communities with poor schools:

“I remember going to a school back in my organizing days and seeing children — young children, maybe five or six — eyes were brimming with hope, had such big dreams for the future,” the president said. “You’d ask them, what do you want to be when you grow up? They’d want to be a doctor; they’d want to be a lawyer.

“And then I remember the principal telling me that soon, all that would change,” Obama continued. “The hope would start fading from their eyes as they started to realize that maybe their dreams wouldn’t come to pass — not because they weren’t smart enough, not because they weren’t talented enough, but because through a turn of fate they happened to be born in the wrong neighborhood. They became victims of low expectations, a community that was not supporting educational excellence.”

Obama called it heartbreaking and said it reinforced in him “a fundamental belief that we’ve got an obligation to lift up every child in every school in this country, especially those who are starting out furthest behind.” The mostly black audience applauded.

Despite his words on Thursday, the Obama administration’s actions tell a different story.

The administration ended funding for the District of Columbia’s Opportunity Scholarship Program in the Fiscal Year 2010 budget. But, after protests from parents and school choice advocates, the administration eventually relented, agreeing to let children already receiving scholarships continue to do so until they graduate from high school.

In the Fiscal Year 2011 budget, the administration proposes to cut funding for the program by $4 million, from $13 million to $9 million. (See earlier story)

“The ‘Race to the Top’ is better than nothing,” said Clark Neily, senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, a legal group that advocates school choice.

Neily told CNSNews.com it’s a good thing that states have to demonstrate improvement to get federal education dollars. “Unless you put choice in the direct hands of parents, school systems are going to game the system by lowering the bar,” he said.

The Washington, D.C. voucher program began in 2004 to allow poor children to attend high-performing private schools. The program designates $7,500 scholarships to about 1,700 students to attend one of 55 private schools in D.C., including Sidwell Friends.

The private schools would accept the $7,500 payment to cover the much higher costs of tuition. In the case of Sidwell, tuition for “lower school” costs $31,069, while middle and upper school costs $32,069

The Education Department’s 2008 Digest of Education Statistics shows that for the 2005-2006 school year, $18,339 was spent per pupil per year for average daily attendance in the D.C. public schools – more than double what it costs for a child to attend a private school through the Opportunity Scholarship Program.

Despite that spending, the public schools in the District are consistently ranked as some of the worst performing schools in the nation.

Obama Creating Back-Door for Amnesty of Illegals?

admin — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:19:41 +0000

The Washington Times

by Stephen Dinan

With Congress gridlocked on an immigration bill, the Obama administration is considering using a back door to stop deporting many illegal immigrants – what a draft government memo said could be “a non-legislative version of amnesty.”

The memo, addressed to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Alejandro Mayorkas and written by four agency staffers, lists tools it says the administration has to “reduce the threat of removal” for many illegal immigrants who have run afoul of immigration authorities.

“In the absence of comprehensive immigration reform, USCIS can extend benefits and/or protections to many individuals and groups by issuing new guidance and regulations, exercising discretion with regard to parole-in-place, deferred action and the issuance of Notices to Appear,” the staffers wrote in the memo, which was obtained by Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican.

The memo suggests that in-depth discussions have occurred on how to keep many illegal immigrants in the country, which would be at least a temporary alternative to the proposals Democrats in Congress have made to legalize illegal immigrants.

Chris Bentley, a USCIS spokesman, said drafting the memo doesn’t mean the agency has embraced the policy and “nobody should mistake deliberation and exchange of ideas for final decisions.”

“As a matter of good government, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will discuss just about every issue that comes within the purview of the immigration system,” he said in an e-mail statement. “We continue to maintain that comprehensive bipartisan legislation, coupled with smart, effective enforcement, is the only solution to our nation’s immigration challenges.”

He said the Homeland Security Department “will not grant deferred action or humanitarian parole to the nation’s entire illegal immigrant population.”

The memo does talk about targeting specific groups of illegal immigrants.

Mr. Grassley said it confirms his fears that the administration is trying an end-run around Congress.

“This memo gives credence to our concerns that the administration will go to great lengths to circumvent Congress and unilaterally execute a backdoor amnesty plan,” Mr. Grassley said.

The memo acknowledges some of the tools could be costly and might even require asking Congress for more money.

At one point, the authors acknowledge that widespread use of “deferred action” – or using prosecutorial discretion not to deport someone – would be “a non-legislative version of ‘amnesty.’ ”

The authors noted several options for deferred action, including targeting it to students who would be covered by the DREAM Act, a bill that’s been introduced in Congress.

In testifying to the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 11, Mr. Mayorkas first said he was unaware of discussions to use these kinds of tools on a categorical basis, then later clarified that officials had talked about expanding the use of those powers.

“I don’t know of any plans. I think we have discussed, as we always do, the tools available to us and whether the deployment of any of those tools could achieve a more fair and efficient use or application of the immigration law,” he said.

He acknowledged, though, that he was not aware that those powers had ever been used before on a categorical basis.

Sen. John Cornyn, the Texas Republican who queried Mr. Mayorkas on the subject, warned him against pursuing that strategy.

“I think it would be a mistake for the administration to use administrative action, like deferred action on a categorical basis, to deal with a large number of people who are here without proper legal documents to regularize their status without Congress‘ participation. I will just say that to you for what it’s worth,” Mr. Cornyn, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary immigration, border security and citizenship subcommittee, told Mr. Mayorkas.

“The American public’s confidence in the federal government’s ability and commitment to enforce our immigration laws is at an all-time low,” Mr. Cornyn said in a statement. “This apparent step to circumvent Congress – and avoid a transparent debate on how to fix our broken immigration system – threatens to further erode public confidence in its government and makes it less likely we will ever reach consensus and pass credible border security and immigration reform.”

After reports earlier this year that the agency was working on these sorts of plans, Senate Republicans, led by Mr. Grassley, have sent letters to President Obama and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano asking for details.

In one letter, the senators warned the president against making an end-run around congressional authority to write immigration rules, and asked for Mr. Obama to promise that he would not use the rules to grant mass pardons.

Rosemary Jenks, government relations manager for NumbersUSA, an organization that advocates for stricter immigration limits, said the memo is “an outrageous usurpation of congressional authority. It is unconstitutional, and a slap in the face to the American people.”

She said that the memo could explain why the push for an immigration bill has faltered in Congress.

“This makes sense of the fact that [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid and [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi and Obama are sitting back calmly content with not moving immigration reform this year – because they know Obama is trying to take care of it for them, without Democrats having to be tied down to a vote before the election,” she said.

On the other side of the political spectrum, immigrant rights groups have demanded that Mr. Obama halt deportations until he secures a broad legalization bill from Congress – legislation that supporters call “comprehensive immigration reform” because it would tackle enforcement, some aspects of legal immigration and the status of illegal immigrants at the same time.

Two senators earlier this year wrote asking the administration to use its powers to stop deporting students who might be eligible for the DREAM Act, which would allow illegal immigrant college students brought to the U.S. at a young age to gain legal status. The legislation has not been passed by Congress.

Mr. Obama has rejected halting deportations, but his administration has been more careful about whom it pursues.

According to new figures from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the administration has stepped up its efforts to deport illegal immigrants convicted of crimes, but removal of “non-criminal” illegal immigrants has slowed so far in fiscal 2010.

Oracle Sued by U.S. in Case Claiming Overcharges

admin — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 15:23:02 +0000

Share Business Exchange Twitter Facebook| Email | Print | A A A

By Justin Blum and David Voreacos

July 29 (Bloomberg) — Oracle Corp., the world’s second- biggest software maker, was sued today by the U.S. Justice Department, which claimed the company overcharged the government on a contract worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

Oracle defrauded the government on a software contract with the General Services Administration between 1998 and 2006, according to the complaint. The company failed to give the government the same discounts it offered its most favored commercial customers, the Justice Department claims.

“Oracle’s false statements and fraudulent conduct in the negotiation and performance of the contract led to the submission of false claims for payment to the United States,” according to the complaint, filed in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia.

The U.S. lawsuit follows its intervention in a case filed in 2007 by Paul Frascella, a former Oracle employee who made similar claims. The False Claims Act lets private citizens sue on behalf of the government and share in any recovery. The Justice Department says it is cracking down on procurement fraud.

‘Taxpayers Suffer’

“We take seriously allegations that a government contractor has dealt dishonestly with the United States,” Tony West, assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s civil division, said in a statement. “When contractors misrepresent their business practices to the government, taxpayers suffer.”

Deborah Hellinger, a spokeswoman for Redwood City, California-based Oracle, didn’t return a phone call and e-mail seeking comment.

A Justice Department statement said the contract was worth hundreds of millions of dollars, while the complaint said Oracle reported $1.08 billion in sales for software licenses and maintenance under the contract.

The complaint doesn’t specify an amount of damages, saying it would be determined at trial. Frascella’s complaint, which was unsealed April 2 when the government joined his case, said Oracle overcharged the government by tens of millions of dollars. The government’s complaint offers more detail on the contract.

21 Agencies

It claims that 21 different executive agencies made purchases, including the Treasury, Defense and State departments.

The GSA negotiated so-called Multiple Award Schedule pacts with Oracle, according to the complaint. Once companies secure such contracts, government agencies may order products on GSA schedules without going through elaborate procurement programs.

In return, the government is supposed to get discounts equal to or greater than the discount given to that firm’s most favored customer, and contractors are supposed to report such discounts, according to the complaint.

The complaint claims that starting in 1997, Oracle falsely told the GSA that it was getting the best prices when it was not.

In October 2006, Oracle paid $98.5 million to settle a False Claims Act lawsuit over GSA Multiple Award Schedule pricing disclosures at PeopleSoft Inc., a software maker. Oracle bought PeopleSoft in January 2005 for $10.3 billion.

The complaint, filed in 2003 by whistleblower James Hicks, was joined in 2006 by the Justice Department.

Oracle fell 58 cents to $23.70 today in Nasdaq stock market trading.

The case is U.S. v. Oracle Corp., 1:07-cv-00529, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria).

To contact the reporters on this story: Justin Blum in Washington at jblum4@bloomberg.net David Voreacos in Newark, New Jersey, at dvoreacos@bloomberg.net.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio: I’ll Enforce Arizona’s Immigration Law

afrederick — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 13:27:04 +0000

By Jim Meyers | Newsmax

Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the controversial top cop in Maricopa County, Ariz., tells Newsmax he will jail any protesters who attempt to block his jail on Thursday when provisions of his state’s tough new immigration law take effect.

Arpaio also says it’s “great” if undocumented aliens react to the new law and his strict anti-illegal immigration agenda by moving back to Mexico or to the “sanctuary state” of California, and challenges President Barack Obama to invite him to the White House for a “wine summit” to discuss illegal immigration.

Arpaio, whose county includes most of the Phoenix metropolitan area, promotes himself as “America’s toughest sheriff.” He has limited county inmates to two meals a day, banned “sexually explicit material” in prison, reinstituted chain gangs, and set up a “tent city” as an extension of the Maricopa County Jail.

On Wednesday a judge blocked the most controversial sections of Arizona’s new law and put them on hold. The law will still take effect on Thursday, but without some of the provisions that angered opponents — including sections that required officers to check a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws.

Nevertheless there are reports that opponents of the new law plan to block Arpaio’s jail on Thursday in an act of civil disobedience.

“There’s a rumor that they’re going to block our jails down the street,” Arpaio says in an exclusive Newsmax interview.

“You know what? They’re not going to block our jails. They’re going into the jail if they block our jail. I’m not going to succumb to these demonstrators keeping law enforcement from booking people in our jail. So we may have to take some action.”

Arpaio also vows to conduct a “crime suppression operation” on Thursday.

“This morning we raided another business and arrested five more illegal aliens with false identification. On Thursday we’re going to do our 17th crime suppression operation and go out with our volunteer posse and deputy sheriffs and catch criminals. We’ve done 16. Just by chance about two-thirds [of those arrested] happen to be here illegally.

“People say, why are you doing it on the day that the law may be put in effect? Well, should I wait? We’ve been enforcing the other state immigration laws and we’re still the only ones doing it. We’re going to continue doing our job.”

Arpaio was asked about concerns that the federal government will refuse to cooperate with a handoff of illegal aliens to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency after they are apprehended in Arizona.

“There’s been some rumbles that maybe ICE will not take the illegal aliens off the hands of law enforcement,” he responds.

“So we may have a little problem, but not that big, because most of the time we arrest illegal aliens we have them on another charge and we book them into our jail.

“After people do their time and we have them deported, if [ICE doesn’t] accept many of those people who are going to be deported, the only alternative is that they may be released on the street.

“So let’s see what the federal government does. I know they’re not happy with this new law. They’re not happy with me, because I had 100 deputies trained by Homeland Security, trained to work on the streets and function as federal officers, but they took that away when the new administration took office.”

There have been media reports that with the law taking effect, many Hispanics are moving out of Phoenix this weekend — as evidenced by a recent increase in yard sales to dispose of items before they move. Arpaio calls that “hype” and said “they have garage sales every week. Go into any Hispanic neighborhood and they’re having garage sales.

“But a lot of them are moving out. I’d like to take a little credit for that, because they’re accusing me of breaking up families, they’re accusing me because people don’t want to go to church, they don’t want to go to school because they worry about the sheriff coming in and arresting people that are here illegally.

“Consequently many people have moved out. Of course they don’t all go to Mexico. They go to the sanctuary state called California and other states where they don’t care about illegal immigration. But many of them are moving out, moving back to their home country. That’s great. Now let [them] get the proper paperwork and come into this country legally.”

The sheriff of neighboring Pinal County has invited President Obama to come to Arizona for a first-hand look at the illegal immigration problem.

“Why would he go to Pinal County?” Arpaio says.

“We’re bigger than all counties put together. We’ve locked up 40,000 people. Why doesn’t he come to Maricopa County to talk to the sheriff that he himself doesn’t like?”

Arpaio also scoffs at the notion that Obama should come to the Mexican border to observe the situation there.

“What is this, symbolic? He knows where the border is. Of course I spent 14 years at the border as the head of federal drug enforcement [in Arizona]. No one’s invited me, including Republicans, U.S. senators. No one has asked me my opinion as to what I would do if I was president.

“But that’s O.K. I’m not concerned about that. I know what we are doing.

But to say the president should take a tour of the border — I think he knows. He watches television. He talks to [Homeland Security Secretary] Janet Napolitano. I think he knows where the Mexican-U.S. border is.

“So just to say let him come down, for the president [to get] in a Jeep along with a little show of all the politicians and going to the border, that’s not going to solve any problems.

“Now I do realize that he did invite the Cambridge police sergeant in Massachusetts who arrested the college professor, and racial profiling was thrown in there. So he invited both of them to the White House [for the so-called beer summit]. They had a little beer.

“So why doesn’t he invite me to the White House? I’m accused of racial profiling and I have all those years experience. Why doesn’t he invite me to the White House? We’ll have a little wine and throw a little basketball. I’m from Springfield [Mass., birthplace of basketball] so I think I’ll beat him. But I’m not holding my breath.”

[article originally appears at newsmax.com]

GAO: Some Mexican Drug Traffickers ‘Specialize’ in Smuggling Aliens From Countries With Ties to Terrorism Into the U.S.

afrederick — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 13:16:47 +0000

By Edwin Mora | CNSNews.com

Some Mexican drug-trafficking organizations (DTOs) are involved in smuggling potential terrorists across the southwestern border, according to the Government Accountability Office.

“Aliens from countries of special interest to the United States such as Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan (known as special-interest aliens) also illegally enter the United States through the [southwest border] region,” Richard Stana, the GAO homeland security and justice issues director, said in a report on alien smuggling issued July 22.

“These [drug trafficking] organizations collect fees from alien smuggling organizations for the use of specific smuggling routes, and available reporting indicates that some Mexican drug trafficking organizations specialize in smuggling special-interest aliens into the United States,” he added.

Stana told CNSNews.com that the Justice Department’s National Drug Intelligence Center’s (NDIC) 2008 National Drug Threat Assessment and “other reports” corroborate his comments, although he did not elaborate on what other reports he was referring to.

When asked to provide evidence of any recent cases involving Mexican DTOs bringing in individuals from countries of special interest, Stana said, “(I) haven’t seen any specifics that are not ‘law enforcement sensitive.’”

According to the 2008 NDIC: “Hundreds of undocumented aliens from special-interest countries illegally cross the U.S.-Mexico border annually.”

The drug-threat assessment echoed Stana, saying, “Mexican DTOs specialize in smuggling special-interest aliens into the United States.”

According to the GAO report, alien smugglers are more likely now than in past years to use violence against U.S. law enforcement officers as they bring groups of aliens across the southwest border.”

“Assaults, kidnappings, and hostage situations attributed to this conflict are increasing, particularly in Tucson and Phoenix, Arizona,” the report said. “Communities across the country are at risk since among those individuals illegally crossing the border are criminal aliens and gang members who pose public safety concerns for communities throughout the country.”

At a hearing of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Border, Maritime, and Global Counterterrorism where Stana presented his report, Rep. Candice Miller (R-Mich.), the panel’s ranking member, suggested that the U.S. treat Mexican drug traffickers and human smugglers operating along the southwest border as “enemy combatants.”

“I would submit that we need to be thinking a bit about some of these folks who are coming here with guns and everything else as enemy combatants,” she said. “They should not be afforded necessarily all of the constitutional rights that American citizens have.”

On July 1, in a speech at American University in Washington, D.C., President Obama said, “Even as we are committed to doing what’s necessary to secure our borders, even without passage of the new law, there are those who argue that we should not move forward with any other elements of reform until we have fully sealed our borders.”

Obama added: “But our borders are just too vast for us to be able to solve the problem only with fences and border patrols. It won’t work. Our borders will not be secure as long as our limited resources are devoted to not only stopping gangs and potential terrorists, but also the hundreds of thousands who attempt to cross each year simply to find work.”

The president later said: the southern border “is more secure today than at any time in the past 20 years.”

Americans Cut Back on Visits to Doctor

afrederick — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 13:11:29 +0000

By Avery Johnson, Jonathan D. Rockoff and Anna Wilde Matthews | The Wall St. Journal

Insured Americans are using fewer medical services, raising questions about whether patients are consuming less health care as they pick up a greater share of the costs.

The drop in usage is showing up as health-care companies report financial results. Insurers, lab-testing companies, hospitals and doctor-billing concerns say that patient visits, drug prescriptions and procedures were down in the second quarter from year-ago levels.

“People just aren’t using health-care like they have,” said Wayne DeVeydt, WellPoint Inc.’s chief financial officer, in an interview Wednesday. “Utilization is lower than we expected, and it’s unusual.”

Others say that consumers are beginning to forgo elective procedures like knee replacements. “We have a very weak economy and it’s just a different environment for the elective parts of health care,” said Paul Ginsburg, a health economist who runs the Center for Studying Health System Change and has been analyzing health-company earnings. But “this could go beyond the recession. Being a less aggressive consumer of health care is here to stay.”

Continued weak demand could eventually put downward pressure on spiralling health-care costs, a long-sought goal of policy makers. It could also force insurers to lower premiums.

The new trend comes amid a broader drop in health-care use as more Americans lose their jobs and their health insurance. Such cutbacks have happened before in recessions, but the drop seems to be more pronounced this time, industry analysts say.

More Americans also are buying high-deductible health plans that force them to bear more of the upfront costs for health services. Some 18 million Americans bought high-deductible plans this year, compared with 13 million last year, according to Paul Mango, a director at consulting firm McKinsey & Co.

At the beginning of the year, Dan and Natalie Johnson, of Gig Harbor, Wash., used the website eHealthInsurance.com to buy a new plan with a high deductible, now set at $5,500 for their family. Their previous coverage had no deductible.

Now, the couple says they are thinking twice before scheduling doctor visits. Recently, when their 16-year-old daughter’s allergy prescription ran out, Ms. Johnson called the allergist’s office to ask for a renewal, without coming in for an appointment, as she would have done under their previous insurance.

And this spring, their son, 14, got his athletic physical at a local urgent-care clinic that charged just $40, instead of a doctor’s office, which would have cost about $90. “We don’t want to go through our savings going to the doctor,” says Ms. Johnson, a photographer.

All this raises the question of whether, after a year of national attention on out-of-control health costs before the federal health overhaul passed in March, the trend portends a lasting change in the way Americans use the medical system.

Just a year ago, insurers reported surging health-care usage. Back then, more consumers were signing up for Cobra, the federal program that allows people who have lost their jobs to keep their insurance. The government had extended a subsidy to cover 65% of the cost of the coverage, which can be prohibitively expensive.

However, the Cobra subsidies only covered the unemployed for 15 months, and many people have hit the limit and dropped coverage. What’s more, people who have lost their jobs since the end of May don’t qualify for the Cobra subsidies.

To be sure, the change in behavior could be short-lived. On an earnings call last week in which it reported a decline in hospital usage, UnitedHealth Group Inc. said it thought utilization would rise again in the second part of the year, as Americans exhaust their deductibles and insurers start paying for services. Both Aetna Inc. and WellPoint said the utilization fall-off was new as of this year, and they had not seen the trend previously even as the economy has deteriorated. Some insurers also cited an unusually mild flu season this year as a temporary factor.

What’s more, the federal health overhaul could cause usage to surge again. The new law will hand insurance cards to many Americans in 2014, which could unleash pent-up demand.

Utilization has ticked down in previous recessions, and tends to take a year or two to change because of how far in advance employers and insurers design their health plans, said Carl McDonald, an analyst at Citigroup Investment Research. He said the last time he saw utilization fall off was in 2003, adding that usage also dipped in the early 1990s. But he added the drop is bigger this time than in previous recessions.

The declines in utilization has boosted profits for insurers, who set their prices to cover anticipated medical costs. Insurance industry prices and profits have been under fire by Democrats and regulators this year. Insurers have justified high premiums by pointing to out-of-control medical costs. But the recent drop in usage could make it difficult for insurers to argue that continued price increases are necessary.

On Wednesday, Aetna said usage of health-care fell in the second quarter, feeding a 42% increase in profits. WellPoint reported a 4% earnings bump, saying that hospital admissions and usage of prescription drugs had dropped compared with a year earlier.

After the earnings releases, Rep. Pete Stark (D., Calif.) called on the companies to reduce their premiums since they are paying out less in medical care. In an interview, Aetna’s chief financial officer Joseph Zubretsky said companies might eventually have to do just that. “If utilization stays down, it will have a favorable impact on rates,” he said.

One company reporting evidence of lower utilization is CVS Caremark Corp., the drugstore giant. In its earnings announcement Wednesday it said it is seeing a drop-off in new prescriptions for maintenance drugs tied to a decline in physician visits.

People are “visiting fewer primary care doctors and specialists,” said Chief Executive Tom Ryan, in a conference call with analysts.

Last week, Quest Diagnostics Inc., a laboratory-testing company, told investors that its volume fell 2.6% in the first quarter and 1.3% in the second partly because of decreasing physician visits. In addition, AmSurg Corp., an outpatient-surgery company, reported that same-store procedures declined by 2.6% compared to a year earlier.

Another sign that people are forgoing doctor visits or getting less care came from athenahealth Inc., which provides billing services and electronic health records for more than 1,700 medical groups. It said last week that the number of claims filed per physician, as well as the average value of the billing for each visit, had dropped from a year earlier.

Physician visits and hospital admissions are dropping this year, according to Thomson Reuters’ healthcare business, which surveys doctors and hospitals. Doctor visits have declined each month this year, including a 7.6% drop in May 2010 from May 2009. Likewise, hospital admissions dropped in three of the first four months of this year compared to those months last year, including being down 2.3% in April 2010 from April 2009.

[article originally appears at wsj.com]

SEC Says New Financial Regulation Law Exempts it From Public Disclosure

afrederick — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 13:05:32 +0000

By Dunstan Prial | FOXBusiness

So much for transparency.

Under a little-noticed provision of the recently passed financial-reform legislation, the Securities and Exchange Commission no longer has to comply with virtually all requests for information releases from the public, including those filed under the Freedom of Information Act.

The law, signed last week by President Obama, exempts the SEC from disclosing records or information derived from “surveillance, risk assessments, or other regulatory and oversight activities.” Given that the SEC is a regulatory body, the provision covers almost every action by the agency, lawyers say. Congress and federal agencies can request information, but the public cannot.

That argument comes despite the President saying that one of the cornerstones of the sweeping new legislation was more transparent financial markets. Indeed, in touting the new law, Obama specifically said it would “increase transparency in financial dealings.”

The SEC cited the new law Tuesday in a FOIA action brought by FOX Business Network. Steven Mintz, founding partner of law firm Mintz & Gold LLC in New York, lamented what he described as “the backroom deal that was cut between Congress and the SEC to keep the SEC’s failures secret. The only losers here are the American public.”

If the SEC’s interpretation stands, Mintz, who represents FOX Business Network, predicted “the next time there is a Bernie Madoff failure the American public will not be able to obtain the SEC documents that describe the failure,” referring to the shamed broker whose Ponzi scheme cost investors billions.

“The new provision applies to information obtained through examinations or derived from that information,” said SEC spokesman John Nester. “We are expanding our examination program’s surveillance and risk assessment efforts in order to provide more sophisticated and effective Wall Street oversight. The success of these efforts depends on our ability to obtain documents and other information from brokers, investment advisers and other registrants. The new legislation makes certain that we can obtain documents from registrants for risk assessment and surveillance under similar conditions that already exist by law for our examinations. Because registrants insist on confidential treatment of their documents, this new provision also removes an opportunity for brokers, investment advisers and other registrants to refuse to cooperate with our examination document requests.”

Criticism of the provision has been swift. “It allows the SEC to block the public’s access to virtually all SEC records,” said Gary Aguirre, a former SEC staff attorney-turned-whistleblower who had accused the agency of thwarting an investigation into hedge fund Pequot Asset Management in 2005. “It permits the SEC to promulgate its own rules and regulations regarding the disclosure of records without getting the approval of the Office of Management and Budget, which typically applies to all federal agencies.”

Aguirre used FOIA requests in his own lawsuit against the SEC, which the SEC settled this year by paying him $755,000. Aguirre, who was fired in September 2005, argued that supervisors at the SEC stymied an investigation of Pequot – a charge that prompted an investigation by the Senate Judiciary and Finance committees.

The SEC closed the case in 2006, but would re-open it three years later. This year, Pequot and its founder, Arthur Samberg, were forced to pay $28 million to settle insider-trading charges related to shares of Microsoft (MSFT: 25.95 ,0.00 ,0.00%). The settlement with Aguirre came shortly later.

“From November 2008 through January 2009, I relied heavily on records obtained from the SEC through FOIA in communications to the FBI, Senate investigators, and the SEC in arguing the SEC had botched its initial investigation of Pequot’s trading in Microsoft securities and thus the SEC should reopen it, which it did,” Aguirre said. “The new legislation closes access to such records, even when the investigation is closed.

“It is hard to imagine how the bill could be more counterproductive,” Aguirre added.

FOX Business Network sued the SEC in March 2009 over its failure to produce documents related to its failed investigations into alleged investment frauds being perpetrated by Madoff and R. Allen Stanford. Following the Madoff and Stanford arrests it, was revealed that the SEC conducted investigations into both men prior to their arrests but failed to uncover their alleged frauds.

FOX Business made its initial request to the SEC in February 2009 seeking any information related to the agency’s response to complaints, tips and inquiries or any potential violations of the securities law or wrongdoing by Stanford.

FOX Business has also filed lawsuits against the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve over their failure to respond to FOIA requests regarding use of the bailout funds and the Fed’s extended loan facilities. In February, the Federal Court in New York sided with FOX Business and ordered the Treasury to comply with its requests.

Last year, the network won a legal victory to force the release of documents related to New York University’s lawsuit against Madoff feeder Ezra Merkin.

FOX Business’ FOIA requests have so far led the SEC to release several important and damaging documents:

•FOX Business used the FOIA to obtain a 2005 survey that the SEC in Fort Worth was sending to Stanford investors. The survey showed that the SEC had suspicions about Stanford several years prior to the collapse of his $7 billion empire.

•FOX Business used the FOIA to obtain copies of emails between Federal Reserve lawyers, AIG and staff at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in which it was revealed the Fed staffers knew that bailing out AIG would result in bonuses being paid.

Recently, TARP Congressional Oversight Panel chair Elizabeth Warren told FOX Business that the network’s Freedom of Information Act efforts played a “very important part” of the panel’s investigation into AIG.

Warren told the network the government “crossed a line” with the AIG bailout.

“FOX News and the congressional oversight panel has pushed, pushed, pushed, for transparency, give us the documents, let us look at everything. Your Freedom of Information Act suit, which ultimately produced 250,000 pages of documentation, was a very important part of our report. We were able to rely on the documents that you pried out for a significant part of our being able to put this report together,” Warren said.

The SEC first made its intention to block further FOIA requests known on Tuesday. FOX Business was preparing for another round of “skirmishes” with the SEC, according to Mintz, when the agency called and said it intended to use Section 929I of the 2000-page legislation to refuse FBN’s ongoing requests for information.

Mintz said the network will challenge the SEC’s interpretation of the law.

“I believe this is subject to challenge,” he said. “The contours will have to be figured out by a court.”

[article originally appears at foxbusiness.com]

Pro-Life Groups Seek Probe Into Kagan’s Clinton-Era Role in Partial Birth Abortion Debate

admin — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:10:42 +0000

Thursday, July 29, 2010
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer

Washington (CNSNews.com) – More than 30 pro-life organizations are calling on senators to investigate Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan’s record with regards to partial-birth abortion while serving as a Clinton administration attorney.

The Senate Judiciary Committee already sent Kagan’s nomination to the full Senate for a vote, which is expected next week. President Barack Obama nominated Kagan, the U.S. solicitor general, to be an associate justice on the high court in May.

“The undersigned organizations are writing today to express our strong opposition to the confirmation of Elena Kagan to the United States Supreme Court,” the letter sent to all 100 senators on Wednesday said.

“We also join Americans United for Life Action in their call for an investigation into the discrepancies between Kagan’s testimony before Congress and written documentation of her undue influence on medical organizations while advising President William J. Clinton on partial-birth abortion,” the letter added.

Charmaine Yoest, president and CEO of Americans United for Life Action, first called for a probe.

Pro-life organizations that backed her up included the Family Research Council, Human Life International, Liberty Counsel, March for Life Education and Defense Fund, Priests for Life, Susan B. Anthony List, Students for Life and the Traditional Values Coalition. Numerous state organizations also signed on.

Kagan served as associate White House counsel from 1995 to 1996 and as deputy assistant to the president for domestic policy and deputy director of the Domestic Policy Council (DPC) from 1997 to 1999.

As CNSNews.com reported last month, in 1996 she lobbied the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) to oppose a ban on partial birth abortions. This came after she learned that a select committee of ACOG determined, “in the vast majority of cases, selection of the partial-birth procedure is not necessary to avert serious adverse consequences to a woman’s health.”

Memos and other documents pertaining to Kagan’s White House work were released by the Clinton Presidential Library.

In a Dec. 14, 1996 memo, Kagan stated it would be a “disaster” if ACOG stated this.

The Kagan memo said. “1. Todd Stern just discovered that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) is thinking about issuing a statement (attached) that includes the following sentence: ‘[A] select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which [the partial-birth] procedure … would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.’ This, of course, would be disaster – not the less so (in fact the more so) because ACOG continues to oppose the legislation. It is unclear whether ACOG will issue the statement; even if it does not, there is obviously a chance that the draft will become public. (The AMA last week decided to continue to take no position on the partial-birth issue.)”

She then drafted an amendment to ACOG’s statement, which stated that partial-birth abortion “may be the best or most appropriate in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.”

On Jan. 12, 1997, ACOG publicly released its statement on partial birth abortion, medically termed intact dilatation and extraction abortion. It included a passage that tracked – verbatim – the “suggested option” from the handwritten notes found in the Kagan file released by the Clinton Library.

The final ACOG statement included the words: “An intact D&X, however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman…” These words were not in the previous draft.

Advising President Clinton in an April 10, 1997 memo, Kagan said the ACOG statement was the “most reliable.”

“President Clinton and numerous courts (including the United States Supreme Court) ultimately relied on the ACOG statement to justify opposing the Partial Birth Abortion Act,” the letter from pro-life groups said.

In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Stenberg v. Carhart, which declared Nebraska’s ban on partial-birth abortion unconstitutional.

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the majority opinion stating, “The District Court also noted that a select panel of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists concluded that D&X ‘may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.’”

Blocking confirmation seems unlikely as Democrats, who favor Kagan, have a 59-41 majority in the Senate and some Republicans are expected to vote for her. Asked Tuesday if the White House expects a confirmation vote next week, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said, “The confirmation that the vote will happen and that we’ll have a new Supreme Court justice, yes.”

During her confirmation hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said, “Well, I’ll tell you this bothers me a lot, because I know that there were plenty of doctors at ACOG that did not believe that partial birth abortion was an essential procedure, and who believe that it was really a brutal procedure and it was a custom conflict there, and as you know, many in Congress came to the conclusion that it was a brutal procedure too and that it was really unjustified.

“That bothers me that you intervened in that particular area in that way. And that’s all I’ll say about it, but I just want you to be aware that that bothered me,” Hatch added.

Kagan responded, “Sen. Hatch there was no way in which I would have or could have intervened with ACOG, which is a respected body of physicians, to get it to change its medical views on the question. The only question that we were talking about was whether this statement that they were going to issue accurately reflected the views that they had expressed to the president, to the president’s staff, to Congress, and to the American public. I do agree with you, this was an enormously hard issue.” (See Earlier Story)

The letter stated, “The statement conflicts with her account of her June 1996 meeting with ACOG.”

“These discrepancies in Kagan’s statements cast doubt on her respect for scientific evidence as well as her ability to serve as an unbiased justice on our nation’s highest court,” the letter stated. “We urge you to conduct a thorough investigation before casting your vote on her confirmation.”

On July 19, former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop sent a letter to the Senate calling for Kagan’s nomination to be rejected based on her actions regarding ACOG and partial-birth abortion. AUL released a report detailing the memos days before Koop’s letter.

“A nominee to the highest court in the land must meet our nation’s absolute highest standards of integrity and impartiality,” Yoest said in a statement Wednesday. “With serious outstanding questions clouding Ms. Kagan’s nomination, we are leading a united effort to ask that the Senate investigate discrepancies between her Senate testimony and the written record on partial-birth abortion before proceeding to a floor vote.”

Michelle Obama’s Request for Birthday Wishes for Her Husband Links to Donation Page

admin — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:09:21 +0000

Wednesday, July 28, 2010
By Pete Winn, Senior Writer/Editor

(CNSNews.com) – It seems like a nice gesture – an e-mail message from a loving wife, urging thousands of people to join her in wishing her husband a happy 49th birthday by signing an electronic birthday card.

But in Washington, D.C., nothing is that simple.

The wife, in this case, is First lLdy Michelle Obama, and the message is being sent by the Democratic Party to people on its list nationwide. And underlying the birthday wishes, the message is political: The electronic card to Barack Obama also is a Democratic Party fundraiser.

“Every year, our family tries to come up with a fun way to wish Barack a happy birthday,” the message from Michelle Obama says. “And this August 4th, when he turns 49, I have something new in mind.”

Her message, which went out Tuesday, is being sent out by Democrats.org, the online presence of the Democratic National Committee.

The first lady, meanwhile, acknowledged that her husband has been “busy.”

“This has been a big — and hectic — year for him,” she wrote. “After signing the Affordable Care Act and Wall Street reform into law — and completing his first year as president — I think it’s safe to say we will remember it for a long time.

“And I know full well how much he credits this movement, and the work of supporters like you, for the change that we’ve accomplished,” reads the message.

“So I’m putting together a birthday card that I would like you to sign,” it says. “Together with supporters — and me, Malia, Sasha, and Bo — we’ll wish him a happy birthday and let him know that we’re ready to take on the year ahead alongside him.”

Clicking on the link — “Will you wish Barack a happy birthday with me?” – sends you to “MyBarackObama.com,” the Organizing for America Web site, which describes itself as “a project of the Democratic National Committee.”

But typing in your name, address and E-mail, and hitting “Sign the Card” takes you directly to another page — a donation page, which states:

“Thank you for standing alongside us, with the President. Now can you make a donation to help us take on the year ahead?” — and a disclaimer that funds would not go to political candidates.

INTERPOL Now Has Police Power over YOU

admin — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 15:22:56 +0000

By Marilyn M. Brannan, Assoc. Editor

IRN/USA News

July 23, 2010

Last December, when a majority of Americans were caught up in holiday preparations (and probably paying less attention than usual to the political machinations in Washington), President Obama quietly signed an executive order that makes the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), operating on our soil, immune from the restraints of American law.

The signing occurred almost clandestinely—“dead of night,” so to speak—on December 16, 2009. And the shocking fact is, the transfer of power accomplished in that surreptitious action is nothing less than the authorization for an international law enforcement body to operate with complete immunity on American soil, beyond the reach of our own top law enforcement arm, the FBI, and immune from Freedom of Information Act requests and even the authority of the United States Congress!

INTERPOL was established in 1923, and operates in roughly 188 countries. By executive order #12425, issued in 1983, President Reagan recognized Interpol as an international organization and gave it some of the privileges and immunities customarily extended to foreign diplomats. However, INTERPOL is also an active law-enforcement agency; therefore, critical privileges and immunities (Section 2[c] of the International Organizations Immunities Act) were withheld by Reagan’s order. Specifically, property and assets of INTERPOL remained subject to search and seizure, and its archived records remained subject to public scrutiny under provisions like the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). It has been the constraints of Fourth Amendment, FOIA, and other limitations imposed by the U.S. Constitution and federal law that have protected the liberty and privacy of Americans and prevented law-enforcement and its controlling government authority from becoming tyrannical.

But no longer.

On December 16, 2009, President Obama issued an executive order that removed the Reagan limitations. INTERPOL’s property and assets are no longer subject to search and confiscation, and its archives are now considered inviolable. “Property and assets” could conceivably include human assets—Americans arrested on our soil by INTERPOL officers. This international police force (headquartered in the Justice Department in Washington) will, by order of Barack Obama, be unrestrained by the U.S. Constitution and American law while it operates in the United States; it also affects Americans and American interests outside the United States.

INTERPOL works closely with international tribunals—such as the International Criminal Court, which the U.S. has refused to join because of its sovereignty surrendering provisions—but which the Obama administration wants the U.S. to join. INTERPOL works closely with foreign courts and law-enforcement authorities, such as those in Europe that are investigating former Bush administration officials for purported “war crimes”—in other words, actions taken in America’s defense.

Why Are the Media Silent?

This action by Obama was unlike the “legislative triumph” of ObamaCare in March, endlessly extolled in the controlled media (despite the fact that roughly 65 to 70% of Americans opposed its enactment). Readers will remember a smiling but defiant Nancy Pelosi, surrounded by her entourage, carrying her huge gavel through a sea of Tea Party attendees to send a message to the American people: the Obama/Reid/Pelosi Triumvirate will force Obama’s agenda on you—whether you like it or not.

Tens of thousands of pages of hard copy “news” and months of radio and television coverage preceded the historic ObamaCare signing event, when press and photographers swarmed around the president for the “changing of the pens” ritual. At that point, America lost her freedom to decide what health care in this country will consist of, how it will be paid for, and who will get it.

Our organization first reported on Obama’s quiet change to EO 12425 in January of 2010. But why wasn’t this front-page news all across the nation? Why has so little about this egregious power shift been published or aired on radio or television?

What Is Behind This?

Why would we elevate an international police force above American law? Why would we immunize an international police force from the limitations that constrain the FBI and other American law-enforcement agencies? Why is it suddenly necessary to have, within the Justice Department, a repository for stashing government files which, therefore, will be beyond the ability of Congress, American law-enforcement, the media, and the American people to scrutinize? Those are questions asked by former federal prosecutor, Andrew C. McCarthy, writing at National Review Online.[1]

At least one answer to these questions is very clear. A coup is underway in the United States of America, the goal of which is to establish complete, unquestioned authority over the citizens—a ‘fundamental change’ to the United States where citizens have no legal recourse against an authoritarian central government.”

By the stroke of his pen, Barack Obama removed all legal authority that American citizens formerly had to demand documentation concerning any charges brought against them. Forget habeas corpus. Forget Constitutional protections. Forget the Bill of Rights.

The liberal media—which are increasingly revealing themselves to be the propaganda arm of the far Left and this current administration—have been appallingly silent.

The American people have reason to be alarmed about this.

They should be contacting their representatives in Congress, asking pointed questions, demanding to know why this stealth action, which has virtually put all of us under international police power, has not been exposed.

[1] Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, co-chairs the Center for Law and Counterterrorism. While an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, he led the prosecution against the jihad organization of “The Blind Sheik” Omar Abdel Rahman, in which a dozen Islamic militants were convicted of conducting a war of urban terrorism against the United States. That war included the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and a plot to bomb New York City landmarks. Mr. McCarthy is a contributing editor at National Review Online. His articles on the subject of Obama’s clandestine action on EO 12425 are available there (www.nationalreview.com). McCarthy is the author of Willful Blindness: Memoir of the Jihad.