Current Events - May 3, 2013

 PK'S NOTE: It's starting, folks. Keep your fingers crossed...

Weekly Standard Publishes Benghazi 'Talking Points' Smoking Gun

The Weekly Standard has obtained "a timeline briefed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence detailing the heavy substantive revisions made to the CIA’s talking points"--evidence that the talking points used by UN Ambassador Susan Rice were heavily edited by senior members of the Obama administration to hide the role of Al Qaeda in the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya on the evening of Sep. 11, 2012.

Already, the House of Representatives report on the Benghazi attack referred to a series of emails "between top administration and intelligence officials" that were not included in the report itself but that were merely referred to, as part of a deal with the Obama administration to secure the confirmation of new CIA Director John Brennan. The emails reveal that officials "engaged in a wholesale rewriting of intelligence assessments."
As Weekly Standard senior writer Stephen F. Hayes notes, the emails are evidence that the administration knew from an early stage--two hours into the attack--that "al Qaeda-linked terrorist group operating in Libya" was responsible. That information was known throughout various government agencies. And yet, by Sunday, Sep. 16, the story had been transformed into the now-infamous lie about an anti-Islam YouTube video.

Hayes presents three versions of the talking points to show the editing process. The first version, prepared by the CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis on Sep. 14, suggested that the attack was a "spontaneous" response to the protests at the U.S. embassy in Cairo, Egypt but added that "we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qa'ida participated in the attack" and mentioned several other recent attacks in Benghazi.

The CIA made some modifications to that draft to tone down references to Al Qaeda. Yet a State Department official--who the Weekly Standard claims was spokesperson Victoria Nuland--raised concerns. More changes were made, but Nuland was not satisfied, and White House officials--including presidential adviser Ben Rhoades, according to the Weekly Standard--became directly involved in the editing process.

The second draft--prepared on Sep. 15, the Weekly Standard says, by CIA Deputy Director Mike Morrell--eliminated the references to "jihadists" and "Islamic extremists," as well as references to previous attacks in Benghazi. The changes removed any hint of the administration's possible failure to ignore previous warnings of the danger in eastern Libya, as well as any sense that the government knew Al Qaeda had been involved.

The third and final draft, circulated later that day, suggested that "extremists" had participated in the attack on the consulate but described their involvement solely as a result of protests inspired by the protests in Cairo, leaving no indication that the attack was connected to terror organizations or previous assaults. It was that version, apparently, that allowed the White House to fill in the gap with the false video alibi.

Later, Hayes recounts, when the video story began to unravel, the administration issued a statement through the Office of the Director of National Intelligence that suggested that new information had come to light about the role of terrorists in the attack. Yet the information was not new; it had been known from the very earliest stages of the attack. The Weekly Standard's report suggests a deliberate attempt to deceive the nation.

The Obama administration has not yet made the email record of its discussions of the talking points fully available to Congress. Contrary to the protestations of former Secretary of Defense Hillary Clinton, those emails make a great difference to determining what went wrong on Sep. 11, how to fix it--and whom to hold responsible.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/05/03/Weekly-Standard-Publishes-Benghazi-Talking-Points-Smoking-Gun

State Department's Benghazi review panel under investigation, Fox News confirms

The State Department's Office of Inspector General is investigating the special internal panel that probed the Benghazi terror attack for the State Department, Fox News has confirmed.

The IG's office is said by well-placed sources to be seeking to determine whether the Accountability Review Board, or ARB -- led by former U.N. Ambassador Thomas Pickering and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen -- failed to interview key witnesses who had asked to provide their accounts of the Benghazi attacks to the panel.

The IG's office notified the department of the "special review" on March 28, according to Doug Welty, the congressional and public affairs officer of the IG's office.

This disclosure marks a significant turn in the ongoing Benghazi case, as it calls into question the reliability of the blue-ribbon panel that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton convened to review the entire matter. Until the report was concluded, she and all other senior Obama administration officials regularly refused to answer questions about what happened in Benghazi.

But State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell disputed the characterization of the review, saying it is "simply false" to assert the panel is being investigated. "Rather, it is conducting a review of the ARB process itself going back two decades, looking at how Boards are convened, their standards, and the implementation of ARB recommendations," he said.

Since the ARB report was issued in December -- finding that "systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels" well below Clinton were to blame for the "inadequate" security at Benghazi -- Clinton and other top officials have routinely referred questioners to the conclusions of the board report. Now the methodology and final product of the ARB are themselves coming under the scrutiny of the department's own top auditor.

On Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said: "The Accountability Review Board which investigated this matter -- and I think in no one's estimation sugarcoated what happened there or pulled any punches when it came to holding accountable individuals that they felt had not successfully executed their responsibilities -- heard from everyone and invited everyone. So there was a clear indication there that everyone who had something to say was welcome to provide information to the Accountability Review Board." (PK'S NOTE - but they didn't invite nor interview Clinton herself - see after this article)

On Monday, State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell said of the ARB's work: "We think that we've done an independent investigation, that it's been transparent, thorough, credible, and detailed, and ... we've shared those findings with the U.S. Congress."

In an interview for the Fox News program "Geraldo" taped Thursday afternoon and set to air this weekend, Joe diGenova, a former U.S. attorney, told host Geraldo Rivera that he is legally representing a career State Department officer whom the board failed to interview. DiGenova called the ARB a "cover-up."

DiGenova and his wife Victoria Toensing, a former Justice Department official who represents another State Department whistle-blower in the Benghazi case, said their respective clients will testify next Wednesday at a hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee being chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif. 

Asked to comment for this article, a senior State Department official told Fox News the IG probe is not a "formal investigation" but rather a review process, and one, moreover, that will examine previous ARBs in addition to the one established after Benghazi. 

The official noted that the department had published a notice early on instructing employees on how they could furnish information to the ARB for Benghazi, and that the panel ultimately interviewed more than 100 witnesses. 

The original law that established accountability review boards mandates that they act completely independently, the official said, adding that the department in this case neither sought nor enjoyed any influence over the panel's work.

 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/02/state-department-benghazi-review-panel-under-investigation-fox-news-confirms/#ixzz2SF7cledv

Inspector General to Review ARB that Published Report on Benghazi

...
However, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was not interviewed by the ARB for its own report. When Clinton testified about the attacks before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, then-Committee chair Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R–FL) asked Clinton why the ARB did not interview her. "How can [the report] be complete without the Secretary?" Ros Lehtinen asked.

Clinton responded she was not asked to speak to the ARB, saying, "If they thought that I was relevant, I would have gladly" spoken to the review board....

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/05/02/Inspector-General-to-Review-Processes-of-Benghazi-ARB 

PK'S NOTE: And now CNN is getting a whiff....

CNN: Al-Qaeda operatives part of Benghazi attack

Yeah, but it happened so long ago. What difference at this point does it make?  Actually, it makes plenty of difference, as CNN reports (via Jim Geraghty):

Several Yemeni men belonging to al Qaeda took part in the terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi last September, according to several sources who have spoken with CNN.

One senior U.S. law enforcement official told CNN that “three or four members of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula,” or AQAP, took part in the attack.

Another source briefed on the Benghazi investigation said Western intelligence services suspect the men may have been sent by the group specifically to carry out the attack. But it’s not been ruled out that they were already in the city and participated as the opportunity arose. …
If the AQAP members were dispatched to Benghazi, it would be further evidence of a new level of co-operation among jihadist groups throughout the Middle East and North Africa, counterterrorism analysts say.

That might make quite a bit of difference when it comes to the idea of intervening in other civil wars, no? In fact, these particular AQAP agents made their way from eastern Libya after the attack to Mali, where al-Qaeda and its allies nearly succeeded in overthrowing the government and creating an AQ state.  Only a French military intervention in Mali stopped the country from falling to the terrorist networks we have been fighting for decades.

And there is also a connection between Benghazi and the terrorist attack and seizure of the natural-gas facility in Algeria this year, too:

Another source briefed on the investigation had previously told CNN that Belmoktar had received a call in the aftermath of the Benghazi attack from someone in or close to the city. Whoever made the call was excited.

“Mabruk, Mabruk!” he repeated, meaning “Congratulations” in Arabic. …

Belmoktar is an Algerian terrorist operative linked to al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb who claimed responsibility for the attack on the In Amenas gas facility in southern Algeria in January this year. Some 38 people were killed during a three-day siege there. …

There has never been any confirmation of his death, and one source briefed by Western and regional intelligence officials told CNN that Belmoktar may have started operating in the “desert triangle” straddling the borders of Algeria, Niger and Libya.

Belmoktar is believed to have moved to the region in late 2012 after signs that an international intervention in Mali was growing more likely. Known as ‘the Salvador pass,’ the area is a key transit points for drug traffickers and international criminal groups.

All of this was made possible by the toppling of Moammar Qaddafi by the Obama administration and NATO without making any effort to secure the ground from the Islamist terrorists already known to operate in eastern Libya.  Instead, we created a vacuum in which they could seize control, and they did.  Now the region serves as a launching pad for terrorist operations throughout northern Africa.

An intervention in Syria would do the same thing in the Middle East.  That’s the difference at this point all of this makes.

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/03/cnn-al-qaeda-operatives-part-of-benghazi-attack/ 

Newsmax Exclusive: US Hired al-Qaida-Linked Group to Defend Benghazi Mission

The Libyan militia group that the State Department hired to defend its embattled diplomatic mission in Benghazi had clear al-Qaida sympathies, and had prominently displayed the al-Qaida flag on a Facebook page for months before the deadly attack.
That organization, the February 17th Martyrs Brigade, was paid by the U.S. government to provide security at the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya. But there is no indication the Martyrs Brigade fulfilled its commitment to defend the mission on Sept. 11, when it came under attack.
The assault claimed the lives of four Americans: Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, information officer Sean Smith, and former Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. Stevens was the first U.S. ambassador killed in the line of duty since 1979.
Several entries on the militia’s Facebook page openly profess sympathy for Ansar al-Sharia, the hardline Islamist extremist group widely blamed  for the deadly attack on the mission. The State Department did not respond to a Newsmax request for an explanation as to why the February 17th Martyrs Brigade was hired to protect the mission.
On April 23, House Republicans released an interim progress report on their investigation into the Benghazi killings. It cited “numerous reports” that “the Brigade had extremist connections, and it had been implicated in the kidnapping of American citizens as well as in the threats against U.S. military assets.”
The report also stated that just a few days before Stevens arrived in Benghazi, the Martyrs Brigade informed State Department officials they no longer would provide security as members of the mission, including Stevens, traveled through the city.
From June 2011 to July 2012, Eric Nordstrom, the regional security officer for Libya at the time, documented more than 200 security threats and violent incidents threatening to U.S. personnel in Libya. Some 50 of those incidents occurred in Benghazi.
Yet despite those threats, repeated requests for additional security from the mission went unheeded by the State Department, for reasons that remain unclear.
Perhaps the biggest question is why the State Department would hire a group that openly displayed its admiration for al-Qaida, and ask it to participate in the defense of its diplomatic mission.
The banner, or “cover photo” of one of the group’s Facebook pages, shows an Islamic fighter, or mujahid, with a portable rocket launcher resting on his shoulder. ...

Several entries on the Facebook page make clear the brigade’s sympathies for the Ansar al-Sharia militia, which allegedly has al-Qaida ties. In the Western media, Ansar al-Sharia has been widely accused of having perpetrated the Sept. 11 Benghazi attacks.
An entry posted Sept. 19, eight days after the Benghazi attacks, laments the death of an Ansar al-Sharia member. It asks God to “receive him amongst the martyrs” and to receive him “into his wide paradise.” The entry points out that the deceased, Adham al-Falastini,  previously was a member of the February 17th Martyrs Brigade. At least two recent entries on the February 17th Martyrs Brigade site feature the Ansar al-Sharia logo. One of these, dated Jan. 29, suggests that Ansar al-Sharia is the target of a “treacherous” plot to get the brigade blamed for various attacks and assassination attempts.
...

The State Department had hired the February 17th Martyrs Brigade to provide security at the U.S. mission in Benghazi. A document recovered from the mission two days after the attack indicated the State Department had arranged for the Martyrs Brigade to act as a “Quick Reaction Force” to protect the mission. The Memorandum of Agreement states that “in the event of an attack on the U.S. mission, QRF will request additional support from the 17th February Martyrs Brigade.”
Throughout the summer leading up to the attack, embassy officials repeatedly asked the State Department for additional security. But the State Department actually reduced security, pulling out a military detachment responsible for defending diplomats in Libya.
One reason the requests for additional security may have been denied: They did not fit into the administration narrative that al-Qaida elements no longer posed a threat to U.S. interests.
One diplomatic cable to the mission indicated that the U.S.-based deputy assistant secretary for diplomatic security was “reluctant to ask for [additional security] apparently out of concern that it would be embarrassing to the [State Department] to continue to have to rely on [Defense Department] assets to protect our mission.”
When the mission’s regional safety officer expressed an interest in July 2012 asking State Department official to permit the military security team to continue to protect the mission, Charlene Lamb, deputy assistant secretary in charge of diplomatic security, sent an e-mail that responded: “NO, I do not [I repeat] not want them to ask for the [military security] team to stay!”
...
The House Republicans’ Interim Progress Report concludes with an ominous warning: “This singular event will be repeated unless the United States recognizes and responds to the threats we face around the world, and properly postures resources and security assets to counter and respond to those threats.
“Until that time, the United States will remain in a reactionary mode and should expect more catastrophes like Benghazi, in which U.S. personnel on the ground perform bravely, but are not provided with the resources for an effective response,” the report stated.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/benghazi-consulate-protected-alqaida/2013/05/02/id/502565?s=al&promo_code=135B1-1#ixzz2SFJiauap

Obama: The fall

By Charles Krauthammer 

Fate is fickle, power cyclical, and nothing is new under the sun. Especially in Washington, where after every election the losing party is sagely instructed to confess sin, rend garments and rethink its principles lest it go the way of the Whigs. And where the victor is hailed as the new Caesar, facing an open road to domination.

And where Barack Obama, already naturally inclined to believe his own loftiness, graciously accepted the kingly crown and proceeded to ride his reelection success to a crushing victory over the GOP at the fiscal cliff, leaving a humiliated John Boehner & Co. with nothing but naked tax hikes.

Thus emboldened, Obama turned his inaugural and State of the Union addresses into a left-wing dream factory, from his declaration of war on global warming (on a planet where temperatures are the same as 16 years ago and in a country whose CO2 emissions are at a 20-year low) to the invention of new entitlements — e.g., universal preschool for 5-year-olds— for a country already drowning in debt.

To realize his dreams, Obama sought to fracture and neutralize the congressional GOP as a prelude to reclaiming the House in 2014. This would enable him to fully enact his agenda in the final two years of his presidency, usually a time of lame-duck paralysis. Hail the Obama juggernaut.

Well, that story — excuse me, narrative — lasted exactly six months. The Big Mo is gone.

It began with the sequester. Obama never believed the Republicans would call his bluff and let it go into effect. They did.

Taken by surprise, Obama cried wolf, predicting the end of everything we hold dear if the sequester was not stopped. It wasn’t. Nothing happened.

Highly embarrassed, and determined to indeed make (bad) things happen, the White House refused Republican offers to give it more discretion in making cuts. Bureaucrats were instructed to inflict maximum pain from minimal cuts, as revealed by one memo from the Agriculture Department demanding agency cuts that the public would feel.

Things began with the near-comical cancellation of White House tours and ended with not-so-comical airline delays. Obama thought furious passengers would blame the GOP. But isn’t the executive branch in charge of these agencies? Who thinks that a government spending $3.6 trillion a year can’t cut 2 percent without furloughing air-traffic controllers?

Looking not just incompetent at managing budgets but cynical for deliberately injuring the public welfare, the administration relented. Congress quickly passed a bill giving Obama reallocation authority to restore air traffic control. Having previously threatened to veto any such bill, Obama caved. He signed.

Not exactly Appomattox, but coming immediately after Obama’s spectacular defeat on gun control, it marked an administration that had lost its “juice,” to paraphrase a charming question at the president’s Tuesday news conference.

For Obama, gun control was a political disaster. He invested capital. He went on a multi-city tour. He paraded grieving relatives. And got nothing. An assault-weapons ban — a similar measure had passed the Congress 20 years ago — lost 60 to 40in a Senate where Democrats control 55 seats. Obama failed even to get mere background checks.

All this while appearing passive, if not helpless, on the world stage. On Syria, Obama is nervously trying to erase the WMD red line he had so publicly established. On Benghazi, he stonewalled accusations that State Department officials wishing to testify are being blocked.

He is even taking heat for the Boston bombings. Every day brings another revelation of signals missed beforehand. And his post-bombing pledge to hunt down those responsible was mocked by the scandalous Mirandizing of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, gratuitously shutting down information from the one person who knows more than anyone about possible still-existent explosives, associates, trainers, future plans, etc.

Now, the screw will undoubtedly turn again. If immigration reform passes, Obama will be hailed as the comeback kid, and a new “Obama rising” narrative proclaimed.

This will overlook the fact that immigration reform has little to do with Obama and everything to do with GOP panic about the Hispanic vote. In fact, Obama has been asked by congressional negotiators to stay away, so polarizing a figure has he become.

Nonetheless, whatever happens, the screw will surely turn again, if only because of media boredom. But that’s the one constant of Washington political life: There are no straight-line graphs. We live from inflection point to inflection point.

And we’ve just experienced one. From king of the world to dead in the water in six months. Quite a ride.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-the-fall/2013/05/02/6fa564c4-b348-11e2-9a98-4be1688d7d84_story.html?wprss=rss_opinions 

April’s Unemployment Numbers Are in: Here’s What You Need to Know

The White House in a prepared statement praised the unemployment report and urged U.S. lawmakers to do away with sequestration (the March 1 automatic budget cuts):

While more work remains to be done, today’s employment report provides further evidence that the U.S. economy is continuing to recover from the worst downturn since the Great Depression. It is critical that we remain focused on pursuing policies to speed job creation and expand the middle class, as we continue to dig our way out of the deep hole that was caused by the severe recession that began in December 2007.
[...]
Now is not the time for Washington to impose self-inflicted wounds on the economy. The Administration continues to urge Congress to replace the sequester with balanced deficit reduction, while working to put in place measures to create middle-class jobs, such as by rebuilding our roads and bridges and promoting American manufacturing. The President will continue to press Congress to act on the measures he called for in his State of the Union address to make America a magnet for good jobs, help workers earn the skills they need to do those jobs, and make sure their hard work leads to a decent living.

U.S. employers added 165,000 jobs in April, nudging unemployment down to 7.5 percent from its previous rate of 7.6 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday.

The U-6 unemployment rate, considered to be a broader measure of the actual unemployment situation in the U.S., ticked up to 13.9 percent.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/03/u-s-unemployment-falls-in-april

Feds Dish Out $4 Million to Increase Food Stamp Usage at Farmers Markets

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is spending $4 million to increase the use of food stamps at farmers markets, claiming it is beneficial to the economy.

As a record one-out-of-five households are on the benefit, the USDA says allowing food stamp use at farmers markets is a “win-win-win situation.”

The USDA said recipients of the Supplemental Assistance Nutrition Program (SNAP) “get increased access to healthier and fresher foods,” farmers markets increase their customer base and sales, and it “encourages consumption of locally-grown food.”

The $4-million outreach is part of a two-year project that expires Sept. 20, 2013.  With the funds, farmers markets can purchase equipment to accept EBT (Electronic Benefit Transfer) cards and wireless access in order to operate the equipment.

Already, there are 2,091 farmers markets that accept food stamps, as of April 16.

“These grants increase the availability of fresh fruits and vegetables to SNAP customers and further encourage them to purchase and prepare healthy foods for their families using SNAP benefits,” said Agriculture Undersecretary Kevin Concannon in a press release.

Concannon also argued that the program is good for the economy, claiming 20 cents of every food stamp dollar spent “ends up in the pocket of American farmers.” The food stamps themselves are initially paid for with money taken from taxpayers and redistributed by Congress through the USDA.

“Installing wireless technology at farmers markets expands the customer base for markets and increases the share of the SNAP dollar that goes directly back to local farmers and into local economies,” he said.

The USDA said expanding food stamp access to farmers markets has been “a priority in recent years.”
A record 47,692,896 Americans are now enrolled in the program, and the federal government spent a record $80.4 billion on food stamps in fiscal year 2012.

Food stamps have grown rapidly during the presidency of Barack Obama, adding approximately 11,269 recipients per day between January 2009 and November 2012.  
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/feds-dish-out-4-million-increase-food-stamp-usage-farmers-markets

Military Signs Contract for Green Jet Fuel That’s Nearly 16 Times the Price of Conventional Fuel

With many claiming to feel the pangs of the sequestration, it appears a green company’s contract for a more expensive jet fuel was allowed to go through.

The renewable chemical and biofuel company Gevo in its first quarter investor relations report stated that it signed a contract with the Defense Logistics Agency to supply 3,650 gallons of renewable jet fuel.

The order, worth $215,350 total ($59/gallon), is set to be delivered by 2013′s second quarter and has the option to be increased to 12,500 gallons, which would cost up to $737,500.

Gevo calls this an “initial testing phase.”

Under other contracts, the company already supplies renewable jet fuel for the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy.

As the Washington Examiner pointed out, DLA set conventional JP-8 jet fuel as costing $3.78 per gallon at FY 2013 rates.

In other renewable jet fuel news, the Wisconsin-based company Virent Inc. delivered 100 gallons of bio-fuel this week to the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio.

The Dayton Daily News reported that the jet fuel produced from 100-percent renewable plant sugars will be tested against applicable standards as the Air Force continues to strive toward its goal of flying on domestic, alternative fuels by 2030.
 http://www.theblaze.com/s
tories/2013/05/03/military-signs-contract-for-green-jet-fuel-thats-nearly-16-times-the-price-of-conventional-fuel/

$7.9 Billion in Improper Social Security Payments in FY 2012

 The Social Security Administration (SSA) needs to focus on "program integrity," a polite term for reducing fraud and payment errors, the agency's inspector general told Congress last week.

Reducing improper payments is one of the challenges facing the next SSA commissioner, Patrick O'Carroll, Jr., the agency's inspector general, told the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security on April 26.

In fiscal year 2012, the Social Security Administration reported $4.7 billion in improper payments in the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, a 9.2 percent improper payment rate. (SSI is funded by general tax revenues, not payroll taxes. It helps elderly, blind, and/or disabled people who are poor.)

SSA reported $3.2 billion in the Old-Age, Survivors' and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program, a 0.4 percent improper payment rate. (OASDI, funded by payroll taxes, is what people generally refer to as "Social Security.")

That's a total of $7.9 billion, and it includes some underpayments as well as overpayments.

"SSA's improper payments largely consist of those erroneously made to ineligible individuals," O'Carroll said.

"Improper benefit payments occur for many reasons." Fraud is one reason, he said. This includes beneficiaries who do not tell the agency about changes in their income, resources or living arrangements, which would change the amount Social Security pays them. O'Carroll also mentioned recipients' "poor understanding of reporting responsibilities," and administrative errors.

"For many years, my office has encouraged SSA to balance service initiatives, such as processing new claims, with stewardship responsibilities, such as conducting timely work and medical (disability reviews) and SSI redeterminations, to ensure that individuals remain disabled and eligible, and cease payments to those who do not." 

Soaring disability claims are a particular concern for the Social Security Administration. 

In his opening statement, subcommittee Chair Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Texas) said application for disability benefits, triggered by the recession and the weak recovery, have never been higher: "Since 2010, the average number of people filing for disability benefits is just over 249,000 a month," Johnson said. "At the same time the average number of new jobs created is almost 148,000 each month."

O'Carroll told the panel he would like to see SSA perform more work-related "continuing disability reviews," or CDRs, to make sure people collecting disability aren't working on the side.

SSA estimates that every dollar spent on medical CDRs yields about $9 in SSA program savings over 10 years. Reducing the complexity of Social Security's disability programs could also streamline operations and reduce millions of dollars in payment errors each year, O'Carroll said.

SSA said it conducted 443,233 medical disability reviews in FY2012, up from 345,000 in FY2011, but the disability review backlog still stands at 1.2 million. 

SSA has set a goal of conducting 435,000 medical disability reviews in FY2013, based on the current level of funding. Beneficiaries with a high likelihood of medical improvement undergo a medical review; Beneficiaries with a lower likelihood of medical improvement are mailed a questionnaire, which may or may not trigger a medical review.

Reexamination or "redetermination" of SSI retirement benefits also is effective in reducing overpayments in the SSI program, O'Carroll said. Because SSI is a means-tested program, any change in recipients' income, living arrangements, or marital status can affect eligibility or payment amount.  

SSA reported that it saves $5 for every $1 spent on SSI redeterminations. SSA completed more than 2.4 million redeterminations in FY2011 and 2.6 million in FY2012, and it plans to conduct more than 2.6 million in FY2013. Not every SSI recipient undergoes a redetermination every year; SSA uses a statistical scoring model to identify which cases it will examine. 

O'Carroll said his office has encouraged SSA to use data matching with other governmental agencies to detect improper payments. He said SSA also should use more non-governmental databases in doing the redeterminations.

SSA paid more than $800 billion in SSI and OASDI benefits to more than 60 million Americans in FY2012. It estimates that over the next 20 years, another 80 million individuals will retire and file for Social Security benefits. 

The hearing was called to discuss the challenges facing the next Social Security commissioner. Michael J. Astrue's six-year term expired on Jan. 19, 2013, and his successor -- once President Obama nominates one -- must be confirmed by the Senate.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/79-billion-improper-social-security-payments-fy-201 

Education Dept. Awards $48,000 to Help Vermont School Recover From a Teen Suicide

The Education Department's Office of Safe and Healthy Students has awarded a Vermont school system $48,000 to "help with ongoing recovery efforts" following the suicide of a 16-year-old student.

The news release says the "popular teen" shot himself in his grandparents' yard last September. "Since the teen's death, there have been increased concerns over the mental health of not only students but of parents and staff as well," the Education Department said. "In addition, there has been an unprecedented increase in violent threats and behaviors by other students."

The nature of those threats was not described, but the Rutland (Vt.) Herald reported in January that several schools would be locked down because a person who had previously made nonspecific threats regarding school-age children might be returning to the area.

The grant recipient, the Windham Central Supervisory Union, is a regional education agency that serves ten towns in a geographically diverse area of southern Vermont, including Leland and Gray Middle and High School, which the suicidal teen attended.

“We are saddened by the tragic loss of this young student,” U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said. “We hope these resources will help the learning process continue and support the students, their schools and community as they recover.”

Through its Project SERV (School Emergency Response to Violence) grants, the U.S. Department of Education funds short-term and long-term education-related services to help schools and universities "recover from a violent or traumatic event in which the learning environment has been disrupted."

Here are some of the other Project SERV grants awarded by the Education Department in the past year or so:

-- March 7, 2013: $35,000 to help Baltimore County's Perry Hall High School and community recover from a shooting on the first day of school in August.

-- February 14, 2013: $3 Million to Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and New York City to assist with recovery efforts in the wake of Hurricane Sandy.

-- February 11, 2013: $50,000 to help Chicago Public Schools recover from 35 shootings over the past year at four high schools in the Greater Englewood community.

-- November 16, 2012: $50,000 to help Colorado's Aurora Public Schools recover from theater shooting.
-- July 6, 2012: $56,000 to Help Chardon, Ohio local schools recover from a shooting that killed three students and injured three others.

-- May 24, 2012: $800,000 to Help Joplin, Missouri schools recover from a deadly tornado in 2011.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/education-dept-awards-48000-help-vermont-school-recover-teen-suicide

U.S. Taxpayers Spend $355,825 to Reduce Stigmatization of India’s Transgenders

The federal government is spending $355,825 in taxpayer dollars to develop a “culturally relevant stigma-reducing intervention” program for the transgender population in India.

The National Institutes of Health issued a two-phase grant to the Ohio-based Baldwin-Wallace College to conduct the study. The first phase cost $173,221. The second phase cost $182,604.

The reason given for the study is “HIV prevalence is disproportionately high among Male-to-female transgenders (Hijra) in India.”

“Stigma among health care providers limits HIV testing, treatment and care and creates a barrier to HIV protective behavior,” the project summary says. “Stigmatization of transgender by healthcare providers has been documented, and is identified as a significant barrier to effective HIV prevention responses among this marginalized, at-risk population in India. However, evidence based interventions to reduce stigma and discrimination among health care providers are seriously lacking.”

The title of the study is “Project Shakti: Stigma Reduction, Health Care Provider Awareness and Knowledge.”

CNSNews.com asked an NIH spokesperson several questions, including, “Since this study focuses on India, what is the benefit to the U.S.? Why is it worthwhile to U.S. taxpayers?”

In a written response, the NIH told CNSNews.com only, “NIH research addresses the full spectrum of human health across all populations of Americans. Behavioral research will continue to be an important area of research supported by NIH.”

The NIH referred back to the project summary for any other comment.
The funding for the project ends in August.

“The proposed project will address this need by developing a theory-based, culturally relevant stigma-reducing intervention targeting health care providers in Mumbai, India,” the NIH project summary says. “The proposed multidisciplinary US-India collaborative research team with significant HIV/AIDS research experience will implement a two-year formative study to develop and pilot health-care provider-focused stigma reducing intervention.”

The project summary continues, “The study has three specific aims: 1) Document cause and manifestation of stigma among health care providers in Mumbai; 2) Use the information to design a provider-focused intervention module, and obtain community feedback; 3) Pilot the revised intervention module among 50 healthcare providers, and assess its feasibility, acceptability and preliminary effect on health service behavior among healthcare providers. These data will prepare the team to conduct a large scale randomized controlled trial in India.”

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/us-taxpayers-spend-355825-reduce-stigmatization-india-s-transgenders-0

Business Owners Must Chip In for Obamacare's 'Comparative Effectiveness Research'

 Business owners voiced a number of complaints about Obamacare Tuesday at a congressional field hearing in Concord, N.C.

Costs are one issue, the critics said, and uncertainty is another: "One of the issues is also that we keep learning things," said Chuck Horne, the president of a family-owned textile business that employs 350 people and got its start in 1946.

"Just yesterday, I learned we will pay two dollars per covered individual to pay for the Patient-Centered Outcome(s) Research Institute, whatever that is. And we just keep learning these things as time goes by."

The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute -- PCORI for short -- is one of the many controversial aspects of Obamacare. Its focus is "comparative effectiveness research" -- a best-practices database, which compares different treatments for a variety of ailments to decide which one works best for the most people.

The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute says it is authorized by Congress to conduct research to help patients and their doctors make better-informed decisions: "PCORI’s research is intended to give patients a better understanding of the prevention, treatment and care options available, and the science that supports those options."

Critics say government bureaucrats, based on the research PCORI accumulates, will decide which treatments Obamacare will pay for and which ones it won't, making Obamacare a one-size-fits all health care system.

"Their decisions will be based upon Comparative Effectiveness Research, which uses population studies to draw conclusions about best practices in medicine," one physician told a congressional committee last year.
Those conclusions will be "suspect," Dr. Richard Armstrong said.

"Their purpose is simply to cut costs by reducing reimbursement to providers until 2020, when they can begin to target hospitals. The effect on physicians' ability to make medically accurate choices for their individually unique patients is likely to be sharply curtailed, Armstrong told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in July 2012. Armstrong is the chief operating officer of Docs4PatientCare, a group of physicians opposed to Obamacare.

While critics denounce comparative effectiveness research as "rationing," one Democrat has praised it as "smart rationing."

At a congressional hearing on Feb. 26, 2013, Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.) said comparative effectiveness research will drive people to "high-value care" and away from "less-value care."

"We need smart rationing within the health care system because you don't want to be spending money on stuff that doesn't work, or leave patients even worse off than when they go in," Kind told a House Ways and Means subcommittee on Feb. 26, 2013.

Like it or not, comparative effectiveness research is moving full speed ahead as the taxpayer-funding spigot opens.

Last week, PCORI announced it has up to $68 million to spend on the development of a national clinical research network. Such a "data-rich infrastructure" -- which depends largely on electronic health records and patient self-reporting -- will "benefit all Americans," said PCORI Executive Director Joe Selby.
Here's how the funding (Phase I) breaks down for the new research network:

PCORI says up to $56 million is available to support up to eight new or existing Clinical Data Research Networks. These CDRNs will compare various patient treatments and outcomes, in part by tapping electronic health data from multiple hospitals, clinics or other medical centers.

Another $12 million will flow to 18 new or existing Patient-Powered Research Networks. PPRNs are groups of patients with the same medical condition who are "motivated" to take part in research that will help others with the same ailment. 

"This group is ready and willing to engage with researchers and participate in prospective studies to better understand their condition," the funding announcement says. A protected online portal will collect any data these patients report about themselves, and it will allow them to see the information entered by other (unidentified) patients. The goal is to have these PPRNs grow larger and larger -- and "become more representative of all patients with the condition."

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/business-owners-must-chip-obamacares-comparative-effectiveness-research

Radicalizing the Military

There have been few sanctuaries of American values as steadfast as the American armed forces. "Duty, Honor, Country". "Semper Fidelis". "Service Before Self". "Honor, Courage, Commitment". "This We'll Defend". "Semper Paratus". These are words that denote selfless dedication to a higher calling than the gratification of one's own desires. The men and women who have served our country in the past, and who serve now, are without a doubt the finest of us. They are the face of America around the world, and we are blessed beyond measure that they serve our country with such grace and courage under the worst of external conditions. 

Presently, however, they are under threat from within, and one cannot help but notice that our military is being forced, against centuries of American tradition, morals and example, to become a reflection of the left. This appears to be part of the plan to fundamentally transform the United States, and it carries dire consequences for our long-term survival.

Until recently, the military had seemed able to preserve its traditions and principles against radical outside influences. This was due largely to the fact that members voluntarily surrendered their self-interest. By enlisting, they accepted the limits and code of the service they joined, and implicitly made their individuality secondary to the greater good. When asked after the Civil War to bless a woman's infant son, Robert E. Lee also told her, "Teach him he must deny himself."

Now, along with every other aspect of our nation, our armed forces are being radicalized. Political correctness, social experimentation, and religious bigotry are jeopardizing the mission and cohesiveness of the military, and putting the long-term security of our country at risk. The left has happily made the military, which it loathes, a target of liberal social change. In addition to making service uncomfortable for some of those already in the ranks, these changes threaten to discourage those who might otherwise have joined from doing so. In an all-volunteer force, this is predictably fatal.

Major Nidal Hassan was an overt jihadist, but political correctness pervading the Army enabled him to claim 13 lives. Those 13, who gave themselves voluntarily to the service of our country, were sacrificed instead to "tolerance" and "multiculturalism", which suppressed alarms over Hassan's fervor out of fear of retribution for telling the truth about a Muslim who openly raged against the United States. As this administration has welcomed the influence of radical Islamists at all levels of government, we learn that training materials about our enemies are being prepared and edited by the enemy's domestic agents. For any who fail to grasp that labeling the Fort Hood massacre "workplace violence" upheld the liberal sacrament of political correctness, one need only know that General Casey bemoaned the effect that this jihadi mass murder would have upon the Army's diversity efforts.

More recently, it has been decided that the military's mission includes openly celebrating its gay members. In each and every pursuit undertaken by rational people working toward some larger purpose, the first question asked about any policy should be, "How does this advance the mission of the organization?" If the mission of the military was to reflect all aspects of liberal utopia, which is merely philosophical and transient, celebrating lifestyle choices would be a 'no-brainer'. But the military's mission is not enhanced by celebrating the subjective preferences of its individual members.

Our gay service men and women are just as brave and just as commendable for their self-sacrifice as our straight service men and women, but the mission of the military is not to applaud and validate their lifestyle choices. Nor should they seek it. It doesn't advance the mission, unless the mission is to weaken the whole by celebrating the diversity of its component parts, and to accord preferential treatment to those subjectively deemed by the left to be socially virtuous.

Indeed, this has been the track record generally of "diversity". It is a tool of division, enabling those who exploit it to pit one group against another for some political purpose, or to extend special treatment. Our president openly speaks of other Americans as "enemies", manipulating diversity to inflame passions.

Now, the left has targeted religious belief for special attention and examples of overt bigotry within the military have recently come to light. A recent briefing to an Army Reserve unit in Pennsylvania equated Christianity, including Evangelists and Catholics, with terrorist organizations such as Hamas and al Qaeda. The president has also stated that a conscience protection for military chaplains against ceremonies that violate their beliefs is "unnecessary and ill-advised". All must bow to the agenda, you see. It is their god.

This country was founded in large part by Christian men and women. Because the left's reign is the antithesis of Christian values, those who still espouse them are a threat to those in power. Branding entirely nonviolent groups as "extremists" achieves the same goal as labeling one's opponent a racist. Christians who do no objective harm must be defamed as zealously as any other political enemy. Those who kill eagerly to honor their faith, however, embody "peace" and should be rewarded with unilateral control over what can be said about them. That our troops are being thus radicalized should alarm every American.

Will some leave the military as it becomes hostile to basic religious beliefs? Of course. Will some rethink their desire to enlist in the first place in an organization that is inhospitable to their own faith, or the country's founding principles? No doubt. That's the point. Just as we will see the ranks of doctors shrink under ObamaCare, we will see our military diminish as fewer stay or join. When the military ceases being about service to our nation and becomes a liberal petri dish for every social experiment the left can concoct, we will finally be the neutered former superpower the left has longed for.

We are witnessing the purposeful destabilization and poisoning of our military from within. The left has long despised our military as the face of America's imagined oppression and imperialism. Just ask John Kerry. As the military goes, so goes the country. Our enemies are watching us, and they like what they see.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/05/radicalizing_the_military.html