Oldest known WWII veteran honored at Arlington ceremony

The oldest known veteran of World War II was honored with a thunderous standing ovation during a ceremony Monday at Arlington National Cemetery, as President Obama and the rest of the nation paid tribute to 107-year-old Richard Overton's service.
The tribute to Overton was a stand-out moment at Monday's Veterans Day ceremonies, as details emerged about Overton's visit. Earlier in the day, the Texas man met with Obama and Vice President Biden, along with other veterans, during a White House breakfast.
"This is the life of one American veteran, living proud and strong in the land he helped keep free," Obama said during the ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery.
Though he uses a wheelchair, Overton can still stand -- and did so, as the crowd applauded his service.
Overton served in the Pacific during World War II, and Obama regaled the audience with his accomplishments. "He was there at Pearl Harbor when the battleships were still smoldering. He was there at Okinawa. He was there at Iwo Jima," Obama said.
When he returned from the war, Overton went back to Texas, where he built a house for him and his wife -- the house he still lives in today. The president said Overton still rakes his own lawn, and still drives ladies in his neighborhood to church every Sunday.
According to a profile on Overton in USA Today, his attendance at Monday's ceremony was set up after Overton visited the World War II Memorial and Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial as part of an Honor Flight Austin trip back in May. Overton reportedly wondered what it would be like to meet the president, and the visit was later arranged.
During the war, Overton was a member of the Army's 188th Aviation Engineer Battalion and reportedly volunteered for service.
He attributes his longevity in part to drinking a tablespoon of whiskey in his coffee and smoking a dozen cigars a day, according to the article.
Obama used his remarks Monday to remind the nation that thousands of service members are still at war in Afghanistan. The war is expected to formally conclude at the end of next year, though the U.S. may keep a small footprint in the country.
As the Afghan war comes to a close, Obama said the nation has a responsibility to ensure that the returning troops are the "best cared-for and best respected veterans in the world." The country's obligations to those who served "endure long after the battle ends," he said.

Food Stamp Usage is Still on the Rise

Jason is roughly my age.  I work hard, pay my taxes, and provide for myself.  Despite being able-bodied enough to surf and hit on women on a daily basis, he doesn't even try to work by his own admission, presumably doesn't pay taxes, and is provided for by people like me.  He gladly takes our "free money" to snag some sushi and lobster for him and his bros.  Jason's story is galling on some level, but is more sad than anything else.  Taxpayer anger over this abuse shouldn't be primarily directed at Jason -- although people like him should be shamed for their exploitive leechery; it should be directed at the government that enables this sort of behavior.  From the report above:

"Things have changed.  Back in 1996, if you were an able adult like Jason with no family, there were limitations.  You could get food stamps for only three months, every three years.   The exception: If you were working at least a 20 hour work week, or participated in a workfare or training program.  President Obama wiped away those restrictions when he signed his stimulus bill in 2009, and in 2010, Obama used his regulatory powers to extend the suspension of those welfare-to-work requirements."  

This president has actively turned back the clock -- legally and otherwise -- on important welfare reform successes throughout his term in office.  He claims his ideological actions are based on "compassion."  What the State is helping Jason do to himself is not compassionate.  It's poisonous.  Of course there are people who genuinely rely on food stamps and other forms of assistance to feed their children and stay alive.  Welfare programs should be limited to helping the truly needy.  Jason is the new poster child for big government's corrosive pattern abuse and excess.  Unfortunately, the ruling political party in this country is committed to expanding the dysfunction, and cynically demagoguing those who seek to rein it in.Via the Wall Street Journal, 47.6 million Americans are now food stamp recipients

Food-stamp use rose 2.4% in the U.S. in May from a year earlier, with more than 15% of the U.S. population receiving benefits. One of the federal government’s biggest social welfare programs, which expanded when the economy convulsed, isn’t shrinking back alongside the recovery. Food stamp rolls were up 0.2% from the prior month, theU.S. Department of Agriculture reported in data that aren’t adjusted for seasonal variations. Though annual growth continues, the pace has slowed since the depths of the recession. The number of recipients in the food stamp program, formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), is at 47.6 million, or nearly one in six Americans.

Part of the continued heightened reliance on federal aid is a product of the excruciatingly slow Obama 'recovery,' during which median household income has actually declined (perhaps because of the trend toward part-time work -- which, in turn, has been fueled by Obamacare).  Still, the fact that food stamp usage hasn't receded as the recession has eased is troubling.  A majority of Americans blame the government for this phenomenon, stating that benefits are too easy to come by:

A Fox News poll released Wednesday shows 74 percent think Americans rely too much on the government and not enough on themselves. That includes almost all Republicans (87 percent), most independents (80 percent) and a majority of Democrats (58 percent).  Voters are also more likely to blame the record number of people on food stamps -- more than 46 million -- on it being too easy to get government assistance (53 percent) than the severity of the recession (40 percent). 

Minority

Now the US Government wants to control what you eat.

Why not control what you eat, they're now in control of everything else in our lives Thanks to the Democrats.

Find A Pony

Obama apologizes to Americans who lost health plans

Bailey Comment: A Day late and a Dollar short!

President Obama said Thursday he was “sorry” Americans are losing health insurance plans he repeatedly said they could keep, and vowed to work with those who are finding themselves in a “tough situation” as a result.
His remarks came as a bipartisan bill was introduced in the Senate to delay the implementation of the individual mandate of ObamaCare by one year, meaning Americans would avoid a $95 penalty for not having health insurance that is scheduled to kick in next year.
Referring to those who are losing their health insurance plans, Obama told NBC News, "I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me. We've got to work hard to make sure that they know we hear them and we are going to do everything we can to deal with folks who find themselves in a tough position as a consequence of this.”
The White House, while defending the health care law and vowing to fix the problems with the website, has not explicitly ruled out the possibility of delaying the individual mandate.
House Speaker John Boehner responded to Obama's apology late Thursday, saying "an apology is certainly in order, but what Americans want to hear is that the president is going to keep his promise."
Thursday's bill was introduced by Senators Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Mark Kirk, R-Ill., who said since the Affordable Care Act was passed, there have been “many identifiable problems exposed in the law that need to be addressed.”
“We need to start working together to fix this law and make it work so that all Americans have access to affordable and reliable health care coverage,” Manchin said in a statement. “We can start with a one-year delay of the individual mandate to eliminate penalty fees if individuals choose to not enroll for a health care plan in 2014.
"This common sense proposal simply allows Americans to take more time to browse and explore their options, making 2014 a true transition year.”
The legislation acknowledges there are many positive components of the Affordable Care Act that will lead to health care becoming more affordable for all Americans, and these reforms must “continue to be implemented.”
“Nevertheless, it is important to recognize when a new program is not meeting the high standards that the American people expect,” the bill reads. “So far, the federal healthcare exchanges have failed, and we must deliver a better product.”
The bill also says that delaying the entire implementation of ObamaCare would not be “responsible,” but Congress should take action to make “commonsense reforms” to the law.
“Healthcare should not be a burden on consumers, which is why we must delay the penalty for individuals,” Kirk said in a statement. “Last July, American businesses were given more time to provide employees health coverage. If a delay is good enough for businesses, it should be good enough for all Americans.”

After last month’s shopping frenzy, Louisiana governor looks to strip food stamps from abusers

The Louisiana governor's office said Wednesday night that it would strip food stamp benefits from anyone who took advantage of an EBT card malfunction that in some cases caused an all-out shopping frenzy in some stores across the state, The Advocate reported.
It is unclear how many recipients stand in line to lose benefits for a year, but more than 12,000 received an insufficient funds notice when the EBT card system was corrected on Oct.12, the report said.
"We must protect the program for those who receive and use their benefits appropriately according to the law. We are looking at each case individually, addressing those recipients who are suspected of misrepresenting their eligibility for benefits or defrauding the system," Suzy Sonnier, the secretary of state at the Department of Children and Family Services, said in a statement.
The frenzy at some stores was likened to the busiest shopping day of the year. "It was worse than any Black Friday,” Springhill Police Chief Will Lynd told local station KSLA-TV.
Shelves were picked clean in a mob scene that left employees rattled. Walmart spokeswoman Kayla Whaling told the station the company made a conscious decision to keep ringing up goods rather than to cut people off.
But when order was restored and the cards began reading properly, it became clear that some customers were out to take advantage of the taxpayer-funded program. One woman had $700 worth of merchandise in her cart and an EBT card with a balance of just 49 cents.
Problems involving Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) cards, the government payments to the poor that are administered by states with the help of private companies, plagued at least 17 states Oct. 10 and 11, creating retail riots. At Louisiana stores in Springhill and Mansfield, cards registered no spending limits, prompting recipients to go on buying binges. Stores, not taxpayers are on the hook for the excess money spent at the locations. It is up to the stores and local prosecutors to determine if charges should be leveled against abusers.
The Advocate's report says that violators will receive a letter about the disqualification along with how to appeal the matter. In the most severe cases, under Federal guidelines, individuals can lose the privilege permanently. Bailey Comment: " Damn it, it's about time someone stood up for us against the freeloaders"!

UN Twilight Zone: Top Ban Ki-moon adviser invisible on payroll

The man who is perhaps United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's closest American adviser and his top strategic planner, apparently exists only as a ghost in the U.N.'s payroll system.

According to the world body's top financial oversight committee, his position is invisible in the formal organization chart of Ban's executive office, and his salary has been paid for nearly a decade through redirecting the salaries for vacant staff positions and other forms of budgetary hocus-pocus that Ban's top managers have banned—for everyone else, anyway-- as an inappropriate method of using funds.
The advisor in question is Robert Orr, and his formal title in the Secretary-General's office is no mystery: he is Under-secretary for Strategic Planning, responsible, according to U.N. budget documents, for assisting Ban by, among other things, “providing policy advice on global public goods issues,” and “developing policy initiatives,” not to mention “serving as the Secretary-General’s focal point for academic and research institutions.”
According to the documents, Orr also oversees the United Nations Global Compact, a growing assortment of mostly non-American private corporations around the world that vow to follow a 10-point U.N. program of good behavior and in return get to publicize their affiliation under a blue-and-white U.N. banner.
Most importantly for Ban's purposes at the moment, Orr has been the chief designer of an ambitious but vague proposal to create a new global center for public private partnerships within the U.N that Ban hopes will funnel tens of billions of dollars into U.N. anti-poverty, energy and other projects over the next two years, as well as create new networks of influence for U.N. goals around the world—projects in which the Global Company is likely to figure strongly.
Orr is also considered the most likely candidate to be nominated by Ban as head of the new partnership effort—when and if that nomination occurs.
Ban considers the job to be, in effect, the U.N.'s top envoy to the business community and “civil society.” The post is so important that he wants to award the title-holder with the U.N.'s second-highest rank beneath himself of Under-Secretary General (USG), reporting directly to Ban himself.
The problem for Ban is that the same top U.N. financial oversight committee has voiced emphatic opposition to the idea.
The U.N.'s Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions, or ACABQ, did not expand on its reasons for opposing the addition of yet another high-priced top bureaucrat to Ban's extensive executive office, along with four other officials to create the $14.4 million so-called Partnership Facility. (USGs earn just under $190,000 per year on the U.N.'s salary scale, but then, if they work in New York City, add an additional 68.7 percent for a current local cost-of-living adjustment, which would bring the total to more like $320,000. Then come housing and education subsidies, which can add thousands more.)
But the ACABQ did, in its examination of the partnership issue, underline its concerns about strategic planner Orr's Twilight Zone status as a non-person in Secretary General Ban's organization chart, and the way that Ban has financed his position in the U.N. payroll process—which whatever the motivation, seems designed to avoid formal scrutiny of his duties..
The gap in the org chart is easier to explain. According to the ACABQ's report, the office of Assistant Secretary General for Strategic Planning is not visible because it is not paid for out of the U.N.'s so-called “regular” budget--so far planned at $5.4 billion in the 2014-2015 biennium, which comes from U.N. Member's regular dues (the U.S. is the biggest single dues-payer, covering 22 percent of that budget.)
Only positions listed in the “regular” budget apparently appear in the official organization hierarchy.
CLICK HERE FOR THE OFFICIAL ORGANIZATION CHART OF BAN’S OFFICE
Instead it comes from the U.N . Secretariat's much larger “voluntary” budget--$14.1 billion planned so far for 2014-2015-- which is paid more or less by the same dozen or so countries that shoulder the “regular” burden, but pledge the remaining money to various programs as they see fit. (U.S. “voluntary” donations are difficult to compile; the Obama Administration quit providing tallies of its overall U.N. spending after 2010.)
Much stranger, however, is the way that Orr's salary has been paid since he first took up the strategic planning job in 2004—nearly ten full years ago. For most of that time—93 months, according to the ACABQ, Orr was paid by shuffling around money that became available through staff vacancies—a practice known as “vacancy management.”
Vacancy management is a method of budget juggling that the ACABQ has been decrying for years, and once again condemned, in its examination of the circumstances around Orr's case, as using budget funds “for purposes other than those for which they were intended.” Among other things, the committee noted, the use of such funds intended for other staff hiring means that no-one, including the ACABQ, can be exactly sure what people paid in this manner are actually doing.
The committee then stressed that “vacant posts, especially those at the senior level, should not be used for purposes other than those for which they were intended.”
Notes former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton, who is also a Fox News contributor: “The ACABQ is the U.N.'s only effective institutional shield against the waste of vast sums of money. If any U.N. activities and their funding sources are not fully disclosed to the ACABQ, or if the staffing of programs and senior management positions is not fully transparent, the potential for fraud, waste and abuse is enormous.
“This lack of transparency should be particularly worrisome for potential private-sector partners,” he added. “They would do well to remember the Oil-for-Food scandal”—in which billions of U.N.-administered dollars worth of relief were skimmed and diverted by the Saddam Hussein dictatorship in Iraq for its own purposes, and ultimately leading in some cases to fines and sanctions against Western firms that were involved.
The watchdog committee also noted that Ban more or less was supposed to feel that way too. Indeed, in March 2012, the ACABQ noted, Ban's then-head of U.N. Management issued a directive banning the use of vacancy management for posts “to perform functions for which they were not intended”--but only for the U.N.'s “regular budget.”
It was around the same time, however, that Orr's pay-check apparently moved from the vacancy management funding merry-go-round to another murky area of U.N. budget: “general temporary assistance.” These are supposedly funds, the U.N. is using to pay for replacements for staffers “on extended sick leave or maternity leave,” or for personnel to cover “peak workload periods.”
They are emphatically not, the committee noted, to be used to “finance de facto regular budget posts that are of a continuing nature.”
CLICK HERE FOR THE ACABQ REPORT
By way of a footnote, the committee included a reference to an ACABQ report complaining about the same practice that dated back to October, 1995—just about nine years before Orr got his strategic planning job.
Orr may well have been aware of the ACABQ's complaints shortly afterward, when he served in a different role--as deputy head of the U.S. Mission to the U.N. Under Richard Holbrooke, a Clinton Administration appointee, and as head of a USUN office in Washington. He subsequently left government and before joining Ban's office served as a top official of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.
One irony of Orr's invisible financial footing at the U.N. is that it seems at odds, at least philosophically, with his job as head of the U.N. Global Compact—the organization that is also expected to loom large in Ban's future partnership plans.
In June 2004—just before Orr was appointed to his strategic planning job—the Global Compact announced that its tenth guiding principle for participating corporations would be to “work against corruption in all its forms,” using transparency in business dealings as a key tool.
Failure to demonstrate such transparency in the face of complaints could, after a time, result in the offending business losing its Compact status.
As the Compact still states on its website, “safeguarding the reputation, integrity and good efforts of the Global Compact and its participants requires transparent means to handle credible allegations of systematic or egregious abuse of the Global Compact's overall aims and principles.”
The statement says nothing, however, about a failure by the U.N. Secretary General to promptly address any longstanding complaints about the U.N. misuse of its own funding methods to pay the salaries of high-level officials—whose jobs may include supervising the reputation, integrity and good efforts of the Global Compact itself.
When asked about the methods used to fund Orr’s position, along with a number of other issues related to the U.N.’s partnership plans, Ban’s spokesman, Martin Nesirky, told Fox News only that “the proposal of the Secretary-General, together with the related observations and comments of the Advisory Committee will, in the near future, be considered by General Assembly.”
“At that point,” he added. “the representatives of the Secretary-General will provide detailed information on the proposal to Member States, including with respect to any issues raised on the basis of the Advisory Committee's recommendations. The matter is therefore pending General Assembly consideration and decision.”