Showing posts with label Won't. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Won't. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

ROCK and I won"t work, and do it for less!

At Hey WTF? News, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Hey WTF? News and how it is used.

Log Files

Like many other Web sites, Hey WTF? News makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons

Hey WTF? News does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie

  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Hey WTF? News.
  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Hey WTF? News and other sites on the Internet.
  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Hey WTF? News send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

Hey WTF? News has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Hey WTF? News"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.


ROCK and I won"t work, and do it for less!

Monday, March 24, 2014

ROCK and I won"t work, and do it for less!

At Hey WTF? News, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Hey WTF? News and how it is used.

Log Files

Like many other Web sites, Hey WTF? News makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons

Hey WTF? News does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie

  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Hey WTF? News.
  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Hey WTF? News and other sites on the Internet.
  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Hey WTF? News send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

Hey WTF? News has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Hey WTF? News"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.


ROCK and I won"t work, and do it for less!

Friday, February 28, 2014

Senate Dems Won"t Produce a Budget This Year


Patty Murray official portrait


A Capitol Hill source source says that Senate Democrats will not produce a budget this year. The news is expected to come from Senator Patty Murray’s office at 3 p.m. today, as part of a Friday afternoon news dump. Murray is chairman of the Senate Budget Committee.


Senator Jeff Sessions from Alabama released this statement. “Senate Democrats are required by law to produce a budget,” wrote Sessions.


The Weekly Standard



Senate Dems Won"t Produce a Budget This Year

Senate Dems Won"t Produce a Budget This Year

At A Political Statement, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by A Political Statement and how it is used.

Log Files

Like many other Web sites, A Political Statement makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons

A Political Statement does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie

  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on A Political Statement.
  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to A Political Statement and other sites on the Internet.
  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on A Political Statement send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

A Political Statement has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. A Political Statement"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.


Senate Dems Won"t Produce a Budget This Year

Friday, January 10, 2014

Why FDR Didn’t End the Great Depression – and Why Obama Won’t End This One


From Cambridge University in 1932-1933, John Maynard Keynes observed a promising new U.S. president presiding over what he saw as half-baked and confused policies, while labor insurgency was mounting. Roosevelt’s measures were, Keynes conceded, without precedent, but novelty was not enough. Long-term commitment to direct federal employment was required. For Keynes, this was the bottom line. (For a detailed analysis of Keynes’s prescriptions for eliminating unemployment, see Alan Nasser, “What Keynes Really Prescribed,” CounterPunch subscription edition, volume 19, number 19, 2012)


Existing programs were not only too small, but they were also either temporary (Civilian Conservation Corps and Civil Works Administration) or irrationally tied to the severely weakened states’ ability to raise substantial revenues on their own (Federal Emergency Relief Act and Public Works Administration). CWA had come closest to the kind of commitment Keynes thought indispensable, but it suffered two fatal defects: it was temporary, designed only to help workers get through the harsh winter of 1933, and of all these programs it was the object of Roosevelt’s greatest suspicion. Roosevelt feared that CWA would raise workers’ expectations of what they could permanently expect from government.


 The Dawn of the New Deal and Keynes’s 1933 Letter


The president’s instincts were solidly anti-federalist; there must be no permanent direct government provision of what it is the proper function of the private sector to provide. (1) Roosevelt wanted relatively small, temporary federal efforts on behalf of workers, with the states primarily responsible for the provision of social benefits in the long run. Keynes urged large, permanent programs supplying employment during both economic contractions and expansions, provided directly by the federal government. He communicated his concern to Roosevelt in an open letter published in The New York Times on December 31, 1933. (2)


In the letter he expressed his extreme distress at Roosevelt’s timid policy. “At the moment your sympathizers in England are nervous and sometimes despondent. We wonder whether the order of different urgencies is rightly understood, whether there is a confusion of aim, and whether some of the advice you get is not crack-brained and queer.” He then outlined his alternative analysis.


The basic issue, Keynes insisted, is “Recovery,” whose object is “to increase the national output and put more men to work.” An increase in output depends on “the amount of purchasing power… which is expected to come on the market.” Recovery depends upon increasing purchasing power. There are, Keynes pointed out, three factors operating to raise purchasing power and output. The first is increased consumer spending out of current income, the second is increased investment by capitalists, and the third is that “public authority must be called in aid to create additional current incomes through the expenditure of borrowed or printed money.”


Since the vast majority of consumers are workers, increased consumption expenditure is impossible on the required scale during a period of high unemployment and low wages. Business investment will eventually materialize, but only “after the tide has been turned by the expenditures of public authority.” Government investment in employment-generating public works must come first. Only after large-scale government investment can private investment be expected to kick in.


A compelling logic is implicit in that observation. According to the orthodoxy Keynes is criticizing, a revival of aggregate investment by the class of capitalists is necessary and sufficient to constitute recovery. But investment by an individual capitalist in a severe downturn would be irrational. So each capitalist will defer investment until there is evidence of recovery, i.e. evidence that the other capitalists have undertaken productive outlays. Uh-oh: a structural contradiction is in place. If each investor refrains from investment until all the others invest, no capitalist will invest. Each will die waiting for the others to come across. In the absence of an external impetus to the private investment system, the depression will be endless. Recovery is possible, then, only if a force external to the private market gets the ball rolling. Enter government to the rescue. “[T]he tide has been turned.”


Hence Keynes’s conviction that only government expenditures on a grand scale can breathe life back into a depressed economy. Keynes suggested as an example of what he had in mind “the rehabilitation of the physical condition of the railroads.” He would later, in a 1938 letter, recommend a national program of public housing as a project on the required scale.


The crisis was not merely economic. Keynes had witnessed the rise of revolutionary movements in response to the protracted inability of capitalism to meet the needs of working people. He had written about both the Bolshevik revolution and the tendency of austerity to spawn revolt from the Right. Keynes was antipathetic to both fascist and worker rule, and feared revolutionary consequences should the New Deal fail. “If you fail,” he wrote Roosevelt, “rational change will be gravely prejudiced throughout the world, leaving orthodoxy and revolution to fight it out.” The political stakes were high, as they must be under conditions of protracted capitalist austerity.


The stakes are no less high now. The current contraction emerged from a political-economic settlement, the post-Golden-Age period from 1974 to the present, resembling in relevant respects the Depression-prone economy of the 1920s.




disinformation



Why FDR Didn’t End the Great Depression – and Why Obama Won’t End This One

Thursday, December 26, 2013

China won"t become the world’s largest economy until 2028

At Alternate Viewpoint, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Alternate Viewpoint and how it is used.


Log Files


Like many other Web sites, Alternate Viewpoint makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.


Cookies and Web Beacons


Alternate Viewpoint does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.


DoubleClick DART Cookie


  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Alternate Viewpoint.

  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Alternate Viewpoint and other sites on the Internet.

  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Alternate Viewpoint send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.


Alternate Viewpoint has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.


You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Alternate Viewpoint"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.


If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.



China won"t become the world’s largest economy until 2028

Tuesday, December 24, 2013

Congressman"s Son Won"t Shut The Hell Up During Hearing

Congressman"s Son Won"t Shut The Hell Up During Hearing
http://img.youtube.com/vi/YNgMgMrA5f8/0.jpg



Congressman Eisley conducts hearing on Market Data Protection Reform, restrains self from murdering five year old son.




Read more about Congressman"s Son Won"t Shut The Hell Up During Hearing and other interesting subjects concerning Humor at TheDailyNewsReport.com

Sunday, December 22, 2013

Now Free, Russian Dissident Says He Won’t Enter Politics


Sean Gallup/Getty Images


Mikhail B. Khodorkovsky toured the Mauer-Museum am Checkpoint Charlie museum in Berlin on Sunday with the museum director, Alexandra Hildebrandt, left, before his first news conference since his release.




BERLIN — The setting was fraught with symbolism. In the museum at Checkpoint Charlie, the best-known crossing point along the Berlin Wall, which traces the history of the wall and the Cold War, the man who until Friday was Russia’s most famous prisoner faced reporters for the first time on Sunday and told of his last 10 years in custody and how just two days earlier he had been freed suddenly and flown here to the German capital.




The lack of rancor expressed by the former prisoner, Mikhail B. Khodorkovsky, in the hour or so he spent with a small group of Russian-speaking journalists was his most striking feature. Calm and businesslike in a dark blue suit and tie, he appeared fit and was decidedly feisty. Yet, at least for the moment, he said, he plans to stay well clear of Russian politics; certainly of his former oil company, Yukos, the giant concern that once made him Russia’s richest man; and probably of Russia itself.


Asked how his unexpected liberation came about, Mr. Khodorkovsky said he had first written to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia on Nov. 12 asking for clemency, after the former German foreign minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, who spent two and a half years working on his behalf, assured him that he would not have to admit any guilt. Arrested on charges of embezzlement, Mr. Khodorkovsky became a powerful dissident voice, faulting Mr. Putin for consolidating authority and stifling dissent.


That provision of no admission of guilt was crucial, Mr. Khodorkovsky insisted, not so much for himself as for all the employees of Yukos, which has since been broken up and largely reconstituted as the Rosneft company, run by the Putin ally Igor I. Sechin.


Admitting guilt, he argued, could have resulted in all employees being accused as part of a large unit of conspiracy or of committing crimes, or it could have allowed Russian authorities to seek the extradition of Yukos employees who had fled abroad.


Talk of clemency, he said, first arose, during the presidency of Dmitri A. Medvedev, a Putin ally who served one term before stepping aside last year to allow Russia’s most dominant politician to resume the office he held from 2000 to 2008.


Mr. Genscher worked behind the scenes, with the knowledge of just a few German and Russian officials, to bring off Friday’s release, he said.


Asked whether he was grateful to Mr. Putin for clemency, Mr. Khodorkovsky paused, chose his words carefully, then said: “I was really contemplating for a long time how I would express what I feel towards Mr. Putin. All these years, all decisions in my case were made by one person. And it would be hard to say that I am thankful to him. Let me say: I am happy about this decision. That would be the most precise.”


The police detained Mr. Khodorkovsky in October 2003 on his private jet in Novosibirsk, after months during which he had increasingly challenged Mr. Putin by funding opposition parties and social movements. Earlier that year, the two men had clashed publicly at a Kremlin meeting.


Mr. Khodorkovksy said that before that meeting, unidentified presidential aides had indicated he could speak frankly, even on television. But doing so set him on a path that ended in two trials and a decade in jail.


Mr. Khodorkovsky said he had no interest in entering Russian politics, “meaning the fight for power.”


“I don’t want to do it because politicians in Russia have to occupy a not-very-sincere position” he said. During all these 10 years, he said, he has earned “the right to be totally sincere, and to say what I think.” That, he added, “is higher than any politics.”


That does not mean, he stressed, that he will not be socially active, particularly on behalf of prisoners. He said he had counted himself very lucky during his incarceration because he had a loving family waiting for him, in contrast to 90 percent of prisoners he had met who had nowhere to go even if they did get out of jail.


Mr. Khodorkovsky’s departure from Russia followed so swiftly on Mr. Putin’s first word on Thursday that he might grant clemency that the prisoner ended up flying to Germany while his parents were still in Moscow, and his wife was apparently on her way there. The official reason Mr. Putin gave for his decision was that Mr. Khodorkovsky had suffered enough and needed to see his mother, who has been undergoing treatment for cancer. She had recently returned to Moscow, however, from a Berlin hospital.


The release itself, Mr. Khodorkovsky said, happened swiftly. He was summoned at 2 a.m. from his bed in the penal colony near the Finnish border where he had most recently been incarcerated and then whisked to Germany, in what he called “the best tradition of the 1970s.”


That was the only allusion he made to the Cold War, even though his meetings with the Russian-speaking reporters and a later news conference took place in a museum with extensive reminders of Soviet bloc days.


Mr. Khodorkovsky indicated that, at least for now, he would not be returning to Russia. He specifically asked to go abroad, he said. He also wrote Mr. Putin an assurance that he would not try to recover any Yukos holdings.


That decision appears to have secured the fortunes of Rosneft and Mr. Sechin. “I don’t want to waste my time on it,” Mr. Khodorkovsky said. Once worth billions of dollars, he said he did not know how much money he had left now. But, he said with a smile, “enough to live on.”




NYT > International Home



Now Free, Russian Dissident Says He Won’t Enter Politics

Saturday, December 21, 2013

You won’t see this on MSM

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>





What is 15 + 2 ?


IMPORTANT! To be able to proceed, you need to solve the following simple math (so we know that you are a human) :-)






You won’t see this on MSM

Friday, December 6, 2013

Why Wont Obama Sign-Up For Obama-Care? My Conspiracy Theory:

Normally, I avoid engaging in conspiracies…choosing, instead, to stick to discussions of current events in the news.

However, after discussing a related topic on another thread regarding Obamacare, a question hit me…which, I believe, led to me contemplating a possible conspiracy involving the question: WHY has Barack Obama STILL not signed up for his own signature legislation?


Yes, I know that he currently receives other (read:Better) insurance…BUT:


Shortly after Obama signed the new health care law in March 2010, a White House official said the president planned to walk the walk and sign up for the insurance exchanges his law created.


“The president will participate in the exchange,” an administration official told USA Today at the time.



AND:


President Obama has yet to make good on the administration’s promises that he would sign up for health insurance on the new government exchanges, the White House acknowledged on Monday.


White House press secretary Jay Carney said that Obama has not signed up for Obamacare and that he did have a reason for the delay.


A reporter pressed Carney on whether the White House would make it an open-press event if and when Obama does enroll.


“I’ll get back to you,” Carney replied.




From: White House: Obama hasn’t yet signed up for Obamacare
washingtonexaminer.com…

So, considering what a great publicity move it would be to call a WH photo-op and sign up; not to mention that it would inspire others to follow suit…


…WHY won’t Barack Obama SIGN UP at Healthcare.gov?


My (conspiracy) theory is simply this:
Barack Hussein Obama is AFRAID to sign up for Obamacare!


WHY?…Because he KNOWS it is not secure…and he knows that hackers will immediately get, not only his medical information…but, more importantly, hackers will gain his SS# and other private personal identification.


With this information, talented and possibly politically-motivated, hackers will be able to gain everything from his birth certificate to detailed personal financial information.


…all of which, could prove personally and/or politically damaging and embarrassing.


This, at least, is my theory. What’s your’s?


edit on 6-12-2013 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)


edit on 6-12-2013 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)




AboveTopSecret.com New Topics In General Conspiracies



Why Wont Obama Sign-Up For Obama-Care? My Conspiracy Theory:

Thursday, November 21, 2013

Why latest Obamacare "fix" won"t affect many


Health insurance




1 hour ago


A week after President Barack Obama urged insurers to renew policies that don’t meet all the requirements of the health law, it remains unclear how many people might be affected by the proposed fix.


That’s because regulators in at least a half dozen states say they won’t allow insurers to do it and many more have yet to decide. Even if states give insurers a green light to reinstate the policies, many insurers say they’re not sure if they can pull it off in time and no one knows how many customers who received the cancellations will want to renew.


“The president’s plan is certainly not a guarantee” that people who received discontinuation notices earlier this fall will now be able to renew, said Chris Jacobs, senior policy analyst with the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington.


The vast majority of insured Americans are unaffected by the furor over the cancellation notices — or by the president’s effort to reinstate the policies — because they get their coverage through their jobs of through Medicare or Medicaid. The cancellations went to people who buy their coverage directly from insurers, an estimated 5 percent of the population.


But they hit a nerve, in large part because of the president’s campaign promise that Americans could keep their insurance if they liked it.


In his comments last week, Obama made the extensions optional, effectively placing the onus on state regulators and insurers. After a meeting with a group of state regulators at the White House Wednesday, the administration affirmed that the decision ultimately rests with state authorities. “States have different populations with unique needs, and it is up to the insurance commissioner and health insurance companies to decide which insurance products can be offered to existing customers next year,” it said in a statement.


States that will allow renewals include Oregon, Florida, Kentucky, Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, Arkansas and Ohio, many of which already allowed insurers to “early renew” existing policies into next year. Early renewals allowed insurers to hold onto some of their customers and temporarily sidestep adding new benefits – and costs — to the policies, and likely reduced the number of cancellation notices sent.


“A huge chunk of people” were offered such early renewals, said Carrie McLean, director of customer care at ehealthinsurance, a private website that offers health insurance from 200 carriers. The practice was so common that ehealth included a website link so users could check if their carrier was offering early renewals.


Several Democratic-led states that embraced the health law have offered the strongest pushback. They cite the law’s protections and concerns that allowing renewals could result in fewer young and relatively healthy policyholders in the new marketplaces. States refusing to allow the renewals include Washington, Minnesota, New York, and Massachusetts. Massachusetts and Washington were among a handful of states that had barred or set limits on the so-called early renewals as well.


Regulators in other states say they are still weighing the decision.


Even states that permit reinstatements may put restrictions on insurers. Oregon, for example, has given insurers a deadline of Friday to decide if they want to pursue renewals. Premiums must stay the same – and they must notify members of their option to renew by Nov. 29.


Most insurers seek premium increases when they renew policies, but that process can take weeks to work through state regulators. If regulators don’t allow an increase – or there isn’t enough time — few insurers may want to renew, especially given inflation and the new taxes and fees imposed by the health law, said Joe Antos at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington.


Barring a premium increase as a condition of allowing renewals, as Oregon did, “guarantees insurers won’t go for it,” Antos said.


Notices that plans would be discontinued began arriving in consumers’ mailboxes in late summer. No one knows how many of the estimated 14 million people who buy their own coverage received them. Some states don’t keep track.


The Associated Press has estimated about 4.2 million, with the biggest numbers in California, Georgia, Florida and Washington, based on counts from regulators that track the notices and insurers’ statements. 


Key to the final count is what happens in California, which had the most cancellations at 900,000. While the insurance commissioner wants to allow the renewals, he may not be able to do that because of rules set for the state’s online insurance marketplace.


The market, called Covered California, required participating insurers to discontinue plans that didn’t meet the law’s standards, except for a limited number that had been in effect before the health law was enacted in March 2010. Executive Director Peter Lee said Monday the move was an attempt to protect consumers from subpar policies – and to ensure that healthy people would use the new marketplace. A decision is expected by week’s end.


“We were quite concerned that (without such a contractual rule) we would have a large set selling bad coverage in the month of November that would then carry through to 2014,” Lee said.


At issue for many states is whether they have the authority to allow the renewals, particularly if their laws or regulations were changed to incorporate the health law’s requirements.


“In the end, many insurance commissioners won’t allow it,” predicted law professor Timothy Jost, who follows the health law at Washington and Lee University.


Even if state regulators don’t stand in the way, it is unclear how many insurers will want to extend canceled policies. So far North Carolina Blue Cross Blue Shield and Florida Blue have said they would do so. Most other insurers have remained silent.


Insurers must figure out “can we unwind this?” said Kim Holland, executive director, state affairs at the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and the former insurance commissioner in Oklahoma.


To renew policies they’ve already decided to discontinue, insurers would need to adjust computer programs, seek and win approval for any rate increases and send out new notices to their policyholders, which have to include specific information about how the policies may fall short of what the health law requires and how consumers can see their coverage options under the law. For policies set to expire at the end of the year, all that work needs to be done in what may be an impossibly short time line.


“That’s a very tall order,” said the Heritage Foundation’s Jacobs.


For consumers offered the opportunity to renew, there’s another calculation: “Many people will qualify for financial assistance to buy plans … with more comprehensive benefits and financial protection available in 2014,” said Oregon Insurance Commissioner Laura Cali, in a statement outlining the rules for renewals.


Experts say they are skeptical of insurers’ warnings that the renewals could so skew enrollments that they could drive up future premiums. The group’s trade lobby said the move could mean fewer younger and healthier people would purchase coverage through the new markets, driving up costs and destabilizing the market.


But the modest number of people expected to get renewal opportunities means the “effect on the risk pool shouldn’t be that dramatic,” said Larry Levitt, a senior vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation. (KHN is an editorially independent part of the foundation.)


Insurers say they are worried because of the double whammy of the renewals coupled with the consumers’ continuing difficulties enrolling in coverage.


“If the website had rolled out perfectly with robust enrollment … there would probably be less concern about the potential for adverse impact,” said Holland at the insurers’ association.


If there is a big impact, the administration has hinted that it might make changes to the way the government shares the financial risk with insurers that get a disproportionate number of unhealthy policyholders.


Antos believes insurers fear that another “crack in the wall” increases the likelihood of other changes.


Most troubling for the industry is the possible delay or softening of the law’s requirement that nearly all Americans carry insurance or pay a fine, which could further reduce the number of younger or healthier people who seek coverage.


“They are worried the administration will use its apparently expansive administrative authority to change that, too,” he said.


Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit, nonpartisan health policy research and communication organization not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.






Why latest Obamacare "fix" won"t affect many

Thursday, November 14, 2013

Kerry: Putting More Pressure on Iran Won"t Work


 U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said on Thursday he understands Israel’s “deep concerns” over Iran’s nuclear program and that the two allies share the same goal in curbing the perceived threat, although they differ in tactics.


Kerry told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program that he had just spoken with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by phone before appearing on the television network and that the two had spoken several times this week about negotiations with Iran.


“We’re having a very friendly and civil conversation about this,” Kerry said. “I respect completely his deep concerns – as a prime minister of Israel should have – about the existential nature of this threat to Israel. We understand that.”


His comments came after Netanyahu on Wednesday warned the U.S. and other Western nations that a “bad deal” with Iran on its nuclear program could lead to war. Netanyahu’s aides also challenged the U.S. assertion that offers to provide Tehran relief from sanctions were “modest.”


The United States and five other major powers are set to resume negotiations with Iran on Nov. 20, and one potential proposal could allow Iran to sell oil and gold and import some food and medicine in exchange for curbs on its nuclear program. Israel says the relief is too generous and would do little to stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions.


Kerry told MSNBC such relief is necessary and that the United States simply disagrees with Israel’s approach to tighten sanctions, adding that he is “still hopeful” about next week’s talks.


“What we disagree on is not the goal,” he said. “We disagree on a tactic. We believe that you need to take this first step.”


“Netanyahu believes that you can increase the sanctions, put the pressure on even further, and that somehow that’s going to force them (Iran) to do what they haven’t been willing to do at any time previously,” Kerry said.


Despite the disagreement, he reiterated that the United States stands firmly with Israel.


“There’s no distance between us about the danger of this program and the endgame for us is exactly the same: Iran cannot have a peaceful nuclear program that is in fact a deceptive program,” Kerry said.


© 2013 Thomson/Reuters. All rights reserved.




WHAT REALLY HAPPENED



Kerry: Putting More Pressure on Iran Won"t Work

Sunday, October 13, 2013

Newt: Shutdown fight won’t hurt the GOP in 2014


Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich explained on CNN’s State of the Union Sunday that the Republicans wouldn’t not suffer any long-term harm from their fight over Obamacare and the government shutdown.


NEWT GINGRICH:  This is childish, it’s silly. You are about to have [Gov.] Chris Christie (R-N.J.) win an election in New Jersey by 20%. It is 390 days until the next election and to suggest — you go back and look at Thacher in 1983, look at Reagan in ’82 and ’83 — this is in the middle of a bloody fight. This is a serious fight. Nobody wants to grant the House Republicans any dignity. The fact that they’re fighting over very profound principles and when it’s over and when the dust settles, the country’s going to assess and then they’re going to say that Obamacare is a disaster.



GINGRICH:  But notice what’s going on. [Speaker] Boehner goes down and says I’ll give you six weeks of a clean debt ceiling. The President says, no. [Sen.] Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is now trying to redouble the bet and saying not only will I not accept it from debt ceiling, I want you to actually roll back the sequester. Now at some point you have to understand this is a profound fight over the size of federal government, the size of the federal deficit and whether or not Washington is going to run the whole country incompetently as it has with the health.gov. In a country that has Amazon and Google, they can’t figure out how to put up a site can you go to? This is a sign of how fundamentally incompetent the bureaucracy is.





Rare



Newt: Shutdown fight won’t hurt the GOP in 2014

Monday, July 22, 2013

When soldier says he won"t kill


Erin Trieb / Erin Trieb Photography



22-year-old Chris Munoz, a private in the U.S. Army, refused to deploy to Afghanistan with his unit after claiming a crisis of conscious.




By Bill Briggs, NBC News contributor


As his fellow First Cavalry soldiers stow their gear in Afghanistan, a 22-year-old Army private moves vehicles and cleans buildings at Fort Hood after declining to deploy on the grounds that his conscience won’t let him kill — a move resulting in fierce backlash within the military community.


Amid the era of the all-volunteer force and after 12 years of war, the “conscientious objector” application recently filed by Private Second Class Chris Munoz is a rarity compared to the 171,000 CO claims made during the divisive, draft-based Vietnam War. Only about 100 such claims are submitted annually, according to a federal report. But that number is rising, says a national organization that helps objectors.


“We are getting more calls. There seems to be a lot of folks having problems of conscience,” said Bill Galvin, counseling coordinator at the Center of Conscience & War, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group.  


“When there’s conscription, we have a lot more work, certainly. But even these days, it’s one thing in the abstract to say, ‘I’d like to defend my country,’ but it’s something else entirely to be looking down at the barrel of gun and know you have that person’s life in your hands,” Galvin said. “Especially if you don’t know if that person is your enemy.”


Munoz, who is not granting interviews while Army commanders review his case, filed his claim on June 25, about 10 days before his unit deployed, said Lt. Col. Kirk Luedeke, a spokesman for the First Cavalry at Fort Hood. Rulings on CO claims may take as long as eight months. But, according to Munoz’s lawyer, the soldier’s feelings about warfare abruptly changed during basic training at Fort Benning, Ga., after enlisting on May 21, 2012.


“At weapons training, he really began to think about what he was being asked to do,” said James Branum, an Oklahoma City attorney who represents Munoz and several other CO applicants. “He was told there could come a situation where he might be forced to fire on a child. He realized then he could not fire upon a child, even if that child was a risk to him … That’s when things really clicked for him. That’s when he didn’t believe anymore that he could kill.”


To gain a conscientious-objector discharge — and avoid a possible court-martial charge (and potential jail time), or to avoid a dishonorable discharge — Munoz filled out papers stating why he is opposed to all wars. He must convince the Army that his beliefs are sincere and shifted after his enlistment.


‘He didn’t have a choice’
According to his lawyer, Munoz revealed his changing attitude to his superiors at Fort Benning — and several subsequent times before he reached Fort Hood in April — but on each occasion, a higher-ranking solider suggested to Munoz that his case would be expedited if he simply waited to formally file it when he reached Fort Hood. 


“We gave the command a few days to consider it. But once they decided, yes, he’s still going to deploy, that’s when we went to the press. Not an easy decision,” Branum said. “Not something a soldier ever wants to do. But really, he didn’t have a choice given the severity of the situation.”


“In good faith, the unit has left him here at Fort Hood while the process is being adjudicated,” Luedeke said. ”Chain of command has it, they’re aware of it. Once his packet goes through the procedural, the decision will be rendered and his status will be resolved.”


While Munoz’s lawyer carefully paints the gray nuances in the drastic mental shift of a once-committed enlistee — including the notion that, if sent to Afghanistan, Munoz would put himself and his unit at risk — his critics in the military community, especially those on social media, see the matter in purely black-and-white terms. According to Branum, his client has received “threatening emails.” 


At “Just The Tip of the Spear,” a satirical website run by Marine veterans, the administrator contends that anyone who takes the pledge to defend this country should honor that vow “with every fiber of their being.” 


“For him to decide to leave his brothers before a deployment is deplorable. Any self-respecting member of the Armed Forces wouldn’t be able to live with themselves for doing that,” the site’s administrator wrote in an email to NBC News. (The site’s authors do not reveal their names.)


No simple decision
At “This Ain’t Hell, but you can sure see if from here,” a blog by Army combat veterans, Jonn Lilyea wrote in an email to NBC News that he has strong doubts about the sincerity of Munoz’s CO claim. 


“I’ve met some real COs and this guy, Munoz, doesn’t seem to be one of them. It looks more to me that he doesn’t want to be separated from his young family, which is fine, but it’s NOT CO,” wrote Lilyea, who retired from the Army in 1994 after serving in Desert Storm as an infantry platoon sergeant. He lives in West Virginia.


“Actually, me & most of my readers sympathize with real COs, we can appreciate true religious or philosophical opposition to war. Most of us have been to war and understand the feelings that arise from that experience. But, this Munoz guy hooks up with the anti-war vultures days before he’s scheduled to deploy to make his case,” Lilyea wrote. 


At Fort Hood, Munoz has been treated fairly by other soldiers, his lawyer said. 


But for leaders at the base, Munoz’s case does not present a simple command decision, Luedeke said — nor does it carry an easy fix in the spirit of: ‘He signed up for this, so he should just go to war,’ as many of Munoz’s detractors have asserted on social media. 


“There’s always a bill to be paid by the leaders who have to consider the risk factors of having someone there (in Afghanistan) whose heart isn’t in it and who’s maybe not fully dedicated to the mission,” he said. ”These are the types of factors that get considered.”






When soldier says he won"t kill

Monday, June 17, 2013

Guardian: Snowden won"t return voluntarily to US








This photo provided by The Guardian Newspaper in London shows Edward Snowden, who worked as a contract employee at the National Security Agency, in Hong Kong, Sunday, June 9, 2013. The man who told the world about the U.S. government’s gigantic data grab also talked a lot about himself. Mostly through his own words, a picture of Edward Snowden is emerging: fresh-faced computer whiz, high school and Army dropout, independent thinker, trustee of official secrets. And leaker on the lam. (AP Photo/The Guardian) MANDATORY CREDIT





This photo provided by The Guardian Newspaper in London shows Edward Snowden, who worked as a contract employee at the National Security Agency, in Hong Kong, Sunday, June 9, 2013. The man who told the world about the U.S. government’s gigantic data grab also talked a lot about himself. Mostly through his own words, a picture of Edward Snowden is emerging: fresh-faced computer whiz, high school and Army dropout, independent thinker, trustee of official secrets. And leaker on the lam. (AP Photo/The Guardian) MANDATORY CREDIT













Buy AP Photo Reprints







WASHINGTON (AP) — NSA leaker Edward Snowden is defending his disclosure of top-secret U.S. spying programs in an online chat Monday with The Guardian and is attacking U.S. officials for calling him a traitor.


“The U.S. government is not going to be able to cover this up by jailing or murdering me,” he said. He added the government “immediately and predictably destroyed any possibility of a fair trial at home,” by labeling him a traitor, and indicated he would not return to the U.S. voluntarily.


Congressional leaders have called Snowden a traitor for revealing once-secret surveillance programs two weeks ago in the Guardian and The Washington Post. The National Security Agency programs collect records of millions of Americans’ telephone calls and Internet usage as a counterterror tool. The disclosures revealed the scope of the collections, which surprised many Americans and have sparked debate about how much privacy the government can take away in the name of national security.


“It would be foolish to volunteer yourself to” possible arrest and criminal charges “if you can do more good outside of prison than in it,” he said.


In one posted reply to a question, Snowden dismissed being called a traitor by former Vice President Dick Cheney, who made the allegations in an interview this week on Fox News Sunday. Cheney was echoing a charge by Senate Intelligence Committee chair Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.,


“Being called a traitor by Dick Cheney is the highest honor you can give an American, and the more panicked talk we hear from people like him, Feinstein…the better off we all are,” he said. “This is a man who gave us the warrantless wiretapping scheme as a kind of atrocity warm-up on the way to deceitfully engineering a conflict that has killed over 4,400 and maimed nearly 32,000 Americans, as well as leaving over 100,000 Iraqis dead,” he added, referring to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.


The Guardian announced that its website was hosting an online chat with Snowden, in hiding in Hong Kong, with reporter Glenn Greenwald receiving and posting his questions. The Associated Press couldn’t independently verify that Snowden was the man who posted 19 replies to questions.


In answer to a question about charges made by Cheney and other U.S. officials that he might be spying for China, and trading information for asylum, Snowden wrote, “Ask yourself: if I were a Chinese spy, why wouldn’t I have flown directly into Beijing? I could be living in a palace petting a phoenix by now.”


He added later, “I have had no contact with the Chinese government.”


Snowden explained that he had not flown directly to Iceland, where he has said he would like to seek asylum, because of the restrictions on travel for U.S. government employees with top clearances that require permission 30 days in advance, making Hong Kong the more accessible option.


Snowden dismissed the U.S. government’s claims that the NSA surveillance programs had helped thwart dozens of terrorist attacks in more than 20 countries, including the 2009 al-Qaida plot by Afghan American Najibullah Zazi to blow up New York subways.


“Journalists should ask a specific question: … how many terrorist attacks were prevented SOLELY by information derived from this suspicionless surveillance that could not be gained via any other source? Then ask how many individual communications were ingested to acheive (sic) that, and ask yourself if it was worth it.”


He added that “Bathtub falls and police officers kill more Americans than terrorism, yet we’ve been asked to sacrifice our most sacred rights for fear of falling victim to it.”


Snowden was working as a contractor for NSA at the time he had access to the then-secret programs. He defended his actions and said he considered what to reveal and what not to, saying he did not reveal any U.S. operations against what he called legitimate military targets, but instead showed that the NSA is hacking civilian infrastructure like universities and private businesses.


“These nakedly, aggressively criminal acts are wrong no matter the target. Not only that, when NSA makes a technical mistake during an exploitation operation, critical systems crash,” he said, though he gave no examples of what systems have crashed or in which countries.


“Congress hasn’t declared war on the countries — the majority of them are our allies — but without asking for public permission, NSA is running network operations against them that affect millions of innocent people,” he said. “And for what? So we can have secret access to a computer in a country we’re not even fighting?”


Snowden was referring to Prism, one of the programs he disclosed. The program sweeps up Internet usage data from all over the world that goes through nine major U.S.-based Internet providers. The NSA can look at foreign usage without any warrants, and says the program doesn’t target Americans.


U.S. officials say the data-gathering programs are legal and operated under secret court supervision.


Snowden explained his claim that from his desk, he could “wiretap” any phone call or email — a claim top intelligence officials have denied. “If an NSA, FBI, CIA, DIA, etc. analyst has access to query raw SIGINT (signals intelligence) databases, they can enter and get results for anything they want,” he wrote in the answer posted on the Guardian site. “Phone number, email, user id, cell phone handset id (IMEI), and so on — it’s all the same.”


The NSA did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment. But Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has said that the kind of data that can be accessed and who can access it is severely limited.


Snowden said the restrictions on what could be seen by an individual analyst vary according to policy changes, which can happen “at any time,” and said that a technical “filter” on NSA data-gathering meant to filter out U.S. communications is “weak,” such that U.S. communications often get ingested.


The former contractor also added that NSA provides Congress “with a special immunity to its surveillance,” without explaining further.


Snowden defended U.S. Army Pfc. Bradley Manning for his disclosures of documents to Wikileaks, which he called a “legitimate journalistic outlet,” which “carefully redacted all of their releases in accordance with a judgment of public interest.” He said the Wikileaks release of unredacted material was “due to the failure of a partner journalist to control a passphrase,” which led to the charge against Manning that he dumped the documents, which Snowden called an attempt to smear Manning.


Manning is currently on trial at Fort Meade — the same Army base where the NSA is headquartered — on charges of aiding the enemy for releasing documents to Wikileaks.


Snowden defended his description of his salary as being $ 200,000 a year, calling that a “career high,” but saying he did take a pay cut to take the job at Booz Allen Hamilton, where he worked as a contractor at an NSA facility in Hawaii. When Booz Allen fired him, they said his salary was $ 122,000.


In one of his final replies, Snowden attacked the “mainstream media” for its coverage, saying it “now seems far more interested in what I said when I was 17 or what my girlfriend looks like rather than, say, the largest program of suspicion-less surveillance in human history.”


__


On the web:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/17/edward-snowden-nsa-files-whistleblower#start-of-comments


Follow Dozier on Twitter at http://twitter.com/kimberlydozier


Associated Press




Top Headlines



Guardian: Snowden won"t return voluntarily to US

Thursday, June 13, 2013

Secret court won"t object to release of opinion on illegal surveillance



In a rare public ruling by the nation’s most secretive judicial body, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ruled Wednesday that it did not object to the release of a classified 86-page opinion concluding that some of the U.S. government’s surveillance activities were unconstitutional.


The ruling, signed by the court’s chief judge, Reggie Walton, rejected the Justice Department’s arguments that the secret national security court’s rules prevented disclosure of the opinion. Instead, the court found that because the document was in the possession of the Justice Department, it was subject to release under the Freedom of Information Act.


Privacy advocates who brought the case said Wednesday that the ruling could pave the way for at least the partial release of landmark — but still classified — court rulings that some government surveillance activities violated the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution barring “unreasonable searches and seizures.”


The release of the opinion, they say, may prove central in the current controversy over the scope of National Security Agency surveillance programs.


“It’s a brand new day,” said Kurt Opsahl, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a privacy group that brought the case. He noted that it is extremely rare for any FISC ruling to be made public at all, much less for the court to rule on behalf of disclosure advocates over the objection of Justice Department lawyers.



A spokesman said the Justice Department was reviewing the ruling and declined further comment.


The EFF’s lawsuit was inspired by a July 20, 2012 letter from an aide to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., that stated that “on at least one occasion,” the FISC held that “some collection” carried out by the U.S. government under classified surveillance programs “was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.”


The letter, from Kathleen Turner, Clapper’s chief of legislative affairs, provided no further information about what the FISC found to be unconstitutional, but did state that the government “has remedied these concerns” and the FISC has continued to approve its collection activities. 


Wyden, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has said he was barred from speaking any further about the matter because it remained classified.


The EFF last year filed a lawsuit to compel disclosure of the FISC opinion under the Freedom of Information Act.  As part of the case, the Justice Department acknowledged there was in fact an 86-page opinion by the FISC dated Oct. 3, 2011, that was responsive to the FOIA request. But department lawyers argued that the FISC opinion could not be released because the court’s own rules barred public disclosure.


In Wednesday’s seven-page opinion, Judge Walton found otherwise, siding in part with the EFF over the Justice Department. He concluded that a FISC rule requiring that its opinions be sealed did not apply to an opinion in the government’s possession that had not otherwise been barred from disclosure.


The ruling did not order the immediate release of the opinion, however, instead referred the matter to a lower court for a final decision on whether the opinion is eligible for release under FOIA, which requires the government to release documents not covered by security or other narrow exemptions.


However, Walton did not immediately order the DOJ to release the order. Instead, he wrote, “This court expresses no opinion on the other issues presented” in the FOIA case “including whether the opinion is ultimately subject to disclosure.”


Such questions, he wrote, are “appropriately addressed” by the federal court in which the EFF lawsuit was originally filed.


More from Open Channel:


Follow Open Channel from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook 




Open Channel



Secret court won"t object to release of opinion on illegal surveillance

Tuesday, June 11, 2013

Clashes as Turkish police move into square; PM says won"t yield


Wednesday, May 29, 2013

Rep. Bachmann says she won"t run for re-election


ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — Michele Bachmann, the Minnesota congresswoman whose sharply conservative views on social and fiscal issues elevated her to a leader of the tea party movement, announced Wednesday she will not seek a fifth term but insisted the decision was unrelated to ethics inquiries or her near-loss last fall.


It was a sudden turn for the foster-mom-turned-politician. She left the door open to other, unspecified political options.


Bachmann was traveling in Russia as part of a congressional delegation and was not available for interviews. In a lengthy video message to supporters, she said her decision “was not influenced by any concerns about my being re-elected.”


Ron Carey, a former chief of staff to Bachmann, said he suspects she was anticipating a tough battle ahead and seemed to be stuck in place in Congress.


“This is a great chance to exit stage right rather than have a knockdown, drag-out re-election fight,” said Carey, also a former state GOP chairman. “The reality also set in that she is not a favorite of Republican leadership, so she is not going to be rising up to a committee chair or rising up in leadership.”


Her departure next year is part of a larger shift involving the leading personalities of the tea party. Stalwarts like former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, former Rep. Allen West of Florida and former South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint have left elected office to move into conservative organizations and commentary roles.


They’ve been replaced by a new round of tea party-backed lawmakers such as Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Mike Lee of Utah and Rep. Raul Labrador of Idaho.


“The movement had moved past her to a new round of leaders in Congress and the states around the country,” said Dick Wadhams, a Colorado-based Republican strategist. “In a short period of time, a new generation has stepped forward since the last election.”


Bachmann also said her decision “was not impacted in any way by the recent inquiries into the activities of my former presidential campaign” last year. In January, a former Bachmann aide filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission, claiming the candidate made improper payments to an Iowa state senator who was the state chairman of her 2012 presidential run. The aide, Peter Waldron, also accused Bachmann of other FEC violations.


Bachmann had given few clues she was considering leaving Congress. Her fundraising operation was churning out regular pitches for the small-dollar donations that she collected so well over the years. She also had an ad running on Twin Cities television promoting her role in opposing President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul. The early timing of the ad suggested she was preparing for a tough fight against Democrat Jim Graves, a hotel chain owner who narrowly lost to Bachmann in November.


Without the polarizing Bachmann on the ticket, Republicans could have an easier time holding a district that leans more heavily in the GOP direction than any other in Minnesota. A parade of hopefuls was expected.


By Wednesday morning, state Rep. Matt Dean, a former House majority leader, said he was inclined to run.


“It is something I have thought about in the past if Michele were to not run again,” Dean said. “It’s not something that I just started thinking about this morning.”


Graves said he thought Bachmann had “read the tea leaves.”


“The district is changing,” the Democrat said in an interview Wednesday with Minneapolis television station KARE. “They want somebody who really does have some business background and understands the economy and can get things done in Washington and back in the district.”


Andy Aplikowski, who has long been active in the district’s Republican Party chapter, said he expected Bachmann to run again but can understand why she didn’t.


“It’s a grueling thing to be in Congress. It’s a grueling thing to be Michele Bachmann in Congress,” he said. “Every move you make is criticized and put under a microscope.”


Bachmann’s strongly conservative views propelled her into politics, and once there, she never backed down.


She was a suburban mother of five in 1999 when she ran for a Minnesota school board seat because she thought state standards were designed to teach students values and beliefs.


She lost that race, but won a state Senate seat a year later. Once in St. Paul, she seized on gay marriage as an issue and led a charge to legally define marriage in Minnesota as between one man and one woman. That failed, but Bachmann had laid the foundation with social conservatives to help propel her into Congress in 2006.


In Washington, she turned to fiscal issues, attacking Democrats and President Barack Obama for government bailouts and the health care overhaul. Even in her early years in Congress, Bachmann frequently took those views to right-leaning cable talk programs, cultivating her national image as she built a formidable fundraising base with like-minded viewers outside Minnesota.


But her penchant for provocative rhetoric sometimes backfired. She was hammered in 2008 for saying Obama might have “anti-American views,” a statement that prompted a rare retreat by Bachmann and made her race that year closer than it would have been. She was also criticized by her fellow Republicans last July for making unsubstantiated allegations that an aide to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton had family ties to Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood.


Her White House bid got off to a promising start, with a win in an Iowa GOP test vote. But Bachmann quickly faded and finished last when the real voting started in Iowa’s leadoff caucuses, a result that caused her to drop out. Saddled with debt, she opted to campaign again for her Minnesota seat and squeaked through.


But the failed presidential campaign continued to dog her. Allegations of improper payments prompted ethics inquiries. Bachmann also faced a lawsuit from a former aide that alleged someone on the congresswoman’s team stole a private email list of home-school supporters for use in the campaign. That case is pending.


On Wednesday, Bachmann promised supporters she would “continue to work overtime for the next 18 months in Congress defending the same Constitutional Conservative values we have worked so hard on together.”


As for her plans beyond Congress, she said, “There is no future option or opportunity, be it directly in the political arena or otherwise, that I won’t be giving serious consideration if it can help save and protect our great nation.”


Bachmann’s success in the talk media world led industry analysts to say she could easily move into a gig as a host. She has been mentioned as a potential challenger to first-term Democratic Sen. Al Franken but has given little indication that she would take that step.


___


Thomas reported from Washington. Associated Press writer Lou Kesten contributed.


Associated Press




U.S. Headlines



Rep. Bachmann says she won"t run for re-election