I'd say you are on the right track. TPTB don't want the whistleblowers blowing. Everyday regardless of party we are heading more and more towards a Totalitarian Corporatocracy and see the constitution trampled on both those sworn to protect it and those who are supposed to interpret it.

To both of you I would like to point out that if you do not wish to play by the rules of your employer, then you are more than welcome to seek employment elsewhere. When you join the military, they tell you right up front that you are no longer covered by the Constitution, but instead by the UCMJ. I am pretty sure that the same type of rules aplys here. If you dont want to follow them, dont sign up!

Considering the questions already asked during the polygraph test no one is going to be upset by these questions. When it comes to a security clearance as it relates to intelligence data no one has a right privacy. Don't like it? Find another line of work.

Its all about remaining in power...

So Jack if you discovered the company you worked for was purposely causing cancer in your children's products to save a few bucks you would just abide by the rules - or quit without saying anything? If so you are one hell of an American Jack!! And by the way, you'll notice the article only states lower level employees are to be polygraphed, not White House official or Congress. Funny how THEY don't have to play by the rules - just everyone else!! What a crock of @!$%#.

So much for the most 'transparent' administration ever. Even supporters are complaining about the near complete lack of transparency.

Also, President Obama, as a Senator and candidate on multiple occasions strenuously called for more protections against whistleblowers. I guess protecting those who point out fraud, corruption, waste and illegal activities aren't important now that its on his watch and the claims are against departments headed by people nominated/selected by him.

Want to stop the leaks.........................don't tell the President any secrets.

You have no rights when it comes to the security of the United States. If you're concerned about failing a polygraph regarding a leak of classified info, simply keep your mouth shut and you'll have no problem. If you are responsible for leaking confidential info you don't deserve to have clearance for anything other than going to the toilet.

STexan...

Oh, some are not going to take kindly to that, sir. What about their constitutional rights to privacy?

You've got to be kidding me, right?!? You actually posted that about people who work FOR the government? That they have the right to tell any gov secrets they want to the press??? (Well, you didn't actually say that, but you sure as he11 insinuated it.)

Let me give you a lesson on government mandated lie detector tests for security clearances...

First and foremost there are NO lifestile questions. If the test proctor does ask a lifestyle question, the employee has the right to stop the test with NO repercussions. The ONLY questions asked are if you've sold secrets, stole anything, and other questions like that.

Our government should have been doing this a LONG time ago. Because our wonderful press teams out there just can't wait to tell everyone of our nations secrets. No matter who it kills or hurts.

Bravo Mr. Clapper!

I am tired of leaks to the media/others. You just took a bold but necessary move.

Fine. Tighter rules. Now prosecute the recent leakers. Toss in jail, throw away key.

Here you idiots go again. Ranting on something you know nothing about. Secret and Top Secret Clearences are what they imply that they are. There are rules and regulations reguarding the use of them. I held Top Secret Clearence in the military. I ASSURE you that having one in no way interfers with MY Constitutional Rights.

@Jack, when you are in the military you still have Constitutional Rights, The UCMJ is the Law Book that you live by and you still have to obey Civilian Laws as well. When you take your oath you sware to a lot of things and one of them is to defend the Bill of Rights.

As to what you others are jumping in on, if your working using illeagl plastics (Example someone gave) That is a Criminal Activity. You know what to do there, or do I have to write you a Pamplet. What you were trying to get at is something called Industrial Espianodge. When you work where a proceedure or process is the Companies Secret, they will imform you and you will be required to sign paperwork that you are under that program (LAWS). Mess up and it can cost you money, prison, or both. I worked in that situation to. When I die there will be a lot of secrts going to the grave with me.

Security is a very simple thing. Just keep your trap shut. and you are not being stiffled onyou rights to imformation. some thing are best left that you don't know.

The biggest problem with this initiative is summed up in one sentence"

These new rules do not apply to U.S. military with security clearances not assigned to an intelligence agency, or to White House officials or members of Congress.

Since this is where most of the leaks are coming from, this new procedure will do nothing to stop them. Most of the recent leaks are coming from the administration itself in order to try and boost Obama's reelection chances.

js

recent leaks are coming from the administration itself

Well since you know who did it. How come you haven't turned them in yet?

@ gtouch

Right, because the president would purposely leak information that will implicate himself.

I find it more convincing that there is a certain faction who want to make the president a "one term" at whatever the cost. Look at 3.5 years of obstructionist, that is more likely the case where you will find the leak.

@

scotlee09

So much for the most 'transparent' administration ever. Even supporters are complaining about the near complete lack of transparency.

Also, President Obama, as a Senator and candidate on multiple occasions strenuously called for more protections against whistleblowers. I guess protecting those who point out fraud, corruption, waste and illegal activities aren't important now that its on his watch and the claims are against departments headed by people nominated/selected by him.

**********************************************************

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?

The "administration" is trying to secure NO LEAKS, and you are whining about

"So much for the most 'transparent' administration ever"????????

I'll bet a MILLION dollars YOU were whining about how this adminstration LET the leaks happen

lol...at least I can say where your rant was lacking in coherency it made up for in entertainment.

Try again.

Hahaha……. Clayton’s action! They are doing something without actually doing it. Like looking for something, blindfolded. If they are half serious on plugging the leaks, remove the blindfold.

So now we can breathe easier knowing that while the White House ignores the Constitution and Obama has forgotten his inaugural vows, Intelligence Community will practice due diligence concerning protecting national security. This administration's leaks were to make the president look good. Like a Republican would ever do that. Best laugh I've had today.

Anybody ever heard of the 4th Amendment of the U. S. Constitution? It states:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Giving a lie detector test to a government employee, just because he is a government employee, is against the law.

White House officials or members of Congress are exempt !!! That is hilarious. Better not tell the White House or Congress anything then.

The Intelligence Community is a coalition of 17 agencies and organizations within the executive branch, including the Defense Intelligence Agency, Department of Energy, Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, National Reconnaissance Office and the National Security Agency.

It is highly and strongly suggested that Mr. Obama's Czars be included in the test. Might want to start with his "inner circle" of Czars (and especially White House staffers, some of which HAVE NOT PAID THEIR BACK IRS TAXES) who tag along with him everywhere he goes.

BTW, is this going to become ANOTHER SCOTUS decision since everything this Administration does is highly controversial and most administration legislation/Executive Orders/Cabinet member regulations leads straight to the SCOTUS bench.

I can understand the need for secrecy but have a hard time when our government is doing underhanded things that can really hurt the United States. I found an article that talks about one of the leaks being cyber attacks. I wonder how many people are aware of a meeting that is to be held in Dubai with countries like Russia and China and of course middle east countries that feel control of the Internet should be taken away from the United States. (via the International Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN)

the world learned about Flame from a Moscow-based antivirus company (Kaspersky Labs), and the ITU chose Flame as the subject of its first-ever international cyber-warning, claiming for the first time an important role in cybersecurity affairs. They see the grand publicity surrounding Flame as little more than a power grab by the ITU in advance of the Dubai meeting, dubbed the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT).

The above clip from the article says the information came from Kaspersky. So these other countries found out dispite the scapegoat the US is looking for.

How would we stop a government that very well may be doing something that could devastate the country and in the case of the Internet, the world?

STexan,

"What about their constitutional rights to privacy?"

You're right about that, and the truth of the matter is that no one can be forced to take a polygraph against his or her own will; not even suspected criminals. I know because I worked for an intelligence agency when I was in the military. Because I had access to certain forms of compartmented information, we were "required" to take a polygraph. I consulted a lawyer on the matter, and he informed me that they could not force me to take a polygraph, but that if I did not take it, they could deny me access to that type of information and that, since I was in the military, there were other forms of "punishment" the military could take against me such as when it came time for promotion, etc. But they could not force me or anyone else to take a polygraph. I eventually consented to the polygraph just to save myself the hassle. They cannot require you to take a polygraph, but they can pressure you in various subtle ways if you refuse, and that's the whole problem right there. It sucks.

Where were you right wing idiots when Bush lied to us about wmd's and put us into a war we couldnt afford. His admin actually lied to us, later admitted they lied and yet not one word from you guys. There is no proof Obama leaked anything but here you are jumping all over him. Do you even know the meaning of fairness? Or is it that is ok to lie if you are a republican. But, if you are a democrat, we will blame you for everything wrong even if you dont have anything to do with it.

And some of you people come up with the kookiest ideas, do the world a favor and if you dont have proof of something dont spout it, and if you heard about it on Fox Notnews, keep it to yourself because for those of us that dont drink their kool-aid we know its lies.

hope they hire some illegals...to do the testing ...lol...it's a job americans don't want...said obama...

@ JS in SD -My thoughts exactly. Politicians are probably as likely as anyone to leak classified info they fell will benefit them politically.

Debdem

Bush did not lie about WMDs. he had the same information that members of Congress and other nations had. If Bush was given false information that he believed it to be true, and he made decisions based on bad information that is not a lie. Bush never admitted he lied, because he didn't lie. What said was he had bad information.

"And some of you people come up with the kookiest ideas, do the world a favor and if you dont have proof of something dont spout it, and if you heard about it on Fox Notnews, keep it to yourself because for those of us that dont drink their kool-aid we know its lies."

And that is exactly what you did when you said bush lied.

These new rules do not apply to U.S. military with security clearances not assigned to an intelligence agency, or to White House officials or members of Congress

Well I guess not... If you hooked up a Lie Detector to a White House official or any member of Congress or any other politician...it would explode into a million pieces, before the first Question is asked

Mr.PheaNiques,

"If you hooked up a Lie Detector to a White House official or any member of Congress or any other politician...it would explode into a million pieces, before the first Question is asked"

That's funny, but it's probably true.

I get a picture in my head of a wild west gold miner digging for gold with an Ostrich Feather...I mean seriously, these people are professional liars...the eat lie detectors for breakfast...Some of the best ones can look into a TV Camera and tell 10 different lies to 10 different people, and have them all clapping at the end...

beside do you really need a machine, Just ask a Question, if they answer, you know they are lying

hungrymongoose - The polygraph test is the one given while going through the clearance process. Everyone who holds a clearance goes through it. If you don't take the poly you lose your clearance. It is not against law or Constitution. It is a condition of holding a clearance.

If I am not mistaken isn't one of the CIA's training in how to beat lie detector tests? So why would you give someone something you know they can pass? Ohh, they just want to sound like they are going to be tough on the leaks, when it is them that is leaking it (Wink, Wink) I understand perfectly.

Anyone, who doesn't know exactly where the leaks are comming from in an election year...needs to be holding a broom, not a clearance...and you are exempting the likely culprits from tougher rules??

My favorite leaker of all time, Rivera on Fox news live ...giving away troop position and troop movement getting ready to attack......Enjoy...from CNN report.

Military kicks Geraldo out of Iraq

'He gave away the big picture stuff'

From Chris Plante

Monday, March 31, 2003 Posted: 5:05 PM EST (2205
GMT)

Geraldo
Rivera

Story Tools

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Fox News Channel correspondent Geraldo Rivera is being
expelled from Iraq for broadcasting details about future U.S. troop movements in
the country, according to the Pentagon.

A primary obligation of the hundreds of reporters traveling with coalition
forces in Iraq is to refrain from disclosing sensitive information about
military operations.

The veteran correspondent, who was temporarily accompanying the Army's 101st
Airborne Division, violated the rule during a live broadcast on Fox television.

"He was with a (U.S.) military unit in the field and the commander felt that
he had compromised operational information by reporting the position and
movements of troops," Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told Reuters.

After the disclosure, members of the 101st Airborne were in the process of
escorting Rivera out of the combat zone, a Pentagon official told CNN.

"He will be dropped at the Kuwaiti border," the official said.

Fox News in New York had no immediate comment, according to Reuters.

Oh, some are not going to take kindly to that, sir. What about their constitutional rights to privacy?

S. Texan - The government may not have the right to require of you, as a private citizen, take a lie detector test, submit to drug screenings, or back ground checks.

But the constitution does not protect you against unreasonable search and seizure as a condition of employment As a prospective employee, I have many times been forced to submit urine or hair samples at a medical facility, to prove that I did not use any illegal drug.

I resent it. But the Constitution offers me no refuge. If I do not wish to submit to a drug test, I have only to forgo employment.

As a civilian employee of the U.S. intelligence network, I expect they claim similar privileges, and again, as a condition of employment, they claim the right to subject employees to lie detector tests.

The only point in the process where I see a constitutional issue, is where a person failing or refusing a lie detector test may be subject to criminal investigation. To me this sounds like self-incrimination.

And while he's at it, dig out the voodoo dolls and pins along with the truth potions. The polygraph is totally useless other than as a tool for intimidation. It is not scientifically sound. It is quackery. Actually, after becoming desensitized to the "threat" individuals begin to flatline and get promped to, "come on and cooperate. Focus on the question and your answer. Let's get this over with and not have you come back for another session." In other words, it is a totally subjective and ineffective procedure. It is just a bully bludgeon used to keep everyone in line. The only way security is enforced is by those within the community keeping their eyes and ears open to their coworkers and picking up on indications that something might be awry. That is how you catch a person who might compromise protected information, not with a "lie detector." There is no such thing as a machine that can detect deception. Only observant humans can uncover deception!

Senior U.S. Official: "in the end, these new guideline may have little practical effect."

Most spies are worker bees.

@XD - Spot on! I was about to comment on that point as well. Imagine the crying if members of Congress and their staff had to keep their mouth shut instead of cozying up to a reporter over dinner.

At best, this move will get the finger pointed int he general direction of Congress instead of Foggy Bottom.

Great post XD, that's exactly what I was going to say. These leaks always seem to come from Congress/staffers and rarely from the worker bees. This is jusy political posturing to cover up what the current administration has done.

Just where do they suspect these so called secrets come from, if not from top ranking government officials? Why does congress or anyone get a free ticket when it comes to national security?

Congress is the leak. Yet another plan from Washington that sounds good but has no real impact. What a surprise. LOL

Lets not forget the best part of this story. It resides in paragraph 3. 17 agencies. What a bloated joke.

Wouldn't surprise me a bit if the Republican Congress leaked the info, just to make all kinds of accusations at President Obama and make him look bad, h... they've been doing it for the past 3 1/2 yrs why stop now.

Then we have the contempt charges on Eric Holden, another attempt to make the President look bad, but never mind this whole fast & furious started with the Bush Administration, why not ask them, especial the Attorney General at the time, what they know and when, what about the Arizonia officals, this is nothing but a witch hunt and the majority of the American people know it.

The thing that kills me when ever their is a Republican President, its ok to leak, remember when some Republican leaked the name of CIA woman, and put her and her family in grave danger, plus she lost her job, been then again we all know how the Republicans are on jobs, we don't need, firefighter, police, teachers, heck we have too many(Romney quote), tell that to all the western states that are fighting wild fires, more and more policemen getting killed in the line of duty because of the cuts, and heck who cares about education for our kids, especially the middle class and poor.

Boy what a great NATION we live in, rich get richer, poor get poor!

If the leakers in Congress were made to take a lie detector test or even got a whiff that they would have to take a lie detector test they would be screaming to their five protectors on the Supreme Court.

If the leakers are in Congress? there is no if here, from years of selling out this country, this is a FACT.

Congress would provide information for their corporate masters and then those corporations would sell them to whatever countries pay the highest or give them the most benefits. It is always the case, it is how China got to what is it now.

@LAURA-3089574

Please do yourself a favor and watch the C-Span video from March 24, 2009. Then explain how "Fast & Furious" was initiated by any Republican, how it is possible that Eric Holder knew nothing until 2 months ago, and how the White House had nothing to do with that ignorant program. A link is provided for you below.

Does the name Scooter Liby ring a bell? He was prosecuted for outing Valery Plame "the CIA woman". Please note that President Bush did NOT invoke Executive Privilage to cover any butt's.

Last, I would ask how you propose to pay all of the firefighters, police, and teachers you want hired when nearly 20% of the American work force is unemployed or underemployed? They are the folks that pay the taxes that pay the public workers you want to see hired. If employment is down, tax collection is also down. Fix the employment situation and a lot of problems get cured and we can start working on that HUGE National Debt.

@LAURA-3089574

Sorry, this site won't let me post a link for the C-Span video. Goggle U.S.-Mexico Border Security Policy March 24, 2009 and you will find it.

First of all under Bush it was called, The Probe, then Operation Wide Receiver, which was carried out by ATF's Tucson, Ariz., office and resulted in hundreds of guns being transferred to suspected arms traffickers, so why not start their and find out what they new or did not know???

Eric Holder new nothing about it until after he sent a letter on Feb 4 2011 to Issa, and explained that to him, but of course he wasn't happy, and demanded more and more. What Issa is asking for now are emails and documents that under the Federal Law is illegal because they contain some top info such as informants, so even if Holder wants to hand over the documents and emails he can't he would be breaking the law, but when does the law matter to the Republicans!

President Bus had initially said he would fire anyone in his administration found to have publicly disclosed the identity of Valerie Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson and a CIA operative. Ten days ago, Bush commuted the 30-month sentence given to I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby by a federal judge in connection with the case.

Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, had been convicted of lying and obstruction of justice in the CIA-leak case.

No Bush did not use his executive power, because it was clear Libby did it, and all he got was a slap on the wrist, which for me personally is just another example how Congress is above the law, if that was you or me, we would be in prison for a very long time.

Public workers also pay taxes, we also pay our salaries, can you say that, NO. I agree we need to make cuts, but we also need to raise taxes on the upper 1%, and don't give that bull that have been taxed to death, the American are buying that bull anymore, or they are the job creators, if they were we would be plenty of jobs, instead they are making record profits, while the rest of have to pay for what Wall Street and the Banks did to this country. It's been the middle tax that has been taxed to death, with stagnant wages for the past 30 yrs, the wealthy has enjoyed the Bush tax breaks for over the past 10 yrs, now its time to give the middle class a break, and maybe just maybe the middle class will bring us out of this mess.

@Laura-3089574

The Probe and Operation Wide Reciever were totally different operations from Fast & Furious. You obviously did not watch the video I told you about. If you are so closed minded that you will not even look at the evidence presented, there is no hope for you. You will continue through life spouting whatever you are told to say by the left wingers. You need to look at BOTH sides and then decide what is correct for the entire country.

Please look at what is happening to the top 1% of the wage earners. They are vacating the country and renouncing their U.S. citizenship. They are NOT going to stand by and allow folks like you to confiscate their entire life earnings. They are not that stupid. Also, if you taxed the top 5% of wage earners in the country at a 100%, you would not have enough money to even pay the interest on the National Debt! Go ahead and look it up.

Public workers pay their taxes with money they earned from the non-public workers taxed incomes. Do you think that the government can continue to exist with the current employment situation? The obvious answer is a resounding NO! Without the tax base from the "middle class", this country will be insolvent within 6 years. The wealthy don't make enough money to sustain the entire country. With the current employment, there will be no middle class before long. The middle class is the backbone of this country, and this administration has made it nearly impossible for companies to fully staff their companies.

MOST CRIMINAL LEAKER OF ALL TIME TO NIXON CAUSING THOUSANDS OF MORE TROOP DEATHS.

Back in 1968, during the presidential campaign, Nixon somehow was leaked info that President LBJ had negotiated a peace between North Viet Nam, South Viet Nam, and China. Nixon then interferred with the peace negotiations, promising a bteer deal to South Viet nam if they held off after elections. They did. Nixon sabotaged the peace, then announced the day before elections, that he "had a secret plan to end the war." This swung people like my parents to vote for Nixon just to end the war. Of course he did not.

Below from news source that listened to LBJ tapes and reported.

That evening, shortly before going on live television to announce the cessation of bombing, Johnson talks with Humphrey about the negative effect of the Nixon campaign’s contacts with Vietnam. On Nov. 1, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and Russell both discuss Nixon’s meddling with the peace talks — and new demands from South Vietnam.

In a key talk on Nov. 2, Johnson warns Dirksen of the consequences of Nixon’s interference, and Dirksen says he’ll talk to Nixon. The next day, Nixon denies the contact, despite intelligence reports and confirmation by Christian Science Monitor newsman Saville Davis — seemingly verified years later by authors Stephen Ambrose (“Nixon: Triumph of a Politician") and Christopher Hitchens (“The Trial of Henry Kissinger”), who used FBI documents to corroborate the story.

In the next few days in 1968, an angry Johnson repeatedly confronts Nixon, who continues to deny involvement, publicly campaigning that he had a “secret plan” for ending the war. He didn’t end the way. After Nixon resigned in 1974, his successor, GOP stalwart Gerald Ford, ended the war the next year.

“If Nixon keeps the South Vietnamese away from the conference table, that’s going to be his responsibility,” LBJ told Dirksen in 1968.

Because of Nixon’s interference, South Vietnam boycotted the peace talks, about 22,000 more American troops died over the next seven years, and — after more than 73 million Americans cast ballots on Nov. 5, 1968, Nixon defeated Humphrey by just 500,000 votes.

However, saddled with the Watergate scandal and likely impeachment, Nixon was never really held responsible.

So repubs don't know, what they don't know. And..they admit they don't know , what they don't know, that they don't know. How can they don't know, what they don't know about what they don't know? We do know that they don't know, what they don't know. But they don't care that we all know, that they don't know, that they don't know. If repubs did know, what they don't know, about what they don't know, we would know what they don't know about what they don't know about.

Burma Shave

proudamericanveteran

Actually the Director of the NSA is General Keith Alexander.

Clapper is Director of National Intelligence.

My Bad... You are right. However Clapper is still an out of place idiot in a high stakes position.

It is now clear why our kids test scores are going down. It is not the schools fault . The kids are lowering their scores and IQ to match Clappers. They want to be qualified for his job when he retires.

proudamericanveteran

Did you ask that question of the Bush Administration? I doubt it. The most secretive crooked administration in history, other than Richard Nixon.

James Clapper is the most out-of-ouch NSA leader ever

He is completely out of touch with reality.

ABC News’ Jonathan Karl reports: Director of National Intelligence James Clapper raised some eyebrows today at a House Intelligence Committee hearing when he called described the Muslim Brotherhood as a “largely secular” organization. “The term ‘Muslim Brotherhood,’” Clapper said, “is an umbrella term for a variety of movements, in the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence

Hamas is the Palestinian wing of the Muslim brotherhood

and has decried Al Qaeda as a perversion of Islam… They have pursued social ends, a betterment of the political order in Egypt, et cetera. … In other countries, there are also chapters or franchises of the Muslim Brotherhood, but there is no overarching agenda,

other than the restoration of the caliphate, and universal implementation of sharia law.

particularly in pursuit of violence, at least internationally.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/02/director-of-national-intelligence-james-clapper-muslim-brotherhood-largely-secular/

@

proudamericanveteran

The obama team holding their own investigation is like a charged criminal acting as his own prosecutor and judge. Does anyone really expect the truth form this. Right now they are looking for a fall guy to take the heat.

**********************************************************************

Yet another mindless GOP sheeple.....

SHAME ON YOU for not having the balls to do you own research, or even just plain read SOMETHING other than Fox news reports....

Its people like YOU that have this country swirling around the toilet bowl ready to go down......

ILL BET you have no clue what Obama has done for YOU, and ME and all our brothers in arms..

ESPECIALLY the ones that were in combat, protecting YOUR RIGHT to be that sheeple.....

Even amid competing priorities and a deepening recession, Mr. Obama last year managed to secure the biggest increase in funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs in 30 years. And as Congress begins writing spending bills for 2011, despite a spending freeze on some other domestic spending, he’s looking for more aid for veterans.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/04/30/veterans-salute-president-obama-on-funding-for-va/

Just like the Bush Administration did on weapons of mass destruction, yeah right!

As a disabled vet I do not want to be a burden on my country . Obama has promised everybody something, veterans, elderly, minorities, schools, students, farmers, auto workers The question is, who has not been promised something? And how is this supposed to be payed for? Obama has no problem telling everyone he will give them more support because he is not paying and it is a great way to get elected, screw the consequence. He has done nothing but run for office since he has been in office.

Rick Perry complains of Obama coverup on face the Nation, When asked by Bob Schaeffer what is he accusing the president of, do you have any proof. Perry says NO! Bob asked again, what are you charging Obama with.....Perry says...that's just it...we don't know.......Perry has to be a brother of Bush.

Please expand and educate those of us who don't know the workings of this great administration.

If I remember correctly, wasn't it Nancy Pelosi who noted on the floor of the House of Representatives that the Health Care bill needed to be passed before we knew what was in it?

Yes, I'd like to see more details of the Debt Ceiling fight. Like who will be responsible for paying the BILLS WHEN THEY COME DUE.

And lets talk about the legislation that has passed the House, but the Senate leadership will NOT bring to the floor of the Senate for a vote.

So, yes, lets see EXACTLY what this administration has done for Americans compared to say, illegal immigrants.

Pelosi was excited and should have said "We need to pass the bill AND HERE'S WHAT"S IN IT!

Yea let's talk about THE JOBS< JOBS JOBS current House record -- oh that's right, there is NONE!

Lot's of abortion, contraception, and anti women bills but little REAL programs to help the economy.

No one ever asked Reagan, HW Bush, GW Bush or Clinton WHO WAS GOING TO PAY THE BILLS!

Funny how all this never came up in a Republican administration....

XD, At the time that Pelosi made that statement, there were still two dueling health care bills - one in the House and one in the Senate. In order to find out what the COMPROMISE legislation was, Congress needed to "pass it" meaning find the compromise and vote on it. Until the compromise bill was decided on, BOTH the House and Senate versions were available ONLINE for anybody to peruse. The compromise process between the House and Senate does not get written until the details have been hammered out and PASSED. Therefore, she was not being condescending, she was not saying that there was no transparency, she was simply stating that the compromise bill would not be available to the American public until after the compromise had been agreed to and formally written up to be sent to the President.

This is the way it works whenever the House passes one version of a proposed bill and the Senate passes another version of the proposed bill. If they are different, then the process begins to reconcile both bills and form up something that both parts of Congress can agree on. That is essentially done verbally and not through repeated writings of the bill (wasting paper) and the official form of the bill is written AFTER the agreement is reached and it passes. It's not limited to the healthcare bill, it's how it ALWAYS happens. Until the compromise bill is passed by both parts of Congress, it is not formally written down because until it passes, there is still negotiation happening and changes are happening.

But I suppose that this lesson on how the Legislature works (since it's the same process at the State level and City level) probably won't convince people who would rather operate out of and based on sound bites. They'd rather believe a talking head than consider how laws are passed.

Actually, they weren't finished with adding all of the backdoor deals...she really didn't know what ended up in it.

XD, At the time that Pelosi made that statement, there were still two dueling health care bills - one in the House and one in the Senate. In order to find out what the COMPROMISE legislation was, Congress needed to "pass it" meaning find the compromise and vote on it

Actually Cat that is not correct. The House passed the Senates version without putting up it's own. So when Pelosi said let's pass this bill and find out what was inside she had not a clue. They did add a few "promises" for votes into it and the Senate approved that as cms5 said. But there was only one version the Senate's.

the House of Representatives passed the Senate's version of Obamacare aka Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, with a vote of 219 to 212, roll call found here.

@Jeff, you are so right. I was watching a news show Sunday Morn and they have both Dems and Reps, on and both sides admittited that it doesn't matter who is president there is nothing there to work with and this recession is going to have to run its course. I don't care about a few immagrit legel or other, They'll impliment something on Health Care and tweek it after it's done. Soon Afgan will be a thing of the past.

What I would really like to see is someone working on a plan that can help reduce the effect of a recession. Like shift into a different gear or go a different direction. Sure things will slow down but in a more controlled situation. I don't care if your the dreaded Tea Party, I'll vote for you on that, BUT I want to see it first.

gtouch, you are so wrong on "The House passed the Senates version without putting up it's own":

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-11-07/politics/health.care_1_affordable-health-care-funds-for-abortion-services-house-democrats?_s=PM:POLITICS

The House of Representatives on Saturday night passed a sweeping health care bill by a vote of 220-215.

With the passage of H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, proponents of health care reform took an important step forward, but turning the bill into law remains uncertain.

It's unclear when the Senate will vote on a version of the health care legislation debated in that chamber. If the Senate passes its bill, the House and Senate bills would have to be reconciled into one document and voted on again.

By the way, the last sentence of the cut and paste supports EXACTLY what I said happens with Legislation. The reconciliation of TWO bills has to happen when two different bills are passed in the two chambers of Congress. American Government/Civics 101.

Here is a side-by-side comparison of the TWO bills that were passed before reconciliation into ONE bill that was then voted upon by both chambers of Congress along with the version that passed both the House and Senate:

http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/housesenatebill_final.pdf

Please note that the HOUSE version was proposed on October 29, 2009 and passed in the House on November 7, 2009 and the SENATE version was proposed on November 18, 2009 (AFTER the House passed it's version of the bill) and passed in the Senate on December 24, 2009.

Cat your still wrong. The House simply passed the Senate's bill and it went straight to the White House. But thanks for playing. The posting your trying to use isn't the info on the Bill that was put into law..........nice try.

House passes health care bill on 219-212 vote

HEALTH CARE

Share this on:

Facebook Twitter Digg delicious reddit MySpace StumbleUpon LinkedIn

March 21, 2010|By Alan Silverleib, CNN

The House passed the bill in a 219-212 vote on Sunday.

President Obama won a historic victory in the struggle for health care reform Sunday as the House of Representatives passed a sweeping bill overhauling the American medical system.

The bill passed in a 219-212 vote after more than a year of bitter partisan debate. All 178 Republicans opposed it, along with 34 Democrats.

The measure, which cleared the Senate in December, will now go to Obama's desk to be signed into law. It constitutes the biggest expansion of federal health care guarantees since the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid more than four decades ago

gtouch, what part of the two chambers pass their own bill and then RECONCILE them do you not understand? What part of the reconciliation process is verbal and the FINAL bill is not written until it's ready to go to the White House do you not understand. Furthermore, if the House "simply passed the Senate bill and it went straight to the White House" Why did it take from December 24 until MARCH 21 for the Final bill to be passed in the House? Did you even BOTHER to look at the side-by-side comparisons of the bills? I think NOT, since if you had there are differences between ALL THREE versions.

For example, This is from the SENATE'S bill:

• Require U.S. citizens and legal residents to have qualifying health coverage. Those without coverage pay a tax penalty of the greater of $750 per year up to a maximum of three times that amount ($2,250) per family or 2% of household income. The penalty will be phased-in according to the following schedule: $95 in 2014, $495 in 2015, and $750 in 2016 for the flat fee or .5% of taxable income in 2014, 1.0% of taxable income in 2015, and 2% of taxable income in 2016. Beginning after 2016, the penalty will be increased annually by the cost-of-living adjustment. Exemptions will be granted for financial hardship, religious objections, American Indians, those without coverage for less than three months, undocumented immigrants, incarcerated individuals, if the lowest cost plan option exceeds 8% of an individual’s income, and if the individual has income below 100% of the poverty level.

Now, if what you said was true, then we should expect to see the exact same thing in the passed version:

• Require U.S. citizens and legal residents to have qualifying health coverage. Those without coverage pay a tax penalty of the greater of $695 per year up to a maximum of three times that amount ($2,085) per family or 2.5% of household income. The penalty will be phasedin according to the following schedule: $95 in 2014, $325 in 2015, and $695 in 2016 for the flat fee or 1.0% of taxable income in 2014, 2.0% of taxable income in 2015, and 2.5% of taxable income in 2016. Beginning after 2016, the penalty will be increased annually by the cost-of-living adjustment. Exemptions will be granted for financial hardship, religious objections, American Indians, those without coverage for less than three months, undocumented immigrants, incarcerated individuals, those for whom the lowest cost plan option exceeds 8% of an individual’s income, and those with incomes below the tax filing threshold

Funny ... the final percentage in the passed bill looks AWFULLY similar to what was in the original House bill:

• Require individuals to have “acceptable health coverage”. Those without coverage pay a penalty of 2.5% of their adjusted income above the filing threshold up to the cost of the average national premium for self-only or family coverage under a basic plan in the Health Insurance Exchange. Exceptions granted for those with incomes below the filing threshold

This is just ONE example where the effects of RECONCILIATION can be seen. Which would not be the case if the House had "simply passed the Senate's version". Again, you do not seem to be able to back up your contention that the House "simply passed the Senate's bill". Nor do you seem to understand that my refutation of your assertions are BACKED UP by a side-by-side comparison of the THREE bills. Just because one sloppy reporter phrased it somewhat clumsily doesn't mean that your interpretation of what he wrote is correct:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/18/health-care-reform-bill-c_n_505128.htmlSome of the main features of the legislation, which makes changes to the bill the Senate passed on Christmas Eve:

http://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/washgrpp_340bprogram_lf_14apr10.pdfThe Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (the Healthcare Reform Law, or Law

In addition, when quoting from a source it is customary to include the link for the source so that people can go back and see if you have cut out only what makes your point and discarded items which do not. I have provided links ... you can go there and look at the information yourself to see that I am not just cutting out what I want to show and disregarding the rest. Also, if ONE item in the final bill is different from the Senate's version , that makes your assertion that the House passed the Senate's bill FALSE. It's an all or nothing thing. If one thing is false then the entire statement is false.

I think they use members of Congress to calibrate the lie detector machines.

I'm more concerned w/ the fact that intelligence officials still haven't caught on to how unreliable lie detectors are. Isn't anyone else feeling just a little unsettled about that?

You are really only 11 years old, Right? I think you better go I hear your Daddy calling you.

6dogs: From what I have heard and seen JR11is right. A lot of leaks are coming directly from the White House to make Obama look tough. A strong POTUS, w/ a strong Secretary of State, speak publicly and truthfully. I'm waiting for the leak as to what, though talking to that Obama gave to Putin.

He is many times better then Bush ever thought he could be. Bush was a poor excuse for a president. Look at his people like Carl Rove who protrayed Max Cleland, a man who lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam, as unpatrotic and Bush never said a damn word. I rest my case

I thought we were talking about leaks

Depends......

That is correct. With lie detectors and in many other instances (such as allegations of sexual harassment) the adage "innocent until proven guilty" specifically does NOT apply to losing one's job.

Do you really think failing one test is going to be the trigger to be discharged/fired? A different machine, a different operator, repeats of the same questions and new questions, at the least, assignment to less sensitive tasks until a deeper check is performed. it is a hell of a lot cheaper to re-run some tests than it is to fire and hire a new persona nd ramp them up to speed.

Just reading the article makes it seem so:

"Anyone who fails could have their security clearance revoked and could be subject to a criminal investigation."

No security clearance = no job. It is a requirement for most positions to have a security clearance to be hired and continue to be hired.

Jim Burrill: A series of pseudoscientific tests don't add up to science. Lie detectors are a scam without any scientific basis. They do, however, sometimes frighten gullible people into a confession.

Do you really think that it is only a Lie Dector test is involved in obtaining a Clearence. I shouldn't have to tell you evernthing use your head. Does the term Back Ground Check ring a bell. They go hand n hand.

And why are Lie Detectors results, are not used as evidence in court??

Or has that rule changed as well???

They did away with the tests for the Pres and the VP after they discovered that it didn't work well with the previous administration.

Bush could get his name right and Cheney kept on lying, giving false names even after everyone kept reminding him that his name was public knowledge.

I've never seen so many Morons on one page. I payed Tax Dollars for Education all these years and what did you do with it. You wasted it and now you bitch about Government Waste.

Stonewall?....even Issa and Rick Perry said their is nothing, no evidence....both just interviewed.....It is nothing more than we don't know what we don't know......

Romney 2012

Seems like most every law passed and every policy taken by our precious government leaves gaping holes where the politicians remain protected and the guys under them get thrown under the bus.

A good litmus test for anything they do should be if the politicians get to do/have something different than everyone else. If so (without very good reason - and because they think they deserve or want it isn't a good reason.) it's automatically crap. (Of course the reverse isn't always good either.)

FOX "We already made up a headline yday night and our mindless followers lapped it up"

Hey, the polygraph is right about half the time! Pretty good, eh? After all, it's not like just tossing a coin, which would give the right answer only about half the time.

What?

You forgot Kenyan, muslim, commie, socialist... there's a few others, but I've misplaced my copy of "Batsh*t Crazy Talk", co-written by Glen Beck and Rush.

This is reminiscent of bush/cheney & the water boarding episodes, etc. Bush invoked executive privilege and the entire WH was under a gag order! Remember?

Fed-Up: Firstly, the WH leak issue and Fast & Furious/executive privilege issue are two separate matters. Geesh, the inability of you left-wingers to follow and understand arguments never ceases to amaze me. Second, it's quite ironic that you compare the water boarding situation, in which self-righteous, left wing tools were more than willing to bare all of our secrets to the world in their zeal to "get Bush", to this situation, in which Obama, Holder, etal. are doing everything in their power to retain the ability to bare all our secrets to the world, so long as it boosts Obama's reelection chances.

Repulsive stuff.