Sheeple and why I listen to my " Sheepdog " Instincts

Most people will follow what others offer them way too easy.

The term " Sheeple " was coined by someone who correlated the way that people willingly follow what is offered to them, without thought of what they are following.
 
They act like Sheep and usually act with the same blind obedience as a sheep would. Germany in the 1930s & 1940s is a historic instance where this happened to an entire nation.

Now, we have this South Korean Rapper named Psy who the media and all the entertainment idiots have raised to the heights of stardom based on one video he made. One not particularly good video either - Youtube has recorded the largest number of hits on his video ever.

My "sheepdog" instincts were raised as I saw a pasty faced Korean Rapper with minimal talent and the whole world acting like this guy was the best thing next to sliced bread.  I didn't see anything on that level, so why were all these fools fawning all over him??  His talent was minimal ( like most rappers) and he was not exactly what I would call a compelling performer.

Now, we find out the real truth and why my "sheepdog" instincts knew there was something wrong with what was being offered up to us by the media idjits.  This Korean idiot is another in a long line of America haters who made statements that are more than hurtful.  This idiot wrote lyrics in 2004 calling for the death of US Military and their families

I quote:

Kill those f---ing Yankees who have been torturing Iraqi captives
Kill those f---ing Yankees who ordered them to torture
Kill their daughters, mothers, daughters-in-law and fathers
Kill them all slowly and painfully

If this kind of crap doesn't make your blood boil, I seriously question your patriotism.

As a Rapper, he follows in a long line of other Rappers who like to think they can say things that are highly offensive, and not have it effect them professionally. I have a clue for you dumbass, the real world doesn't work that way.  Your words matter. Those who care about our country and our military will hold you to your statements.

This dirtbag from South Korea apologized once he was outed by Michelle Malkin and I thank her for that.  Exposing this cretin and his unethical BS was sorely needed.

As a OIF Combat Veteran, and on behalf of all Veterans who were killed defending freedom (including the freedom of this low-life scumbag) who are unable to be here to comment, your apology is NOT accepted nor will it ever be accepted. If it wasn't for the American Military, the only thing you would be rapping about is living under North Korean oppression.
 
You can take your Rap BS and get the hell out of our country.  You are not welcome in our country, especially by those who value our freedom and value all those who protect that freedom.

His upcoming appearance at the White House shows that the other idiot in Washington, DC has just as little care for how actions effect others.  Obama has done crap in his past he has never owned up to also.  They are a perfect pair of unethical immoral putzes, and symbols of what is really wrong with our country that anyone would want to listen to anything either of them would ever say.

I believe in our country and I support our military always.  If you don't, that is fine but don't expect me to offer support or buy the products of a low life dirtbag like this fat, pasty faced Korean idiot, regardless of how much the media fools fawn all over him.  The media idiots who support him can join him as they have proven to be nothing more than unethical charlatans. 

LIAR LIAR - Obama lies about his Mother's death for political purposes

Ethics question - When you use the death of your Mother for political purposes and twist the facts in a way that any reasonable person would know what you said is misleading/false, why would you do it ?

ANSWER - Because the unethical idiot would have sold his own Mother if it benefited him politically.

The President's propaganda campaign film has been panned by most as not more than a OBOT fantasy of what they would like others to believe. Two political writers from the Washington Post call it as it is and show once again, there is no low-level that these feckless fools won't stoop to in an attempt to hold on to the White House.

I feel sorry for anyone who can't see how unethical this crap is and those who actually voted for this huckster....I know the GOP candidate won't be perfect, but the Village Idiot from Chicago qualifies as a serial liar.


‘The Road We’ve Traveled:’ A misleading account of Obama’s mother and her insurance dispute
By Glenn Kessler, Washington Post

Narrator Tom Hanks: “He knew from experience the cost of waiting [on health care reform].”

President Obama : “When my mom got cancer, she wasn’t a wealthy woman and it pretty much drained all her resources”

Michelle Obama: “She developed ovarian cancer, never really had good, consistent insurance. That’s a tough thing to deal with, watching your mother die of something that could have been prevented. I don’t think he wants to see anyone go through that.”

Hanks: “And he remembered the millions of families like of his who feel the pressure of rising costs and the fear of being denied or dropped from coverage.”

--series of statements with images of Obama and his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, in the Obama campaign film “The Road We’ve Traveled”

“The Road We’ve Traveled” is a very slick and impressively produced campaign film—sheer catnip for Obama fans. There are a number of facts and figures that could be challenged, but for now we are going to focus on this sequence. The series of words and images is an excellent example of how such films can create a misleading impression, while skirting as close as possible to the edge of falsehood.

The sequence, in fact, evokes a famous story that candidate Obama told during the 2008 campaign—that his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, fought with her insurer over whether her cancer was a pre-existing condition that disqualified her from coverage.

But the story was later called into question by Dunham’s biographer. The fact that Obama’s initial claim is not directly repeated suggests the filmmakers knew there was a problem with the campaign story, but they clearly wanted to keep some version of it in the film.

The Facts

During the 2008 campaign, Obama frequently suggested his mother had to fight with her health-insurance company for treatment of her cancer because it considered her disease to be a pre-existing condition. In one of the presidential debates with GOP rival John McCain, Obama said:

“For my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they’re saying that this may be a pre-existing condition and they don’t have to pay her treatment, there’s something fundamentally wrong about that.”
But then earlier this year, journalist Janny Scott cast serious doubt on this version of events in her excellent biography, “A Singular Woman: The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s mother.” Scott reviewed letters from Dunham to the CIGNA insurance company, and revealed the dispute was over disability coverage, not health insurance coverage (see pages 335-339).

Disability coverage will help replace wages lost to an illness. (Dunham received a base pay of $82,500, plus a housing allowance and a car, to work in Indonesia for Development Alternatives Inc. of Bethesda, according to Scott.) But that is different than health insurance coverage denied because of a pre-existing condition, which was a major part of the president’s health care law.

Scott writes that Dunham, who died in 1995 of uterine and ovarian cancer, had health insurance that “covered most of the costs of her medical treatment…The hospital billed her insurance company directly, leaving Ann to pay only the deductible and any uncovered expenses, which, she said, came to several hundred dollars a month.”

Dunham had filed the disability claim to help pay for those additional expenses. The company denied the claim because her doctor had suspected uterine cancer during an office visit 2 ½ months before Dunham had started the job with Development Alternatives, though Dunham said the doctor had not discussed the possibility with cancer with her. Dunham requested a review from CIGNA, saying she was turning the case over to “my son and attorney Barack Obama.”

When Scott’s book was published, the White House did not dispute her account. “The president has told this story based on his recollection of events that took place more than 15 years ago,” a spokesman said.

Now let’s look at what the movie does with this story. It does not directly repeat the claim that Obama’s mother was denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition, fighting for treatment in her hospital room. But look at what it does say:

1. Hanks says the president knew the cost of waiting on reform. (Though disability coverage was not an issue in the health care debate.)

2. The president says cancer “drained all her resources.” (Health insurance paid for most of her bills, so this is not the case of someone being bankrupted by tens of thousands of dollars in bills. Her salary of $82,500 in 1995 was the equivalent of $123,000 today, but Scott says she had little savings.)

3. Michelle Obama says Dunham “never really had good, consistent insurance.” (It is unclear what she means by this, except maybe that Dunham had different jobs, some of which did not provide insurance. But Dunham had good health coverage when the cancer was discovered.)

4. The first lady also suggests the death “could have been prevented.” (Again, it was not an insurance issue. Before going overseas, Dunham was too busy with work and had skipped an important test recommended by her U.S. doctor, dilation and curettage, that might have spotted the cancer earlier. Then an Indonesian doctor diagnosed her problem as appendicitis and removed her appendix. By the time the cancer was finally discovered, it was third-stage.)

5. Hanks says that Obama’s family felt “the pressure of rising costs and the fear of being denied or dropped from coverage.” (Maybe for disability, but not health insurance.)

In the end, the impression left by the film, especially if you watch it (go to the 8:45 mark), is very similar to Obama’s 2008 campaign rhetoric: His mother was denied health-insurance coverage, draining her resources, and with better coverage she might have lived longer. The film suggests this experience helped inspire the president to keep fighting for the health care law, even in the face of advice from aides that he accept a less-than-satisfactory compromise.

Note that none of the quotes in the film actually use the words “health insurance” or “health insurance coverage.” Instead, the first lady says “insurance” and Hanks says “coverage,” which could just as easily mean disability insurance. But that would not be as evocative—or as motivating.

Asked for response, the Obama campaign referred us to the previous White House statement on Scott’s book.

The Pinocchio Test

We use a “reasonable man” standard here, and we think there are few viewers of this film who would watch this sequence and conclude that Dunham was involved in anything but a fight over health-insurance coverage.

The disability-insurance dispute certainly may have motivated the president, but he has never explicitly stated that. In any case, the filmmakers must have known they had a problem with this story or else they would have recounted it as Obama had done in the 2008 campaign, using phrases such as “pre-existing conditions,” “health insurance,” and “treatment.”

Instead, they arranged the quotes and images to leave a misleading impression of what really happened.

Washington post rating on Obama -

Three Pinocchios

Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions

Chicago Union Leader personifies why Unions represent greed, lack of morals and ethics - Happy Labor Day !

Happy Labor Day Weekend.....Labor likes to tout the movement as " supporting the rights of the workers, etc. etc."....Reality is a far different outcome.

The enclosed story reminds me of " ANIMAL FARM " by George Orwell. The crux of the story is that the Animals kick the humans out because they want things to be fair for all animals....until some animals get greedy, and take more for themselves.

The key quote is when the other animals ask the Pigs why they get more of everything, and live in the farmer's house, the Pigs reply, " All Animals are equal, but some are more equal."

This is the PERFECT analogy for what goes on with Labor Leaders as they espouse they are there for the workers, but in reality, they are there only for their own greedy needs.

Exhibit #1 on Labor Day Weekend - Thomas Villanova, a union leader in Chicago.

His $108,000 city pension comes on top of the $198,000 annual salary he is paid to represent the interests of thousands of city workers.

Villanova last worked for the city in 1989 as an electrical mechanic with the Department of Streets and Sanitation, making about $40,000 a year. Yet in 2008 he was allowed to retire at age 56 with a $108,000 city pension. That's because, under a little-known state law, his pension was based not on his city paycheck but on his much higher union salary.

If this kind of outright THEFT and Chicanery doesn't make your blood boil, I am unsure what would. The Taxpayers in Rahm Emanuel's Chicago and the Union Workers are footing the bill for a greedy and obviously unethical shaking down of the taxpayer. Tax dollars feather his nest and I am sure Chicago needs every penny they have for the citizens, instead of giving this b@stard a champagne lifestyle because he exploits the rules.

THIS is the poster child for what the UNION movement has become. That is why UNION membership is down because people know that in the end, it will not help them, but only the few greedy pigs at the top.....who have no ethics or morals.


chicagotribune.com
Union leader draws lucrative pension perk based on false information
By Jason Grotto, Tribune reporter

10:09 PM CDT, September 1, 2011

Every month, Thomas Villanova gets a $9,000 reminder of how lucrative it can be to serve as a union leader in Chicago.

The sum is part of a city pension that comes on top of the $198,000 annual salary he is paid to represent the interests of thousands of city workers.

Villanova last worked for the city in 1989 as an electrical mechanic with the Department of Streets and Sanitation, making about $40,000 a year. Yet in 2008 he was allowed to retire at age 56 with a $108,000 city pension. That's because, under a little-known state law, his pension was based not on his city paycheck but on his much higher union salary.

This kind of deal is available only to union officials who meet certain requirements, but a Tribune/WGN-TV investigation has uncovered documents that show Villanova violated state law when he applied for the pension and cast doubt on whether he truly qualifies for all that money.

To boost his taxpayer-supported city pension, Villanova signed documents certifying that he had waived his union pension and had two union officials write letters supporting his claim. In fact, records show dues collected from the rank-and-file were still set aside for Villanova's union pension.

When city pension fund officials discovered last year that Villanova never gave up his union pension, they gave him a pass and didn't move to take away his city retirement benefits.

What's more, labor leaders can get an inflated city pension only if they are on a leave of absence from a city job to work full time for a union. But officials from the municipal pension fund approved Villanova's application despite city employment records that show he took a leave to go back to school and then let that leave of absence expire in 1992.

Now just 58, Villanova stands to collect approximately $3 million from the city's municipal pension fund during his lifetime, according to a Tribune/WGN-TV analysis based on the fund's actuarial assumptions. And because the state's pension laws are so broken, he didn't have to contribute enough to the city pension fund to cover the costs, which means taxpayers will make up the shortfall.

"It's egregious. I haven't seen this anywhere else in the country," said Keith Brainard, research director of the National Association of State Retirement Administrators, when he heard about Villanova's deal. "The spirit of a pension plan is insurance against poverty. It's not to become wealthy."

In order to receive an inflated city pension, state law says labor leaders can't be part of any pension plan from their union. Yet Villanova is one of four officials from Local 134 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers who received city pensions based on their union salaries even though they never gave up their union pensions.

Terrance Stefanski, executive director of the Municipal Employees' Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago, conceded that the union leaders violated state law by participating in both the city and union pension funds at the same time. But he said the law is confusing and the city pension fund isn't in a position to determine whether the labor leaders knowingly submitted false information, which would be a felony.

"We are not an investigative agency," he said.

Stefanski said the city still considered Villanova to be on a leave of absence, and therefore he qualified to receive the pension perk.

Villanova declined to be interviewed. Through attorney Patrick Deady, Villanova said he followed the city pension fund's directions and that he qualified for his city pension because he taught union apprenticeship classes while in school.

Now president of the Chicago and Cook County Building and Construction Trades Council, Villanova helped negotiate every current collective bargaining agreement between Chicago and the 33 trade unions that do business with the city.

With the Emanuel administration struggling to fill a $635 million budget hole, Villanova sits at the bargaining table and speaks on behalf of 8,000 city tradesmen who face layoffs, furlough days and reduced benefits, in no small part because of the city's rising pension costs.

Today, the municipal pension fund is racing toward insolvency, with barely half of the assets needed to cover its liabilities. That means city workers face threats not only to their current job security but also to their future retirement security.

The average city retiree receives a pension of about $28,000 a year, roughly a quarter of what Villanova is drawing from the same fund.

Meanwhile, about $200,000 in rank-and-file dues that were paid into a union pension fund for Villanova have yet to be returned to the union. Documents show that Villanova agreed in writing last year to "disclaim" the pension money — but left the door open to taking it back if the rules change.

Double-dipping

Villanova's six-figure city pension is far better than that offered by his former union, Local 134.

The local's pension plan would have provided Villanova with 45 percent of his average salary during his highest-paid five years of work. He couldn't retire until he turned 65, however, without forfeiting a significant chunk of his union pension.

Under rules governing the city pension plan, on the other hand, Villanova could retire from his old city job at 56 with 70 percent of his average union salary during the prior four years; that average turned out to be $158,000. What's more, he could keep his high-paying union position.

To get that deal, Villanova had to make $344,000 in contributions to the plan as if he had been a city employee all along. He also had to submit an application certifying that he met all the criteria for the city pension, including that he wasn't part of a union pension plan.

In November 2008, Villanova signed an application that included this line: "I also understand that I am allowed to make these contributions as long as I do not receive credit in any pension plan established by such local labor organization."

In addition to his signed application, Villanova submitted a letter from a trustee of Local 134's pension plan that said Villanova had waived his union pension.

"We are in receipt of a letter from Mr. Villanova requesting that his Local 134 pension credits cease immediately. The Local 134 Executive Board will act upon his request accordingly," Peter Cerf, the pension fund's executive board secretary, wrote in September 2007.

Frank O'Lone, secretary-treasurer of the trades council, also wrote a letter on Villanova's behalf, in October 2008. "Thomas Villanova will not receive any pension credits in the Building Trades Council Pension Plan for the period starting 3/5/2004 to present," the letter read.

Yet documents submitted by the union pension fund to the U.S. Department of Labor show that money set aside for Villanova remained in the fund.

When Villanova became president of the trades council in 2004, Local 134 amended its pension plan to allow certain employees of the council to be participants. The Tribune and WGN-TV were able to identify contributions the trades council made on Villanova's behalf because he was one of only two council employees who were part of Local 134's plan and the only one who had worked long enough to be vested.

Records submitted by the union pension plan show that, in all, about $200,000 in member dues from the trades council went toward a union pension for Villanova. He also received a decade's worth of contributions from Local 134 members before becoming president of the trades council. But it's impossible to know the total from publicly available documents.

Officials from Local 134 and the trades council declined to comment on Villanova's pensions.

The municipal pension fund discovered in September 2010 that Villanova was not complying with state law by participating in both funds. City pension officials could have pursued criminal charges against him if they thought he had knowingly made false statements on his pension application, which is a felony.

Municipal pension fund officials had Villanova sign an affidavit admitting that he was participating in both plans at the same time and promising to "disclaim" union contributions that overlap with his city pension. But the money is staying in the fund in case municipal pension fund requirements "are reversed pursuant to action of the (fund's) trustees or litigation by similarly situated participants."

That means Villanova wasn't required to return union members' money that went to his union pension, and eventually he still could get access to it.

'It does look bad'

Villanova's hefty municipal pension depended, in large part, on how he described his leave of absence from the city in his pension application.

"I was an employee with the City of Chicago or Board of Education," his signed application states, "and was granted a leave of absence to work as an employee of the labor organization named below." The organization he wrote in was Local 134.

Yet city records show that Villanova didn't take a leave of absence to work for Local 134. He took a leave to attend Moraine Valley Community College in Palos Hills. While there, he earned roughly $41,000 a year working for the college, state records show.

Under city work rules, employees can receive various types of leaves, including disability, maternity, military, personal and union. City workers must apply for a leave of absence and in many cases must renew those requests after a certain time period has elapsed.

Villanova applied for his leave of absence on Oct. 25, 1989, according to city employment records. In the section of the form marked "Reason for Request," he wrote: "Return to school for advanced courses."

He renewed his leave every three months, filing seven requests in all. On each, he wrote that he was taking a leave to go back to school. All of the forms he signed say that if he failed to report back to his city post within five days after his leave of absence expired, he would resign his position with the city.

Villanova's last leave of absence request expired on July 24, 1991. State records show that he continued working full time for the state community college until November 1992. The municipal pension fund's own records show that he didn't start at Local 134 until January 1993, a year and a half after he had effectively resigned his city job.

Yet when Villanova applied for a city pension in November 2008, the municipal pension fund approved an amount based on his union salary — even though he did not take a leave of absence to work for a union and had allowed the leave he did take to expire 17 years earlier.

The fund's board of trustees, composed of union leaders and city officials, signed off on Villanova's $108,000-a-year pension in February 2009, backdating the start of his benefits to November 2008.

"It does look bad," said city Treasurer Stephanie Neely, a trustee of the city pension fund. "But we on the pension board didn't do anything wrong. We did everything we could do, and that's all I can somewhat control."

As part of the justification for awarding him the higher city pension, the municipal pension fund provided the Tribune and WGN-TV with a 2008 letter written by then-Deputy Streets and Sanitation Commissioner Vanessa Quail on Villanova's behalf.

"Mr. Villanova's current status with the Department of Streets and Sanitation is that we regard him on a personal leave of absence," she wrote. "While we have not located any leave of absence papers of Mr. Villanova's subsequent to April of 1991, that is not inconsistent with his retaining his status."

The reason he was able to maintain his leave of absence: No one at the city department entered a code in its computer system showing that Villanova had given up his post. According to Stefanski, the technicality means Villanova qualifies for a city pension based on his union salary.

Thanks to his work at Moraine Valley, Villanova's city pension is one of two public pensions he is currently receiving.

Villanova gets another $12,000 a year from the State University Retirement System of Illinois, based on his work for the community college. Although he held that job for only three years, state law allows him to receive reciprocal pension benefits from SURS when he retired from the city.

That pension is also based on his union salary, not the $41,000 he made working for the community college.

In all, Villanova takes home about $120,000 a year from taxpayer-supported pension systems, an amount that will grow by 3 percent every year as long as he lives.

WGN-TV producer Marsha Bartel and reporter Mark Suppelsa contributed to this report, along with Tribune reporter Jodi S. Cohen.

jgrotto@tribune.com

Copyright © 2011, Chicago Tribune

What part of " conflict of interest" doesn't the VP of the UNITED STATES get ???

Headlines have been recently full of issues involving federal contracting and the waste of federal tax dollars by federal contractors and/or conflicts of interest.

These are serious issues and ones the FEDS don't take lightly because they are violations of Federal law. The law applies to all citizens equally as that is the foundation of our legal system.

For reference :

From the GSA (General Services Administration)

https://www.acquisition.gov/Comp/far/current/html/FARMTOC.html

Part 3—Improper Business Practices and Personal Conflicts of Interest

Subpart 3.6—Contracts with Government Employees or Organizations Owned or Controlled by Them
3.601 Policy.
(a) Except as specified in 3.602, a contracting officer shall not knowingly award a contract to a Government employee or to a business concern or other organization owned or substantially owned or controlled by one or more Government employees. This policy is intended to avoid any conflict of interest that might arise between the employees’ interests and their Government duties, and to avoid the appearance of favoritism or preferential treatment by the Government toward its employees.

(b) For purposes of this subpart, special Government employees (as defined in 18 U.S.C. 202) performing services as experts, advisers, or consultants, or as members of advisory committees, are not considered Government employees unless—

(1) The contract arises directly out of the individual’s activity as a special Government employee;
(2) In the individual’s capacity as a special Government employee, the individual is in a position to influence the award of the contract; or

(3) Another conflict of interest is determined to exist.


Subpart 3.10—Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct
3.1000 Scope of subpart.
This subpart prescribes policies and procedures for the establishment of contractor codes of business ethics and conduct, and display of agency Office of Inspector General (OIG) fraud hotline posters.

3.1003 Requirements.
(a) Contractor requirements

b) Notification of possible contractor violation. If the contracting officer is notified of possible contractor violation of Federal criminal law involving fraud, conflict of interest, bribery, or gratuity violations found in Title 18 U.S.C.; or a violation of the civil False Claims Act, the contracting officer shall—

(1) Coordinate the matter with the agency Office of the Inspector General; or

(2) Take action in accordance with agency procedures.

So you might be wondering what does all this have to do with the price of Tea in China?

President Barack Obama promised to run the most transparent White House in history—disclosing donations, shunning lobbyists, and broadcasting important meetings on C-SPAN.

Well it seems that if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is highly likely it is a duck.

VP Joe Biden is a "vendor" on a Federal Contract to rent a piece of property he owns to the Secret Service.

As the vendor on a fixed-price contract, Mr. Biden technically now is a federal contractor. In this case, we are talking about a huge conflict of interest on the part of the Vice President who cannot be " vendor" and VPOTUS at the same time as being on a government contract as that is a text book case of " Conflict of Interest ".

Any 1st year law student could see it and the fact that it was set up and put in place w/o a bid or review shows a glaring inability of the VP or the Administration to understand that violating Federal Law is NOT acceptable for the holder of the second highest office in the land.

Of course this will be dismissed by the Administration as a "non-issue" but should raise the ire of anyone who expects that the VPOTUS needs to learn that unethical means unethical and that leadership & integrity are non-negotiable. Either you are an ethical leader or you are not - there is no grey area.

In this case, the Administration and the VP are a case of "Classic Failures". And this doesn't surprise me but it should be a prime reason to send him & his buddy the "empty suit in residence" at the White House packing in 2012.


Biden charging Secret Service for cottage rental

The U.S. Secret Service does more than protect Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. — the agency also pays him rent.
By Jim McElhatton
-The Washington Times
Sunday, July 31, 2011

Since April, Mr. Biden has collected more than $13,000 from the agency charged with protecting him and his family for use of a rental cottage adjacent to the waterfront home he owns in a Wilmington, Del., suburb.

Mr. Biden, listed not as vice president in federal purchasing documents but as a “vendor,” is eligible for up to $66,000 by the time the government contract expires in the fall of 2013, the records show.

Officials say the arrangement came about when a previous tenant moved out of the cottage and the Secret Service moved in.

Edwin M. Donovan, special agent in charge at the Secret Service's Office of Government and Public Affairs in Washington, said the agency pays $2,200 in rent per-month, the same amount a previous tenant had paid before moving out.

He said the close location provides a level of security for the Biden family the agency might not have had otherwise. Asked if the Secret Service typically pays rent to the people it protects, he said, “It’s a rental property so we pay rent there.”

Taxpayer watchdogs say the Secret Service should do everything it can to protect Mr. Biden, but they wonder whether he should be collecting rent from the agency while it’s doing its job.

“He should be afforded every single protection available to him and his family, as should every vice president and president,” said Leslie Paige, spokeswoman for the Washington-based Citizens Against Government Waste.

“But this arrangement seems bizarre to me,” she added. “You’d think the vice president, who shepherded the deficit committee, would think twice about charging the Secret Service rent. Why would he need the money? I don’t get it.”

According to Mr. Biden’s office, the vice president’s mother lived in the cottage until she died in January 2010. At that time, the Secret Service had been renting properties in the Wilmington area for agents who were providing a protective presence at Mr. Biden’s personal residence.

Mr. Biden later asked the Secret Service if the agency wanted to rent the cottage property, but the Secret Service declined and Mr. Biden rented it instead to a private tenant, according to the vice president's office. But almost a year later, when that tenant moved out, the Secret Service approached Mr. Biden about renting the cottage.

“The cottage was an existing rental property at the time the Secret Service signed its lease,” said Kendra Barkoff, a spokeswoman for Mr. Biden.

Last year, Mr. Biden and his wife, Jill, reported earning $379,178, including $11,000 in income from the cottage, according to the Bidens’ tax return. The Bidens did not list any rental income for 2009.

The Secret Service was the contracting agency on the two purchase orders so far that have paid Mr. Biden $13,200 combined for use of his cottage.

The first purchase order to Mr. Biden, for $2,200, was signed April 1, and the second, for $11,000, was signed June 2. The records both list Mr. Biden by name as the vendor under a section of the purchase order called “contractor information.” The purchase order describes Mr. Biden as a sole proprietor with no employees and no annual revenue.

The Washington Times inquired about the rental arrangement after Mr. Biden’s name appeared as a vendor in federal spending records. As the vendor on a fixed-price contract, Mr. Biden technically now is a federal contractor.

He’s been outspoken in calling for greater accountability in federal contracts. When Mr. Biden and President Obama launched the “Campaign to Cut Waste” last month, Mr. Biden said, “The President and I are committed to changing the way government works and we are stepping up the hunt for misspent dollars.”

During the presidential transition, Mr. Biden and Mr. Obama pledged to end the abuse of no-bid contracting and require competitive bidding on nearly all contract orders for more than $25,000 across the federal government.

Though the overall rental contract has a total value of up to $66,000, the agreement was approved through simplified acquisition procedures that do not require bidding.

“To an outside observer who pays the taxes that help fund protective services, this might seem like an odd arrangement, but apparently there’s some law or administrative procedure that facilitates it,” said Pete Sepp, vice president of the National Taxpayers Union in Alexandria, which monitors federal spending.

Mr. Sepp also had a thought on what Mr. Biden could do with the rent money he collects from the Secret Service: “Every elected official can do the same thing average Americans can, which is to write a check to the Bureau of the Public Debt to bring down the national debt.”

The Secret Service, an agency within the Department of Homeland Security, is required by law to ensure the safety of current and former national leaders and their families, such as the president, past presidents, vice presidents and presidential candidates.

"Where did his primary loyalty lie?" - To HIMSELF....How a State Employee held down two high risk jobs at the same time and endangered the public

The Boston Globe does a good job at investigating issues like the one in the story enclosed here.

The story ask the basic question, " Why did Massport, EMS let a public safety employee work 2 jobs simultaneously almost nonstop? "

There are three simple reasons:

1. POOR MANAGEMENT - No one at Massport and/or Boston’s Emergency Medical Services Department was doing the job we PAY them for - Managing the resources properly and ensuring that NO ONE is ginning up the system like this paramedic did....We pay the Directors/Managers/Supervisors at these agencies well above the average pay and bennies for life...You would expect (expect) a better ROI from them but we all know how these things work....STATE & MUNICIPAL employees were asleep at the switch...shocker. I say we need to look at firing a group of Managers that allowed this to occur and did nothing.

2. UNETHICAL CONDUCT IS THE NORM - The way things operate within the halls of the State Government and Municipal offices, "skinning the system" is a rite of passage...Cops, Firefighters, Town Managers....all do important work and all want to whatever they can do to crank up the $$$ and feather their retirements. We wind up having to write laws to stop all the loopholes they devise because no one sat down and tried to imagine how an employee would try to gin up the system. It takes away from all those who don't do so but "it is what it is" and the culture is based on fleecing the taxpayers, plain & simple.

3. GREED - " GREED IS GOOD "should be the motto for the State Government and Municipal employees and their unions. There is no care of how the money grab effects the taxpayers, who gets deprived of needed services because so much of the budget gets devoted to perks, etc. All that matters in the end, is " I GOT MINE". If you live in the belief that this is not so, I hate to burst your bubble but the Unions and their members have been laughing at you all the way to the bank for decades.

Like anything else, we are reaching a tipping point. The budget crisis is exposing the games and will bring them to an end. The only issue will be " How was this allowed to go on for so long??" - It comes down to we overpaid for poor management and a system that rewarded too many of the worst people in the positions we where we (the taxpayers) needed the best people.

It is to weep.....


One man, two jobs, and a question
Why did Massport, EMS let public safety employee work almost nonstop?
By Rachel Kossman and Walter V. Robinson
Boston Globe Correspondents

Last year, on April 27, Lieutenant Richard G. Covino was paid for working an 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. shift with the Massachusetts Port Authority Fire Department. All in all, an ordinary work day.

But starting at 3 p.m. the same day, Covino was also being paid for an eight-hour shift at his other full-time public safety job, as a paramedic for the city of Boston’s Emergency Medical Services Department, where he has worked since 1984.

It is one of several instances in which Covino was paid for working for both agencies at the same time.

For at least 11 years, Covino has juggled two full-time public safety jobs, his longtime position in Boston and successive jobs as a firefighter in Cohasset, Gloucester, and, since 2006, at Massport. In the last four years, Covino has been paid an average of $200,000 a year, including substantial overtime pay.

The overlapping shifts aside, Covino’s nearly 100-hour weeks confront two of Greater Boston’s most elite public safety agencies with an embarrassing question: Why would each allow Covino to hold two high-stress public safety jobs in which alertness and clear-headed judgment might spell the difference between life and death?

On at least five days last year, Covino was credited with starting work in Boston between one and three hours before he had purportedly finished his shift at Massport, according to a Globe examination of his attendance records over a recent 18-month period. On numerous other occasions, there was no more than five minutes, and sometimes less, between the time he officially finished work at one agency and started a tour at the other.

And the records show something else: Covino, who is 50, often worked long stretches with virtually no time off, sometimes 40 hours or more at a stretch, and much of that behind the wheel of a Boston ambulance speeding through the city on life-saving missions. In the last four years, he worked nearly 90 days of overtime a year at the two agencies, for which he earned close to $140,000.

On April 14, after an inquiry from the Globe triggered an internal review, Massport Fire Chief Robert Donahue suspended Covino without pay pending completion of a full investigation. Late on Friday, EMS spokeswoman Jennifer Mehigan said EMS was placing Covino on administrative leave with pay after an initial inquiry also uncovered problems.

Covino declined requests for an interview.

Why Massport and EMS permitted the arrangement is not altogether clear. Donahue, for instance, said he assumed when he hired Covino in 2006 that he was quitting the Boston job, and only found out months later that he had not. Mehigan said EMS officials knew only “anecdotally’’ about the Massport job. EMS has no restrictions on outside employment.

Massport has moved swiftly to make changes. Donahue suspended Covino and sharply curtailed the practice that allows firefighters to swap shifts with one another. This practice was critical to Covino’s juggling act. He routinely asked others to fill in for him so he could leave Massport halfway through a normal day shift to work his standard 3 to 11 p.m. EMS shift. He would repay the hours to them at another time.

Massport last week also changed its policy for new hires in any job: None will be permitted to keep a second full-time position.

EMS, which just launched its inquiry, has not said whether its policies might change.

Neither agency had a policy prohibiting its employees from having another public safety job, or even a requirement that managers be notified about other positions. Indeed, EMS Chief James Hooley, in an interview Thursday, said it is possible that Covino may not be the only one of his 350 EMTs and paramedics working for another public safety agency.

“I don’t know if I could say no to someone having another public safety job,’’ Hooley said.

Samuel R. Tyler, the president of the Boston Municipal Research Bureau, a business-supported watchdog agency that focuses on city finances and management, said he was astonished to learn that either agency would countenance such an arrangement.

“To allow one person to hold two high-stress public safety jobs is inconceivable. It makes no sense,’’ Tyler said. “It should be common sense — you cannot permit someone to have two jobs, each one stressful, that require quick decisions that affect the safety and lives of the public.’’

Tyler said that such arrangements may “cheat the taxpayers out of the services they should expect,’’ and could leave the city vulnerable to substantial legal damages for any serious misstep by an exhausted paramedic.

Hooley said that Covino has been “one of our better performers,’’ with no hint that his Massport job had affected his work as a paramedic. In 1992, when he had just the one job, Covino was awarded the department’s highest honor, the Medal of Honor, for leading people to safety from a Mattapan house fire before firefighters arrived, Hooley said.

Jay Weaver, an EMS partner and friend of Covino’s, had nothing but praise for his colleague. “Rick is an exceptionally skilled and knowledgeable paramedic, among the finest I’ve ever worked with,’’ Weaver said in an e-mail exchange from Afghanistan, where he is serving a tour as an Army lawyer. “He is an extremely hard worker.’’

Donahue, the Massport chief, would say only that Covino was suspended “for possible violations of department policies and procedures.’’

Friday evening, Mehigan released a statement that said Covino had just been placed on leave “while questions raised by his dual employment with Boston EMS and another agency are being reviewed.’’ It said the Boston Public Health Commission, which oversees EMS, “is committed to ensuring that Boston residents have the utmost confidence in its employees and services.’’

The EMS, with 50 ambulances, responded to emergency calls 110,000 times in 2010. The Massport Fire Department, with 85 firefighters, responds to about 3,000 calls a year, almost all at Logan. Its principal firefighting training involves aircraft fire and rescue operations.

Donahue said that by the time he learned Covino had kept his EMS job, his new hire was fulfilling his work requirements and the agency had no policy barring second jobs. “Obviously, in the future, based on this case, we’d do it differently,’’ Donahue said in an interview. “Safety is our highest priority.’’

At EMS, Hooley said that because of concerns about on-the-job fatigue, EMTs and paramedics can work no more than 18 hours at a stretch. “We would never approve anything more than that,’’ he said.

But serving two masters, Covino regularly violated the spirit of Hooley’s restrictions, according to a Globe review of his work records.

Starting last March 13, for example, Covino was off for less than two hours in a 50-hour stretch. That day, a Saturday, he clocked in to Massport at 5:52 in the morning, then left there at 10:21 p.m. for his Boston job, which started at 11 p.m. and ended at 7 a.m. on Sunday. After an hour’s break, Covino worked another shift at EMS, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. After a quick commute, he was back on duty at Massport at 4:17 p.m. Sunday for an overnight shift that ended at 8:10 a.m. on Monday.

After that marathon effort, Covino was off for part of Monday, until he went back to EMS for a 3 to 11 p.m. shift.

Such extraordinary work patterns appear again and again during the 18 months of attendance records from the two agencies that the Globe was able to compare. Prior to August 2009, the Massport records do not contain the start and stop times for firefighters’ shifts.

The Massport job allowed for some sleep, typically between midnight and 5 a.m., but only if there were no calls, according to Donahue.

Until the Globe made its public records request in February, neither agency was aware of Covino’s specific work schedule at the other, a scheduled that still allowed for extensive overtime.

Dr. Charles A. Czeisler, director of the Division of Sleep Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and one of the country’s leading authorities on sleep deprivation, said in an interview that physicians and first responders like paramedics and firefighters have a much higher risk of making errors when they go long periods without sleep. Someone who has gone without sleep for 24 hours, he said, has impaired judgment similar to a person who is legally drunk. In such cases, he said, people are more likely to make bad decisions and have short-term memory problems.

Neither EMS nor Massport has evidence of fatigue-related mistakes by Covino.

Covino’s dual positions raise another issue as well: Which hat would Covino don if there were a major terrorist episode at Logan that required both agencies to call in all available personnel? Donahue said that he believes Covino’s first responsibility would be to Massport. Said Hooley: “He understands that Boston EMS is his principal employer. That’s where his primary loyalty lies.’’

This article was prepared for an investigative reporting course at Northeastern University. It was overseen by Walter V. Robinson, who is distinguished professor of journalism and a former editor of the Globe Spotlight Team. Robinson can be reached at w.robinson@neu.edu. Confidential messages can be left at 617-929-3334.

Birds of a feather....

You are judged by the company you keep.....Obama wants to hang with Al Sharpton.....

Need I say more ??? If you don't get a *cringe* moment when you think about a President of the United States aligning himself with a gutless, unethical idjit like Al Sharpton, I would worry about your moral compass.

The President has shown his true colors and how low into the gutter he is willing to go just to get votes......This shows that Obama has no care about what's right or wrong as no public figure worth anything would want to be seen with a fool like Sharpton.

The United States needs a President that will show true leadership and ethical conduct......Obama has epicly failed.



OBAMA TO APPEAR WITH AL SHARPTON

By MICHAEL HOWARD SAUL - Wall Street Journal

Two days after officially launching his re-election campaign, President Barack Obama plans to travel to New York City Wednesday to deliver remarks at the 20th anniversary of the Rev. Al Sharpton's organization.

While the White House said there is no connection between Mr. Obama's 2012 campaign and his decision to attend the National Action Network's annual convention, some of the president's supporters and political observers said the visit marks the beginning of a series of events designed to shore up support among Mr. Obama's base, specifically African-Americans.

"Anytime you run for re-election, the first places you go are your base and your foundation of support—you try to make sure that's tight," said Assemblyman Keith Wright, chairman of the Manhattan Democratic Committee. "If your base and foundation are not solid, there's a chance there could be some chinks in the armor."

The visit also comes amid a bruising Capitol Hill budget battle with Republicans.

By sharing the stage with Mr. Sharpton at the outset of his reelection campaign, the president is sending a signal that the reverend has become a key ally, both in terms of policy and politics, observers say. That marks a stark contrast from the 2008 campaign, when Mr. Obama's aides initially viewed any partnership with Mr. Sharpton, who has been accused of inflaming racial tensions, as potentially damaging.

In an interview, Mr. Sharpton said the president's appearance for his organization's anniversary is a "good thing for us."

Mr. Sharpton said Mr. Obama shouldn't take the black community "for granted" in his re-election bid, but added that he doesn't believe the president faces any significant weakening of support among African-Americans.

"Are there people that are concerned and want to see more? Yes," Mr. Sharpton said. "But there always are."

The reverend said the event with the president will focus on policy, specifically education. "It's not about politics," he said. "You know how nonpolitical I am," he joked.

According to a Quinnipiac University poll released last week, voters nationwide disapprove of the job Mr. Obama is doing by a 48% to 42% margin, and by 54% to 41% say he does not deserve to be re-elected next year. Both are all-time lows for the president.

Among black voters, 89% approve of his job performance, the poll showed.

In New York City, the president's support is robust. City voters by 70% to 26% approve of the president's performance, and among black voters his job approval is 91%, a Quinnipiac survey from last month showed.

Still, there are some signs that members of the African-American community are unhappy. A headline about the president's New York fund-raising trip last week in the Amsterdam News, a Harlem newspaper, read: "Obama returns: Harlem gives president mixed reception."

Nellie Bailey, a 65-year-old Harlem activist, said she believes many disenchanted African-Americans will stay home on Election Day.

"The blinders are off," said Ms. Bailey, who doesn't plan to vote for Mr. Obama. "Black America is no longer willing to accept the president symbolically without any substantial platform and programs to address the crisis of rising homelessness and joblessness."

Costas Panagopoulos, assistant professor of political science at Fordham University, said the economic meltdown has had a "disproportionate effect" on African-Americans. "The president has not lost sight of that, and he's kicking things off by reaching out to that core constituency," he said.

The president's administration will be well represented at Mr. Sharpton's convention.

In addition to Mr. Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, Education Secretary Arne Duncan and Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan are slated to attend. Valerie Jarrett, senior adviser to the president, and David Axelrod, who recently left the White House, are also on the schedule.

Kevin Lewis, a White House spokesman, said the president agreed to attend Mr.. Sharpton's convention prior to deciding to launch his re-election campaign this week. Mr. Lewis said "there's no connection" between his re-election effort and his attendance.

"The president has a positive relationship with Rev. Sharpton," said Mr. Lewis. "The president seeks guidance from various places, but he values the guidance that he gets from Rev. Sharpton."

State Sen. Bill Perkins, a Harlem Democrat and one of the president's earliest New York supporters in 2008, praised the president for returning to New York. "He's going back to the base, to mobilize the base, to excite the base, to be accountable to that base," he said. "It's very smart."

Write to Michael Howard Saul at michael.saul@wsj.com