Thursday, October 31, 2013

TOP HOSPITALS CLOSED TO OBAMACARE ENROLLEES



President Obama and Democrats are spinning their broken "you can keep your insurance if you like it" promise with another false reassurance: that under ObamaCare you will receive better insurance. Now we are learning that if you have been forced into the ObamaCare exchanges, you will not have access to many of America's top hospitals, unless of course you want to pay out-of-pocket:
[R]esponding to Obamacare caps on premiums, many insurers will, in turn, simply offer top-tier doctors and hospitals far less cash for services rendered.
Watchdog.org looked at the top 18 hospitals nationwide as ranked by U.S. News and World Report for 2013-2014. We contacted each hospital to determine their contracts and talked to several insurance companies, as well.
The result of our investigation: Many top hospitals are simply opting out of Obamacare.
Chances are the individual plan you purchased outside Obamacare would allow you to go to these facilities. For example, fourth-ranked Cleveland Clinic accepts dozens of insurance plans if you buy one on your own. But go through Obamacare and you have just one choice: Medical Mutual of Ohio.
If the insurance President Obama forced you to cancel was accepted by any one of these hospitals, that promise about being able to keep your plan and doctor will really hit home.
This is not the first report that shows ObamaCare is worsening health care for some. Wednesday, CNN reported that victims of the federal exchange policies will have their options limited all over the country.
When Democrats talked about "Two America," I was under the mistaken impression they were speaking out in opposition to such a thing.

Gerald Celente ~ Warns Of Financial Collapse Coming Next Year

Military Police Leak FEMA Gun Confiscation Plan





American Banks Told to be Prepared for 30 Day Crisis

Under the newly proposed Federal Reserve liquidity rules, the largest US banks would be required to hold enough liquid assets to survive a 30 day credit drought. The liquidity coverage ratio proposal was unanimously approved at a Washington meeting, and goes beyond the measures of the Basel III model adopted in January, earlier implementation of the EU is requested.



 The US plan, most stringent for the biggest banks, is looking at implementation by 2017 – two years ahead of Basel’s deadline. “The proposed rule would, for the first time in the United States, put in place a quantitative liquidity requirement that would foster a more resilient and safer financial system,” Fed chairman Ben Bernankesaid before the vote.


The proposal would require setting aside about $2 trillion (€1.44tn), and the Fed estimates that US banks are currently $200bn (€144bn) short.


 http://freepatriot.org/2013/10/30/u-s-banks-told-to-be-prepared-for-30-day-crisis/

Black Boxes in Cars: Invasion of Your Privacy?



There's an event data recorder, or EDR, in many cars -- what is commonly called a "black box." It tracks your car's movements and the actions you take as a driver, and now there are federal guidelines that standardize the information being collected.
There is much debate over this information and when and how it can be used.
EDRs have been in cars for a couple of decades and were placed there by automakers as a way for them to access information about the car's movements and driver behavior to help determine if a vehicle malfunctioned or the driver was in error in the event of a lawsuit.
Today, most passenger cars and light-duty pickups have event data recorders. They are not required equipment in cars, but they may be for the 2015 model year if pending legislation passes.
Even though EDRs are not mandatory, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration put standards in place for the information the devices can collect as well as how the data are accessed for 2013 model year cars and beyond. The EDRs now record 15 different variables, including the car's speed, how far the accelerator pedal was depressed, whether the brakes were applied, the engine's revolutions per minute, how quickly the air bags were deployed and if the driver was wearing a seat belt. The devices have specific standards they must meet for impact, and they must be designed to capture data for up to two subsequent crashes after the initial impact. The requirements also include that the data be accessible through commercially available equipment.
While EDR data are generally considered the property of the car's owners or lessee in much the same way information on a home computer is considered your property, EDR data can be received under a warrant; attempts to use the information already have been made in court cases to prove a driver's negligence.
There is much debate within the courts on the legality of using information from an event data recorder, and whether it can be considered reliable and accurate as legal evidence.
The larger concern for many people is privacy of that data. The same legislation that proposes mandatory EDRs in all cars for 2015 also calls for even more data about the driver's habits. Some civil rights groups and legislators have concerns about how the data are obtained and how they can be used.
While it remains to be seen whether event data recorders will become mandatory equipment in cars and what the parameters will be for collecting and sharing the data they contain, the fact is that they do exist in most cars on the road today.
Get more news, money-saving tips and expert advice by signing up for a free Bankrate newsletter.
Bankrate's content, including the guidance of its advice-and-expert columns and this website, is intended only to assist you with financial decisions. The content is broad in scope and does not consider your personal financial situation. Bankrate recommends that you seek the advice of advisers who are fully aware of your individual circumstances before making any final decisions or implementing any financial strategy. Please remember that your use of this website is governed by Bankrate's Terms of Use.

Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Air Force training exercise fly close to building.....


Woman wakes up after childbirth with no arms and no legs!



A new mother states that she will literally never be able to hold her newborn baby after the Orlando hospital where she gave birth performed a life-altering surgery that left her a multiple amputee, seemingly for no reason.
"They amputated both her arms and legs and will not explain why..."
At this time the woman claims that the hospital will not tell her why they removed both of her arms and legs during childbirth. Complaints have been filed against the hospital, Orlando Regional Healthcare Systems, because they will not tell her exactly what happened. The hospital maintains the woman wants to know information that would violate other patients' rights.
The event happened over 8 months ago. Claudia Mejia, the mother of the newborn child and victim of the surgery, was transported to Orlando Regional Medical Center in Orlando where her arms and legs were amputated. After the surgeries she was told she had streptococcus, a flesh eating bacteria, and toxic shock syndrome, but no further explanation was given.
The hospital claims that if she wants to find out exactly what happened, she would have to sue them.
"I want to know what happened. I went to deliver my baby and I came out like this," Mejia said.
"I woke up from surgery and I had no arms and no legs. No one told me anything. My arms and legs were just gone."
Her other child asks her mother what happened to her and no one can answer the question. Her husband a devoted man says he's sticking with her. "I love her, so I'll always stick with her and take it a day at a time myself," said her husband, Tim Edwards.
Her attorney, Judy Hyman wrote the hospital a letter saying, according to the Florida statute, "The Patients Right To Know About Adverse Medical Incidents Act," the hospital must give her the records. The hospitals response? "Ms. Mejia's request may require legal resolution."
It is being considered that Mrs. Mejia caught the skin eating disease streptococcus while in the hospital, contracting it from another patient or someone on her floor that already had the disease, the hospital is saying that if they release any information about it to her they would be violating the other patient's rights.
An unbelievable story.


Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/102835#ixzz2jE3gQWyv

The Benghazi Cover-Up is Beginning to Collapse!



Though still treading lightly, Democrats appear to bebacking away from President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over their handling of the Benghazi terror attack and their past comments. This has taken many people by surprise because, up to this point, the Democrats as a group have largely supported the Obama administration’s explanation ofBenghazi and blamed the Republicans for trying to create a scandal where there is none.
Several prominent Democrats have appeared on Sunday morning news shows, including Fox News Sunday and Meet the Press, to discuss the various facts that have come to light as a result of an ongoing investigation into the Benghazi embassy attack.
The list of Democrats backing away from Obama is growing and includes Representative Stephen Lynch (D-MA), who is on the Government Oversight Committee, and Representative Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD), who is the Ranking Member of the HouseIntelligence Committee. This is still just the beginning. Watch the interviews below:
Stephen Lynch (D-MA) admits that the Benghazi Talking Points were simply false:
Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD), also conceded that the reports were edited in order to reflect something that wasn’t true, though he claims this was during a “volatile” time. Don’t expect these Democrats to be the last.
The media is turning on Obama and Hillary as well, though not fully, yet. Remember, almost any level of criticism is a step in the right direction, considering the media has been acting as the “fourth branch” of government for the last four years.
The Democratic concerns emanate from the fact that the CIA talking points explaining the circumstances surrounding the Benghazi embassy attack were changed by the Obama Administration to eliminate mention of Islamic terrorism. This raises the question of whether the changes were meant to cover up catastrophic decisions by the State Department concerning embassy support and security. I think we know the answer: yes.


The level of incompetence, sheer evil, and negligence on Hillary’s part is simply breath taking. The fact that millions of Americans still want her to be president is an example of the philosophical sickness that’s eating away at America’s moral fabric.

Tuesday, October 29, 2013

Spain launches legal inquiry into U.S. spying allegations


MADRID (Reuters) - Spain's public prosecutor launched a preliminary inquiry on Tuesday into reports that U.S. intelligence has spied on million of its citizens.
Attorney General Eduardo Torres-Dulce authorized an information gathering process after El Mundo newspaper reported on Monday that the United States had tracked more than 60 million Spanish phone calls, his office said in a statement.
Spain summoned the U.S. ambassador on Monday to discuss the allegations, which are similar to reports of U.S. spying in France and Germany that have caused a rare diplomatic upset between the Washington and its European allies.
Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Garcia-Margallo said if the reports were true it would break the "climate of trust" between the two countries.
El Mundo published a graphic it said was a National Security Agency (NSA) document showing the U.S. agency had spied on 60.5 million phone calls in Spain between December 10, 2012 and January 8 this year. It said the document was part of papers obtained from ex-NSA contractor Edward Snowden.
On a visit to Lithuania on Tuesday, Garcia-Margallo stressed Spain's close ties with the United States and said negotiations over a European free-trade agreement would not stop.
"We work very closely with USA on security, we have some common topics where our positions are the same," he told a news conference.
(Reporting by Inmaculada Sanz; Additional reporting by Andrius Sytas in Vilnius; Writing by Sarah White; Editing by Robin Pomeroy)

EU Set to Monitor “Intolerant” Citizens

Controlling social behavior: Proposal could ban criticism of Islam, feminism
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
October 29, 2013
Image: EU Parliament (Wikimedia Commons).
A frightening proposal currently being considered by the European Parliament would direct governments to monitor citizens deemed “intolerant” and could even lead to a ban on all criticism of Islam and feminism.
The European Framework National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance (PDF), which was drafted by the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR), an NGO based in Paris, was presented to the European Parliament’s Civil Liberties committee last month and is thought to be on the verge of implementation.
According to the Gatestone Institute, the Statute represents an “unparalleled threat to free speech” and would have the impact of “effectively shutting down the right to free speech in Europe” by banning “all critical scrutiny of Islam and Islamic Sharia law, a key objective of Muslim activist groups for more than two decades.”
The main purpose of the Statute is aimed at eliminating “anti-feminism” and “Islamophobia,” according to the document, which means that any criticism of feminist political doctrines or the Muslim religion would be considered hate speech.
Section 4 of the document states that, “There is no need to be tolerant to the intolerant. This is especially important as far as freedom of expression is concerned.” In other words, stamping out “intolerance” trumps the free speech rights of millions of European citizens.
“Faith-based groups and schools, adherents of a particular religion or even just parents who want to teach their children certain moral values would all be put under general suspicion of being intolerant,” warns civil rights watchdog European Dignity Watch.
The proposal dictates that “Members of vulnerable and disadvantaged groups are entitled to a special protection, additional to the general protection that has to be provided by the Government to every person within the State.”
This basically mandates that the free speech rights of European citizens need to be revoked in order to secure the “additional” rights of minority groups to not be offended by “intolerant” remarks, which include holding such groups to “ridicule,” a definition which would presumably outlaw satire.
The framework calls for the doctrine to be implemented by “a special administrative unit” in each of the EU’s 28 member states that would “operate within the Ministry of Justice” and have the power of “penal sanctions.” In addition, a “National Tolerance Monitoring Commission” would also be created to “promote tolerance.”
“The principles of freedom of contract and the freedom to live according to one’s personal moral views are in danger of being superseded by a newly developed concept of ‘equality.’ It would undermine freedom and self-determination for all Europeans and subject the private life of citizens to legal uncertainty and the control of bureaucrats,” states European Dignity Watch. “It is about governmental control of social behavior of citizens. These tendencies begin to give the impression of long-passed totalitarian ideas and constitute an unprecedented attack on citizens’ rights.”
The proposal also caters for the re-education of individuals deemed intolerant. “Juveniles convicted of committing crimes….will be required to undergo a rehabilitation program designed to instill in them a culture of tolerance,” states the document.
Schools from elementary level upwards will also be mandated by governments to “introduce courses encouraging students to accept diversity and promoting a climate of tolerance as regards the qualities and cultures of others.”
The proposal also calls on citizens to be brainwashed into “tolerance” via mass media, with governments ensuring that television networks “devote a prescribed percentage of their program to promoting a climate of tolerance.”
The program is not only an alarming threat to free speech but is also deliciously ironic in light of complaints by major EU powers about NSA monitoring of citizens and world leaders.
Given the EU’s history in this context, it’s highly probable that they will adopt the recommendations wholesale. Back in 2001, the EU announced that it had the power to outlaw criticism of itself when the European Court of Justice ruled that the EU could, “lawfully suppress political criticism of its institutions and of leading figures.”
*********************
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.
This article was posted: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 at 10:44 am

Monday, October 28, 2013

White House stopped phone tapping of foreign leaders this summer



(CNN) -- The White House learned this summer that the National Security Agency had tapped the phones of world leaders and ordered a halt to some of the eavesdropping, The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday.
Quoting unidentified U.S. officials, the newspaper's website said the wiretapping of about 35 foreign leaders was disclosed to the White House as part of a review of surveillance programs ordered by President Barack Obama after NSA contractor Edward Snowden leaked classified details of the NSA's phone monitoring systems.
The White House ordered a halt to the monitoring of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and unspecified other leaders, the newspaper reported. The Journal report did not specify who gave the shutdown order or the date it was issued.
White House: Reviewing surveillance of allies
Responding to the report for the White House, National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden did not directly address surveillance of foreign leaders. Instead, she described the ongoing review as "including when it comes to our closest foreign partners and allies."
Merkel said last week that reports of American spying on her and other leaders had "severely shaken" relationships between the United States and European nations.
The German leader said she told Obama last week that eavesdropping among friends "is never acceptable." The White House said at the time that Merkel's communications were not being monitored -- without saying whether she had been targeted in the past.
Should the president know wiretap details?
The officials quoted by The Wall Street Journal said it was understandable that Obama did not know about the phone tapping of Merkel and other leaders for nearly five years of his presidency because the NSA has so many eavesdropping programs, it would not have listed all of them for the president.
"The president doesn't sign off on this stuff," one official was quoted as saying. But the official said that policy was under review, the Journal reported.
The Journal report said some surveillance of foreign leaders continues, and surveillance of others is being phased out.
NSA denies chief told Obama about Merkel tap
Separately, the NSA on Sunday denied a report by the German newspaper Bild am Sonntag that NSA Director Keith Alexander told Obama about the surveillance of Merkel in 2010.
"Gen. Alexander did not discuss with President Obama in 2010 an alleged foreign intelligence operation involving German Chancellor Merkel, nor has he ever discussed alleged operations involving Chancellor Merkel," NSA spokeswoman Vanee' Vines told CNN.
German intelligence officials are scheduled to meet with their American counterparts in Washington this week to ask about surveillance programs.
Other news media reports, based on documents leaked by Snowden, have said the NSA monitored the communications of the leaders of Brazil and Mexico.
Germany and Brazil are drafting a United Nations resolution on privacy in electronic communication, officials in those countries said last week.
Report: NSA monitored 60 million Spanish calls in 30 days
The Spanish newspaper El Mundo reported Monday that the NSA collected data from 60 million phone calls in Spain in one 30-day period.
One of the authors of the El Mundo article was Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who first reported on documents supplied by Snowden for the British newspaper The Guardian.
The El Mundo article cited what it said was an NSA report titled, "Spain -- last 30 days." The 60 million calls were not recorded, but the NSA collected serial numbers of devices, phone numbers, locations and durations of calls, the newspaper said.
Even before the latest report, the Spanish government had summoned U.S. Ambassador James Costos to a meeting scheduled Monday in Madrid. That followed a report by another Spanish newspaper, El Pais, quoting unnamed sources as saying the NSA spied on Spanish officials and politicians.
The French daily newspaper Le Monde reported last week on claims that the NSA intercepted more than 70 million phone calls in France in 30 days. That report did not specify whether the calls were recorded or whether the interceptions were limited to data about calls.

AP Photo: Checkpoint Cops Point Guns at Americans’ Heads

Fallujah-style security comes to Sacramento
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
October 28, 2013
After a gang member shot and injured several law enforcement officials before going into hiding in a Sacramento suburb on Friday, police responded by setting up a checkpoint and aiming guns at innocent people’s heads, an AP photo shows.
The photo, (credited to AP Photo/The Sacramento Bee, Randall Benton) is captioned, “A California Highway Patrol officer and another emergency responder stop a vehicle at a checkpoint near the neighborhood where a federal immigration officer was shot and three local police officers were wounded during a violent confrontation with a suspect in the Sacramento suburb of Roseville on Friday, Oct. 25, 2013.”
After an hours-long standoff, the suspect, 32-year-old gang member Samuel Nathan Duran, eventually surrendered after leaving a nearby house in which he had been holed up.
The felon responsible for the shootings was a wanted parolee and was already known to police having been seen riding a bike earlier in the day. His description would have been well circulated and known intimately by those tasked with hunting him down.
So why were Americans innocently driving their cars through the suburb of Roseville subjected to treatment that wouldn’t have looked out of place in Stalinist Russia, or more recently in Iraq or Afghanistan?
As we saw during the Boston bombings manhunt, in complete violation of law, police seem to believe that so long as they are hunting a potentially dangerous suspect, the Constitution is null and void, and that martial law is in effect.
The militarized lockdown of Watertown, Mass., during which heavily armed officers went door to door without search warrants terrorizing families at gunpoint and ransacking homes, led Ron Paul to observe that the manhunt was more frightening than the attack itself, saying it resembled “scenes from a military coup in a far off banana republic.”
Similarly, during the manhunt for Christopher Dorner, police wildly shot and injured numerous innocent people, including women, who looked nothing like Dorner.
Is this America’s future? Cops pointing guns at innocent people’s heads in the name of security? Like residents of Fallujah and Kabul, are Americans a conquered people who are presumed guilty until proven innocent? To be treated as potential murderers and terrorists by having guns aimed at their head at armed checkpoints? To be asked to show their papers?

(Image: Wikimedia Commons)
*********************
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.
This article was posted: Monday, October 28, 2013 at 7:04 am

Thursday, October 24, 2013

Feds Order School to Ban Packed Lunches Without Doctor’s Note

Parents not allowed to provide non-GMO food while kids fed nachos & ice cream
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
October 24, 2013
A school in Richmond, Virginia is following federal government instructions by telling parents that they need to have a doctor’s note in order for their children to be allowed to bring packed lunches to school, another example of how the nanny state is encroaching via the public education system.
A letter featured on the website Momdot.com instructs parents that packed lunches must be accompanied with a physician’s note.
Dear Parents,
I have received word from Federal Programs Preschool pertaining to lunches from home. Parents are to be informed that students can only bring lunches from home if there is a medical condition requiring a specific diet, along with a physicians note to that regard.
I am sorry for any inconvenience. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Stephanie [redacted] the Health Coordinator for Federal Programs Preschool at [redacted].
Thanks,
Ms. [redacted]
The letter also includes a handwritten note from a teacher which reads, “Ms Brooks, Please do not send a lunch to school unless a doctor’s note is sent in connection with this letter.” The identity of the school remains unknown, but it is situated in Richmond, Virginia.
The Federal Programs Preschool initiative is funded primarily by the Head Start Program, a Department of Health and Human Services scheme that provides education and nutritional support for children from low income families. Under Federal Programs Preschool, children are provided with breakfast, lunch and a snack.
While informing parents that they cannot make a decision on their own child’s diet, the same school promotes the fact that they sell ice cream during P.E. lessons every week. In a separate post, another parent describes how their child was upset because she was the only student not able to buy nachos and lemonade, which were also being sold during P.E. lessons right before lunch.
“So I suppose that sending a note that says “I choose to skip the GMO’s in the lunches you serve for a more balanced and safe diet as the parent of this child” doesn’t suffice?” writes Trisha Haas, adding that, “Homeschooling is looking better and better every day.”
If parents want to pack a healthy, non-GMO lunch for their own children, and not have their kids snacking on preservative-laden nachos and ice cream, they’re out of luck, because the federal government says so, unless parents go through the ludicrous hassle of obtaining a doctor’s note beforehand.
“So, now, at least one school wants children to have a doctor’s note to say no to the school lunch offerings of hormones, GMOs, preservatives, and grease. They must have the permission of a professional to avoid junk food. A parent’s good judgment is not sufficient, it seems, to make the healthy decision to provide a toxin-free lunch. Does anyone else see the irony here?” asks Daisy Luther.
*********************
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.
This article was posted: Thursday, October 24, 2013 at 6:02 am

Obama's "crowning achievement", the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare...

Lauded as making healthcare more affordable for everyone..

The reality has shown itself, that Obamacare is the least affordable health care plan possibly conceived...

It will result in the confiscation of houses, cars, personal property due to the stiff tax penalties for not having health care.

It will result in high unemployment, and the majority of Americans on part time work at most.

It will result in the majority of the nation being forced on food stamps, because their hours being cut back at work.

It was so poorly thought out, that even the website for it's grand opening has been called "A Hackers Wet Dream", and the website for it has been declared UNFIXABLE by industry experts.

Obamacare is a perfect reflection of Obama's presidency..

Poorly thought out, intended to drive America into Socialism, and illegal.

Congratulations President Obama.. Like father, like son.. Your baby, Obamacare is just like you!

JOIN US TO STOP OBAMA!

www.overpasses.org

Gerald Celente - Trends In The News - "The Royal Mafias" - (10/21/13)

Officer in UC Davis pepper-spray incident to get $38,059


DAVIS, Calif. —The former University of California, Davis police officer who pepper-sprayed Occupy protesters has reached a worker's compensation settlement with the university system.
    
The Davis Enterprise reports that a judge on Oct. 16 approved the $38,059 settlement between John Pike and the University of California.
    
The 40-year-old former officer said he suffered depression and anxiety after death threats to him and his family after the Nov. 18, 2011 event.

Read more: http://www.kcra.com/news/local-news/news-sacramento/officer-in-uc-davis-pepperspray-incident-to-get-38059/-/12969376/22596160/-/xif5q7z/-/index.html#ixzz2iay5UImO

Monday, October 21, 2013

Royal Family granted new right of secrecy


Special exemptions to be written into Freedom of Information Act

 

 The Royal Family is to be granted absolute protection from public scrutiny in a controversial legal reform designed to draw a veil of secrecy over the affairs of the Queen, Prince Charles and Prince William.
Letters, emails and documents relating to the monarch, her heir and the second in line to the throne will no longer be disclosed even if they are in the public interest.
Sweeping changes to the Freedom of Information Act will reverse advances which had briefly shone a light on the royal finances – including an attempt by the Queen to use a state poverty fund to heat Buckingham Palace – and which had threatened to force the disclosure of the Prince of Wales's prolific correspondence with ministers.
Lobbying and correspondence from junior staff working for the Royal Household and Prince Charles will now be held back from disclosure. Buckingham Palace confirmed that it had consulted with the Coalition Government over the change in the law. The Government buried the plan for "added protection" for the Royal Family in the small print of plans called "opening up public bodies to public scrutiny".
Maurice Frankel, head of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, said that since the change referred to communications written on behalf of the Queen and Prince Charles it might be possible for "park keepers working in the royal parks" to be spared public scrutiny of their letters written to local authorities.
The decision to push through the changes also raises questions about the sincerity of the Liberal Democrats' commitment to government transparency. In opposition, senior Liberal Democrats frequently lined up to champion the Freedom of Information Act after it came into force in 2005.
Ian Davidson, a former member of Parliament's Public Accounts Committee (PAC), told The Independent: "I'm astonished that the Government should find time to seek to cover up royal finances. When I was on the PAC what we wanted was more disclosure not less.
"Every time we examined royal finances we found extravagance and indulgence as well as abuse of expenses by junior royals.
"Everywhere we looked, there were savings to be made for the Government. This sends the wrong message about public disclosure and accountability."
Paul Flynn, another member of the committee, described the special protection for the Royals as "indefensible". He said: "I don't think it serves the interests of the public or the Royal Family very well."
Mr Frankel said he believed that Prince Charles was the driving force behind the new law.
"The heir to the throne has written letters to government departments in an attempt to influence policy," he said.
"He clearly does not want these to get into the public domain."
Later this month, lawyers for the Cabinet Office, backed by Prince Charles, will go to court to continue to resist Freedom of Information requests of ministers to publish letters written to them by the Prince of Wales.
A spokesman for Buckingham Palace said that the change to the law was necessary because the Freedom of Information Act had failed to protect the constitutional position of the monarch and the heir to the throne. He explained that the sovereign has the right and duty to be consulted, to encourage and warn the government, and by extension, the heir to the throne had the constitutional right and duty to prepare himself for the role of King.
"This constitutional position relies on confidentiality, so that all such correspondence remains confidential," he said.
But he said that change would also mean that correspondence not covered by the absolute exemption would be made public 10 years earlier than under the current disclosure rules.
The Palace's position was backed by Professor Vernon Bogdanor, research professor at King's College London.
He told The Independent: "The essence of constitutional monarchy is that the Queen and other members of the Royal Family remain politically neutral. The Queen meets the Prime Minister once a week, when both are in London, to discuss government policy.
"The heir to the throne has the right, and perhaps the duty, to question ministers on policy so as to prepare himself for the throne. Such discussions are only possible if they remain confidential. Otherwise the neutrality of the Queen and of the Prince of Wales could be undermined.
"When the Queen meets the Prime Minister, no one else is present – not even the Queen's Private Secretary. For this reason, it is right that the Royal Family should be exempt from FOI."
The Government claimed that the thrust of the changes announced yesterday would make it "easier for people to use FOI to find and use information about the public bodies they rely on and their taxes pay for".
The Ministry of Justice intends to increase the number of organisations to which FOI requests can be made, bringing in bodies such as the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Financial Services Ombudsman, and the higher education admissions body UCAS, and also all companies wholly owned by any number of public authorities.
In the public interest? The stories they didn't want us to know
*In 2004 the Queen asked ministers for a poverty handout to help heat her palaces but was rebuffed because they feared it would be a public relations disaster. Royal aides were told that the £60m worth of energy-saving grants were aimed at families on low incomes and if the money was given to Buckingham Palace instead of housing associations or hospitals it could lead to "adverse publicity" for the Queen and the government.
*A "financial memorandum" formalising the relationship between the sovereign and ministers set out tough terms on how the Queen can spend the £38.2m handed over by Parliament each year to pay for her staff and occupied palaces.
*The Queen requested more public money to pay for the upkeep of her crumbling palaces while allowing minor royals and courtiers to live in rent-free accommodation.
*As early as 2004 Sir Alan Reid, the Keeper of the Privy Purse, had unsuccessfully put the case to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport for a substantial increase in the £15m-a-year grant to maintain royal buildings.
*The Palace planned to go ahead with refurbishing and renting the apartment of Diana, Princess of Wales at Kensington Palace after it had lain empty since her death in 1997.
*A letter exchange revealed a tussle over who has control of £2.5m gained from the sale of Kensington Palace land. Ministers said it belonged to the state, while Buckingham Palace said it belonged to the Queen.