Category Archives: Government Intervention

04.30.13
by

Yahoo News: Lower tuition for immigrants becomes law in Colorado;

A Bill granting in-state tuition for students illegally in the US signed into law in Colorado.

Immigrant students will pay significantly less in tuition at Colorado colleges under legislation signed by Gov. John Hickenlooper on Monday.

Hundreds cheered as the Democratic governor ratified legislation that was first proposed a decade ago but regularly rejected under less favorable circumstances for people in the U.S. illegally.

“Holy smokes, are you guys fired up?” he asked the loud, spirited crowd at the Metropolitan State University of Denver. “Yeah, I thought so.”

Colorado becomes the fourteenth state to allow immigrants who graduate from state high schools to attend colleges at the tuition rate other in-state students pay, rather than a higher rate paid by out-of-state students.

This month, a similar proposal was signed into law in Oregon. Texas was the first pass such a measure in June 2001.

Among those in attendance at the signing ceremony was Val Vigil, a former lawmaker who first introduced the bill in 2003 when only a few states had passed it. At the time, only two people signed up to testify in favor of the bill in committee, he recalled, and more than 20 people showed up to oppose it.

When the plan was discussed in 2008, immigrant students who signed up to testify in favor had their names turned over to federal immigration authorities by opponents of the bill.

When the bill was heard in the House Education Committee in February, no opponents signed up to testify.

“It took 10 years of coalition building,” Vigil said.

The new law grants in-state tuition for Colorado high school graduates regardless of their immigration status. To qualify, students must also sign an affidavit saying they are seeking, or will seek, legal status in the U.S.

The out-of-state rate immigrants in Colorado had been required to pay is sometimes more than three times higher than the in-state rate.

“Every kid matters,” Hickenlooper said. “We need every child that we can get to be as educated as they are capable.”

—-

Click below for the full article.

http://news.yahoo.com/lower-tuition-immigrants-becomes-law-152911238.html

04.30.13
by

The Week: Why Ron Paul is slamming Boston’s response to the bombings

Ron Paul isn't a fan of the "surveillance state."

Criticizing the Boston Police Department, which has been hailed for capturing Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, isn’t exactly a PC move. Here, however, is former Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) on libertarian Lew Rockwell’s site:

These were not the scenes from a military coup in a far off banana republic, but rather the scenes just over a week ago in Boston as the United States got a taste of martial law. The ostensible reason for the military-style takeover of parts of Boston was that the accused perpetrator of a horrific crime was on the loose. The Boston bombing provided the opportunity for the government to turn what should have been a police investigation into a military-style occupation of an American city. This unprecedented move should frighten us as much or more than the attack itself. [LewRockwell.com]

He goes on to criticize our modern “surveillance state,” and argues that “we have been conditioned to believe that the job of the government is to keep us safe, but in reality the job of the government is to protect our liberties.”

While Paul appears to be alone in equating the reaction to the bombings with the bombings themselves, plenty of commentators from across the political spectrum have voiced objections to how law enforcement shut down the city of Boston. Comedian Bill Maher warned of a creeping “police state” on his show a few days ago, according to Politico.

And others have said the government is prone to overreaction any time terrorism is involved. “Whenever the word ‘terrorist’ is mentioned in this country, reason tends to go out the window, and many other things go with it, too, such as intellectual consistency, a respect for civil liberties, and a sense of proportion,” wrote John Cassidy a couple of weeks ago at The New Yorker.

Ross Douthat at The New York Times argues that such reactions could set a worrisome precedent if terrorist attacks become more common:

Because the Marathon bombing was such an unusual event, the city of Boston could muster a sweeping, almost crazy-seeming response without worrying that it would find itself having to do exactly the same thing six months later. But if such attacks started happening more frequently, as they obviously very well could, then last Friday’s precedent would put public officials across the country in an extremely uncomfortable bind: Repeatedly reproducing the lockdown might seem like a non-starter, yet not matching what Boston did would open you up to all kinds of scapegoating if, say, an on-the-loose bomber struck again.

Last week, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick (D) defended the city’s response, telling The Boston Globe, “I think we did what we should have done and were supposed to do with the always-imperfect information that you have at the time.”

—

Click below to read the article on The Week’s website.

http://theweek.com/article/index/243435/why-ron-paul-is-slamming-bostons-response-to-the-bombings

 

04.29.13
by

Army says no to more tanks, but Congress insists

<p> FILE - This undated file photo provided by the General Dynamics Land System shows the production of an Abrams tank in Lima, Ohio. Lawmakers from both parties have devoted nearly half a billion dollars in taxpayer money over the past two years to build improved versions of the 70-ton Abrams, which the Army refers to with a moniker that befits their heft: the M1A2SEPv2. The upgraded tanks cost about $7.5 million each, according to the Army, and service officials say they have plenty of them. (AP Photo/General Dynamics Land System, File)

 

Built to dominate the enemy in combat, the Army’s hulking Abrams tank is proving equally hard to beat in a budget battle.

Lawmakers from both parties have devoted nearly half a billion dollars in taxpayer money over the past two years to build improved versions of the 70-ton Abrams.

But senior Army officials have said repeatedly, “No thanks.”

It’s the inverse of the federal budget world these days, in which automatic spending cuts are leaving sought-after pet programs struggling or unpaid altogether. Republicans and Democrats for years have fought so bitterly that lawmaking in Washington ground to a near-halt.

Yet in the case of the Abrams tank, there’s a bipartisan push to spend an extra $436 million on a weapon the experts explicitly say is not needed.

“If we had our choice, we would use that money in a different way,” Gen. Ray Odierno, the Army’s chief of staff, told The Associated Press this past week.

Why are the tank dollars still flowing? Politics.

Keeping the Abrams production line rolling protects businesses and good paying jobs in congressional districts where the tank’s many suppliers are located.

If there’s a home of the Abrams, it’s politically important Ohio. The nation’s only tank plant is in Lima. So it’s no coincidence that the champions for more tanks are Rep. Jim Jordan and Sen. Rob Portman, two of Capitol’s Hill most prominent deficit hawks, as well as Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown. They said their support is rooted in protecting national security, not in pork-barrel politics.

“The one area where we are supposed to spend taxpayer money is in defense of the country,” said Jordan, whose district in the northwest part of the state includes the tank plant.

The Abrams dilemma underscores the challenge that Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel faces as he seeks to purge programs that the military considers unnecessary or too expensive in order to ensure there’s enough money for essential operations, training and equipment.

Hagel, a former Republican senator from Nebraska, faces a daunting task in persuading members of Congress to eliminate or scale back projects favored by constituents.

Federal budgets are always peppered with money for pet projects. What sets the Abrams example apart is the certainty of the Army’s position.

—-

Well it seems that both the Republicans and Democrats still have their stake in the Military Industrial Complex.  Click below for the full article.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/army-says-no-to-more-tanks-but-congress-insists-1.5155180

 

04.29.13
by

Yahoo News: PROMISES, PROMISES: Social Security pledge at risk

<p> FILE - In this July 15, 2011, file photo, members of Progressive Change Campaign Committee upset over potential cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security walk to President Barack Obama's campaign headquarters in Chicago, to deliver 200,000 signatures from people who are refusing to donate or volunteer for his re-election campaign if Obama cuts entitlement programs. As the population gets older, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are eating up more and more of the federal budget, squeezing the ability of the government to pay for other programs. Today, the three massive benefit programs account for 44 percent of federal spending. Left unchanged, they will account for more than 60 percent in 25 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. (AP Photo/David Banks, File)

The issue:

As the population gets older, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are eating up more and more of the federal budget, squeezing the ability of the government to pay for other programs. Today, the three massive benefit programs account for 44 percent of federal spending. Left unchanged, they will account for more than 60 percent in 25 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Unless Congress acts, the trust fund that supports Social Security is projected to run out of money in 2033. At that point, the retirement and disability program would collect only enough in payroll taxes to pay about 75 percent of benefits.

Medicare’s hospital insurance fund is in worse shape. It is projected to run out of money in 2024. At that point, it would only be able to pay 87 percent of costs, according to projections by the trustees who oversee Medicare and Social Security.

___

The campaign promise:

Obama rarely mentioned Social Security during his 2012 re-election campaign. Four years earlier, he was more forthcoming.

In a 2008 speech to AARP: “John McCain’s campaign has suggested that the best answer for the growing pressures on Social Security might be to cut cost-of-living adjustments or raise the retirement age. Let me be clear: I will not do either.”

On Medicare, Obama told the Democratic convention on Sept. 6, 2012: “Yes, we will reform and strengthen Medicare for the long haul, but we’ll do it by reducing the cost of health care, not by asking seniors to pay thousands of dollars more.”

___

The prospects:

Obama has already offered to break part of his 2008 pledge on Social Security. Twice in negotiations with GOP leaders, he agreed to adopt a new measure of inflation that would result in smaller cost-of-living adjustments, or COLAs, for Social Security recipients. Both deals fell apart. But now Obama has put forward the idea in his own proposed federal budget. If adopted, it would gradually trim benefit increases in Social Security, Medicare and other programs while raising taxes.

His proposed changes, once phased in, would mean a cut in Social Security benefits of nearly $1,000 a year for an average 85-year-old, $560 for a 75-year-old and $136 for a 65-year-old.

Obama and Republican leaders in Congress have held off-and-on talks about possible changes to entitlement programs since 2011, as part of their efforts to reduce government borrowing. But a deal remains elusive. Republicans insist any agreement must include deep spending cuts, while Obama says any deal must include more tax revenue. And many Democrats in Congress are protective of the entitlement programs that Obama now is willing to touch.

—-

Click below for the full article.

http://news.yahoo.com/promises-promises-social-security-pledge-173052710.html

04.29.13
by

Reuters: PRECIOUS-Gold rises 1 percent, holds near one-week high

Gold bars and granules are pictured at the Austrian Gold and Silver Separating Plant 'Oegussa' in Vienna October 23, 2012. REUTERS/Heinz-Peter Bader

Gold rose more than 1 percent on Monday and held near its highest in more than a week, as a rebound in prices from multi-year lows failed to damp investor appetite for the precious metal, causing a shortage in physical supply.

Recent bleak U.S. growth data that raised hopes the Federal Reserve would keep its current pace of bond buying at $85 billion a month also supported gold, widely seen as a hedge against inflation.

U.S. gold futures, which often provide trading cues to cash gold, hit a high of $1,472.20 an ounce. By 0553 GMT, prices stood at $1,468.90 an ounce, up $15.30. Spot gold rose $6.70 to $1,469.20 an ounce.

Both cash gold and futures sank to around $1,321 on April 16, their lowest in more than two years, after a drop below $1,500 sparked a sell-off that prompted investors to slash holdings of exchange-traded funds. They touched an 11-day peak above $1,484 on Friday.

“I don’t think gold is out of the woods yet, but there’s room for upward correction. One of the reasons why gold has dropped so much was the strong signs of U.S. economic recovery. Now, we don’t see much of it,” said Joyce Liu, an investment analyst at Phillip Futures in Singapore.

—-

Click below for the full article.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/29/markets-precious-idUSL3N0DG04220130429

 

04.28.13
by

Huffington Post: TSA Delaying Knives On Planes Policy

Tsa Knives Planes

Airline passengers will have to leave their knives at home after all. And their bats and golf clubs.A policy change scheduled to go into effect this week that would have allowed passengers to carry small knives, bats and other sports equipment onto airliners will be delayed, federal officials said Monday.The delay is necessary to accommodate feedback from an advisory committee made up of aviation industry, consumer, and law enforcement officials, the Transportation Security Administration said in a brief statement. The statement said the delay is temporary, but gave no indication how long it might be.

TSA Administrator John Pistole proposed the policy change last month, saying it would free up the agency to concentrate on protecting against greater threats. TSA screeners confiscate about 2,000 small folding knives from passengers every day.

The proposal immediately drew fierce opposition from flight attendant unions and federal air marshals, who said the knives can be dangerous in the hands of the wrong passengers. Some airlines and members of Congress also urged TSA to reconsider its position.

The delay announced by TSA doesn’t go far enough, a coalition of unions representing 90,000 flight attendants nationwide said Monday.

“All knives should be banned from planes permanently,” the group said in a statement.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who opposed the policy, said TSA’s decision is an admission “that permitting knives on planes is a bad idea.” He also called for a permanent ban.

—

Click below for the full article.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/22/tsa-knives-planes-_n_3135491.html?utm_hp_ref=tsa

04.28.13
by

Los Angeles Times: Response to TSA Lawsuit, Public gets chance to comment on TSA’s full-body scanners

TSA agents operate a full-body scanner at San Diego's Lindbergh Field.

Airline passengers have been walking through full-body scanners for nearly five years, but only now are fliers getting a chance to officially tell the federal government what they think about the screening machines.

In response to a lawsuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit ruled that the Transportation Security Administration could continue to use the scanners as a primary method of screening passengers. But the court ordered the TSA to give the public a 90-day comment period, which the agency did not do when it launched the scanning program.

The TSA began the comment period online in March, and so far it has been getting an average of 26 comments a day — nearly all of which blast the TSA and the scanners for a variety of reasons.

The most common objection is that the scanners violate the Constitution’s 4th Amendment, which guards against unreasonable search and seizure.

“Screening without probable cause is a violation of the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,” wrote Russell Yates of Los Angeles.

But in the 2011 ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals rejected that argument, saying that “screening passengers at an airport is an ‘administrative search’ because the primary goal is not to determine whether any passenger has committed a crime but rather to protect the public from a terrorist attack.”

Other common objections to the scanners say they expose passengers to unsafe levels of radiation and are not effective at stopping terrorists.

“It is scientifically indefensible to irradiate the vast majority of passengers,” wrote Richard Layton of Terre Haute, Ind. The TSA says several studies show the scans pose no significant hazard to passengers.

Finally, several dozen critics said the government doesn’t have the right to take “naked” or “nude” pictures of them to look for hidden weapons.

That may be a moot point. In response to a new federal law, the TSA is expected to remove all scanners that generate what look like naked images of passengers from airports by summer.

Most of those scanners will be replaced by a type of scanner that shows hidden objects projected onto a generic avatar image on a screen — not on a nude-like image of a passenger.

—

Click below for the full article.

http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-comment-on-tsas-fullbody-scanners-20130419,0,7454861.story

04.28.13
by

Huffington Post: On the TSA, Could Your Son be Next?

It’s every parent’s worst nightmare. You arrive at the airport to fly home from your family vacation, and something goes wrong — terribly wrong — at the TSA screening area.

It happened to Susan Bruce recently when she flew from Phoenix to Dallas with her husband, teenage son and daughter.

“When we got to security, my son went first in line through the X-ray machine and TSA flagged him for the hand swab test,” she remembers. “While the rest of the family was stuck on the other side of the X-ray machine, my son was pulled aside for supposedly having a positive result for explosives.”

Bruce, who lives in Dallas and is a mathematician by training and a homemaker, is certain it was a misunderstanding. Her son is no terrorist, she says. He’s a clean-cut honor student.

“The air in Phoenix is very dry and we all had put some lotion on our hands that morning — maybe the cause of the result,” she speculates. “Or it may have been fertilizer from the grass he touched. After all, he’s 15.”

But the TSA treated him like Richard Reid’s son.

“All eyes were focused on my son as the rude agents threw accusations at him,” she recalls. “One agent asked him if there was anything sharp in the luggage. His response was, ‘What?’ Keep in mind he is 15, so his Mom packed the luggage. He had no idea what was in each bag.”

The agents were impolite and accusatory. They ordered him to stay away from the luggage while they tested it. He felt as if he’d failed some kind of test.

“He just stood there in shock,” says Bruce.

And that wasn’t the worst of it.

The TSA’s teen problem

The TSA may have figured out what to do with kids under 12 and passengers over 75, allowing those low-risk passengers to go through the screening area without removing their jackets or shoes. But something happens when that 12-year-old turns 13. He or she becomes a high-risk air traveler who’s scanned, prodded and interrogated at the checkpoint. His only crime is coming of age, and from one day to the next becoming part of the feared “terrorist” demographic.

Bruce’s incident is hardly an isolated one. The TSA reportedly botched the pat-down of a 17-year-old girl in 2010, who also happened to be the niece of a U.S. congressman. During the exam, the girl’s sundress slipped, revealing her breasts in public. An internal investigation released late last year concluded the whole thing was an “unfortunate” accident.

Agents also recently gave another girl such a rigorous once-over that they broke her insulin pump. Savannah Barry claims TSA agents in Salt Lake City were rude and abrupt, even though she tried to warn them that she was wearing the pump. Clearly, the agents thought she was up to no good. Diabetics are such a menace.

Some of the worst stories are the ones that don’t make the news. One concerned mother contacted me a few weeks ago after the entire family flew out of Washington’s Dulles airport. The rest of her family walked through the metal detectors and full-body scanners without incident, but when it was her teenage daughter’s turn, the male screener asked her to back up and walk through again. He said the scanner “needed to get a better look” at her.

Yeah, I bet it did.

Is my son a terrorist?

While most of the incidents that capture the public’s attention involve teenage girls, probably because the cliche of the lecherous male screener preying on an innocent virgin is just too irresistible, the boys may have it worse. Bear in mind that young men do indeed fit the terrorist profile; all of the 9/11 bombers were young men, which means any TSA agent worth his training will be extra vigilant when it comes to anything young and male.

“It took every fiber in my son not to burst into tears,” remembers Bruce. “The agent continued to badger him until they whisked him away for a private pat-down, where they brought my husband to witness them groping him, including his genitals.”

Nearly half an hour after they approached the security screening area in Phoenix, it was all over. The Bruce family had been cleared for takeoff.

“We led our shaken son and sobbing daughter to the gate where boarding was already under way,” she says.

Bruce blames herself for allowing this to happen.

“I’m so upset,” she says. “I’m mad at myself because I feel like I failed my son by not protecting him. But I was totally unprepared for this.”

We are all unprepared for this. My oldest son turns 11 this year, but he’s taller than many 13-year-olds. What will the TSA do to him the next time we go through security? What will they do to your son or daughter?

Do we really have to trade our dignity for security? I don’t think so. The agents who barked orders at the Bruce family, who disrobed the congressman’s niece and broke Barry’s insulin pump would have benefitted from some basic customer-service training. Instead, they’re traumatizing an entire generation of air travelers.

We deserve better.

—

Is it acceptable to compromise your freedom and liberty for the sake of security?  Click below for a link to the article by Christopher Elliot on the Huffington Post.

http://www.thelibertyreport.org/wp-admin/post.php?post=397&action=edit&message=6

 

 

04.28.13
by

Reuters: Republicans, U.S. lawmakers press Obama to take action on Syria

U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) answers questions during a news conference following their tour of the Arizona-Mexico border in Nogales, Arizona March 27, 2013. REUTERS/Samantha Sais

Republican senators on Sunday pressed U.S. President Barack Obama to intervene in Syria’s civil war, saying America could attack Syrian air bases with missiles but should not send in ground troops.

Pressure is mounting on the White House to do more to help Syrian rebels fighting against the government of President Bashar al-Assad, which the Obama administration last week said had probably used chemical arms in the conflict.

Neutralizing the government forces’ air advantage over the rebels “could turn the tide of battle pretty quickly,” Republican Senator Lindsey Graham told CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

“One way you can stop the Syrian air force from flying is to bomb the Syrian air bases with cruise missiles,” the South Carolina senator said.

Graham said international action was needed to bring the conflict to a close but “You don’t need boots on the ground from the U.S. point of view.”

More than 70,000 people have died in Syria’s two-year-old civil war. So far, the United States has limited its involvement to providing non-lethal aid to rebels.

Obama said on Friday the use of chemical weapons in Syria would be a “game changer” for the United States, but made clear he was in no rush to intervene on the basis of evidence he said was still preliminary.

The U.S. fears anti-Assad Islamist rebels affiliated to al Qaeda could seize the chemical weapons, and Washington and its allies have discussed scenarios where tens of thousands of ground troops go into Syria if Assad’s government falls.

INTERNATIONAL FORCE

Senator John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate in 2008, said the United States should step up its support for Syrian rebels even if it turns out that Assad’s forces have not used poison gas in the conflict.

“We could use Patriot (missile) batteries and cruise missiles,” the Arizona lawmaker, an influential voice on military issues in the U.S. Senate, told NBC’s Meet The Press.

McCain said an “international force” should also be readied to go into Syria to secure stocks of chemical weapons.

“There are number of caches of these chemical weapons. They cannot fall into the hands of the jihadists,” he said.

—-

So the Republicans, or specifically the GOP Establishment, still believe that it is the obligation of the United States to police the world.  What do you think?  Click below for the full article.

http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/04/28/usa-syria-idINDEE93R05220130428

 

04.28.13
by

The Modesto Bee: Modesto pays $120K to settle lawsuit over warrant-less search of home

Modesto has paid $120,000 to a woman and her two adult daughters to settle a lawsuit they
filed against the city after police officers entered their home without a warrant, refused to leave when
asked and threatened to arrest the woman.

Police were summoned to the family’s home by a tow truck driver who was trying to repossess the
woman’s car, according to a lawsuit filed in federal court in Fresno.The car was parked in the garage and the woman disputed the tow truck driver’s right to take it. The driver  did not have a court order for the car, according to the lawsuit, but the officers helped him remove it  despite protests from the three woman.

The lawsuit says the officers violated the civil rights of Rosa Letona and her daughters Natalie Letona and Rosemary Banuelos to be free of having police enter and search their home without a warrant and denied Rosa Letona of her due process rights by helping the tow truck driver remove the car without court permission.

The repossession appears to have violated the repossession company’s policies. The lawsuit says the tow truck driver works for DigitalDog Auto Recovery. DigitalDog’s website states the police “may not advance or hinder repossessions” without a court order. “Justice was served in this case,” said Livermore attorney Sanjay S. Schmidt, who represented Letona and her two daughters. City Attorney Susana Alcala Wood provided this statement by email:

“The City chose to settle the subject civil actions after conducting a cost/benefit analysis of pursuing
further litigation in each case.

“The City did not admit any fault or wrongdoing on the part of any defendant in either action, and each
settlement was the settlement of a disputed claim.”

The lawsuit was filed in May in federal court. The city did not file a response in which it could challenge the claims made against the officers. Court records show a response was not filed because attorneys for the city and the women expected to reach a settlement.

Letona will receive $70,000 and her two daughters $25,000 each, according to city records. They will have to pay attorney fees from their settlements.
The lawsuit names officers Brian Ferguson, Benjamin Kroutil, Jonathan Griffith and Ben Brandvold and Sgt. Daniel Key as defendants.

—-

Click below for the full article.

http://www.modbee.com/2013/04/17/2674148/modesto-pays-120k-fine-to-settle.html