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

Reuters: Court may limit use of race in college admission decisions

Tourists walk in front of the Supreme Court building in Washington, March 24, 2013. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

Thirty-five years after the Supreme Court set the terms for boosting college admissions of African Americans and other minorities, the court may be about to issue a ruling that could restrict universities’ use of race in deciding who is awarded places.

The case before the justices was brought by Abigail Fisher, a white suburban Houston student who asserted she was wrongly rejected by the University of Texas at Austin while minority students with similar grades and test scores were admitted.

The ruling is the only one the court has yet to issue following oral arguments in cases heard in October and November, the opening months of the court’s annual term which lasts until the early summer. A decision might come as early as Monday, before the start of a two-week recess.

As hard as it is to predict when a ruling will be announced, it is more difficult to say how it might change the law. Still, even a small move in the Texas case could mark the beginning of a new chapter limiting college administrators’ discretion in using race in deciding on admissions.

For decades, dating back at least to the John F. Kennedy administration of the 1960s, U.S. leaders have struggled with what “affirmative action” should be taken to help blacks and other minorities. In the early years, it was seen as a way to remedy racial prejudice and discrimination; in the more modern era, as a way to bring diversity to campuses and workplaces.

Since 1978, the Supreme Court has been at the center of disputes over when universities may consider applicants’ race. In that year’s groundbreaking Bakke decision from a University of California medical school, the justices forbade quotas but said schools could weigh race with other factors.

—-

Click below for the full article.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/28/us-usa-court-race-idUSBRE93R06I20130428

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

04.28.13
by

Herald News: Former officer arraigned in New Bedford court; stealing prescriptions from the elderly.

Former Somerset police officer Ricardo Pavao was arraigned Wednesday in New  Bedford District Court on allegations that he unlawfully collected expired  prescription drugs from elderly residents.

Pavao, 33, of Somerset, was previously arraigned in Fall River District  Court, but his case was transferred to New Bedford, a routine move when law  enforcement officials are charged with crimes in their own jurisdiction.

Pavao, a former 10-year veteran of the Somerset Police Department, allegedly  knocked on residents’ doors at North Farm Senior Estates in Somersest, while on  duty, on Jan. 27 and collected their prescription drugs without notifying a  supervisor about his actions.

Pavao allegedly told the residents he was checking on their emergency  information and questioned some whether they possessed firearms or had a vicious  dog on the premises.

In a taped interview, Pavao allegedly admitted to soliciting emergency  information from the residents at the housing complex and collecting three  expired prescription bottles from a resident.

Pavao said he was trying to “show some initiative” because of poor work  reviews over the past few years, but said he threw the drugs in the trash at  home to avoid writing a report.

—

Click below for the full article.

http://www.wickedlocal.com/somerset/news/x1048857516/Former-officer-arraigned-in-New-Bedford-court#axzz2Qp5SsRfz

04.28.13
by

Associated Press: Ex-officers get probation in Houston teen beating

Two fired Houston police officers accused of beating a black teenage burglary suspect during an arrest that was caught on video were each sentenced Wednesday to two years of probation as part of plea agreements.

Ex-officers Phil Bryan, 47, and Raad Hassan, 43, each entered pleas of no contest to a misdemeanor charge of official oppression. The two men had been set to go to trial on Monday. If convicted at trial, each ex-officer had faced up to a year in jail.

State District Judge Ruben Guerrero accepted the former officers’ pleas and sentenced them to two years of deferred adjudication, a form of probation. If the men complete their probations without getting into trouble, their convictions will be dismissed.

The beating of then-15-year-old Chad Holley prompted fierce public criticism of the Houston police department by community activists, who called it an example of police brutality against minorities.

Four officers were charged; one was acquitted last May and another officer’s case is still pending. Holley was convicted of burglary in juvenile court.

Defense attorneys and the special prosecutors appointed to handle the case all said the plea deal for Bryan and Hassan was fair.

—

Click below for the full article.

http://www.lompocrecord.com/news/national/ex-officers-get-probation-in-houston-teen-beating/article_3e63dd00-7d69-5070-9c7b-07d0142d8588.html

04.28.13
by

The Washington Post: National conservative group mounts new lobbying push for gay marriage in Minnesota, elsewhere

FILE - In this April 18, 2013, file photo Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton tell hundreds who turned out to rally at the State Capitol, in St. Paul, Minn. in support of a bill to legalize gay marriage that he hoped legislators will pass this year. A spokesman for American Unity PAC tells The Associated Press that the group has established a lobbying operation and already spent more than $250,000 to lobby Republican lawmakers in Minnesota, with plans to spend more. (AP Photo/Jim Mone, File)

A national group of prominent GOP donors that supports gay marriage is pouring new money into lobbying efforts to get Republican lawmakers to vote to make it legal.

American Unity PAC was formed last year to lend financial support to Republicans who bucked the party’s longstanding opposition to gay marriage. Its founders are launching a new lobbying organization, American Unity Fund, and already have spent more than $250,000 in Minnesota, where the Legislature could vote on the issue as early as next week.

The group has spent $500,000 on lobbying since last month, including efforts in Rhode Island, Delaware, Indiana, West Virginia and Utah.Billionaire hedge fund manager and Republican donor Paul Singer launched American Unity PAC. The lobbying effort is the next phase as the push for gay marriage spreads to more states, spokesman Jeff Cook-McCormac told The Associated Press.

“What you have is this network of influential Republicans who really want to see the party embrace the freedom to marry, and believe it’s not only the right thing for the country but also good politics,” Cook-McCormac said.

In Minnesota, the money has gone to state groups that are lobbying Republican lawmakers and for polling on gay marriage in a handful of suburban districts held by Republicans. So far, only one Minnesota Republican lawmaker has committed to voting to legalize gay marriage: Sen. Branden Petersen, of Andover.

—

Click below for the full article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-conservative-group-mounts-new-lobbying-push-for-gay-marriage-in-minnesota-elsewhere/2013/04/27/bb9cff80-aef8-11e2-b59e-adb43da03a8a_story.html

04.28.13
by

Reuters: Senator Paul stirs business ire over blocking of U.S. tax treaties

Senator Rand Paul is coming under pressure from some multi-national businesses to drop his opposition to tax treaties between the United States and other nations.

Citing privacy concerns about Americans’ tax data, Paul, a Republican and libertarian, has single-handedly blocked Senate action on treaties with Hungary, Switzerland and Luxembourg that have been signed by authorities on both sides, but have been awaiting Senate review since 2011.

At least six other tax treaties or treaty updates – with Chile, Spain, Poland, Japan, Norway and Britain – may soon be added to the Senate’s queue for confirmation votes.

Major U.S. businesses such as IBM Corp and Fluor Corp are lobbying for Senate action on tax treaties, according to Senate lobbying disclosure documents.

“How many treaties will be held hostage?” asked Cathy Schultz, a lobbyist for the National Foreign Trade Council, a Washington, D.C.-based group that represents companies such asCaterpillar Inc and Pfizer Inc.

Paul has said he is concerned that recent treaties would give foreign governments too much access to U.S. citizens’ tax information, a stance that has some support among like-minded conservative libertarians.

“Rand Paul is not a typical senator who may bend over to business lobbyists,” said Chris Edwards, director of tax policy at The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.

“I am very concerned about this increasingly aggressive international exchange of information,” Edwards said.

NO APPROVALS SINCE 2010

No new tax treaties or treaty updates have been approved since 2010, when Paul was elected as the junior senator from Kentucky on a wave of support for Tea Party-aligned Republicans.

Paul recently declined to answer questions from a reporter in a Capitol hallway about the “hold” he has placed on the treaties. Under Senate rules, one senator can prevent a motion from reaching a vote on the Senate floor.

Paul’s staff did not reply to repeated requests for comment.

“There’s never really been an objection of this sort and a hold that’s gone on this long,” said Nancy McLernon, president of the Organization for International Investment, which lobbies in Washington on behalf of foreign companies.

In an effort to sway the senator, McLernon said her group would be lobbying both parties to draw attention to the tax treaties. “Let’s stop with the self-inflicted wounds,” she said.

The United States has tax treaties with more than 60 countries, ranging from China to Kyrgyzstan.

The agreements previously have routinely won Senate approval with little controversy and accomplished their main purpose of preventing double-taxation of income and profits.

In recent years, tax treaties have begun to play an increasing role in efforts by the United States and major European Union countries to crack down on tax avoidance.

The U.S. Treasury in 2012 began signing new tax pacts with countries as part of implementation of the U.S. Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, a 2010 anti-tax-evasion law.

The law, known as FATCA, which takes effect in January 2014, will require foreign financial institutions to disclose to the United States information about Americans’ accounts worth more than $50,000.

SWISS A DRIVING FORCE

Switzerland, a long-time bastion of banking secrecy, is under international pressure to change its ways, and FATCA has been a driving force in that. The United States and Switzerland in February signed a FATCA implementation agreement that would make more information available to U.S. authorities about the financial interests of Americans in Switzerland.

But the taxpayer information exchange cannot go into force without Senate approval of the U.S.-Swiss tax treaty.

The Senate’s delayed action on tax treaties could convince other countries to stop negotiating with the United States on tax matters, said John Harrington, a former Treasury tax official who is now a partner at law firm SNR Denton.

Paul, seen as a possible 2016 presidential contender, has taken a position that sets up a clash of traditional Republican interest groups: big business and libertarian ideologues.

—

Click below for the full article.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/28/usa-tax-treaties-idUSL2N0DF0CY20130428?feedType=RSS&feedName=rbssFinancialServicesAndRealEstateNews&rpc=43

 

04.27.13
by

Forbes: GOP’s Dave Camp: Why Not Put All Federal Employees Onto Obamacare’s Exchanges?

WASHINGTON, DC - DECEMBER 20: U.S. Rep. Dave ...

In response to this week’s brouhaha regarding attempts by members of Congress to avoid having to enroll themselves and their staff members in Obamacare’s health insurance exchanges, Michigan Republican Dave Camp, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, has offered a new proposal: Why not put all federal employees on the exchanges? It’s an attractive idea, but it has some downside: it would dismantle a popular model of market-based health reform.

“If the ObamaCare exchanges are good enough for the hardworking Americans and small businesses the law claims to help, then they should be good enough for the president, vice president, Congress, and federal employees,” said Camp’s spokeswoman in a statement.

The political principle is straightforward, but it would come at a price. Putting all federal employees on the exchanges would obliterate the most market-oriented insurance program run by the government, the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, or FEHBP. Indeed, the FEHBP has long been considered a model for market-based reform of the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

In the FEHBP, employees get to choose amongst a wide variety of plans offered by private insurers. The employer–the government–then subsidizes about three-fourths of the cost to the employee. The employee can choose a more generous or expensive plan if he wants, but he has to pay for a portion of the difference in price, and vice versa. As a result of this approach, FEHBP plans have organically evolved to contain the benefits and financial features that consumers want. By contrast, any minor change to Medicare requires an act of Congress.

Obamacare’s exchanges are closer in concept to FEHBP than traditional Medicare, but the exchanges heavily constrain the ability of plans to alter their design as consumers’ preferences evolve.

—

Click below for the full article.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2013/04/26/gops-dave-camp-why-not-put-all-federal-employees-onto-obamacares-exchanges/