899: Loyalty Test

I know you hate late submissions, but as a producer I felt the obligation to check out the protests tonight at Dulles Airport (DC-IAD) and send you some clips! There were ~200-250 people there. Hope you enjoy.

Notes:

• It was mostly disorganized, but there was at least one small group there with a laptop facebook chatting. They looked organized and started a bunch of chants.

• A couple of times, that organized group would shout "Mic Check" to shut people up (slave) if they didn't like the chant. I don't have a clip, but one chant started "This is Nazi Germany..." and they got "Mic Checked" into silence.

• The numbered clips are all chants.

• I thought it was interesting how announcements were made. (Clip 09) First, they'd either shush everyone or shout "Mic Check". Then the message was passed through the crowd by repeating it.

• Maybe 1-2 news crews, but it looked like local news.

• There were a handful of lawyers there in casual suits and name tags that said "Attorney" offering free immigration counsel.

• "No spray tan no Muslim ban" - just missed that clip, but it was among my favorites.

• There's a crappy clip in there titled "LGBTQ." My friend who works as a government contractor said that they were asked to take all LGBTQ references down from one of the websites they operate.

Dewey from DC

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 28 Jan 2017 20:44

Although the Obama administration currently refuses to temporarily pause its Syrian refugee resettlement program in the United States, the State Department in 2011 stopped processing Iraq refugee requests for six months after the Federal Bureau of Investigation uncovered evidence that several dozen terrorists from Iraq had infiltrated the United States via the refugee program.

After two terrorists were discovered in Bowling Green, Kentucky, in 2009, the FBI began reviewing reams of evidence taken from improvised explosive devices (IEDs) that had been used against American troops in Iraq. Federal investigators then tried to match fingerprints from those bombs to the fingerprints of individuals who had recently entered the United States as refugees:

An intelligence tip initially led the FBI to Waad Ramadan Alwan, 32, in 2009. The Iraqi had claimed to be a refugee who faced persecution back home '-- a story that shattered when the FBI found his fingerprints on a cordless phone base that U.S. soldiers dug up in a gravel pile south of Bayji, Iraq on Sept. 1, 2005. The phone base had been wired to unexploded bombs buried in a nearby road.

An ABC News investigation of the flawed U.S. refugee screening system, which was overhauled two years ago, showed that Alwan was mistakenly allowed into the U.S. and resettled in the leafy southern town of Bowling Green, Kentucky, a city of 60,000 which is home to Western Kentucky University and near the Army's Fort Knox and Fort Campbell. Alwan and another Iraqi refugee, Mohanad Shareef Hammadi, 26, were resettled in Bowling Green even though both had been detained during the war by Iraqi authorities, according to federal prosecutors.

The terrorists were not taken into custody until 2011. Shortly thereafter, the U.S. State Department stopped processing refugee requests from Iraqis for six months in order to review and revamp security screening procedures:

As a result of the Kentucky case, the State Department stopped processing Iraq refugees for six months in 2011, federal officials told ABC News '' even for many who had heroically helped U.S. forces as interpreters and intelligence assets. One Iraqi who had aided American troops was assassinated before his refugee application could be processed, because of the immigration delays, two U.S. officials said. In 2011, fewer than 10,000 Iraqis were resettled as refugees in the U.S., half the number from the year before, State Department statistics show.

According to a 2013 report from ABC News, at least one of the Kentucky terrorists passed background and fingerprint checks conducted by the Department of Homeland Security prior to being allowed to enter the United States. Without the fingerprint evidence taken from roadside bombs, which one federal forensic scientist referred to as ''a needle in the haystack,'' it is unlikely that the two terrorists would ever have been identified and apprehended.

''How did a person who we detained in Iraq '-- linked to an IED attack, we had his fingerprints in our government system '-- how did he walk into America in 2009?'' asked one former Army general who previously oversaw the U.S. military's anti-IED efforts.

President Barack Obama has thus far refused bipartisan calls to pause his administration's Syrian refugee program, which many believe is likely to be exploited by terrorists seeking entry into the United States. The president has not explained how his administration can guarantee that no terrorists will be able to slip into the country by pretending to be refugees, as the Iraqi terrorists captured in Kentucky did in 2009. One of those terrorists, Waad Ramadan Alwan, even came into the United States by way of Syria, where his fingerprints were taken and given to U.S. military intelligence officials.

Obama has also refused to explain how his administration's security-related pause on processing Iraq refugee requests in 2011 did not ''betray our deepest values.''

Sean Davis is the co-founder of The Federalist.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 28 Jan 2017 14:31

On the day of its first foreign policy discussions with Mexico, the Obama administration remains mum on whether it will honor a campaign promise to alter a Bush administration policy establishing a massive fence along the U.S.-Mexico border, including in federally protected areas.

Skip to next paragraphA blog about energy, the environment and the bottom line.

So far, the Department of Homeland Security has erected about 613 miles of new pedestrian fencing and vehicle barriers to thwart illegal border crossers and drug smugglers trying to enter the United States.

While President Obama voted for the 2005 Secure Fence Act as an Illinois senator, he pledged on the campaign trail last year to review the Bush administration's fortification efforts, in part due to concerns about environmental impacts.

"I think that the key is to consult with local communities, whether it's on the commercial interests or the environmental stakes of creating any kind of barrier," Obama said last year at a debate in Austin, Texas.

While acknowledging that some areas may need fencing, Obama said deploying new surveillance technology and stepping up patrols would "be the better approach."

Yet almost three months into the new administration, neither Obama nor Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano are addressing the issue. Meanwhile, construction is beginning on two new sections of the fence, one through the Rio Grande Valley near Brownsville, Texas, and another in the Otay Mountain Wilderness in California's San Diego County.

Homeland Security spokesman Matt Chandler said Napolitano decided to allow border fence projects already contracted under the Bush administration to go forward. But she is reviewing the fence policy as part of a comprehensive examination of all immigration and border security programs. "She will discuss her review of immigration and border security policies once it is completed," he said.

Lloyd Easterling, a spokesman for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, a DHS subagency, said, "As it stands right now, we're committed to completing the project at hand."

Proponents of the the border fence say the project is an effective deterrent to would-be illegal border crossers, and they cite government data showing precipitous drops in illegal border crossings at places like Yuma, Ariz., once a hot spot for illegal immigrants driving into the United States.

But critics point to a 2008 Congressional Research Service report that found the new fencing simply shifts illegal crossings to other, more remote locations.

Perhaps more important, any attempt by the administration to scale back the border fence is likely to attract intense public scrutiny at a time when Mexican drug cartel violence has flared up along the border, fueled in large part by guns smuggled from the United States. Obama is making his first visit to Mexico today, where among other things he will discuss the intensifying drug war, which killed 6,300 people last year.

Needs are critical

Even so, critics say they are dismayed by the Obama administration's slow progress in addressing the fence's environmental impacts.

"The need to address all the negative impacts that have already occurred is critical," said Michael Degnan, lands representative for the Sierra Club.

Matt Clark, Southwest representative for Defenders of Wildlife, said his group was "hopeful that the administration would quickly change course, and even reverse the Bush-era wall-building approach to border issues."

Defenders of Wildlife has joined a coalition of other environmental groups -- as well as faith-based organizations, immigration groups and border community organizations -- backing a bill to be introduced later this month by Rep. Raºl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) calling for mitigation of the environmental damage caused by the fence.

While the language of the Grijalva bill is still being hammered out, proponents say it will probably seek to reverse a 2005 provision allowing the Homeland Security secretary to waive any federal or state law deemed to interfere with fence construction, including the nation's core environmental laws. Former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff invoked the waiver authority four times during his tenure.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 28 Jan 2017 14:28

On October 26, 2006, U.S. PresidentGeorge W. Bush signed the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (Pub.L. 109''367) into law stating, ''This bill will help protect the American people. This bill will make our borders more secure. It is an important step toward immigration reform."[1]

The bill was introduced on Sep. 13, 2006 by Peter T. King (R-NY). In the House of Representatives, the Fence Act passed 283 -138 on September 14, 2006. On September 29, 2006 '' the Fence Act passed in the Senate 80 -19.

The Secure Fence Act of 2006's goal is to help secure America's borders to decrease illegal entry, drug trafficking, and security threats by building 700 miles (1,100 km) of physical barriers along the Mexico-United States border. Additionally, the law authorizes more vehicle barriers, checkpoints, and lighting as well as authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to increase the use of advanced technology like cameras, satellites, and unmanned aerial vehicles to reinforce infrastructure at the border.[1] Congress approved $1.2 billion in a separate homeland security spending bill to bankroll the fence, though critics say this is $4.8 billion less than what's likely needed to get it built.[citation needed]

Proponents of the bill believe that it will diminish vehicle transport of illegal immigrants, encouraging those who want to enter the country to pursue legal channels or cover potentially hundreds of miles on foot and overcome a difficult obstacle. This should decrease the number of apprehensions of illegal immigrants, by physically reducing their numbers. It could also diminish the illegal drug trade pouring into the US from Mexico as well as provide additional protection from terrorist entry into the country.[2]

Opponents of the bill argue that it is not an effective strategy to curb illegal immigration because the fence is not a continuous barrier and can be climbed over or dug under in some areas. They also argue that it could harm US-Mexico relations, disrupt the environment and natural migration of wildlife, as well as increase the danger and risk of illegal immigrants attempting to cross the border. Further, opponents argue that because of the increased risk of crossing the border, illegal immigrants who previously pursued seasonal work and then returned home may have to bring their families and live permanently in the country.[2]

Since construction of the wall began ''apprehensions, a rough proxy for measuring illegal crossings, were down 18% at the southern border in 2008 and Border Patrol attributes some of that to the fence.[citation needed] But a report in May 2009 by the Congressional Research Service found "strong indication" that illegal crossers had simply found new routes.'' [3]

On January 23, 2008 the 110th Congress introduced Reinstatement of the Secure Fence Act of 2008 (H.R. 5124). This bill called for Homeland Security to construct an additional 700 miles (1,100 km) of two layered, 14 foot (4 m) high fencing along the southwest border.[4] The bill died in committee and was never voted upon.[4]

By April 2009 Homeland Security had erected about 613 miles (985 km) of new pedestrian fencing and vehicle barriers along the southwest border from California to Texas.[5]

In May 2010, Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) unsuccessfully reintroduced his ''Finish the Fence'' amendment for the second time, which would require Homeland Security to construct an additional 353 miles (568 km) of fencing along the US-Mexico border.[6]

The Republican Party's 2012 platform highlighted the fact that the rest of the double fencing was never built and stated that "The double-layered fencing on the border that was enacted by Congress in 2006, but never completed, must finally be built."[7] The Washington Office on Latin America, claims on its Border Fact Check site that the extremely high cost of complying with the Secure Fence Act's mandate-estimated at US$4.1 billion, or more than the Border Patrol's entire annual budget of US$3.55 billion- was the main reason that it was not fulfilled.[8] In short, Congress failed to continue to fund the project past the initial $1.2 billion procured, in order to finish building the fence.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:05

In the closing ceremonies of London's 2012 Summer Olympics, comedian Russell Brand, perched atop the Beatles' "Magical Mystery Tour" bus, opened his performance by singing the first lines of "Pure Imagination" from the movie Willy Wonka:

Come with meAnd you'll beIn a world ofPure imaginationTake a lookAnd you'll seeInto your imagination

We'll beginWith a spinTraveling inThe world of my creationWhat we'll seeWill defyExplanation

Just over a year later, fresh off his worldwide "Messiah Complex" comedy tour, Brand would become something of a countercultural icon for a widely-seen BBC interview, followed by a series of editorials and interviews in the British and American press, including a role as guest editor of the New Stateseman, in which he wondered:

Total revolution of consciousness and our entire social, political and economic system is what interests me, but that's not on the ballot. Is utopian revolution possible? The freethinking social architect Buckminster Fuller said humanity now faces a choice: oblivion or utopia. We're inertly ambling towards oblivion, is utopia really an option?

Brand's excoriation of the political class felt to many like a breath of fresh air. But while Brand's humor-infused brew of Marxism, anarchism and New Age spirituality may seem like the mere rantings of a rebellious entertainer who frequently refers to himself as a "Jungian Trickster," I would argue he represents a more dangerous omen.

The Occupy Wall Street "movement" (if there ever was such a thing) '' and emerging generations of young Americans more generally '' is being led by Brand and other pied pipers away from practical reality and into an illusory "world of pure imagination". What in 2009 had the makings of a New Deal-oriented mass strike upsurge is being steered off course by Wall Street interests in a rehash of 1968.

Occupy: just another "Situation"Most casual observers will remember Occupy Wall Street (OWS) as disorganized mobs of young leftists expressing their anger at the rich and powerful. What they may not recall is that the Occupy movement:

1) Came on the heels of very large, very mainstream mass movements for union rights in Wisconsin and Ohio. Compare the estimated 100,000 workers demonstrating for collective bargaining rights in the middle of February outside the Madison, WI Capitol building to the comparatively small "Tea Party" rallies of 2009 that nevertheless drew widespread media coverage and led to a massive schism in the Republican party.

2) Happened with the memory of the 2009 Wall Street bailout still fresh in the minds of the protestors.

OWS was initiated, organized, and funded in part by AdBusters, a Canadian "anti-consumerist" outfit. AdBusters, whose magazine can be found on advertising agency coffee tables the world round, was by its founders admission inspired by the Situationist International, which became known for its role in France's 1968 student strikes that nearly brought down the decade-old regime of Charles de Gaulle.

De Gaulle was by most accounts an excellent leader who owed his tenure to France's rapid industrialization and improvements in living standards '' based on his "dirigisme," a variation on Hamilton and Lincoln's "American System of Political Economy". The Situationists emerged against a backdrop of some social and economic turmoil, in which a coalition of French communists and socialists had formed to challenge the de Gaulle regime. The Situationists were mostly avant-garde artists and activists like filmmaker Guy DeBord and Daniel Cohn-Bendit (then known as "Dany le Rouge", now a German politician and member of the EU parliament), who presented themselves as the intellectual force behind the events of May 1968.

And what were the issues that engaged some 11 million French workers and students in protests, riots and spontaneous "wildcat" strikes? According to the Situationists, it was not the cost of living, unemployment or any other kitchen table issue, but abstractions like "social alienation" and "commodity fetishism." The Situationists used artistic methods known by AdBusters as "culture jamming" '' the goal of which is to effect psychic dislocation between the public and modern life itself. One famous 1968 poster declared, "Beneath the paving stones: the beach!" '' the idea being that a perfect primeval past had been paved over by a corrupt civilization, with a hint for activists to use actual paving stones as weapons against the police.

At their core, both the Situationists and the AdBusters networks steering OWS were anarchists. AdBusters contributor David Graeber was considered by many to have been the intellectual force behind the movement. Graeber has been employed as an academic anthropologist by Yale and the London School of Economics. His field of expertise is the study of primitive "gift societies" like those in Madagascar where he did his field work. Somehow his sojourn amongst these "noble savages," noted for their historic practices of cannibalism and black magic, qualified him to publish books and countless articles on economics, democracy, the history of debt and other subjects. In an essay for The Baffler, he summarized his political program as follows:

"At the moment, probably the most pressing need is simply to slow down the engines of productivity. This might seem a strange thing to say'--our knee-jerk reaction to every crisis is to assume the solution is for everyone to work even more, though of course, this kind of reaction is really precisely the problem'--but if you consider the overall state of the world, the conclusion becomes obvious. We seem to be facing two insoluble problems. On the one hand, we have witnessed an endless series of global debt crises, which have grown only more and more severe since the seventies, to the point where the overall burden of debt'--sovereign, municipal, corporate, personal'--is obviously unsustainable. On the other, we have an ecological crisis, a galloping process of climate change that is threatening to throw the entire planet into drought, floods, chaos, starvation, and war. The two might seem unrelated. But ultimately they are the same. What is debt, after all, but the promise of future productivity? Saying that global debt levels keep rising is simply another way of saying that, as a collectivity, human beings are promising each other to produce an even greater volume of goods and services in the future than they are creating now. But even current levels are clearly unsustainable. They are precisely what's destroying the planet, at an ever-increasing pace."

How mass discontent against the multi-trillion dollar bailout of JPMorganChase, Goldman Sachs and other bankrupt financial institutions was channeled into buttressing an agenda to reduce economic production (think infrastructure, cars, food, energy, etc.) may require a conspiracy theory. Suffice it to say, Graeber was and is not alone in his outlook. As Timothy Leary succeeded in getting a certain number of anti-war protestors to "turn on, tune in and drop out," OWS leadership turned righteous indignation into irrationalism. Occupy started with tremendous political potential and became something of a middle-class laughing stock for its stated demand of "no demands." What was expected to produce political reform became instead an unwashed, "leaderless" mob camping in the park, marching across bridges to nowhere, and claiming to have "changed the conversation," a change which was sadly short-lived.

Perhaps this bleak assessment is overstated, considering the media's blackout on demands within the movement '' which are said to have included hard-hitting economic issues like the 1% Wall Street Sales Tax (cited by no less than AdBusters founder Kalle Lasn and Nationalizing the Federal Reserve '' in favor of interviews with unelected leaders like Graeber, LSE colleague Naomi Klein and other foundation-funded anarchists. Chris Hedges, while not reproving anarchism per se, identified the insidious presence of "Black Bloc" anarchists as a cancer in the movement, certain to destroy any support from middle America. The OWS rank and file ultimately fell in line for ridiculous process antics like consensus government and the "human microphone," which in one infamous incident got US Congressman and civil rights hero John Lewis denied the opportunity to address a small assembly in Atlanta.

Occupying the mind: return of the "psychedelic elite"After the last Occupier went home and the parks were hosed down, OWS seemed to suffer a prolonged hangover. Despite some key victories for new legislators like Senator Elizabeth Warren, anything resembling a New Deal coalition has largely confined itself to more parochial issues like gay marriage and marijuana, with Wall Street remaining somewhat more free from public ire than in 2009-11.

During this time, elements of OWS have taken on new forms, and the first hints are emerging that the next faux-revolution is underway. OWS' rebirth, if Wall Street gets its way, will lose much of its populist veneer and will take the form of a "Magical Mystery Tour," adopting the methods used in 1968 to derail the movement against the Vietnam war with Woodstock-like mass situations (ie the Burning Man festival), psychedelic drugs, the occult and the New Age, and the loss of coming generations to social alienation and population reduction.

With a growth in the popularity of psychedelic drugs like ayahuasca, we should underscore their historical importance as tools of mass cultural control. The psychedelics that played a central role in cementing the hippies and other subcultures of the late 1960s were provided en masse by the CIA, as detailed in books like Acid Dreams. The agents behind their popularization turned out in most cases to be agents of British and American intelligence like Aldous Huxley, Timothy Leary, Ken Kesey, the Grateful Dead'--the latter of the two (Kesey and the Dead's Robert Hunter), along with others like "Unabomber" Ted Kaczynski, having been participants in the CIA's clandestine MKUltra program. Psychedelic mushrooms were popularized by R. Gordon Wasson, a vice president of public relations for JPMorgan bank, one-time chair of the elite Council on Foreign Relations, and confrere of figures like ousted CIA chief Allen Dulles. Wasson co-authored The Road to Eleusis with LSD pioneer Albert Hofmann, tracing the programmatic use of psychedelic-fueled "mystery rites" back to Ancient Greece.

Hints of psychedelia began to re-emerge during OWS. One example was the presentation of "Social Dreaming" seminars by London's notorious Tavistock Institute, where residents of OWS' "tent city" were guided through the process of collective dreaming and psychoanalysis. Tavistock figured heavily in the creation of the 1960s hippie culture, where it played a parallel role to the CIA and cutouts like the Esalen Institute.

The #WaveOfActionOn April 4, 2014, a group of former Occupiers launched the "Wave of Action" to some media fanfare. The Wave of Action, which culminates on July 4 of this year, announced its arrival with viral videos featuring voiceovers by Russell Brand, the late Terrence McKenna (another psychedelic pioneer and admitted government agent) and others. There is reason to suspect the name of the group is based on McKenna's "Timewave Zero" theory about cycles of history culminating in social transformation. Profiles of the group's organizers suggest a marked shift away from academic Marxism and anarchism, and toward New Age philosophy, psychedelic drugs and similar phenomena. Notable among the organizers:

Daniel Pinchbeck is something like the Timothy Leary of our day, and can be read and watched widely in popular media, and in association with figures like OWS' David Graeber, Russell Brand and New Age "grand dame" Barbara Marx Hubbard. Pinchbeck, the son of Jack Kerouac's paramour Joyce Johnson, is most known for his research and ideas regarding shamanism, ancient prophecy and the Amazon psychedelic ayahuasca. Ayahuasca is exploding in popularity, with impressionable 20-somethings traveling to South America by the thousands for ceremonial "trips" that are reminiscent of the aforementioned Eleusian mystery rites.

Patricia Marx Ellsberg is the wealthy daughter of toy icon Louis Marx, and wife of CIA "whistleblower" Daniel Ellsberg. Ellsberg's anti-military "Pentagon Papers" deflected attention from the CIA, including the role of the overtly satanic Phoenix Project and related operations in which CIA operatives like Ellsberg systematically mass murdered (allegedly with the aid of psychedelics and mind control) tens of thousands of North Vietnamese citizens in unspeakable fashion.

Mrs. Ellsberg is also the sister and collaborator of Pinchbeck's collaborator and likely patron Barbara Marx Hubbard, an octagenarian prophetess and sponsor of the New Age, who has been funded for decades by the Rockefeller foundation, who has run various "spiritual" programs for the United Nations, and who has issued such prophecies as:

"The choice is: Do you wish to become a natural christ, a universal human, or do you wish to die? People will either change or die. That is the choice."

"We, the elders, have been patiently waiting until the last moment before quantum transformation. The destructive one-fourth must be eliminated from the social body."

"We are in charge of God's selection process for planet Earth. He selects, we destroy. We are the riders of the Pale Horse, death...We do this for the sake of the world.

A pattern of social change to alienate and reduce the populationBased on the underwhelming reception of its 4/4/14 inaugural events, the "Wave of Action" is unlikely to produce any lasting results, but it does offer a glimpse into the program of the ruling class to destroy the New Deal once and for all, by pushing younger generations out of social struggle and into the realms of "pure imagination," where they will increasingly lose any notion of their economic rights to a decent education, employment, family, retirement, and protections from exploitation by financiers and corporate power.

Drugs '' Ayahuasca and related psychedelics loom large in the counterculture. One of the world's most popular podcasts, The Joe Rogan Experience, provices a revealing glimpse into the highly lucrative nexus of psychedelics, alternative medicine, mixed martial arts fighting, body building, pornography and New Age spirituality. Increasingly, these "shamanic" experiences are seen as pasttimes of enlightened seekers rather than recreation for burnouts. To pharmacopeia, one could add transcendental meditation, yoga (both favorites of Russell Brand), psychoanalysis and similar forms of mental catharsis.Pornography '' Pornographic films and images have been made universally available by the internet, and are being pushed into the mainstream. This has had predictable consequences on marital fidelity, premarital sex, mental health, etc. A visit to the Huffington Post website will confirm the agenda to make pornography seem like a normal part of daily life, rather than the preserve of "dirty old men." Russell Brand is an admitted sex addict, and his ''Messiah Complex'' takes ''make love not war'' to pornographic extremes.Nihilism/materialism '' Hip hop culture, pop music, Hollywood and other forms of entertainment increasingly promote mindless violence, materialism, moral ambiguity and occult themes '' even to children '' as documented amply by websites like Vigilant Citizen.''Alternative lifestyles'' '' Without wading into the waters of moral judgement on the ever-expanding array of non-traditional sexual relations, it is hard to deny the decline of the nuclear family as a lifestyle, and the attendant reduction of population. Underpopulation has become a serious crisis in countries like Japan and Russia, whose populations are both aging and reducing, with a heavy toll placed on social services and economic production.Environmentalism and the New Age '' Global warming activism was not prominent in the original Occupy movement, but plays an increasing role under groups like Wave of Action, with a New Age bent and an almost religious zeal. Young Americans have never witnessed a functioning industrial economy, and are more easily convinced than their forbears that humans amount to nothing more than a disease on the earth, and that the future must therefore be based on a reduced population of neo-pagan tribalists rather than a growing population supported by advances in science and technology.''Hacktivism'' '' The group "Anonymous," with its trademark Guy Fawkes masks (the original banker patsy), is playing a more prominent role in the formation of new political groups. Young activists have rallied around figures like Edward Snowden and Julian Assange, who represent the chimeric information economy and a general mistrust of government bureaucracy. This vein connects to the New Age intelligentsia, generally organized in groups like the World Future Society and TED Talks. Politically, the spectrum is increasingly blurred between left-anarchists and right-libertarians, neither of which group has any notion of an industrial economy and are thus susceptible to fantasies about the potential of decentralization and information technologies.Tribalism '' Demands for good government are giving way to the demand for no government. The "After Party," another group created from remnants of OWS, is claiming to represent the next American revolution, based on indigenous rights, urban gardens, alternative currencies, listening to the ''simple wisdom of children'', and similar demands. On the other end of the spectrum, libertarian supporters of Ron Paul have combined similar themes with gun fetishism and the cartoonish ''rugged'' patriotism of the John Birch Society.Know Thy EnemyThe common thread of Occupy's successors (which was to a large degree true of Occupy itself) has been the misidentification of the enemies of society, and therefore the lack of effective (if any) political demands.

As has been known since the time of Plato, our enemy is neither ourselves, "capitalism," (if taken simply to mean the private organization of resources for economic production), nor government bureaucracy, but oligarchy '' an open conspiracy of non-productive, parasitical, organized wealth. OWS at least pushed the idea of the 99% vs. the 1%, but failed to elaborate. The enemy is not "the wealthy" per se, which could simply mean an industrial entrepreneur with a net worth in the millions. Oligarchs are those benefitting from:

Financial speculation: Not just "bankers," but those involved in derivatives speculation, real estate speculation, "equity investment" (like BlackRock, State Street, Prudential, et al '' who dominate the ownership of corporate stock), leveraged buyout, etc.Cartels (oil, gas, food, mining, etc.), which are not so much industrial corporations as hedge funds using their industrial monopoly to dominate the financial markets."Disaster capitalism," like the oligarchs that crashed Russia's economy in the 1990s, the super-rich use political clout to effect ''creative destruction'' of entrenched interests, and to pick up the pieces for pennies on the dollar.Trusts and foundations '' family or personal fortunes associated with names like Walton, Koch, Rockefeller, Gates, Soros and others are able to exercise control not just of corporations, but of politics, extending even into overt political revolutions like the role of George Soros' Open Society Institute in Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine and elsewhere.If we take this to be a fair assessment of our enemy, how will we benefit politically by taking hallucinogens, indulging in sexual excess or cutting our carbon footprints? The ruling elite does not fear our ''spiritual awakening'' or our empty threats to ''go off the grid.''

Toward a real movementWhat oligarchy truly fears is an economy organized around the interests of the majority, backed by government force. It is the program of Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt, who boldy declared of oligarchy, ''they hate me, and I welcome their hatred!' Today, the program of the United Front Against Austerity is the clearest and most genuine such program, capable of wresting power from oligarchy and restoring it to the people. It is in essence an updated elaboration of Franklin D. Roosevelt's unfinished ''economic bill of rights.''

Imagination and self-exploration certainly have their place, but without a practical method to seize power in service of the greater good, what's left of Occupy Wall Street, and what seems to be coming, is essentially a self-inflicted Opium War. Our young people are being hoodwinked, detached from reality and set adrift on a sea of irrationality. It's time to get real.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 28 Jan 2017 14:37

President Trump's executive order closing the nation's borders to refugees was put into immediate effect Friday night. Refugees who were in the air on the way to the United States when the order was signed were stopped and detained at airports.

The detentions prompted legal challenges as lawyers representing two Iraqi refugees held at Kennedy Airport filed a writ of habeas corpus early Saturday in the Eastern District of New York seeking to have their clients released. At the same time, they filed a motion for class certification, in an effort to represent all refugees and immigrants who they said were being unlawfully detained at ports of entry.

Mr. Trump's order, which suspends entry of all refugees to the United States for 120 days, created a legal limbo for individuals on the way to the United States and panic for families who were awaiting their arrival.

Mr. Trump's order also stops the admission of refugees from Syria indefinitely, and it bars entry into the United States for 90 days from seven predominantly Muslim countries linked to concerns about terrorism. Those countries are Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen.

It was unclear how many refugees and immigrants were being held nationwide in the aftermath of the executive order. The complaints were filed by a prominent group including the American Civil Liberties Union, the International Refugee Assistance Project at the Urban Justice Center, the National Immigration Law Center, Yale Law School's Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization and the firm Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton.

The lawyers said that one of the Iraqis detained at Kennedy Airport, Hameed Khalid Darweesh, had worked on behalf of the U.S. government in Iraq for 10 years. The other, Haider Sameer Abdulkhaleq Alshawi, was coming to the United States to join his wife, who had worked for a U.S. contractor, and young son, the lawyers said. They said both men were detained at the airport Friday night after arriving on separate flights.

The attorneys said they were not allowed to meet with their clients, and there were tense moments as they tried to reach them.

''Who is the person we need to talk to?'' asked one of the lawyers, Mark Doss, supervising attorney at the International Refugee Assistance Project.

''Mr. President,'' said a Customs and Border Protection agent, who declined to identify himself. ''Call Mr. Trump.''

The executive order, which Mr. Trump said was part of an extreme vetting plan to keep out ''radical Islamic terrorists,'' also established a religious test for refugees from Muslim nations: He ordered that Christians and others from minority religions be granted priority over Muslims.

In the arrivals hall at Terminal 4 of Kennedy Airport, Mr. Doss and two other lawyers fought fatigue as they tried to learn the status of their clients on the other side of the security perimeter.

''We've never had an issue once one of our clients was at a port of entry in the United States,'' Mr. Doss said. ''To see people being detained indefinitely in the country that's supposed to welcome them is a total shock.''

''These are people with valid visas and legitimate refugee claims who have already been determined by the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security to be admissible and to be allowed to enter the U.S. and now are being unlawfully detained,'' Mr. Doss said.

A supervisor for Customs and Border Protection at Kennedy Airport declined to comment, referring questions to public affairs officials. Calls to officials in Washington and New York were not returned early Saturday morning.

According to the filing, Hameed Khalid Darweesh was granted a special immigrant visa on Jan. 20, the same day Mr. Trump was sworn in. He worked with the United States in Iraq in a variety of jobs '-- as an interpreter, engineer and contractor '-- over the course of roughly a decade.

Mr. Darweesh worked as an interpreter for the Army's 101st Airborne Division in Baghdad and Mosul starting shortly after the invasion of Iraq on April 1, 2003. The filing said he had been directly targeted twice for working with the American military.

A husband and father of three, he arrived at Kennedy Airport Friday evening with his family. Mr. Darweesh's wife and children made it through passport control and customs, but agents of Customs and Border Protection stopped and detained him.

Mr. Alshawi was supposed to be reunited with his wife, who has been living in Texas. The wife, who asked to be identified by her first initial of D. out of concern for her family's safety, wiped away tears as she sat on a couch in her sister's house early Saturday morning, in a Houston suburb.

The woman, a 32-year-old who was born in Iraq, met her husband while both were students at a Baghdad college. The couple has one child '-- a 7-year-old son who is in first grade. The boy was asleep in the house at 3 a.m. Eastern time Saturday, oblivious to the fact that his father was in the United States, but under detention and the possible threat of return to Iraq.

Relatives crowded the living room in their pajamas and slippers, making and receiving phone calls to and from other relatives and the refugee's lawyers. At times, D. was so emotional she had trouble speaking about her husband's predicament.

She pulled out her cellphone and flipped through her pictures while seated on the couch. She wanted to show a reporter a picture she took of her son's letter to Santa Claus. In November, at a Macy's Santa-letter display at a nearby mall, the boy wrote out his wish: ''Dear Santa: Can you bring my Dad from Sweden pls.'' He has not seen his father in three years.

''I'm really breaking down, because I don't know what to do,'' she said. ''It's not fair.''

She and her relatives had not told her son that his father was finally coming to Houston and that his wish to Santa was about to come true. ''It was a surprise for him,'' she said.

Earlier in the day on Friday, she had watched news coverage about Mr. Trump's executive order. ''My husband was already on the airplane,'' she said. ''He got to the airplane at 11 o'clock in Houston time.'' At that point, she grew worried about what impact the order would have on her husband, but she assumed it would not take effect immediately.

D., as well as her brother and her sister, asked that their full names not be used because they were concerned that publicity about the case would lead to harassment.

At about 2:30 a.m. Eastern time Saturday, Mr. Alshawi called his wife on her cellphone. They spoke for about five minutes. D. put the call on speaker so the rest of the family gathered at the house could hear. It was the first time D. and her husband spoke since he arrived at the airport in New York at about 8:30 p.m. Eastern timeFriday, she said. He flew from Stockholm to JFK Airport, and he was supposed to then fly from New York to Houston.

''He gave his package and his passport to an airport officer, and they didn't talk to him, they just put him in a room,'' she said. ''He told me that they forced him to get back to Iraq. He asked for his lawyer and to apply for an asylum case. And they told him you can't do that, you need to go back to your country.''

She said that the authorities at the airport told him that the president's signing of the executive order was the reason he could not proceed to Houston.

''They told him it's the president's decision,'' she said.

D.'s brother added of the phone call with his brother-in-law, ''He's very calm but he's, like, desperate. He said, 'They are sending me there, they are sending me there,' '' referring to Iraq.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 29 Jan 2017 13:38

TEHRAN '-- As Iranians woke on Saturday to the news that none of them would be able to enter the United States for at least 90 days, on the orders of President Trump, panic reigned.

They were turned back from flights to the United States in Tehran and in the major transfer hubs of Istanbul and Dubai. Some of those who arrived in the United States after midnight, when the decree went into effect, were held or deported, rights groups and airline representatives said.

No one, not passengers, airline representatives or even United States border control officials, seemed to know how to interpret the executive order that went into effect at midnight on Friday. Under the new policy, refugees, immigrants and almost anyone from seven countries deemed to be hotbeds of terrorism are banned from the United States for 90 days, pending a review of policies.

Officials are just interpreting the directive by themselves, said one representative for an international airline who was based in Tehran. He said the airline did not know if Iranians could fly to the United States or not.

On Saturday, three international airlines shuttling passengers between Iran and the United States '-- Emirates, Lufthansa and Qatar Airways '-- had stopped allowing Iranians with visas or even permanent residence cards to board their planes. The Qatar Airways office in Tehran confirmed that all Iranian passengers without United States passports were stopped from flying to the United States on Friday evening and sent back to Iran.

In Istanbul, during a stopover on Saturday, passengers reported that security officers had entered a plane after everybody boarded and ordered a young Iranian woman and her family to leave the aircraft.

Interactive Feature | Impacted by Trump's order?

Holders of green cards, which confer the right to live and work indefinitely in the United States, received conflicting information about whether or not they would be permitted to return to the United States. But on Saturday, the Department of Homeland Security clarified the executive order, saying it applied even to permanent residents from the seven Muslim-majority countries named in the ban: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

''It will bar green card holders,'' Gillian Christensen, the Department of Homeland Security's acting spokeswoman, told Reuters.

Many were blindsided by the decree while on vacation in Iran. ''How do I get back home now?'' said Daria Zeynalia, a green card holder who was visiting family in Iran. He had rented a house and leased a car and would be eligible for citizenship in November. ''What about my job? If I can't go back soon, I'll lose everything,'' he said.

It is unclear how many Iranians have green cards, but experts say the number runs into the hundreds of thousands.

In an online survey tracking entry challenges, two out of 112 passengers holding green cards said they were not allowed into the United States, but the reasons were unclear. Card holders can be barred, for instance, if they owe back taxes.

Others spent years preparing to study in the United States only to see their plans abruptly thwarted on Friday. About 4,000 Iranians are granted study visas to attend American universities each year, often after a long and complicated process that can take years.

Shadi Heidarifar, a philosophy student just admitted to New York University, said in a message on Twitter that she had spent three years trying to apply to universities in the United States.

''I had to work to save money, gather documents. The application fees were so expensive that a whole family could live for a month'' on them, Ms. Heidarifar wrote. When she was accepted recently, she was over the moon. ''But now my entire future is destroyed in one second.''

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 28 Jan 2017 20:12

QUEENS '-- Demonstrators gathered at Terminal 4 of JFK Airport Saturday to protest President Donald Trump's executive order that ban citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries and Syrian refugees from entering the U.S.

The emergency protest was organized outside of the international arrivals area of the terminal. Protesters began rallying about 11 a.m. and held up signs that read, ''Legal Visas = Let Them In,'' ''Let my friends in,'' ''No ban, no wall,'' and ''Refugees are welcomed here'' as they chanted ''No hate, no fear. Immigrants are welcomed here!''

The handful of people quickly grew by 1 p.m. as people took to social media to spread the word about the demonstration. Organizations including AFT Union and New York Taxi Workers Alliance publicly announced their support for the protest.

''Our 19,000-member-strong union stands firmly opposed to Donald Trump's Muslim ban. As an organization whose membership is largely Muslim, a workforce that's almost universally immigrant, and a working-class movement that is rooted in the defense of the oppressed, we say no to this inhumane and unconstitutional ban,'' the NYTWA said in a statement.

''We stand in solidarity with all protesting at JFK #Terminal4 & airports across the country. We are a country of immigrants, we stand together,'' AFT union wrote on Twitter.

Another protest at Terminal 4 is expected to take place about 6 p.m., according to AFT Union.

Earlier, lawyers representing two Iraqi refugees who were detained at the airport filed a motion to have them released. The refugees, who both have U.S. visas, were detained late Friday night when Trump's executive order went into effect.

One of the refugees was released Saturday afternoon.

Trump signed the executive order Friday afternoon that banned refugees from entering the U.S. for 120 days and ones coming from war-torn Syria indefinitely. Citizens from seven Muslim countries '-- Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan Syria and Yemen '-- are refused entry to the U.S. for 90 days.

Immediately after the executive order went into effect, immigrants who were in flight to the U.S. were detained at airports nationwide. Five people heading to JFK airport were were stopped from boarding their flight in Cairo, Egypt Friday night. They will return to Iraq, Cairo airport officials said to the Associated Press.

40.643631-73.782108

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 28 Jan 2017 20:11

MEXICO CITY '• President-elect Donald Trump has repeatedly called for Mexico to build a wall between our countries. There is indeed a way that Mexico could create a barrier between the U.S. and Mexico, one constructed exclusively on the Mexican side, with substantial benefits for both countries and the planet: a solar border.

Sunlight in the northern deserts of Mexico is more intense than in the U.S. Southwest because of the lower latitude and more favorable cloud patterns. And construction and maintenance costs for solar plants in Mexico are substantially lower. Thus, building a long series of such plants all along the Mexican side of the border could power cities on both sides faster and more cheaply than similar arrays built north of the border.

Solar energy is already being generated at lower prices than those of coal. With solar plants along vast stretches of the almost 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border on the Mexican side, a new high-voltage direct-current (HVDC) grid could be set up to transmit energy efficiently from that long, snaking array to population centers along the border. HVDC power lines lose exponentially less energy over long distances than traditional power lines. Cities that could immediately benefit include San Diego, Tijuana, Mexicali, Tucson, Phoenix, El Paso, Ciudad Juarez, San Antonio and Monterrey.

If one were to construct the equivalent of a strip of arrays one-third the width of a football field south of the entire U.S.-Mexico border, wider in some areas and narrower in others, with a wide berth allowed for populated areas and stretches of rugged terrain, sufficient energy might be produced to also supply Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Albuquerque, Dallas and Houston. For the U.S. cities, it would be a way to obtain cheaper and cleaner energy than they can from other sources.

The solar border would have a civilizing effect in a dangerous area.

A solar border would alleviate a range of binational problems. For one, it would have a civilizing effect in a dangerous area. Since solar plants use security measures to keep intruders out, the solar border would serve as a de facto virtual fence, reducing porousness of the border while producing major economic, environmental and security benefits on both sides. It would make trafficking drugs, arms and people all the more difficult for criminal cartels. In Mexico, the solar border would create a New Deal-like source of high-tech construction and technology jobs all along the border, which could absorb a significant number of would-be migrant workers on their way to cross into the U.S. illegally, at great physical risk.

Most importantly, it would make a significant contribution to the global battle against carbon emissions, since the electricity generated would be carbon neutral, and the purchase of so much solar technology would bring its price down further. The plants would be built using environmentally sensitive techniques for avoiding habitat loss for desert species.

Additionally, the grid could extend to the coasts, where ecologically sensitive desalination plants could be built for the production of fresh water, which could be pumped inland to cities and agricultural areas along the border that suffer from water shortages '• a phenomenon bound to worsen as the effects of global warming increase desertification. This would reduce tension and food security concerns that have vexed bilateral relations for decades because of the disputed water supply of the Rio Grande and other shared water sources.

Because Mexican solar power is cheaper than north of the border, international investors would have strong incentives.

Once the solar plants are installed and prove successful, additional areas in Mexico could be added to the grid, building on the accumulated know-how generated in the new workforce by the initial construction experience. Mexico has immense potential as a solar-producing country, especially in its high central plateau deserts, which provide the most favorable combination of dry, unclouded, low-latitude and relatively cool climate for solar generation. Potentially, all of Mexico could be solar-powered one day.

How to pay for it? Although it would be a major investment, the price of industrial solar generation continues to drop quickly, and because Mexican solar power is cheaper to build and maintain than comparable facilities north of the border, international investors would have strong incentives. Fortuitously, Mexico's recent constitutional reforms encourage foreign and domestic investment in the electric power sector. Construction of the solar border would go a long way toward helping Mexico achieve its mandated climate change goals, which include 35 percent renewable electricity generation by 2024. Electricity exports from Mexico to the U.S. have existed for over a century and have burgeoned in recent years, which should make international long-term loan guarantees for solar plants relatively easy to obtain.

If the initiative were framed as a big charismatic project that has the full backing of the Mexican government, garnering the admiration of the rest of the world, it would position Mexico as an exemplary world leader in combating climate change. Mexico and the U.S. would be connected by a truly beautiful wall '• a symbol of unity, visible even from space.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 29 Jan 2017 07:09

References in TextThe International Emergency Economic Powers Act, referred to in subsec. (a)(12)(A)(i)(II), (ii)(II), is title II of Pub. L. 95''223, Dec. 28, 1977, 91 Stat. 1626, which is classified generally to chapter 35 (§'¯1701 et seq.) of Title 50, War and National Defense. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1701 of Title 50 and Tables.

This chapter, referred to in subsecs. (b)(1) and (c)(7)(B)(iv), was in the original, ''this Act'', meaning act June 27, 1952, ch. 477, 66 Stat. 163, known as the Immigration and Nationality Act, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1101 of this title and Tables.

Amendments2015'--Pub. L. 114''113, §'¯209(b)(1), substituted ''electronic system for travel authorization'' for ''electronic travel authorization system'' wherever appearing.

Pub. L. 114''113, §'¯209(a), substituted ''Secretary of Homeland Security'' for ''Attorney General'' wherever appearing, except in subsec. (c)(11)(B).

Subsec. (a)(3). Pub. L. 114''113, §'¯202(a), amended par. (3) generally. Prior to amendment, par. (3) related to machine readable passport requirement.

Subsec. (a)(11). Pub. L. 114''113, §'¯209(b)(2), substituted ''electronic system for travel authorization'' for ''electronic travel authorization system'' in heading.

Subsec. (a)(12). Pub. L. 114''113, §'¯203, added par. (12).

Subsec. (c)(2)(B). Pub. L. 114''113, §'¯202(b), amended subpar. (B) generally. Prior to amendment, subpar. (B) related to machine readable passport program.

Subsec. (c)(2)(C)(iii). Pub. L. 114''113, §'¯205(a)(1), substituted '','the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the Committee on Homeland Security'' for ''and the Committee on International Relations'' and '','the Committee on Foreign Relations, and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs'' for ''and the Committee on Foreign Relations''.

Subsec. (c)(2)(D). Pub. L. 114''113, §'¯204(a), substituted ''not later than 24 hours after becoming aware of the theft or loss'' for ''within a strict time limit''.

Subsec. (c)(2)(F). Pub. L. 114''113, §'¯204(c), inserted before period at end '','and fully implements such agreement''.

Subsec. (c)(2)(G). Pub. L. 114''113, §'¯204(b), added subpar. (G).

Subsec. (c)(5)(A)(i)(III). Pub. L. 114''113, §'¯205(a)(2)(A)(i), (ii), inserted ''the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,'' after ''the Committee on Foreign Affairs,'' and ''the Select Committee on Intelligence'' after ''the Committee on Foreign Relations,''.

Subsec. (c)(5)(A)(i)(V). Pub. L. 114''113, §'¯205(a)(2)(A)(iii)''(C), added subcl. (V).

Subsec. (c)(12). Pub. L. 114''113, §'¯206, added par. (12).

Subsec. (f)(6), (7). Pub. L. 114''113, §'¯204(d), added pars. (6) and (7).

Subsec. (h)(3). Pub. L. 114''113, §'¯209(b)(3), substituted ''Electronic system for travel authorization'' for ''Electronic travel authorization system'' in heading.

Subsec. (h)(3)(C)(i). Pub. L. 114''113, §'¯207(a)(1), inserted ''or shorten the period of eligibility under any such determination'' after ''any such determination''.

Subsec. (h)(3)(D) to (F). Pub. L. 114''113, §'¯207(a)(2), added subpars. (D) to (F) and struck out former subpar. (D) which required submission of report regarding the implementation of the automated electronic travel authorization system.

2014'--Subsec. (h)(3)(B)(iii). Pub. L. 113''235, §'¯605(b), substituted ''September 30, 2020'' for ''September 30, 2015''.

2010'--Subsec. (h)(3)(B). Pub. L. 111''145, §'¯9(h), formerly §'¯9(e), as renumbered by Pub. L. 113''235, §'¯606(1), amended subpar. (B) generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: ''The Secretary of Homeland Security may charge a fee for the use of the System, which shall be'--

''(i) set at a level that will ensure recovery of the full costs of providing and administering the System; and

''(ii) available to pay the costs incurred to administer the System.''

Subsec. (h)(3)(B)(ii). Pub. L. 111''198, §'¯5(a)(1), made technical amendment to reference in original act which appears in text as reference to ''subsection (d) of section 2131 of title 22''.

Subsec. (h)(3)(B)(iii). Pub. L. 111''198, §'¯5(a)(2), substituted ''September 30, 2015.'' for ''September 30, 2014.''

2007'--Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 110''53, §'¯711(d)(1)(A)(i), designated concluding provisions as par. (10) and inserted heading.

Subsec. (a)(11). Pub. L. 110''53, §'¯711(d)(1)(A)(ii), added par. (11).

Subsec. (c)(2)(D). Pub. L. 110''53, §'¯711(d)(1)(B)(i)(I), amended heading and text of subpar. (D) generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: ''The government of the country certifies that it reports to the United States Government on a timely basis the theft of blank passports issued by that country.''

Subsec. (c)(2)(E), (F). Pub. L. 110''53, §'¯711(d)(1)(B)(i)(II), added subpars. (E) and (F).

Subsec. (c)(5)(A)(i). Pub. L. 110''53, §'¯711(d)(1)(B)(ii)(I), substituted ''Secretary of Homeland Security'' for ''Attorney General'' in introductory provisions.

Subsec. (c)(5)(A)(i)(III). Pub. L. 110''53, §'¯711(d)(1)(B)(ii)(II)(bb)(AA), substituted '','the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the Committee on Homeland Security,'' for ''and the Committee on International Relations'' and '','the Committee on Foreign Relations, and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs'' for ''and the Committee on Foreign Relations''.

Subsec. (c)(5)(A)(i)(IV). Pub. L. 110''53, §'¯711(d)(1)(B)(ii)(II)(aa), (bb)(BB), (cc), added subcl. (IV).

Subsec. (c)(5)(A)(ii), (iii), (B)(i), (iii). Pub. L. 110''53, §'¯711(d)(1)(B)(ii)(I), substituted ''Secretary of Homeland Security'' for ''Attorney General'' wherever appearing.

Subsec. (c)(5)(B)(iv). Pub. L. 110''53, §'¯711(d)(1)(B)(ii)(III), added cl. (iv).

Subsec. (c)(8), (9). Pub. L. 110''53, §'¯711(c), added pars. (8) and (9).

Subsec. (c)(10), (11). Pub. L. 110''53, §'¯711(d)(1)(B)(iii), added pars. (10) and (11).

Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 110''53, §'¯711(d)(1)(C), substituted ''Secretary of Homeland Security'' for ''Attorney General'' in first sentence and inserted at end ''The Secretary of Homeland Security may not waive any eligibility requirement under this section unless the Secretary notifies, with respect to the House of Representatives, the Committee on Homeland Security, the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the Committee on Appropriations, and with respect to the Senate, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on Foreign Relations, and the Committee on Appropriations not later than 30 days before the effective date of such waiver.''

Subsec. (f)(5). Pub. L. 110''53, §'¯711(d)(1)(D), substituted ''Secretary of Homeland Security'' for ''Attorney General'' in two places and ''theft or loss of passports'' for ''theft of blank passports''.

Subsec. (h)(3). Pub. L. 110''53, §'¯711(d)(1)(E), added par. (3).

Subsec. (i). Pub. L. 110''53, §'¯711(d)(1)(F), added subsec. (i).

2002'--Subsec. (c)(2)(D). Pub. L. 107''173, §'¯307(a)(1), added subpar. (D).

Subsec. (c)(5)(A)(i). Pub. L. 107''173, §'¯307(a)(2), substituted ''2 years'' for ''5 years'' in introductory provisions.

Subsec. (f)(5). Pub. L. 107''173, §'¯307(a)(3), added par. (5).

2001'--Subsec. (a)(3). Pub. L. 107''56, §'¯417(d), which directed the substitution of ''(A) In general.'--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), on or after'' for ''On or after'' and the addition of subpar. (B), was executed making the substitution for ''On and after'' and adding subpar. (B) to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

Pub. L. 107''56, §'¯417(c), substituted ''2003,'' for ''2007,''.

2000'--Pub. L. 106''396, §'¯101(a)(1), in section catchline struck out ''pilot'' before ''program''.

Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 106''396, §§'¯101(a)(2)(A), (B), 403(c), struck out ''pilot'' before ''program'' in heading and two places in introductory provisions and inserted concluding provisions.

Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 106''396, §'¯101(a)(2)(C), substituted ''program'' for ''pilot program period (as defined in subsection (e) of this section)''.

Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 106''396, §'¯101(a)(2)(D), in heading struck out ''pilot'' before ''program''.

Subsec. (a)(2)(A). Pub. L. 106''396, §'¯201, inserted '','either on its own or in conjunction with one or more other countries that are described in subparagraph (B) and that have established with it a common area for immigration admissions,'' after ''to extend)''.

Subsec. (a)(3), (4). Pub. L. 106''396, §'¯202(a), added par. (3) and redesignated former par. (3) as (4). Former par. (4) redesignated (5).

Subsec. (a)(5). Pub. L. 106''396, §'¯403(a), substituted '','including any carrier conducting operations under part 135 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, or a noncommercial aircraft that is owned or operated by a domestic corporation conducting operations under part 91 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations which has entered into an agreement with the Attorney General pursuant to subsection (e). The Attorney General is authorized to require a carrier conducting operations under part 135 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, or a domestic corporation conducting operations under part 91 of that title, to give suitable and proper bond, in such reasonable amount and containing such conditions as the Attorney General may deem sufficient to ensure compliance with the indemnification requirements of this section, as a term of such an agreement'' for ''which has entered into an agreement with the Service to guarantee transport of the alien out of the United States if the alien is found inadmissible or deportable by an immigration officer''.

Pub. L. 106''396, §'¯202(a)(1), redesignated par. (4) as (5). Former par. (5) redesignated (6).

Subsec. (a)(6), (7). Pub. L. 106''396, §'¯202(a)(1), designated pars. (5) and (6) as (6) and (7), respectively. Former par. (7) redesignated (8).

Subsec. (a)(8). Pub. L. 106''396, §'¯403(b), inserted ''or the alien is arriving at the port of entry on an aircraft operated under part 135 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, or a noncommercial aircraft that is owned or operated by a domestic corporation conducting operations under part 91 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations'' after ''regulations''.

Pub. L. 106''396, §'¯202(a)(1), designated par. (7) as (8).

Subsec. (a)(9). Pub. L. 106''396, §'¯203(a), added par. (9).

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 106''396, §'¯101(a)(3), struck out ''pilot'' before ''program'' in introductory provisions.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 106''396, §'¯101(a)(4)(A), in heading struck out ''pilot'' before ''program''.

Subsec. (c)(1). Pub. L. 106''396, §'¯101(a)(4)(B), struck out ''pilot'' before ''program''.

Subsec. (c)(2). Pub. L. 106''396, §'¯101(a)(4)(C), in introductory provisions, substituted ''subsection (f)'' for ''subsection (g)'' and struck out ''pilot'' before ''program''.

Subsec. (c)(2)(B). Pub. L. 106''396, §'¯202(b), amended heading and text of subpar. (B) generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: ''The government of the country certifies that it has or is in the process of developing a program to issue machine-readable passports to its citizens.''

Subsec. (c)(2)(C). Pub. L. 106''396, §'¯204(a), amended heading and text of subpar. (C) generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: ''The Attorney General determines that the United States law enforcement interests would not be compromised by the designation of the country.''

Subsec. (c)(3). Pub. L. 106''396, §'¯101(a)(4)(D)(i), struck out ''(within the pilot program period)'' after ''fiscal year'' in introductory provisions.

Subsec. (c)(3)(A). Pub. L. 106''396, §'¯101(a)(4)(D)(ii), struck out ''pilot'' before ''program'' in two places in introductory provisions.

Subsec. (c)(3)(B). Pub. L. 106''396, §'¯101(a)(4)(D)(iii), struck out ''pilot'' before ''program'' in introductory provisions.

Subsec. (c)(5). Pub. L. 106''396, §'¯204(b), added par. (5).

Subsec. (c)(6). Pub. L. 106''396, §'¯206, added par. (6).

Subsec. (c)(7). Pub. L. 106''396, §'¯207, added par. (7).

Subsec. (e)(1). Pub. L. 106''396, §§'¯101(a)(5)(A), 403(d)(1)(A), in introductory provisions, substituted ''carrier (including any carrier conducting operations under part 135 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations) or a domestic corporation conducting operations under part 91 of that title'' for ''carrier'' in two places and struck out ''pilot'' before ''program''.

Subsec. (e)(1)(B). Pub. L. 106''396, §'¯101(a)(5)(B), struck out ''pilot'' before ''program''.

Subsec. (e)(1)(D). Pub. L. 106''396, §'¯205(b), added subpar. (D).

Subsec. (e)(2). Pub. L. 106''396, §'¯403(d)(1), substituted ''carrier (including any carrier conducting operations under part 135 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations) or a domestic corporation conducting operations under part 91 of that title'' for ''carrier'' and ''failure by a carrier (including any carrier conducting operations under part 135 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations) or a domestic corporation conducting operations under part 91 of that title'' for ''carrier's failure''.

Subsec. (e)(3). Pub. L. 106''396, §'¯403(d)(2), added par. (3).

Subsec. (f). Pub. L. 106''396, §'¯101(a)(6), redesignated subsec. (g) as (f) and struck out heading and text of former subsec. (f). Text read as follows: ''For purposes of this section, the term 'pilot program period' means the period beginning on October 1, 1988, and ending on April 30, 2000.''

Subsec. (f)(1)(A), (C). Pub. L. 106''396, §'¯101(a)(7)(A), (B), struck out ''pilot'' before ''program''.

Subsec. (f)(2) to (4). Pub. L. 106''396, §'¯101(a)(7)(C)''(E), substituted ''as a program country'' for ''as a pilot program country'' in two places in par. (2)(A) and struck out ''pilot'' before ''program'' in pars. (3) and (4)(A).

Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 106''396, §'¯203(b), added subsec. (g). Former subsec. (g) redesignated (f).

Subsec. (h). Pub. L. 106''396, §'¯205(a), added subsec. (h).

1998'--Subsec. (c)(2). Pub. L. 105''173, §'¯3, reenacted heading without change and amended text generally. Prior to amendment, text consisted of introductory provisions and subpars. (A) to (D) relating to low nonimmigrant visa refusal rate for previous 2-year period, low nonimmigrant visa refusal rate for each of 2 previous years, machine readable passport program, and law enforcement interests.

Subsec. (f). Pub. L. 105''173, §'¯1, substituted ''2000'' for ''1998''.

1997'--Subsec. (f). Pub. L. 105''119 reenacted subsec. heading without change and amended text generally, substituting ''April 30, 1998'' for ''September 30, 1997''.

1996'--Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 104''208, §'¯635(a)(1), in introductory provisions, substituted ''Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of State'' for ''Attorney General and the Secretary of State, acting jointly''.

Subsec. (a)(2)(B). Pub. L. 104''208, §'¯635(c)(3), struck out ''or is designated as a pilot program country with probationary status under subsection (g) of this section'' after ''subsection (c)''.

Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 104''208, §'¯308(e)(9), substituted ''removal of'' for ''deportation against''.

Subsec. (c)(1). Pub. L. 104''208, §'¯635(a)(2), substituted ''Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of State,'' for ''Attorney General and the Secretary of State acting jointly''.

Subsec. (c)(3)(A)(i). Pub. L. 104''208, §'¯308(d)(4)(F), substituted ''denied admission at the time of arrival'' for ''excluded from admission''.

Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 104''208, §'¯635(a)(3), substituted ''Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of State'' for ''Attorney General and the Secretary of State, acting jointly''.

Subsec. (f). Pub. L. 104''208, §'¯635(b), substituted ''1997.'' for ''1996''.

Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 104''208, §'¯635(c)(1), amended heading and text of subsec. (g) generally. Prior to amendment, text provided authority for Attorney General and Secretary of State to designate countries as pilot program countries with probationary status.

Subsec. (g)(4)(A)(i). Pub. L. 104''208, §'¯308(d)(4)(F), substituted ''denied admission at the time of arrival'' for ''excluded from admission''.

1994'--Subsec. (a)(2)(B). Pub. L. 103''416, §'¯211(1), inserted before period at end ''or is designated as a pilot program country with probationary status under subsection (g) of this section''.

Subsec. (c)(2). Pub. L. 103''416, §'¯211(3), substituted ''Except as provided in subsection (g)(4) of this section, a country'' for ''A country''.

Subsec. (f). Pub. L. 103''416, §'¯210, substituted ''1996'' for ''1995.''.

Pub. L. 103''415 substituted ''1995'' for ''1994''.

Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 103''416, §'¯211(2), added subsec. (g).

1991'--Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 102''232, §'¯307(l)(3), substituted ''paragraph (7)(B)(i)(II)'' for ''paragraph (26)(B)''.

Subsec. (a)(4). Pub. L. 102''232, §'¯303(a)(1)(A), in heading substituted ''into the United States'' for ''by sea or air''.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 102''232, §'¯303(a)(1)(B), made technical amendment to heading.

Subsec. (e)(1). Pub. L. 102''232, §'¯303(a)(2), substituted ''subsection (a)(4)'' for ''subsection (a)(4)(C)''.

1990'--Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 101''649, §'¯201(a)(1), inserted '','and presents a passport issued by,'' after ''is a national of''.

Subsec. (a)(3). Pub. L. 101''649, §'¯201(a)(2), in heading substituted reference to immigration forms for reference to entry control and waiver forms, and in text substituted ''completes such immigration form as the Attorney General shall establish'' for '''--

''(A) completes such immigration form as the Attorney General shall establish under subsection (b)(3) of this section, and

''(B) executes a waiver of review and appeal described in subsection (b)(4) of this section''.

Subsec. (a)(4). Pub. L. 101''649, §'¯201(a)(3), added par. (4) and struck out former par. (4) which waived visa requirement for certain aliens having round-trip transportation tickets.

Subsec. (a)(7). Pub. L. 101''649, §'¯201(a)(4), added par. (7).

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 101''649, §'¯201(a)(5), redesignated subsec. (b)(4) as subsec. (b) and subpars. (A) and (B) as pars. (1) and (2), respectively, and struck out subsec. (b) heading ''Conditions before pilot program can be put into operation'' and pars. (1) to (3) which related to prior notice to Congress, automated data arrival and departure system, and visa waiver information form, respectively.

Subsec. (c)(1). Pub. L. 101''649, §'¯201(a)(6)(A), substituted in heading, ''In general'' for ''Up to 8 countries'' and in text substituted ''any country as a pilot program country if it meets the requirements of paragraph (2)'' for ''up to eight countries as pilot program countries for purposes of the pilot program''.

Subsec. (c)(2). Pub. L. 101''649, §'¯201(a)(6)(B), substituted ''Qualifications'' for ''Initial qualifications'' in heading and ''A country'' for ''For the initial period described in paragraph (4), a country'' in introductory provisions, and added subpars. (C) and (D).

Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 101''649, §'¯201(a)(7), added subsec. (d). Former subsec. (d) redesignated (e).

Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 101''649, §'¯201(a)(7), (8), redesignated subsec. (d) as (e) and added subpar. (C) at end of par. (1). Former subsec. (e) redesignated (f).

Subsec. (f). Pub. L. 101''649, §'¯201(a)(7), (9), redesignated subsec. (e) as (f) and substituted ''on October 1, 1988, and ending on September 30, 1994'' for ''at the end of the 30-day period referred to in subsection (b)(1) of this section and ending on the last day of the third fiscal year which begins after such 30-day period''.

1988'--Pub. L. 100''525, §'¯2(p)(1), made technical amendment to directory language of Pub. L. 99''603, §'¯313(a), which enacted this section.

Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 100''525, §'¯2(p)(2), substituted ''hereinafter'' for ''hereafter''.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 29 Jan 2017 03:20

Ice cream, you scream, we'll all scream when dairy prices start skyrocketing in President Donald Trump's America.

The dairy industry depends on foreign-born workers, but if immigrant workers are forced out of the country like Trump proposes they should be, there could be dire consequences.

Losing immigrant workers in the dairy industry would have a "ripple effect" that would impact the price of milk, cheese, ice cream and other dairy products, Mark Stephenson, director of Dairy Policy Analysis at University of Wisconsin, Madison, said in a phone interview. Dairy farmers depend on immigrant labor to keep farms running smoothly.

A dairy farm in the USSource: Regina Garcia Cano/AP"Over the last 30 years, we've had many more immigrants filling positions on farms that had previously been filled by family members," Stephenson said, explaining that legal and illegal immigrants make up roughly half the dairy labor force.

Retail milk prices could increase by as much as 90% '-- National Federation of Milk Producers

In Wisconsin, 60% of dairy farm workers are undocumented, Bloomberg reported. These workers aren't taking away jobs from Americans, Gordon Speirs, a farmer from Brillion and president of the state's Dairy Business Association told Bloomberg, explaining that there's a critical need for people to work these kinds of jobs.

"The dairy farmers are desperate for labor right now," Jerry Dryer, a dairy market analyst who's worked in the industry for more than 45 years, said in a phone interview. "They can't find enough people to work right now, let alone have current employees deported."

The consequences of a labor force without immigrantsR milk prices could increase by as much as 90% if the U.S. had no immigrant labor, a 2015 study commissioned by the National Federation of Milk Producers (NFMP) noted. If that did happen, here's how much some of Americans' most favorite dairy products would cost.

Data taken from the USDA; numbers reflect change in price if product cost 90% moreSource: Mic/USDA/ShutterstockData taken from the USDA; numbers reflect change in price if product cost 90% moreSource: Mic/USDA/ShutterstockData taken from the USDA; numbers reflect change in price if product cost 90% moreSource: Mic/USDA/ShutterstockThese numbers are, of course, just an estimate. Stephenson said that a 90% price increase sounds high. "Even if labor prices had to double, I can't image that it would double the cost of milk," he said.

Dyer disagreed. "You would certainly see a doubling [in milk prices]," he said, explaining that there would even be empty milk shelves if there were total loss of immigrant labor and milk production shrunk by a quarter, as noted in the National Milk Producers Federation study.

Just how much does labor factor into the cost of producing milk? According to data provided by over 400 dairy farms to the University of Wisconsin, Madison, labor costs are roughly 10% of total costs, Stephenson noted.

"It would certainly be a disruption for quite a period of time," Stephenson said when asked what the dairy industry would be like with no immigrants. "Either we have to entice people out of other workforces," or farmers must invest in expensive automatic milking machines, he noted.

A dairy farm in the USSource: Regina Garcia Cano/APBut rising milk prices aren't the only thing putting cheese and ice cream prices at risk. "All these trade deals are in jeopardy ... sugar, vanilla, chocolate, anything we import, those prices could go through the ceiling if we interrupt international trade," Dyer said.

Plus, other policies proposed by Trump could spell disaster for the dairy industry. Mexico, which is responsible for importing U.S. milk supply, could potentially cease importing American dairy "as retaliation for our shenanigans at the border," Dyer noted. Doesn't seem like a lot? In 12 months, Mexico imported 648 million pounds of milk, 199 million pounds of cheese, 22 million pounds of butter, 19 million pounds of whey products from Americans, Dyer noted. Mexico has already stated it will boycott and retaliate against Trump's proposals, Mic previously reported.

A domino effect of jobs lostDyer expects that if dairy prices do increase or dairy production falls, there will be a domino effect that decreases jobs in multiple sectors. "Its not just the immigrant who loses his job, it's the guy who hauls his milk to the factory, the cheesemaker, the retail clerk who sells the cheese," he said.

Even though Trump's trying to put "America First," his anti-immigrant agenda could dry up dairy jobs in a big way '-- and by the time his policies are enacted, almost everyone will be crying over spilled milk.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Fri, 27 Jan 2017 23:34

The precious environmental snowflakes at the Environmental Protection Agency are melting down due to Donald Trump's ascendancy, and a picture taken from inside the agency reveals how the EPA is desperately trying to ice the employees before they turn into simple puddles on the floor:

Yup, you saw that clearly. The EPA is helping its employees ''deal with change.''

One suspects that the EPA is not referring to the problems of too many nickels and dimes in the employees' pockets.

Nope. That sign may have been posted after the former head of President Donald Trump's transition team at the EPA, Myron Ebell, told AP on Thursday that Trump will likely cut significant numbers of jobs at the EPA. Ebell stated, "Let's aim for half and see how it works out, and then maybe we'll want to go further,'' adding, "President Trump said during the campaign that he would like to abolish the EPA, or 'leave a little bit. I think the administration is likely to start proposing cuts to the 15,000 staff, because the fact is that a huge amount of the work of the EPA is actually done by state agencies. It's not clear why so many employees are needed at the federal level."

Ebell also asserted that it was reasonable to expect Trump to cut roughly $1 billion from the EPA's roughly $8 billion annual budget.

Former Republican EPA Administrator William K. Reilly tried to calm the waters roiled by Ebell, countering, "I would tell the EPA staff that, in my experience, transition teams often have zero influence. They shouldn't be taken that seriously. They're just ideologues. They don't work for and are not even known to the incoming cabinet."

But as the poet John Donne might have warned the EPA employees, ''Never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee."

{{title}} {{#each authors}} {{this}} {{/each}}

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 28 Jan 2017 20:40

Oleg Erovinkin is suspected of being Brit spy Christopher Steele's key source behind widely discredited allegations against President Trump

A FORMER KGB spy chief suspected of helping Brit spook Christopher Steele compile the Trump 'dirty dossier' has been found dead in mysterious circumstances.

Oleg Erovinkin, described as a key source behind the widely discredited document, was found dead in the back of his car in Moscow on Boxing Day.

Oleg Erovinkin, suspected of being a key source in the compiling discredited dossier, has been found deadFormer MI6 spook Christopher Steele, uncovered as the author of the dossier, is still in hidingMedia reports in Russia suggest his death was the result of foul play, reports the Telegraph.

A former general in the intelligence agency the KBG and its successor the FSB, Erovinkin was reportedly a key aide to former deputy prime minister Igor Sechin.

Erovinkin acted as a 'go-between' for Russian Presdident Vladimir Putin and Sechin who is now head of the state-owned oil company Rosneft, it has been reported.

VLADIMIR PIMPINPutin insists Russia's prostitutes are the 'best in the world' during bizarre press conference

'IF HE'S BRITISH, YOU'VE GOT PROBLEMS'Trump demands UK probe ex-MI6 spy who wrote 'dirty dossier' alleging hooker romps

'WAS THIS LEAKER OF FAKE NEWS?'Trump lashes out at CIA boss and questions whether he was behind 'dirty dossier' leak

'it's just gossip'Ex-MI6 spy Christopher Steele charged £130,000 for Trump 'dirty dossier' and 'sexed it up

'SLEAZEBAGS'Furious Donald Trump slams political rivals over 'fake news' dirty dossier

RETURN OF THE KGB 'HONEY TRAP'?Brit spy at centre of Trump 'dirty dossier' rumpus was taught secrets of Putin's sex tape stings by Russian defector Litvinenko who was murdered by radioactive tea

'A NATIONAL EMBARRASSMENT'BBC slammed for backing claims of SECOND Russian 'dirty dossier' on Trump

Sechin was named several times in the dossier which contained lurid and unverified allegations against President Donald Trump.

Former MI6 spy Steele reportedly claimed that he had a source close to Sechin in an intelligence report from July last year.

Erovinkin's death has prompted speculation that it was linked to the sensational document, reports the Telegraph.

Russian news agency RIA Novosti news agency reports his body was ''found in a black Lexus'... a large-scale investigation has been commenced in the area.

''Erovinkin's body was sent to the FSB morgue''.

EPA

President Trump slammed the dossier when it was released earlier this monthReuters

Erovinkin was allegedly acted as a link between oil boss Igor Sechin and President Vladimir PutinEx-MI6 agent Christopher Steele in hiding after Donald Trump dossierWhile no cause of death has been confirmed, some reports have claimed he died as a result of a heart attack.

Christo Grozev, an expert in Russian espionage, writes in his blog that he believes Erovinkin was the key source in Steele's dossier.

He also claims he has ''no doubt'' that Putin would have had the document on his desk at the time of Erovinkin's death.

Steele, 52, is still in hiding after being revealed as the author of the explosive dossier which was published in full by Buzzfeed earlier this month.

The former spook was reportedly hired by a US political research firm to investigate Trump on behalf of 'unidentified Republicans' who wanted to derail his White House bid.

He then allegedly wrote a 35-page report consisting of memos compiled before and after the November 8 election '' which was later partly funded by Democrats as well as the anti-Trump Republicans.

A furious Trump let rip at his first press conference since his shock election victory, slamming the dossier as ''fake''.

Father-of-four Steele reportedly fled his £1.4million Surrey mansion 'fearing for his life' after giving his pet cat to his neighbour.

Media gather at firm of ex-MI-6 agent, who authored Trump Russia dossierWe pay for your stories! Do you have a story for The Sun Online news team? Email us at tips@the-sun.co.uk or call 0207 782 4368

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 28 Jan 2017 23:08

A senior official in the Russian cyberintelligence department that American officials say oversaw last year's election hacking has been arrested in Moscow on charges of treason, a Russian newspaper reported Wednesday.

The arrest of Sergei Mikhailov, a senior officer of the Federal Security Service, or F.S.B., the main successor agency to the K.G.B., is a rare instance of turmoil in the country's usually shadowy cybersecurity apparatus slipping into public view.

Mr. Mikhailov served in the F.S.B.'s Center for Information Security, the agency's cyberintelligence branch, which has been implicated in the American election hacking. But it is not clear whether the arrest was related to those intrusions.

He was detained along with one of Russia's leading private-sector cybersecurity experts, Ruslan Stoyanov, the head of computer incident response investigations at the Kaspersky Lab, which makes antivirus programs.

The company confirmed in a statement that Mr. Stoyanov had been arrested, but said his arrest ''has nothing to do with Kaspersky Lab and its operations.''

Still, the arrests of the men, who had cooperated in Russia to prosecute cybercriminals, shed light on the intersection of cybercrime, private antivirus companies and the Russian security services.

Western cybersecurity analysts have said there are indications that the security services recruited among criminal hackers to carry out politicized computer intrusions ahead of last summer's hacking of the Democratic National Committee in the United States, giving the hackers impunity to commit financially motivated attacks in exchange for their expertise.

The arrest raised the possibility that Mr. Mikhailov and Mr. Stoyanov had interfered in this cooperation. The newspaper article, in Kommersant, which cited unidentified sources in Moscow's technology industry and the F.S.B., said the treason charges related to work on criminal hacking investigations.

Alternatively, the detention of an official who would have been in a position to engage in the election hacking in America could indicate a good-will gesture to the United States, which has penalized Russia for the electoral meddling.

American intelligence agencies accused the F.S.B. and another Russian agency, the military's Main Intelligence Directorate, or G.R.U., of hacking the Democratic National Committee and other electoral targets.

The sanctions targeted the two Russian intelligence agencies. But private American cybersecurity investigators say the F.S.B., where Mr. Mikhailov was the second-most senior figure in the Center for Information Security, operated a group nicknamed Cozy Bear that stole data but never released it. The G.R.U., the American cybersleuths say, operated a group called Fancy Bear that stole electronic data and released it in an effort to help Donald J. Trump win the presidential election.

If confirmed, the arrest would be one of the highest-profile detentions for treason within the F.S.B. since the breakup of the Soviet Union.

In another indication of high-level turmoil over cyberintelligence issues within the security agency, Kommersant reported on Jan. 13 that the director of the Center for Information Security, Andrei Gerasimov, would be fired. His termination was related to the investigation into the agency's cooperation with Kaspersky on criminal hacking cases.

Mr. Gerasimov, who has led the Center for Information Security since 2009, was described as building close ties with companies like the Kaspersky Lab as an element in Russia's cybersecurity policy. He is also the deputy director for counterintelligence at the F.S.B.

The F.S.B. did not respond to an email query about the arrests.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 29 Jan 2017 02:43

What's New2016 Electoral Reform BillsPosted by Elliot Louthen on February 18, 2016Updated on February 26, 2016

2016 is shaping up to be a promising legislative year for election reform. Just a few weeks into this year's session, state legislators have introduced dozens of bills to advance electoral reform, illustrating the broad impact of FairVote's thought leadership.

We separately covered the impressive progress ranked choice voting has made in a total of 13 states, but states are moving forward on a variety of other innovations as well. From improving voter registration to lowering the voting age to moving closer to a National Popular Vote. The sheer number is testament to the progress of these ideas and the evolving debate to improve our political system, especially at the state level.

Engaging young people in our political process is also a key issue, as eight states consider pre-registration of soon-to-be eligible voters and three states (including Iowa) weigh allowing seventeen year olds to participate in primaries if they will be eighteen by the general election. Legislators in both California and Washington DC have sparked a conversation around lowering the voting age to sixteen through a state constitutional amendment and district bill respectively.

The National Popular Vote interstate compact has legislation in four states, promoting dialogue on reform as the presidential campaign cycle heats up throughout 2016. Oregon and California both adopted automatic voter registration last year, and this year, at least eleven new states will consider registering eligible voters automatically.

As a thought leader on all these issues, FairVote is looking forward to these bills progressing and hopefully watching other states follow in their footsteps of improving our democracy.

Automatic Voter Registration

Arizona (HB2097/SB1007/SB1392): registers citizens to vote when applying or reapplying for a driver's license unless they opt out

Hawaii (HB1593/HB1633/SB2214/SB2259): requires qualified applicants for a new or renewed driver's license or civil identification card to either provide information to automatically register the applicant to vote or to clearly decline to register to vote

Massachusetts (HB3937): automatically registers eligible voters and enhancing safeguards against fraud

Maryland (SB350): universal voter registration act

Missouri (HB1719/HB2192):Requires the Secretary of State to establish a system for automatic voter registration

New Jersey (AB1944): automatically registers or updates voter registration as part of driver's license application or renewal

New Mexico (SB2): automatic driver's license voter registration

New York (AB5972/SB2538): enacts the "voter empowerment act of New York" to streamline the process for registering to vote

Vermont (HB458): automatic voter registration through motor vehicle driver's license applications

Washington (HB2682/SB6379): provides automatic voter registration at qualified voter registration agencies

West Virginia (HB4401): provides that any person with a West Virginia driver's license or an official identification card is automatically registered to vote

Voter Pre-Registration

Iowa (SF2142): lowers the age at which a person may register to vote and the age at which a registered voter is eligible to vote in a primary election

Missouri (HB2280): establishes a procedure for voter pre-registration for persons ages 15 to 18

New Jersey (SB832): permits voter registration of certain persons at age 17 for voting at next election occurring on or after 18th birthday (Passed)

New York (A07919/S01569): authorizes persons 16 years of age or older to register to vote

Oklahoma (SB999): allows 16 year olds to preregister to vote

Virginia (HB292): preregistration for persons age 16 or older

Washington (HB2707/SB6340): voter preregistration of persons seventeen years of age including designating voter registration locations and voter preregistration locations

West Virginia (HB4233): reduces the age from eighteen years to sixteen years of persons permitted to register to vote

17 Year Old Voting in Primaries

Iowa (HF2145/SF2142): allows a registered voter to vote in a primary if the elector will be eighteen by the date of the general election

New Mexico (HB138): allows persons who are seventeen years old and who will be eighteen by the day of the general election to vote in the primary election (passed legislature and on governor's desk)Utah (HB70): allows an individual who is 17 to vote in a regular primary election if the individual will be 18 by the general election (passed first committee vote unanimously)

Lowered Voting Age

California (ACA7): authorizes a person who is at least 16 years of age and a resident of the state to vote in a school or community college district governing board election in which that person would be qualified to vote based on residence

Washington DC (B21-0468): reduces the eligible voting age to 16 years of age for all elections

National Popular Vote

Alaska (HB348): adopts the interstate compact for NPVGeorgia (HB929): adopts the interstate compact for NPV

Image source: SketchPort

6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 240 ' Takoma Park, MD 20912 ' 301-270-4616 ' info@fairvote.org ' Contact us

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 29 Jan 2017 04:41

The Smithsonian Institution ( smith-SOE-nee-Én), established in 1846 "for the increase and diffusion of knowledge," is a group of museums and research centers administered by the Government of the United States.[1] Originally organized as the "United States National Museum," that name ceased to exist as an administrative entity in 1967.[2] Termed "the nation's attic"[3] for its eclectic holdings of 138 million items,[4] the Institution's nineteen museums, nine research centers, and zoo include historical and architectural landmarks, mostly located in the District of Columbia.[5] Additional facilities are located in Arizona, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York City, Virginia, Texas, and Panama. More than 200 institutions and museums in 45 states, Puerto Rico, and Panama are Smithsonian Affiliates[6][7] The Institution's thirty million annual visitors[8] are admitted without charge. The institution's annual budget is around $1.2 billion with 2/3 coming from annual federal appropriations.[9] Other funding comes from the Institution's endowment, private and corporate contributions, membership dues, and earned retail, concession, and licensing revenue.[4] Institution publications include Smithsonian and Air & Space magazines.

Contents

The "Castle" (1847), the Institution's first building and still its headquartersThe British scientist James Smithson (d. 1829) left most of his wealth to his nephew Henry James Hungerford. When Hungerford died childless in 1835,[10] the estate passed "to the United States of America, to found at Washington, under the name of the Smithsonian Institution, an Establishment for the increase & diffusion of knowledge among men", in accordance with Smithson's will.[11] Congress officially accepted the legacy bequeathed to the nation, and pledged the faith of the United States to the charitable trust on July 1, 1836.[12] The American diplomat Richard Rush was dispatched to England by President Andrew Jackson to collect the bequest. Rush returned in August 1838 with 105 sacks containing 104,960 gold sovereigns (about $500,000 at the time, which is equivalent to $11,245,000 in 2016).[13][14]

Once the money was in hand, eight years of Congressional haggling ensued over how to interpret Smithson's rather vague mandate "for the increase and diffusion of knowledge."[12][14] Unfortunately, the money was invested by the US Treasury in bonds issued by the state of Arkansas which soon defaulted. After heated debate, Massachusetts Representative (and ex-President) John Quincy Adams persuaded Congress to restore the lost funds with interest[15] and, despite designs on the money for other purposes, convinced his colleagues to preserve it for an institution of science and learning.[16] Finally, on August 10, 1846, President James K. Polk signed the legislation that established the Smithsonian Institution as a trust instrumentality of the United States, to be administered by a Board of Regents and a Secretary of the Smithsonian.[12]

Though the Smithsonian's first Secretary, Joseph Henry, wanted the Institution to be a center for scientific research,[17] it also became the depository for various Washington and U.S. government collections.[18] The United States Exploring Expedition by the U.S. Navy circumnavigated the globe between 1838 and 1842.[19] The voyage amassed thousands of animal specimens, an herbarium of 50,000 plant specimens, and diverse shells and minerals, tropical birds, jars of seawater, and ethnographic artifacts from the South Pacific Ocean.[19] These specimens and artifacts became part of the Smithsonian collections,[20] as did those collected by several military and civilian surveys of the American West, including the Mexican Boundary Survey and Pacific Railroad Surveys, which assembled many Native American artifacts and natural history specimens.[21]

In 1846, the regents developed a plan for weather observation; in 1847, money was appropriated for meteorological research.[22] The Institution became a magnet for young scientists from 1857 to 1866, who formed a group called the Megatherium Club.[23] The Smithsonian played a critical role as the U.S. partner institution in early bilateral scientific exchanges with the Academy of Sciences of Cuba.[24]

Museums and buildingsEditThe Smithsonian Institution Building ("the Castle") began construction in 1849. Designed by architect James Renwick Jr., its interiors were completed by general contract Gilbert Cameron and the building opened in 1855.[25] The Smithsonian's first expansion came with construction of the Arts and Industries Building in 1881. Congress had promised to build a new structure for the museum if the 1876 Philadelphia Centennial Exposition generated enough income. It did, and the building was designed by architects Adolf Cluss and Paul Schulze, based on original plans developed by Major GeneralMontgomery C. Meigs of the United States Army Corps of Engineers. It opened in 1881.[26]

The National Zoological Park opened in 1889 to accommodate the Smithsonian's Department of Living Animals.[27] The National Museum of Natural History opened in June 1911 to similarly accommodate the Smithsonian's United States National Museum, which had previously been housed in the Castle and then the Arts and Industries Building.[28] This structure was designed by the D.C. architectural firm of Hornblower & Marshall.[29]

When DetroitphilanthropistCharles Lang Freer donated his private collection to the Smithsonian and funds to build the museum to hold it (which was named the Freer Gallery), it was among the Smithsonian's first major donations from a private individual.[30] The gallery opened in 1923.[31] More than 40 years would pass before the next museum, the Museum of History and Technology (renamed the National Museum of American History in 1980) opened in 1964. It was designed by the world-renowned firm of McKim, Mead & White.[32] The Anacostia Community Museum, an "experimental store-front" museum created at the initiative of Smithsonian Secretary S. Dillon Ripley, opened in the Anacostia neighborhood of Washington, D.C., in 1967.[33][34][35] That same year, the Smithsonian signed an agreement to take over the Cooper Union Museum for the Arts of Decoration (now the Cooper Hewitt, Smithsonian Design Museum).[36] The National Portrait Gallery and the Smithsonian American Art Museum opened in the Old Patent Office Building (built in 1867) on October 7, 1968.[37] The reuse of an older building continued with the opening of the Renwick Gallery in 1972 in the 1874, Renwick-designed art gallery built by local philanthropist William Wilson Corcoran to house the Corcoran Gallery of Art..[38] The first new museum building to open since the National Museum of Natural History was the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, which opened in 1974.[39]

The National Air and Space Museum, the Smithsonian's largest in terms of floor space, opened in June 1976.[40] Eleven years later, the National Museum of African Art and the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery opened in a new, joint, underground museum between the Freer Gallery and the Smithsonian Castle.[41][42][43] Reuse of another old building came in 1993 with the opening of the National Postal Museum in the 1904 former City Post Office building off the Mall.[44]

In 2004, the Smithsonian opened the National Museum of the American Indian in a new building near the United States Capitol.[45] Twelve years later, almost to the day, it opened its latest museum, the National Museum of African American History and Culture, in a new building near the Washington Monument.[46]

Capital campaignsEditIn 2011, the Smithsonian undertook its first-ever capital fundraising campaign.[47] The $1.5 billion effort raised $1 billion at the three-year mark. Smithsonian officials made the campaign public in October 2014 in an effort to raise the remaining $500 million. More than 60,000 individuals and organizations donated money to the campaign by the time it went public.[48] This included 192 gifts of at least $1 million.[48] Members of the boards of directors of various Smithsonian museums donated $372 million.[48] The Smithsonian said that funds raised will go toward completion of the National Museum of African American History and Culture building, and renovations of the National Air and Space Museum, National Museum of American History, and the Renwick Gallery.[48] A smaller amount of funds will go to educational initiatives and digitization of collections.[48]

Nineteen museums and galleries, as well as the National Zoological Park, comprise the Smithsonian museums.[49] Eleven are on the National Mall, the park that runs between the Lincoln Memorial and the United States Capitol. Other museums are located elsewhere in Washington, D.C., with two more in New York City and one in Chantilly, Virginia.

The Smithsonian has close ties with 168 other museums in 39 states, Panama, and Puerto Rico.[49] These museums are known as Smithsonian Affiliated museums. Collections of artifacts are given to these museums in the form of long-term loans. The Smithsonian also has a large number of traveling exhibitions. In 2008, 58 of these traveling exhibitions went to 510 venues across the country.[49]

The Smithsonian Institution announced in January 2015 that it is in talks to build its first permanent overseas exhibition space within London's Queen Elizabeth II Olympic Park.[50]

CollectionsEdit

This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it.(September 2012)Smithsonian collections include 156 million artworks, artifacts, and specimens. The National Museum of Natural History houses 145 million of these specimens and artifacts. The Collections Search Center has 9.9 million digital records available online. The Smithsonian Institution Libraries hold 2 million library volumes. Smithsonian Archives hold 156,830 cubic feet of archival material.[51] The Smithsonian Institution has different categories of collection displays that you can visit at the museum such as its Historical collections. In 1912, the First Lady Helen Herron Taft had donated her gown to the museum for the First Ladies' Gown display. The museum also has on display for its visitors treasures such as the Star-Spangled Banner, and the stove pipe hat that was worn by President Lincoln. They also have the ruby slippers worn by Judy Garland in The Wizard Of Oz. The institution also has the original Teddy Bear that was named after President Theodore Roosevelt.[52] In 2016, the Smithsonian's Air & Space museum curators restored the original Enterprise from the original Star Trek TV series.[53]

Research centers and programsEditThe following is a list of Smithsonian research centers, with their affiliated museum in parentheses:

Also of note is the Smithsonian Museum Support Center (MSC), located in Silver Hill, Maryland (Suitland), which is the principal off-site conservation and collections facility for multiple Smithsonian museums, primarily the National Museum of Natural History. The MSC was dedicated in May 1983.[57] The MSC covers 4.5 acres (1.8 ha) of land, with over 500,000 square feet (46,000 m2) of space, making it one of the largest set of structures in the Smithsonian. It has over 12 miles (19 km) of cabinets, and more than 31 million objects.

Smithsonian Latino CenterEditIn 1997, the Smithsonian Latino Center was created as a way to recognize Latinos across the Smithsonian Institution. The primary purpose of the center is to place Latino contributions to the arts, history, science, and national culture across the Smithsonian's museums and research centers.[58]

The center is a division of the Smithsonian Institution.[59] As of May 2016, the center is run by an executive director, Eduardo D­az.[60]

HistoryEditAt the time of its creation, the Smithsonian Institution had other entities dedicated to other minority groups: National Museum of the American Indian, Freer-Sackler Gallery for Asian Arts and Culture, African Art Museum, and the National Museum of African-American Heritage and Culture.[61]

The opening of the center was prompted, in part, by the publishing of a report called "Willful Neglect: The Smithsonian and U.S. Latinos".[61]

According to documents obtained by The Washington Post, when former Latino Center executive director Pilar O'Leary first took the job, the center faced employees who had "serious performance issues". No performance plans existed for the staff and unfulfilled financial obligations to sponsors existed. The website's quality was poor, and the center did not have a public affairs manager, a programs director, adequate human resources support, or cohesive mission statement.[61]

After difficult times in the first few years, the center improved. According to the Smithsonian, the center "support[s] scholarly research, exhibitions, public and educational programs, web-based content and virtual platforms, and collections and archives. [It] also manage[s] leadership and professional development programs for Latino youth, emerging scholars and museum professionals."[58] Today, the website features a high-tech virtual museum.[62]

Young Ambassadors ProgramEditThe Smithsonian Latino Center's Young Ambassadors Program (YAP) is a program within the Latino Center that reaches out to Latino high school students with the goal of encouraging them to become leaders in arts, sciences, and the humanities.[63]

Students selected for the program travel to Washington, D.C. for an "enrichment seminar" that lasts approximately five days. Afterwards, students return to their communities to serve in a paid, one-month internship.[59]

Pilar O'Leary launched the program when she served as executive director of the Smithsonian Latino Center.[64] According to the Latino Center, O'Leary told the press in 2007: "Our goal is to help our Young Ambassadors become the next generation of leaders in the arts and culture fields. This program encourages students to be proud of their roots and learn more about their cultural heritage to inspire them to educate the public in their own communities about how Latinos are enriching America's cultural fabric."[59]

The Institution publishes Smithsonian magazine monthly and Air & Space magazine bimonthly. Smithsonian was the result of Secretary of the Smithsonian S. Dillon Ripley asking the retired editor of Life magazine Edward K. Thompson to produce a magazine "about things in which the Smithsonian Institution is interested, might be interested or ought to be interested."[65] Another Secretary of the Smithsonian, Walter Boyne, founded Air & Space.[66][67]

The Smithsonian Castle doorwayThe Smithsonian Institution was established as a trust instrumentality by act of Congress.[68] More than two-thirds of the Smithsonian's workforce of some 6,300 persons are employees of the federal government. The Smithsonian Office of Protection Services oversees security at the Smithsonian facilities and enforces laws and regulations for National Capital Parks together with the United States Park Police.

The President's 2011 budget proposed just under $800 million in support for the Smithsonian, slightly increased from previous years. Institution exhibits are free of charge, though in 2010 the Deficit Commission recommended admission fees.[69][70]

As approved by Congress on August 10, 1846, the legislation that created the Smithsonian Institution called for the creation of a Board of Regents to govern and administer the organization.[68] This 17-member board meets at least four times a year and includes as ex officio members the Chief Justice of the United States and the Vice President of the United States. The nominal head of the Institution is the Chancellor, an office which has traditionally been held by the Chief Justice. In September 2007, the board created the position of Chair of the Board of Regents, a position currently held by John W. McCarter of Illinois.[71]

Other members of the Board of Regents are three members of the U.S. House of Representatives appointed by the Speaker of the House; three members of the Senate, appointed by the President pro tempore of the Senate; and nine citizen members, nominated by the board and approved by the Congress in a joint resolution signed by the President of the United States.[72] Regents who are senators or representatives serve for the duration of their elected terms, while citizen Regents serve a maximum of two six-year terms. Regents are compensated on a part-time basis.

The chief executive officer (CEO) of the Smithsonian is the Secretary, who is appointed by the Board of Regents. The Secretary also serves as secretary to the Board of Regents, but is not a voting member of that body. The Secretary of the Smithsonian has the privilege of the floor at the United States Senate. There have been 12 Secretaries. On September 18, 2013, Secretary G. Wayne Clough announced he would retire in October 2014. The Smithsonian Board of Regents said it has asked regent John McCarter, Jr. to lead a search committee. The search committee will consist of other regents and representatives from Smithsonian museums and centers.[73]

On March 10, 2014, the Smithsonian Board of Directors selected Dr. David Skorton, a physician and president of Cornell University as the 13th Secretary of the Smithsonian. Skorton took the reins of the institution on 1 July 2015.[74]

Secretaries of the Smithsonian InstitutionEditJoseph Henry, 1846''1878Spencer Fullerton Baird, 1878''1887Samuel Pierpont Langley, 1887''1906Charles Doolittle Walcott, 1907''1927Charles Greeley Abbot, 1928''1944Alexander Wetmore, 1944''1952Leonard Carmichael, 1953''1964Sidney Dillon Ripley, 1964''1984Robert McCormick Adams, Jr., 1984''1994Ira Michael Heyman, 1994''1999Lawrence M. Small, 2000''2007G. Wayne Clough, 2008''2015[74]David J. Skorton, 2015''presentEnola Gay displayEditIn 1995, controversy arose over the exhibit at the National Air and Space Museum associated with display of the Enola Gay, the Superfortress used by the United States to execute the first atomic bombing in World War II. The American Legion and Air Force Association believed the exhibit put forward only one side of the debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and that it emphasized the effect on the victims without the overall context of the war. The Smithsonian changed the exhibit, displaying the aircraft only with associated technical data and without discussion of its historic role in the war.

Censorship of "Seasons of Life and Land"EditIn 2003, a National Museum of Natural History exhibit, Subhankar Banerjee's Seasons of Life and Land, featuring photographs of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, was censored and moved to the basement by Smithsonian officials because they feared that its subject matter was too politically controversial.[75]

In November 2007, The Washington Post reported internal criticism has been raised regarding the institution's handling of the exhibit on the Arctic. According to documents and e-mails, the exhibit and its associated presentation were edited at high levels to add "scientific uncertainty" regarding the nature and impact of global warming on the Arctic. Acting Secretary of the Smithsonian Cristin Samper was interviewed by the Post, and claimed the exhibit was edited because it contained conclusions that went beyond what could be proven by contemporary climatology.[76] The Smithsonian is now a participant in the U.S. Global Change Research Program.[77]

Copyright restrictionsEditThe Smithsonian Institution provides access to its image collections for educational, scholarly, and nonprofit uses. Commercial uses are generally restricted unless permission is obtained. Smithsonian images fall into different copyright categories; some are protected by copyright, many are subject to license agreements or other contractual conditions, and some fall into the public domain, such as those prepared by Smithsonian employees as part of their official duties. The Smithsonian's terms of use for its digital content, including images, are set forth on the Smithsonian Web site.[78][79]

In April 2006, the institution entered into an agreement of "first refusal" rights for its vast silent and public domain film archives with Showtime Networks, mainly for use on the Smithsonian Channel, a network created from this deal. Critics contend this agreement effectively gives Showtime control over the film archives, as it requires filmmakers to obtain permission from the network to use extensive amounts of film footage from the Smithsonian archives.[80]

The Smithsonian contends independent producers continue to have unchanged access to the institution and its collections as they had prior to the agreement.[citation needed] The process to gain access to film at the Smithsonian remains the same. Since January 2006, independent producers have made more than 500 requests to film in the museums and collections, and/or to use archival footage and photos.[citation needed]

^Barlow, William (1847). The Smithsonian Institution, "for the Increase and Diffusion of Knowledge Among Men": An Address on the Duties of Government, in Reference Chiefly to Public Instruction : with the Outlines of a Plan for the Application of the Smithsonian Fund to that Object. B.R. Barlow. ^"Smithsonian History > National Museum of American History". Smithsonian Institution. Retrieved June 21, 2013. ^Kernan, Michael (November 1997). "A Real Nation's Attic". Smithsonianmag.com. ^ ab"About the Smithsonian". ^Leaf, Jesse (2007-03-13). The Everything Family Guide To Washington D.C.: All the Best Hotels, Restaurants, Sites, and Attractions. Everything Books. ISBN 1-4405-2411-4. :57^Kurin, Richard (2013-10-29). The Smithsonian's History of America in 101 Objects Deluxe. Penguin. ISBN 978-0-698-15520-6. ^https://affiliations.si.edu/^"Visitor Statistics | Newsdesk". Newsdesk.si.edu. May 31, 2013. Retrieved July 26, 2014. ^http://dashboard.si.edu/budget-federal-appropriations^Goode, George Brown (1897). The Smithsonian Institution, 1846''1896, The History of Its First Half Century. Washington, D.C.: De Vinne Press. p. 25. ^"James Smithson '' Founder of the Smithsonian, Last Will and Testament". Smithsonian Scrapbook: Letters, Diaries and Photographs from the Smithsonian Archives. Smithsonian Institution. Retrieved October 4, 2012. ^ abc"Founding of the Smithsonian Institution". Fact Sheets, Smithsonian Newsdesk. Smithsonian Institution. Retrieved October 4, 2012. ^Heather Ewing, The Lost World of James Smithson: Science, Revolution, and the Birth of the Smithsonian, pp. 323''24, 330, 409. Ewing notes that it would be the equivalent of over $10 million today, using one index, but using a per-capita share of GDP, it would be the equivalent of over $220 million. It was close to the total of Harvard University's endowment at that point, which had accumulated for nearly 200 years by the 1830s and was not the result of a single gift, as Smithson's was.^ abOttesen, Carole (2011). A Guide to Smithsonian Gardens. Smithsonian Books. p. 13. ISBN 978-1-58834-300-0. ^"Smithsonian Information Brochure", Smithsonian Visitor Information and Associates' Reception Center, May 2009^Nagel, Paul (1999). "John Quincy Adams: A Public Life, a Private Life". Harvard University Press. p. 348.^Orosz, Joel J. (2002-06-28). Curators and Culture: The Museum Movement in America, 1740-1870. University of Alabama Press. ISBN 978-0-8173-1204-6. :155^Orosz, Joel J. (2002-06-28). Curators and Culture: The Museum Movement in America, 1740-1870. University of Alabama Press. ISBN 978-0-8173-1204-6. :157^ abBenson, Keith Rodney; Rehbock, Philip F. (2002). Oceanographic History: The Pacific and Beyond. University of Washington Press. ISBN 978-0-295-98239-7. :532^Adler, Antony (2011-05-01). "From the Pacific to the Patent Office: The US Exploring Expedition and the origins of America's first national museum". Journal of the History of Collections. 23 (1): 49''74. doi:10.1093/jhc/fhq002. ISSN 0954-6650. ^Baird, S. F.; Emory, W. H. Report on the United States and Mexican boundary survey. РиÐоÐ>> КÐ>>ассик. ISBN 978-5-88160-802-6. :13^

Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Smithsonian Institution". Encyclop...dia Britannica. 25 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. ^Merrill, Marlene Deahl (1999). Yellowstone and the Great West: Journals, Letters, and Images from the 1871 Hayden Expedition. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. p. 220. ISBN 0803231482. Retrieved 4 September 2016. ^Pastrana, Sergio Jorge. "Building a Lasting Cuba-U.S. Bridge through Science". Science & Diplomacy. Science & Diplomacy. ^Morton, W. Brown III (February 8, 1971). "National Register of Historic Places Inventory Nomination: Smithsonian Institution Building"(PDF). National Park Service. Retrieved May 11, 2009. ^Norton, W. Brown III (April 6, 1971). "National Register of Historic Places Inventory Nomination: Arts and Industries Building of the Smithsonian Institution"(PDF). National Park Service. Retrieved 2009-05-11. ^"National Zoological Park". Smithsonian Institution Archives. ^"Museum History". National Museum of Natural History. 2008. Retrieved 2009-11-15. ^"New Museum Plans." Washington Post. April 13, 1903.^Gunter, Ann Clyburn (2002). A Collector's Journey: Charles Lang Freer and Egypt. Freer Gallery of Art, Smithsonian Institution, Arthur M. Sackler Gallery. ISBN 978-1-85759-297-9. :96^Fortier, Alison (2014-05-06). A History Lover's Guide to Washington, D.C.: Designed for Democracy. The History Press. ISBN 978-1-62585-064-5. :110^Moeller, Gerard Martin; Feldblyum, Boris (2012). AIA Guide to the Architecture of Washington, D.C. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 78. ISBN 9781421402697. ^Bass, Holly (March''April 2006). "Camille Akeju: New Director Seeks to Rejuvenate Anacostia Museum". Crisis: 37''39. Retrieved 22 April 2012. ^"Anacostia Community Museum". Smithsonian Museums. Smithsonian Institution Archives. Retrieved 22 April 2012. ^Oehser, Paul H. (1970). The Smithsonian Institution. New York: Praeger Publishers. p. 10. ISBN 8999456584. Retrieved 22 April 2012. ^Knox, Sanka (October 10, 1967). "Smithsonian Takes Over Cooper Union Museum". The new York Times. p. 41. ^Richard, Paul. "A National Family Album." Washington Post. October 6, 1968; Martin, Judith. "'Semi, Demi-Heroes' Open New Gallery." Washington Post. October 7, 1968.^Yardley, William. "Renwick Gallery of the Smithsonian American Art Museum". Washington Post. Retrieved 18 July 2013. ^Raynor, Vivian (July 14, 1974). "A Preview of the New Hirshhorn Museum". The New York Times. Retrieved December 13, 2016. ^Mianecki, Julie (June 29, 2011). "The List: Six Things You Didn't Know About the Air and Space Museum on its 35th Anniversary". Smithsonian.com. Retrieved December 13, 2016. ^"National Museum of African Art". Smithsonian History. Smithsonian Institution Archives. Retrieved 16 May 2012. ^"Quadrangle Complex Opens". Smithsonian Institution Archives, Record Unit 371, Box 5, "The Torch," January 1987, p. 1. Smithsonian Institution Archives. Retrieved 16 May 2012. ^"Arthur M. Sackler Gallery". Smithsonian History. Smithsonian Institution Archives. Retrieved May 10, 2012. ^McAllister, Bill (July 2, 1993). "The Museum On the Mail". The Washington Post. p. N58. ^Rothstein, Edward (September 21, 2004). "Museum With an American Indian Voice". The New York Times. Retrieved December 13, 2016. ^Cotter, Holland (September 15, 2016). "Review: The Smithsonian African American Museum Is Here at Last. And It Uplifts and Upsets". The New York Times. Retrieved December 13, 2016. ^Kelly, Kathleen S. (2012-12-06). Effective Fund-Raising Management. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-135-69399-2. :79^ abcdeMcGlone, Peggy (October 20, 2014). "Smithsonian Announces $1.5 Billion Fundraising Effort". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 21, 2014. ^ abcFacts about the Smithsonian Institution. newsdesk.si.edu (Pressroom of the Smithsonian Institution). Retrieved February 19, 2011^"Smithsonian considers London outpost in Olympic Park". BBC News. ^Smithsonian Collections^http://search.credoreference.com.jsrvproxyl.sunyjcc.edu/content/entry/jhueas/smithsonian_institution/0^"Smithsonian Sets Phasers To Restore On Original Starship Enterprise". NPR.org. Retrieved 2016-07-01. ^Roby, Marguerite. "Smithsonian Institution Archives". Siarchives.si.edu. Retrieved May 16, 2012. ^"Smithsonian Latino Center". Latino.si.edu. March 16, 2009. Retrieved May 16, 2012. ^"Smithsonian Science Education Center". ssec.si.edu. July 19, 2015. Retrieved July 19, 2015. ^"Smithsonian reveals its hidden treasures". The Washington Times. August 16, 2007. Retrieved September 14, 2009. ^ ab"About the Center". latino.si.edu. Retrieved 2016-05-18. ^ abcLara, Isabel (2007-06-26). "Smithsonian Latino Center's Young Ambassadors Arrive for Week of Cultural Programs in Washington, D.C."(PDF). Smithsonian Institution. Retrieved 2016-05-18. ^"Smithsonian Latino Center Staff". latino.si.edu. Retrieved 2016-05-18. ^ abchttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/documents/smithsonian/OlearyIGdeclaration.pdf^"Smithsonian Latino Virtual Museum". latino.si.edu. Retrieved 2016-05-18. ^"Young Ambassadors Program". latino.si.edu. Retrieved 2016-05-18. ^"Con Sabor!". Washington Life Magazine "Substance and Style" Issue. 2006. Retrieved 2016-05-18. ^Winfrey, Carey (October 2005), Noxious Bogs & Amorous Elephants: Smithsonian's birth, 35 years ago, only hinted at the splendors to follow, Smithsonian ^D, Walker, Paul (2010-09-23). Truman's Dilemma: Invasion Or the Bomb. Pelican Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4556-1335-9. :269^Boyne, Walter (2011-03-04). How the Helicopter Changed Modern Warfare. Pelican Publishing Company, Inc. ISBN 978-1-4556-1568-1. :353^ abStam, David H. (2001). International Dictionary of Library Histories, Volume 1 & 2. London: Routledge. p. 702. ISBN 978-1-136-77785-1. Retrieved 4 September 2016. ^"$200 BILLION IN ILLUSTRATIVE SAVINGS"(PDF). FiscalCommission.gov. Retrieved July 1, 2013. ^"Smithsonian Responds to Deficit Commission's Recommendation on Admission Fees | Newsdesk". Newsdesk.si.edu. November 12, 2010. Retrieved November 18, 2010. ^"Smithsonian Board of Regents (in the "Newsdesk" section of the SI web site)". June 7, 2015. ^Smithsonian Press KitArchived April 7, 2010, at the Wayback Machine.^Cooper, Rebecca. "Smithsonian Chief Will Retire in 2014." Washington Business Journal. September 18, 2013. Accessed September 18, 2013.^ abParker, Lonnae O'Neal Parker and Boyle, Katherine. "Smithsonian Institution Names Cornell President As Its 13th Secretary." Washington Post. March 10, 2014. Accessed March 10, 2014.^Trescott, Jacqueline (May 21, 2003). "Smithsonian's Arctic Refuge Exhibit Draws Senate Scrutiny". The Washington Post. Retrieved May 23, 2010. ^Grimaldi, James V.; Trescott, Jacqueline (November 16, 2007). "Scientists Fault Climate Exhibit Changes". Washington Post. p. 4. Retrieved November 18, 2007. ^"Integrating federal research and solutions for climate and global change". Participating Departments and Agencies. U.S. Global Change Research Program. Retrieved March 30, 2010. ^"Terms of use of this website". Si.edu. Retrieved July 26, 2014. ^"Smithsonian Images-Copyright". Smithsonianimages.si.edu. January 13, 2012. Retrieved July 26, 2014. ^Wyatt, Edward (April 1, 2006). "Smithsonian Agreement Angers Filmmakers". New York Times,. Retrieved May 23, 2010. Nina Burleigh, Stranger and the Statesman: James Smithson, John Quincy Adams, and the Making of America's Greatest Museum, The Smithsonian. New York: HarperCollins, 2003.Heather Ewing, The Lost World of James Smithson: Science, Revolution, and the Birth of the Smithsonian. Bloomsbury, 2007.United States. Congress. House of Representatives. Collections Stewardship at the Smithsonian: Hearing before the Committee on House Administration, House of Representatives, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, First Session. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2013.William S. Walker, A Living Exhibition: The Smithsonian and the Transformation of the Universal Museum. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press, 2013.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 29 Jan 2017 06:52

Hicks provided a link to a Huffington Post UK story noting that while 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis, 5 million others were also slaughtered during Adolf Hitler's genocide, including "priests, gypsies, people with mental or physical disabilities, communists, trade unionists, Jehovah's Witnesses, anarchists, Poles and other Slavic peoples, and resistance fighters."Asked if the White House was suggesting President Donald Trump didn't mention Jews as victims of the Holocaust because he didn't want to offend the other people the Nazis targeted and killed, Hicks replied, "it was our honor to issue a statement in remembrance of this important day."

The presidential reference to the "innocent people" victimized by the Nazis without a mention of Jews or anti-Semitism by the White House on International Holocaust Remembrance Day was a stark contrast to statements by former Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.Anti-Defamation League Director Jonathan Greenblatt tweeted that the "@WhiteHouse statement on #HolocaustMemorialDay, misses that it was six million Jews who perished, not just 'innocent people'" and "Puzzling and troubling @WhiteHouse #HolocaustMemorialDay stmt has no mention of Jews. GOP and Dem. presidents have done so in the past."Asked about the White House explanation that the President didn't want to exclude any of the other groups Nazis killed by specifically mentioning Jews, Greenblatt told CNN that the United Nations established International Holocaust Remembrance Day not only because of Holocaust denial but also because so many countries -- Iran, Russia, Poland, and Hungary, for example -- specifically refuse to acknowledge Hitler's attempt to exterminate Jews, "opting instead to talk about generic suffering rather than recognizing this catastrophic incident for what is was: the intended genocide of the Jewish people."

Downplaying or disregarding the degree to which Jews were targeted for elimination during the Holocaust is a common theme of nationalist movements like those seen in Russia and Eastern Europe, Greenblatt said.

Initially, after being asked about the ADL criticism and the omission of any mention of Jews or anti-Semitism, Hicks provided a statement from Ronald Lauder of the World Jewish Congress that seemed to criticize Greenblatt and the ADL.

"It does no honor to the millions of Jews murdered in the Holocaust to play politics with their memory," the Lauder statement read in part. "Any fair reading of the White House statement today on the International Holocaust Memorial Day will see it appropriately commemorates the suffering and the heroism that mark that dark chapter in modern history."

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 29 Jan 2017 04:46

I must state up front ... I am a strong proponent of Native American rights. Too often throughout history America's early inhabitants have been treated grossly unfairly ... and worse. My initial reaction to hearing about the Standing Rock/Dakota Access Pipeline protest was to support them. But then, as I always try to do I started researching - trying to verify the truth - separate fact from fiction. And as I researched I become more and more disappointed by what I learned.

What triggered my concerns, was finding out the tribes claims at the core of the ''protest'' - that the reservation's sole water source - the tribes water intake at Fort Yates, several miles downstream from the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) - was threatened ... were not truthful. Numerous times in the early stages the Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Chairman Dave Archambault II made claims similar to this one in a Bismarck Tribune article:"... the tribe argues that consequences would be severe if the 30-inch pipeline carrying 450,000 barrels of oil per day were to leak near the reservation's water intake ... '' So I began to research further, to try to learn more about the facts and claims .... I started with the Dakota Access Pipeline website. What I found was a detailed, pretty straightforward and transparent source of information. But they also went a step further and offered links directly to the project filings and maps:In a review of the North Dakota filings - directly relevant to the tribes complaints - we can see a picture of detailed review, extensive input and engagement with various affected parties, and detailed historical, cultural, flora and fauna and other reviews. We can see information on the MANY changes made to the route to accommodate concerns raised in input obtained from those willing to give it. What seems missing is any significant involvement and input from the tribe during the 2 year approval process, despite dozens others with far less resources successfully petitioning to intervene, and filing affidavits to get their voices and input heard. The Standing Rock Tribe is not listed as a Petitioner to Intervene and offer an Affidavit. We can see the original application dated Dec. 22, 2014. We can see the filing of the: (1) North Dakota Wildlife Inventory and Habitat Assessment Field Survey Report, (2) North Dakota Tree and Shrub Inventory Report, and (3) Wetland and Waterbody Delineation Report for the Dakota Access Pipeline Project, along with the wetlands maps. We can see an exhaustive list of the Exhibits - files on all the different topics. We can listen to recordings of the hearings themselves. We can see information on the 17 different route adjustments made in response to input received during the input process. We can see the letter from the Director of the State Historical Society of North Dakota and State Historic Preservation Officer for North Dakota noting their receipt of ''two multi-volume reports on the Dakota Access Project, "2014 Dakota Access Class 11/111 Cultural Resources Inventory," and the "2015 Lakota Access Class II/lII Cultural Resources Inventory," and the Historical Society's commendation that ''These volumes represent a tremendous effort in cultural resources identification to date.'' We can see the filing of the detailed list of ''Wooded Areas Requiring Construction'' locations. We can see many updates, additions, amendments and corrections - including Route and Corridor adjustments, along with numerous amendments and adjustments to the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order. We can see the permits allowing the Dakota Access Pipeline to use the existing Right of Ways for prior built Southwest Pipeline locations - that show the Dakota Pipeline is making every effort to build on land that had been subject to construction in the past - to minimize impact on undisturbed ground. A very important entry provides information on the procedure put in place during the approval process to address reports of significant cultural, historic, or burial sites and/or artifacts. We learn that a panel is convened immediately upon any such report - composed of members from the North Dakota Intertribal Reinterment Committee (NDIRC) - including members from the Sisseton Wahpeton and the Standing Rock tribes, along with members from the State Historical Society of North Dakota (SHSND) and the Morton County Sheriffs Department. We can see that this process was utilized and does work, contrary to the tribes assertions. When a claim was received on Friday afternoon, August 12, 2016 from the Bureau of Indian Affairs law enforcement and other parties that possible human remains had been reported, construction was stopped, and the panel members immediately travelled to the site. Based on an on-site inspection - the members of the panel found the the area revealed no evidence of human remains, a burial, or other cultural remains. The panel reported their findings by early Friday evening prior - just hours after the calim was originally received. The process clearly worked. The Standing Rock tribe is a member of the panel, yet they continue to claim reports of cultural, historic and potential burial sites are not investigated. More recently we can see Inspectors are on the site regularly, reviewing and documenting that construction is occurring per the plan. The federal Court Judge investigated this information and much more in reviewing the tribes claims in support of an injunction stopping construction. And ... U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, after an extensive review, denied an attempt by the Standing Rock Sioux tribe to halt construction of the disputed Dakota Access oil pipeline that passes near its reservation in North Dakota. Judge Boasberg first stated his sympathetic position toward the tribe:Early protests of the DAPL construction

"This Court does not lightly countenance any depredation of lands that hold significance to the Standing Rock Sioux. Aware of the indignities visited upon the Tribe over the last centuries, the Court scrutinizes the permitting process here with particular care. Having done so, the Court must nonetheless conclude that the Tribe has not demonstrated that an injunction is warranted here."

Key points of the Judge's 58 page Order and decision:

THE DECISION -- The tribe argued that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers[Corps] had a duty under the National Historic Preservation Act to consult with the tribe before issuing a permit for the pipeline, but the judge wrote that the corps complied with the law. Contrary to the tribe's assertions that it was left out of the process, the Judge said, the corps has documented dozens of its attempts to engage with Standing Rock officials in consultations to identify historical resources at Lake Oahe and other places covered by the permit. The corps was not required to consider the effects along the entire pipeline route because the corps has jurisdiction only where the route crosses water, he noted.

CHANCES TO CONSULT -- Pipeline officials and the Corps gave Standing Rock tribal officials numerous chances to provide input in 2014, but tribal officials failed to participate in those opportunities, the judge wrote. Relations between the tribe and corps didn't improve in 2015, when tribal officials canceled several meetings, according to the ruling.

"Suffice it to say that the Tribe largely REFUSED to engage in consultations," he wrote. "It chose instead to hold out for more ..."

Dakota Access pipeline route

THE ROUTE -- Ninety-nine percent of the route for the Dakota Access pipeline crosses private land, and 48 percent of it has already been completed, the ruling noted. The ruling said Dakota Access hired professional archaeologists to survey the entire route through the Dakotas and much of Iowa and Illinois for cultural resources. When the surveys revealed previously unidentified resources, the company changed the route on its own 140 times in North Dakota alone to avoid them, the judge said, and the Corps ordered the company to change the route where it crossed the James River to avoid burial sites there. You can read the many more detailed findings by the Judgein his Memorandum and Order here.TO REVIEW so far -- We have a Federal Court judge, who admits to being sympathetic to the tribe, completing an exhaustive review on the tribe's claims. In a 58 page order he held their claims were not only unfounded - but in many cases the opposite of what the tribe asserted.Once again, I have to repeat ... I strongly support native American rights. I believe this protest, based on dubious claims ... does considerable harm to legitimate Native issues.

The claims there are historic, cultural and burial sites being bulldozed in direct disregard to the tribes claims are simply false. Much of the route is withing existing ''Southwest Pipeline'' and ''Northern Border'' pipeline right of way - on land that was excavated long ago. The Dakota pipeline follows existing right of way in many places for an older pipeline built in same place, ans specifically exactly follows the Northern Border pipeline right of way - built in 1982 - in the section leading up to, and the crossing of, the Missouri river.

And even IF historic or cultural sites or artifacts were to be suspected - the approval includes a process, as outlined above - that works. A review board that investigates claims - that includes the State Historical Preservation Office, The Tribal Burial Commission, the Sheriff AND members of the Standing Rock and Sisseton Wahpeton tribes. Then there is the issue at thevery HEART of the tribes claims ... the water intake at Fort Yates, just downstream from the pipeline's crossing of the river (where the pipeline will be buried some 90+ feet below the river). The tribe's KEY claim is the pipeline threatens what they say is the sole source of water for the reservation - the Fort Yates water intake, which is a few miles downstream from the DAPL river crossing near Cannonball, ND - the site of the protest.

It is very hard though for the water intake at the heart of the tribes claims to be threatened if it does not exist.

Which is a fact - and the tribe full well knows it. The water intake at Fort Yates - the one the tribes says is the primary source of the water for the reservation - is to be shut down in the coming MONTHS.

DAPL river crossing, Fort Yates water intake and new water intake and treatment plant in Mobridge S. Dakota

The most recent Standing Rock Water System improvements - constructed by the tribe with $29.2 million shown above plus at least another $7.2 million awarded in 2016 to complete the final leg of the water pipeline under construction by the tribe's water utility, Standing Rock Water - is due for completion by end of the year. These federal government funded improvements include the new high tech, sand filtered, deep water intake and new 5 million gallon per day water plant at Mobridge that has been operating since 2010. Along with the new 5 million gallon storage reservoir in Kline Butte, and new water lines to connect them. Add the new water pipelines to connect this new state of the art water system to the tribes existing water distribution system, including the final leg - the water pipeline to Firt Yates - now under construction.

Dave Rosencranz, the Dakota's Area manager for the Federal Bureau of Reclamation, has stated currently the Standing Rock community is being served by two Missouri River water intakes but that the Fort Yates intake, which is nearest the Dakota Access Pipeline crossing, is slated to be shut down. ''It's basically at the end of its life.''Bureau of Reclamation engineer Tom Thompson has noted the Mobridge intake and treatment plant are already operating and serving a part of the Standing Rock community, and will soon be serving all of it. Thompson said that a pipeline from the Mobridge facility currently ends at the North Dakota/South Dakota state line, but the final segment is under construction and expected to be ''done by the end of the year,'' adding that once the final segment of the pipeline now under construction is complete, the Fort Yates intake will be shut down.Thompson has stressed this project has been in the works for more than a decade, and was prompted when serious drought conditions in 2002 lowered water levels in the Missouri River system to the point where the Fort Yates intake was unable to draw water. He has noted the Mobridge intake was state of the art design, and much deeper than the one Fort Yates, and would be unaffected during droughts.

The simple facts are the Fort Yates water intake - again the very heart of the tribes claims - will be shut down the end of the year. And the tribe full well knows it. The heart of the tribes claims - that the pipeline - which is buried 90' under the river where it crosses - threatens the tribes entire source of water .... is a knowing lie perpetrated by the tribe.

These are well documented, irrefutable facts. The tribe KNOWS their claims are untruthful. And yet they continue to make them.

Additionally, it should be noted the Standing Rock tribe has such extensive water rights and resources that they have their own water utility. Funded as I noted, in significant part by tens of millions of dollars in outright, non-repayable, Federal government grants. The Standing Rock tribe is a sophisticated water manager.Standing Rock Reservation - appx 3,571 sq. miles and more than 2.2 million acres - 6th largest in the US.

People also need to understand that this is not a small, unsophisticated and beleaguered underdog group ... the Standing Rock Reservation is more than 2.2 million acres - covering 3,571 square miles across two states - with significant and extensive natural resources and water holdings:

"The Standing Rock Indian Reservation is a Hunkpapa Lakota and Yanktonai Dakota Indian reservation in North Dakota and South Dakota in the United States. The sixth-largest reservation in land area in the United States, Standing Rock includes all of Sioux County, North Dakota, and all of Corson County, South Dakota, plus slivers of northern Dewey and Ziebach Counties in South Dakota, along their northern county lines at Highway 20.The reservation has a land area of 9,251.2 square kilometers (3,571.9 sq mi) and a population of 8,250 as of the 2000 census"

THE TRIBES DESCRIPTION -- "The Standing Rock Sioux Nation straddles the North Dakota/South Dakota border on the western portion of both states. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe has two casinos located near Cannon Ball, North Dakota, and the Grand River Casino near Wakpala, South Dakota. The Standing Rock has a beautiful land base which includes Missouri River, Cannon Ball River, Grand River, and many creeks. "

And while the Standing Rock Tribe, like too many others, certainly has suffered from ever changing 'agreements' with the Federal government in long past times ... the Standing Rock Reservation boundaries - which this pipeline does not enter or cross - have remained the same since 1889.

Many have asked the question ''why hasn't the media reported on the pipeline protests at Standing Rock'' ... while I don't have the a firm answer, the most likely answer is they have done the same investigation I have, and determined the tribes claims are not truthful, and with the ''Earth Justice'' organization behind their lawsuit, are unwilling to promote a situation which has been held by a Federal Court Judge ... to be untrue.

The ''Cannonball Pit Stop'' gas station - owned by Tribal Chairman David Archambault II.

AN INTERESTING SIDE NOTE -- The protest site and encampment at the river crossing is near the small town of Cannonball, ND - population appx 800. It is in a fairly remote area. There is a single small convenience store and gas station less than 2 miles from the protest site - the Cannonball Pit Stop - which benefits greatly from the protest camp and traffic. The place the thousands of protesters have been purchasing supplies, gasoline and diesel fuel from is owned by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's very own chairman, David Archambault II.

AN UPDATE - ON PIPELINE SAFETY IN THE US ... an update that takes a similarly documented and referenced, factual look at pipeline safety. Lets get started ... There are more than 2.5 million miles of pipelines in the US. According to the US DOT Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), in 2015 there were 72,563 miles of crude oil pipelines and 62,588 miles of pipelines transporting finished petroleum products. Adding the other associated 'hazardous liquids' brings the total pipeline for this category to just short of 208,000 miles. According to the Association of Oil Pipelines in 2013, we moved about 8.3 billion barrels of crude oil via pipeline compared to about 291 million barrels of crude oil moved by rail in 2013, according to theAssociation of American Railroads. These amounts include only the crude oil products transported, and not the finished petroleum products shipped back out once refined (another appx. 6.9 billion barrels in 2013). As the data and facts show, pipeline transported crude oil volume was about 29 times greater than rail oil volume in 2013.OIL PIPELINE SAFETY FACTS:

''Total deliveries by liquids pipeline of crude oil, refined products such as gasoline or diesel fuel, and natural gas liquids such as ethane totaled 16.2 billion barrels (nearly 680 billion gallons) in 2014, an 8.1% increase from 2013.'' ... from the ASSOCIATION OF OIL PIPE LINES (AOPL) / AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE (API)2015 U.S. Liquids Pipeline Usage & Mileage ReportMore details:In 2014 an amazing 99.99869% of crude oil and petroleum products delivered by pipeline reached their destination safely.Pipeline incidents potentially impacting people or the environment outside of operator facilities are down 52% since 1999In 2015, 71% of pipeline incidents occurred and were contained wholly within a pipeline operator's facility and posed no threat to the outside environment.Corrosion related incidents outside of operator facilities are down 68% Since 1999Out of appx 16 billion barrels delivered there were only appx 130 pipeline incidents in 2015 that affected the outside environment. More than 65% were less than 5 Barrels and 83% of these were less than 50 barrels.Just 5% of spills - less than 7 incidents out of 130 total - were larger than 500 barrels, with appx. 2,000 barrels or larger typically considered a major or significant spill.Pipeline incidents larger than 500 barrels are down 32% from 2011 to 2015In 2015, across the entire 200,000+ miles of oil pipelines and nearly 16 billion barrels of oil delivered, there were a total of just 11 spills that were 500 barrels or larger.A few very large pipeline incidents, in most cases caused by natural or outside forces beyond a pipeline operator's control, skew the data to appear worse than it really is. An example would the the Quebec rail disaster - caused by cascading human failure, serious affected the overall safety rate of railroad transportation of oil.So lets make some sense of how the safety data relates to the Dakota Access Pipeline. First, the DAPL is approximately 1,172 miles from its start in North Dakota to its terminus in Illinois. The U.S Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Administration, PHMSA Pipeline Safety DATA ... as shown in more easily understood format in the linked AOPL/API industry publication ... tells us (page 38) there were an average 0.000111 pipeline incidents of greater than 500 barrel spills, per mile in 2015, across the entire liquid fuels pipeline network. Applying that safety statistic to the DAPL's 1,172 miles shows us that historically, on average there would be appx 0.13 spills greater than 500 barrels per year. Or one spill larger than 500 barrels every appx. 7.69 years. The PHMSA Pipeline Safety data also tells us the average chance of a greater than 50 barrel spill in 2015 was 0.000361 per mile. Again, for the 1,172 mile DAPL, this would show we could expect 0.42 spills greater than 50 barrels per year. Or one spill larger than 50 barrels every appx. 2.38 years. Keep in mind these historical incident rates reflect the entire 200,000 plus miles of various oil pipelines - more than 60% of which are older. The DAPL reflects the latest state of the art materials, construction, and safety controls. Its actual incident rate should be significantly lower. What is remarkable is that in 2015, across the entire 200,000+ miles of oil pipeline's, and nearly 16 billion barrels of oil delivered, there were a total of just 11 spills that were 500 barrels or larger. Once again - these are hard, real numbers from the U.S Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Administration, PHMSA Pipeline Safety division. They have collected decades of historical data up to and thru 2015. All of their data is openly available here for anyone wishing to investigate themselves. This data is presented in the ASSOCIATION OF OIL PIPE LINES (AOPL) / AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE (API) Annual Liquids Pipeline Safety Excellence Performance Report & Strategic Plan. This simpler, easier to understand review of the PHMSA is great reading for anyone that would like to learn more about the real facts and data regarding oil pipeline safety in the US ...UPDATE 10/27/16 - SAY ANYTHING BLOG:I've been remiss in noting an important source... that actually got me started on this research. Please take time to visitSayanything Blog... on Facebook or the web!UPDATE 10/27/16 - ''WATER IS LIFE'' .... This phrase is at the very heart of this debate - in so many ways. It is a phrase people, good and bad, can agree on. The Standing Rock tribe clearly knows and agrees with this - it is at the very core of the tribes claims - the claims that are the heart of this protest movement.

As well they should ... between 2009 and 2016 they received nearly $40 million dollars in grants - outright gifts from the federal government and the good people of the United States - grants that provided that the tribe could build their very own new high tech water s#NoDAPL ystem to replace an old, unreliable and failing system and provide a reliable and safe source of water to the tribe and reservation.

The tribe built this new water system - starting with $29.2 million in grants in 2009 and finishing later this year after another appx $7 million in grants.

This new water system includes a new high tech, filtered, deep water water intake in Lake Oahe near Mobridge SOUTH Dakota and the nearby new 5 million gallon per day water treatment plant, along with a new 5 million gallon water storage reservoir at Kline Butte and new water pipelines to connect them all.

The tribe also received gifts to complete a new waterline to connect the new storage reservoir to the tribes existing water distribution system, including the final leg - a water pipeline to the Fort Yates area, due to be completed late this year.

Upon completion of this last segment, the Fort Yates water intake will be shut down - which the tribe has known about since 2003, and with certainty since 2009.

I'll remind readers that the Fort Yates water intake is at the center of the tribes claims that sparked this protest movement ... the claim that the pipeline river crossing just upstream from the Fort Yates water intake threatened the tribes entire source of water for the reservation.

It seems very difficult to threaten something that does not exist. And the tribe knew the Fort Yates water intake would cease to exist later this year.

Shouldn't truthfulness be the very bedrock for such a protest as this?

The new Standing Rock water system, provided for by a very large gift to the Standing Rock tribe from the good people from the United States of America, insures and provides a state of the art new complete water system, guaranteeing the tribe a reliable, safe water source for generations to come.

It is sad that the tribe repays this significant gift with a lack of truthfulness, and incites protest based on the same. From the May 24, 2010 issue of the ''Inyan Woslata Eyapaha'' Newsletter:

STANDING ROCK SIOUX TRIBE - Water Treatment Plant to Break Ground in June --Drinkable water has been a long-standing issue for the people of the Standing Rock reservation. There have been times in history when citizens of Standing Rock have had to boil water to ensure its drinkability or purchase bottled water. Those days may soon become history themselves, however, as the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (SRST) prepares to open a major water treatment plant. Chairman Charles W. Murphy says the groundbreaking represents an important milestone for the Tribe. ''We are very pleased to see this project move forward. We've come a long way from the day when our Tribe suffered devastating events like the loss of water for our citizens during the Thanksgiving holiday several years ago. We look forward to the improvements to our quality of life.''

On June 2nd, 2010, at 11:00 a.m., there will be a Groundbreaking Ceremony ... to celebrate the beginning of construction of the heart of the ''core facilities'' which will provide a long awaited permanent solution to the drinking water shortages of the Standing Rock Reservation, ultimately providing safe, clean, dependable drinking water to all residents of the entire reservation in both North and South Dakota.

Bureau of Reclamation release on Standing Rock water system grants ...

The ability to construct the Water Treatment Plant and Indian Memorial Intake Pump Station became possible as a result of the nearly $19 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds that were received by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. The contract was bid on March 17th and came in 5% under the Engineer's Estimate; construction could result in over 170 jobs for one of the most economically challenged areas of America.'' Press release on the $29.2 million federal grant - U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation -- Standing Rock Rural Water System to construct the core components of the new Standing Rock water system.Residents review routing information

UPDATE 10/28/16 - BISMARK ROUTING ... Another challenge offered numerous times in response to my article is that the early draft Bismark crossing was found unsuitable and was moved to near tribal lands. The claims as to why thes people say it was moved run a wide gamut. I think its worth while to Public hearing on routinginclude my reply on this topic here: First, I suggest you read the Environmental Assessment Report. The EA is more than 1,200 pages and discusses the many valid and legitimate reasons, legal and otherwise, the early routing near Bismarck was found unsuitable. The Corp studied and investigated the Bismarck option in detail and clearly outlined the reasons it was found unsuitable. That they did so only strengthens their approval of the crossing at Cannonball. It shows they review and consider all aspects before issuing an approval. This is exactly the process they underwent at the current crossing site, and found it to be safe."The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers evaluated the Bismarck route and concluded it was not a viable option for many reasons. One reason mentioned in the agency's environmental assessment is the proximity to wellhead source water protection areas that are avoided to protect municipal water supply wells.

In addition, the Bismarck route would have been 11 miles longer with more road crossings and waterbody and wetland crossings. It also would have been difficult to stay 500 or more feet away from homes, as required by the North Dakota Public Service Commission, the corps states.

The Bismarck route also would have crossed an area considered by federal pipeline regulators as a ''high consequence area,'' which is an area determined to have the most significant adverse consequences in the event of a pipeline spill."

For some a picture is worth a thousand words ... here is a graphic from the Environmental Assessment that paints the picture of why the Lake Oahe Cannonball crossing was chosen and Bismarck was not ...

Excerpt from the DAPL Environmental Assessment comparing Bismarck route to Lake Oahe/Cannonball routing

The Lake Oahe/Cannonball option compared to the Bismarck option:

Is 10.6 miles shorterFollowed existing, prior excavated Right of Way for an additional nearly 38 milesReduced the amount of natural resource assets (''greenfields'') crossed by 48.6 miles.Has 11 fewer floodplain crossingsHas 33 fewer waterbodies crossedHas 24 fewer wetlands crossedHas 27 fewer transportation crossingsHas 27 fewer boreholes (at $35,000 ea)Meets federal routing requirements, which Bismarck did notIn the same Bismarck Tribune article the Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Chairman Dave Archambault II said:"... the tribe argues that consequences would be severe if the 30-inch pipeline carrying 450,000 barrels of oil per day were to leak near the reservation's water intake ... "

Yet as the tribe's Chairman, Mr. Archambault knows full well the water intake at Fort Yates, just downstream from the DAPL crossing ... the water intake that is the core of the tribes claims the pipeline will threaten their water supply ... will be closed in the coming months upon the tribe's completion of the tribes water pipeline connecting the Fort Yates area water system to the tribes new Mobridge South Dakota, water intake, water treatment plant, water storage reservoir and water pipeline distribution system.

The article headline claims ''ND SPILLS WENT UNREPORTED'' while in the body they claim ''state documents show'' North Dakota '' recorded nearly 300 oil pipeline spills in less than two years'' that went unreported to the public.

AP Report on alleged "unreported" spills Oct 25, 2013

The reality is, however, something altogether different than their sensationalistic headline claim. The truth is these spill did not go unreported - the article itself notes that ND did receive and record the reports and data on each of these spills. The truth is the data was simply not all released to the public, as the Health Dept felt most were so small - an average spill of just 7 barrels per incident - as to not warrant reporting to the public. Additionally, the AP's report noted the data they reviewed showed; (a.) the majority, more than 50%, of these incidents occurred within the operators sites and presented no exposure to the public, and, (b.) the majority of the oil spilled in these incidents (74%) was recovered, leaving an average of just 1.88 barrels unrecovered per incident. Opponents and critics of the DAPL continue to use this claim - that a large number of spills are unreported in ND - as evidence that the PHMSA pipeline safety is inaccurate, and pipelines are much less safe than claimed. THIS CLAIM IS UNEQUIVOCALLY FALSE ... as the AP story itself shows. Not reporting all incidents to the public, does not mean the incidents are not reported and made part of the safety database. It should be noted that ND officials almost immediately responded to this story, and - within weeks - announced a new database that publicly reports ALL incident data.

So while we are here, since we have actual North Dakota Data ... lets review what that data shows... Here is the ND pipeline data as presented in the AP story:

"North Dakota also had 291 "incidents" this year that leaked a total of about 2,209 barrels of oil. Data show that all but 490 barrels were contained and cleaned up at the well site. In 2012, there were 168 spills reported that leaked 1,089 barrels of oil; all but 376 barrels were contained on site, data show."

Conclusions we can draw, based on facts and statement from the article:

During a 21 month period the story claims there were a total of 459 incidents where there was a spill - an average of appx 21 per month.There was a total of 3,298 barrels spilled across 459 incidents - an average of just over 7 barrels per incident.Out of 3,298 barrels spilled, 2,432 barrels were recovered, leaving a net total of just 866 barrels over 21 months, and across 459 incidents - a net spilled and not recovered per incident of just 1.9 barrels.The story also notes "a little more than half of the spills companies reported to North Dakota occurred "on-site," where a well is connected to a pipeline, and most were fewer than 10 barrels."

If we assume that means 55% of spills occurred within the operators well site and do not affect the public (the nat'l data shows 71% of all incidents occur on the operators site), then we get the following statistics regarding spills affecting the public over the 21 month period:

A total 252 incidents affecting the public (avg 144 per year)A total 1,813 barrels spilled (avg spill of just 7.2 barrels per incident)A total of 1,338 barrels recovered, leaving just 475 barrels spilled and not recovered (avg 1.8 barrels per incident)These numbers must be put into the perspective that more than 25 million barrels of oil were produced and transported during that 21 month period - and in the spills that affected the public, just 1,813 barrels in total were spilled, with just 475 barrels unrecovered. More than 25 million barrels produced and transported - most thru pipelines - and just 475 barrels were spilled and not recovered. But pipelines aren't safe. They threaten everything ... right?

UPDATE 11/1/16 - A response to the EPA comment letter: I am seeing numerous claims referring to the allegation the EPA ''sided with'' the Standing Rock tribe and objected to the DAPL approval by The US Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) such as this: ''Here is theMarch 11 letter from EPAto the US Army Corps of Engineers which refutes the narrative that refutes the notion that a proper environmental study was done. ''My response to one such post:

EPA caused Animas River Spill (source Wikipedia Commons)

First, the EPA's record recently on 'protecting' water is simply put - terrible. The Animas river spill directly caused by the EPA and their response and coverup are legendary: ''The Environmental Protection Agency's colossal, three million gallon spill of mining waste containing lead, arsenic and other toxic substances into the Animas River in Colorado. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy says the agency is very sorry:'We want to reassure everyone that the EPA does take full responsibility for the spill,' which took place at the long-closed mine north of Durango, she said. 'No agency could be more upset about this incident and more dedicated to doing our job and doing it right.'''

In the EPA's response letter to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) the EPA also shows a similar failure to understand the requirements of the law. The EPA claims the "Draft EA focused almost exclusively on the two DAPL crossings of the Missouri River" ... which is exactly correct. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction only over jurisdictional waters of the U.S. - which for this project are primarily the DAPL river crossings. The EPA attempts to tell the USACE to exert control over lands they simply have NO JURISDICTION over. Less than 3% of the 1,172 miles of the DAPL are under USACE jurisdiction.

The EPA admonishes that USACE must require an "emergency response" plan from Dakota Access, adding a multitude of emergency response "suggestions" (read 'demands') including:

"We recommend that Dakota Access adequately plan, prepare and train for such an event and that the revised Draft EA include a requirement to work with the local water districts on spill response strategies and equipment specific to the drinking water intakes in and near the project. Further, we recommend the NEPA analysis describe additional mitigation measures regarding emergency preparedness to reduce the impacts in the event of a spill. "

... yet admits the EA directly references the Dakota Access "Facilities Response Plan" ... a 180 page plan which addresses these routing requirements and more - available here.The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) provided their own in depth Environmental Assessment and comments to USACE on the Draft USACE Environmental Assessment noted:

"In the unlikely event of a pipeline release, Dakota Access will initiate its FRP to contain and clean up the spill. To minimize impacts to aquatic resources, appropriate remedial measures will be implemented to meet federal and state standards designed to ensure protection of aquatic biota."

While the EPA inaccurately talked about Dakota Access not having an emergency response plan. The EPA 'letter' response makes many specific recommendations (read demands) yet acknowledge they:

"... recognize that except in the case of a major flood and erosion event, depth of cover surveys would not be applicable to Dakota Access's Missouri River and Lake Oahe crossings due to the use of horizontal directional drilling to bore well below the river / lake bottom"

Despite this, in the same paragraph they "recommend that the revised Draft EA assess and discuss the potential for ... scour and consider the inclusion of on-going depth of cover surveys associated with hydrological events."

What kind of "major flood and erosion event" is going to "scour" and erode down 92' below the river bottom. Simply silly.

The EPA next lectures about proper "Environmental Justice" review ... and "tribal coordination" ... alleging tribes were not contacted or involved. Which we know for a fact is complete rubbish. A federal Court Judge has ruled other tribes DID participate with no problems, and the Standing Rock tribe had every chance to participate and refused.

The EPA also claims " the methodology did not discuss how impacts to water resources were more broadly considered in developing the preferred alignment." Which is abjectly ridiculous. The EA addressed routing in great detail. The fact 17 major route adjustments and many more minor ones were made, proves the EPA is simply wrong.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service addressed the silliness of the EPA's claim in their own Assessment and comments:

"Dakota Access utilized a sophisticated and proprietary Geographic Information System (GIS) based routing program to determine the baseline pipeline route based on multiple publicly available and purchased datasets. Datasets utilized during the Project GIS routing analysis included engineering (e.g., existing pipelines, railroads, karst, and power lines, etc.), environmental (e.g., critical habitat, fault lines, state parks, national forests, brownfields, national registry of historic places, etc.), and land (e.g., dams, airports, cemeteries, schools, mining, and military installations, etc.). "

The USFWS continued:

"In general, the preferred route for the pipeline would follow features identified as low risk, avoid or minimize crossing features identified as moderate risk, and exclude features identified as high risk. For example, the existing pipelines dataset was weighted as a low risk feature in the GIS routing program so that the routing tool followed existing pipelines to the extent possible to minimize potential impacts. An example of a high risk feature of the datasets utilized in the GIS routing program is the federally designated critical habitat dataset. Since federally designated critical habitat was weighted for this Project as high risk, the GIS routing program excluded any critical habitat from the baseline pipeline route to avoid impacts. "

But wait! ... there is (much) more ... from the USFWS:

"Route Alternative 2 (Appendix A) is the preferred route which is the result of incorporating route modifications based on USFWS avoidance and minimization recommendations of potential impacts to grassland and wetland easements of Route Alternative 1."

"Dakota Access was able to adjust the centerline route and avoid all [initially identified] easements in North Dakota ... in February 2015 [new data] disclosed six new easements ... in North Dakota. While Dakota Access was unable to reroute completely around four ... grassland easements due to constructability limitations, USFWS recommended avoidance of the grassland easements, therefore Dakota Access adjusted construction techniques at the grassland easements (i.e. bore or HDD). Therefore all surface impacts to grassland easements are avoided by the preferred route. " You can access the USFWS's own detailed 180 page response to the USACE request for comments on their Draft Environmental Assessment at this link.Unlike the EPA's cursory and minimal comments, the USFWS coordinated and cooperated extensively with Dakota Access - cooperatively working with them to identify impacts. And coordinating with Dakota Access, by route modifications and/or changing construction methods (at significant increased cost), to made adjustments to avoid all impacts identified by USFWS.

The EPA did NO substantive research or work. And most of their assertions were simply false - and were addressed extensively in the process.

The EPA even admits the Draft "EA notes that there is minimal risk of an oil spill associated with this project" and acknowledges the "... low probability of a significant spill reaching the Missouri River and lakes..."

AGAIN, this is from the same EPA who brought us the massive Animas River gold mine toxic release disaster.

It is extremely ironic that the same people that attacked the EPA (and I am one of them) over their toxic gold mine spill debacle, now see the EPA as credible.

The USACE has no responsibility beyond considering the input from other agencies. Just as with ALL public comment.

The USFWS extremely detailed 40 page response essentially refutes almost every claim the EPA makes in their pathetic and uninformed 5 page letter.

The simple truth is the EPA's comments are seriously flawed, are not accurate, do not reflect the law, and are soundly refuted by other independent, detailed and credible work by those like the US Fish and Wildlife Service - who have a very significant and real stake in potential impacts from the Dakota Access Pipeline.

UPDATE 11/2/16 - But there is another choice ... TRAINS!

Fraser Research Bulletin Aug 2015 report on safety of oil transport between pipelines and trains.

Another claim I am seeing some make is there are other options - most often stating that we can ship this oil by rail.

For many reasons, including safety, cost, capacity and the disruption to other markets such as farmers trying to get their crops, which cannot be shipped by pipeline, to market ... that is simply not true.

Transporting oil and gas by pipeline or rail is in general quite safe.But when the safety of transporting oil and gas by pipelines and rail is compared, taking into consideration the amount of product moved, pipelines are found to be the much safer transportation method.Specifically, rail is found to be over 4.5 times more likely to experience an occurrence when compared to pipelines, and;Over 70 percent of pipeline occurrences result in spills of 1 m3 or less, and only 17 percent of pipeline occurrences take place in actual line pipe, meaning that the vast majority of spills occur in facilities, which may have secondary containment mechanisms and procedures.Many claim ... but ''they'' never ... followed by a myriad of things ''they'' allegedly did not do, including that ''they'' never reviewed alternative methods of transporting this oil. The truth is ''they'' - being the US Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) - most certainly did exactly that. On page 17 (or 1,261) of the DAPL Envirnmental Assessment - in ''Alternative 3'' - ''they'' discussed exactly that - trains. Here is what ''they'' had to say:Rail oil tanker cars (Wikipedia Commons)

Alternative 3 '' Rail Transportation

Reliance on rail as a transportation method in the Williston Basin has drastically increased in recent years, carrying a negligible percentage of the overall market share as recently as 2010 to nearly 60% of the overall market share by mid-2014 (Nixon, 2014).

The rise in the use of rail as a primary transportation method has been driven in large part by the rapid increase in production of crude oil coupled with a LACK OF pipeline capacity to account for additional supplies.

Negative impacts from the growth in popularity of rail as a method of long-distance transportation of crude oil include delays that disrupt the agricultural sector, reductions in coal-fired power plant inventories, and significant production issues in the food production industry. In August 2014, reports filed with the federal government indicated that the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway had a backlog of 1,336 rail cars waiting to ship grain and other products, while Canadian Pacific Railway had a backlog of nearly 1,000 cars (Nixon, 2014). For industries, such as those listed, in which the use of pipelines is not an option, the only viable alternative would be increased reliance on trucking, which would exacerbate some of the issues listed in the section above.

With 10 to 12 trains currently leaving the state per day carrying Bakken crude, the DAPL Project would represent a 50 to 60% increase in the number of trains transporting crude oil out of the state, likely exacerbating issues with delays (Horwath and Owings, 2014). Rail operations on the scale of the DAPL Project do not exist in the U.S. An oil-by-rail facility designed to handle an average of 360,000 bpd has been proposed in the Port of Vancouver, Washington. Known as the Vancouver Energy proposal, the project would be the largest rail terminal in the country (Florip, 2014). A rail transportation alternative to handle the volumes of the DAPL Project would require the design and construction of 125 to 158% of that of the Vancouver Energy proposal. A facility of this size would incur its own environmental consequences.

From a safety standpoint, railroad transport consistently reports a substantially higher number of transportation accidents than pipelines (DOT, 2005). A series of major accidents taking place in 2013-2014 in Canada and the U.S. has heightened concern about the risks involved in shipping crude by rail (Fritelli, 2014). Increases in rail traffic necessary to transport the volume of crude oil proposed by the DAPL project would increase the emissions of combustion products due the use of diesel engines which could have an adverse impact on air quality in the region.

This alternative would also directly affect communities along utilized rail lines by increasing noise and creating transportation delays due to the substantial increasing rail traffic across railroad crossings of roads. While rail tanker cars are a vital part of the short-haul distribution network for crude oil, pipelines are a more reliable, safer, and more economical alternative for the large volumes transported and longd istances covered by the DAPL Project. This alternative would create delays on the rail lines due to the substantial increase in rail traffic, resulting in shipping delays in other industries such as agriculture thatcannot rely on pipeline transportation. Furthermore, the purpose and need of the Project would not be attainable with the current oil-by-rail infrastructure in the country because rail loading facilities of sufficient size do not exist.

As such, rail transportation is not considered a viable alternative.

UPDATE - 11/30/16: On the Sept. 2014 Dakota Access meeting with the Standing Rock tribe ...

A typical supporters commentary on the Sept 2014 initial informational meeting between Dakota Access and the Standing Rock Tribe.

Protesters claim the recording shows the tribe said they didn't want the pipeline period, and that should be all they have to do. But as is so often the case the protesters were less than truthful, neglecting to include some very important, key facts surrounding this meeting.

First, we should be clear just what this meeting was ... an initial informational meeting by Dakota Access to provide information on the project. It was nothing more than Dakota Access's early outreach to introduce the project to various groups and entities. In this meeting the Vice President of Engineering for the Dakota Access Pipeline Chuck Frey, said they were there to ''detail the project and answer questions.'' After being informed the pipeline was going to be routed north of the Standing Rock Reservation boundary, Standing Rock tribal Chairman, David Archambault II's replied:

"This is something that the tribe is not supporting. We'll listen to your presentation and then ask our Tribal Historic Preservation Officer to help remind your company of the federal laws that include Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act."

Phyllis Young, a Lakota, activist and former tribal councilwoman for the Standing Rock Sioux. Photo Charmaine Robledo - Mountain Sky Area, UMC

Then we hear from Tribal elder Phyllis Young, who first, demanded a Section 106 review and that they be included in the process:

"It was very astute for you to go around the northern boundary of Standing Rock as we see it in modern times. But this is treaty territory. Those are ancestral lands. So you are bound by Section 106, by the laws of this country, to adhere to those laws that are federal laws for the protection of our people. We are not stupid people, we are not ignorant people. Do not underestimate the people of Standing Rock. We know what's going on, and we know what belongs to us"

Young continued saying the tribe would ask they be consulted on the route, ''because we know where our significant sites are. This is on treaty land. If we know your route, we can help you identify important sites.''

Which is exactly what the DAPL and Corps did. But Young was far from finished: ''... this is our property, this is our homeland. And we will do whatever we have to to stop this pipeline. We will put on our best warriors in the front. We are the vanguard. We are Hunkpapa Lakota. That means the horn of the buffalo. That's who we are ... We will put forward our young people, our young warriors, who understand the weasel words, now, of the English language, who know that one word can mean seven things. We understand the forked tongue that our grandfathers talked about. We know about talking out of both sides of your mouth, smiling with one side of your face. We know all the tricks of the wasichu world. Our young people have mastered it. I also have the collective memory of the damages that have occurred to my people. And I will never submit to any pipeline to go through my homeland.''

After asking for proper review, and to be consulted ... Young continued, with overt threats.

As was always required, the Corps subjected the DAPL to, and completed, a full Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) review - exactly as the tribe demanded. The Standing Rock tribe had EVERY opportunity to participate, just as did other entities, groups, individuals and many other tribes - ALL who managed to participate and offer input. Input that resulted in 17 initial route changes and 140 smaller changes within the route.

There was just one problem. After the Standing Rock tribe GOT the Section 106 NHPA review they demanded, and promised to cooperate with, they failed to do so.

Regardless, the Army Corps kept trying ... going well beyond the lawful requirements - making many attempts to meet with the tribe and gain their cooperation, input and participation. Despite these extraordinary efforts, the tribe failed to meaningfully engage ... and in many cases refused to do so ... during the years long permitting review process. Haphazardly on occasion the tribe, thru THPO Young, would respond, but rarely followed thru. In the end the tribe failed to participate and offer input in the very Section 106 NHPA review they demanded.

The Corps, having found Dakota Access had followed and met every law, regulation, requirement and rule, approved the permit in June 2016.

The tribe then filed a lawsuit in federal Court that claimed they were not properly consulted, as required in the Section 106 NHPA review. The detailed record, the evidence filed from both sides, shows this calim to be absolutely and unequivocally untrue. The federal Court Judge, despite his admission he was sympathetic to the tribe, agreed.

Ruling in a 58 page Memorandum, the Judge held, not only did the record show the tribes claims they were not consulted, were unsupported ... but the evidence showed these claims were simply untruthful. The Judge ruled the evidence showed the Army Corps made numerous attempts, over and above the requirements of the law, to gain engagement from the tribe, but the tribe failed and/or refused to participate.

The Court ruled the US Army Corps DID complete a full and proper Section 106 NHPA review as required under the law, and that the Corp MET all of the requirements of the law regarding consultation with the tribe. A three Judge Federal Court of Appeals panel agreed.

The tribe had EVERY right and OPPORTUNITY to participate and voice their concerns in BOTH the "public comments" part of the permitting process review, AND in the Section 106 NHPA review the tribe demanded in the Sept 2014 meeting. Yet despite every opportunity to participate the tribe refused and or failed to do so.

It is worth repeating ... in the 2014 tape, the Standing Rock Tribe demanded the Army Corp do a full Section 106 NHPA review. Which is exactly what Dakota Access and Army Corps did. After making that demand the tribe failed and/or refused to participate. THAT is the truth here.

Read the Judge's Memorandum and ruling that the US Army Corp of Engineers did comply with the law, that the tribe failed/refused to meaningfully engage and participate ... for yourself. You'll see an extensive, documented timeline of the tribes interaction, and lack thereof, during the permit process.Next let's review the Treaty Lands claims made ... in the same 2014 meeting Standing Rock tribal Chairman Archambault made the claim the pipeline crossed the 1851/1868 treaty lands:

"... told the the pipeline was going to be routed 1,500 feet north of the Standing Rock Reservation boundary ... Standing Rock Tribal chairman Chairman Dave Archambault II replied ''We recognize our treaty boundaries from 1851 and 1868, and because of that we oppose the pipeline."

Archambault and supporters can SAY the pipeline is on treaty lands, but that will not make his claim true.

Let's look at the facts ...

1851 Treaty lands (gold), 1868 Treaty lands (gray), and the 1877 Act northward expansion to the Cannonball river (red line) (click to enlarge)

The Laramie Treaty of 1868 established the tribal lands boundaries as shown in GRAY on the map attached. The Congressional Act of 1877 extinguished all tribal ownership and rights to the 1851 treaty lands (shown in GOLD in the map below), and extended the 1868 treaty lands (gray) north to the Cannonball River (red line).

In the 1877 Act by Congress, all the tribal rights to all lands except the 1868 Treaty lands shown in gray (including the 1851 section northward to the red line) were ended. The tribes had no further rights to the 1851 Treaty lands upon enactment of the 1877 Act. The accuracy and truth of this claim are supported by law.

After decades of litigation the US Supreme Court ruled, in UNITED STATES v. SIOUX NATION OF INDIANS, (1980), that Congress had full legal authority for the 1877 Act and that the tribes rights to the 1851 lands were legally ended. The Court ruled the tribe must be paid just compensation for the land, awarding the tribes $17.5 million plus interest at 5% annually from 1877. That full award was paid by the government and is being held in trust for the tribes. The balance is now more than $1.2 billion.

The Supreme Court ruled the tribes have no rights to any lands the DAPL crosses.

The tribes and their supporters say the tribes never agree to the taking of their lands, and note they have refused the money paid to them. But that is not the law ... the Court makes the final decision, and they have ruled. The tribe does not have to accept the money, but that will not change the ruling.

This Sept 2014 meeting, which so many want to claim has ANY relevance, actually only goes to show the duplicity and untruthfulness of the tribes claims. It shows the tribe demanded a full Section 106 NHPA review in the Sept. 2014 meeting. The Army Corp did exactly what the tribe demanded ... and the tribe failed and refused to participate, engage and respond.

This recording clearly confirms the bad faith and falsehoods on the part of the tribe in; (a.) demanding a Section 106 NHPA review, then (b.) failing/refusing to participate in it ... and then (c.) making the untruthful claim to the Court they had not been properly consulted.

The Court ruled on the record and evidence before it, which clearly showed the Army Corp. had properly completed the Section 106 NHPA review the Standing Rock tribe demanded, and had fully complied with the Section 106 NHPA requirements, and properly ruled the tribe's claims were unfounded.

Judge Boasberg ruled the tribes claims were not supported by the record. The Supreme Court ruled the tribes rights to 1851 Treaty lands were ended in 1877, and that ruling is final. The tribes have no legal right to the unceded lands.TIME FOR AN UPDATE ....HOW SAFE IS IT ANYWAY?

The Trans-Alaska pipeline runs thru. and operates within, one of the harshest, most severe environments in the world ... how safe is it?

With Trump making clear the Dakota Access Pipeline will be completed in an expedited fashion, and authorizing Keystone XL ... the abject displays of ignorance about pipeline safety are resurging.

So rather than industry-wide statistics on overall pipeline safety, let's focus on a look at a REAL WORLD example ... a major pipeline and route located in one of the harshest, most severe - and most ecologically important environments in the world ... the Trans-Alaska pipeline.

Certainly there are few, if any, other pipelines located in more difficult, unforgiving and challenging places anywhere.

So JUST HOW HARSH is the Trans-Alaska's route and environment? Lets take a look:

Air Temperature Range Along Route: MINUS -80°F to +95°F.

Diameter of Pipe: 48 inches.

Elevations, Highest: ' Atigun Pass: 4,739 ft. ' Isabel Pass: 3,420 ft. ' Thompson Pass: 2,812 ft.

Grade, Maximum: 145% (55°) at Thompson Pass.

Length of Line: 800 miles (1,288 kilometers)

Mountain Ranges Crossed, North to South (three): ' Brooks Range, ' Alaska Range, ' Ahugach Range.

Right-of-Way Widths: ' Federal land: 54 ft. (buried pipe); 64 ft. (elevated pipe). ' State land: 100 ft. ' Private land: 54 ft. to 300 ft.

River and Stream Crossings: ' 34 major, ' nearly 500 others.

EARTHQUAKE, In Nov 2002 the pipeline withstood a magnitude 7.9 Richter Scale earthquake that was centered along the Denali Fault in Interior Alaska, approximately 50 miles west of the pipeline. The quake was among the strongest earthquakes recorded in North America in the last 100 years.

So the next question is ... JUST HOW SAFE is the TRANS-ALASKA pipeline?

Since it began operation in 1977 - now 39 years - the Trans-Alaska - now Aleyska - pipeline:

' Has transported 17,455,737,760 barrels of crude oil. ' Has averaged 11.5 spills per year ' Has averaged 92.3 barrels per spill

Out of 17.46 Billion barrels of crude oil delivered in its 39 years - an average of just 1,064 barrels have spilled annually from the Trans-Alaska pipeline ... a safely delivered rate of 99.9999939%

This is for a 42" crude oil pipeline built and operating in one of the most severe (and most ecologically sensitive) environments in the world ...

And those numbers are skewed by a couple high profile incidents of intentionally inflicted damage ....

' The single largest spill was the result of sabotage - an explosive charge set at Steele Creek that released 16,000 bbl ...

' And the 2nd largest was also sabotage ... when a drunk used repeated shots from a high powered rifle to breach a weld (more than 50 other gunshots to the pipeline failed to cause a leak) causing a spill of appx 6,142 barrels ... 4,238 barrels were directly recovered ... w/less than 2 acres impacted - which were fully cleaned up.

Take away JUST these TWO acts of intentionally damage, and over its 39 years ... over the 17.46 billion barrels delivered by the Trans-Alaska pipeline ... there averaged just 11.47 spills per year with an avg spill of 43.3 barrels and a total average annual amount spilled of just 496 barrels ... an average 99.9999972% safety rating.

NO ONE can argue that the Trans-Alaska pipeline is in a far more severe environment than the Dakota Access Pipeline ... The Trans-Alaska Pipeline:

' Is almost entirely built above ground and exposed to the elements ' Crosses three mountain ranges, including the nearly mile high Atigun Pass ' Air Temperature Range Along Route: MINUS -80°F to +95°F. ' 34 major, and nearly 500 others river and stream crossings: ' Travels directly thru an earthquake fault zone ... safely withstanding a 7.9 quake along its route in 2002 - one of the strongest earthquakes measured in the United States.

But we are supposed to believe the Dakota Access pipeline - with nearly 40 year newer technology, fully buried and protected from the elements and sabotage along essentially its entire route, and in an area with basically no earthquake threat ... is somehow going to experience a massive risk of leaks ...

Neither sabotage or cold, nor mountains and earthquakes ... or even 'snowflakes' ;-) ... can change the facts ... that the Trans Alaska pipeline has an exemplary safety record .... despite its extreme harsh and unforgiving environment.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 29 Jan 2017 02:54

As Donald Trump cracks down on the EPA and USDA, saying their public-facing documents will be under review, astrophysicist Neil ­deGrasse Tyson tells us when it comes to science, ''If you base policy on things that are not objectively true .'‰.'‰. it's a recipe for disaster.''

An outlook like that is ''the unraveling of all that drives the growth of wealth in our nation and in the world,'' he told us Wednesday.

''Ever since the Industrial Revolution we have known that innovations in science and technology are the engines of tomorrow's growth economy,'' Tyson said. ''If you don't recognize that .'‰.'‰. you are undermining the future wealth of the nation. If there is no science happening here, other countries .'‰.'‰. will pass us by, and that's inconsistent with the idea of making America great again.''

''Science Guy'' Bill Nye says he will participate in the proposed March for Science in Washington, DC, but what he'd ''prefer is for these [anti-science] people to come around.'' If people would ''just accept it we could all get to work,'' Nye said.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Fri, 27 Jan 2017 06:25

President Obama and other members of the Democrat party have been repeating ad nauseum since 2008 that ''health insurance companies can raise your premiums when you get sick'' and ''health insurance companies can cancel your coverage when you get sick''. The truth is that Public Law 104-191 (HIPAA) has prohibited such actions by any insurer for more than 17 years, long before Obamacare was ever written. To add insult to injury, the president told the following LIES during a joint session of congress. Watch what he said below:

Really Mr. president? Here's the truth from Politifact the Chicago Sun Times and Fox News. Watch their coverage below:

Then there was the LIE the president told about his own mother. In 2008 and again in the film created for Barack Obama entitled ''The Road We've Traveled'' narrated by Tom Hanks. Watch him tell this lie in the video below:

In the book ''A Singular Woman: The Untold Story of Barack Obama's mother'' by journalist Janny Scott. Scott reviewed letters from the president's mother '' Anne Dunham '' to CIGNA (the insurance company), and revealed the dispute was over disability coverage, not health insurance coverage. Disability coverage helps replace lost wages due to an illness. This story had absolutely nothing to do with her health insurer refusing to pay her medical bills. In fact, she had excellent health insurance, the hospital billed her health insurer directly and her health insurer paid her medical bills, less her deductible and applicable co pays.

Worse yet, the president described his mother as an indigent woman who was 'pretty much drained of her resources.' The truth is Anne Dunham received a base pay in 1995 of $82,500, plus a housing allowance and a car, to work in Indonesia for Development Alternatives Inc. of Bethesda. Today, adjusting for inflation, that salary would be equivalent to $123,500. This is far from indigent. Today, the Washington Post rightfully gives this story 'Three Pinocchios''

What about the woman who the president said had her cancer treatment denied because of acne? Well, as you may have guessed by now, that too is a lie. According to ABC News, ''President Obama's description that Beaton's 'insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne' is not accurate.

As Robin Lynn Beaton's congressman, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, testified, the Blue Cross/Blue Shield letter ''informed Ms. Beaton that an investigation into her claims for benefits resulted in the company reviewing her medical records in which they discovered that she has misinformed them on several pieces of information. One of them was that she did not list her weight accurately, and the other, that she had failed to disclose some medication she had taken for a preexisting heart condition.''

Blue Cross discovered the previous condition after her visit to the dermatologist for acne but her insurance was not canceled because she didn't declare a case of acne.''

By now, you may be asking. 'Who are you to call the president of the United States a liar?' Let me answer that. I have been a multi-state licensed health and life insurance broker for nearly 20 years now. I have also served as a health insurance Subject Matter Expert for multiple business journals and television programs around our great country.

One of the biggest challenges I've had to deal with throughout the years has been trying to secure coverage for people with preexisting conditions who obtain their health insurance on the individual market. They represent 10% of the American insured.

I've never had to worry about preexisting conditions with the other 90% of American insured who get their health insurance through an Employer Sponsored Group plan. Why? Because the same Public Law 104-191 ''HIPAA''has protected them against being denied health insurance because of preexisting conditions for more than 17 years.

Because government legislators did not apply this law to individual health insurance policies, you can be labeled as ''uninsurable'' when you apply for an individual health insurance policy if you have one or more preexisting conditions. That being said, who should we truly blame for the fact that you can be denied coverage for a preexisting condition? Is it the insurance company's fault? Or are they simply following a law that was written by government law makers who did not include HIPAA portability protection for the millions of Americans who purchase health insurance on their own in the individual market?

Because there are no HIPAA portability protections for individual policy holders, this uninsurable status can last for many years and sometimes for life depending on the specific preexisting condition you have been diagnosed with. Some of the preexisting medical conditions that render an applicant uninsurable on an individual policy are: Heart Attack, Stroke, Diabetes, Cancer, Lupus, Multiple Sclerosis, Muscular Dystrophy, Degenerative Arthritis and a host of other preexisting conditions. In addition, there are applicants who have a combination of controlled preexisting conditions but since they have more than three ''ratable conditions'' they are also labeled uninsurable.

Does this mean then that there was some truth in the stories the president told about preexisting conditions? No, he is still a liar. In fact, during the last 2 decades of my career as a health insurance broker I have never been unable to offer someone health insurance coverage, regardless of the severity of their preexisting conditions. In fact, I once secured legitimate major medical health insurance for a woman who was dying of cancer in the hospital. How did I do it? Simple, I am an informed American. I know the laws that were already in place to protect consumers. Laws that were passed long before the president's health care 'reform' law was passed in 2010.

The truth is even if you have lost your employer sponsored group health insurance coverage and/or have exhausted a COBRA continuation plan you too can obtain guaranteed issue health insurance on an individual basis that will provide coverage for your preexisting conditions seamlessly from day one. Your options are as follows:

1.) If you have a Corporate tax i.d. number you can purchase asmall group health insurance policyfrom most insurance carriers. With this scenario, a minimum of 2 people (often husband & wife) who work for the same corporation can apply for a small group health insurance policy. Those who areHIPAA qualifiedwill receive coverage for their preexisting conditions immediately. Even those who are not HIPAA qualified will receive coverage for their preexisting conditions after a maximum period of 12 months. Be sure to read the outline of coverage for the Small Group plan you are applying for to make sure it provides coverage for your preexisting condition before you apply.

2.) Some States, like Colorado, provide what is known as a ''Self Employed Group of One''. In these States, you do not even need to have another person to comprise a ''Group Health Insurance Plan''. To find out how your state defines Small Group health insurance visit this site: http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparetable.jsp?cat=7&ind=350

3.) Enroll in your statesHigh Risk Health Insurance Pool. 35 States provide them.CLICK HEREto see if your state does. In our home state of Illinois the risk pool is called theIllinois Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan(ICHIP). ICHIP is a state health benefits program and not an insurance company. Persons must qualify for coverage, but in most cases if the applicant is coming off an exhausted qualified COBRA continuation plan from a prior employer sponsored group, their preexisting conditions will be covered from day one (provided again that those conditions are a covered expense on the ICHIP policy). ICHIP (and all insurance risk pools) are by no means entitlement programs. They do indeed require you to pay a monthly premium. Nothing in this life is free. To find out if your State has a state sponsored High Risk Health Insurance Pool visithttp://www.naschip.org/states_pools.htm

2014 update Thanks to Obamacare, state High Risk Pool insured members are also losing their coverage all over the country and will be forced into the Obamacare exchanges where many of them will pay more for coverage and be exposed to much more out of pocket, most especially if they do not qualify for a subsidy.

4.) If you live in one of the 10 States that have an ''Individual Market Guaranteed Issue Mandate'' you are guaranteed Health Insurance coverage for preexisting conditions from a variety of Health Insurance carriers that operate within that state. For example, in the state of Ohio, there are 20 Health Insurance carriers that must by law ''Guarantee Issue'' 4% of their block of business to people with preexisting conditions during an annual 'Open Enrollment' period. During this annual period, each health insurance carrier must report to the Ohio Department of Insurance as to whether or not they have ''met their 4% Guaranteed Issue quota''. Once they have met their 4% quota, any future applicants with preexisting conditions are then referred to one of the other health insurers operating in Ohio who have not met their 4% quota and are then guaranteed coverage from that carrier. Did you know that Ohio has never maxed out the 4% quota for all carriers? Never, and everyone has access to coverage for preexisting conditions in Ohio. See page 10 of the Ohio ''Guide to Health Insurance''

Read more about HIPAA protections by downloading ''Protecting Your Health Insurance Coverage'' from CMS '' Centers For Medicare & Medicaid Services.

2014 update This concept is such a good idea that in June of 2011 HHS '' the Health & Human Services department '' finalized new rules regarding preexisting conditions adopting this concept for years 2014 and beyond. Beginning in 2014 there will be two national ''Open Enrollment'' periods for all Americans to obtain guaranteed issue coverage regardless of preexisting conditions. Those two periods are from January 1st of 2014 to March 31st of 2014 and from November 15th '' January 15th 2015. Outside of those two ''Open Enrollment'' periods you will not be able to obtain coverage for preexisting conditions on an individual or family policy unless you qualify for 'Special Enrollment'' period.

Whilst adopting Ohio's plan will help to inhibit 'Adverse Selection' and provide an impetus for consumers to maintain health insurance between ''Open Enrollment'' periods. Make no mistake. 'Adverse Selection' will still exist because the fine for not purchasing health insurance is far less expensive than actually purchasing health insurance. If this fine amount is not increased, 'Adverse Selection' will still continue. This coupled with 'Community Rating' '' charging young people much more for health insurance could lead to what we in the industry call a ''Death Spiral.

2014 Update: Since there is nothing in the PPACA that states health insurers must continue to offer products within the PPACA ''Health Insurance Exchange Marketplace'' 2016 could end up being a very bad year for the health insurance industry and most importantly for their policy holders. This is true because the massive taxpayer funded ''bail outs' to the health insurance industry under the PPACA's 'three Rs'' risk abatement program dries up in 2016.

5.) Even if you are totally disabled and no longer able to work because of a debilitating medical condition, you can apply for one of our country's MANY safety nets called SSDI (Social Security Disability Income) and with it early Medicare benefits. Learn more @www.disabilitysecrets.com

In case you missed that information, let me reiterate. 45 States in our Union provide guaranteed insurability to individual health insurance applicants, regardless of preexisting conditions for decades before the 'Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act', a.k.a. ''Obamacare''. This is not what we were told by the president.

In addition to the aforementioned existing legal options to pursue Guaranteed Issue Health Insurance for those with preexisting conditions. There are also over 1,200 ''free'' (subsidized by taxpayers and philanthropists) health clinics around the United States. Click''free'' clinics in your Stateto find more information. If your situation is dire,Federal EMTALA law mandatesthat you must be treated without discrimination at your local emergency room.

If your child has a preexisting condition and you are at or below the Federal Poverty Level you are further entitled to theFederal SCHIP program, which is an extension of our Medicaid system. To find out if you qualifyclick here. If you do qualify be sure to see if your State has any money left.Some States like Arizona recently terminated their SCHIP program because the entitlement rendered them BANKRUPT

Many States like Illinois have already dramatically expanded their Medicaid programs to include Tax Payer fundedhealth insurance for low income adults,women who are currently pregnantandwomen who have been diagnosed with Breast or Cervical cancer. All of these benefits are provided to those without health insurance. In fact, in the state of Illinois, ourAll Kids Coveredplan quite literally provides ''free'' health insurance to ALL indigent kids including the75% of recipients who are illegal aliens. Thanks to Obamacare Medicaid Expansion we are about to drive our Illinois Medicaid system into a fiscal death spiral by adding on and expected 800,000 new recipients and being forced as state taxpayers to cover half of the cost of the 'Woodwork'' population. Those who were always eligible for Medicaid but never bothered to enroll. They will be forced to enroll via the Federal health insurance purchase mandate beginning on 1/1/14. On January 30, 2012, the Civic Federation released its ''Budget Roadmap''. In it, they highlight the fact that Illinois state officials now believe that the Illinois Medicaid program will have between $21 and $23 billion in UNPAID bills by 2017.

The President's ''Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act' will make that Medicaid debt exponentially worse. Not just in Illinois but around the country in states that choose to further expand Medicaid. Medicaid is the worst and most dangerous health care program ever devised by man. Without reform, I truly fear for the lives of the 17 million Americans that the CBO predicts will be auto enrolled onto this program beginning in 2014.

Back in 2010 I spoke the TRUTH about preexisting conditions at the 2010 Chicago Tax Day Tea Party rally:

Please Note: The vast majority of health insurance carriers that underwrite Individual Health Insurance plans DID INDEED provide coverage for many preexisting medical conditions (such as Hypertension, Hyperlipidimia, Gastric Reflux, Asthma, etc.) and have done so for many years. Providing of course that these conditions are well controlled by diet or medication AND you duly disclose these preexisting conditions on your health insurance application. This is important to know now because the president's temporary PCIP '' 'Preexisting Condition Insurance Plan' already ran out of money and has ceased further enrollment as of March 5, 2013.

My friend Bill Elliot's battle with cancer, Obamacare and our mutual victory over the IRS.

On Thursday November 7, 2013 my new friend Bill Elliot appeared on ''The Kelly File'' with Megyn Kelly on the Fox News channel. I say ''new friend'' because immediately after I watched his heart breaking interview I 'friended' Bill on Facebook. I wanted him to know that even though his insurer was being forced to terminate his health insurance policy due to regulations posted by HHS and referred to in the Federal Register in June 2010 '' three months after the PPACA '' Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was signed into law '' such a posting in the Federal Register that has not been passedby Congressdoes not trumpan existing Federal law. I will explain what law I am referring to in a moment but first please watch Bill's testimony:

The following day Bill was interviewed by radio host Rocky D on AM1340 WQSC in South Carolina. In that interview Bill goes into detail about the type of illness he suffers from and how hopeless he felt after the president's Obamacare took away his health insurance policy in the middle of his fourth battle with Cancer. Click the MP3 logo below to hear the replay:

This is the worst time to cancel someone's coverage. And, that is precisely whyPublic Law 104-191 was written and passed by Congress in 1997. It was written to protect Americans from such a situation. I am writing this article not just to help Bill but to help all Americans who are suffering from an ongoing preexisting condition. If you are one of the 5 million Americans who have already received a policy termination letter or one of the 14 million Americans who will soon receive a letter, you need to print out Public Law 104-191 and highlight section 2742 and then contact an attorney. Or, if you have access to your governor '' as Bill does '' (his governor is the awesome Nikki Haley) contact your governor or state Attorney General's office because your health insurer is violating a Federal law based on a posting in the Federal register that was not passed by Congress and as such does nottrump an existing Federal law.

Since Bill did nothing wrong, no fraud was committed, his health insurer is not leaving the state and they charged him more based on a preexisting condition, they are in violation of Public Law 104-191 section 2742. As such, they have no legal right to terminate his coverage, regardless of a posting in the Federal register. The protections provided to individual policy holders under HIPAA law are reiterated via HHS, CMS and HCFA regulations outlined on page 22 of the ''Protecting Your Health Insurance Coverage'' booklet available for download at the CMS.gov site here.

Want to know the best part? I just heard from Bill and after contacting Governor Nikki Haley and his insurance company and reading to them section 2742 of Public Law 104-191 his insurer has decided to keep his policy in force because he has a chronic illness. Bill just told me the following: ''Steve, the company decided to keep me active. Since it is a chronic illness. Until this illness kills me. Battle #1 is won. Now the hard part. You literally saved me. Thank you so much.'' Those are the greatest words I have ever heard in my 20 year career as a licensed health insurance broker. I could not be a happier man today!

UPDATE #1) On November 15, 2013 Bill Elliot joined Sara Marie Brenner who covered this story in the Washington Times on November 14, 2013 to discuss how he was able to use HIPAA '' Public Law 104-191 '' section 2742 to require his insurer to reinstate his cancelled policy without increasing his premium or his deductible. Click the MP3 icon below to listen to the replay:

UPDATE #2) On November 13, 2013 Rocky D had me on his show on AM1340 WQSC for a follow up to explain how Bill was able to keep his policy. Click the MP3 logo below to listen to the replay:

UPDATE #3) On November 15, 2013 I joined the Chicks On The Right on 93.1 FM WIBC to discuss the latest Obamacare disaster created by the president and Bill Elliot's policy reinstatement. Click the MP3 logo below to hear the replay:

UPDATE #4) Bill Elliot return to Washington Times reporter Sara Marie Brenner's radio show to discuss the good news that his doctor has informed him he is now in full remission and the bad news that he is now being audited by the IRS. Fast forward to the 22:00 mark on the Sound Cloud file. 11/27/13

UPDATE #5) On November 27, 2013 Bill joined Rocky D again on South Carolina's AM1340 WQSC. The good news? Bill is now in full remission thanks in large part to the life saving treatment he was able to continue receiving because his illegally cancelled policy was restored. The bad news? He is now being audited by the IRS and they are now coming after ME all the way back to 2003.

Update #6) On December 11, 2013 Bill Elliot joined Sara Marie Brenner again on her radio show to reveal breaking news that the IRS actions taken against him are now resolved thanks to his Congressman and a Democrat Senator. Most importantly he reveals that his Congressman informed him that the IRS action taken against him and myself were ordered ''from the top''. Listen:

Update # 7) Thanks to the fine folks at the Emmy award winning television program ''Facing Life Head-On'' who took an interest in our story, I had the pleasure of finally meeting Bill Elliot in person today.

Below is the TRUE story of Bill Elliott'‹, Yours Truly, Obamacare and our mutual victory over the Internal Revenue Service. Much thanks to host Brad Mattes'‹ for knowing the right questions to ask and the fantastic producers at the award winning Facing Life Head-On'‹ television series for telling our story the right way.

Update #8) It is with a grateful heart that I send my sincerest THANK YOU to U.S. Senator Mark Kirk and his staff for resolving the actions taken against me by the IRS. I also wish to thank Denise Cattoni and all of my fellow Illinois Tea Party patriots who made Senator Kirk aware of the IRS actions taken against me. I am so happy that my friend Bill Elliott and I can both now say that our ordeal with the IRS is OVER. I am eternally grateful to all who took an interest in our story and who gave us emotional support. To my attorney William J. Sneckenberg I also send my sincerest thank you for his competent and professional advice.

Update #9) At the 6th annual Chicago Illinois tax day tea party rally I told this story from start to finish:

And again at the 5th anniversary of the Tea Party in Washington D.C.

On that day I had the honor and privilege to meet the Great One, Mark Levin.Update #10) Credit where credit is due

I am eternally grateful to the following bloggers and reporters who comprise the 'New Media' for linking to this story and performing the job that Barack Obama's old Praetorian Guard media still refuses to do:

''BigFurHat'' at IownTheWorld.com The trendsetter who started it all.Daniel Greenfield of FrontPageMag.comArlen Williams of WeAreGulagBound.com who pushed the story out and detailed it's movement via Storify.Drudge ReportEric Sheiner at CNSNews''Zip'' of WeaselZippers.netFran Eaton at Illinois ReviewJim Hoft of GatewayPundit.com''Dr John'' of FloppingAces.netMadeleine Morgenstern at The BlazeNation.FoxNews.comJohn Hayward at Breitbart.comTom Tillison at BizPacReview.comThomas Lifson at AmericanThinker.comMark Steyn at NationalReview.comInvestors Business DailyDianny at AllTheRightSnarkHerman Cain on the Herman Cain radio showClark Barrow at CainTVJohn Hawkins at RightWingNews.comPoorRichardsNews.comFreeRepublic.comSard at TheRightPlanet.comPatDollard.comPatterico.comTammy Bruce radio show clip at TammyBruce.comThe Right Pundit at HapBlog.comJudson Phillips at TeaPartyNationInstapundit at PJMediaFireAndreaMitchellMichael Becker at TheMinorityReport.comChampionNews.netUlysses S. Arn at USofArnEmily Hulsey at IJReviewIDeb at NiceDeb.comJeff Dunetz at TruthRevolt.orgLily Dane at at TheDCClotheslineScared MonkeysWintery KnightPrison PlanetJanet at NewsDeskInternationalYouViewedBeforeItsNewsPatriotUpdateRedFlagNewsTheRightCurmudgeonGodLikeProductionsNothingButTruthSteve Straub at TheFederalistPapersUSGovernmentPortalIronicSurrealismNews.SilobreakerJewsNewsAustin Petersen at TheLibertarianRepublicStripersOnlinePaulBarksdale.comDebra Heine at TheSteadyDripCapeAnnConnectionKhier Casino at OpposingViewsLily Dane at TheDailySheepleKateNews2DayThePoliticalForumsDeanna Fisher at VictoryGirlsBlogWorldNewsViewsDebatePoliticsPeoplesPoliticsClashDailySara Noble at IndependentSentinelBarracudaBrigadeReclaimOurRepublicBloodThirstyLiberalPhineas at SisterToldjahPatriotsBillboardRanchersNetTheSiliconGrayBeardExchangeGoldForCashAViewFromTheBeachDailyPunditClassWarWatchJoe Newby at Examiner.com

If I missed you contact me and I will list you. Thank you all!

Link to Article

Archived Version

Fri, 27 Jan 2017 06:21

What is the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)?HIPAA offers protections for workers and their families. The law provides additional opportunities to enroll in a group health plan if you lose other coverage or experience certain life events. HIPAA also prohibits discrimination against employees and their dependents based on any health factors they may have, including prior medical conditions, previous claims experience, and genetic information.

Taking Advantage of Special Enrollment OpportunitiesWhat is Special Enrollment?Special enrollment allows individuals who previously declined health coverage to enroll for coverage. Special enrollment rights arise regardless of a plan's open enrollment period.

There are two types of special enrollment '' upon loss of eligibility for other coverage and upon certain life events. Under the first, employees and dependents who decline coverage due to other health coverage and then lose eligibility or lose employer contributions have special enrollment rights. For instance, an employee turns down health benefits for herself and her family because the family already has coverage through her spouse's plan. Coverage under the spouse's plan ceases. That employee then can request enrollment in her own company's plan for herself and her dependents.

Under the second, employees, spouses, and new dependents are permitted to special enroll because of marriage, birth, adoption, or placement for adoption.

For both types, the employee must request enrollment within 30 days of the loss of coverage or life event triggering the special enrollment.

A special enrollment right also arises for employees and their dependents who lose coverage under a state Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) or Medicaid or who are eligible to receive premium assistance under those programs. The employee or dependent must request enrollment within 60 days of the loss of coverage or the determination of eligibility for premium assistance.

What are some examples of events that can trigger a loss of eligibility for coverage?Loss of eligibility for coverage may occur when:

Divorce or legal separation results in you losing coverage under your spouse's health insurance;A dependent is no longer considered a "covered" dependent under a parent's plan;Your spouse's death leaves you without coverage under his or her plan;Your spouse's employment ends, as does coverage under his employer's health plan;Your employer reduces your work hours to the point where you are no longer covered by the health plan;Your plan decides it will no longer offer coverage to a certain group of individuals (for example, those who work part time);You no longer live or work in the HMO's service area.These should give you some idea of the types of situations that may entitle you to a special enrollment right.

How long do I have to request special enrollment?It depends on what triggers your right to special enrollment. The employee or dependent must request enrollment within 30 days after losing eligibility for coverage or after a marriage, birth, adoption, or placement for adoption.

The employee or dependent must request enrollment within 60 days of the loss of coverage under a state CHIP or Medicaid program or the determination of eligibility for premium assistance under those programs.

After I request special enrollment, how long will I wait for coverage?It depends on what triggers your right to special enrollment. Those taking advantage of special enrollment as a result of a birth, adoption, or placement for adoption begin coverage no later than the day of the event.

For special enrollment due to marriage or loss of eligibility for other coverage, your new coverage will begin on the first day of the first month after the plan receives the enrollment request. If the plan receives the request on January 3, for example, coverage would begin on February 1.

What coverage will I get when I take advantage of a special enrollment opportunity?Special enrollees must be offered the same benefits that would be available if you are enrolling for the first time. Special enrollees cannot be required to pay more for the same coverage than other individuals who enrolled when first eligible for the plan.

Can my new group health plan deny me benefits because I have a preexisting condition?While HIPAA previously provided limits on preexisting condition exclusions, new protections under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) prohibit group health plans from imposing any preexisting condition exclusion. Under this protection, a plan generally cannot limit or deny benefits relating to a health condition that was present before your enrollment date in the plan.

Where do I find out more about special enrollment in my plan?A description of special enrollment rights should be included in the plan materials you received when initially offered the opportunity to enroll.

How will I know if I am eligible for assistance with group health plan premiums under CHIP or Medicaid?You need to contact your state's CHIP or Medicaid program to see if your state will subsidize group health plan premiums and to determine if you are eligible for the subsidy under these programs. For information on the program in your state, call 1-877-KIDSNOW (543-7669) or visit InsureKidsNow.gov on the Web. If you are eligible for this premium assistance, you need to contact your plan administrator or employer to take advantage of the special enrollment opportunity and enroll in the group health plan.

HIPAA's Protections from DiscriminationWhat are HIPAA's protections from discrimination?Under HIPAA, you and your family members cannot be denied eligibility or benefits based on certain "health factors" when enrolling in a health plan. In addition, you may not be charged more than similarly situated individuals based on any health factors. The questions and answers below define the health factors and offer some examples of what is and is not permitted under the law.

What are the health factors under HIPAA?The health factors are:

Health status;Medical conditions, including physical and mental illnesses;Claims experience;Receipt of health care;Medical history;Genetic information;Evidence of insurability (see below); andDisability.Conditions arising from acts of domestic violence as well as participation in activities like motorcycling, snowmobiling, all-terrain vehicle riding, horseback riding, and skiing are considered "evidence of insurability." Therefore, a plan cannot use them to deny you enrollment or charge you more for coverage. (However, benefit exclusions known as "source of injury exclusions" could affect your benefits. These exclusions are discussed in more detail below.)

Can a group health plan require me to pass a physical examination before I am eligible to enroll?No. You do not have to pass a physical exam to be eligible for enrollment. This is true for individuals who enroll when first eligible, as well as for late and special enrollees.

Can my plan require me to fill out a health care questionnaire in order to enroll?Yes, as long as the questionnaire does not ask for genetic information (including family medical history) and the health information is not used to deny, restrict, or delay eligibility or benefits, or to determine individual premiums.

My group health plan required me to complete a detailed health history questionnaire and then subtracted "health points" for prior or current health conditions. To enroll in the plan, an employee had to score 70 out of 100 total points. I scored only 50 and was denied a chance to enroll. Can the plan do this?No. In this case the plan used health information to exclude you from enrolling in the plan. This practice is discriminatory, and it is prohibited.

My group health plan booklet states that if a dependent is confined to a hospital or other medical facility at the time he is eligible to enroll in the plan, that person's eligibility is postponed until he is discharged. Is this permitted?No. A group health plan may not delay an individual's eligibility, benefits, or effective date of coverage based on confinement to a hospital or medical facility at the time he becomes eligible. Additionally, a health plan may not increase that person's premium because he was in a hospital or medical facility.

My group health plan has a 90-day waiting period before allowing employees to enroll. If an individual is in the office on the 91st day, health coverage begins then. However, if an individual is not "actively at work" on that day, the plan states that coverage is delayed until the first day that person is actually at work. I missed work on the 91st day due to illness. Can I be excluded from coverage?No. A group health plan generally may not deny benefits because someone is not "actively at work" on the day he would otherwise become eligible.

However, a plan may require employees to begin work before health plan coverage is effective. A plan may also require an individual to work full time (say, 250 hours per quarter or 30 hours per week) in order to be eligible for coverage.

Can my group health plan exclude or limit benefits for certain conditions or treatments?Group health plans can exclude coverage for a specific disease or limit or exclude benefits for certain treatments or drugs, but only if the restriction applies uniformly to all similarly situated individuals and is not directed at individual participants or beneficiaries based on a health factor they may have. (Plan amendments that apply to all individuals in a group of similarly situated individuals and that are effective no earlier than the first day of the next plan year after the amendment is adopted are not considered to be directed at individual participants and beneficiaries.).

However, compliance with this rule under HIPAA does not affect whether the plan provision or practice is permitted under other laws including the ACA such as the requirement to offer essential health benefits in the individual and small group markets.

How do you determine "similarly situated individuals"?HIPAA states that plans may distinguish among employees only on "bona fide employment-based classifications" consistent with the employer's usual business practice. For example, part time and full time employees, employees working in different geographic locations, and employees with different dates of hire or lengths of service can be treated as different groups of similarly situated individuals.

A plan may draw a distinction between employees and their dependents. Plans can also make distinctions between beneficiaries themselves if the distinction is not based on a health factor. For example, a plan can distinguish between spouses and dependent children, or between dependent children age 26 and older based on their age or student status.

I have a history of high claims. Can I be charged more than others in the plan based on my claims experience?No. Group health plans cannot charge an individual more for coverage than a similarly situated individual based on any health factor.

However, be aware that HIPAA does allow an insurer to charge one group health plan (or employer) a higher rate than it does another. When an insurance company establishes its rates, it may underwrite all covered individuals in a specific plan based on their collective health status. The result can be that one employer health plan whose enrollees have more adverse health factors can be charged a higher premium than another for the same amount of coverage. Note that compliance with this rule under HIPAA does not affect whether the practice is permitted under the ACA including the rating requirements in the small group market.

Think of it this way: HIPAA's protections from discrimination apply within a group of similarly situated individuals, not across different groups of similarly situated individuals. For example, an employer distinguishes between full-time and part-time employees. It can charge part-time employees more for coverage, but all full-time employees must pay the same rate, regardless of health status.

Also, for insured plans, state law may govern rates for health coverage. More information is available at NAIC.org.

I am an avid skier. Can my employer's plan exclude me from enrollment because I ski?No. Participation in activities such as skiing would be "evidence of insurability," which is a health factor. Therefore, it cannot be used to deny eligibility.

Can my health plan deny benefits for an injury based on how I got it?It depends. A plan can deny benefits based on an injury's source, unless an injury is the result of a medical condition or an act of domestic violence.

Therefore, a plan cannot exclude coverage for self-inflicted wounds, including those resulting from attempted suicide, if they are otherwise covered by the plan and result from a medical condition (such as depression).

However, a plan may exclude coverage for injuries that do not result from a medical condition or from domestic violence. For example, a plan generally can exclude coverage for injuries in connection with an activity like bungee jumping. While the bungee jumper may have to pay for treatment for those injuries, her plan cannot exclude her from coverage for the plan's other benefits.

My group health plan says that dependents are generally eligible for coverage only until they reach age 26. However, this age restriction does not apply to disabled dependents, who seem to be covered past age 26. Does HIPAA permit a policy favoring disabled dependents?Yes. A plan can treat an individual with an adverse health factor (such as a disability) more favorably by offering extended coverage.

Are all family members, including a spouse, covered by HIPAA?If your group health plan permits coverage of family members ("dependents"), and if they participate in the plan, then they will have the same HIPAA protections as employees.

Note: The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) expands the HIPAA nondiscrimination provisions discussed above by generally prohibiting the use of genetic information to adjust group premiums or contributions, the collection of genetic information and requests for individuals to undergo genetic testing.

HIPAA and Wellness ProgramsI've learned that my health plan will include a wellness program next year. What is a wellness program?Wellness programs encourage employees to work out, stop smoking or generally adopt healthier lifestyles by offering some type of financial or other incentive. If a wellness program is part of a group health plan, it must comply with rules created by HIPAA and the ACA that prevent the employee from being impermissibly discriminated against based on a health factor.

There are two types of wellness programs - participatory and health-contingent. A participatory wellness program is one that offers a reward simply for participating in the program. For example, the program reimburses employees for all or part of the cost for membership in a fitness center. Participatory wellness programs are allowed under the nondiscrimination rules as long as they are available to all similarly situated individuals.

A health-contingent wellness program is one that rewards an employee for satisfying a standard related to a health factor. If the standard is an activity-only one, you need to perform or complete an activity, like walking or other exercise, to get the reward. If the standard is outcome-based, you must achieve a specific health outcome, like a certain result on a health screening, to get the reward. Health-contingent wellness programs must meet certain requirements.

I belong to a group health plan that rewards individuals who volunteer to be tested for early detection of health problems, such as high cholesterol. Can a plan do this?Yes, as long as the program is available to all similarly situated individuals. If the health plan offers a reward based on participation in the program and not on test results, the program is considered a participatory wellness program and the plan does not have to comply with the additional requirements applicable to health-contingent wellness programs. For instance, a health plan can offer a premium discount for those who voluntarily test for cholesterol, as long as the discount is available to everyone who takes the test and not just those who get a certain result. If the discount was based on individuals having certain results, additional requirements discussed below would apply.

My plan's wellness program offers a lower deductible to those who participate in a specific walking program. How can I tell if this is permissible?Because the reward (the lower deductible) is available to all who participate in a walking program, this is an activity-only health-contingent program. The program will be permissible if:

Individuals have a chance to qualify for the reward at least once per year;The total reward for all of the plan's health-contingent wellness programs is not more than 30% of the cost of employee-only coverage in the plan. If dependents can participate, the reward cannot be more than 30% of the cost of the coverage in which an employee and dependents are enrolled. For wellness programs designed to prevent or reduce tobacco use the allowable percentage is higher '' the reward for those programs cannot be more than 50% of the cost of coverage;The walking program is reasonably designed to promote health or prevent disease;A reasonable alternative standard (or a waiver of the walking requirement) is offered to those for whom it is unreasonably difficult because of a medical condition, or medically inadvisable, to participate in the walking program; andThe plan discloses the availability of a reasonable alternative standard (or the possibility of a waiver) in all materials describing the terms of the program.I would like to participate in my plan's wellness program. Under the program, to get a discount on my premiums, my body mass index (BMI) must be 26 or lower. Is there any way for me to get the premium discount if my BMI is higher than 26?Yes. The reward is provided to those who achieve a specific health outcome (BMI of 26 or lower), so this is an outcome-based health-contingent wellness program. If your BMI is above 26, the plan must provide you with a reasonable alternative standard to qualify for the reward. The reasonable alternative standard could be activity-based such as completion of an educational program, participation in a diet program, or following the recommendations of your personal physician; it could also be another outcome-based standard, such as a one-point reduction in your BMI over a set period of time. If it is unreasonably difficult because of a medical condition, or medically inadvisable, for you to complete the alternative, the plan must work with you to find a second alternative based on your physician's recommendations.

In addition, as with an activity-only program, you must be given the chance to qualify for the reward at least once per year; the total reward for the plan's health-contingent wellness programs cannot be more than 30% (or 50% for tobacco-related programs) of the cost of employee-only coverage (or the cost of the coverage enrolled in if dependents can participate); and the plan must disclose the availability of a reasonable alternative standard (or the possibility of a waiver) in all materials describing the terms of the program. This notice must also be included in any disclosure that you did not satisfy the initial standard.

Can a plan charge a lower premium for nonsmokers than it does for smokers?The plan is offering a reward based on an individual's ability to stop smoking so this is an outcome-based program. For this type of wellness program to be permissible:

Individuals must have a chance to qualify for the nonsmoker's discount at least once a year;The difference in premiums between nonsmokers and smokers cannot be more than 50% of the cost of employee-only coverage (or 50% of the cost of coverage if dependents can participate);The program must be reasonably designed to promote health and prevent disease;There is a reasonable alternative standard to those who do not meet the otherwise applicable standard. For example, the reasonable alternative standard could include discounts in return for attending educational classes or for trying a nicotine patch; andPlan materials describing the premium discount (and any disclosure that an individual did not satisfy the standard) describe the availability of a reasonable alternative standard to qualify for the lower premium.Coordination with Other LawsCan states modify HIPAA's requirements?State laws may complement HIPAA by allowing more protections than the Federal law. For example, states may increase the number of days parents have to enroll newborns, adopted children, and children placed for adoption or require additional circumstances that entitle you to special enrollment periods beyond those in the Federal law. However, these state laws only apply if your plan provides benefits through an insurance company or HMO (an insured plan). To determine if your plan offers insured coverage, consult your Summary Plan Description (SPD) or contact your plan administrator. You also can visit your state insurance commissioner's office or the National Association of Insurance Commissioners' Website (select your state) for more information.How can I use HIPAA in conjunction with COBRA to extend my health coverage?COBRA is a law that can help if you lose your job or if your hours are reduced to the point where the employer no longer provides you with health coverage. COBRA can provide a temporary extension of your health coverage '' as long as you and your family members, if eligible, belonged to the previous employer's health plan and generally the employer had 20 or more employees. Usually, you pay the entire cost of coverage (both your share and the employer's, plus a 2 percent administrative fee). As long as the prior plan exists, COBRA coverage lasts up to 18 months for most people, although it can continue as long as 36 months in some cases.

If you enroll in COBRA, HIPAA provides you with the opportunity to request special enrollment in a different group health plan if you have a special enrollment event, such as marriage, the birth of a child, or if you exhaust your continuation coverage. To exhaust COBRA, you must receive the maximum period of continuation coverage available (usually 18 months for job loss) without early termination. If you choose to terminate your COBRA early, or fail to pay your COBRA premiums, you generally will not be entitled to special enroll in other group health coverage.

Do I have other special enrollment rights?In addition to the special enrollment rights in a group health plan under HIPAA (described above), there are also special enrollment rights under the ACA for individual coverage including through the Health Insurance Marketplace. The Marketplace offers "one-stop shopping" to find and compare private health insurance and other options (such as Medicare and CHIP coverage). Losing your job-based coverage, marriage, birth, and adoption are a few of the special enrollment events that may allow you to purchase Marketplace or other coverage outside of the regular enrollment period.

To qualify for special enrollment, you must select a plan either within 60 days before losing your job-based coverage or within 60 days after losing your job-based coverage.

You can apply for Marketplace coverage online or get more information at HealthCare.gov or by calling 1-800-318-2596 (TTY users should call 1-855-889-4325). When you fill out a Marketplace application, you also can find out if you and your family qualify for free or low-cost coverage from Medicaid and/or the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP).

Where can I get more information on my rights under HIPAA?The Employee Benefits Security Administration offers more information on HIPAA and other laws mentioned above. Visit the Employee Benefits Security Administration's Website to view the following publications. To order copies or to request assistance from a benefits advisor, contact EBSA electronically or call toll free 1-866-444-3272.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Fri, 27 Jan 2017 06:15

Q. What is medical stop loss coverage?A. Medical stop loss is an insurance product that provides protection against catastrophic or unpredictable losses. It is purchased by employers who have decided to self-fund their employee benefit health plans, but do not want to assume 100% of the liability for losses arising from the plans. Under a medical stop loss policy, the insurance company becomes liable for eligible losses that exceed certain limits called deductibles.

Q. Who is insured?A. A significant difference between medical stop loss and conventional employee benefit insurance is that medical stop loss insures only the employer. Medical stop Loss does not insure employees.

Q. What medical stop loss coverages are available?A. Medical Stop Loss is available in two forms: specific and aggregate.

Specific stop loss is the form of excess risk coverage that provides protection for the employer against high claims on any one individual. This is protection against abnormal severity of a single claim rather than abnormal frequency of claims in total. Specific stop loss is also known as individual stop loss.Aggregate stop loss provides a ceiling on the dollar amount of eligible expenses that an employer would pay, in total, during a contract period. The carrier reimburses the employer after the end of the contract period for aggregate claims. A number of variations are available for each of these two products. Generally, all but the largest employers will want to protect their plan with both specific and aggregate stop loss coverage. Occasionally, circumstances may be such that Specific Stop Loss by itself will fulfill the employer's need for protection.Q. What is the role of the employer's plan document?A. The employer's plan document defines the benefits offered to the employees and is critical in determining the pricing of the stop loss policy. Because the employer has great latitude in designing the plan, there may be elements in the document that are not included under the medical stop loss coverage. The covered portions of the plan document must be reviewed by the medical stop loss underwriter in order to affect the stop loss coverage. Changes in the plan document after its initial approval must also be reviewed before their inclusion in the stop loss coverage.

Q. How is loss defined?A. Expenses are determined to be eligible for reimbursement based upon two criteria:

The expenses must be eligible under the Employer's Benefit Plan as underwritten.The loss must be covered under the covered expenses definition in the Stop Loss policy.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Thu, 26 Jan 2017 21:46

AP

BY:Lachlan MarkayJanuary 26, 2017 12:40 pm

Left-wing advocacy group Media Matters for America has been quietly working with social media giant Facebook to combat what the group describes as ''propaganda'' and ''fake news,'' internal documents reveal.

Media Matters told current and prospective donors at a retreat in Florida over the weekend that it has been in discussions with Facebook leadership about their policies on inaccurate and partisan news stories on the website that many liberals blame for political losses last year.

''We've been engaging with Facebook leadership behind the scenes to share our expertise and offer input on developing meaningful solutions,'' the group said in a briefing book obtained by the Washington Free Beacon at the conference.

''Media Matters will serve as their partner,'' the group said of its work with Facebook and other social media companies.

Conservatives have argued in the past that Facebook intentionally marginalizes right-leaning voices, a theory that could be fueled by the social media network's ties to Media Matters, among the harshest critics of conservative figures and ideas.

Media Matters, a self-styled media watchdog, is retooling its mission to place greater emphasis on ''fake news,'' a loosely defined category of misinformation that has been invoked to attack everything from Russian propaganda efforts to political blogs deemed factually dubious.

In his speech to last weekend's conference, Media Matters founder David Brock blamed ''fake news,'' among other maladies, for the November loss of his preferred presidential candidate, Democrat Hillary Clinton.

The briefing book bills Media Matters as ''the top watchdog against fake news and propaganda.'' With donors' support, the group said, it will ensure that ''Internet and social media platforms, like Google and Facebook, '... no longer uncritically and without consequence host and enrich fake news sites and propagandists.''

Among its strategies for doing so has been direct engagement with Facebook and other top social media and technology companies.

Media Matters launched a petition drive during the 2016 campaign to pressure Facebook into addressing the ostensible proliferation of ''fake news'' on its website. The group credits that campaign with the company's public vow to address the problem.

''After Facebook responded to our campaign by acknowledging the problem of fake news and agreeing to do something about it, we began a dialogue,'' the briefing book says. ''It became clear from these conversations that Facebook needed our help in fully understanding the problem and identifying concrete solutions.''

Media Matters' goal is to get Facebook to ''adjust its model to stem the flow of damaging fake news on its platform's pages.''

A Facebook spokesperson declined to comment on its interactions with Media Matters, but a source familiar with the company's thinking stressed that it routinely speaks with groups from across the political spectrum.

Media Matters has also been trying to enlist Google in its fake news fight, though it is not clear whether it has engaged in the same level of behind-the-scenes collaboration with the search engine giant that it has with Facebook.

''After Google revised their terms of service in order to prohibit so-called fake news sites from using their advertising network, it was Media Matters that had the information necessary to identify 40 of the worst fake news sites to which this policy applied,'' the briefing book states.

If Media Matters is successful, it adds, ''Google will cut off these pages' accompanying sites' access to revenue by pulling their access to Google's ad platform.''

Google did not respond to questions about its interactions with the group.

Both Google and Facebook have recently taken steps that appear to align with Media Matters' stated goals.

Facebook announced on Wednesday that it would change the algorithm behind its popular ''trending topics'' section, which will now base popularity on the number of Facebook-designated publishers discussing a story, rather than the number of users discussing it.

Google also said on Wednesday that it has banned 200 publishers from its advertising network as part of its efforts to combat fake news sites. The company refused to say which sites had been targeted.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Fri, 27 Jan 2017 14:27

Psychological 'vaccine' could help immunize public against 'fake news' on climate changeJanuary 23, 2017Credit: CC0 Public DomainIn medicine, vaccinating against a virus involves exposing a body to a weakened version of the threat, enough to build a tolerance.

Social psychologists believe that a similar logic can be applied to help "inoculate" the public against misinformation, including the damaging influence of 'fake news' websites propagating myths about climate change.

A new study compared reactions to a well-known climate change fact with those to a popular misinformation campaign. When presented consecutively, the false material completely cancelled out the accurate statement in people's minds - opinions ended up back where they started.

Researchers then added a small dose of misinformation to delivery of the climate change fact, by briefly introducing people to distortion tactics used by certain groups. This "inoculation" helped shift and hold opinions closer to the truth - despite the follow-up exposure to 'fake news'.

The study on US attitudes found the inoculation technique shifted the climate change opinions of Republicans, Independents and Democrats alike.

Published in the journal Global Challenges, the study was conducted by researchers from the universities of Cambridge, UK, Yale and George Mason, US. It is one of the first on 'inoculation theory' to try and replicate a 'real world' scenario of conflicting information on a highly politicised subject.

"Misinformation can be sticky, spreading and replicating like a virus," says lead author Dr Sander van der Linden, a social psychologist from the University of Cambridge and Director of the Cambridge Social Decision-Making Lab.

"We wanted to see if we could find a 'vaccine' by pre-emptively exposing people to a small amount of the type of misinformation they might experience. A warning that helps preserve the facts.

"The idea is to provide a cognitive repertoire that helps build up resistance to misinformation, so the next time people come across it they are less susceptible."

To find the most compelling climate change falsehood currently influencing public opinion, van der Linden and colleagues tested popular statements from corners of the internet on a nationally representative sample of US citizens, with each one rated for familiarity and persuasiveness.

The winner: the assertion that there is no consensus among scientists, apparently supported by the Oregon Global Warming Petition Project. This website claims to hold a petition signed by "over 31,000 American scientists" stating there is no evidence that human CO2 release will cause climate change.

The study also used the accurate statement that "97% of scientists agree on manmade climate change". Prior work by van der Linden has shown this fact about scientific consensus is an effective 'gateway' for public acceptance of climate change.

In a disguised experiment, researchers tested the opposing statements on over 2,000 participants across the US spectrum of age, education, gender and politics using the online platform Amazon Mechanical Turk.

In order to gauge shifts in opinion, each participant was asked to estimate current levels of scientific agreement on climate change throughout the study.

Those shown only the fact about climate change consensus (in pie chart form) reported a large increase in perceived scientific agreement - an average of 20 percentage points. Those shown only misinformation (a screenshot of the Oregon petition website) dropped their belief in a scientific consensus by 9 percentage points.

Some participants were shown the accurate pie chart followed by the erroneous Oregon petition. The researchers were surprised to find the two neutralised each other (a tiny difference of 0.5 percentage points).

"It's uncomfortable to think that misinformation is so potent in our society," says van der Linden. "A lot of people's attitudes toward climate change aren't very firm. They are aware there is a debate going on, but aren't necessarily sure what to believe. Conflicting messages can leave them feeling back at square one."

Alongside the consensus fact, two groups in the study were randomly given 'vaccines':

A general inoculation, consisting of a warning that "some politically-motivated groups use misleading tactics to try and convince the public that there is a lot of disagreement among scientists".A detailed inoculation that picks apart the Oregon petition specifically. For example, by highlighting some of the signatories are fraudulent, such as Charles Darwin and members of the Spice Girls, and less than 1% of signatories have backgrounds in climate science.For those 'inoculated' with this extra data, the misinformation that followed did not cancel out the accurate message.

The general inoculation saw an average opinion shift of 6.5 percentage points towards acceptance of the climate science consensus, despite exposure to fake news.

When the detailed inoculation was added to the general, it was almost 13 percentage points - two-thirds of the effect seen when participants were just given the consensus fact.

The research team point out that tobacco and fossil fuel companies have used psychological inoculation in the past to sow seeds of doubt, and to undermine scientific consensus in the public consciousness.

They say the latest study demonstrates that such techniques can be partially "reversed" to promote scientific consensus, and work in favour of the public good.

The researchers also analysed the results in terms of political parties. Before inoculation, the fake negated the factual for both Democrats and Independents. For Republicans, the fake actually overrode the facts by 9 percentage points.

However, following inoculation, the positive effects of the accurate information were preserved across all parties to match the average findings (around a third with just general inoculation; two-thirds with detailed).

"We found that inoculation messages were equally effective in shifting the opinions of Republicans, Independents and Democrats in a direction consistent with the conclusions of climate science," says van der Linden.

"What's striking is that, on average, we found no backfire effect to inoculation messages among groups predisposed to reject climate science, they didn't seem to retreat into conspiracy theories.

"There will always be people completely resistant to change, but we tend to find there is room for most people to change their minds, even just a little."

Explore further:Communicating the consensus on climate change

More information:Global Challenges, DOI: 10.1002/gch2.201600008

Psychological 'vaccine' could help immunize public against 'fake news' on climate changeJanuary 23, 2017Credit: CC0 Public Domain

In medicine, vaccinating against a virus involves exposing a body to a weakened version of the threat, enough to build a tolerance.

Social psychologists believe that a similar logic can be applied to help "inoculate" the public against misinformation, including the damaging influence of 'fake news' websites propagating myths about climate change.

A new study compared reactions to a well-known climate change fact with those to a popular misinformation campaign. When presented consecutively, the false material completely cancelled out the accurate statement in people's minds - opinions ended up back where they started.

Researchers then added a small dose of misinformation to delivery of the climate change fact, by briefly introducing people to distortion tactics used by certain groups. This "inoculation" helped shift and hold opinions closer to the truth - despite the follow-up exposure to 'fake news'.

The study on US attitudes found the inoculation technique shifted the climate change opinions of Republicans, Independents and Democrats alike.

Published in the journal Global Challenges, the study was conducted by researchers from the universities of Cambridge, UK, Yale and George Mason, US. It is one of the first on 'inoculation theory' to try and replicate a 'real world' scenario of conflicting information on a highly politicised subject.

"Misinformation can be sticky, spreading and replicating like a virus," says lead author Dr Sander van der Linden, a social psychologist from the University of Cambridge and Director of the Cambridge Social Decision-Making Lab.

"We wanted to see if we could find a 'vaccine' by pre-emptively exposing people to a small amount of the type of misinformation they might experience. A warning that helps preserve the facts.

"The idea is to provide a cognitive repertoire that helps build up resistance to misinformation, so the next time people come across it they are less susceptible."

To find the most compelling climate change falsehood currently influencing public opinion, van der Linden and colleagues tested popular statements from corners of the internet on a nationally representative sample of US citizens, with each one rated for familiarity and persuasiveness.

The winner: the assertion that there is no consensus among scientists, apparently supported by the Oregon Global Warming Petition Project. This website claims to hold a petition signed by "over 31,000 American scientists" stating there is no evidence that human CO2 release will cause climate change.

The study also used the accurate statement that "97% of scientists agree on manmade climate change". Prior work by van der Linden has shown this fact about scientific consensus is an effective 'gateway' for public acceptance of climate change.

In a disguised experiment, researchers tested the opposing statements on over 2,000 participants across the US spectrum of age, education, gender and politics using the online platform Amazon Mechanical Turk.

In order to gauge shifts in opinion, each participant was asked to estimate current levels of scientific agreement on climate change throughout the study.

Those shown only the fact about climate change consensus (in pie chart form) reported a large increase in perceived scientific agreement - an average of 20 percentage points. Those shown only misinformation (a screenshot of the Oregon petition website) dropped their belief in a scientific consensus by 9 percentage points.

Some participants were shown the accurate pie chart followed by the erroneous Oregon petition. The researchers were surprised to find the two neutralised each other (a tiny difference of 0.5 percentage points).

"It's uncomfortable to think that misinformation is so potent in our society," says van der Linden. "A lot of people's attitudes toward climate change aren't very firm. They are aware there is a debate going on, but aren't necessarily sure what to believe. Conflicting messages can leave them feeling back at square one."

Alongside the consensus fact, two groups in the study were randomly given 'vaccines':

A general inoculation, consisting of a warning that "some politically-motivated groups use misleading tactics to try and convince the public that there is a lot of disagreement among scientists".A detailed inoculation that picks apart the Oregon petition specifically. For example, by highlighting some of the signatories are fraudulent, such as Charles Darwin and members of the Spice Girls, and less than 1% of signatories have backgrounds in climate science.For those 'inoculated' with this extra data, the misinformation that followed did not cancel out the accurate message.

The general inoculation saw an average opinion shift of 6.5 percentage points towards acceptance of the climate science consensus, despite exposure to fake news.

When the detailed inoculation was added to the general, it was almost 13 percentage points - two-thirds of the effect seen when participants were just given the consensus fact.

The research team point out that tobacco and fossil fuel companies have used psychological inoculation in the past to sow seeds of doubt, and to undermine scientific consensus in the public consciousness.

They say the latest study demonstrates that such techniques can be partially "reversed" to promote scientific consensus, and work in favour of the public good.

The researchers also analysed the results in terms of political parties. Before inoculation, the fake negated the factual for both Democrats and Independents. For Republicans, the fake actually overrode the facts by 9 percentage points.

However, following inoculation, the positive effects of the accurate information were preserved across all parties to match the average findings (around a third with just general inoculation; two-thirds with detailed).

"We found that inoculation messages were equally effective in shifting the opinions of Republicans, Independents and Democrats in a direction consistent with the conclusions of climate science," says van der Linden.

"What's striking is that, on average, we found no backfire effect to inoculation messages among groups predisposed to reject climate science, they didn't seem to retreat into conspiracy theories.

"There will always be people completely resistant to change, but we tend to find there is room for most people to change their minds, even just a little."

Explore further:Communicating the consensus on climate change

More information:Global Challenges, DOI: 10.1002/gch2.201600008

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 28 Jan 2017 05:42

In his first interview at the White House on Jan. 25, President Trump discussed his past issues with the media, his executive actions this week and debunked claims of voter fraud and inaugural crowd size with ABC's David Muir. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

All White Houses leak. Sometimes the leaks are big, sometimes small. But there are always people willing to talk to reporters about the ''real'' story or about why the chief executive made a mistake in regard to some decision he made.

That said, I've never seen so much leaking so quickly '-- and with such disdain for the president '-- as I have in the first six days of Donald Trump's presidency.

Two recent examples:

1. This from the New York Times today on Trump's impulsiveness:

Mr. Trump's advisers say that his frenzied if admittedly impulsive approach appeals to voters because it shows that he is a man of action. Those complaining about his fixation with fictional voter fraud or crowd counts at his inauguration, in their view, are simply seeking ways to undercut his legitimacy.

Yet some of his own advisers also privately worry about his penchant for picking unnecessary fights and drifting off message. They talk about taking away his telephone or canceling his Twitter account, only to be dismissed by a president intent on keeping his own outlets to the world.

2. This from WaPo on Trump's inauguration crowd estimates:

Trump's advisers suggested that he could push back in a simple tweet. Thomas J. Barrack Jr., a Trump confidant and the chairman of the Presidential Inaugural Committee, offered to deliver a statement addressing the crowd size.

But Trump was adamant, aides said. Over the objections of his aides and advisers '-- who urged him to focus on policy and the broader goals of his presidency '-- the new president issued a decree: He wanted a fiery public response, and he wanted it to come from his press secretary.

Time and again, the image of Trump pushed by his ''aides'' is one of a clueless child '-- someone who acts on impulse, disregarding the better advice of people who know better. We know he needs to be managed or else he will say and do stupid things, the message seems to be. We're working on it.

And what we know about Trump from his presidential campaign is that some of his top staffers '-- most notably Kellyanne Conway '-- often communicated to the boss via the media. What that strategy suggests is that Trump is influenced at least as much '-- and, in truth, likely more '-- by reading the sniping of his aides on background (meaning without their names attached) in the news than he is by private conversations. That the best way to reach him, change his mind or otherwise bend his ear is through a public airing of grievances.

Trump has shown that his tendency to obsessively consume media '-- especially cable television '-- is unchanged in the six days since he has become president. He appears to be making policy decisions via things he watches or reads. (Remember Trump's famous/infamous statement that he got his military information and advice ''mostly from the shows.'')

At odds with all of this, however, is the fact that Trump is both deeply proud and hugely image-conscious. Having to read and watch allegedly loyal ''aides'' casting him as a sort of feckless child constantly in need of guidance wouldn't seem to be the sort of thing that would sit well with him.

Tim Miller, a former spokesman for Jeb(!) Bush's presidential campaign and a frequent Trump critic, summed that sentiment up nicely:

It doesn't take much imagination to conjure up an image of an irate Trump surrounded by the various clips of his aides driving the perception that he badly needs to be managed at every moment. If Trump's entire #brand is centered on being the best/classiest/smartest, these sort of leaks fundamentally undermine that image. And we're only six days into his presidency!

The frequency '-- and nature '-- of these leaks are yet another reminder that the Trump presidency is nothing like anything that's come before it. There is no blueprint. We're through the looking glass.

But my educated guess is that these leaks must be driving Trump absolutely crazy. And when he gets mad, history suggests he will try to get even. And quickly.

More from The Fix:

We've 'slipped into another dimension' in the Trump era

14 seconds that tell you exactly what President Trump really cares about

Trump's definition of 'voter fraud' now appears to include his daughter and three top advisers

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 28 Jan 2017 12:29

Days after the Women's March on Washington, the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress launched attacks on public funding for women's health care.

On Monday, President Trump reinstated the global gag rule, which strips all US funding from foreign aid groups that counsel patients on abortion. Rather than decrease abortion rates, the move is likely to increase them, devastate the global health system in the process, and leave millions of women across the globe without access to either safe abortion or contraception.

And on Tuesday afternoon, House Republicans voted 238-183 to permanently ban US women, too, from receiving any federal financial assistance for abortion '-- whether they are insured through public programs like Medicaid or if they purchase private health insurance on the Affordable Care Act exchanges.

The bill would codify existing restrictions that make abortion harder for poor women to getThe text of the bill, HR 7, introduced by Rep. Christopher Smith (R-NJ), states that its purpose is to ''prohibit taxpayer-funded abortions.''

But federal tax dollars are already not allowed to pay for abortion, either in the US or overseas.

The Hyde Amendment currently bans federal funding for abortion in the US. It makes exceptions for women who become pregnant through rape or incest, or whose lives would be endangered by the pregnancy '-- but not for women who have any other maternal health issues or fetal abnormalities.

The Hyde Amendment is a budget rider that has passed every year since 1976, not a permanent law. Congress always technically has the option to pass a budget without Hyde, but it's never actually done so in the 40 years since Hyde was first introduced.

Republicans in Congress want to take that option away. Passing HR 7 would codify the language of the Hyde Amendment into permanent law. (Passing the law through the Senate would require 60 votes to break a Democratic filibuster '-- which would be possible, but seems unlikely.)

Pushing to make Hyde permanent is ''doubling down on harmful policy, and disregarding the health of low-income women and other women who receive health insurance coverage and care through the federal government,'' said Megan Donovan, senior policy manager at the Guttmacher Institute.

As it turns out, a lot of people get their health insurance through the federal government '-- federal employees, military service members, incarcerated people, Native Americans who use Indian health service facilities, and people who are insured through Medicaid.

The Medicaid ban in particular means that abortion is already disproportionately unaffordable for poor women, young women, and women of color '-- all of whom are more likely to need abortions in the first place.

About one in six women of reproductive age rely on Medicaid for their health insurance. Currently, 17 states have a policy to use their own state Medicaid funds to pay for abortion services '-- but 60 percent of women on Medicaid don't live in those states, so they can't get any insurance coverage for abortion at all.

More than half of those women who can't get any coverage are women of color.

The bill could also effectively eliminate private insurance coverage of abortionIf HR 7 were passed into law, it could ''effectively ban'' private insurers from covering abortion through plans on the Affordable Care Act exchanges, Jamila Taylor, a senior fellow in women's health at the Center for American Progress, told Vox.

To be clear, HR 7 doesn't ban abortion coverage directly. Instead, it gives insurers almost no other choice but to stop offering plans on the ACA exchanges that cover abortion.

Under HR 7, women who buy an insurance plan that covers abortion through the ACA exchanges won't be able to receive government subsidies. And without those subsidies, buying insurance through the Affordable Care Act is a lot less affordable.

If insurance that covers abortion is much more expensive than insurance that doesn't, most people will choose the cheaper option. That wouldn't leave insurance companies much incentive to offer abortion coverage at all, even if it's technically not prohibited by law.

About half of all US states already restrict abortion coverage on their ACA exchanges. HR 7 would extend similar restrictions to the other half of the country.

''It's clear the goal is to try to eliminate private coverage of abortion entirely,'' Donovan said.

Despite these impacts, private insurance coverage isn't getting as much focus as the specter of ''taxpayer-funded abortions'' in debate over the bill.

That may be because HR 7 isn't a new bill. The House has passed versions of it before, when repealing the ACA wasn't a realistic possibility and gutting it through indirect means was a better approach.

Now, of course, Republicans in Congress are actually pursuing a full ACA repeal. So from a rhetorical standpoint, it's less important for them to talk about the ACA than it is to rally their anti-abortion base with talk of ''taxpayer-funded abortions'' in advance of the March for Life that's coming up on Friday.

Grassroots advocates have been trying to overturn the Hyde Amendment for years '-- and they've made significant headway

All Above AllPassing HR 7 would make it a lot harder to get rid of the Hyde Amendment in the future '-- and that would be a significant blow to the reproductive justice movement.

It's hard to overstate the impact the Hyde Amendment has had on women's access to abortion, even compared with the slew of state restrictions on abortion that have passed in the last five years. While some of those laws closed abortion clinics by the dozen, the Hyde Amendment is even more sweeping: It has made abortion completely unaffordable for millions of women for 40 years.

Somewhere along the line, Hyde became a point of consensus between pro-choice and pro-life politicians '-- a sort of third rail in abortion politics that neither side would touch. It became status quo to consider abortion so controversial that, at the very least, there should be ''no taxpayer funding'' for it. Even pro-choice lawmakers, when fighting against efforts to defund Planned Parenthood, may quickly point out that the organization can't use tax dollars for abortion because Hyde is ''the law of the land.''

In recent years, however, grassroots activists have been pushing hard to repeal Hyde. Organizing efforts led by women of color have started to shift the conversation around Hyde from being about tax dollars and shame to being about basic fairness and dignity.

That's a big reason why the Democratic Party platform included a call to repeal the Hyde Amendment for the first time in 2016, and why a bill to repeal Hyde was introduced in Congress for the first time in 2015.

Polling also suggests that most Americans would be just fine with repealing Hyde. A survey conducted by Hart Research for All Above All, the grassroots coalition pushing to repeal Hyde, is striking. Large majorities of voters, even Republicans, in battleground states agree with the statement, ''However we feel about abortion, politicians should not be allowed to deny a woman's health coverage for it just because she's poor.'' Black voters are by far the most supportive of this sentiment. And a majority of those polled, 54 percent, say they would support a law requiring Medicaid to cover abortions.

The Hyde Amendment leaves many poor women with no ''choice'' at all

All Above AllThe Hyde Amendment makes it incredibly difficult, if not impossible, for a low-income woman to actually exercise her right to an abortion. Hyde means that women on Medicaid have to pay a median out-of-pocket cost of $575 for an abortion '-- which is about a third of monthly income for most of these women.

''Of the women who report that Medicaid isn't paying for their abortion, most are already food- or housing-insecure,'' said Sarah Roberts, a public health social scientist at Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH). ''They skip meals, or they're unable to pay their rent or mortgage.''

''Women will go to great lengths to get an abortion,'' said Diane Horvath-Cosper, an abortion provider and an advocacy fellow with Physicians for Reproductive Health. ''But you can't get blood from a stone. If somebody doesn't have the money, they don't have the money.''

That's why many advocates see the Hyde Amendment as ''discrimination, pure and simple,'' Horvath-Cosper said. ''It's discrimination against women who are poor, against people who are already struggling to survive and make ends meet.''

The human costs of banning public abortion funding can be devastating

Photo by Paula Bronstein/Getty ImagesHorvath-Cosper provides abortions in both Maryland, where Medicaid can cover abortions, and the District of Columbia, where it can't. The difference between the two, she says, is ''night and day.''

''A lot of people don't even know,'' she said. ''They're shocked, they're floored, to find out that Medicaid doesn't cover abortion. Because it covers everything else, and their friends in Maryland can use their Medicaid. They're blown away.''

Sometimes women delay the procedure in order to have enough time to scrape the money together. But if they delay long enough, they might need to have a more expensive and riskier procedure.

''From a purely public health perspective, it makes sense to help women get the abortion as early as possible,'' said Dan Grossman, director of ANSIRH. ''Funding restrictions can end up having a negative health impact.''

And women who become pregnant by an abusive partner and can't get an abortion will often find themselves even further trapped in the cycle of abuse.

So it's no wonder that not being able to afford the procedure might drive some women to desperation, including trying to give themselves an abortion at home. When researchers interview women who have tried to self-induce an abortion, many of them mention cost as a reason for doing so.

Women who become pregnant by an abusive partner and can't get an abortion will often find themselves even further trapped in the cycle of abuse

That's why shortly after the Hyde Amendment passed, grassroots abortion rights advocates started creating abortion funds '-- organizations that raise funds, give rides, watch children (60 percent of women who have abortions are already mothers), and provide other services for women who need abortions but can't afford them. Today, 70 of these groups in 38 states are organized under the banner of the National Network of Abortion Funds (NNAF).

But abortion funds, while they provide a lifeline for many women in need, can't come close to filling the funding gap. NNAF gets about 100,000 calls a year from women seeking financial assistance for an abortion, executive director Yamani Hernandez said '-- and can only fulfill about a third of those requests, with an average grant of $200 per woman. Meanwhile, there are 29 million women who are subject to Hyde and other funding restrictions in America.

''Thank goodness abortion access funds are there, but they've got limited resources and they're unable to help all the clients who call them,'' Horvath-Cosper said. ''We shouldn't have to crowdfund somebody's medical care. That shouldn't be a thing.''

Low-income women aren't the only ones who suffer from Hyde, Horvath-Cosper said. She provides abortions in a hospital, and several times a week she sees patients who have ''devastating'' prenatal diagnoses, where the pregnancy is wanted but the fetus will likely not survive '-- and where insurance won't cover a termination because of the Hyde Amendment. These tend to be later procedures, which can cost $10,000 to $15,000. Abortion funding organizations usually can't cover expenses that high.

''We shouldn't have to crowdfund somebody's medical care''

Some of these patients are attorneys or analysts who have good-paying government jobs '-- but because they are federal employees, Hyde affects them.

''These are people who have fantastic insurance, or so they thought,'' Horvath-Cosper said. ''And they come in and say, 'Well, what do you mean, my insurance won't cover this? My baby will die, are they saying I just have to continue the pregnancy and wait for that to happen?' And I have to say, yeah, that's exactly what that means. It feels heartless. It feels uncaring.

''To put somebody through a doomed pregnancy when they don't want to continue it, and worry about the baby being born and experiencing pain '-- it's devastating for everybody involved. And it makes you feel really angry at the people in the offices who are making these laws, who don't sit with these families and know what it feels like.''

There are exceptions to the Hyde Amendment, but they are extremely limited and don't cover fetal anomalies. They also don't cover risks to a woman's health that fall short of death '-- and that puts doctors in a terrible position.

''How do you decide when someone is close enough to death to say that they deserve to have a pregnancy termination?'' Horvath-Cosper said. ''From a clinician's point of view, there's no 'death checklist,' where we say, well, if you have this and this but not this, then you're not close enough. ... You want to catch things before things get really bad and someone is at death's door.''

All of this '-- the health impacts, the economic impacts, the social justice impacts '-- is why activists have been pushing so hard to repeal Hyde.

In just the three years since the All Above All campaign went public, repealing Hyde has gone from a taboo subject to a mainstream pro-choice position officially embraced by the Democratic Party. It's an issue that's unlikely to go away quietly, even under an anti-abortion Trump-Pence administration and a Republican Congress.

Watch: Why over-the-counter birth control is so necessary

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 28 Jan 2017 12:00

This article is about the 1964 Civil Rights Act. For other American laws called Civil Rights Acts, see Civil Rights Act.Civil Rights Act of 1964Long titleAn act to enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States of America to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes.Enacted bythe 88th United States CongressEffectiveJuly 2, 1964CitationsPublic law88-352Statutes at Large78 Stat. 241CodificationActs amendedCivil Rights Act of 1957, Civil Rights Act of 1960Titles amended42Legislative historyIntroduced in the Houseas H.R. 7152 byEmanuel Celler (D''NY) on June 20, 1963Committee consideration byJudiciaryPassed the House on February 10, 1964[1] (290''130)Passed the Senate on June 19, 1964[2] (73''27) with amendmentHouse agreed to Senate amendment on July 2, 1964[3] (289''126)Signed into law by PresidentLyndon B. Johnsonon July 2, 1964Major amendmentsEqual Employment Opportunity Act of 1972,[4]Civil Rights Act of 1991United States Supreme Court casesHeart of Atlanta Motel v. United StatesKatzenbach v. McClungAlexander v. Holmes County Board of EducationGriggs v. Duke Power Co.Ricci v. DeStefanoThe Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88''352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark civil rights and US labor law in the United States[5] that outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.[6] It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public (known as "public accommodations").

Powers given to enforce the act were initially weak, but were supplemented during later years. Congress asserted its authority to legislate under several different parts of the United States Constitution, principally its power to regulate interstate commerce under Article One (section 8), its duty to guarantee all citizens equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment and its duty to protect voting rights under the Fifteenth Amendment. The Act was signed into law by PresidentLyndon B. Johnson on July 2, 1964, at the White House.

Contents

First page of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

John F. Kennedy addresses the nation about Civil Rights on June 11, 1963The bill was called for by President John F. Kennedy in his civil rights speech of June 11, 1963,[7] in which he asked for legislation "giving all Americans the right to be served in facilities which are open to the public'--hotels, restaurants, theaters, retail stores, and similar establishments", as well as "greater protection for the right to vote". Kennedy delivered this speech following a series of protests from the African-American community, the most famous being the Birmingham campaign (including the "Children's Crusade") in which students and children endured attacks by police dogs and high pressure fire hoses during their protests against segregation. Kennedy was moved to action following the elevated racial tensions and wave of black riots in the spring 1963.[8]

Emulating the Civil Rights Act of 1875, Kennedy's civil rights bill included provisions to ban discrimination in public accommodations, and to enable the U.S. Attorney General to join in lawsuits against state governments which operated segregated school systems, among other provisions. However, it did not include a number of provisions deemed essential by civil rights leaders including protection against police brutality, ending discrimination in private employment, or granting the Justice Department power to initiate desegregation or job discrimination lawsuits.[9]

House of RepresentativesEditOn June 11, 1963, President Kennedy met with the Republican leaders to discuss the legislation before his television address to the nation that evening. Two days later, Senate Minority LeaderEverett Dirksen and Senate Majority LeaderMike Mansfield both voiced support for the president's bill, except for provisions guaranteeing equal access to places of public accommodations. This led to several Republican Congressmen drafting a compromise bill to be considered. On June 19, the president sent his bill to Congress as it was originally written, saying legislative action was "imperative".[10][11] The president's bill went first to the House of Representatives, where it was referred to the Judiciary Committee, chaired by Emanuel Celler, a Democrat from New York. After a series of hearings on the bill, Celler's committee strengthened the act, adding provisions to ban racial discrimination in employment, providing greater protection to black voters, eliminating segregation in all publicly owned facilities (not just schools), and strengthening the anti-segregation clauses regarding public facilities such as lunch counters. They also added authorization for the Attorney General to file lawsuits to protect individuals against the deprivation of any rights secured by the Constitution or U.S. law. In essence, this was the controversial "Title III" that had been removed from the 1957 and 1960 Acts. Civil rights organizations pressed hard for this provision because it could be used to protect peaceful protesters and black voters from police brutality and suppression of free speech rights.

Kennedy called the congressional leaders to the White House in late October, 1963 to line up the necessary votes in the House for passage.[12] The bill was reported out of the Judiciary Committee in November 1963, and referred to the Rules Committee, whose chairman, Howard W. Smith, a Democrat and avid segregationist from Virginia, indicated his intention to keep the bill bottled up indefinitely.

Johnson's appeal to CongressEditThe assassination of John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963, changed the political situation. Kennedy's successor as president, Lyndon Johnson, made use of his experience in legislative politics, along with the bully pulpit he wielded as president, in support of the bill. In his first address to a joint session of Congress on November 27, 1963, Johnson told the legislators, "No memorial oration or eulogy could more eloquently honor President Kennedy's memory than the earliest possible passage of the civil rights bill for which he fought so long."[13]

Judiciary Committee chairman Celler filed a petition to discharge the bill from the Rules Committee; it required the support of a majority of House members to move the bill to the floor. Initially Celler had a difficult time acquiring the signatures necessary, with many congressmen who supported the civil rights bill itself remaining cautious about violating normal House procedure with the rare use of a discharge petition. By the time of the 1963 winter recess, 50 signatures were still needed.

After the return of Congress from its winter recess, however, it was apparent that public opinion in the North favored the bill and that the petition would acquire the necessary signatures. To avert the humiliation of a successful discharge petition, Chairman Smith relented and allowed the bill to pass through the Rules Committee.

Passage in the SenateEditJohnson, who wanted the bill passed as soon as possible, ensured that the bill would be quickly considered by the Senate. Normally, the bill would have been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator James O. Eastland, Democrat from Mississippi. Given Eastland's firm opposition, it seemed impossible that the bill would reach the Senate floor. Senate Majority LeaderMike Mansfield took a novel approach to prevent the bill from being relegated to Judiciary Committee limbo. Having initially waived a second reading of the bill, which would have led to it being immediately referred to Judiciary, Mansfield gave the bill a second reading on February 26, 1964, and then proposed, in the absence of precedent for instances when a second reading did not immediately follow the first, that the bill bypass the Judiciary Committee and immediately be sent to the Senate floor for debate.

When the bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964, the "Southern Bloc" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and one Republican Senator led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage.[15] Said Russell: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."[16]

The most fervent opposition to the bill came from Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC): "This so-called Civil Rights Proposals, which the President has sent to Capitol Hill for enactment into law, are unconstitutional, unnecessary, unwise and extend beyond the realm of reason. This is the worst civil-rights package ever presented to the Congress and is reminiscent of the Reconstruction proposals and actions of the radical Republican Congress."[17]

After 54 days of filibuster, Senators Everett Dirksen (R-IL), Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), Hubert Humphrey (D-MN), and Mike Mansfield (D-MT) introduced a substitute bill that they hoped would attract enough Republican swing votes to end the filibuster. The compromise bill was weaker than the House version in regard to government power to regulate the conduct of private business, but it was not so weak as to cause the House to reconsider the legislation.[18]

On the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) completed a filibustering address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier opposing the legislation. Until then, the measure had occupied the Senate for 60 working days, including six Saturdays. A day earlier, Democratic Whip Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, the bill's manager, concluded he had the 67 votes required at that time to end the debate and end the filibuster. With six wavering senators providing a four-vote victory margin, the final tally stood at 71 to 29. Never in history had the Senate been able to muster enough votes to cut off a filibuster on a civil rights bill. And only once in the 37 years since 1927 had it agreed to cloture for any measure.[19]

On June 19, the substitute (compromise) bill passed the Senate by a vote of 73''27, and quickly passed through the House-Senate conference committee, which adopted the Senate version of the bill. The conference bill was passed by both houses of Congress, and was signed into law by President Johnson on July 2, 1964.[20]

Vote totalsEditTotals are in "Yea''Nay" format:

The original House version: 290''130 (69''31%).Cloture in the Senate: 71''29 (71''29%).The Senate version: 73''27 (73''27%).The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289''126 (70''30%).By partyEditThe original House version:[21]

Democratic Party: 152''96 (61''39%)Republican Party: 138''34 (80''20%)Cloture in the Senate:[22]

Democratic Party: 44''23 (66''34%)Republican Party: 27''6 (82''18%)The Senate version:[21]

Democratic Party: 46''21 (69''31%)Republican Party: 27''6 (82''18%)The Senate version, voted on by the House:[21]

Democratic Party: 153''91 (63''37%)Republican Party: 136''35 (80''20%)By party and regionEditNote: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.[23]

The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 8''87 (7''93%)Southern Republicans: 0''10 (0''100%)Northern Democrats: 145''9 (94''6%)Northern Republicans: 138''24 (85''15%)The Senate version:

Engrossing copy of H.R. 7152, which added sex to the categories of persons against whom the bill prohibited discrimination, as passed by the House of Representatives.[24]Just one year earlier, the same Congress had passed the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which prohibited wage differentials based on sex. The prohibition on sex discrimination was added to the Civil Rights Act by Howard W. Smith, a powerful Virginia Democrat who chaired the House Rules Committee and who strongly opposed the legislation. Smith's amendment was passed by a teller vote of 168 to 133. Historians debate Smith's motivation, whether it was a cynical attempt to defeat the bill by someone opposed to civil rights both for blacks and women, or an attempt to support their rights by broadening the bill to include women.[25][26][27][28] Smith expected that Republicans, who had included equal rights for women in their party's platform since 1944,[29] would probably vote for the amendment. Historians speculate that Smith was trying to embarrass northern Democrats who opposed civil rights for women because the clause was opposed by labor unions. Representative Carl Elliott of Alabama later claimed, "Smith didn't give a damn about women's rights...he was trying to knock off votes either then or down the line because there was always a hard core of men who didn't favor women's rights,"[30] and the Congressional Record records that Smith was greeted by laughter when he introduced the amendment.[31]

Smith asserted that he was not joking; he sincerely supported the amendment and, indeed, along with Rep. Martha Griffiths,[32] he was the chief spokesperson for the amendment.[31] For twenty years Smith had sponsored the Equal Rights Amendment (with no linkage to racial issues) in the House because he believed in it. He for decades had been close to the National Woman's Party and its leader Alice Paul, who was also the leader in winning the right to vote for women in 1920, the author of the first Equal Rights Amendment, and a chief supporter of equal rights proposals since then. She and other feminists had worked with Smith since 1945 trying to find a way to include sex as a protected civil rights category. Now was the moment.[33] Griffiths argued that the new law would protect black women but not white women, and that was unfair to white women. Furthermore, she argued that the laws "protecting" women from unpleasant jobs were actually designed to enable men to monopolize those jobs, and that was unfair to women who were not allowed to try out for those jobs.[34] The amendment passed with the votes of Republicans and Southern Democrats. The final law passed with the votes of Republicans and Northern Democrats. Thus, as Justice William Rehnquist explained in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, "The prohibition against discrimination based on sex was added to Title VII at the last minute on the floor of the House of Representatives... the bill quickly passed as amended, and we are left with little legislative history to guide us in interpreting the Act's prohibition against discrimination based on 'sex.'"[35]

One of the most damaging arguments by the bill's opponents was that once passed, the bill would require forced busing to achieve certain racial quotas in schools.[36] Proponents of the bill, such as Emanuel Celler and Jacob Javits, said that the bill would not authorize such measures. Leading sponsor Hubert Humphrey wrote two amendments specifically designed to outlaw busing.[36] Humphrey said "if the bill were to compel it, it would be a violation [of the Constitution], because it would be handling the matter on the basis of race and we would be transporting children because of race."[36] While Javits said any government official who sought to use the bill for busing purposes "would be making a fool of himself," two years later the Department of Health, Education and Welfare said that Southern school districts would be required to meet mathematical ratios of students by busing.[36]

Political repercussionsEdit

President Johnson speaks to a television camera at the signing of the Civil Rights Act.The bill divided and engendered a long-term change in the demographic support of both parties. President Johnson realized that supporting this bill would risk losing the South's overwhelming support of the Democratic Party. Both Attorney General Robert Kennedy and Vice President Johnson had pushed for the introduction of the civil rights legislation. Johnson told Kennedy aide Ted Sorensen that "I know the risks are great and we might lose the South, but those sorts of states may be lost anyway."[37] Senator Richard Russell, Jr. later warned President Johnson that his strong support for the civil rights bill "will not only cost you the South, it will cost you the election".[38] Johnson, however, went on to win the 1964 election by one of the biggest landslides in American history. The South, which had five states swing Republican in 1964, became a stronghold of the Republican party by the 1990s.[39]

Although majorities in both parties voted for the bill, there were notable exceptions. Though he opposed forced segregation,[40]Republican Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona voted against the bill, remarking, "You can't legislate morality." Goldwater had supported previous attempts to pass civil rights legislation in 1957 and 1960 as well as the 24th Amendment outlawing the poll tax. He stated that the reason for his opposition to the 1964 bill was Title II, which in his opinion violated individual liberty and states' rights. Most Democrats from the Southern states opposed the bill and led an unsuccessful 83-day filibuster, including Senators Albert Gore, Sr. (D-TN) and J. William Fulbright (D-AR), as well as Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), who personally filibustered for 14 hours straight.

(The full text of the Act is available online.)

Title IEditBarred unequal application of voter registration requirements.

Title I did not eliminate literacy tests, which were one of the main methods used to exclude Black voters, other racial minorities, and poor Whites in the South, nor did it address economic retaliation, police repression, or physical violence against nonwhite voters. While the Act did require that voting rules and procedures be applied equally to all races, it did not abolish the concept of voter "qualification", that is to say, it accepted the idea that citizens do not have an automatic right to vote but rather might have to meet some standard beyond citizenship.[41][42] It was the Voting Rights Act, enacted one year later in 1965, that directly addressed and eliminated most voting qualifications beyond citizenship.

Title IIEditOutlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private".[43]

Title IIIEditProhibited state and municipal governments from denying access to public facilities on grounds of race, color, religion or national origin.

Title IVEditEncouraged the desegregation of public schools and authorized the U.S. Attorney General to file suits to enforce said act.

Title VEditExpanded the Civil Rights Commission established by the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1957 with additional powers, rules and procedures.

Title VIEditPrevents discrimination by government agencies that receive federal funds. If an agency is found in violation of Title VI, that agency may lose its federal funding.

General

This title declares it to be the policy of the United States that discrimination on the ground of race, color, or national origin shall not occur in connection with programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance and authorizes and directs the appropriate Federal departments and agencies to take action to carry out this policy. This title is not intended to apply to foreign assistance programs. Section 601 '' This section states the general principle that no person in the United States shall be excluded from participation in or otherwise discriminated against on the ground of race, color, or national origin under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

Section 602 directs each Federal agency administering a program of Federal financial assistance by way of grant, contract, or loan to take action pursuant to rule, regulation, or order of general applicability to effectuate the principle of section 601 in a manner consistent with the achievement of the objectives of the statute authorizing the assistance. In seeking the effect compliance with its requirements imposed under this section, an agency is authorized to terminate or to refuse to grant or to continue assistance under a program to any recipient as to whom there has been an express finding pursuant to a hearing of a failure to comply with the requirements under that program, and it may also employ any other means authorized by law. However, each agency is directed first to seek compliance with its requirements by voluntary means.

Section 603 provides that any agency action taken pursuant to section 602 shall be subject to such judicial review as would be available for similar actions by that agency on other grounds. Where the agency action consists of terminating or refusing to grant or to continue financial assistance because of a finding of a failure of the recipient to comply with the agency's requirements imposed under section 602, and the agency action would not otherwise be subject to judicial review under existing law, judicial review shall nevertheless be available to any person aggrieved as provided in section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. § 1009). The section also states explicitly that in the latter situation such agency action shall not be deemed committed to unreviewable agency discretion within the meaning of section 10. The purpose of this provision is to obviate the possible argument that although section 603 provides for review in accordance with section 10, section 10 itself has an exception for action "committed to agency discretion," which might otherwise be carried over into section 603. It is not the purpose of this provision of section 603, however, otherwise to alter the scope of judicial review as presently provided in section 10(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act.

Title VIIEditTitle VII of the Act, codified as Subchapter VI of Chapter 21 of title 42 of the United States Code, prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2[44]). Title VII applies to and covers an employer "who has fifteen (15) or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year" as written in the Definitions section under 42 U.S.C. §2000e(b). Title VII also prohibits discrimination against an individual because of his or her association with another individual of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, such as by an interracial marriage.[45] The EEO Title VII has also been supplemented with legislation prohibiting pregnancy, age, and disability discrimination (SeePregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, Age Discrimination in Employment Act,[46]Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990).

In very narrowly defined situations, an employer is permitted to discriminate on the basis of a protected trait where the trait is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise. To prove the bona fide occupational qualifications defense, an employer must prove three elements: a direct relationship between the protected trait and the ability to perform the duties of the job, the BFOQ relates to the "essence" or "central mission of the employer's business", and there is no less-restrictive or reasonable alternative (United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499U.S.187 (1991) 111 S.Ct. 1196). The Bona Fide Occupational Qualification exception is an extremely narrow exception to the general prohibition of discrimination based on protected traits (Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433U.S.321 (1977) 97 S.Ct. 2720). An employer or customer's preference for an individual of a particular religion is not sufficient to establish a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kamehameha School '-- Bishop Estate, 990 F.2d 458 (9th Cir. 1993)).

Title VII allows for any employer, labor organization, joint labor-management committee, or employment agency to bypass the "unlawful employment practice" for any person involved with the Communist Party of the United States or of any other organization required to register as a Communist-action or Communist-front organization by final order of the Subversive Activities Control Board pursuant to the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950.[47]

There are partial and whole exceptions to Title VII for four types of employers:

Federal government; (Comment: The proscriptions against employment discrimination under Title VII are now applicable to certain federal government offices under 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-16)Federally recognized Native American tribesReligious groups performing work connected to the group's activities, including associated education institutions;Bona fide nonprofit private membership organizations.The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) as well as certain state fair employment practices agencies (FEPAs) enforce Title VII (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-4[44]). The EEOC and state FEPAs investigate, mediate, and may file lawsuits on behalf of employees. Where a state law is contradicted by a federal law, it is overridden.[48] Every state, except Arkansas and Mississippi, maintains a state FEPA (see EEOC and state FEPA directory ). Title VII also provides that an individual can bring a private lawsuit. An individual must file a complaint of discrimination with the EEOC within 180 days of learning of the discrimination or the individual may lose the right to file a lawsuit. Title VII only applies to employers who employ 15 or more employees for 20 or more weeks in the current or preceding calendar year (42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b)).

In the early 1980s, the EEOC and some federal courts began holding that sexual harassment is also prohibited under the Act. In 1986, the Supreme Court held in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477U.S.57 (1986), that sexual harassment is sex discrimination and is prohibited by Title VII. Same-sex sexual harassment has also been held in a unanimous decision written by Justice Scalia to be prohibited by Title VII (Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523U.S.75 (1998), 118 S.Ct. 998).

In 2012, the EEOC ruled that employment discrimination on the basis of gender identity or transgender status is prohibited under Title VII. The decision held that discrimination on the basis of gender identity qualified as discrimination on the basis of sex whether the discrimination was due to sex stereotyping, discomfort with the fact of an individual's transition, or discrimination due to a perceived change in the individual's sex.[49][50] In 2014, the EEOC initiated two lawsuits against private companies for discrimination on the basis of gender identity, with additional litigation under consideration.[51] As of November 2014, Commissioner Chai Feldblum is making an active effort to increase awareness of Title VII remedies for individuals discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.[52][53]

Title VIIIEditRequired compilation of voter-registration and voting data in geographic areas specified by the Commission on Civil Rights.

Title IXEditTitle IX made it easier to move civil rights cases from state courts to federal court. This was of crucial importance to civil rights activists[who?] who contended that they could not get fair trials in state courts.[citation needed]

Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should not be confused with Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, which prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded education programs and activities.

Title XEditEstablished the Community Relations Service, tasked with assisting in community disputes involving claims of discrimination.

Title XIEditTitle XI gives a defendant accused of certain categories of criminal contempt in a matter arising under title II, III, IV, V, VI, or VII of the Act the right to a jury trial. If convicted, the defendant can be fined an amount not to exceed $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than six months.

There were white business owners who claimed that Congress did not have the constitutional authority to ban segregation in public accommodations. For example, Moreton Rolleston, the owner of a motel in Atlanta, Georgia, said he should not be forced to serve black travelers, saying, "the fundamental question'...is whether or not Congress has the power to take away the liberty of an individual to run his business as he sees fit in the selection and choice of his customers".[54] Rolleston claimed that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a breach of the Fourteenth Amendment and also violated the Fifth and Thirteenth Amendments by depriving him of "liberty and property without due process".[54] In Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964), the Supreme Court held that Congress drew its authority from the Constitution's Commerce Clause, rejecting Rolleston's claims.

Resistance to the public accommodation clause continued for years on the ground, especially in the South.[55] When local college students in Orangeburg, South Carolina attempted to desegregate a bowling alley in 1968, they were violently attacked, leading to rioting and what became known as the "Orangeburg massacre."[56] Resistance by school boards continued into the next decade, with the most significant declines in black-white school segregation only occurring at the end of the 1960s and the start of the 1970s in the aftermath of the Green v. County School Board of New Kent County (1968) court decision.[57]

Between 1965 and 1972, Title VII lacked any strong enforcement provisions. Instead, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was authorized only to investigate external claims of discrimination. The EEOC could then refer cases to the Justice Department for litigation if reasonable cause was found. The EEOC documented the nature and magnitude of discriminatory employment practices, the first study of this kind done.

In 1972, Congress passed the Equal Employment Opportunity Act. The Act amended Title VII and gave EEOC authority to initiate its own enforcement litigation. The EEOC now played a major role in guiding judicial interpretations of civil rights legislation. The commission was also permitted for the first time to define "discrimination," a term excluded from the 1964 Act.[58]

Subsequent court rulingsEditThe Constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was, at the time, in some dispute as it applied to the private sector. In the landmark Civil Rights Cases the United States Supreme Court had ruled, in 1883, that Congress did not have the power to prohibit discrimination in the private sector, thus stripping the Civil Rights Act of 1875 of much of its ability to protect civil rights.[59]

In the late 19th and early 20th century, the legal justification for voiding the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was part of a larger trend by members of the United States Supreme Court to invalidate most government regulations of the private sector, except when dealing with laws designed to protect traditional public morality.

In the 1930s, during the New Deal, the majority of the Supreme Court justices gradually shifted their legal theory to allow for greater government regulation of the private sector under the commerce clause, thus paving the way for the Federal government to enact civil rights laws prohibiting both public and private sector discrimination on the basis of the commerce clause.

After the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, the Supreme Court upheld the law's application to the private sector, on the grounds that Congress has the power to regulate commerce between the States. The landmark case Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States established the constitutionality of the law, but it did not settle all of the legal questions surrounding the law.

In a 1971 Supreme Court case regarding the gender provisions of the Act, the Court ruled that a company could not discriminate against a potential female employee because she had a preschool-age child unless they did the same with potential male employees.[28] A federal court overruled an Ohio state law that barred women from obtaining jobs which required the ability to lift 25 pounds and required women to take lunch breaks when men were not required to.[28] In Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations, the United States Supreme Court decided that printing separate job listings for men and women was illegal, which ended that practice among the country's newspapers. The United States Civil Service Commission ended the practice among federal jobs which designated them "women only" or "men only".[28]

In 1974, the Supreme Court also ruled that the San Francisco school district was violating non-English speaking students' rights under the 1964 act by placing them in regular classes rather than providing some sort of accommodation for them.[60]

In 1975, a federal civil rights agency warned a Phoenix, Arizona school that its end-of-year father-son and mother-daughter baseball games were illegal according to the 1964 Civil Rights Act.[28] President Gerald Ford intervened, and the games were allowed to continue.[28]

In 1977, the Supreme Court struck down state minimum height requirements for police officers as violating the Act; women usually could not meet these requirements.[28]

Despite its lack of influence during its time, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had considerable impact on later civil rights legislation in the United States. It paved the way for future legislation that was not limited to African American civil rights. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990'--which has been called "the most important piece of federal legislation since the Civil Rights Act of 1964"'--was influenced both by the structure and substance of the previous Civil Rights Act of 1964. The act was arguably of equal importance, and "draws substantially from the structure of that landmark legislation [Civil Rights Act of 1964]". The Americans With Disabilities Act paralleled its landmark predecessor structurally, drawing upon many of the same titles and statutes. For example, "Title I of the ADA, which bans employment discrimination by private employers on the basis of disability, parallels Title VII of the Act". Similarly, Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, "which proscribes discrimination on the basis of disability in public accommodations, tracks Title II of the 1964 Act while expanding upon the list of public accommodations covered." The Americans with Disabilities Act extended "the principle of nondiscrimination to people with disabilities",[61] an idea unsought in the United States before the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Act also influenced later civil rights legislation, such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Civil Rights Act of 1968, aiding not only African Americans, but also women.

Other civil rights legislationCourt cases^"H.R. 7152. PASSAGE.". GovTrack.us. ^"HR. 7152. PASSAGE.". GovTrack.us. ^"H.R. 7152. CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION (H. RES. 789) PROVIDING FOR HOUSE APPROVAL OF THE BILL AS AMENDED BY THE SENATE.". GovTrack.us. ^Milestones In The History of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: 1972 Accessed July 1, 2014^Wright, Susan (2005), The Civil Rights Act of 1964: Landmark Antidiscrimination Legislation, The Rosen Publishing Group, ISBN 1-4042-0455-5^"Transcript of Civil Rights Act (1964)". Retrieved July 28, 2012.^"Radio and television address on civil rights, 11 June 1963". John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum. 1963-06-11. Retrieved 2013-11-23. ^Eyes on the Prize: America's Civil Rights Years, episode 4 "No Easy Walk (1961''1963)"^Civil Rights Act Passes in the House ~ Civil Rights Movement Veterans^Loevy, Robert (1997), The Civil Rights Act of 1964: The Passage of the Law that Ended Racial Segregation, State University of New York Press, p. 171. ISBN 0-7914-3362-5^Golway, Terry and Krantz, Les (2010), JFK: Day by Day, Running Press, p. 284. ISBN 978-0-7624-3742-9^Reeves, Richard (1993), President Kennedy: Profile of Power, pp. 628''631^"Transition to Johnson". UPI. ^Cone, James H. (1991). Martin & Malcolm & America: A Dream or a Nightmare. p. 2. ISBN 0-88344-721-5. ^"A Case History: The 1964 Civil Rights Act". The Dirksen Congressional Center. Retrieved 2016-07-21. ^"The Civil Rights Act: What JFK, LBJ, Martin Luther King and Malcolm X had to say". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2016-02-02. ^1963 Year In Review '' Part 1 '' Civil Rights Bill United Press International, 1963^Civil Rights Act '' Battle in the Senate ~ Civil Rights Movement Veterans^Civil Rights Filibuster Ended '' United States Senate^Dallek, Robert (2004), Lyndon B. Johnson: Portrait of a President, p. 169^ abcKing, Desmond (1995). Separate and Unequal: Black Americans and the US Federal Government. p. 311. ^Jeong, Gyung-Ho; Gary J. Miller; Itai Sened (2009-03-14). Closing The Deal: Negotiating Civil Rights Legislation. 67th Annual Conference of the Midwest Political Science Association. p. 29. Archived from the original on 2016-07-29. Retrieved 2016-07-29. ^EL. "Were Republicans Really..?". Guardian. Retrieved 16 September 2016. ^http://arcweb.archives.gov/arc/action/ExternalIdSearch?id=6037151^Freeman, Jo. "How 'Sex' Got Into Title VII: Persistent Opportunism as a Maker of Public Policy," Law and Inequality: A Journal of Theory and Practice, Vol. 9, No. 2, March 1991, pp 163''184. online version^Rosenberg, Rosalind (2008), Divided Lives: American Women in the Twentieth Century, pp. 187-88^Gittinger, Ted and Fisher, Allen, LBJ Champions the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Part 2, Prologue Magazine, The National Archives, Summer 2004, Vol. 36, No. 2 ("Certainly Smith hoped that such a divisive issue would torpedo the civil rights bill, if not in the House, then in the Senate.")^ abcdefgFrum, David (2000). How We Got Here: The '70s. pp. 245''246, 249. ISBN 0-465-04195-7. ^The American Presidency Project, additional text.^Dierenfield, Bruce J (1981). "Conservative Outrage: the Defeat in 1966 of Representative Howard W. Smith of Virginia". Virginia Magazine of History and Biography. 89 (2): 194. ^ abGold, Michael Evan. A Tale of Two Amendments: The Reasons Congress Added Sex to Title VII and Their Implication for the Issue of Comparable Worth. Faculty Publications '-- Collective Bargaining, Labor Law, and Labor History. Cornell, 1981 [1]^Olson, Lynne (2001), Freedom's Daughters: The Unsung Heroines of the Civil Rights Movement, p. 360^Rosenberg, Rosalind (2008), Divided Lives: American Women in the Twentieth Century, p. 187 notes that Smith had been working for years with two Virginia feminists on the issue.^Harrison, Cynthia (1989), On Account of Sex: The Politics of Women's Issues, 1945''1968, p. 179^(477 U.S. 57, 63''64)^ abcdFrum, David (2000). How We Got Here: The '70s. pp. 251''252. ^Kotz, Nick (2005), Judgment Days: Lyndon Baines Johnson, Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Laws that Changed America, p. 61.^Branch, Taylor (1998), Pillar of Fire, p. 187.^Brownstein, Ronald (May 23, 2009). "For GOP, A Southern Exposure". National Journal. Retrieved July 7, 2010. ^Robert Sherrill (25 May 2001). "Conservatism as Phoenix". The Nation. ^Voting Rights ~ Civil Rights Movement Veterans^"Major Features of the Civil Rights Act of 1964". CongressLink. The Dirksen Congressional Center. Retrieved March 14, 2010. ^"Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title II". Wake Forest University. ^ ab"Civil Rights Act of 1964 '' CRA '' Title VII '' Equal Employment Opportunities '' 42 US Code Chapter 21". finduslaw. Retrieved 2010-06-06. ^Parr v. Woodmen of the World Life Insurance Company, 791 F.2d 888 (11th Cir. 1986).^"Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967". Finduslaw.com. Retrieved 2010-06-06. ^http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/civil-rights-act/images/act-06.jpg^U.S. Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration. (1999) "Chapter 2: Laws and Regulations with Implications for Assessments". [2]^Macy v. Holder, EEOC Appeal No. 0120120821 (April 20, 2012)^Quinones, Sam (April 25, 2012). "EEOC rules job protections also apply to transgender people". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved November 4, 2014. ^Rosenberg, Mica (September 9, 2014). "U.S. government lawsuits target transgender discrimination in workplace". Reuters. Retrieved November 4, 2014. ^"What You Should Know about EEOC and the Enforcement Protections for LGBT Workers". Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. ^Feldblum, Chai. "ICYMI-- EEOC helping LGBT people get protection from discrimination under sex discrimination laws.". ^ abSandoval-Strausz, A.K. (Spring 2005). "Travelers, Strangers, and Jim Crow: Law, Public Accommodations, and Civil Rights in America". Law and History Review. 23 (1): 53''94. doi:10.1017/s0738248000000055. JSTOR 30042844. ^Alan Taylor. "1964: Civil Rights Battles". The Atlantic. ^Victoria W. Wolcott, Race, Riots, and Rollercoasters (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012), pg. 215-221^Sean F. Reardon, Ann Owens, "60 Years After Brown: Trends and Consequences of School Segregation" Annual Review of Sociology Vol. 14, 2014^"Equal Employment Opportunity Commission". LII / Legal Information Institute. ^"The Civil Rights Act of March 1, 1875", www.gmu.edu.^Frum, David (2000). How We Got Here: The '70s. p. 270. ^Dinerstein, Robert D. (). The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990: Progeny of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. American Bar Association. JSTOR.Branch, Taylor (1998), Pillar of Fire: America in the King Years 1963''65, New York: Simon & Schuster.Brauer, Carl M., "Women Activists, Southern Conservatives, and the Prohibition of Sexual Discrimination in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act", 49 Journal of Southern History, February 1983.Burstein, Paul (1985), Discrimination, Jobs and Politics: The Struggle for Equal Employment Opportunity in the United States since the New Deal, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Finley, Keith M. (2008), Delaying the Dream: Southern Senators and the Fight Against Civil Rights, 1938''1965, Baton Rouge: LSU Press.Freeman, Jo. "How 'Sex' Got Into Title VII: Persistent Opportunism as a Maker of Public Policy" Law and Inequality: A Journal of Theory and Practice, Vol. 9, No. 2, March 1991, pp. 163''184. online versionGraham, Hugh (1990), The Civil Rights Era: Origins and Development of National Policy, 1960''1972, New York: Oxford University Press.Gregory, Raymond F. (2014). The Civil Rights Act and the Battle to End Workplace Discrimination. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Harrison, Cynthia (1988), On Account of Sex: The Politics of Women's Issues 1945''1968, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Jeong, Gyung-Ho, Gary J. Miller, and Itai Sened, "Closing the Deal: Negotiating Civil Rights Legislation", American Political Science Review, 103 (Nov. 2009)Loevy, Robert D. (1990), To End All Segregation: The Politics of the Passage of The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Loevy, Robert D. ed. (1997), The Civil Rights Act of 1964: The Passage of the Law That Ended Racial Segregation, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Loevy, Robert D. "A Brief History of the Civil Rights Act OF 1964," in David C. Kozak and Kenneth N. Ciboski, ed., The American Presidency (Chicago: Nelson Hall, 1985), pp. 411''419. online versionMann, Robert (1996). The Walls of Jericho: Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, Richard Russell, and the Struggle for Civil Rights.Pedriana, Nicholas, and Stryker, Robin. "The Strength of a Weak Agency: Enforcement of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Expansion of State Capacity, 1965''1971," American Journal of Sociology, Nov 2004, Vol. 110 Issue 3, pp 709''760Rodriguez, Daniel B. and Weingast, Barry R. "The Positive Political Theory of Legislative History: New Perspectives on the 1964 Civil Rights Act and Its Interpretation", University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 151. (2003) onlineRothstein, Mark A., Andria S. Knapp & Lance Liebman (1987). Employment Law: Cases and Materials. Foundation Press.Warren, Dan R. (2008), If It Takes All Summer: Martin Luther King, the KKK, and States' Rights in St. Augustine, 1964, Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.Whalen, Charles and Whalen, Barbara (1985), The Longest Debate: A Legislative History of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Cabin John, MD: Seven Locks Press.Woods, Randall B. (2006), LBJ: Architect of American Ambition, New York: Free Press, ch 22.Zimmer, Michael J., Charles A. Sullivan & Richard F. Richards, Cases and Materials on Employment Discrimination, Little, Brown and Company (1982).

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:56

President Lyndon B Johnson signs the Civil Rights Act in a ceremony at the White House, Washington DC, July 2, 1964 . PhotoQuest / Getty Images

For President Johnson to sign the Civil Rights Act into law on July 2, 1964, was a no-brainer: the date was a Thursday, just as it is this year, and the symbolism of marking the hard-fought victory just before Independence Day would be a shame to waste.

But, as TIME noted in its original 1964 coverage of the landmark legislation, the Fourth of July wasn't the only significant date in play. The date on which the Senate passed the bill was June 19, 1964'--precisely one year after "President John Kennedy sent to Congress a civil rights bill, [and] urged its speedy passage 'not merely for reasons of economic efficiency, world diplomacy or domestic tranquility, but above all because it is right.'" Though Kennedy had been assassinated the previous fall, the law he had advocated for had actually grown in strength and scope.

After the House also passed the bill and it went on to the President, the season of its signing'--and not just the calendar date'--would also prove significant.

The bill included many obviously important provisions affecting matters of great weight, like voting rights and equal employment. But, as TIME pointed out, it would take months to see the voting rules take effect, and the labor matters included a period during which businesses could adjust. On the other hand, one of the parts of the law'--a part that may seem today to be far less important'--was, as TIME put it, "effective immediately, and likely to cause the fastest fireworks."

The law entitled all persons to equal use of public accommodations, from hotels and movie theaters to soda fountains and public swimming pools. In the run up to the final vote, St. Augustine, Fla., proved why pools'--long a contentious point, for the necessary closeness that comes with sharing the water with other people'--would be a hot topic:

There, five Negroes and two white fellow demonstrators dived into the swimming pool at the segregated Monson Motor Lodge. The motel manager, furious, grabbed two jugs of muriatic acid, a cleansing agent, tried unsuccessfully to splash the stuff on the swimmers. Cops moved in, one of them stripped off his shoes and socks, leaped gracelessly into the water and pummeled the swimmers with his fists. When the fracas was over, 34 people, including the swimmers and other civil righters who kept dry, were hauled off to jail.

Due to the time of year, the new law's effects would be immediately visible at swimming pools around the country.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 29 Jan 2017 04:53

Compassandcamera | Getty Images

Backers seeking to break California away from the U.S. started collecting signatures Friday to get a proposed independence measure on the 2018 statewide ballot.

This isn't the first effort aimed at California secession but leaders say the previous tries were mostly about building awareness of the issue and increasing public support. They say recent polls show more Californians want a divorce from the union and believe that President Donald Trump's election also has boosted their cause.

"We definitely see that there's some newfound support for this and we want to get the signatures out there, especially now because we're in the first 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency when he's going to be aggressively pursuing his policies that the people of California are going to reject '-- and have rejected," Louis Marinelli, president of the Yes California Independence movement, said in an interview Friday.

However, the state-prepared summary on the petition from California Secretary of State Alex Padilla calls out the uncertain road ahead in this effort, which would have multiple hurdles.

Specifically, the summary said "the fiscal impact of this measure is dependent on various factors, including a vote by the people on this measure, a subsequent vote on California independence, possible legal challenges, and implementation issues. Assuming that California actually became an independent nation, the state and its local governments would experience major, but unknown, budgetary impacts."

In terms of annual GDP, California would rank sixth worldwide if it were a separate nation. California, home to about one out of every eight Americans, voted in favor of Democrat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.

Marinelli pointed to a recent opinion poll by Reuters/Ipsos showing one third of California residents now support breaking away from the U.S. The Reuters poll of 500 Californians, which was conducted from Dec. 6 to Jan. 19, found 32 percent support for the withdrawal. That compares with about 20 percent support, or one-in-five Californians, who backed the secession idea in 2014.

According to Marinelli, the so-called Calexit backers have about 7,000 supporters mobilized to gather signatures statewide for the new California nationhood initiative. The California Secretary of State's office said Thursday the backers of the measure must collect the signatures of 585,407 registered voters to qualify for the ballot. Organizers have until July 25, 2017, to meet the requirement.

"We think it's going to be quite easy for us to make the sell," said Marinelli. "California is a different place and has its own culture, its own history, its own identity, its own world view, and its own ideology in a large respect. So we would feel better off if we can set our own destiny, set our own path forward and not be connected to a lot of these obsolete policies of the American system."

Added Marinelli, "There's a lot of this dysfunction going on in the American system, the corruption in Washington, the animosity within the United States as a whole. So we want to break away from all that and set a new path forward. To establish for ourselves some kind of progressive republic on the western shores of North America."

The referendum aims to repeal a provision in the state's constitution that reads "California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land."

"What we want to do is give the people of California the chance to vote yes or no on independence," said Marinelli. "If the people want to stay in the country and they want to remain a state they can vote no. We're certainly going to be focusing on the argument about convincing people why it's better for us to become our own country."

Calexit backers see divorce from the union as a two-step process '-- first the vote in 2018 to repeal the "inseparable" provision from the state constitution and then a special election in 2019 for the independence vote itself.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 29 Jan 2017 07:42

California is one step closer to possible secession.

Supporters of the so-called ''Calexit'' movement got the green light late Thursday to begin collecting the 585,407 voter signatures needed to get an initiative on the November 2018 ballot.

The group behind the proposal, known as Yes California, now has six months to collect and submit the signatures, according to California's Secretary of State Alex Padilla.

Yes California started back in 2015 but exploded with a groundswell of support '-- and the catchy #Calexit hashtag '-- in the days following President Donald Trump's election.

'Calexit': Californians want to exit the U.S. after Trump's win

''California and America are different cultures, very different. Donald Trump never would have been a candidate here, not even a party nominee. Do we need more evidence than that?'' Yes California spokesman Marcus Ruiz Evans told the Daily News Friday.

He argued California is an economic powerhouse that subsidizes dozens of southern and midwestern states that don't share its values. He said the Golden State's own crumbling highways, bridges, levees and schools should get that money instead.

''We're pumping out billions to other states. That's colony status,'' he said Friday.

The proposed Calexit ballot measure seeks to repeal provisions in the state's constitution ''stating California is an inseparable part of the United States and that the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land,'' according to wording approved by the California Attorney General.

A look at secession attempts through American history

''We're absolutely excited,'' Evans said. ''A lot of people said this was unconstitutional. If it's unconstitutional, how come the Attorney General approved it?''

If the new measure qualifies for the ballot and passes, there would be a follow-up special election in March 2019 to ask voters if they want California to become an independent country.

Experts say the process would then require approval by the other states in the union, likely though an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Evans, 39, said he's not worried about that.

Miami politicians press for South Florida as 51st state

''There's lot of evidence suggesting the 35 states who all voted for Trump have very different values and don't like California. They don't like immigrants, don't like accents. They don't believe in LGBT rights, women's rights,'' he argued.

''If you already hate us and you don't know we support you financially and you vote on emotion, we have the votes today,'' he said.

Yes California's president Louis Marinelli hails from upstate New York and was a registered Republican when he started the separatist movement.

Asked what the government of an independent California might look like, Evans said little would have to change.

''It's going to be whatever Californians decide, but probably not a lot has to change,'' he said. ''For everything the federal government does, there's already an equivalent state agency. Our governor already acts like a president, traveling to foreign nations, signing trade deals.''

Tags:californiadonald trumpSend a Letter to the EditorJoin the Conversation:facebookTweet

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:10

TSA to 'Significantly Reduce Access' to PreCheck in FebruaryAdvertiser Disclosure

The credit card offers that appear on the website are from credit card companies from which ThePointsGuy.com receives compensation. This compensation may impact how and where products appear on this site (including, for example, the order in which they appear). This site does not include all credit card companies or all available credit card offers. Please view our advertising policy page for more information.

Editorial Note: Opinions expressed here are author's alone, not those of any bank, credit card issuer, airlines or hotel chain, and have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by any of these entities.

BE A SMARTER TRAVELER: Get points strategies, customized alerts + more

AboutTeamContact UsPressOur Favorite CardsBeginner's GuidePoints For PeaceThe credit card offers that appear on the website are from credit card companies from which ThePointsGuy.com receives compensation. This compensation may impact how and where products appear on this site (including, for example, the order in which they appear). This site does not include all credit card companies or all available credit card offers. Please view our advertising policy page for more information.

Editorial Note: Opinions expressed here are author's alone, not those of any bank, credit card issuer, airlines or hotel chain, and have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by any of these entities.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 29 Jan 2017 04:51

Screenshot from the PhillyVoiceImage: PhilyVoiceNew Jersey is the first American state to adopt the Finnish maternity package programme, which in Finland provides parents-to-be with a package of about 50 baby items including clothing, socks, and a winter romper in a cardboard box that doubles as a crib.

Several media outlets have reported the story including the PhillyVoice.

According to the Philly Voice, the Los Angeles-based Baby Box Company announced on Tuesday that "it had partnered with New Jersey's Child Fatality and Near Fatality Review Board to distribute durable cardboard boxes filled with essential items for newborns and large enough to double as a bed for the first couple months of the baby's life."

The goal is to provide close to 105,000 baby boxes this year.

Finnish idea with international appealIn Finland, the idea of the baby box dates back to the 1930s when it was offered in exchange for prenatal visits as a way to curb infant mortality.

Today Finland's infant mortality rate is one of the world's lowest at 2.52 for every 1,000 births, less than half that of the United States.

The Baby Box concept has garnered interest around the world following stories by the New York Times and the BBC, which featured the concept in a story that reached 10 million people in 20 months.

Other countries, cities, and provinces have also been running trials with the baby box concept.

28.1.

28.1.

28.1.

28.1.

28.1.

27.1.

27.1.

27.1.

27.1.

27.1.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 28 Jan 2017 05:32

Brady's face is all the proof you need.Photo: Donna Connor/WireImageDonald Trump spent the weekend grumbling about superstars like Jay Z and Beyonc(C) endorsing Hillary Clinton, but now it's her turn to jealously ramble about her opponent's celebrity supporters at every campaign stop. On the eve of the election, Trump announced that he's received glowing, last-minute endorsements from the greatest sports figures on the planet (to New England voters, at least).

''Tom Brady, great guy, great guy. Great guy, great friend of mine '-- great, great champion. Unbelievable winner,'' Trump told the crowd at a Monday night rally in Manchester, New Hampshire. ''He called today and he said, 'Donald, I support you, you're my friend, and I voted for you.'''

Trump continued: ''And I said, 'So Tom. You voted for me, you support me, am I allowed to say it tonight at this massive crowd in New Hampshire?' He said, 'If you want to say it, you can say it.' Okay? Tom, that's what a champ is all about.''

The crowd roared at the mention of the New England Patriots quarterback '-- but there's more! Trump revealed that while sitting on his plane today, his aides handed him a letter from the team's coach, Bill Belichick. Trump said he asked if he could read the letter at his rally, and Belichick asked to reword it. Trump expected the coach to tone down his praise, but instead, ''It was much better, it was stronger.'' He read the revised letter in its entirety:

Congratulations on a tremendous campaign. You have dealt with an unbelievable slanted and negative media, and have come out beautifully '' beautifully. You've proved to be the ultimate competitor and fighter. Your leadership is amazing. I have always had tremendous respect for you, but the toughness and perseverance you have displayed over the past year is remarkable. Hopefully tomorrow's election results will give the opportunity to make America great again. Best wishes for great results tomorrow.

Bill Belichick

We know that Trump is friendly with both Brady and Belichick. The QB said Trump has been a ''good friend'' for many years, and during the primaries he had a ''Make America Great Again'' hat in his locker. The coach had dinner with Trump in March and his girlfriend posted photos on Instagram. Even team owner Bob Kraft is pro-Trump. He said in February that the mogul has been ''a very close friend of mine for over two decades.''

However, all three men have avoided officially throwing their support behind Trump. Despite speculation, Brady did not appear at the Republican National Convention. ''While I am not comfortable discussing politics publicly, I am very comfortable talking about my friendships with people who happen to be in politics,'' Kraft told the Boston Globe on the eve of the Massachusetts primary.

With the notable exception of LeBron James, who stumped for Clinton, prominent sports figures have mostly stayed out of election politics. It's possible that the Patriots decided to be coy about their political leanings, especially considering that most of New England is not Trump country. Some on Twitter found the last-minute endorsements fishy.

Despite the stylistic concerns, Belichick's note appears to be legit. CSN New England confirmed Tuesday that the Patriots coach did send Trump an endorsement letter.

But what about Brady? During a Monday-morning radio interview, the quarterback said he hasn't taken advantage of early voting in Massachusetts, but he does intend to cast a ballot. ''No, I haven't voted yet so I'm going to, uh '-- in the next, I don't know if it's today or tomorrow,'' he said.

Early voting ended on Friday in Massachusetts, and the deadline to apply for absentee ballots was Monday at noon. As the Globe notes, Brady discussed watching the Buffalo Bills play the Seattle Seahawks ''tonight,'' suggesting the interview was recorded on Monday. But based on a photo posted Tuesday by the radio show, it appears as though Brady made it by the deadline:

It's unclear how CSN confirmed Belichick's endorsement, as earlier attempts to confirm both the coach's and quarterback's presidential picks had gone unanswered. The team's next press conference is Wednesday.

Hunter Walker of Yahoo News got through to Belichick, but he didn't feel like talking politics at the time.

Then the plot thickened:

And thickened even further:

The Patriots are truly living up to their name. If nothing else, this controversy will provide Americans with a fun distraction from watching cable news and shaking on Tuesday.

Boston GlobeTrump Aides Keep Leaking Embarrassing Stories About How He Can't Handle Embarrassment

The vice-president isn't going to let a total lack of evidence get in the way of a perfectly good voter-fraud investigation.

But the White House's ''joint statement'' omits the part where the two leaders say they won't talk publicly about the wall.

In the spirit of international harmony and understanding.

The 45th president is an unlikely champion for abortion opponents. And he may not accomplish more for them than did George W. Bush.

All the norms the president has already destroyed.

Trump joined British PM Theresa May for his first White House press conference Friday.

''There's no single fix. There's no single plan,'' says Republican in charge of writing plan.

Trump pulls ads alerting consumers to the Obamacare enrollment deadline '-- even though the spots have already been paid for.

Miller will join Doug Band's Teneo Strategy to act as a liaison to the Trump White House.

There's a real movement afoot to make the Golden State its own golden republic. At very least, it will galvanize opposition to the Trump regime.

The presidents of the U.S. and Russia haven't spoken since just after the election.

Up until now, Trump and his staff have generally pointed, misleadingly, to mainstream studies to support the claim. Not anymore.

Steve Bannon has called out the ''elite press'' for misjudging the 2016 race. Is now the right moment to take a lesson?

''I came to Obama's America, so it was so emotional to reach the milestone of being a citizen just before he's going.''

He declared he's dismantling Obamacare, building a wall, and ending ''sanctuary cities,'' but that doesn't necessarily mean it will happen.

He ordered them to produce more photos of the Mall, and complained about the agency's retweets.

In discussing the U.S.-U.K. ''special relationship'' she stressed the importance of NATO and of dealing with Russia from ''a position of strength.''

Donald Trump's chief White House strategist declares war on the press.

Now at least Trump has less money to play with.

Sean Spicer explained the House GOP's border-adjustment tax poorly. The media assumed the worst. ''Fake news'' ensued.

(C) 2017, New York Media LLC.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Thu, 26 Jan 2017 14:11

GETTY

Countries were forced to install temporary migration controlsThe European Commission granted the extension to Austria, Germany, Denmark, Sweden and Norway - which are all members of the visa-free and borderless zone.

Under the arrangement European citizens can travel without a visa through the designated zone, which covers most of the Brussels bloc.

Related articlesBut the Schengen agreement was almost destroyed last year as countries began blocking their borders to stop illegal immigration.

Several countries were forced to install temporary migration controls at their borders after the migrant crisis hit to prevent an influx of thousands of undocumented refugees from entering towns and cities undetected.

GETTY

Hungary even built a new wall to keep migrants outGETTY

Under the Schengen agreement, citizens can travel without a passportNow the passport-free zone faces a fresh dilema after the European Union commission confirmed an extension of border controls - despite hopes Schengen could be saved.

First Vice-President Frans Timmermans said: "Significant progress has been made to lift internal border controls, but we need to solidify it further.

''This is why we recommend allowing the Member States concerned to maintain temporary border controls for a further three months."

GETTY

The commission stressed they had made moved to stabilise the situationThe commission stressed they had made moved to stabilise the situation, but the conditions needed to return to normal border procedures have not yet been met.

A report into the issue highlighted the significant numbers of migrants still in Greece - adding that ''the situation remains fragile on the Western Balkans route'' that connects Turkey to Europe.

The issue of new security challenges, as demonstrated by the recent terrorist attacks in a number of European countries, have also been taken into account into the recommendations.

Mon, January 23, 20171 of 25

Significant progress has been made to lift internal border controls, but we need to solidify it further.

First Vice-President Frans Timmermans

But a document published in March 2016 earmarked last December as ''the target date for bringing to an end the exceptional safeguard measures taken'' - meaning the target was not met.

And suggestions the move was partly influenced by German elections, which are due to be held in September were rejected by Dimitris Avramopoulos, the European commissioner for migration.

GETTY

Border controls aimed to stop an undocumented flow of migrantsHe said: ''Our decision is based on facts.''

The Commission said that the migration crisis calming down, and the implementation of a series of measures to better manage the EU's external borders '-- such as the launch of the European Border and Coast Guard last fall.

But it ''considers that the conditions of the 'Back to Schengen' roadmap '... have not yet been entirely fulfilled''.

Federal Minister of the Interior Thomas de Maizi¨re, however, says the extension should run until the end of 2017 as the three-month limit 'does not go far enough'.

The Federal Government claimed it necessary to carry out checks at the internal borders "probably beyond mid-2017".

Such an extension is necessary "regarding the overall situation", while Federal Police also stated "a persistently high migration pressure on Europe".

Related articles

Link to Article

Archived Version

Fri, 27 Jan 2017 06:50

AD maakt gebruik van cookiesWe zijn verplicht om je te informeren over en jouw toestemming te vragen voor het gebruik van cookies op onze website.

Ja, ik accepteer cookies

Via cookiesverzamelen AD en derde partijen informatie over jouw bezoek en interesses. Daarmee dragen cookies bij aan een prettige website-ervaring. We zorgen dat jij niet telkens dezelfde artikelen of advertenties ziet en dat advertenties bij ons en op andere sites passen bij jouw interesses. Verder zorgen cookies van derde partijen dat je artikelen kunt delen via sociale media en dat je op onze website filmpjes kunt bekijken.

Om de AD-artikelen te kunnen lezen, dien je de cookies te accepteren. Je doet dat door op 'Ja, ik accepteer de cookies' te klikken. We wensen je veel leesplezier!

Meer informatie over cookies op AD.nl vind je in ons uitgebreide cookie-statement. De serviceafdeling is te bereiken op telefoonnummer 088 - 0505 050 of via de service-omgeving. Krant.ad.nl is gratis beschikbaar voor abonnees, ook zonder cookies te accepteren.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Fri, 27 Jan 2017 21:50

Correction:In one of my posts on the Cook fraud, I listed 19 social science, survey, marketing, and opinion papers that were coded as "climate papers" endorsing of anthropogenic warming. I made a mistake listing this one:

Vandenplas, P. E. (1998). Reflections on the past and future of fusion and plasma physics research. Plasma physics and controlled fusion, 40(8A), A77.

It was coded as mitigation but not as endorsement. My apologies.

Counting:

Since we have a 1:1 replacement policy at JoseDuarte.com, I'll give you another paper that was indeed counted as endorsement:

Larsson, M. J. K., Lundgren, M. J., Asbj¶rnsson, M. E., & Andersson, M. H. (2009). Extensive introduction of ultra high strength steels sets new standards for welding in the body shop. Welding in the World, 53(5-6), 4-14.

In fact, this one was counted as a "mitigation" paper and as "explicit endorsement."

As I said in that post, there are lots more where that came from, lots more that I haven't listed. I don't provide them all for two reasons: 1) I want to get people thinking about validity and discourage something I saw after I posted that list of 19 papers '' counting and recomputation of meaningless data. 2) I'm saving some for the journal article.

The Cook study was invalid because of the search procedure, the resulting arbitrary dataset that gave some scientists far more votes than others, the subjective raters having a conflict of interest (which is unheard of), the basic design, the breaking of rater blindness and independence, etc.

That means there is nothing to count, no percent, not a 97%, not any percent. You could recompute the percentage as 70% or 90% or 30% if you went through the data, but it would still be meaningless. There is no method known to science by which we could take their set of papers and compute a climate science consensus. I need to do a better job of explaining what it means to say that a study is invalid. People have this instinct to still play with data, any data, because it's there, like Mt. Everest. It's an unfortunate artifact of human nature and first-mover advantage, especially in cases where lax journals don't act swiftly to retract.

As always, I want to stress that the study was a fraud, and that this is a completely separate issue from validity. I always remind people of this because I think it would be irresponsible to pretend that is wasn't. They lied about their method. They claimed their ratings were blind to author and independent '' they routinely broke blindness and independence in a forum with other raters. Lying about your methods is fraud. That alone makes the study go away. There's no counting to be done. The above welding paper is an example of the third act of fraud '' saying that these were climate papers. There are all kinds of these absurd papers in their 97%. This was never real. There was never a 97%.

I heard someone say something like: "If you don't like a study, run your own to debunk it." That's a common outlook in science, and it's good advice in most cases. In this case, it's inappropriate, bad scientific epistemology. Invalid studies, certainly fraudulent ones, never impose a burden on others go out and collect data to debunk it. Invalid research should simply be retracted and everyone should carry on with their lives as if the research never happened, because in a sense, it didn't. Fraud of course should be retracted with prejudice. In such cases, there's nothing to refute or debunk with new data '' you'd be swinging at air. If we want to know the consensus, we already know it from quality surveys of climate scientists (it's 78 - 84%), so running around doing another study to "refute" the Cook study would be silly (especially a study based on subjective ratings of abstracts.) Sure, some people believe the 97% figure right now '' Cook and company were good at the media angle. That will be corrected in time, this study will be dealt with, and I expect the people involved will face appropriate consequences.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Thu, 26 Jan 2017 14:16

The Dutch Minister of Security and Justice announced that the Netherlands might conduct further investigation at the site of the Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 crash in eastern Ukraine after a Dutch journalist recovered some victims' remains from the site.

In January, Dutch journalist Michael Spekkers returned from a two-week stay in eastern Ukraine where he and his colleague, Stefan Beck, had been gathering first-hand accounts of the locals' attitudes toward Moscow and Kiev. On the last day of the trip, Spekkers went to the crash site of MH17, from where he said he retrieved parts of the wreckage as well as what was then established by Dutch prosecutors as human remains of one of the passengers of the downed Boeing.

Read more

Speaking to RT, Beck said that Spekkers ''was surprised'' to see numerous parts of the ill-fated plane still laying around. Upon arriving in the Netherlands, police confiscated all the findings of the reporter, as well as his and Beck's laptops and cellphones containing interviews with locals. In a recent statement, the Dutch Minister of Security and Justice, Gerard Adriaan van der Steur, said police will look into the findings collected by Spekkers. ''At this time, police are examining where and when the discovery was made by journalist Michel Spekkers. This examination will reveal if more debris can be recovered from this site. If so, then the government is obviously willing to conduct further investigations,'' a statement by van der Steur said, suggesting that the Dutch investigators are willing to return to the crash site for more recovery work.

In the statement he spoke of ''the assistance of the OSCE to assess the security situation and the establishment of a possible mission.'' He also spoke of the importance to deliver all the human remains to the victims' relatives.

In September, the Dutch-led Joint-investigative Team (JIT) issued a preliminary report on the criminal investigation of the MH17 crash, saying it had enough evidence for a ''solid criminal file.''

It said that a BUK missile system, blamed for taking down the plane, was brought from Russia and then transported back. Yet, Moscow as well the Russian BUK producer (Almaz Antey) countered the paper, providing its own evidence and questioning numerous parts of the JIT report. The Dutch side also claimed that collecting more evidence on the ground was ''too dangerous.''

READ MORE: MH17 int'l probe's only sources are Ukrainian intel & internet - Russian MoD

However, in an interview to RT, Spekkers disagreed with the assessment.

Read more

''They [Dutch officials] tell the public here that they have all the evidence the needed to point the party who is responsible for downing the MH17,'' the journalist said.

''But it's crazy. When I walked around there and I saw all that debris, I was thinking to myself: how is it possible that two and a half years later the investigation team is still not there to have everything back where it is supposed to be, to do a thorough investigation.'' According to Spekkers, the Dutch side also claimed the crash site was ''a big area'' and that's why they could not all the pieces of the crashed aircraft.

''But a lot of the debris [pieces] I took with me back to the Netherlands, they were from storage units which they [Dutch investigators] used during the investigation, and even those storage units, they did not get to empty them,'' Spekkers said.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Fri, 27 Jan 2017 14:24

Image copyrightVitalityImage caption Customers need to acquire 160 activity points per month to avoid paying extra for the watch Some customers who purchased the latest Apple Watch for £69 ($86) under a deal offered by Vitality Insurance are complaining that their activity data is not being uploaded by the firm's app.

If certain levels of activity are not logged every month customers are charged extra for the device.

The Apple Watch usually costs £369 in the UK.

The firm said a small number of customers were affected and some had synced their devices incorrectly.

Vitality declined to give figures of how many had taken up the offer.

Under the deal, customers who do not submit enough activity points per month have to pay an extra sum of up to £12.50 every time they fall behind.

The contract lasts for two years.

Dietitian Anna Holt, from Winchester, told the BBC she and her partner had both taken up the offer, and while his data had synced, hers had not.

She was advised to email screenshots of her activity data to the customer service team, she said.

"It defeats the object," she said. "There seem to be a lot of others complaining about it online."

Overnight, her device suddenly started syncing, she said.

There is no issue with the Apple product itself.

The Vitality UK app, which has a number of features for customers alongside tracking the Apple Watch data, has a large number of poor reviews on the app store and the majority of the 667 ratings it has received so far give it one star, the lowest score.

One reviewer complained in November that only steps and not running data were syncing while another said on 10 January that steps were only being recorded as zero.

"I have to constantly email customer service to get them to update it manually," they wrote.

Another described the app as "well-intentioned but muddled, frustrating, constantly changing and usually not working".

Vitality has been contacted for comment.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Fri, 27 Jan 2017 17:29

Having discontinued its production of EUR500 banknotes, it appears Europe is charging towards the utopian dream of a cashless society. Just days after Davos' elites discussed why the world needs to "get rid of currency," the European Commission has introduced a proposal enforcing "restrictions on payments in cash."

With Rogoff, Stiglitz, Summers et al. all calling for the end of cash - because only terrorists and drug-dealers need cash (nothing at all to do with totalitarian control over a nation's wealth) - we are not surprised that this proposal from the European Commission (sanctuary of statism) would appear...

The Commission published on 2 February 2016 a Communication to the Council and the Parliament on an Action Plan to further step up the fight against the financing of terrorism (COM (2016) 50). The Action Plan builds on existing EU rules to adapt to new threats and aims at updating EU policies in line with international standards. In the context of the Commission's action to extent the scope of the Regulation on the controls of cash entering or leaving the Community, reference is made to the appropriateness to explore the relevance of potential upper limits to cash payments.

The Action Plan states that "Payments in cash are widely used in the financing of terrorist activities'... In this context, the relevance of potential upper limits to cash payments could also be explored. Several Member States have in place prohibitions for cash payments above a specific threshold."

Cash has the important feature of offering anonymity to transactions. Such anonymity may be desired for legitimate reason (e.g. protection of privacy). But, such anonymity can also be misused for money laundering and terrorist financing purposes. The possibility to conduct large cash payments facilitates money laundering and terrorist financing activities because of the difficulty to control cash payment transactions.

...

Potential restrictions to cash payments would be a mean to fight criminal activities entailing large payment transactions in cash by organised criminal networks. Restricting large payments in cash, in addition to cash declarations and other AML obligations, would hamper the operation of terrorist networks, and other criminal activities, i.e. have a preventive effect. It would also facilitate further investigations to track financial transactions in the course of terrorist activities. Effective investigations are hindered as cash payments transactions are anonymous. Thus restrictions on cash payments would facilitate investigations. However, as cash transactions are moved to the financial system, it is essential that financial institutions have adequate controls and procedures in place that enable them to know the person with whom they are dealing. Adequate due diligence on new and existing customers is a key part of these controls in, line with the AMLD.

Terrorists use cash to sustain their illegal activities, not only for illegal transactions (e.g. the acquisition of explosives) but also for payments which are in appearance legal (e.g. transactions for accommodation or transport). While a restriction on payments in cash would certainly be ignored for transactions that are in any case already illegal, the restriction could create a significant hindrance to the conduct of transactions that are ancillary to terrorist activities.

...

Organised crime and terrorism financing rely on cash for payments for carrying out their illegal activities and benefitting from them. By restricting the possibilities to use cash, the proposal would contribute to disrupt the financing of terrorism, as the need to use non anonymous means of payment would either deter the activity or contribute to its easier detection and investigation. Any such proposal would also aim at harmonising restrictions across the Union, thus creating a level playing field for businesses and removing distortions of competition in the internal market. It would additionally foster the fight against money laundering, tax fraud and organised crime.

And then right at the end, they mention "fundamental rights"...

While being allowed to pay in cash does not constitute a fundamental right, the objective of the initiative, which is to prevent the anonymity that cash payments allow, might be viewed as an infringement of the right to privacy enshrined in Article 7 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. However, as complemented by article 52 of the Charter, limitations may be made subject to the principle of proportionality if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others. The objectives of potential restrictions to cash payments could fit such description. It should also be observed that national restrictions to cash payments were never successfully challenged based on an infringement to fundamental rights.

Full Proposal below...

* * *

Below are some recent thoughts on the matter from SovereignMan's Simon Black, who detailed previously that the war on cash is happening faster than we could have ever imagined, and predictably, is based on lies.

Every time we turn around, it seems, there's another major assault in the War on Cash. India is the most notable recent example'' the embarrassing debacle a few weeks ago in which the government, overnight, ''demonetized'' its two largest denominations of cash, leaving an entire nation in chaos. But there have been so many smaller examples.

In the US city of New Orleans, the local government decided earlier this month to stop accepting cash payments from drivers at the Office of Motor Vehicles. As I wrote to you recently, several branches of Citibank in Australia have stopped dealing in cash altogether. And former US Treasury Secretary Larry Summers published an article last week stating that ''nothing in the Indian experience gives us pause in recommending that no more large notes be created in the United States, Europe, and around the world.'' In other words, despite the India chaos, Summers thinks we should still curtail the $100 bill.

The conclave of the high priests of monetary policy almost invariably sings the same chorus: only criminals and terrorists use high denominations of cash. Ken Rogoff, Harvard professor and former official at the International Monetary Fund and Federal Reserve, recently published a book blatantly entitled The Curse of Cash. Ben Bernanke's called it a ''fascinating and important book''.

And, shockingly, a number of reviews on Amazon.com praise ''brilliant'' Rogoff's ''visionary concepts'' in his ''excellent book''. Rogoff, like most of his colleagues, contends that large bills like the $100 or 500 euro note are only used in ''drug trade, extortion, bribes, human trafficking. . .'' In fact they jokingly refer to the 500-euro note as the ''Bin Laden'' since it's apparently only used by terrorists.

Give me a break. My team and I did some of research on this and found some rather interesting data.It turns out that countries with higher denominations of cash actually have much lower crime rates, including rates of organized crime.

The research was simple; we looked at the World Economic Forum's competitive rankings that assesses countries' levels of organized crime, as well as the direct business costs of dealing with crime and violence.

Switzerland, with its 1,000 Swiss franc note (roughly $1,000 USD) has among the lowest levels of organized crime in the world according to the WEF. Ditto for Singapore, which has a 1,000 Singapore dollar note (about $700 USD). Japan's highest denomination of currency is 10,000 yen, worth $88 today. Yet Japan also has extremely low crime rates. Same for the United Arab Emirates, whose highest denomination is the 1,000 dirham ($272).

If you examine countries with very low denominations of cash, the opposite holds true: crime rates, and in particular organized crime rates, are extremely high. Consider Venezuela, Nigeria, Brazil, South Africa, etc. Organized crime is prevalent. Yet each of these has a currency whose maximum denomination is less than $30.

The same trend holds true when looking at corruption and tax evasion.

Yesterday we wrote to you about Georgia, a small country on the Black Sea whose flat tax prompted tax compliance (and tax revenue) to soar. It's considered one of the most efficient places to do business with very low levels of corruption. And yet the highest denomination note in Georgia is the 500 lari bill, worth about $200. That's a lot of money in a country where the average wage is a few hundred dollars per month. Compare that to Malaysia or Uzbekistan, two countries where corruption abounds. Malaysia's top cash note is 50 ringgit, worth about $11. And Uzbekistan's 5,000 som is worth a paltry $1.57.

Bottom line, the political and financial establishments want you to willingly get on board with the idea of abolishing, or at least reducing, cash.

And they're pumping out all sorts of propaganda to do it, trying to get people to equate crime and corruption with high denominations of cash.

Simply put, the data doesn't support their assertion. It's just another hoax that will give them more power at the expense of your privacy and freedom.

h/t @fiatcurrency

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 29 Jan 2017 07:46

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 29 Jan 2017 06:57

A federal judge in New York has granted a stay order on President Donald Trump's executive order temporarily restricting entry to the U.S. by those from seven predominantly Muslim countries.

The stay blocks the deportation of those who arrived in the U.S. with a valid visa, as well as those from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen who are legally authorized to enter the country. It also protects those with approved refugee applications. They stay does not mean those detained have to be released.

"Stay is granted," Dale Ho, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union Voting Rights Project said on Twitter. "Stay is national."

Crowds outside federal court in Brooklyn cheered the news. The ACLU, which sought the emergency stay, said the judge ordered a list of detainees to be provided, and said it would go through the names and ensure they are released.

"But the critical point tonight is no one can be sent back to one of these countries," attorney Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, said.

Related: Trump Travel Restrictions Leave Refugees Stranded

The order signed by Trump on Friday puts in place a 120-day hold on entry of refugees to the U.S., and indefinitely suspends the admission of Syrian refugees until the president is satisfied that changes have been made to U.S. programs.

It also suspends entry for 90 days from certain nations based on statute related to the Visa Waiver Program. The most recent version of that program lists Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen.

Critics blasted the order as "Muslim ban," which Trump has denied. Trump said the order was necessary to keep foreign terrorists out of the U.S. The president on the campaign trail and after taking office called for "extreme vetting" of some entering the country.

Saturday's stay was the first time a judge blocked parts of one of Trump's executive orders since he took office last week.

Related: Syrian Refugees See Dream of Better Life Crushed by Trump Ban

Protests erupted in several airports across the U.S. Saturday over the executive order, which turned into celebrations after the stay was granted. Demonstrators at a terminal at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport chanted "USA! USA!" and "Set them free!"

The ACLU had filed a lawsuit on behalf of two Iraqi refugees who were detained after arriving at New York's John F. Kennedy Airport following the order. They were later released, and a senior Trump administration official said waivers would be granted. The ACLU then filed a motion seeking a nationwide stay.

Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU, said the group believes around 200 people will be directly affected by Saturday's stay.

"Clearly this is just the first day of what will be a very long battle," Romero said.

A senior Department of Homeland Security official said that in the first 23 hours of the order 109 travelers were denied entry to the U.S. upon arrival from the seven countries, and 173 were prevented from boarding flights to the U.S. On Saturday a total of 375 travelers were affected, the official said.

Demonstrators shout slogans during anti-Donald Trump immigration ban protests inside Terminal 4 at San Francisco International Airport in San Francisco on Jan. 28, 2017. KATE MUNSCH / Reuters

The ACLU in Massachusetts said two UMass associate professors who are legal residents from Iran were among those being detained due to Trump's order. The Legal Aid Justice Center said between 50 and 60 were detained at Washington Dulles International Airport were detained.

Stanford PhD student Nisrin Elamin Abdelrahman, a legal U.S. resident and green card holder from Sudan, said she was detained for five hours after arriving on a flight to JFK late Friday.

After putting her green card into the machine her picture returned with an 'X' on it, she said, but employees at first said she should be processed the normal way. Then a supervisor said, "Well, hold up. We just got a message," she recalled.

"There was an element of my situation that was comic," she added. "I was just as confused as the officers. They didn't know what was going on. It was clear they were waiting on Washington to respond to them."

Abdelrahman was eventually released at 4:30 a.m. Saturday, and said she was humiliated and saddened by the experience. "I was really heartbroken for the people who I saw being sent back," she said.

It wasn't immediately clear what will happen to those who have visas but are currently detained in the U.S. under Trump's order.

The order prevents removal of those with approved refugee applications as part of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, those with valid visas "and other individuals from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen legally authorized to enter the United States."

"The courts work the way they're supposed to work in our country," Gelernt, the ACLU lawyer said. "The president could not override the courts."

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 29 Jan 2017 03:56

ISIS Graphic Video: Kids' Shooting Exercise With Living Targets | Clarion ProjectAs if all the other videos we've brought you weren't enough, now ISIS uses an empty building for its child soldiers to hunt and kill bound prisoners.

Screenshot from ISIS video.

In its latest video, ISIS places bound prisoners in an abandoned building and then lets loose child soldiers to hunt and kill them.

Clarion Project condemns ISIS and its action with every fiber in our collective body but believes the truth must be told about the evil that is ISIS. That is why we decided to publish this video.

WARNING: EXTREMELY GRAPHIC CONTENT:

Your browser does not support the video tag.

Connect

Contact | Donate

Back to Top | View Desktop Version

Knowledge is Power. Get Empowered.

Sign up for the Clarion Project's free weekly newsletter to stay informed about Islamic extremism and the power of dialogue. Human rights violated anywhere are rights violated everywhere.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 29 Jan 2017 03:42

Oleg Erovinkin, who served as a general in the KGB, was found dead on Boxing Day in the back of his black Lexus in Moscow

The Kremlin may have covered up the murder of a former KGB chief accused of helping ex-MI6 spy Christopher Steele to pull together the notorious dossier on Donald Trump.

Oleg Erovinkin served as a general in the KGB and was found dead on Boxing Day in the back of his car in Moscow.

It has been claimed he died of a heart attack, but an expert on Russian security threats believes he was murdered for his role in the explosive dossier.

The suspected murder victim was close to former deputy prime minister Igor Sechin, who is named throughout the leaked memo, according to the Telegraph.

Erovinkin is understood to have been an important link between Sechin and leader of the Kremlin Vladimir Putin.

Agent Steele's dossier, which was made public earlier this month, noted how he had a source close to Sechin.

Igor Sechin and Russian President Vladimir Putin pictured attending a meeting on January 25

Donald Trump speaks with Vladimir Putin on the telephone in the Oval Office on January 28

He said the source had revealed alleged links between the US President's supporters and Moscow.

At the time of Erovinkin's death, Russian state-run RIA Novosti news agency said his body was found in a black Lexus and that a major investigation was underway in the area.

His body was sent to the morgue, which returned no cause of death, and the investigation continues.

Local media reports suggested he was killed as a result of foul play, but it was later claimed he died of a heart attack.

Christo Grozev, an expert on Russia-related security threats, wrote in a blog post, that he believes Erovinkin was Mr Steele's dossier source.

He wrote that he has no doubt the dossier was on Putin's desk at the time the suspected victim died.

'Whichever is true,' he wrote, 'He would have had a motive to seek '' and find the mole.

Christopher Steele pictured with a female companion believed to be his second wife Katharine

'He would have had to conclude that Erovinkin was at least a person of interest.'

The so-called dirty dossier states that in 2013 Trump hired prostitutes to urinate on the bed of the Presidential Suite at the Moscow Ritz Carlton, where he knew Barack and Michelle Obama had previously stayed.

It says: 'Trump's unorthodox behavior in Russia over the years had provided the authorities there with enough embarrassing material on the now Republican presidential candidate to be able to blackmail him if they so wished.'

The document states that Trump had declined 'sweetener' real estate deals in Russia that the Kremlin lined up in order to cultivate him.

The business proposals were said to be 'in relation to the ongoing 2018 World Cup soccer tournament'

The dossier claimed that the Russian regime had been 'cultivating, supporting and assisting Trump for at least five years'.

According to the document, one source even claimed that 'the Trump operation was both supported and directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin' with the aim being to 'sow discord'.

The report claims that Russian President Vladimir Putin himself had endorsed moves to encourage 'splits and divisions in the West.

The dossier was handed over to the FBI in August although the information was also passed from the former MI6 agent to John McCain through an intermediary.

McCain then handed the document over to FBI Director James Comey.

Its contents were made public after intelligence chiefs apparently briefed Trump and Obama on the allegations which were circulating in Russia and elsewhere.

However, none of the claims have been proven and most are strongly denied by the President-elect.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 29 Jan 2017 03:31

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 29 Jan 2017 03:02

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 29 Jan 2017 02:39

Link to Article

Archived Version

Fri, 27 Jan 2017 23:06

Please enable JavaScript to experience Vimeo in all of its glory.

Full original version1 hourThe BAFTA and RTS Award-winning documentary PARALLEL WORLDS, PARALLEL LIVES follows the lead singer of US rock band EELS, MARK OLIVER EVERETT, on his journey of discovery across America to learn about the father he never knew, HUGH EVERETT III, the quantum physicist author of the Parallel Universe theory.

More info about PARALLEL WORLDS, PARALLEL LIVES here: eelstheband.com/parallel_worlds.php

Link to Article

Archived Version

Fri, 27 Jan 2017 14:23

Link to Article

Archived Version

Fri, 27 Jan 2017 04:30

In a speech at the U.S.S. Yorktown in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, on Monday, Trump referenced the use by ISIS of social media as a recruitment tool. He recommended a discussion with Bill Gates to shut off parts of the Internet.

"We're losing a lot of people because of the Internet," Trump said. "We have to go see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what's happening. We have to talk to them about, maybe in certain areas, closing that Internet up in some way. Somebody will say, 'Oh freedom of speech, freedom of speech.' These are foolish people. We have a lot of foolish people."

Some totalitarian governments do it

The notion that the Internet could be shut off is not completely off base. North Korea does it. Some countries have been known to shut off Internet service to their citizens in times of crisis. Egypt restricted the Internet during the 2011 Arab Spring uprising.

Other countries block certain Internet services and sites. China is the most famous example, forbidding most social networking sites as well as websites that deal with subjects the government doesn't want its citizens to know about.

Most Western countries, including the United States, regulate the Internet very loosely. There are few restrictions about what American citizens can do and say on the Internet. Child pornography is one example of forbidden Internet activity in the United States -- Google is barred from linking to it, and websites cannot display images of it.

Why the United States can't do it

But a full-on "closing up" of the Internet "in certain areas" would be an impossible task. There are so many players with so much redundancy built into the system, that the Internet is not just something that can be turned off with a wave of a magic wand.

Virtually every part in the United States has multiple Internet service provider options.

Comcast,(CMCSA)Time Warner Cable(TWC) and the other major broadband companies don't overlap much. But Verizon(VZ, Tech30), AT&T(T, Tech30), Sprint(S) and T-Mobile(TMUS) all provide the same service to roughly the same areas. Satellite companies also provide Internet to most parts of the country.

Removing Internet service in certain areas of the U.S. would require those companies to turn off their cell towers and fiber networks, and to restrict satellite access to people living in those regions.

America can't shut off the Internet overseas either

Shutting down Internet service in foreign countries could be even more difficult.

Despite a common belief to the contrary, the United States does not control the global Internet. Servers on foreign soil serve up the Web and other Internet services to people living abroad.

So foreign Internet infrastructure would need to be disrupted or shut down to turn off service in certain areas -- already a tricky task made even harder if the countries and companies controlling those servers and cell towers abroad don't cooperate.

Whatever, Donald Trump wouldn't want the Internet shut off anyway. Then he couldn't tweet.

CNNMoney (New York)First published December 8, 2015: 9:00 AM ET

Link to Article

Archived Version

Fri, 27 Jan 2017 04:28

The relationship between the Trump administration and the Environmental Protection Agency is off to a rough start. The new administration has instructed officials to freeze its grants and contracts, external communication has been frozen, and academic papers by agency scientists may be subject to review before publication. NPR's Robert Siegel talks with Tracey Woodruff, a former senior scientist and policy advisor at the EPA under the Clinton and Bush administration, about whether previous transitions in administrations have always had been this rocky.

ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST:

We're now going to hear from another scientist who used to work for the federal government. Tracey Woodruff spent 13 years at the Environmental Protection Agency. She was a senior scientist and policy adviser starting in the Clinton administration, and she stayed through the George W. Bush administration. The focus of most of her research was air pollution. Dr. Woodruff, welcome to the program.

TRACEY WOODRUFF: Thank you.

SIEGEL: Earlier this week, the Trump transition team barred the EPA from communicating with the public - no blog posts, no social media postings, no press releases. That's been described as a temporary freeze, and it applies to scientific research papers, too.

You went through a transition from a Democratic administration to a Republican one. Is what you're hearing familiar, as par for the course or something unusual and different?

WOODRUFF: Well, I would say that actually during the transition between Clinton and Bush, there wasn't a general announcement that people should not put out scientific information, but we did actually experience some questioning about some work that we were doing related to children's health and the environment. And we actually got a lot of pushback from the White House about some information that we had been trying to publish.

So I don't think it's unusual that the administration might take a look and see what the scientists are doing at EPA, but I think the experience makes some of the scientists worried at EPA that they might see a return to that.

SIEGEL: I mean I think there's a difference between science and policy that's in some way related the science. I mean if you were asked to do a particular project, were you to say, no, that's a minefield; I don't want to do that; I know it's going to happen to it?

WOODRUFF: Yeah, that's a really good point because we have science, which is the pursuit of information, whereas public policy is really about taking the science we have at hand and then using it with the other factors that are important for making a decision. How do people feel about the decision? What are the costs and benefit? Who's going to be impacted? The policymaker should factor in those other factors in addition to the science when they make a decision.

But I think sometimes what ends up happening is science becomes a crutch in making decisions in terms of, well, we're going to wait until we have the absolute definitive proof from the science before we make a decision. The challenge with that for an agency like EPA is that, for example, in air pollution, people will be continued to be exposed to air pollution while we're waiting for more and more science to come in.

SIEGEL: As a former EPA scientist, are you pretty confident in the future of research at EPA, or are you concerned about its future?

WOODRUFF: I'm concerned. I think the statements about climate change being a hoax are concerning. Scientists around the world agree that climate change is important and that human activity is contributing to climate change. I know scientists who have been retiring or are thinking about retiring because they're worried about what's going to happen with their science or what's going to happen to them if they speak up about their science in the new administration.

SIEGEL: Given that you did research on air pollution - and I know your special interest. You're now at the University California, San Francisco OB-GYN department. You're interested in effects - environmental effects on prenatal and early life health. How significant was EPA's contribution to information in that field as opposed to, say, big university departments or other laboratories?

WOODRUFF: Oh, I think EPA's contribution to understanding the role the environment and health is critical. Actually some of the early studies that were done on the links between air pollution and mortality, which went to lead to a lot of the rule making that EPA has subsequently done, were done by EPA scientists.

And yet I think very few people think of EPA as an agency that's directly related to health. Not having EPA at the table in terms of talking about the science related to environment and health would be a big loss. And I think their contributions cannot be overestimated enough.

SIEGEL: That's Tracey Woodruff. She's a professor at the University of California, San Francisco. She was a senior EPA scientist and policy adviser under the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations. Tracey Woodruff, thank you for talking with us.

WOODRUFF: All right, thank you.

Copyright (C) 2017 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR's programming is the audio record.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Thu, 26 Jan 2017 21:46

The election of Donald Trump and wider geopolitical turbulence are so dangerous that the scientists behind the Doomsday Clock have pushed it forward to 2 minutes and 30 seconds before midnight.

The new ''time'' means experts at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists believe the earth is closer to imminent peril than at any point in the last 64 years.

The clock, an indicator of the world's vulnerability to nuclear, environmental and political threats, was set at 3 minutes to midnight '' with midnight being the apocalypse '' in 2016.

''The current political situation in the US is a particular concern,'' said theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss at a press conference in Washington DC on Thursday.

''The Trump administration needs to state clearly and unequivocally that it accepts that climate change is caused by human activity,'' added Krauss, explaining that although some global progress such as the Paris accord was made last year, 2016 was the hottest year on record.

Several of Trump's cabinet nominees are climate sceptics, such as Mick Mulvaney as head of the Office of Management and Budget, which Krauss notes ''foreshadows the possibility they will be openly hostile to even modest efforts to combat climate change.''

But climate change isn't the only issue. Nuclear weapons, particularly those held by the United States and Russia and the testing of weapons by North Korea, and tensions in Syria, Ukraine and Kashmir all making the world a more dangerous place than it was last year.

Thomas Pickering, who serves on the board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, noted that both during the election campaign and in Trump's first days in office he ''engaged in casual talk about nuclear weapons''. Bulletin scientists noted on multiple occasions throughout the Thursday morning press conference that ''words matter, words count''.

''Loose but dangerous rhetoric have become almost commonplace,'' said Rachel Bronson, the executive director and publisher of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

The scientists called on Congress and the Trump administration to embrace science in their policymaking, particularly around issues of climate change.

Doomsday Clock landmarks''Policy that is sensible requires facts that are facts,'' said Krauss.

The closest the clock, symbolising the threat of apocalypse, has ever come to striking midnight was in 1953, when it was timed at two minutes to midnight.

In that year the US took the decision to upgrade its nuclear arsenal with the hydrogen bomb, ''a weapon far more powerful than any atomic bomb''.

In 2015, the clock was brought two minutes forward, taking it to three minutes to midnight. Last year it remained unchanged, but scientists warned this was still ''far too close''.

The Bulletin was founded by US scientists involved in the Manhattan Project, which developed the world's first nuclear weapons during the second world war.

In 1947, they established the Doomsday Clock to provide a simple way of demonstrating the danger to Earth and humanity posed by nuclear war. Today, the Bulletin is an independent non-profit organisation run by scientists.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Thu, 26 Jan 2017 21:46

Link to Article

Archived Version

Thu, 26 Jan 2017 14:13