It is my belief that as human individuals, we are born into this world with natural rights that are inviolate; Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Property or Happiness which has been expressed eloquently by Thomas Jefferson. Anything less puts us in the status of slaves, indentured servants and farm animals. My impetus for this blog is to serve as the clarion call to others, like minded or not, that our freedom is at stake in a world of increasing collectivism.
In a case that has been going on for four years, the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled that the doctor acted properly. What was in contention is that the victim in the case wanted a second opinion, but the doctor said that since the patient signed a consent form, the doctor could treat it as he saw fit. I find it interesting that two of the justices, both women, thought it was ok, yet the lone man on the high court did not.
The main point of contention is whether Patterson acted reasonably in removing the organ immediately or if amputation could have been delayed to let Seaton seek other medical options.
Judge Janet Stumbo and Judge Donna Dixon concluded that, even though Seaton had limited ability to read and write, he never informed the doctor of that fact and signed the consent form in the presence of a witness. The Seatons claimed that the waiver didn't give Patterson authority to conduct an amputation without further consent.
"They maintain that no harm would have resulted if Dr. Patterson has consulted with either of them before proceeding, or if he had allowed them to consult with another physician to get a second opinion or other treatment options," Stumbo wrote.
Stumbo wrote that Patterson acted properly because the tumor had consumed such a large section of the organ.
"For this reason alone, the resection of the tumor was 'necessary and proper' in the context of inserting a catheter," Stumbo wrote.
I don't know about you, but I would want a choice in the matter, even if it might prove terminal. Whose life is it anyway? And people wonder why doctors think they are gods. It seems so do judges too.
Judge Michael Caperton dissented, but did not issue a written opinion.
The knee jerk reaction from the progressive and neo-liberal left was to be expected, but is still a straw man argument that avoids the real issue. It's not gun control that is the problem. Schools are "gun free zones" and Connecticut isn't exactly a pro-gun shall issue state. While not in league with Illinois, NY, CA or DC, it's not Arizona either.
The problem is one, how does someone that doesn't belong in a school get in a school and two, crazy control. The first is the final failure, the latter is the first failure. We've become a society that would rather punish and restrict those that do nothing wrong than remediate, adjudicate and eliminate the risk posed by crazy people. Somehow, crazy people have more rights than law abiding citizens. The thing is, in this latest massacre, people that knew the assailant knew he was nuts and did nothing effectively to prevent this. The same with the Aurora assailant, James Homes. Here is part F from the BATFE form 4473:
F. Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes a determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that you are a danger to yourself or to others or are incompetent to manage your own affairs) OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution? (See Instructions for Question 11.f.)
May be this needs to be changed to being treated for a mental illness. May be people under psychiatric care need to register that they are under care and such information would be linked to gun purchases. We already prohibit domestic violators from obtaining firearms. From the same 4473 form:
h.Are you subject to a court order restraining you from harassing, stalking, or threatening your child or an intimate partner or child of such partner? (See Instructions for Question 11.h.)
i.Have you ever been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence? (See Instructions for Question 11.i.)
Of course we'll never see this done because gun owners, the vast majority of which don't commit crimes, are an easier target. They have no sympathy song to play for the public. With the logic hoplophobes use, we should outlaw cars and alcohol because of drunk driving (which kills more people in this country than guns do), we should outlaw forks, knives and spoons because people are obese or may be castrate all men because some of them rape women. The fallacy of their logic is almost palpable, yet they continue with it like the legion of pigs running over the cliff.
The other fault is that the school did not provide adequate security. This person didn't belong there and he got in and the tool of his evil really doesn't matter. Would it make people feel better if he used an axe, scissors or a ball peen hammer? Would they think that is better because not as many people might not be killed? Who picks who lives and dies? Again, the failure is not identifying threats before they happen, which is one, identifying mentally ill people, prevent them from buying guns and prevent people with evil intent from entering a school.
Of course we will see hand wringing about the poor mentally ill people can't get help etc, which is rubbish in many cases. In the two cases mentioned, we know that one was "getting help" and both were know to be ill. The question is, why wasn't more done about it?
Instead of blaming an inanimate object with no moral bearing, may be we need to blame the individuals involved and those that failed to stop this from happening in the first place. Someone once said that "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves...". Indeed. What we need is crazy control. Thank you for reading this blog.
I was reading an article in NYMAG by Ann Friedman titled The Decadence of Procreation. The article seems to rail against the idea of procreation and with undertones of pro-abortion agenda, but what caught my eye was a comment by a person who calls themselves RKG. If this doesn't underscore the insanity of the pro-gay rights movement, let alone the left in general, I don't know what does.
As someone that believes in live and let live, I usually don't care if someone is white, black, straight, gay, transwhatever, as long as they mind their own business like the rest of us and get on with life, who really cares as it shouldn't be a factor in politics or even culture. The problem as I see it isn't equal rights, but superior rights demanded by people that aren't willing to accept that some people may not like them and because of their choices, there are consequences. It's bad enough I have to deal with evangelical mormons and Jehovah witnesses, now we have to throw in evangelical atheists, greenies and social justice freaks. Get a fucking life.
Anyway, back to the article. One of the comments shows how twisted some people are and RKG should be a poster-child for the pro-abortion movement, after all, it's something she endorses. Ok, that was a little harsh, but she's mishugah and farkockte. Here it is:
"As a queer person, I see having kids as a flaunting of heterosexual privilege. Or, to put it more bluntly, having kids is a way of showing that one group of people has more rights than others. When I was in my best child-bearing years, I lived in states that made it illegal for two people of the same sex to adopt a child, so even if I had a child biologically, my partner could never become a legal parent, which ultimately put my child in danger (if I were to have died, the child would have gone into foster care and not to the co-parent). That's why I can't feel any sympathy for people who get to have kids. Yes, I have more money and more in retirement than you do, but that's because the choice of whether or not to have kids was not a choice for me like it was for you. You made your choice. Quit whining about it to those of us who never had the choice."
Whining? Whose the one whining and who made their choices the way it did?
Happy Birthday to George Armstrong Custer, the boy general, Civil War hero and the leader of the 7th Cavalry. Heralded in his day, despised and reviled by revisionist historians, at times the truth is somewhere in the middle. Say what you will, but no one can question his courage. He was the romantic warrior of his time.
11:32PM EST November 25. 2012 - At schools in Pinellas County, Fla., students aren't paying for lunch with cash or a card, but with a wave of their hand over a palm scanner.
"It's so quick that a child could be standing in line, call mom and say, 'I forgot my lunch money today.' She's by her computer, runs her card, and by the time the child is at the front of the line, it's already recorded," says Art Dunham, director of food services for Pinellas County Schools.
Students take about four seconds to swipe and pay for lunch, Dunham says, and they're doing it with 99% accuracy.
"We just love it. No one wants to go back," Dunham says.
Palm-scanning technology is popping up nationwide as a bona fide biometric tracker of identities, and it appears poised to make the jump from schools and hospitals to other sectors of the economy including ATM usage and retail. It also has applications as a secure identifier for cloud computing.
Here's how it works: Using the same near-infrared technology that comes in a TV remote control or Nintendo Wii video game, the device takes a super high-resolution infrared photograph of the vein pattern just below a person's skin. That image, between 1.5 and 2.5 square inches, is recorded and digitized.
The PalmSecure device is made by document-scanning manufacturer Fujitsu. So far, no other company has a palm scanner on the market — though at least one other company is working on the technology.
Like many technological breakthroughs, the development began accidentally. A decade ago, a Fujitsu engineer in Tokyo mistakenly ran his hand over a page scanner and it yielded an output that piqued his curiosity. Testing eventually showed that the veins in the palm of your hand are as unique as a fingerprint and can be photographed under infrared light.
Fujitsu has seen double-digit quarterly sales growth in each of the last two years, says Bud Yanak, director of product management and partner development for Fujitsu Frontech North America.
Palm scanners are installed in more than 50 school systems and more than 160 hospital systems in 15 states and the District of Columbia, Yanak says.
Pinellas County Schools were the first in the nation to bring palm scanning to their lunch lines about 18 months ago. They are being used by 50,000 students at 17 high schools and 20 middle schools. Soon, the program will expand to 60,000 more students at 80 elementary schools, Dunham says. The 2% of students who opt out can still use cash.
He says hygiene isn't a concern because students don't need to touch the device, but only hold their hand directly above it, to register a scan.
At hospitals, the scans are making patient registration more efficient, and prevent sharing of information by patients that could lead to insurance fraud, says Carl Bertrams, senior vice president of sales and marketing for palm scan software maker HT Systems in Tampa.
A palm scan's precision record-keeping also avoids possible confusion if patients have the same name. For instance, a hospital system in the Houston area with a database of 3.5 million patients has 2,488 women in it named Maria Garcia – and 231 of them have the same date of birth, Bertrams says.
HT Systems president David Wiener won't reveal revenue but says that since 2007, they've got more than 160 hospitals for clients and have scanned more than 5 million patients.
At Wisconsin's UW Health system, palm scans have been used for about two years, says Dawn Gramse, a senior systems analyst. Soon, they'll start using self-service palm-swiping kiosks for patients to check themselves in.
"You'd hear about other biometric scanners that are out there, and you'd see theMission Impossible movies with the eye scanners, and you'd never think you can integrate that kind of technology into a hospital," she says, "but you can."
Not everyone loves the idea of scans.
Students in Carroll County, Md., schools are using lunch line palm scanners, but 7-year-old Ian Webb isn't one of them. His father, Michael Webb, decided to have Ian, a second-grader, opt out of the program at Piney Ridge Elementary in Eldersburg.
"My son is not using the technology," he says. "I'll be honest, I think it's horrible. It's an intrusion into our children's rights."
Webb says he's concerned that use of the scanners by elementary school students normalizes the use of biometrics and anesthetizes young children to recognizing privacy violations later in life.
"I understand taking an iris scan of a pilot at an airport, so you know it's the right pilot flying the plane" he says. "This is that level of equipment they're installing in a line that serves steamed corn. I don't think it rises to the level of steamed corn."
Chris Calabrese, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union in Washington, says the key to this particular kind of biometrics — that is, the kind a user consents to, unlike some facial recognition software — is ensuring that all data be treated sensitively.
"If it's a technology that works really well, it won't be long before you're offering your palm in a lot of different locations, and you will be concerned about who's got access to that information and what they want to do with it," Calabrese says.
The technology is expanding. Fujitsu in September launched a new line of palm-scanning ATMs in Japan, according to a company news release. Customers of Ogaki Kyoritsu Bank now can access cash machines without a bank card or personal identification number.
And while Fujitsu says it's the only company with such a product on the market right now, computer company Intel Corp. is working with palm-scanning technology.
Palm scanning can be used as a substitute for clunky, hard-to-remember passwords, says Sridhar Iyengar, director of security research at Intel Labs.
"There is a way around it, and biometrics is one option," Iyengar. "Replacing what you know — passwords — with what you are ... it's an ease of use issue. It's harder to spoof, and you're not likely to forget your fingerprints anytime soon."
SAN ANTONIO (AP) — A San Antonio school district’s website was hacked over the weekend to protest its policy requiring students to wear microchip-embedded cards tracking their every move on campus.
A teenager purportedly working with the hacker group Anonymous said in an online statement that he took the site down because the Northside school district “is stripping away the privacy of students in your school.”
The teen, who identified himself in an email as being 16 years old, said he hacked into the website Saturday, and it was not working Sunday. District spokesman Pascual Gonzalez said he has not yet been able to confirm that it was hacked.
Northside has been testing a “radio frequency identification” tracking system for the two schools to increase attendance in order to secure more state funding, officials have said. The program, which kicked off at the beginning of this school year, eventually could be used at all of Northside’s 112 campuses, officials have said. The district is the fourth largest in Texas with more than 97,000 students.Starting this fall, all students at John Jay High School and Anson Jones Middle School are required to carry identification cards embedded with a microchip. They are tracked by the dozens of electronic readers installed in the schools’ ceiling panels.
The hacked website isn’t the first controversy over the program.
One John Jay student refused to wear the device, citing religious reasons, and then filed a lawsuit after Principal Robert Harris threatened to remove her from the school and stopped her from petitioning against the ID badge. Last week a judge said the principal’s actions violated the student’s speech and religious rights, and granted a restraining order barring Harris from removing her from the school, San Antonio television station KENS reported.
Anonymous is a collection of Internet enthusiasts, pranksters and activists whose targets have included financial institutions such as Visa and MasterCard, the Church of Scientology and law enforcement agencies.
TriHealth fires 150 employees for not getting flu shots
One of Cincinnati’s largest employers fired approximately 150 employees Wednesday for failing to get a required flu shot.
TriHealth offered all of its 10,800 employees free flu shots. Employees had a month to get the flu shot. The deadline was Nov. 16. Employees who did not get the shot were terminated Wednesday, a company spokesperson said.
Employees who were terminated can appeal to be reinstated after receiving the shot.
A California man was jailed for four days for attempting to record police officers on a public street.
Daniel J. Saulmon was charged with resisting, delaying and obstructing an officer but the video shows he was standing well out the way of a traffic stop and was only arrested when he failed to produce identification to an approaching officer.
And there is no law in California that requires citizens to produce identification. And even if there was, it would require the officer to have a reasonable suspicion that he was committing a crime.
But prosecutors have already dropped the charge against Saulmon as well as a few other minor citations relating to his bicycle such as not have proper reflectors on the pedals.
And they most likely knew who he was considering he won a $25,000 settlement from the same police department after they unlawfully arrested him on eavesdropping/wiretapping charges in 2005.
This time, it appears the Hawthorne Police Department will be dishing out much more, thanks to officer Gabriel Lira’s abuse of authority.
“They knew exactly who I was,” Saulmon said in a telephone interview with Photography is Not a CrimeSaturday, adding that he has recorded them on a regular basis since the 2005 arrest when he was jailed after attempting to file a complaint inside the police station.
“They always address me as ‘Mr. Saulmon’,” he said.
Woman photographed riding a manatee in Florida is arrested
A woman, later identified as Ana Gloria Garcia-Gutierrez, is seen riding a manatee at Fort DeSoto Park Pinellas County, Fla. (Pinellas County Sheriff's Office)
A St. Petersburg, Fla., woman was arrested on a misdemeanor warrant Saturday after being photographed two months ago riding a manatee.
Florida's Manatee Sanctuary Act protects the endangered sea mammal and says in part, “It is unlawful for any person at any time, by any means, or in any manner intentionally or negligently to annoy, molest, harass, or disturb or attempt to molest, harass, or disturb any manatee.”
Ana Gloria Garcia Gutierrez, 53, was taken into custody without incident at a Sears department store where she works, according to the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office.
The incident first came to the public's attention when Sheriff Bob Gualtieri held a news conference on Oct. 2 and asked for help in identifying the woman photographed riding the manatee at nearby Fort De Soto Park in late September.
Gutierrez has admitted touching the endangered sea mammal, the sheriff's office said. She told deputies that she was new to the area at the time and didn't know it was illegal to touch a manatee. The manatee was not hurt.
The maximum penalty is a $500 fine and six months in jail. Gutierrez was released on $1,500 bail, the Associated Press reported.
Scott MacFarlane of Cox Media reports that a TSA agent exposed a 17-year-old girl’s breasts during a pat-down at LAX. The girl is said to be the grandniece of Texas Rep. Ralph Hall.
Rep Ralph Hall says TSA officer "should've been fired" for patting down- and disrobing- his 17 y/o niece at LAX. Girl was wearing sundress—
Scott MacFarlane (@MacFarlaneNews) November 20, 2012
But the agent wasn’t fired. Why? Because the TSA said it was, like, totally an “accident.”
TSA deemed incident involving Rep Ralph Hall's niece "accidental" Girl disrobed in front of her Christian youth group at LAX checkpoint—
Scott MacFarlane (@MacFarlaneNews) November 20, 2012
Sure, because it’s super easy to accidentally expose a young woman’s breasts to the public during a routine pat-down. Sounds a lot like sexual abuse to us.
Since LAX is in Rep. Maxine Waters’ district, Hall asked her to submit a complaint to the TSA.
US Rep Ralph Hall asked Rep Maxine Waters to file complaint with TSA & LAX (Waters' district) about disrobing of Hall's niece at checkpoint—
Scott MacFarlane (@MacFarlaneNews) November 20, 2012
TSA report on Rep Ralph Hall's niece incident: "during patdown of stomach area, sundress slipped down to her stomach, revealing her breasts"—
Scott MacFarlane (@MacFarlaneNews) November 20, 2012
Rep Maxine Waters (D-CA), in complaint to TSA, says 17 y/o niece of colleague Rep Ralph Hall had "dress pulled down..exposing her to public"—
Scott MacFarlane (@MacFarlaneNews) November 20, 2012
TSA officer apologized… internal investigation launched—
Scott MacFarlane (@MacFarlaneNews) November 20, 2012
The officer “apologized.” Really. A TSA agent slipped a teenage girl’s dress off and “accidentally” exposed her breasts and is forced to … apologize? Let’s hear it for union contracts!
Homeland Security Wants to More Than Double Its Predator Drone Fleet Inside the US, Despite Safety and Privacy Concerns
Despite renewed criticism from both parties in Congress that domestic drones pose a privacy danger to US citizens—and a report from its own Inspector General recommending to stop buying them—the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has indicated it wants to more than double its fleet of Predator drones used to fly surveillance missions inside the United States.
Yesterday, California Watch reported that DHS signed a contract that could be worth as much as $443 million with General Atomics for the purchase up to fourteen additional Predator drones to fly near the border of Mexico and Canada. Congress would still need to appropriate the funds, but if they did, DHS' drone fleet woud increase to twenty-four.
While many people may think the US only flies Predator drones overseas, DHS has already spent $250 million over the last six years on ten surveillance Predators of its own. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)—a division of DHS—uses the unmanned drones inside the U.S. to patrol the borders with surveillance equipment like video cameras, infrared cameras, heat sensors, and radar.
They say the drones are vital in the fight to stop illegal immigrants, but as EFF reported in June, the DHS Inspector General issued a report faulting DHS for wasting time, money, and resources using drones that were ineffective and lacked oversight. The Inspector Generalchastised the agency for buying two drones last year despite knowing these problems and recommended they cease buying them until the problems could be fixed.
Perhaps worse, DHS is also flying Predator drone missions on behalf of a diverse group of local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies for missions beyond immigration issues. We know they have lent the drones out to the county sheriff's department in North Dakota and the Texas Rangers, among others, but unfortunately, we don’tknow the full extent DHS lending program. DHS, as is their custom, is keeping that information secret.
In response, last month EFF sued DHS under the Freedom of Information Act demanding answers about how and why it loans out its Predator drones to other law enforcement agencies across the country. EFF's lawsuit asks for the records and logs of CBP drone flights conducted in conjunction with other agencies.
These drones pose a multitude of privacy concerns to all Americans, as the Congressional Research Service (Congress’ non-partisan research arm) detailed in this comprehensive report on domestic drones and the Fourth Amendment. The report explains drones can be equipped with, among other capabilities, facial recognition technology, fake cell phone towers to intercept phone calls, texts and GPS locations, and in a few years, will even be able to see through walls.
Despite these concerns, DHS has not publicly issued any privacy rules to make sure drones do not spy on US residents in border states going about their daily lives. In fact, at a Congressional hearing on the subject, DHS refused to send anyone to testify, leading both parties to criticize their absence.
The booming drone industry, which has announced a PR campaign in an attempt tamp down the public’s privacy concerns, is quick to point out that these police drones—which cost anywhere from under $100,000 to $1 million—are smaller than Predators and do not have the same flight time, so police would not be able to surveil Americans for hours or days at a time like Predator drones could. Yet as the technology advances rapidly and becomes cheaper every year, smaller drones will soon be able to fly for an extended time period as well.
Several members of Congress have commendably introduced bills that would protect the privacy of Americans and increase transparency surrounding their use. These members, who voted for increased drone use in February but have recently expressed second thoughts, should call DHS representatives before Congress to explain their position. The American people deserve answers about to whom Homeland Security is loaning its drones, how DHS plans on protecting Americans’ privacy, and why they even need any more, given they are misusing the drones they already have.
(CNSNews.com) – Fresh off his reelection, President Barack Obama is asking his supporters to complete a survey that asks the people being polled to check off which “constituency groups” they identify with – there are 22 groups listed but not one for “whites” or “men.”
The post-election survey, distributed through www.barackobama.com to “take this organization forward,” includes the question, “Which constituency groups do you identify yourself with? Select all that apply.” It then lists 22 groups.
But whites and men are not on the list – women are, as are African Americans, Arab-Americans, Latinos and LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender).
Other “constituency groups” include “Educators,” “Environmentalists,” “Labor,” “Students,” “People with disabilities,” and “Youth.”
Screenshot of the "constituency groups" list in an online survey distributed by the post-election Obama-Biden campaign.
Also as an option: “People of faith,” “Small business owners,” “Seniors,” “Veterans/military families,” and “Young Professionals.”
The survey also requires Obama supporters to identify their gender as either “male,” “female,” or “other/no answer.”
“Your hard work and passion defined this campaign and re-elected President Obama,” the survey reads. “Now, we're counting on you to help take this organization forward as we continue our work beyond 2012.”
The campaign states that the questionnaire includes “a few questions about you, your work with the campaign, and how you'd like to stay involved in the future.”
President Obama tweeted out the survey on Monday, saying, “This movement has always belonged to you. Take a few minutes to help shape its future.”
Repeated attempts to contact the Obama campaign for comment by CNSNews.com were not successful before this story was posted.
U.S. panel advises HIV tests for everyone ages 15 to 64
November 20, 2012 5:23 am by MESTEL, ROSIE | 0 Comments
Nearly everyone ages 15 to 64 should be screened for HIV even if they're not at great risk for contracting the virus, according to new guidelines proposed by an influential panel of medical experts. If the panel ultimately adopts those recommendations, Medicare and most private health insurers will be required to pay for the tests.
The draft guidelines were written by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, an independent group that operates under the auspices of the Department of Health and Human Services to advise the government and the nation's physicians on the medical evidence for preventive health measures.
Posted online Monday on the task force website for a four-week period of public comment, the guidelines also recommend that doctors offer HIV tests to people under 15 or over 64 if they are at high risk for contracting HIV and -- in advice that has not changed -- to all pregnant women.
The recommendations, which would apply to all but very-low-risk populations, are a clear shift toward broader testing for HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. The task force's 2005 guidelines suggested routine HIV screening only for adolescents and adults at increased risk, including men who have sex with men, injection drug users, people who trade sex for drugs and those who have multiple sexual partners.
But studies published since that time offer strong evidence that HIV-infected individuals -- along with their intimate partners and the public -- are better served by near-universal screening, said task force member Dr. Douglas K. Owens, a general internist and director of the Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research in the School of Medicine at Stanford University.
Some of those reports found that people who were treated earlier for HIV infections fared better than those who started treatment later, and routine screening improved the chances that patients would learn of their infections sooner, Owens said. Studies also show that when people learn they are HIV-positive, they are more likely to adopt safe-sex behaviors.
A landmark clinical trial last year involving 1,763 couples, most of them heterosexual, showed that when HIV-positive partners were treated early with antiretroviral medications, transmission of the virus to uninfected partners was reduced by 96%.
The 15-to-64 age range was suggested for such tests -- which could be offered to patients visiting their doctors or hospitals for any reason -- because government health statistics show this would capture the majority of Americans who contract the virus every year, Owens said.
Still, he added, "We want to emphasize that the best way to reduce HIV-related disease and death is to avoid getting infected in the first place."
Experts have also known for some time that treating pregnant women who have HIV can greatly reduce the risk of infecting their babies, which is why the task force continues to recommend universal screening for this group.
About 50,000 new cases of HIV infections occur in the United States each year. Since today's medications allow HIV-infected people to live longer, the number of people living with HIV will steadily increase unless ways are found to lower the rate of new infections, said Dr. Bernard M. Branson, an epidemiologist in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention. Every infection that is averted saves $367,000 in lifetime medical costs, he said.
The agency's own guidelines, released in 2006 and co-written by Branson, are largely in line with the ones now proposed by the task force -- although the CDC recommended that testing begin at age 13 instead of 15. As is the case with the task force proposal, testing is optional but is the default, conducted unless patients decline or they belong to a group in which HIV-positive rates are 1 in 1,000 or lower.
The American College of Physicians, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Academy of Pediatrics, among other groups, also recommend widespread HIV tests, with slight differences.
Doctors said that making the HIV test routine for all but the lowest-risk groups removes the stigma associated with getting a test and increases the likelihood of an early diagnosis. Conversations to assess a patient's risk status are time-consuming and awkward, and patients are often not truthful about their sexual behavior, they said.
The issue is especially complicated in the case of adolescents, said Dr. Patricia J. Emmanuel, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at the University of South Florida in Tampa who co-wrote the 2011 American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines that recommend testing for teens ages 16 and older. When tests are done only for high-risk patients, the very fact someone had a test is a betrayal of confidentiality, she said. A routine HIV test "helps to create an environment where HIV testing is another medical screening test, not something so special," she said.
Despite the growing list of endorsements, surveys show that many doctors are not performing the tests routinely, said Dr. Jeffrey D. Klausner, a professor of medicine and infectious diseases at UCLA.
"On a daily basis, people come into the hospital and are not offered an HIV test. They go to the doctor for a checkup and are not offered an HIV test," Klausner said. "As an AIDS provider, I regularly see people who have missed the opportunity to be diagnosed, and so they present to me with end-stage cancers and infections" related to AIDS.
The task force based its draft report on two reviews of the science conducted by independent groups of scientists, one focused on HIV screening for the population at large and one on pregnant women. Those reviews were published online Monday by the Annals of Internal Medicine.
The panel listed its recommendations as Grade A, meaning that there is high certainty of substantial benefit. As such, most insurers would be required to pay for the HIV tests under the new Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act if the advice is finalized.
Judge rejects Hobby Lobby's case against ObamaCare contraceptive coverage rule
Published November 19, 2012
Associated Press
OKLAHOMA CITY – A federal judge Monday rejected Hobby Lobby Stores Inc.'s request to block part of the federal health care overhaul that requires the arts and craft supply company to provide insurance coverage for the morning-after and week-after birth control pills.
In a 28-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Joe Heaton denied a request by Hobby Lobby to prevent the government from enforcing portions of the health care law mandating insurance coverage for contraceptives the company's Christian owners consider objectionable.
The Oklahoma City-based company and a sister company, Mardel Inc., sued the government in September, claiming the mandate violates the owners' religious beliefs. The owners contend the morning-after and week-after birth control pills are tantamount to abortion because they can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in a woman's womb. They also object to providing coverage for certain kinds of intrauterine devices.
At a hearing earlier this month, a government lawyer said the drugs do not cause abortions and that the U.S. has a compelling interest in mandating insurance coverage for them.
In his ruling denying Hobby Lobby's request for an injunction, Heaton said that while churches and other religious organizations have been granted constitutional protection from the birth-control provisions, "Hobby Lobby and Mardel are not religious organizations."
"Plaintiffs have not cited, and the court has not found, any case concluding that secular, for-profit corporations such as Hobby Lobby and Mardel have a constitutional right to the free exercise of religion," the ruling said.
Heaton wrote that "the court is not unsympathetic" to the problems cited by Hobby Lobby and their owners, the Green family. He said the health care law's expansion of employer obligations "results in concerns and issues not previously confronted by companies or their owners."
"The question of whether the Greens can establish a free exercise constitutional violation by reason of restrictions or requirements imposed on general business corporations they own or control involves largely uncharted waters," Heaton wrote.
Hobby Lobby's attorney said the companies' owners will appeal.
"Every American, including family business owners like the Greens, should be free to live and do business according to their religious beliefs," Kyle Duncan, general counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said in a statement.
The morning-after pill works by preventing ovulation or fertilization. In medical terms, pregnancy begins when a fertilized egg attaches itself to the wall of the uterus. If taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, it can reduce a woman's chances of pregnancy by as much as 89 percent.
Critics of contraception say it is the equivalent of an abortion pill because it can prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus. The lawsuit also alleges that certain kinds of intrauterine devices can destroy an embryo by preventing it from implanting in a woman's uterus.
Hobby Lobby is the largest business to file a lawsuit against the mandate.
Hobby Lobby calls itself a "biblically founded business" and is closed on Sundays. Founded in 1972, the company now operates more than 500 stores in 41 states and employs more than 13,000 full-time employees who are eligible for health insurance coverage. The company, which is self-insured, has said it will face a daily $1.3 million fine beginning Jan. 1 if it ignores the law.
"It is by God's grace and provision that Hobby Lobby has endured," said David Green, founder and CEO. "Therefore we seek to honor God by operating the company in a manner consistent with biblical principles."
The Green family has said it has no moral objection to the use of other contraceptives and will continue covering them for its employees.
The TSA is on high alert for any suspicious turkey complements this Thanksgiving holiday, and in alleged efforts to expedite travelers they’ve released a list of prohibited items and holiday travel tips.
Thinking of taking along that famous homemade chicken giblet broth? Think again terrorist.
“Not sure about what you can and can’t bring through the checkpoint? Here’s a sample list of liquid, aerosol and gel items that you should put in your checked bag, ship ahead, or leave at home if they are above the permitted 3.4 oz.” (emphasis theirs)
Unless you’re transporting a very minute amount of gravy, the TSA says you’re better off leaving it at home, along with the following items: cranberry sauce, dips and spreads (cheeses, peanut butter, etc.), gift baskets with food4items (salsa, jams and salad dressings), jams, jellies, lotions, maple syrup, oils and vinegars, salad dressing, salsa, sauces, soups, wine, liquor and beer.
In all fairness, they do permit any of the above so long as it fits in a quart-sized zip top bag (one per passenger), the same bag that is supposed to carry other personal hygiene items like toothpaste, cologne and shampoo.
In addition to indirectly telling passengers to can the cranberry sauce, the TSA has also been gracious enough to allow passengers to board snow globes; however, they need to be “tennis ball size” and must fit in the aforementioned zip bag, along with your toothpaste, shaving cream and maple syrup.
And in case you thought the TSA was being a little too paranoid, they show their rational side by permitting pies and cakes, albeit, with the added stipulation that they are subject to additional screening: “You can bring pies and cakes through the security checkpoint, but please be advised that they are subject to additional screening.” One can only wonder what that means.
And you can just plain forget about surprising relatives at the receiving airport with wrapped gifts, because “if a bag alarms our security officers may have to unwrap a gift to take a closer look inside.”
Open up and say, “AHHH!!”
The extent to which Americans will stand idly by and permit such treatment should not be underestimated.
As a poll commissioned by Infowars and conducted by Harris Interactive last week showed, almost one third of Americans would accept a “TSA body cavity search” prior to boarding an aircraft in the name of safety. The question was posed as follows:
“Given the recent reports concerning the threat posed by terrorists who plan to implant bombs within their own bodies, how willing, if at all, would you be to undergo a TSA body cavity search in order to fly?”
According to the poll results, “A total 30% of American adults said they would be ‘willing’ or ‘somewhat willing’ to accept a body cavity search. 57% would be ‘completely’ or ‘somewhat unwilling’ to submit to it and 13% answered ‘don’t know.’”
The poll also disturbingly found that, in trade for an additional perceived layer of safety, a number of Americans would also be willing to wear electric shock bracelets during their flights:
In 2008, the Department of Homeland Security expressed an interest in having travelers wear electric shock bracelets that would both track travelers through the airport as well as allow airport officials and flight crews to incapacitate potential terrorists. How willing, if at all, would you be to wear such a bracelet in order to fly?
Poll results found, “35% of American adults would be ‘completely’ or ‘somewhat willing’ to wear the shock bracelet, compared to 52% who would be ‘completely’ or ‘somewhat unwilling.’ Republicans were more likely to be willing than Democrats, 41% to 34%.”
Why is the TSA at Mitt Romney campaign events and the Olympics?
The TSA has also predictably spread beyond airport terminals to highways, train stations, public buses andprom nights throughout the U.S, and has also been spotted conducting security for recent Mitt Romney andPaul Ryan campaign speaking events, despite the fact that these events had nothing to do with “transportation” whatsoever.
This past summer, the TSA also puzzlingly made its way out of the U.S. entirely, flying overseas to conduct security at the 2012 Olympic Games in London. If you can think of a better way to spend tax dollars, I’d like to hear it.
These laughable holiday guidelines are slaps in the faces of honest, hard-working Americans, many of whom only get to see their families once a year. The continuation of this grandiose (and expensive – $8.1 billion annually) security theater has spiraled out of control and will continue to do so unless people stand up and put their feet down collectively.
As more of our fellow Americans are brainwashed to accept this outright degradation and humiliation as a part of normal everyday life and are incrementally convinced of the TSA’s absolute necessity, our rights and freedoms get traded for routine roundabout accusations, invasive grope-downs and legalized tyranny.
This holiday season is the perfect opportunity to fight for America’s right to travel grope-free. Join the Infowars Opt Out and Film campaign by opting out of radiation-firing body scanners and filming the ensuing grope fest.
ENCINO (CBS2) — A video taken by the California Highway Patrol may be the first time a camera has captured all of the events leading up to a cardiac arrest following the use of a TASER® electronic control device.
On June 4, CHP officers stopped to check on the welfare of 50-year-old Angela Jones after finding her sitting in a parked vehicle on Haskell Avenue, near the Ventura (101) Freeway.
A camera mounted on the officers’ car captured the incident.
“How much have you had to drink tonight?” an officer asked the Studio City resident.
“Nothing,” Jones said.
“Nothing?” the officer responded. “What about medication or drugs?”
Officers questioned Jones for 15 minutes, suspecting she might be under the influence, and then asked to look through her purse.
“I just don’t feel like I want you to take my purse from me,” Jones said.
She held her purse tightly to her chest and ran back to her vehicle.
According to the arrest report, the CHP officer hit the trigger on his TASER® X-26 TM three times, sending three separate jolts into Jones’ chest.
“Do not move! Do not move! Stop moving!” the officer can be heard yelling.
The officers then pulled the driver out of the car, placed her on the sidewalk and realized she wasn’t breathing.
“Do you have a pulse?” one officer asked.
“Subject is unresponsive,” the other officer said.
One officer began performing CPR and Jones was revived.
Heart surgeon Dr. Kathy Magliato said Jones is lucky to be alive.
(credit: CBS)
“It’s really critically important that law officers understand that this TASER is a weapon and it can kill people,” said Magliato, who also serves as president of the American Heart Association for greater Los Angeles.
Magliato told CBS2’s Randy Paige, “It’s awfully hard, Randy, exonerate the TASER when you see a woman who clearly was fine up until the point she was TASERed, and, then, becomes unconscious, loses her pulse and, then, is in sudden cardiac death.”
The video camera recorded the episode for 40 minutes. It’s likely the most complete record of the events leading up to a cardiac arrest following the use of a TASER electronic control device. However, it wasn’t the first time a similar incident was captured on video.
In March 2008, store security cameras in Charlotte, North Carolina captured 17-year-old Darryl Turner as police deployed a TASER model X-26 and electrocuted him following an argument with a store manager.
The teenager collapsed just off camera and later died.
Pasadena attorney John Burton represented the Turner family in a civil trial where the jury awarded $10 million in damages. He is now preparing a lawsuit on behalf of Jones.
“This device, the TASER as it’s called, is much more dangerous than the company indicates and that police believe, especially when it’s shot in the chest, the electric current can take over the heart rhythm and cause cardiac arrest,” Burton said.
TASER International disputes this claim on their website: “There is no reliable published data that proves TASER ECDs negatively affect the heart.”
TASER International refers to medical studies that conclude its devices do not harm the heart.
Nonetheless, the company changed its targeting guidelines in 2009, urging users to avoid strikes to the chest.
Dr. Magliato strongly disagreed with TASER International’s findings.
“Absolutely not, absolutely not,” Magliato said. “We have an article right here from circulation which comes out of one of the most prestigious cardiovascular journals in the country, that’s put out by the American Heart Association. This article discusses eight cases, eight cases where people were TASERed went into this ventricular fibrillation rhythm, seven of which died, so how can you tell me that using a TASER is completely benign — especially when you have it on videotape?”
Jones’ attorney Maria Cavalluzzi said her client now has many memory deficits and cognitive issues after the incident.
Cavalluzzi would only let Jones speak briefly due to the pending criminal charges, but the Studio City resident spoke just long enough to describe what little she remembers from the night of the traffic stop.
“Do you remember what it felt like when that TASER hit?” Paige said.
“I can remember fear,” Jones said.
Cavalluzzi said toxicology reports show there were no illegal drugs or alcohol in Jones’ system that night. Jones is facing criminal misdemeanor charges for resisting arrest and an infraction for possession of less than one ounce of marijuana.
The CHP declined CBS2’s request for an on-camera interview and offered a written statement which said, in part:
“The use of the TASER in this incident appears to be within CHP policy. Appropriate charges were filed against Miss Jones. To avoid interfering with the successful prosecution of this case, we have no further comment at this time.”
TASER International also provided a written statement:
“We are concerned about this incident and eagerly await more information as its becomes available since it’s speculative if not impossible to make a medical diagnosis from a YouTube video in which we can’t see what exactly occurred or know the condition of the suspect during the medical response.
“No use of force is risk free, but medical experts have concluded that TASER technology is among the most effective response to resistance tools available today. A U.S DOJ’s five-year study further states, ‘There is no conclusive medical evidence in the current body of research literature that indicates a high risk of serious injury or death to humans from the direct or indirect cardiovascular or metabolic effects of short-term (TASER) CED exposure in healthy, normal, nonstressed, nonintoxicated persons.
“It’s important to remember that more than 98,000 people have been saved from potential death or serious injury using TASER devices – an astounding number that would more than sell out the Rose Bowl.”
Despite TASER International’s targeting guidelines, CBS2 has learned that use of force directives for the CHP, LAPD and L.A. County Sheriff’s Department do not instruct officers to avoid direct strikes to the chest.
*TASER ® is a trademark of TASER International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Hints that local police can arrest protesters using cameras at checkpoints
Steve Watson
Infowars.com
Nov 20, 2012
The TSA has officially acknowledged the Infowars Opt Out And Film week protest, and warned that despite the fact it is not prohibited to film at TSA checkpoints, local laws may allow police to intervene and prevent such activity.
On it’s official blog, TSA official Bob Burns notes:
“TSA has given passengers the option of opting out of imaging technology. If you choose to opt out, simply let the officer know you would like to opt out of the body scanner, and you will receive a pat-down instead.”
Burns then states:
“We’re also aware of the Opt Out and Film week, where some are planning on opting out of the body scanner and then filming their experience. TSA respects passengers rights to exercise freedom of speech as well as the rights of fellow travelers trying to get to their destination safely and without unnecessary delay. While the TSA does not prohibit photographs at screening locations, local laws, state statutes, or local ordinances may.”
Essentially, the TSA is intimating that they can and will have anyone engaging in the Opt Out and Filmprotest arrested by police should they be able to find loopholes in local laws enabling them to do so.
As we reported last month, the TSA removed from it’s website all references to the right to film and photograph at checkpoints, just hours after it was announced that the national campaign was underway to encourage Americans to opt out and film TSA procedures.
However, following a backlash from supporters of the campaign, the approval to film section soon reappeared on the federal agency’s website.
Filming and photography in public is protected under the First Amendment. The First Court of Appeals ruled last year that filming police officers is not illegal in the United States. However, as we have seen on endless occasions, the authorities will exploit rules to suggest otherwise. While practically every case has been thrown out of court, police have increasingly touted wiretapping laws as a means to arrest individuals filming them.
People who do film TSA checkpoints or TSA workers have been harassed, threatened with court action or even accused of being terrorists.
Recording police officers and TSA agents (public servants) is perfectly legal. However, Americans are still being arrested for doing so, and the establishment media is enthusiastically perpetuating the hoax that such conduct is unlawful, even though in doing so they are completely eroding protections that guarantee press freedom.
There is no expectation of privacy in public, the police are fully aware of this, which is why they have dash cams on their cars to record incidents, wear microphones and utilize other recording equipment as part of their job.
Filming TSA procedures at checkpoints is a vital expression of free speech and serves to limit the degree of humiliation, degradation and harassment metered out by TSA screeners – aggravation that has become endemic across the country.
We encourage everyone planning to engage in the Opt Out And Film protest to go ahead and exercise their constitutional rights, and ignore this overt intimidation at the hands of the TSA.
Senate bill rewrite lets feds read your e-mail without warrants
Proposed law scheduled for a vote next week originally increased Americans' e-mail privacy. Then law enforcement complained. Now it increases government access to e-mail and other digital files.
Sen. Patrick Leahy previously said his bill boosts Americans' e-mail privacy protections by "requiring that the government obtain a search warrant." That's no longer the case.
(Credit: U.S. Senate)
A Senate proposal touted as protecting Americans' e-mail privacy has been quietly rewritten, giving government agencies more surveillance power than they possess under current law.
CNET has learned that Patrick Leahy, the influential Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee, has dramatically reshaped his legislation in response to law enforcement concerns. A vote on his bill, which now authorizes warrantless access to Americans' e-mail, isscheduled for next week.
Revised bill highlights
✭ Grants warrantless access to Americans' electronic correspondence to over 22 federal agencies. Only a subpoena is required, not a search warrant signed by a judge based on probable cause.
✭ Permits state and local law enforcement to warrantlessly access Americans' correspondence stored on systems not offered "to the public," including university networks.
✭ Authorizes any law enforcement agency to access accounts without a warrant -- or subsequent court review -- if they claim "emergency" situations exist.
✭ Says providers "shall notify" law enforcement in advance of any plans to tell their customers that they've been the target of a warrant, order, or subpoena.
✭ Delays notification of customers whose accounts have been accessed from 3 days to "10 business days." This notification can be postponed by up to 360 days.
Leahy's rewritten bill would allow more than 22 agencies -- including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Communications Commission -- to access Americans' e-mail, Google Docs files, Facebook wall posts, and Twitter direct messages without a search warrant. It also would give the FBI and Homeland Security more authority, in some circumstances, to gain full access to Internet accounts without notifying either the owner or a judge.
It's an abrupt departure from Leahy's earlier approach, which required police to obtain a search warrant backed by probable cause before they could read the contents of e-mail or other communications. The Vermont Democrat boastedlast year that his bill "provides enhanced privacy protections for American consumers by... requiring that the government obtain a search warrant."
Leahy had planned a vote on an earlier version of his bill, designed to update a pair of 1980s-vintage surveillance laws, in late September. But after law enforcement groups including the National District Attorneys' Association and the National Sheriffs' Association organizations objected to the legislation and asked him to "reconsider acting" on it, Leahy pushed back the vote and reworked the bill as a package of amendments to be offered next Thursday.
One person participating in Capitol Hill meetings on this topic told CNET that Justice Department officials have expressed their displeasure about Leahy's original bill. The department is on record as opposing any such requirement: James Baker, the associate deputy attorney general, has publicly warned that requiring a warrant to obtain stored e-mail could have an "adverse impact" on criminal investigations.
Marc Rotenberg, head of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said that in light of the revelations about how former CIA director David Petraeus' e-mail was perused by the FBI, "even the Department of Justice should concede that there's a need for more judicial oversight," not less.
An aide to the Senate Judiciary committee told CNET that because discussions with interested parties are ongoing, it would be premature to comment on the legislation.
Markham Erickson, a lawyer in Washington, D.C. who has followed the topic closely and said he was speaking for himself and not his corporate clients, expressed concerns about the alphabet soup of federal agencies that would be granted more power:
❝ There is no good legal reason why federal regulatory agencies such as the NLRB, OSHA, SEC or FTC need to access customer information service providers with a mere subpoena. If those agencies feel they do not have the tools to do their jobs adequately, they should work with the appropriate authorizing committees to explore solutions. The Senate Judiciary committee is really not in a position to adequately make those determinations. ❞
The list of agencies that would receive civil subpoena authority for the contents of electronic communications also includes the Federal Reserve, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Maritime Commission, the Postal Regulatory Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, and the Mine Enforcement Safety and Health Review Commission.
Leahy's modified bill retains some pro-privacy components, such as requiring police to secure a warrant in many cases. But the dramatic shift, especially the regulatory agency loophole and exemption for emergency account access, likely means it will be near-impossible for tech companies to support in its new form.
A bitter setback
This is a bitter setback for Internet companies and a liberal-conservative-libertarian coalition, which had hoped to convince Congress to update the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act to protect documents stored in the cloud. Leahy glued those changes onto an unrelatedprivacy-related bill supported by Netflix.
At the moment, Internet users enjoy more privacy rights if they store data on their hard drives or under their mattresses, a legal hiccup that the companies fear could slow the shift to cloud-based services unless the law is changed to be more privacy-protective.
Members of the so-called Digital Due Process coalition include Apple, Amazon.com, Americans for Tax Reform, AT&T, the Center for Democracy and Technology, eBay, Google, Facebook, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, TechFreedom, and Twitter. (CNET was the first to report on the coalition's creation.)
Leahy, a former prosecutor, has a mixed record on privacy. He criticized the FBI's efforts to require Internet providers to build in backdoors for law enforcement access, and introduced a bill in the 1990s protecting Americans' right to use whatever encryption products they wanted.
An excerpt from Leahy's revised legislation authorizing over 22 federal agencies to obtain Americans' e-mail without a search warrant signed by a judge. Click for larger image.
One obvious option for the Digital Due Process coalition is the simplest: if Leahy's committee proves to be an insurmountable roadblock in the Senate, try the courts instead.
Judges already have been wrestling with how to apply the Fourth Amendment to an always-on, always-connected society. Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police needed a search warrant for GPS tracking of vehicles. Some courts have ruled that warrantless tracking of Americans' cell phones, another coalition concern, is unconstitutional.
The FBI and other law enforcement agencies already must obtain warrants for e-mail in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee, thanks to a ruling by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2010.
After months of protesting a policy requiring high school students to wear an RFID-enabled ID badge around their necks at all times, Andrea Hernandez is being involuntarily withdrawn from John Jay High School in San Antonio effective November 26th, according to a letter sent by the district that has now been made public.
The letter, sent on November 13, informs her father that the Smart ID program, which was phased in with the new school year, is now in “full implementation” and requires all students to comply by wearing the location-tracking badges.
Since Andrea Hernandez has refused to wear the badge, she is being withdrawn from the magnet school and her program at the Science and Engineering Academy, and instead will have to attend William Howard Taft HS, which is not currently involved in the ID scheme, unless she changes her position.
Civil liberties lawyers at the Rutherford Institute told Infowars.com that they are in the process of filing a temporary restraining order petition to prevent the school from kicking Hernandez out until further appeals can be made to resolve the matter. Representatives for John Jay did not return calls for comment by the time of publishing.
Andrea, backed by her family, has claimed the policy violates her religious beliefs and unduly infringes on her privacy. The controversial ID badge includes the photo and name of each student, a barcode tied to the student’s social security number, as well as an RFID chip which pinpoints the exact location of the individual student, including after hours and when the student leaves campus.
The battle over the IDs has been an ongoing saga. The Hernandez family has previously attended several school board meetings, organized protests and filed formal grievances with the district over the matter, and has been backed by numerous civil rights advocates.
Infowars reporters covered a protest that took place in early October, following up with appearances by the Hernandez family on the Alex Jones Show and the Infowars Nightly News programs.
Ask not what you can do for your country, but what your new country can do for you.
“Welcome to USA.gov,” a website maintained by the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), bills itself as the “primary gateway for new immigrants to find basic information on how to settle in the United States” — featuring a prominent section for new immigrants about how to access government benefits.
“Depending on your immigration status, length of time in the United States, and income, you may be eligible for some federal benefit programs,” the Web page reads.
“Government assistance programs can be critically important to the well-being of some immigrants and their families. Frequently, however, there is a lack of information about how to access such benefits. Benefit programs can be complicated and you may be given misleading information about how they operate.”
The DHS page offers links to government websites that explain how to access benefits including food stamps, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Medicaid, Medicare, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and the “official website with information on all available federal benefit programs,” with a nonworking link toBenefits.gov.
WelcometoUSA.gov also boasts to immigrants that “[f]ree public education for children is one reason many immigrants come to the United States.”
Though the website appears to advertise benefits, new immigrants are not necessarily eligible for the benefits displayed on the website; enrollment in SSI and TANF may also serve as impediments to future immigration status adjustments.
USCIS spokesman Bill Wright told The Daily Caller that the site is not intended to advise individuals on their eligibility.
“The website seeks to improve access to federal government information on the Internet by consolidating information into helpful categories and highlight new resources available to immigrants and the organizations that serve them,” Wright explained in an email.
The city of Santa Monica can bar seasonal displays, including a Nativity scene that has appeared in Palisades Park for nearly 60 years, a federal judge ruled Monday.
In a closely watched case that has attracted national attention, Judge Audrey B. Collins denied a request from the Santa Monica Nativity Scenes Committee to erect multiple large displays depicting the story of the birth of Jesus in the park overlooking the ocean. The coalition of churches has erected the displays every December since the 1950s.
But last year, after requests for display spots exceeded the space allotted, the city held a lottery to allocate spaces. Atheists won 18 of 21 spots. A Jewish group won another. The traditional Nativity story that used to take up 14 displays was crammed into two.
Controversy erupted, and as a result, the city decided the lottery would become increasingly costly. Last June, the City Council voted to ban all private unattended displays.
In October, Nativity scene proponents filed suit in federal court to allow the traditional Christian displays to continue. In a 27-page tentative ruling, Collins denied the group permission to erect their displays this year while the case is pending.
"The atheists won," said William Becker, attorney for the Nativity group. He then went on to compare the city to Pontius Pilate, the judge at Jesus' trial, saying: "It's a shame about Christmas. Pontius Pilate was exactly the same kind of administrator."
Santa Monica's attorney, Barry A. Rosenbaum, said the city is "very pleased" with the ruling. The judge, he said, "understood the government interests and that [groups wanting to put up displays] have a number of alternatives to erect displays."
All the parties are due back in court Dec. 3, when the judge will hear additional arguments in the case.
Thinking of taking along that famous homemade chicken giblet broth? Think again terrorist.
