November 8, 2012

You are here: Home / Archives for Crime / Law

Woman Jailed, Ostracized After Resorting to Self-Administered Abortion: What Is This, Puritan America?

December 15, 2011 By Leave a Comment

By Amanda Marcotte

When we deprive women of access to abortion, shun them, and even throw them in jail, we as a society become weaker.

Jennie McCormack, a resident of Idaho and a mother of three, has spent the past few months of her life in a legal and social situation that calls to mind the trials of Hester Pyrnne, the heroine of The Scarlet Letter. As reported by Nancy Hass of Newsweek, McCormack’s ordeal started when she learned she was pregnant by a man who was doing time for robbery.

Realizing that she couldn’t afford another baby, nor the $500 fee and two trips to get an abortion (because Idaho requires women to wait 24 hours after their first visit to the doctor to “think it over”), McCormack resorted to buying RU-486 from a vendor online. The police eventually arrested McCormack and charged her with an illegal abortion, claiming that she was over Idaho’s legal limit of 20 weeks for an abortion. Since the exact gestational age can’t be determined, charges have been dropped for now, but prosecutors are retaining the right to re-charge McCormack. In the meantime, she’s become a pariah in her community, been fired from her job, and even had to face social workers who are basically denying her aid to care for her children.

Even in super-liberal New York City, a woman is being prosecuted (albeit in a less drastic way) for a self-abortion after the legal limit. The desperate woman, accused of aborting after six months, threw the fetus in a trash can, presumably because she was not aware of her other options for disposing of it.

In the United States, abortion is technically a legal right, but as these cases show, it’s not functionally a right. If abortion were actually a right, women wouldn’t have such a difficult time getting a legal abortion that they resort to drastic measures that land them in jail. These cases demonstrate why abortion needs to be more than a right for those who have the means to jump through all the hoops put in place to keep them from obtaining legal abortions. Making sure women who want abortions can get them in a timely and safe fashion helps more than the women in question. We all do better if women can get the abortions that are supposedly their right.

Abortion’s long descent from being a true right to being only a technical right began in 1976, when Congress passed the Hyde Amendment, which bars federal funds from being used to pay for abortion. Once you needed to be able to get the cash together to pay for an abortion, it stopped really being a right and instead became a commodity, out of reach of those who often need it the most. Since then, anti-choice activists have been chipping away at access to abortion, putting up legal restrictions that usually cost time and money to get around, and now even moving to prevent insurance companies from covering abortion, expanding the number of women whose access is limited because they can’t afford it.

In the anti-choice imagination, the only people who pay for this are women who want abortions, whom anti-choicers generally believe deserve to suffer for not “keeping their legs closed,” to quote a favorite colloquialism of the anti-choice set. In reality, women’s lack of access to affordable, safe abortion hurts all of us, and not just those who accidentally find a fetus abandoned in a trash can by a woman who had simply run out of legal, safe options. When women who want abortions can’t afford them, they often go on to have the baby, instead. In the short term, that means higher costs for Medicaid and other social welfare programs. But there’s also long-term costs to all of us. Having children they don’t feel ready to have often limits women’s employment and educational opportunities, depriving society of their talents and labor. If women can’t have children until they’re ready, they’re often limited in their abilities to educate and care for those children as well as they’d like to, which increases the burden for everyone.

Criminalizing women who need abortion care just makes the situation exponentially worse, as Jennie McCormack’s situation demonstrates. So far, her brush with the legal system has been devastating for her entire family. She has three small children to take care of, but because she’s been “outed,” she can’t hold down a job that would help feed and house them. If Idaho successfully prosecutes her and sends her to jail, that would leave her three children without any parents to care for them. This tragedy could have been averted. If there were no Hyde Amendment and Medicaid paid for abortion, and if there weren’t a bunch of useless legal restrictions on abortion, McCormack could have aborted her pregnancy in a timely fashion, leaving her free to get a job and take care of her kids. Instead, there’s a strong possibility that she’ll be forced to abandon her children, and all because she couldn’t access an abortion that was supposed to be her legal right.

Women who need abortions aren’t some foreign creatures whose wellbeing can be sacrificed so politicians can score points in the culture war. They’re mothers, wives, workers, students, volunteers. When we deprive women of access to abortion, shun them from society, and even throw them in jail for taking matters into their own hands, we as a society become weaker. The Jennie McCormacks of the world are trying to live up to their responsibilities. Putting restrictions on abortion only serves to make that impossible for them.

 

Source: https://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/153433/woman_jailed%2C_ostracized_after_resorting_to_self-administered_abortion%3A_what_is_this%2C_puritan_america/?page=2

Filed Under: Health, Law, Prison, USA Tagged With:

File Charges Against Claire’s Previous Owners

December 13, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Claire is a 4-year old Great Dane, is roughly 70 lbs underweight, is heartworm positive, deaf, 75 percent blind and has for skin infections. The rescue group that saved Claire believes her previous owners were backyard breeders.

PLEASE SEND/SHARE PETITION: https://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/file-charges-against-claires-previous-owners/

Big Dog Rescue, Inc. has been told Claire’s previous owners won’t be facing any charges.

Big Dog Rescue, Inc. is encouraging people to send letters or emails to the Bastrop Texas District Attorney’s Office encouraging them to file charges against Claire’s previous owners.

D.A. Bryan Goertz , 804 Pecan St, Bastrop, Texas 78602
512/581-7125 fax 512/581-7133

 

Source: https://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/file-charges-against-claires-previous-owners/

Filed Under: Animal Cruelty, Law

Google Chairman Says Online Piracy Bill Would ‘Criminalize’ The Internet

December 13, 2011 By Leave a Comment

By Gautham Nagesh - 12/12/11 02:11 PM ET

An online piracy bill in the House would “criminalize linking and the fundamental structure of the Internet itself,” according to Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt.

Schmidt said the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) would punish Web firms, including search engines, that link to foreign websites dedicated to online piracy. He said implementing the bill as written would effectively break the Internet.

“By criminalizing links, what these bills do is they force you to take content off the Internet,” Schmidt said, calling it a form of censorship.

The search giant has been at the forefront of a tech industry backlash against the legislation from House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas).

“If Congress writes a bad law, we all suffer,” Schmidt said.

He compared the proposal to the Web censorship practiced by repressive foreign governments like China and doubled down on that comparison when speaking with reporters after his remarks at the Economic Club of Washington.

“It’s not a good thing. I understand the goal of what SOPA and PIPA are trying to do,” Schmidt said of the Senate counterpart bill, the Protect IP Act. “Their goal is reasonable, their mechanism is terrible. They should not criminalize the intermediaries. They should go after the people that are violating the law.”

Schmidt also criticized SOPA for targeting the Domain Name System, which experts have warned could undermine the security of the Web.

“What they’re essentially doing is whacking away at the DNS system and that’s a mistake. It’s a bad way to go about solving the problem,” Schmidt said.

The Google CEO said he’s not familiar enough with an alternate piracy bill, dubbed the OPEN Act, to offer an educated opinion on its impact.

That bill, sponsored by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.),would rely on the International Trade Commission (ITC) to handle online copyright claims and stick to the “follow the money” approach Schmidt advocated, which would focus on forcing payment processors and online ad networks to cut ties with rogue websites.

Supporters of SOPA, including the movie industry and the House Judiciary Committee, have blasted the OPEN Act, arguing it goes easy on online piracy and would result in a huge cost increase for the ITC.

Smith responded on Monday:

“Unfortunately, there are some critics of this legislation who are not serious about helping to protect America’s intellectual property. That’s because they’ve made large profits by promoting rogue sites to U.S. consumers.”

“Google recently paid a half billion dollars to settle a criminal case because of the search-engine giant’s active promotion of rogue foreign pharmacies that sold counterfeit and illegal drugs to U.S. patients,” he continued. “As a result of their actions, the health and lives of many American patients may have been endangered. Their opposition to this legislation is self-serving since they profit from doing business with rogue sites.”

Filed Under: Crime, Law, USA Tagged With:

Gambian Will Lead Prosecution in Hague

December 13, 2011 By Leave a Comment

A lawyer from Gambia, Fatou Bensouda, was named the new chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court on Monday, making her the future public face and chief strategist of the tribunal responsible for investigating the world’s grave atrocities.

She will be only the second person to hold the job when she takes over from Luis Moreno-Ocampo of Argentina, whose term of office expires in June. She is currently Mr. Moreno-Ocampo’s deputy at the court, which is based in The Hague.

Ms. Bensouda, 50, was voted in by consensus at a meeting at the United Nations of the 120 countries that have recognized the jurisdiction of the first permanent criminal court. The decision came after a yearlong search that involved a list of more than 50 candidates, which was whittled down to 8, then to 4.

But from the start, Ms. Bensouda had the support of almost 70 countries, among them most of the court’s African members. After it became clear that Ms. Bensouda would be the only candidate who could produce a consensus, the last remaining contender, Tanzania’s chief justice, Mohamed Chande Othman, withdrew.

When Ms. Bensouda becomes the world’s most visible prosecutor for a single nine-year term, she may bring a change of style with her soft-spoken, low-key manner — a sharp contrast to her more publicity-conscious boss, who succeeded in quickly thrusting the new institution into the limelight after it opened its doors in 2002.

But having served as deputy prosecutor since 2004, Ms. Bensouda is expected to bring continuity rather than sharp changes to her powerful office, at least in the near future. A large docket of cases awaits, involving war crimes or crimes against humanity, and in the case of Sudan, charges of genocide. Only one trial has been concluded. Two others are going on.

Supporters of the court now hope that the presence of an African prosecutor could tone down some of the fierce criticism it has received from Africa, where many have labeled it a neocolonial tool in the hands of the West because all of the cases so far have come from African countries.

In four cases — involving the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Central African Republic, Uganda and Ivory Coast — the governments themselves called in the court. Two cases, involving Sudan and Libya, were initiated on instructions from the United Nations Security Council. And only one case, involving six suspects linked to post-election violence in Kenya, was initiated by the prosecutor’s office.

But such details were overlooked in a campaign against the court that was begun several years ago by Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya and was joined more quietly by President Omar Hassan al-Bashir of Sudan, who is wanted by the court on charges that include genocide. Charges against Mr. Qaddafi, issued this year, were annulled recently after he was killed.

Being an African could bring different pressures to bear on Ms. Bensouda. Groups from Kenya continue to demand that investigations of their six citizens be conducted at home. And the African Union, which early on proclaimed Ms. Bensouda as its candidate, insists that its member countries ignore the court’s arrest warrant for Mr. Bashir. Some have called for the warrant to be dropped.

At a news conference after her election, Ms. Bensouda was asked how, as chief prosecutor, she would handle criticism from Africa. “My origin, being an African, has nothing to do with my mandate,” she said.

Ms. Bensouda served as a legal adviser and trial attorney at the international tribunal that prosecuted leaders of the 1994 Rwanda genocide. In Gambia, she has served as attorney general and minister of justice.

 

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/world/europe/fatou-bensouda-becomes-lead-prosecutor-at-international-criminal-court.html?_r=1

Filed Under: International Criminal Court, Law Tagged With:

Senate Bill S510 Makes it Illegal to Grow, Share, Trade or Sell

December 12, 2011 By Leave a Comment

“If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.”

Thomas Jefferson

 

Filed Under: Environment, Health, Law, Police, Protests, Rights, Self-Sustainability, Surveillance, Tyranny, USA

Drones Officially Take Flight For Domestic Law Enforcement, Heralding a New Level of the Police State

December 12, 2011 By Leave a Comment

It is a sign of just how fast the police state is advancing that drones in American skies have gone from conspiracy theory to admitted fact in about a year.

In a precedent-setting event, local law enforcement in North Dakota nabbed three suspected armed men with the help of a Predator B unmanned drone. It was only after the drone confirmed that the men were unarmed that police moved in to make the arrest.

It has now become clear that, as we have written and warned about for the past year, the drones that were supposedly commissioned strictly as tools for border control will now patrol inland for suspected criminals on American soil, heralding a new level of police state oppression.

In April I wrote about the future expansion of unmanned drones over America based on the admissions made by two-star General, John Priddy, from the U.S. National Air Security Operations Center, evidenced in the video below, that the continued expansion of predator drone surveillancewas a stated goal for the coming years.

His comments were echoed by Al Palmer, Director of Unmanned Aircraft Training at the world’s largest center at the University of North Dakota, which just so happens to be the location of the arrest alluded to above, that “The world is going to spend $80 billion on unmanned aircraft between now and 2016.”

As the Los Angeles Times report states:

Congress first authorized Customs and Border Protection to buy unarmed Predators in 2005. Officials in charge of the fleet cite broad authority to work with police from budget requests to Congress that cite ‘interior law enforcement support’ as part of their mission.

True to form, once the cat is out of the bag, we learn just how extensive the program really is.

Michael C. Kostelnik, a retired Air Force general who heads the office that supervises the drones, said Predators are flown ‘in many areas around the country, not only for federal operators, but also for state and local law enforcement and emergency responders in times of crisis.’

Beyond the troubling announcement that military drones have arrived from overseas to conduct operations in America, the way in which this first arrest was made — and the family that was targeted — should be equally disturbing.

The Brossart family are owners of a 3,000-acre ranch who were reported to police for stray cows that had entered a neighboring property. When the Sheriff arrived with a search warrant he said he was forced off the property at gunpoint. Apparently, the Sheriff feared that this could turn into another Ruby Ridge incident:

The six adult Brossarts allegedly belonged to the Sovereign Citizen Movement, an antigovernment group that the FBI considers extremist and violent. The family had repeated run-ins with local police, including the arrest of two family members earlier that day arising from their clash with a deputy over the cattle.

This incident too comfortably fits the new narrative which seeks to justify an expansion of the War on Terror by including America as the new war zone, thus enabling all military hardware to be used, and eradicating the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. These Sovereign Citizens, as “extremist and violent” by decree, have received the very same treatment as those in the Middle East and North Africa who are suspected insurgents or enemy combatants.

This event also comes shortly after the recent exposure of a secret drone base in Nevada, housed on the same land reserve as Area 51 of all places. This discovery merely shows that the drone program is full-speed ahead inside the United States, as similar “secret” programs have been uncovered overseas in places like Ethiopia and The Seychelles.

The unmanned drone program in the U.S. actually goes back to at least 2007 when it was first uncovered by reporters in Texas that drones were being tested inside America in an exercise coordinated with local police. The claim that this was only for border control was quickly shattered when Miami-Dade county, FL became the first to commission micro-drones, which are specifically designed for effective use in the close quarters of a city environment.

Now that the precedent has been set — with a supporting narrative to boot — the full spectrum of the drone capability is set to be unleashed in America. Everything from spotting “adversarial intent” to facial recognition, soft biometrics, general threat assessments and even nano drones that mimic nature itself. And don’t think that weaponization is far off.

We will be sold first on the effective use of surveillance to thwart armed conflict, like this one with the dangerous Sovereign Citizens, and other extremists to come no doubt. Then, perhaps we will see them used to deliver non-lethal weapons from above to quell protests (sorry, riots). Then, once we have become fully acclimated . . . .

Dennis Kucinich is one of very few critical voices on this issue. Kucinich penned a terrific commentary back in August warning of the threat to the rule of law posed by unmanned drones. His screed was directed toward their misuse overseas, but he alludes to the writing on the wall, which clearly states that America shall be viewed as no different than any other country plagued by remote control surveillance and warfare:

Think of the use of drone air strikes as summary executions, extra-judicial killings justified by faceless bureaucrats using who-knows-what ‘intelligence,’ with no oversight whatsoever and you get the idea that we have slipped into spooky new world where joystick gods manipulating robots deal death from the skies and then go home and hug their children. Everything America was once said to stand for: the rule of law, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is in danger of becoming collateral damage as our fearful leaders continue to kill suspects and innocent alike, mindlessly unaware that the hellfire we are sowing will surely be reaped by Americans in the future. The proliferation of drone technology and its inevitable extension to civilian law enforcement is a leap into the arms of Big Brother.

We have seen horrendous civilian casualties in other countries from this supposed high-tech fleet of unmanned drones operated from trailers thousands of miles away. Countries like Pakistan have had enough and have sent the fleet packing. I submit that we should not wait for the casualties to mount before dismissing this wasteful military expenditure that is part and parcel of deleting human life, and deleting our Constitution.

 

Source: https://www.activistpost.com/2011/12/drones-officially-take-flight-for.html#more

Filed Under: Law, Police, USA, War Tagged With: ,

Preppers Are Now Considered To Be Potential Terrorists?

December 12, 2011 By 1 Comment

If you and your family store up lots of food, will you be identified as “potential terrorists” by law enforcement authorities? That sounds like an insane question, but sadly it has gotten to the point where “preparing for the worst” has become a “suspicious activity“.

Today, there are millions of preppers all across the United States, and the vast majority of them just want to be left alone and do not want the government to interfere in their lives. Storing up food is a completely peaceful activity, and preppers are generally some of the most patriotic and law-abiding people that you could ever hope to meet. Unfortunately, prepping has become associated with “extremism” by many in the government, and lately we have seen some very disturbing signs that authorities are actively seeking to gather information on preppers. So are preppers now considered to be potential terrorists?

Well, read the evidence posted in the rest of this article and decide for yourself.

The other day, U.S. Senator Rand Paul gave a speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate during which he suggested that having “more than seven days of food” in your house could potentially get you branded as a “potential terrorist” by the federal government.

The following is an excerpt from that speech:

Know good and well that some day there could be a government in power that is shipping its citizens off for disagreements. There are laws on the books now that characterize who might be a terrorist.

Someone missing fingers on their hands is a suspect according to the Department of Justice. Someone who has guns, someone who has ammunition that is weatherproofed, someone who has more than seven days of food in their house can be considered a potential terrorist.

If you are suspected by these activities do you want the government to have the ability to send you to Guantanamo Bay for indefinite detention?

It is incredibly chilling to hear a defender of liberty such as Rand Paul warn of such things.

But just because a politician says something that does not always mean that it is true.

So is there any evidence that Americans that are storing up food are being watched by the federal government?

Unfortunately, there is. In fact, Oath Keepers has posted a report about one incident in which federal agents actually visited a food production facility and demanded the names of anyone that has been “purchasing bulk food”. The following come from an article about this incident that was recently written by Rand Cardwell, the president of the Tennessee chapter of the Oath Keepers….

A fellow veteran contacted me concerning a new and disturbing development. He had been utilizing a Mormon cannery near his home to purchase bulk food supplies. The man that manages the facility related to him that federal agents had visited the facility and demanded a list of individuals that had been purchasing bulk food. The manager informed the agents that the facility kept no such records and that all transactions were conducted on a cash-and-carry basis. The agents pressed for any record of personal checks, credit card transactions, etc., but the manager could provide no such record. The agents appeared to become very agitated and after several minutes of questioning finally left with no information. I contacted the manager and personally confirmed this information.

Why in the world would federal agents be so interested in Americans that are “purchasing bulk food”?

Don’t they have anything better to do?

As I have written about previously, authorities are also now using a tool developed by the CDC to conduct “door to door disaster preparedness assessments” in some areas of the United States.

The following comes from a local news report in Tennessee….

The Metro Public Health and the Tennessee Department of Health will be using a tool designed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to go door to door and check to see how disaster ready you are.

The door to door assessment will take place from 3:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Thursday and from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Friday. It will be in 30 neighborhoods in Davidson County that have been randomly selected to be the target of a door to door assessment.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t want anyone coming to my door to “assess” how “prepared” I am.

This is all very, very disturbing.

Lately, the federal government seems absolutely obsessed with the distribution of food.

As author Brandon Turbeville noted recently, “the U.S. government has publicly raided organic food shops, raw milk distributors, and the Amish with guns drawn” in recent years.

Aren’t there bigger threats to national security than the Amish?

Unfortunately, we now live in a “Big Brother” police state where just about anything can be considered a “suspicious activity”.

In fact, according to the FBI a bulk purchase of “meals ready to eat” is now considered to be “suspicious activity” that should be reported to them.

When the “war on terror” started a decade ago, we were told that we needed to fight the terrorists “over there” so that they would not come over here.

Well, now we are being told that the United States itself is part of the “battleground” and that the “terrorists” might just be our neighbors.

We are being told that if we “see something” that we should “say something” to the government.

In essence, the federal government wants us all to “inform” on one another.

Now that most of the big name terrorists have been removed from the picture, the Obama administration and the mainstream media are really hyping the idea that “homegrown terrorism” is a grave danger.

Just check out these headlines from the past few days….

ABC News: “White House Unveils New Strategy to Fight Homegrown Terrorism”

USA Today: “White House unveils new strategy to combat homegrown terror”

CNN: “Measuring the homegrown terrorist threat to U.S. military”

The entire focus of the “war on terror” has shifted. According to FBI Director Robert Mueller, “homegrown terrorists” represent as big a threat to American national security as al-Qaeda does at this point.

America is rapidly changing, and not for the better. All of this paranoia is going to rip this country apart.

In addition, have you noticed how they have taken the word “Islamic” out of their description of the terrorists and have replaced it with words like “extremist” and “extremism”?

Well, the truth is that just about anyone can be considered an “extremist” in one sense or another.

In fact, a recent Salon article asked this question: “Are Evangelicals A National Security Threat?”

These days, if you support an “alternative” political candidate there is a good chance that you will be labeled as an extremist.

During the 2008 election, one law enforcement report identified supporters of presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr as potential terrorists.

Today, if you have a religious or political ideology that differs from the “orthodoxy” of the federal government then you are probably considered to be an “extremist”.

Beliefs that were once considered normal are now considered to be “dangerous” and “radical”.

For example, one unclassified Department of Homeland Security report published a couple of years ago entitled “Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment“ claimed that a belief in Bible prophecy “could motivate extremist individuals and groups to stockpile food, ammunition and weapons.”

During a Congressional hearing earlier this year, U.S. Representative Sheila Jackson Lee warned that “Christian militants” might try to “bring down the country” and that such groups need to be investigated.

Back on February 20, 2009, the State of Missouri issued a report entitled “MIAC Strategic Report: The Modern Militia Movement“. That report warned that the following types of people may be potential terrorists….

*anti-abortion activists

*those that are against illegal immigration

*those that consider “the New World Order” to be a threat

*those that have a negative view of the United Nations

As I have written about previously, a very revealing document obtained by Oath Keepers shows that the FBI is actually instructing store owners to report many new forms of “suspicious activity” to them.

So what does the FBI consider “suspicious activity” to include? According to the document, the FBI now considers “suspicious activity” to include the following….

*paying with cash

*missing a hand or fingers

*”strange odors”

*making “extreme religious statements”

*”radical theology”

*purchasing weatherproofed ammunition or match containers

*purchasing meals ready to eat

*purchasing night vision devices, night flashlights or gas masks

All of this is completely and totally ridiculous.

Law enforcement authorities should quit worrying about preppers. The vast majority of us that are preparing for the hard times that are coming truly love this country, are completely and totally non-violent, and just want to be left alone.

There are real threats to national security out there, but the federal government refuses to address them. For example, our border with Mexico is wide open and it has been documented that terror groups are working in northern Mexico and have been coming across the border on a regular basis.

But instead of securing the border, the Obama administration is granting “backdoor amnesty” to illegal aliens instead.

In addition, law enforcement authorities should look into the massive breach of national security that the “Fast and Furious” scandal represents. With the full knowledge of the Department of Justice, ATF agents facilitated the sale of thousands of guns to Mexican drug cartels and dropped all surveillance on those weapons once they crossed the border. Those guns will be used to kill people (including Americans) for many years to come.

In fact, there is so much corruption and so many “potential terrorists” in Washington D.C. that it should be more than enough to keep law enforcement officials busy for a very long time.

So leave preppers alone.

Preppers are not a threat. They are not going to hurt anyone. They just want to store up food and prepare for the difficult times that are coming.

So what do all of you think about preppers?

 

Source: https://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/preppers-are-now-considered-to-be-potential-terrorists

Filed Under: Crime, Extremism, Food, Law, Police, Politicians, Self-Sustainability, Surveillance, Terrorism, Tyranny, USA Tagged With:

‘Occupy Homes’ Figure: Bank Of America Is One Of The Biggest Criminals

December 12, 2011 By Leave a Comment

After being in the middle of the Occupy Our Homes day of action earlier in the week, Alfredo Carrasquillo spoke to Up with Chris Hayes Saturday morning.

Despite risking arrest for staying in a home owned by Bank of America, Corrasquillo was determined to keep his homeless family in the occupied house.

“Bank of America has basically been one of the biggest criminals in history,” he said. “They have been basically foreclosing on homes, forcing families that are working hard to try and provide for their children, forcing them to be homeless and out on the street. There’s more vacant homes than there are people out on the street.”

“Ultimately, these homes need to be filled with families that need them. There’s always technicalities involved in it, but the fact of the matter is, if there’s empty homes, they should be filled with families that need them.”

Despite many stories of possible foreclosure fraud, including attorney generals across the country investigating or lawsuits, Bank of America has yet to be federally convicted of any foreclosure crimes.

 

Source: https://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/11/occupy-homes-figure-bank-of-america-has-been-one-of-the-biggest-criminals/

Filed Under: Corruption, Crime, Housing, Law, Media, Occupy, Poverty, Protests, USA Tagged With: , , ,

Georgia Democrat Proposes Drug Testing For Lawmakers

December 12, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Democratic Georgia state Rep. Scott Holcomb has introduced legislation to the General Assembly that would require lawmakers to pass a drug test before taking office.

The usual bill was filed last week in response to a proposal to drug test welfare applicants, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

“This bill is really very simple,” Holcomb said in a statement. “If the General Assembly is going to pass laws requiring struggling, jobless Georgians to pay for drug tests as a precondition to receiving state benefits, then members of the General Assembly should lead by example and take the tests first.”

Random tests would also be mandated by the bill, which lawmakers would be required to pay for with their personal funds.

Following the example set by Florida and Missouri, Georgia state Sen. John Albers (R) introduced a bill that would require all applicants of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) welfare program to pass a drug test.

“Whether you work to receive compensation or collect government assistance, the same standards should apply,” Albers explained to Patch.com in November. “If individuals are receiving aid at the taxpayer’s expense, citizens have the right to know how their funds are being appropriated.”

Under the proposed legislation, applicants who failed the mandatory drug test would be ineligible for TANF benefits for one month. If they failed a second time, they would be ineligible for three months. Applicants who failed three times would be ineligible for three years unless they successfully completed a drug treatment program.

“I would prefer the General Assembly focus on the issues that are most important to Georgians,” Holcomb said. “But, if the General Assembly is going to make drug testing for state benefits a major issue when we return in January, then legislators need to be the first in line.”

The American Civil Liberties Union has decried the laws as discriminatory and other critics of drug testing TANF applicants have said it places vulnerable children at risk. The program is meant to help families so that children can be cared for in their own homes, and requires parents to participate in work-related activities.

 

Source: https://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/07/georgia-lawmaker-proposes-legislative-drug-testing-bill/

Filed Under: Democracy, Drugs, Health, Justice, Law, Politicians, USA Tagged With:

Getting Burned in Pakistan: Report Finds Acid and Burn Attacks Against Women on the Rise

December 12, 2011 By 1 Comment

In Pakistan, like in many other South Asian countries, honor is a virtue that is not only valued but demanded from society, especially from women. Women who “dishonour” their families face severe consequences at the hands of a strongly patriarchal society who continues to see women secondary to men.

A new report from the AGHS Legal Cell has found that violence against women in the form of burning and acid attacks is on the rise in the country. Women who are seen as dishonoring their families are often the targets of these attacks.

Walking in public with a man who is unrelated to you could elicit an attack for it is often presumed that the woman is committing adultery. Fleeing an arranged marriage or a relationship where a woman is unhappy or being abused is another common reason for the attacks.

According to the report, from April to June of this year more than 220 women reported being burned, 40 of whom died as a result of their injuries which can be extensive. When acid is thrown in a person’s face, skin tissue melts on contact exposing the bone below the flesh that may also dissolve from the acid. If acid reaches the eyes, they are permanently damaged often leaving survivors with the use of only one or no eyes.

What’s worse? According to the report women are not being given appropriate medical care and few seek legal action after being attacked. Many cases are also not even reported to police so the actual numbers of victims are far worse than we think.

“Violence against women in Pakistan is endemic,” Nisha Varia, deputy director of women’s rights division at Human Rights Watch told The Media Line.” “We try to apply pressure so that the government recognizes these crimes, prosecutes the perpetrators and provides services to the victims.”

Acid and burn attacks are also not only isolated in Pakistan. It is also common practice in Bangladesh, India, and other South Asian countries. In Bangladesh, the Acid Survivors Foundation has been working for nearly ten years to eliminate acid violence in the country where there is currently an acid attack every two days. A similar organization also exists in Pakistan.

Violence against women exists everywhere. We know this. I also know that I can no longer sit idly as governments around the world fail to protect these victims.

Source: https://www.care2.com/causes/getting-burned-in-pakistan-report-finds-acid-and-burn-attacks-against-women-is-on-the-rise.html#ixzz1gJRZ9ghY

Filed Under: Campaigning, Corruption, Crime, Extremism, Law, Pakistan, Politics, Rights, Sexism, Torture, Tyranny, Violence, Women Tagged With: ,
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »