U.S. employees set to be forced to give bosses their Facebook PASSWORDS

◼ A last minute alteration to CISPA was defeated in a Congress vote, It would have protected user's social media passwords from employers - Daily Mail

An attempt to ban US bosses from asking employees to hand over their Facebook login details has been blocked by Congress.

A last minute alteration to the controversial Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) that would have prevented employers demanding that prospective employees disclose social media passwords as a condition of employment was voted down in the house of representatives.

The proposal, put forward by Democrat Ed Perlmutter was defeated by a 224-189 majority, according to the Huffington Post....

Perlmutter said of his amendment before it was defeated: 'It helps the individual protect his right to privacy and it doesn't allow the employer to impersonate that particular employee when other people are interacting with that person across social media platforms.

He warned of an invasion of privacy and the potential of employers to 'impersonate' employees online.
The Democrat initially proposed the password privacy measure as part of the Federal Communications Commission Process Reform Act of 2012 and warned that social media users have a reasonable expectation of privacy...

Tom Cookman: Community Comment on Minimum Wage Proposal

◼ Listen at KINS online.

The proposed $12 per hour minimum wage ordinance that is going before the voters may sound good on paper, but those behind this idea have failed to analyze what this will do to Eureka. The illusion that the business owners are wealthy enough to handle this increase is shortsighted, if not completely absurd.

Let's look at a small business that has 25 employees who work 40 hours per week. Increasing the amount each employee is paid by $4 per hour is not the only cost the employer incurs. With the multitude of taxes and fees added on to the hourly rate, it costs the employer a minimum of 25 cents for every dollar paid, so this $4 increase costs the business $5 per hour or $200 per week per employee. Twenty five employees will cost $5,000 more per week or $260,000 per year.

There isn't a single business that can handle this increase in expenses without passing it along to their customers, and the customers will QUIT buying from that business.

If 200 hamburgers a day were being sold, the cost per burger would have to be raised by $3.56 to cover the higher minimum wage.

If the business owners were so rich they could handle this, why do we have so many empty buildings and store fronts in Eureka? I walked the length of the Bayshore Mall and was sickened at how many empty shops there were. Drive up and down Fourth and Fifth Street and count the empty buildings.

Believe me, if these businesses that are closed were making as much money as Linda Atkins thinks they can afford, they WOULD NOT HAVE CLOSED THEIR DOORS. In most cases, the business owner has a mortgage on their home, car payments, and has put all their assets up as collateral to get the business loans and lines of credit they need to operate their business.

Eureka is a very expensive place to have a business because of the over regulations our elected officials have burdened them with.

The highest minimum wage in the United States is $10.24 per hour in San Francisco.

What could possibly warrant Eureka having the highest minimum wage in the United States? Is it our bustling manufacturing jobs? Our thriving timber and fishing industry? Did I miss the industrial development of Humboldt Bay?

Eureka is a city that is overrun with homeless drug addicts and over 50% of the people who actually have a job work for government.

If this ridiculous minimum wage law is passed you will be hard pressed to ever attract any business to locate here. the reputation we have is not a good one, transportation costs are amongst the highest in the nation. It costs a lot of money to get products in and out of our area. This deters business investment. Having a minimum wage that is 17% higher than the next highest city in the nation does one thing, and one thing only, it tells the rest of the world we are closed for business.

Business owners cannot pass along several hundred thousand dollars of expenses to their customers, so the reality is that they will either close their doors and move to a community that embraces new business or they will cut their workforce to fewer than 25 employees. They will hire out clerical and maintenance work that is currently being done in house. They will cut benefits and donations.

In South Dakota oil filed communities a fast food worker is making $18 per hour. WHY? Because businesses are thriving and the government understands that a business is an asset to a community, not a liability.

Linda Atkins needs to visit South Dakota and duplicate their practices in Eureka. The business owner is not the villain of low wages, a horrible business climate is the culprit.

Tom Cookman for Community Comment. KINS-FM 106.3

◼ 'Living wage' kills jobs - Thomas Sowell/Townhall

NFRW Political Briefing: What You Need to Know About the Senate Immigration Bill's Border Security Provisions: First in a Series

Last week, the "gang of eight" released the comprehensive immigration bill they have been working on since January. It stands at 844 pages and was released in the wee hours of the morning last Wednesday, April 17th; the first hearing on the bill was held on Friday in the Senate Judiciary Committee chaired by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT). The second hearing was held yesterday, and the third hearing is being held today. The markup, when the committees debate, amend, and rewrite legislation, is scheduled for May. The bill is divided into four titles, and each week for the next three weeks the different titles will be outlined here in detail with the pages in the bill the bullet points refer to in parentheses. The formal name of the bill is "Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act," and Section I of the bill states the purpose of the Act: "to control the flow of legal immigration, and to eliminate illegal immigration, which is some cases has become a threat to our national security" (8). The following notes are taken from the Introduction and Title I of the bill, which is titled "Border Security":

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will be taking care of border security, working with the Departments of Justice, Agriculture, and Interior as stipulated in Title I.

DHS will aim for a 90% effective control rate of securing the border, which is found by dividing the number of apprehensions and turn backs by the total number of illegal entries in a given fiscal year (9).

Undocumented aliens can begin applying for provisional immigrant status as soon as the Secretary of DHS submits to Congress the notice of commencement of the department's border security plan. In other words, the border does not have to be secure first before the undocumented can apply for more permanent status (11).

According to page 13, the Secretary of DHS can permit registered provisional immigrants to apply for lawful permanent residence if either ten years have passed from the passage of this bill or the border security plan is being implemented, whichever comes first.

If the effective control rate hasn't been achieved in 5 years, a Southern Border Security Commission will be arranged (14).

The Secretary of DHS has to present a progress report on border security to Congress on May 15 and November 15 of every fiscal year (22).

The bill states that 180 days after it is passed, the Secretary of DHS will establish a strategy for determining how to fence the border, including what areas should be double-fenced, and what areas should be virtually fenced. No reference is made in this title of the bill to completing or enhancing the 2006 Secure the Fence Act that President Bush signed into law, which mandated that 700 miles of the 1,969 mile southern border be fenced. As of April 2009, 613 miles had been fenced with 14 feet high chain link fencing.

The border security initiatives of this bill are funded in part by $6.5 billion in initial costs plus $100 million in start-up costs, allocated from the general treasury to a new trust fund called the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Trust Fund (25). Of the $6.5 billion, $3 billion is used in 5 years to fund the Secretary of DHS' border security strategy, $2 billion will be used in 10 years for programs and activities, and $1.5 billion will be used in 5 years for the fencing strategy mentioned above. The bill also states that various (visa) fees and penalties will be used to continually fund the trust fund (27-29). It should be noted that these are only the initial and start-up costs of Title I of this bill. Many other sections in this title end in "There are authorized to be appropriated, from the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Trust Fund under section 6(a)(1), such sums as may be necessary to carry out this action," meaning it will be hard to accurately financially score this bill because its authors do not know how much what they are proposing will cost.

From 2014-2017, the number of Border Patrol agents at the southern border will be increased by 3,500, but some of that number can be Border Patrol agents re-assigned from the northern border (33).

The number of border crossing prosecutions in the Tucson, Arizona border area will increase to 210 a day, and the funding of this operation will come from the Comprehensive Immigration Trust Fund (36).

On federal land, which is defined as that land in the border region in the State of Arizona, whichever Secretary has jurisdiction over that land (whether Secretary of Agriculture or Secretary of the Interior) will hold sway in border security proceedings involving any land over which they preside (40). The Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior will confer with the Secretary of DHS to prepare and publish in the Federal Register a programmatic environmental impact statement on the border security initiatives on federal land (41). If they deem that some of the border security measures will negatively impact the environment on those federal lands, then the border security plan may need to be amended (41).

180 days after this bill is passed, the Secretary of DHS in collaboration with the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice will issue the policies concerning force they will use when implementing new border security initiatives (48).

Border security agents and immigration enforcement agents will be trained (in part) by the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, concerning stops, interrogations, searches, seizures, arrests, detentions, privacy rights, social and cultural sensitivity, and environmental concerns (49-50).

Click here to access the full text of the bill.

◼ National Federation of Republican Women

◼ NFRW Political Briefing: What You Need to Know About the Senate Immigration Bill's Border Security Provisions: First in a Series
◼ NFRW Political Briefing: What You Need to Know About the Senate Immigration Bill: Second in a Series
◼ NFRW Political Briefing: What You Need to Know About the Senate Immigration Bill: Third in a Series
◼ NFRW Political Briefing: What You Need to Know About the Senate Immigration Bill: Fourth (And Last) in a Series

The Boston Bombers Radicalization (Myth vs. Fact)

◼ Walid Shoebat was kind enough to write a brilliant article just for THE RIGHT SCOOP on the so-called ‘radicalization process’ of the Boston bombers - Read the entire piece at The Right Scoop

I got tired of watching each expert and commentator on TV hunt for the ‘radicalization’ of the Tsarnaev brothers. They began to sound more like a chiwawa’s continual bark rather than an honest view of the problem at hand.

Americans now are still being molded to think that the two brothers got transformed from peace-loving Muslims to become fanatic bomb-throwing radicals by a slow process. So the hunt is on, not to find the real culprits behind terrorism but to find clues of a radicalization process.

But the truth is that this ‘radicalization process’ is a myth coined by Americans who were gradually transformed by Muslim apologists to believe in it. Both Anwar Al-Awlaki and Feiz Muhammad, the later was who inspired the Tsarnaevs, also stated that “Islam was hijacked by a few” to later support terrorism in the open....

Todd Starnes’ article at Fox was pulled – People reporting on this, according to Glenn Beck, are being threatened by the government with up to 20 years in prison. How very fascist of them.

◼ Sleeping with the Saudis - New Zeal



◼ Glenn Beck: We know the Saudi national was involved in the bombing - the Right Scoop

“While the media continues to look at what the causes were of these two guys, there are, at this hour, three people involved,” he said. “The first one is the one we are going to address.”

Beck proceeded to highlight the background of the Saudi national first identified as a “person of interest” in the Boston bombings, Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi, noting that the the NTC issued an event file calling for his deportation using section 212, 3B which is proven terrorist activity.

“We are not sure who actually tagged him as a ’212 3B,’ but we know it is very difficult to charge someone with this — it has to be almost certain,” Beck explained. “It is the equivalent in civil society of charging someone with premeditated murder and seeking the death penalty — it is not thrown around lightly.”

“Wednesday at 5:35 p.m. the file is altered,” Beck said. “This is unheard of, this is impossible in the timeline due to the severity of the charge….You don’t one day put a 212 3B charge against somebody with deportation, and then the next day take it off. It would require too much to do it.”

“There are only two people that could revoke the deportation order — the director of the NTC could do it after speaking with each department, the FBI, the ATC, etc. — which is impossible to do in such a short period of time, — or, somebody at the very highest levels of the State Department could do it. We don’t have any evidence to tell you which one did it,” Beck said....

Devastating: Philly-area columnist asks a key, yet horrifying, Gosnell question

Wondering: Did Dr. Kermit Gosnell ever deliver a baby and let it live? #Gosnell

— jdmullane (@jdmullane) April 18, 2013

◼ Devastating. That key question should put things in perspective for those in the media who are refusing to cover the trial of Kermit Gosnell and his house of horrors. - Twitchy

◼ Gosnell Trial Witness: Baby Abortion Survivor Was 'Swimming' in Toilet 'Trying to Get Out' - CNS

On the last day of testimony before the prosecution rests in the murder trial of abortionist Kermit Gosnell, a former worker at Gosnell's clinic testified that she saw one late-term baby who survived an abortion "swimming" in a toilet and "trying to get out."

Kareema Cross, a “medical assistant” who worked at Gosnell’s Women’s Medical Society clinic for four-and-a-half years, testified in a Philadelphia court today, telling of the horrors of babies who survived abortions only to have their necks snipped with scissors....

The trial of Gosnell, 72, in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas is currently in its fifth week. He is charged with seven counts of first-degree murder (seven babies), one count of third-degree murder of a mother, as well as infanticide, conspiracy, abortion at 24 or more weeks, abuse of a corpse, theft, corruption of minors, solicitation and other related offenses.