Politics | Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: Rarebird who wrote (648384)3/20/2012 11:09:01 AM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation   of 716231
 
rarebird--the voice from the cloned Soros mind-numbed robot.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: THE WATSONYOUTH who wrote (648383)3/20/2012 11:11:57 AM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation   of 716231
 
Job applicants asked to turn over their Facebook passwords

“It’s akin to requiring someone’s house keys,” law professor says

By The Associated Press Tuesday, March 20, 2012
nydailynews.com 

Some prospective employers are demanding that job candidates share their password to the popular social networking site. Employers demand Facebook passwords SEATTLE — When Justin Bassett interviewed for a new job, he expected the usual questions about experience and references. So he was astonished when the interviewer asked for something else: his Facebook username and password.

Bassett, a New York City statistician, had just finished answering a few character questions when the interviewer turned to her computer to search for his Facebook page. But she couldn’t see his private profile. She turned back and asked him to hand over his login information.

Bassett refused and withdrew his application, saying he didn’t want to work for a company that would seek such personal information. But as the job market steadily improves, other job candidates are confronting the same question from prospective employers, and some of them cannot afford to say no.

In their efforts to vet applicants, some companies and government agencies are going beyond merely glancing at a person’s social networking profiles and instead asking to log in as the user to have a look around.

“It’s akin to requiring someone’s house keys,” said Orin Kerr, a George Washington University law professor and former federal prosecutor who calls it “an egregious privacy violation.”

Questions have been raised about the legality of the practice, which is also the focus of proposed legislation in Illinois and Maryland that would forbid public agencies from asking for access to social networks.

Since the rise of social networking, it has become common for managers to review publically available Facebook profiles, Twitter accounts and other sites to learn more about job candidates. But many users, especially on Facebook, have their profiles set to private, making them available only to selected people or certain networks.

Companies that don’t ask for passwords have taken other steps — such as asking applicants to friend human resource managers or to log in to a company computer during an interview. Once employed, some workers have been required to sign non-disparagement agreements that ban them from talking negatively about an employer on social media.

Asking for a candidate’s password is more prevalent among public agencies, especially those seeking to fill law enforcement positions such as police officers or 911 dispatchers.

Back in 2010, Robert Collins was returning to his job as a security guard at the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services after taking a leave following his mother’s death. During a reinstatement interview, he was asked for his login and password, purportedly so the agency could check for any gang affiliations. He was stunned by the request but complied.

“I needed my job to feed my family. I had to,” he recalled,

After the ACLU complained about the practice, the agency amended its policy, asking instead for job applicants to log in during interviews.

“To me, that’s still invasive. I can appreciate the desire to learn more about the applicant, but it’s still a violation of people’s personal privacy,” said Collins, whose case inspired Maryland’s legislation.

Until last year, the city of Bozeman, Mont., had a long-standing policy of asking job applicants for passwords to their email addresses, social-networking websites and other online accounts.

And since 2006, the McLean County, Ill., sheriff’s office has been one of several Illinois sheriff’s departments that ask applicants to sign into social media sites to be screened.

Chief Deputy Rusty Thomas defended the practice, saying applicants have a right to refuse. But no one has ever done so. Thomas said that “speaks well of the people we have apply.”

When asked what sort of material would jeopardize job prospects, Thomas said “it depends on the situation” but could include “inappropriate pictures or relationships with people who are underage, illegal behavior.”

In Spotsylvania County, Va., the sheriff’s department asks applicants to friend background investigators for jobs at the 911 dispatch center and for law enforcement positions.

“In the past, we’ve talked to friends and neighbors, but a lot of times we found that applicants interact more through social media sites than they do with real friends,” said Capt. Mike Harvey. “Their virtual friends will know more about them than a person living 30 yards away from them.”

Harvey said investigators look for any “derogatory” behavior that could damage the agency’s reputation.

E. Chandlee Bryan, a career coach and co-author of the book “The Twitter Job Search Guide,” said job seekers should always be aware of what’s on their social media sites and assume someone is going to look at it.

Bryan said she is troubled by companies asking for logins, but she feels it’s not a violation if an employer asks to see a Facebook profile through a friend request. And she’s not troubled by non-disparagement agreements.

“I think that when you work for a company, they are essentially supporting you in exchange for your work. I think if you’re dissatisfied, you should go to them and not on a social media site,” she said.

More companies are also using third-party applications to scour Facebook profiles, Bryan said. One app called BeKnown can sometimes access personal profiles, short of wall messages, if a job seeker allows it.

Sears is one of the companies using apps. An applicant has the option of logging into the Sears job site through Facebook by allowing a third-party application to draw information from the profile, such as friend lists.

Sears Holdings Inc. spokeswoman Kim Freely said using a Facebook profile to apply allows Sears to be updated on the applicant’s work history.

The company assumes “that people keep their social profiles updated to the minute, which allows us to consider them for other jobs in the future or for ones that they may not realize are available currently,” she said.

Giving out Facebook login information violates the social network’s terms of service. But those terms have no real legal weight, and experts say the legality of asking for such information remains murky.

The Department of Justice regards it as a federal crime to enter a social networking site in violation of the terms of service, but during recent congressional testimony, the agency said such violations would not be prosecuted.

But Lori Andrews, law professor at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law specializing in Internet privacy, is concerned about the pressure placed on applicants, even if they voluntarily provide access to social sites.

“Volunteering is coercion if you need a job,” Andrews said.

Neither Facebook nor Twitter responded to repeated requests for comment.

In New York, Bassett considered himself lucky that he was able to turn down the consulting gig at a lobbying firm.

“I think asking for account login credentials is regressive,” he said. “If you need to put food on the table for your three kids, you can’t afford to stand up for your belief.”










Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: THE WATSONYOUTH who wrote (648383)3/20/2012 12:02:45 PM
From: joseffy2 Recommendations   of 716231
 
Obama’s war on liberty


Joan R. Neubauer Monday, March 19, 2012
canadafreepress.com 

The Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate is just part of the warning salvo that the Obama administration has belched from its canons dedicated to tearing down the structure of Capitalism and rebuilding our economy and our society in the image of socialism. The initial attack came with the passage of Obamacare, that hideous monstrosity of which that Nancy Pelosi said, “We have to pass this bill so we can see what’s in it.”

Pelosi’s minions obeyed the orders of their mistress and passed the odious bill and now we have the mandate, an imperial edict spewed forth from the pen of Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of HHS. Neither she nor anyone in the administration has given any quarter on this issue. All employers must provide health insurance that includes coverage for contraceptives, sterilizations, and abortion-inducing drugs, regardless of moral or religious objections.

Make no mistake. This is not about contraception. This is about making further inroads into undermining our most basic liberties promised in the Declaration of Independence and fulfilled in the U.S. Constitution. The first Amendment says, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This mandate prohibits “...the free exercise thereof…” in that it requires those with religious or moral convictions to do something against the basic teachings of their faith. And the Catholic Church is not alone in this. People of many faiths and denominations are standing with the Catholic Church. They know this is a gross infringement upon the sacred right of religious liberty, but the administration doesn’t care because it has an agenda to advance.

That agenda is to lead us to European-style socialism. Despite the fact that socialism has caused the European economy to tank. Despite the fact its results have fomented rioting in the streets. Despite the fact that it has failed miserably. But Obama and his cohorts have an agenda, the agenda of the elites who feel they know better than the rest of us.

In addition, they have the mistaken impression that any rights We the People may have, derive from government. They, as the ruling class will decide what rights we may or may not enjoy, a concept anathema to our tradition, our sentiments, and our law. The Declaration of Independence, the very first piece of legislation passed by the very first Congress clearly states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Our rights come to us from none other than our Creator by virtue of being human.

The Bill of Rights in our Constitution took that promise and guaranteed it under law. If this mandate stands, then the government will have effectively shredded the Constitution and replaced itself as the arbiter of rights and laws. If this mandate stands, it will set a dangerous precedent, for if the government can trample religious liberty, then none of our other rights are protected either.

Think about an America where no one has the right to private property ownership, no free press, no free speech, no protection from self-incrimination, no right of assembly, no freedom from search and seizure. That is what is at stake here. Each and every one of our liberties is on the chopping block at this moment in time.

If the court upholds Obamacare and the mandate, we can kiss the Constitution goodbye. If, on the other hand, the court does the right thing and strikes it down as unconstitutional, then we can all breathe a sigh of relief, but only temporarily, because you can bet they’ll try again.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: joseffy who wrote (648390)3/20/2012 12:03:09 PM
From: joseffy   of 716231
 
If the court upholds Obamacare and the mandate, we can kiss the Constitution goodbye.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: longnshort who wrote (648373)3/20/2012 12:12:44 PM
From: joseffy4 Recommendations   of 716231
 
Newt Demands Presidential Apology For DeNiro’s ‘Inexcusable’ First Ladies Joke

TPM ^
| March 20, 2012 | Benjy Sarlin


Newt Gingrich is incensed about a joke by actor Robert DeNiro at a fundraiser attended by Michelle Obama for the president’s re-election, in which the Academy Award-winning star used the word “white” to describe the Republican field’s spouses.

“Callista Gingrich. Karen Santorum. Ann Romney. Now do you really think our country is ready for a white first lady?” DeNiro said. “Too soon, right?”

The idea, of course, is that it’s absurd to question whether America is prepared for a white first lady, given that every single married president in history before Obama has been married to one. But Gingrich, speaking at a campaign event in Shreveport, La., saw something much more sinister in DeNiro’s joke: a blatant attempt to sow racial division. He even demanded President Obama personally apologize for DeNiro’s comments.

“I do want to say one thing, both on behalf of my wife and on behalf of Karen Santorum and on behalf of Ann Romney: I think that Robert DeNiro’s wrong,” Gingrich said, according to CNN. “I think the country is ready for a new first lady and he doesn’t have to describe it in racial terms.”

After condemning DeNiro as “rich enough he probably doesn’t notice the price of gasoline,” and “successful enough he probably doesn’t notice the unemployment rate,” Gingrich continued to express outrage over the line.

“What DeNiro said last night was inexcusable and the president should apologize for him. It was at an Obama fundraiser, it is exactly wrong, it divides the country,” he said. “If people on the left want to talk about talk show hosts, then everybody in the country should hold the president accountable when someone at his event says something that is utterly and terribly unacceptable as what Robert DeNiro said.”

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: longnshort who wrote (648373)3/20/2012 12:24:42 PM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation   of 716231
 
Is the Muslim Brotherhood Coming to Brooklyn?

By: Erick Stakelbeck
cbn.com 

BROOKLYN, N.Y. - The proposed mosque at Ground Zero has sparked a heated national debate in recent months.

But just a few miles away in Brooklyn, another mega-mosque controversy is brewing.


Sheepshead Bay is "old school" New York. It's the kind of place where generations of Italians, Irish, Russians and Jews have settled, drawn by the quiet charm and waterfront view of the working class, south Brooklyn neighborhood.

Voorhies Avenue -- with its tidy, well-kept row houses-- is typical of Sheepshead Bay, except for one major difference: a gaping hole where a very expensive mosque is planned to be built.

Many of the residents of Voorhies Avenue were born and raised on the block. They brought up their families and planned to retire there.

But now they say that's all up in the air, thanks to the proposed mosque construction, smack dab in the middle of their residential street.

The Bay People

"We're basically fighting for our quality of life. People invested in their houses, in their life here," resident Victor Benari told CBN News.

Benari is a member of Bay People Inc., a local group opposed to the building of the three-story mosque on tiny Voorhies Avenue.

"Why in this nice neighborhood?" he asked. "Why not in a commercial district?"

The Bay People have expressed their concerns in several peaceful protests, only to be labeled as racists and "Islamophobes" by Muslim and left wing proponents.

"They'll have the microphone and they'll mock us, curse us," Bay People Inc. member Patty Fatone said. "They'll condemn us for what we're saying."

Freedom or Intrusion?

CBN News recently spoke with members of the Bay People. They say their opposition is not based on religion, and that the mosque would cause traffic, parking and noise issues, including the Islamic call to prayer five times a day.

"So a church or synagogue you would also oppose because of the potential quality of life issues?" CBN News asked.

"Yes," they all agreed.

"Not in this place," member David Meylakh said.

"If there was a library here, we'd be against it," member Bob G. added.

The Bay People wonder why a large mosque is planned for a residential street where no Muslim families reside. In fact, they say the small Muslim community in Sheepshead Bay is located several blocks away from the mosque site.

"We welcome the Muslim families to build a house and to be a good neighbor," Benari said. "But we will not welcome this facility in the wrong place and backed up with the wrong organization behind it."

Brotherhood Connections

That organization would be the Muslim American Society, or MAS. The group's leaders admit the organization was created by members of the radical Muslim Brotherhood -- a jihadist movement founded in Egypt that seeks to establish Islamic Sharia law worldwide.

MAS officials now attempt to distance themselves from the Brotherhood, at least publicly. But a 2004 exposé by The Chicago Tribune revealed that,

"In recent years, the U.S. Brotherhood operated under the name Muslim American Society. It was incorporated in Illinois in 1993 after a contentious debate among Brotherhood members. Then, the group's leaders decided that Brotherhood members would call themselves the Muslim American Society, or MAS."

Revelations like that have the Bay People worried about what their new neighbors might teach behind closed doors.

So do Muslim Brotherhood documents uncovered by the FBI that identify Islamic centers as "the axis" of the Brotherhood's operations in America, where "batallions" are supplied for the movement.

"How do you deal with people who embrace enemies of the United States? I cannot -- I don't think that anybody can," Bob G. said.

Sharia in America

In addition to the mosque in Sheepshead Bay, MAS recently attempted to purchase property in nearby Staten Island. Their bid was rejected after a huge public outcry.

The group did succeed, however, in opening a massive mosque outside Boston in 2009 that boasted a price tag of more than $15 million.

The Sheepshead Bay and Boston mosques follow a nationwide trend. In 2001, there were 1,200 mosques in the United States. In the past 10 years, that number has nearly doubled to more than 2,000 mosques.

One recent study published by the Middle East Quarterly journal found that 81 percent of those U.S. mosques feature Islamic literature that advocates violence.

The Bay People say New York City officials ignore all of their concerns about this and other issues.

"You take out your mortgage, you work your two jobs, you try to raise your family. And then someone comes along that, they don't want to answer you," Fatone said.

"You're just told, 'Well, you have to deal with this now. It's a house of worship,'" Fatone continued. "All the consideration is given to them. No one's met with us to hear our needs, hear our concerns."

Shady Mosque Funding?

The double lot that would house the MAS mosque went for a whopping $800,000, and construction on the facility will likely cost at least another million.

Although the property owner, a Yemeni immigrant named Ahmed Allowey, has said the funds are all locally raised, the Bay People have their doubts.

They note that Saudi Arabia has financed countless mosques across the U.S. and Europe.

"The owner -- we never hear from him," Fatone said. "He'll come to the rallies and he'll hide behind children. He'll stand behind people. But you never see him at the front of the barricade."

Allowey and MAS leaders in Brooklyn did not respond to CBN News' repeated requests for comment. Their Voorhies Avenue property already faces some $30,000 in fines for building violations.

A Mosque in Your Backyard

The Bay People say their best chance to stop the mosque would be to convince the city of New York to change zoning laws that they believe are outdated.

They warn their fight has ramifications far beyond Brooklyn.

"If it can happen here, it can happen anywhere," Bob G. told CBN News. "Believe me, it's coming to your neighborhood next."

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

From: bentway3/20/2012 12:35:06 PM
   of 716231
 
Potential Matchup Between Black Man and Mormon Poses Dilemma for Bigots




Nowhere to Turn, Disgruntled Haters Say






NEW YORK ( The Borowitz Report) – With a fall presidential contest between President Barack Obama and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney seeming increasingly likely, America’s bigots are finding themselves in a quandary over which candidate to support, prominent bigots confirmed today.

Across the U.S., voters who describe themselves as bigots are complaining that a first-ever matchup between a Black man and a Mormon, while historic, is forcing them to ask a difficult question: which group do they hate more?

“I’ve always seen myself as pretty versatile, bigotry-wise,” said Herb Torlinson, a hardware salesman from Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. “But I guess this is going to be an election that really puts my different hates to the test.”

At the Clapboard Corner Café in Youngstown, Ohio, a group of bigots who gather for breakfast once a week to discuss their dislike of various racial and religious groups echoed Mr. Torlinson’s sentiments.

“I actually cried when Rick Perry dropped out of the race,” said David Colehurn, a disgruntled hater who works at a nearby Pep Boys. “He may be brain-damaged and all, but at least he’s White and Christian.”

Mr. Colehurn said that his bigotry towards both Black people and Mormons was making him entertain thoughts of voting for a third-party candidate, but that he was “turned off” by the possibility of a bid from Texas congressman Ron Paul: “I hate old people.”

In other political news, former Sen. Rick Santorum revealed that he made his first sweater vest himself when he tore off the sleeves of his straitjacket.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: i-node who wrote (648387)3/20/2012 12:40:15 PM
From: joseffy2 Recommendations   of 716231
 
The “Young Co-Ed” and the Contraception Controversy

Right Side News ^ | Monday, 19 March 2012 | Staff

An in-depth look at Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown Law student who demands that health insurers pay for birth control, abortifacients, abortions, and sterilization procedures – even at religious institutions that object to such requirements on moral grounds.

Born in 1981, Sandra Fluke graduated from Cornell University in 2003 with bachelor's degrees in (a) Policy Analysis & Management, and (b) Feminist, Gender, & Sexuality Studies. She subsequently worked with the New York City-based Sanctuary for Families, which provides services for victims of domestic violence and sex trafficking. Fluke also interned with the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund and a number of other organizations dealing with those two issues.

Prior to commencing her legal studies at Georgetown Law School in 2009, Fluke researched the Jesuit university's health plans for students and found, to her dismay, that they did not cover birth control, abortifacients, or medical abortion procedures. Resolving that “I was absolutely not willing to compromise the quality of my education in exchange for my health care,” Fluke enrolled at Georgetown and then spent the next three years lobbying the school's administration to change its policy on the issue. Also during her stay at Georgetown, Fluke worked as development editor of the Journal of Gender and the Law; served as president of Law Students for Reproductive Justice; was vice president of the Women’s Legal Alliance; and became affiliated with Amnesty International, the National Lawyers Guild, and the Georgetown Democrats.

Some congressional Democrats invited Fluke to speak at a February 16, 2012 hearing on the constitutionality of the “Obamacare” mandate requiring religiously affiliated hospitals, schools, charities, and other health and social-service agencies to provide “free” abortifacient pills, sterilizations, and contraception on demand in their insurance plans—even if doing so violated their own moral codes and the teachings of their churches. But Rep. Darrell Issa (R-California), who chaired the hearing, did not permit Fluke to speak, on grounds that Democrats had submitted her name too late to be considered. Fluke stayed for the first few moments of the hearing, during which a representative of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops spoke, and then walked out in protest along with the Democratic women who sat on the committee.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) continued to push for Fluke to testify before a congressional panel. Maloney had ties to a progressive pollster, Celinda Lake, whose firm—Lake Research—had recently done work for both Maloney and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Lake also had conducted extensive polling which led her to conclude that if Republican opposition to insurance coverage for birth control could be framed as a “women's rights” issue, Democrats could add significantly to their political support from female voters.

As a result of Maloney's and Pelosi's persistence, Fluke testified before an unofficial congressional hearing led by Pelosi on February 23, 2012. Identifying herself as “an American woman who uses contraceptives,” Fluke lamented that many women employed by religiously affiliated entities had “suffered financial, emotional, and medical burdens because of this lack of contraceptive coverage”; that “without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school”; that “forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy”; and that “this policy communicates to female students that our school doesn’t understand our needs.”

Six days later, radio host Rush? Limbaugh disparaged Fluke on his program as a “slut” and a “prostitute” who “is having so much sex she can't afford contraception,” and who “wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex.” After Limbaugh's comments, President Barack Obama called Fluke to express his support for her. According to Fluke, the President “thanked me for helping to amplify the voices of women across the country ... Beyond that, he also just wanted to express concern and make sure that I was okay, which I thought was very kind and I assured him I was.”

On March 3, ?Limbaugh posted a statement online in which he publicly apologized to Fluke for his “insulting word choices.” Appearing on ABC's The View two days later, Fluke said that Limbaugh's apology was insufficient. Limbaugh then apologized again, saying he had “acted too much like the leftists who despise me.”

Fox News host Bill O’Reilly reasoned that the “Sandra Fluke contraception controversy was manufactured to divert attention away from the Obama administration’s disastrous decision to force [Catholic] organizations to provide insurance coverage for birth control and the ‘morning after’ pill.”

Soon after the controversy had arisen, SKDKnickerbocker, a public-relations agency whose managing director is former White House communications director Anita Dunn, began representing Fluke.

In early March 2012, professors, staffers and students at Georgetown and other law schools signed a statement that “strongly condemn[ed] the recent personal attacks on our student.” One signatory was Georgetown law professor Rosa Brooks, who had served from 2009-2011 as the Obama administration’s adviser to the undersecretary of defense for policy. Journalist Aaron Klein pointed out that yet another close Obama associate, John Podesta, was a visiting professor at Georgetown Law School during the Fluke controversy.

In addition to her views on insurance coverage for contraception and abortifacients, Fluke also believes that health insurance policies should be required—on pain of legal action—to pay for sex-change operations. A Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law article which Fluke co-edited with Karen Hu lamented that because of widespread “ignorance and bias against transgender persons,” individuals “wishing to undergo the gender reassignment process frequently face heterosexist employer health insurance policies that label the surgery as cosmetic or medically unnecessary and therefore uncovered.”

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: joseffy who wrote (648393)3/20/2012 12:54:51 PM
From: puborectalis   of 716231
 
Because Romney has been at times a businessman and at times a politician, at times a pragmatist and at times an ideologue, it’s hard to know exactly who would be taking office as president if he were nominated and elected.

Not that it matters. Because both Romneys would have let the U.S. auto industry go down the tubes. If Romney wants to run as an economic heavyweight, he should stand by his record, and voters should decide just how valid a claim that is.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

From: bentway3/20/2012 1:09:53 PM
1 Recommendation   of 716231
 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.