Written Articles - Transportation Security Administration: Fill & Download for Free

The only thing that might stop someone from buying insulin in Mexico is at Customs (entering and exiting). Also, I am assuming what you mean by “coming back” is that you mean coming back into the US.Buying Insulin From Abroad: Is it Legal and Is it Safe?Here are some highlights from the article:—Since insulin is available in the United States, importing it from Canada or Mexico would be considered illegal.—Certainly, many people take a trip across the border to obtain less expensive insulin. In fact, in some cases, the practice of traveling abroad to obtain less expensive drugs is being encouraged. Recently, a Utah insurer announced it would fund a program to pay some patients to travel to Mexico to save money on costly drugs; insulin was not included in the list of drugs covered under the program. Still, it’s important to know that this practice is a legal gray area.—If you are bringing insulin into the United States, you’ll either be dealing with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) by land or the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) by air.The two agencies’ policies differ on bringing in drugs for personal use, but the FDA offers some guidelines:-If you are attempting to bring insulin back into the U.S., it’s best to have it in its original bottle.-You should have a valid prescription or a doctor’s note, written in English, saying you are allowed to bring the medication into the country.-Generally, you should bring no more than a 90-day supply.-Insulin imported by Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi comes from facilities inspected and certified by the FDA. U.S health regulators warn that insulin purchased over the counter in other countries likely will have no such guarantees. (Of course, it may be inspected and deemed safe by local health regulators.)Another helpful article (with regards to prescription mediation) is:How to Clear U.S. Customs When Exiting Mexico | Mexpro“U.S. Customs imposes a few limits on every person entering the United States from Mexico. The important limits you need to know are:—All prescription drugs must be FDA approved and include the original prescription.Additionally, you should also have certain documents handy, one being for prescriptions and proof of purchase for items purchased in Mexico.I hope this helps. These articles were the best ones I could find with the rules and regulations for bringing insulin back into the US.

I’ve had to ask drunk and disorderly passengers to leave the airplane before departure. I’ve also had two incidents of passengers fighting each other on board. I’ve never had to divert the airplane to deplane a dangerous passenger. 99.99% of passengers are polite, courteous and will gladly follow the crews instructions. That .01% can get themselves into very deep trouble. Usually alcohol is a factor.It’s against federal law and has harsh penalties attached.Here’s the scoop:49 U.S. Code § 46504.Interference with flight crew members and attendantsAn individual on an aircraft in the jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.Here’s an article I copied and pasted. I think it has pretty good advice.These days, air travel rarely brings out the best in anyone. But hitting, threatening, or interfering with a crewmember working on an airplane violates federal law and can result in a felony conviction. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) can also impose substantial fines.For more information on the laws surrounding air travel, see Disobeying a Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Official.Assaulting a CrewmemberThe federal law aims to protect passengers and crew, making it illegal to interfere with the crew (flight attendants and pilots). Assaulting them (injuring or attempting to injure them), intimidating them, or attempting or conspiring to do so can result in a felony conviction if the defendant has interfered with the performance of the crewmember’s duties. Defendants who use a dangerous weapon (any object that can be used or is used to cause death or serious bodily injury) can be punished more severely than those who do not.(49 U.S.C. § 46504.)For example, striking a flight attendant or trying to hurt a pilot on an airplane would probably be considered assault on a crewmember.Interfering With a CrewmemberActions that don’t rise to the level of a physical assault (or the threat of an assault) can nonetheless dangerously affect the ability of the crew to keep the plane flying safely. Accordingly, the FAA can impose civil penalties (fines) for interfering with a crewmember who is performing official duties aboard an aircraft that is being operated. Almost any offensive or disruptive behavior that distracts the crew can be considered interference, such as:physically blocking a flight attendant from walking down the aisle or out of the galleydisobeying repeated requests to sit down, return to your seat, or turn off an electronic devicemaking threats to hurt a flight attendant, a pilot, or anyone else on the airplane, andfrom the ground, shining a laser beam into a cockpit.(14 C.F.R. § § 91.11, 121.580, 135.120.)It can be difficult to tell the difference between an assault and interference—but the difference is crucial. As just explained, interference is a civil wrong, and assault is a criminal offense. And in fact, any sort of offensive touching or threats against a crewmember can constitute both interference and assault. Usually, however, people are charged with assault only if they physically attack a crewmember or cause injury.Keeping Your Cool at 30,000 FeetAny time you disobey a crewmember’s instructions, you run the risk of violating federal law. But civil penalties and criminal prosecutions usually result only when passengers repeatedly ignore, argue with, or disobey flight attendants; or when they act out in a way that is dangerous.To avoid trouble in case of a disagreement:If possible, do as you are asked.Do not raise your voice or make threats.If you’re having a problem with an attendant, ask to speak to the flight attendant in charge.Never, ever touch a crewmember.If you feel that you’ve been treated unfairly, you can file a complaint against a crewmember with the airline or the Department of Transportation’s Aviation Consumer Protection Division.PenaltiesAssault. Assaulting a crewmember is punishable by up to 20 years’ imprisonment, and a fine of up to $250,000. If a dangerous weapon is used, the defendant can be imprisoned for life.(18 U.S.C. § 3571, 49 U.S.C. § 46504.)Interference. The maximum civil penalty for interfering with a crewmember is a fine of up to $25,000. (49 U.S.C. § 46318.)To impose a fine, the FAA files a notice of a proposed civil penalty. The passenger can request a hearing, which will be held before a federal Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). Usually, both the FAA and the passenger are allowed to present evidence, and the passenger can (and should) be represented by an attorney. After a hearing, the judge announces his or her decision, and sometimes issues a written decision. If either the passenger or the FAA requests review, the FAA Administrator reviews the judge’s decision. Either party may then appeal the Administrator’s decision by filing an appeal in a Federal Court of Appeals.

"I am a conservative orphan, stranded on a deserted island, surrounded by liberal sharks." ByronThanks for the ATA Eric Fair. This must need to be a lengthy and complex answer. Fortunately I have only to copy and paste several of my existing answers that don't always get widely read. This is long but necessary because conservatism can't be explained in a 15 second sound bite. Let me introduce a few of my points with a cartoon that says volumes about the Keynesian's views and the liberal's views on conservatism. Then I will expound further on conservatism.I see this anti-conservative attitude a lot:From: Fair and balanced conservative here...Here is an attempt to fight for sensible conservative government:Tom Byron's answer to Do all conservatives on Quora eventually get banned? Is Quora itself innately liberal?We need more attitudes like I explain here: Tom Byron's answer to How would you fix the US economy?I have a list of conservative ideas/proposals in my (not too widely read blog Byron's Blog):We Are Not The Party Of NoRepublicans need to make a serious and a drastic change. This may sound easy, but it will be difficult. There will be opposition. Republicans need an image make-over, and a rebranding of a new party. A party that restores us to the policies that saw a growing economy; encouraged individual responsibility, and less, not more government. The citizens in in this country are yearning to be free of the yoke of excess power and excess taxation of a burgeoning central government. The power of an EPA (see below in a list of many government agencies), for example, that can place you in jail for building on your own property. We need to redefine how much is too much, and balance freedom and the powerful entrepreneurship that is "America", against the power to over tax and over regulate. Unfettered! Increasingly this burdensome government desires to expand and operate counter to Americans who wish to make their own way.Our collective house is "on fire". We need to save our "library of knowledge" before the building we call Republicanism burns to the ground and everything is lost! Just like the ancient Library at Alexandria, Egypt was lost.http://www.ancient.eu.com/article/207/How?There are fewer things in government more important than fostering a dialogue with the public and developing a sense of confidence. The people's voices do matter! This is missing in today's Washington political scene. We can, and should, change our message, as we battle this "blaze". Calling the fire department (contact your state and federal Senators and/or Representatives) is only the first step. You need to have fire drills (community meetings) occasionally and a plan.A government that fosters dependency does so at the expense of individual choice. There are currently (as of October, 2013) more people receiving government benefits than are working full time. This trend is troublesome. It must stop.We need to heal our differences internally before we can unite the public. First we need a government that is, "of the people", not OF THE GOVERNMENT!Can we unite the TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party, the moderate Republicans, the conservative Republicans? We must! We need to unite in a common voice, and agree on our common goals—The U.S. Constitution being our foundation and our common document for going forward."United we stand, divided we fall". http://amhistory.si.edu/1942/campaign/campaign24.html...EPAOur Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) needs to be overhauled. Regulations that protect the environment, at the expense of economic expansion, need to be studied for their impact on jobs and tax receipts to the federal government. Priorities need to be in place to give the final say to continuing a project only after congress has a vote on the matter. Congress is elected by the public, answerable to the public, whereas the EPA is run by unaccountable and unelected bureaucrats. Any President should not be permitted to bypass the U.S. Congress to enact laws without approval.FOREIGN POLICYA policy of asking forgiveness for our Americanism and freedom for the individual can not become an American policy. Too many have died defending this country. Too many lives have been invested spreading what people come to America for—Freedom.We need to engage in a dialogue with our foreign leaders without ceding authority to them. We need to foster trust, not by tapping their telephones, but through open face-to-face discussions.DIPLOMACYOur enemies don't fear us and our allies don't trust us, we need to reverse this trend. We must engage with our foreign leaders in a positive way. We must stand for what America stands for, human rights, freedom of the individual, peace through strength, and stability.MILITARYOur military needs to be strengthened. It is not a test-bed for political correctness.Our military men and women must be honored at home and around the globe. They must be given all the tools they need and know that no matter what happens of where the enemy arises—their lives and mission is protected with the full backing of our troops and our leaders.DEBTSomeday debt will matter. Today is that day. We can and will become dependent on the government, if we continue to permit the government to become an ever increasingly large part of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). We need to increase jobs and foster a climate that I creases jobs. Taxes should be our primary source of revenue to fund our expenditures, not debt. We currently spend more on interest payments than we do on education. That means our priorities must change.SPENDINGWhen programs grow from year to year and the relative size of the increase is reduced year-over-year, this is not a "spending cut".TAXESWe need a flat or fair tax system in this country. We need zero-based budgeting. We need honesty in spending by acknowledging that a reduction in an increase in spending is not "tax reduction". It is a reduction in an increase only. We need to time our budget discussions to tax filing time. If we pass a budget by October and taxes are paid (to the IRS) in April, is this timing on purpose? They are 6 months apart, and people forget, and politicians make promises they forgot or ignore.CRIMEOur crime in some areas of our country are widely reported and we are very aware of the daily shootings. We need to address the problems that lead to this tragic result.I have a lengthy answer here.Is poverty a root cause of gun violence in the US?EDUCATIONWe have a competitive problem with our current educational system. We are not competitive. We are too often "teaching to the test".We have teachers' unions that are too strong and out themselves ahead of students.HEALTH CARELack of tort reform and insurance portability are the main drivers of health care cost increases. Creating a massive entitlement, government-run, federally subsidized program is not what a capitalist country creates. European-style socialist systems are fine for European-style socialist governments. Not in America. We have the best doctors, hospitals, treatments, and research of most any place in the world. Government take-over of a significant portion of the U.S. economy is not going to get everyone insured, with access to doctors, hospitals and medical treatment. We already have the structure in place. Fine. The access is unaffordable to many people due to rising increases in medical procedures. This is due primarily to drug regulations (costs) and legal regulations (malpractice insurance) raising the cost of treatment and affordability. The government has never had the ability to be less expensive than the private sector because it is tax-driven and not profit-driven.How are Americans faring under Obama care thus far?TERRORISMIf we must be in the Middle East, we must work rapidly to develop our own National Energy Plan. Five years. We are only creating more hatred of America by continuing with our presence in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq, Libya, and northern Africa.We must stop funding terrorism through petro-dollars. Our oil money flows to The Middle East. This must be ended.JOBSThe employment problem in this country needs to be addressed. The labor participation rate has fallen to historic lows, and the numbers of people on Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), and we are told that unemployment is only 7.2%. This is not true and is unacceptable. There are too many part time jobs being created. The 40 hour work week that we has prospered under, is going the way of dial-telephones.The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 is the main driver. This must be stopped.POLLUTIONWe need an effective plan to address pollution, but not to the extent that industries and the local economy is imperiled through sudden changes and retro-active regulations. We don't need to kill and industry to correct it. Coal regulations come to mind. If fixing the amount of carbon emissions by increasing costs on power production to confiscatory levels is not a war policy.GUN CONTROLWe need a sensible debate on this issue. It is closely associated with crime in much of America. Crime has its roots in the same conditions as guns being used to commit those crimes.Licensing, testing and back ground checks need to be reviewed and corrected at the state level.Also see "CRIME" above.FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM (FRS)The entire concept of a quasi private/federal bank run by appointed people and heavily influenced by our political leaders is a dangerous policy. The FRS creates bubbles, then corrects them and operates as both the villain and the hero. Bad policy. We need a review and an audit of the FRS as a starting point. Read "The Creature From Jekyll Island", G. Edward Griffin. For a better understanding, see my answers here:http://www.quora.com/Tom-Byron/answers/U-S-Federal-Reserve?share=1ENTITLEMENTSWe need to address extensive use of EBT cards for food, and WIC (Women, Infant and Children) programs. There are too many in this program illegally and many are abusing the system. There needs to be closer control and better auditing to reduce this waste. It also should not become a career, of dependency.CITY AND STATE PENSIONS,BAILOUT OF 2008 FINANCIAL CRISISA program that allows cities and states to depend on open or "back door bailouts" in the form of block grants and assistance to states and municipalities should be closely examined. My discussion here on a notable headline is more specific.Has the Obama administration finally got it right, that the 2008 financial crisis was caused by government?What are the implications of Detroit filing for bankruptcy?IMMIGRATIONA cohesive plan for immigration must begin with a streamlined citizenship program. Waiting 10 years in line or even 3 years in line, will not work.FOOD STAMPSWe have to reform this growing entitlement. People need to perform some community service to continue to remain eligible. We need to eliminate fraud and make it impossible to sell food stamps to others not qualified to receive them. More people than ever are receiving this entitlement and costs have sky rocketed. Yet, poverty rates in this country remain constant. Why? The answer seems to be that there is a disincentive to work. This must change. Helping the poor is a noble endeavor, but allowing the government to create a dynamic where it is more profitable to accept assistance than work is even worse.DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICEThis agency must be accountable to the American people. Policies like dealing with foreign governments and running guns to track criminals must not ever happen again. Fast and Furious was an example of a government that is too large and not accountable. We need an Attorney General who upholds the rule of law and is not above the rule of law.Our Transportation Security Agency (TSA) and our Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) are our first line of defense in national security. We must have full faith and trust in them. Post the Boston Marathon Bombing, and Fast and Furious, our comfort in knowing these agencies can protect us has been shaken.My Conservative Plan for 2014 & 2016Are the Republicans"The party of No!"?Are the Democrats the party of "It's Bush's fault."? Let's examine that and where that answer takes us.PROLOGUEThere is a Presidential election in 2016, and it is not too early to start thinking about what is happening today. A full throated debate that will begin early in 2014. The Congressional mid-terms occur 04 Nov 2014. Republicans need to prepare. America needs to decide. Maintain course or make an adjustment. Both sides of this debate have their reasons for staying the course or making a hard turn.This map shows the Senate by party and by state. PPACA was passed under some chicanery by the Senate Democrats, with no Republicans voting in the affirmative. More on that in a moment. This type of legislation has been pushed by Republicans in some form, notably Rommey Care in Massachusetts, and in more dynamic forms by Democrats, for over the last 75 years. Since the New Deal under FDR.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••The bill sent to the Senate, by the House, had the original House language in the bill gutted. The Senate had the language replaced and sent back to the House. All spending must originate in the House, and this bill fundamentally violates the Constitution."A challenge filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation contends that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional because the bill originated in the Senate, not the House. Under the Origination Clause of the Constitution, all bills raising revenue must begin in the House.The Supreme Court upheld most provisions of the act in June, but Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. took pains in the majority opinion to define Obamacare as a federal tax, not a mandate. That was when the Sacramento, Calif.-based foundation’s attorneys had their “aha” moment.“The court there quite explicitly says, ‘This is not a law passed under the Commerce Clause; this is just a tax,’” foundation attorney Timothy Sandefur said at a Cato Institute forum on legal challenges to the health care act. “Well, then the Origination Clause ought to apply. The courts should not be out there carving in new exceptions to the Origination Clause.” http://www.freerepublic.com/focu...http://cookpolitical.com/file/20...••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••Here is some Senate math on the seats as the 2014 mid-term elections approach.House seats in play:http://www.centerforpolitics.org...Senate seats in playhttp://rothenbergpoliticalreport...••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••15 Democrat Senate seats (*) are competitive, and 2 Republican(**) seats are competitive.(*) Oregon,(*) Alaska,(*) Hawaii,(*) Montana,(*) Colorado,(*) Minnesota,(*) South Dakota,(*) Iowa,(*) Missouri,(*) Louisiana,(*) Michigan,(*) West Virginia,(**) Kentucky(**) Georgia(*) North Carolina,(*) New Hampshire,(*) Massachusetts,http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...CHAPTER ONEThe debate on who should be elected, and how to secure a dominate party to ease this country away from the Progressive movement that has been underway since 20 Jan 2009, needs to begin yesterday!Will the Republican's blame Obama, since the Democrats can't blame Bush anymore in 2014? Will the Democrats be blamed for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, since "the bloom was off this rose" before it was jammed down our throats? The Republicans will be blamed for not helping fix something they vehemently disagreed with, never voted for, and tried to compromise on or defeat, but were rebuffed at every opportunity. It was going to be the Progressive's moment, finally, after scores of years. Generations of effort. Now was the chance, with a "Manchurian Candidate" to have a true "Mission Accomplished" moment!What will be the key issues after all the finger pointing is dismissed by both parties, and the media ignores the entire story as Republican obstruction?It should be the economy. It should be jobs. It should be energy; finally—no more "put on a sweater (Jimmy Carter) turn down the thermostat policy", for energy independence. We have the energy, we just have too many modern day "Luddites" who are afraid their "save the planet" jobs and the Earth will be destroyed. We will only be able to "save the planet" when we restore science and remove politics from the debate. Until then, the hateful ads that depict Santa as being melted out of the North Pole, and thus no more Christmas for the kids, is deplorable. This does nothing to advance the Environmentalist's cause.There should be a debate on privacy and the 4th Amendment. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."It should be about the separation of powers, the "take care clause" in Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 7"Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.""There has been an erosion of the separation of powers under the current administration, and were outline in a Dec.4, 2013 House Judiciary hearing. See below for additional statements from that hearing.Statement of Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob GoodlatteFull Committee Hearing “The President’s Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws”Chairman Goodlatte: Today’s hearing is about the President’s role in our constitutional system.Our system of government is a tripartite one, with each branch having certain defined functions delegated to it by the Constitution. The President is charged with executing the laws; the Congress with writing the laws; and the Judiciary with interpreting them.The Obama Administration, however, has ignored the Constitution’s carefully balanced separation of powers and unilaterally granted itself the extra-constitutional authority to amend the laws and to waive or suspend their enforcement.This raw assertion of authority goes well beyond the “executive power” granted to the President and specifically violates the Constitution’s command that the President is to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”The President’s encroachment into Congress’s sphere of power is not a transgression that should be taken lightly. As English historian Edward Gibbon famously observed regarding the fall of the Roman Empire, “the principles of a free constitution are irrevocably lost, when the legislative power is dominated by the executive.” Although the President’s actions may not yet amount to the executive’s powers overtaking the legislative power, they are certainly undermining the rule of law that is at the center of our constitutional design.From Obamacare to immigration, the current administration is picking and choosing which laws to enforce. But the Constitution does not confer upon the President the “executive authority” to disregard the separation of powers by unilaterally waiving, suspending, or revising the laws. It is a bedrock principle of constitutional law that the President must “faithfully execute” Acts of Congress. The President cannot refuse to enforce a law simply because he dislikes it.Certainly, presidents have from time to time made broad claims of executive power. However, assertions of executive authority have traditionally been limited to the area in which presidential powers are at their strongest—foreign affairs.The Obama Administration though has been equally assertive in the realm of domestic policy, routinely making end runs around Congress through broad claims of prosecutorial discretion and regulatory actions that push executive power beyond all limits. Indeed, President Obama is the first President since Richard Nixon to ignore a duly-enacted law simply because he disagrees with it.In place of the checks and balances established by the Constitution, President Obama has proclaimed that “I refuse to take ‘no’ for an answer” and that “where [Congress] won’t act, I will.” Throughout the Obama presidency we have seen a pattern: President Obama circumvents Congress when he doesn’t get his way.For instance, while Congress is currently debating how to reform our immigration laws, the President effectively enacted the DREAM Act himself by ordering immigration officials to stop enforcing the immigration laws against certain unlawful immigrants. When he couldn’t get his preferred changes to the No Child Left Behind education law, he unilaterally waived its testing accountability provisions. When he objected to the work requirements in the bipartisan welfare reform law, he granted waivers that are specifically forbidden by the statutory text. Instead of working with Congress to amend federal drug enforcement policy, he’s instructed prosecutors to stop enforcing certain drug laws in certain states and mandatory minimum sentences for certain offenses.And, most notably, the President has—without statutory authorization—waived, suspended, and amended several major provisions of his health care law. These unlawful modifications to Obamacare include: delaying for one year Obamacare’s employer mandate; instructing States that they are free to ignore the law’s clear language regarding which existing health care plans may be grandfathered; and promulgating an IRS rule that allows for the distribution of billions of dollars in Obamacare subsidies that Congress never authorized.The House has acted to validate retroactively some of the President’s illegal Obamacare modifications. However, rather than embrace these legislative fixes, the President’s response has been to threaten to veto the House passed measures.The President’s far-reaching claims of executive power, if left unchecked, will vest the President with broad domestic policy authority that the Constitution does not grant him.Those in the President’s political party have been largely silent in the face of this dangerous expansion of executive power. But what would they say if a president effectively repealed the environmental laws by refusing to sue polluters or the labor laws by refusing to fine violators?What if a president wanted tax cuts that Congress would not enact? Could he instruct the IRS to decline to enforce the income tax laws? President George H. W. Bush proposed, unsuccessfully, a reduction in the capital gains rate. Should he have instead simply instructed the IRS not to tax capital gains at a rate greater than 10 percent?The point is not what you think of any of President Obama’s individual policy decisions. The point is that the President may not—consistent with the command that he faithfully execute the laws—unilaterally amend, waive, or suspend the law.We must resist the President’s deliberate pattern of circumventing the legislative branch in favor of administrative decision making.We cannot allow the separation of powers enshrined in our Constitution to be abandoned in favor of an undue concentration of power in the executive branch. As James Madison warned centuries ago in Federalist 47, “the accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hands . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”http://judiciary.house.gov/heari...Written Statement Jonathan Turley,Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law George Washington University"The President's Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws" Committee on the Judiciary United States House of Representatives 2141 Rayburn House Office Building December 3, 2013 http://judiciary.house.gov/heari...Two recent rulings from a District Judge lay a heavy emphasis on these complaints above. They go directly to the encroachment of a President on the separation of powers, and diminish our freedoms.Judges rulings against OBAMAJudge orders Obama foreign aid order releasedRejecting one of the Obama White House's most aggressive attempts to preserve executive branch secrecy, a federal judge Tuesday ordered the disclosure of a government-wide foreign-aid directive President Barack Obama signed in 2010 but refused to make public.The Justice Department asserted that the Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development was covered by executive privilege, even though it is unclassified and reflected standing guidance to agencies rather than advice given to the president.Acting on a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by the Center for Effective Government, U.S. District Court Judge Ellen Huvelle concluded that the presidential order is not properly within the bounds of the so-called "presidential communications privilege." The judge went further, calling "troubling" the sweeping nature of the government's argument's in the case."This is not a case involving 'a quintessential and nondelegable Presidential power' — such as appointment and removal of Executive Branch officials...where separation of powers concerns are at their highest. Instead, the development and enactment of foreign development policy can be and is “exercised or performed without the President’s direct involvement," Huvelle wrote in her opinion.Huvelle noted that she ordered the document delivered to her under seal last month and said she disagreed with the government's contention that the order is "'revelatory of the President's deliberations' such that its public disclosure would undermine future decision-making." She also found that "'the President's ability to communicate his [final] decisions privately' ... is not implicated, since the [order] was distributed far beyond the President’s close advisers and its substance was widely discussed by the President in the media.""Here there is no evidence that the [directive] was intended to be, or has been treated as, a confidential presidential communication," wrote Huvelle, a Clinton appointee.The Obama Administration argued that the distribution of the document was restricted to those with a "need to know," but the judge dismissed that contention as "amorphous.""The government has not, even after plaintiff raised the issue...defined what 'need to know' means," Huvelle wrote.The judge also suggested the administration had lost sight of the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act and transparency itself."The government appears to adopt the cavalier attitude that the President should be permitted to convey orders throughout the Executive Branch without public oversight ... to engage in what is in effect governance by 'secret law,'" Huvelle said.The White House referred a request for comment on the ruling to the Justice Department, which did not immediately respond to a query about the case.http://www.politico.com/blogs/un...••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••Judge: NSA phone program likely unconstitutionalThe ruling is the first significant legal setback for the NSA’s surveillance program.A federal judge ruled Monday that the National Security Agency program which collects information on nearly all telephone calls made to, from or within the United States is likely unconstitutional.U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon found that the program appears to violate the Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches and seizures. He also said the Justice Department had failed to demonstrate that collecting the information had helped to head off terrorist attacks.Acting on a lawsuit brought by conservative legal activist Larry Klayman, Leon issued a preliminary injunction barring the NSA from collecting so-called metadata pertaining to the Verizon accounts of Klayman and one of his clients. However, the judge stayed the order to allow for an appeal.“I cannot imagine a more ‘indiscriminate’ and ‘arbitrary invasion’ than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen for purposes of querying it and analyzing it without judicial approval,” wrote Leon, an appointee of President George W. Bush.The preliminary injunction Leon granted Monday does not require him to make a definitive ruling on the constitutional questions in the case, but does take account of which side he believes is more likely to prevail.Leon’s 68-page opinion is the first significant legal setback for the NSA’s surveillance program since it was disclosed in June in news stories based on leaks from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. For seven years, the metadata program has been approved repeatedly by numerous judges on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and found constitutional by at least one judge sitting in a criminal case.The Justice Department persuaded those courts that the collection of information on the time and length of calls, as well as the numbers called, did not amount to a search under the Fourth Amendment because that information is routinely available to telephone companies for billing purposes and is shared with those firms voluntarily.Government lawyers and the judges who found the NSA program legal pointed to a 1979 Supreme Court ruling, Smith v. Maryland, which found no search warrant was needed by police to install a device which recorded the numbers dialed on a particular phone line.But Leon said the three-decade-old precedent was not applicable to a program like the NSA’s because of its sophistication and because telephone use has become far more intense in recent years.“The ubiquity of phones has dramatically altered the quantity of information that is now available and, more importantly, what that information can tell the Government about people’s lives,” the judge wrote. “I cannot possibly navigate these uncharted Fourth Amendment waters using as my North Star a case that predates the rise of cell phones.”The judge went on to conclude that the searches involved in the NSA metadata program were likely not permissible under the Fourth Amendment in part because there was little evidence the program has actually prevented terrorism.“I have significant doubts about the efficacy of the metadata collection program as a means of conducting time-sensitive investigations in cases involving imminent threats of terrorism,” Leon wrote. “The government does not cite a single instance in which analysis of the NSA’s bulk metadata collection actually stopped an imminent attack, or otherwise aided the Government in achieving any objective that was time-sensitive in nature.”Edward Snowden himself praised the decision.“I acted on my belief that the NSA’s mass surveillance programs would not withstand a constitutional challenge, and that the American public deserved a chance to see these issues determined by open courts. Today, a secret program authorized by a secret court was, when exposed to the light of day, found to violate Americans’ rights. It is the first of many.”The judge’s ruling was issued just before White House press secretary Jay Carney took the podium for the daily press briefing. Carney said he was unaware of the decision and he referred inquiries to the Justice Department.“We are reviewing the court’s decision,” DOJ spokesman Andrew Ames said.Similar lawsuits challenging the program are pending in at least three other federal courts around the country. In addition, criminal defendants are beginning to challenge the program after the Justice Department disclosed it had played a role in investigating their cases.Critics of the NSA program leapt on Leon’s decision as evidence that the legal foundation of the surveillance effort is deeply flawed.“The ruling underscores what I have argued for years: The bulk collection of Americans’ phone records conflicts with Americans’ privacy rights under the U.S. Constitution and has failed to make us safer,” Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) said in a statement urging passage of legislation ending the so-called bulk collection program. “We can protect our national security without trampling our constitutional liberties,” he added.At a hearing last month, Leon said he knew that his decision would be far from the last word on the issue, which is almost certain to wind up at the Supreme Court.However, he added some flair to his opinion Monday, referring at one point to the Beatles and at another to Federalist Papers author James Madison, who later became president.“Surely, such a program infringes on ‘that degree of privacy’ that the Founders enshrined in the Fourth Amendment. Indeed, I have little doubt that the author of our Constitution, James Madison, who cautioned us to beware ‘the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power’ would be aghast,” the judge wrote.http://www.politico.com/story/20...There is little doubt that the public's appetite for this level of overreach will help the Democrats position in the next two election cycles ('14 and '16), and this is central to this discussion here.CHAPTER TWOVarious other "phony scandals" according to President Obama that the American public is not buying.(1) Obama, without Congressional approval or consideration, unilaterally chose to specifically violate the oath of office (see quoted above) and by deferring the implementation of the ACA for the employer mandate did extend it by one year. This is a clear violation of the constitution.(2) The President did not seek Congressional approval to invade and subsequently overthrow the President of Libya.(3) CENSUS.gov Mess in 2012 where election was influencedByron's Blog: Which are the phony Obama scandals, and how do we know which is which? by Tom Byron on Tom Byron's Blog(4) IRS.gov Mess in 2014 where TEA Party was blocked from approvals.Malik Obama: The IRS and Health Care by Tom Byron on Tom Byron's BlogLois Lerner: Tom Byron's answer to The White House: What are examples of US administration officials having been rewarded in spite of their incompetence?(5) Healthcare.gov Mess since 2010Mandate or pay fine? NoKeep your doctor? NoKeep your insurance? NoKeep your hospital? NoKeep you drug plan? NoHigh deductibles? YesHigh policy premiums? YesCHAPTER THREERepublican alternatives that aren't anywhere nearly as many pages, nor as complex or intrusive as ACA:http://rsc.scalise.house.gov/upl...And also we have over 100 members of Congress now (Nov. 2013) that have co-sponsored it. And we had medical doctors who serve in Congress, like Dr. Phil Roe, help write this bill. This is a bill based on putting patients back in charge of their health care and lowering the cost and getting government out of health care decisions.http://m.cnsnews.com/news/articl...John Podesta will help Obama extend the President's executive power. Congress will become even more irrelevant.Why didn't Obama know about various issues? Podesta will help clear this problem by advising the Chief of Staff for Obama. No more secrets will be kept from the President!KEILAR: Obama was unable to. And with the window closing on his chance for second term achievements, Democratic sources tell CNN Podesta's expertise is much needed.As President Clinton's disciplined chief of staff, Podesta guided that White House through a sex scandal, impeachment and a war in Kosovo. He was known for cracking the whip, one former Clinton colleague telling CNN his co-workers made him a name plate. On one side, "John D. Podesta." http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANS...CHAPTER FOURBlacks used to be Republicans, but in the years since FDR, they have, sadly, become a group of voters the Democrats have exploited. If you are a Conservative Black in America, you get the full wrath of of the left. You get audited if you speak out (Dr. Ben Carson). http://touch.baltimoresun.com/#s...Additional reading on this topic.http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu...Compare the rhetoric of these politically active individuals and how the media treats them:Alan West v. Al SharptonJC Watts v. Jessie JacksonCondie Rice v. Sheila Jackson LeeREPUBLICANS NEED ANOTHER MARGARET THATCHER OR MAYBE ANOTHER RONALD REAGAN.