Transportation Security Administration The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is an agency of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security that exercises authority over the security of the traveling public in the United States.[1] The TSA was created as part of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, sponsored by Don Young in the United States House of Representatives[2] and Ernest Hollings in the Senate,[3] passed by the 107th U.S. Congress, and signed into law by President George W. Bush on November 19, 2001. Originally part of the United States Department of Transportation, the TSA was moved to the Department of Homeland Security on March 9, 2003. John S. History and organization[edit] The TSA was created as a response to the September 11, 2001, attacks. The organization was charged with developing policies to protect U.S. transportation, especially in airport security and the prevention of aircraft hijacking. Administration[edit] TSA security search TSA has had five administrators. TSA employees[edit] Funding[edit]
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act The ACA was enacted with the goals of increasing the quality and affordability of health insurance, lowering the uninsured rate by expanding public and private insurance coverage, and reducing the costs of healthcare for individuals and the government. It introduced a number of mechanisms—including mandates, subsidies, and insurance exchanges—meant to increase coverage and affordability.[6][7] The law also requires insurance companies to cover all applicants within new minimum standards and offer the same rates regardless of pre-existing conditions or sex.[8] Additional reforms aimed to reduce costs and improve healthcare outcomes by shifting the system towards quality over quantity through increased competition, regulation, and incentives to streamline the delivery of healthcare. The Congressional Budget Office projected that the ACA will lower both future deficits[9] and Medicare spending.[10] Overview of provisions Legislative history Background John Chafee Healthcare debate, 2008–10
TSA Defends Pat Down Of Baby: Stroller Set Off Explosives Alarm Agency attempts to play down “Poop Bomb” outrage Steve WatsonPrisonplanet.com May 10, 2011 The TSA has defended the actions of two of it’s agents who were photographed conducting a full body pat down on an eight-month old baby at Kansas City International Airport yesterday, saying they were adhering to procedure. The image went viral yesterday after it was uploaded to a social networking site with the comment “TSA Looking for Poop Bombs?” Outrage ensued as the agents were seen laughing and smiling as they checked the baby’s diaper while the child’s mother held him in the air. Passenger Jacob Jester captured the pat down on his cell phone, and uploaded it to the net with the comment ‘Just saw #tsa agents patting down a little baby at @KCIAirport. Jester, who is also a pastor, commented “I was thinking, what would I do if this happened to my son? The TSA has addressed the incident, once again via it’s official blog, which states: Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (AD) Rep.
PATRIOT Act clouds picture for tech - POLITICO.com Print View Cloud computing is a gold mine for the U.S. tech industry, but American firms are encountering resistance from an unexpected enemy overseas: the PATRIOT Act. The Sept. 11-era law was supposed to help the intelligence community gather data on suspected terrorists. But competitors overseas are using it as a way to discourage foreign countries from signing on with U.S. cloud computing providers like Google and Microsoft: Put your data on a U.S.-based cloud, they warn, and you may just put it in the hands of the U.S. government. Continue Reading “The PATRIOT Act has come to be a kind of label for this set of concerns,” Ambassador Philip Verveer, U.S. coordinator for International Communications and Information Policy at the State Department, told POLITICO. While no foreign governments have moved to block U.S. tech companies, authorities in the Netherlands as recently as September floated the idea of banning U.S.
War on Terror The War on Terror, also known as the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) is a term which has been applied to an international military campaign that started after the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States. This resulted in an international military campaign to eliminate al-Qaeda and other militant organizations. The United States and many other NATO and non-NATO nations such as Pakistan participate in the conflict.[1] The phrase 'War on Terror' was first used by U.S. President George W. Etymology[edit] Letter from Barack Obama indicating appropriation of Congressional funds for "Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism" The phrase "War on Terror" has been used to specifically refer to the ongoing military campaign led by the US, UK and their allies against organizations and regimes identified by them as terrorist, and excludes other independent counter-terrorist operations and campaigns such as those by Russia and India. History of the name[edit] The George W.
Medicare (United States) A sample Medicare card. There are separate lines for basic Part A and Part B's supplementary medical coverage, each with its own date. There are no lines for Part C or D, which are additional supplemental policies for which a separate card is issued. In the United States, Medicare is a national social insurance program, administered by the U.S. federal government since 1966, that guarantees access to health insurance for Americans aged 65 and older who have worked and paid into the system, and younger people with disabilities as well as people with end stage renal disease (Medicare.gov, 2012) and persons with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. In 2010, Medicare provided health insurance to 48 million Americans—40 million people age 65 and older and eight million younger people with disabilities. Medicare has been in operation for over forty years and, during that time, has undergone several changes. Medicare has several sources of financing. or Some beneficiaries are dual-eligible. U.S.
McCain Proposes Indefinite Detention Without Trial for Citizens Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) has introduced a bill that would allow the President to imprison an unlimited number of American citizens (as well as foreigners) indefinitely without trial. Known as The Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010, or S. 3081, the bill authorizes the President to deny a detainee a trial by jury simply by designating that person an “enemy belligerent.” The bill, which has eight cosponsors, explicitly names U.S. citizens as among those who can be detained indefinitely without trial: Note that the Bush administration once said that the so-called “war on terror” would last a generation or more, and the U.S. military has officially classified many former Guantanamo detainees, such as England's Tipton Three, as having “returned to the battlefield” for merely granting an interview for the movie The Road to Guantanamo. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. McCain defended his bill in a speech on the Senate floor March 4, stating:
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012[1] is a United States federal law which besides other provisions specifies the budget and expenditures of the United States Department of Defense. The bill passed the U.S. House on December 14, 2011, the U.S. The most controversial provisions to receive wide attention were contained in subsections 1021–1022 of Title X, Subtitle D, entitled "Counter-Terrorism", authorizing the indefinite military detention of persons the government suspects of involvement in terrorism, including U.S. citizens arrested on American soil. Indefinite detention without trial: Section 1021[edit] Addressing previous conflicts with the Obama Administration regarding the wording of the Senate text, the Senate-House compromise text, in sub-section 1021(d), also affirms that nothing in the Act "is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force". The vote[edit] Democratic nay