Tags: Nation / Stories

Richard Grenell,US envoy to Germany,wants to 'empower' Europe's right

- Monday, June 04, 2018

The US ambassador to Germany has said he wants to "empower" Europe's right.

Richard Grenell, who was appointed by President Donald Trump last year, made the highly unusual comments for a diplomat to right-wing Breitbart News.

"I think there is a groundswell of conservative policies that are taking hold because of the failed policies of the left," he said.

Mr Grenell's comments follow several other controversial remarks by Trump-appointed diplomats.

In the interview, the ambassador, who only took office last month, said President Trump's election had energised people to take on the "political class". Mr Grenell said he had been contacted by people throughout Europe about a conservative "resurgence".

He attacked the perceived bias of the media and politicians against Mr Trump as "the group-think of a very small elitist crowd", and praised Austria's conservative Chancellor Sebastian Kurz as a "rock star".

Mr Kurz's party formed a coalition with the far-right Freedom Party in 2017.

Right-wing populists have won support across Europe, with recent electoral success for parties in Italy and Slovenia that espouse strict immigration policies.

Democratic Senator Chris Murphy described the interview as "awful".

In a tweet, he said he had previously spoken to Mr Grenell about "politicising this post".
What's his background?

Formerly the longest serving US spokesperson at the United Nations, Mr Grenell is under contract with Fox News as a contributor on world affairs and the media.

He has also written for the Wall Street Journal, Politico, the Washington Times, Al Jazeera, CBS News and CNN.

A Senate vote in May confirmed him as US ambassador to Germany after President Trump's nomination in September 2017.

But only an hour after he officially began his role, Mr Grenell provoked controversy for tweeting that German companies should "wind down operations immediately" in Iran, following Mr Trump's announcement that the US was pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal.

Is 'diplomatic language' dying out?

Mr Grenell's comments are the most recent case of controversial language from a US diplomat.

The US state department's guide, Protocol for the Modern Diplomat, states that "each country will be respected uniformly and without bias", and includes the instruction "that as a guest, one is expected to respect the host's culture".

However, former US ambassador to Germany John Kornblum told the BBC there is "no lexicon" for ambassadors.

"There is no such thing as diplomatic language," he said. "The language diplomats use is attuned to their needs."

For example, during the negotiations for the Dayton Agreement in 1995, Mr Kornblum says there was "incredibly undiplomatic" language used to criticise heads of government, in particular Serbia.

He also believes that in Europe there is a greater degree of "self-censorship" among diplomats that does not apply anywhere else in the world, saying "Europeans are especially sensitive".

However, he agrees that President Trump has changed things.

"Mr Trump has taken political language in the US to new depths," said Mr Kornblum. And he thinks diplomats abroad could be trying to emulate their president.

President Trump has infamously dubbed Mexicans "drug dealers" and "rapists", reportedly used derogatory language to describe some African countries and claimed knife crime in London had left a hospital there "like a war zone".



Undiplomatic diplomats:Are there more?

Yes.

In October 2017, US ambassador to New Zealand and Samoa Scott Brown said he was under investigation for telling a woman at a Peace Corps event she was "beautiful" and could "make hundreds of dollars" if she worked as a waitress in the US.

In a video statement to New Zealand media, Mr Brown admitted he had made the comments, but only did so because the people he saw before the event "were all dirty and grungy, and when we walked in, they were all dressed to the nines; they looked great".

And US ambassador to the Netherlands Pete Hoekstra was recently caught out over his claims about "no-go zones" in the country due to Islamic extremism.

Tags: Blog / Nation / Stories

Giuliani:Trump ‘Probably Does’ Have The Power To Pardon Himself,But Won’t

- Sunday, June 03, 2018

Giuliani: Trump ‘Probably Does’ Have The Power To Pardon Himself, But Won’t

The president’s lawyer also defended Trump’s shifting explanations for a 2016 Trump Tower meeting.

President Donald Trump doesn’t intend to pardon himself, Rudy Giuliani said on Sunday ― but he “probably does” have the power to do so.

“He has no intention of pardoning himself ... not to say he can’t,” Giuliani, a lawyer and adviser to Trump on the Russia probe, told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. He characterized the question of a self-pardon as a “really interesting constitutional argument.”

“I think the political ramifications of that would be tough,” he said. “Pardoning other people is one thing. Pardoning yourself is another.”

In another Sunday interview, this one on NBC’s “Meet The Press,” Giuliani took a stronger stand on both the unlikeliness of such a move, and the possibility for political fallout.

“It’s not going to happen,” he said, arguing that Trump had done nothing wrong that would require him to pardon himself.

He added that “the president of the United States pardoning himself is unthinkable... it would probably lead to immediate impeachment.”

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) also weighed in against the idea. “I don’t think a president should pardon themselves,” he said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Preet Bharara, a former U.S. attorney fired by Trump, said on the same program that the idea of the president deciding to pardon himself as “almost self-executing impeachment.”

Giuliani said on “Meet The Press” that Trump has the power to terminate any federal investigation, although he described such a move as “a very unrealistic thing.”

“The Department of Justice is a creature of the president,” he said. “I know based on presidential rulings... [the] Justice Department is given a certain amount of independence. I am tremendously in favor of it, but that’s all the president’s decision.”

The president’s lawyer defended Trump’s shifting explanations about a meeting with Russians at Trump Tower during the 2016 campaign that included his son, Donald Trump Jr. “This is the reason you don’t let the president testify” as part of the special counsel probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, Giuliani told ABC. “Our recollection keeps changing, or we’re not even asked a question and somebody makes an assumption.”

He predicted that special counsel Robert Mueller would wrap up his investigation by the start of this September. “He’s as sensitive as everybody to not doing another Comey and interfering horribly in the election,” Giuliani said.

He was referring to then-FBI Director’s Jim Comey announcement less than two weeks before the 2016 vote that the agency was reopening aspects of its probe into Democratic candidate’s Hillary Clinton’s private use of email when she served as secretary of state. Although days later Comey said the probe was again being closed without charges being filed, Clinton has blamed his initial announcement as a key reason Trump went on to defeat her.
Source

Tags: Nation / Stories

Giuliani:Trump Could Have Shot Comey And Still Couldn’t Be Indicted For It

-

Giuliani:Trump Could Have Shot Comey And Still Couldn’t Be Indicted For It

Congress would have to impeach Trump first before any criminal prosecution could move forward, the president’s lawyer says.


 Candidate Donald Trump bragged that he could shoot someone on New York’s Fifth Avenue and not lose any support, and now President Donald Trump’s lawyer says Trump could shoot the FBI director in the Oval Office and still not be prosecuted for it.

“In no case can he be subpoenaed or indicted,” Rudy Giuliani told HuffPost Sunday, claiming a president’s constitutional powers are that broad. “I don’t know how you can indict while he’s in office. No matter what it is.”

Giuliani said impeachment was the initial remedy for a president’s illegal behavior ― even in the extreme hypothetical case of Trump having shot former FBI Director James Comey to end the Russia investigation rather than just firing him.

“If he shot James Comey, he’d be impeached the next day,” Giuliani said. “Impeach him, and then you can do whatever you want to do to him.”

Norm Eisen, the White House ethics lawyer under President Barack Obama and now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said the silliness of Giuliani’s claim illustrates how mistaken Trump’s lawyers are about presidential power.

“A president could not be prosecuted for murder? Really?” he said. “It is one of many absurd positions that follow from their argument. It is self-evidently wrong.”

Eisen and other legal scholars have concluded that the constitution offers no blanket protection for a president from criminal prosecution. “The foundation of America is that no person is above the law,” he said. “A president can under extreme circumstances be indicted, but we’re facing extreme circumstances.”

Giuliani’s comments came a day after The New York Times revealed that Trump’s lawyers in January made their case to special counsel Robert Mueller that Trump could not possibly have obstructed justice because he has the ability to shut down any investigation at any time.

“He could,if he wished,terminate the inquiry,or even exercise his power to pardon if he so desired,” Jay Sekulow and John Dowd wrote in a 20-page letter. Dowd has since left Trump’s legal team, replaced by Giuliani.

The letter also admits that Trump “dictated” a statement that was then released by his son, Donald Trump Jr., regarding a meeting held at Trump Tower in June 2016 between top Trump campaign officials and Russians with links to that country’s spy agencies.

That meeting was scheduled after the Russians said they had damaging information about Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton that would be of use to the Trump campaign. The Trump-dictated statement falsely claimed the meeting was primarily about the adoption of Russian children by American families ― the same topic that Trump claimed had been the substance of a conversation he had had with Russian leader Vladimir Putin the previous evening in Germany.

The U.S. intelligence community concluded during the 2016 campaign that not only was Russia interfering in the U.S. election, but was actively trying to help Trump win.

Both Sekulow and White House press secretary Sarah Sanders claimed, falsely, that Trump had not dictated the statement, but had merely offered his son suggestions. Sanders on Sunday referred questions about the matter to Trump’s outside legal team.

Giuliani said Sekulow was misinformed about the Trump Tower meeting, which in any case was not that significant. “In this investigation, the crimes are really silly,” he said, arguing that the firing of Comey last year could not be construed as obstruction of justice because Trump had the right to fire him at any time and for any reason. “This is pure harassment, engineered by the Democrats.”

Comey had been leading the FBI probe into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence until his dismissal, which led to the appointment of Mueller to take it over. Within two days of the firing, Trump told both NBC News and Russian officials visiting him in the Oval Office that he had done it because of the investigation.

Eisen said Giuliani’s assertion, taken to its logical conclusion, would mean that a mob boss under investigation by the FBI could give Trump a bribe to fire the FBI director, Trump could explain on television that he had done so “because of this Mafia thing,” and then not face criminal charges.

“Well, of course it would be appropriate to initiate a prosecution,” he said. “I think the legally correct answer is, as usual, the opposite of Giuliani’s answer.”

Giuliani, once the mayor of New York City and prior to that the U.S. attorney there, took charge of Trump’s outside legal team in April, saying then that he planned to wrap the whole thing up within a few weeks. Now he said he is not sure when it will end because Mueller is taking too long and not turning over material to Giuliani ― such as a report of what was learned from an FBI informant who made contact with several members of the Trump campaign with links to Russia.

Giuliani said he has so far met with Trump about 10 times and spoken to him on the phone another 40 or so times, totaling at least 75 hours of conversation. “I’m not billing by the hour, otherwise I could tell you exactly,” he joked about the case he has taken on for free.

Mueller’s investigation has so far resulted in the guilty pleas of five people, including three former Trump campaign staffers, and the indictment of 14 other people and three companies. That total includes 13 Russians, Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, and the Internet Research Agency, a “troll farm” that was used to create and disseminate propaganda to help Trump win.

A related investigation by Giuliani’s former U.S. attorney’s office is examining the dealings of longtime Trump lawyer Michael Cohen. A former business partner has agreed to cooperate in that probe and plead to New York state charges.
Source

Tags: Destination / Stories / Travel

Women no longer pay more for health care just for being women

- Saturday, January 07, 2017

Women No Longer Pay More For Health Care Just For Being Women.

Birth control and preventative care aren’t considered luxuries.

Before President Barack Obama took office, being a woman came with a surcharge.

Most women had to pay out of pocket for birth control, even though preventing pregnancy saves money for everyone ― including insurance companies, men and the federal government. And women were charged more than men for the same health insurance plans because they tend to have babies, visit the doctor more often and live longer.

The Obama administration was the first to treat women’s preventative health care, including birth control, as a necessity instead of a luxury. The Affordable Care Act banned insurance companies from the practice of “gender rating” and required all insurance plans to cover the full range of contraception methods and well-woman visits, without a co-pay.

“It has really revolutionized how the health care system deals with reproductive health care, particularly family planning,” Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, told The Huffington Post. “Women now expect that birth control is a part of regular health care. We had to fight to get that done, but it’s been a sea change.”

Obama’s signature health care law saved women $1.4 billion on birth control pills alone in 2013, the year after it went into effect. More than 55 million women now get their contraception and well-woman visits for free, and unintended pregnancy in the United States is at a 30-year low. But those benefits may be short-lived, as Republicans are threatening to repeal Obamacare once President-elect Donald Trump takes office. Richards said Planned Parenthood had a “flood of women” calling in the days after Trump was elected, trying to get intrauterine devices and other long-term forms of birth control while their insurance is still required to cover them.

“We had historic numbers of people calling, because women understood this is a benefit they got under Obama that’s now at risk,” Richards said.

This piece is part of a series on Obama’s legacy that The Huffington Post will be publishing over the next week. Read other pieces in the series here.

Even if they decide to keep some aspects of Obamacare, the incoming Trump administration and Republican-controlled Congress will probably not be friendly to the birth control access provisions. Republicans see the birth control coverage rule as an affront to religious freedom, arguing that employers who morally oppose birth control shouldn’t have to provide it in their health plans. And Trump’s pick for Health and Human Services secretary, Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), said in 2012 that birth control does not need to be covered because women have never had trouble paying for it.

“Bring me one woman who has been left behind. Bring me one. There’s not one,” Price said at the time. “The fact of the matter is this is a trampling on religious freedom and religious liberty in this country.” 

It’s a real risk for this new administration to try to take women back to the 1950s ― particularly young women who have grown up under this administration.Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood

Republicans have also repeatedly tried to defund Planned Parenthood, the largest family planning provider in the country, because of some of its clinics provide abortions. Planned Parenthood receives about $70 million a year in Title X federal family planning funds to provide birth control, cancer screenings and sexually transmitted infection testing to low-income patients. But nearly half the states in the country have attempted to withhold money from Planned Parenthood, and Republicans in Congress plan to spend $1.6 million in taxpayer dollars this year to investigate the family planning provider.

Senate Democrats are prepared to battle for Planned Parenthood funding and the birth control benefit under the new administration.

“It would be truly appalling and a grave mistake for Republicans in Congress and the incoming administration to attempt to force women to pay more for the preventative health care they need,” said Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. “If they do try, they should know that I, together with millions of women across the country, will be ready to fight back as hard as we can against any attempt to roll back women’s health care and to protect the progress we’ve made.”

The Obama administration issued a rule in December that prevents states from defunding Planned Parenthood for political reasons. But that rule probably won’t last under Trump.

Still, Republicans may find that it’s much more difficult to take away access to preventative care now that women have now come to expect it. Even if they repeal Obamacare, defund Planned Parenthood, eliminate birth control coverage and roll back abortion rights, Obama has already shown women what equitable health care feels like and has motivated a new generation of women to fight for it.

“It’s a real risk for this new administration to try to take women back to the 1950s ― particularly young women who have grown up under this administration,” Richards said. “It’s like lighting a match and dropping it on dry tinder.”

Source

Tags: Blog / Destination / Stories / Travel / US

Demolition Team Tears Down Wrong House.

- Friday, March 25, 2016

 A Texas woman has been left fuming after a demolition team accidentally tore down her home.

Tornadoes had caused widespread damage to homes in Rowlett in December, leaving some in need of repair or even unsafe to live in.

Lindsay Diaz was relieved after engineers said her home was structurally sound and she and begun making repairs to the property.

On Tuesday, she returned home to find her duplex had been reduced to rubble.
 She told CBS Dallas: "Boom. Just like the tornado came through again."

Ms Diaz said when she went to speak to the demolition supervisor, he realised that his team should have torn down a duplex one block further along the street.

She claims the president of the demolition company - Billy L Nabors Demolition - has been unhelpful since the mix-up.

She told CBS Dallas: "I was hoping for an apology, I'm sorry my company did this. We'll make it better, and instead he's telling me how the insurance is going to handle it and telling me that it's going to be a nasty fight."

Speaking to WFAA,she added: "How do you make a mistake like this? I mean,this is just the worst."

The demolition company declined to comment to media news.

Tags: Blog / Destination / Politics / Stories / Travel / US

Government says no need to park recalled GM cars

- Wednesday, May 07, 2014

There's no need to tell owners of recalled General Motors small cars to stop driving them, according to U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx.

Wendi Kunkel faced ignition switch issues on her 2010 Chevy Cobalt in Rockwall, Texas. Kunkel was instructed to pull everything off her keychain, which GM contends will solve the problem. But she’s still nervous about driving her car on her 30-minute one-way commute.

In a written response to two senators who asked for such an order, Foxx said engineers with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have determined it's not necessary.

GM is recalling 2.6 million small cars worldwide to replace ignition switches that suddenly can slip out of the run position and shut off the engine. That can knock out power-assisted steering and cause drivers to lose control and crash. It also disables the air bags. GM says at least 13 people have died in crashes linked to the problem. The company has admitted knowing about the problem for at least a decade, yet failing to recall the cars until this year.

The company has told owners to remove everything from their key chains, and the reduced weight will stop the switches from slipping into the "accessory" or "off" positions.

Foxx, responding to a letter from Democratic Sens. Edward Markey of Massachusetts and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, said NHTSA engineers have examined the geometry and physics of the key, ignition switch and steering column of the GM vehicles, and they have reviewed GM's testing data.

The ignition switch of a 2005 Chevrolet Cobalt.

"NHTSA is satisfied that for now, until the permanent remedy is applied, the safety risk posed by the defect in affected vehicles is sufficiently mitigated by GM's recommended action," the letter says.

The safety agency, which is part of Foxx's department, has taken measures above and beyond normal procedures in the GM case, Foxx wrote.

The recalled cars include mainly Chevrolet Cobalts and Saturn Ions that are no longer being made. GM is in the process of shipping parts to dealers but has said it won't be done with that until October. The company is offering loaner cars to any owners with safety concerns and so far has provided about 45,000.

But Blumenthal and Markey disagree and say all the cars should be parked until the switches are replaced.

"We remain extremely concerned that GM and NHTSA are not doing enough to convey the seriousness of this defect to owners of the affected cars, unnecessarily putting more lives at risk," the senators said in a statement Wednesday.

They also questioned why GM's initial recall notice to car owners said the ignition switches could malfunction while driving over rough terrain "regardless of additional weight on the key ring."

Both senators are members of a subcommittee that is looking into GM's actions involving the switches. NHTSA and the Justice Department are also investigating, and criminal charges are possible.

GM has said it has done 80 different tests at high speeds and on rough roads, and that with just the key in the ignition, the switches don't move out of the run position.

Tags: Blog / Destination / Politics / Stories / Travel / US

House votes to hold ex-IRS official in contempt

-

House Republicans voted Wednesday to hold a former Internal Revenue Service official in contempt of Congress for refusing to testify at a pair of committee hearings about her role in the agency's tea party controversy.

In this May 22, 2013, photo, then-IRS official Lois Lerner is sworn in on Capitol Hill in Washington before the House Oversight Committee hearing to investigate the extra scrutiny the IRS gave to tea party and other conservative groups that applied for tax-exempt status.

The House also passed a nonbinding resolution calling on the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel to investigate the IRS.

Lois Lerner directed the IRS division that processes applications for tax-exempt status. A year ago this week, Lerner publicly disclosed that agents had improperly singled out tea party applications for extra, sometimes burdensome scrutiny.

An inspector general's report blamed poor management but found no evidence of a political conspiracy. Many Republicans in Congress believe otherwise.

"Who's been fired over the targeting of conservative groups by the IRS? No one that I'm aware of," House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Wednesday. "Who's gone to jail for violating the law? When is the administration going to tell the American people the truth?"

House Democrats said Wednesday's voting was little more than an election-year ploy to fire up the GOP base.

"Instead of passing bipartisan legislation to create more jobs, reform immigration, raise the minimum wage or address any number of issues that affect our constituents every single day, House Republicans are spending this entire week trying to manufacture scandals for political purposes," said Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee.

"Welcome to witch hunt week," said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass.

The vote to hold Lerner in contempt of Congress was 231 to 187, with all Republicans voting in favor and all but a few Democrats voting against.

Lerner invoked her Fifth Amendment right not to answer questions at a pair of hearings by the Oversight Committee. House Republicans say she waived her constitutional right by making an opening statement in which she proclaimed her innocence.

The matter now goes to Ronald Machen, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. Federal law says Machen has a "duty" to bring the matter before a grand jury. But a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said it was unclear whether the duty is mandatory or discretionary. Machen was appointed to his job by President Barack Obama.

"We will carefully review the report from the speaker of the House and take whatever action is appropriate," Machen's office said in a statement.

The vote calling on the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel was 250 to 168, with all Republicans voting in favor and most Democrats voting against.

Attorney General Eric Holder has denied previous requests to appoint a special counsel, saying it was unwarranted.

Three congressional committees and the Justice Department have spent much of the past year investigating the IRS over its handling of applications for tax-exempt status.

So far, the congressional investigations have revealed that IRS officials in Washington were more involved in handling the applications than the agency initially acknowledged.

However, the investigations have not publicly established that anyone outside the IRS knew about the targeting or directed it.

Cummings released a report this week saying House Oversight Committee investigators have interviewed 39 witnesses, and found no involvement by the White House and no political conspiracy by IRS officials. Instead, many IRS witnesses said they lacked clear guidance from management on how to handle tea party applications, the report said.

"Who told Lois Lerner to target conservative Americans?" Rep. Michelle Bachmann, R-Minn., said at a news conference sponsored by several tea party groups. "That's what we don't know. That's what we need to know."

Lerner sat for a lengthy interview with Justice Department investigators, said her lawyer, William W. Taylor III. The interview was done "without conditions," he said.

Lerner wouldn't answer questions before the Oversight Committee because, Taylor said, committee Republicans were only looking to vilify her in front of TV cameras.

"It was clear that the majority would conduct the hearing without any sense of decorum or fairness," Taylor told reporters in March.

On Wednesday, Taylor said in a statement: "Today's vote has nothing to do with the facts or the law. Its only purpose is to keep the baseless IRS `conspiracy' alive through the midterm elections."

"Ms. Lerner has not committed contempt of Congress. She did not waive her Fifth Amendment rights by proclaiming her innocence," Taylor added.

On May 10, 2013, Lerner was speaking at a Washington law conference when she made the agency's first public acknowledgment of the tea party controversy. At the time, Lerner publicly apologized on behalf of the agency.

Most of the groups were applying for tax-exempt status as social welfare organizations. Agents were scrutinizing the applications to measure how much the groups were involved in politics.

IRS regulations say social welfare groups may engage in electoral politics, but it may not be their primary mission.

About two weeks after Lerner's public revelation, she was subpoenaed to appear at a House Oversight Committee hearing. Lerner read an opening statement, saying she did nothing wrong, broke no laws and never lied to Congress. Then she refused to answer lawmakers' further questions, citing her Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate herself.


The next day Lerner was placed on paid leave. She retired from the IRS last fall, ending a 34-year career in the federal government, including work at the Justice Department and Federal Election Commission.

The Oversight Committee later ruled in a party-line vote that Lerner forfeited her constitutional right not to testify by making an opening statement. All Republicans voted in favor while all Democrats voted against.

Committee Democrats have compiled a list of constitutional experts who say the contempt case is weak. Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., countered with a memo from the House general counsel's office saying there is a legal foundation for holding Lerner in contempt.

Tags: Blog / Destination / Nation / Stories / Travel

Colorado lawmakers approve plan for pot banking

-

Colorado lawmakers approved the world's first financial system for the marijuana industry Wednesday, a network of uninsured cooperatives designed to give pot businesses a way to access basic banking services.

The plan seeks to move the marijuana industry away from its cash-only roots. Banks routinely reject pot businesses for even basic services such as checking accounts because they fear running afoul of federal law, which considers marijuana and its proceeds illegal.

The result: Pot shop owners deal in large amounts of cash, which makes them targets for criminals. Or they try to find ways around the problem, like drenching their proceeds in air freshener to remove the stink of marijuana and try to fool traditional banks into accepting their money.

"This is our main problem: Financial services for marijuana businesses," said Sen. David Balmer, R-Centennial. "We are trying to improvise and come up with something in Colorado to give marijuana business some opportunity, so they do not have to store large amounts of cash."

Colorado became the first state to allow recreational pot sales, which started Jan. 1. Washington state will follow suit, with retail sales expect to start in July.

The U.S. Treasury Department said in February that banks could serve the marijuana industry under certain conditions. With the industry emerging from the underground, states want to track marijuana sales and collect taxes. It's a lot easier to do that when the businesses have bank accounts.

But most banks have shrugged at the Treasury guidelines, calling them too onerous to accept marijuana-related clients. The result is a marijuana industry that still relies largely on cash, a safety risk for operators and a concern for Colorado's pot regulators.

"This is not something that we can wait for any further," said another banking sponsor, Rep. Jonathan Singer, D-Longmont.

The bill approved Wednesday would allow marijuana businesses to pool money in cooperative s, but the co-ops would on take effect if the U.S. Federal Reserve agrees to allow them to do things like accept credit cards or checks.

Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper supports the pot bank plan and is expected to sign it into law, though a spokesman said Wednesday the governor had yet to review the final language.


Lawmakers from both parties supported the banking co-ops as a way to properly audit marijuana shops and to make sure they're paying all their taxes. Dispensary owners came to the Capitol this session to tell of their difficulties paying taxes and utilities in cash and the dangers of dealing in cash.

Robin Goldfarb smokes
 marijuana in Denver on April 19, 2014.

"It is very easy to see somebody get killed over this issue," Marijuana Industry Group Director Michael Elliott testified last month.

The plan had bipartisan support, though some Republicans said that the effort won't pass federal muster.

A few banks are accepting marijuana clients in light of the federal regulations.

Numerica Credit Union in eastern Washington state is accepting limited business from marijuana growers and processors, The Spokesman-Review reported Wednesday.

Colorado pot shop owners say a small number of credit unions will do business with them, too, though no banks or credit unions have said so publicly.

Countries that don't ban marijuana don't have banking systems unique to the drug.

Tags: Blog / Destination / Politics / Stories

US court upholds ban on race decisions

- Tuesday, April 22, 2014

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the state of Michigan's ban on using race as a factor in college admissions.

The justices said in a 6-2 ruling that Michigan voters had the right to change their state constitution in 2006 to prohibit public colleges and universities from taking account of race in admissions decisions. The justices said that a lower federal court was wrong to set aside the change as discriminatory.

Justice Anthony Kennedy said voters chose to eliminate racial preferences, known as affirmative action, presumably because such a system could give rise to race-based resentment.

Kennedy said nothing in the U.S. Constitution or the court's prior cases gives judges the authority to undermine the election results.

"This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved. It is about who may resolve it," Kennedy said.

In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the decision tramples on the rights of minorities, even though the amendment was adopted democratically. "But without checks, democratically approved legislation can oppress minority groups," said Sotomayor, who read her dissent aloud in the courtroom Tuesday. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg sided with Sotomayor in dissent.

At 58 pages, Sotomayor's dissent was longer than the combined length of the four opinions in support of the outcome.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas agreed with Kennedy.

Justice Elena Kagan did not take part in the case, presumably because she worked on it at an earlier stage while serving in the Justice Department.

In 2003, the Supreme Court upheld the consideration of race among many factors in college admissions in a case from Michigan.

Three years later, affirmative action opponents persuaded Michigan voters to change the state constitution to outlaw any consideration of race.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the issue was not affirmative action, but the way in which its opponents went about trying to bar it.

In its 8-7 decision, the appeals court said the provision ran afoul of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment because it presents an extraordinary burden to affirmative action supporters who would have to mount their own long, expensive campaign to repeal the constitutional provision.

Similar voter-approved initiatives banning affirmative action in education are in place in California and Washington state. A few other states have adopted laws or issued executive orders to bar race-conscious admissions policies.

Black and Latino enrollment at the University of Michigan has dropped since the ban took effect. At California's top public universities, African-Americans are a smaller share of incoming freshmen, while Latino enrollment is up slightly, but far below the state's growth in the percentage of Latino high school graduates.

Tags: Blog / Destination / Nation / Stories

E-cig industry awaits looming federal regulation

-

RICHMOND, Va.-Smokers are increasingly turning to battery-powered electronic cigarettes to get their nicotine fix. They're about to find out what federal regulators have to say about the popular devices.

The Food and Drug Administration will propose rules for e-cigarettes as early as this month. The rules will have big implications for a fast-growing, largely unregulated industry and its legions of customers.

Regulators aim to answer the burning question posed by Kenneth Warner, a professor at the University of Michigan School of Public Health: "Is this going to be the disruptive technology that finally takes us in the direction of getting rid of cigarettes?"

The FDA faces a balancing act. If the regulations are too strict, they could kill an industry that offers a hope of being safer than cigarettes and potentially helping smokers quit them. But the agency also has to be sure e-cigarettes really are safer and aren't hooking children on an addictive drug.

Members of Congress and several public health groups have raised safety concerns over e-cigarettes, questioned their marketing tactics and called on regulators to address those worries quickly.

Here's a primer on e-cigarettes and their future:

WHAT ARE E-CIGARETTES?

E-cigarettes are plastic or metal tubes, usually the size of a cigarette, that heat a liquid nicotine solution instead of burning tobacco. That creates vapor that users inhale.

Smokers like e-cigarettes because the nicotine-infused vapor looks like smoke but doesn't contain the thousands of chemicals, tar or odor of regular cigarettes. Some smokers use e-cigarettes as a way to quit smoking tobacco, or to cut down.

The industry started on the Internet and at shopping-mall kiosks and has rocketed from thousands of users in 2006 to several million worldwide who can choose from more than 200 brands. Sales are estimated to have reached nearly $2 billion in 2013.

Tobacco company executives have noted that they are eating into traditional cigarette sales. Their companies have jumped into the business.

There's not much scientific evidence showing e-cigarettes help smokers quit or smoke less, and it's unclear how safe they are.

WHAT IS THE FDA LIKELY TO DO?

The FDA is likely to propose restrictions that mirror those on regular cigarettes.

The most likely of the FDA's actions will be to ban the sale of e-cigarettes to people under 18. Many companies already restrict sales to minors, and more than two dozen states already have banned selling them to young people.

Federal regulators also are expected to set product standards and require companies to disclose their ingredients and place health warning labels on packages and other advertising.

Where the real questions remain is how the agency will treat the thousands of flavors available for e-cigarettes. While some companies are limiting offerings to tobacco and menthol flavors, others are selling candy-like flavors like cherry and strawberry.

Flavors other than menthol are banned for regular cigarettes over concerns that flavored tobacco targets children.

Regulators also must determine if they'll treat various designs for electronic cigarettes differently.

Some, known as "cig-a-likes," look like traditional cigarettes and use sealed cartridges that hold liquid nicotine. Others have empty compartments or tanks that users can fill their own liquid. The latter has raised safety concerns because ingesting the liquid or absorbing it through the skin could lead to nicotine poisoning. To prevent that, the FDA could mandate child-resistant packaging.

The FDA also will decide the grandfather date that would allow electronic cigarette products to remain on the market without getting prior approval from regulators — a ruling that could force some, if not all, e-cigarettes to be pulled from store shelves while they are evaluated by the agency.

The regulations will be a step in a long process that many believe will ultimately end up being challenged in court.

WHAT ABOUT MARKETING?

There are a few limitations on marketing. Companies can't tout e-cigarettes as stop-smoking aids, unless they want to be regulated by the FDA under stricter rules for drug-delivery devices. But many are sold as "cigarette alternatives."

The FDA's proposals could curb advertising on TV, radio and billboards, ban sponsorship of concerts and sporting events, and prohibit branded items such as shirts and hats. The agency also could limit sales over the Internet and require retailers to move e-cigarettes behind the counter.

WHAT DOES THE INDUSTRY THINK?

The industry expects regulations, but hopes they won't force products off shelves and will keep the business viable.

E-cigarette makers especially want the FDA to allow them to continue marketing and catering to adult smokers — some of whom want flavors other than tobacco. They believe e-cigarettes present an opportunity to offer smokers an alternative and, as NJOY Inc. CEO Craig Weiss says, make cigarettes obsolete.

"FDA can't just say no to electronic cigarettes anymore. I think they also understand it's the lesser of the two evils," said James Xu, owner of several Avail Vapor shops, whose wooden shelves are lined with vials of liquid nicotine flavor, such as Gold Rush, Cowboy Cut and Forbidden Fruit.

WHAT DO PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICIALS THINK?

Some believe lightly regulating electronic cigarettes might actually be better for public health overall, if smokers switch and e-cigarettes really are safer. Others are raising alarms about the hazards of the products and a litany of questions about whether e-cigarettes will keep smokers addicted or encourage others to start using e-cigarettes, and even eventually tobacco products.

"This is a very complicated issue and we must be quite careful how we proceed," said David Abrams, executive director of the Schroeder Institute for Tobacco Research and Policy Studies at the American Legacy Foundation, in a recent panel discussion. "I call this sort of the Goldilocks approach.

The regulation must be just right. The porridge can't be too hot, and it can't be too cold."

In this Jan. 17, 2014 file photo, a smoker demonstrates an e-cigarette in Wichita Falls, Texas. Soon, the Food and Drug Administration will propose rules for e-cigarettes. The rules will have big implications for a fast-growing industry and its legions of customers.

Tags: Blog / Destination / Stories / US

School Stabbing Spree: 20 Hurt in Pittsburgh-Area Bloodbath

- Wednesday, April 09, 2014

 A student went on a stabbing rampage through the classrooms and halls of a high school outside Pittsburgh on Wednesday morning, authorities said. As many as 20 students were hurt, some with life-threatening injuries.





The student was in custody and being questioned by police, said Dan Stevens, a Westmoreland County emergency management spokesman. The student is a sophomore, the county confirmed to NBC News. Stevens said that the motive was unclear.

The attack happened at Franklin Regional High School, in the suburb of Murrysville, just after doors opened for the day. A student described panic in the halls.

“I was walking into the school and a stampede of people were running after me,” said the student, Kari Lee, who said several of her friends had been knifed. “They were screaming, ‘Go to your cars! Go to your cars! Someone is stabbing people!’”

Seven teenagers and an adult were taken to Forbes Regional Hospital, Dr. Chris Kauffman, the trauma director there, told NBC News. The seven were stabbed in the chest, back and abdomen, he said. He characterized some of the injuries as life-threatening but said everyone was expected to live.

At least two of the students were in surgery. Others were undergoing CT scans and X-rays and could require surgery later.

“These are quite serious injuries,” Kauffman told CNN. “These are not superficial in nature.”
Reese Jackson, president and CEO of the hospital, said that one of the victims may have saved the life of another.

“A surgeon came out and congratulated one of the victims by saying she had saved the person’s life by applying pressure to the person’s wound,” Jackson told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

One hospital reported that it had a patient as old as 60.

Stevens told WPXI, the NBC affiliate in Pittsburgh, that the first call for help from the school came at 7:13 a.m. The situation was under control by 7:30 to 7:40, he said.

Ambulances swarmed the parking lot of the high school, and nearby streets were sealed off.

The school district said that high school students and middle school students nearby were “secure,” and that elementary school had been canceled for the day. Parents were asked to report to an elementary school to pick up their children.

Students who drove to school were not allowed to drive home without a parent, according to the district.

The high school has about 1,200 students. Murrysville, about 20 miles east of Pittsburgh, is a city of 21,000. Renatta Signorini, a reporter for the Tribune Review newspaper, told MSNBC that it is a city with low crime.

She said that the schools there do not have metal detectors but have been updating their security procedures.

Gov. Tom Corbett said that he was shocked and saddened. He said he had directed the Pennsylvania State Police to help and would make other state resources available.

Tags: Blog / Destination / Nation / Stories / Travel / US

Canadian eco activist pleads guilty to US arsons

- Sunday, October 13, 2013

PORTLAND, Oregon-A Canadian environmentalist pleaded guilty Thursday to setting a string of fires across the U.S. West that torched a ski resort and other buildings in what the Justice Department has called the "largest eco-terrorism case" in U.S. history.

Rebecca Rubin, who surrendered to authorities a year ago after a decade on the run, was accused of helping the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front carry out 20 acts of arson across several U.S. states between 1996 and 2001.

Rubin, 40, pleaded guilty to 12 counts of arson and conspiracy as part of a plea deal that prosecutors said could see her spend between five and 7½ years in prison. She is scheduled to be sentenced in Portland Jan. 27.


Prosecutors have said that the arson campaign stood out for the number of fires set and damage caused, which was estimated at more than $40 million. The charges against Rubin were consolidated from cases filed in Oregon, Colorado and California.

Rubin, shackled at the ankles and wearing blue prison togs, pleaded guilty of involvement in an arson attack on the Bureau of Land Management Wild Horse Facility near Burns, Oregon, in 1998 and a similar facility in California in 2001. The horses were released in both incidents.

She also admitted involvement in the attempted arson of U.S. Forest Service Industries in Medford, Oregon, and pleaded guilty to eight counts of arson for the 1998 torching of a Vail ski resort in Colorado.


Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen Peifer said the Vail plan "was motivated by environment and animal welfare concerns" and that she had carried fuel up the mountain, where it was hidden in the snow for later use. She did not participate in the actual arson that took place later, he said.

Rubin did not speak in court other than to enter her pleas and to repeatedly say that she understood all the proceedings and provisions of her agreement and was not coerced.

In 2007, 10 other defendants in the group pleaded guilty to various counts and received prison terms from 37 to 156 months. Two others charged in the case remain at large.

Tags: Blog / Destination / Stories / US

'Son of Sam' loophole may help killer get kids' cash

-

MINEOLA, N.Y.-It's the hallmark of New York's "Son of Sam" law and others like it across the nation — convicted criminals should not be able to profit from their crimes.

But legal experts say the case of a Long Island mother who drowned her three children in a bathtub and is now seeking to cash in could succeed because of a loophole. Since Leatrice Brewer was never convicted — instead found not guilty by reason of mental disease — legal experts say she could make a plausible case to receive some of her children's $350,000 estate.

"The Brewer case is a novel circumstance," said George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley. "The facts do seem to place her outside the scope of the law, although that does not mean there could not be other barriers to her recovering from the estate of her children."

Brewer, 33, slashed her daughter's throat before drowning her and two younger brothers in 2008, believing she was saving them from the deadly effects of voodoo. Hours after the killings, she survived two suicide attempts — swallowing a concoction of home cleaning fluids and later jumping out a second-story window.

She was found not guilty because of mental disease or defect in the deaths of the children, ages 1, 5 and 6, and was committed to a state psychiatric hospital.

A hearing before Nassau County Surrogate Court Judge Edward McCarty next month will determine if Brewer is entitled to a share of the proceeds from two lawsuits the children's fathers settled with the county; they claimed social workers failed to properly monitor the woman and children.

Caseworkers visited Brewer's apartment two days before the killings and found no one home but neglected to schedule an immediate follow-up visit. Two social workers were later suspended.

"As a human being, I am outraged and disgusted by this," said attorney Thomas Foley, who represents the father of the two slain boys. "As an attorney, I have some level of understanding of why we have to go through this charade, but it is difficult to forget we are here because of the actions of a crazy person who killed her kids."

Kenneth Weinstein, a court-appointed attorney representing any possible unknown heirs who may surface, was just as blunt: "It would stand the law on its ear if she were to receive any proceeds from her own heinous, felonious conduct."

New York was the first state to enact a "Son of Sam" law in the 1970s following the capture of notorious serial killer David Berkowitz. Its intent was to bar Berkowitz and other criminals from profiting from their crimes through the commercial exploitation of their stories.

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the law in 1991 for violating the First Amendment's guarantee of free expression, ruling it would have encompassed works including Henry David Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience" and "The Autobiography of Malcolm X."

New York revised its law in 1992, and the state Senate has passed legislation seven times since 2006 — most recently in July, albeit with little fanfare — to try to address the issue of people held not responsible because of mental disease, said the bill's sponsor, Sen. John Flanagan. Companion legislation has been proposed in the state Assembly but has yet to gain any traction. Assemblyman Charles Lavine said he was optimistic the notoriety of the Brewer case could spark passage.

More than 40 states have enacted similar Son of Sam legislation, though there have been several successful court challenges on First Amendment grounds as well, said David L. Hudson, a scholar with the First Amendment Center in Nashville, Tenn.

Andy Kahan, a victim's rights advocate for the Houston Police Department and a national expert on Son of Sam and related laws, said he knows of no other efforts to close existing loopholes in other states.

"Perhaps as a result of this case, others will go back and look at and consider revising their Son of Sam laws," he said.

Although legal experts agree the case would establish a precedent if Brewer succeeds, she's not expected to see any money because of a $1.2 million lien against her for psychiatric counseling and other services she has received since her arrest. Her court-appointed attorney did not return a telephone call seeking comment.

Maebell Mickens, Brewer's grandmother, disputed that the woman's motivation is money, though she did not offer an alternative explanation.

"She ain't never wanted no money," Mickens told The Associated Press in a brief telephone interview.

"I love my granddaughter. I love her dearly, and I miss my great-grandchildren. I long for them; my heart hurts for them every day of my life."

Mickens said she sometimes speaks to Brewer by telephone. "She misses the children; she is still in so much pain. She calls crying and longing to hold her children in her arms again.

"She was a sick girl."

Tags: Blog / Destination / Stories / US

Access to food stamp system restored in 17 states affected by outage

-

Access to the food stamp system was restored late Saturday following a computer failure that knocked out service to people across 17 states, preventing some from buying groceries.

In this photo taken Saturday, Feb. 6, 2010, a sign announcing the acceptance of electronic Benefit Transfer cards is seen at a farmers market in Roseville, Calif.

"Beneficiary access to programs such as SNAP, TANF and other programs has been restored to the 17 states where Xerox provides EBT service," said a statement from vendor Xerox Corp, which manages the electronic benefits transfer cards. "Re-starting the EBT system required time to ensure service was back at full functionality."

The company apologized for the disruption, adding: "We realize that access to these benefits is important to families in the states we serve. We continue to investigate the cause of the issue so we can take steps to ensure a similar interruption does not re-occur."

Advertise | AdChoices

Ohio, Michigan, Illinois and California were a few of the states where people reported having trouble using their food stamp cards Saturday.

A company spokeswoman confirmed Saturday afternoon that the system experienced connectivity issues.

"During a routine test of our back-up systems Saturday morning, Xerox's Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) system experienced a temporary shutdown. While the system is now up and running, beneficiaries in the 17 affected states continue to experience connectivity issues to access their benefits," spokeswoman Karen Arena said in a statement.

Officials had advised beneficiaries to use the manual system in the meantime, which meant SNAP customers could spend up to $50 until the system is back online. 

Eliza Shook, a cashier in Clarksdale, Miss., one of the country's poorest states, told The Associated Press dozens of customers at the grocery store where she works had to put back the groceries when their cards didn't work because they couldn't pay for their purchases otherwise. 

"It's been terrible," Shook told the AP. "It's just been some angry folks. That's what a lot of folks depend on." 

A representative for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which manages the SNAP program, said the service disruption was not related to the government shutdown.source NBC News

Tags: Blog / Destination / Nation / Stories

Did prehistoric cavemen discover recycling?

-

If you thought recycling was just a modern phenomenon championed by environmentalists and concerned urbanites — think again.

There is mounting evidence that hundreds of thousands of years ago, our prehistoric ancestors learned to recycle the objects they used in their daily lives, say researchers gathered at an international conference in Israel.

"For the first time we are revealing the extent of this phenomenon, both in terms of the amount of recycling that went on and the different methods used," said Ran Barkai, an archaeologist and one of the organizers of the four-day gathering at Tel Aviv University that ended Thursday.

Just as today we recycle materials such as paper and plastic to manufacture new items, early hominids would collect discarded or broken tools made of flint and bone to create new utensils, Barkai said.

The behavior "appeared at different times, in different places, with different methods according to the context and the availability of raw materials," he told The Associated Press.

From caves in Spain and North Africa to sites in Italy and Israel, archaeologists have been finding such recycled tools in recent years. The conference, titled "The Origins of Recycling," gathered nearly 50 scholars from about 10 countries to compare notes and figure out what the phenomenon meant for our ancestors.

Recycling was widespread not only among early humans but among our evolutionary predecessors such as Homo erectus, Neanderthals and other species of hominids that have not yet even been named, Barkai said.

Avi Gopher, a Tel Aviv University archaeologist, said the early appearance of recycling highlights its role as a basic survival strategy. While they may not have been driven by concerns over pollution and the environment, hominids shared some of our motivations, he said.

"Why do we recycle plastic? To conserve energy and raw materials," Gopher said. "In the same way, if you recycled flint you didn't have to go all the way to the quarry to get more, so you conserved your energy and saved on the material."

The clean side of Waste Management

Some cases may date as far back as 1.3 million years ago, according to finds in Fuente Nueva, on the shores of a prehistoric lake in southern Spain, said Deborah Barsky, an archaeologist with the University of Tarragona. Here there was only basic reworking of flint and it was hard to tell whether this was really recycling, she said.

"I think it was just something you picked up unconsciously and used to make something else," Barsky said. "Only after years and years does this become systematic."

That started happening about half a million years ago or later, scholars said.

For example, a dry pond in Castel di Guido, near Rome, has yielded bone tools used some 300,000 years ago by Neanderthals who hunted or scavenged elephant carcasses there, said Giovanni Boschian, a geologist from the University of Pisa.

"We find several levels of reuse and recycling," he said. "The bones were shattered to extract the marrow, then the fragments were shaped into tools, abandoned, and finally reworked to be used again."

At other sites, stone hand-axes and discarded flint flakes would often function as core material to create smaller tools like blades and scrapers. Sometimes hominids found a use even for the tiny flakes that flew off the stone during the knapping process.

At Qesem cave, a site near Tel Aviv dating back to between 200,000 and 420,000 years ago, Gopher and Barkai uncovered flint chips that had been reshaped into small blades to cut meat — a primitive form of cutlery.

Some 10 percent of the tools found at the site were recycled in some way, Gopher said. "It was not an occasional behavior; it was part of the way they did things, part of their way of life," he said.

He said scientists have various ways to determine if a tool was recycled. They can find direct evidence of retouching and reuse, or they can look at the object's patina — a progressive discoloration that occurs once stone is exposed to the elements. Differences in the patina indicate that a fresh layer of material was exposed hundreds or thousands of years after the tool's first incarnation.

Some participants argued that scholars should be cautious to draw parallels between this ancient behavior and the current forms of systematic recycling, driven by mass production and environmental concerns.

"It is very useful to think about prehistoric recycling," said Daniel Amick, a professor of anthropology at Chicago's Loyola University. "But I think that when they recycled they did so on an 'ad hoc' basis, when the need arose."

Participants in the conference plan to submit papers to be published next year in a special volume of Quaternary International, a peer-reviewed journal focusing on the study of the last 2.6 million years of Earth's history.

Norm Catto, the journal's editor in chief and a geography professor at Memorial University in St John's, Canada, said that while prehistoric recycling had come up in past studies, this was the first time experts met to discuss the issue in such depth.

Catto, who was not at the conference, said in an email that studying prehistoric recycling could give clues on trading links and how much time people spent at one site.

Above all, he wrote, the phenomenon reflects how despite living millennia apart and in completely different environments, humans appear to display "similar responses to the challenges and opportunities presented by life over thousands of years."

Tags: Blog / Destination / Nation / Stories

Google unveils plans for user identity to appear in ads

-

SAN FRANCISCO — Google Inc plans to launch new product-endorsement ads incorporating photos, comments and names of its users, in a move to match the "social" ads pioneered by rival Facebook Inc that is raising some privacy concerns.

The Google logo is seen on the top of its China headquarters building behind a surveillance camera in Beijing.

The changes, which Google announced in a revised terms of service policy on Friday, set the stage for Google to introduce "shared endorsements" ads on its sites as well as millions of other websites that are part of Google's display advertising network.

The new types of ads would use personal information of the members of Google+, the social network launched by the company in 2011.

If a Google+ user has publicly endorsed a particular brand or product by clicking on the +1 button, that person's image might appear in an ad. Reviews and ratings of restaurants or music that Google+ users share on other Google services, such as in the Google Play online store, would also become fair game for advertisers.

Facebook no longer lets users hide from search

The ads are similar to the social ads on Facebook, the world's No. 1 social network, which has 1.15 billion users.

Those ads are attractive to marketers, but they unfairly commercialize Internet users' images, said Marc Rotenberg, the director of online privacy group EPIC.

"It's a huge privacy problem," said Rotenberg. He said the U.S. Federal Trade Commission should review the policy change to determine whether it violates a 2011 consent order Google entered into which prohibits the company from retroactively changing users' privacy settings.

Users under 18 will be exempt from the ads and Google+ users will have the ability to opt out. But Rotenberg said users "shouldn't have to go back and restore their privacy defaults every time Google makes a change."

Information Google+ users have previously shared with a limited "circle" of friends will remain viewable only to that group, as will any shared endorsement ads that incorporate the information, Google said in a posting on its website explaining the new terms of service.

Google, which makes the vast majority of its revenue from advertising, operates the world's most popular Web search engine as well as other online services such as maps, email and video website YouTube.

The revised terms of service are the latest policy change by Google to raise privacy concerns. Last month, French regulators said they would begin a process to sanction Google for a 2012 change to its policy that allowed the company to combine data collected on individual users across its services, including YouTube, Gmail and social network Google+. Google has said its privacy policy respects European law and is intended to create better services for its users.

Google's latest terms of service change will go live on November 11.