Monday, December 31, 2012

Louisiana Medicaid Fraud Control Unit Federal Review

It seems the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has embarked on an evaluative mission to review, up close, the functioning of States' Medicaid Fraud Control Unit.

When going through this report, notice that you will never find anything dealing with child welfare fraud.  This is why no one will ever be convicted of Medicaid Fraud in Child Welfare.

I hope Michigan is next.
Louisiana Medicaid Fraud Control Unit Onsite Federal Review 2012 Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Saturday, December 29, 2012

Buy American, Adopt American

UNICEF estimates that there are about 740,000 children without parental custody in Russia.


Children's Defense Fund estimates there are over 400,000 children in foster care in the U.S.  Unfortunately, the Children's Bureau is unable to estimate the number of legal orphans in foster care because states do not maintain data on termination of parental rights of both parents.  This number (104,000) does not include youth in juvenile institutions, who are also considered children without parental custody.  

So, why is it these Christian adoption organizations are not advocating the adoption of children who are U.S. citizens?  Perhaps, it is an issue of inequity.  Perhaps it is a tax credit.

Support America.  Adopt U.S. Kids

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Friday, December 28, 2012

Russia: Vladimir Putin Signs Bill Banning Americans From Adopting Russian Children

Russia: Vladimir Putin Signs Bill Banning Americans From Adopting Russian Children

MOSCOW -- President Vladimir Putin on Friday signed a law banning Americans from adopting Russian children, abruptly terminating the prospects for more than 50 youngsters preparing to join new families and sparking critics to liken him to King Herod.

The move is part of a harsh response to a U.S. law targeting Russians deemed to be human rights violators. Although some top Russian officials including the foreign minister openly opposed the bill, Putin signed it less than 24 hours after receiving it from Parliament, where it passed both houses overwhelmingly.

The law also calls for the closure of non-governmental organizations receiving American funding if their activities are classified as political – a broad definition many fear could be used to close any NGO that offends the Kremlin.

The law takes effect Jan. 1, the Kremlin said. Children's rights ombudsman Pavel Astakhov said 52 children who were in the pipeline for U.S. adoption would remain in Russia.

The ban is in response to a measure signed into law by President Barack Obama this month that calls for sanctions against Russians assessed to be human rights violators.

That stems from the case of Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian lawyer who was arrested after accusing officials of a $230 million tax fraud. He was repeatedly denied medical treatment and died in jail in 2009. Russian rights groups claimed he was severely beaten.

A prison doctor who was the only official charged in the case was acquitted by a Moscow court on Friday. Although there was no demonstrable connection to Putin's signing the law a few hours later, the timing underlines what critics say is Russia's refusal to responsibly pursue the case.

The adoption ban has angered both Americans and Russians who argue it victimizes children to make a political point, cutting off a route out of frequently dismal orphanages for thousands.

"The king is Herod," popular writer Oleg Shargunov said on his Twitter account, referring to the Roman-appointed king of Judea at the time of Jesus Christ's birth, who the Bible says ordered the massacre of Jewish children to avoid being supplanted by a prophesied newborn king of the Jews.


A painting depicting the massacre and captioned "an appropriate response to the Magnitsky act" spread widely on the Internet. The phrase echoed Putin's characterization of the ban while it was under consideration.

U.S. State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell expressed regret over Putin's signing the law and urged Russia to "allow those children who have already met and bonded with their future parents to finish the necessary legal procedures so that they can join their families."

Vladimir Lukin, head of the Russian Human Rights Commission and a former ambassador to Washington, said he would challenge the law in the Constitutional Court.

The U.S. law galvanized Russian resentment of the United States, which Putin has claimed funded and encouraged the wave of massive anti-government protests that arose last winter.

The Parliament initially considered a relatively similar retaliatory measure, but amendments have expanded it far beyond a tit-for-tat response.

UNICEF estimates that there are about 740,000 children not in parental custody in Russia while about 18,000 Russians are on the waiting list to adopt a child. The U.S. is the biggest destination for adopted Russian children – more than 60,000 of them have been taken in by Americans over the past two decades.

Russians historically have been less enthusiastic about adopting children than most Western cultures. Putin, along with signing the adoption ban, on Friday issued an order for the government to develop a program to provide more support for adopted children.

Lev Ponomarev, one of Russia's most prominent human rights activists, hinted at that reluctance when he said Parliament members who voted for the bill should take custody of the children who were about to be adopted.

"The moral responsibility lies on them," he told Interfax. "But I don't think that even one child will be taken to be brought up by deputies of the Duma."

Many Russians have been distressed for years by reports of Russian children dying or suffering abuse at the hands of their American adoptive parents. The new Russian law was dubbed the "Dima Yakovlev Bill" after a toddler who died in 2008 when his American adoptive father left him in a car in broiling heat for hours.

In that case, the father was found not guilty of involuntary manslaughter and Russia has complained of acquittals or light sentences in other such cases.

The Investigative Committee, Russia's top investigative body, on Friday complained that its attempts to have the acquittals overturned or reconsidered had been ignored by the United States. Under U.S. law, acquittals are final except in rare cases.

Russians also bristled at how the widespread adoptions appeared to show them as hardhearted or too poor to take care of orphans. Astakhov, the children's ombudsman, charged that well-heeled Americans often got priority over Russians who wanted to adopt.

A few lawmakers even claimed that some Russian children were adopted by Americans only to be used for organ transplants or become sex toys or cannon fodder for the U.S. Army. A spokesman for Russia's dominant Orthodox Church said that children adopted by foreigners and raised outside the church will not enter God's kingdom.


Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Thursday, December 27, 2012

Conyers Introduces the “Protecting Students from Worthless Degrees Act”



Making Programmatic Accreditation or State Licensure a Requirement for Educational Study Programs

(DETROIT) – This afternoon, Representative John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) introduced the Protecting Students from Worthless Degrees Act. Currently, schools are eligible for three major federal financial aid programs totaling more than $160 billion even if they lack state licensing or programmatic accreditation for specific programs they offer (Title IV under the Department of Education, GI Bill under the Department of Veterans Affairs, and Tuition Assistance under the Department of Defense). The Protecting Students from Worthless Degrees Act will address this problem by making programmatic accreditation or state licensure a requirement for programs of study when such licensure or accreditation is needed for students to do the job they were prepared for by these programs. Specifically, the bill requires that programs offered by degree-granting institutions will be eligible for federal education dollars only if their graduates fully qualify to take any examination, be certified or licensed, or meet any other academically-related preconditions that are required for entry into the job market for which the degree is supposed to prepare them. For pre-accredited programs, the bill requires institutions to inform students about the lack of full accreditation, and about the effects on their financial aid, if such accreditation is delayed or denied. Rep. Conyers issued this statement following the introduction of the bill:

“Since the first G.I. Bill in 1944, federal educational financial aid programs, including student loans and Pell grants, have given generations of Americans the opportunity to pursue an education beyond high school, and obtain the skills and training needed to succeed in the economy,” said Conyers.

“Such aid has empowered millions of Americans who otherwise would not have been able to afford a postsecondary education and has helped build our nation’s middle class. However, with the rise of for-profit and non-accredited programs, serious concerns are being raised about the educational value that students are getting for their hard-earned benefits and financial aidAs a result, legislative action is urgently needed to ensure that such programs are not funding high-cost, low-quality programs that do not lead to successful outcomes and career opportunities for students and safeguard America’s federal investment in higher education.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

After decades of increases, childhood obesity drops in several cities

Another reason there is such a high rate of childhood obesity in impoverished areas is due to "food deserts".  A food desert is an area where there are no grocery stores or the stores that sell decaying produce.

As families are reliant upon SNAP (food subsidies), limited funds, averaging $150 an individual, even less for a child, forces people to purchase cheap starches with long shelf lives.

After decades of increases, childhood obesity drops in several cities

When junk food, fast food, sugary drinks and breakfast cereals that are 56 percent sugar by weight meet video games, televisions in bedrooms, and a walking-averse culture, the outcome shouldn’t be that surprising. About 17 percent of children between the ages of 2 and 19 in the United States are obese, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That’s more than 12 million children, and triple the rate from one generation ago.
Although the rapidly skyrocketing rate has slowed its ascent in recent years, the numbers are still staggering, and public health experts expect for long-term health risks to ensue.
Childhood Type 2 diabetes is on the rise. And obese children are more likely to grow into obese adults, carrying a higher risk of heart disease, stroke and cancer.
But amidst the troubling conundrum, some good news has been revealed.
A number of states are reporting declines in childhood obesity rates. Big cities such as New York and Los Angeles, and smaller spots such as Anchorage, Ak., and Kearney, Neb., have noted the change. And although the dips are small, mostly single-digit percentages, they provide the first sign that one the country’s most stubborn health problems may be relenting.
“It’s been nothing but bad news for 30 years, so the fact that we have any good news is a big story,” said Dr. Thomas Farley, the health commissioner in New York City.
Obesity is more widely reported for low-income children than those from affluent families — 20 percent of low-income children are obese as compared to 12 percent from affluent families — and the current declines appear to be focused in high-income, mostly white areas.
But Philadelphia, which has the highest big-city poverty rate in the country, reported that its obesity drop occurred mostly among minorities.
Philadelphia has taken assertive action in controlling sugar and junk food in the public schools, such as offering erasers instead of candy for rewards and swapping healthy foods for sugar-heavy bake sale treats.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Fiscal Cliff Examines How We Care For Children

Does this make any sense to you?

Average Earned Income Credit (EIC): $2,200

Adoption Tax Credit: $12,650  + Adoption Subsidy: $7,740 = $20,390

We are willing to pay a stranger over $20,000 a year to raise someone else's child who was poor/low income* but will only provide a tax credit of $2,000 to a natural family?  This is a 1:10 ratio.

* For clarification purposes, reference to an economic descriptive is to illuminate the fact many families cannot access mental health services for a child unless there is a voluntary child abuse case filed in the court.  Some states will call it "incorrigibility".  This is the only way to access funding for a child's mental health services because these services do not exist outside of foster care or private insurance companies refuse coverage.  Some have calculated foster care costs over $80 billion a year, majority reimbursed through Medicaid, because the nation refuses to talk about mental health.

The adoption child tax credit is a good way of helping children  but I only want to know why there is such a disparity.  The playing field needs to be leveled. 

Adoption Tax Credit Could Fall Off Fiscal Cliff

The adoption child tax credit is one of the many parts of the U.S. tax code that could change dramatically on Jan. 1, 2013, if Congress and President Barack Obama do not act.

Adoption advocates worry the During the President George W. Bush administration the adoption tax credit was increased from $6,000 to $12,650 and made refundable (meaning that even families who do not pay taxes can receive the credit.) This was part of a larger package of changes to the tax code, including rate cuts, that were set to expire in 2010. In March 2010, the Affordable Care Act, or "Obamacare," extended the expanded adoption tax credit through 2011. In December 2010, Congress and Obama agreed to a two-year extension of all the Bush tax code changes, so they are now set to expire at the end of 2012.

Congress is currently meeting in a "lame duck" session and these changes, part of the so-called fiscal cliff, will be a large part of the agenda.

If no changes are made, the adoption tax credit will return to $6,000 and non-refundable. As many now know because of Mitt Romney's infamous "47 percent" gaffe, about half of wage earners paid no income tax last year, after taking into account all deductions and credits. These families would receive no help through the tax code with the costs of adoption if the credit returns to being non-refundable.
The adoption tax credit was also made "flat" for special needs adoptions to encourage the adoption of children in foster care. This means that families who adopt children who qualify as special needs can claim the full credit without having to claim qualified expenses.

A study by Mary Hansen, associate professor of economics at American University, found that because children raised in foster care have more difficulties as adults, each child adopted from foster care saves about $235,000 in costs to the government over the life of the child.

To raise awareness of the adoption tax credit, 139 adoption and child welfare organizations have joined Save the Adoption Tax Credit. For more information about the adoption tax credit, visit its website or Facebook page.

It should be noted that the Adoption Tax Credit and Subsidy was not calculated into the estimated costs of child welfare report. 2012 Estimated Costs of Child Welfare Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Wednesday, December 26, 2012

Fiscal Cliff Hurts Children

As the date looms for what is called the "fiscal cliff" there is very little discussion on what this actually means to the low income family.

To begin with, a major part of this "fiscal cliff" has to deal with the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) which expired in 2011.  This means taxes are going to increase on Middle and Lower Class families, but let us examine the impact on Lower Class families.

Tax returns, or more specifically the Earned Income Credit (EIC) will be delayed.  The EIC is the lifeline for low income communities and in most cases, it is the last hope for struggling families.

In many instances, low income families file for the EIC to keep a roof over their heads.  Many are single mothers who do not work, mostly because there are no jobs and a lack of transportation to jobs that traditionally pay minimum wage.  These parents supplement their income with odd service jobs to make ends meet.

So, let's examine what would happen is the EIC is delayed until March 2013 or later.

Many cannot afford Christmas gifts for the family.  This is why local economies will be injected with a boost with shopping sprees for the children.  Local merchants would not generate the traditional January business (early filing) and would be stuck with overstock.  More than that, these merchants who rely upon this boom would not be able to make quarterly property and income tax payments.  Struggling businesses may be forced to shut down.

Also, many families use this EIC to pay property taxes.  When property taxes are not paid, there would be created an artificial whole in local governmental budgets, affecting public services and payless paydays.

The EIC is issued during the coldest months of the year, forcing many families to turn to state assistance to stay in their homes and keep the heat on.  The burden of increased applications for social assistance would in turn strain local governmental budgets, which are already facing unexpected unpaid property taxes.

In some events, educational, medical and child welfare service budgets, already strained, would be pushed to the brink of implosion as children would be forced to rely upon the system because of the delay of the EIC.

As Congress plays the political game of tax rates, keep in mind, taxpayers will pay in the end and it will mostly be the children of the Middle and Lower Classes.

It is time to include children in the tax debates.

IRS Letter on Delay of 2012 Tax Returns

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Monday, December 24, 2012

White House Petition Against Russian Magnitsky Act

As of December 24, three days after the "We The People" petition was created, there are over 35,000 signatures.  The White House has deemed that 25,000 or more signatures on a petition will prompt a Presidential response.

WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:

Identify Russian law-makers jeopardizing lives of Russian orphans responsible under "Magnitsky Act".

We, the undersigned,
- acknowledge the adoption of "Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012" as a profoundly pro-Russian step which will help Russian citizens bring individuals involved in corruption and violation of human rights to justice;
- are outraged with the actions of Russian law-makers, who breached all imaginable boundaries of humanity, responsibility, or common sense and chose to jeopardize lives and well-being of thousands of Russian orphans, some of whom, the ill and the disabled ones, now might not have a chance of survival if the ban on international adoption is to be put in place;
- urge this Administration to identify those involved in adopting such legislature responsible under "Magnitsky Act" and thus included to the relevant list.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Russia adoption ban sparks anger in U.S.


Russia's President Vladimir Putin chairs a meeting in his Novo-Ogaryovo residence outside Moscow on November 14, 2012. (AFP)
Tens of thousands of petitioners are calling for US President Barack Obama to escalate the diplomatic feud that led Moscow to propose a law barring Americans from adopting Russian children.
Two petitions on the White House web site are asking for US sanctions on the Russian lawmakers who help pass the law that one of the petitions says will “jeopardize lives and well-being of thousands of Russian orphans.”
Moscow sees the ban on adoptions as retaliation for a US human rights law that allows the seizure of assets from Russian officials implicated in the 2009 death of a Russian lawyer who blew the whistle on a $235 million police embezzlement scheme.
Under the US law — dubbed the Magnitsky Act in tribute to the late lawyer — those same officials would also be barred from entering the United States.
More than 37,000 people have signed one of the petitions saying they are “outraged with the actions of Russian law-makers.”
According to the White House rules, there will be an official response if the petition reaches 25,000 signatures within 30 days.
These lawmakers “breached all imaginable boundaries of humanity, responsibility, or common sense and chose to jeopardize lives and well-being of thousands of Russian orphans, some of whom, the ill and the disabled ones, now might not have a chance of survival if the ban on international adoption is to be put in place,” the petition continues.
The petitioners “urge this Administration to identify those involved in adopting such legislature responsible under ‘Magnitsky Act’ and thus included to the relevant list.”
Likewise, a second petition, signed by more than 5,000 people, asks that the Magnitsky Act “be extended to supporters of this law in (the) Russian Duma.”

The Duma passed the adoption ban without debate in a quick 420-7 vote on Friday as protesters picketed the building demanding the measure be voted down.

The Kremlin-dominated upper house is now expected to approve the bill next Wednesday before passing it on to President Vladimir Putin for his signature.
The Russian leader has indicated he is ready to put his name on the measure so that it could enter law on January 1.
The measure, which underscores the severity of the recent strain in Russia-US ties, would end about 1,000 adoptions a year.
Caregivers in particular fear the new rules will hit the most disadvantaged children because foreign adoptive parents are often ready to adopt kids rejected by Russian families.


Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

A CPS Christmas Carol

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Sunday, December 23, 2012

NY Times and Detroit WXYZ-TV Ask Court to Unseal Motown Copyright Docs


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                            CONTACT: BEVERLY TRAN
DECEMBER 23, 2012                                                          tranbeverly@gmail.com
                                                                                               313-522-8213

NY Times and Detroit WXYZ-TV Ask Court To Unseal Motown Copyright Docs

(DETROIT, MI) ~ On December 18, 2012, James E. Stewart and Leonard M. Niehoff, Attorneys for the New York Times and WXYZ-TV, filed motion asking federal Judge John Corbett O'Meara to unseal testimony alleging "falsely and fraudulently claiming copyrights".

The case is centered around the issues of Motown artists where Bridgeport Music, Inc., a record company, filed questionable claims of ownership with the U.S. Copyright Office.

The argument is that court documents should be public documents, as the testimony of Jane Peterer, a former employee of Bridgeport Music, Inc., centers on the activities of a federal office.

George Clinton, Parliment Funkadelic, has been a strong advocate for reform of the U.S. Copyright Office and supporting other Motown artists reclaim their copyrights when the 35-year Work-For-Hire provision of the Copyright Law tolls in 2013.

For more information:  http://flashlight2013.com



Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Saturday, December 22, 2012

Russian Children Sexually Abused, Suffocated by US Adoptive Parents – Russian Diplomat





Russian Children Sexually Abused, Suffocated by US Adoptive Parents – Russian Diplomat
RIA NOVOSTI

Florida justice denied Russian diplomats a meeting with adopted Russian boy, Maxim Babaev, 6, who was abused by his American adoptive parents, despite US-Russian new agreement on adoption. Sergey Chumarev, Senior Legal Councillor of the Russian Embassy in the U.S., who tried to get consular access to Maxim, a bearer of Russian passport, told the Voice of Russia about the new details of this case. In the most shocking part, Mr. Chumarev refers to sheriff's report about sexual abuse of the child that was disregarded by a local judge, as well as to police report saying the adoptive father hit his head against the wall and his U.S. mother tried to suffocate him. The Russian diplomat also cites other examples when state or county authorities in various locations across the United States refused to fulfill US-Russian adoption agreement and prevent Russia to monitor cases of abuse of Russian kids in America. This story emerges on the backdrop of heated debate around U.S. adoption ban that was voted by the Russian Duma past Friday.

Please tell us about your trip to Florida and how you met those adopted Russians who were reportedly abused?

I have just returned from Florida, that was a short to Brevard County. I had an opportunity to talk to five different officers there trying to get access to Russian national minor whose name is Maxim Babayev who was adopted here and given a name Maxim Tailor.

How old is he?

He is six years old. We contacted the office of the State Attorney General, Brevard County sheriff’s office, records department and the clerk of the local court. And what we got was a very cautious and at the same time very strange response to our requests. First, we could not meet with the boy, though he is a Russian national and he is apparently in need of consular and diplomatic protection.
Second, we got some public records but they are heavily reducted. Basically, what we could obtain as the background information for this case is the sheriff’s arrest report, charges against both adoptive parents and the judgment. And out of that we already can indicate very serious issues with respect to the quality of treatment of this case. And if you allow me, I would single out one very important issue.

Sure!

Both parents, we believe that they deserve a much severe punishment. For the adoptive father it was five year probation and for the mother one year probation, though as we can judge from the public records available to us they really were striking and hitting him at the wall and squeezing neck of this boy with hands…

And that was made on public, you’ve mentioned, right?

Most probably it was not a single incident because the doctor who actually examined the boy immediately after arrest, he testified that there were numerous injuries on the body and some bruises on the back side of his head. So, the injuries were really serious and the boy was immediately separated from this family. As we also managed to learn is that right now he stays with the foster family and receives medical and psychological assistance.

But the main reason and the main purpose of our visit was not achieved because prior to this visit the local judge twice rejected our motion as for the consular access to this boy. And basically he disagreed with the statement of the State Department that in such cases where a child is a victim of severe maltreatment, a visit of consular representatives from his country of origin is in the best interests of this child. And the judge decided to follow only Florida rules and local laws and regulations. He also stated that he does not know basically about the consular bilateral convention and the recent agreement on cooperation in international adoption between Russia and the US, and he is not obliged to implement those treaties.

That is a structural issue for us since this case shows that the US authorities cannot assure implementation of international obligations in every part of the US territory. And since it concerns the Russian national and the minor – it means that we have to find new means to tackle this issue. And probably the most appropriate would be a joined visit by the Guardian Ad Litem, social protection services and other representatives in a joined cooperative effort to finally identify the boy, to assist him with the documentation because apparently his Russian passport has been lost or even destroyed by adoptive parents, which is a common practice unfortunately.

And what was the reason for the judge, did he explain why he is not allowing you to visit the boy?

He had a ten minute oral ruling and that was quite large in terms of words but in substance though that was quite poor because his idea was that he is not convinced that the visit of consular officials would serve the best interests of the child, as he sees it. That’s it. On his way to this conclusion he rejected our arguments, he rejected the arguments presented by the State Department and also informed that he is not in a position to apply international treaties in this particular case, he does not need it.

Does the Embassy want to go further and ask for further assistance from the State Department in this dialog with the Florida authorities?

Yes, we will continue dealing with this case, specifically on a very important issue that has been overlooked by the American court. We’ve managed to find out that there were also some charges that were disregarded and in the judgment we can read that the state in consideration on this plea agrees not to file sex-related charges against the defendant.

So, you mean the sexual abuse. And you said that it was mentioned in the sheriff’s report, right?

Exactly! And this sheriff’s report was kind of disregarded by the judge, by the office of the prosecute, the attorneys office and it means that this particular case needs to be further investigated, and if necessary, new charges should be brought against these adoptive parents. Otherwise, we feel that it is yet another case when American courts just did not serve the best interests of the child and actually whitewashed horrendous actions by adoptive parents. We will continue working with the State Department and local authorities. And we hope that in accordance with the Florida law, international obligations and federal law of the US we will finally find the real solution for the best interests of the child.

Alright, let me leave it with that. Thank you very much. We were talking with Sergey Chumarov who is the Russian diplomat and he is working with the Russian Embassy in charge of relations with the adopted Russian children.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Russia Exposes Why U.S. Hides Human Rights Violations

In light of The United States being banned from adopting children from Russia, international focus on how The U.S. treats children has other countries considering enjoining the ban.

The report highlights the reasons why the U.S. refuses to sign onto human rights international treaties by examining:

  • The role of special interests groups, including the impact of the Citizens United court decision allowing corporate financing of political campaigns;
  • The economic impact of Right-To-Work legislation;
  • Why the U.S. has the most imprisioned in the world, penal system, prison labor, corporate profit, juvenile abuses, racial disparities of incarceration and sentencing;
  • Child Welfare
  • Hate Groups
There are so many horrors that go on behind the America's iron curtain of child welfare to the point that political forces have manipulated the hearts and minds of desperate parents to keep U.S. secrets from any international scrutiny.  Parentalrights.org is on of those groups. 

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russion Federation Report on the Human Rights Situation in the U.S.A. Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Why Has Moscow Passed a Bill to Ban U.S. Adoption of Russian Orphans?

Because the U.S. is trafficking tiny humans around the world.

Why Has Moscow Passed a Bill to Ban U.S. Adoption of Russian Orphans?


image: Orphan children attend a class at an orphanage in the southern Russian city of Rostov-on-Don, Dec. 19, 2012. On Thursday, Putin tried to explain himself in front of a hall full of Russian and foreign journalists, many of whom were clearly outraged by the adoption bill passed the previous day. The first question asked Putin why he had made “the most destitute and helpless children into instruments of political battle.” The second was even more blunt, calling the bill “cannibalistic.” Live on Russian television, Putin mounted a strange defense: How could the journalists stand idly by while the U.S. “humiliates” Russia? “You think that’s normal?” Putin demanded. “What’s normal about being humiliated? You like that? What are you, a sadomasochist? The country will not be humiliated.”Passing a new bill in Russia has never presented much of a problem for President Vladimir Putin. With perpetual control of both houses of parliament and a couple of loyalist “opposition” parties to boot, legislation backed by Putin generally amounts to a Kremlin fiat. The hard part this week was in explaining his newest initiative to the public. Intended as a political strike against Washington, the bill does some shocking collateral damage. In effect, it will doom the chances of thousands of Russian orphans, many of them handicapped and emotionally scarred, from being adopted by families in the U.S. How do you justify that?
The humiliation Putin had in mind was the U.S. Magnitsky Act, which was passed this month by a huge bipartisan majority in both the House and the Senate. The act seeks to punish a group of Russian officials who have been implicated in the torture and death of a Russian lawyer named Sergei Magnitsky. In 2008, Magnitsky discovered that a group of Russian officials had stolen $230 million from the Russian treasury. When he blew the whistle on their scheme, some of those same officials allegedly conspired to get him arrested, and he died in a prison cell a year later, having been reportedly beaten and denied medical treatment.
Three years since his death, all of his alleged tormentors are still free. Nearly all of them have either kept their government jobs or been promoted. As a last resort, Magnitsky’s friends and colleagues took their pleas for justice to Western capitals, and Washington has now banned the implicated officials from traveling to the U.S., owning property in the U.S., or holding U.S. bank accounts. Putin called the act “unfriendly” and pledged that it would get an “adequate” response from Russian lawmakers.
On Dec. 11, when that response was presented to the Duma, Russia’s lower house of parliament, I went to the chamber to hear how the lawmakers would justify it. They had some talking points prepared, but some of the bill’s supporters admitted that it was little more than childish chest-thumping, which could blow up in the Kremlin’s face. Vladimir Ovsyannikov, a shaven-headed lawmaker from a nationalist party, called it an example of zhlobstvo, a Russian word that combines the notions of rudeness, pigheadedness and spleen. But since the bill was a Kremlin initiative, he said, his party would be sure to support it. “It is a question of pride,” says Ovsyannikov. “Our sovereignty has been threatened [by the Magnitsky Act], and we need to hit back. Maybe it sounds dumb, but it’s part of the Russian mentality.”
From Putin’s political party, United Russia, one of the main parliamentarians behind the bill is Alexei Pushkov, the chairman of the Duma’s foreign-affairs committee, who also hosts a popular political talk show on one of the government’s propaganda channels. Dapper and prim, he met me that day in his office, which is decorated with a portrait of Putin and a little porcelain statuette of the Chinese communist leader Mao Zedong. In explaining the need for a Russian response to the Magnitsky Act, he claims that Washington has long exhausted the moral authority needed to preach about rights violations and must be taught some humility. “In Russia, not only the political class, but the public at large has grown tired of the U.S. lecturing on human rights,” he says. “The hypocrisy has gone through the roof. It’s even funny sometimes,” he adds. “It’s like an alcoholic coming to you and saying, I’ll help you get sober.”
Fine. But why use orphans as a political weapon? Over the past 20 years, more than 60,000 Russian children have been adopted by American families, and 19 of them have died in their care through negligence or domestic violence. Each death is a tragedy, but the rate of child mortality, deprivation and abuse in Russian orphanages is far higher. Pushkov admits as much. “But if the U.S. federal authorities wanted, they could act to at least restore a sense of justice,” he says. “These parents adopt children to get extra welfare benefits, to get money, or they just began to hate this child. It doesn’t matter. There needs to be justice. It is a nationwide consensus. That is why we initiated this.”
His point about a nationwide consensus is, at best, an overstatement. In a survey released on Dec. 7 by the Levada Center, an independent pollster, 39% of respondents said they support the U.S. Magnitsky Act as a way to punish corrupt Russian officials. Only 14% were against it, while 44% of Russians said they would like to see similar legislation passed in Europe. Pushkov brushed this off as the result of ignorance. “When people say it’s good they passed this law to fight corruption in Russia, I think they simply don’t know what’s really going on,” he tells me.
But even among Russia’s political elite, there have been some voices of outrage. Education Minister Dmitri Livanov tweeted on Wednesday that the flawed logic of the bill amounts to revenge. “But that logic is wrong, because our own children may suffer, the ones who could not find foster parents in Russia.” The television celebrity Vladimir Solovyov, known for being a dogged Kremlin loyalist, said according to the bill’s reasoning, “we should now ban giving birth in Russia, because children also get killed here.”
Still, when the bill went up for a vote on Dec. 19, only four Duma deputies voted against it; two abstained, and 400 voted in favor. When the vote was over, the chamber discovered that one of the lawmakers who had supported the bill had died the previous day. Vyacheslav Osipov, a member of Putin’s party, had been ill and absent from the chamber for weeks, and on the morning of the vote, the Duma observed a minute of silence in his honor. But that did not stop one of his colleagues from casting his vote posthumously in support of the adoption bill. The United Russia party explained that this was allowed under Duma rules, but said it would not happen again.
In the coming days, the Duma will have to hold one final vote on the bill, and Putin must sign it before it goes into effect, as expected, on Jan. 1. After that, the adoption ban could be extended to Canada and various European states that are planning to pass their own versions of the Magnitsky Act. “The law has flexibility built into it,” Pushkov tells me of the Russian response. Certainly, though, it gives no flexibility to the orphans waiting to be adopted in Russia. As their numbers jump as a consequence of this bill, Putin and his allies will surely have more explaining to do. And thumping their chests might not do the trick

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Utah Kid Who Brought Gun to Class Claims Parents Armed Him for Protection Following Sandy Hook Shooting


Utah Kid Who Brought Gun to Class Claims Parents Armed Him for Protection Following Sandy Hook Shooting

A student at an elementary school in Kearns, Utah, who brought a handgun in to class reportedly told his classmates the weapon was given to him by his parents for protection in the wake of last week's shooting at Sandy Hook.
The .22-caliber pistol was unloaded when the 6th grader pulled it out of his backpack during recess yesterday and aimed it at another student. "He pointed a gun to my head and said he was going to kill me," Isabel Rios told a local Fox affiliate.
The 11-year-old was quickly disarmed by a teacher and rushed to the principal's office. The police were called but no lockdown was ordered as the incident was over in 30 to 45 seconds, according to school administrators at West Kearns Elementary School.
Still, some parents felt the school should have done more to guarantee the safety of their children. "There was no lockdown. No one was called. Nothing was done. And then we had to hear it from our kids," parent John Klaus said.
Some students were kept home from school today by their parents as a precaution.
An investigation into the incident is ongoing, and police are looking into the veracity of the child's statement concerning his parents' involvement. Meanwhile, he has been placed in the custody of a juvenile hall and could face criminal charges as well as expulsion.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©