South Carolina bill would make it a crime to implement ObamaCare

• 

  July 1, 2003: The South Carolina State House in Columbia is shown.AP

The Supreme Court may have ruled ObamaCare is constitutional, but implementing the controversial federal law would become a crime in South Carolina if a bill passed by the state House becomes law.

The bill, approved Wednesday by a vote of 65-39, declares President Obama's signature legislation "null and void." Whereas the law that Obama pushed and Congress passed is known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, South Carolina's law would be known as the Freedom of Health Care Protection Act.

It would prohibit state officials and employees from "enforcing or attempting to enforce such unconstitutional laws" and "establish criminal penalties and civil liability" for those who engage in activities that aid the implementation of ObamaCare.

The Supreme Court ruled last year that ObamaCare's underlying provision, requiring all Americans to obtain health insurance, is constitutional, though lawsuits still are pending that argue against certain parts of that mandate -- in particular, contraceptive coverage, which some Christian employers argue violates their religious beliefs.

In South Carolina, the nullification bill would allow the state attorney general to take action against anyone causing harm by the implementation of ObamaCare. It proceeds to the state Senate for committee review, according to The Washington Times.

Gov. Nikki Haley has rejected the expansion of Medicaid insurance rolls under a joint federal-state program for low-income Americans, which is an anchor of the law Obama signed in 2010.

"Not in South Carolina," Haley declared at the Conservative Political Action Conference in March. "We will not expand Medicaid on President Obama's watch. We will not expand Medicaid ever."

Other parts of ObamaCare have already started to fray, even before full implementation.

The Obama administration now says a special system of exchanges designed to make it easier for small businesses to provide insurance will be delayed an entire year -- to 2015.

"Lots of small businesses struggle with providing insurance for their workers so this was supposed to facilitate it and make it easier for small business to do this," Jim Capretta of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, told Fox News last month. "It was a huge portion of the sale job. When they passed the law in 2010 there were many senators and members of Congress who were saying 'I am doing this because it's going to help small businesses.'"

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Click here for more from The Washington Times.

View the original article here

US, South Korea extend nuclear agreement for 2 years

The U.S. and South Korea are extending for two years their current civilian nuclear agreement and postponing a contentious decision on whether Seoul will be allowed to reprocess spent fuel as it seeks to expand its atomic energy industry.

Wednesday's announcement is a setback to South Korea's new leader, Park Geun-hye, who had made revision of the 39-year-old treaty one of her top election pledges, but it alleviates a potential disagreement between the allies when Park visits Washington in two weeks to meet with President Obama.

State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell said the extension will provide more time for the two governments to complete the complex negotiations on a successor agreement that will recommence in June.

"These are very technical talks, and both parties felt that we needed more time," he told reporters.

South Korea is the world's fifth-largest nuclear energy producer and is planning to expand domestic use of nuclear power and exports of nuclear reactors. But its radioactive waste storage is filling up, so it wants to be able to reprocess spent plutonium. It also wants to be able enrich uranium, a process that uranium must undergo to become a viable nuclear fuel. Currently, South Korea has to get countries such as the U.S. and France to do enrichment for it.

Revising the agreement is a sensitive matter as the same technologies can also be used to develop nuclear weapons. Washington has historically opposed allowing reprocessing and enrichment by its nuclear partners so as to prevent proliferation of the technology. The issue has added sensitivity on the divided Korean Peninsula because of North Korea's active pursuit of such weapons and international demands it desist.

Victor Cha at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank said the U.S. and South Korea had been deadlocked after two years of negotiations on a revised agreement and showing little inclination for compromise. Failure to extend the current agreement would have had a major impact on both the U.S. and South Korean nuclear industries, and would have been a blow to the Washington-Seoul alliance, he said.

"Punting the negotiations down the road for two years is advisable, benefits industry by creating some sense of predictability, and is politically neutral," Cha wrote in a commentary Wednesday.

The current agreement, last amended in 1974, expires in March 2014. Its renewal has to be submitted to Congress by this summer for approval.

South Korea is a staunch U.S. ally hosting American forces. The relationship was founded on strong security ties but expanded last year when a landmark free trade pact came into effect.

Park will visit the White House on May 7. She will also address a joint meeting of Congress.

View the original article here

South American countries battling Amazon over domain name

Published April 25, 2013

FoxNews.com

The governments of South American countries, including Brazil and Peru, are in a tussle with Amazon.com to see who will become the digital king of the jungle.

The Seattle-based web giant, which is one of the Internet’s biggest retailers, has applied for the “.amazon” domain name. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann) -- a U.S.-based nonprofit that helps govern the Internet -- is weighing bids to add hundreds of new domain names to the existing 22, which include .com and .gov., The Guardian reports.

But Brazil and Peru have called for the application to be withdrawn, arguing that the name could be used to promote environmental protection and other public interests.

"Allowing private companies to register geographic names as [generic top-level domains] to reinforce their brand strategy or to profit from the meaning of these names does not serve, in our view, the public interest," the Brazilian ministry of science and technology said in a statement.

Last month, Brazil said its views were endorsed by the Amazon Co-operation Treaty, which includes countries like Bolivia, Colombia and Venezuela, The Guardian reports. A formal complaint was filed in November 2012.

The disputed “.amazon” proposal, along with others like ".patagonia" and ".shangrila," are to be discussed at an Icann meeting in South Africa in July. The new domain names, if approved, could appear on the Internet by the end of the year.

Click for more from The Guardian.

View the original article here

Report: Ex-wife says former South Carolina Gov. Sanford trespassed

Published April 16, 2013

Associated Press

CHARLESTON, S.C. –  A lawyer say ex-South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford trespassed at his ex-wife's home and he has been ordered to appear in court two days after his special congressional election.

Documents acquired by The Associated Press Tuesday say Jenny Sanford confronted her ex-husband leaving her South Carolina home on Feb. 3. Her attorney filed a complaint the next day and she confirms the documents are authentic.

In them, she says he was using his cellphone as a flashlight as he left.

The couple's divorce settlement says neither may enter the other's home without permission.

Republican Mark Sanford is trying to revive his political career that was derailed by an extramarital affair that ended his marriage. He is running for the state's 1st Congressional District seat.

A spokesman says the campaign has no comment at this time.

View the original article here

South Carolina becomes battleground in immigration debate

• 

As the Senate inches closer to a deal on immigration reform legislation, South Carolina is emerging as a major battleground in the debate. 

It's not because of South Carolina's location -- after all, it's not a border state. Rather, it's because South Carolina is home to Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican champion of reform and member of the bipartisan "Gang of 8" negotiating a draft bill, and Rep. Trey Gowdy, who chairs the House Immigration Subcommittee. Both will play an integral role in any reform legislation as it makes its way through Congress. 

"It's become ground zero," Graham said of the Palmetto State. "If you can sell it here, you can sell it anywhere. And the opponents of immigration reform see this as a test case." 

Which is why opponents of immigration reform have targeted South Carolina -- and Graham specifically -- with an ad campaign that plays the "job" card. The ad stokes concern that if given legal status, immigrants will steal American jobs. 

"The consequences of breaking immigration law is, you have to go home," said Roy Beck of Numbers USA. The group played an integral role in torpedoing immigration reform in 2007. "Everything about this says 'you don't have to go home.'  You get to stay here and you get to keep the jobs that you came here to steal." 

Graham and his House colleague dismiss the notion that illegal immigrants are taking jobs from unemployed Americans. 

"I would love for them to come join me the next time I have a conversation with my farmers," said Gowdy. "Because they advertise and post jobs and they can't get anyone to come except immigrant labor." 

Gowdy told Fox News the time has come for comprehensive immigration reform. And he is optimistic South Carolinians will buy in. 

"If there is one thing we have to do in South Carolina, it is convince our fellow citizens that this is the last time they're going to hear about this issue, problem, whatever word you want to use, in their lifetime." 

The two have powerful allies in the South Carolina business community, and among evangelical leaders who have launched an ad campaign to promote reform. 

Among the group is Richard Land of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. He insists there has been a sea change among religious conservatives regarding immigration reform. 

"They have come to understand that this in an intolerable situation that we have," Land told Fox News. "We have a broken system that needs to be fixed." 

While evangelical leaders are now on the same page with reform, the more difficult task is to effectively promote that position in neighborhood churches. One argument they make is that many illegal immigrants have become evangelicals and should be welcomed into the larger fold. 

The Republican Party would also like to welcome more immigrants -- particularly Hispanics -- into their ranks. In 2004, George W. Bush embraced immigration reform and captured 44 percent of the Hispanic vote. Last year, Mitt Romney talked of "self-deportation." He ended up with just 27 percent of the Hispanic vote. 

"If the Republican Party wants to remain a national party that can win national elections, it's going to have to get a significant portion of the Hispanic vote," Land told Fox News. 

Graham agreed. "We've gone from 44 percent to 27 percent of the Hispanic vote. Not because conservatism is bad -- it's because the rhetoric around immigration has tainted the Republican brand with the Hispanic community for no good reason. We're going to fix this problem." 

Gowdy cautions anyone who thinks the Republican Party is just one immigration reform deal away from turning the tide with Hispanic voters. 

"We're not," he told Fox News. 

But he does see the potential to change perceptions of the Republican Party among Hispanics, and open the door to a broader conversation. 

"When you don't think the politician talking to you likes you or cares about you, or cares about the people that you have something in common with, it's kind of hard to hear the rest of what they have to say," he said.

View the original article here

South Carolina university project chugs along after 15 years, $24M cost to taxpayers

• 

  Shown here is a rendering of the James E. Clyburn University Transportation Center, left, and Rep. James Clyburn.South Carolina Legislative Audit Council/AP

WASHINGTON –  It was billed as a state-of-the-art transportation hub that was going to give students at South Carolina State University a leg up on the competition. 

The four building, 33-acre complex, named after its most famous alumnus, Rep. James Clyburn, would be a monument to the future -- where students could get hands-on experience and be a part of groundbreaking research in transportation. 

Fast forward 15 years and the site once called the "project of the future" has morphed into a money-sucking pit. Aside from the $24 million in federal funding already spent on the project, an estimated $80 million more is needed to finish it. Of the four proposed buildings, only one has been constructed, and the program's core goal -- to provide educational and research opportunities to students at new high-tech facilities -- has obviously not been met. 

Federal funding, as of now, has been suspended. But the school could still reapply, and the largely undeveloped site stands as an example of money that could have been saved for a rainy day -- funded by the same department that's now moving forward with serious sequester-related cuts. 

Funding for the James E. Clyburn Transportation Center was earmarked by Congress, through the Department of Transportation. Now, that agency is warning that sequester cuts will lead to FAA furloughs causing snarled lines at airports across the country. 

The problems facing South Carolina State University aren't new or isolated. There have been multiple projects that have been financed or earmarked with taxpayer money that have been forced to be abandoned. Millions of dollars wasted on proposals green-lighted through the federal government and now put on hold have added to the crippling fiscal problems facing the country. 

In South Carolina, the almost two decades-old construction project was supposed to include 8,500 square feet of automotive research and education space, a chiller plant and workspace. There were also supposed to be research bays and other transportation work pods. But that isn't what happened. 

According to Clyburn, the 2005 groundbreaking was followed by a series of bizarre and crippling problems. 

Clyburn, in a statement provided by his office, said the school learned -- after the groundbreaking -- that it did not own 3 acres in the middle of the 23-acre site and that negotiations to purchase that property took 18 months. Another year was tacked on for the city of Orangeburg to deed the street involved to the university. Then the state of South Carolina ordered the university to complete a traffic impact study, which took six months to do. In 2008, the chief architect for the project was diagnosed with cancer. This was followed by a record number of permit denials and modification demands. In 2009, more than one decade after the project was given the green light by the federal government, it finally won approval of the FHA and State Engineer's Office. 

But the headaches only grew, Clyburn said. 

The university opened the project up for bids on Dec. 18, 2009. The lowest of the 18 bids was selected, but four of the companies filed a protest. Then the chief architect died, and the search for a new one began. While permits were being secured and staff was being hired, the university underwent its own staffing changes -- there had been three different presidents and the staff on the Clyburn transportation center had changed "four or five times" Clyburn said. 

Spiraling construction costs and the loss of federal recognition for the facility brought the program to a standstill multiple times. And last year, the school was hit with a number of audits. There have also been allegations of missing money and reports of duplicate billings, questionable payments and abuses by individual employees at the center. 

The school itself is facing declining enrollment numbers and a $6 million shortfall. 

University spokeswoman Antia Dawkins told FoxNews.com in a written statement that the university has had to make changes in its plan to complete the center.

"The current approach is to seek the advice of a broad-based advisory board consisting of subject-matter experts in transportation," she said. "This advisory board will help us shape the focus and direction for the Transportation Initiative."

There is a possibility the amount of money the school needs to finish the project could eclipse the estimated $80 million. 

"While various transportation activities have been discussed and included in our Transportation Program over the last 15 years, we cannot adequately determine the financial requirement for any plan that was discussed over that time period," Dawkins said.  

Since accusations of gross mismanagement hit the school, Clyburn's enthusiasm seemed to ease a bit for the problem-plagued project. But instead of blaming the school and reported mishandling of resources, Clyburn believes the problem is a political one. 

"The faculty and the school have become victims of vicious manufactured attacks by political partisans, and that is unfortunate for the university and the students who would benefit from this program," Clyburn said in a written statement to FoxNews.com Monday. "I don't know what the future of the center is, and I will leave that up to the university and its alumni to determine."

View the original article here

South Korea misidentifies China as origin of cyberattacks

• 

  March 20, 2013: A customer sits in a branch of Shinhan Bank in Seoul, South Korea, while the bank's computer networks are paralyzed.AP

NEW YORK –  South Korean investigators said Friday they had mistakenly identified a Chinese Internet address as the source of a cyberattack that paralyzed tens of thousands of computers at banks and broadcasters earlier this week. But they said they still believe the attack originated from abroad.

The error by South Korean regulators raises questions about their ability to track down the source of an attack that hit 32,000 computers at six companies Wednesday and exposed South Korea's Internet security and vulnerability to hackers.

South Korean investigators said Thursday that a malicious code that spread through the server of one target, Nonghyup Bank, was traced to an Internet Protocol address in China. Even then it was clear that the attack could have originated somewhere else, because such data can easily be manipulated by hackers. Experts suspect North Korea was behind the attack.

The state-run Korea Communications Commission said Friday that the IP address actually belonged to a computer at the bank. The IP address was used only for the company's internal network and was identical to a public Chinese address.

"We were careless in our efforts to double-check and triple-check," KCC official Lee Seung-won told reporters. "We will now make announcements only if our evidence is certain."

Commission officials said an analysis of malware and servers indicates the attack was likely orchestrated from abroad. They didn't elaborate.

Yonhap news agency, in an analysis Friday, called the blunder "ridiculous" and said the announcement is certain to undermine the government's credibility.

Experts in Seoul suspect North Korea in the attack on broadcasters YTN, MBC and KBS, as well as Nonghyup and two other banks. Seoul alleges six cyberattacks by North Korea on South Korean targets since 2009. But the investigation will take weeks, and officials say they have no proof yet of Pyongyang's involvement.

South Korean officials say that Wednesday's attacks appeared to come from "a single organization" but they have yet to assign blame. North Korea hasn't yet mentioned the shutdown.

South Korea has set up a team of computer security experts from the government, military and private sector since to identify the hackers and is preparing to deal with more possible attacks, presidential spokesman Yoon Chang-jung told reporters earlier Friday. He didn't elaborate on the possibility of more attacks.

Determining who's behind a digital attack is often difficult. But North Korea is a leading suspect for several reasons.

It has unleashed a torrent of threats against Seoul and Washington since punishing U.N. sanctions were imposed for Pyongyang's Feb. 12 nuclear test. It calls ongoing routine U.S.-South Korean military drills a threat to its existence. Pyongyang also threatened revenge after blaming Seoul and Washington for a separate Internet shutdown that disrupted its own network last week.

The cyberattack did not affect South Korea's government, military or infrastructure, and there were no initial reports that customers' bank records were compromised. But it disabled cash machines and disrupted commerce in this tech-savvy, Internet-dependent country.

All three of the banks that were hit were back online and operating regularly Friday. It could be next week before the broadcasters' systems have fully recovered, though they said their programming was never affected.

View the original article here

Cyberattacks on South Korean banks, media outlets hard to trace

• 

NEW YORK –  The attacks that knocked South Korean banks and media outlets offline this week appear to be the latest examples of international "cyberwar." But among the many ways that digital warfare differs from conventional combat: There's often no good way of knowing who's behind an attack.

South Korean authorities said Thursday that the attack, which shut down scores of cash machines and hampered business, had been traced to an "Internet Protocol" address in China. But that doesn't mean the attack was launched from there. The general assumption in South Korea is that the attack originated in North Korea.

"IP" addresses are, roughly speaking, the phone numbers of the Internet. Each connected computer has a number that identifies it uniquely on the network, so the Chinese IP address implies that a computer in China was involved in the attack.

However, that computer could have been controlled from elsewhere, either because someone bought access to it, or because it's been infected with malicious software. To determine the location from which it's being controlled, investigators would need access to that computer, or to the records of the company hosting the computer. That's unlikely to be forthcoming from a Chinese company.

"China is obviously a popular place to hide things," said Dan Holden, director of security research at Arbor Networks' Security Engineering & Response Team. Chinese authorities are difficult to work with and there's a language barrier, he said.

In addition, China is believed to be conducting its own campaign of cyber-espionage, which means that attacks launched from there are often simply attributed to the Chinese government, even if it isn't responsible for the aggression, Holden said.

"If you are any nation state or even any attacker right now, why wouldn't you hide in China right now?" Holden asked rhetorically.

Apart from tracing the path an attack takes through the Internet, there's another way to figure out who's behind it: analysis of the software involved. Malicious software, or "malware," can provide clues to its creator. Some of those are obvious, like comments inserted into the written code. However, such comments can be easily faked to lead investigators astray. More subtle analysis can be fruitful, according to Christopher Novak, managing principal of the global investigative response team at Verizon Communications Inc.

"In many cases, the malware that you see on the computer is very similar to a cold or an illness that a person gets ... The strain of the cold that I have and the strain of the cold that you have may be slightly different, but when we look at the DNA and makeup and see they're 99.9 percent the same, there's a pretty good chance one of us transmitted it to the other," Novak said. "When we analyze malware codes, we see the elements that are copied and reused, certain programming styles."

Such analysis can yield important clues, but rarely rock-solid attribution. The U.S. Department of Defense has said that a cyberattack can merit a violent response, but first you have to know who to target.

"Digital attribution is extremely difficult and if you want to do it, it takes some serious effort," Holden said.

View the original article here