Sunday, February 10, 2013

No More 4th Amendment: DHS Can Still Seize Belongings Without Reason

No More 4th Amendment: DHS Can Still Seize Belongings Without Reason
Saturday, February 9, 2013 23:05
0


The Fourth Amendment no longer means what you once thought it did: A new report reveals that the government has shrugged off concerns over the alleged constitutional infringements of its own citizens near international crossings.

An internal review of the US Department of Homeland Security’s procedures regarding the suspicionless search-and-seizure of phones and laptops near the nation’s border has reaffirmed the agency’s ability to bypass Fourth Amendment-protected rights [.pdf].
 

In a two page executive summary published quietly last month to the official DHS website, the agency explains that a civil rights and civil liberties impact assessment of the office’s little-known power to collect personal electronics near international crossings has passed an auditor’s interpretation of what does and doesn’t violate the US Constitution.

Since 2009, the DHS has been legally permitted to seize and review the contents of personal electronic devices, including mobile phones, portable computers and data discs, even without being able to cite any reasonable suspicion that those articles were involved in a crime.

When the initiative was introduced in August 2009 by DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, she defended the policy change. “Keeping Americans safe in an increasingly digital world depends on our ability to lawfully screen materials entering the United States,” the secretary said, adding, “The new directives announced today strike the balance between respecting the civil liberties and privacy of all travelers while ensuring DHS can take the lawful actions necessary to secure our borders.”

In that Aug. 09 announcement, Sec. Napolitano ensured the American public that they had nothing to worry about and that an impact assessment would be conducted within 120 days to eliminate any fears. More than two years later, however, the DHS-led study has only now been released in part, and its findings do little to alleviate the concerns of civil liberty advocates who have held their breath since the early days of the Obama administration, waiting anxiously to hear about the legality of a directive that applies to both Customs and Border Protectionagents and officers with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement working under the DHS.

“We conclude that CBP’s and ICE’s current border search policies comply with the Fourth Amendment,” reads the assessment, written by Tamara Kessler of the department’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. “We also conclude that imposing a requirement that officers have reasonable suspicion in order to conduct a border search of an electronic device would be operationally harmful without concomitant civil rights/civil liberties benefits,” she adds.

Elsewhere in her report, Kessler dismisses concerns that legalized searches that require Americans to submit their electronic devices without reason would scare citizens from exercising their ability to speak and act freely.

“Some critics argue that a heightened level of suspicion should be required before officers search laptop computers in order to avoid chilling First Amendment rights. However, we conclude that the laptop border searches allowed under the ICE and CBP Directives do not violate travelers’ First Amendment rights,” Tessler insists.

David Kravets, a reporter for Wired’s Danger Room, writes of the review, “The memo highlights the friction between today’s reality that electronic devices have become virtual extensions of ourselves housing everything from e-mail to instant-message chats to photos and our papers and effects — juxtaposed against the government’s stated quest for national security.”

Commenting on Wired’s report, American Civil Liberties Union staff attorney Catherine Crump voices concern over how DHS agents can essentially bypass the protections of the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable search-and-seizure. With few exceptions, the government is not permitted to search the belongings of a person without a reasonable suspicion of a crime. Near the nation’s borders, though, that requirement is removed entirely.

“There should be a reasonable, articulate reason why the search of our electronic devices could lead to evidence of a crime,” Crump tells Wired. “That’s a low threshold.”

Katie Haas of the ACLU’s Human Rights Program adds in a blog post this week, “the reality is that

allowing government agents to search through all of a traveler’s data without reasonable suspicion is completely incompatible with our fundamental rights. Those rights, she says, are “implicated when the government can rummage through our computers and cell phones for no reason other than that we happen to have traveled abroad.”

“Suspicionless searches also open the door to profiling based on perceived or actual race, ethnicity, or religion,”Haas adds, “And our First Amendment rights to free speech and free association are inhibited when agents at the border can target us for searches based on our exercise of those rights.”

In response to the stripped-down executive summary posted by DHS, the ACLU’s main office has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the government in hopes of obtaining more information on when and why Americans might lose their Fourth Amendment-protected rights. The ACLU seeks the assessment in its entirety and all data, analyses and records gathered during the course of preparing the report.

Where exactly the government can seize personal items without reason is something that has already been determined, though. Last March, the US Supreme Court upheld an earlier ruling that legally permitted the use of suspicionless roadblocks not necessarily close to the country’s borders. Back in 2006, the ACLU determined that roughly two-thirds of the entire US population lives within 100 miles of the country’s border, making approximately 200 million Americans in places like Buffalo, Boston, Los Angeles and Seattle subject to warrantless and suspicionless searches.

"It is a classic example of law enforcement powers expanding far beyond their proper boundaries – in this case, literally,” ACLU’s Caroline Fredrickson told Wired for an earlier report.

Sec. Napolitano and the DHS have been sued at least once over allegations that the seizure of personal electronic belonging to a US citizen near an international border violated the Constitution of the country. David House, a founding member of the Bradley Manning Support Network, says his laptop and other devices were confiscated without reason while returning to the US from Mexico in November 2010. According to legal filings, House was grilled about his association with Manning, an accused Army whistleblower arrested six months earlier, and WikiLeaks, the website Manning is alleged to have supplied with hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables.

Why Congress May Lawfully Require Citizens to Buy Guns & Ammunition, But Not To Submit To Obamacare

Why Congress May Lawfully Require Citizens to Buy Guns & Ammunition, But Not To Submit To Obamacare


ammunition-ar15-weapon-1920x1080-wallpaper_www.wall321.com_93
Harvard Law School was embarrassed recently when one of its graduates, the putative President of the United States, demonstrated that he was unaware that the supreme Court has constitutional authority to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional.1
And after reading a recent paper by Harvard law professor Einer Elhauge, one wonders whether the academic standards (or is it the moral standards?) of that once great school have collapsed.
Professor Elhauge says in “If Health Insurance Mandates Are Unconstitutional, Why Did the Founding Fathers Back Them?” (The New Republic, April 13, 2012), that Congress may force us to buy health insurance because in 1792, our Framers required all male citizens to buy guns; and in 1798 required ship owners using U.S. ports (dock-Yards) to pay a fee to the federal government in order to fund hospitals for sick or disabled seamen at the U.S. ports.
Oh! What tangled webs are woven when law professors write about Our Constitution!
I have already proved that Art. I, Sec. 8, next to last clause (which grants to Congress “exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever” over dock-Yards and the other federal enclaves) is what authorizes Congress to assess the fee from ship owners who use the federal dock-Yards. See: Merchant Seamen in 1798, Health Care on Federal Enclaves, and Really Silly Journalists.
Now I will show you where the Constitution grants authority to Congress to require adult citizens to get armed!
The Constitution Authorizes Congress To Require Citizens to Buy Guns and Ammunition.
In 1792, Congress passed “An Act more effectually to provide for the National Defense by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States”.2 This Act required all able-bodied male citizens (except for federal officers and employees) between the ages of 18 and under 45 to enroll in their State Militia, get a gun and ammunition, and train.
Does Congress have authority in the Constitution to require this? Yes! Article I, Sec. 8, clause 16 says Congress has the Power:
“To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;” [boldface mine]
That is what authorizes Congress to require adult male citizens to buy guns and ammunition.
As Section 1 of the Militia Act of 1792 reflects, the “Militia” is the citizenry! Our Framers thought it such a fine idea that The People be armed, that they required it by law! See, e.g., the second half of Federalist Paper No. 46 where James Madison, Father of Our Constitution, speaks of how wonderful it is that the American People are armed – and why they need to be. 3
So! In the case of Congress’ requiring adult citizens to buy guns and ammunition, Congress has specific authority under Art. I, Sec. 8, cl.16.
In the case of Congress’ requiring ship owners who use the federal dock-Yards to pay the fees to fund the marine hospitals at the dock-Yards, Congress is granted by Art. I, Sec.8, next to last clause, a general legislative power over the federal enclaves, such as dock-Yards.4
But for the country at large, Congress has no broad grant of legislative powers. There, Congress’ powers are few, limited, and strictly defined. See: Congress’ Enumerated Powers.
Now, let us look at obamacare.
What Clause in The Constitution Authorizes Congress to Force Us into Obamacare?
Nothing! Over the Country at large (as opposed to the federal enclaves), Congress has only enumerated powers. These enumerated powers are listed in Art. I, Sec. 8, clauses 1-16 and in the Amendments addressing civil and voting rights. No enumerated power authorizes the federal government to force us into obamacare.
So, Professor Elhauge introduces a nasty bit of poison. He says:
“Nevermind that nothing in the text or history of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause indicates that Congress cannot mandate commercial purchases.”
Do you see what he is doing? Surely he knows that obamacare is not authorized by any enumerated power. So! He asserts that nothing in the commerce clause says Congress can’t force us into obamacare. He thus seeks to pervert Our Constitution from one of enumerated powers only, to an abomination which says the federal government can do whatever it pleases as long as the commerce clause doesn’t forbid it.
Furthermore, what he says is demonstrably false. The Federalist Papers & Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention show that the purpose of the interstate commerce clause is to prevent the States from imposing tolls & tariffs on articles of merchandize as they are transported through the States for purposes of buying and selling. For actual quotes from Our Framers and irrefutable Proof that this is the purpose of the interstate commerce clause, see: “Does the Interstate Commerce Clause Authorize Congress to Force Us to Buy Health Insurance?”.
Obamacare is unconstitutional as outside the scope of the legislative powers granted to Congress by Our Constitution. And it does much more than force us to buy medical insurance. Obamacare turns medical care over to the federal government to control. Bureaucrats in the Department of Health and Human Services will decide who gets medical treatment and what treatment they will get; and who will be denied medical treatment. If you think the federal government is doing a great job feeling up old ladies and little children at airports, wait until they are deciding whether you get medical care or “the painkiller”.
Folks! The Time has come that we must recognize that social security and Medicare are also unconstitutional as outside the scope of the legislative powers granted to Congress by Our Constitution. We must confess that it is wicked to seek to live at other peoples’ expense! And when a People renounce Personal Responsibility – as we did when we embraced social security & Medicare – the federal government takes control.
Social security and Medicare are fiscally bankrupt. Obamacare, which will prevent old people from getting medical care, is the progressives’ way of dealing with the unfunded liabilities in these programs: Kill off old people by preventing them from getting medical care!
The Piper will be paid. Shall we pay him by killing off old people?
Or, shall we return to Personal Responsibility and dismantle (in an orderly fashion) the wicked, unconstitutional, and fiscally unworkable social security and Medicare programs?
Endnotes:
1 Our Framers gave us an elegant system of Checks & Balances: Each branch of the federal government has a “check” on the other two branches. This is expressed primarily in the Oath of Office (Art. VI, cl. 3 & Art. II, Sec. 1, last clause) which requires each branch to obey the Constitution and not the other branches! The supreme Court’s check on Congress is to declare their Acts unconstitutional: See (in addition to the Oath) Art. III, Sec. 2, cl. 1; Federalist No. 78 (8th -15th paras); and Marbury v. Madison (1803).
Congress’ check on the judicial branch is to impeach and remove federal judges who usurp power (Federalist No. 81, 8th para).
2 Here is the URL for the Militia Act of 1792: Read it! And note how short it is. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=394
3 In “The Patriot”, Mel Gibson’s character commanded a South Carolina Militia – civilians who took up arms against the British. Everyone knew that “the Militia” was the armed citizenry – farmers, trappers, shopkeepers, clergy, etc. It still is.
4 Attorney Hal Rounds provides fascinating additional information on this issue: “Ships will dump sick sailors wherever they may make landfall, and the locals have the burden of dealing with the victim. Their care then raises the legal right to compensation for their services, which the law of nations allows to be levied against the nation, not just the owners, of the ship.” For Mr. Round’s full comment see the Postscript of April 7, 2012 here.

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/02/why-congress-may-lawfully-require-citizens-to-buy-guns-ammunition-but-not-to-submit-to-obamacare/#ixzz2KYjq4E43

Article II, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution states, “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/you-asked-for-it-obama-impeachment/#Y1UtJsP4KJsu6Esx.99

Article II, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution states, “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Former employee of Obama CIO pick busted for bribery

Appointee not linked to wrongdoing
An employee who worked for President Obama's pick for federal CIO has been arrested by the FBI and charged in a federal bribery sting, according to news reports.
Yusuf Acar, 40, was taken custody Thursday under suspicion of soliciting and accepting bribes in exchange for awarding contracts, according to The Washington Post and other publications.
Acar was an information-systems security officer in the District of Columbia's Office of the Chief Technology Officer. Until recently, he worked for Vivek Kundra, who left the office over a month ago to become Obama's federal chief information officer.
Kundra is not suspected of any wrongdoing, press reports said.
Also arrested was Sushil Bansal, president and CEO of Advanced Integrated Technologies. In June, the company was awarded a one-year $10m (£7.2m) contract to provide IT services, equipment, and software to the DC government. The company had previously won contracts worth more than $6.6m (£4.7m), according to The Post, which cited DC council records.
Sources told the paper that Acar received bribes in exchange for awarding contracts to Bansal's company. The company is also accused of employing "ghost employees" who did no work. Acar has worked for the city since 2004 and earns $127,468 (£91,375) per year.
Federal agents began investigating the pair about a year ago. ®


 

Obama Bribing Defense Contractors to Hide Looming Layoffs

 77
 14
 856
 

Print Article Send a Tip

Barack Obama is practicing a sneaky way of firing people from their jobs without them knowing until after he’s reelected. His labor department is, in effect, bribing defense contractors to wait until after the November election to announce the certain layoffs that will occur as a result of Obama’s sequestration. 

Here’s how it works. The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act generally requires employers with at least 100 employees to announce to employees that they will be fired 60 days before they are let go if the layoffs are reasonably foreseeable. Because of the looming sequestration, courtesy of Obama, mass layoffs at defense plants are expected to occur after January 1. But 60 days before that would mean the announcement would come just before the election, and Obama would have to deal with thousands of disgruntled former employees.
In July, the Labor Department laid the groundwork for this duplicity, saying  it would be “inappropriate” for contractors to issue notices of potential layoffs that resulted from sequestration cuts. But a few contractors, most notably Lockheed Martin, wanted to follow the rule of law, and send out notices the way they were supposed to.
Then, this past Friday, the Office of Management and Budget sent out a letter to contractors that they would be compensated for legal costs if layoffs occur due to contract cancellations under sequestration — but only if the contractors follow the Labor guidance. The Labor Department knows that “employee compensation costs for [Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification] WARN act liability as determined by a court” might be likely, and they want to make sure the defense contractors don’t lose a cent in covering up the layoffs.
So just as the Democrats grandly announced last week they would investigate the Benghazi scandal (but tried to cover up that the investigation would occur after the election), now Obama and his shady practices strike again, leaving unsuspecting workers thinking they will have jobs when Obama is planning to leave them jobless.
There is no end to the duplicity of this administration. All Americans must be Joe Wilson now; we must stand up, point our fingers at Obama, and cry out, “Liar!”
 Obama Czar Busted Taking Bribes: http://youtu.be/rAb8v2OHc-8 via @youtube

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qT7_ERvZsyo

 obama bribing: http://youtu.be/DtGMy0wGPQI via @youtube

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lar_bth5NOI

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PU7xFfyhJI


 Obama Caught Paying $50,000 Bribes for Votes.  How He Beat Hillary.: http://youtu.be/0PU7xFfyhJI via @youtube
  

The ‘bribe’ to silence Wright

  • Last Updated: 1:43 PM, May 13, 2012
  • Posted: 11:14 PM, May 12, 2012
When sermons of Obama’s Chicago pastor, Jeremiah Wright, surfaced during the Iowa primaries, it threatened to derail Obama’s campaign. ABC aired one where Wright screamed, “Goddamn America!” Edward Klein interviewed Wright, who told him Obama’s team tried to buy his silence.
‘Man, the media ate me alive,” Wright told me when we met in his office at Chicago’s Kwame Nkrumah Academy. “After the media went ballistic on me, I received an e-mail offering me money not to preach at all until the November presidential election.”
MICHELLE OBAMA'S 'JEALOUSY' AND 'RESENTMENT' LED TO RIFT WITH OPRAH
QUIET, PLEASE: President Obama’s onetime pastor Jeremiah Wright says he was offered money not to preach.
AP
QUIET, PLEASE: President Obama’s onetime pastor Jeremiah Wright says he was offered money not to preach.
“Who sent the e-mail?” I asked Wright.
“It was from one of Barack’s closest friends.”
“He offered you money?”
“Not directly,” Wright said. “He sent the offer to one of the members of the church, who sent it to me.”
“How much money did he offer you?”
“One hundred and fifty thousand dollars,” Wright said.
“Did Obama himself ever make an effort to see you?”
“Yes,” Wright said. “Barack said he wanted to meet me in secret, in a secure place. And I said, ‘You’re used to coming to my home, you’ve been here countless times, so what’s wrong with coming to my home?’ So we met in the living room of the parsonage of Trinity United Church of Christ, at South Pleasant Avenue right off 95th Street, just Barack and me. I don’t know if he had a wire on him. His security was outside somewhere.
“And one of the first things Barack said was, ‘I really wish you wouldn’t do any more public speaking until after the November election.’ He knew I had some speaking engagements lined up, and he said, ‘I wish you wouldn’t speak. It’s gonna hurt the campaign if you do that.’
“And what did you say?” I asked. “I said, ‘I don’t see it that way. And anyway, how am I supposed to support my family?’ And he said, ‘Well, I wish you wouldn’t speak in public. The press is gonna eat you alive.’
“Barack said, ‘I’m sorry you don’t see it the way I do. Do you know what your problem is?’ And I said, ‘No, what’s my problem?’ And he said, ‘You have to tell the truth.’ I said, ‘That’s a good problem to have. That’s a good problem for all preachers to have. That’s why I could never be a politician.’
“And he said, ‘It’s going to get worse if you go out there and speak. It’s really going to get worse.’
“And he was so right.”

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBJxddhtodY

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wu1e7uHrNvc

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3OVcI6yDQI

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXZP8ZXFOzA

 Obama Bribes Taliban / US Occupiers Profit From Drug Trade - Afghan Mini...: http://youtu.be/OXZP8ZXFOzA via @youtube
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N49iSBChJNk

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUnqdf09uvw








Profile image
20
7
By chairman of the board
Contributor profile | More stories
Story Views
Now:
Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:
Total:
Breaking : Chris Dorner Posts on Facebook
Sunday, February 10, 2013 17:10
0
<a href="http://ox-d.beforeitsnews.com/w/1.0/rc?cs=50cea33e4473b&cb=INSERT_RANDOM_NUMBER_HERE" ><img src="http://ox-d.beforeitsnews.com/w/1.0/ai?auid=326914&cs=50cea33e4473b&cb=INSERT_RANDOM_NUMBER_HERE" border="0" alt=""></a>

On the run Chris Dorner, ex LAPD and Navy Seal, has alledgedly been posting updates on Facebook within the last two days,  which have been taken down and has been reinstated by himself while on the run. 


"The internal affairs investigation in the academy involving Schefres was spurned by a complaint that I had initiated toward two fellow recruit/offifcers. While on a assigned patrol footbeat in Hollywood Division, Officers Hermilio Buridios IV and Marlon Magana (both current LAPD officers) decided that they would voice their personal feelings about the black community. While traveling back to the station in a 12 passenger van I heard Magana refer to another individual as a nigger. I wasn’t sure if I heard correctly as there were many conversations in the van that was compiled of at least 8 officers and he was sitting in the very rear and me in the very front."  - Which Chris Dorner posted on Facebook on Monday the 11 February (alledgedly)

He went on to say "During the BOR, the department attempted to label me unsuccessfully as a bully. They stated that I had bullied a recruit, (name withheld by us), in the academy when in reality and unfounded disposition from the official 1.28 formal complaint investigation found that I was the one who stood up for (name withheld) when other recruits sang nazi hitler youth songs about burning Jewish ghettos in WWII Germany where his father was a survivor of a concentration camp. How fucking dare you attempt to label me with such a nasty vile word. I ask that all earnest journalist investigating this story ask Ofcr. (name withheld) about the incident when Ofcr. Burdios began singing a nazi youth song about burning jewish ghettos." 


"I’m not an aspiring rapper, I’m not a gang member, I’m not a dope dealer, I don’t have multiple babies momma’s. I am an American by choice, I am a son, I am a brother, I am a military service member, I am a man who has lost complete faith in the system, when the system betrayed, slandered, and libeled me. I lived a good life and though not a religious man I always stuck to my own personal code of ethics, ethos and always stuck to my shoreline and true North. I didn’t need the US Navy to instill Honor, Courage, and Commitment in me but I thank them for re-enforcing it. It’s in my DNA."

"Pray for me... I need to keep moving. I won't have internet connection for few hours. Thank you for your prayers!" Chris Dorner






Tiny insect size drones seen as a "tactical advantage in war " by U.S military

Tiny insect size drones seen as a "tactical advantage in war " by U.S military

They look like mosquitoes and small flies, about the size of a pencil head. They are the newest trend in drones being developed by scientists working for the military industrial complex. The hope is to make the drones so small as to be near impossible to detect. They could then be used to spy, record, and even kill enemy personnel (by injecting them with nano poisons or exploding themselves in someone face or ear).
The new tiny drones are based on insect designs that have evolved over hundreds of millions of years. They represent a future trend now in science.
Expect to see more of them soon.
If the military gets their way they would deploy “swarms” of them on the battlefield.
Judging how drones are used now by the military to target, bomb and assassinate people, we expect that to continue in the future.
According to a recent RT news report the U.S. military is seeking to use these miniature drones to achieve what it calls a "tactical advantage in war":
© 2012 Nokia© 2013 Microsoft Corporation
Defense Advanced Rsch Project
38.883009 ; -77.104438
“This is another step away from bulky heavily armed aerial vehicles or humanoid robots to a much smaller level of tiny remote-control devices. While current drones lack maneuverability, can’t hover and move fast enough, these new devices will be able to land precisely and fly off again at speed. One day the military hope they may prove a crucial tactical advantage in wars and could even save lives in disasters. They can also be helpful inside caves and barricaded rooms to send back real-time intelligence about the people and weapons inside.” (See article: US military surveillance future: Drones now come in swarms? http://www.rt.com/news/us-drones-swarms-274/ ).
Research into the area of drones already is in the hundreds of billions of dollars.
We expect that trend to also continue as civilian scientists and engineers clamour to cater to the darkest desires of the military.

Besides the United States other countries are seeking to develop insect size drones, including the Germans, French, Netherlands and Israel.
In the case of Israel, Their latest project – a butterfly-shaped drone weighing just 20 grams - the smallest in its range so far – can gather intelligence inside buildings. (see article: Spy-Butterfly: Israel developing insect drone for indoor surveillance http://www.rt.com/news/israel-drone-indoor-butterfly-672/ ).
Drones are also being developed to mimic other forms in nature, including birds and fish…
More on Insect Sized Spy Drones?!
Airforce developing tiny insect spy drones
http://gizmoinsider.com/air-force-developing-tiny-flying-insect-drones-92936....
Spy-Butterfly: Israel developing insect drone for indoor surveillance
http://www.rt.com/news/israel-drone-indoor-butterfly-672/
Micro-machines are go: The U.S. military drones that are so small they even look like insects. cyborg insect drones
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2013802/U-S-military-drones-sm...
Robert Tilford

FAA Releases New Drone Authorization List — See Who Applied to Have Them

FAA Releases New Drone Authorization List — See Who Applied to Have Them

Last year, alarm was raised among some Americans regarding the Federal Aviation Administration’s expanding legislation for drone use over U.S. soil and the list of 63 authorized drone sites in the country. With more recent news that the Obama administration has approved drone strikes on some U.S. citizens, which some have said is “chilling” and the government saying “we can kill you,” the FAA has recently released an updated list of domestic drone authorization applicants.
The list was obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request made by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The list shows 20 new applicants, mostly law enforcement and universities but also the first tribal entity, EFF noted.
Electronic Frontier Foundation Releases FAAs Updated Drone Authorization List
(Image: Google Maps/EFF)
Here are few of the new authorization applicants EFF called out:
  • The State Department
  • National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
  • Barona Band of Mission Indians Risk Management Office (near San Diego, California)
  • Canyon County Sheriff’s Office (Idaho)
  • Clackamas County Sheriff’s Office (Northwest Oregon)
  • Grand Forks Sheriff’s Department (North Dakota)
  • King County Sheriff’s Office (covering Seattle, Washington)
  • Medina County Sheriff’s Office (Ohio)
  • Ohio Department of Transportation (Ohio)
  • Sinclair Community College (Ohio)
  • Lorain County Community College (Ohio)
EFF’s Jennifer Lynch, a staff attorney for the privacy advocacy organization, wrote the hope of the nonprofit in releasing this information is that people will ask their own local law enforcement about their plans for drone use.
“We also encourage people to ask hard questions of government officials about who is funding drone development in their communities and what policies the government will demand agencies follow if they fly drones,” Lynch wrote on the website. “We need greater transparency and citizen push-back to protect Americans from privacy-invasive domestic drone use.”

An example of local law enforcement authorized to fly drones that just now might be getting ready to deploy them is the Arlington Police Department in Texas.
According to WFAA News 8, the city has two drones purchased in 2011 with grant money from the Department of Homeland Security that it has not yet used. Here’s some explanation as to the reason why, according to the news station:
The FAA regulates unmanned aerial systems, commonly known as drones. Arlington does have the agency’s permission to test the aircraft away from crowds, buildings, and highways. Practice sessions with the aircraft have been restricted to Lake Arlington, behind the police department’s training academy.
“The process can be frustrating, but ultimately we understand that the process takes time,” Rivera said.
The FAA turned down our request to go on camera, but they sent us a statement regarding unmanned aerial systems, saying safety it its top concern.
“The FAA regulates operation of Unmanned Aerial Systems to ensure that they pose no hazard to manned aircraft or people and property on the ground,”  said FAA spokesperson Lynn Lunsford.
[...]
Also delaying the program’s final approval is Arlington’s location.
A big chunk of the city lies in one of the busiest air corridors in the country. D/FW International Airport, as well as Arlington and Grand Prairie Municipal Airports are all nearby.
These regulations aside the police department told WFAA in a statement that within six weeks they expect to make a positive announcement regarding its drone program. The department said the equipment would be used in situations including search and rescue, SWAT and major accidents.
Watch WFAA’s report:
Video | News | Weather | Sports
Thu Feb 07 21:05:50 PST 2013

Arlington police hopeful their drones will soon be taking flight

The City of Arlington has two unmanned aerial drones, but they’ve never flown a single mission. News 8 has learned the police department’s unmanned aircraft program might finally get to fly in the coming weeks. view full article
Read more in the EFF’s post here. See the map EFF pulled together of all the domestic drone sites here.
(H/T: Gizmodo)

Report From The Rockaways: Working-Class Whites—The Swing Vote Nobody Admits to Wanting

Report From The Rockaways: Working-Class Whites—The Swing Vote Nobody Admits to Wanting

Here on New York City’s Rockaway Peninsula, Ground Zero for Hurricane Sandy, my majority-Irish, overwhelmingly Catholic, white working/middle class community will hold its annual St. Patrick’s Day Parade, one of the biggest in the country, on March 2. It will showcase many of the same pipe-and-drum marching bands that will perform in the even bigger parade down Manhattan’s Fifth Avenue 14 days later.
And the Stix Family will be there, as usual.
When Michael Bloomberg, whom some neighbors call “the Mayor of Manhattan,” marches up front, no one will cheer. Some of my neighbors will boo him, and some will give him a one-finger salute. I will engage in my annual ritual of turning my back on him.
The hatred is well-earned. Bloomberg started it, by waging war on us in a million different ways.
Keep in mind that Bloomberg, like the previous three white mayors—Beame, Koch, and Giuliani—owes his power very largely to white working/middle-class communities like ours.
A colleague (Steve Sailer?) wrote that in supporting Giuliani, whites were creating an implicit racial community. They did that with Beame, Koch, Giuliani too, but their beneficiaries never repaid them. (Koch clashed publicly with blacks because he refused to suck up to them and they hated him with a passion, but he hired blacks like crazy.)
Conversely, although Bloomberg apparently calculates that the white working class has no place else to go and routinely engages in shameless pandering to blacks and Hispanics, they vote against him—even with a weak black opponent, like former comptroller Bill Thompson in 2009.
Paradoxically, the same qualities of spontaneous self-organization and self-reliance that made my community resilient enough to endure the devastation of Hurricane Sandy invite neglect by politicians. When things don’t go their way, my neighbors don’t riot, loot, or whine. So they get ignored.
Is my neighborhood full of bums, to deserve such lousy treatment? Not exactly.
In fact, it is a neighborhood of heroes—firemen and cops. On 9/11, we probably lost more men charging into the flames than any other neighborhood.
A few days after 9/11, the local Catholic parish church, St. Francis de Sales, had a memorial service for all of the West End men who’d perished.
The Boss saw the overflow service on the way to work, and called to tell me to go, but I was working online, and we only had dial-up then, so she couldn’t get through. Otherwise, I would have carried our toddler there, to commiserate with our Catholic neighbors.
But Bloomberg (and for that matter George W. Bush) repaid the overwhelmingly white New York Fire Department by instituting an aggressive Affirmative Action campaign, hiring incompetent black and Hispanic firemen. (And it wasn’t aggressive enough for some people.)
Another example: Bloomberg’s black schools chancellor, Dennis Walcott. A poverty pimp who previously ran the New York Urban League, Walcott discriminates against the over 95 percent white schoolchildren in the community, and on behalf of black and Spanish kids from other communities. He forbids white and Asian children living literally on the wrong side of the street to attend our elementary/middle school, and unhesitatingly breaks a law mandating yellow buses for kids in my neighborhood, including my son, to attend a magnet school further away, while using forced busing  in order to bring in troublemaking black kids from miles outside of our school district.
The city promised the community its own high school, but then betrayed it by flooding the new school with a majority of non-white students from other districts, and discriminating against most local kids, who have to go to school in Brooklyn and northern Queens.
East End blacks took over and destroyed two beautiful, formerly white high schools at both ends of the peninsula. The city sought to “close” and re-brand both schools, but is now re-branding only one.
At a post-Sandy public meeting at local elementary school P.S. 114, Walcott stood in front of hundreds of parents and smugly told them that not only did their school not have a mold problem, but that he would not so much as test for mold.
After Sandy, neighbors asked me to look over their garages. The black marks on the ceilings were unambiguous. As we’re a peninsula less than a half-mile wide, we all have mold—and rust—issues in the best of times, though usually no one will admit to it. (But the summers are beautiful!)
One white father told Walcott: “Nobody has confidence in you.” [Parents: No Confidence in DOE by Howard Schwach, The Wave, December 7, 2012.]
Had Walcott’s arrogance prevailed, he would have ended up costing the city hundreds of millions of dollars in lawsuits. Then again, who pays for the city’s lawsuits? Us!
But instead, a group of white parents got together and paid for the testing themselves. It was positive, for both mold and asbestos. [PS 114 Parents Prove to be Right by Howard Schwach, The Wave, December 14, 2012.]
In a just world, Bloomberg would constantly praise and support New York’s embattled white working class. (In 1950, New York City was 90 percent white, and communities like mine were the norm. In 2011 New York was only 33.3 percent non-Hispanic white).
Instead, they do not exist for him.
Bloomberg has repeatedly made clear that his priority is education and jobs for blacks and Hispanics.  He’s  proclaimed “blacks and Latinos are not fully sharing in the promise of American freedom,” and  "A job is the best anti-poverty and anti-crime program ever devised anywhere in the world." [NYC program for young men draws praise, questions, August 4, 2011] He’s given   millions of dollars of his own money, and more of the taxpayers to an initiative targeted specifically at young blacks and Latinos.
I have never heard Bloomberg say a word about the need to educate and find jobs for whites (or Asians).
He hires virtually no whites to issue traffic tickets, and then dispatches armies of “brownies” (their uniforms used to be that color) in commando raids on the local elementary school at dismissal time, to ticket the parked cars of white parents—who are cooperating with the principal by not driving up to the schoolhouse door in order to pick up their little ones.
When I lived in far more populous black Far Rockaway, I saw no such ticket blitzes.
Likewise, Bloomberg hires virtually no whites to work in the Parks Department. Ironically, he has banned smoking in all city parks—but, pre-Sandy, my son and I saw black, show-no Parks employees openly smoking on the boardwalk, a few feet away from the “no smoking” signs.
Bloomberg is a plutocrat, to be sure, but he was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth. His late father worked as a bookkeeper, and the Mayor’s lovely late mother, who attended his first two swearings-in (and who died in 2011 at the age of 102) was, until her husband died, a stay-at-home mom.
However, Bloomberg burned his bridges behind him, even affecting a fake, “mid-Atlantic” accent.
My neighborhood’s problem is that, for most offices, our voting strength is diluted, combined in electoral districts with other communities. And of course, the city is wearing down our numbers, year after year, by increasingly refusing to hire whites and by its illegal alien sanctuary policy.
In 2011, we did briefly send libertarian retired businessman Bob Turner, 70, to the House of Representatives.
Turner had shot himself in the foot in his 2010 campaign by referring to all civil servants as “parasites.” (I said he’s a libertarian.) The policemen and firemen whose votes he needed either voted against him, or undervoted. But he won the 2011 special election to replace disgraced Congressman Anthony Weiner by emphasizing his opposition to abortion and his support for Israel. (Ed Koch endorsed him).
However, Turner became an indirect victim of illegal immigration—because illegal aliens are counted for apportionment purposes, creating numerous “rotten boroughs” in the West, New York State lost two seats. Turner’s West End based was lumped into an African American Brooklyn district. He ran for the U.S. Senate against incumbent Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand, who had been an upstate moderate (e.g., pro-Second Amendment) until Sen. Chuck Schumer took her under his wing. But he was blocked by the state GOP, whose bland candidate was subsequently, of course, trounced.
I once spoke with Turner and found he understood how the minority mortgage meltdown had set the recession in gear. He was just the sort of citizen the Founding Fathers had in mind for public service.
On October 29, when Sandy hit, Turner saw his house in Breezy Point burn down—along with 110 other Breezy homes.
On Sandy+3, I met a neighbor named Jim (with a Germanic last name), who lost his house to flooding, and who almost drowned when he got locked out, trying to help a driver who it turned out had abandoned his car with the lights on.
Jim promoted a conspiracy theory, whereby Bloomberg and other plutocrats sought to run the working and middle-class whites out of the Rockaways’ West End, and turn it into a preserve for themselves. It sounded paranoid to me. But last week, Gov. Andrew Cuomo, using “climate change” as a pretext, proposed buying destroyed shoreline homes on prime real estate with taxpayer money, supposedly to use as flood zones.
Right.
New York’s ruling elites have gleefully destroyed one white working and middle-class school and neighborhood after another. Vanity and class hatred blind Bloomberg and his class comrades to even their enlightened self-interest.
They need those white working stiffs as a buffer between themselves and the burgeoning, black and brown mob that the plutocrats created.
The outlook for New York’s white working class is bleak. As central as their votes are to citywide elections, they have not found a way to leverage those votes into power.
They can, however, serve as a cautionary tale.
In those parts of the country where they are still numerically dominant, working-class whites are going to have to change their ways, develop a shared consciousness and help each other.
What would it take for a candidate to get my neighbors’ votes? The same thing that VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow recently said, citing classics scholar Enoch Powell’s popularity in Britain, that it would take for a candidate, any candidate, to get the votes of the white working class nationally: Just stand up for their interests.
Nicholas Stix [email him] is a New York City-based journalist and researcher, much of whose work focuses on the nexus of race, crime, and education. He spent much of the 1990s teaching college in New York and New Jersey. His work has appeared in Chronicles, The New York Post, Weekly Standard, Daily News, New York Newsday, American Renaissance, Academic Questions, Ideas on Liberty and many other publications. Stix was the project director and principal author of the NPI report, The State of White America-2007. He blogs at Nicholas Stix, Uncensored.

In Chicago, There’s Now No Right to Self-Defense OR Police Protection: Police Will No Longer Respond to Most 911 Calls (A Black History Month Moment)

In Chicago, There’s Now No Right to Self-Defense OR Police Protection: Police Will No Longer Respond to Most 911 Calls (A Black History Month Moment)

Fox News’ Title, “Chicago police will no longer respond to all 911 calls,” is on the understated side.
(In case the video fails to load, hit either this link or this one.)
As defense attorney Arthur Aidala points out in the videotape, robbers and burglars will know that no police are coming, even if someone calls the police, and so they will feel no fear, or need to run. Thus, there will not only be more burglaries and rapes, but more burglaries will lead to rapes and murders.
And if police refuse to come to the scene of a robbery or burglary to take a report from the victim and interview any witnesses, the CPD will “disappear” the crime altogether. Police operators aren’t going to make police reports.
The victim will be completely out in the cold. But if he successfully defends himself, you’d better believe that the CPD will appear, and make an arrest—of the victim, who will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
had a name for it—“anarcho-tyranny.”
"The rule of crime" also works.
[Thanks to reader-researcher “W” for the sendalong.]

Obama Administration's War on Persecuted Christians

Shock claim: Obama picks Muslim for CIA chief Former FBI expert claims John Brennan converted to Islam

Shock claim: Obama picks Muslim for CIA chief

Former FBI expert claims John Brennan converted to Islam


One of the FBI’s former top experts on Islam has announced that President Obama’s pick to head the Central Intelligence Agency, John Brennan, converted to Islam years ago in Saudi Arabia.
As WND has reported, former FBI Islam expert John Guandolo has long warned that the federal government is being infiltrated by members of the radical Muslim Brotherhood. But Guandolo now warns that by appointing Brennan to CIA director, Obama has not only chosen a man “naïve” to these infiltrations, but also picked a candidate who is himself a Muslim.
“Mr. Brennan did convert to Islam when he served in an official capacity on the behalf of the United States in Saudi Arabia,” Guandolo told interviewer and radio host Tom Trento.
“That fact alone is not what is most disturbing,” Guandolo continued. “His conversion to Islam was the culmination of a counterintelligence operation against him to recruit him. The fact that foreign intelligence service operatives recruited Mr. Brennan when he was in a very sensitive and senior U.S. government position in a foreign country means that he either a traitor … [or] he has the inability to discern and understand how to walk in those kinds of environments, which makes him completely unfit to the be the director of Central Intelligence.”
Brennan did indeed serve as CIA station chief in Riyadh in the 1990s and today holds the official title of Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. On Jan. 7, Obama nominated Brennan as the next director of the CIA, though he has yet to be confirmed.
“Are you kidding me?” Trento balked at Guandolo’s allegations. “The head of the CIA is a Muslim? For real? … Are you sure?”
“Yes I am,” Guandolo asserted. “The facts of the matter are confirmed by U.S. government officials who were also in Saudi Arabia at the time that John Brennan was serving there and have direct knowledge. These are men who work in very trusted positions, they were direct witnesses to his growing relationship with the individuals who worked for the Saudi government and others and they witnessed his conversion to Islam.”
A former Marine and combat veteran, Guandolo worked for eight years in the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division as a “subject matter expert” in the Muslim Brotherhood and the global spread of Islamism. Guandolo boasts he created the Bureau’s first counterterrorism training/education program and twice received United States Attorney’s Awards for investigative intelligence.
Guandolo is also one of the authors of the Center for Security Policy’s Team B II report, “Shariah: The Threat to America.”
Read the report yourself in paperback, available in the WND Superstore!
“My contention is that [Brennan] is wholly unfit for government service in any national security capacity, and that would specifically make him unfit to be the director of Central Intelligence,” Guandolo told Trento.
Guandolo then broke down a three-part argument against Brennan’s confirmation.
“The first is he has interwoven his life professionally and personally with individuals that we know are terrorists,” Guandolo asserted. “He has overseen and approved and encouraged others to bring known leaders of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood into the government in positions to advise the U.S. government on counterterrorism strategy as well as the overall ‘war on terror.’”
Second, Guandolo asserted, Brennan has “proven through his own comments publicly that he is clueless and grossly ignorant of Al-Qaida’s strategy.
“Third and finally, which some would say is most disturbing, is Mr. Brennan did convert to Islam,” Guandolo said, but stressed, “I think the [larger] news is that that conversion is the culmination of the work of people in Saudi Arabia who worked for the Saudi Government – and that makes John Brennan just naïve, foolish, dangerously ignorant and totally unfit for this position.
“That in and of itself, again, shouldn’t be shocking to people,” Guandolo continued. “Mr. Brennan, they have the clip where he specifically says during a public address … he said during that speech that he has learned and gets his understanding and his ‘worldview’ in large part from Islam. It shouldn’t be a large leap to imagine he’s converted to Islam.”
Guandolo’s discussion with Trento about Brennan’s conversion can be seen below:
Brennan’s speech in which he discusses how Islam shaped his “worldview” – a clip of which appears in the Guandolo interview – can be seen below:
Part 2 of Trento’s interview with Guandolo can be seen below:
Discover how deep the danger of Islamism in the U.S. goes, from the research of policy and intelligence experts themselves, with “Shariah: The Threat to America.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/shock-claim-obama-picks-muslim-for-cia-chief/#oSwQYizUe7Stvkf5.99 http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/shock-clai


http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/shock-claim-obama-picks-muslim-for-cia-chief/#ooid=AxM2E5OTqzrEjrcgtVGgTgRr4H-CV9bt
http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/shock-claim-obama-picks-muslim-for-cia-chief/#ooid=k0aDk5OTqSM1rYZEQNp_7UqJjBxeReCp