From The American Thinker;
November 30, 2010
Activist Judge sides with C.A.I.R. against the citizens of Oklahoma
Phil Boehmke
U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange (a Clinton appointee) issued a preliminary injunction on Monday which continues to bar the implementation of State Question 755. The amendment which was approved by 70% of Oklahomans on November 2, would protect the people of Oklahoma from activist judges in state courts who would use Sharia or international law in rendering decisions. The injunction will prevent the state board of elections from certifying the results of the vote indefinitely which will block implementation of the amendment.
The Tulsa World reports:
Muneer Awad, executive director of the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, sued to prevent the measure amending the state Constitution. A temporary restraining order had already been issued barring it from taking effect.
The Oklahoman reports that:
In today's order, the judge wrote that Awad "has made a strong showing that State Question 755's amendment's primary effect inhibits religion and that the amendment fosters an excessive government entanglement with religion."
The case argued before Miles-LaGrange was handled for the state by Scott Boughton, the Assistant Attorney General at the direction of the current Attorney General (lame duck Democrat) W.A. Drew Edmonson. The incoming Attorney General Scott Pruitt will in all likelihood pursue the case with greater zeal and enthusiasm.
Earlier this month IPT News reported that C.A.I.R. had been linked to the terrorist group Hamas in a recently unsealed ruling made by a federal judge.
"The government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA, NAIT, with NAIT, the Islamic Association for Palestine, and with Hamas," U.S. District Court Judge Jorge Solis said in the July 1, 2009 ruling.
Sharia law has never been used in rendering a decision in Oklahoma, however the amendment's authors, Representative Rex Duncan (R-Sand Springs) and Senator Anthony Skyles (R-Moore) were addressing the potential of activist judges to use Shari or international law as the basis for writing new law to further their radical agenda.
The potential use of Sharia law by an activist judge is a very real concern because this very fear has already been realized in a New Jersey courtroom. According to Jihadwatch:
...a New Jersey judge sees no evidence that a Muslim committed sexual assault on his wife--not because he didn't do it, but because he was acting on his Islamic beliefs: "This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something consistant with his practices and it was something not prohibited."
Luckily, the appellate court overturned this decision, and a Sharia ruling by an American court has not been allowed to stand. This time.
Perhaps Judge Miles-LaGrange is unaware of the fundamentals of Sharia law. Here in the United States of America, it is not lawful for a husband to rape his wife, regardless of his religious belief. Here in the United States of America, the punishment for adultery is not public stoning nor is the punishment for theft the hacking off of the accused thief's hand. Here in the United States of America we have the right of free exercise of religion, but we may not use our beliefs as a legal means to commit heinous and barbaric crimes against other people.
Perhaps Judge Miles-LaGrange should spend some time getting familiar with Sharia law, perhaps she should spend a little time getting to know what sort of individuals are involved in C.A.I.R., and time permitting she may wish to spend a little time reading the Constitution of the United States. And the Federalist Papers.
Posted at 01:03 AM
A Nation In Distress
Monday, November 29, 2010
Congress Should Investigate Pigford II Claims Before Funding
From Big Government:
Congress Should Investigate Pigford II Claims Before Funding Themby Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN)
I urge my colleagues to consider what the Claims Settlement Act truly presents before voting on the bill this week. This legislation includes over a billion dollars to settle the Pigford II discrimination claims with black farmers. Unfortunately, Pigford is rife with fraudulent claims and to settle before an investigation can take place does the American taxpayer a disservice. Justice should be served to those who experienced discrimination, but settlement funds should only go to those wronged.
By the National Black Farmers Association’s own data, only 18,000 black farmers exist in the United States, but under Pigford II 94,000 claims of racial discrimination have been filed thus far. A number of individuals involved in Pigford, ranging from USDA officials to black farmers themselves, are ready and willing to appear as witnesses before Congress to bring these allegations into the light.
As a consistent fighter against out-of-control government spending, I cannot stand idly by as I see the United States taxpayer put on the hook for even a dime to Pigford II. It’s time for Congress to fully investigate the Pigford II claims because the numbers just don’t add up.
Congress Should Investigate Pigford II Claims Before Funding Themby Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN)
I urge my colleagues to consider what the Claims Settlement Act truly presents before voting on the bill this week. This legislation includes over a billion dollars to settle the Pigford II discrimination claims with black farmers. Unfortunately, Pigford is rife with fraudulent claims and to settle before an investigation can take place does the American taxpayer a disservice. Justice should be served to those who experienced discrimination, but settlement funds should only go to those wronged.
By the National Black Farmers Association’s own data, only 18,000 black farmers exist in the United States, but under Pigford II 94,000 claims of racial discrimination have been filed thus far. A number of individuals involved in Pigford, ranging from USDA officials to black farmers themselves, are ready and willing to appear as witnesses before Congress to bring these allegations into the light.
As a consistent fighter against out-of-control government spending, I cannot stand idly by as I see the United States taxpayer put on the hook for even a dime to Pigford II. It’s time for Congress to fully investigate the Pigford II claims because the numbers just don’t add up.
The Democrat Way: Voter Fraud And Cheating In NY1 Congressional Race
From Fire Andrea Mitchell:
10:32 PM (2 hours ago)The Democrat way – Voter Fraud in NY1 congressional racefrom Fire Andrea Mitchell! by adminIt’s the progressive liberal Democrat way of winning an election. If you aren’t in a craphole of a district that’s already heavily Democrat, rig elections to win! That seems to be what’s happening in the last House congressional race that hasn’t been decided as of yet. Right now the Republicans are at a gain of 63 House seats, with NY1 still up in the air. Fox News investigation has uncovered evidence of voter registration illegalities, including one voter who apparently voted twice. The candidates in this race is far left Democrat Tim Bishop and Republican challenger Randy Altschuler.
A Fox News Voter Fraud Unit review of approximately 438 of the absentee ballot voters, who also maintain mailing addresses in New York City, reveals that 48 have double registrations. They voted by absentee ballot in Suffolk County, but are also listed as current “active” voters on the New York City rolls. Being registered in two separate jurisdictions is illegal and is a felony in New York State.
In addition, our investigation reveals that one absentee ballot was apparently submitted in the name of a Democratic voter enrolled in Suffolk County, while election records at the Board of Elections in New York City show that the same voter voted, on Election Day, in Manhattan.
10:32 PM (2 hours ago)The Democrat way – Voter Fraud in NY1 congressional racefrom Fire Andrea Mitchell! by adminIt’s the progressive liberal Democrat way of winning an election. If you aren’t in a craphole of a district that’s already heavily Democrat, rig elections to win! That seems to be what’s happening in the last House congressional race that hasn’t been decided as of yet. Right now the Republicans are at a gain of 63 House seats, with NY1 still up in the air. Fox News investigation has uncovered evidence of voter registration illegalities, including one voter who apparently voted twice. The candidates in this race is far left Democrat Tim Bishop and Republican challenger Randy Altschuler.
A Fox News Voter Fraud Unit review of approximately 438 of the absentee ballot voters, who also maintain mailing addresses in New York City, reveals that 48 have double registrations. They voted by absentee ballot in Suffolk County, but are also listed as current “active” voters on the New York City rolls. Being registered in two separate jurisdictions is illegal and is a felony in New York State.
In addition, our investigation reveals that one absentee ballot was apparently submitted in the name of a Democratic voter enrolled in Suffolk County, while election records at the Board of Elections in New York City show that the same voter voted, on Election Day, in Manhattan.
Our Leadership In Washington Is the Problem, Not Body Scanners
From Town Hall:
Star Parker
Our Leadership in Washington is the Problem, Not Body Scanners
Email Star Parker
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 0diggsdigg
Sign-Up The common explanation of why we cannot implement Israeli-style airport security here, despite acknowledging that the Israeli approach is the world's best, is logistics.
Israelis don't rely on machines. Their approach is human centered. All passengers get a quick interview by an agent trained to identify revealing behavior.
Such an approach, the reasoning goes, is possible in a nation dealing with 10 million passengers annually, but with the 600 million we deal with, the logistics become unmanageable.
But this is not the whole story.
It's true that the Israelis use primarily people rather than machines to screen. But the real difference in the Israeli approach and success is reliance on human judgment.
Human judgment can never be removed from the equation. We've been sold, and we're buying, the big lie that machines can replace human judgment and responsibility.
All technology starts with people. It is people who define problems and then design machines to deal with those problems. If the problem is incorrectly defined to begin with, then the machine, no matter how technologically sophisticated, is not going to solve it.
In other words -- garbage in, garbage out.
The first rule of warfare is to know your enemy. The Israelis know their enemy. They know exactly what to look for and their priority is to identify and stop them.
I wish I could say the same here. But I can't. And this is the problem.
How can we possibly use technology to identify and root out terrorists when the leaders of our country cannot, or refuse to identify with clarity who these individuals are and what they are about?
This latest round of humiliation that we citizens have to endure - electronic strip searches or intimate physical groping of our bodies - is the result of the so called "underwear bomber" incident from last Christmas.
Can we possibly forget that our Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told the nation after that incident that" the system worked?" Or can we allow ourselves to forget that when Napolitano began her new job she wanted to expunge the word "terrorism" from our vocabulary and call these incidents "man-caused disasters?"
Or can we forget the exchange in congressional hearings between Congressman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, and Attorney General Eric Holder where Holder refused to acknowledge a link between terrorism and radical Islam?
Holder said then, "There are a variety of reasons why people do these things. Some of them potentially religious."
Israelis can identify terrorists because they know exactly who they are and what they're about.
If Eric Holder cannot, or refuses to see a connection between Islam and terrorism, what, in his view, does define who these individuals are? And if he cannot do it with more precision than "there are a variety of reasons why people do these things," how can we possibly hope to have an effective strategy for identifying and dealing with terrorists?
Now we've just had the latest product of Holder's impeccable judgment: All murder counts dismissed on al-Qaida operative Ahmed Ghailani because of Holder's insistence that terrorists be tried in civilian courts.
We're spending more and more on technologies designed to deal with the last terrorist incident, which they can readily circumvent by doing things a little differently the next time.
Even if logistics make it impossible to do interviews as Israelis do, we could still design technologies to help zero in on likely suspects.
It's hard to sort out whether our current administration is simply confused and naive, or whether they actually sympathize with our enemies.
Either way, we citizens are the ones paying the price, in the wasted money we're shelling out and the humiliating invasions into our privacy.
So let's be clear that body scanners are not the problem. They are the symptom. The problem is our leadership in Washington.
Star Parker
Star Parker is founder and president of CURE, the Center for Urban Renewal and Education, a 501c3 think tank which explores and promotes market based public policy to fight poverty, as well as author of the newly revised Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can do About It.
Star Parker
Our Leadership in Washington is the Problem, Not Body Scanners
Email Star Parker
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 0diggsdigg
Sign-Up The common explanation of why we cannot implement Israeli-style airport security here, despite acknowledging that the Israeli approach is the world's best, is logistics.
Israelis don't rely on machines. Their approach is human centered. All passengers get a quick interview by an agent trained to identify revealing behavior.
Such an approach, the reasoning goes, is possible in a nation dealing with 10 million passengers annually, but with the 600 million we deal with, the logistics become unmanageable.
But this is not the whole story.
It's true that the Israelis use primarily people rather than machines to screen. But the real difference in the Israeli approach and success is reliance on human judgment.
Human judgment can never be removed from the equation. We've been sold, and we're buying, the big lie that machines can replace human judgment and responsibility.
All technology starts with people. It is people who define problems and then design machines to deal with those problems. If the problem is incorrectly defined to begin with, then the machine, no matter how technologically sophisticated, is not going to solve it.
In other words -- garbage in, garbage out.
The first rule of warfare is to know your enemy. The Israelis know their enemy. They know exactly what to look for and their priority is to identify and stop them.
I wish I could say the same here. But I can't. And this is the problem.
How can we possibly use technology to identify and root out terrorists when the leaders of our country cannot, or refuse to identify with clarity who these individuals are and what they are about?
This latest round of humiliation that we citizens have to endure - electronic strip searches or intimate physical groping of our bodies - is the result of the so called "underwear bomber" incident from last Christmas.
Can we possibly forget that our Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told the nation after that incident that" the system worked?" Or can we allow ourselves to forget that when Napolitano began her new job she wanted to expunge the word "terrorism" from our vocabulary and call these incidents "man-caused disasters?"
Or can we forget the exchange in congressional hearings between Congressman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, and Attorney General Eric Holder where Holder refused to acknowledge a link between terrorism and radical Islam?
Holder said then, "There are a variety of reasons why people do these things. Some of them potentially religious."
Israelis can identify terrorists because they know exactly who they are and what they're about.
If Eric Holder cannot, or refuses to see a connection between Islam and terrorism, what, in his view, does define who these individuals are? And if he cannot do it with more precision than "there are a variety of reasons why people do these things," how can we possibly hope to have an effective strategy for identifying and dealing with terrorists?
Now we've just had the latest product of Holder's impeccable judgment: All murder counts dismissed on al-Qaida operative Ahmed Ghailani because of Holder's insistence that terrorists be tried in civilian courts.
We're spending more and more on technologies designed to deal with the last terrorist incident, which they can readily circumvent by doing things a little differently the next time.
Even if logistics make it impossible to do interviews as Israelis do, we could still design technologies to help zero in on likely suspects.
It's hard to sort out whether our current administration is simply confused and naive, or whether they actually sympathize with our enemies.
Either way, we citizens are the ones paying the price, in the wasted money we're shelling out and the humiliating invasions into our privacy.
So let's be clear that body scanners are not the problem. They are the symptom. The problem is our leadership in Washington.
Star Parker
Star Parker is founder and president of CURE, the Center for Urban Renewal and Education, a 501c3 think tank which explores and promotes market based public policy to fight poverty, as well as author of the newly revised Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can do About It.
FAIR Legislative Update
From FAIR:
FAIR Legislative Update November 29, 2010
My Interests
All >
Interests: Legislative Update -- Return to Top --
Legislative Update
Add to My Interests
Reid to Call Cloture Vote on DREAM Act
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) told senior aides that he plans to file a cloture motion on the DREAM Act early this week, which will allow the Senate to vote on whether to begin debate on the bill as soon as Wednesday (National Journal, Nov. 23, 2010; CRS Report, June 4, 2007)
By bringing the DREAM Act to the floor, Sen. Reid would be fulfilling a campaign promise he made to Latino voters throughout his re-election campaign. Although Reid had promised several times to bring immigration legislation to the floor during 2010, he had been unsuccessful each time. Finally, the weekend before the midterm elections Sen. Reid promised to bring the DREAM Act to the Senate floor during the lame duck session of Congress. (The New York Times, Oct. 31, 2010)
Amnesty advocates are now leaning hard on the Senate Majority leader to follow through on his promises. “Harry Reid has a debt and he made special promises in the midst of the election. Certainly immigration reform and the DREAM Act were part of his platform ... That means he’s got a very specific and very immediate promise to deliver on,” said Ana Navarro, a Republican political strategist. (Roll Call, Nov. 10, 2010) Rosaline Gold at the National Association of Latino Elected Officials similarly remarked, “Democratic candidates cannot take the Latino vote for granted …They are going to have to reach out, to engage and continue to address the issues that are important for Latinos.” (ColorLines, Nov. 3, 2010)
The Senate failed to invoke cloture on the DREAM Act the last time the legislation came to the floor as a stand-alone bill in 2007. (S. 2205, See Roll Call Vote 394) Both the House and the Senate return Monday, November 29th for the remainder of the lame-duck session. Stay tuned to FAIR for updates during the week…
UVA Study Shows Immigration Enforcement Ordinance in Virginia a Success
Last week, the University of Virginia released a 3-yr study of Virginia’s Prince William County’s immigration enforcement ordinance which concluded that the ordinance had helped reduce the county’s illegal alien population by 2,000 to 6,000 over the course of two years. (Evaluation Study of Prince William County’s Illegal Immigration Enforcement Policy, Nov. 18, 2010) During the same time period, hit-and-run accidents in the county went down by nearly half and aggravated assaults dropped by 47 percent. In addition, the study showed that the ordinance helped reduce serious problems of overcrowding in housing in certain areas of the county. Finally, the study also found that there was “no evidence of overzealous or inappropriate immigration enforcement actions by police.” (Id. at 17) While the study suggested that the ordinance disrupted some police-community relationships, it found that these quickly returned. (Id. at 16)
In 2007, Prince William County enacted a simple policy which required the police officers to check the immigration status of anyone detained and for whom the police had probable cause to believe was illegally in the country. In 2008, the County Board of Supervisors amended the ordinance to require only that police check the immigration status of all persons physically arrested. (Id. at 7)
Prince William County Board Chairman Corey Stewart, who has spearheaded the county’s fight against illegal immigration, said the legislation was intended to improve public safety and to identify and removal illegal aliens who commit crimes. “By that yardstick, the policy has succeeded beyond our expectations,” he said. (The Cavalier Daily, Nov. 18, 2010)
After the report was released, Prince William County’s Board of Supervisors approved a policy statement which called the county's immigration policy "effective" and said that given its "successful implementation," it should be used by all law enforcement agencies across Virginia. (The Washington Post, Nov. 21, 2010) Virginia Delegate Jackson Miller (R-Manassas) is said to be drafting similar legislation for the General Assembly session that begins in January. (Id.)
Hate Crimes Against Hispanics Drop Three Years in a Row
Newly released FBI hate crime data show that for the third consecutive year, the number of Hispanics nationwide who fell victim to hate crimes decreased dramatically. In 2009, the FBI recorded 692 victims of anti-Hispanic hate crimes compared with 792 in 2008 and 830 in 2007. This decline is further magnified when one takes into account that the number of law enforcement agencies contributing data to the FBI hate crime reports has increased nine percent since 2007.
Since 2007, there have been calculated efforts, spearheaded by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), to manipulate hate crime data to suggest that advocates for immigration reduction and enforcement were directly responsible for what they termed “a wave of hate.” At one time, the National Council of La Raza actually claimed on its website that one in seven Americans (a remarkable 45 million individuals) belonged to hate or extremist groups.
FAIR released a statement last week to highlight the drop in hate crimes against Latinos and the falseness of the SPLC’s calculated campaign, designed to shut down debate on one of the most critical public policy issues facing Americans today. “[C]ontrary to the hysteria that has been whipped up by mass immigration advocacy groups,” said FAIR President Dan Stein, “there is no connection between a healthy debate about immigration policy and crimes directed against any group in our society.... But even more conclusive is the evidence that SPLC and others have manipulated and distorted data in order to prevent the debate from continuing.”
FAIR Legislative Update November 29, 2010
My Interests
All >
Interests: Legislative Update -- Return to Top --
Legislative Update
Add to My Interests
Reid to Call Cloture Vote on DREAM Act
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) told senior aides that he plans to file a cloture motion on the DREAM Act early this week, which will allow the Senate to vote on whether to begin debate on the bill as soon as Wednesday (National Journal, Nov. 23, 2010; CRS Report, June 4, 2007)
By bringing the DREAM Act to the floor, Sen. Reid would be fulfilling a campaign promise he made to Latino voters throughout his re-election campaign. Although Reid had promised several times to bring immigration legislation to the floor during 2010, he had been unsuccessful each time. Finally, the weekend before the midterm elections Sen. Reid promised to bring the DREAM Act to the Senate floor during the lame duck session of Congress. (The New York Times, Oct. 31, 2010)
Amnesty advocates are now leaning hard on the Senate Majority leader to follow through on his promises. “Harry Reid has a debt and he made special promises in the midst of the election. Certainly immigration reform and the DREAM Act were part of his platform ... That means he’s got a very specific and very immediate promise to deliver on,” said Ana Navarro, a Republican political strategist. (Roll Call, Nov. 10, 2010) Rosaline Gold at the National Association of Latino Elected Officials similarly remarked, “Democratic candidates cannot take the Latino vote for granted …They are going to have to reach out, to engage and continue to address the issues that are important for Latinos.” (ColorLines, Nov. 3, 2010)
The Senate failed to invoke cloture on the DREAM Act the last time the legislation came to the floor as a stand-alone bill in 2007. (S. 2205, See Roll Call Vote 394) Both the House and the Senate return Monday, November 29th for the remainder of the lame-duck session. Stay tuned to FAIR for updates during the week…
UVA Study Shows Immigration Enforcement Ordinance in Virginia a Success
Last week, the University of Virginia released a 3-yr study of Virginia’s Prince William County’s immigration enforcement ordinance which concluded that the ordinance had helped reduce the county’s illegal alien population by 2,000 to 6,000 over the course of two years. (Evaluation Study of Prince William County’s Illegal Immigration Enforcement Policy, Nov. 18, 2010) During the same time period, hit-and-run accidents in the county went down by nearly half and aggravated assaults dropped by 47 percent. In addition, the study showed that the ordinance helped reduce serious problems of overcrowding in housing in certain areas of the county. Finally, the study also found that there was “no evidence of overzealous or inappropriate immigration enforcement actions by police.” (Id. at 17) While the study suggested that the ordinance disrupted some police-community relationships, it found that these quickly returned. (Id. at 16)
In 2007, Prince William County enacted a simple policy which required the police officers to check the immigration status of anyone detained and for whom the police had probable cause to believe was illegally in the country. In 2008, the County Board of Supervisors amended the ordinance to require only that police check the immigration status of all persons physically arrested. (Id. at 7)
Prince William County Board Chairman Corey Stewart, who has spearheaded the county’s fight against illegal immigration, said the legislation was intended to improve public safety and to identify and removal illegal aliens who commit crimes. “By that yardstick, the policy has succeeded beyond our expectations,” he said. (The Cavalier Daily, Nov. 18, 2010)
After the report was released, Prince William County’s Board of Supervisors approved a policy statement which called the county's immigration policy "effective" and said that given its "successful implementation," it should be used by all law enforcement agencies across Virginia. (The Washington Post, Nov. 21, 2010) Virginia Delegate Jackson Miller (R-Manassas) is said to be drafting similar legislation for the General Assembly session that begins in January. (Id.)
Hate Crimes Against Hispanics Drop Three Years in a Row
Newly released FBI hate crime data show that for the third consecutive year, the number of Hispanics nationwide who fell victim to hate crimes decreased dramatically. In 2009, the FBI recorded 692 victims of anti-Hispanic hate crimes compared with 792 in 2008 and 830 in 2007. This decline is further magnified when one takes into account that the number of law enforcement agencies contributing data to the FBI hate crime reports has increased nine percent since 2007.
Since 2007, there have been calculated efforts, spearheaded by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), to manipulate hate crime data to suggest that advocates for immigration reduction and enforcement were directly responsible for what they termed “a wave of hate.” At one time, the National Council of La Raza actually claimed on its website that one in seven Americans (a remarkable 45 million individuals) belonged to hate or extremist groups.
FAIR released a statement last week to highlight the drop in hate crimes against Latinos and the falseness of the SPLC’s calculated campaign, designed to shut down debate on one of the most critical public policy issues facing Americans today. “[C]ontrary to the hysteria that has been whipped up by mass immigration advocacy groups,” said FAIR President Dan Stein, “there is no connection between a healthy debate about immigration policy and crimes directed against any group in our society.... But even more conclusive is the evidence that SPLC and others have manipulated and distorted data in order to prevent the debate from continuing.”
Survival And Self-Sufficiency Traits
From Personal Liberty Digest:
Survival Traits
November 29, 2010 by Bob Livingston
Do you have the personality to stay alive in times of crisis? Believe it or not, psychologists have studied the personalities of those who have survived life-threatening events to see what set them apart. It turns out they all had common traits.
In her book The Unthinkable, Amanda Ripley writes that people go through three basic steps when confronted with a life-or-death scenario: denial, deliberation and decision. During the denial stage, it is not unusual for people to continue performing mundane tasks while chaos reigns around them. The brain is processing information, delaying its decision-making process and assessing the risk.
In the deliberation phase, the mind begins to put together possible courses of action. It’s not unusual, Ripley writes, for people to describe this period as having time almost stand still. They remember in great detail the words or images that would not normally be significant.
It’s this stage, and the decision stage that follows, that usually determines whether the outcome will be a good one.
In his book, 98.6 Degrees, The Art of Keeping Your Ass Alive!, Cody Lundin writes that survivors all have common personality traits which take over in the decision stage:
■The ability to keep calm and collected. This is the ability to prevent fear and panic from taking over your world, as both possess the power to incapacitate the body and mind. Prior training can help you deal more effectively with “this ugly pair.” Sometimes you have stop and regroup to allow clarity to surface.
■The ability to improvise and adapt. This allows you to improvise and make use of every opportunity. For instance, it allows you to pack survival gear with more than one function or gear that allows for creating other gear. It can also be thought of as the ability to understand what all can be accomplished with limited resources.
■The ability to make decisions. Rather than getting lost during the decision-making process — or having your brain freeze, forcing you into inaction — this ability allows you to thoroughly yet quickly formulate a game plan then follow through with it. Lundin recommends you be decisive and take responsibility for your decisions.
■The ability to endure hardships. A survival situation is not comfortable. It will tax you physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually. Your ability to endure hardship will be tested. The two greatest enemies to survival are a desire for comfort and complacency. Desiring temporary comfort can spur you into making decisions that are irrational, and this impulse must be overcome.
■The ability to figure out the thoughts of others. How can intuition work to your advantage? Put yourself in the shoes of your rescuers. Which direction will they come from? Where might they look first? What will they expect you to do? These are crucial questions to consider if you’re expecting rescue. As for those in your group who are looking to you for leadership, be mindful of their condition. Are they experiencing panic, in danger of hypothermia or dehydration or exhibiting an inability to cope? Remember that what befalls one member of the group spreads to others.
■The ability to hope for the best but prepare for the worst. Hoping for the best means maintaining a positive attitude regardless of the difficulties thrown your way. Proper preparation is an essential part of survival. Practice both before and during any outdoor excursion.
■The ability to maintain a sense of humor. Lundin believes humor has a great effect on the human psychology and physiology.
The way you handle the three phases of the crisis, and whether you exhibit the traits mentioned here, may determine how long and how well you survive if you suddenly find yourself on your own.
Survival Traits
November 29, 2010 by Bob Livingston
Do you have the personality to stay alive in times of crisis? Believe it or not, psychologists have studied the personalities of those who have survived life-threatening events to see what set them apart. It turns out they all had common traits.
In her book The Unthinkable, Amanda Ripley writes that people go through three basic steps when confronted with a life-or-death scenario: denial, deliberation and decision. During the denial stage, it is not unusual for people to continue performing mundane tasks while chaos reigns around them. The brain is processing information, delaying its decision-making process and assessing the risk.
In the deliberation phase, the mind begins to put together possible courses of action. It’s not unusual, Ripley writes, for people to describe this period as having time almost stand still. They remember in great detail the words or images that would not normally be significant.
It’s this stage, and the decision stage that follows, that usually determines whether the outcome will be a good one.
In his book, 98.6 Degrees, The Art of Keeping Your Ass Alive!, Cody Lundin writes that survivors all have common personality traits which take over in the decision stage:
■The ability to keep calm and collected. This is the ability to prevent fear and panic from taking over your world, as both possess the power to incapacitate the body and mind. Prior training can help you deal more effectively with “this ugly pair.” Sometimes you have stop and regroup to allow clarity to surface.
■The ability to improvise and adapt. This allows you to improvise and make use of every opportunity. For instance, it allows you to pack survival gear with more than one function or gear that allows for creating other gear. It can also be thought of as the ability to understand what all can be accomplished with limited resources.
■The ability to make decisions. Rather than getting lost during the decision-making process — or having your brain freeze, forcing you into inaction — this ability allows you to thoroughly yet quickly formulate a game plan then follow through with it. Lundin recommends you be decisive and take responsibility for your decisions.
■The ability to endure hardships. A survival situation is not comfortable. It will tax you physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually. Your ability to endure hardship will be tested. The two greatest enemies to survival are a desire for comfort and complacency. Desiring temporary comfort can spur you into making decisions that are irrational, and this impulse must be overcome.
■The ability to figure out the thoughts of others. How can intuition work to your advantage? Put yourself in the shoes of your rescuers. Which direction will they come from? Where might they look first? What will they expect you to do? These are crucial questions to consider if you’re expecting rescue. As for those in your group who are looking to you for leadership, be mindful of their condition. Are they experiencing panic, in danger of hypothermia or dehydration or exhibiting an inability to cope? Remember that what befalls one member of the group spreads to others.
■The ability to hope for the best but prepare for the worst. Hoping for the best means maintaining a positive attitude regardless of the difficulties thrown your way. Proper preparation is an essential part of survival. Practice both before and during any outdoor excursion.
■The ability to maintain a sense of humor. Lundin believes humor has a great effect on the human psychology and physiology.
The way you handle the three phases of the crisis, and whether you exhibit the traits mentioned here, may determine how long and how well you survive if you suddenly find yourself on your own.
Upton's Shocking Votes On Energy-Related Bills
From Human Events:
CommentsUpton's Shocking Votes on Energy-Related Bills
by Connie Hair
11/29/2010Trackback Link (Loading. . .)
This week marks the beginning of the end of the long national nightmare known as the 111th Congress. Republicans were given a second chance—by default—through a national effort to stop the destructive Obama/Pelosi/Reid agenda.
House Republicans are poised to begin making the same kind of business-as-usual mistakes that relegated the party to minority status in 2006. The most glaring example is the looming threat of having Rep. Fred Upton (RINO-Mich.) become chairman of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee, despite his liberal voting record, simply because he’s next in line.
If there is one thing voters made absolutely clear this election cycle, it is that the era of entitlement politics is over in the Republican Party.
Upton’s liberal voting record is a textbook example of why Republicans were kicked to the curb. From taxes to energy to federal government land grabs, Upton is no conservative.
Upton’s proudest energy achievement is co-authoring the ban on incandescent light bulbs with über-liberal Rep. Jane Harman (D.–Calif.).
A big believer in global-warming-consensus “science,” Upton told a Subcommittee on Energy and Environment hearing in 2009—just last year—that the global warming debate is over: “I have said at nearly every climate change hearing that for me I don’t dispute the science. Right or wrong, the debate over the modeling and science appears to be over.” (Transcript page 7.)
“Right or wrong”? If the science is wrong, we should just go with it anyway?
A closer look at Upton’s energy voting record reveals a job-killing liberal aligned even more closely with Nancy Pelosi on energy and environmental issues. A small sampling:
• Voted for the Democrats’ Energy Bill Imposing New Federal Mandates. In 2007, Upton voted for the Democrats’ energy bill imposing CAFE gas-mileage standards and taxpayer funding for biofuels production, among other provisions.
• Voted to Empower the EPA. In 1995, Upton voted to empower the EPA to take actions under the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and food safety laws. The underlying appropriations bill had been constructed to block funding for certain independent EPA actions. Upton voted for the Democrat-sponsored amendment to reverse this. The amendment was adopted, but later failed on a revote.
• Voted to Increase Taxes on Domestic Energy Companies. In 2008, Upton voted in favor of two Charlie Rangel bills raising taxes on domestic energy companies and other businesses here and here.
• Voted for Federal Regulation of Light Bulbs and for Increased Regulation of the Energy Industry. In 2007, Upton joined Democrats to provide the votes needed for passage of a bill regulating lights and appliances and imposing more regulations on energy companies.
• Voted for the $409 Billion Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, Preventing Energy Development and Leading to Increased Federal Land Acquisition. In 2009, Upton voted here and here to block millions of acres from new oil and gas leasing, logging, mining, and other business activity. This legislation eliminated 1.2 million acres from mineral leasing and energy exploration in Wyoming alone—withdrawing 331 million barrels of recoverable oil and 8.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas from domestic energy supply.
• Voted to Enable More Federal Land Acquisition, Under the Guise of Preventing Oil Spills. In 2010, Upton voted with Democrats to direct a National Resources Damages Czar to acquire non-impacted land in response to environmental disasters such as an oil spill. The underlying bill already mandated $30 billion for federal land acquisition.
• Voted Against an Overhaul of the Endangered Species Act. In 2005, Upton opposed the bill that would have overhauled the Endangered Species Act to replace the critical habitat designation used to infringe on property rights. It would require the government to reimburse landowners when development is blocked for endangered species and would have authorized grants for private landowners to protect endangered species.
• Voted Against Local Control Over Conservation Projects. In 2000, Upton voted against an amendment that would have allowed local governments to veto proposed federal land acquisition under the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Upton’s vote helped to defeat the amendment.
• Voted to Allow Bureaucrats Instead of Congress to Designate Monuments. In 2000, Upton helped to defeat an amendment that would have prohibited the use of the Antiquities Act to designate national monuments without congressional approval.
• Voted to Establish a “Green Public Schools” Advisory Board in the Department of Education. In 2009, Upton voted to require the Secretary of Education to create a new green schools bureaucracy.
As previously reported in HUMAN EVENTS, Upton has a long record of pro-abortion votes including a vote against parental notification when a minor seeks an abortion and a 2007 vote in favor of cloning human embryos for embryonic stem cell research.
Upton’s pro-abortion votes on many of the critical life issues falling within the jurisdiction of the Energy and Commerce Committee have pro-life groups in revolt.
There is much more not to like about Upton’s liberal voting record on a broad range of issues. A summary of some of the more egregious examples is available here at the link.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connie Hair writes daily as HUMAN EVENTS' Congressional correspondent. She is a former speechwriter for Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) and a former media and coalitions advisor to the Senate Republican Conference. You can follow Connie on Twitter @ConnieHair.
CommentsUpton's Shocking Votes on Energy-Related Bills
by Connie Hair
11/29/2010Trackback Link (Loading. . .)
This week marks the beginning of the end of the long national nightmare known as the 111th Congress. Republicans were given a second chance—by default—through a national effort to stop the destructive Obama/Pelosi/Reid agenda.
House Republicans are poised to begin making the same kind of business-as-usual mistakes that relegated the party to minority status in 2006. The most glaring example is the looming threat of having Rep. Fred Upton (RINO-Mich.) become chairman of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee, despite his liberal voting record, simply because he’s next in line.
If there is one thing voters made absolutely clear this election cycle, it is that the era of entitlement politics is over in the Republican Party.
Upton’s liberal voting record is a textbook example of why Republicans were kicked to the curb. From taxes to energy to federal government land grabs, Upton is no conservative.
Upton’s proudest energy achievement is co-authoring the ban on incandescent light bulbs with über-liberal Rep. Jane Harman (D.–Calif.).
A big believer in global-warming-consensus “science,” Upton told a Subcommittee on Energy and Environment hearing in 2009—just last year—that the global warming debate is over: “I have said at nearly every climate change hearing that for me I don’t dispute the science. Right or wrong, the debate over the modeling and science appears to be over.” (Transcript page 7.)
“Right or wrong”? If the science is wrong, we should just go with it anyway?
A closer look at Upton’s energy voting record reveals a job-killing liberal aligned even more closely with Nancy Pelosi on energy and environmental issues. A small sampling:
• Voted for the Democrats’ Energy Bill Imposing New Federal Mandates. In 2007, Upton voted for the Democrats’ energy bill imposing CAFE gas-mileage standards and taxpayer funding for biofuels production, among other provisions.
• Voted to Empower the EPA. In 1995, Upton voted to empower the EPA to take actions under the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and food safety laws. The underlying appropriations bill had been constructed to block funding for certain independent EPA actions. Upton voted for the Democrat-sponsored amendment to reverse this. The amendment was adopted, but later failed on a revote.
• Voted to Increase Taxes on Domestic Energy Companies. In 2008, Upton voted in favor of two Charlie Rangel bills raising taxes on domestic energy companies and other businesses here and here.
• Voted for Federal Regulation of Light Bulbs and for Increased Regulation of the Energy Industry. In 2007, Upton joined Democrats to provide the votes needed for passage of a bill regulating lights and appliances and imposing more regulations on energy companies.
• Voted for the $409 Billion Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, Preventing Energy Development and Leading to Increased Federal Land Acquisition. In 2009, Upton voted here and here to block millions of acres from new oil and gas leasing, logging, mining, and other business activity. This legislation eliminated 1.2 million acres from mineral leasing and energy exploration in Wyoming alone—withdrawing 331 million barrels of recoverable oil and 8.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas from domestic energy supply.
• Voted to Enable More Federal Land Acquisition, Under the Guise of Preventing Oil Spills. In 2010, Upton voted with Democrats to direct a National Resources Damages Czar to acquire non-impacted land in response to environmental disasters such as an oil spill. The underlying bill already mandated $30 billion for federal land acquisition.
• Voted Against an Overhaul of the Endangered Species Act. In 2005, Upton opposed the bill that would have overhauled the Endangered Species Act to replace the critical habitat designation used to infringe on property rights. It would require the government to reimburse landowners when development is blocked for endangered species and would have authorized grants for private landowners to protect endangered species.
• Voted Against Local Control Over Conservation Projects. In 2000, Upton voted against an amendment that would have allowed local governments to veto proposed federal land acquisition under the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Upton’s vote helped to defeat the amendment.
• Voted to Allow Bureaucrats Instead of Congress to Designate Monuments. In 2000, Upton helped to defeat an amendment that would have prohibited the use of the Antiquities Act to designate national monuments without congressional approval.
• Voted to Establish a “Green Public Schools” Advisory Board in the Department of Education. In 2009, Upton voted to require the Secretary of Education to create a new green schools bureaucracy.
As previously reported in HUMAN EVENTS, Upton has a long record of pro-abortion votes including a vote against parental notification when a minor seeks an abortion and a 2007 vote in favor of cloning human embryos for embryonic stem cell research.
Upton’s pro-abortion votes on many of the critical life issues falling within the jurisdiction of the Energy and Commerce Committee have pro-life groups in revolt.
There is much more not to like about Upton’s liberal voting record on a broad range of issues. A summary of some of the more egregious examples is available here at the link.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connie Hair writes daily as HUMAN EVENTS' Congressional correspondent. She is a former speechwriter for Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) and a former media and coalitions advisor to the Senate Republican Conference. You can follow Connie on Twitter @ConnieHair.
Obama Regime Shields Sexually-Deviant Illegals And Supports DREAM Act
From Family Security Matters and Floyd Reports:
November 29, 2010
Administration Shields Sexually Deviant Illegals and Supports DREAM Act
J. Christian Adams
Print This E-mail This ShareThis
Comments (19)
Victor Nunez is an illegal alien from Mexico. Two years after arriving in the United States, he was convicted of petty theft for shoplifting. Then, he was convicted of a much more serious crime: He exposed himself in public. But even that wasn’t enough to have him removed from the country.
After a decade of his illegal presence, the Department of Homeland Security finally brought immigration charges to remove him from the United States. Crimes of “moral turpitude,” like exposing your genitals to children, are supposed to result in certain deportation.
The Immigration Judge denied his application, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, finding that he had two convictions for “crimes involving moral turpitude,” which under the immigration laws, makes one ineligible for the green card Nunez was seeking. Nunez was on a fast track back to Mexico.
But Nunez appealed, claiming that his conviction for indecent exposure was not a crime involving moral turpitude. To be convicted of this crime under California law, the offender must be shown to have willfully exposed his private parts in a public place or in a place where there are unwilling persons. Under the law, he also must “intentionally direct attention to his genitals for sexual purposes.” For his conviction, it was necessary for the government to show that Nunez intended to direct attention to his genitals for sexual purposes; his conviction demonstrates, specifically, that he sought to sexually arouse or gratify himself or his victim.
But to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals based in San Francisco, there was no “moral turpitude” evident in Nunez’s crime. In an opinion by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, the deportation order was reversed. Nunez gets to stay. Reinhardt reasoned that indecent exposure is not necessarily a crime involving moral turpitude.
This decision demonstrates a pervasive relativism that is infecting American jurisprudence, and most of the public has no idea it is happening. The law used to be about objective right and objective wrong. The plain meaning of words governed the law.
Judge Reinhardt downplays the seriousness and immoral nature of the crime, saying for example that what constitutes moral turpitude is “amorphous” and “could well divide residents of red states from residents of blue states.”
That’s comforting. I’m glad I don’t have to raise my children in the blue states if Judge Reinhardt is right.
It is true that the Obama Justice Department defended the ruling of the Immigration Judge and the Board before the Ninth Circuit, and would undoubtedly express disappointment over the decision. But if so, why has it done nothing to continue to fight the case? The Eric Holder Justice Department never even sought rehearing en banc (asking all the judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to rehear the case), or asked the Supreme Court to take the case and reverse Judge Reinhardt.
Does the Justice Department share Judge Reinhardt’s view that an illegal immigrant’s public exposure of his genitals does not satisfy the term “moral turpitude” thereby meriting deportation?
Why didn’t it appeal? The decision is far outside of the mainstream and not consistent even with the left-of-center California Supreme Court’s interpretation of sexual crimes. In fact, it is even inconsistent with an en banc decision of the Ninth Circuit from last year, Marmolejo-Campos v. Holder. The entire Ninth Circuit held that what constitutes moral turpitude should be decided by the Board of Immigration appeals, not Judge Stephen Reinhardt.
So why doesn’t the Department of Justice appeal Judge Reinhardt’s opinion about indecent exposure by illegal aliens? Does Attorney General Eric Holder agree with it?
Of course, Judge Reinhardt does not have the best record when his cases are appealed to the Supreme Court. The Ninth is reversed by the Supreme Court more than any other. Even when writing for a unanimous Ninth Circuit, Judge Reinhardt may be the judge most reversed by the Supreme Court.
The Obama Administration claims that it is vigorously enforcing the nation’s immigration laws. The Justice Department’s unprecedented lawsuit against Arizona for trying to address illegal immigration proves otherwise. It has also been exposed through the release of internal memos that show the Obama Administration making contingency plans to implement amnesty by administrative fiat if the Congress fails to pass comprehensive immigration reform.
The Administration has already begun implementing those plans through formal new DHS directives to its career enforcement officials, ordering them not to enforce the immigration laws for what it calls “minor vehicular offenses,” if they were committed by illegal aliens who have received a high school diploma and attended two years of college. In other words, if they satisfy the amnesty requirements of a proposed law not yet passed by Congress called the DREAM Act, the DHS orders an effective amnesty.
That’s right, the Administration is enforcing a policy that has yet to pass Congress. Welcome to Legal Wonderland. Curiouser and curiouser it is.
When questioned about administrative amnesty proposals, the DHS press flunkies say “DHS will not grant deferred action or humanitarian parole to the nation's illegal immigrant population." They say they will not suspend enforcement of immigration laws. And in truth, they don’t suspend the current laws for ALL illegal aliens, only for some.
They are giving breaks to a larger and select groups of illegal aliens. This is worse than a backdoor amnesty. This is a backdoor amnesty that flaunts the rule of law. No matter your individual beliefs about immigration policy, in a nation governed by the rule of law, as passed by Congress, we should all agree the Executive Branch can’t suspend laws they simply disagree with.
The Administration has never openly stated they are suspending the enforcement of the immigration laws against sexual offenders, and in fact claims that serious criminals are its highest priority. Yet, the Justice Department is doing nothing to fight extreme pro-criminal alien decisions like this one from Judge Reinhardt.
And this case is certainly not unique among Ninth Circuit decisions rejecting government efforts to remove criminal aliens for sexual crimes. In May, the Ninth Circuit ruled in Rivera-Cuartas v. Holder, that an Arizona statue that made sexual conduct with a minor under the age of 18 years old illegal is not always “sexual abuse of a minor.” This, despite the reality that under federal law such behavior is considered an aggravated felony and almost always results in removal from the United States. The Holder Justice Department has not fought back and appealed this bad decision either.
The Obama Administration’s failure to vigorously enforce the immigration laws is becoming increasingly clear, and its failure to appeal bad decisions protecting sexual offenders like Nunez is dangerous. Department of Justice inaction will prevent many other sexual offenders from being removed from the country, at least if they live in the Ninth Circuit. DOJ inaction speaks louder than spin.
Judge Reinhardt is quoted as once saying in reference to the Supreme Court, “They can’t catch them all.” He is right about that, especially if the Justice Department doesn’t even try.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor J. Christian Adams is an election law attorney and was formerly with the Department of Justice Voting Section. He resigned after the Justice Department dropped already won voter intimidation charges against the New Black Panther Party. His website is www.electionlawcenter.com.
November 29, 2010
Administration Shields Sexually Deviant Illegals and Supports DREAM Act
J. Christian Adams
Print This E-mail This ShareThis
Comments (19)
Victor Nunez is an illegal alien from Mexico. Two years after arriving in the United States, he was convicted of petty theft for shoplifting. Then, he was convicted of a much more serious crime: He exposed himself in public. But even that wasn’t enough to have him removed from the country.
After a decade of his illegal presence, the Department of Homeland Security finally brought immigration charges to remove him from the United States. Crimes of “moral turpitude,” like exposing your genitals to children, are supposed to result in certain deportation.
The Immigration Judge denied his application, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, finding that he had two convictions for “crimes involving moral turpitude,” which under the immigration laws, makes one ineligible for the green card Nunez was seeking. Nunez was on a fast track back to Mexico.
But Nunez appealed, claiming that his conviction for indecent exposure was not a crime involving moral turpitude. To be convicted of this crime under California law, the offender must be shown to have willfully exposed his private parts in a public place or in a place where there are unwilling persons. Under the law, he also must “intentionally direct attention to his genitals for sexual purposes.” For his conviction, it was necessary for the government to show that Nunez intended to direct attention to his genitals for sexual purposes; his conviction demonstrates, specifically, that he sought to sexually arouse or gratify himself or his victim.
But to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals based in San Francisco, there was no “moral turpitude” evident in Nunez’s crime. In an opinion by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, the deportation order was reversed. Nunez gets to stay. Reinhardt reasoned that indecent exposure is not necessarily a crime involving moral turpitude.
This decision demonstrates a pervasive relativism that is infecting American jurisprudence, and most of the public has no idea it is happening. The law used to be about objective right and objective wrong. The plain meaning of words governed the law.
Judge Reinhardt downplays the seriousness and immoral nature of the crime, saying for example that what constitutes moral turpitude is “amorphous” and “could well divide residents of red states from residents of blue states.”
That’s comforting. I’m glad I don’t have to raise my children in the blue states if Judge Reinhardt is right.
It is true that the Obama Justice Department defended the ruling of the Immigration Judge and the Board before the Ninth Circuit, and would undoubtedly express disappointment over the decision. But if so, why has it done nothing to continue to fight the case? The Eric Holder Justice Department never even sought rehearing en banc (asking all the judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to rehear the case), or asked the Supreme Court to take the case and reverse Judge Reinhardt.
Does the Justice Department share Judge Reinhardt’s view that an illegal immigrant’s public exposure of his genitals does not satisfy the term “moral turpitude” thereby meriting deportation?
Why didn’t it appeal? The decision is far outside of the mainstream and not consistent even with the left-of-center California Supreme Court’s interpretation of sexual crimes. In fact, it is even inconsistent with an en banc decision of the Ninth Circuit from last year, Marmolejo-Campos v. Holder. The entire Ninth Circuit held that what constitutes moral turpitude should be decided by the Board of Immigration appeals, not Judge Stephen Reinhardt.
So why doesn’t the Department of Justice appeal Judge Reinhardt’s opinion about indecent exposure by illegal aliens? Does Attorney General Eric Holder agree with it?
Of course, Judge Reinhardt does not have the best record when his cases are appealed to the Supreme Court. The Ninth is reversed by the Supreme Court more than any other. Even when writing for a unanimous Ninth Circuit, Judge Reinhardt may be the judge most reversed by the Supreme Court.
The Obama Administration claims that it is vigorously enforcing the nation’s immigration laws. The Justice Department’s unprecedented lawsuit against Arizona for trying to address illegal immigration proves otherwise. It has also been exposed through the release of internal memos that show the Obama Administration making contingency plans to implement amnesty by administrative fiat if the Congress fails to pass comprehensive immigration reform.
The Administration has already begun implementing those plans through formal new DHS directives to its career enforcement officials, ordering them not to enforce the immigration laws for what it calls “minor vehicular offenses,” if they were committed by illegal aliens who have received a high school diploma and attended two years of college. In other words, if they satisfy the amnesty requirements of a proposed law not yet passed by Congress called the DREAM Act, the DHS orders an effective amnesty.
That’s right, the Administration is enforcing a policy that has yet to pass Congress. Welcome to Legal Wonderland. Curiouser and curiouser it is.
When questioned about administrative amnesty proposals, the DHS press flunkies say “DHS will not grant deferred action or humanitarian parole to the nation's illegal immigrant population." They say they will not suspend enforcement of immigration laws. And in truth, they don’t suspend the current laws for ALL illegal aliens, only for some.
They are giving breaks to a larger and select groups of illegal aliens. This is worse than a backdoor amnesty. This is a backdoor amnesty that flaunts the rule of law. No matter your individual beliefs about immigration policy, in a nation governed by the rule of law, as passed by Congress, we should all agree the Executive Branch can’t suspend laws they simply disagree with.
The Administration has never openly stated they are suspending the enforcement of the immigration laws against sexual offenders, and in fact claims that serious criminals are its highest priority. Yet, the Justice Department is doing nothing to fight extreme pro-criminal alien decisions like this one from Judge Reinhardt.
And this case is certainly not unique among Ninth Circuit decisions rejecting government efforts to remove criminal aliens for sexual crimes. In May, the Ninth Circuit ruled in Rivera-Cuartas v. Holder, that an Arizona statue that made sexual conduct with a minor under the age of 18 years old illegal is not always “sexual abuse of a minor.” This, despite the reality that under federal law such behavior is considered an aggravated felony and almost always results in removal from the United States. The Holder Justice Department has not fought back and appealed this bad decision either.
The Obama Administration’s failure to vigorously enforce the immigration laws is becoming increasingly clear, and its failure to appeal bad decisions protecting sexual offenders like Nunez is dangerous. Department of Justice inaction will prevent many other sexual offenders from being removed from the country, at least if they live in the Ninth Circuit. DOJ inaction speaks louder than spin.
Judge Reinhardt is quoted as once saying in reference to the Supreme Court, “They can’t catch them all.” He is right about that, especially if the Justice Department doesn’t even try.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor J. Christian Adams is an election law attorney and was formerly with the Department of Justice Voting Section. He resigned after the Justice Department dropped already won voter intimidation charges against the New Black Panther Party. His website is www.electionlawcenter.com.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
What If Interest Rates Return To Historic Normals?
from The American Thinker:
November 28, 2010
What if interest rates return to 'historic normals?'
Rick Moran
Servicing our debt would become a major problem if interest rates were to return to historic levels, according to Yuval Levin at NRO:
[I]f the current very low rate continues, and our fiscal policy basically follows the track laid out by the president's last budget, then the interest on the debt 10 years from now will be a little over $350 billion. If the rate goes back to the 20-year average, however, interest on the debt 10 years from now will be more like $1.15 trillion. Again, no small difference. Indeed, it is enough to make some prominent elements of our deficit debate seem a little ridiculous.
The debate is a "little ridiculous" at the lower number of $350 billion but who's counting? Not Obama, whose policies foretell deficits over a trillion dollars for the next decade.
But what about all these proposals to reduce the deficit?
Many of the savings in the various deficit-reduction proposals bandied about in recent weeks would also be swamped by the same effect. But of course, wishing for interest rates to remain as low as they are doesn't make much sense either-these low rates are a function of the economic crisis we have just been through. Better economic growth, which we all want, would surely bring higher interest rates-and the Fed has certainly been pursuing this goal too (whatever you might think of the means by which it has done so).
The solution, of course, is to reduce the size of the deficit and debt while fostering economic growth. So even if the prospect of exploding interest costs makes a mockery of some recent deficit-reduction proposals and projections, deficit reduction is exactly what we need to head off that exploding interest. The particular figures in various projections-whether it's the numbers offered by the president's fiscal commission, the figures put out by the Congressional Budget Office, or the projections soon to come in the administration's budget-are likely to be pretty far off mark. But the point is the basic direction of our fiscal policy. We simply must begin to move toward lower spending and higher growth. As Lindsey makes clear, time is genuinely running out if we are to avoid a Japanese-style calamity.
Posted at 10:19 AM
November 28, 2010
What if interest rates return to 'historic normals?'
Rick Moran
Servicing our debt would become a major problem if interest rates were to return to historic levels, according to Yuval Levin at NRO:
[I]f the current very low rate continues, and our fiscal policy basically follows the track laid out by the president's last budget, then the interest on the debt 10 years from now will be a little over $350 billion. If the rate goes back to the 20-year average, however, interest on the debt 10 years from now will be more like $1.15 trillion. Again, no small difference. Indeed, it is enough to make some prominent elements of our deficit debate seem a little ridiculous.
The debate is a "little ridiculous" at the lower number of $350 billion but who's counting? Not Obama, whose policies foretell deficits over a trillion dollars for the next decade.
But what about all these proposals to reduce the deficit?
Many of the savings in the various deficit-reduction proposals bandied about in recent weeks would also be swamped by the same effect. But of course, wishing for interest rates to remain as low as they are doesn't make much sense either-these low rates are a function of the economic crisis we have just been through. Better economic growth, which we all want, would surely bring higher interest rates-and the Fed has certainly been pursuing this goal too (whatever you might think of the means by which it has done so).
The solution, of course, is to reduce the size of the deficit and debt while fostering economic growth. So even if the prospect of exploding interest costs makes a mockery of some recent deficit-reduction proposals and projections, deficit reduction is exactly what we need to head off that exploding interest. The particular figures in various projections-whether it's the numbers offered by the president's fiscal commission, the figures put out by the Congressional Budget Office, or the projections soon to come in the administration's budget-are likely to be pretty far off mark. But the point is the basic direction of our fiscal policy. We simply must begin to move toward lower spending and higher growth. As Lindsey makes clear, time is genuinely running out if we are to avoid a Japanese-style calamity.
Posted at 10:19 AM
Saturday, November 27, 2010
The Dangerous Mythology Of Immigration
from The American Thinker:
November 28, 2010
The Dangerous Mythology of Immigration
By Frank Burke
No question on the national agenda is more important than the resolution of our immigration policy. The U.K., France, Spain, and Germany have discovered that, as German Chancellor Angela Merkel stated recently, multiculturalism has "utterly failed." Nor do we have to go as far as Europe. The Separatist Movement has long been an expensive and divisive thorn in Canada's side.
Unrestricted and unmanaged immigration is more than a question of expense. It can destroy a nation's identity and wipe away its culture, customs, and laws. The recent law passed by the citizens of Oklahoma making it illegal for judges to rely on Sharia Law in deciding cases (a law that was inexplicably stayed by a federal judge), as well as Arizona's move to enforce federal immigration law -- a movement seconded by a growing number of states -- all show that it can happen here.
Adding to the difficulty of crafting a just and effective policy is the amount of mythology and emotionalism surrounding the entire immigration question. Some of this is understandable. Immigration is a central facet of the American identity and is reflected in one of our most cherished icons: the Statue of Liberty. Virtually all our family histories boast chapters on immigration. Knowing what the opportunity to become an American has meant to us, it is hard to imagine that the door of opportunity -- the "golden door" -- is now closed to many. Yet unless and until we are willing to look at the situation realistically, we risk not just our icons, but the land that they represent.
Here are three myths central to the problem of immigration:
Myth No. 1: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses/The wretched refuse of your teeming shore..." Well, not quite. Emma Lazarus's 1883 poem "The New Colossus" -- written in the year the Statue of Liberty was dedicated -- has been taken by many to reflect a true picture of immigration. This is not the case. From the colonial period on, there were standards that immigrants had to meet. Originally addressed at the regional level, then by the states, they were eventually federalized. The immigration stations, such as the one at Ellis Island in New York harbor, were not welcoming centers. They were processing points for the inspection and certification of new arrivals. Individuals with physical or mental problems, or who were known to be criminals in their country of origin, were denied entry. Older or underage family members required sponsorship. All of this was to ensure that the newly arrived immigrants would not be a burden to their new country and could either support themselves or be supported by others.
Further, the America of the 17th through the early 20th centuries possessed a large appetite for unskilled or semiskilled labor. Labor contractors advertised in Europe for workers. Likewise, the railroads solicited farmers with offers of free or cheap land situated along the right-of-way. Many of the jobs were hard, dangerous, and poorly paid, but given good health and a desire to work, the new immigrants, both male and female, could find opportunities to establish themselves.
Today's situation is different. The market for unskilled labor is a tiny fraction of what it was. Even in agriculture, many of the harvesting processes once performed by migrants now utilize machines. America still has a place for immigrants, but with the advent of technology, the qualifications required have markedly changed.
Myth No. 2: People come here because they want to become Americans. Some do, but today, many do not. Most of the early immigrants who fled to these shores came due to trouble and desperation. They sought a new life in America, and from the time they arrived, virtually everything they made was reinvested in their new country. Travel was difficult and expensive, and most who made the journey knew they would never see their native land again.
Unlike previous generations, those who come today do so for a variety of reasons. Some come seeking economic opportunity but have no desire to break ties with their own country. This is observable in the demonstrations held by Latinos seeking amnesty. Some carry Mexican flags and signs proclaiming what they believe the U.S. owes them. The second-largest source of income in Mexico derives from remittances sent from the United States. So-called paths to citizenship have not met with an enthusiastic reception.
Others, in turn, come for more nefarious reasons. Members of the Mexican Reconquista movement, including the National Will Organization, Mexica movement, and La Voz de Aztlan, seriously wish to reclaim the lands lost by Mexico in the Mexican War, as well as other states with high Hispanic populations. These would include California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Nevada, and Colorado.
Other advocates of multiculturalism, including foreign nationals, religious sects, and cults, seek to reduce the United States to colonial status for their own purposes. Just as radical Islamists in the United Kingdom and elsewhere are advocating the imposition of Sharia Law on the population, some here seek the same end.
Even where the intention is not initially malicious, multiculturalism can have problematic results. National and other groups that choose to live apart from the mainstream, retaining their own language, culture, and customs, frequently experience serious problems in the second generation. Raised in an extremely restrictive environment but unavoidably exposed to American ideas, these young people develop severe identity problems. As with earlier immigrant groups, the result frequently takes the form of antisocial behavior and gang membership. This trend is observable from the multiple ethnic gangs of early organized crime, down to the drug cartels of the present day.
Myth No. 3: Everyone is really seeking the same things. No other myth is more insidious than the one world philosophy that has impacted not only the immigration debate, but also our foreign policy for over half a century. Traditionally, people who came to America in pursuit of a better life assimilated into the American mainstream. Defining themselves along similar lines, they shared many of the same values and goals. As a result of that experience, it has become very easy for Americans to project the idea of mutual tolerance and communality worldwide. Like the dream of a united nations, this has along been a favorite mantra of those on the left. In June of 1963, in delivering the commencement address at American University, John F. Kennedy sought to advance a nuclear test ban treaty by equating the attitudes of the United States and the Soviet Union, stating, "For in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's futures. And we are all mortal." In 2009, speaking at the United Nations, Barack Obama, again supporting disarmament, stated, "No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed."
The wishful thinking that all nations are somehow equal and that we all desire the same things is naïve on the face of it and deadly in its implementation. The individual who murders his daughter in an honor killing; the family that celebrates the martyrdom of children who destroyed themselves while killing innocent people; or the tribe whose members practice genocide against its neighbors are not going to be satisfied with a good job, a nice house, education for their children, and a wide-screen HDTV.
Those who project a rosy vision of world brotherhood play into the hands of fanatics. Our concern for others, including future immigrants, will be best-demonstrated in securing our borders and insuring our survival as the seat of freedom.
November 28, 2010
The Dangerous Mythology of Immigration
By Frank Burke
No question on the national agenda is more important than the resolution of our immigration policy. The U.K., France, Spain, and Germany have discovered that, as German Chancellor Angela Merkel stated recently, multiculturalism has "utterly failed." Nor do we have to go as far as Europe. The Separatist Movement has long been an expensive and divisive thorn in Canada's side.
Unrestricted and unmanaged immigration is more than a question of expense. It can destroy a nation's identity and wipe away its culture, customs, and laws. The recent law passed by the citizens of Oklahoma making it illegal for judges to rely on Sharia Law in deciding cases (a law that was inexplicably stayed by a federal judge), as well as Arizona's move to enforce federal immigration law -- a movement seconded by a growing number of states -- all show that it can happen here.
Adding to the difficulty of crafting a just and effective policy is the amount of mythology and emotionalism surrounding the entire immigration question. Some of this is understandable. Immigration is a central facet of the American identity and is reflected in one of our most cherished icons: the Statue of Liberty. Virtually all our family histories boast chapters on immigration. Knowing what the opportunity to become an American has meant to us, it is hard to imagine that the door of opportunity -- the "golden door" -- is now closed to many. Yet unless and until we are willing to look at the situation realistically, we risk not just our icons, but the land that they represent.
Here are three myths central to the problem of immigration:
Myth No. 1: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses/The wretched refuse of your teeming shore..." Well, not quite. Emma Lazarus's 1883 poem "The New Colossus" -- written in the year the Statue of Liberty was dedicated -- has been taken by many to reflect a true picture of immigration. This is not the case. From the colonial period on, there were standards that immigrants had to meet. Originally addressed at the regional level, then by the states, they were eventually federalized. The immigration stations, such as the one at Ellis Island in New York harbor, were not welcoming centers. They were processing points for the inspection and certification of new arrivals. Individuals with physical or mental problems, or who were known to be criminals in their country of origin, were denied entry. Older or underage family members required sponsorship. All of this was to ensure that the newly arrived immigrants would not be a burden to their new country and could either support themselves or be supported by others.
Further, the America of the 17th through the early 20th centuries possessed a large appetite for unskilled or semiskilled labor. Labor contractors advertised in Europe for workers. Likewise, the railroads solicited farmers with offers of free or cheap land situated along the right-of-way. Many of the jobs were hard, dangerous, and poorly paid, but given good health and a desire to work, the new immigrants, both male and female, could find opportunities to establish themselves.
Today's situation is different. The market for unskilled labor is a tiny fraction of what it was. Even in agriculture, many of the harvesting processes once performed by migrants now utilize machines. America still has a place for immigrants, but with the advent of technology, the qualifications required have markedly changed.
Myth No. 2: People come here because they want to become Americans. Some do, but today, many do not. Most of the early immigrants who fled to these shores came due to trouble and desperation. They sought a new life in America, and from the time they arrived, virtually everything they made was reinvested in their new country. Travel was difficult and expensive, and most who made the journey knew they would never see their native land again.
Unlike previous generations, those who come today do so for a variety of reasons. Some come seeking economic opportunity but have no desire to break ties with their own country. This is observable in the demonstrations held by Latinos seeking amnesty. Some carry Mexican flags and signs proclaiming what they believe the U.S. owes them. The second-largest source of income in Mexico derives from remittances sent from the United States. So-called paths to citizenship have not met with an enthusiastic reception.
Others, in turn, come for more nefarious reasons. Members of the Mexican Reconquista movement, including the National Will Organization, Mexica movement, and La Voz de Aztlan, seriously wish to reclaim the lands lost by Mexico in the Mexican War, as well as other states with high Hispanic populations. These would include California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Nevada, and Colorado.
Other advocates of multiculturalism, including foreign nationals, religious sects, and cults, seek to reduce the United States to colonial status for their own purposes. Just as radical Islamists in the United Kingdom and elsewhere are advocating the imposition of Sharia Law on the population, some here seek the same end.
Even where the intention is not initially malicious, multiculturalism can have problematic results. National and other groups that choose to live apart from the mainstream, retaining their own language, culture, and customs, frequently experience serious problems in the second generation. Raised in an extremely restrictive environment but unavoidably exposed to American ideas, these young people develop severe identity problems. As with earlier immigrant groups, the result frequently takes the form of antisocial behavior and gang membership. This trend is observable from the multiple ethnic gangs of early organized crime, down to the drug cartels of the present day.
Myth No. 3: Everyone is really seeking the same things. No other myth is more insidious than the one world philosophy that has impacted not only the immigration debate, but also our foreign policy for over half a century. Traditionally, people who came to America in pursuit of a better life assimilated into the American mainstream. Defining themselves along similar lines, they shared many of the same values and goals. As a result of that experience, it has become very easy for Americans to project the idea of mutual tolerance and communality worldwide. Like the dream of a united nations, this has along been a favorite mantra of those on the left. In June of 1963, in delivering the commencement address at American University, John F. Kennedy sought to advance a nuclear test ban treaty by equating the attitudes of the United States and the Soviet Union, stating, "For in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's futures. And we are all mortal." In 2009, speaking at the United Nations, Barack Obama, again supporting disarmament, stated, "No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed."
The wishful thinking that all nations are somehow equal and that we all desire the same things is naïve on the face of it and deadly in its implementation. The individual who murders his daughter in an honor killing; the family that celebrates the martyrdom of children who destroyed themselves while killing innocent people; or the tribe whose members practice genocide against its neighbors are not going to be satisfied with a good job, a nice house, education for their children, and a wide-screen HDTV.
Those who project a rosy vision of world brotherhood play into the hands of fanatics. Our concern for others, including future immigrants, will be best-demonstrated in securing our borders and insuring our survival as the seat of freedom.
Red State Governors Consider Banding Together (On Health Care Reforms)
From John T. Reed on Headline News and Secession and Nullification--News and Information:
Remember my article about red areas seceding?
November 23rd, 2010 by John T. Reed
Copyright 2010 by John T. Reed All rights reserved
Below, you can see an article I recently wrote called “A modest proposal: the Red election precincts should secede from the United States.”
Well, guess what.
The November 22, 2010 Wall Street Journal had an article titled “Some States Weigh the Extraordinary: Ending Medicaid.”
Medicaid is supposedly a state program, but the federal government pays 57% of its costs and says you have to do it the Fed’s way to get that 57%. Furthermore, come 2014, Obamacare orders the states to add 16 million more people to the roles of their Medicaid programs.
Check this sentence from the Journal article out:
Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels said he put a different proposal before the Republican governors assembled in San Diego: that they all band together to created a multistate insurance pool for the uninsured.
Roughly speaking that means states with Republican governors would secede from the United States and form a new United States for Medicaid purposes only.
The Journal article also presented this idea as a sort of “modest proposal,” that is, only half serious but news that it is even being discussed.
When I write these various articles about the impending bankruptcy of the U.S. government, people smile and say, “You don’t understand how popular Medicaid is and how many people depend on it and the fact that no politician would ever vote to end it” etc., etc.
No, you guys are the ones who do not understand.
When the U.S. became the biggest debtor nation in the world then increased its dependence on borrowing faster than ever before, American voters ceded their sovereignty for government-spending purposes to the world bond market.
If Medicaid is popular AND the world bond market lends us the money to fund Medicaid, we will have Medicaid. If and when the world bond market does not wish to lend us money for the purpose of paying for Medicaid, there will be no Medicaid.
Capeche?
The era when the American people will get from politicians that which they demand from politicians is over. That only applied when the politicians were spending our tax money.
In 2010, the politicians are spending $2 trillion of our tax money and $5 trillion more of money borrowed from the world bond investors. And the world bond investors do not give a shit how popular Medicaid is or how many people depend on it or how many politicians will vote to end it. The bond market only cares whether it will get its money back, with interest, and that it will have the same purchasing power when they do.
When the world bond market “votes” to end Medicaid, with their dollars, it will end—overnight—without so much as an apology or a “howdy do” from those bond investors. All they have to do, and will do, is pick up their phone, call their broker, and say “Sell my U.S. bonds.”
For years, I have been reading stories that many are already doing just that. The Federal Reserve announced earlier this month that they are going to buy another $600 billion of U.S. bonds, plus reinvest another $250 to $300 billion of maturing bond payments in U.S. bonds. That brings the total of U.S. bonds bought by the Fed in the last two years to around $3 trillion. If the world bond market were buying all the bonds the U.S. wanted to sell, the Fed would not have to do that.
Remember my article about red areas seceding?
November 23rd, 2010 by John T. Reed
Copyright 2010 by John T. Reed All rights reserved
Below, you can see an article I recently wrote called “A modest proposal: the Red election precincts should secede from the United States.”
Well, guess what.
The November 22, 2010 Wall Street Journal had an article titled “Some States Weigh the Extraordinary: Ending Medicaid.”
Medicaid is supposedly a state program, but the federal government pays 57% of its costs and says you have to do it the Fed’s way to get that 57%. Furthermore, come 2014, Obamacare orders the states to add 16 million more people to the roles of their Medicaid programs.
Check this sentence from the Journal article out:
Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels said he put a different proposal before the Republican governors assembled in San Diego: that they all band together to created a multistate insurance pool for the uninsured.
Roughly speaking that means states with Republican governors would secede from the United States and form a new United States for Medicaid purposes only.
The Journal article also presented this idea as a sort of “modest proposal,” that is, only half serious but news that it is even being discussed.
When I write these various articles about the impending bankruptcy of the U.S. government, people smile and say, “You don’t understand how popular Medicaid is and how many people depend on it and the fact that no politician would ever vote to end it” etc., etc.
No, you guys are the ones who do not understand.
When the U.S. became the biggest debtor nation in the world then increased its dependence on borrowing faster than ever before, American voters ceded their sovereignty for government-spending purposes to the world bond market.
If Medicaid is popular AND the world bond market lends us the money to fund Medicaid, we will have Medicaid. If and when the world bond market does not wish to lend us money for the purpose of paying for Medicaid, there will be no Medicaid.
Capeche?
The era when the American people will get from politicians that which they demand from politicians is over. That only applied when the politicians were spending our tax money.
In 2010, the politicians are spending $2 trillion of our tax money and $5 trillion more of money borrowed from the world bond investors. And the world bond investors do not give a shit how popular Medicaid is or how many people depend on it or how many politicians will vote to end it. The bond market only cares whether it will get its money back, with interest, and that it will have the same purchasing power when they do.
When the world bond market “votes” to end Medicaid, with their dollars, it will end—overnight—without so much as an apology or a “howdy do” from those bond investors. All they have to do, and will do, is pick up their phone, call their broker, and say “Sell my U.S. bonds.”
For years, I have been reading stories that many are already doing just that. The Federal Reserve announced earlier this month that they are going to buy another $600 billion of U.S. bonds, plus reinvest another $250 to $300 billion of maturing bond payments in U.S. bonds. That brings the total of U.S. bonds bought by the Fed in the last two years to around $3 trillion. If the world bond market were buying all the bonds the U.S. wanted to sell, the Fed would not have to do that.
Passenger's Firm Courtesy thwarts TSA Screening
From The New American and Liberty Pulse:
Passenger's Firm Courtesy Thwarts TSA Screening
Written by Kelly Holt
Thursday, 25 November 2010 08:50
0On November 21, two and a half hours after landing in Northern Kentucky on a return trip from Paris, Matt Kernan was allowed to leave the Cincinnati airport without having had to endure either the “backscatter” (AIT) scanner or pat-down screening procedures that have enraged American air travelers for weeks.
Kernan exemplified the best of America as he handled an encounter with TSA personnel and airport police with courtesy and politeness. His act of civil disobedience came after he and other deplaning passengers were deposited into the airport’s “sterile” area and told they must be screened again (even though they had been screened at the departure airport and had not left the plane until then) through either a body scanner or metal detector, and the new "enhanced" pat-down, which includes touching private areas. He objected to the procedures.
Kernan, who works for a finance company in Cincinnati, related that he was able to take a stand because he wasn’t making a connecting flight and had time to pay attention and be courteous — an attitude which he noted is sorely needed in America today. The civility went a long way for him.
Kernan pointed out that he isn’t someone who normally protests every constitutional infraction that comes along — but the TSA violations really bothered him. He added that he had thought through the possibilities of what might happen if he declined the new screening procedures, and had an idea of what he was in for. When he found himself in the situation, he quickly assessed which way it would go, and already had a plan in mind. But he determined that the one thing he wanted to avoid was an argumentative incident, which certainly would have resulted in a different outcome.
The November 23 Cincinnati Inquirer quotes Kernan:
It was civil disobedience, and a big component of it was that I had the luxury to do what others have not been able to. I wanted to set a precedent ... and to prove the point that these new security procedures are not necessary and are invasive.
The Inquirer reported that Kernan said when he told the TSA agents he didn’t like the screening choices, they told him they had two options:
The choices they had were to either arrest me or let me go home. It wasn't like I had a plane to catch. I basically told them if they touched me I would consider it an assault.
After Kernan refused the screening procedures, the TSA agents kept restating the agency’s policy; however, in an interview with Jon Grayson on CBS Radio Overnight America, Kernan emphasized that the agents never said the screening policy was “ law.” He said he even offered to go through the metal detector, but ended up not having to.
After his lengthy ordeal, Kernan was eventually escorted from the airport with a growing entourage of TSA agents and two police officers — eventually 13 total.
The Cincinnati Enquirer continued:
TSA officials acknowledged the incident occurred and that Kernan was escorted through a "non-secure" part of the airport. The official airport police incident report also verifies Kernan's account, airport spokeswoman Barb Schempf said. The airport was still working to comply with an open records request for the report late Tuesday.
“In this instance, TSA in consultation with local law enforcement, made the determination to deny access to the secure area and have law enforcement escort the individual to the public side of the airport," TSA spokesman Jim Fotenos wrote in an e-mail. He declined to elaborate further when asked if this would be allowed again in the future.
Kernan’s website (No Blasters!) posted the audio of his conversations as well as the transcript from his iPhone recording. In his encounters first with TSA agents, and later with airport police, it becomes clear that neither group of officers was quite sure what to do with this dissenting passenger, and that because he had stated his constitutional rights in a courteous and non-threatening way, the stand he had taken was effective.
The account has captured worldwide attention, and almost all responses to his website have been positive. None of the articles, however, has answered whether such an incident would have occurred if Kernan had been boarding a plane instead of leaving one. Kernan sums up the encounter with these thoughts: "It has been incredible, although it's been frustrating as well. I don't think I'm heroic. Since when has simply asserting your own rights been heroic?"
Photo: Aerial view of Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport
Passenger's Firm Courtesy Thwarts TSA Screening
Written by Kelly Holt
Thursday, 25 November 2010 08:50
0On November 21, two and a half hours after landing in Northern Kentucky on a return trip from Paris, Matt Kernan was allowed to leave the Cincinnati airport without having had to endure either the “backscatter” (AIT) scanner or pat-down screening procedures that have enraged American air travelers for weeks.
Kernan exemplified the best of America as he handled an encounter with TSA personnel and airport police with courtesy and politeness. His act of civil disobedience came after he and other deplaning passengers were deposited into the airport’s “sterile” area and told they must be screened again (even though they had been screened at the departure airport and had not left the plane until then) through either a body scanner or metal detector, and the new "enhanced" pat-down, which includes touching private areas. He objected to the procedures.
Kernan, who works for a finance company in Cincinnati, related that he was able to take a stand because he wasn’t making a connecting flight and had time to pay attention and be courteous — an attitude which he noted is sorely needed in America today. The civility went a long way for him.
Kernan pointed out that he isn’t someone who normally protests every constitutional infraction that comes along — but the TSA violations really bothered him. He added that he had thought through the possibilities of what might happen if he declined the new screening procedures, and had an idea of what he was in for. When he found himself in the situation, he quickly assessed which way it would go, and already had a plan in mind. But he determined that the one thing he wanted to avoid was an argumentative incident, which certainly would have resulted in a different outcome.
The November 23 Cincinnati Inquirer quotes Kernan:
It was civil disobedience, and a big component of it was that I had the luxury to do what others have not been able to. I wanted to set a precedent ... and to prove the point that these new security procedures are not necessary and are invasive.
The Inquirer reported that Kernan said when he told the TSA agents he didn’t like the screening choices, they told him they had two options:
The choices they had were to either arrest me or let me go home. It wasn't like I had a plane to catch. I basically told them if they touched me I would consider it an assault.
After Kernan refused the screening procedures, the TSA agents kept restating the agency’s policy; however, in an interview with Jon Grayson on CBS Radio Overnight America, Kernan emphasized that the agents never said the screening policy was “ law.” He said he even offered to go through the metal detector, but ended up not having to.
After his lengthy ordeal, Kernan was eventually escorted from the airport with a growing entourage of TSA agents and two police officers — eventually 13 total.
The Cincinnati Enquirer continued:
TSA officials acknowledged the incident occurred and that Kernan was escorted through a "non-secure" part of the airport. The official airport police incident report also verifies Kernan's account, airport spokeswoman Barb Schempf said. The airport was still working to comply with an open records request for the report late Tuesday.
“In this instance, TSA in consultation with local law enforcement, made the determination to deny access to the secure area and have law enforcement escort the individual to the public side of the airport," TSA spokesman Jim Fotenos wrote in an e-mail. He declined to elaborate further when asked if this would be allowed again in the future.
Kernan’s website (No Blasters!) posted the audio of his conversations as well as the transcript from his iPhone recording. In his encounters first with TSA agents, and later with airport police, it becomes clear that neither group of officers was quite sure what to do with this dissenting passenger, and that because he had stated his constitutional rights in a courteous and non-threatening way, the stand he had taken was effective.
The account has captured worldwide attention, and almost all responses to his website have been positive. None of the articles, however, has answered whether such an incident would have occurred if Kernan had been boarding a plane instead of leaving one. Kernan sums up the encounter with these thoughts: "It has been incredible, although it's been frustrating as well. I don't think I'm heroic. Since when has simply asserting your own rights been heroic?"
Photo: Aerial view of Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport
Anatomy Of A Journalistic Smear Job
From Salon.com and Liberty Pulse:
Wednesday, Nov 24, 2010 07:25 ET
Anatomy of a journalistic smear job
By Glenn Greenwald
AP
John Tyner, a software engineer who posted an Internet blog item saying he had been ejected after being threatened with a fine and lawsuit for refusing a groin check after turning down a full-body scan at San Diego International Airport(updated below - Update II - Update III [response from authors])
One long-standing -- and justifiable -- progressive grievance is that whenever ordinary Americans allow their personal plight to enter the public sphere in a way that advances a liberal political goal, they are gratuitously probed and personally smeared by the Right. The most illustrative example is the Frost family, who allowed their 12-year-old son Graeme to deliver a moving radio address explaining the benefits he received from the CHIP program when he was in a serious car accident, only to be promptly stalked and smeared by Michelle Malkin, among others. Today, The Nation -- a magazine which generally offers very good journalism -- subjects John Tyner to similar treatment, with such a shoddy, fact-free, and reckless hit piece (by Mark Ames and Yasha Levine) that I'm genuinely surprised its editors published it. Beyond the inherent benefit of correcting the record, this particular article is suffused with all sorts of toxic though common premises that make it worth examining in detail.
The article is headlined "TSAstroturf: The Washington Lobbyists and Koch-Funded Libertarians Behind the TSA Scandal," and is devoted to the claim that those objecting to the new TSA procedures -- such as Tyner -- are not what they claim to be. Rather, they are Koch-controlled plants deliberately provoking and manufacturing a scandal -- because, after all, what real American in their right mind would do anything other than meekly submit with gratitude and appreciation to these procedures? Let's just look at the paragraphs written to "justify" this accusation. Here's the article's first paragraph:
Does anyone else sense something strange is going on with the apparently spontaneous revolt against the TSA? This past week, the media turned an “ordinary guy,” 31-year-old Californian John Tyner who blogs under the pseudonym “Johnny Edge,” into a national hero after he posted a cell phone video of himself defending his liberty against the evil government oppressors in charge of airport security.
So the article begins with a claim about what the authors "sense" to be true -- "something strange" going on -- followed by innuendo, achieved through the slothful use of scare quotes, that Tyner is something other than an "ordinary guy." One will search the article in total futility for a shred of evidence that supports this accusatory, smearing opening paragraph. It continues:
While this issue is certainly important -- and offensive -- to Americans, we are nonetheless skeptical about how and why this story turned into a national movement. In fact, this whole campaign feels a bit like déjà -vu: As the first reporters to expose the Tea Party as an Astroturf PR campaign funded by FreedomWorks and Koch-related front groups back in February, 2009, we see many of the same elements driving the current “rebellion” against the TSA: Koch-related libertarians, Washington lobbyists and PR operatives posing as “ordinary citizens,” and suspicious fake-grassroots outrage relentlessly promoted in the same old right-wing echo chamber.
They follow up their evidence-free innuendo in the opening paragraph with even stronger accusatory claims in the second: Tyner, they strongly imply without directly accusing him, is a "Koch-related libertarian" (whatever that means) and a "Washington lobbyist and PR operative posing as [an] 'ordinary citizen'," and his outrage over what was done to him is "fake." The implicit accusations and innuendo are piling up while the evidence remains non-existent. It continues (emphasis in original):
So far, all we know about “ordinary guy” John Tyner III, the freedom fighter who took on the TSA agents, is that, according to a friendly hometown profile in the San Diego Union-Tribune, "he leans strongly libertarian and doesn’t believe in voting. TSA security policy, he asserts ‘isn't Republican and it isn’t Democratic'." [emphasis added]
Tyner attended private Christian schools in Southern California and lives in Oceanside, a Republican stronghold next to Camp Pendleton, the largest Marine Corps base on the West Coast.
These two paragraphs -- the heart of the case against Tyner -- are insidious. By their own admission, this is "all [they] know" about Tyner: he has failed to swear his loyalty to one of the two major political parties, a grievous sin worthy of deep suspicion. He refuses -- correctly -- to view TSA extremism as the by-product of either party. Worse, he doesn't believe in voting -- a fringe and radical position in which he's joined by merely half of the entire American citizenry (65% in midterm years), 130 million voting-age Americans who -- surveying the choices -- also apparently see no reason to bother voting. What kind of strange person would fail to find great inspiration from one of America's two Great Political Parties or refuse to see the world exclusively through a Democrat v. GOP prism? More suspiciously still, he went to "private Christian schools" as a child and resides in a community that has a lot of Republicans in it; why, his neighborhood is even near a Marine base! This is clearly no "ordinary guy."
As for his standing accused by The Nation of suspicion on the grounds of his avowed libertarianism, consider what he wrote several weeks before the TSA incident. In a post responding to this question -- "When’s the last time you were seriously inconvenienced or injured by something that big government did?" -- Tyner wrote:
Gay rights [infringements], TSA body scanners, highway checkpoints, the PATRIOT Act, warrantless wiretaps, extra-judicial assassinations, indefinite detentions, inflation, etc. Don't tell me that (some of) these don't affect me. When one person's rights are trampled, everybody's are, and that's just at the federal level.
What a right-wing monster! If only Democratic Party leaders -- who support most of the serious rights infringements he condemns -- were this monstrous. Or consider what he wrote about the statements of Juan Williams and Bill O'Reilly which conflated Muslims with Terrorists:
These two statements properly deserve all of the outrage, in my opinion. Millions of Muslims do not accept violence and enable jihad. The U.S. government, itself, says that there are probably less than 100 Al-Qaeda members fighting in Afghanistan. It admits that many are probably hiding in Pakistan, but even being generous would probably place the total number under 1,000. Muslims make up almost a quarter of the world's population. If they all really supported violence and jihad, even if merely millions of them supported it, they would have destroyed the U.S., whose military only numbers about 1.4 million, quite decisively a long time ago. In fact, most (the percentage of "radical" Muslims is almost infinitesimal, but still prevents one from saying "all") Muslims are peaceful, preach peace, and abhor the violence perpetrated in their religion's name.
With a Koch-related mind like that, the next thing you know, Tyner will be calling for endless war in the Muslim world, escalated civilian-slaughtering drone strikes, a covert war in Yemen, war crimes trials for child soldiers, and due-process-free life imprisonment and presidential assassinations. Then maybe he'll decide he can become a Good Democrat and will be able to remove the cloud of suspicion that, in the eyes of these Nation writers, hangs over him.
So far, there is zero evidence -- or even a pretense of evidence -- to justify The Nation's accusations. Other than including a quote from Tyner in which he categorically states that "he doesn't belong to any libertarian organizations and did not have any contact with anyone mentioned in this article" before the incident -- claims which The Nation does not and cannot dispute -- here are the only other two paragraphs that even mention Tyner:
At least one local TSA administrator wondered if Tyner hadn’t come to the airport prepared to create a scandal. Tyner switched on his recording device before even entering the checkpoint -- and recorded himself as he refused to go through the body scanner. Most importantly, Tyner recorded himself saying "If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested!" -- which quickly morphed on blogs into the more media-savvy tagline, "Don’t touch my junk!"
According to the Union-Tribune, when asked if the TSA was set up by Tyner, the local administrator coyly replied, "I don’t know that it was an actual set up -- but we are concerned that this passenger did have his recording (on) prior to entering the checkpoint so there is some concern that it was an intentional behavior on his part."
So The Nation quotes an anonymous TSA official who "wonders" -- without a shred of evidence -- if Tyner provoked the incident. That's both ludicrous and totally irrelevant. He posted the entire audio online, which demonstrates that he was unfailingly polite throughout; it was TSA officials acting imperiously, threateningly, and thuggishly -- not Tyner. And how could Tyner have possibly provoked TSA agents to include him in what it insists is its random selection process for passengers who receive the new screening procedures? Moreover, even if he did prepare his videocamera before entering the checkpoint area and provoke his selection, so what? He has the absolute right to do so, and given his obvious concern with government rights infringements, that's a completely sensible and civic-minded step to take.
What's really going on here is clear. These are Tyner's actual crimes in the eyes of these Nation writers, at least judging by the accusations they make: (1) he's not a good, loyal Democrat; (2) he did something that politically harmed Barack Obama; and, most and worst of all (3) he failed to submit meekly and quietly to Government orders like any Good, Patriotic "ordinary American" would and should do. That is what has created their "sense" that he's something other than an "ordinary guy" -- a "fake."
The article highlights three other individuals who object to the TSA procedures (out of the dozens -- at least -- who have complained) who also have (cue the ominous overtones) libertarian ties. That's not surprising. In order to do what Tyner did -- firmly assert one's rights against government agents and then vocally and publicly complain about rights infringements -- one has to take one's liberty seriously. After all, to do something like that is to risk being threatened by the Federal Government and smeared by journalists loyal to those in power. It's hardly surprising that many of the people willing to take that kind of a risky stand have incorporated the concept of individual liberty into their political identity. The Nation may want to ask someone what the "L" in the "ACLU" stands for.
And therein lies the most odious premise in this smear piece: anyone who doesn't quietly, meekly and immediately submit to Government orders and invasions -- or anyone who stands up to government power and challenges it -- is inherently suspect. Just as the establishment-worshiping, political-power-defending Ruth Marcus taught us today in The Washington Post, objecting to what the Government is doing here is just immature and ungrateful; mature, psychologically healthy people shut up and submit. That's how you prove that you're a normal, responsible, upstanding good citizen: by not making waves, doing what you're told, declaring yourself a loyal Republican or Democrat and then cheering for your team, and -- most of all -- accepting in the name of Fear that you must suffer indignities, humiliations and always-increasing loss of liberties at the hands of unchallengeable functionaries of the state. I don't really care what political label John Tyner applies to himself: we need far more of his civil resistance in our citizenry and far less of the mindless obedient drone behavior which these Nation writers seem to venerate.
I spoke with Tyner several days ago and he was very worried that his public stance would jeopardize exactly the ordinariness which The Nation claims is fake: his job, his family, his reputation, and the cost from government recriminations. This highly irresponsible, evidence-free Nation attack demonstrates how valid those concerns were. It may be that several vocal opponents of the new TSA process are Koch-funded -- that wouldn't surprise me -- but that has absolutely nothing to do with Tyner, and The Nation, for which I have high regard, owes him an apology and retraction for the innuendo it smeared on him without a shred of evidence. It's difficult enough for ordinary citizens to take a principled stand like this against the Government; knowing that they're going to be subjected to this sort of baseless hit job makes it less likely that other citizens will be willing to do so.
UPDATE: The ACLU by itself has received over 900 complaints this month alone about the new TSA procedures, many of which are chronicled here. The ACLU's Laura Murphy today said that "[t]he new 'enhanced' security methods are far more intrusive than other methods but have not been shown to be any more effective. Nobody should be forced to choose between 'naked scans' and intrusive groping by strangers to keep our airplanes safe." It strikes me as unlikely that all -- or most -- of the 900 people turning to that group are astroturf "fakes" being funded by right-wing billionaires. Quite the contrary: as BoingBoing's Cory Doctorow wrote today, "I remember when being anti-authoritarian, pro-dignity and pro-freedom were values of the progressive left. Some of us still embrace them."
UPDATE II: The Nation's Jeremy Scahill wrote today: "The article my magazine, The Nation, published about John Tyner is a shameful smear." As I said, I hold The Nation in quite high regard, and the fact that they publish journalists as truly intrepid and independent as Scahill is a major reason why.
Speaking of which, Scahill just returned from his latest un-embedded trip to Afghanistan and was on The Rachel Maddow Show last night -- guest-hosted by The Nation's Chris Hayes -- talking about the war there. It's well worth watching.
UPDATE III: The co-authors of the Nation article, Mark Ames and Yasha Levine, have responded to my criticisms. They begin by acknowledging what they call "one potentially valid criticism -- our treatment of John Tyner." In particular: "our article was less than clear about Tyner’s lack of Astroturf affiliations, and we regret in particular including extraneous details from the Union-Tribune article about Tyner’s past . . . because it distracted readers like Greenwald from the article's main findings." They nonetheless say that "in focusing entirely on our characterization of Tyner, Greenwald ignores the larger thrust of our argument" for which "Greenwald, for reasons unclear, studiously avoids rebutting any of our evidence."
Fair enough, I suppose, but I find that framing bizarre. What they call their "treatment of Tyner" was not merely some ancillary sideshow mentioned in passing; it was a prominently featured aspect of the article. Six of the first seven paragraphs were about nothing other than John Tyner, and the one that wasn't -- buried in the middle of the Tyner attack -- contained multiple serious accusations that any rational reader would have assumed applied to him.
You can't begin an accusatory article by baselessly maligning an individual in paragraph after paragraph and then -- when someone objects -- respond by pointing to how great some of your other points are. John Tyner is a real person who was unfairly smeared by The Nation (and it is a smear -- a serious one -- to publicly accuse a person of deceitfully presenting themselves to the public as something they are not, all while impugning their veracity and character). That was the focus of my criticism, not the points that came after. That there may be some factually accurate things they said about some other people or some good points they ultimately got around to making is totally irrelevant; it doesn't mitigate in the slightest their journalistically reckless claims about Tyner. My objection to their "treatment of John Tyner" -- which they begrudgingly acknowledge as a "potentially valid criticism": "potentially" -- was the sole focus of my criticism (as I wrote: "It may be that several vocal opponents of the new TSA process are Koch-funded -- that wouldn't surprise me -- but that has absolutely nothing to do with Tyner").
Nor was this reaction mine alone. It seems to be a consensus even among liberal, Nation-friendly journalists that the attack on Tyner was not merely misguided, but odious, as all such journalists who commented (at least that I know of) condemned it, often in terms at least as harsh as the ones I used. In addition to their own Nation colleague Jeremy Scahill (who denounced it as a "shameful smear"), Mother Jones' News Editor Daniel Schulman wrote: "This Nation story is journalistic malpractice of the worst kind"; The American Prospect's Scott Lemieux, on his blog, called it "Liberal McCarthyism" and an "embarrassment"; and the usually rhetorically restrained Ezra Klein condemned it as a "hit piece" which I had "rightfully hammered." I point that out not as a means of proving I'm right -- it's obviously possible we're all wrong -- but simply to underscore that my distaste for what they did was not some unique, over-the-top, idiosyncratic reaction. At some point, if enough people favorably inclined to your political views -- including colleagues at your own magazine -- perceive what you did in the same way, that's compelling evidence that that's a fair reading of your article, whether you intended it or not.
Speaking of intent, Ames and Levine devote the rest of their response to claims they believe I made about their motives. I don't know Ames and Levine, wasn't familiar with their previous work, and thus don't know, wasn't interested in, and wasn't making claims about what was secretly in their heads when they wrote this. As I made clear, my criticisms of their article were based on what they wrote and on the logical inferences of their smear of Tyner (I wrote: "These are Tyner's actual crimes in the eyes of these Nation writers, at least judging by the accusations they make" and "therein lies the most odious premise in this smear piece"). What Ames previously did in Russia, the tribulations Levine and his grandfather suffered in the past, or what they would have said to me had I called them are all totally irrelevant. As I have told the multiple establishment journalists over the years who raised the same "you-didn't-call-me-first" complaint: with media criticism, what a journalist claims after the fact about what they published doesn't really matter; what maters is the piece they published to the world. That stands on its own. And that's what I assessed and critiqued.
What they wrote about Tyner -- and the logically necessary premises of what they wrote -- were clear. By their own admission, "all [they] knew" about him -- beyond some obviously irrelevant biographical details which they now regret including -- was that (1) he is a confessed libertarian and (2) he documented and vocally objected to the TSA procedures. That's it. And based on that -- and that alone -- they decided to depict him as a Koch-funded covert operative who was deceiving the public into believing he was an "ordinary guy."
That's why I argued -- and still believe -- that the logical premise of their attack is that "anyone who doesn't quietly, meekly and immediately submit to Government orders and invasions . . . is inherently suspect" and that Tyner's crime was not being a Good, Loyal Democrat. Because that's all these writers knew about him when they decided to attack him. Or, as Scott Lemieux put it, Ames and Levine sought "to preemptively discredit any critic whether or not there’s any actual direct connection and without engagement on the merits." That's the logically natural conclusion from their article. What was secretly in their heads when they wrote it is neither relevant nor interesting to me, and I wasn't commenting on that (that said, it's quite odd for Ames to so vehemently object to the notion that he was maliciously smearing Tyner -- whom he emphasized with bold-faced print was an admitted libertarian -- given that the very same Ames just a few weeks ago wrote this: "Anytime anyone says anything libertarian, spit on them. Libertarians are by definition enemies of the state . . . . Like Communists before them, they are actively subverting the Constitution and the American Dream").
Contrary to Ames and Levine's suggestion, I have no problem at all with commentators -- such as Kevin Drum -- expressing skepticism about the motives of right-wing critics of TSA procedures. Indeed, just yesterday, I myself noted the gross hypocrisy of many of these newfound right-wing privacy advocates, and argued that the real goal of many conservative TSA critics -- privatization of airport security -- was at odds with the civil libertarian flag they're manipulatively waving. Nor do I have any objection to investigating the trail of political money from the Koch brothers or anyone else (though I don't really see the ultimate point in the context of the TSA story: are we supposed to cheer for or meekly submit to civil liberties infringements if the Omnipotent Koch brothers also dislike them?).
What I do object to is baselessly smearing someone's character and then thinking that it's justified because they have different political views (he's a libertarian!) or allegiances (he doesn't believe in voting!). Everything beyond that is irrelevant to the point I made: what John Tyner did was brave and important and -- even for those who disagree -- his character and veracity shouldn't be impugned without evidence, the way it was in the Nation piece. That should not even be a controversial proposition.
More Glenn Greenwald
And this, related, also from Liberty Pulse (and Canada Free Press):
DHS & TSA: Making a list, checking it twice
Proof Positive that the government rates body scanner resisters as “Non-Islamic DomesticTerrorists”
By Doug Hagmann Saturday, November 27, 2010
My report DHS & TSA: Making a list, checking it twice has apparently stirred a lot of controversy. It has also been met with skepticism and denials about its actual existence. Some find it difficult to believe that our government would actually label anyone who opposes the use of naked body scanners and aggressive airport pat-downs as “domestic extremists.”
It is unfortunately obvious that there are many people who are living in a state of denial or blissful ignorance. We are living in a time when our government can issue an official 86-page report about the mass murder of 13 people at Fort Hood by a man who shouted “Allahu Akbar” before he began pumping bullets into innocent bystanders yet never once mention Islam, Muslim or the Islamic ideology that allegedly motivated the attack.
Alternatively, the government has labeled anyone opposing abortion, illegal immigration, or members of the “alternative media” as “domestic extremists.” Such designations were made infamous by the leaked “MIAC Memo,” a shortened reference to the “strategic report” issued by the Missouri Information Analysis Center dated 20 February 2009. Careful research will show that the memo, which was a law enforcement work product that was actually limited in its intended dissemination, was rebuffed by DHS officials and later “retracted.” Government officials downplayed its intent after the publication went “viral.” It was defended as a training aid that was overblown and taken out of context.
Subsequent assurances have been made by the federal government that no such designations exist, at least not in the context of surveillance or other oversight measures of anyone but enemies who pose actual threats to our homeland. These assurances have been parroted by the corporate media shilling for Napolitano and others, who further imply that assertions to the contrary are nothing but conspiratorial nonsense that have no basis in fact. Visits to politically polarized Internet forums and web sites will find pundits and posters disparaging anyone who would fall for such conspiratorial nonsense. They demand proof through publication of the existence of closely guarded and classified memos, lists, and documents that detail such designations. Absent of such proof, they vociferously contend that it simply does not exist.
To provide insight to those who are concerned over the direction our current leadership is taking our national security, perhaps we should refer to DHS source document IA-0233-09 dated 26 March 2009 titled “Domestic Extremist Lexicon.” It is an eleven-page document prepared by the Strategic Analysts Group and the Extremism Radicalization Branch, Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division.
Arranged in alphabetical order, the preface clearly states that that the lexicon addresses the nature and scope of the threat that domestic, non-Islamic extremism poses to the United States, and specifically names such groups and provides a definition for each.
A perusal of the “threat” identified found the following on page two:
Carefully note that the intentionally definition of “alternative media” includes any information source outside of the corporate media.
Next, take a look at an entry on page three of this document:
Perhaps one of the more interesting “threats” is listed on page four, which states that any act of “civil disobedience” (including “protests”) is considered a domestic threat to the United States:
To those who remain skeptical that the DHS under the direction of Janet Napolitano, does not classify individuals or groups who would protest the recently enhanced security screening procedures implemented at U.S. airports as non-Islamic domestic terror threats to the U.S. are either in a perilous state of denial or ignorant of the current focus of our “homeland security .”
Indeed, threats to the security of the United States exist within our country. Some have walked or driven in across the border. Others, we’ve voted in or have been appointed by those who have been elected. In any case, it would appear that “Big Sis” is looking in all the wrong places. I contend that it is by design.
Copyright © Douglas Hagmann
Douglas Hagmann, founder & director of the Northeast Intelligence Network, and a multi-state licensed private investigative agency. Doug began using his investigative skills and training to fight terrorism and increase public awareness through his website.
Doug can be reached at: director@homelandsecurityus.com
Wednesday, Nov 24, 2010 07:25 ET
Anatomy of a journalistic smear job
By Glenn Greenwald
AP
John Tyner, a software engineer who posted an Internet blog item saying he had been ejected after being threatened with a fine and lawsuit for refusing a groin check after turning down a full-body scan at San Diego International Airport(updated below - Update II - Update III [response from authors])
One long-standing -- and justifiable -- progressive grievance is that whenever ordinary Americans allow their personal plight to enter the public sphere in a way that advances a liberal political goal, they are gratuitously probed and personally smeared by the Right. The most illustrative example is the Frost family, who allowed their 12-year-old son Graeme to deliver a moving radio address explaining the benefits he received from the CHIP program when he was in a serious car accident, only to be promptly stalked and smeared by Michelle Malkin, among others. Today, The Nation -- a magazine which generally offers very good journalism -- subjects John Tyner to similar treatment, with such a shoddy, fact-free, and reckless hit piece (by Mark Ames and Yasha Levine) that I'm genuinely surprised its editors published it. Beyond the inherent benefit of correcting the record, this particular article is suffused with all sorts of toxic though common premises that make it worth examining in detail.
The article is headlined "TSAstroturf: The Washington Lobbyists and Koch-Funded Libertarians Behind the TSA Scandal," and is devoted to the claim that those objecting to the new TSA procedures -- such as Tyner -- are not what they claim to be. Rather, they are Koch-controlled plants deliberately provoking and manufacturing a scandal -- because, after all, what real American in their right mind would do anything other than meekly submit with gratitude and appreciation to these procedures? Let's just look at the paragraphs written to "justify" this accusation. Here's the article's first paragraph:
Does anyone else sense something strange is going on with the apparently spontaneous revolt against the TSA? This past week, the media turned an “ordinary guy,” 31-year-old Californian John Tyner who blogs under the pseudonym “Johnny Edge,” into a national hero after he posted a cell phone video of himself defending his liberty against the evil government oppressors in charge of airport security.
So the article begins with a claim about what the authors "sense" to be true -- "something strange" going on -- followed by innuendo, achieved through the slothful use of scare quotes, that Tyner is something other than an "ordinary guy." One will search the article in total futility for a shred of evidence that supports this accusatory, smearing opening paragraph. It continues:
While this issue is certainly important -- and offensive -- to Americans, we are nonetheless skeptical about how and why this story turned into a national movement. In fact, this whole campaign feels a bit like déjà -vu: As the first reporters to expose the Tea Party as an Astroturf PR campaign funded by FreedomWorks and Koch-related front groups back in February, 2009, we see many of the same elements driving the current “rebellion” against the TSA: Koch-related libertarians, Washington lobbyists and PR operatives posing as “ordinary citizens,” and suspicious fake-grassroots outrage relentlessly promoted in the same old right-wing echo chamber.
They follow up their evidence-free innuendo in the opening paragraph with even stronger accusatory claims in the second: Tyner, they strongly imply without directly accusing him, is a "Koch-related libertarian" (whatever that means) and a "Washington lobbyist and PR operative posing as [an] 'ordinary citizen'," and his outrage over what was done to him is "fake." The implicit accusations and innuendo are piling up while the evidence remains non-existent. It continues (emphasis in original):
So far, all we know about “ordinary guy” John Tyner III, the freedom fighter who took on the TSA agents, is that, according to a friendly hometown profile in the San Diego Union-Tribune, "he leans strongly libertarian and doesn’t believe in voting. TSA security policy, he asserts ‘isn't Republican and it isn’t Democratic'." [emphasis added]
Tyner attended private Christian schools in Southern California and lives in Oceanside, a Republican stronghold next to Camp Pendleton, the largest Marine Corps base on the West Coast.
These two paragraphs -- the heart of the case against Tyner -- are insidious. By their own admission, this is "all [they] know" about Tyner: he has failed to swear his loyalty to one of the two major political parties, a grievous sin worthy of deep suspicion. He refuses -- correctly -- to view TSA extremism as the by-product of either party. Worse, he doesn't believe in voting -- a fringe and radical position in which he's joined by merely half of the entire American citizenry (65% in midterm years), 130 million voting-age Americans who -- surveying the choices -- also apparently see no reason to bother voting. What kind of strange person would fail to find great inspiration from one of America's two Great Political Parties or refuse to see the world exclusively through a Democrat v. GOP prism? More suspiciously still, he went to "private Christian schools" as a child and resides in a community that has a lot of Republicans in it; why, his neighborhood is even near a Marine base! This is clearly no "ordinary guy."
As for his standing accused by The Nation of suspicion on the grounds of his avowed libertarianism, consider what he wrote several weeks before the TSA incident. In a post responding to this question -- "When’s the last time you were seriously inconvenienced or injured by something that big government did?" -- Tyner wrote:
Gay rights [infringements], TSA body scanners, highway checkpoints, the PATRIOT Act, warrantless wiretaps, extra-judicial assassinations, indefinite detentions, inflation, etc. Don't tell me that (some of) these don't affect me. When one person's rights are trampled, everybody's are, and that's just at the federal level.
What a right-wing monster! If only Democratic Party leaders -- who support most of the serious rights infringements he condemns -- were this monstrous. Or consider what he wrote about the statements of Juan Williams and Bill O'Reilly which conflated Muslims with Terrorists:
These two statements properly deserve all of the outrage, in my opinion. Millions of Muslims do not accept violence and enable jihad. The U.S. government, itself, says that there are probably less than 100 Al-Qaeda members fighting in Afghanistan. It admits that many are probably hiding in Pakistan, but even being generous would probably place the total number under 1,000. Muslims make up almost a quarter of the world's population. If they all really supported violence and jihad, even if merely millions of them supported it, they would have destroyed the U.S., whose military only numbers about 1.4 million, quite decisively a long time ago. In fact, most (the percentage of "radical" Muslims is almost infinitesimal, but still prevents one from saying "all") Muslims are peaceful, preach peace, and abhor the violence perpetrated in their religion's name.
With a Koch-related mind like that, the next thing you know, Tyner will be calling for endless war in the Muslim world, escalated civilian-slaughtering drone strikes, a covert war in Yemen, war crimes trials for child soldiers, and due-process-free life imprisonment and presidential assassinations. Then maybe he'll decide he can become a Good Democrat and will be able to remove the cloud of suspicion that, in the eyes of these Nation writers, hangs over him.
So far, there is zero evidence -- or even a pretense of evidence -- to justify The Nation's accusations. Other than including a quote from Tyner in which he categorically states that "he doesn't belong to any libertarian organizations and did not have any contact with anyone mentioned in this article" before the incident -- claims which The Nation does not and cannot dispute -- here are the only other two paragraphs that even mention Tyner:
At least one local TSA administrator wondered if Tyner hadn’t come to the airport prepared to create a scandal. Tyner switched on his recording device before even entering the checkpoint -- and recorded himself as he refused to go through the body scanner. Most importantly, Tyner recorded himself saying "If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested!" -- which quickly morphed on blogs into the more media-savvy tagline, "Don’t touch my junk!"
According to the Union-Tribune, when asked if the TSA was set up by Tyner, the local administrator coyly replied, "I don’t know that it was an actual set up -- but we are concerned that this passenger did have his recording (on) prior to entering the checkpoint so there is some concern that it was an intentional behavior on his part."
So The Nation quotes an anonymous TSA official who "wonders" -- without a shred of evidence -- if Tyner provoked the incident. That's both ludicrous and totally irrelevant. He posted the entire audio online, which demonstrates that he was unfailingly polite throughout; it was TSA officials acting imperiously, threateningly, and thuggishly -- not Tyner. And how could Tyner have possibly provoked TSA agents to include him in what it insists is its random selection process for passengers who receive the new screening procedures? Moreover, even if he did prepare his videocamera before entering the checkpoint area and provoke his selection, so what? He has the absolute right to do so, and given his obvious concern with government rights infringements, that's a completely sensible and civic-minded step to take.
What's really going on here is clear. These are Tyner's actual crimes in the eyes of these Nation writers, at least judging by the accusations they make: (1) he's not a good, loyal Democrat; (2) he did something that politically harmed Barack Obama; and, most and worst of all (3) he failed to submit meekly and quietly to Government orders like any Good, Patriotic "ordinary American" would and should do. That is what has created their "sense" that he's something other than an "ordinary guy" -- a "fake."
The article highlights three other individuals who object to the TSA procedures (out of the dozens -- at least -- who have complained) who also have (cue the ominous overtones) libertarian ties. That's not surprising. In order to do what Tyner did -- firmly assert one's rights against government agents and then vocally and publicly complain about rights infringements -- one has to take one's liberty seriously. After all, to do something like that is to risk being threatened by the Federal Government and smeared by journalists loyal to those in power. It's hardly surprising that many of the people willing to take that kind of a risky stand have incorporated the concept of individual liberty into their political identity. The Nation may want to ask someone what the "L" in the "ACLU" stands for.
And therein lies the most odious premise in this smear piece: anyone who doesn't quietly, meekly and immediately submit to Government orders and invasions -- or anyone who stands up to government power and challenges it -- is inherently suspect. Just as the establishment-worshiping, political-power-defending Ruth Marcus taught us today in The Washington Post, objecting to what the Government is doing here is just immature and ungrateful; mature, psychologically healthy people shut up and submit. That's how you prove that you're a normal, responsible, upstanding good citizen: by not making waves, doing what you're told, declaring yourself a loyal Republican or Democrat and then cheering for your team, and -- most of all -- accepting in the name of Fear that you must suffer indignities, humiliations and always-increasing loss of liberties at the hands of unchallengeable functionaries of the state. I don't really care what political label John Tyner applies to himself: we need far more of his civil resistance in our citizenry and far less of the mindless obedient drone behavior which these Nation writers seem to venerate.
I spoke with Tyner several days ago and he was very worried that his public stance would jeopardize exactly the ordinariness which The Nation claims is fake: his job, his family, his reputation, and the cost from government recriminations. This highly irresponsible, evidence-free Nation attack demonstrates how valid those concerns were. It may be that several vocal opponents of the new TSA process are Koch-funded -- that wouldn't surprise me -- but that has absolutely nothing to do with Tyner, and The Nation, for which I have high regard, owes him an apology and retraction for the innuendo it smeared on him without a shred of evidence. It's difficult enough for ordinary citizens to take a principled stand like this against the Government; knowing that they're going to be subjected to this sort of baseless hit job makes it less likely that other citizens will be willing to do so.
UPDATE: The ACLU by itself has received over 900 complaints this month alone about the new TSA procedures, many of which are chronicled here. The ACLU's Laura Murphy today said that "[t]he new 'enhanced' security methods are far more intrusive than other methods but have not been shown to be any more effective. Nobody should be forced to choose between 'naked scans' and intrusive groping by strangers to keep our airplanes safe." It strikes me as unlikely that all -- or most -- of the 900 people turning to that group are astroturf "fakes" being funded by right-wing billionaires. Quite the contrary: as BoingBoing's Cory Doctorow wrote today, "I remember when being anti-authoritarian, pro-dignity and pro-freedom were values of the progressive left. Some of us still embrace them."
UPDATE II: The Nation's Jeremy Scahill wrote today: "The article my magazine, The Nation, published about John Tyner is a shameful smear." As I said, I hold The Nation in quite high regard, and the fact that they publish journalists as truly intrepid and independent as Scahill is a major reason why.
Speaking of which, Scahill just returned from his latest un-embedded trip to Afghanistan and was on The Rachel Maddow Show last night -- guest-hosted by The Nation's Chris Hayes -- talking about the war there. It's well worth watching.
UPDATE III: The co-authors of the Nation article, Mark Ames and Yasha Levine, have responded to my criticisms. They begin by acknowledging what they call "one potentially valid criticism -- our treatment of John Tyner." In particular: "our article was less than clear about Tyner’s lack of Astroturf affiliations, and we regret in particular including extraneous details from the Union-Tribune article about Tyner’s past . . . because it distracted readers like Greenwald from the article's main findings." They nonetheless say that "in focusing entirely on our characterization of Tyner, Greenwald ignores the larger thrust of our argument" for which "Greenwald, for reasons unclear, studiously avoids rebutting any of our evidence."
Fair enough, I suppose, but I find that framing bizarre. What they call their "treatment of Tyner" was not merely some ancillary sideshow mentioned in passing; it was a prominently featured aspect of the article. Six of the first seven paragraphs were about nothing other than John Tyner, and the one that wasn't -- buried in the middle of the Tyner attack -- contained multiple serious accusations that any rational reader would have assumed applied to him.
You can't begin an accusatory article by baselessly maligning an individual in paragraph after paragraph and then -- when someone objects -- respond by pointing to how great some of your other points are. John Tyner is a real person who was unfairly smeared by The Nation (and it is a smear -- a serious one -- to publicly accuse a person of deceitfully presenting themselves to the public as something they are not, all while impugning their veracity and character). That was the focus of my criticism, not the points that came after. That there may be some factually accurate things they said about some other people or some good points they ultimately got around to making is totally irrelevant; it doesn't mitigate in the slightest their journalistically reckless claims about Tyner. My objection to their "treatment of John Tyner" -- which they begrudgingly acknowledge as a "potentially valid criticism": "potentially" -- was the sole focus of my criticism (as I wrote: "It may be that several vocal opponents of the new TSA process are Koch-funded -- that wouldn't surprise me -- but that has absolutely nothing to do with Tyner").
Nor was this reaction mine alone. It seems to be a consensus even among liberal, Nation-friendly journalists that the attack on Tyner was not merely misguided, but odious, as all such journalists who commented (at least that I know of) condemned it, often in terms at least as harsh as the ones I used. In addition to their own Nation colleague Jeremy Scahill (who denounced it as a "shameful smear"), Mother Jones' News Editor Daniel Schulman wrote: "This Nation story is journalistic malpractice of the worst kind"; The American Prospect's Scott Lemieux, on his blog, called it "Liberal McCarthyism" and an "embarrassment"; and the usually rhetorically restrained Ezra Klein condemned it as a "hit piece" which I had "rightfully hammered." I point that out not as a means of proving I'm right -- it's obviously possible we're all wrong -- but simply to underscore that my distaste for what they did was not some unique, over-the-top, idiosyncratic reaction. At some point, if enough people favorably inclined to your political views -- including colleagues at your own magazine -- perceive what you did in the same way, that's compelling evidence that that's a fair reading of your article, whether you intended it or not.
Speaking of intent, Ames and Levine devote the rest of their response to claims they believe I made about their motives. I don't know Ames and Levine, wasn't familiar with their previous work, and thus don't know, wasn't interested in, and wasn't making claims about what was secretly in their heads when they wrote this. As I made clear, my criticisms of their article were based on what they wrote and on the logical inferences of their smear of Tyner (I wrote: "These are Tyner's actual crimes in the eyes of these Nation writers, at least judging by the accusations they make" and "therein lies the most odious premise in this smear piece"). What Ames previously did in Russia, the tribulations Levine and his grandfather suffered in the past, or what they would have said to me had I called them are all totally irrelevant. As I have told the multiple establishment journalists over the years who raised the same "you-didn't-call-me-first" complaint: with media criticism, what a journalist claims after the fact about what they published doesn't really matter; what maters is the piece they published to the world. That stands on its own. And that's what I assessed and critiqued.
What they wrote about Tyner -- and the logically necessary premises of what they wrote -- were clear. By their own admission, "all [they] knew" about him -- beyond some obviously irrelevant biographical details which they now regret including -- was that (1) he is a confessed libertarian and (2) he documented and vocally objected to the TSA procedures. That's it. And based on that -- and that alone -- they decided to depict him as a Koch-funded covert operative who was deceiving the public into believing he was an "ordinary guy."
That's why I argued -- and still believe -- that the logical premise of their attack is that "anyone who doesn't quietly, meekly and immediately submit to Government orders and invasions . . . is inherently suspect" and that Tyner's crime was not being a Good, Loyal Democrat. Because that's all these writers knew about him when they decided to attack him. Or, as Scott Lemieux put it, Ames and Levine sought "to preemptively discredit any critic whether or not there’s any actual direct connection and without engagement on the merits." That's the logically natural conclusion from their article. What was secretly in their heads when they wrote it is neither relevant nor interesting to me, and I wasn't commenting on that (that said, it's quite odd for Ames to so vehemently object to the notion that he was maliciously smearing Tyner -- whom he emphasized with bold-faced print was an admitted libertarian -- given that the very same Ames just a few weeks ago wrote this: "Anytime anyone says anything libertarian, spit on them. Libertarians are by definition enemies of the state . . . . Like Communists before them, they are actively subverting the Constitution and the American Dream").
Contrary to Ames and Levine's suggestion, I have no problem at all with commentators -- such as Kevin Drum -- expressing skepticism about the motives of right-wing critics of TSA procedures. Indeed, just yesterday, I myself noted the gross hypocrisy of many of these newfound right-wing privacy advocates, and argued that the real goal of many conservative TSA critics -- privatization of airport security -- was at odds with the civil libertarian flag they're manipulatively waving. Nor do I have any objection to investigating the trail of political money from the Koch brothers or anyone else (though I don't really see the ultimate point in the context of the TSA story: are we supposed to cheer for or meekly submit to civil liberties infringements if the Omnipotent Koch brothers also dislike them?).
What I do object to is baselessly smearing someone's character and then thinking that it's justified because they have different political views (he's a libertarian!) or allegiances (he doesn't believe in voting!). Everything beyond that is irrelevant to the point I made: what John Tyner did was brave and important and -- even for those who disagree -- his character and veracity shouldn't be impugned without evidence, the way it was in the Nation piece. That should not even be a controversial proposition.
More Glenn Greenwald
And this, related, also from Liberty Pulse (and Canada Free Press):
DHS & TSA: Making a list, checking it twice
Proof Positive that the government rates body scanner resisters as “Non-Islamic DomesticTerrorists”
By Doug Hagmann Saturday, November 27, 2010
My report DHS & TSA: Making a list, checking it twice has apparently stirred a lot of controversy. It has also been met with skepticism and denials about its actual existence. Some find it difficult to believe that our government would actually label anyone who opposes the use of naked body scanners and aggressive airport pat-downs as “domestic extremists.”It is unfortunately obvious that there are many people who are living in a state of denial or blissful ignorance. We are living in a time when our government can issue an official 86-page report about the mass murder of 13 people at Fort Hood by a man who shouted “Allahu Akbar” before he began pumping bullets into innocent bystanders yet never once mention Islam, Muslim or the Islamic ideology that allegedly motivated the attack.
Alternatively, the government has labeled anyone opposing abortion, illegal immigration, or members of the “alternative media” as “domestic extremists.” Such designations were made infamous by the leaked “MIAC Memo,” a shortened reference to the “strategic report” issued by the Missouri Information Analysis Center dated 20 February 2009. Careful research will show that the memo, which was a law enforcement work product that was actually limited in its intended dissemination, was rebuffed by DHS officials and later “retracted.” Government officials downplayed its intent after the publication went “viral.” It was defended as a training aid that was overblown and taken out of context.
Subsequent assurances have been made by the federal government that no such designations exist, at least not in the context of surveillance or other oversight measures of anyone but enemies who pose actual threats to our homeland. These assurances have been parroted by the corporate media shilling for Napolitano and others, who further imply that assertions to the contrary are nothing but conspiratorial nonsense that have no basis in fact. Visits to politically polarized Internet forums and web sites will find pundits and posters disparaging anyone who would fall for such conspiratorial nonsense. They demand proof through publication of the existence of closely guarded and classified memos, lists, and documents that detail such designations. Absent of such proof, they vociferously contend that it simply does not exist.
To provide insight to those who are concerned over the direction our current leadership is taking our national security, perhaps we should refer to DHS source document IA-0233-09 dated 26 March 2009 titled “Domestic Extremist Lexicon.” It is an eleven-page document prepared by the Strategic Analysts Group and the Extremism Radicalization Branch, Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division.
Arranged in alphabetical order, the preface clearly states that that the lexicon addresses the nature and scope of the threat that domestic, non-Islamic extremism poses to the United States, and specifically names such groups and provides a definition for each.
A perusal of the “threat” identified found the following on page two:
Carefully note that the intentionally definition of “alternative media” includes any information source outside of the corporate media.
Next, take a look at an entry on page three of this document:
Perhaps one of the more interesting “threats” is listed on page four, which states that any act of “civil disobedience” (including “protests”) is considered a domestic threat to the United States:
To those who remain skeptical that the DHS under the direction of Janet Napolitano, does not classify individuals or groups who would protest the recently enhanced security screening procedures implemented at U.S. airports as non-Islamic domestic terror threats to the U.S. are either in a perilous state of denial or ignorant of the current focus of our “homeland security .”
Indeed, threats to the security of the United States exist within our country. Some have walked or driven in across the border. Others, we’ve voted in or have been appointed by those who have been elected. In any case, it would appear that “Big Sis” is looking in all the wrong places. I contend that it is by design.
Copyright © Douglas Hagmann
Douglas Hagmann, founder & director of the Northeast Intelligence Network, and a multi-state licensed private investigative agency. Doug began using his investigative skills and training to fight terrorism and increase public awareness through his website.
Doug can be reached at: director@homelandsecurityus.com
U.S. Military And National Guard Actively War-Gaming "Large-Scale Economic Break-Down" And "Civil Unrest"
From SHTF Plan and Liberty Pulse;
Nov
22Pentagon, Military Actively War Gaming ‘Large Scale Economic Breakdown’ and ‘Civil Unrest’
Author: Mac Slavo- November 22nd, 2010
The majority of Americans believe that recent government intervention into financial markets, the economy and corporate insolvency has reversed the economic downturn which was described by former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson as being “on the brink” in 2008. The stimulus, bailouts and unrelenting quantitative easing by the Federal Reserve have thus far been perceived as having averted the further erosion of the U.S. real estate and equities markets. And though the Federal Reserve and economic analysts have recently readjusted their economic growth forecasts downward for the next six months, Americans no longer have to worry about, as Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) said on the house floor in October of 2008, the sky falling, multi-thousand point drops in stock markets and martial law in America.
The recovery - if our government, the Federal Reserve and mainstream media are to be believed - is on the road to recovery - albeit slowly and with some more pain ahead.
If we’ve “prevented economic collapse” and “avoided the depression many feared,” according to President Obama, inquiring minds are asking why the Pentagon and US Military are actively and aggressively engaged in planning responsive action to large scale economic breakdown and civil unrest scenarios:
Ever since the crash of 2008 the defense intelligence establishment has really been paying a lot of attention to global markets and how they can serve as a threat to U.S. national security interests. At one upcoming seminar next month they’re taking a look at a lot of the issues.
source: see CNBC video report below
According to the report, the Army has spent time on financial market trading floors with JP Morgan and others, in the hopes that they can learn more about how a financial and economic attack may occur, and what the ramifications of such attacks on US stocks and bonds may be.
The Army, in a year-long war games series called Unified Quest 2011, is looking at a variety of possibilities and how to deal with them, including:
•the implications of “large scale economic breakdown” inside of the United States
•how to maintain “domestic order amid civil unrest”
•and ways to deal with fragmented global power and drastically lower budgets
Clearly, the U.S. government is making contingency plans to deal with a worst-case, all-out-collapse scenario of not only the economy, but our social and political systems.
The war gaming, according to reports, began in 2008 at the onset of the economic crisis, but planners from not just the United States, but around the globe, may have been aware of the dire possibility of economic collapse even earlier. It’s well known that the U.S. government as well as foreign counterparts have been preparing bunkers and continuity of government for decades, but recent preparedness activities suggest that the planning in some aspects has been expedited. Anecdotal evidence indicates that the US government has been the leading buyer of freeze died foods for the last couple of years, and private emergency shelter contractors have reported a shortage in equipment and supplies for building personal-sized bunkers.
In a previous report titled Homeland Security To “Regionalize” Emergency Supplies Over Next 90 Days, we pointed out that FEMA, headed by Department of Homeland Security, is decentralizing emergency supplies from one main distribution facility in Washington D.C. to fifteen regional facilities around the country. Even the Russians and the EU are in high gear. Russia has reportedly begun planning and development of 5,000 new underground bunkers for the city of Moscow scheduled for completion no later than 2012. The EU, in 2006, commissioned the building of a “Doomsday Seed Vault” in a mountainside several hundred feet above sea level. The facility was built and fully stocked with millions of seeds from around the world within 18 months.
Though the activities of global governments in recent years could potentially be chalked up to standard national security preparedness and contingency planning, the most alarming indicator that the U.S. government is not just looking at one-in-a-million possibilities in terms of economic collapse is the training of several thousand U.S. Army soldiers to respond to domestic policing and enforcement issues that may include evacuation, detainment and riot response. The real possibility of the need to deploy U.S. military under martial law exists, and the U.S. government is spending millions of dollars training and equipping soldiers to do so if necessary.
For those who may have their doubts about some of the scenarios these soldiers are training for, we point out the sign being held by one of the riot role players below.
(Photo taken by U.S. Airforce Tech. Sgt. Brian E. Christiansen, North Carolina National Guard at Vigilant Guard training exercise Ft. Richardson, Alaska - April 2010)
More military training exercise pictures and descriptions
It is hard to imagine an America under an economic attack so serious that the U.S. economy could suffer a collapse that would essentially put an end to the world as we have come to know it. But for those who think rationally, especially given the current malaise in financial markets and the U.S. dollar, the possibility cannot be ruled out.
As such, any government acting in the interests of national security would take steps to deal with and respond to such an event(s).
For the average populace prole, however, there may not be any real assistance should something like this occur. First and foremost, any government response to an attack on our financial and economic systems will have the primary goal of maintaining order and the rule of law, as well as continuity of government. This is a given.
This means that if, for whatever reason, be it a collapse of the US dollar that leads to disruptions in the flow of U.S. food supplies or an economic war that goes “hot” leading to worst-case scenarios like cyber attacks on U.S. infrastructure elements like electric and water utility plants or an EMP attack, the government’s mandate will not be to provide food and security for your family, but rather, for those who are deemed essential to accomplishing the primary goals.
This means that when and/or if it hits the fan, you’re going to be on your own.
If you haven’t yet, we recommend taking the advice of FEMA (pdf), who suggest that every family have emergency preparedness supplies on hand, including food and water, for at least a couple of weeks.
For the hard core “preppers” amongst us, you may have already considered this possibility and the chance that the fallout from an economic collapse may lead to an inability to perform daily transactions with the U.S. dollar, food supply disruptions, violence and looting, and even a completely ‘down-grid’ where utilities are completely out of service. If you haven’t, what would you do if you awoke to news of a total meltdown in the US dollar - one that led to rejection of the US dollar as a currency for international settlement?
Will you be the one facing off against highly trained U.S. military personnel holding a “Food Now” sign at an inner city riot?
The U.S. government and many of their counterparts around the world are getting ready - just in case - maybe you should be too.
Author: Mac Slavo
Date: November 22nd, 2010
Visit the Author's Website: http://www.SHTFplan.com/
And this, related, also from SHTF Plan:
Jun
15National Guard Training For Riot Control, Mass Detentions
Author: Mac Slavo- June 15th, 2010 Comments (54)
print this page
get our rss feed
In a previous story we noted that Reports Surfacing of Multi-State National Guard Mobilizations.
Further information made available after our report, much of which was published in the comment section by contributors who scoured the web for more information on the subject, suggests that the report was true and that national guard units had indeed been called up for training and possible deployment for domestic emergencies.
With the BP oil leak heating up (literally), there is a distinct possibility of noxious fumes and toxic hurricanes hitting our coasts over the coming months. Because there is minimal research on the subject available to the public, it is difficult to establish what is or is not a threat. Nonetheless, we advise those of our readers on or near the coast to remain aware of any developments regarding the possibility of emergencies or evacuations in their areas.
For those who may think we are overreacting to the possibility that the federal government would respond to an emergency, specifically mandatory evacuations on the gulf coast with the use of National Guard troops, we direct you to the article below, brought to our attention by Worldwide Wake Up Now and originally published at Public Intelligence.
In the event of a mass evacuation event, be it on the Gulf coast or as a result of an earthquake, chemical attack, biological attack, or other national emergency, we fully expect National Guard troops to be deployed. There will be mass chaos, violence, rioting, and looting, and local law enforcement simply will not have the capability to handle such a disaster.
The National Guard trains specifically for this, as depicted in the following article.
Vigilant Guard 2010 Riot Control, Detention Drills
by Public Intelligence
Soldiers and Airmen from the Idaho National Guard lineup outside Wildwood Correctional Facility in Kenai, Alaska, for a natural disaster training exercise during the Alaska National Guard’s Vigilant Guard 2010, April 29. The Soldiers were at Wildwood to simulate assisting local authorities transfer prisoners to the correctional facility due to any type of emergency. Alaska NG VG-2010 is an exercise sponsored by the National Guard Bureau that allows Joint Force Headquarters, Joint Task Forces and various field units to improve command and control and to exercise operational relationships with local, state, regional and federal partners. (NCNG Photo by Army Sgt. Zach Otto; Joint Task Force-Tarheel, North Carolina National Guard)
Soldiers and Airmen from the Idaho National Guard lineup outside Wildwood Correctional Facility in Kenai, Alaska, for a natural disaster training exercise during the Alaska National Guard’s Vigilant Guard 2010 exercise, April 29. The Soldiers were at Wildwood to simulate assisting local authorities transferring prisoners to the correctional facility due to another type of emergency. (NCNG Photo by Army Sgt. Zach Otto; Joint Task Force-Tarheel, North Carolina National Guard)
U.S. Army Col. Allen Boyette, Joint Task Force-Tarheel Deputy Commander, Command Sgt. Maj. Ernest Bouton, JTF-Tarheel Command Sergeant Major, and Chief Warrant Officer 3 Mark Louden, JTF-Tarheel Human Resource Officer, talk with Sgt. Dave Cleveland, Alaska Correctional Officer, at the Wildwood Correctional Facility in Kenai, Alaska, during the Alaska National Guard’s Vigilant Guard 2010, April 29. Alaska NG VG-2010 is an exercise sponsored by the National Guard Bureau that allows Joint Force Headquarters, Joint Task Forces and various field units to improve command and control and to exercise operational relationships with local, state, regional and federal partners. (NCNG Photo by Army Sgt. Zach Otto; Joint Task Force-Tarheel, North Carolina National Guard)
National Guard members from Alaska, Idaho and Oregon participate in riot control training April 26, 2010, at Elmendorf AFB. The 48 Citizen Soldiers and Airman from all three states will receive additional training—non-lethal target practice, and entry control point and convoy operations. The enhanced training is preparation for exercise operations in Kenai at Wildwood Correctional Facility, a local shopping mall, and interacting downtown with civilians in the aftermath of a simulated major earthquake as part of Vigilant Guard, an annual disaster-based training scenario that tests the coordination of National Guard units with local, state, regional, and national disaster preparedness organizations. (Photo by Air Force Maj. Candis Olmstead) (Released)
National Guard members from Alaska, Idaho and Oregon participate in riot control training April 26, 2010, at an Elmendorf AFB training site, Forward Operating Base Mad Bull. The 48 Citizen Soldiers and Airman from all three states will receive additional training—non-lethal target practice, and entry control point and convoy operations. The enhanced training is preparation for exercise operations in Kenai at Wildwood Correctional Facility, a local shopping mall, and interacting downtown with civilians in the aftermath of a simulated major earthquake as part of Vigilant Guard, an annual disaster-based training scenario that tests the coordination of National Guard units with local, state, regional, and national disaster preparedness organizations. (Photo by Air Force Maj. Candis Olmstead) (Released)
Alaska Army National Guard Soldiers assist Anchorage Police to calm or detain rioters as part of the training scenario of exercise Vigilant Guard Ft. Richardson, Alaska, Wednesday April 28, 2010. Vigilant Guard is an annual, disaster-based training scenario that tests the coordination of National Guard units with local, state, regional, and national disaster preparedness organizations. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Brian E. Christiansen, North Carolina National Guard) (Released)
Alaska Army National Guard Soldiers assist Anchorage Police to calm or detain rioters as part of the training scenario of exercise Vigilant Guard Ft. Richardson, Alaska, Wednesday April 28, 2010. Vigilant Guard is an annual, disaster-based training scenario that tests the coordination of National Guard units with local, state, regional, and national disaster preparedness organizations. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Brian E. Christiansen, North Carolina National Guard) (Released)
Alaska Army National Guard Soldiers assist Anchorage Police to calm or detain rioters as part of the training scenario of exercise Vigilant Guard Ft. Richardson, Alaska, Wednesday April 28, 2010. Vigilant Guard is an annual, disaster-based training scenario that tests the coordination of National Guard units with local, state, regional, and national disaster preparedness organizations. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Brian E. Christiansen, North Carolina National Guard) (Released)
National Guard Soldiers assist Anchorage Police to calm or detain rioters as part of the training scenario of exercise Vigilant Guard Ft. Richardson, Alaska, Wednesday April 28, 2010. Vigilant Guard is an annual, disaster-based training scenario that tests the coordination of National Guard units with local, state, regional, and national disaster preparedness organizations. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Brian E. Christiansen, North Carolina National Guard) (Released)
Alaska Army National Guard Soldiers assist Anchorage Police to calm or detain rioters as part of the training scenario of exercise Vigilant Guard Ft. Richardson, Alaska, Wednesday April 28, 2010. Vigilant Guard is an annual, disaster-based training scenario that tests the coordination of National Guard units with local, state, regional, and national disaster preparedness organizations. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Brian E. Christiansen, North Carolina National Guard) (Released)
Fort Richardson, AK. — National Guard Soldiers assist Anchorage Police to calm or detain rioters as part of the training scenario of exercise Vigilant Guard Ft. Richardson, Alaska, Wednesday April 28, 2010. Vigilant Guard is an annual, disaster-based training scenario that tests the coordination of National Guard units with local, state, regional, and national disaster preparedness organizations. U.S. Army photo by 1st Sgt. Mike Cummings, 115th MPAD, Oregon Army National Guard (Released)
Fort Richardson, AK. — National Guard Soldiers assist Anchorage Police to calm or detain rioters as part of the training scenario of exercise Vigilant Guard Ft. Richardson, Alaska, Wednesday April 28, 2010. Vigilant Guard is an annual, disaster-based training scenario that tests the coordination of National Guard units with local, state, regional, and national disaster preparedness organizations. U.S. Army photo by 1st Sgt. Mike Cummings, 115th MPAD, Oregon Army National Guard (Released)
Alaska National Guard Soldiers escort a protestor away after assisting Anchorage Police to calm or detain rioters as part of the training scenario of exercise Vigilant Guard Ft. Richardson, Alaska, Wednesday April 28, 2010. Vigilant Guard is an annual, disaster-based training scenario that tests the coordination of National Guard units with local, state, regional, and national disaster preparedness organizations. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Brian E. Christiansen, North Carolina National Guard) (Released)
Members of the National Guard from Idaho and Alaska apprehend an insurgent within the secured perimeter at mock Forward Operating Base Mad Bull on Elmendorf AFB during Vigilant Guard Alaska 2010. (Photo by Air Force Maj. Candis Olmstead.)
Members of the National Guard from Idaho and Alaska apprehend an insurgent within the secured perimeter at mock Forward Operating Base Mad Bull on Elmendorf AFB during Vigilant Guard Alaska 2010. (Photo by Air Force Maj. Candis Olmstead.)
Members of the National Guard from Idaho and Alaska apprehend an insurgent within the secured perimeter at mock Forward Operating Base Mad Bull on Elmendorf AFB during Vigilant Guard Alaska 2010. (Photo by Air Force Maj. Candis Olmstead.)
Members of the National Guard from Idaho and Alaska cuff an insurgent outside a mock prison during Vigilant Guard Alaska 2010. (Photo by Air Force Maj. Candis Olmstead.)
Airman 1st Class Shawna Pascua 154th Medical Group, Hawaii Air National Guard triage specialist during Vigilant Guard heads to triage patients who are simulated to have possibly been contaminated by unknown hazardous materials. Vigilant Guard is a premiere joint training exercise designed to enhance interoperability between federal, state and local volunteer agencies in case of disaster. Photo by Sgt. Karima Turner, Alaska National Guard Public Affairs
Anchorage, AK. Standing outside the command tent, CPL Jason Nauta, Hawaii Army National Guard, helps PFC Monica Marks with her gloves before giving her clearing her for final inspection, then to assist in removing casulaties during an exercise in Anchorage, Alaska. Nauta is a fulltime technician assigned to the Hawaii Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and high-yield Explosive (CBRNE) Enhanced Response Force Package (CERFP). PAO Released. Air Force Photo by Tech. Sgt. Brian E. Christiansen, N.C. National Guard
Anchorage, AK. After inspecting his checmical suit, CPL Jason Nauta, Hawaii Army National Guard, clears SPC Terrance Shorter to assist in removing casulaties during an exercise in Anchorage, Alaska. Nauta is a fulltime technician assigned to the Hawaii Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and high-yield Explosive (CBRNE) Enhanced Response Force Package (CERFP). PAO Released. Air Force Photo by Tech. Sgt. Brian E. Christiansen, N.C. National Guard
A member of the 103rd Civil Support Team (Weapons of Mass Destruction), right, scans a member of the Anchorage FIre Department for residual chemical agents after responding to a simulated chemical spill as part of the training scenario of exercise Vigilant Guard in Anchorage, Alaska, Monday, April 26, 2010. Vigilant Guard is an annual, disaster-based training scenario that tests the coordination of National Guard units with local, state, regional, and national disaster preparedness organizations. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. 1st Class Jon Soucy)(Released)
A member of the the 103rd Civil Support Team (Weapons of Mass Destruction), left, decontaminates a local first responder after responding to a simulated chemical spill as part of the training scenario of exercise Vigilant Guard in Anchorage, Alaska, Monday, April 26, 2010. Vigilant Guard is an annual, disaster-based training scenario that tests the coordination of National Guard units with local, state, regional, and national disaster preparedness organizations. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. 1st Class Jon Soucy)(Released)
Members of the Hawaii National Guard’s Chemical, Biological, Nuclear and High-Yield Explosives Enhanced Response Force Package prepare patient for movement after extracting him from the rubble of a simulated collapsed parking garage during the training scenario of exercise Vigilant Guard in Anchorage, Alaska, Tuesday, April 27, 2010. Vigilant Guard is an annual, disaster-based training scenario that tests the coordination of National Guard units with local, state, regional, and national disaster preparedness organizations. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. 1st Class Jon Soucy)(Released)
Author: Mac Slavo
Date: June 15th, 2010
Visit the Author's Website: http://www.SHTFplan.com/
Nov
22Pentagon, Military Actively War Gaming ‘Large Scale Economic Breakdown’ and ‘Civil Unrest’
Author: Mac Slavo- November 22nd, 2010
The majority of Americans believe that recent government intervention into financial markets, the economy and corporate insolvency has reversed the economic downturn which was described by former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson as being “on the brink” in 2008. The stimulus, bailouts and unrelenting quantitative easing by the Federal Reserve have thus far been perceived as having averted the further erosion of the U.S. real estate and equities markets. And though the Federal Reserve and economic analysts have recently readjusted their economic growth forecasts downward for the next six months, Americans no longer have to worry about, as Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) said on the house floor in October of 2008, the sky falling, multi-thousand point drops in stock markets and martial law in America.
The recovery - if our government, the Federal Reserve and mainstream media are to be believed - is on the road to recovery - albeit slowly and with some more pain ahead.
If we’ve “prevented economic collapse” and “avoided the depression many feared,” according to President Obama, inquiring minds are asking why the Pentagon and US Military are actively and aggressively engaged in planning responsive action to large scale economic breakdown and civil unrest scenarios:
Ever since the crash of 2008 the defense intelligence establishment has really been paying a lot of attention to global markets and how they can serve as a threat to U.S. national security interests. At one upcoming seminar next month they’re taking a look at a lot of the issues.
source: see CNBC video report below
According to the report, the Army has spent time on financial market trading floors with JP Morgan and others, in the hopes that they can learn more about how a financial and economic attack may occur, and what the ramifications of such attacks on US stocks and bonds may be.
The Army, in a year-long war games series called Unified Quest 2011, is looking at a variety of possibilities and how to deal with them, including:
•the implications of “large scale economic breakdown” inside of the United States
•how to maintain “domestic order amid civil unrest”
•and ways to deal with fragmented global power and drastically lower budgets
Clearly, the U.S. government is making contingency plans to deal with a worst-case, all-out-collapse scenario of not only the economy, but our social and political systems.
The war gaming, according to reports, began in 2008 at the onset of the economic crisis, but planners from not just the United States, but around the globe, may have been aware of the dire possibility of economic collapse even earlier. It’s well known that the U.S. government as well as foreign counterparts have been preparing bunkers and continuity of government for decades, but recent preparedness activities suggest that the planning in some aspects has been expedited. Anecdotal evidence indicates that the US government has been the leading buyer of freeze died foods for the last couple of years, and private emergency shelter contractors have reported a shortage in equipment and supplies for building personal-sized bunkers.
In a previous report titled Homeland Security To “Regionalize” Emergency Supplies Over Next 90 Days, we pointed out that FEMA, headed by Department of Homeland Security, is decentralizing emergency supplies from one main distribution facility in Washington D.C. to fifteen regional facilities around the country. Even the Russians and the EU are in high gear. Russia has reportedly begun planning and development of 5,000 new underground bunkers for the city of Moscow scheduled for completion no later than 2012. The EU, in 2006, commissioned the building of a “Doomsday Seed Vault” in a mountainside several hundred feet above sea level. The facility was built and fully stocked with millions of seeds from around the world within 18 months.
Though the activities of global governments in recent years could potentially be chalked up to standard national security preparedness and contingency planning, the most alarming indicator that the U.S. government is not just looking at one-in-a-million possibilities in terms of economic collapse is the training of several thousand U.S. Army soldiers to respond to domestic policing and enforcement issues that may include evacuation, detainment and riot response. The real possibility of the need to deploy U.S. military under martial law exists, and the U.S. government is spending millions of dollars training and equipping soldiers to do so if necessary.
For those who may have their doubts about some of the scenarios these soldiers are training for, we point out the sign being held by one of the riot role players below.
(Photo taken by U.S. Airforce Tech. Sgt. Brian E. Christiansen, North Carolina National Guard at Vigilant Guard training exercise Ft. Richardson, Alaska - April 2010)
More military training exercise pictures and descriptions
It is hard to imagine an America under an economic attack so serious that the U.S. economy could suffer a collapse that would essentially put an end to the world as we have come to know it. But for those who think rationally, especially given the current malaise in financial markets and the U.S. dollar, the possibility cannot be ruled out.
As such, any government acting in the interests of national security would take steps to deal with and respond to such an event(s).
For the average populace prole, however, there may not be any real assistance should something like this occur. First and foremost, any government response to an attack on our financial and economic systems will have the primary goal of maintaining order and the rule of law, as well as continuity of government. This is a given.
This means that if, for whatever reason, be it a collapse of the US dollar that leads to disruptions in the flow of U.S. food supplies or an economic war that goes “hot” leading to worst-case scenarios like cyber attacks on U.S. infrastructure elements like electric and water utility plants or an EMP attack, the government’s mandate will not be to provide food and security for your family, but rather, for those who are deemed essential to accomplishing the primary goals.
This means that when and/or if it hits the fan, you’re going to be on your own.
If you haven’t yet, we recommend taking the advice of FEMA (pdf), who suggest that every family have emergency preparedness supplies on hand, including food and water, for at least a couple of weeks.
For the hard core “preppers” amongst us, you may have already considered this possibility and the chance that the fallout from an economic collapse may lead to an inability to perform daily transactions with the U.S. dollar, food supply disruptions, violence and looting, and even a completely ‘down-grid’ where utilities are completely out of service. If you haven’t, what would you do if you awoke to news of a total meltdown in the US dollar - one that led to rejection of the US dollar as a currency for international settlement?
Will you be the one facing off against highly trained U.S. military personnel holding a “Food Now” sign at an inner city riot?
The U.S. government and many of their counterparts around the world are getting ready - just in case - maybe you should be too.
Author: Mac Slavo
Date: November 22nd, 2010
Visit the Author's Website: http://www.SHTFplan.com/
And this, related, also from SHTF Plan:
Jun
15National Guard Training For Riot Control, Mass Detentions
Author: Mac Slavo- June 15th, 2010 Comments (54)
print this page
get our rss feed
In a previous story we noted that Reports Surfacing of Multi-State National Guard Mobilizations.
Further information made available after our report, much of which was published in the comment section by contributors who scoured the web for more information on the subject, suggests that the report was true and that national guard units had indeed been called up for training and possible deployment for domestic emergencies.
With the BP oil leak heating up (literally), there is a distinct possibility of noxious fumes and toxic hurricanes hitting our coasts over the coming months. Because there is minimal research on the subject available to the public, it is difficult to establish what is or is not a threat. Nonetheless, we advise those of our readers on or near the coast to remain aware of any developments regarding the possibility of emergencies or evacuations in their areas.
For those who may think we are overreacting to the possibility that the federal government would respond to an emergency, specifically mandatory evacuations on the gulf coast with the use of National Guard troops, we direct you to the article below, brought to our attention by Worldwide Wake Up Now and originally published at Public Intelligence.
In the event of a mass evacuation event, be it on the Gulf coast or as a result of an earthquake, chemical attack, biological attack, or other national emergency, we fully expect National Guard troops to be deployed. There will be mass chaos, violence, rioting, and looting, and local law enforcement simply will not have the capability to handle such a disaster.
The National Guard trains specifically for this, as depicted in the following article.
Vigilant Guard 2010 Riot Control, Detention Drills
by Public Intelligence
Soldiers and Airmen from the Idaho National Guard lineup outside Wildwood Correctional Facility in Kenai, Alaska, for a natural disaster training exercise during the Alaska National Guard’s Vigilant Guard 2010, April 29. The Soldiers were at Wildwood to simulate assisting local authorities transfer prisoners to the correctional facility due to any type of emergency. Alaska NG VG-2010 is an exercise sponsored by the National Guard Bureau that allows Joint Force Headquarters, Joint Task Forces and various field units to improve command and control and to exercise operational relationships with local, state, regional and federal partners. (NCNG Photo by Army Sgt. Zach Otto; Joint Task Force-Tarheel, North Carolina National Guard)
Soldiers and Airmen from the Idaho National Guard lineup outside Wildwood Correctional Facility in Kenai, Alaska, for a natural disaster training exercise during the Alaska National Guard’s Vigilant Guard 2010 exercise, April 29. The Soldiers were at Wildwood to simulate assisting local authorities transferring prisoners to the correctional facility due to another type of emergency. (NCNG Photo by Army Sgt. Zach Otto; Joint Task Force-Tarheel, North Carolina National Guard)
U.S. Army Col. Allen Boyette, Joint Task Force-Tarheel Deputy Commander, Command Sgt. Maj. Ernest Bouton, JTF-Tarheel Command Sergeant Major, and Chief Warrant Officer 3 Mark Louden, JTF-Tarheel Human Resource Officer, talk with Sgt. Dave Cleveland, Alaska Correctional Officer, at the Wildwood Correctional Facility in Kenai, Alaska, during the Alaska National Guard’s Vigilant Guard 2010, April 29. Alaska NG VG-2010 is an exercise sponsored by the National Guard Bureau that allows Joint Force Headquarters, Joint Task Forces and various field units to improve command and control and to exercise operational relationships with local, state, regional and federal partners. (NCNG Photo by Army Sgt. Zach Otto; Joint Task Force-Tarheel, North Carolina National Guard)
National Guard members from Alaska, Idaho and Oregon participate in riot control training April 26, 2010, at Elmendorf AFB. The 48 Citizen Soldiers and Airman from all three states will receive additional training—non-lethal target practice, and entry control point and convoy operations. The enhanced training is preparation for exercise operations in Kenai at Wildwood Correctional Facility, a local shopping mall, and interacting downtown with civilians in the aftermath of a simulated major earthquake as part of Vigilant Guard, an annual disaster-based training scenario that tests the coordination of National Guard units with local, state, regional, and national disaster preparedness organizations. (Photo by Air Force Maj. Candis Olmstead) (Released)
National Guard members from Alaska, Idaho and Oregon participate in riot control training April 26, 2010, at an Elmendorf AFB training site, Forward Operating Base Mad Bull. The 48 Citizen Soldiers and Airman from all three states will receive additional training—non-lethal target practice, and entry control point and convoy operations. The enhanced training is preparation for exercise operations in Kenai at Wildwood Correctional Facility, a local shopping mall, and interacting downtown with civilians in the aftermath of a simulated major earthquake as part of Vigilant Guard, an annual disaster-based training scenario that tests the coordination of National Guard units with local, state, regional, and national disaster preparedness organizations. (Photo by Air Force Maj. Candis Olmstead) (Released)
Alaska Army National Guard Soldiers assist Anchorage Police to calm or detain rioters as part of the training scenario of exercise Vigilant Guard Ft. Richardson, Alaska, Wednesday April 28, 2010. Vigilant Guard is an annual, disaster-based training scenario that tests the coordination of National Guard units with local, state, regional, and national disaster preparedness organizations. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Brian E. Christiansen, North Carolina National Guard) (Released)
Alaska Army National Guard Soldiers assist Anchorage Police to calm or detain rioters as part of the training scenario of exercise Vigilant Guard Ft. Richardson, Alaska, Wednesday April 28, 2010. Vigilant Guard is an annual, disaster-based training scenario that tests the coordination of National Guard units with local, state, regional, and national disaster preparedness organizations. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Brian E. Christiansen, North Carolina National Guard) (Released)
Alaska Army National Guard Soldiers assist Anchorage Police to calm or detain rioters as part of the training scenario of exercise Vigilant Guard Ft. Richardson, Alaska, Wednesday April 28, 2010. Vigilant Guard is an annual, disaster-based training scenario that tests the coordination of National Guard units with local, state, regional, and national disaster preparedness organizations. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Brian E. Christiansen, North Carolina National Guard) (Released)
National Guard Soldiers assist Anchorage Police to calm or detain rioters as part of the training scenario of exercise Vigilant Guard Ft. Richardson, Alaska, Wednesday April 28, 2010. Vigilant Guard is an annual, disaster-based training scenario that tests the coordination of National Guard units with local, state, regional, and national disaster preparedness organizations. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Brian E. Christiansen, North Carolina National Guard) (Released)
Alaska Army National Guard Soldiers assist Anchorage Police to calm or detain rioters as part of the training scenario of exercise Vigilant Guard Ft. Richardson, Alaska, Wednesday April 28, 2010. Vigilant Guard is an annual, disaster-based training scenario that tests the coordination of National Guard units with local, state, regional, and national disaster preparedness organizations. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Brian E. Christiansen, North Carolina National Guard) (Released)
Fort Richardson, AK. — National Guard Soldiers assist Anchorage Police to calm or detain rioters as part of the training scenario of exercise Vigilant Guard Ft. Richardson, Alaska, Wednesday April 28, 2010. Vigilant Guard is an annual, disaster-based training scenario that tests the coordination of National Guard units with local, state, regional, and national disaster preparedness organizations. U.S. Army photo by 1st Sgt. Mike Cummings, 115th MPAD, Oregon Army National Guard (Released)
Fort Richardson, AK. — National Guard Soldiers assist Anchorage Police to calm or detain rioters as part of the training scenario of exercise Vigilant Guard Ft. Richardson, Alaska, Wednesday April 28, 2010. Vigilant Guard is an annual, disaster-based training scenario that tests the coordination of National Guard units with local, state, regional, and national disaster preparedness organizations. U.S. Army photo by 1st Sgt. Mike Cummings, 115th MPAD, Oregon Army National Guard (Released)
Alaska National Guard Soldiers escort a protestor away after assisting Anchorage Police to calm or detain rioters as part of the training scenario of exercise Vigilant Guard Ft. Richardson, Alaska, Wednesday April 28, 2010. Vigilant Guard is an annual, disaster-based training scenario that tests the coordination of National Guard units with local, state, regional, and national disaster preparedness organizations. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Brian E. Christiansen, North Carolina National Guard) (Released)
Members of the National Guard from Idaho and Alaska apprehend an insurgent within the secured perimeter at mock Forward Operating Base Mad Bull on Elmendorf AFB during Vigilant Guard Alaska 2010. (Photo by Air Force Maj. Candis Olmstead.)
Members of the National Guard from Idaho and Alaska apprehend an insurgent within the secured perimeter at mock Forward Operating Base Mad Bull on Elmendorf AFB during Vigilant Guard Alaska 2010. (Photo by Air Force Maj. Candis Olmstead.)
Members of the National Guard from Idaho and Alaska apprehend an insurgent within the secured perimeter at mock Forward Operating Base Mad Bull on Elmendorf AFB during Vigilant Guard Alaska 2010. (Photo by Air Force Maj. Candis Olmstead.)
Members of the National Guard from Idaho and Alaska cuff an insurgent outside a mock prison during Vigilant Guard Alaska 2010. (Photo by Air Force Maj. Candis Olmstead.)
Airman 1st Class Shawna Pascua 154th Medical Group, Hawaii Air National Guard triage specialist during Vigilant Guard heads to triage patients who are simulated to have possibly been contaminated by unknown hazardous materials. Vigilant Guard is a premiere joint training exercise designed to enhance interoperability between federal, state and local volunteer agencies in case of disaster. Photo by Sgt. Karima Turner, Alaska National Guard Public Affairs
Anchorage, AK. Standing outside the command tent, CPL Jason Nauta, Hawaii Army National Guard, helps PFC Monica Marks with her gloves before giving her clearing her for final inspection, then to assist in removing casulaties during an exercise in Anchorage, Alaska. Nauta is a fulltime technician assigned to the Hawaii Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and high-yield Explosive (CBRNE) Enhanced Response Force Package (CERFP). PAO Released. Air Force Photo by Tech. Sgt. Brian E. Christiansen, N.C. National Guard
Anchorage, AK. After inspecting his checmical suit, CPL Jason Nauta, Hawaii Army National Guard, clears SPC Terrance Shorter to assist in removing casulaties during an exercise in Anchorage, Alaska. Nauta is a fulltime technician assigned to the Hawaii Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and high-yield Explosive (CBRNE) Enhanced Response Force Package (CERFP). PAO Released. Air Force Photo by Tech. Sgt. Brian E. Christiansen, N.C. National Guard
A member of the 103rd Civil Support Team (Weapons of Mass Destruction), right, scans a member of the Anchorage FIre Department for residual chemical agents after responding to a simulated chemical spill as part of the training scenario of exercise Vigilant Guard in Anchorage, Alaska, Monday, April 26, 2010. Vigilant Guard is an annual, disaster-based training scenario that tests the coordination of National Guard units with local, state, regional, and national disaster preparedness organizations. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. 1st Class Jon Soucy)(Released)
A member of the the 103rd Civil Support Team (Weapons of Mass Destruction), left, decontaminates a local first responder after responding to a simulated chemical spill as part of the training scenario of exercise Vigilant Guard in Anchorage, Alaska, Monday, April 26, 2010. Vigilant Guard is an annual, disaster-based training scenario that tests the coordination of National Guard units with local, state, regional, and national disaster preparedness organizations. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. 1st Class Jon Soucy)(Released)
Members of the Hawaii National Guard’s Chemical, Biological, Nuclear and High-Yield Explosives Enhanced Response Force Package prepare patient for movement after extracting him from the rubble of a simulated collapsed parking garage during the training scenario of exercise Vigilant Guard in Anchorage, Alaska, Tuesday, April 27, 2010. Vigilant Guard is an annual, disaster-based training scenario that tests the coordination of National Guard units with local, state, regional, and national disaster preparedness organizations. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. 1st Class Jon Soucy)(Released)
Author: Mac Slavo
Date: June 15th, 2010
Visit the Author's Website: http://www.SHTFplan.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)