Posts Tagged ‘government overreach’

238 Members Sign Letter Opposing Proposed Ban on AR-15 Ammunition

Fairfax, Va. – In an overwhelming show of bipartisan opposition, 238 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives have signed a letter to the director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, opposing the Obama Administration’s attempt to ban commonly used ammunition for the most popular rifle in America, the AR-15.  The National Rifle Association worked closely with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) to gather signatures on this critical effort.

 “This letter sends a clear message to President Obama that Congress opposes his attempt to use his pen and phone to thwart the will of the American people,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “Obama said he would enact his gun control agenda ‘with or without Congress.’ He is now trying to make good on that promise. The NRA would like to thank Chairman Goodlatte and all who signed the letter for opposing this unconstitutional attack on our Second Amendment freedom.”

The NRA is working with Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) on a similar letter of opposition from the U.S. Senate.

Read the letter @ https://shared.nrapvf.org/sharedmedia/1507341/letter-to-atf-director-jones-apa-framework-final.pdf

The trustworthiness of a web page might help it rise up Google’s rankings if the search giant starts to measure quality by facts, not just links

THE internet is stuffed with garbage. Anti-vaccination websites make the front page of Google, and fact-free “news” stories spread like wildfire. Google has devised a fix – rank websites according to their truthfulness.

Google’s search engine currently uses the number of incoming links to a web page as a proxy for quality, determining where it appears in search results. So pages that many other sites link to are ranked higher. This system has brought us the search engine as we know it today, but the downside is that websites full of misinformation can rise up the rankings, if enough people link to them.

A Google research team is adapting that model to measure the trustworthiness of a page, rather than its reputation across the web. Instead of counting incoming links, the system – which is not yet live – counts the number of incorrect facts within a page. “A source that has few false facts is considered to be trustworthy,” says the team (arxiv.org/abs/1502.03519v1). The score they compute for each page is its Knowledge-Based Trust score.

The software works by tapping into the Knowledge Vault, the vast store of facts that Google has pulled off the internet. Facts the web unanimously agrees on are considered a reasonable proxy for truth. Web pages that contain contradictory information are bumped down the rankings.

There are already lots of apps that try to help internet users unearth the truth. LazyTruth is a browser extension that skims inboxes to weed out the fake or hoax emails that do the rounds. Emergent, a project from the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University, New York, pulls in rumours from trashy sites, then verifies or rebuts them by cross-referencing to other sources.

LazyTruth developer Matt Stempeck, now the director of civic media at Microsoft New York, wants to develop software that exports the knowledge found in fact-checking services such as Snopes, PolitiFact and FactCheck.org so that everyone has easy access to them. He says tools like LazyTruth are useful online, but challenging the erroneous beliefs underpinning that information is harder. “How do you correct people’s misconceptions? People get very defensive,” Stempeck says. “If they’re searching for the answer on Google they might be in a much more receptive state.”

This article appeared in print under the headline “Nothing but the truth”

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530102.600-google-wants-to-rank-websites-based-on-facts-not-links.html#.VPWbMOFMKJc

 The biggest problem with this idea is the use of Politifact,Snopes,and Fact Check.org-all three are politically biased sites-don’t believe me-look up gun control-then show me a single pro-gun “fact” from any of the three “sources of truth”. Or look up climate change,and try to find a single dissenting article that is the truth-called the truth. Look up hunting being the single most effective wildlife management tool-a fact almost every wildlife biologist agrees with-or the fact that hunters fund well over 90% of all wildlife management in the U.S.

  The only thing this will do is make all the alternate news sources on the ‘net  go from independent news sources-to exact copies of the mainstream media-any story that does not agree with the  “official” narrative of .gov inc. will be ten pages of results down in search results-or not show up at all. Anyone reporting on shady stuff being done by .gov inc. will have their reporting labeled as “lies” because it doesn’t agree with what Google and .gov inc.’s Ministry of Truth/propaganda agency-abcnnbcbs,the WaPo,NY Times,and La Times,and MSLSD and HuffPO claim is the “truth”.

The Chicago Police Department released a fact sheet Sunday disputing claims they operate a secretive facility in Homan Square on Chicago’s West Side where criminal suspects are denied basic rights.

The fact sheet is three pages: one detailing facility facts, one addressing what experts are saying regarding claims of abuse and the last page explaining the department’s arrest and interview procedures.

The information refutes all claims of abuse. Police say Homan Square open to the public as home to CPD’s Evidence and Recovered Property Section, where “members of the public can collect evidence recovered during now complete criminal investigations, or found property.”

They also say Homan Square is “the base of operations for officers working undercover assignments. These men and women dress in plain clothes and work to disrupt gang activity and clear drug markets out of neighborhoods. Advertising their base of operations could put their lives at risk, which is why Homan Square features little signage.”

Regarding allegations that a death at the facility may have been the result of physical violence from Chicago police officers, the fact sheet says, “The allegation that physical violence is part of interviews with suspects is unequivocally false… Published news reports indicate the Medical Examiner’s autopsy report shows the man died of an accidental heroin overdose.”

Saturday, activists gathered outside the Homan Square facility for a protest, where they made demands including calls for a town hall meeting.

“If Chicago Police Department doesn’t have anything to hide, then open up the doors!” said Rev. Greg Greer of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. “Open up the doors!”

The “Fact Sheet”…

CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT FACT SHEET
March 1, 2015
THE FACTS ABOUT CPD’S HOMAN SQAURE FACILITY
Recently, inaccurate and misleading information reg
arding Homan Square has been making
its way around the Internet. The below provides fac
ts about the facility and its uses, and the
arrest and interview procedures of CPD.
Homan Square is a facility owned and operated by th
e Chicago Police Department since
1999. It serves a number of functions, some of whic
h are sensitive and some of which are
not, however
it is not a secret facility
.
In fact, Homan Square is home to CPD’s Evidence and
Recovered Property Section, which is
open to the public. Homan Square is the only CPD fa
cility where members of the public can
collect evidence recovered during a now complete cr
iminal investigation, or found property.
Portions of the facility are sensitive. Homan Squar
e is the base of operations for officers
working undercover assignments. These men and women
dress in plain clothes and work to
disrupt gang activity and clear drug markets out of
neighborhoods. Advertising their base of
operations could put their lives at risk, which is
why Homan Square features little signage.
Other sensitive units housed at the facility includ
e the Bureau of Organized Crime (including
the narcotics unit), the SWAT Unit, Evidence Techni
cians, and the CPD ballistics lab.
Like more than 25 CPD facilities throughout the Cit
y, such as district stations and detective
bureaus, Homan Square contains several standard int
erview rooms. Most individuals
interviewed at Homan Square are lower-level arrests
from the Narcotics unit. There are
always records of anyone who is arrested by CPD, an
d this is no different at Homan Square.
EXAMPLES OF FALSE INFORMATION RECENTLY PUBLISHED
The allegation that physical violence is a part of
interviews with suspects is
unequivocally false, it is offensive, and it is not
supported by any facts whatsoever.
The articles say a man died in one of the Homan Squ
are interview rooms, and imply
this may have been a result of physical violence at
the hands of CPD officers.
Published news reports indicate the Medical Examine
r’ autopsy report show the
man died of an accidental heroin overdose.
The articles describe Homan Square as a “secretive
warehouse” despite the fact that
the public is able to claim inventoried property th
ere and members of the media
have been invited on tours of the facility on a reg
ular basis. CPD has even held press
conferences inside the facility.
One of the articles implies that during an intervie
w police turned up the heat in an
interview room at Homan Square to get an individual
to admit to a crime, yet there
is no way to regulate heat in individual rooms at t
he facility. Any change in
temperature would affect an entire floor or zone, a
nd can only be done by calling in
a building engineer.
***It takes an engineer to turn up a thermostat?***

By Tracy Rucinski

CHICAGO (Reuters) – About 200 protesters gathered outside a police facility in Chicago on Saturday, demanding an investigation into a media report denied by police that the site functions as an off-the-books interrogation compound.

British newspaper The Guardian said in a report earlier this week the Chicago Police Department holds suspects and witnesses for long periods of time at a former warehouse called Homan Square, without giving them access to attorneys or phone calls to family and without recording their detention.

The piece was the subject of intense debate in recent days in Chicago, with some criminal justice experts saying it was exaggerated and others giving it credence.

The protest represented an effort by organizers to pressure city leaders to look into the matter.

The Guardian has compared the location to a CIA “black site” facility, and in a piece posted on its website on Tuesday it quoted a man who said he was held in shackles at the site for 17 hours.

“Everything that happens in this facility is off the books, so they can’t prove that these things never happened,” said Travis McDermott, one of the organizers of the protest.

Chicago police spokesman Martin Malone did not immediately return a call requesting comment on Saturday.

Earlier in the week, the Chicago Police Department (CPD) in a statement said it “abides by all laws, rules and guidelines pertaining to any interviews of suspects or witnesses” at Homan Square and other facilities.

“There are always records of anyone who is arrested by CPD, and this is not any different at Homan Square,” it said.

The city of Chicago has paid millions of dollars to settle lawsuits arising from Chicago police commander Jon Burge’s torture methods in the 1970s and 1980s.

The controversy over the site comes as the city prepares for a mayoral election on April 7, with incumbent Rahm Emanuel facing opponent Jesus “Chuy” Garcia. Crime has been a top issue during the campaign.

Roughly 200 people braved frigid temperatures to join the protest on Saturday. Its organizers included Black Lives Matter and the Stop Mass Incarcelation Network

(Bloomberg) — California’s ban on new semiautomatic handguns that don’t stamp identifying information on the cartridge was upheld by a U.S. judge in a major loss for gun-rights groups.

The law barring sales of handguns without the microstamping technology doesn’t violate the Constitution’s Second Amendment because gun owners don’t have a right to buy specific types of firearms, U.S. District Judge Kimberly Mueller in Sacramento said in her ruling.

“Plaintiffs insist they have the right to determine the precise way in which they would exercise their Second Amendment rights,” Mueller said. The insistence upon particular handguns falls “outside the scope of the right to bear arms,” she said.

California in 2013 became the first state to bar retailers from selling new models of semiautomatic handguns not equipped to imprint the weapon’s make, model and serial number on the cartridge when a bullet is fired. The statute was supported by law enforcement because it can help deter or solve crime.

Thursday’s ruling that the requirement doesn’t violate the Second Amendment will prompt other states to impose similar requirements, in particular because there’s wide popular support for ballistic fingerprinting, said Allison Anderman, an attorney with the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence in San Francisco.

“Microstamping is a really important tool for law enforcement,” Anderman said in a phone interview.

De Facto Ban

Calguns Foundation Inc. and the Second Amendment Foundation argued that the requirement amounts to a de facto ban on sales of new semiautomatics because several manufacturers said they wouldn’t produce guns that included microstamp technology even if it meant their firearms couldn’t be sold in California, the most populous U.S. state.

About 1.5 million handguns were legally sold in California since opponents sued in 2009 to block the microstamping requirement, which according to Mueller’s ruling shows that the law doesn’t effectively ban the sale of firearms in the state.

The District of Columbia, the only other place in the U.S. to mandate microstamping, is set to begin enforcing that requirement next year, Anderman said.

The two gun rights groups said in a court filing Thursday that they will appeal the ruling by Mueller, who was nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama.

‘Strong Case’

“The court’s reasoning, that California’s prohibition of most handguns doesn’t even implicate the Second Amendment, is interesting,” Alan Gura, a lawyer for the groups, said Friday in an e-mail. “But we’re confident that we have a strong case on appeal.”

The case may go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 2008 upheld individuals’ right to own handguns, calling them the “quintessential self-defense weapon.”

The 2008 high court ruling left room for gun-control backers to impose new rules to promote safety. California, New York and Maryland, among other states, enacted restrictions that U.S. gun manufacturers and retailers contend are intended to regulate their $14 billion industry out of business.

The California law was signed in 2007 by then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, and was put on hold until 2013 when state Attorney General Kamala Harris, a Democrat running for the U.S. Senate next year, determined the technology was available to all gun makers and wasn’t encumbered by patent claims.

“The court’s ruling means that more gun crimes will be solved, more lives will be saved, and California communities will be safer,” Mike Feuer, the Los Angeles city attorney and the author of the microstamping bill, said in a statement.

The case is Pena v. Cid, 09-cv-01185, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California (Sacramento)

Via Daniel J. Kov, dkov@thedailyjournal.com

A felony gun charge against a Port Elizabeth resident arrested by police last year for possessing an unloaded antique weapon has been dismissed by the Cumberland County Prosecutor’s Office, according to a news release issued Wednesday.

Prosecutor Jennifer Webb-McRae announced in the release that the state will exercise “prosecutorial discretion to dismiss” the second-degree unlawful possession of a weapon charge against Gordon N. Van Gilder.

“Accordingly, the public should be forewarned about the prescriptions against possessing a firearm — even an antique — in a vehicle,” she continued.

Webb-McRae declined to comment further on the dismissal.

Van Gilder’s Eatontown attorney Evan Nappen said he was delighted to hear charges were dropped.

The attorney learned of the dismissal while in an interview with The Daily Journal.

“That is very good,” he said while reading the news release over the phone. “I commend the prosecutor for exercising her dis

cretion accordingly.”

If convicted of the second-degree charge, Van Gilder could have faced a maximum of 10 years behind bars

The charge also carried a minimum 3.5-year sentence that could have seriously jeopardized Van Gilder’s public school pension, his right to vote and his reputation in the community, Nappen said.

“I’m very appreciative that they exercised their discretion here and did the right thing,” Nappen said.

Nappen said his client will follow up on trying to retrieve the centuries-old “Queen Anne” flintlock antique pistol now in custody of the county.

“It’s a valuable collector’s item,” he said.

The dismissal comes after a two-week long public outcry against state and law enforcement officials, with many charging that officials overstepped in their pursuit of charges against the elderly man over an unloaded antique weapon.

Van Gilder, a 72-year-old former educator at Millville Senior High School, was arrested at his Port Elizabeth home by members of the Cumberland County Sheriff’s Department on Nov. 21, 2014.

The arrest came a day after he and 22-year-old Adam Puttergill were stopped in their Toyota Tacoma by Sheriff’s Department officers in a Millville neighborhood.

The two said they were in the process of returning to their Port Elizabeth home after visiting a Vineland pawn shop, at which Van Gilder purchased the 300-year-old flintlock pistol.

Puttergill was acting as the driver for Van Gilder, who suffers severe arthritis, he said.

He also lives with Van Gilder, who informally adopted him about a decade ago.

Cumberland County Sheriff Robert Austino later said his officers pulled the two over because they were in a suspicious neighborhood known for illegal drug activity.

While talking to the two, officers at the scene discovered empty heroin bags and a broken scale used for measuring drugs, Austino said.

The discovery prompted a full search of the vehicle and officers also found Van Gilder’s 300-year-old flintlock pistol wrapped in cloth inside the glove compartment.

Puttergill was taken into custody on an outstanding Vineland Municipal Court contempt warrant, he told The Daily Journal last week.

He also was charged with possessing two prescription pills that were not in their pharmacy container. The drug charge has since been handled by Puttergill’s attorney in Millville Municipal Court, resulting in a conditional discharge of the charge.

While Van Gilder was let go at the scene, Sheriff’s Officers returned to his home the next day and arrested and booked the 72-year-old on the unlawful weapons charge for his unregistered gun.

The incident quickly went on to attract state and national attention following revelation of the arrest by The Daily Journal last week.

Nappen and other public supporters of Van Gilder accused the Sheriff’s Department of a “smear campaign” for charging the elderly man with what they view as an egregious and overstepping charge.

The incident even spurred at least two New Jersey lawmakers to introduce bills that would provide state judges with sentencing discretion in such future cases involving those charged with unlawful weapons possession.

A bill sponsored by state Sen. Jeff Van Drew and Assemblyman Bob Andrzejczak, whose district includes Millville, would further revise the Graves Act, allowing courts to permit a person convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm admittance to pretrial intervention or supervisory treatment if they had no known association with a criminal street gang and no criminal convictions.

165 114 LINKEDIN 2 COMMENTMORE

From Cato at Liberty

“A country that spoke itself into existence with assertions of the rights to life, liberty, and property can ill afford yet another government agency with the power to seize your property without so much as a criminal charge.”

A quick glance at the Federal Register (Vol. 80, No. 37, p. 9987-88) today reveals that Attorney General Eric Holder, who earned cautious praise last month for a small reform to the federal equitable sharing program, has now delegated authority to the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to seize and “administratively forfeit” property involved in suspected drug offenses.  Holder temporarily delegated this authority to the ATF on a trial basis in 2013, and today made the delegation permanent while lauding the ATF for seizing more than $19.3 million from Americans during the trial period.

Historically, when the ATF uncovered contraband subject to forfeiture under drug statutes, it was required to either refer the property to the DEA for administrative forfeiture proceedings or to a U.S. Attorney in order to initiate a judicial forfeiture action.  Under today’s change, the ATF will now be authorized to seize property related to alleged drug offenses and initiate administrative forfeiture proceedings all on its own.

The DOJ claims this rule change doesn’t affect individual rights (and was thus exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act) and that the change is simply an effort to streamline the federal government’s forfeiture process.  Those who now stand more likely to have their property taken without even a criminal charge may beg to differ.

Further, the department claims that forcing the ATF to go through a judicial process in order to seize property requires too much time and money.  Whereas an “uncontested administrative forfeiture can be perfected in 60-90 days for minimal cost […] the costs associated with judicial forfeiture can amount to hundreds or thousands of dollars and the judicial process generally can take anywhere from 6 months to years.”  In other words, affording judicial process to Americans suspected of engaging in criminal activity takes too long and costs too much.

Note that the above quote speaks of an “uncontested” forfeiture.  This refers to a situation in which the property owner fails to engage the byzantine process for recovering their property. Defenders of civil asset forfeiture often claim that such failures to contest amount to admissions of guilt, but there is substantial evidence that many victims of civil asset forfeiture simply lack the time, resources, and legal knowledge to fight the bottomless resources of government to get their property back.  This is especially true when it comes to the War on Drugs, within which the bulk of civil forfeiture targets are poor, lack legal education, and lack access to attorneys and other avenues to vindicate their rights.  There are also troubling examples of the government simply never initiating proceedings against the stolen property and thus never giving the owners a chance to “contest” anything at all.

At a time when Attorney General Holder himself has acknowledged the need for asset forfeiture reform, the authorization to take the property of American citizens should be shrinking, not expanding. A country that spoke itself into existence with assertions of the rights to life, liberty, and property can ill afford yet another government agency with the power to seize your property without so much as a criminal charge.

From : http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/02/26/new-bill-gives-the-attorney-general-the-power-to-block-gun-sales-to-suspected-terrorists/

Feinstein’s new bill-(link at end of article) sure looks a lot like this bill did…

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr720/text

And this one…

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr2159/text

More than two dozen Democrats in the House and Senate — and one Republican — want to give the U.S. attorney general the power to block the sale of guns and explosives to known terrorists, and also to anyone who is “appropriately suspected” of being a terrorist.

The Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act was introduced this week by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.). They say it makes no sense that people on the terrorist watch list are prohibited from boarding airplanes in the United States, but are still free to buy guns and explosives.

Supporters of a new bill say known or suspected terrorists shouldn’t have access to guns in the United States.

“Federal law already prohibits nine categories of dangerous persons from purchasing or possessing firearms, including the mentally ill and criminals,” said King. “Yet, after almost 14 years, we still allow suspected terrorists the ability to purchase firearms. It’s time for common sense to prevail before it’s too late.”

Feinstein and King noted that according to GAO, people on the terrorist watch list who tried to buy a weapon in 2013 and 2014 were successful about 93 percent of the time.

But it seems unlikely that a GOP-led House and Senate will agree to give the attorney general the power to stop gun sales, especially with President Barack Obama still in office for the next two years.

Under the bill, the attorney general would be able to stop the transfer of a gun or explosive to a “known or suspected” terrorist if it’s possible the person might use the firearm in connection with terrorism. The bill language says the attorney general can stop the transfer if he or she “has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.”

Sales could be blocked to anyone known to be involved in terrorist activities, or anyone who is “appropriately suspected.” That term is used throughout the bill but is never defined, and would likely be a cause for alarm by defenders of the Second Amendment who might worry about giving the attorney general too much discretion in deciding who is “appropriately suspected” of terrorism.

One example of how that authority could be abused was revealed last week, when it was reported that the Department of Homeland Security had produced an intelligence assessment that focuses on terrorist attacks from right-wing groups interested in defending themselves from the federal government. That led to more criticism that the Obama administration is not worried enough about radical Islamic terrorist threats, and is overly worried about right-wing groups.

The legislation would keep current provisions of the law that allow people who are blocked from buying a gun or an explosive to know why he or she was denied, and to challenge that decision at the Department of Justice, and then through a lawsuit if needed.

The Senate bill is cosponsored by 11 Democrats, and the House bill is cosponsored by 14 Democrats — King is the only Republican on the bill.

Read the bill @ http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=e0e0dab0-d7d7-4dca-83da-7b68f5be2b47

When it’s not making us take our shoes off, it’s trampling our civil liberties and ‘building’ centers that don’t exist. Enough already.
Are you nervous, America?

If nothing happens before Friday, the mighty Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—every bit as much a WTF legacy of George W. Bush as those surreal White House Christmas videos that featured Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson talking to Barney “the First Dog” like the Son of Sam killer—will lose its funding due to a budget fight between congressional Republicans and President Barack Obama.

And when DHS funding ends, then…well, nothing much, actually, it turns out.

Without funding, about 30,000 “non-essential” DHS employees will be told not to show up for work. The other 210,000 or so workers who are considered “essential” and “exempt” will still have to punch the clock, although most of them won’t get paid until after the budget stalemate is ended. Not optimal, but not the worst outcome, either.

DHS oversees almost two dozen agencies and groups, including the Coast Guard, Customs and Border Patrol, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), immigration processing and enforcement, the Secret Service, and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the brave folks responsible for an endless series of junk-touching, drug-stealing, and kiddie-porn scandals.

Given all those fearsome responsibilities, you’d figure Barack Obama would be sweating gravy over even a partial shutdown of DHS. Instead, last week he stressed not the “security” part of the department’s functioning, but all the dollars its workers spend in a congressional district near you. After noting that most DHS employees would be working for IOUs during a funding freeze, he said: “These are folks, who if they don’t have a paycheck, are not going to be able to spend that money in your states. It will have a direct impact on your economy.” That’s about as open an admission that federal employment is essentially a form of workfare as you’re likely to hear. Only later in his comments did Obama get around to the idea that these same workers also, you know, keep us safe from the odd underwear bomber and all those undocumented Mexicans we hire to cook our food and clean our houses.

Unsurprisingly, Obama didn’t mention the Secret Service, which is supposed to protect the president but has lately been way too busy opening White House doors for knife-wielding psychos and cheating whores down South America way to focus on its core businesses.

My God, where have our priorities as a nation gone? Come Friday, Pocatello is a sitting duck.

Even Obama’s Secretary of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson, couldn’t muster much in the way of if-then fearmongering. Earlier this month, Johnson trotted out a parade of horribles that was about as scary as a late-night rerun of Plan 9 From Outer Space. Without uninterrupted funding, warned the secretary, some of the “government activities vital to homeland security and public safety” that might be affected included “new communications equipment for over 80 public safety agencies in the Los Angeles area to replace aging and incompatible radio systems,” “fifteen mobile command centers for possible catastrophic incidents in the state of Kentucky,” and “bomb squads in the state of Idaho.” My God, where have our priorities as a nation gone? Come Friday, Pocatello is a sitting duck.

The current funding situation is the product of an impasse stemming from Obama’s executive action, issued last November, temporarily expanding the number of illegal immigrants protected from deportation proceedings. The Migration Policy Institute figures about 3.7 million illegals (out of a total of around 11 million) would be protected by the action. That move didn’t sit well with Republicans in Congress, who passed a continuing resolution that pointedly left out full funding for DHS until this year, when they would control majorities in the House and the Senate.

How any of this will play out is anybody’s guess, especially since a federal judge in Texas has at least temporarily blocked Obama’s plan and it’s far from clear that the administration’s legal appeals will prove successful.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has tried his damnedest to force reluctant Democrats to vote yes or no on the president’s immigration action before any sort of DHS funding bill hits the floor. Perhaps mindful of those “fifteen mobile command centers” for Kentucky hanging in the balance, it seems as if McConnell has “thrown in the towel” on the cause even if House Republicans are ready to hang tough.

Such hijinks may well be smart—or dumb—politics, but they distract from a far more important and serious question: Why do we even have a Department of Homeland Security in the first place?

Created in 2002 in the mad crush of panic, paranoia, and patriotic pants-wetting after the 9/11 attacks, DHS has always been a stupid idea. Even at the time, creating a new cabinet-level department responsible for 22 different agencies and services was suspect. Exactly how was adding a new layer of bureaucracy supposed to make us safer (and that’s leaving aside the question of just what the hell “homeland security” actually means)? DHS leaders answer to no fewer than 90 congressional committees and subcommittees that oversee the department’s various functions. Good luck with all that.

But don’t feel sorry for the shmoes running DHS. Over the last decade, the budget for DHS has doubled (to $54 billion in 2014) even as its reputation for general mismanagement, wasteful spending, and civil liberties abuses flourishes. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) routinely lists DHS on its “high risk” list of badly run outfits and surveys of federal workers have concluded “that DHS is the worst department to work for in the government,” writes Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute. He also notes, a “Washington Post investigation found that many DHS employees say they have ‘a dysfunctional work environment’ with ‘abysmal morale.’” Somewhere, the Postmaster General is pumping his fist.

It only gets worse when you look at the sheer amount of junk DHS spends money on. The Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), for instance, built 21 homes for agents in a remote part of Arizona. The price tag was $680,000 per house in a part of the country where the average home sold for less than $90,000. When the TSA isn’t hiring defrocked, child-molesting priests, Edwards notes that it is shelling out hundreds of millions of dollars on radiation detectors for cargo containers that don’t work and full-body airport scanners without bothering to “perform a cost-benefit analysis…before rolling them out nationwide.”

And while the spooks at the National Security Agency and other intelligence and law-enforcement agencies get most of the ink when it comes to imperiling civil liberties, DHS is more than holding its own. It administers “fusion centers,” which pull together all sorts of legal, semi-legal, and flatly illegal surveillance methods of citizens by state and local police.

A 2012 investigation by the Senate’s Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs found that fusion centers trafficked in “oftentimes shoddy, rarely timely [information, while] sometimes endangering citizens’ civil liberties and Privacy Act protections.” The material collected was “more often than not unrelated to terrorism.” On the upside, as my Reason colleague Jesse Walker noted, the report found “some of the fusion centers touted by the Department of Homeland Security do not, in fact, exist.”

With all this in mind, it would be better for Congress and the president to focus less on two-bit political wrangling over this or that part of DHS funding and more on heaving the whole department into the dustbin. From a politician’s point of view, that might indeed mean fewer dollars being spent in your state right now, but you’d also be repaid in full with votes of grateful citizens from all over the place.

By Michael Snyder

Are you a conservative, a libertarian, a Christian or a gun owner?  Are you opposed to abortion, globalism, Communism, illegal immigration, the United Nations or the New World Order?  Do you believe in conspiracy theories, do you believe that we are living in the “end times” or do you ever visit alternative news websites (such as this one)?

If you answered yes to any of those questions, you are a “potential terrorist” according to official U.S. government documents.

At one time, the term “terrorist” was used very narrowly.  The government applied that label to people like Osama bin Laden and other Islamic jihadists.  But now the Obama administration is removing all references to Islam from terror training materials, and instead the term “terrorist” is being applied to large groups of American citizens.

And if you are a “terrorist”, that means that you have no rights and the government can treat you just like it treats the terrorists that are being held at Guantanamo Bay.  So if you belong to a group of people that is now being referred to as “potential terrorists”, please don’t take it as a joke.  The first step to persecuting any group of people is to demonize them.  And right now large groups of peaceful, law-abiding citizens are being ruthlessly demonized.

Below is a list of 72 types of Americans that are considered to be “extremists” and “potential terrorists” in official U.S. government documents.  To see the original source document for each point, just click on the link.  As you can see, this list covers most of the country…

1. Those that talk about “individual liberties”
2. Those that advocate for states’ rights
3. Those that want “to make the world a better place”
4. “The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule”
5. Those that are interested in “defeating the Communists”
6. Those that believe “that the interests of one’s own nation are separate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations”
7. Anyone that holds a “political ideology that considers the state to be unnecessary, harmful,or undesirable”
8. Anyone that possesses an “intolerance toward other religions”
9. Those that “take action to fight against the exploitation of the environment and/or animals”
10. “Anti-Gay”
11. “Anti-Immigrant”
12. “Anti-Muslim”
13. “The Patriot Movement”
14. “Opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians”
15. Members of the Family Research Council
16. Members of the American Family Association
17. Those that believe that Mexico, Canada and the United States “are secretly planning to merge into a European Union-like entity that will be known as the ‘North American Union’”
18. Members of the American Border Patrol/American Patrol
19. Members of the Federation for American Immigration Reform
20. Members of the Tennessee Freedom Coalition
21. Members of the Christian Action Network
22. Anyone that is “opposed to the New World Order”
23. Anyone that is engaged in “conspiracy theorizing”
24. Anyone that is opposed to Agenda 21
25. Anyone that is concerned about FEMA camps
26. Anyone that “fears impending gun control or weapons confiscations”
27. The militia movement
28. The sovereign citizen movement
29. Those that “don’t think they should have to pay taxes”
30. Anyone that “complains about bias”
31. Anyone that “believes in government conspiracies to the point of paranoia”
32. Anyone that “is frustrated with mainstream ideologies”
33. Anyone that “visits extremist websites/blogs”
34. Anyone that “establishes website/blog to display extremist views”
35. Anyone that “attends rallies for extremist causes”
36. Anyone that “exhibits extreme religious intolerance”
37. Anyone that “is personally connected with a grievance”
38. Anyone that “suddenly acquires weapons”
39. Anyone that “organizes protests inspired by extremist ideology”
40. “Militia or unorganized militia”
41. “General right-wing extremist”
42. Citizens that have “bumper stickers” that are patriotic or anti-U.N.
43. Those that refer to an “Army of God”
44. Those that are “fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)”
45. Those that are “anti-global”
46. Those that are “suspicious of centralized federal authority”
47. Those that are “reverent of individual liberty”
48. Those that “believe in conspiracy theories”
49. Those that have “a belief that one’s personal and/or national ‘way of life’ is under attack”
50. Those that possess “a belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism”
51. Those that would “impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists)”
52. Those that would “insert religion into the political sphere”
53. Anyone that would “seek to politicize religion”
54. Those that have “supported political movements for autonomy”
55. Anyone that is “anti-abortion”
56. Anyone that is “anti-Catholic”
57. Anyone that is “anti-nuclear”
58. “Rightwing extremists”
59. “Returning veterans”
60. Those concerned about “illegal immigration”
61. Those that “believe in the right to bear arms”
62. Anyone that is engaged in “ammunition stockpiling”
63. Anyone that exhibits “fear of Communist regimes”
64. “Anti-abortion activists”
65. Those that are against illegal immigration
66. Those that talk about “the New World Order” in a “derogatory” manner
67. Those that have a negative view of the United Nations
68. Those that are opposed “to the collection of federal income taxes”
69. Those that supported former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr
70. Those that display the Gadsden Flag (“Don’t Tread On Me”)
71. Those that believe in “end times” prophecies
72. Evangelical Christians

The groups of people in the list above are considered “problems” that need to be dealt with.  In some of the documents referenced above, members of the military are specifically warned not to have anything to do with such groups.

We are moving into a very dangerous time in American history.  You can now be considered a “potential terrorist” just because of your religious or political beliefs.  Free speech is becoming a thing of the past, and we are rapidly becoming an Orwellian society that is the exact opposite of what our founding fathers intended.

Please pray for the United States of America.  We definitely need it.

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-72-types-of-americans-that-are.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+DougRossJournal+%28Doug+Ross+@+Journal%29