http-equiv='refresh'/> Consfearacynewz

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Deaf Three-Year-Old Not Allowed to Sign His Name - Violates Weapons Policy

Deaf Three-Year-Old Not Allowed to Sign His Name Because It Violates Preschool’s Weapons Policy
28 August 2012
, by Neetzan Zimmerman (Gawker)
http://gawker.com/5938542/deaf-three+year+old-not-allowed-to-sign-his-name-because-it-violates-preschools-weapons-policy
 
Well... let's take a look and see what other letters have to be banned from American Sign Language...

Clearly, the letter "H" is a terrorist hand signal... little Hunter better change his name.

 

DHS Source " It's Going Hot" False Flag Threat

“It’s going hot.” Those were the ominous opening and closing words from my source inside the Department of Homeland Security in two separate contacts we had within the last 72 hours. Readers to this website and listeners to my radio program know this source as “Rosebud,” a source with access to high levels within the DHS administration.

Readers of this website and listeners to my radio program are familiar with this DHS insider from previous leaks detailing alleged plans by members of the Obama administration to keep him in power beyond the 2012 elections.  One could argue that any person of reasonable sensibilities would certainly find this a delusional prospect and tinfoil hat conspiracy nonsense. After all, we have a Constitution, or what’s left of it, that dictates our election process, at least for now. As such, one might logically ask how any sane person can even entertain the prospect of not having normal elections in November.

I would feel the same, and did so as well until the last few years. Today, things are much different than they were four years ago, or even last year at this time. Judi McLeod, award-winning founder and editor of Canada Free Press and not one to succumb to delusion or fantasy, points this out and provides a solid foundation for this possibility in her column published on August 27, 2012 titled “Staged crisis leading to suspended elections could happen on our watch.” What a difference four years can make.

For the purpose of full disclosure, I must note that what follows is a compilation of the information I obtained from my source from two separate contacts within a 72 hour period. Both contacts have been assembled into a single “conversation” for easier reading. None of the information has been changed or otherwise edited.

New information from DHS source

According to my well-placed source within the DHS apparatus, what amounts to a final authorization was reportedly given to DHS directly from the White House. A “go signal” if you will.

“It’s going hot. The plan, or whatever specific operation that was devised, is going hot, being put into motion. You’ve got to let people know that something is up, approval has been given, and unless somebody stops it, we’re going to have a staged event inside the U.S., and it’s being set up so that it gets real ugly real fast.” Obviously, I asked for clarification and more details.

“Look, I’ll tell you everything I know, what I’ve heard and seen, and some of what I’ve been told, but you’ve got to get this public. Even then, I’m not sure we know enough about the specific operational details, have enough time, or have the ability to overcome the characterizations of lunacy they’re going to throw at you, at us, for even talking about this. I’ve heard you talk about the ‘normalcy bias’ of most Americans, and that’s part of what we’re fighting. Look at what they did to you and the content of last information I gave to you. It was like that pass a secret game in first grade, you know, where one student whispers something in the ear of the kid next to him and it’s passed around the room until it gets to the last student. By that time, it’s nothing like the original ‘secret.’ It’s the lesson kids learn about spreading gossip. There was some state representative from Tennessee that sent out a mass e-mail of a screwed up version of what you wrote and then later retracted it,” he stated.

I reminded him that it was Tennessee State Representative Kelly Keisling who sent an e-mail to his constituents based on what amounted to third-hand information he read on the Internet. It centered around an alleged fake assassination attempt, something I never wrote, I told him. “Yes, that’s it. Didn’t you find the timing of that odd? I mean, the information I gave you was back in late April. When did Keisling send that e-mail and then make his very public retraction? Two or three weeks ago? Give me a break. They wanted to discredit you and anyone who makes public their intentions as bad as they want to know where the leaks are coming from,” he stated. “Believe me when I tell you they are desperate on a number of levels.”

My source continued: “Don’t think for one second that the sudden resurrection of the information, as incorrect as it was by that state rep, was an accident, because it wasn’t,” he replied. “Maybe the rep was played and clueless to the original story, but the way the story was managed after the fact made you look like a fool, like a real nutcase,” he said. I thanked him for the reminder.

“That’s their playbook,” he emphasized. “[Glenn] Beck, you on CFP, your show and others who talk about Alinksy tactics are right. Remember, Alinsky when he wrote that ridicule is the most potent weapon, and there is no defense because it irrational and infuriating. Trust me when I tell you that you are going to get hit hard and called crazy, this time with much greater intensity. Expect it the closer we get to the end game. But, pay attention to who is exploiting the false rumors, and you’ll get an idea who is behind the larger agenda,” he added.

I asked my source for details. “What exactly is the plan? Can you give me specific details? How do you know about this plan ‘going hot?’”

“Okay, from what I’ve been able to learn, there have been a couple different plans or scenarios developed, ready to be implemented at a moment’s notice, but each are distinctly different in nature and timing.” stated my source. “This is done for a few reasons. Look how the weather changed the plans for [Vice-President Joe] Biden’s visit to Tampa. That’s just one example. They’ve got contingencies. They are watching the poll numbers. They are closely monitoring public sentiment. But the objective of the plan is that they want to portray Obama as a victim of racist hatred by the white gun owners, the people concerned about the Constitution, the people they consider fringe. They want to silence their critics, prove that talk show hosts are causing hatred, and that all gun owners are behind the recent shootings. That’s at the heart of the plan. But to understand just how insidious this is, you’ve got to understand the people who are behind it.”

Nero in the White House, Caligula at the DHS

My source continued, “I’ve been trying to get as much information as possible, but it’s not been easy. This is definitely a plan that has its origins at the highest levels of the White House, and seems limited to maybe a handful of the people closest to Obama. The only reason I know about this authorization order, or approval, or whatever you want to call it, is that there was a major slip up at the very upper level of DHS, and I mean the very upper level” he stated.

“Remember the news about sexual harassment, intimidation and all of the garbage that’s gone on between the people Napolitano brought in and promoted due to their ‘lifestyle’ preferences? These are some sick people, mental rapists and perverts, who she’s brought in to her innermost circle. They make Caligula look like a boy scout, at least with power and sex. Well, one of those people, close to Napolitano, was involved in a meeting where the concept and approval of a false flag was being discussed.”

“This is where they almost lost it. You’ve got to understand that this whole thing is very compartmentalized and we’re talking about a very small group of people in this meeting. This person knew some of the information, not all of it, and let some information slip to a counterpart. That counterpart, who found herself involved in a situation way over her head, talked. I won’t go any further, but that’s how I ended up learning the latest information,” said my source. “Now you should have an idea of how this slipped out. But they had a quick handle on damage control, given the circumstances behind the disclosure. Potentially embarrassing circumstances, sexual blackmail” he added.

I asked my source whether DHS is involved in the actual planning or staging of the event. In response, this source stated that Janet Napolitano and her closest aides are playing a supporting role. ” She has to be involved because she has to control the response to a staged event. She’s involved to coordinate and implement the clampdown, after the fact. She does what she’s told. From everything I’ve heard, I believe the plans come from Valerie Jarrett and possibly a close friend and Obama associate who has a very big stake in Obama’s re-election.”

“What happens and when it happens depends on the events of the next sixty days. If it appears that Obama does not have a lock on the next four years to finish what he started, what he has been told to do, then watch for it ‘going hot.’”

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/49107
 You can see the plot thickening with this dubious headline:

U.S. Soldiers Committed Murders, Stockpiled Guns And Bomb Materials, In Plot To Assassinate Obama And Overthrow Government
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/08/prosecutors-us-soldiers-plotted-kill-president-obama/56238/


Staged crisis leading to suspended elections could happen on our watch

The closer America gets to Election Day, the more some worry about the possibility of there not being one.

Obama is smiling all the way through the polls, and it may not merely be whistling past the cemetery this time.

The fear of Obama suspending elections came long before the presidential election campaign officially began.  It was almost one year ago when North Carolina Governor Bev Perdue made suspended elections an idea whose time has come.

“I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won’t hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover,” Gov. Perdue, a Democrat said, according to a report by the Raleigh News & Observer.  “You want people who don’t worry about the next election.” (Fox News, Sept. 27, 2011).

The trial balloon for Obama’s suspension of elections had been sent up overnight.

When public outrage followed Perdue’s ‘suggestion’, her staff quickly issued a statement suggesting she wasn’t really calling for suspension of elections.

“Governor Perdue was obviously using hyperbole to highlight what we can all agree is a serious problem: Washington politicians who focus on their own election instead of what’s best for the people they serve,” a spokesman said.

Canada Free Press (CFP) believes that Perdue, who is suiting herself and not running for re-election this time out, was the first person to give oxygen to the idea of Obama suspending elections.

You do not have to be in the Conspiracy Camp to worry that something is amiss in this Election.  It is not as the media is presenting it, just an election like any other with the Repubs and Dems dragging out skeletons and leaving them for all to see out on the campaign trail.

Occupy Wall Street (OWS), Code Pink, turned out in get-ups depicting their own nether regions,  and the other far left riffraff will be out there today protesting the Republican National Convention (RNC).

It’s not spontaneous but is all part of the White Noise orchestrated and overseen by the Hollywood creative equipped-White House Marxists.

Sure,  progressives have done this before and have even been part of every election campaign counting back decades.

But the significant big difference this time is that they’re playing for keeps.

What kind of crisis will the Obama Team exploit to impose martial law and suspend the 2012 Election?

Any staged crisis will do.  It’s not really the crisis they need but only the perception of one.

The game plan is already in play and God only knows where it will end.

You can see the game plan clearly in the Aug. 18 released DVD “The Hunger Games” in a movie highlighting the so called “evils” of American capitalism and the horrors of life under the Bush Regime.

While the masses are worried about the every day horror of Marxist Obama, progressives haven’t weaned their sorry selves off the Blame Bush mentality.

Canadian actor Donald Sutherland, who stars as Dictator President Snow in the movie, takes advantage of his appearance in the special features section to come out and heap praise on the Occupy Wall Street movement—to declare that it’s “absolutely time” for a revolution.

Sutherland even goes on to predict the Occupy movement will produce a “leader” for the upcoming revolution.

“(The Hunger Games) so clearly and carefully echoes (today).  I think the people with Occupy Wall Street and Occupy L.A., out of those people will come a leader.  It has to.  It’s time, it’s absolutely time.” (CNS News, Aug. 24, 2012)

Interesting to note that Donald Sutherland isn’t just another Pretty Boy George Clooney type.  His second of three wives was Shirley Douglas, the daughter of Tommy Douglas, Father of Canada’s socialized medicine, among other things.

In a revolutionary-bound world, there’s always Hollywood. Even as the same people who pay to see their movies suffer in Marxist misery, Hollywood is still there providing most of the Obama regime props.

The perception of overnight ‘grassroots’ insurrection will go down without a glitch.  Obama controls both the mainstream media and the social media.

Not as commonly known is that Obama also controls the fake grassroots protest movement known as OWS.

For nearly four long years he’s built an army “as well trained and well equipped as the U.S. military”.

This is how the staged ‘crisis’ that leads to suspended elections could happen:  Overnight in late-October,  progressive activists will cause a ruckus aimed to shut down major American cities, including Washington, DC and New York.  A thousand protesters will manage to hold these urban centers hostage—but you can bet the family farm that the media will present them as hundreds of thousands heading towards millions.

Protesters will storm private homes frightening their inhabitants.

When things are at their very worst,  Obama calling for calm will appear over every television network and send out a message over cell phones telling Americans that he—and only he—has their backs covered.  Obama will then reveal that for he sake of Public Safety he has no choice but to suspend elections.

All Obama really needs to deliver the evil deed is Hollywood/media crafted perception.

If Obama is not guaranteed that cheating will win him reelection, the staged crisis to suspend elections will happen on our watch.  And it is integral to the success of the progressives, that no one from our watch will ever be able to prove it happened.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/49082

Russian Expert Predicts Obama Will Declare Martial Law in America by End of 2012

Igor Panarin, dean of the Russian Foreign Ministry School for future diplomats, believes that President Obama will announce martial law by the end of 2012. He explains: “There’s a 55-45% chance right now that disintegration will occur.”

In 2009, Panarin lectured at the Diplomatic Academy where he said that he believed that the US will begin to collapse in 2010. He compared America to Nazi Germany and blamed the US for the global financial crisis that destroyed the Russian economy.

Panarin said that American society is in decline, referencing school shootings like Columbine. Combined with the banker bailouts in 2008 as proof that the US is no longer the global dominating economy, Paranrin believes that the American dream is over.

He asserts that mass immigration, economic decline and moral degradation will plunge America into a civil war that will center on the collapse of the US dollar.

Panarin created a map [below] of how he perceived the US would divide. He asserted that parts of the US would be taken over by foreign interests.
Considering the social climate emerging in America, Panarin’s words seem prophetic.


Yesterday, Lubbock County Judge Tom Head said on a local FOX affiliate station that he is convinced that Obama’s re-election would spawn civil unrest which would justify the US government’s use of martial law to quell the public. Head is seeking an increase in local taxes to “beef up” the Lubbock County Sheriff’s office and district attorney’s office.


Head expressed concern that Obama would deploy UN NATO troops onto US soil should civil unrest be declared. Head said:

    He’s going to try to hand over the sovereignty of the U.S. to the United Nations, what’s going to happen when that happens? I’m thinking worst case scenario. Civil unrest, civil disobedience, civil war maybe…we’re not just talking a few riots or demonstrations.


In March of 2012, Obama signed the National Defense Resources Preparedness (NDRP) executive order that declared peacetime marital law. Obama granted himself authority over all domestic energy, production, transportation, food and water in the name of National Security.

The NDRP has roots in the Defense Production Act of 1950 wherein the US government was empowered to dispense “national resources” in the event of a national emergency that would define any or all Americans as a challenge to the government. Control over all US citizens would be required to maintain continuity of government. The president and advisors would be able to use this directive as they saw fit if the situation warranted.

It was no mistake that the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) declared the domestic US a “battlefield”. The ability to detain any American citizen without charge or trial, solely on suspicion is key to the power of the NDAA.

As defined in the NDRP, the President allocated control over American resources to specific federal agencies to oversee their dispensation.

    The Secretary of Defense has power over all water resources.
    The Secretary of Commerce has power over all material services and facilities, including construction materials.
    The Secretary of Transportation has power over all forms of civilian transportation.
    The Secretary of Agriculture has power over food resources and facilities, livestock plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment.
    The Secretary of Health and Human Services has power over all health resources.
    The Secretary of Energy has power over all forms of energy.


Under Nazi-controlled Germany, the beginning of Totalitarian control was evidenced in May of 1942 when freezing of food prices led to national rationing in 1943. With the Nazis controlling resource dispersion, all citizens needed ration cards to obtain food, gas, and even a vacation pass that allotted the restriction of movement.

Between the NDAA and NDRP, a Nazi-model of control over the general population in America is laid out. The Executive Branch, having been given the power to control all resources that are necessary to sustain all citizens, they have forced Americans to become completely subservient to the US government.

The executive order is not permitted by the US Constitution that states:

    All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

The advent of executive orders completely circumvents the power of the Congress and gives the Executive Branch unilateral power. The use of executive orders has become popular as a way to control America in wartime and the advent of national emergencies.

Obama has set a precedent by announcing the pre-cursor to suspension of the US Constitution during peacetime.

The first suspension of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights was performed by Abraham Lincoln during the US Civil War. This enabled Lincoln to authorize the unlawful detainment of “political prisoners” without Congressional approval.

The second declaration of unconstitutional detainment of US citizens was ordered by President FDR in 1941 with the roundup of Japanese-Americans who were sent to detainment camps to be held without charge during WWII.

For the past 30 years, plans for the takeover of America have been laid in a long line of executive orders. By stifling Congressional approval, the Executive Branch has been empowered to detain any and all US citizens, suspend all media and restrict any and all Americans in any and all ways deemed appropriate by the President.

We are in the midst of a Fascist takeover of our Constitutional Republic.

http://www.activistpost.com/2012/08/russian-expert-predicts-obama-will.html

If you didn't realize America no longer exists yet, you will after reading this


http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/08/administrative-subpoenas/

We Don’t Need No Stinking Warrant: The Disturbing, Unchecked Rise of the Administrative Subpoena
BY DAVID KRAVETS


When Golden Valley Electric Association of rural Alaska got an administrative subpoena from the Drug Enforcement Administration in December 2010 seeking electricity bill information on three customers, the company did what it usually does with subpoenas — it ignored them.

That’s the association’s customer privacy policy, because administrative subpoenas aren’t approved by a judge.

But by law, utilities must hand over customer records — which include any billing and payment information, phone numbers and power consumption data — to the DEA without court warrants if drug agents believe the data is “relevant” to an investigation. So the utility eventually complied, after losing a legal fight earlier this month.

Meet the administrative subpoena (.pdf): With a federal official’s signature, banks, hospitals, bookstores, telecommunications companies and even utilities and internet service providers — virtually all businesses — are required to hand over sensitive data on individuals or corporations, as long as a government agent declares the information is relevant to an investigation. Via a wide range of laws, Congress has authorized the government to bypass the Fourth Amendment — the constitutional guard against unreasonable searches and seizures that requires a probable-cause warrant signed by a judge.

In fact, there are roughly 335 federal statutes on the books (.pdf) passed by Congress giving dozens upon dozens of federal agencies the power of the administrative subpoena, according to interviews and government reports. (.pdf)

“I think this is out of control. What has happened is, unfortunately, these statutes have been on the books for many, many years and the courts have acquiesced,” said Joe Evans, the utility’s attorney.


Anecdotal evidence suggests that federal officials from a broad spectrum of government agencies issue them hundreds of thousands of times annually. But none of the agencies are required to disclose fully how often they utilize them — meaning there is little, if any, oversight of this tactic that’s increasingly used in the war on drugs, the war on terror and, seemingly, the war on Americans’ constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable government trespass into their lives.

That’s despite proof that FBI agents given such powers under the Patriot Act quickly began to abuse them and illegally collected Americans’ communications records, including those of reporters. Two scathing reports from the Justice Department’s Inspector General uncovered routine and pervasive illegal use of administrative subpoenas by FBI anti-terrorism agents given nearly carte blanche authority to demand records about Americans’ communications with no supervision.

When the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, perhaps the nation’s most liberal appeals court based in San Francisco, ordered Golden Valley to fork over the data earlier this month, the court said the case was “easily” decided because the records were “relevant” to a government drug investigation.

With the data the Alaska utility handed over, the DEA may then use further administrative subpoenas to acquire the suspected indoor-dope growers’ phone records, stored e-mails, and perhaps credit-card purchasing histories — all to build a case to acquire a probable-cause warrant to physically search their homes and businesses.

But the administrative subpoena doesn’t just apply to utility records and drug cases. Congress has spread the authority across a huge swath of the U.S. government, for investigating everything from hazardous waste disposal, the environment, atomic energy, child exploitation, food stamp fraud, medical insurance fraud, terrorism, securities violations, satellites, seals, student loans, and for breaches of dozens of laws pertaining to fruits, vegetables, livestock and crops.

Not one of the government agencies with some of the broadest administrative subpoena powers Wired contacted, including the departments of Commerce, Energy, Agriculture, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the FBI, would voluntarily hand over data detailing how often they issued administrative subpoenas.

The Drug Enforcement Administration obtained the power under the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 and is believed to be among the biggest issuers of administrative subpoenas.

“It’s a tool in the toolbox we have to build a drug investigation. Obviously, a much, much lower threshold than a search warrant,” said Lawrence Payne, a DEA spokesman, referring to the administrative subpoena generically. Payne declined to discuss individual cases.

Payne said in a telephone interview that no database was kept on the number of administrative subpoenas the DEA issued.

But in 2006, Ava Cooper Davis, the DEA’s deputy assistant administrator, told a congressional hearing, “The administrative subpoena must have a DEA case file number, be signed by the investigator’s supervisor, and be given a sequential number for recording in a log book or computer database so that a particular field office can track and account for any administrative subpoenas issued by that office.”

After being shown Davis’ statement, Payne then told Wired to send in a Freedom of Information Act request, as did some of the local DEA offices we contacted, if they got back to us at all. “Would suggest a FOIA request to see whether you can get a number of administrative subpoenas. Our databases have changed over the years as far as how things are tracked and we don’t have access to those in public affairs unfortunately,” Payne said in an e-mail.

He said the agency has “never” been asked how many times it issued administrative subpoenas.

Amy Baggio, a Portland, Oregon federal public defender representing drug defendants for a decade, said DEA agents “use these like a doctor’s prescription pad on their desk.” Sometimes, she said, they issue “hundreds upon hundreds of them” for a single prosecution — often targeting mobile phone records.

“They are using them exponentially more in all types of federal criminal investigations. I’m seeing them in every drug case now,” Baggio said. “Nobody is watching what they are doing. I perceive a complete lack of oversight because there isn’t any required.”

A typical DEA investigation might start with an informant or an arrested dealer suspected of drug trafficking, she said. The authorities will use an administrative subpoena to get that target’s phone records — logs of the incoming and outgoing calls — and text-message logs of the numbers of incoming and outgoing texts. Then the DEA will administratively subpoena that same information for the phone numbers disclosed from the original subpoena, and so on, she said.

Often, Baggio said, the records not only show incoming and outgoing communications, they also highlight the mobile towers a phone pinged when performing that communication.

“Then they try to make a connection for drug activity and they do that again and again,” Baggio said. “They used a subpoena to know that my client used a phone up in Canada, but he said he was playing soccer with his kids in Salem.” That client is doing 11 years on drug trafficking charges, thanks to an investigation, Baggio said, that commenced with the use of administrative subpoenas.

The FBI was as tight-lipped as the DEA about the number of administrative subpoenas it issues.

Susan McKee, an FBI spokeswoman, suggested that some of the bureau’s figures for how many administrative subpoenas it has issued, for as many years back as possible, “may be classified.”

In a follow-up e-mail, McKee offered the same advice as the DEA.

“I am sorry the statistics you are looking for are not readily available. I would suggest that you explore the FOIA process,” she said.

If all of those statistics are classified, that would be very odd. The FBI is required to report annually how often they use the terrorism and espionage-specific administrative subpoenas known as National Security Letters to target Americans.

In all, the bureau has reported issuing 290,000 National Security Letters directed at Americans in the past decade.

But those aimed at foreigners are not required to be accounted for publicly. Likewise, FBI anti-terrorism requests for subscriber information — the name and phone numbers associated with phone, e-mail or Twitter accounts for example, aren’t included in that tally either, regardless if the account holder is an American or foreigner.

All of which means that, even in the one instance where public reporting is required of administrative subpoenas, the numbers are massively under-reported, according to Michelle Richardson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.

“I think it’s ridiculous they won’t release the real numbers,” she said. Richardson speculated that the government has “something to hide.”

Some of the stranger statutes authorizing administrative subpoenas involve the Agriculture Department’s power to investigate breaches of the Floral Research and Consumer Information Act and the Fresh Cut Flowers and Fresh Cut Greens Promotion and Information Act. The Commerce Department has administrative subpoena power for enforcing laws relating to the Atlantic tuna and the Northern Pacific halibut. It also has those powers when it comes to enforcing the National Weather Modification Act of 1976, requiring “any person to submit a report before, during, or after that person may engage in any weather modification attempt or activity.”

In a 2002 government report, the Commerce Department said it had not used its administrative subpoena powers to enforce the National Weather Modification Act “in the recent past.” (.pdf) Susan Horowitz, a Commerce Department spokeswoman, urged Wired to send in a FOIA in a bid to obtain data surrounding how often it issues administrative subpoenas.

Lacking in all of these administrative subpoenas is Fourth Amendment scrutiny — in other words, judicial oversight. That’s because probable cause — the warrant standard — does not apply to the administrative subpoena. Often, the receiving party is gagged from disclosing them to the actual targets, who could, if notified, ask a judge to quash it.

And even when they are challenged in court, judges defer to Congress — the Fourth Amendment notwithstanding.

In one seminal case on the power of the administrative subpoena, the Supreme Court in 1950 instructed the lower courts that the subpoenas should not be quashed if “the inquiry is within the authority of the agency, the demand is not too indefinite and the information sought is reasonably relevant.”

In the mobile age, one of the biggest targets of the administrative subpoena appears to be the cellphone. AT&T, the nation’s second-largest mobile carrier, replied to a congressional inquiry in May that it had received 63,100 subpoenas for customer information in 2007. That more than doubled to 131,400 last year. (AT&T did not say whether any of the subpoenas were issued by a grand jury. AT&T declined to elaborate on the figures.)

By contrast, AT&T reported 36,900 court orders for subscriber data in 2007. That number grew to 49,700 court orders last year, a growth rate that’s anemic compared to the doubling of subpoenas in the same period.

In all, the nation’s mobile carriers reported that they responded to 1.3 million requests last year for subscriber information. Other than AT&T, most of the figures that the nine mobile carriers reported did not directly break down the numbers between warrants and subpoenas.

In a letter to Rep. Edward Markey (D-Massachusetts), AT&T said it usually always positively responds to subpoenas except when “law enforcement may attempt to obtain information using a subpoena when a court order is required.” While there is much confusion as to when a court order is needed, they are generally required for wiretapping and sometimes for ongoing locational data.

Markey’s office did not respond for comment.

Many, including Baggio, charge that the government’s use of administrative subpoenas is often nothing less than a “fishing expedition.” And the courts don’t seem to mind.

In the Golden Valley case, the San Francisco federal appeals court said the outcome was a no-brainer, that Congress had spoken.

“We easily conclude that power consumption records at the three customer residences satisfy the relevance standard for the issuance of an administrative subpoena in a drug investigation,” the court ruled.

The decision seemingly trumps a Supreme Court ruling in 2001 that the authorities must obtain search warrants to employ thermal-imaging devices to detect indoor marijuana growing operations. Ironically, the justices ruled that the imaging devices, used outside a house, carry the potential to “shrink the realm of guaranteed privacy.”

Rewind to 1996, when the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the drug-trafficking conviction of a man arrested aboard an Amtrak train in December 1993. A DEA agent issued an administrative subpoena demanding Amtrak hand over passenger lists and reservations for trains stopping in Albuquerque, New Mexico, where the agent was based.

The agent reviewed the reservation information looking for passengers who paid cash, booked sleeping cars, and purchased tickets on the day of departure, “all of which in his experience suggested possible drug trafficking,” the appeals court said, in upholding the challenged subpoena.

Hilman Moffett was found to be carrying 162 pounds of baled marijuana in his luggage.

In one high-profile case, the Securities and Exchange Commission used the administrative subpoena power to help unwind the Enron financial scandal in 2003.

And a decade ago, the Justice Department used administrative subpoenas to investigate a Cleveland, Ohio, podiatrist for an alleged kickback scheme with two medical testing labs. The subpoenas sought the doctor’s professional journals, copies of his and his children’s bank and financial records, files of patients who were referred to the labs in question, and his tax returns.

In another example, a judge sided with the Commodities Futures Trading Commission in 2007, ordering publisher McGraw-Hill to turn over documents concerning data used in one of its publications to calculate the price of natural gas as part of the government’s probe into a price-manipulation scandal.

Records obtained by a federal agency don’t have to stay with that agency or be destroyed, either. Some of them may be transferred to other agencies if “there is reason to believe that the records are relevant to a legitimate law enforcement inquiry of the receiving agency,” according to a Justice Department Criminal Resource Manual.

The records can be transferred to state agencies, too.

But the states may not need the federal government’s assistance. They have an undetermined number of statutes authorizing the issuance of their own administrative subpoenas. For instance, most every state has that authority when it comes to investigating child-support cases. (.pdf)

Consider the Boston case in which Suffolk County District Attorney Daniel Conley issued an administrative subpoena in December demanding “subscriber information” for several alleged members of Anonymous as part of an investigation into who sabotaged Boston police’s website and released officers’ e-mails.

A Suffolk County judge in February sided with Conley’s administrative subpoena that ordered Twitter to hand over IP addresses of accounts identified as “Guido Fawkes,” “@p0isAn0N,” and “@OccupyBoston.”

Christopher Slobogin, a Vanderbilt Law School scholar who has written extensively on administrative subpoenas, said the power of the administrative subpoena was born at the turn of the 20th century, when the U.S. began developing the regulatory state.

Administrative subpoenas initially passed court muster since they were used by agencies to get records from companies to prosecute unlawful business practices, he said. Corporations weren’t thought to have the same privacy rights as individuals, and administrative subpoenas weren’t supposed to be used to get at private papers.

When the Supreme Court upheld that the Federal Trade Commission’s administrative subpoena of internal tobacco company records in 1924, Justice Wendell Holmes limited the power to companies, writing that anyone “who respects the spirit as well as the letter of the Fourth Amendment would be loath to believe that Congress intended to authorize one of its subordinate agencies to sweep all our traditions into the fire and to direct fishing expeditions into private papers.”

But times have changed.

“In some ways, they were a good thing if you were liberal,” Slobogin said of the administrative subpoena. “But they have migrated from corrupt businesses to people suspected of crime. They are fishing expeditions when there is no probable cause for a warrant.”

The Govt WANTS you to depend on them so they can CONTROL you

Feds: Too few Americans ‘turn to government for assistance’

One second were feeders and breeders who rely on Government to much and now they say were not dependent enough, I can't believe I'm about to type what I am about to say but screw it !~

There is only one way this insanity will stop.. Washington DC along with Wall Street falls in the ocean and every politician, lobbyist and banker are there when it happens.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/feds-too-few-americans-turn-to-government-for-assistance/article/2506052#.UDvYMKOQn4a
Quote
More Americans rely on their families for assistance than the government, so federal officials have undertaken an effort to help people to apply for federal assistance.

“Given that only 15 percent of you turn to government assistance in tough times, we want to make sure you know about benefits that could help you,” USA.gov announced today. The ”government made easy’ website has  created a “help for difficult financial times” page for people to learn more about the programs.

The government got that statistic from a poll asking Americans what helps them the most during tough times. Here are the results:

    Savings 44%
    Family 21%
    Credit cards/loans 20%
    Government assistance 15%

“Government assistance comes in different forms—from unemployment checks and food assistance to credit counseling and medical treatment,” USA.gov reminded readers.

This leg of the financial assistance push has ended. “Although our campaign to highlight Help for Difficult Financial Times has ended, we know that your struggles may continue,” said USA.gov today. “We will keep updating the tools and information we provide to help you get back on your feet.”

http://www.usa.gov/citizen/topics/family/help-for-difficult-financial-times.shtml

All are dependent in some form or other now. You have the entire midwest running on Monsanto corn  farm subsidies for the favored large commune styled newer immigrants etc. Small farms that had the ability of self sufficiency are attacked. The independent car sales lot has its cars towed to the impound ad put out of business because the owner is claimed to have to many cars and is said to be doing actual (work) outside. A block up the street a favored commune person gets subsidised to rebuild an old store into empty retail space. You have people shuffling around government subside offices drugging Innocent children and everyone else they can get there hands on. You are dependent on living next to these people or at least over on the new war zone back shooting part of town that has been created for you. It is one poor way to have to live and the people shuffling around in the government subside medical offices etc. are not exactly the best of the human race who would somehow have gained the ability to determin who or what is possibly a superior human etc. 

Another list of real terrorists/anti-govt fascists who threaten the Constitution

I guess these pieces of trash didn't get the memo that 9/11 was an inside job.  Jesse Ventura should look into these people and pay them a visit in person on his next show.

http://www.hsaj.org/?board

Christopher Bellavita
Christopher Bellavita teaches in the Master’s Degree Program at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. An instructor with twenty years experience in security planning and operations, he serves as the director of academic programs for the Center for Homeland Defense and Security. Dr. Bellavita is the executive editor of Homeland Security Affairs, for which he authors “Changing Homeland Security.” He received his PhD from the University of California, Berkeley.

Richard Bergin
Richard Bergin is an adjunct assistant professor of information sciences at the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS). Over the past five years, Professor Bergin has been teaching full time for the Center of Homeland Defense and Security (CHDS). During this time, he has designed and implemented courses used in all CHDS programs. Prior to his academic assignments, Professor Bergin founded and acted as CEO of Internet Productions – a premier software applications development company that specialized in offering innovative e-commerce applications for the World Wide Web. He has an extensive background in operations and production management and has worked in the aerospace and inter-networking industries. Professor Bergin earned his bachelor degree in business administration and his master’s degree in both information and operations management from the University of Southern California. He is currently completing his PhD at NPS in the Information Sciences Department.

David Brannan
David Brannan lectures at the Naval Postgraduate School’s Center for Homeland Defense and Security. He served six months in Iraq as the director of security policy for the CPA/MOI, where he wrote or led the security policy initiatives for the Iraqi Police Service (IPS), Department of Border Enforcement (DBE), Facilities Protection Service (FPS), and the Iraqi Civil Defense Directorate. Prior to that, Dr. Brannan served as a political scientist for the RAND Corporation (from 2000 to 2005), working on areas related to terrorism, insurgency, and law enforcement with particular expertise related to domestic theologically-motivated political activism. He still contributes to RAND research on occasion as an adjunct political scientist and regularly publishes in academic journals, tactical journals, edited books, and government reports. Two recent publications include a primer for law enforcement, Preparing for Suicide Terrorism, and a chapter on left and rightwing terrorism in The Politics of Terrorism. Dr. Brannan holds a joint honours Master of Arts and PhD from the University of St. Andrews, Scotland.

Sharon Caudle
Sharon Caudle is the distinguished policymaker-in-residence at The Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University where she teaches core courses for public management and policy and international affairs graduate students and participates in the Integrative Center for Homeland Security. Prior to that position, she was an assistant director for homeland security with the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) Homeland Security and Justice Team specializing in homeland security strategic policy and management issues. Dr. Caudle has taught at The George Washington University, Auburn University, and Syracuse University in homeland security, public management, and information technology management. Dr. Caudle earned her master’s and doctorate degrees in public management from The George Washington University in Washington, DC and a master’s in homeland security and homeland defense from the School of International Studies, Naval Postgraduate School, in Monterey, CA.

Samuel H. Clovis, Jr.
Samuel H. Clovis, Jr. is a full professor and chair of the Department of Business Administration and Economics at Morningside College in Sioux City, IA. He also serves as a fellow at the Homeland Security Institute in Arlington, VA. Dr. Clovis served twenty-five years as a fighter pilot in the U.S. Air Force. He retired from the service as the inspector general of NORAD and the United States Space Command to enter the private sector, where he has held senior positions with a number of defense-related companies. Dr. Clovis has also held a variety of positions at academic institutions, lectures in the Department of Homeland Security-sponsored education programs, and writes extensively about national preparedness issues. He has been involved in the development and implementation of national preparedness policy in support of DHS since 2004. Dr. Clovis graduated from the United States Air Force Academy with a bachelor degree in political science. He earned an MBA at Golden Gate University and holds a doctorate in public administration from the University of Alabama. His research interests are federalism, intergovernmental relations and public management.

Vincent J. Doherty
Vincent J. Doherty is the director for program outreach for the Center of Homeland Defense and Security (CHDS) at the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) and was the CHDS 2005-2006 senior fellow/practitioner at the Department of Homeland Security, Preparedness Directorate. He is an adjunct professor for the Homeland Security Management Institute at Long Island University and he is currently on the board of advisors for Ahura and EdgeVelocity Corporations. Mr. Doherty is a member and the former local co-chair of the Science and Technology Committee for the Inter-Agency Board (IAB) for Equipment Standardization and Interoperability. A retired, highly decorated twenty-five-year veteran of the Fire Department of New York City (FDNY), he is currently a contract instructor for the Center for Domestic Preparedness, an instructor for the National Fire Academy, and a New York State Certified Fire Service Instructor.

Kevin D. Eack
Kevin D. Eack is the senior terrorism advisor for the Illinois State Police, where he is in charge of the Office of Counter Terrorism and has been selected for a fellowship with the FBI in the counter terrorism program in Washington, DC. He is co-founder and present chair of the Midwest Homeland Security Consortium, an organization comprised of state and local counter terrorism unit and fusion center commanders and representing twelve Midwest states and several major cities. In 2006 Inspector Eack received an appointment to the University of Chicago at Argonne National Laboratory. In 2008 he served on a mission trip to Poland for the National Guard Bureau providing technical guidance and assistance in homeland security to the Polish National Police. Inspector Eack holds a juris doctorate degree from the Southern Illinois University, a master’s degree in human resources and industrial relations from the University of Illinois, and a master’s degree in security studies from the Naval Postgraduate School’s Center for Homeland Defense and Security (CHDS). He currently serves as president of the CHDS Alumni board of directors.

Lauren Fernandez
Lauren Fernandez is an instructor in the Master’s Degree Program at the Naval Postgraduate School’s Center for Homeland Defense and Security. She recently served as a branch chief in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. In that capacity she led analysis of assessment data, managed national information technology systems, and developed technical assistance programs. Previously, Dr. Fernandez worked in the private sector as a systems analyst and emergency management planner. She also has over ten years of experience as an emergency medical technician and an incident commander for the Appalachian Search and Rescue Conference. She holds a bachelor and master’s degree in systems engineering from the University of Virginia and received her doctorate in engineering management with a concentration in crisis, emergency, and risk management from The George Washington University. Her dissertation research concerned volunteer management system design and analysis for disaster response and recovery.

Laura Manning Johnson
Laura Manning Johnson currently serves as the Deputy Chief of Deliberate Plans in the Office of Operations Coordination and Planning, for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Dr. Johnson helped stand up DHS in 2003 and served as the Deputy Director for Fusion within the National Operations Center from its inception in 2003 until 2008. Prior to joining DHS, she served as an intelligence analyst at the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). During her tenure at the CIA, she was the executive assistant to the Director of the Non-Proliferation Center (NPC), and a Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Advisor to the vice president’s WMD National Preparedness Review. She was the first Director of Central Intelligence Representative to the Office of Homeland Security beginning in October, 2001. Dr. Johnson concludes her three-years as a member of the Intelligence and National Security Alliance (INSA) Board of Directors in fall 2010. She holds a PhD in political science from the University of California, Santa Barbara and master/bachelor degrees in political science from Oklahoma State University. Her areas of focus were public policy, public law, and public administration. Dr. Johnson has taught at American University, University of California Santa Barbara, Long Island University, and Oklahoma State University.

Robert Josefek
Robert Josefek is an adjunct professor at the Naval Postgraduate School’s Center for Homeland Defense and Security. He has served on the faculty at the University of Southern California (USC) Marshall School of Business and has taught at the University of Minnesota. As an expert in information and decision sciences including social networking and knowledge management, Dr. Josefek has worked with a variety of both public and private sector organizations. The focus of his work is to help senior managers understand strategic and organizational issues relevant to their information technology options, improving planning and investment decisions, and establishing organizational design and development strategies to prepare for future advances. He has served as a reviewer and associate editor for leading journals and conference committees including Management Science, Information Systems Research, MIS Quarterly, and the Journal of Management Information Systems. He received his PhD from the University of Minnesota’s Carlson School of Management.

Clark Kimerer
Clark Kimerer is chief of staff and second-in-command of the Seattle Police Department. A twenty-five-year veteran, Chief Kimerer oversees all administrative functions of the department, including the 911 Communications Center, Training, Finance/Budget, Human Resources, and Information Technology, and is director of the City of Seattle Emergency Operations Center. Chief Kimerer was planning commander and Seattle point-of-contact for TOPOFF 2 and a subject matter expert and mentor for TOPOFF 3. He serves as an instructor and subject matter expert at various universities and professional institutions in the United States and Great Britain, is part of the Naval Postgraduate School’s Urban Area Mobile Education Team (MET), and participates in numerous project and analysis teams covering a broad range of public safety and homeland defense issues for DOJ, DHS, and the intelligence community. Chief Kimerer holds a bachelor degree in classics and liberal arts from St. John’s College in Annapolis, Maryland, and has completed postgraduate and professional certification work at various institutions, including the Harvard Negotiation Program at Harvard Law School. He is also a graduate of the National Executive Institute.

Ted G. Lewis
Ted G. Lewis is a professor of computer science at the Naval Postgraduate School and academic associate of the Center for Homeland Defense and Security Master’s Degree Program. He has forty years experience in academic, industrial, and advisory capacities, ranging from academic appointments at the University of Missouri-Rolla, University of Louisiana, and Oregon State University, to senior vice president of Eastman Kodak Company, to CEO and president of DaimlerChrysler Research and Technology, North America. Dr. Lewis has published over thirty books and 100 research papers. He is the author of Critical Infrastructure Protection in Homeland Security: Defending a Networked Nation (2006) and, most recently, Network Science: Theory and Applications (2009). He received his PhD in computer science from Washington State University.

Greta Marlatt
Greta Marlatt is the information services manager for the Naval Postgraduate School’s Dudley Knox Library. She has over twenty-five years of experience working in libraries in various capacities and is a member of both the Special Library Association and the American Library Association. In 2000, Ms. Marlatt was appointed to a three-year term as a member of the Federal Depository Library Council, an advisory group to the Public Printer of the United States. She has received the Armed Forces Librarians Roundtable [AFLRT] Achievement Citation, the Navy’s Meritorious Civilian Service Award, and the Navy’s Superior Civilian Service Award. In addition to published articles, she is the author of a number of bibliographies and help guides for topics relating to intelligence, information warfare, mine warfare, directed energy weapons, NBC terrorism, and more. Ms. Marlatt holds a master of library science degree from the University of Arizona and a master’s degree in national security studies from California State University, San Bernardino.

Rodrigo Nieto-Gomez
Rodrigo Nieto-Gomez is an instructor at the Center for Homeland Defense and Security at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, CA. His fields of research include the geopolitical effects of Homeland Security/Defense and National Security with a regional focus on North America, border security, discourse analysis, and the implications of new technologies for security and defense policies. His research on homeland security issues has led to travel all along the U.S.-Mexico border to interview political actors, intellectuals, and authorities. In the course of his research, Dr. Nieto-Gomez has observed the geographic conditions that affect the security ecosystem of the U.S. perimeter, gaining first-hand knowledge of every mile of this important and conflictive territory. Dr. Nieto-Gomez obtained his PhD (summa cum laude) in geopolitics at the Institut Francais de Geopolitique of the University of Paris. He also holds a Mexican J.D. from the State University of San Luis Potosí, specializing in international public and private law inside the NAFTA region.

Michael Petrie
Michael Petrie is the director of the Readiness Operations Planning and Exercises (R.O.P.E) Program at the University of California, Berkeley’s Center for Infectious Disease and Emergency Readiness (CIDER). He previously served for eight years as the emergency medical services administrator for the City and County of San Francisco. Mr. Petrie has worked in a variety of homeland security areas, including intelligence collection and fusion center operation, strategic planning, capability assessments, and planning for WMD incident response. A licensed paramedic for twenty-six years, Mr. Petrie is a recipient of the State of California EMS Authority’s Meritorious Service Medal. He is a contributing author for Jane’s publications, and has published numerous articles for peer-reviewed and professional journals. Mr. Petrie served on the faculty at the Naval Postgraduate School’s Center for Homeland Defense and Security (CHDS), where he continues to serve as a thesis advisor. He holds an MBA and a master’s degree in security studies from the Naval Postgraduate School.

Steve Recca
Steve Recca is a staff advisor for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief initiatives with the Pacific Disaster Center, and concurrently serves as the deputy director of the University and Agency Partnership Initiative for the Naval Postgraduate School’s (NPS) Center for Homeland Defense and Security. Mr. Recca’s previous positions include security policy assignments with the Central Intelligence Agency, State Department, Department of Defense, and in academia. From 1995-98, he served first as special assistant to the secretary of the Navy and then the director of Central Intelligence. Following assignment to the U.S. Embassy in Oslo, Mr. Recca held the Inman Intelligence Chair at NPS, before returning to Europe in 2003 to serve as DOD’s chief liaison to the German Federal Intelligence Service. Most recently, he directed the Center for Homeland Security at the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, where he managed graduate and undergraduate education programs, applied research, and an international civil security seminar program in partnership with U.S. European Command. Mr. Recca holds a master’s degree in national security from the Naval Postgraduate School.

Anke Richter
Anke Richter is an associate professor at the Defense Resources Management Institute of the Naval Postgraduate School. Dr. Richter was previously a director of health outcomes at RTI-Health Solutions, RTI International. Her research interests include resource allocation for epidemic control, disease modeling and economic impact assessment, bio terrorism and public health preparedness. Dr. Richter has published in numerous journals, including the Journal of the American Medical Association, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, PharmacoEconomics, Medical Decision Making, Clinical Therapeutics, Journal of Emergency Management and Interfaces. She received her PhD in operations research from Stanford University.

John Rollins
John Rollins is a researcher at the Library of Congress’ Congressional Research Service (CRS) specializing in terrorism, intelligence community, and homeland security issues. Prior to joining CRS, Mr. Rollins was the first chief of staff of the Office of Intelligence for the Department of Homeland Security and the secretary’s senior advisor on intelligence community reform. Mr. Rollin’s career includes a variety of analytic, legal, and management positions in the U.S. Army, FBI, CIA, DIA, U.S. Marine Corps, 1st SFOD-D (Delta Force), and the United Nations. He frequently testifies before Congress on issues of national security importance and is the author of numerous papers and articles addressing a wide range of national security issues. As an adjunct professor, he teaches homeland security graduate courses at the Naval Post Graduate School’s Center for Homeland Defense and Security, University of Connecticut, and Texas A&M University. Mr. Rollins frequently advises the private sector, state and local governments, and the media regarding security-related issues. He is a licensed attorney and graduate of the Senior Executive Fellowship program, Harvard University.

Stan Supinski
Stan Supinski is the director of partnership programs and a faculty member in the Center for Homeland Defense and Security Master’s Degree Program. He is also a visiting professor to the Long Island University Homeland Security Management Institute and has served on the faculty of the University of Massachusetts and University of Denver. He is the former deputy for training and education for the North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command, where he developed the organizations’ academic training and education programs; he is also the founder and former director of the Homeland Security/Defense Education Consortium (HSDEC), a network of more than 270 federal, military, and civilian educational institutions. Dr. Supinski has conducted research and authored numerous articles on homeland security and defense, technology support to education, and language acquisition. His research includes development of the Daily Knowledge Vitamin, a technology-based, distributed learning methodology used to maintain and incrementally increase knowledge and skills. The methodology has been used by military linguists worldwide, and has been adopted by the U.S. Coast Guard and other DOD and civilian organizations. Dr. Supinski holds a PhD in instructional systems design from Florida State University and a master’s degree in national security affairs from the Naval Postgraduate School.

David Tucker
David Tucker is an associate professor in the Department of Defense Analysis, co-director of the Center on Terrorism and Irregular Warfare, and an instructor in the Homeland Security Master’s Degree Program, all at the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California. Before coming to the Postgraduate School, he served in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict as the deputy director for special operations and as a Foreign Service officer in Africa and Europe. Dr. Tucker’s publications include “Terrorism, Networks, and Strategy: Why the Conventional Wisdom is Wrong” Homeland Security Affairs (June 2008); U.S. Special Operations Forces, with Christopher Lamb (Columbia University Press, August 2007); and “Confronting the Unconventional: Innovation and Transformation in Military Affairs”, (Letort Paper, U. S. Army War College, October 2006). He holds a PhD from the Claremont Graduate School and is a member of the Board of Visitors of the Marine Corps University.

Bert Tussing
Bert Tussing is the director of the Homeland Defense and Security Issues Group of the U.S. Army War College’s Center for Strategic Leadership. He joined the Center in October 1999 following nearly twenty-five years in the United States Marine Corps. He is a Distinguished Graduate of both the Marine Corps Command and Staff College and the Naval War College, and holds master’s degrees in national security strategy from the Naval War College and military strategic studies from the U.S. Army War College. Mr. Tussing is a senior fellow on George Washington University’s Homeland Security Policy Institute; a member of the Board of Experts for the University of California-Irvine’s Center for Unconventional Security Affairs; and on the steering committee of the Homeland Security/Defense Education Consortium Association. In December 2008 he accepted an appointment to the Department of Homeland Security’s Homeland Security Advisory Council, wherein he will advise in the development and execution of the department’s congressionally-mandated Quadrennial Homeland Security Review.

Lauren Wollman
Lauren Wollman is a senior faculty member for the Center for Homeland Defense and Security at the Naval Postgraduate School. In this capacity, she is the lead instructor for the Policy Analysis and Research Methods coursework sequence, and oversees research at the Center, including the student thesis system. Special projects in her portfolio include developing the Homeland Security Digital Library taxonomy in collaboration with taxonomy specialists, developing the curriculum for the national certificate program for Homeland Security Studies, and heading the Faculty Development Initiative at CHDS, through which the Center will achieve its strategic growth targets. Dr. Wollman received her PhD from the University of Southern California.

Glen Woodbury
Glen Woodbury is the director of the Naval Postgraduate School’s Center for Homeland Defense and Security and is responsible for leading the Center’s strategic commitment to servicing the homeland security priorities of the U.S. Departments of Homeland Security and Defense, as well as local, state, tribal, and federal agencies. His previous responsibilities as an associate director (2004-2007) included the development of executive education workshops, seminars, and training for senior state and local officials as well as military leaders. Mr. Woodbury served as the director of the Emergency Management Division for the State of Washington from 1998 through 2004. In this capacity, he directed the state’s response to numerous emergencies, disasters, and heightened security threat levels, including the World Trade Organization disturbance in Seattle in 1999, the Nisqually Earthquake in February 2001, the TOPOFF II Exercise in 2003, and the national response to the attacks of September 11th. Mr. Woodbury holds a bachelor degree in engineering sciences from Lafayette College and a master’s degree in security studies from the Naval Postgraduate School.

 Ok...so let's take a look at some of these folks...


http://www.hsaj.org/?board

Christopher Bellavita
Christopher Bellavita teaches in the Master’s Degree Program at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. An instructor with twenty years experience in security planning and operations, he serves as the director of academic programs for the Center for Homeland Defense and Security. Dr. Bellavita is the executive editor of Homeland Security Affairs, for which he authors “Changing Homeland Security.” He received his PhD from the University of California, Berkeley.

When the Naval Postgraduate School started their "Homeland Security Affairs" journal, Bellavita, the journal's executive editor, published the following article in the first issue.

 He calls his observations of the periods prior and subsequent to the false flag attacks of 9/11, 7/7 and Madrid, the "Issue-Attention Cycle".  But in reading his article, you'll recognize it in its more familiar form: Problem - Reaction - Solution.


=================================

Changing Homeland Security: The Issue-Attention Cycle
http://www.hsaj.org/?fullarticle=1.1.1
Christopher Bellavita, Ph.D.

The July 7, 2005 attacks on London inescapably direct public attention to our own transportation system. Everyone getting on a bus or train will look a little more carefully at objects that seem out of place or at people who look a bit suspicious. Public officials
will call for more equipment, more people, and more spending for transportation security
.

It happened in the U.S. after the Madrid bombings in 2004. But eventually – as also happened after Madrid – public attention and vigilance will wane. Transportation security advocates will again have to battle for resources against competing homeland security interests.

The attacks in Madrid and London illustrate Homeland Security’s slide from the apex of the national domestic policy agenda into the mundane world of grants, bureaucracy and interest groups. But this is not a bad thing. It is an affirmation of the profound trust Americans continue to place in their public safety professionals. It is also the natural dynamic of the Issue-Attention cycle.

More than 30 years ago, Anthony Downs wrote about a cycle that affects many domestic public policy problems.1 Downs argued that certain issues follow a predictable five stage process: pre-problem, alarmed discovery, awareness of the costs of making significant progress, gradual decline of intense public interest, and the post problem stage. Before the London attacks, homeland security was on the cusp of Stage Five. After the attacks, it revisited Stage Two. Before too many months pass, it is likely to recall the difficulties of Stage Three, make a brief return trip through Stage Four, and – if there are no more attacks – settle into Stage Five.

We have been at war with the terrorists since September 11, 2001. They have been at war with us since October 23, 1983, when 241 U.S. service members were killed in Lebanon. During the almost 20 years before the nation formally joined the Terrorism Wars, homeland security was in Stage One of the Issue-Attention Cycle: the pre-problem stage. A relatively small group of people were alarmed by the rising threat of terrorism. As has been well documented in the post 9/11 era, most of those calls to pay attention were ignored.

(Did he just say that Homeland Security was started in 1981?)


After the pre-problem phase comes Stage Two: Alarmed Discovery and a euphoric enthusiasm to do something quickly about the problem. Alarmed Discovery is triggered by an especially dramatic event, such as September 11th. At this point, the rest of the nation discovers – or in the case of the London bombings, recalls – the problem. Political leaders rise up to demand and to oversee an immediate solution. They are driven by a can-do ethos that asserts no problem is too big or complex to be solved. We just need to get the right people working together as a team, come up with a plan, and simply fix the problem. Stage Two of the Cycle is characterized both by shock and by the unyielding confidence that we can do something to right the wrongs that allowed the problem to happen.

After September 11th, we saw the largest reorganization of the national government in over half a century. We allocated rivers of money to homeland security, even taking away funds from other public safety programs. Interestingly, very few states and cities – with the notable exceptions of New York City, Washington D.C., and a few other cities – made such dramatic structural or resource changes. This was an early signal that perhaps most of the country is not as concerned about homeland security as are the jurisdictions with the most vulnerable targets

In Stage Three of the Cycle, there is a growing awareness of the costs of making significant progress. The nation has not been attacked in almost four years. We have spent more than 100 billion dollars on homeland security. Hundreds of thousands of people have now added “homeland security” to their job responsibilities.  (AKA: Reaction)

Even so, books, articles and reports continue to point out how vulnerable our borders, ports, transportation systems, schools, public health, food supply, chemical industry, and infrastructure are to terrorist attacks. Our spending and our programs focus mostly on preparing to respond more effectively and efficiently to the next attack. We still do not have a national plan to prevent terrorism. We do not even have a shared vocabulary for prevention.

The executive branch of the national government is embarking
on a multi-year effort to convince states and cities
to obey the expanding dictates of
Homeland Security Presidential Direction (HSPD)
8

if they want to continue to receive homeland security funding.
...

(Sounds like mafia "pay the protection money" in exchange for not having your business torched, doesn't it?)

(Article continues...)

...The Issue-Attention Cycle continues. The post problem stage of the Cycle becomes Version 2.0 of a new pre-problem stage. Anyone paying attention can hear homeland security specialists worrying about ports, public health, food supply vulnerabilities, and more.

The country will be attacked again – next month, next year, or in the next decade.
After the Alarmed Discovery that follows the attack, there will be another period of “euphoric enthusiasm” to dramatically change what we are doing now.

References

   1. Anthony Downs, “Up and Down With Ecology: The ‘Issue-Attention Cycle,’” The Public Interest, 28 (Summer 1972): 38-50.
   2. See summary of polling data at http://www.pollingreport.com/terror.htm. Greg Toppo, “Graduates fear debt more than terrorism,” USA Today; May 19, 2005.

=================================

We wonder why they continue with false flag terror attacks: this guy just explained it all.

 http://www.csl.army.mil/BertTussing.aspx

Professor Bert Tussing was born in Portsmouth, VA, the son of a career Naval Officer. He graduated with honors from The Citadel in 1975 and was commissioned a Second Lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps. During a 24 year career in the Marines, Professor Tussing served operationally with the 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing; the 2nd Marine Division; Marine Aviation Weapons and Tactics Squadron One; Marine Helicopter Squadron One (where he was designated a Presidential Command Pilot); and with the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit (Special Operations Capable). Over the course of his career he participated in multiple humanitarian relief exercises in the Caribbean; Operation Urgent Fury in Grenada; operations as a part of the Multinational Force in Beirut; Operations Provide Promise and Deny Flight in Bosnia; and the final withdrawal of U.S. forces from Somalia.


Following his operational assignments, Tussing was assigned to the Pentagon where he served as Marine Corps Analyst to the Secretary of the Navy in the Office of Program Appraisal. While there, he participated in the Secretary of the Navy's focus group for the Commission on Roles and Missions of the Armed Forces, and served as a consultant on the Defense Science Board on "Tactics and Techniques for the 21st Century." Professor Tussing was subsequently selected for a Brookings Legislative Fellowship, through which he served on the staff of the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee's Personnel Subcommittee. Following the fellowship, he assumed duties as Deputy Legislative Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Professor Tussing joined the Center for Strategic Leadership of the U.S. Army War College in October of 1999. His focus areas include Homeland Defense, Homeland Security, Terrorism, and Civil-Military Relations. Since the spring of 2001 he has led and served in multiple forums and studies focused on homeland defense, homeland security, and military support to civil authorities. He has served on three Defense Science Boards: DoD's Roles and Missions in Homeland Security (2003), DoD's Role in Critical Infrastructure Protection (2004), and Critical Infrastructure Protection (2005). He has hosted, organized and facilitated numerous symposiums and workshops dedicated to domestic security, including the United States Army War College's Consequence Management Symposium (Aug 2001); In Support of the Common Defense: Examining Critical Infrastructure Protection in the Public and Private Sector (with George Washington University's Homeland Security Policy Institute-Aug 2004 ); Responding to the Unthinkable: The Role of the Army's Reserve Component in Responding to CBRNE Attack in the Homeland (Sep 2004); Reinforcing the First Line of Defense: The Role of the National Guard in Critical Infrastructure Protection (Aug 2005); Leveraging the Reserves: Improving the Military's Domestic Crisis Response(July 2006); Achieving Unity of Effort in Responding to Crises (Jul 2007), and Reexamining the Role of the National Guard and the Service Reserves in Support of Civil Authorities (May 2008). In 2006 he initiated the formation of the Consortium for Homeland Defense and Security in America, partnering the Army War College with George Washington University's Homeland Security Policy Institute, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and the Heritage Foundation, and providing for an annual forum dedicated to addressing the challenges and complexities of domestic defense in the modern era. Prof Tussing has served on many formal and informal advisory groups in support of the United States Northern Command, the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs. He is a senior fellow of George Washington University's Homeland Security Policy Institute; a member of the Board of Experts for UC-Irvines' Center for Unconventional Security Affairs; on the steering committee of the Homeland Security/Defense Education Consortium Association; and a senior fellow of Long Island University's Homeland Security Management Institute. In December 2008 he accepted an appointment to the Department of Homeland Security's Homeland Security Advisory Council, wherein he will serve to advise in the development and execution of the Department's Congressionally-mandated Quadrennial Homeland Security Review.









 WATCH THIS 9 MINUTE VIDEO:

http://www.chds.us/?player&id=32

In summary, the US needs to partner with Mexico for "security" (NAU/SPP/NAFTA talking point) and civilian gun ownership in America is causing Mexico's violence.

This guy peddles the same bull sh*t as what's in this thread:
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=186250.0