Posts
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Insider Report
1. Kissinger, Shultz Behind U.S.-Russian Arms Talks
2. Media Shun ‘Illegal Alien’ Designation
3. 100-Plus Scientists: Obama ‘Simply Incorrect’ on Global Warming
4. White House Staffers Prefer Foreign Cars
5. Arab Summit ‘Led Nowhere’
6. We Heard: Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Netanyahu, New York Times
1. Kissinger, Shultz Behind U.S.-Russian Arms Talks
A meeting in London between President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev ended with the announcement that the U.S. and Russia will seek to further reduce their stockpiles of nuclear weapons.
But Newsmax has learned that progress toward arms reduction was set in motion by a little-publicized meeting last month involving Russian strong man Valdmir Putin and the two American elder statesmen, Henry Kissinger and George Shultz.
Kissinger, who served as Secretary of State under Presidents Nixon and Ford, and Schultz, President Reagan’s Secretary of State, traveled to Moscow along with former Sen. Sam Nunn and former Defense Secretary William Perry.
They were acting as private citizens and not on an official visit, but Obama was using the statesmen to sound out the Russians on arm reduction.
A source revealed that Obama and Schulz spoke by telephone before the Russian meeting, and that Obama voiced his strong support for their nuclear initiative. Obama reportedly said the matter was a priority for his new administration, though economic issues were taking center stage for the moment.
Kissinger told the Los Angeles Times that after meeting with Putin he had found ample grounds for cooperation.
“I’m happy to report that the differences were not so remarkable and the agreements were considerable,” he said.
Kissinger, Shultz, Nunn and Perry made their views on arms reduction clear in an article that was published in The Wall Street Journal in January.
The four statesmen advocate “reversing reliance on nuclear weapons globally as a vital contribution to preventing their proliferation into potentially dangerous hands, and ultimately ending them as a threat to the world.”
They argue that the end of the Cold War made the doctrine of mutual deterrence obsolete, but warn that the world is now “on the precipice of a new and dangerous nuclear era” in which North Korea and Iran could become nuclear powers and terrorists might obtain nuclear weapons.
To deal with the threat, what is needed is “intensive work with leaders of the countries in possession of nuclear weapons to turn the goal of a world without nuclear weapons into a joint enterprise,” the Kissinger team wrote in the Journal.
“Such a joint enterprise, by involving changes in the disposition of the states possessing nuclear weapons, would lend additional weight to efforts already under way to avoid the emergence of a nuclear-armed North Korea and Iran.”
Among the steps the statesmen suggest are “continuing to reduce substantially the size of nuclear forces in all states that possess them.”
That is precisely what Obama and Medvedev discussed in London. In a statement released after their meeting, the two leaders announced talks aimed at replacing the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which is set to expire in December.
Obama accepted Medvedev’s invitation to visit Moscow in July to assess negotiators’ progress on arms reduction, which would give the U.S. Senate enough time to debate and approve a new treaty before the December expiration date.
2. Media Shun ‘Illegal Alien’ Designation
Ingmar Guandique, recently charged in the 2001 slaying of Washington, D.C. intern Chandra Levy, is an illegal alien — a fact that has been widely ignored by much of the mainstream press.
“The designation of Guandique — who entered the U.S. illegally in 2000, was convicted of two nonfatal attacks on women and incarcerated — has reignited a debate over whether a person’s immigration status is relevant to the story,” conservative activist Howard Phillips writes in his Issues and Strategy Bulletin.
“Journalists also are debating whether the words ‘illegal’ and ‘immigrant’ are too loaded to use in an already emotionally charged story.”
Phillips — chairman of The Conservative Caucus, an advocacy group — notes that the National Association of Hispanic Journalists has campaigned against the use of the word “illegal” in copy and headlines, saying it “stereotypes” undocumented people.
But Brent Baker of the Media Research Center said: “Too many journalists don’t want to provide ammunition to those who want stricter immigration laws, so avoid connecting illegal immigrants to evidence which will bolster the argument that illegals cause harm.”
And John Solomon, executive editor of The Washington Times, has stated: “The suggestion that immigration status somehow is irrelevant or should be treated like race in a crime story seems flawed. Being white or black or Hispanic or Asian isn’t a crime. Entering the country illegally is.”
Phillips, who has run for president three times as the candidate of the U.S. Taxpayers Party, said The Washington Post referred to Guandique as a “Salvadoran day laborer,” ABC News called him an “incarcerated felon,” and CNN said he was a “jailed laborer.”
MSNBC called Guandique an “imprisoned Salvadoran immigrant,” CBS News and the Los Angeles Times said he was a “Salvadoran immigrant,” and The New York Times referred to him as a “suspect.”
The Washington Times, Time magazine and USA Today are among those that have called him an “illegal immigrant.”
3. 100-Plus Scientists: Obama ‘Simply Incorrect’ on Global Warming
Over 100 prominent scientists from more than a dozen countries — including a Nobel Prize winner — have signed a letter to President Barack Obama charging that his views on climate change are “simply incorrect.”
The letter — sponsored by the Cato Institute — cites a statement Obama made in November: “Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.”
Under the headline, “With all due respect, Mr. President, that is not true,” the scientists state:
“We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated. Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now…
“The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior. Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect.”
The 115 signatories include Ivar Giaever, Ph.D., who shared the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1973 for his work with superconductors at General Electric; John Blaylock, formerly with the Los Alamos National Laboratory; Richard Lindzen, Ph.D., at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and William Gray, Ph.D., the respected hurricane expert at Colorado State University.
The signers include scientists at Princeton University, U.S. Naval Academy, University of Kansas, University of Oklahoma, University of Colorado, and University of Missouri.
Among the countries represented by the signers are Britain, Canada, Italy, Norway, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Argentina and South Africa.
A number of the scientists are current or former reviewers with the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with climate change crusader Al Gore — and have since reversed their views on man-made global warming.
4. White House Staffers Prefer Foreign Cars
President Barack Obama has taken steps to encourage Americans to buy more U.S.-made cars — but administration officials show a clear preference for vehicles from foreign-owned firms.
Obama said the government will guarantee warranties on any GM or Chrysler vehicles, and the IRS is notifying consumers who purchased cars after Feb. 16 that they can deduct the cost of any sales and excise taxes.
Yet Politico.com took a look at the vehicles on West Executive Drive, where White House staffers park, and found only five American cars out of 23 vehicles there.
As for several members of Obama’s presidential task force on the auto industry, The Detroit News reported:
- Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner owns a 2008 Acura.
- Larry Summers, Director of the White House’s National Economic Council, owns a 1995 Mazda.
- Peter Orszag, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, owns a 2008 Honda and a 2004 Volvo.
- “Climate czar” Carol Browner doesn’t currently own a vehicle, but previously drove a 1999 Saab.
- Vice President Joe Biden’s chief economist Jared Bernstein owns a 2005 Honda.
- Obama’s economic adviser Austan Goolsbee owns a 2004 Toyota.
5. Arab Summit ‘Led Nowhere’
If the recent Arab summit was intended to demonstrate solidarity within the 22-member Arab League, it was an utter failure — instead exposing deep rifts within the Arab world.
The summit in Qatar got off to a raucous start on Monday when Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi grabbed a microphone and insulted Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah, calling him a “British product and American ally” — then stormed out of the gathering, according to The Associated Press.
Next, various factions got into a dispute over Iran. Egypt — whose leader Hosni Mubarak boycotted the summit — has expressed concern over Tehran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and its effort to promote Shia Islam in predominately Sunni nations, and Morocco went so far as to sever diplomatic relations with Iran over that issue.
But Syria let it be known that it stands staunchly beside Iran, and the host of the summit, the Emir of Qatar, defended Iran’s position.
The envoy from Egypt proceeded to issue a veiled criticism of the Al Jazeera network, which the Emir owns, saying that Arab media should be more responsible and refrain from exacerbating differences of opinion between Arab states, according to the Jerusalem Post.
But by the end of the first day of the scheduled 2-day summit, “it had become clear to the participants that they were going nowhere. So profound were the differences of opinion that there was no point of going on and no hope of reaching a consensus,” the Post reported — so the second day of the summit was cancelled.
But the Arab leaders did form a united front on one issue — they expressed support for Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, who has been accused of war crimes by the International Criminal Court due to the genocide in his nation’s Darfur region.
A final statement read at the summit rejected an international arrest warrant issued against al-Bashir, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported.
“We reiterate our solidarity with Sudan and our rejection of the measures of the … International Criminal Court against his Excellency,” the communiqué read.
Zvi Mazel wrote in the Post: “Once again, an Arab summit led nowhere. [The leaders’] weakness and indecision was made all too evident in the early closure of the summit.”
6. We Heard . . .
THAT people in more than 1,000 cities in over 80 countries observed Earth Hour 2009 on March 28, turning off lights in homes, offices and landmarks for 60 minutes to raise awareness about climate change.
The Hour began at 8:30 p.m. local time all around the world.
But when Drew Johnson, president of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, drove past the Nashville mansion of global warming alarmist Al Gore, he found floodlights illuminating the driveway and lights on inside the house.
THAT President Barack Obama has signed a bill designating the birthplace of former President Bill Clinton as a National Historic Site.
Clinton’s boyhood home on Hervey St. in Hope, Ark., joins 32 other presidential historic sites maintained by the National Park Service, according to the Texarkana Gazette.
The house was built in 1917, but has been restored to the era when Clinton was living there, from 1946 through 1950. It is now owned by the Clinton Birthplace Foundation, which has operated the home as a museum.
THAT a newspaper in Israel is reporting that new Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has decided to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities.
“Politicians in touch with Netanyahu say he has already made up his mind to destroy Iran’s nuclear installations,” the Haaretz newspaper reports.
Haaretz cited a statement Netanyahu made during the campaign: “I promise that if I am elected, Iran will not acquire nuclear arms, and this implies everything necessary to carry this out.”
THAT New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller said The Times will be “left standing after the deluge” of newspapers shutting down or going Internet-only.
Speaking at Stanford University to mark the opening of a new building for the student newspaper, Keller also quipped that the event felt a bit like a “ribbon-cutting at a new Pontiac dealership.”
It's official, Dem budget to 'redistribute income'
Tax hikes to hit $250,000 earners, 'maybe even going further down'
The nation needs to face the fact that income will be redistributed and health care rationed under a federal budget plan moving through Congress at the behest of President Obama, according to an official who served under President Clinton.
The plan, according to Lawrence J. Haas, former communications director for Vice President Al Gore, said Obama "wants to make permanent all the tax cuts from those years [2001 and 2003] for people making up to $250,000 a year and frankly to redistribute income a bit in a fair way so he would raise taxes on those above $250,000."
His comments came in an interview with Greg Corombos of Radio America/WND, and the audio is embedded here:
| |
Haas, who also was communications director for the White House Office of Management and Budget under the Clinton administration, later worked as director of public affairs for the president at Yale University.
The interview starts out with Haas' condemnation of a GOP proposal for an alternative budget this year, saying it contains "unrealistic spending cuts."
Haas also said in recent budgets, the income "has been redistributed … in exactly the other direction," condemning tax cuts for anyone in an upper income bracket, a category that includes many business owners.
Haas said GOP plans for restraint are "radical."
"They would impose … they propose to severely limit spending across the board other than for defense and veterans programs," he said.
He explained the income redistribution plan:
"The tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 provided a disproportionate amount of the benefits for those in the top one, two percent of earners, so in essence what the president is attempting to do is make things a little bit fairer by way of asking those who have done so well in recent years to pay a little bit more … [while continuing] tax relief for people at the bottom, in the middle, in all candor who have struggled in recent years."
He said while the president "has proposed" protecting from tax increases those who make less than $250,000, even that's not assured.
"To the extent we need to raise taxes down the road we're going to have to sort of work our way down that income level starting with people making over $250,000," he said, "and maybe even going further down. I hope we don't have to do too much of that."
He said health care costs will play a major role in coming budgets.
"That's going to cause us to make some real decisions as to who gets how much health care and when they get it," he warned.
President Obama famously created an issue during the 2008 campaign by telling a plumber his goal was to spread the wealth.
WND also reported Obama believes the Constitution is flawed, because it fails to address wealth redistribution, and he says the Supreme Court should have intervened years ago to accomplish that.
Obama told Chicago's public station WBEZ-FM that "redistributive change" is needed, pointing to what he regarded as a failure of the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren in its rulings on civil rights issues in the 1960s.
The Warren court, he said, failed to "break free from the essential constraints" in the U.S. Constitution and launch a major redistribution of wealth. But Obama, then an Illinois state lawmaker, said the legislative branch of government, rather than the courts, probably was the ideal avenue for accomplishing that goal.
In the 2001 interview, Obama said:
If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OKBut, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.
And that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.
The video is available here:
Related offers:
WND is your place to launch the tea party revolution. Visit the tea party forum.
Get "Taking America Back," Joseph Farah's manifesto for sovereignty, self-reliance and moral renewal
Families learning of $163,000 tax 'bomb'
The alert comes from Michael J. Boskin, who praised some of Obama's economic plans in a Wall Street Journal column but saw red flags waving for other provisions.....
Controversial Arizona Sheriff Snubbed by House Panel on Immigration
from FoxNews
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio couldn't defend himself because the House didn't invite him.
Two House Judiciary subcommittees convened Thursday to examine allegations of unconstitutional immigration enforcement tactics -- and took target practice at Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona, whose controversial methods have been called racist by activists and Democratic lawmakers.
But Arpaio didn't defend himself on Capitol Hill. He did not testify to the committee and he did not attend the joint hearing.
That's because the Maricopa County, Ariz., law enforcement chief wasn't invited, said House Judiciary Committee sources.
"He was not asked or invited to come to this hearing, but he wasn't the direct focus of it," a source within the Judiciary Committee, speaking on condition of anonymity, told FOXNews.com.
The joint hearing by the House Judiciary Committee Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law Subcommittee and Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties Subcommittee Thursday was convened to "focus on wide-ranging allegations of racial profiling in connection with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement's 287 program." It also was used to "examine allegations of unconstitutional policing and immigration enforcement tactics" like those used by Arpaio.
Arpaio's policing methods have drawn widespread criticism from lawmakers and activist groups, like Amnesty International and the ACLU, for allegedly using racial profiling to fight crime in the Southwest. The Arizona sheriff and his deputies have also come under fire for keeping harsh prison conditions and for unfairly targeting illegal immigrants.
Arpaio, who promotes himself as "America's Toughest Sheriff," said he's being unfairly vilified for his approach to law enforcement.
"It's a political witch hunt to use me to stop local law enforcement from enforcing federal laws," Arpaio told FOXNews.com on Thursday, noting that activists who regularly protest his policing hold up signs calling him "Hitler" and "Nazi."
"I've been the sheriff going on 17 years, and I always get re-elected. And all the polls on this issue of immigration support me so it's just a small minority of politicians and activists who accuse me" of mistreating suspects, Arpaio said.
Among the primary concerns during testimony was section 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which was put into law in 1996 as a result of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act.
Section 287 authorizes the secretary of Homeland Security to enter into agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies that allow them to identify and detain immigration offenders they encounter during their law enforcement operations.
On Thursday, members of Congress and some of Arpaio's most outspoken critics -- like Mesa, Ariz., Police Chief George Gascon -- met on Capitol Hill to review the impact of federal immigration law on the ability to combat crime by illegal immigrants while also protecting their civil rights.
Gascon did not mention Arpaio by name during his opening testimony, but said the authority handed to local police by federal officials has created an environment in which racial profiling and "constitutional concerns" are setting back the effort to protect the public.
"The impact on local law enforcement in this politically charged environment can be devastating. In some cases, it is setting the police profession back to the 1950s and '60s when police officers were sometimes viewed in minority communities as the enemy," he said.
During Thursday's testimony, Arpaio's absence was noted.
"I want to make clear that he declined to come," said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., chairwoman of the immigration subcommittee.
But when Lofgren was questioned by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, about whether the sheriff had been formerly invited, Lofgren said, "No, he said in advance he would not intend to come. In a newspaper article he said he would not come."
Arpaio, who has served as Maricopa County's sheriff since 1992, said he has dedicated the last 30 years working with the federal government, inside the Justice Department and as a Drug Enforcement Administration official, and he would think lawmakers would want to hear about his experience.
"You think they would have called me just to get my expertise -- if nothing else -- about the Mexican-U.S. border. But instead they get one of my biggest critics -- a Mesa police chief who doesn’t like me going into his town arrested illegals -- and a couple other people," he said.
"These congressmen never had the courtesy to ask me to speak," he said.
Arpaio also defended his policing methods, saying they are both constitutional and effective in lowering crime rates.
"We investigated 147,000 people booked into our jail under 287. And 23,000 murderers all the way down we proved are illegal so they can not get back on the street. That's why crime has gone down in this area," he said.
The sheriff said he has invited congressional critics to come to Arizona to observe his operations, but so far has got no response.
"I'm just enforcing the law that I took an oath of office to enforce. And nobody's going to deter me or scare me away," he said. "They can go after me all they want, but I'm very comfortable the way I run my operation."
Perry Asks US to Share Illegal Immigrants' Data
Texas Gov. Rick Perry has requested that top Department of Homeland Security officials resolve “vulnerabilities” that have allowed illegal immigrants to hold onto valid Texas driver’s licenses and slip undetected through the state’s jails.
Perry asked Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano this week to take a series of steps to improve information-sharing between federal, state and local law enforcement. The Homeland Security-related issues “seriously affect public safety in Texas,” Perry wrote earlier this week in a letter to Napolitano.
A spokeswoman for Napolitano, Sara Kuban, said Napolitano would respond directly to Perry and declined to comment on the specific issues raised in the letter.
The governor’s requests include:
• Giving all Texas jails access to a database that automatically checks suspects’ immigration history. So far, 19 of the 252 jails in the state with electronic fingerprint booking participate in the program, including the Harris County Sheriff’s Office and Houston Police Department.....
Fusion Centers: A Reality Check
by Phil Leggiere
DHS civil liberties officer dispels negative myths but acknowledges real privacy challenges of fusion centers
Last month DHS secretary Napolitano praised fusion centers, the state and major city facilities that enable federal, state, local, tribal and territorial governments and the owners and operators of critical infrastructure to share information and intelligence, calling them a front line area of law enforcement and a lynchpin of efforts to improve intelligence sharing.
The Fusion Center initiative, which has inspired several dozen state and local centers nationwide over the past few years, has nonetheless been a civil liberties lightning rod and, by implication political hot potato.
Revelations late last year that Maryland State Police had entered the names and personal information of peace activists and anti-war protesters into state and federal databases as potential terrorists have raised the specter of rampant domestic spying.
As covered in depth by HSToday.us, the exposure last month of a February 2009 Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) report on the militia movement which critics said listed support for third-party candidates like Ron Paul and Bob Barr as potential signs of “extremist” tendencies, has also sparked widespread outcry about unwarranted and inappropriate federal government monitoring. Facing a political firestorm Jay Nixon (D-Mo.), governor of Missouri, last week formally retracted the report.
On Wednesday of this week, in testimony before the House Committee on Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment, Acting DHS Deputy Officer for Programs and Compliance David D. Gersten, Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, acknowledged and addressed some of the challenges faced by fusion centers, while at the same time dispelling some of the myths he said were being unfairly promulgated.
One current myth, Gerstein explained, was that the armed forces are prominent players in the fusion centers. While some armed forces service members participate in a handful of fusion centers, he said, “the presence is nominal, not pervasive, and their role is to provide support to civilian law enforcement and other non-Federal agencies with homeland security responsibilities, not to lead, direct or participate in it.”
Another myth, according to Gerstein, involves inappropriate sharing of information with the private sector. Some fusion centers, he explained, have leveraged “the expertise of local sector associations or coalitions in identifying critical infrastructure and how to secure it.”
These activities, he maintained, “are squarely within DHS’ mission and the mission of State and local law enforcement.”
“Fusion centers,” Gerstein said, “share information when it relates to protection of critical infrastructure, or upon learning of a threat to a particular company or business. While this potentially poses some concerns, our Office has not seen civil liberties problems arising out of the relationship between fusion centers and the private sector.”
Although fusion centers in general could invoke civil liberties issues, Gerstein said, “the reality has not borne out the theories that have been advanced by some concerning fusion centers’ actual activities.” In almost all cases, he added, “fusion center activity involves exactly what the 9/11 Commission recommended – Federal, State, local and tribal personnel sitting elbow-to-elbow, sharing information and connecting the dots to ensure homeland security and public safety.”
Myths aside, Gerstein acknowledged continued concern that fusion centers face a number of challenges that could impact civil rights and liberties.
The primary, still relevant concern, he said, was lack of consistency in mission.
“Fusion centers are comprised of representatives of multiple Federal, State, local and tribal governments, and therefore lack single, one-size-fits-all structures or identical chains-of-command,” Gerstein said. “Instead they are more like task forces, formed under one State or local agency’s legal authority, but comprised of representatives of many agencies. They are typically led by a State Police or State homeland security equivalent, or possibly under the management of the local Anti-Terrorism Advisory Council established by the United States Attorneys."
Gerstein said "collaborative agreements then are used to integrate partners who work within the fusion center. With few exceptions, Memoranda of Agreement or Understanding do not exist, though many are being negotiated between states and the Department of Homeland Security. These MOUs are needed to govern the roles and responsibilities of deployed DHS analysts in fusion centers, and their absence could lead to a lack of clarity of institutional roles within fusion centers.”
Oversight of the fusion centers also poses a challenge, Gerstein said.
“Because fusion centers are run by the States,” Gerstein explained, “direct oversight by the Federal government presents real federalism issues. While some fusion centers are closely overseen by State government offices, such as the State’s attorney’s office, the precise extent of close supervision by State, local and Tribal governments at each fusion center is not always clear due to varying State government structures.”
Gerstein expressed optimism, however, that at the Federal level DHS could establish certain expectations through Federal grant funding and guidance documents.
In particular he cited the Baseline Capabilities document released in September 2008.
“ In partnership with the fusion centers,” he said, “ DHS and its Federal partners have established expectations and guidelines on fusion center operations through the Fusion Center Guidelines and the Baseline Capabilities for State and Major Urban Area Fusion Centers.”
“The Guidelines are intended to be used to ensure that fusion centers are established and operated consistently, resulting in enhanced coordination efforts, strengthened partnerships, and improved crime-fighting and antiterrorism capabilities,” he added. “By achieving a baseline level of capability, fusion centers will have the necessary structures, processes, and tools in place to support the gathering, processing, analysis, and dissemination of terrorism, homeland security, and law enforcement information. Most fusion centers are in the process of achieving the capabilities, though it may take up to five years to achieve all of the capabilities.”
In regard to privacy impact assessment, cited some progress in providing a uniform training mechanism through the creation of the “Civil Liberties Institute”, a program that provides high quality training on issues at the intersection of homeland security and civil rights and civil liberties.
Through a partnership with the DHS Privacy Office and the DHS I&A State and Local Program Office 34 analysts currently deployed to the fusion centers are undergoing civil liberties training, Gerstein said. In addition DHS in collaboration with the Department of Justice ( DOJ) Office of Justice Programs has launched what Gerstein referred to as a “multifaceted privacy and civil liberties training program to support the more than 70 fusion centers around the country.”
Alluding to the Maryland surveillance incident involving collection of data on anti-war protest groups, Gerstein said that, “ One specific area that has been much in the media involves the difficulty in sharing information and providing threat assessments where protected activities, such as First Amendment free speech and assembly, are involved. Security personnel at all levels of government often struggle with this problem.”
For example, Gerstein said, “ if a demonstration is going to occur at a Federal facility, those charged with securing the facility would be negligent if they failed to ensure the safety of the facility and those within. Yet “right-sizing” security measures would be impossible without knowing the nature of the protest, and whether it is likely to cause security or operational problems. This necessarily requires at least a limited inquiry into the nature of a group planning a protest, and whether it espouses violence, civil disobedience, or other potentially disruptive tactics.”
“ At the same time,” he insisted, “ we must be very careful to ensure that the Government is not infringing or chilling an individuals’ right to speak freely and to protest. Intelligence personnel at the Federal level are not authorized to collect information regarding US Persons solely for the purpose of monitoring activities protected by the US Constitution, such as the First Amendment protected freedoms of religion, speech, press, and peaceful assembly and protest. If information has some connection to constitutionally protected activities, it may be collected only where such collection is incidental to the authorized purpose. Procedures are in place that require intelligence personnel to consult with counsel or I&A’s Intelligence Oversight Officer when any initiative may impact constitutionally protected activities.”
An ongoing problem, Gerstein acknowledged, was how to apply these clear-cut distinctions on a local level.
At the State level, he said, “ policies relating to these topics are often less clear and uniform. The question of how State, local and Tribal governments handle these issues is often decided by State, local or tribal agencies other than the fusion centers. The well-publicized struggles with this problem, particularly at the State level, demonstrate a need for continued policy development and training.”
More broadly, Gerstein observed, especially on the state level, “there is still a significant challenge in determining whether and to what extent it is appropriate for fusion centers to use open source information that involves First Amendment-protected activities. If the collection, retention and use of information - even publicly available - involves protected speech, assembly or other activities, it could be viewed as unlawful monitoring by government. As we have seen in recent months, the collection of open source information about protected activities may result in scandal when government is perceived to be keeping tabs on protest groups for political purposes.”
Gerstein concluded that the major civil liberties challenge for fusion centers going forward was to apply strong unified federal frameworks already in place within a context of diverse state laws. Addressing this challenge, he added, would be critical to the long-term success not only of the fusion center concept, but to the “new federalism” in homeland security policy and operations advocated by President Obama and Secretary Napolitano.
CRC Open-Source Intelligence Briefs
Iran already has been smuggling weapons into Africa. Some have been intercepted.
Symptom of a Constitutional Disease
by John Armor
The $700 Billion Gorilla Obama Wants to Ignore
by William R. Hawkins
American industry elevated the working class with great positive benefits for the nation’s living standard and political stability. Why does President Obama feel that these gains must be given up?
.... The American auto industry cannot be saved without action taken to limit foreign competition, which is the real source of Detroit’s problem. The contracts the Big 3 signed with the UAW union were predicated on America’s continued dominance of its own transportation market. When foreign rivals took a third of that market away, the wages and benefits promised to workers were no longer sustainable. But the Japanese, Korean and European automakers (soon to be joined by the Chinese) designed their assault on the U.S. market with the full support of their governments who have used a variety of subsidies to carve out a share of the American economy to add to their own.
.... At the moment, the foreign auto plants in the U.S. are allowed to use substantial amounts of parts and major sub-assemblies produced overseas and imported only for final assembly here. The Big 3 U. S. automakers have been pushed into using foreign-made parts (including parts from China) to compete. Limits on both the import of vehicles and of major, high-value parts would boost the insourcing of jobs and production capacity to the U. S. economy. This is the only way to assure a true level playing field within the American market and the preservation of a domestic auto industry. The auto industry is vital to a strong national industrial base upon which American power depends in a world of contending states.
If Crazy Eddie Ran the U.S. Economy…Oh, Wait!
Brigadier General Greg Zanetti
Obama Endorses Soros Plan to Loot America
by Cliff Kincaid
George Soros had backed Obama for president in 2008, saying that he had “the charisma and the vision to radically reorient America in the world.” His prediction seems to be eerily coming true.....
Important Steps to Take If Your Goal Is To Destroy the American Economy
by J. Harinas
Congratulations are due all around to the Obama administration, which seems to have accomplished each of these goals. Good job, Barry. ....
Obama Wants to Control the Banks
(Compiler's note: Absolutely must read article)
By STUART VARNEY
There's a reason he refuses to accept repayment of TARP money.I must be naive. I really thought the administration would welcome the return of bank bailout money. Some $340 million in TARP cash flowed back this week from four small banks in Louisiana, New York, Indiana and California. This isn't much when we routinely talk in trillions, but clearly that money has not been wasted or otherwise sunk down Wall Street's black hole. So why no cheering as the cash comes back?
My answer: The government wants to control the banks, just as it now controls GM and Chrysler, and will surely control the health industry in the not-too-distant future. Keeping them TARP-stuffed is the key to control. And for this intensely political president, mere influence is not enough. The White House wants to tell 'em what to do. Control. Direct. Command.
It is not for nothing that rage has been turned on those wicked financiers. The banks are at the core of the administration's thrust: By managing the money, government can steer the whole economy even more firmly down the left fork in the road.
If the banks are forced to keep TARP cash -- which was often forced on them in the first place -- the Obama team can work its will on the financial system to unprecedented degree. That's what's happening right now.
Here's a true story first reported by my Fox News colleague Andrew Napolitano (with the names and some details obscured to prevent retaliation). Under the Bush team a prominent and profitable bank, under threat of a damaging public audit, was forced to accept less than $1 billion of TARP money. The government insisted on buying a new class of preferred stock which gave it a tiny, minority position. The money flowed to the bank. Arguably, back then, the Bush administration was acting for purely economic reasons. It wanted to recapitalize the banks to halt a financial panic.
Fast forward to today, and that same bank is begging to give the money back. The chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. He's been sitting on the cash for months and has felt the dead hand of government threatening to run his business and dictate pay scales. He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out. But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with "adverse" consequences if its chairman persists. That's politics talking, not economics.
Think about it: If Rick Wagoner can be fired and compact cars can be mandated, why can't a bank with a vault full of TARP money be told where to lend? And since politics drives this administration, why can't special loans and terms be offered to favored constituents, favored industries, or even favored regions? Our prosperity has never been based on the political allocation of credit -- until now.
Which brings me to the Pay for Performance Act, just passed by the House. This is an outstanding example of class warfare. I'm an Englishman. We invented class warfare, and I know it when I see it. This legislation allows the administration to dictate pay for anyone working in any company that takes a dime of TARP money. This is a whip with which to thrash the unpopular bankers, a tool to advance the Obama administration's goal of controlling the financial system.
After 35 years in America, I never thought I would see this. I still can't quite believe we will sit by as this crisis is used to hand control of our economy over to government. But here we are, on the brink. Clearly, I have been naive.
UK jihadist sending messages to his followers from prison
Dhimmitude in the UK: why are British authorities allowing this? "Abu Qatada 'issues jail edicts,'" by Dominic Casciani for the BBC News, April 5 (thanks to James):
Radical Islamic cleric Abu Qatada has been issuing messages to his followers from his British jail cell, according to anti-extremism researchers.Statements said to be from the Jordanian have appeared recently on a number of extremist websites.
The Quilliam Foundation think tank say Abu Qatada has released three letters from prison in four months.
But the Prison Service says Quilliam's claims that it has been incompetent are "completely unfounded".
Abu Qatada was once dubbed Osama bin Laden's spiritual ambassador to Europe and recently lost a battle to stay in the UK.
He is asking the European Court of Human Rights to overturn a decision by the Law Lords to allow him to be returned to Jordan.
Abu Qatada is presently held in isolation at the high security Long Lartin Prison in Worcestershire.
But the Quilliam Foundation says statements have been appearing online under his name, circulating on both English and Arabic language websites.
In the statements, the writer using the name Qatada congratulates al-Qaeda fighters, claims that the British government opposes Islam and says Muslims should never join the police or army in a non-Muslim country.
The most recent posting appeared on a jihadist forum last month and details life inside a British maximum security prison....
