http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/02/05/raising-the-bar-for-nullification/

Raising the bar for Nullification

by Michael Boldin

Around the country, twenty two states are currently considering a bill known as the “Firearms Freedom Act.” This bill declares that guns, accessories, and ammunition made within a state, sold within that state and kept in that state are not subject to federal laws or regulations under the “Interstate Commerce Clause” of the Constitution.

Montana and Tennessee passed a Firearms Freedom Act into law in 2009, and a number of states are moving that direction in the 2010 legislative session. In South Carolina, where a Firearms Freedom Act was also introduced in 2009, some representatives have taken things a step further.

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess118_2009-2010/bills/794.htm

NULLIFYING GUN REGISTRATIONS

Introduced in the South Carolina General Assembly this week is House Bill 4509 (H4509), which if passed, would make law that “no public official of any jurisdiction may require registration of purchasers of firearms or ammunition within the boundaries of this State.”

No caveat for regulations under the commerce clause. No caveat for types of firearms either. This bill says NO to all gun registrations – period.

The principle behind such legislation is nullification, which has a long history in the American tradition.

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/the-10th-amendment-movement/

In theKentucky Resolutions of 1798, Thomas Jefferson wrote in response to the hated Alien and Sedition Acts:

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/kentucky-resolutions-of-1798/

“The several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government”

and

“where powers are assumed [by the federal government] which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them”

In short, nullification means this: The state is taking a position that a particular federal law is unconstitutional, and thus, the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as that state is concerned.

But nullification is much more than just mere rhetoric. To nullify a federal law in practice requires active resistance to it by the people and the state government.

INTERPOSITION

In the Virginia Resolution of 1798, James Madison wrote of the principle of interposition:

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/virginia-resolution-of-1798/

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

Here Madison asserts what is implied in nullification laws – that state governments not only have the right to resist unconstitutional federal acts, but that, in order to protect liberty, they are “duty bound to interpose” or stand between the federal government and the people of the state.

H4509 includes strong language to assert this principle:

Federal agents have flouted the United States Constitution and foresworn their oath to support this Constitution by requiring registration of the purchasers of firearms and ammunition, and these requirements violate the limits of authority placed upon the federal agents by the United States Constitution and are dangerous to the liberties of the people

(C) Any person violating the provisions of this subsection (B) is guilty of a felony and upon conviction must be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or a term of imprisonment not exceeding five years, or both.

A GROWING MOVEMENT

Supporters of such legislation point to laws passed by other states that have effectively nullified federal laws around the country. Fourteen states have now defied federal laws on marijuana.

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/nullification/marijuana/

And, two dozen states have refused to comply with the Bush-era Real ID Act, rendering that 2005 law virtually null and void today.

Guns, national ID cards, and weed might be just the early stages of a quickly growing movement to nullify other federal laws seen as outside the scope of their constitutionally-delegated powers. In states around the country this year, bills have been proposed to defy or nullify federal laws on health care, use of national guard troops overseas, legal tender laws, cap and trade, and even the process of collecting federal income taxes.

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/nullification/health-care/

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/nullification/federal-tax-funds-act/

The final goal? It’s a long way off – a federal government that follows the strict limits of the constitution, whether it wants to or not.

CLICK HERE to view the Tenth Amendment Center’s Legislative Tracking Page for Current Nullification Efforts

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/the-10th-amendment-movement/

Michael Boldin [send him email] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center
info@tenthamendmentcenter.com

Copyright © 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/newsletter/

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/the-10th-amendment-movement/

The 10th Amendment Movement

“If the federal government has the exclusive right to judge the extent of its own powers, warned the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions’ authors (James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, respectively), it will continue to grow – regardless of elections, the separation of powers, and other much-touted limits on government power.” –Thomas E. Woods

The 10th Amendment Movement is an effort to push back against unconstitutional federal laws and regulations on a state level. The principle is known as “nullification,” and was advised by many prominent founders.

Current Nullification Efforts:
* 10th Amendment Resolutions * Firearms Freedom Act * Medical Marijuana Laws * REAL ID * Health Care * Bring the Guard Home * Constitutional Tender

Potential Future Efforts:
* Sheriff’s First * Patriot Act * Cap and Trade * Federal Tax Escrow * No Child Left Behind

History of Nullification:
While the media generally portrays nullification as being solely aligned with the efforts of the nullifiers of the South and the Civil War, this is certainly false, and reeks of misinformation. Nullification has a long history in the American tradition and has been invoked in support of free speech, in opposition to war and fugitive slave laws, and more. Read more on this history here. http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/03/04/the-states-rights-tradition-nobody-knows/

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -

10th Amendment Resolutions
These non-binding resolutions, often called “state sovereignty resolutions” do no carry the force of law. Instead, they are intended to be a statement of the legislature of the state. They play an important role, however. If you owned an apartment building and had a tenant not paying rent, you wouldn’t show up with an empty truck to kick them out without first serving notice. That’s how we view these Resolutions – as serving “notice and demand” to the Federal Government to “cease and desist any and all activities outside the scope of their constitutionally-delegated powers.” Follow-up, of course, is a must.
CURRENT 10TH AMENDMENT RESOLUTIONS

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/nullification/10th-amendment-resolutions/

Firearms Freedom Act
Originally introduced and passed in Montana, the FFA declares that any firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states. The FFA is primarily a Tenth Amendment challenge to the powers of Congress under the “commerce clause,” with firearms as the object. (source, FirearmsFreedomAct.com)
CURRENT FIREARMS FREEDOM ACT LEGISLATION

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/nullification/firearms-freedom-act/

Medical Marijuana Laws
An honest reading of the Constitution with an original understanding of the Founders and Ratifiers makes it quite clear that the federal government has no constitutional authority to override state laws on marijuana. All three branches of the federal government, however, have interpreted (and re-interpreted) the commerce clause of the Constitution to authorize them to engage in this activity, even though there’s supposedly no “legal” commerce in the plant. At best, these arguments are dubious; at worst an intentional attack on the Constitution and your liberty.
CURRENT STATE MARIJUANA LAWS

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/nullification/marijuana/

REAL ID Act
Led by Maine in early 2007, 25 states over the past 2 years have passed resolutions and binding laws denouncing and refusing the implement the Bush-era law which many expressed concerned about privacy, funding and more. While the law is still on the books in D.C., its implementation has been “delayed” numerous times in response to this massive state resistance, and in practice, is virtually null and void. ANTI-REAL ID LEGISLATION

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/nullification/real-id/

Health Care
Like Marijuana above, a reading of the Constitution through the original understanding of the Founders and Ratifiers makes it quite clear that any national health care plan, or national public option, is not something that was delegated by the People to the Federal Government in the Constitution. However, the courts, politicians and many commentators have interpreted (and re-interpreted) the Commerce Clause, the general Welfare Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause in ways not intended by the Founders so as to justify such programs under the Constitution. They are most certainly wrong. A number of states are considering legislation to effectively nullify any future national health care plan.
CURRENT HEALTH CARE NULLIFICATION

LEGISLATION

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/nullification/health-care/

Bring the Guard Home
Under the Constitution, the militia (now called the National Guard) may only be called into duty by the federal government in three specific situations. According to Article I, Section 8; Clause 15, the Congress is given the power to pass laws for “calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” The militia was intended by the Founders and Ratifiers to be defense force and nothing more. Deployments outside the country were not considered, and neither were internal deployments in pursuance of powers that were not delegated to the federal government. Congress has passed numerous laws in the past 100 years giving the federal government additional authority not mentioned in the Constitution. But, without amendment, altering the enumerated powers by legislative fiat is, in and of itself, unconstitutional. Campaigns in states around the country are working to reassert the authority of governors over guard troops.
CURRENT BRING THE GUARD HOME LEGISLATION
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/nullification/bring-the-guard-home/ Constitutional TenderThe United States Constitution declares, in Article I, Section 10, “No State shall… make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.” Constitutional Tender laws seek to nullify federal legal tender laws in the state by authorizing payment in gold and silver or a paper note backed 100% by gold or silver,

CURRENT CONSTITUTIONAL TENDER LEGISLATION

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/nullification/constitutional-tender/

Nullification: When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as that state is concerned.

Question: I have heard a great deal about the new REAL ID Act. Can you summarize its provisions.

Answer: On May 11, 2005, President Bush signed Public Law 109-13, which included provisions of the REAL ID Act of 2005. This new measure provides for significant changes to existing immigration laws.

Sec. 101: Tightens evidentiary standards and burdens of proof for applicants for asylum and for relief or protection from removal. Removes entirely the annual limitations of 10,000 adjustments of asylees to lawful permanent resident status and of 1,000 grants of asylum or refugee status to persons resisting coercive population control methods. Clarifies that judicial review limitation in section 242(a)(2)(B) of the INA is applicable to USCIS discretionary decisions not necessarily arising from removal proceedings (this change appears in sec. 101 but is more closely related to the subject matter of sec. 106).

Sec. 103: Significantly amends and expands the terrorism-based grounds of inadmissibility in section 212(a)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, particularly with respect to membership, representation, endorsement or espousal, military-type training, material support, solicitation, and the definition of a terrorist organization.

Sec. 104: Provides a discretionary exception to inadmissibility for certain aliens who have endorsed or espoused, materially supported, or been a representative of a terrorist organization, and to the definition of certain groups as terrorist organizations, to be exercised by DHS or DOS in consultation with each other and DOJ.

Sec. 105: Significantly expands the terrorism-based ground of deportability in section 237(a)(4)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to cover any alien described in the terrorism-based grounds of inadmissibility at section 212(a)(3)(B).

Sec. 106: Limits judicial review of removable orders, especially review in the district courts arising out of habeas corpus claims.

Secs. 201-07: Requirements that States must meet for their drivers’ licenses to be accepted for Federal purposes (such as boarding commercial aircraft or entering Federal buildings) will phase in and fully apply in three years. These requirements include verification of the citizenship or lawful immigration status of drivers’ license applicants (through the SAVE system in the case of aliens), the issuance of temporary drivers’ licenses valid only during the period of lawful stay in the United States to certain categories of aliens, and marking of nonconforming licenses to be recognizable as unacceptable for Federal purposes.

Secs. 301-03: Studies, pilot programs and communications integration with respect to border security.

Secs. 401-07: The “Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act of 2005″ contains a number of provisions intended to provide additional temporary or seasonal workers under the H-2B nonimmigrant category and otherwise to modify the H-2B program. These provisions include: A new exception for fiscal years 2005 and 2006 from the H-2B limitation of 66,000 per fiscal year for “returning workers” who have already been counted toward that limitation in any one of the previous three fiscal years, a new fraud prevention and detection fee of $150 for H-2B petitions for fiscal year 2006 and after, with the receipts to divided between the Departments of State, Labor and Homeland Security for antifraud activities; civil penalty and petition debarment authority for misrepresentations in H-2B petitions; a new division of the 66,000 H-2B limitation into semiannual limitations of 33,000 in order to provide H-2B workers for employers petitioning for the second half of the year; reporting requirements; and a discretionary exemption from certain statutory procedural requirements in order to ensure quick implementation (the “returning worker” provisions and the new fee are to implemented within 14 days of enactment).

Sec. 501: Provides up to 10,000 “specialty occupation” nonimmigrant admissions in new E-3 classification for nationals of Australia (similar to provisions previously enacted in free trade agreement implementing legislation relating to H-1B workers from Singapore and Chile).

Sec. 502: Provides for up to 50,000 employment-based immigrant visas authorized but unused in fiscal years 2001-04 to be available to employment-based immigrants described in the Department of Labor’s “Schedule A” (primarily, but not exclusively, nurses), and their accompanying family members.

Question: I have heard so much about the REAL ID Act, but do not really understand what it is. Can you explain?

Answer: The REAL ID Act made two changes to INA § 242(a)(2)(B), an INA subsection added by IIRIRA that precludes federal court jurisdiction over certain discretionary decisions. One of these changes purports to expand § 242(a)(2)(B) to non-removal cases.

Courts have only recently begun to interpret the REAL ID Act.

Question: What is INA § 242(a)(2)(B)?

Answer: INA § 242(a)(2)(B), entitled “Denials of Discretionary Relief,” restricts when federal courts have jurisdiction over certain types of discretionary decisions and action by the government in immigration cases.

INA § 242(a)(2)(B) includes two subparts. The first limits federal court jurisdiction over a “judgment regarding the granting of relief under section criminal and fraud waivers, cancellation of removal or adjustment proceedings. The second subpart restricts federal court jurisdiction over “any other decision or action … the authority for which is specified under this title [Title II] to be in the discretion or the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security.” Asylum decisions are specifically exempted from this bar on jurisdiction.

For § 242(a)(2)(B) to apply, a case must fall within one of these two subsections. Each subpart has been interpreted narrowly, in accord with the specific language chosen by Congress.

The REAL ID Act also expanded the scope of § 242(a)(2)(B) so that it now applies “regardless of whether the [discretionary] judgment, decision, or action is made in removal proceedings.” Prior to the REAL ID Act, some – though not all courts had held that § 242(a)(2)(B) was applicable only in removal cases. Presumably, this amendment was intended to reverse these earlier court decisions.

Question: Do these amendments eliminate all mandamus and other types of affirmative suits in non-removal cases?

Answer: No, these changes do not eliminate all jurisdictions over mandamus and other affirmative lawsuits in non-removal cases. To determine whether jurisdiction remains available in a particular case, a practitioner may carry out a several step analysis. This analysis is essentially the same as the analysis to determine whether jurisdiction exists in a removal case involving agency discretion. Consequently, court decisions interpreting § 242(a)(2)(B) in the removal context will be helpful in determining whether the provision applies in a non-removal case.

Question: What steps are involved in determining whether a court has jurisdiction under § 242(a)(2)(B) in a removal or non-removal case?

Answer: While there are several issues in such an analysis, the first issue will be looked at in this article. INA § 242(a)(2)(B) does not apply to every immigration-related case. Thus, the first step is to determine if the case is entirely outside the reach of § 242(a)(2)(B). There are at least four general categories of cases that arguably fall outside the reach of this section.

A. INA § 242(a)(2)(B) only limits jurisdiction over certain discretionary actions and decisions. Neither this section nor the REAL ID Act stripped federal courts of jurisdiction where the government has a nondiscretionary duty to act. In mandamus cases in particular, the existence of a mandatory, non-discretionary duty on the part of the government is an essential element of the claim. Thus, mandamus actions by definition generally should not fall within the restrictions of INA § 242(a)(2)(B).

B. INA § 242(a)(2)(B) does not apply to asylum decisions. Asylum is not one of the forms of discretionary relief specifically mentioned in § 242(a)(2)(B)(i), and thus this subsection does not apply to asylum cases. Additionally, asylum is specifically exempted from § 242(a)(2)(B)(ii), and thus this subsection also does not apply to asylum cases. Consequently, § 242(a)(2)(B) should never be an issue with respect to federal court jurisdiction over asylum cases, even if the challenged agency action is a discretionary one.

C. INA § 242(a)(2)(B) also does not apply to naturalization decisions. Additionally, § 242(a)(2)(B)(ii) states that it applies to agency decisions or action, “the authority for which is specified under this title” to be discretionary. Consequently, INA § 242(a)(2)(B) should never be an issue in federal court jurisdiction over a naturalization decision, even one involving discretion.

D. INA § 242(a)(2) should not apply to S, T and U visas. While generally, this provision contains definitions that do not authorize discretion, there are a few exceptions. For example, the definition of the non-immigrant “T” visa category includes as an eligibility requirement that the Attorney General determine if the individual “would suffer extreme hardship involving unusual and severe harm upon removal.” The determination of extreme hardship has been held to be a discretionary determination. Arguably, however, the exercise of the Attorney General’s discretion with respect to a T visa would not fall within the bar to jurisdiction in § 242(a)(2)(B)(ii) because the statutory authority for this discretion is found in Title I, not Title II. The definitions of the “S” and “U” visa categories contain similar grants of discretion that fall outside the scope of § 242(a)(2)(B).

Thus, the REAL ID Act did not completely eliminate federal court jurisdiction.

Question: I have had my case denied in Immigration Court and I have heard about the REAL ID act and am very confused if I can get some type of judicial review of my case. Can you clarify?

Answer: The REAL ID Act did not change the language of either subpart (i) or (ii) of the statute giving/denying review. Rather, the Act made two changes to the paragraph preceding these subparts. First, it specified that the phrase “notwithstanding any other provision of law” applied to “statutory and nonstatutory” law and included the habeas corpus statute, the mandamus statute, and the All Writs Act. Second, the REAL ID Act also expanded the scope of § 242(a)(2)(B) so that it now applies “regardless of whether the [discretionary] judgment, decision, or action is made in removal proceedings.” Prior to the REAL ID Act, some – though not all – courts had held that § 242(a)(2)(B) was applicable only in removal cases. Presumably, this amendment was intended to reverse these earlier court decisions.

Question: Do these amendments eliminate all mandamus and other types of affirmative suits?

Answer: No, these changes do not eliminate all jurisdiction over mandamus and other affirmative lawsuits in non-removal cases. To determine whether jurisdiction remains available in a particular case, it is necessary to carry out a several step analysis. This analysis is essentially the same as the analysis to determine whether jurisdiction exists in a removal case involving agency discretion. Consequently, court decisions interpreting § 242(a)(2)(B) in the removal context will be helpful in determining whether the provision applies in a non-removal case.

Question: What steps are involved in determining whether a court has jurisdiction under § 242(a)(2)(B) in a removal or non-removal case?

Answer: There are several items that one must look at to determine if this section applies. 1. Does the issue/case fall completely outside the scope of INA § 242(a)(2)(B)? A. INA § 242(a)(2)(B) only limits jurisdiction over certain discretionary actions and decisions. B. INA § 242(a)(2)(B) does not apply to asylum decisions.

C. INA § 242(a)(2)(B) also does not apply to naturalization decisions and D. INA § 242(a)(2) should not apply to S, T and U visas.

Question: What if the case is one that appears to have fallen under the provision not permitting discretionary review?

Answer: Again, it is necessary to do an analysis. First, has there been an actual exercise of discretion? Even where there has been an actual exercise of discretion, is this exercise of discretion the issue in the case? Is the challenged action or decision discretionary? Is the decision or action specified by statute to be discretionary? Is the grant of discretion one of pure discretion unguided by legal principles? (9th Circuit cases.)

Thus, while the REAL ID Act may seem to completely limit judicial review of cases, if you fight the matter and analyze the case, there are different ways to still get judicial review of your case.

Rockefeller fingerprints have to be all over this one. The Rockefeller/CFR connections to the ACLU are undeniable fact.

Something similar happened in Germany after Hitler got power, he thinned his ranks of the SA that brought him to power and then others including the homosexuals that also were behind his movement.  Obama has done a reversal on his gay-rights agenda and I wonder if some are speaking out against his hypocricy. But who knows what happened yet, I am sure there will be some official “this was a hate crime” BS to push more draconian hate crime legislation. But if a homocide, looks damn professional and blaming some angry patsy will probably be seen as obvious BS.

Larry Frankel, legislative council for the ACLU interviewed with AARP

The ACLU weighs in on the Supreme Court ruling regarding Voter ID and discusses why Voter ID laws are bad for all Americans.

Video http://www.aarp.org/aarp/broadcast/estreet_archives/E_street_213_archive/e_street_213_seg_2/

He wasn’t a big fan of the Real ID Act. He started a website www.realnightmare.org to raise awareness to state and federal authorities about the dangers of real id.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/TR/transcripts/2008_0027_0004_TSTMNY.pdf

Which also means:  ”If you oppose and try to expose our real agenda with the fact your biometric data is stored in an Agile Software (PROMIS/Ptech) database that allows us to change your ID credentials dynamically, at will–THEN YOU WILL BE KILLED.”

From here:

Just remember who funds the ACLU. The Rockefeller Foundation and the Ford Foundation. Current ACLU executive director Anthony Romero is a CFR member who worked for BOTH the Rockefeller Foundation and Ford Foundation. And for at least 30 years, the ACLU president has been a CFR member. Nadine Strossen (ACLU president, 1991-2008) is a CFR member. Norman Dorsen (ACLU president, 1976-1991) is a CFR member.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadine_Strossen

Nadine Strossen (born August 18, 1950) was president of the American Civil Liberties Union from February 1991 to October 2008. She was the first woman and the youngest person to ever lead the ACLU. A professor at New York Law School, Professor Strossen sits on the Council on Foreign Relations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Dorsen

Dorsen also sits on the Council on Foreign Relations, and is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Romero

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Anthony-Romero

Anthony Romero serves on or associates with a number of organizations, boards of directors, and others. He is the chairman of the Center of Disability and Advocacy Rights, vice chairman of the New World Foundation’s Board of Directors and a member the Council on Foreign Relations, the New York State Bar Association and Hispanics in Philanthropy. In addition, he has sat on the board of judges for the PEN/Newman’s Own award for free expression.

In the past, he was the Vice Chairman of the White House Internship Advisory Committee and acted as Co-Chairman of the Funders’ Committee for Citizen Participation. He was also Director of Human Rights and International Cooperation at the Ford Foundation, which turned “into Ford’s largest and most dynamic grant making unit” under his leadership. Prior to this position, he served as Program Officer for Civil Rights and Racial Justice for the Ford Foundation. He has also been part of the Rockefeller Foundation.

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-22332892_ITM

The ACLU’s leadership is well represented in the CFR’s membership rolls and works closely with this Insider brain trust. ACLU president Nadine Strossen is a CFR member. So is ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero, a homosexual activist attorney who previously was a top staff member at the Ford Foundation, the CER-directed revolutionary cash cow providing funding to the ACLU. Stanley Sheinbaum, the longtime patriarch of the ACLU of Southern California, one of the organization’s most influential chapters, is also a CFR member. So is Morton Halperin, the Marxist revolutionary who, for many years, ran the ACLU’s project to neuter our police and security agencies. President Clinton tried to appoint Halperin to a top Defense Department post, but was prevented from doing so when this magazine and others exposed the nominee s ultra-radical, pro-Communist, pro-terrorist record.

In 1996, ACLU President Nadine Strossen was one of three CFR panelists on the council’s program, “Combating Terrorism: What Works? What Doesn’t?” This conference, broadcast over C-SPAN, provided an even earlier trial balloon than Hart-Rudman to measure the American public’s response to proposals for draconian measures to fight terrorism.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=8540

The ACLU has pointed to the Orwellian Big Brother potential of the Homeland Security Act (HSA) to boost recruitment and raise funds. Apparently this scam is working; the organization claims that its membership has jumped to an all-time high, and funds are pouring in. What the ACLU does not point out is the close relationship of its top players to the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) architects who gave us the HSA. The HSA and the mammoth new Homeland Security Department was created by legislation that originated with the CFR-spawned Hart-Rudman Commission. Known formally as the United States Commission on National Security/21st Century, the Hart-Rudman Commission was established in 1998 at the urging of President Clinton (CFR) and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (CFR).  The commission was co-chaired by former Senators Gary Hart (CFR) and Warren Rudman (CFR).  It should be no surprise that the commission proposed what Congress has essentially adopted and President Bush has signed.  ACLU president Nadine Strossen is a CFR member.  So is ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero.  The CFR seeks nothing less than the absolute destruction of American sovereignty and liberty.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42544

The ACLU is lavishly funded by wealthy foundations and individuals, by annual dues paid by some 400,000 individual members, and through payment of court-ordered attorneys fees. In recent years, the ACLU Foundation in New York has taken in annual revenues of approximately $50 million – funds which are available for its aggressive legal and public relations campaigns. In 2003, the last year for which financial data are available, the ACLU Foundation reported more than $150 million in assets.

The Ford Foundation has been especially generous, pledging $7 million in 1999 to the ACLU’s endowment fund, and making additional donations in 2001, 2002 and 2003 amounting to $5.3 million. But Ford has been joined in these benefactions by several other well-known philanthropies. The Packard Foundation donated $1.6 million in 2001, and the Hewlett and Rockefeller Foundations donated $450,000 and $275,000, respectively, in 2002. In recent years, the ACLU has received $2.9 million from George Soros’ Open Society Institute. Numerous other foundations have donated lesser sums. All, it may be assumed, endorse the ACLU’s agenda of driving religion out of the public square and of weakening the government’s ability to fight terrorism.

http://www.law.stanford.edu/publications/stanford_lawyer/issues/68/TakingTheACLU.pdf

Still, finding a public interest position straight out of law school was a challenge. Romero had pinned much of his hopes on winning the ACLU’s Marvin M. Karpatkin Fellowship, but he was a runner-up. “I was absolutely crushed,” he says. He had loans to pay back, and he despaired about his family’s reaction. Revuelta told him to hang in there.
His patience paid off: he was awarded a fellowship at the Rockefeller Foundation just before graduation.
From 1990 to 2001, Romero’s career flourished. He left Rockefeller and rose through the ranks of the Ford Foundation, distinguishing himself not only as a grant maker but also as an advisor to nonprofits, a manager of people, and a master of back-office systems. Susan V. Berresford, the Ford Foundation president, notes that there are a select few who can make smart, well-informed funding decisions, and there are another select few who can revamp office administration practices. Romero was the rare individual who could do both—and be charming at the same time. “He has it all,” she says. “I’m glad that the ACLU was able to see it and hire him.”

Romero was executive director for exactly one week when the September 11 attacks occurred. As the first 747 jet crashed into the World Trade Center towers, he was in Washington, D.C., about to address his first meeting of the organization’s biggest donors. A staff member directed him to a television, he saw the mayhem, and quickly took the podium away from another speaker.

————————————————————-

And now here’s the story.

ACLU Counsel and Gay Rights Champion Found Dead In DC Park
http://lezgetreal.com/?p=21129
8/30/09-by Paula Brooks

Washington DC police sources are telling Lez Get Real, that a body found Friday in a wooded section of Rock Creek Park is that of ACLU State Legislative Counsel Larry Frankel. Rock Creek Park is located in Northwest DC.

Police say that a jogger running along a path in the park just south of Beach Drive and north of Massachusetts Ave NW, about 11 a.m. Friday saw something floating in the water that later turned out to be Frankels body.

US Park Police initially responded to the joggers 911 call and were later joined on the scene by investigators from the homicide division of the DC Metro Police.

A Metro DC Police spokesman confirmed this morning that the body was indeed that of Frankel and said that homicide detectives are continuing to investigate his death, but would offer no cause of death or comment further on the case pending official release of autopsy results.

Frankel, 52, had served as both Executive Director and Legislative Director for the ACLU of Pennsylvania for many years before becoming the State Legislative Counsel for the National ACLU here in Washington. Frankel joined the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office last year and oversaw the support to the 53 ACLU affiliate offices across the country.

Pennsylvania Rep Mark Cohen said on his blog this morning that Frankel was a “proud gay man, he was militant on the issue of gay marriage, believing that it was far more important to keep the legal option of gay marriage by defeating a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage than to enact civil unions legislation, an uphill battle that some, including myself, thought was winnable. His views on gay marriage were somewhat vindicated when four New England states and the state of Iowa legalized gay marriage this year.”

August 10, 2009

Dear Friend of Liberty,

Unbelievably, Congress and the Obama administration are currently trying to resurrect the failed REAL ID Act, more accurately named “Dangerous ID.”

Dangerous ID, which passed in 2005, establishes a de facto National Identification System, and opens the doors for Federal biometric tracking of every American citizen.

Fortunately, no state currently complies with the burdensome mandates of the 2005 bill, and twenty-three have passed legislation refusing compliance.

So what does the Obama Administration want to do?

You guessed it: “Fix it,” and ram it down states’ throats.

Well, I say “Repeal it.” What do you say?

You see, as Obama Administration Surveillance Czar Janet Napolitano pushes for a revamp of the system to get the invasive federal program up and running, there has never been a better time to for us to push back, and fight for an outright repeal of the original legislation.

And although Dangerous ID is a clear attempt to establish a National ID System, the reality might be much worse — an INTERNATIONAL Identification System. That’s why it is so critical we get that law off the books.

You see, Dangerous ID actually requires that driver’s license photographs meet United Nation’s biometric format standards. At this level of sophistication, government software can analyze facial characteristics and generate a unique identification number.

Think about that for a moment — your identity will be reduced to a single number in an international database that can be tracked globally by one-world government surveillance cameras and facial recognition software.

Last month, Senator Daniel Akaka introduced The PASS ID Act to tweak the 2005 Dangerous ID legislation and ram this program into action over state opposition.

Supporters claim this REAL ID Redux bill softens requirements on states, supposedly making the breach of federalism a little more palatable. But it is merely a transparent attempt to get the Dangerous ID system implemented in any form, only to be augmented later to meet government’s needs.

In fact, there is evidence that this reincarnated Dangerous ID bill could wind up being worse than the original.

Chief among the bill’s supporters is Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, who stands to wield expansive and virtually unchecked power to set standards.

Under Dangerous ID, Napolitano can unilaterally expand required information on driver’s licenses, potentially to include biometric information such as retinal scans, fingerprints, DNA information, and even Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) radio tracking technology.

If international databases, RFID and biometric identification cards, and constant government surveillance are as alarming to you as they are to me, I hope you’ll click here to sign Campaign for Liberty’s petition to stop REAL ID Redux and repeal Dangerous ID.

This is an important battle, and one we CAN win.

Just look at all the success stories in states that opted out of the Dangerous ID system. In many cases, local C4L groups were instrumental in passing that legislation.

If REAL ID Redux passes, the new federal “concessions” may sucker many states into compliance.

That’s why it is so important that we defeat this reincarnation of Dangerous ID at the federal level, and take advantage of this national conversation to repeal the original bill.

So please, click here to sign the petition urging your Senators and Representative to stop this so-called “PASS ID” and finally repeal the original Dangerous ID legislation.

And please, make a generous contribution to help Campaign for Liberty spread the word about this important fight.

In Liberty,

John F. Tate
President

P.S. REAL ID (a.k.a. “Dangerous ID”) is back on the move with a revamped version called PASS ID.

To stop this move toward a National and International database and biometric ID Card, click here to sign the petition urging Congress to stop REAL ID Redux and finally repeal Dangerous ID. And please, make a generous contribution to help Campaign for Liberty spread the word.

Dear Friend of Liberty,

Unbelievably, Congress and the Obama administration are currently trying to resurrect the failed REAL ID Act, more accurately named “Dangerous ID.”

Dangerous ID, which passed in 2005, establishes a de facto National Identification System, and opens the doors for Federal biometric tracking of every American citizen.

Fortunately, no state currently complies with the burdensome mandates of the 2005 bill, and twenty-three have passed legislation refusing compliance.

So what does the Obama Administration want to do?

You guessed it: “Fix it,” and ram it down states’ throats.

Well, I say “Repeal it.” What do you say?

You see, as Obama Administration Surveillance Czar Janet Napolitano pushes for a revamp of the system to get the invasive federal program up and running, there has never been a better time to for us to push back, and fight for an outright repeal of the original legislation.

And although Dangerous ID is a clear attempt to establish a National ID System, the reality might be much worse — an INTERNATIONAL Identification System. That’s why it is so critical we get that law off the books.

You see, Dangerous ID actually requires that driver’s license photographs meet United Nation’s biometric format standards. At this level of sophistication, government software can analyze facial characteristics and generate a unique identification number.

Think about that for a moment — your identity will be reduced to a single number in an international database that can be tracked globally by one-world government surveillance cameras and facial recognition software.

Last month, Senator Daniel Akaka introduced The PASS ID Act to tweak the 2005 Dangerous ID legislation and ram this program into action over state opposition.

Supporters claim this REAL ID Redux bill softens requirements on states, supposedly making the breach of federalism a little more palatable. But it is merely a transparent attempt to get the Dangerous ID system implemented in any form, only to be augmented later to meet government’s needs.

In fact, there is evidence that this reincarnated Dangerous ID bill could wind up being worse than the original.

Chief among the bill’s supporters is Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, who stands to wield expansive and virtually unchecked power to set standards.

Under Dangerous ID, Napolitano can unilaterally expand required information on driver’s licenses, potentially to include biometric information such as retinal scans, fingerprints, DNA information, and even Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) radio tracking technology.

If international databases, RFID and biometric identification cards, and constant government surveillance are as alarming to you as they are to me, I hope you’ll click here to sign Campaign for Liberty’s petition to stop REAL ID Redux and repeal Dangerous ID.

This is an important battle, and one we CAN win.

Just look at all the success stories in states that opted out of the Dangerous ID system. In many cases, local C4L groups were instrumental in passing that legislation.

If REAL ID Redux passes, the new federal “concessions” may sucker many states into compliance.

That’s why it is so important that we defeat this reincarnation of Dangerous ID at the federal level, and take advantage of this national conversation to repeal the original bill.

So please, click here to sign the petition urging your Senators and Representative to stop this so-called “PASS ID” and finally repeal the original Dangerous ID legislation.

And please, make a generous contribution to help Campaign for Liberty spread the word about this important fight.

In Liberty,

John F. Tate
President

P.S. REAL ID (a.k.a. “Dangerous ID”) is back on the move with a revamped version called PASS ID.

To stop this move toward a National and International database and biometric ID Card, click here to sign the petition urging Congress to stop REAL ID Redux and finally repeal Dangerous ID. And please, make a generous contribution to help Campaign for Liberty spread the word.

In November 2008, an illegal immigrant facing deportation and running for political office in Rhode Island was prosecuted and found guilty of using her position as a Rhode Island DMV clerk to sell driver’s licenses to “out of state” drug dealers with stolen identities. The scam included 11 others. The beauty of the scam was that the DMV clerk, Dolores Rodriguez LaFlamme, was able to pursue her illegal activity because Rhode Island does not verify an applicant’s license information from another state.

But no other state does either, which is why the 2005 federal secure driver’s license law, REAL ID, imposed a “one driver/one license” rule on states, requiring them to ensure that applicants be vetted for other licenses in other states before being issued a license. That rule exists because 18 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were able to get a total of 30 driver’s licenses and non-driver IDs from multiple states.
. . .
Read More

On Friday, July 10th, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin signed House Joint Resolution 27 (HJR27), sponsored by State Rep. Mike Kelly.  The resolution “claims sovereignty for the state under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.”

The House passed the resolution by a vote of 37-0 (3 not voting) and the Senate passed it by a vote of 40-0.

Six other states have had both houses of their legislature pass similar resolutions – Tennessee, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma and Louisiana – Alaska joins Tennessee as the second to have such a resolution signed by the Governor.

A GROWING MOVEMENT

Passage of this resolution appears to be part of what is now a growing state-level resistance to the federal government on various levels.   Similar 10th Amendment resolutions have been introduced in 37 states around the country, and various states are considering single-issue legislation in direct contravention to federal laws.

Most recently, the Arizona Legislature passed a measure for public approval on the 2010 state ballot that would give Arizona voters the opportunity to nullify, or opt out, of any potential national health care legislation.

Since 2007, more than two dozen states have passed legislation refusing to implement the Real ID Act of 2005.  In response, the federal government has recently announced that they want to “repeal and replace” the law due to a rebellion by states.

Pending legislation in states around the country also includes preventing state law enforcement officials from enforcing federal laws, refusing federal gun regulations, refusing to send a state’s national guard to any duty other than what the constitution authorizes, legalizing marijuana for various purposes and more.

A FIRST STEP

While HJR27 is strongly-word in support of the principles of limited, constitutional government that the 10th Amendment represents, it is a Joint Resolution and does not carry with it the force of law.  But supporters say that this is an important first step to get their message out not only to grassroots supporters, but to the media, and legislators in other states as well.

Read the final version of the resolution below:

Relating to the Sovereign Powers of the State

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA:

WHEREAS the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”; and

WHEREAS the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and

WHEREAS some federal actions weaken states’ rights protected by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

WHEREAS the Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people of the United States of America and each sovereign state in the Union of States, now have, and have always had, rights the federal government may not usurp; and

WHEREAS art. IV, sec. 4, Constitution of the United States, reads, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,” and the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”; and

WHEREAS the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S.Ct. 2408 (1992), that the United States Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and

WHEREAS all states, including Alaska, find themselves regularly facing proposals from the United States Congress that weaken states’ rights protected by the Tenth Amendment;

BE IT RESOLVED that the Alaska State Legislature hereby claims sovereignty for the state under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States; and be it

FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution serves as Notice and Demand to the federal government to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.

COPIES of this resolution shall be sent to the Honorable Barack Obama, President of the United States; the Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Vice-President of the United States and President of the U.S. Senate; the Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives; the Honorable Lisa Murkowski and the Honorable Mark Begich, U.S. Senators, and the Honorable Don Young, U.S. Representative, members of the Alaska delegation in Congress; all other members of the 111th United States Congress; the presiding officers of the legislatures of each of the other 49 states; and the governors of each of the other 49 states.

CLICK HERE FOR A FULL LIST OF STATE SOVEREIGNTY RESOLUTIONS

While the 2009 spring session for the Minnesota Legislature just ended amidst a controversial decision by Governor Pawlenty to balance the budget by himself, many important immigration bills were debated in this past session. Admirably, the Land of 10,000 Lakes voted to prohibit state compliance with the Real ID Act, a catch-all piece of 2006 federal legislation which enabled the Department of Homeland Security to waive any and all laws in the construction of our border wall and would have required a national id card to be carried by everyone in the U.S., a thinly cloaked anti-immigrant measure. This bill, HF 988, will protect Minnesota’s growing immigrant community in this particularly vulnerable time of economic turmoil from an intrusive federal law.

SF 1514 was also passed  on May 21 by the Minnesota legislature, recognizing the crime of sex trafficking for the first time with harsh penalties of up to 25 years in jail while also granting victims a means of legal recourse regardless of their citizenship status.

Also important were the bills rejected by Minnesota’s lawmakers, many of which were targeted specifically at the immigrant community.  SF 505, which would have required the removal of all head coverings in order to procure state ids, was defeated, along with SF 144, which would have made government employees liable if they knew of an undocumented immigrant and failed to report it.  SF 577 was also defeated in its efforts to make English the official language (interestingly enough, just before the turn of the 20th century the same debates were being had about making Norwegian the official state language).

A couple of important federal bills might also impact Minnesota.  AgJOBS, reintroduced in the Senate by Senator Diane Feinstein (S. 1038) and in the House by Representatives Howard Berman and Adam Putnam (H.R. 2414), would allow immigrant farm workers the opportunity to earn the legal right to permanently stay in this country through continuing work in agriculture while also amending the current H2A guest worker program to grant growers a safer and more stable workforce. (Souza, Christine. California Farm Bureau Federation).  Similarly, the Visa Recapture Bill (or the “Reuniting Families Act”) introduced by Senators Robert Menendez and Charles Schumer would go a long way in reforming the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act. First, Visas unused due to lack of governmnet action dating back to 1992 would be added to the current year limits, and prospectively any surplus would added to the new year’s allowable visa limits. Second, spouses and minor children of legal permanent residents would be able to obtain visas (whereas now only citizens can really petition for immediate relatives), and it changes the age of minor children from 18 to 21.  Third, the overally level of family-sponsored immigrant visas would be expanded to 480,000/year, along with raising the number of employment-based visas to 140,000/year.

Advocates with the project Familias Unidas, along with the Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota, have worked to include Minneapolis on this collaborative’s national tour to 20 cities.  In its attempt to encourage support for comprehensive immigration reform this year, Representatives Luis Gutierrez and Keith Ellison will hold a community forum at the Incarnation Church in Minneapolis on June 14 at 2:30.  This multi-faith, multi-ethnic, multi-lingual event is aimed at getting Obama to follow through on his promise earlier this year to pass comprehensive immigration reform in 2009.  The petition they will be signing at this event is as follows – feel free to print it off and send it to our President yourself:

The Honorable Barack Obama

President of the United States

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Obama,

My name is _____________________________________, and I am petitioning on behalf of my

______________________ who has no realistic options to gain legal status under our current

immigration laws.

President Obama, as a result of our broken immigration system, my loved one is at risk of being

deported/ has been deported:  causing the destruction and separation of our family.

This has caused us all to live with constant anxiety and fear about the future of our family.

As you eloquently stated in your inauguration speech,

“The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation:

the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free and all deserve a chance to pursue their

full measure of happiness.”

On behalf of my family and the millions of other families like mine, I urge you to stop the

misguided raids and deportations that are tearing our marriages, our childrens’ lives, and

our communities apart.

We are hopeful that you will indeed fulfill your campaign promise to work with Congress to move quickly to enact just and humane comprehensive immigration reform that includes

family reunification, faster due process, a reasonable path to citizenship, and workers’ protection.

We are hopeful that you will indeed fulfill your campaign promise to work tirelessly to bring forth the change necessary to ensure that all people have an opportunity to dream, to live, and to pursue their full measure of happiness.

We are hopeful that you will indeed fulfill your campaign promise of Si Se Puede; Yes We Can!

Sincerely,

________________________________________    ________________________________

Signature                                                                      Date

__________________________________________________________ (Address)

__________________________________________________________ (City, State, Zip Code)

__________________________________________________________ (Phone)

__________________________________________________________ (E-Mail)

On Friday, May 29th the Oregon State House passed Senate Bill 536 (SB0536) thanks to organizations such as ACLU of Oregon. The bill “Prohibits state from expending funds to comply with the federal Real ID Act 0f 2005 unless certain requirements are met.” The bill passed by a vote of 39-6. Oregon now joins eleven other states that have already passed laws rejecting Real ID. Ten additional states have passed resolutions urging Congress to repeal Real ID.

The passage of this bill is a good beginning but is not enough. The state of Oregon should reject Real ID entirely, not “unless certain requirements are met”.

What this bill does is prohibit state agencies from spending money to cover the costs of complying with the federal law unless the federal government shares the bill.

The chief sponsor of the bill, Senator Rick Metsger (D-Mt. Hood), says that there are no funds to help states implement the federal law. He also emphasized the serious privacy issues related to the federal law because Real ID would allow DMV to electronically scan and share copies of original identity documents — such as birth certificates, passports, and Social Security cards in a 50-state shared database.

“The federal government has not been able to ensure that this new database would be secure against identity theft,” Metsger said. “Maintaining a database of personal information, without the money to implement that or protect the security of our citizens is simply something we should not do.”

By creating a single identification standard it may actually increase the likelihood of identity and asset theft.

So will the state of Oregon comply with the implementation of Real ID if the Feds help foot the bill? That is a very scary thought. Real ID cards are unconstitutional and threatens our personal liberties. It goes beyond concerns about identity theft and money.

The Bill now goes on to Governor Ted Kulongoski’s desk.

To see full text of the bill go to:

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/05/29/real-id-in-oregon-lawmakers-say-no/

http://www.leg.state.or.us/09reg/measpdf/sb0500.dir/sb0536.intro.pdf

Frank Gaffney, Jr.

Give Janet Napolitano her due. The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security has taken to heart Barack Obama’s campaign pledges of “change” and “hope.” Unfortunately, the changes she has effected seem generally to be to dismantle sensible Bush-era internal security policies and practices, replacing them with politically correct nostrums and generally inadequate programs.

The cumulative effect of such change can only be to give hope to our terrorist foes. If this keeps up, Ms. Napolitano’s post should be renamed the Homeland Insecurity Department. Consider the following illustrative examples:

Secretary Napolitano has been at the cutting edge of the Obama administration’s efforts to define away the conflict in which we are engaged. Her most notable contribution has been to replace the term “terrorism” with “man-caused disasters.” She claims it reflects her desire to “move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.” Sadly, such gambits predictably have the effect of further confusing the public about the gravity – let alone the source – of the dangers that her department was established to counter.

Speaking of dangers, a report recently released by Ms. Napolitano’s staff warned of the threat posed by veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and other “right-wing extremists.” This defamation is all the more egregious for its coming on the heels of a no-less-benighted Bush administration lexicological exercise – one that concealed the role of what authoritative Islam calls “Shariah” in spawning terrorism.

Then, there is the problem posed for homeland security by untold numbers of individuals illegally in the United States. A few months ago, Secretary Napolitano suspended workplace raids aimed at apprehending employees not here legally. Her department then freed and gave work permits to 27 of those previously arrested on her watch. While she authorized resumption of the raids last week, their principal target reportedly will be American employers, rather than the illegals they hire. It is not clear whether the net effect of the Napolitano program will be to discourage or incentivize aliens to try to penetrate our borders.

Here’s another straw in that wind: The Obama administration has submitted a budget to Congress that would deny state and local governments currently incarcerating illegal immigrants the federal help they have heretofore received to defray the associated costs. If allowed to stand, the inevitable result would be to release into the general population thousands of possibly dangerous aliens, compounding our homeland insecurity problem.

There is another group of dangerous aliens Mr. Obama seems determined to unleash on the American people: Ms. Napolitano’s organization may have to cope in the near future with 17 Chinese Uigars trained in terrorism in Afghanistan. They have been held in recent years at Guantanamo Bay and reportedly are slated for release in Alexandria, Virginia. In addition, although legislators of both parties are increasingly voicing objections, the President’s decision to close “Gitmo” without a plan for its detainees seems likely, all other things being equal, to result in many of them coming to penitentiaries here – at who knows what risk to the American people?

If Ms. Napolitano has her way, the Uigars will be able to get Virginia drivers licenses – like 13 of the 21 September 11th terrorists – as she says she intends to “repeal the Real ID Act.” That statute, which requires (among other things) that the 50 states meet a high standard for issuing drivers licenses, was belatedly adopted on the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. The Commissioners emphasized that fraudulently obtained identity documents are “weapons” in the hands of our enemies.

The Secretary’s helpmate in repealing the Real ID Act is Hawaii Democrat Senator Daniel Akaka. He is expected shortly to introduce a substitute dubbed the “Pass ID” Act. That title is certainly appropriate insofar as the draft bill would seemingly allow virtually anyone – including Gitmo detainees, illegal aliens, employees of international organizations and a class called “other non-immigrant aliens who are authorized to remain in the United States for an indefinite period” – to be eligible for temporary driver’s licenses or other IDs.

Outright repeal of the Real ID Act, however, would also eliminate several other provisions of law that closed loopholes exploited in the past by various terrorists like the Blind Sheik, who was responsible for the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, and by several of the 9/11 attackers. These include important restrictions on who can be granted asylum. Consequently, Congress seems unlikely to go along with a wholesale gutting of the Act.

Still, Secretary Napolitano seems to want political cover for eviscerating the statute’s eminently sensible and much-needed requirements with respect to driver’s licenses. Even though more than 30 states are moving to satisfy those requirements and even though she has the authority to give the remaining states additional time to do so, the former Governor of Arizona apparently is okay with once again giving terrorists a “pass” to gain access to our airplanes, government facilities, banks, etc.

Like much of the rest of the Obama administration’s agenda with respect to our security, that which is related to safeguarding our homeland appears increasingly to be a wrecking operation. Janet Napolitano’s Homeland Security Department requires urgent adult supervision. Let us pray that it receives such oversight and course corrections from the Congress – notably its rejection of any repeal of the Real ID Act – before someone exploits the vulnerabilities she is needlessly recreating.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributor Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy and a columnist for the Washington Times.

A post-9/11 law that sets federal standards for state driver’s licenses and identification cards is under fire from the head of the agency enforcing that law, the Department of Homeland Security.

Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano, here last week in San Pedro, California, wants to replace the Real ID.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano this week said she is working with governors to repeal the Real ID Act, which was passed in 2005 and went into effect last year.

The bill is popular in Washington, but is scorned by many governors who bear the responsibility and cost of validating that holders of driver’s licenses are citizens or legal residents of the United States.

Napolitano, former governor of Arizona, said she has met with governors of both parties recently “to look at a way to repeal Real ID.” She said she wants to substitute the federal law with “something else that pivots off of the driver’s license but accomplishes some of the same goals. And we hope to be able to announce something on that fairly soon.”

Napolitano made her remarks Tuesday in response to a question at a conference of the Anti-Defamation League.

On Wednesday, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin, a sponsor of the law, said he was “angered” by Napolitano’s comments.

“Real ID is a necessary program for keeping America safe. It is the will of Congress and also a recommendation of the 9/11 Commission,” Sensenbrenner said.

“When the Democrats took over the majority in the 110th Congress, they said they wanted to implement all of the 9/11 Commission recommendations. I am highly disappointed that they are going back on their word by repealing this important recommendation, and substituting it with a weaker, less safe program that provides terrorists with too many avenues to attack.”

While Napolitano is looking for ways to repeal Real ID, her department’s Web site continues to espouse the law’s merits.

“Raising the standards of state-issued identification is an important step toward enhancing national security,” the Web site says.

“Because a driver’s license serves so many purposes [access to federal buildings, nuclear power plants, boarding aircraft, etc.], terrorists actively seek fraudulent state-issued identification. The Real ID rules will make it more difficult for them, while making it easier for law enforcement to detect falsified documents,” it says.

The law, which requires all states to enforce specific identification requirements for driver’s licenses and identification cards, went into effect last year, but the federal government has given states until the end of this year to implement it. States can get extensions until May 2011 for implementation if they meet certain benchmarks.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/22/real.ID.debate/

This post has been setting since the 11th of March.  I was hesitant to post it since as much as I like conspiracy theories, I don’t want to be taken for nutjob.  Still, yesterday morning’s USA Today made me take pause.  But this morning’s USA Today pretty much sealed the deal for this post.

I try to follow podcasts sequentially, but sometimes doing so puts me far behind current episodes.  But that isn’t always a bad thing and here is why:

I subscribe to the podcast from How Stuff Works called Stuff You Should Know.  5 to 15 minute overviews of some of the most random questions and subjects can make a 4 or 5 hour drive go pretty quickly.  The podcast from 8/28/08 is titled “What Are Smart Mobs?”

I also subscribe to The Wall Street Journal This Morningwhich is a taped show from a radio broadcast.  Not my exact cup of tea, especially when the host or one of the reporters try to express disbelief at anything not white bread and suburban, but still not bad.  The podcast from, I think, 03/06/09 had a piece about RFID driver’s licenses and the potential for identity theft.

Now let’s play connect the dots.

On 02/20/09, I wrote a post about full-body scanners.  In that post I said,

 How long until these machines are everywhere, for the sake of security?  Maybe checkpoints on the interstate?  How about at the mall?  The issue isn’t if I have anything I want to hide.  The issue becomes can you hide at all?

The freedom of movement is probably the one freedom that people don’t even consider.  But could you imagine not being able to go to the store for a gallon of milk without the government knowing?  Wanna run out to a movie?  Don’t worry about getting lost, because you can be tracked.

About a year ago, maybe less, I was listening to an interview with the governor of Montana who was against the mandatory transition to REAL ID.  WIRED Magazine had an article about it, about a year ago.

 Take a look at the REAL ID Act.

And RFID.

Now add in the component of a Smart Mobs.

First, what is a smart mob?  A smart mob or flash mob is a group of people who self-form into task-specific groups via technology.  Imagine sending a text message to 3 of your friends to meet you at the local coffee shop.  No big deal, right?  Now imagine sending that message to 1000 people.  And them sending it to 1000 more.

Now imagine that happening for a protest.  Organic, spreadable, and elusive.  How does the government combat such an organic gathering considering that smart/flash mobs can form and dissipate as fast as a mass text can be sent?

RFID.

But smart mobs can be a double-edged sword as they could also be used against such protests or even individuals.  Imagine a mass text looking for protesters.  Or if your RFID triggered a cell phone or other wireless device when you came near.

Not possible?  Here is some light reading.

RFID Journal.

Now, on to what made me post.

Fast forward to yesterday.  There at the bottom of page 3A.  Crossing the border?  Take your passport.

Travelers will no longer be able to use ordinary driver’s licenses or birth certificates to get back into the U.S.

…or they could use…an enhanced driver’ license, which has extra security features (read: RFID)…

So why a passport?  Well, all new U.S. passports have an embedded RFID chip.

Don’t let the increased coverage of the drug war spilling over in the media fool you.  It has been going on for years, but now it will be the false flag that requires average Americans to get tagged.

Don’t think so?  Well take a look at this article, entitled More cameras for Canada border, in today’s USA Today.  But this quote is the one that is too much”

Although the federal government has focused security efforts on the U.S.-Mexican border, Homeland Security says, “the terrorist threat on the northern border is higher,”  according to a November report…

What?!? The terrorist threat is higher out of Canada?!?

I will end with this:

That the government tracking its own citizens more and more is essentially saying it considers us suspect.

And if you don’t have a problem with this, then let me remind you that the Founding Fathers of this country would have had a hell of a time trying to organize a Tea Party, let alone a Continental Congress or Yorktown.

I’m not advocating some sort of revolution but let us not forget one of the bravest documents ever composed (emphasis mine):

When in the course of human events…

…Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed…

-mike

For The Collegian, University of Richmond

University of Richmond students who have bought alcohol or tobacco with fake Virginia driver’s licenses are about to have a harder time getting away with it.

For the first time in 10 years, the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles is redesigning its driver’s licenses, a move that will cost Virginia $6.5 million per year and will make the cards almost impossible to counterfeit.

The cards were first issued March 24, in Tappahannock, Va.’s, DMV location. One by one, each of the 74 DMV offices across Virginia will begin issuing the new licenses.

Virginians now trying to obtain driver’s licenses at locations issuing the new cards will be given temporary IDs until their official cards arrive in the mail a few days later. The Richmond central DMV office will close May 5 and 6, and will reopen May 7 to issue the temporary licenses.

Virginia’s current licenses will be valid until they expire, said DMV spokeswoman Melanie Stokes, who graduated from Richmond in 1992. Increasing security and preventing counterfeit cards are the main reasons for the redesign, she said.

The cards, which have more than 25 state-of-the-art security features, are made from a plastic called polycarbonate, and have a full-faced, black-and-white primary photo displayed on the left-hand side of the card.

The cards also feature full-faced, black-and-white secondary photos, which are displayed in a clear window in the bottom right-hand side of the card — a security feature practiced only in the Netherlands and the Northwest Territories in Canada, Stokes said.

Cards for people age 21 and over are horizontal and have a laser-embedded image of the Virginia State Capitol. Cards for people under 21 are vertical and depict the dogwood, Virginia’s state flower, and show the dates when the license holder turns 18 and 21.

The 2-D bar code on the back of each card carries only information displayed on the front of the card, including name, customer number and date of birth.

“I won’t say they can’t [be counterfeited],” Stokes said, “but it will be very difficult because the text is laser embedded.”

Virginia license holders will get their IDs in the mail from a centralized location in Danville, Va. Manufacturing the cards in only one location is a change from the current means, in which all IDs are being obtained and manufactured over the counter in 74 different DMV outlets across Virginia.

Having the equipment all in one place is more efficient, Stokes said, and the centralized location also limits the number of people who will know how to make the cards.

Seventeen percent, or about 500 students at Richmond, are from Virginia, said Patty Murphy, director of institutional effectiveness. This percentage gives Richmond more students from Virginia than any other state, she said.

“We certainly think the IDs are going to be beneficial in determining who is of age and who is not,” said Philip Bogenberger, public relations specialist from the Virginia Department of Alcohol and Beverage Control.

If ABC customers were suspected to be carrying a fake ID, he said, sometimes the employee would confiscate it, but most of the time they would give it back and ask that person to leave the store. Employees were then supposed to call the local police and give a description of the person they suspected to be carrying a counterfeited driver’s license.

Employees at individual ABC stores were not allowed to comment about how many fake IDs they had intercepted and did not keep records of confiscated IDs, Bogenberger said.

“Our store is good about checking IDs,” he said. If customers came in with licenses from other states, he said, the employee could look up the card in a booklet to see whether it was fake.

Tea Thrower, head cashier at CVS in The Village, said students had often tried to buy alcohol with cracked or expired IDs, which rendered them invalid. One person tried to buy alcohol with an ID that was broken into three pieces, she said.

“I try to be nice about it,” she said, “but if you tell people no, they’re not always happy.”

CVS requires that customers provide two forms of identification if they are from outside Virginia. Thrower said she was suspicious when customers could not provide a second ID, and if a group of people were standing together to buy alcohol from the store, she was required to check all their IDs.

Dave Berry, CVS’s assistant manager, said he recently got a card from a Richmond student that wouldn’t scan.

“So I asked her for her birthday,” he said, “and she couldn’t give it to me.”

One Westhampton College sophomore said she got a falsely manufactured ID from outside Virginia at the beginning of the summer. She has not used it to buy alcohol from stores, she said, but has used it to attend clubs and bars downtown.

“Most of my friends have them,” she said.

But other students under 21 said they did not have fake IDs, and that they did not know anyone who did. Two Westhampton College freshmen said they were in the process of getting falsely manufactured IDs from outside Virginia.

Before turning 21, one Richmond College senior said a friend of his gave him an old Virginia license to get into bars and to purchase alcohol from stores. The license was even accepted in most places even after it expired, he said. He was also able to purchase alcohol without any identification at a 7-Eleven store downtown, he said.

The University of Richmond Police Department took possession of four false driver’s licenses from January 2008 to January 2009, Police Capt. Beth Simonds said. Three led to arrest, she said, and one was turned in because someone tried to use it downtown. Historically, most false licenses have been from out of state, she said, but university police officers carry books with different photos of the IDs, which allow them to see whether the IDs are real.

Simonds said if students were found carrying someone else’s ID on campus, the police would typically confiscate it.

Sometimes students have been referred to the dean’s office, she said, and other times, such as when they are found to have falsely manufactured the license, they have been criminally charged.

“It’s at the officer’s discretion,” she said.

Under Virginia law, people found guilty of trying to misidentify themselves can have their driver’s license revoked for one month up to a year. If a person is found guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor, he or she could be fined up to $2,500 and could be sent to jail for up to 12 months.

Max Vest, director of student activities, said that about 30 percent of Richmond students were of legal drinking age at the beginning of each school year. That number climbed to about 38 percent by the end of the year, he estimated, as more students turned 21.

“They are breaking the law and taking the chance of getting that on their record,” Vest said. Sometimes that catches up with them later, he said, when employers ask prospective employees whether they had ever been arrested.

“To government jobs and other jobs,” he said, “you just struck out. A lot of people unknowingly take that risk. Some people skate by and others get caught.”

In 1987, three years after the National Minimum Drinking Age Act raised the legal drinking age from 18 to 21, The Collegian reported that 75 percent of underage students on campus had a fake ID.

“A lot of drunk driving crashes were eliminated after we raised the number to 21,” Stokes said.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported that the 21 drinking age has reduced traffic fatalities involving drivers ages 18 to 20 by 13 percent, she said, and the law saved an estimated 900 lives last year. The Centers for Disease Control study on the 21 drinking age found that decreasing the drinking age to 18 or 19 would increase traffic fatalities by 10 percent among those under 21, she said.

“I felt like it was easier to get into bars in downtown Richmond in the ‘90s than it is now,” she said. “I think everyone has cracked down, because we have seen what the consequences are, that people are dying in drunk driving crashes. The best way to lower this risk is to prevent access to people who might not be mature enough to select a designated driver.”

Retailers across Virginia have been briefed on the new licenses, Stokes said.

But security is the main reason for the change. “Not too long ago a Virginia driver’s license was simply a permit to operate a vehicle,” Stokes said. “Today, it is one of the keys to functioning in American society. Over the years, the driver’s license has evolved to become the most widely used forms of identification in our country.

“You need one to board an airplane, to enter a federal building and to open a bank account. Because of this evolution, the importance of driver’s license security became top priority for Virginia DMV officials in 2004 when the Driver’s License Central Issuance Project was created. Now the project is being implemented in 2009.”

The new cards also put Virginia on the right track to comply with the 2005 federal Real ID Act, which sets national standards for the issuance of state IDs. The act was put into effect in response to the attacks on Sept. 11, when it was discovered that the hijackers used inauthentic credentials to obtain valid state ID cards.

Real ID states 21 benchmarks for states, seven of which are met by Virginia’s new driver’s licenses. The met requirements include adhering to the set standard information provided on the card, ensuring a secure location for where the driver’s licenses are made, submitting a report on how difficult the cards are to counterfeit, using technology that makes the cards difficult to counterfeit, retaining people’s images even if they are not issued an ID, issuing cards that contain three different levels of security features and including the card’s revision date and its inventory control number on the face of the card.

Contact reporter Kimberly Leonard at leonardkimberlyl@gmail.com

See also: The Radical Polarization of Law Enforcement

Patriots, Christians and concerned citizens are increasingly in the cross hairs of the U.S. intelligence community, and battle lines are being quietly drawn that could soon pit our own law enforcement and military forces against us.

A February 20 report entitled “The Modern Militia Movement” was issued by the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) that paints mainstream patriotic Americans as dangerous threats to law enforcement and to the country. Operating under the Missouri State Highway Patrol, the MIAC is listed as a Fusion Center that was established in cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice.

Because authenticity of the report was questioned by some, this writer contacted Missouri state Representative Jim Guest (R-King City) who had personally verified that the report had indeed been issued. Rep. Guest is chairman of the Personal Privacy Committee and is a prominent leader in the national Blowback against the Real ID Act of 2005 that requires states to issue uniform driver’s licenses containing personal biometric data. (See Guest warns against Big Brother, Real ID)

Rep. Guest stated that he was “shocked and outraged” at the report, which clearly paints him and many other elected state leaders, as a potential threats to law enforcement.

Instead of focusing on actual criminal incidents of “home-grown” terrorism, the MAIC report instead lists issues that it believes are common to the threats it perceives. Thus, Americans involved with the following issues are highly suspect:

– “Ammunition Accountability Act“ – requiring each bullet to to be serialized and registered to the purchaser.

– “Anticipation of the economic collapse of the US Government” – Prominent scholars and economists are openly debating the bankruptcy and insolvency of the United States government.

– “Possible Constitutional Convention (Con Con)” – 32 states have called for a Constitutional Convention to force Congress and the Executive Branch into a balanced budget, but many are concerned that if called, Con Con would be taken over by hostile interests who would introduce Amendments that are harmful to national Sovereignty.

– “North American Union” – MIAC states that “Conspiracy theorists claim that this union would link Canada, the United States, and Mexico. The NAU would unify its monetary system and trade the dollar for the AMERO. Associated with this theory is concern over a NAFTA Superhighway, which would Fast Track trade between the three nations. There is additional concern that the NAU would open up the border causing security risks and free movement for immigrants.”

– “Universal Service Program” – “Statements made by President Elect Obama and his chief of staff have led extremists to fear the creation of a Civilian Defense Force. This theory requires all citizens between the age of 18 and 25 to be forced to attend three months of mandatory training.” (This is exactly what Obama and Rahm Emmanuel have repeatedly stated on national TV, and thus is hardly a theory.)

– “Radio Frequency Identification (RFID)” – This includes human implantation, but the larger concern is universal id cards and personal property identification that can be read electronically without the bearer’s knowledge.

Citizens who are concerned about the above issues are then lumped into radical ideologies such as Christian Identity, White Nationalists (e.g., neo-Nazi, Skinheads, etc.) and anti-Semites. Tax Resisters and Anti-Immigration advocates are thrown into the same category.

The MIAC report then sternly warns law enforcement personnel,

“You are the Enemy: The militia subscribes to an antigovernment and NWO mind set, which creates a threat to law enforcement officers. They view the military, National Guard, and law enforcement as a force that will confiscate their firearms and place them in FEMA concentration camps.” [Bold emphasis appears in original]

On the last page of the MIAC report, a section listing Political Paraphernalia (flags and symbols) states,

“Militia members most commonly associate with 3rd party political groups. It is not uncommon for militia members to display Constitutional Party, Campaign for Liberty, or Libertarian material. These members are usually supporters of former Presidential Candidate: Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr.

Militia members commonly display picture, cartoons, bumper stickers that contain anti-government rhetoric. Most of this material will depict the FRS, IRS, FBI, ATF, CIA, UN, Law Enforcement, and the ‘New World Order‘ in a derogatory manor (sic). Additionally, Racial, anti-immigration, and anti-abortion, material may be displayed by militia members.”

What was the ostensible genesis of all these “threats” to law enforcement? The report explains it this way…

“Academics contend that female and minority empowerment in the 1970s and 1960s caused a blow to white male’s sense of empowerment. This, combined with a sense of defeat from the Vietnam War, increased levels of immigration, and unemployment, spawned a paramilitary culture. This caught on in the 1980s with injects such as Tom Clancy novels, Soldier of Fortune Magazine, and movies such as Rambo that glorified combat. This culture glorified white males and portrayed them as morally upright heroes who were mentally and physically tough.

“It was during this timeframe that many individuals and organizations began to concoct conspiracy theories to explain their misfortunes. These theories varied but almost always involved a globalist dictatorship the “New World Order (NWO), which conspired to exploit the working class citizens.”

In other words, these “ridiculous NWO theories” were created by psychological deviants who were trying to justify their own self-induced misfortunes.

Fear ye, all troopers

For unsuspecting law enforcement personnel, this MIAC training document polarizes unsuspecting officers to fear peaceful, law-abiding citizens and greatly increases the risk of armed confrontation. For instance, a routine traffic stop would be escalated if the officer observes a Ron Paul or Chuck Baldwin bumper sticker on the rear bumper of the car. The mere possession of printed material such as the U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights would be viewed as subversive, even though most officers are required to take an oath to “defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States” as a condition of their employment.

Additionally, troopers are indoctrinated that all such topics are pure fantasy and without any factual basis. Even if they had their own concerns, they would be ridiculed into accepting the position that all criticism of the New World Order is dangerous to their well being.

The Columbia Daily Tribune (Columbia, Missouri) reports this concern from local resident Tim Neal, who apparently fits the MIAC’s “Modern Militia” profile:

“If a police officer is pulling me over with my family in the car and he sees a bumper sticker on my vehicle that has been specifically identified as one that an extremist would have in their vehicle, the guy is probably going to be pretty apprehensive and not thinking in a rational manner, and this guy’s walking up to my vehicle with a gun.” [see 'Fusion Center' draws fire over assertions]

MIAC is a Fusion Center

As mentioned above, the Missouri Information Analysis Center is one of a network of over 50 Fusion Centers around the country.

According to the National Criminal Intelligence Resource Center (NCIRC), a Fusion Center is “a collaborative effort of two or more agencies that provide resources, expertise, and/or information to the center with the goal of maximizing the ability to detect, prevent, apprehend, and respond to criminal and terrorist activity.”

As of 2006, the NCIRC listed 50 Fusion Centers in various states.

Most importantly, the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security are the driving forces behind Fusion Centers, having published “Fusion Center Guidelines: Developing and Sharing Information and Intelligence in a New World.” This report headlines “Fusion” as “Turning Information and Intelligence Into Actionable Knowledge.”

Fusion Centers are one of five areas of information sharing under the Information Sharing Environment (ISE) that was established by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.

ISE membership includes the Department of Commerce, CIA, Department of Defense, Director of National Intelligence, Department of Energy, FBI, Health and Human Services, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Department of Homeland Security, National Counter-Terrorism Center, Department of Interior, Office of Management and Budget, Department of Justice, Department of State, Department of Transportation and the Department of Treasury.

According to one white paper (on the ISE web site) entitled The Intelligence Fusion Process for State, Local and Tribal Law Enforcement, “The most important output of the intelligence Fusion Center is actionable intelligence. This means that the intelligence produced by the center will drive operational responses and strategic awareness of threats.” Accordingly,

“The heart of good intelligence analysis is to have a diverse array of valid and reliable raw information for analysis. The more robust the raw information, the more accurate the analytic output (i.e., intelligence) will be.”

The above mentioned MIAC report, issued by an official Fusion Center, is apparently part of this “diverse array of valid and reliable raw information.”

However, ISE’s understanding of intelligence is foolish. Any intelligence analyst knows that so-called raw information is treated as garbage until verified from multiple sources to validate accuracy, completeness and freedom from bias. Secondly, analytic output depends upon trained and experienced human reasoning and judgment, not on the “robustness” of the raw information itself.

Where do Fusion Centers get inputs?

According to their own documents, Fusion Centers are “seeded” with ideas for analysis by the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. Although this is problematic in itself, attention is better directed to the left-wing nonprofit organization, Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

Upon careful word and theme comparison between the MIAC report and SPLC literature, it is apparent that there is a significant link between the two. Either MIAC received training or training material from SPLC or some of its personnel had some previous exposure to it.

The SPLC aggressively offers training to local, state and federal law enforcement agencies. According to the SPLC web site, “We focus on the history, background, leaders and activities of far-right extremists in the U.S.” and states that it “is internationally known for its tolerance education programs, its legal victories against white supremacists and its tracking of hate groups.”

Hate crimes are essentially acts of vilification of a victim because of his or her membership in a certain social group, such as racial, religious, sexual orientation, nationality, gender, etc. While hate crimes are wrong under any circumstance, the SPLC sees no conflict in profiling conservative whites, Christians, Constitutionalists, and patriots as being associated with, if not responsible for, hate crimes in America. This is the pot calling the kettle black.

For instance, consider the SPLC statement, “…a basic fact about all three movements: Patriots, white supremacists and anti-abortion militants are all fueled by interpretations of religion.”

Aside from the fact that this sweeping generalization is plainly not true, it is mud-slinging at its best: Patriots are lumped in with white supremacists, anti-abortionists are militants, and all are driven by an obviously irrational and fanatical application of religion.

In another SPLC article about a tragic killing in South Carolina, entitled “The Abbeville Horror“, the writer goes well beyond just the facts of the story and is careful to sprinkle in words and phrases such as:

Patriots, tax protestors, sovereign citizens, antigovernment extremists, New World Order paranoia, Disarming U.S. Citizens, hard-line Christian Right, constitutional rights, antigovernment “Patriot” literature, anti-Semitic conspiracy, “Live Free or Die,” Ruby Ridge and Waco, Second Amendment, extremist organizing, “closet extremists,” paranoid beliefs, “Give me liberty or give me death.” [quotes appear in original text]

These are the same kinds of words and themes that are seen in The Modern Militia Movement article, where distinctions between good and bad people are blurred and confused: All are guilty by association, if nothing else.

Should a private organization like SPLC be allowed to provide official training to public-entrusted law enforcement agencies? Most would say, “No.” Even if the training was free, the agency should reject influence from the public sector, and even more so if it presents biased and one-sided information that is claimed to be factual.

Conclusion

It is critical to understand that the legitimate law enforcement agencies of cities, counties and states are not adversaries of the people. They are greatly needed for protection against crime and for keeping order in our communities.

They are, however, being methodically seeded with very wrongheaded and dangerous information, the specific intent of which is to polarize law enforcement against peaceful citizens who simply care about the downfall of their country.

This writer interviewed Chuck Baldwin and asked about how he felt when he first saw his good name associated with those who would threaten bodily harm to law enforcement agencies. “Personally, I was stunned,” he said, “but my family has taken this very personally as well. This is more than disturbing.”

When asked about the possible affect of the report on the Constitution Party, of which he was the 2008 presidential candidate, he replied, “I think it will galvanize people and help them to understand the nature of the battle we are in. Freedom must be defended.”

In fact, the MIAC report has created a firestorm all over America. Tens of thousands of protests are being called, written, emailed and faxed to authorities and legislators in Missouri. It would not be surprising to see the report rescinded and an apology given.

Even so, behind-the-scene groups like the SPLC will continue unabated and undeterred in their effort to misinform and disrupt healthy community relations with worthy law enforcement agencies and personnel.

The message to every jurisdiction: Don’t let it happen!

Final thought

Locate the Fusion Center in your state and keep a close eye on the information they are releasing. Stay close to as many law enforcement personnel as you can, asking them to keep their eyes open for reports similar to the Missouri report. Petition your state legislators to ban law enforcement training by private organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Additional resources

FBI nudges state ‘fusion centers’ into the shadows (CNET)

Fusion Centers and Privacy (EPIC)

Backgrounder: Fusion Centers (CFR.org)

Information Sharing Environment (ISE)

Yesterday the House of Delegates passed SB1431, which would force Virginia’s non-compliance in the instance the federal government passes a national ID act. The Vote passed the House 96-3 with one abstaining. Here is how the Delegates voted:

YEAS–Abbitt, Albo, Alexander, Amundson, Armstrong, Athey, BaCote, Barlow, Bell, Bouchard, Bowling, Brink, Bulova, Byron, Caputo, Carrico, Cline, Cole, Cosgrove, Cox, Crockett-Stark, Dance, Ebbin, Eisenberg, Englin, Fralin, Frederick, Gear, Gilbert, Griffith, Hamilton, Hargrove, Herring, Hogan, Howell, A.T., Hugo, Hull, Iaquinto, Ingram, Janis, Joannou, Johnson, Jones, Kilgore, Knight, Landes, Lewis, Lingamfelter, Lohr, Loupassi, Marsden, Marshall, D.W., Marshall, R.G., Massie, Mathieson, May, McClellan, Melvin, Merricks, Miller, J.H., Miller, P.J., Morgan, Morrissey, Nixon, Nutter, O’Bannon, Oder, Orrock, Peace, Phillips, Plum, Pogge, Poindexter, Poisson, Pollard, Purkey, Putney, Rust, Saxman, Scott, E.T., Scott, J.M., Shannon, Sherwood, Shuler, Sickles, Tata, Toscano, Tyler, Valentine, Vanderhye, Ward, Ware, O., Ware, R.L., Watts, Wright, Mr. Speaker–96.

NAYS–McQuinn, Nichols, Spruill–3.

Those three delegates have got some explaining to do.

Congrats Senator Cuccinelli for pushing hard for this bill! Does anyone know what Brownlee’s reaction to this it?

Real ID Laws Are a National Catastrophe

Pennsylvania is poised to join 11 other states that have passed laws rejecting the federal Real ID Act. Many more have objected to it.

Passed by Congress in 2005 – without any debate – Real ID is nothing more than an attempt by Congress to strong-arm the states into accepting and funding a national ID scheme. It requires states to produce new, standardized driver’s licenses with machine-readable technology, and to create databases that hold copies of American citizens’ sensitive identity documents. The tab for all of this is expected to be nearly $17 billion, with the state governments forced to shoulder the majority of the financial burden.

Earlier this year, the Pennsylvania House unanimously passed legislation barring the implementation of Real ID. The Senate is expected to consider similar legislation this fall.

In this tight economy, it is necessary for everybody, including members of Congress and state officials, to tighten their belts and make budgetary decisions based on priorities. States should not be forced to change their priorities or raise taxes and fees because of an unfunded federal mandate – especially not one that offers false security at the expense of our privacy and civil liberties.

Gov. Edward Rendell knows Pennsylvania’s priorities better than Congress and federal bureaucrats in the Department of Homeland Security. He has made it a priority to improve the state’s infrastructure. The governor has committed significant financial resources to rebuilding 411 of the state’s 6,034 structurally deficient bridges. At least when money goes to infrastructure like bridges, taxpayers get something they can use in return.

Gov. Rendell recently began his tenure as chairman of the National Governor’s Association. His “Chair’s Initiative” will focus on similar policies: Strengthening infrastructure investment across the country. After last year’s bridge collapse in Minneapolis, which claimed 13 lives, this is a clearer way to protect citizens and save lives than implementing the Real ID boondoggle.

The states’ revolt against Real ID is unprecedented in modern American history and it demonstrates the breadth of the opposition. In states across the country, political leaders from both the left and the right have rejected this dangerous and unworkable program.

Real ID suffers from serious flaws that will affect the rights of every American. It mandates that every state’s database – containing Social Security cards, copies of birth certificates, etc. – be linked and accessible to tens of thousands of DMV employees.

By making our personal information accessible to countless individuals across the country, Real ID exposes everyone to misuse and identity theft. In addition, the new driver’s licenses created by Real ID will contain a machine-readable component, allowing the government to track and monitor law-abiding citizens like we are criminals on parole. Any way you look at it, the Real ID national ID scheme is a bad law that needs to be scrapped. It is enormously expensive, offers little to no benefits, and places our personal information at risk for use in identify theft.

The Pennsylvania Senate should follow the lead of the House and send a strong and clear message to Congress that Pennsylvanians will not be bullied into accepting an unfunded surveillance mandate like Real ID.

Gov. Rendell should join in by focusing on his priorities for Pennsylvania while rejecting the federal government’s plan to increase tracking and surveillance of all Americans.

Read at Cato Institute.org