A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. - Justice Litle, Is America’s Economic Recovery on the Whole Based on a Rotten Sham?, Daily Markets, April 20, 2010
Unions that want to represent thousands of airport screeners are heading for a showdown with the Senate as early as Monday, with some lawmakers looking to revoke the collective-bargaining rights the Transportation Security Administration just granted them. TSA Administrator John Pistole announced for the first time Friday that he would allow security officers to bargain over certain workplace conditions like shifts and assignments. The decision follows months of lobbying by the two unions vying to represent them -- screeners are set to vote next month on whether to unionize and, if so, with whom. In making his decision, Pistole vowed that the TSA "will not negotiate on security." But that's exactly what some lawmakers are concerned about. They're worried that a big union presence through the TSA ranks could stifle the organization's flexibility when it needs to scramble in response to security threats. Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., has introduced an amendment to a Federal Aviation Administration bill that would explicitly prohibit TSA screeners from collectively bargaining -- he's now looking for a vote on that as soon as Monday.
"The Obama administration's actions today to move forward on unionizing our TSA workforce with collective bargaining rights could hamper our national security," Wicker said in a statement, slamming the administration for approving the "ill-advised policy" while the Senate was considering it.
Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., who has previously described TSA unionization as a "homeland security disaster," said the decision would benefit "union bosses and Democratic Party coffers" at the expense of American security. DeMint said the collective-bargaining rights could interfere with "minute-by-minute security decisions," forecasting an environment where union bosses have to approve vital changes.
"The Senate has the ability to reverse this political decision and put security first," he said, rallying support for Wicker's amendment.
But supporters of TSA unionization say these warnings simply are not realistic. For starters, TSA screeners would be prohibited from striking, just like other federal employees. The TSA says they would also be barred from "engaging in work slowdowns of any kind."
Under Pistole's plan, the unions would not be able to negotiate on security policies, pay, job qualifications or disciplinary standards, according to the TSA.
Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., who supports giving the workers union rights, said Pistole's announcement marks a step toward "higher job performance and, therefore, better security for our nation." The National Treasury Employees Union is calling on senators to vote against the Wicker amendment. According to Aviation Online Magazine, the union sent a letter Thursday to every U.S. senator in opposition to the proposal.
"This decision and the upcoming representation election at TSA will give these officers a voice in their workplace and a chance at a better future," NTEU President Colleen Kelley said in a statement, adding that the traveling public will be better served by a more professional workforce.
The NTEU is competing against the American Federation of Government Employees for the right to represent the TSA's more than 40,000 officers.More than 13,000 of them already pay dues to a union, but their representation is limited and they do not enjoy collective-bargaining rights. The decision to grant collective-bargaining rights comes after the TSA decided against expanding a program that allowed private screeners to replace government ones at select airports. Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee,said the two decisions taken together are "all bad news for the traveler, the taxpayer and aviation security."
We are unique among our fellow Federal employees because we do not use the standard GS grading system you may be familiar with. We use an "SV" grading system, which is a system of discrete grades with pay ranges that differ from GS pay ranges. These discrete grades, which are identified by letters rather than numbers, have minimum and maximum rates.
In the table below, we show the ranges for each pay band.
Pay Band
Minimum
Maximum
A
$17,083
$24,977
B
$19,570
$28,546
C
$22,167
$33,303
D
$25,518
$38,277
E
$29,302
$44,007
F
$33,627
$50,494
G
$39,358
$60,982
H
$48,007
$74,390
I
$58,495
$90,717
J
$71,364
$110,612
K
$85,311
$132,237
L
$101,962
$155,500
M
$120,236
$155,500
The above rates are basic pay rates and do not include locality pay. 2010 basic pay rates are limited to $155,500. 2010 adjusted pay rates (base pay plus locality) are limited to $172,550.
If ever there was an indicator of just how apathetic and well trained the American public truly is, it must be this situation with TSA. Like a herd of bedraggled sheep, thousands of you forfeited your 4th and 5th amendment rights and allowed the government to irradiate you and view your virtually naked body, or allowed yourself to be subjected to an enhanced pat-down…nothing short of a sexual encounter. And for what? This is a training and conditioning exercise you fools! This has nothing to do with making us safer, national security or protecting America. It has nothing to do with making your flight safer. It has everything to do with conditioning you to accept a full body assault as long as the persons doing it are wearing a government badge. You are being trained to submit and comply. - Marti Oakley , Such a Well Behaved Herd of Sheep: TSA thanks you for allowing them to violate your rights and to assault you, PPJ Gazette, November 24, 2010
Since the creation of the Transportation Security Administration shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, its airport screeners have sought to be part of a collective bargaining unit.
The Bush Administration and congressional Republicans opposed that, however. Thus, 40,000 TSA workers continued to work without the kind of union representation some wanted.
On Friday, all that changed.
Following an TSA review of the issue, John Pistole, the agency's administrator, said screeners will now be allowed to vote on whether they want a union to collectively bargain with the agency on their behalf. (A TSA fact sheet provides good background.)
In November, the Federal Labor Relations Authority ruled that TSA screeners should be allowed to vote on whether they wanted to be represented by a single union. That decision didn't give them collective bargaining rights, however. Pistole's decision changes that.
The ostensible reason the previous administration and congressional critics gave for opposing collective bargaining rights for TSA workers was a concern that could impair TSA management's flexibility to deploy workers as needed, especially during periods of heightened terrorism threats.
Organized labor suspected its ties to the Democratic Party didn't exactly help Republicans warm to the idea of thousands of TSA workers being represented by a union in negotiations either.
During the 2008 campaign, then candidate Barack Obama promised to give TSA workers bargaining rights.
The Obama Administration won't allow any union agreements to reduce air traveler security, Pistole said. From a TSA statement:
"The safety of the traveling public is our top priority and we will not negotiate on security," said TSA Administrator Pistole. "But morale and employee engagement cannot be separated from achieving superior security. If security officers vote to move forward with collective bargaining, this framework will ensure that TSA retains the capability and flexibility necessary to respond to evolving threats, and continue improving employee engagement, performance and professional development."
John Gage, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, one of two unions vying to represent workers in an election scheduled to start in March, said in a statement:
Today marks the recognition of a fundamental human right for 40,000 patriotic federal employees who have been disenfranchised since the inception of the agency.
We have come a long way since AFGE first began representing TSOs in 2001 when the union took up the fight for a federalized security officer workforce. The granting of these rights is a step in the right direction and gets us in the door. After AFGE wins the election to be the sole union at TSA, we will move immediately to the table and be ready to negotiate.
The National Treasury Employees Union which also hopes to represent TSA workers also issued a statement:
"This decision and the upcoming representation election at TSA will give these officers a voice in their workplace and a chance at a better future," said NTEU President Colleen M. Kelley. "The sooner NTEU is certified as the exclusive representative of the TSA workforce, the sooner we can begin improving the lives of employees at this key agency."
Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) introduced an amendment earlier this week to the Federal Aviation Administration bill to bar TSA screeners from gaining collective bargaining rights.
"The Obama Administration's actions today to move forward on unionizing our TSA workforce with collective bargaining rights could hamper our national security," said Wicker. "Earlier this week, I offered an amendment, which is currently being debated in the Senate, that would prohibit collective bargaining for TSA security screeners. Despite the fact that the Senate is considering this very issue, the Administration decided to move forward with this ill-advised policy."
Back in January there was a healthy sign that a handful of airports around the country were saying no to the TSA and its sexual molestation searches and naked body porno scanners. Airport managers said they are opposed to the federal government telling them how to run security.
“The TSA has grown too big and we’re unhappy with the way it’s doing things,” Larry Dale, president of Orlando Sanford International Airport, told MSNBC. “My board is sold on the fact that the free enterprise system works well and that we should go with a private company we can hold directly accountable for security and customer satisfaction.”
Airports in Los Angeles, the Washington, D.C. metro area and Charlotte, N.C., were also considering telling the TSA to take a hike.
Rep. John Mica, a Florida Republican and chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, encouraged the country’s 200 biggest airports to opt out. Mica said,
The TSA is a “bloated, poorly focused and top-heavy bureaucracy.”
The TSA immediately attempted to control this dangerous trend.
“TSA sets the security standards that must be followed and that includes the use of enhanced pat-downs and imaging technology, if installed at the airport,” TSA spokesperson Greg Soule said in response.
The TSA eventually offered a fig leaf to ward off disenchantment. It turned out to be nothing but a smoke screen.
“The Transportation Security Administration is still taking applications from airports looking to shift over to private security screeners, but those applications probably aren’t going anywhere, the agency explained,” reports Government Security News.
In addition, the TSA declared that sexual molestation searches and dangerous naked body porno scanners to be the iron-clad rule of the day that cannot be deviated from.
“You may recall a recent post where I wrote about the TSA contract screener program. I posted because many were under the wrong impression that screening from contractors is or would be different than federal screening. The post explained how airports that opt out of TSA screening are still regulated by TSA. In a nutshell, the screening is the same,” explains “Blogger Bob” on the TSA blog.
On January 28, TSA boss John S. Pistole said that he had decided not to expand the contract screener program because he did “not see any clear or substantial advantage to do so.”Mr. Pistole said airports that “currently use contractor screening will continue to be regulated by TSA and required to meet our high security standards.”
In short, there will be no escape from federal Gestapo zones where sexual humiliation and submission to the state are the order of the day.
Obama’s initial choice to head up the TSA was Robert Harding,who wanted to turn the TSA into a military intelligence operation that would expand to bus and train stations. Fortunately, Harding was rejected, but that did not stop Pistole’s TSA from implementing intrusive pat-downs and naked body scanners.
On Sunday, the TSA in partnership with a military contractor and the private sector – the very essence of fascism – gave us a glimpse of the future during the Super Bowl.
“Everyone entering the stadium must pass through a magnetometer, such as those used at airports, and get a pat down as part of the screening process. The majority of fans will enter through checkpoints on the east side of Cowboys Stadium,” reported the Dallas Star-Telegram on Friday.
The electronic panopticon used at the event, however, was just the beginning. Homeland Security is also developing technology to be used at “security events” which purports to monitor “malintent” on behalf of an individual who passes through a checkpoint. Similar programs are in use at 161 airports around the country.
John Pistole has made it perfectly clear that when you travel you will be subjected to humiliation and made to submit to the government. The feds will not allow private airlines and airports to hire their own security.
As noted above, the TSA and DHS are itching to extend their reach to sports stadiums, malls, train and bus stations, and all public areas.America is rapidly becoming little different than the Soviet Union or East Germany with its notorious Stasi.
New Horizons Originally Published in November/December 1997
The horrors of the past half century have left their mark on the human psyche. Hitler's ovens, Stalin's Gulag, the killing fields of Cambodia -- and more recently the ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia, the massacres of Rwanda, the Sudan. Such murderous conduct is now all too familiar, seen nightly on our Television screens. It's not new, of course.
History records numerous similar cameos of the destructiveness of human behavior. There's a recurring pattern that mankind fails to shake off century after century, millennium after millennium. The imminent future is no different. For, as long as we give way to our unreconstructed human nature, the pattern will repeat.
But why believe Bible predictions any more than the hit-and-miss guesses of clairvoyants and astrologers? Simply because the evidence is there that previous Bible predictions have never failed. Awesome times lie ahead for the human race. Unprecedented wars, famine, disease -- mass destruction on a worldwide scale is coming. Can you imagine looking skyward and seeing the sun reel? Can you imagine the effects of our planet rolling to and fro in its orbit like a drunk? Or the deaths of literally billions of our fellow human-beings? Or great mountainous asteroids tearing into our continents and oceans? Such events are prophesied.
Burned into the Western consciousness is the horrific genocide inflicted in civilized Europe a mere half century ago. The "Holocaust" and its myriad victims -- and just one Jew was too many -- is folk memory now. But it must be seen as a dread warning of what man does to man.Recent history confirms 1939-1945 was no mere historical blip. History is set to repeat itself!
For every human trait that deserves the correcting hand of a God of love is still writ -- larger than ever -- in every nation. Man's perverse conduct flies in the face of the benign instruction -- the Law of God -- which alone is the path of harmonious relations between man and man, nation and nation. The apostle Paul looked down the ages and foresaw our day. Here's how he described it:
"This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away." (2 Timothy 3:1-5).
Brannon Howse - Even the most nominally aware person knows all too well that our nation—and the world—is engulfed in a major economic catastrophe. Thanks to the variety of factors at work, some observers have characterized it as the perfect economic storm.
Yet this drama is a mere thunder shower by comparison with a far more devastating potential that threatens to wreck not just the American dream but the entire American ideal. If this maelstrom reaches its full power, liberty and justice for all—to say nothing of the pursuit of happiness—will be wiped from the face of the earth.
A perfect cultural storm is developing from the convergence of three forces, any one of which would seriously harm our way of life. But together they portend the near certain doom of the most cherished American values.
Socialism, pagan spirituality, and pragmatism have come together over the last several decades to produce a cataclysm waiting to happen.
Socialism imposes the redistribution of wealth and private property through an all-powerful, freedom-robbing central government.
Pagan spirituality embraces the worship of nature along with occult practices and beliefs.
Pragmatism proclaims that the truth or worth of an idea is based solely upon the results it brings (pragmatists believe that truth is relative, situational, and that a desired end justifies any means required to reach it).
All three of these political, spiritual, and intellectual systems have taken a dominant place in the American worldview . . .
boosts airport screening operations undertaken by private companies instead of federal workers
cuts off funding for new advanced airport scanners but won't affect the 500 or so machines already in place at 78 of the nation's airports or the 500 just funded in a recent spending bill
limits union rights but retains collective bargainingrights for the nation's 44,000 airport screeners; however, amendment would effectively override decision by prohibiting use of federal funds for collective bargaining for the workers
June 3, 2011
AP - The GOP-controlled House on Thursday passed a $42.3 billion budget for the government's homeland security efforts after a debate that demonstrated resistance for some of the spending cuts required under austere budget times.
The measure passed 231-188 after lawmakers eased cuts to popular grant programs for local fire departments and after GOP conservatives tried but failed in several attempts to add millions of dollars to a variety of border security initiatives.
It's the first of the 12 annual spending bills funding the day-to-day operations of federal agencies for the budget year beginning Oct. 1. It's also the first concrete step to implement the budget blueprint approved by House Republicans in April.
The homeland security measure bears a $1.1 billion cut of almost 3 percent from the spending levels for the ongoing budget year that were enacted in April in a compromise between House Republicans and President Barack Obama.
But far more stringent spending bills — they contain cuts to health research, student aid, food aid for low-income pregnant women and energy efficiency programs — will follow this summer.
Republicans focused the homeland security cuts on port and transit security grants, awards for high-risk cities, and grants to local fire departments to help them with salaries and equipment purchases, proposing to slash them by $2.1 billion below Obama's requests — cuts of more than half.
On Wednesday a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers restored $320 million in cuts to grants for fire departments by a sweeping 333-87 vote, but only by imposing an unrealistic cut on the agency's bureaucratic operations.
Border state Republicans like Reps. Ted Poe and Michael McCaul of Texas were less successful in attempts to add money to favored programs. Poe sought $100 million for detention beds to hold illegal aliens facing deportation and $10 million for cell phone towers along the U.S.-Mexico border. McCaul pressed for, among others, a $50 million amendment for drone aircraft, helicopters and boats to patrol the border. The amendments were ruled out of order under House rules.
The cuts to grant programs freed up funding for core homeland security programs like border security, immigration control, airport security and the Coast Guard.An amendment by Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., designed to boost airport screening operations undertaken by private companies instead of federal workers was adopted 219-204.
The measure adds almost $2 billion above the administration's request for Federal Emergency Management Agency disaster relief accounts, which were already facing a $3 billion or so shortfall before the recent wave of tornadoes in Missouri and Alabama and flooding along the Mississippi River.
The legislation cuts off funding for new advanced airport scanners that have sparked outrage over their revealing images of travelers' bodies. The measure denies the administration's $76 million request for an additional 275 scanners.
Budgetary factors rather than protests from privacy advocates sparked the cut. The Transportation Security Administration is trying hard to modify the machines so that they won't produce revealing images, but the software isn't yet ready.
The underlying measure wouldn't affect the 500 or so machines already in place at 78 of the nation's airports or the 500 just funded in a recent spending bill.
An amendment by Reps. Justin Amash, R-Mich., and Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, to prohibit TSA from relying on the advanced screening machines as the primary means of screening passengers was defeated 300-123. The measure would also take away collective bargaining rights from the nation's 44,000 airport screeners.
TSA head John Pistole had agreed in February to grant screeners limited union rights for the first time since the agency was formed a decade ago. But Republicans have complained that giving the workers union rights could jeopardize security. TSA workers are in the process of voting for which of two federal unions to represent them.
The House voted 218-205 in favor of an amendment that would effectively override Pistole's decision by prohibiting use of federal funds for collective bargaining for the workers. That provision is expected to face stiff resistance in the Democratic-controlled Senate.
Also Thursday, the House began debate on a $72.5 billion measure funding veterans programs and construction projects at military bases. A vote to pass the bill was expected Friday.
If ever there was an indicator of just how apathetic and well trained the American public truly is, it must be this situation with TSA. Like a herd of bedraggled sheep, thousands of you forfeited your 4th and 5th amendment rights and allowed the government to irradiate you and view your virtually naked body, or allowed yourself to be subjected to an enhanced pat-down…nothing short of a sexual encounter. And for what? This is a training and conditioning exercise you fools! This has nothing to do with making us safer, national security or protecting America. It has nothing to do with making your flight safer. It has everything to do with conditioning you to accept a full body assault as long as the persons doing it are wearing a government badge. You are being trained to submit and comply. - Marti Oakley, Such a Well Behaved Herd of Sheep: TSA thanks you for allowing them to violate your rights and to assault you, PPJ Gazette, November 24, 2010
Flying With Fish November 18, 2010
In the past few weeks since the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) implemented its new “enhanced” pat down procedures there has been considerable backlash from the traveling public. This backlash has been loud and angry … but what is not heard or seen in the media is the quiet resentment of this new policy within the TSA.
A few days ago I contacted 20 TSA Transportation Security Officers (TSO) to ask their opinions of the new “enhanced” pat downs. Of the 20 I reached out to, 17 responded. All 17 who responded are at airports where the new “enhanced” pat down is in place … and the responses were all the same, that front line TSOs do not like the new pat downs and that they do not want to perform them. I expected most to not like the pat downs … but what I didn’t expect was that all 17 mentioned their morale being broken down.
Each of the 17 TSA TSOs that responded to me detailed their personal discomfort in conducting the new pat downs, with more than one stating that it is likely they are more uncomfortable performing the pat down than passengers are receiving them.
Some comments from these TSOs include:
“It is not comfortable to come to work knowing full well that my hands will be feeling another man’s private parts, their butt, their inner thigh. Even worse is having to try and feel inside the flab rolls of obese passengers and we seem to get a lot of obese passengers!”
“Do you think I want to go to work and place my hands between women’s legs and touch their breasts for a few hours? For starters, I am attracted to men, not women and if I was attracted to women, it would not be the large number of passengers I handle daily that have a problem understanding what personal hygiene is.”
“Yesterday a passenger told me to keep my hands off his penis or he’d scream. Is this how a 40 year old man in business attire acts? He’ll scream? My 3 year old can get away with saying he’ll scream, but a 40 something business man? I am a professional doing my job, whether I agree with this current policy or not, I am doing my job. I do not want to be here all day touching penises.”
“Being a TSO means often being verbally abused, you let the comments roll off and check the next person, however when a woman refuses the scanner then comes to me and tells me that she feels like I am molesting her, that is beyond verbal abuse. I asked the woman if she thought I like touching other women all day and she told me that I probably did or I wouldn’t be with the TSA. I just want to tell these people that I feel disgusted feeling other peoples private parts, but I cannot because I am a professional.”
“I was asked by some guy if I got excited touching scrotums at the airport and if it gave me a power thrill. I felt like vomiting when he asked that. This is not a turn on for me to touch me; it is in fact a huge turn off. There is a big difference between how I pat passengers down and a molester molesting people.”
Aside from the issue of TSA TSOs being required to physically touch passengers in places they do not want to be touching them during the ‘enhanced’ pat down, morale is decreasing for front line TSOs, due in part to an increase in verbal abuse. Each of the 17 TSOs who responded to me detailed a new level of verbal abuse they are experiencing at work.
The TSA has experienced a high level of turnover since its inception, however its turnover rate has decreased recently. With this decrease in morale, caused directly by a change in TSA policy, it is likely to begin experiencing a higher than average turnover again … which will further decrease the effectiveness of airport security.
“Molester, pervert, disgusting, an embarrassment, creep. These are all words I have heard today at work describing me, said in my presence as I patted passengers down. These comments are painful and demoralizing, one day is bad enough, but I have to come back tomorrow, the next day and the day after that to keep hearing these comments. If something doesn’t change in the next two weeks I don’t know how much longer I can withstand this taunting. I go home and I cry. I am serving my country, I should not have to go home and cry after a day of honorably serving my country.”
“I come to work to do my job. It is not up to me to decide policy, it is up to me to carry out my duties as dictated by the Transportation Security Administration. When a person stands in front of me and calls me a pervert or accuses me of molesting them it is disheartening. People fail to understand that neither of us are happy about the intrusive pat down I am carrying out. I am polite, I am professional and while someone may not like what I have to carry out, they came to me because they choose not to utilize the alternative and less invasive method of security at my airport.”
“I served a tour in Afghanistan followed by a tour in Iraq. I have been hardened by war and in the past week I am slowly being broken by the constant diatribe of hateful comments being lobbed at me. While many just see a uniform with gloves feeling them for concealed items I am a person, I am a person who has feelings. I am a person who has served this country. I am a person who wants to continue serving his country. The constant run of hateful comments while I perform my job will break me down faster and harder than anything I encountered while in combat in the Army.”
“Do people know what a Nazi is? One can’t describe me as a Nazi because I am following a security procedure of designed to find prohibited items on a passenger’s body. A Nazi is someone with hatred and ignorance in their hearts, a person who carried out actions of execution and extermination of those based on their religion, origins or sexual preferences. I work to make travel safer, even if I do not agree with the current security procedures. Further more, I am Jewish and a TSA Transportation Security Officer, an American Patriot and to call me a Nazi is an offense beyond all other offenses.”
There are multiple sides to every story, and I think the point of view of those on the front lines of the TSA, those required to carry on the policy and procedures created by the TSA, are an import part of this story. I think those organizing efforts to change the TSA’s policy should also consider the impact to the TSA TSOs.
Rather than dehumanize the TSA TSOs, work with them, understand their views and opinions and work together to change the current TSA policies.
Happy Flying!
Editor's Note:
TSA agents are public servants, serving the public; they are not serving the country in a military capacity. And just because they are issued government badges does not mean they are entitled to ignore the constitutional rights of other U.S. citizens.
Government employees should not be exempt from actions prohibited by the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA), which applies to the U.S. military. According to the U.S. Northern Command: The PCA generally prohibits U.S. military personnel from direct participation in law enforcement activities. Some of those law enforcement activities would include interdicting vehicles, vessels, and aircraft; conducting surveillance, searches, pursuit and seizures; or making arrests on behalf of civilian law enforcement authorities. Prohibiting direct military involvement in law enforcement is in keeping with long-standing U.S. law and policy limiting the military’s role in domestic affairs.
U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) was established Oct. 1, 2002 to provide command and control of Department of Defense (DOD) homeland defense efforts and to coordinate defense support of civil authorities. USNORTHCOM defends America's homeland — protecting our people, national power, and freedom of action.
(a) Establishment. - "There is established a Department of Homeland Security, as an executive department of the United States within the meaning of title 5, United States Code.
(b) Mission
(1) In General. - The primary mission of the Department is to
(A) prevent terrorist attacks within the United States;
(B) reduce the vulnerability of the United States to terrorism; and
(C) minimize the damage, and assist in the recovery, from terrorist attacks that do occur within the United States."
[From the Homeland Security Act of 2002]
"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." - Rahm Emanuel, November 21, 2008
Some Comments on the Article:
GA, November 18th, 2010
Work with them? This is their CHOSEN profession … reading those comments about serving their country in the role of a TSO makes me want to puke (the guy who served in Afghanistan excluded). They are a tool and are allowing themselves to be used as one. Don’t like it? Walk out – that will add pressure to the Federal Govt to stop this nonsense. I’m all for that.
And since they seem to be confused – yes they are absolutely molesting the passenger when they put their hands between that passengers legs and on their breasts. The definition of molest is to harass or assault sexually. They are also abusing the passenger as that definition is mistreat: treat badly.
Professionalism doesn’t replace the fact that they are doing something that not even a law enforcement officer is allowed to do, especially without clear suspicion of any unlawful behavior. That they are doing this by rote and because something might be somewhere is just sad, disgusting and goes against every tenet on which this country was built.
Carl, November 18th, 2010
Isn’t the real conclusion that the TSA’s process and strategy are misguided and ineffective. Perhaps the TSO’s are just as much victims as are travelers, but that does not mean travelers should not protest when the TSA policies are invasive and misguided – and perhaps TSOs can help to change the system by making their views known.
John, November 18th, 2010
Thanks for continuing to report all sides of the story. I’m not a big fan of the security theater, but taking it out on the front line officers who have to carry out the policy enacted by someone else who sits in an office all day is like blaming the clerk at the gas station for the price of the gas. Perhaps it’s time to start communicating to the people further up the line of command that we believe that their needs to be security but that we would like it to be reasonable and proactive instead of intrusive and reactive.
Jason, November 18th, 2010
TSA agent: “Do people know what a Nazi is?”
German citizen in the early 1940s: “I’m not doing anything terrible. I’m just working at a train station where they’re loading passengers on these trains, bound for who knows where. I don’t hate them. I’m just doing my job. If I don’t do it, I could get in trouble. I have a family to feed. I’m serving my country.”
“I’m just following orders” is not a defense for being complicit in violating the rights of your fellow human beings.
Jeff Allen, November 18th, 2010
It’s really nice to see this other side of the story. But what really warmed my heart reading this is that 100% of the people you talked to are feeling the heat. That means 100% of their bosses are feeling it, and that the traveling public will eventually get the change they want and deserve. This is too big to stop and the wave is going to crush the TSA.
It is time to stop Security Theater. I have faith in Americans that they will calmly and bravely step up and recover their lost rights.
Grizz, November 18th, 2010
Just because they are “just doing their job” doesn’t mean it is not their fault. I know it is next to impossible to find a new job these days, but I would rather move back in with my parents than have to do a job where I am expected to violate other people.
Non-American, November 18th, 2010
Very interesting.
I feel some sympathy for the TSO’s, but ultimately it is their choice to work there. This is not a question of “but someone needs to do it”. This is theatre, pure and simple.
These pat-downs are worse for the women, children, and yes even men who have been victims of sexual abuse.
America, the TSA is violating your civil liberties. Stand up and fight the good fight.
Mike, November 18th, 2010
Work with them? Because they’re uncomfortable when they blatantly violate my 4th Amendment rights? Sorry, but no.
Jack, November 18th, 2010
“…but I have to come back tomorrow, the next day and the day after that to keep hearing these comments…”
Well, I guess you should have stayed in school.
Oops… I missed this part.
“I am serving my country”
THE PUNCHLINE! HA! Serving your country??? Who do you think you are? A soldier? A police officer? A fire fighter even?
Paul, David November 18th, 2010
Last time I was in Washington D.C. I stopped by to see the Bill of Rights before it is abolished completely. None of these screening procedures can prevent a terrorist attack. It might catch a few amateurs, but it doesn’t take much for “professionals” to get around these procedures. It does teach law abiding citizens to give up their constitutional rights for a false sense of safety. It’s just one small step towards accepting a police state.
Maria, November 18th, 2010
Fish, thank you for posting this.
To be honest, I’ve never understood the urge to lash out at the low level grunt with vitriol. Maybe it’s because I’ve worked in both fast food and later in IT support so I’ve taken my fair share of nasty, horrid abuse by people who feel they are somehow ‘better’ than me and that I am somehow not a human because of my job or their frustration. I really do sympathize with the front line agents, but ….
I hope the pressure and stress finaly wakes people up much higher, that we do NOT have security, what we have, as so many people involved with security are saying, is security theater. I hope this happens but I suspect it won’t. And I suspect that another lapse in security is what TPTB are waiting for.
My experiance with TSA has been a mild to an unpleasant experience. They tend to be people who are unfamiliar with technology and gadgets, who are allowed little room to employ common sense, or to focus on human behaviors. As such, I don’t respect them. And in return they know this and don’t respect us. It’s a feedback of sorts. The tension and aggravation level s are already high.
I travel from Atlanta a lot. I have not had “shocking” things happen to me but I’ve heard agents call passengers idiots for not knowing which line to use (yes, I filed a complaint.) I’ve seen agents push people, ignore questions, respond rudely, and threaten people that they won’t by flying and will be pulled out of line if they don’t hurry up or because they took a bin from the wrong pile. My outsider experiance tells me this agency is mismanaged, poorly trained, and frankly, lucky.
I’ll be flying in December and I want to find a way to humanely show my feelings of violation and frustration. How do you suggest we do so during the process itself?
Peter Shankman, November 18th, 2010
I will bitch about the TSA until I’m blue in the face. I’ll talk to anyone who will listen about the stupidity of the TSA policies, and the horrible things they do in the name of security theater.
I WON’T yell at or insult an employee. While I don’t agree with their chosen profession, it’d be like yelling at your cab driver because he’s stuck in traffic.
Karma is real. Want to bitch? Call your Senators.
Does part of me think the employees could find another job? Sure. But you know what? Maybe there’s more to their situation I don’t know about – So it’s not my place to complain about THEM.
But the idiots in Washington making completely inept and BS policies? I’ll rant till they shove a magnetometer up my butt. (Which I believe is in the 2011 SOP.)
mela, November 18th, 2010
As a lawyer, I clearly believe that they are two sides to every issue, every argument; however, I find it difficult to discuss the new TSA measures because I become so violently angry at the clear violation of citizens’ Fourth Amendment rights against search and seizure.
This policy allows TSOs to “pat down” (which is an absurd bastardization of the term in this case) American citizens, assumed under the law to be innocent of any crime, in ways that a police officer is not allowed to touch a suspect in the face of probable cause of evidence of a crime. That is blatantly unconstitutional and every citizen should protest if they believe in the tenets of rights this country was founded upon.
Of course I can understand that the TSOs are frustrated and typically don’t enjoy “patting down” passengers that object to the scan.
That being said, TSOs are TSOs as willful employees and if they so greatly object to the TSAs policies, they should not be working for the TSA. The Nazi analogy is dead on – not every German citizen under the Third Reich was a Nazi, just as I’m sure that not every TSO agrees with the policy, but the fact of the matter is that in both cases these individuals are tacitly agreeing to the objectionable policies under the guise of “serving my country” and “its my job.”
Violating a private citizen’s right against an unreasonable search and seizure is NOT your job.
TSO employees need to put their money where their mouth is — if they feel that performing these pat downs is objectionable and abhorrent, then they need to STOP doing it. Don’t tell me how much you dislike violating my privacy rights, SHOW me.
And I’m not even going to get into the potentiality for TSOs enjoyment of this pat down procedure. Of course I realize that the TSO that would enjoy this is rare, but I have no doubt that some exist.
TSOs — you are violating the rights of your fellow citizens. If you believe in the Constitution, stop. I think losing a job is a far lesser sacrifice than that of our forefathers who died fighting for these rights against the British Empire.
In the U.S., the Military Commissions Act of 2006 is in force, and it allows persecution or imprisonment of any person who is identified as an ‘illegally fighting enemy’ by the executive authorities and extends to immigrants from any country not at war with the U.S. They are persecuted like “enemies” not based on some evidence but because they were labeled so by the governmental agencies. No foreign governments have protested against this law which is of international importance. - Olga Chetverikova, Final Stage in the ‘Global Control’ Strategy, Global Research, April 23, 2009
In the U.S., the Military Commissions Act of 2006 is in force, and it allows persecution or imprisonment of any person who is identified as an ‘illegally fighting enemy’ by the executive authorities and extends to immigrants from any country not at war with the U.S. They are persecuted like “enemies” not based on some evidence but because they were labeled so by the governmental agencies. No foreign governments have protested against this law which is of international importance. - Olga Chetverikova, Final Stage in the ‘Global Control’ Strategy, Global Research, April 23, 2009
The Department of Homeland Security Is a Constitutional Black Hole Created to End the Human Rights of Everyone Except for the Ruling Class The PPJ Gazette
April 20, 2011
For most Americans, at least those paying any attention, the threat of Homeland Security (HSD) and its Gestapo agenda represent a far bigger threat to the nation than some nameless, faceless, unidentifiable person or group in some foreign land.
Created on the back of the fear mongering by our own government using 9/11 as the excuse, this trophy of the Bush regime is morphing into the greatest threat we face, which is exactly what it was intended to do.
According to HSD these days . . . we are all unique terrorists, each of us representing a threat to the ever expanding global efforts to end human rights except for those afforded to the elite.Somehow, those who possess great wealth, those who operate as a corporation, are somehow exempt from regulation and government-sponsored terrorism.
Out here in no-man’s land where jobs have been systematically shipped out of the country to slave labor markets and where the homeless population is rising daily as a result of massive unemployment — and while our border remains unsecured and millions of illegal immigrants are encouraged to enter the country further depressing the job market and wages across the board — it seems we have no rights as these are being eroded on a daily basis not only by our elected officials, but also by Homeland Security, an unelected bureaucracy loaded with overpaid bureaucrats.
HSD is a Constitutional black hole.
HSD now claims that violence does not have to be part of the criteria for defining terrorism or for defining you as a terrorist.You just have to simply object to what government is doing. Maybe you joined a group which meets and discusses the abuses of power, the abrogation of rights, or the preferential treatment afforded the affluent and corporations. Maybe you realize that all of our rights, our freedom and liberty are being taken away under the false premise of “it’s the only way we can keep you safe”. Too bad for you! You are now a “unique terrorist”.
It goes even further than this. An article sent to me recently originating on Survivalist Blog included the criteria now used to identify “unique terrorists”. This criteria was supplied by a former law enforcement officer, and includes:
Self-sufficiency (stockpiling food, ammo, hand tools, medical supplies)
Fear of economic collapse (buying gold and barter items)
Religious views concerning the book of Revelation (apocalypse, anti-Christ)
Expressed fears of Big Brother or big government
Homeschooling
Declarations of Constitutional rights and civil liberties
Belief in a New World Order conspiracy
In another section of this article,
These people grow their own food, raise livestock and plot attacks on commercial food production facilities
This last one would have made me laugh had it not been for the attached “plot attacks on commercial food production facilities”. This was added on to the fear mongering over gardeners and livestock owners in an attempt to tie those who grow their own food to, terrorism.
What is clearly an episode of government brainwashing, our law enforcement is being trained to connect growing a garden and/or raising livestock with plotting attacks on corporate industrialized farming and ranching operations. This has to be one of the biggest stretches of fear mongering to come along in some time.
It is apparent the government does not approve of us growing our own food but can’t come out and criminalize it in and of itself (although “Dirty Harry” Reid (D) made a valiant effort to do just that with his fake food safety bill) so a fictional connection has to be made between gardeners and livestock growers and potential attacks on corporate producers. There! Are you scared of your local farmer or maybe your neighbor, now?
While I would like to think and believe that our law enforcement officials would be smarter than this I have only to look at the menace many of these departments across the country have become now that they are under HSD control. Add to this the military war equipment now being assembled by many departments and the now “badge heavy” and armed to the teeth personnel who are virtually operating with immunity no matter how many laws they themselves break and no matter how many of your rights are violated as the police state a.k.a. Homeland Security moves forward and the recipe for disaster is almost complete.
The idea that Libertarian philosophies (i.e. belief in a Constitutional Republic) and any belief expressed concerning your rights including the second amendment, along with acknowledging that Big Brother is not only a threat, but is here, are all viewed as “unique terrorist” activities.
Thinking about all of this I, of course, have to wonder who is being terrorized by my belief in the Constitution? In what way does my belief threaten them? The answers of course are that the only individuals or institutions who view my beliefs as terroristic are the same individuals and institutions that operate the Big Brother police state.
I don’t know how hard we will have to be hit in the head as a nation, but the terrorists we need to fear the most are all sitting in some very fine offices in Washington D.C..As a country we are being systematically deconstructed as privately-owned corporate agencies, all created by government, all unlawfully empowered to write and enforce laws they make up themselves (rules and regulations, codes are lawmaking) take more of our freedom and rights away from us, virtually criminalizing everything we could possibly do.
Once this power is transferred by Congress to the privately owned corporate agency, neither Congress, nor the president can dictate to them what they can or cannot do.They may only make suggestions which do not have to be adhered to.
The only power Congress has at this point is defunding the agency or program. Not that it makes much difference, as an autonomous private corporation, these agencies can and do contract with other corporations even against the interests of the people.
As always, what bothers me most is the willingness of some Americans to slap on a government badge and forget who they are and where they come from.I suppose it shouldn’t be a surprise that so many are willing accomplices in the government-sponsored terrorism that is eating away at the core of our country.History is full of these cowards who will do anything to save themselves even if it means harming you.
What better place for a coward to hide than behind a government badge?
By Giordano Bruno, Neithercorp Press
April 9, 2010
The word “terrorist” has assumed numerous presumptive connotations over the decades, and this trend of “redefining” the vicious label to suit certain governmental needs has only intensified in recent years, especially since 9/11.
Its graduation as widely-used political terminology gives it an almost archetypal quality, because it has the ability to trigger abundant and subconscious emotional reactions in the populace. However, these reactions are usually based on mass delusions: false ideas of what terrorism is, what it is not, and who is actually guilty of these loosely classified crimes.It is a weighted word, filled with projections, biases, and faulty perceptions.
Governments across the world, and organizations such as the UN, have considered “officially” categorizing what a terrorist actually is, but claim that they have been unable to reach an accord that satisfies everyone.
I feel it is much more likely that ruling bodies, most especially the UN, would like nothing better than to keep the specifics of the term as hazy as possible for as long as possible.The more elusive it is, the more powerful it becomes to those elite minorities who wish to retain and centralize political control.
While we tend to associate terrorism with Muslim extremism, because this is the image we have been force-fed for the past ten years, that association can just as easily be swayed or redirected to someone else depending on which person or people become most obstructive to the government’s immediate desires.At bottom, under the current cultural climate, anyone can be labeled a terrorist for any reason, even American Citizens liable for nothing more than exercising their Constitutional rights.
As our country spirals towards certain monetary derailment, scathing discontentment with the establishment is sure to arise.When trusted leadership betrays, when criminality becomes a political guideline, when the corrupt loot the world, burning the people alive in their ever expanding grip, invariably, defiance is born.The Globalists know this well. They have seen it time and again, and have learned from past mistakes. Instead of immediately attempting to crush this opposition of individualists, the Elites now preempt violence with “false cultural identification;” the public demonization of those who would inevitably rebel BEFORE they even do so, much like a murderer who admonishes his future victims for wanting to defend themselves. The wise man would find this tactic absurd, or insane, but wisdom is in short supply these days.
In this article, we will explore the steps that the Elites are taking to prime the masses for the label we will soon be hearing daily: “Homegrown Terrorist.”We will also take a look at the organizations and think tanks that manufacture this propaganda and mold it for public consumption…
Hutaree and Pavlov’s Dog
Though the “Hutaree Militia” and their arrest have been widely publicized in the media, and the mainstream media (MSM) has all but sentenced them as guilty in the eyes of the nation before a trial has even begun, I will retain judgment until all the facts are in.
The incident has all the characteristics of a “Trojan Horse” disinformation maneuver, in which groups who oppose the government are infiltrated by men posing as members. A common occurrence in the 60’s and 70’s during the anti-Vietnam War movement, these federal moles would then purposely lure groups into illegal acts, or frame them outright.The main goal of this tactic is to topple the moral high ground that the challenging movement stands on, making them appear as corrupt as the governments they defend against. However, the manipulation goes much further.
Whether or not the Hutaree are actually guilty of the crimes they have been accused is really not the most relevant issue.What is relevant, are the false associations and connections made by the MSM in an attempt to not only demonize the Hutaree, but the entire Liberty Movement along with them.
While it is not uncommon for the globalist-controlled media to attack the Liberty Movement, the widespread anger over the recent passing of Obama’s unconstitutional health care bill and the Hutaree incident have opened certain doors for exploitation. The news is now awash in anti-patriot misinformation.Here are a few of the most prominent falsehoods being presented:
The Liberty Movement Is An Extremist Right Wing Element?
During the presidency of George W. Bush, the Liberty Movement railed against the Republican Party for tripling the size of federal government, for going to war in Iraq on false pretenses, for refusing to allow a truly independent investigation of 9/11 despite numerous inconsistencies and scientifically erroneous evidence in the official reports, and for illegal expansion of domestic wire tapping and spy programs against American citizens, including FISA, not to mention the Patriot Act and PDD 51, which give the executive branch legal authority to assume full control over the functions of government without checks and balances under any circumstance they see fit.
In response, the MSM and others called us “liberal fanatics” and “communists.” Only a few years later, they now have the audacity to label us “right wing extremists,” as we call out the Obama Administration for supporting the exact same policies as Bush. [This Time Magazine article illustrates this well.]
Many Americans do not comprehend the position of the Liberty Movement because they are still trapped in the fabricated world of the false “left / right” paradigm. The leadership of both parties, Democrat and Republican, are under the influence of the same corporate globalist interests, and this is evident in the fact they support nearly identical executive legislative actions that erode civil liberties and U.S. sovereignty. The illusion of the Left and Right is not substantiated by fact, but by the theater of media. Barack Obama’s rhetoric, for instance, has never matched his actions, and few if any of his campaign promises to end Bush-era injustices have been fulfilled.
As a country, we must stop living in the fantasy world of celebrity politics, a world in which what people say is more important than what they really do. This is where the Liberty Movement exists; in the plane between the phony realities of Left and Right, where “taking sides” is meaningless, where the only thing that is important is what is TRUE, and what is dishonest.
The attempt by the media today to brand us as “Right Wing” is merely a ruse to associate us with the much hated Neo-Con ideology (which is really socialist), and to continue perpetuating the lie of the current two party apparatus. In this way, they can marginalize us as a fringe element of a fake party, an element that people can be made to dread, instead of the birth of a new third party, which is what we really are.
The Liberty Movement’s Anger Over The Health Care Debate Makes Us “Dangerous”?
Last year, Neithercorp reported on the developments surrounding Obamacare and our personal belief that not only was the bill not practical, but that it was not meant to work at all:
‘ObamaCare’ will not come to fruition, for many reasons, but most of all because the U.S. is beyond indebted. The costs involved in nationalizing health care are enormous. The sales of U.S. treasury debt to foreign banks have plummeted over the past year, and they will continue to do so. Like Greece to the tenth power, America is on the verge of sovereign debt default.
The government and the private Federal Reserve’s only recourse has been to create massive amounts of currency out of thin air to cover the mushrooming expense of keeping the economy afloat. Without the constant injections of liquidity into treasuries, our government would no longer be able to operate.
Very soon, these injections will inflate the money supply to levels which will destroy our currency, throwing the financial system into chaos.And, in the midst of all this, the Obama administration decides to increase our budget deficit to record levels and introduce socialized health care? Of course people are angry! It is my suspicion, however, that this was the goal all along.
ObamaCare can be used to create intense divisions in the citizenry, as well as distract us from the economy. It can also be used to redirect the debate over expansion of government power.
By introducing ObamaCare, the elites change the dynamic of the argument. Before, the contention was that the government’s size was unsustainable and would bankrupt the nation. Now, the argument is over the ethics of leaving people without healthcare, and the “necessity” of large government in supplying that care. The debate morphed from a clean cut examination of what we could afford, into a foggy morality play in which those who oppose government expansion are “uncaring,” “greedy,” or perhaps “evil.” [Here is an article that alludes to such accusations.]
The message here is that proponents of private healthcare are “overreacting” to the legislation. Arguments that Obamacare is no more insidious than Medicare are highly disingenuous. Medicare is government ASSISTED health care, not government CONTROLLED health care. There is a very big difference, one which we refuse to ignore.
The Liberty Movement’s position on any issue has always been do we have the money, and does the Constitution allow it? While it is unfortunate that the poor (I have been one of them) cannot afford health insurance, the cold hard reality is that we do not have the savings to fund collectivist healthcare, nor does the Constitution allow for government to dominate the healthcare industry or force people to buy insurance they don’t want.
This is not about little orphan Annie who needs a kidney transplant. Obama couldn’t care less.This is about putting those who call for smaller government in the position of being the “bad guy,” as well as making Federal influence over our private lives that much easier.
The goal is to paint the movement as unfeeling, and without compassion, thus making it easier for the average American to see us as “terrorists” in the near future.
The Liberty Movement Is Driven By Racism?
This has to be my favorite disinfo talking point, mainly because of its blatancy. There was a time when all propaganda was so straight forward, simple, and shameless. [Here is a Time Magazine article which is obviously trying to connect Constitutionalists and militias with racism and white power organizations.]
This tactic does not need much explaining. First, I’ve been going to the Tea Parties for years, long before they were co-opted by Fox News, and I can say from firsthand experience that the Liberty Movement is composed of people from all racial, religious and political backgrounds. Many militias are also organized the same way.
The fact that the movement is fully opposed to illegal immigration is often used by the establishment to draw more false associations. The connection to which they allude is that since we are against illegal immigration, we are against all immigrants, especially Hispanic immigrants. This is nonsensical. We are against illegal immigration, for one, because it is ILLEGAL. I am not sure what is so complicated about this concept, but for some people, especially those who place themselves on the left end of our fake political spectrum, it is difficult to comprehend.
There are in fact legal channels one can take to immigrate to the U.S., as there are for any other country. If an American wishes to immigrate to Canada, he does not simply skip across the border and declare it so. He must follow legal guidelines, or be deported. This does not make Canadians biased against Americans; it makes them rational. If millions of us decided to lumber into Quebec and begin collecting on government programs that we never paid into, it would throw their entire economy into disarray.If we all offered our services to employers there at discount prices under the table, it would destroy their jobs market.
It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with what makes sense. This is why polls show that a large percentage of minorities in the U.S. are also against illegal immigration, not just whites.
The purpose behind the racist label is evident. No one likes a racist, especially not a militant racist. The tactic is designed to plant assumptions in the minds of those unaware of the facts, especially Democrats, so that when a Liberty Movement representative engages them in discussion, they will automatically refuse to listen, regardless of how reasonable that representative may be. The blunt nature of the method reveals how desperate globalists are to keep as many Democrats as possible from joining the movement.
People Who Spread Liberty Movement Information Are As Threatening As Those In Militias?
The sudden push on the part of the current administration for the institution of the Fairness Doctrine is no fluke. It is also even less of a fluke that they are attempting to apply the Fairness Doctrine to the internet.
The Fairness Doctrine accomplishes two things for the establishment: First, it forces all media to define themselves as either Left, or Right, and then balances them accordingly —meaning all media would be strong armed into playing out the false paradigm forever, neither side ever changing or gaining an advantage. Second, it allows government to dictate what acceptable political discussion is and shut down those that stray from their guidelines.
If the Fairness Doctrine were to be applied, it would not affect those gatekeeper news outlets that play the paradigm game: Fox, MSNBC, CNN, etc. In reality, the only news sources that would be dealt a drastic blow would be those that straddle the line between left and right, or that deny the paradigm altogether — Liberty Movement sources.
I have noticed that this development has occurred in tandem with another more subtle strategy. While government moves to gain more influence over what news providers are allowed to operate, the MSM has moved to infer that Liberty Movement news sources are “instigating” violence, simply because they exist. While most of us are aware of the attempts to connect Alex Jones and his Infowars radio show with any violent gunman that happens to stumble out of the woodwork, there has also been an endeavor to link all Constitutionally-based websites and radio with “extremist behavior,” as this article shows.
All societies that are advancing towards fascism begin by singling out certain ideas as “dangerous” to the greater good.The very fabric of American life is centered on the protection of ideas, regardless of their origin. We do not prosecute people for their beliefs, no matter how much we might disagree. This is beginning to change though, and one can feel it in the air.
The MSM is now producing a low droning hum of propaganda aimed at accusing liberty-based news as accomplices in “extremist crime.” As if the general disenchantment and opposition to collectivist government would somehow disappear if we were not here to write our views and report on the facts.
The above list of establishment talking points demonstrates a discernable pattern. This pattern is engineered around the concept of “conditioning.” Like Pavlov’s dog, Americans are being prepared mentally to react to certain bells and whistles in a way that serves Elitist interests. In this case, instead of salivating every time they hear the words “militia,” “truth movement,” “patriot,” “Liberty Movement,” “Constitutionalism,” etc., they are meant to think “Hutaree,” they are meant to think “homegrown terrorist.”
Of course, unlike Pavlov’s dog, human beings cannot be conditioned if they are aware, and they can even break their own conditioning if given the opportunity.This is why we are pummeled daily with a constant barrage of misinformation, so that we never get a chance to open our eyes and see who is hitting us. So, who is hitting us…?
The ADL and SPLC: Propaganda Machines Extraordinaire
Whenever you see a news story on almost any mainstream news channel, or read one in almost any newspaper dealing with the Liberty Movement and parallel movements, the chances are very high that the ADL (Anti Defamation League) or the SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) had a hand in it.
The ADL was founded in 1913 (coincidentally, the same year as the private Federal Reserve), and poses as a sort of civil rights group and non-profit corporation. In truth, it is a multifaceted propaganda arm for globalists, much like the Council on Foreign Relations, which has been involved in, and implicated in, domestic spying as well as other illegal activities.
In 1993, the ADL was caught red handed employing spies like Roy Bullock, who infiltrated organizations ranging from the White Aryan Resistance, to the NAACP and Greenpeace. Interestingly, they were also caught spying on other anti-discrimination groups, such as the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee.
These spies compiled dossiers on thousands of American citizens and hundreds of non-violent groups. In the mid-80’s, they also terrorized certain peaceful assemblies for nothing more than free-speech.A method they are now applying to us.
Because the ADL is organized around the Jewish fraternal order of B’nai B’rith, some people make the mistake of assuming that they are a purely Israeli construct; however, they are actually a tool for Elitist activities, not just Israeli, and alphabet agencies such as the FBI and the CIA collude with them constantly. In fact, the government has only supported the ADL more since they were exposed in 1993, and the MSM reports their skewed statistics and baseless opinions as undeniable fact.
When interviewed by the MSM, ADL and SPLC representatives are rarely challenged by their interviewers on any issue, and an interviewee with an opposing viewpoint is almost never present.When they are present, the “journalist” and the SPLC/ADL representative attack them maliciously, using dishonest Alinsky Tactics, such as attempting to keep the person from speaking, or attacking the person’s character instead of addressing the information he presents.
A good example is this interview on MSNBC with Chris Mathews and director of the SPLC, Mark Potok against Stewart Rhodes of Oath Keepers:
Oath Keepers is an organization of military and police members who are openly re-stating their support for the Constitution, over the shifting of government mandates, as all people in the armed forces are supposed to do. Yes, they must truly be a menace…
Notice that Potok and Matthews (video above) immediately generalize and dismiss every one of the Oath Keeper concerns on government as “dark conspiracy theory” without actually providing any tangible reasoning to support their claims, nor providing Rhodes any real opportunity to counter their accusations.
The “conspiracy theory” redirection relies on an ignorant public, unaware of the numerous facts and evidence that support the Liberty Movement view.The ADL and SPLC hope that you and your family will take them at their word, instead of investigating the truth for yourself.
That the term “conspiracy theory” will trigger a Pavlov’s dog reaction, a knee-jerk response that causes your mind to immediately close. They also commonly use terms like “white supremacist,” “Oklahoma City,” or names like “Timothy McVeigh” in the same breath as “Oath Keepers” and “Patriot Movement.” This is done deliberately; and if you watch a number of interviews involving the ADL/SPLC, you will notice that they do it as a rule. Again, the attempt is to link the unseemly actions of one man, or one small group, to the whole of the movement, and to the ideology of liberty.
When reason is applied, and research is undertaken, Mark Potok’s arguments appear juvenile and lazy. The government’s own legislation is what created the Liberty Movement’s concern over martial law and loss of Constitutional freedoms.This legislation includes those mentioned above, like the Patriot Act and PDD 51, along with the Civilian Inmate Labor Program, and new legislation drafted by Republican, John McCain, and Democrat, Joe Lieberman (another example of the fake left/right working together), called the “Enemy Belligerents Act.”
This new act [S.3081: Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010] allows, among other things, for the treatment of U.S. citizens who dissent as enemy combatants, for the indefinite detention of these citizens without trial, and to be held under military jurisdiction. It also allows for “enhanced interrogation techniques”, i.e. torture.
Bills like this are introduced to Congress yearly, and yet I have to watch Mark Potok on MSNBC call my concerns and the Liberty Movement’s concerns “conspiracy theory”?
When We Are All Homegrown Terrorists…
Anyone who can’t see where all this is leading would have to be cognitively impaired. I, for example, am just a writer, but under the broad definitions laid out in government legislation, I could easily be considered a threat to national security. Could my articles not inspire resentment in someone? Could the facts I present not instill a need for “dissent,” or even self defense in the event that the establishment does institute martial law? What about people who aren’t writers, but regular Americans who happen to speak openly about their suspicions of where the country is heading?Are they “enemy belligerents” and combatants?
If the ADL and the SPLC had existed in the early days of the American Independence Movement, before a shot was ever fired, they would have called men like John Adams and Thomas Jefferson “terrorists,” good men who only wanted to be free. There is little difference between our situation then, and our situation now, except that the terminology has changed; and, indeed, we know even more about who we are fighting.
While being categorized as a homegrown terrorist may be a frightening prospect, what other people are led to believe about us is not so important. What is important is that we do not start to believe it ourselves.That we are not made to feel guilty for wanting to determine our own destinies, for wanting to keep government out of our lives and our children’s lives. We are not the instigators of this conflict, we are not the antagonists of this story. In the end, we are the deciders of this conflict. We are the authors of this story.
It is possible we will soon see an acceleration of our own malignment over the coming year.We will be ridiculed, condemned, and perhaps some of us even incarcerated.Violent attacks against innocent Americans will likely be carried out, some by real and misguided people, some engineered by government.
We cannot allow these acts to be forced upon us as implied persona. We cannot allow others to speak for us, because others are unlikely to speak the truth. And most crucial of all, we cannot ever be afraid to speak for ourselves. The ultimate triumph for the Elites would be our silence.
Affirm your freedoms as an unbound man, cut the air, forceful and clear, let the world listen, and never stop.
The establishment is determined to take out the Tea Party political movement prior to the November election. In order to do this, they will unleash a corporate media campaign designed to portray patriotic Americans opposed to an increasingly leviathan and autocratic government as “far right” lunatics and fringe elements. The centerpiece of this effort is a mini-documentary produced by MSNBC and hosted by Chris Matthews. According to MSNBC: “Chris Matthews takes a hard look at the recent surge of anger on the political right, particularly the outpouring of support for the Tea Party, which helped secure Rand Paul’s victory in Kentucky. Who are the people on the New Right? What do they want? And how do they intend to get it?” - Kurt Nimmo, Chris Matthews' “Rise of the New Right” Portrays Patriots as Extremists, Infowars.com, June 9, 2010
The first Joint U.S.-EU Seminar on Preventing Violent Extremism was held in Brussels, Belgium, on June 16-17, 2010. The following is an excerpt of the speech given by Ambassador William E. Kennard on June 16. [Editor's Note: the transcript of the speech from the U.S.-EU website does not quite match the actual speech, so please watch the video below]:
This gathering is the culmination of many months of discussions, planning and hard work by representatives of the United States and the European Union. I am delighted that this day has finally arrived. I am particularly gratified that the conference has attracted participants from many departments and agencies of my government, including the White House National Security Council, the Departments of Justice, State and Homeland Security, the FBI, our military joint commands, and the United States Agency for International Development. They are joined by Representatives from civil society, academia, and local law enforcement in the United States.
The depth and variety of participants from the European Union is equally impressive. I thank all of the organizers, particularly my colleague Joe Pomper from the U.S. Mission to the European Union, for bringing this group together on a topic of vital importance to all of us.
We are all here today to learn from one another, to share the experiences that we bring from around the world.
As I was thinking about what I might say to open this conference, I thought about my own experiences, and what I might bring to the discussion today. I am certainly not an expert in this field – not like most of you here today. But, like all of you, my outlook has been shaped by personal memories of violence in my own country.
As a child growing up in Los Angeles, California, I was profoundly affected by the shock of learning that Robert F. Kennedy had been assassinated at a hotel not far from my home -- an event that happened only seven years after the assassination of his brother, President John Kennedy, also shocked the world. And later that year, my city erupted in racial violence in the wake of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.
I suspect that much of the discussion at this conference will involve a type of violence that I did not know as a child – acts of terrorism motivated by extreme political or religious views. It has produced heinous crimes, many made famous by the names of the places they occurred: Oklahoma City, Fort Hood, Madrid and London, the Taj Mahal Hotel in Mumbai.
These acts of terrorism are quite different from the violence of my youth. They are certainly more random and unpredictable. As such, I find them more chilling and senseless in the way that they target innocents. But fundamentally, they share a common heritage. Both are born of the same underlying cause - a sense of hopelessness and despair, particularly among the youth, especially immigrants and minorities who feel isolated from the cultural mainstream.
Here I think it is important to emphasize that violent extremism is not the sole province of immigrants and minorities. Of course, not all immigrants are violent extremists, nor are all violent extremists immigrants. Take James Earl Ray. Ray was a white man living in the American South during the Civil Rights movement; Southern white segregationist culture was becoming politically marginalized in 1968; Ray’s response to this marginalization was a violent one: to assassinate Martin Luther King, Jr.
I arrived in Brussels about six months ago, and as a new arrival I have tried to understand the immigrant experience in Europe. Inevitably, I have drawn comparisons to my own experience as an African American growing up in the United States, despite the obvious differences. I have also tried to understand how, in the United States, we have succeeded in integrating immigrant populations into the mainstream of our society...
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law "respecting an establishment of religion," impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. - Wikipeida
The Associated Press
May 1, 2010
ANN ARBOR, Mich. – In a blunt caution to political friend and foe, President Barack Obama said Saturday that partisan rants and name-calling under the guise of legitimate discourse pose a serious danger to America's democracy, and may incite "extreme elements" to violence.
The comments, in a graduation speech at the University of Michigan's huge football stadium, were Obama's most direct take about the angry politics that have engulfed his young presidency after long clashes over health care, taxes and the role of government.
Not 50 miles from where Obama spoke, the GOP's 2008 vice presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, denounced his policies as "big government" strategies being imposed on average Americans.
"The fundamental transformation of America is not what we all bargained for," she told 2,000 activists at a forum in Clarkston, sponsored by the anti-tax Americans for Prosperity Foundation.
Obama drew repeated cheers in Michigan Stadium from a friendly crowd that aides called the biggest audience of his presidency since the inauguration. The venue has a capacity of 106,201, and university officials distributed 80,000 tickets — before they ran out.
In his 31-minute speech (video above), Obama didn't mention either Palin or the tea party movement that's captured headlines with its fierce attacks on his policies. But he took direct aim at the anti-government language so prevalent today.
"What troubles me is when I hear people say that all of government is inherently bad," Obama said after receiving an honorary doctor of laws degree. "When our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening foreign entity, it ignores the fact that in our democracy, government is us."
Government, he said, is the roads we drive on and the speed limits that keep us safe. It's the men and women in the military, the inspectors in our mines, the pioneering researchers in public universities.
The financial meltdown dramatically showed the dangers of too little government, he said, "when a lack of accountability on Wall Street nearly led to the collapse of our entire economy."
But Obama was direct in urging both sides in the political debate to tone it down.
"Throwing around phrases like 'socialists' and 'Soviet-style takeover,' 'fascists' and 'right-wing nut' — that may grab headlines," he said. But it also "closes the door to the possibility of compromise. It undermines democratic deliberation," he said.
"At its worst, it can send signals to the most extreme elements of our society that perhaps violence is a justifiable response."
Passionate rhetoric isn't new, he acknowledged. Politics in America, he said, "has never been for the thin-skinned or the faint of heart. ... If you enter the arena, you should expect to get roughed up."
Obama hoped the graduates hearing his words can avoid cynicism and brush off the overheated noise of politics. In fact, he said, they should seek out opposing views. His advice: If you're a regular Glenn Beck listener, then check out the Huffington Post sometimes. If you read The New York Times editorial page the morning, then glance every now and then at The Wall Street Journal.
"It may make your blood boil. Your mind may not be changed. But the practice of listening to opposing views is essential for effective citizenship," he said.
The speech was part of a busy weekend for the president: the White House Correspondents' Association dinner Saturday evening near the White House and visit the Gulf Coast on Sunday morning for a firsthand update on the massive oil spill.
Obama's helicopter landed on a grass practice football field next to the stadium on a damp, overcast day. Students and their families had been streaming in since early morning, many toting rain gear.
The president's appearance in Michigan — a battleground in the 2008 White House race that's likely to play a big role in the fall congressional campaign — comes as the state struggles with the nation's highest unemployment rate, 14.1 percent.It's also has an unhappy electorate to match.
In the Republican's weekly radio and Internet address, Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich, said Obama's visit was a chance "to show the president, firsthand, the painful plight of the people of Michigan."
Many of the graduates Obama addresses will soon learn how tough it is to find a job in this economy, Hoekstra said, adding that the share of young Americans out of work is the highest it's been in more than 50 years.
Speaking before Obama was Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who's known to be on his short list of possible Supreme Court nominees. She said Michigan residents owe him thanks for "delivering on health care reform" and "for supporting our auto industry. General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, they all have bright futures now, where a year ago, much darker clouds than these loomed overhead."
Obama's speech was the first of four he is giving this commencement season.
On May 9, he'll speak at Hampton University, a historically black college in Hampton, Va., founded in 1868 on the grounds of a former plantation.
He's also addressing Army cadets at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., on May 22, continuing a tradition of presidents addressing graduates at the service academies. He announced his Afghanistan troop surge at West Post last December.
Also this year, for the first time, Obama plans a high school commencement.It's part of his "Race to the Top" education initiative, with its goal of boosting the United States' lagging graduation rate to the world's best by 2020.
High schools across the country have competed for the honor, submitting essays and videos. A vote on the White House website yielded three finalists, and Obama will choose among them next week.
There's a new narrative taking hold in the wake of the recent tea party protests and the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing:The tea partiers' intense opposition to the Obama administration has led to overheated political rhetoric, which could in turn lead to violence.
Former President Clinton has emerged as a leading voice of this new narrative. In interviews, Clinton said it's "legitimate" to draw "parallels to the time running up to Oklahoma City and a lot of the political discord that exists in our country today."
"Watch your words," warned ABC News, reporting that Clinton "weighed in on the angry anti-government rhetoric, ringing out from talk radio to tea party rallies."
The reports dovetailed with earlier media that stories also depicted tea party gatherings as angry mobs, accusing protesters of throwing racial epithets at black lawmakers and of making threats of violence. The implication is that all this could be part of a nationwide trend.
"Just this month, the Southern Poverty Law Center reported that it had tracked an explosion in extremist anti-government patriot groups fueled, in large part, by anger over the economy and Barack Obama's presidency," NBC's David Gregory said in early April.
"In this highly charged political atmosphere, where you've got so much passion, so much disagreement, this takes it, of course, to a different level."
How did this story line grow?
Many of the claims that extremism is on the rise in America originate in research by the Southern Poverty Law Center, an Alabama-based group that for nearly 40 years has tracked what it says is the growing threat of intolerance in the United States. These days, the SPLC is issuing new warnings of new threats. But today's warnings sound an awful lot like those of the past.
In 1989, the SPLC warned of the growing threat of skinheads, saying:
"Not since the height of Klan activity during the civil-rights era has there been a white supremacist group so obsessed with violence."
In 1995, the SPLC warned of the growing threat of right-wing militias.
In 1998, the SPLC warned of the growing threat of Internet-based hate groups.
In 2002, the SPLC warned of the growing threat of post-Sept. 11 hate groups.
And just a few weeks ago, the SPLC warned of the growing threat of "patriot" groups.
But in the world of the Southern Poverty Law Center, the threat is always growing. Ronald Reagan's policies led to a growing threat. The election of Bill Clinton led to a growing threat. Is it any wonder that Obama's presidency has, in the SPLC's estimation, led to a growing threat?
Hate groups exist across the political spectrum, and have for a long time. But they have nothing to do with the frustration over deficits, taxes and Obamacare that we have heard at tea party gatherings. That frustration, felt by Republicans, independents and even some Democrats, is a mainstream reaction to the activist course the president and Congress have taken.
It's important to distinguish between a political threat and a physical one.
Ron Paul and Andrew Napolitano, along with Michele Bachmann and Glenn Beck, are anti-government patriot movement “enablers,” according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.
The SPLC insinuates that Paul and Napolitano are “enablers” for domestic terrorism.
“These men and women have helped to put key Patriot themes — the idea that President Obama is a Marxist, that he and other elites in the government are pushing a socialist takeover, that the United States plans secret concentration camps and so on — before millions of Americans, many of whom actually believe these completely false allegations,” declares the SPLC in a recent web posting. “Whether these people tell such tall tales because they believe them or simply because they are willing to shamelessly pander for votes or ratings, is anyone’s guess; but the noxious effect on the body politic is the same.”
More lies. In fact, Ron Paul has deemed Obama a corporatist, not a Marxist. During the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, Dr. Paul said:
“The question has been raised about whether or not our president is a socialist. I am sure there are some people here who believe it. But in the technical sense, in the economic definition of a what a socialist is, no, he’s not a socialist…. He’s a corporatist. And unfortunately we have corporatists inside the Republican party and that means you take care of corporations and corporations take over and run the country.”
“Whether he’s advocating pulling out of the United Nations, trashing the Fed, or returning to the gold standard, Paul’s views have scored him plenty of points among the Patriot crowd,” writes the SPLC, and these mainstream Libertarian ideals “stoke fears of an overreaching government on the far right.” The SPLC fear-mongering machine has long claimed the patriot movement is associated with white supremacists and militias and may engage in violence.In fact, there is plenty of evidence that the SPLC itself has “enabled” the miniscule and completely irrelevant white supremacist movement in order to magnify the ludicrous threat they claimthese fringe groups pose.
In 2004, a declassified FBI memo obtained by an Oklahoma newspaper revealed that the SPLC had operatives inside the Identity settlement in Elohim City, Oklahoma.
“References to an informant working for the SPLC at Elohim City on the eve of the Oklahoma City bombing raises serious questions as to what the SPLC might known about McVeigh’s activities during the final hours before the fuse was lit in Oklahoma City – but which the SPLC has failed to disclose publicly,” the Daily Gazette reported.
In order to defame Ron Paul and characterize him as a racist fellow traveler, the SPLC dredges up comments published in The Ron Paul Survival Report in 1996.
“The quotations in The New Republic article [the neocon publication that attempted to discredit Paul with the accusation] are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts,” Paul said. “In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person’s character, not the color of their skin.”
“Paul claimed in 2001 that ghostwriters had penned the newsletters that bear his name but acknowledged he bore ’some moral responsibility,’” adds the SPLC in a crude attempt to make the controversy stick and portray Paul as a racist.
The SPLC has completely ignored Ron Paul’s denouncement of racism.
“Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individual who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups,” he has said.
Former New Jersey judge Andrew Napolitano, according to the SPLC, “missed out on rubbing elbows with neo-Confederates, conspiracy theorists and antigovernment Patriot activists” when he failed to show as a keynote speaker in February at the first annual Tenth Amendment Summit in Atlanta.
“It seems the TV judge is vying to become a fixture on the far-right lecture circuit” and his very presence of Fox weakens the network’s credibility, according to the SPLC.
For the SPLC, any defense of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights represents far-right kookiness– It is a bellwether of violence, racial hatred, and “antigovernment extremism.”
The SPLC characterizes Napolitano as a conspiracy nut for pointing out Obamacare contains death panels. In fact, the legislation does contain provisions for moving the elderly off the mortal coil, although it does not specifically mention death panels. In late March, the so-called economist Paul Krugman admitted Obamacare contains language providing for what amounts to death panels.
The SPLC slams Sarah Palin on her death panel comments but fails to put the remarks in a larger context. “Government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course,” Palin wrote on her Facebook page.
The SPLC is tasked with destroying the patriot movement by portraying it as a fringe phenomenon consisting of dangerous radicals and even psychopathic domestic terrorists who have supposedly teamed up with white supremacist militias and other violent miscreants.Of course, this is nothing more than propaganda, character assassination, slander, and defamation.
Both Ron Paul and Andrew Napolitano are dedicated constitutionalists who demand that the federal government return to the principles of the founding document and stop imposing mandates on the states in violation of the Tenth Amendment and the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. They have consistently defended the Bill of Rights against the tyrannical actions of both the Republicans and Democrats.
The SPLC and its ideological twin, the Anti-Defamation League, are engaged in a desperate effort to silence the patriot movement through baseless and slanderous accusations. It will not work. Millions of Americans have arrived at the conclusion that the federal government is indeed an authoritarian leviathan. In response, increasing numbers support the Tea Party movement and other patriot groups.
The New World Order Plan is spiritually based: it is a conflict between God and His forces, on the one hand, and Satan and his demonic forces on the other side. Anyone who does not know Biblical doctrine about God and Satan, and who does not know Scriptural prophecy, cannot comprehend the nature of the struggle facing the world today. - David Bay, Cutting Edge Ministries
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. - Ephesians 6:12
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence... Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. - President John F. Kennedy, April 27, 1961
The book in which they are embodied was first published in the year 1897 by Philip Stepanov for private circulation among his intimate friends. The first time Nilus published them was in 1901 in a book called The Great Within the Small and reprinted in 1905. A copy of this is in the British Museum bearing the date of its reception, August 10, 1906. All copies that were known to exist in Russia were destroyed in the Kerensky regime, and under his successors the possession of a copy by anyone in Soviet land was a crime sufficient to ensure the owner's of being shot on sight. The fact is in itself sufficient proof of the genuineness of the Protocols. The Jewish journals, of course, say that they are a forgery, leaving it to be understood that Professor Nilus, who embodied them in a work of his own, had concocted them for his own purposes.
Fair Use Notice
This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more detailed information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
