Archive for DHS

EXPERT: EMP attack could bring US to a screeching halt

Posted in EMB with tags , , , , , on October 2, 2012 by saynsumthn

In testimony delivered on September 12, Brandon Wales, director of the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Infrastructure Threat and Risk Analysis Center, admitted that DHS remains unprepared for the possibility of an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) event or attack.

Wales testified that the nation’s power grid is more vulnerable now than it was a few years ago. Nevertheless, he could not provide Congress with an estimate for how much it would cost to combat such vulnerabilities.

An EMP attack could bring this country to a screeching halt by permanently disabling electronic devices. ATMs would stop dispensing money. Water and sewage systems would fail. Even planes and automobiles would stop working. Imagine living in the Dark Ages: This is what it would be like to live through an EMP attack.

More than seven years ago, DHS released its National Planning Scenarios. This document outlined plans to prepare for and respond to 15 different man-made and natural disasters. The list included the detonation of an improvised nuclear device and the use of a plague as a weapon. However, one potential threat was noticeably missing; an EMP event or attack.

READ MORE HERE

Witnesses

Panel I

Hon. Trent Franks
A Representative in Congress from the 2nd District of Arizona

Panel II

Mr. Joseph McClelland
Director
Office of Electric Reliability
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[full text of testimony]

Mr. Brandon Wales
Director
Homeland Infrastructure Threat and Risk Analysis Center
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
[full text of testimony]

Mr. Michael A. Aimone
Director
Business Enterprise Integration
Office of the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Installations
Office of Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
Department of Defense
[full text of testimony]

Panel III

Mr. Chris Beck
President
Electric Infrastructure Security Council
[full text of testimony]
[truth in testimony]

Are you on the FBI’s domestic terrorist watch list just because you are pro-life?

Posted in FBI, free speech, Homeland Security, Pro-Life with tags , , , , , , , , , , on September 25, 2012 by saynsumthn

Are you on the FBI’s domestic terrorist watch list just because you are pro-life? Two prolific pro-life activists are asking this very question. The Life Legal Defense Foundation has filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with the FBI on behalf of Jill Stanek and Andy Moore. As you may recall, the FBI recently appeared at Mr. Moore’s residence and subjected him to hours of questioning about his peaceful pro-life activities, his citizenship status, and his family, including his mother-in-law, renowned blogger Jill Stanek. Now, Ms. Stanek and Mr. Moore are asking the FBI for any government records that label them as domestic terrorists. Copies of the FOIA requests sent to the FBI are available on LLDF web site. (Here)

the case stems from this event detailed by Jill Stanek on her blog:

On July 13 FBI agents Conrad Rodriguez and William Sivley paid a visit to Jill Stanek’s son-in-law, Andy Moore, at his home.

Andy is a pro-life activist who prays and protests outside the Southwestern Women’s Surgery Center abortion mill in Dallas, where late-term abortionist Curtis Boyd freely acknowledges he “kill[s]” children.

Agents Rodriguez and Sivley told Andy three red flags prompted their visit:

His use of a megaphone outside the mill, a one-time event on March 31, which he stopped and never repeated after police told him he was violating a noise ordinance.

A complaint by the clinic manager that Andy trespassed, which he did not. There was no evidence, yet police gave Andy a warning: “I asked the officer multiple times, ‘Why are you giving me this warning, as I did not trespass?’ All he would tell me was, ‘I’m giving you this warning.’ He did not answer my question.”

Unsubstantiated complaints that Andy may be too aggressive. “One of the agents told me it is acceptable to be aggressive, however there is a line. He gave examples of things which would cross the line, such as making threats of violence, or obstructing vehicle access – violations of the FACE act. I told him in no uncertain terms that I had never done anything like this and had not considered anything like this either.”

Andy videotaped his one and only foray into megaphoning, which was clearly tame and polite

But the FBI used these as an excuse to knock on the door, nerve-wracking to begin with, and followed by asking totally inappropriate questions clearly aimed at intimidating Andy, while also launching into a fishing expedition about me. Per Andy and my daughter, who was home at the time, here were questions the agents asked:

What affiliations do you have including church groups?
How long have you known your wife?
What belief system makes you believe in your cause?
What is your goal in protesting?
Do you know why people would make complaints against you?
Are there friends of yours or people you’re connected with that you could confidentially tell us are aggressive or abrasive? “Don’t be afraid to tell us.”
Are you involved in activism in Austin, since we noticed some entries on abortionwiki?

They were REALLY interested in the connection to Jill Stanek – details of internship, New Zealand speaking tour visit, did you get your activist and pro-life ideas from her? Did she train or teach you? Did you meet Jill before or after you became involved in the movement? Was it Jill who “fired you up” to become so active in the movement?

They were overly nice saying he wasn’t in trouble and feel free to tell us anything. Encouraged him to keep going back out there, that they represent both sides. ++they are protecting his freedom of speech++ is what they kept saying.

They said their task force that deals with these abortion cases also handles Hate Crimes and White Supremacy. Odd grouping with pro-lifers.

They knew he was an immigrant. They said a felony on his record could/would get him deported. “You wouldn’t want to be apart from your wife and newborn.”

Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue, told LifesiteNews.com that during the Clinton-era Violence Against Abortion Providers Conspiracy (VAAPCON) program, federal agents harassed pro-lifers in an attempt to uncover a conspiracy to kill abortionists. “Our mail was rifled through. Our phone lines were tapped. We were followed. I have an FBI file,” Newman told LifeSiteNews. “At the end of the day, they could not find any instance of conspiracy to commit violence against abortion providers. If anything we saw the exact opposite: there’s a conspiracy to commit violence against pro-lifers. That’s never talked about.”

Under Obama, he said the pressure is beginning again.

“I think it’s a lot more subversive with the advent of…warrantless wiretapping of our phones, and our cell phones can be cloned so easily,” he said.

Newman said a source has given him reason to believe the Obama administration is engaging in surveillance of pro-life leaders and organizations.

“It would not be a stretch to believe that every single pro-life leader has his unique ID code for their cell phone tapped into a government computer, and they know where we are and who we’re talking to at every moment,” Newman told LifeSiteNews.

A spate of federal studies have painted pro-life, pro-family leaders as potential “domestic terrorism” threats.

The most recent, “Hot Spots of Terrorism and Other Crimes in the United States, 1970 to 2008”written by Gary LaFree and Bianca Bersani, concluded that organizations dedicated to a single issue – such as “anti-abortion groups” – posed the most enduring threat to American safety and well-being.

An April 2009 DHS report on “Rightwing [sic.] Extremism” identified “groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration” and opposition to same-sex “marriage” as “the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States.” The DHS laterpulled the report.

Abortion Extremism” has a slide that is frightening:

“Many tactics standing alone constitute protected activity under the First Amendment. However, when considered in the context of the abortion extremism movement, these tactics may indicate a resurgence of extremist activity.”

Yet DHS and FBI agents subsequently attended a terrorism training seminar on alleged pro-life terrorism, hosted by Planned Parenthood, the National Abortion Federation, and the Feminist Majority Foundation. After equating free speech with violence, organizers distributed a resource guide listing three pages of purportedly extremist websites such as Priests for Life, the American Center for Law and Justice, and the Christian Broadcasting Network.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
FROM THE ARCHIVES:

Homeland Security Improperly Collected Intelligence on Pro-Lifers and other U.S. Citizens

12-17-2009- New York Times Reporting:

WASHINGTON — In February, a Department of Homeland Security intelligence official wrote a “threat assessment” for the police in Wisconsin about a demonstration involving local pro- and anti-abortion rights groups.

That report soon drew internal criticism because the groups “posed no threat to homeland security,” according to a department memorandum released on Wednesday in connection with a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. The agency destroyed all its copies of the report and gave the author remedial training.

The documents were released by the Justice Department in connection with a lawsuit filed by the nonprofit Electronic Frontier Foundation. It had sought reports to the Intelligence Oversight Board, a watchdog panel appointed by the president, by various agencies documenting violations of law, executive orders or presidential directives.

Marcia Hofmann, a staff lawyer with the foundation, praised agency officials for destroying the reports but said the public needed to know about such incidents.

“I think it’s a positive sign that these agencies responded to this and took steps to correct the situation,” Ms. Hofmann said, adding, “We would never have known that this happened had we not seen these internal reports.”

Matt Chandler, a spokesman for the Homeland Security Department, said, “We take very seriously our responsibility to protect the civil rights and liberties of the American people while” protecting the country.

Click Here to Read

Rest of New York Times Article – Here

Additional Reading: Intelligence Agencies Release Docs Describing Misconduct in Response to EFF Lawsuit

According to a report by World Net Daily: In April an unclassified Department of Homeland Security report warned against the possibility of violence by unnamed “right-wing extremists” concerned about illegal immigration, increasing federal power, restrictions on firearms, abortion and the loss of U.S. sovereignty and singles out returning war veterans as particular threats.

The report, titled “Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” dated April 7, states that “threats from white supremacist and violent anti-government groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts.”

However, the document, first reported by talk-radio host and WND columnist Roger Hedgecock, goes on to suggest worsening economic woes, potential new legislative restrictions on firearms and “the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.”

The report from DHS’ Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines right-wing extremism in the U.S. as “divided into those groups, movements and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups) and those that are mainly anti-government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”

“[T]he consequences of a prolonged economic downturn – including real estate foreclosures, unemployment and an inability to obtain credit – could create a fertile recruiting environment for right-wing extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities similar to those in the past,” the report says.

It adds that “growth in these groups subsided in reaction to increased government scrutiny as a result of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and disrupted plots, improvements in the economy and the continued U.S. standing as the pre-eminent world power.”

“Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans likely would attract new members into the ranks of right-wing extremist groups as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for violence against the government,” the report continues. “The high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by right-wing extremists in anticipation of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary concern to law enforcement.”

Most notable is the report’s focus on the impact of returning war veterans.

“Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to right-wing extremists,” it says. “DHS/I&A is concerned that right-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize veterans in order to boost their violent capacities.”

The report cites the April 4 shooting deaths of three police officers in Pittsburgh as an example of what may be coming, claiming the alleged gunman holds a racist ideology and believes in anti-government conspiracy theories about gun confiscations, citizen detention camps and “a Jewish-controlled ‘one-world government.'”

It also suggests the election of an African-American president and the prospect of his policy changes “are proving to be a driving force for right-wing extremist recruitment and radicalization.”

The report also mentions “‘end times’ prophecies could motivate extremist individuals and groups to stockpile food, ammunition and weapons. These teachings also have been linked with the radicalization of domestic extremist individuals and groups in the past, such as the violent Christian Identity organizations and extremist members of the militia movement.”

“DHS/I&A assesses that right-wing extremist groups’ frustration over a perceived lack of government action on illegal immigration has the potential to incite individuals or small groups toward violence,” the report continues.

The report states the DHS will be working with state and local partners over the next several months to determine the levels of right-wing extremist activity in the U.S.

Last month, the chief of the Missouri highway patrol blasted a report issued by the Missouri Information Analysis Center that linked conservative groups to domestic terrorism, assuring that such reports no longer will be issued. The report had been compiled with the assistance of DHS.

The report warned law enforcement agencies to watch for suspicious individuals who may have bumper stickers for third-party political candidates such as Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin.

It further warned law enforcement to watch out for individuals with “radical” ideologies based on Christian views, such as opposing illegal immigration, abortion and federal taxes.

Chief James Keathley of the Missouri State Patrol issued a statement that the release of the report, which outraged conservatives nationwide, prompted him to “take a hard look” at the procedures through which the report was released by the MIAC.

“My review of the procedures used by the MIAC in the three years since its inception indicates that the mechanism in place for oversight of reports needs improvement,” he wrote. “Until two weeks ago, the process for release of reports from the MIAC to law enforcement officers around the state required no review by leaders of the Missouri State Highway Patrol or the Department of Public Safety.”

“For that reason, I have ordered the MIAC to permanently cease distribution of the militia report,” he said. “Further, I am creating a new process for oversight of reports drafted by the MIAC that will require leaders of the Missouri State Highway Patrol and the Department of Public Safety to review the content of these reports before they are shared with law enforcement. My office will also undertake a review of the origin of the report by MIAC.”

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

UPDATED 2/8/2010

Homeland Security Collected Information on Wisconsin Abortion, Pro-Life Activists
Monday, February 08, 2010
By Ryan J. Foley, Associated Press

Madison, Wis. (AP) – The U.S. Department of Homeland Security conducted a threat assessment of local pro- and anti-abortion rights activists before an expected rally last year, even though they did not pose a threat to national security.

The DHS destroyed or deleted its copies of the assessment after an internal review found it violated intelligence-gathering guidelines by collecting and sharing information about “protest groups which posed no threat to homeland security,” according to a department memo written last year.

The report was only shared with police in Middleton and with the director of the Wisconsin Statewide Information Center, an intelligence-gathering hub, according to the memo, which was signed by general counsel Ivan Fong and inspector general Richard Skinner.

It concluded the report was unlikely to “have any impact on civil liberties or civil rights” given its limited dissemination. But anti-abortion groups and the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin on Monday both criticized the federal government’s collection of information on law-abiding protesters.

The report was compiled prior to a February 2009 meeting in Middleton by the University of Wisconsin Hospital board to decide whether to open a clinic that would offer late-term abortions.

The analyst who compiled the report – the agency’s representative to Wisconsin’s intelligence center – received improper guidance that he could perform the assessment “to support local police and public safety efforts,” according to the memo. The analyst was given remedial training and department lawyers counseled supervisors who were involved, it said.

The memo was made public as part of a lawsuit filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which was seeking reports from an intelligence oversight panel. After The New York Times reported on its contents in December, a lawyer representing anti-abortion activists who attended the rally asked Middleton police to release a copy of the assessment under Wisconsin’s open records law.

In the department’s Feb. 4 response, Capt. Noel Kakuske confirmed the department kept a copy of the report but declined to release it. He said the Wisconsin Department of Justice, which runs the intelligence center, and the Department of Homeland Security agreed the report should be withheld because it contains sensitive law enforcement information.

“Disclosure would result in the identification and public disclosure of individuals affiliated with groups on both sides of the issue, which would place them in danger from opposing radical extremists,” he wrote.

On Monday, Kakuske told The Associated Press that the assessment was prepared after his department asked state officials for help identifying potential risks associated with the hospital board meeting. He said it’s unusual for the department to handle a large protest, and “we wanted to make sure we had the best information we could get.”

He said the department had received no specific threat in connection with the meeting, but was worried about the potential for violence.

The UW Hospital and Clinic Authority Board voted 11-3 to approve the plan to start the clinic at the Madison Surgery Center. Those attending the meeting at a suburban office building went through police checkpoints. No problems were reported, and protesters on both sides acted peacefully.

Peggy Hamill, state director of Pro-Life Wisconsin, said her group was considering other options to try to get the report, including appealing to the district attorney or suing.

“It’s very disturbing that a local police department has tapped into the security apparatus of the federal government to potentially obstruct free speech,” she said. “It’s additionally disconcerting they will not release the documents in order for we the public to examine them.”

Is Big Brother spying on the Occupy Movement?

Posted in Big Brother, Occupy Wall Street with tags , , , , , , , , , on May 21, 2012 by saynsumthn

Remember the Occupy Movement? Since last November, when the NYPD closed the Zuccotti Park encampment in downtown Manhattan –the Movement’s birthplace and symbolic nexus—Occupy’s relevance has seriously dwindled, at least as measured by coverage in the mainstream media. We’re told that this erosion is due to Occupy’s own shortcomings—an inevitable outcome of its disjointed message and decentralized leadership.

According to Business Insider: While that may be the media’s take, the U.S. Government seems to have a different view.

If recent documents obtained by the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF) are any indication, the Occupy Movement continues to be monitored and curtailed in a nationwide, federally-orchestrated campaign, spearheaded by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

In response to repeated Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests by the Fund, made on behalf of filmmaker Michael Moore and the National Lawyers Guild, the DHS released a revealing set of documents in April. But the latest batch, made public on May 3rd, exposes the scale of the government’s “attention” to Occupy as never before.

The documents, many of which are partially blacked-out emails, demonstrate a surprising degree of coordination between the DHS’s National Operations Center (NOC) and local authorities in the monitoring of the Occupy movement. Cities implicated in this wide-scale snooping operation include New York, Oakland, Atlanta, Washington, D.C., Denver, Boston, Portland, Detroit, El Paso, Houston, Dallas, Seattle, San Diego, and Los Angeles.

Interest in the Occupy protesters was not limited to DHS and local law enforcement authorities. The most recently released correspondence contains Occupy-related missives between the DHS and agencies at all levels of government, including the Mayor of Portland, regional NOC “fusion centers,” the General Services Administration (GSA), the Pentagon’s USNORTHCOM (Northern Command), and the White House. Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, Executive Director of the PCJF, contends that the variety and reach of the organizations involved point to the existence of a larger, more pervasive domestic surveillance network than previously suspected.

These documents show not only intense government monitoring and coordination in response to the Occupy Movement, but reveal a glimpse into the interior of a vast, tentacled, national intelligence and domestic spying network that the U.S. government operates against its own people. These heavily redacted documents don’t tell the full story. They are likely only a subset of responsive materials and the PCJF continues to fight for a complete release. They scratch the surface of a mass intelligence network including Fusion Centers, saturated with ‘anti-terrorism’ funding, that mobilizes thousands of local and federal officers and agents to investigate and monitor the social justice movement.

As alarmist as Verheyden-Hilliard’s charge may sound, especially given the limited, bowdlerized nature of the source material, the texts made available contain disturbing evidence of insistent federal surveillance. In particular, the role of the “Fusion Centers,” a series of 72 federally-funded information hubs run by the NOC, raises questions about the government’s expansive definition of “Homeland Security.”

Created in the wake of 9/11, the Fusion Centers were founded to expedite the sharing of information among state and local law enforcement and the federal government, to monitor localized terrorist threats, and to sidestep the regulations and legislation preventing the CIA and the military from carrying out domestic surveillance (namely, the CIA ban on domestic spying and the Posse Comitatus Act).

Is nonviolent, albeit obstructive, citizen dissent truly an issue of national security? The DHS, for its part, is aware of the contentiousness of civilian monitoring. That’s why, in a White House-approved statement to CBS News included in the dossier, DHS Press Secretary Matthew Chandler asserts that

Any decisions on how to handle specifics (sic) situations are dealt with by local authorities in that location. . . DHS is not actively coordinating with local law enforcement agencies and/or city governments concerning the evictions of Occupy encampments writ large.

However, as a reading of the documents unmistakably demonstrates, this expedient PR nugget is far from the truth. In example after example, from its seeking of “public health and safety” grounds from the City of Portland for Occupy’s ejection from Terry Schrunk Plaza, to its facilitation of information sharing between the police departments of Chicago and Boston (following a 1500-person Occupy protest in Chicago), the DHS’s active ”coordinating” with local authorities is readily apparent. Other communiqués are even more explicit in revealing a national focus, such as the DHS’s preemptive coordination with the Pentagon about a port closure in Oakland, and its collection of identity and contact information of Occupy protesters arrested at a Bank of America in Dallas.

Those Pesky Amendments

The right to public assembly is a central component of the First Amendment. The Fourth Amendment is supposed to protect Americans from warrantless searches—with the definition of “search” expanded in 1967 to include electronic surveillance, following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Katz v. United States. Assuming the Occupy protesters refrain from violence—and the vast majority do, in accord with a stated tenet of the Occupy movement—the movement’s existence is constitutionally protected, or should be.

The DHS’s monitoring, documenting, and undermining of protesters may in fact violate the First Amendment. In a recent piece for Dissent Magazine, sociologist James B. Rule explains the fundamental importance of a movement like Occupy in the American political landscape.

This surveillance campaign against Occupy is bad news for American democracy. Occupy represents an authentic, utterly home-grown, grassroots movement. Taken as a whole, it is neither terrorist nor conspiratorial. Indeed, it is hard to think of another movement so cumbersomely public in its deliberations and processes. Occupy is noisy, disorderly, insubordinate, and often inconvenient for all concerned—statements that could equally well apply to democracy in general. But it should never be targeted as a threat to the well-being of the country—quite the contrary.

Accordingly, Rule calls for the White House to rein in the ever-expanding surveillance activity of the DHS—which he contends is motivated by its own funding interests, and which prioritizes security at the expense of civil liberties.

The resource-rich Department of Homeland Security and its allies no doubt see in the rise of the movement another opportunity to justify their own claims for public legitimacy. We can be sure that many in these agencies view any noisy dissent as tantamount to a threat to national security.

Nobody who cares about democracy wants to live in a world where simply engaging in vociferous protest qualifies any citizen to have his or her identity and life details archived by state security agencies. Specific, overt threats of civil disobedience or other law-breaking should be dealt with on a piecemeal basis—not by attempting to monitor everyone who might be moved to such actions, all the time. Meanwhile, the White House should issue clear directives that identification and tracking of lawful protesters will play no further role in any government response to this populist moment.

Optimistic as it may be, Rule’s appeal to the White House is a problematic one, given the ubiquitous influence of the DHS revealed by these documents. If the White House-approved press release is any indication, the Oval Office, while not directly authorizing the DHS’s initiatives, is certainly turning a blind eye to the Department’s focus on the Occupy movement as a potential terrorist threat. Federal surveillance of citizens in the Bush years, most visible in NSA warrantless wiretapping controversy, has apparently not ceased with Obama’s inauguration.

Which raises the question: Does Obama, as he claims, “stand with the 99 percent,” or with those who cannot stand them?

Read more: http://whowhatwhy.com/2012/05/21/i-spy-an-occupy-obamas-dhs-surveils-legit-protesters/#ixzz1vXowBuZf

Why is Homeland Security (DHS) stockpiling killer bullets?

Posted in Civil Unrest, Homeland Security, Occupy Wall Street with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 17, 2012 by saynsumthn

The US Department of Homeland Security and the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement Office have placed a massive order for ammunition. The two departments are asking for 450 million rounds of bullets to be delivered in a time-frame of five years. The contractor, Alliant Techsystems, was awarded the contract and will produce .40 caliber high-performance bullets to the agencies. The order has many wondering why would DHS and ICE need so many bullets. David Seaman, journalist and host of the DL Show, helps us answer why the order was placed.O

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Why is Homeland Security (DHS) stockpiling kill…, posted with vodpod

Facebook is Intel for CIA, NSA, DHS- fiction or fact? Is Big Brother watching you ?

Posted in Big Brother, Facebook, Privacy with tags , , , , , , , , , on January 2, 2012 by saynsumthn

FACT and FICTION:

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Facebook is Intel for CIA, NSA, DHS- fiction or…, posted with vodpod

Yes this is dramatization, but very true. People have no clue that this information data collection system is for a reason.

BUT- According to the Daily Mail:

The Department of Homeland Security makes fake Twitter and Facebook profiles for the specific purpose of scanning the networks for ‘sensitive’ words – and tracking people who use them.

Simply using a word or phrase from the DHS’s ‘watch’ list could mean that spies from the government read your posts, investigate your account, and attempt to identify you from it, acccording to an online privacy group.

The words which attract attention range from ones seemingly related to diseases or bioweapons such as ‘human to animal’ and ‘outbreak’ to other, more obscure words such as ‘drill’ and ‘strain’.

The DHS also watches for words such as ‘illegal immigrant’.

The DHS outlined plans to scans blogs, Twitter and Facebook for words such as ‘illegal immigrant’, ‘outbreak’, ‘drill’, ‘strain’, ‘virus’, ‘recovery’, ‘deaths’, ‘collapse’, ‘human to animal’ and ‘trojan’, according to an ‘impact asssessment’ document filed by the agency.

When its search tools net an account using the phrases, they record personal information.

It’s still not clear how this information is used – and who the DHS shares it with.

An online privacy group, the Electronic Privacy Information Centre has requested information on the DHS’s scans, which it says the agency announced in February.

The privacy group has requested information on the DHS, and contractors it claims are working with the agency to scan social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter.

The group says that the government has used scans of social media before to analyze specific events – such as the 2010 BP oil spill – but this general ‘watching’ of social media using fake profiles is new.

‘The initiatives were designed to gather information from ‘online forums, blogs, public websites, and message boards,’ to store and analyze the information gathered, and then to ‘disseminate relevant and appropriate de-identified information to federal, state, local, and foreign governments and private sector partners,’ the group said in a court filing.

The group claims that a request under the Freedom of Information Act to access the documentation has gone unanswered.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2079283/Tweeting-word-drill-mean-Twitter-account-read-government-spies.html#ixzz1iLXbdjkB

And Personal Liberty Digest reports that : The Electronic Privacy Information Center is suing the Department of Homeland Security for a new program that tracks individuals’ social media activity if they are deemed a threat by using certain keywords in posts.

The organization claims “legal authority for the DHS program remains unclear” and asked a Federal court last week to compel the department to turn over documents on the initiative.

Opt out of TSA scanners, write or complain against them and get put on Homeland Security’s ‘domestic extremists’ list

Posted in Abortion, Homeland Security, TSA with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on November 24, 2010 by saynsumthn

The Examiner is reporting that an informant at the Department of Homeland Security under the direction of Obama appointee Janet Napolitano, considers all citizens who participate in today’s ‘National Opt Out Day’ at airports across the country to be ‘domestic extremists.’

But that’s not all.

DHS also considers any citizen who merely criticizes TSA scanning procedures or who writes articles critical of the procedures in the ‘alternative media’ to be a ‘domestic extremist.’

According to the mole inside Homeland Security, Obama and company do not take kindly to being criticized or opposed in this current outrageous invasion of privacy by the federal government. DHS personnel composed a document approved by Napolitano which implies that critics or those who refuse to go through the ‘naked scanners’ are to be considered potential criminals.

The document specifically addresses ‘the alternative media,’ the assumption being that bloggers, citizen journalists, and writers who report for news organizations that are outside the ‘mainstream media’ such as CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the AP, Time, and Newsweek, are to be considered ‘extremist’ if they merely write anything critical of TSA procedures, which include groping, prodding, and fondling,

Canada Free Press broke the story when they wrote: that they were contacted by a source within the DHS who is troubled by the terminology and content of an internal memo reportedly issued yesterday at the hand of DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano. Indeed, both the terminology and content contained in the document are troubling. The dissemination of the document itself is restricted by virtue of its classification, which prohibits any manner of public release. While the document cannot be posted or published, the more salient points are revealed here.

The memo, which actually takes the form of an administrative directive, appears to be the product of undated but recent high level meetings between Napolitano, John Pistole, head of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA),and one or more of Obama’s national security advisors. This document officially addresses those who are opposed to, or engaged in the disruption of the implementation of the enhanced airport screening procedures as “domestic extremists.”

The introductory paragraph of the multi-page document states that it is issued “in response to the growing public backlash against enhanced TSA security screening procedures and the agents conducting the screening process.” Implicit within the same section is that the recently enhanced security screening procedures implemented at U.S. airports, and the measures to be taken in response to the negative public backlash as detailed [in this directive], have the full support of the President. In other words, Obama not only endorses the enhanced security screening, but the measures outlined in this directive to be taken in response to public objections.

The terminology contained within the reported memo is indeed troubling. It labels any person who “interferes” with TSA airport security screening procedure protocol and operations by actively objecting to the established screening process, “including but not limited to the anticipated national opt-out day” as a “domestic extremist.” The label is then broadened to include “any person, group or alternative media source” that actively objects to, causes others to object to, supports and/or elicits support for anyone who engages in such travel disruptions at U.S. airports in response to the enhanced security procedures.

For individuals who engaged in such activity at screening points, it instructs TSA operations to obtain the identities of those individuals and other applicable information and submit the same electronically to the Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division, the Extremism and Radicalization branch of the Office of Intelligence & Analysis (IA) division of the Department of Homeland Security.

It would appear that the Department of Homeland Security is not only prepared to enforce the enhanced security procedures at airports, but is involved in gathering intelligence about those who don’t. They’re making a list and most certainly will be checking it twice. Meanwhile, legitimate threats to our air travel security (and they DO exist) seem to be taking a back seat to the larger threat of the multitude of non-criminal American citizens who object to having their Constitutional rights violated.

Homeland Security under Obama has a history of labeling innocent citizens as ‘domestic terrorists’ or ‘domestic extremists’ if they participate in Tea Party protests, promote gun rights, insist that the government follow the Constitution, oppose the numerous instances of power-grabs by the Executive Branch, or even merely protest the move to seize the healthcare industry through the colossal Marxist abomination known as ‘ObamaCare.’

WorldNet Daily reported that In April of 2009, a newly unclassified Department of Homeland Security report warned against the possibility of violence by unnamed “right-wing extremists” concerned about illegal immigration, increasing federal power, restrictions on firearms, abortion and the loss of U.S. sovereignty and singles out returning war veterans as particular threats.

The report, titled “Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” dated April 7, states that “threats from white supremacist and violent anti-government groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts.”

However, the document, goes on to suggest worsening economic woes, potential new legislative restrictions on firearms and “the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.”

The report from DHS’ Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines right-wing extremism in the U.S. as “divided into those groups, movements and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups) and those that are mainly anti-government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”

In December of 2009 Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said the aviation security system failed when a young Nigerian man with a powerful explosive hidden on his body was allowed to board a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day. Napolitano says investigators are examining Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (OO’-mahr fah-ROOK’ ahb-DOOL’-moo-TAH’-lahb) was allowed the flight despite being on a terrorist watch list.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, ” The System Worked” before ” The system Failed”

MR. GREGORY: Right. But, Secretary Napolitano, the question is whether the system really did do everything that it should have done. He was on a terror watch list. His father had raised concerns about him being radicalized to the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria. He was not on a do not fly list, which is a, a separate kind of cataloguing of threats. Do you think the fact that he was on a watch list should have triggered a secondary screening in the airport in Amsterdam?

SEC’Y NAPOLITANO: Well, this is the way it works. He was on a TIDE list. There are over a half a million people on that TIDE list, and that information was shared throughout the federal family. There’s no question about information sharing here. There had never been any additional information supplied that would move him to what’s called a Selectee list, where you are–where you do that kind of secondary screening, or indeed to the No Fly list, which requires specific, credible, derogatory information. Now, I think one of the things we will do–because that’s a system that has been in place for a number of years. One of the things we will do is go back and look and say, well, maybe in this day and age, with the kind of environment we have, we should change some of those protocols. But right now he, he was on a, a generic list, if I could use that phrase, but we did not have the kind of information that under the current rules would elevate him.

So- they now are groping law abiding citizens instead of doing their job….?

Population Control of the poor? Coerced abortion of Hispanic teen by state? Some call that Eugenics !

Posted in Abortion, Eugenics, forced abortion, Population Control with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on May 3, 2010 by saynsumthn

NOTICE – The abortion clinics were willing to take the money and do the abortion – So much for Choice – Where is the National Organization for “SOME” Women, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, ACLU?

Did DHS pressure teen to get abortion?
By REGINA MEDINA
Philadelphia Daily News 5/3/2010

A DEPARTMENT OF Human Services caseworker pressured a pregnant Mayfair teenager to undergo a late-term abortion by threatening to take away either her toddler or her unborn baby if she had the child, according to the teen’s foster mother.

The alleged strong-arm tactic happened one day after DHS learned of the pregnancy, when the girl was about 22 weeks pregnant, according to her foster mother and the girl’s social worker, Marisol Rivera.

The foster mother did not want to be identified in order to protect the girl’s identity.

The Daily News also learned that:
* DHS got a Family Court judge’s order allowing it to take the girl for an abortion, after the girl’s birth mother refused to approve the procedure.
* By the time DHS arranged for the abortion – in March – the girl was 24 weeks pregnant. She had to undergo the procedure in New Jersey because abortions in Pennsylvania are illegal at 24 weeks.
* Although it is DHS policy that a DHS worker accompany any minor who has a court-ordered medical procedure, this did not happen on the girl’s first attempt to have the abortion. That attempt failed when the clinic wouldn’t accept her Medicaid card and wanted cash, according to the foster mother. A DHS worker did accompany the girl on a later, successful, attempt.
* Rivera, the girl’s social worker, said that she was fired by Concilio, which subcontracted with DHS to provide care, after she initially refused to accompany the teen for the abortion.

“They hired me to work in child protection, not to kill children,” Rivera told the Daily News.

DHS officials said that they could not discuss the case because of medical-privacy laws. Attempts to talk to the teenager were unsuccessful.

But a source familiar with the case insisted that the girl was not coerced and that her foster mother, whose first language is Spanish, did not understand the conversation between the girl and the DHS worker, Cynthia Brown.

Brown declined to comment.

Abortions are a little-known aspect of DHS’s oversight of children in its custody.

Donald F. Schwarz, the city’s deputy mayor for Health and Opportunity, who oversees DHS, said that the agency “is supposed to take a neutral position and not supposed to be involved in the decision making” regarding an abortion.

Between September 2006 and March 31, Schwarz said, 335 minors under DHS care became pregnant. Of those, 119 resulted in abortions. Of those abortions, 54 were done by judge’s order.

Eight of the abortions were performed out of state, Schwarz said.

Although federal and state law forbid the use of federal or state money for abortions, and DHS is a recipient of state and federal aid, that money is not used to pay for abortions, Schwarz said.

He said that money only from the city budget is used to pay for the procedures.

Art Caplan, director of the Center of Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, said that if the foster mother’s allegations are true, the DHS worker was acting unethically.

“You can’t or shouldn’t be threatening to break up a family depending upon whether somebody gets an abortion or not,” Caplan said. “That is . . . unethical practice, it’s not even common sense.”

Richard Wexler, executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, said: “If DHS’s behavior is as described, it is shameful and inexcusable. . . . Sadly, this is not surprising . . . . This kind of bungling, this is not unusual in child-welfare systems. Especially in Philadelphia.”

Short-lived joy

The pregnant teen was excited about having the baby, her foster mother said. She learned that she was carrying a boy and told her 1-year-old daughter that she was going to have a little brother. She even talked about a name for the baby.

The teen’s birth mother, who wanted to be identified only as Deborah M., also said that her daughter was excited to have a baby.

“Someone who went to go get an ultrasound, [found] out it’s a boy, they give the boy a name, that’s somebody who wants to have that baby,” Deborah M. said. “But the next thing I know, she’s going for the abortion.”

The teen’s foster mother – who is fluent in Spanish and understands basic English – said that she was present when DHS worker Brown discussed the pregnancy with the teen in the living room of her home.

The conversation occurred the day after the girl’s ultrasound, the foster mother said.

She said that Brown told the pregnant teenager that DHS would separate her children if she had the second child.

“She said that if she decided to have the infant she wasn’t going to let her have both babies, that I know [despite the language barrier],” the foster mother said. “They wouldn’t be together.”

During the conversation, Brown was “upset” and “agitated,” the foster mother said, and the teen began to cry.

In an interview conducted in Spanish, the foster mother said that she had been listening to the two from the top of the stairs, but rushed down when the teen began crying.
She asked Brown, “Is there a problem?”

“Of course, there is a problem,” the foster mother said Brown told her. “This girl is 16 years old, she’s in school, she already has a baby. Yes, there is a problem.”
By the next day, the teen was determined to get an abortion, the foster mother said.

Rivera, the girl’s social worker, said, “Ever since DHS went there [to the foster home], the only alternative that she saw was abortion.”

Deborah M., the girl’s birth mother, said that she believed the foster mother’s allegations because she’d witnessed Brown bullying her daughter once before.
Brown had discovered that the teen had not been taking her child to day care.

Brown, she said, rushed up close to the teen’s face and said, “If you don’t put your baby in day care, I’m gonna take your baby.”
Deborah M. said that she then ordered Brown out of her home, and that she left.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Has this happened before? Yes – Listen to the testimony of an African American woman forcefully sterilized because of her race

Now watch the film Maafa21 where the above testimony came from and learn why eugenics is happening today: