Author Archives: Denise Simon

Bernie Sanders Popularity Spells Bigger U.S. Crisis

Posted on by

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, is an avowed Socialist. He is listed however as an Independent and caucuses with the Democrats. His voting record is here and 52% of Democrats are cool with Sanders position. Years ago, he wrote a manifesto about his illusions of gang-rape.

He wants America to be like Denmark. He refused to attend Israel’s Prime Minister’s speech before the Joint Congress. He says that Americans love socialism.

He announced his candidacy for president, he is making the rounds in stump speeches and is drawing unexpected large crowds. He is 73 years old and if he wins he would be 75 on inauguration day.

His platform includes items such as free college for everyone paid for by all stock and bond trades, higher minimum wage and higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations. He is a supporter of climate change and seeks to install carbon taxes and increase taxes on methane emissions.

So how is it that Bernie Sanders has this popularity in a democratic government?

Here is the real bad news for our country…

How Bernie Sanders’ ‘radical’ ideas entered the municipal mainstream

“He ran against everything.”

On March 4, 1981, red dawn broke over the Green Mountains.

“‘Everyone’s scared.’ Socialist elected mayor of Vermont’s largest city,” blared the UPI headline over an article that began, “Self-described socialist Bernard Sanders… has invited the city’s business and political leaders to join him in creating ‘a rebirth of the human spirit.’ ” Readers could have been forgiven for concluding that some Pol Pot in Birkenstocks had just established a beachhead in Burlington, Vermont.

When Bernie Sanders won by 10 votes in a four-way mayoral race, Ronald Reagan had just entered the White House, the Cold War was in full swing, and people were seriously freaked out. “You would’ve thought that Trotsky had come to Burlington,” said Sanders’ confidant and one-time roommate, Richard Sugarman.

But now, 34 years later, as Sanders launches a campaign for the presidency, many of the radical solutions he imposed — free arts and culture for the masses, local-first economic development, wresting money from rich nonprofits, and, most shockingly, communal land for affordable housing — have become mainstays of the American municipal governance playbook.

Such policies “would be unexceptional today,” said UCLA urban planning professor Randall Crane, noting that urban policy in general has become broader and more creative in the decades that followed, as more people returned to city neighborhoods.

Crane himself lives on property developed through a land trust in Irvine, California, and says the once-radical idea is now “just seen as a routine part of the toolkit.”

“They sound weird and socialist and stuff,” he said of today’s housing trusts, “but it’s become a non-radical way of thinking about housing affordability.”

That was a far cry from what people were saying in the early ’80s. After Sanders’ election as mayor, Burlington’s business and political establishment — in which Democrats and Republicans coexisted cozily — prepared for the worst.

Sanders had campaigned against the incumbent mayor’s plans to raise residential property taxes, and proposed raising taxes on commercial property instead. “If Sanders succeeds in putting over his tax proposals, they would shut this business community down,” an anonymous businessman told UPI. ”If I was planning a major investment in Burlington, I’d be a little cautious right now.”

“He ran against everything — against the governor, the alderman, the senators,” said Tony Pomerleau, 97, a Republican commercial real estate developer. “He ran against me, too, the guys that were making money.” In fact, Sanders’ opposition to Pomerleau’s plan to develop pricey hotels, condos and office space on the city’s dilapidated waterfront became a signature issue of his campaign.

Shortly after taking office, Sanders created a Mayor’s Arts Council to bring free arts and cultural events to the city, and in 1983 the city gave it municipal funding. “It was like he started a revolution,” said Bruce Seifer, Sanders’ appointee as assistant director of economic development, of the initial reaction to this use of city resources. “But business people like to go to cultural events. It helps to retain families and businesses.”

Indeed, with the rise of Richard Florida’s theories about the importance of a creative class to a city’s fortunes, municipal funding for the arts has become an increasingly popular economic development strategy for cities across the country.

Early in Sanders’ tenure, his treasurer discovered $200,000 in the city’s coffers and the mayor determined to plow it into a bold initiative. Inspired by the garden cities of England, Isreali kibbutzim and Indian communes set up by the followers of Gandhi, he proposed to buy land and hold it in a communal trust for affordable housing, while the housing itself would be owned by occupants.

An opposition group, Homeowners Against the Land Trust, or HALT, labeled it a “communist scheme.” But the plan went through. In 1984, the Burlington Community Land Trust became one of the first affordable housing trusts in the world, and the very first to receive municipal funding. Today, there are over 250 such trusts in the United States — in places like Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Boston and Chapel Hill, North Carolina — most of which receive some form of government funding.

That was also the year that Sanders delivered on a campaign promise and brought Burlington a minor league baseball team: The Vermont Reds. “That was from the Cincinnati baseball team — not because of his politics,” insisted Sugarman, though a year later Sanders traveled to Nicaragua to hang out with the Sandinistas.

When it came to economic development, the “Sanderistas” in City Hall, as his supporters were known, decided to ditch the prevailing “smokestack chasing” approach, which called for local government to entice employers to move to town and set up shop. Instead, they promoted local ownership of business and sought to minimize leakage from the local economy to amplify the multiplier effect of money spent within the economy.

“That was an early initiative for sure,” said Evelyn Blumenberg, a professor of urban studies at UCLA. “It’s become more common in cities to think about economic development from within.”

The approach also put Burlington at the forefront of a “buy local” movement that’s now very much in vogue across the country.

Later in his tenure, Sanders went after the University of Vermont and a local hospital, non-profit institutions that owned large swathes of valuable land in the city but were exempt from paying taxes and cut deals for them for them to contribute “Payments in Lieu of Taxes.”

Sanders didn’t invent PILOTs in Burlington. That other people’s republic, Cambridge, Mass, had been receiving them from Harvard since the 1920s, as had other cities since. But he did anticipate an approach that’s become increasingly popular in the Northeast in recent decades as tax-exempt hospitals and universities have swallowed up more and more land and local governments have put the screws on them to pony up more money for city services.

Sanders also carried through on that original campaign plank, scuttling Pomerleau’s plans for a ritzy waterfront development. But Pomerleau learned to work with Sanders nonetheless. So did the rest of the business community. Ben & Jerry’s grew into a household brand and Burton Snowboards moved to town without any special inducements.

Pomerlau ended up becoming one of Sanders’ closest friends. At one point, a Burlington Free Press front page pictured the two men together under the headline “the odd couple.” On Tuesday, Sanders launched his presidential bid from the public park he created on the waterfront land.

In 1988, toward the end of Sanders’ four-term tenure — long after a local Democratic leader predicted the movement that swept Sanders into office would be gone in a decade — the U.S. Conference of Mayors named Burlington the most livable city in the country with a population of under 100,000 (in a tie). Then Sanders’ director of community and economic development succeeded him in the mayor’s office and Inc. Magazine named Burlington the best city in the Northeast for a growing business.

And what about the guy who told UPI “Everyone’s scared” when the Lenin of Lake Champlain first stormed to power in 1981? That was the state’s then-Democratic Party chairman, Mark Kaplan. Today, he’s on board with a socialist in the White House.

“I actually donated to him,” said Kaplan. “I’m kind of excited about it.”

So the final questions are: If Congress has an approval rating of 12%, how come the incumbents get re-elected up to 90% of the time? What’s up with Vermont too? Where did these socialists come from, what are they being taught?

 

 

Lone Wolves vs. QRF vs. Patriot Act

Posted on by

In the news is the discussion of terminating parts of the Patriot Act and key uses the NSA was using. While having parts of the Patriot Act go dark is a good thing to protect our granted privacy rights, there is one section that will go dark and that is part in parcel the ‘lone-wolf’ section.

The condition or phenomenon known as lone wolf is a matter that needs some further attention as most recent attacks have been performed by units of lone wolves.  Such was the case of Major Nidal Hassan, the Ft. Hood shooter as the recent case in Garland, Texas. Others include the attacks in Paris and in Australia.
It is suggested that you take the time to watch this video and continue the debate.

 

As it relates to the Patriot Act and up for debate is shown below:

Lone Wolf.

A Summary by Mary DeRosa

Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, known as the “lone wolf” amendment, broadens FISA to allow surveillance of a new category of individuals. The provision amends FISA’s definition of “agent of a foreign power” to include any person, other than a U.S. person, who “engages in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefore.” Previously, that definition required a nexus to a foreign power or entity, such as a foreign government or an international terrorist organization. The expanded definition allows the government to use FISA for surveillance of a non-U.S. person who has no known ties to a group or entity. Congress passed this “lone wolf” provision because it was concerned that the previous FISA definitions did not cover unaffiliated individuals—or those for whom no affiliation can be established—who nonetheless engage or are preparing to engage in international terrorism.

The standards and procedures for FISA collection are different, more secretive, and in some cases less rigorous than those for law enforcement surveillance. But FISA is limited by its requirement that the target of surveillance be a foreign power or its agent. After this “lone wolf” provision, a target can be considered an “agent of a foreign power” without any evidence that they are acting with a group. But there must be probable cause that the target is engaging or preparing to engage in “international terrorism,” which FISA defines to be activities that involve violent, criminal acts intended to intimidate or coerce a population or a government and that occur totally outside of the United States or transcend national boundaries.

Section 6001(b) of the Intelligence Reform Act subjects the “lone wolf” amendment to the PATRIOT Act’s sunset provision. Therefore, unless reauthorized, the expanded authority will expire on December 31, 2005.

Targeting the Loosely-Affiliated Terrorist
by Michael J. Woods

Critics of FISA’s new “lone wolf’ provision argue it is a dangerous expansion of authority, allowing the application of FISA to individuals lacking any connection to foreign powers. The language actually enacted, however, integrates a definition of “international terrorism’ that preserves a sufficiently strong foreign nexus requirement. Therefore, the statute’s parts, taken together and read in context, contain adequate safeguards to ensure that the lone wolf provision will be used against its intended targets—international terrorists.

Before the lone wolf provision, there were two principal paths to obtain FISA surveillance of an international terrorist: first, by demonstrating probable cause that the target acts in the U.S. as a “member’ of an international terrorist group (found in FISA section 101(b)(1)(A)); and second, by demonstrating probable cause that the target “knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power’ (section 101(b)(2)(C)). The first option is difficult to establish given the informality of terrorist organizations and is not available where the target is a U.S. person. The second is the stock from which the present “lone wolf’ provision is cut, and provides the conceptual foundation for the new provision.

The legislative history of those two original FISA provisions, found primarily in House Report 95-1283, Senate Report 95-701 and House Conference Report 95-1720, reveals that the drafters’ chief concern here was to avoid application of the FISA to purely domestic terrorists or political dissidents. Congress was reacting to the Supreme Court’s 1972 holding in United States v. United States District Court (found at 407 U.S. 297, and commonly called the “Keith case’) that “domestic security surveillance’ was subject to the warrant and reasonableness requirements of the Fourth Amendment. The group at issue in Keith was a radical organization (the White Panther Party) that had bombed a number of federal facilities to draw attention to the group’s domestic social/political agenda. (See The Court Legacy, Vol. XI, No. 4 (Nov. 2003).) The Court emphasized that its Keith holding addressed only “the domestic aspects of national security’ and did not reach “the activities of foreign powers or their agents.’ FISA was the legislative approach to the area beyond Keith: the field of foreign intelligence surveillance. In addressing terrorism as a national security threat, the FISA drafters needed to draw a line between the purely domestic variety covered by the Keith ruling, and the activities of international terrorist organizations (which could take place in the United States).

 

Govt Cant Do National Security, Just Look at TSA

Posted on by

In 2013: TSA screeners allow fed agent with fake bomb to pass through security at Newark Airport

Now this week there is a formal report:

Report: TSA failed to catch 67 out of 70 threats

Transportation Security Administration officials failed to stop undercover agents carrying fake explosives or banned weapons through airport security during 67 out of 70 trials, a new report alleges.

According to ABC News, a new TSA report found that Homeland Security “Red Team” personnel, when posing as passengers, were easily able to smuggle dangerous materials through checkpoints.

Upon hearing the results of the tests, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson reportedly went to TSA headquarters in Northern Virginia for an in-person briefing. Officials told ABC that they have already implemented changes based on the results of the Red Team tests.

During one test, an undercover Homeland Security official was reportedly apprehended after he set off a magnetometer, but the TSA agents on the scene did not uncover a mock explosive taped to his back, even during a pat down.

Department of Homeland Security officials would not tell ABC when exactly the tests took place, though they did say in a statement that, after hearing of the results, “Secretary Johnson immediately directed TSA to implement a series of actions several of which are now in place, to address the issues raised in the report.”

In 2013, then-administrator of the TSA John Pistole told Congress that, because the Red Team is so familiar with the bureaus policies, they are able to get past security in ways “not even the best terrorists would be able to do.”

ABC also reported that the investigation found that in the past 6 years TSA has spent $540 million on baggage screening equipment and a further $11 million on training procedures without making any substantial upgrades.

Wait…it gets worse and Congress heard the testimony:

How well does the TSA protect Passengers in the USA?

Here are some examples:

TSA Aids Terrorists, Publishes Manual Online

“This is an appalling and astounding breach of security that terrorists could easily exploit,” said Clark Kent Ervin, the former inspector general at the Department of Homeland Security. “The TSA should immediately convene an internal investigation and discipline those responsible.”

TSA Loses 100,000 Employee Records

TSA Loses over 3700 Badges and Uniforms

Over 25,000 Airport Security Breaches Since 2001

TSA claims “Airports today are safer than ever before…”

TSA screeners Fail Most Bomb Tests

TSA worker Damages Nine Planes At O’Hare

TSA Workers Steal from Passengers

If TSA workers steal from the people they are supposed to be protecting, how can they be trusted to keep the nation safe from terrorism?

TSA supervisor ran theft ring at airport

Prosecutors say the agents would single out their targets for secondary security screenings, “during which time they would pocket cash found in their carry-on bags,” the New York Daily News writes.

TSA workers Caught On Tape Using Drugs

“Here at LAX we’re ahead of the curve on security measures.”

TSA workers caught in drug smuggling sting

TSA airport screener charged with distributing child pornography

Airport cop and TSA worker accused of stealing pizza and punching clerk

TSA worker allegedly abducts woman from airport, then assaults her TSA agent in uniform flashes badge, assaults woman in residential area

Heck, just read the rest here from the Pilots Association.

 

 

 

Why are in Talks with Iran on Nuclear Program?

Posted on by

IRAN: Molten lead will be poured down throat of nuclear inspectors, IRGC commander says

The United Nations nuclear inspectors would be wrong to dare to want to look at nuclear sites in Iran and if they do so they will be arrested and molten lead would be poured down their throat, a senior commander of the Iranian regime’s Revolutionary Guards says.

IRGC Brigadier General Gholamhossein Qeybparavar, the commander of IRGC forces in the Fars province said on Saturday: “You would be wrong to dare to want to inspect our military centers and whoever does look at IRGC centers we will fill his throat with molten lead.”

Speaking to officials of the Iranian regime, members of Basij paramilitary force and high ranking clerics in the city of Eghlid in the southern province of Fars, he said: “We have not begged our nuclear knowledge from the West and Europeans to give it to them easily. We have suffered a lot and have lot our best young scientists on this path.”

Qeybparavar’s remarks come as the question of access for international inspectors has become one of the main sticking points between Tehran and six world powers as they try to overcome obstacles to a final nuclear agreement one month ahead of a deadline.

Then comes France….

ABUJA, Nigeria—French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said a possible nuclear deal with Iran risks sparking a nuclear arms race in the Middle East unless the agreement grants international inspectors access to Iranian military sites and other secret facilities.

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Fabius insisted the ability to inspect such sites be part of a final agreement with Iran to ensure Tehran doesn’t covertly try to build a nuclear weapon.

The six powers are contemplating the worst already….

Exclusive: Six powers agree way to restore U.N. sanctions in push for Iran deal – sources

Six world powers have agreed on a way to restore U.N. sanctions on Iran if the country breaks the terms of a future nuclear deal, clearing a major obstacle to an accord ahead of a June 30 deadline, Western officials told Reuters.

The new understanding on a U.N. sanctions “snapback” among the six powers – the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China – brings them closer to a possible deal with Iran, though other hurdles remain, including ensuring United Nations access to Iranian military sites.

The six powers and Iran struck an interim agreement on April 2 ahead of a possible final deal that would aim to block an Iranian path to a nuclear bomb in exchange for lifting sanctions. But the timing of sanctions relief, access and verification of compliance and a mechanism for restoring sanctions if Iran broke its commitments were among the most difficult topics left for further negotiations.

Negotiators of Iran and six world powers face each other at a table in the historic basement of Palais Coburg hotel in Vienna April 24, 2015. REUTERS/Heinz-Peter Bader

U.S. and European negotiators want any easing of U.N. sanctions to be automatically reversible if Tehran violates a deal. Russia and China traditionally reject such automatic measures as undermining their veto power as permanent members of the U.N. Security Council.

As part of the new agreement on sanctions snapback, suspected breaches by Iran would be taken up by a dispute-resolution panel, likely including the six powers and Iran, which would assess the allegations and come up with a non-binding opinion, the officials said.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would also continue regularly reporting on Iran’s nuclear program, which would provide the six powers and the Security Council with information on Tehran’s activities to enable them to assess compliance.

If Iran was found to be in non-compliance with the terms of the deal, then U.N. sanctions would be restored.

The officials did not say precisely how sanctions would be restored but Western powers have been adamant that it should take place without a Security Council vote, based on provisions to be included in a new U.N. Security Council resolution to be adopted after a deal is struck.

“We pretty much have a solid agreement between the six on the snapback mechanism, Russians and Chinese included,” a Western official said. “But now the Iranians need to agree.”

Another senior Western official echoed his remarks, describing the agreement as “tentative” because it would depend on Iranian acceptance.

A senior Iranian diplomat said Iran was now reviewing several options for the possible “snapback” of Security Council sanctions against Tehran.

It was unclear exactly how the snapback mechanism would function, and the officials did not discuss the precise details. It was also unclear how the proposal would protect the United States and other permanent Council members from a possible Chinese or Russian veto on sanctions restoration.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power has made it clear that Washington does not want Russia’s and China’s recent slew of vetoes on resolutions related to Syria to be repeated with an Iran nuclear agreement.

France’s Ambassador to the United States Gerard Araud said in Washington last week that, under a French idea, sanctions would be reinstated automatically in the event of non-compliance, avoiding the threat of a veto.

Under that idea, which Araud said had not to date been approved by the six powers, the onus would be on Russia or China to propose a Security Council vote not to re-impose sanctions.

Russian and Chinese officials did not respond immediately to requests for confirmation that they signed off on the snapback mechanism.

REVIEWING THE OPTIONS

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry met with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in Geneva on Saturday. They discussed progress and obstacles to an agreement in the Iran nuclear talks a month before the deadline for a deal aimed at reducing the risk of another war in the Middle East.

Restoring U.S. and EU sanctions is less difficult than U.N. sanctions because there is no need for U.N. Security Council involvement.

For their part, Moscow, Beijing and Tehran have wanted assurances that Washington cannot unilaterally force a sanctions snapback – a risk they see rising if a Republican wins the U.S. presidency in 2016.

A senior Iranian diplomat confirmed that discussions of specific snapback options were underway. He told Reuters Tehran was preparing its own “snapback” in the event the Western powers fail to live up to their commitments under the agreement.

“At least three or four different suggestions have been put on the table, which are being reviewed,” he said. “Iran also can immediately resume its activities if the other parties involved do not fulfill their obligations under the deal.”

He added that it was “a very sensitive issue.”

If Iran accepts the proposed snapback mechanism, there are other hurdles that must be overcome, including IAEA access to Iranian military sites and nuclear scientists and the pace of sanctions relief.

Iran says its nuclear program is entirely peaceful and rejects allegations from Western countries and their allies that it wants the capability to produce atomic weapons. It says all sanctions are illegal and works hard to circumvent them.

 

DoJ Launches Study of Right Wing Extremists

Posted on by

Do you ever wonder what the definition of ‘right-wing extremist’ is? Do you ever wonder who actually decides those classified as such? Consider the ACLU or the Southern Poverty Law Center who have had constant access to the Justice Department under Eric Holder. Then academia is allowed to have a major voice against conservatives, just perform a cursory look at major universities and their professors.

Enter the a little known division sanctioned the Department of Justice known as the National Institute of Justice.

NIJ Award Detail: An Assessment of Extremist Groups Use of Web Forums, Social Media, and Technology to Enculturate and Radicalize Individuals to Violence

Justice Department Studying ‘Far-Right’ Social Media Use

$585,719 study to combat violent extremism

The Department of Justice is concentrating on “far-right” groups in a new study of social media usage aimed at combatting violent extremism.

The Justice Department’s National Institute of Justice (NIJ) awarded Michigan State University $585,719 for the study, which was praised by Eric Holder, the former attorney general, earlier this year.

“There is currently limited knowledge of the role of technology and computer mediated communications (CMCs), such as Facebook and Twitter, in the dissemination of messages that promote extremist agendas and radicalize individuals to violence,” according to the NIJ grant. “The proposed study will address this gap through a series of qualitative and quantitative analyses of posts from various forms of CMC used by members of both the far-right and Islamic extremist movements.”

The study draws more upon right-wing forums than upon the corners of the web inhabited by Islamist extremists.

“We will collect posts made in four active forums used by members of the far-right and three from the Islamic Extremist community, as well as posts made in Facebook, LiveJournal, Twitter, YouTube, and Pastebin accounts used by members of each movement,” the grant said.

“The findings will be used to document both the prevalence and variation in the ideological content of posts from members of each movement,” the grant continued. “In addition, we will assess the value of these messages in the social status of the individual posting the message and the function of radical messages in the larger on-line identity of participants in extremist communities generally.”

The project will also “identify the hidden networks of individuals who engage in extremist movements based on geographic location and ideological similarities.”

The results will be used for a public webinar, and for presentations for counterterrorism experts in the United States.

Holder highlighted the study in remarks this February at the White House Summit on Countering Violent Extremism, as an example of the new methods the Justice Department is using to combat terrorist threats.

Holder said the study will “help us develop more effective techniques and partnerships for counter-messaging.”

While the grant does not name the “far-right” groups that would be examined, other federal agencies have devoted their energy to the sovereign citizen movement.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released a report on the movement, whose members believe that U.S. laws do not apply to them, just as the White House held its summit on violent extremism. The administration did not use the phrase “Islamist extremism” at the summit.

DHS stirred controversy in 2009 when it issued a report on right-wing extremism, which included veterans returning from combat as a potential terrorist threat.

The Justice Department and Michigan State University did not return requests for comment by press time.