NSA Maintains Surveillance Power

Photo: CC-BY-SA 4.0

Once it was signed in to law the three most controversial parts of the Patriot Act, including Section 215, comes back into play. While also enacting some big changes being touted as restrictions on the NSA by every major news outlet.

With direct and unabated access to our information via Service Providers, the NSA will have access to even more detailed information about us. Although they were monitoring your online activity previously, the original version of the Patriot Act didn’t allow for this because it wasn’t clearly specified. With the new current powers enacted, they can just as easily access your information, still without a warrant, from your Service Providers. As long as they provide a warrant within 7-days thereafter. Sound familiar? That’s because Section 215 of the Patriot Act was written in the exact same way. They still retain and will continue business as usual, with even more clearly defined power.

Whereas the Patriot Act was purposely vague in most areas, without the proper details they inadvertently limited their power right out if the gate. Now that the lines have been clearly drawn about what data they collect. The very nature of being vague in just the right areas is prevalent. Bare with me through this as I try to clarify some of the more important aspects of what just happened to the NSA, in regards to the USA Freedom Act.

So it starts with this, Section 101. To give you the feeling of accomplishment:

USA Freedom Act Section 101

(Sec. 101) Amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) to establish a new process to be followed when the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) submits an application to a FISA court for an order requiring the production of business records or other tangible things for an investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a U.S. person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. (The FBI currently uses such authority to request FISA orders requiring telephone companies to produce telephone call records to the National Security Agency.)

Much like the Patriot Act, it states “to obtain information not concerning a U.S. person” yet they were still doing it (and will continue to do so).  Section 101 merely changes the “application process” and is an amendment to Section 501(b)(2) (50 U.S.C. 1861(b)(2)) - Application for order; conduct of investigation generally. And reads as follows:

“The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.”

Based on the previous law, this leaves the door wide open to collect information on whoever they please, so long as there the illusion of justification. We already know that’s the same way they began the bulk-collection of data in the first place. Now with the bulk collection program coming back online today, after briefly being shut down by congress. What we are going to see is the NSA reacting to a provision in the USA Freedom Act, that allows them to operate the bulk collection program for 6 months. This wording was originally put in there so that they can wind down the bulk-collection and adjust to the new Act. However the new act gives them access to even more information than before.

So winding the program down was never going to happen. They knew it and it hasn’t even stopped. While many are citing this as if it were some type of machine with a kill-switch. It is not. It is a very large, very intricate network of worldwide servers. So intricate, that when it was deemed the NSA could not track our online activity, the NSA turned to our friends across the pond to do it for us. Now they will pick from service providers instead.

In fact, while The USA Freedom Act supposedly disallows the government from collecting and storing your meta-data, such as information like your phone number, the other caller’s phone number, the length of the call, etc. Section 107(k)(3)(B) of the USA Freedom Act states that ‘call detail records’ do NOT include - “the contents of any communication, the name, address, or financial information of a subscriber or customer, or cell site location information.” Instead of collecting basic information about your devices, they can now collect the detailed information they have been after this whole time. Information about you individually. This actually fixes a hole they had in the previous program.

In layman’s terms, they can no longer collect your phone numbers, but they can now collect the finer details about you.The rest can be had by accessing your Service Provider’s databases. Especially with the new powers granted to the Attorney General, giving them an avenue to bypass the FISA court whenever it’s convenient. All they must do is simply assign their motive as exercising their “emergency powers”. Additionally the surveillance powers of the “Lone-Wolf” and “Roving Wiretaps” are still in full effect. Todd Hinnen from the Justice Department, testified in 2011 that only a “small but steady number of national security investigations each year” used roving wiretaps.

USA Freedom Act Section 102:

(Sec. 102) Authorizes the Attorney General to require the emergency production of tangible things without first obtaining a court order if the Attorney General: (1) reasonably determines that an emergency situation requires the production of tangible things before an order authorizing production can be obtained with due diligence, (2) reasonably determines that a factual basis exists for the issuance of such a production order, (3) informs a FISA judge of the decision to require such production at the time the emergency decision is made, and (4) makes an application to a FISA judge within seven days after the Attorney General requires such emergency production.

When discussing the “Lone Wolf” portion of the Act he stated although we have not used this authority to date, it is designed to fill an important gap in our collection capabilities by allowing us to collect on an individual foreign terrorist who is inspired by – but not a member of – a terrorist group. For example, it might allow surveillance when an individual acts based upon international terrorist recruitment and training on the internet without establishing a connection to any terrorist group. According to data from U.S. courts, in 2013, the most recent year for which figures are available, 11 federal wiretaps were designated as roving.

By making the NSA and FISA court more transparent all they are doing is confirming the revelations of Edward Snowden, and what we all suspected before that. Okay, so now you know about it. See, they’re being transparent. That is the level of transparency they’re offering? It’s the same old dance, we’re going to remove this because we understand you don’t like it. But you have to let us implement this plan. I understand we have to make compromises to move forward. But this was a compromise that was made forgetting one key component, the whole point of it. The American people's civil liberties.

So what exactly is the compromise when the NSA gets to go about their business, and collect all of our information. Well now it means we have to re-think our personal security. We have to now hide our information from those that provide our services. The same people we pay our bill to, so that we may access these services. How do you protect yourself from that? You don’t. In fact we never have been able to. But what was once a tactic used by local police in investigations, is now a tactic used by the federal government. For whatever nefarious reason, that one day, they decided they must have.

According to Cindy Cohn and Mark Jaycox of the Electronic Frontier Foundation in a recent article on Reader Supported News:

“We’ve also been speaking out publicly against Executive Order 12333, an executive order that the NSA relies on for most of its digital surveillance of people worldwide. We’ll be launching a big campaign to attack this Executive Order, putting pressure on President Obama. Our goal is to get the president to address the biggest problems with EO 12333 with a new executive order before he leaves office.”

“Above all, we’re taking aim at the problem of overclassification. The government has used secrecy and the claim of national security interests to ward off public oversight. No reform can be effective unless we bring more sunlight into how the government is interpreting the law and the surveillance programs it is turning against law-abiding citizens. This necessitates an overhauling of the classification system, reforms to the security clearance process, strong protections for whistleblowers, even more transparency to the FISA Court, and addressing the abuses of the state secrets privilege.”

Photo CC-BY-SA 4.0

They also state later in the article that, “It will also hopefully embolden Congress to feel that they can bring a sensible balance to surveillance policy and practice”. This is what we fought for? To bring about a conclusion that relies on “hopefully” emboldening Congress to bring “sensible policy” for the people? Sensible policy, privacy rights, and protecting ourselves from mass surveillance is what we were fighting for this whole time! At least everyone I know was. And in all of the people I have discussed this issue with, they are not satisfied with this new implementation, citing its weakness in providing much protection or change at all.

The USA Freedom Act is an oxymoron in itself. How can the title include “Freedom” when in fact it is designed to remove freedoms? Their goal is to know everything there is to know about us, to potentially be used against us when THEY need to. A simple use-case would be to silence, censor, and control the information we consume. Which will dictate the future of our country in favor of special interests, corporations, and crippling our human rights. We are allowing ourselves to become slaves to the system. A system based on the all knowing and constant watching by our big brother.

They have also thrown in some useless provisions like having the Inspector General to review and report if any violations of civil liberties have occurred previously. They have also stated that a panel to advocates to oversee certain court requests that may infringe on civil liberties. We may never know if any panel should be implemented, or who they may be. But in the end, all these people and the Inspector General have the power to do, is generate reports. Reports that have always fallen on deaf ears. I personally can not recall anyone in Washington making a stink about a report from the Inspector general. The USA Freedom Act, appears to provide some privacy from the government on the surface. But in reality, it seems to have given the Patriot Act even more authority.

Meanwhile the country celebrates a victory. Most admitting it is a “small victory, but at least it’s a step in the right direction”, disregarding the fact that we should not be the victims of surveillance at all. The American people have simply been duped into accepting and claiming victory over what we were protesting. Under the guise of a new name and a few bogus rules. In the same way we relinquished our rights under the guise of a false enemy from some unknown place, with countless faces. An enemy that will never go away, and our surveillance laws have done nothing to prevent any terrorist acts.

In fact every plot that has been thwarted has done so using the same basic tactics of local law-enforcement, many times by local law-enforcement themselves. The Patriot Act has done nothing and produce negative results in the war on terror. The same negative results that led us to where we are demanding action while also reinforcing the major distrust most people have in  the government.

Julian Assange from WikiLeaks stated in an interview with Democracy Now, when asked about Rand Paul’s statement, “Why should the telecommunications companies, why should private enterprise have this information, holding it to be sought by the government?”, he responded with:

“That’s right. So the alternative proposal, which is something that was in the USA FREEDOM Act, which is pretty misnamed—it is a sort of milder version of the USA PATRIOT Act, in some ways. Instead, Verizon and the other—AT&T and other big telcos will hold the information, ready for the National Security Agency. But, you know, it doesn’t make much of a difference if that’s an automated system. It’s just—you know, 80 percent of the National Security Agency is outsourced anyway, in terms of the management of its data. In this case, if it has automatic connections to AT&T and Verizon, there’s no difference in terms of its searching ability. Now, in terms of whether there’s warrants that are used for searches, it is perhaps an aid, because the companies could be made legally liable—that’s up to Congress—for not insisting on a warrant to access that information. I rather suspect that Congress won’t mandate that the companies can’t hand over information unless there’s a warrant.”

At the end of the day, this is not the solution we were all looking for when I signed up for this battle. I will continue the fight. If everyone else decides that this is good enough for them, well it’s not enough for me and most of the populace. We have many surveillance programs in place that have been there for decades. We don’t need anymore, and we certainly don’t need to continue to spy on Americans. We have a right to freedom of expression, we have a right to have our own opinions, and we certainly have the right to speak-up and speak-out. Historically speaking, it’s those inalienable rights that have brought about historic change in America.

Do not forget that the bulk collection of even more detailed data has resumed, there is also one other factor that plays into all of this. Bulk collection will continue until December 31st, whereas they are required under the USA Freedom Act to stop. However we are looking at an attack on the Freedom of Information Act, that will allow any operations to continue unabated. Here are the Proposed Changes To The Freedom Of Information Act - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016.

SEC. 1046. REVISION OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT TO REINSTATE EXEMPTIONS UNDER THAT ACT AS IN EFFECT BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN MILNER V. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY.

Paragraph (2) of section 552 (b) of title 5, United States Code is amended—

(1) by inserting “(A)” before “related”;

(2) by inserting “or” after “an agency;”; and

(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

“(B) predominantly internal to an agency, but only to the extent that disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk impairment of the effective operation of an agency or circumvention of statute or regulation;”.

SEC. 1047. EXEMPTION OF INFORMATION ON MILITARY TACTICS,TECHNIQUES, AND PROCEDURES FROM RELEASE UNDER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT.

(a) EXEMPTION.—Chapter 3 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

Ҥ 130g. Nondisclosure of information: military tactics, techniques, and procedures

“(a) AUTHORITY FOR NONDISCLOSURE.—The Secretary of Defense may withhold from public disclosure otherwise required by law information on military tactics, techniques, and procedures in accordance with this section.

“(b) STANDARD FOR EXEMPTION FROM DISCLOSURE.—For the purposes of this section, information on a military tactic, technique, or procedure may be withheld from public disclosure only if the Secretary makes each of the following determinations with respect to the information:

“(1) That the public disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to risk impairment of the effective operation of the armed forces. “(2) That either of the following condition is met:

“(A) The military tactic, technique, or procedure has not been publicly disclosed.

“(B) The use of the military tactic, technique, or procedure in connection with a specific military operation, either planned or executed, or its effectiveness, has not been publicly disclosed.

“(c) CITATION TO FOIA PARAGRAPH.—This section is a statute that specifically exempts certain matters from disclosure under section 552 of title 5 within the meaning of paragraph (3) of subsection (b) of that section”.

Let’s not get tricked into believing we have won anything. Because on this issue alone, we have so much more to fight for. We are being ruled and controlled by the elitists in this country, and that is no secret. The question still remains. Are we going to continue to be complacent and just be drawn to the conclusion the we are a slave to this political oligarchy? Or are we going to get up and put up a meaningful fight? They will not give us our freedom, we must fight to get it back.

Let the commonality in our voices, for the solutions we seek be heard. Loud and Clear. It is time to mobilize the masses, and make the changes we all seek. As they were granted to us since the birth of our great nation.

Join us in the fight to regain our civil liberties, equal rights, and restore the power of these United States back to the people. Sign up for our newsletter right here on our site. Should you find this article posted elsewhere, you can find our site here: http://goo.gl/izaac7

TEXAS STANDARDIZED TESTING CONTINUES TO PROVE ITS WORTH(LESS)

Nearly $300,000,000, four years, and lackluster results bring up many fundamental questions, about the tremendous cost and the impact on children as well as teachers. While the impact on children is impossible measure or put a dollar value on.

These statistics reinforce the need for a fundamental disruption in government education. One that leads us back to simply teaching our kids and ending standardized tests. Too much time is removed from the actual education of our children. Even an improvement would merely negate lost time from actual education. Simply put, these tests prove nothing that we don't already know about our children. In fact all they do is provide a third-party with our children's personal information. They are now treated as a commodity by the school system, our elected officials, and the testing companies.

While these tests prove their useless worth, the focus should be teaching to a child's strengths and smaller classrooms. While eliminating the focus on so much of this testing. In return we commit to improving the quality of the education our children receive. In Texas alone, school districts would see roughly $80,000,000 a year back in their coffers. These taxpayer dollars would go a long way in many cash-strapped school districts, and would assuredly be well received. Especially considering the terrible worldwide ranking in education we constantly receive.

These tests simply show us what we already know, and serve no purpose. We have always been able to understand the classes where our children have struggled. Is that not why we have Report Cards, Progress Reports, Parent/Teacher conferences and decades worth testing already in place? It seems that more accurate and better overall information could be derived from the existing testing system. On a more localized and personal level. If you want to improve the quality of our education system, this is where it will happen.

Texas has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts to Pearson, a company that boasts many promises. Yet Pearson's results have come under much scrutiny lately, due to the massive growth of the opt-out movement nationwide. This movement has brought much of this unwanted attention to testing companies, mainly focused on their inability to produce any desirable results.

The Impact On Children

The 2015 Texas STAAR results, and those from other states are what reinforces the current movement. Along with the commonality in the issues that parents have from every state. Nearly all parents nationwide will have questions similar to the following, in search of one thing. The truth.

• Is the cost and intrusion from third-party testing companies necessary?

• These companies provide negligible results with such a huge cost?

• What about all the lost time regarding fundamental education?

• Is this what our children endured so much stress and insecurity for?

The 2015 STAAR results in Texas show virtually no improvement over the last 4 years. Despite being touted by Pearson as a program that will improve grades. This has now proven to be the proverbial Snake-Oil, sold to us by our misinformed, power hungry, elected officials. These same elected officials have denied subjecting themselves to such ridiculous testing on several occasions. Do they think they are smarter than a fifth-grader? Apparently not...

Here’s are some base results for the last four years of STAAR in Texas:

Source: Texas Education Agency
Writing4th grade - down 1%
7th grade - up 1%

Reading
3rd grade - up 1%
4th grade - down 3%
5th grade - up 1%
6th grade - up 1%
7th grade - down 1%
8th grade - down2%

Science
5th grade - down 1%
8th grade - no change

Social Studies
8th grade -  up 5%

(Note: Math tests are not included as Texas standards and tests changed last year, for this year’s results to be compared.)

These statistics show that we are not only getting nothing in return for such a huge amount of taxpayer dollars. But our children are constantly being subjected to some felonious act, that is only destroying their individual self-worth. That is the real crime in all of this. Our children are being sold short of a quality education.

THE COST

Common knowledge would suggest that grades cannot improve while implementing such roadblocks that handicap teachers, and the learning process in general. All the while it is destroying creativity and limiting the ability to acquire the social-skills. The cost in dollars is one thing, but the damage to our children is invaluable. How much would you charge for your children were to be used as guinea-pigs in some weird socially dysfunctional experiment? If you can put a price on it, shame on you. However, you already have subjected them to a such an experiment... For free and at tremendous cost.

If you consider the costs of these tests (about $300,000,000 over 4 years), while showing us the results that have long been predicted. They show an absolute failure by Elected Officials to scrutinize such a program, particularly due of the huge cost to both taxpayers and parents as well. Instead they accept political contributions, and implement legislation on untested processes that directly affect our children based on strong lobbying by companies like Pearson. The damage to children comes with possible permanence, and an irreparable sub-par education that can not be undone. For so many to stand so high and mighty on this issue, they look foolish when refusing to take the tests themselves. However, many politicians have made a career out of looking foolish.

The state of Texas has recently awarded contracts for the next four years of testing. Conveniently they did so prior to these results coming out. As they assuredly know, that there will be massive protest over the issue. There has already been much backlash nationwide, and this will certainly reinforce it in Texas. You can draw obvious conclusions from the dubious action by your elected officials. Or you can give them a call or shoot them an email at their respective offices, and ask them yourself.

This new four-year agreement comes at nearly the same cost as the last four-years. With a slight bump to nearly $340,000,000. (Source: Texas Education Agency).

If that's not wasteful spending, I don't know what is...

THE CONTINUED BATTLE

Motivation Molly Says: Learn Corporate Slogans

As someone who has been in this fight since the very beginning about three years ago. I can assure you that neither I, nor any of the other parents nationally will lay down. When this all started, my family was the victim of some of the nastiest deception by school administrators. The same administrators empowered by the TEA, to deny us our constitutional right to have a say or take part in our children's education. They even threw in one of the most common deceptions used nationwide. Telling us that they would be denied Federal Funds if our children did not participate. Yet this has proven to be nothing more than scare tactic.

What ensued after that was a six-month court battle, that started with truancy accusations, and being told by the judge that I am not qualified to make decisions on my children's education. From there many issues were brought up including the constitutionality of opting out, along with the evidence of records manipulation. As one of my children was being counted absent for merely not participating in any STAAR related activities, while still attending school. Their records stated 24 absences in a three-month period, however I had school records of him being present all of those days. The records they provided in court showed absences during lunch period. This was done to trigger the truancy office to intervene, and they did so with a court summons.

We won our case, without legal counsel. We cited Supreme Court ruling both on the State and Federal level, along with exact wording from the Constitution of these United States. The ever so intelligent judge had to seek counsel from several other courts. In the end she wasn't even present on our final court date, to which the prosecution dismissed our case and a new precedent was set. We then made it public knowledge. And we started publicly sharing the proper letters with thousands of others. So that they could customize the documentation to suit their respective districts, thus allowing them the ability to exercise their rights. Avoiding the subjecting og their children to such immoral and useless testing.

Parents have become disenfranchised over these decisions to implement so much testing nationally. I no longer call them "public schools" as that implies the public has some form of control or say. Due to the fact that these politicians have implemented such ridiculous testing, without consulting the public at large is why they are now "government schools" to me and many others. Upon seeing the context of some of these tests, I will say they are dangerously close to becoming commercialized indoctrination centers.

I'm not trying to go too far on this. I believe "government schools" is certainly the proper term. Many see it as nothing short of government indoctrination centers. However the majority of us do not. We see this as a problem that can be fixed. And by making our voices heard in Texas and nationwide, politicians are starting to take notice. We are seeing a sea of change coming from the highest ranking members from the State level all the way to Washington.

They are most certainly back-peddling. Running to fix what they have broken, to appease the American people.

A very big congratulations is due to all the parents, students, and teachers who have put up such a fight. Many at great risk. To accomplish what we all agree is morally wrong, handicaps teachers, and destroys real education. Now let's give the money back to the schools, and use it where it is needed the most. On the front lines, supporting our teachers so that they may provide the quality education that they are so capable of.

The fight must go on, and it most certainly will, until we bring back the fundamentals of a proper education.



(More to come as this is an ever developing issue, as the voice of the people get louder)

THE POLITICAL TRUTH BEHIND THE JOSH DUGGAR COVER-UP

There are many new questions regarding these accusations. Many politicians have adopted the Duggars skewed view against the LGBT community. Particularly, Josh and his mother Michelle, having influenced recent intolerant legislation.

Molestation accusations against Josh Duggar are being reported worldwide. Currently this is widely cited as the main reason for the decision to take "19 Kids and Counting" off the air. The effort of the LGBT community will be widely overlooked in this regard. That this community of people have been defending themselves, not just from this family. But defending themselves against the political power of the Christian Extremists lobbying groups. The LGBT community and it's supporters have actively been fighting for the shows removal for quite some time now. Based on the Duggars being a huge source of intolerance. An absolute and total disregard for the civil liberties that are afforded as the rights of every American.

The scary part is when you consider just how many politicians have adopted the same thinking as the Duggars and many of the hate groups aligned with them. Here are just a few that include John Boehner and Eric Cantor.

U.S. Representatives: Mike Pence (R-IN), Michele Bachmann (R-MN), John Carter (R-TX), John Fleming (R-LA), Trent Franks (R-AZ), Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Gregg Harper (R-MS), Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), Jim Jordan (R-OH), Steve King (R-IA), Don Manzullo (R-IL), Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Joe Pitts (R-PA), Peter Roskam (R-LA), Lamar Smith (R-TX), Steve Scalise (R-LA), Fred Upton (R-MI)

U.S. Senators: Jim DeMint (R-SC), Jim Inhofe (R-OK), David Vitter (R-LA), Roger Wicker (R-MS)

Governors:

Governor Sam Brownback, Governor Bobby Jindal, Governor Mike Huckabee, Governor Tim Pawlenty, Senator Rick Santorum

However irrelevant it may seem, it is painfully obvious that in fact those responsible at TLC are proving to the world that even they got it wrong. Questioning the belief that they were promoting good parenting, while celebrating the strength of this hypocritical family. In reality, this was a tipping point for TLC. Who has increasingly become the center of controversy surrounding the Duggars. We all saw something was wrong within this family. When this all came about there seemed to be a collective voice saying, “I always knew something wasn’t right about them”. That’s because for those that didn’t notice, it was the subconscious trying to tell the truth. They are no different than the Branch Davidians or The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Warren Jeffs), in principle. In fact Jim Bob immediately made me think of Warren Jeffs in particular, granted on a smaller scale. But what if none of this came about?

From June 2013 to May 2015, Josh Duggar was appointed as the Executive Director of FRC Action, the political lobbying arm of the Family Research Council. Josh Duggar has described his extended family as the "epitome of conservative values”. However, The Family Research Council, which he recently resigned from, has been labeled as an anti-gay hate group, by the Southern Poverty Law Center, due to their publications of "anti-gay propaganda”. Josh Duggar was described as "a full-fledged anti-gay activist" by GLAAD. The Duggars beliefs, as well as those of their community of the disillusioned are very clear. Especially through the activities of Josh and his mother Michelle Duggar. This system of belief is the result of membership in such a secluded group of people. Merely surviving, while completely closed off from society and reality.

THE SEXUAL MOLESTATION HYPOCRISY

Now that we know the victims will never see any retribution and may never find closure. The biggest and most important question will now be this (and it should be). What about all of the legislation? The legislation that Josh and Michelle Duggar played a role in. As a large part of the Family Resource Center’s movement. A group with a well known reputation of intolerance and deception, in the name of passing laws to oppress and persecute a single group. To force their immoral, unconstitutional beliefs on the rest of us, which by all accounts is nothing short of hate and “cult-like” behavior. While Josh has been rubbing elbows with many conservative politicians. Michelle Duggar lent her voice to robo-calls against Fayetteville’s proposed anti-discrimination ordinance. And let us not forget that Jim Bob Duggar served in the state legislature as a representative from 1999-2002.

In May of 2002, just two months after initially finding out what Josh had done the first time. Jim Bob lost the state's Republican Primary to Senator Tim Hutchinson, (R-Arkansas). This was an obvious motive and a more than apparent reason to cover this up. No one seems to understand why they waited so long, well now you know. Meanwhile Josh gets “sent away” for three or four months, which conveniently was just enough time until the elections were through. And in a years time, commits the same act four more times. In fact, many in the Duggars secret community have been charged with sexual assault crimes. From the State Trooper who they claim to have filed a report with, to Bill Gothard founder of the Institute in Basic Life Principles and the chain of Christian treatment centers to which Josh Duggar’s parents sent him after he was caught molesting young girls.

The Institute in Basic Life Principles, was largely funded by Hobby-Lobby founder David Green and his family. Who are committed donors to evangelical Christian causes. Gothard, an advocate for homeschooling, conservative dress, against rock music, and debt, had resigned from the ministry he founded. Amid allegations of sexually harassing over 30 women who worked at his ministry, and failing to report child abuse cases (such as Josh Duggar's case). The women alleged they were sexually harassed, including one woman who alleged that Gothard molested her when she was 17. The hypocrisy is becoming more relevant by the minute. Honestly, if I continue researching I may never finish this article.

In 2010, the Family Research Council's Senior Researcher for Policy Studies, Peter Sprigg stated on NBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, that gay behavior must be made illegal and that "criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior" should be enforced. Then in May of that same year, Peter Sprigg stated that repealing “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” policy would encourage molestation of heterosexual servicemembers. While In November of 2010, Tony Perkins was questioned about Peter Sprigg's comments regarding criminalizing same-sex behavior: he responded that “criminalizing homosexuality is not a goal of the Family Research Council.”

Tony Perkins continued with rhetoric, about the Family Research Council's association of homosexuals with pedophilia saying, "If you look at the American College of Pediatricians, they say the research is overwhelming, that homosexuality poses a danger to children.” In case you were wondering, the American College of Pediatricians is a small group of doctors who broke away from the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2002, because the latter group supported LGBT parental rights.The American College of Pediatricians currently stands at about 200 or so members, as compared to the more than 60,000 members of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Tony Perkins opinions are widely disputed by social science research on same-sex parenting, as well as the likelihood of child molestation by homosexuals and bisexuals. Which was found to be no higher than child molestation by heterosexuals. However, scientists note that the American College of Pediatricians have stated that the organization has, “distorted or misrepresented their work, or both.” These statements made are voiced not only by Josh Duggar, but by many members of their congregation as well. The Southern Poverty Law Center’s hate group designation in the Winter 2010, was based in part on the opinions and statements of Sprigg and Perkins.

THE POLITICS

Pay close attention to the politicians coming to their defense. Including Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. Their response to these allegations are so diluted, that they don't even realize they are defending what is essentially a cult. The Duggars belief system is solidified by absolute mis-information on a massive scale. Designed to promote intolerance and hate, while manipulating the Bible and convincing Republicans to get behind this. All but ensuring them with false and manipulated reports, that this is what their constituents want. It goes pretty damned deep, and yes I intend to make it a big deal. Because while the mainstream media may be steering your attention towards other issues, this is far from over. Myself and a few others are painting the proverbial bullseye on our backs by calling these politicians out. It is my only hope that this catches on. The last thing we need is a twisted and sick group of politicians that support such sexual misconduct, yet want to apply this behavior to the LGBT community.

If they want to oppress a singled-out group of people, with bullshit. Let’s see how they act when the truth hits them in the face. While responses from the likes of Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, Rick Perry and the rest of the Looney Tunes is quite predictable. They will certainly sit up and take notice when their supporters no longer support what has been labeled as a dying party. All of the politicians involved in anti LGBT legislation, are equally guilty by citing the Duggars, the Family Research Council, and other hate groups talking points. Which are all based on fear-mongering lies. Lies that assuredly makes them all hypocrites on a whole new level.

For example, in a recent podcast Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) was talking with Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. Senator Lee discusses how he believes religious liberty is under attack in America. He also mentions how “we don’t need to have a majority, we just need to have enough” when talking of imposing their intolerable will on the American People. What we are seeing is call to promote propaganda at it’s most basic level. By definition, this is what Mike Lee is talking about, in a self-promoting and justified case. Which leads to manipulated thinking along morally reprehensible lies at the highest levels. Ending with legislation that people can justify within their small, cult-like circles.

In the Duggars interview with People magazine they attempted, rather poorly, at defending their actions. Regardless of the immorality of it all. In America we have a system of laws that they ignored. They reality is that they ignored them because Jim Bob was trying to win an election at the time. Yet they still feel the need to force their beliefs on politicians, which results in legislation being forced upon the rest of us. Josh Duggar made many speeches rubbing elbows with many politicians. Michelle Duggar is equally guilty, as was promoting such intolerance and hate, by providing her views to political action as well. They were both promoting this level of intolerance and hate while covering up sexual abuse against five girls. Four of them reportedly their own.

Yes, Jim Bob was trying to win an election at the time. Do I believe this to be the reason for the cover up? Absolutely.

It’s the convenience of the truth.

(Note: The massive amount of information acquired was too much for this one article. So I will be doing a series of articles relating to my findings, while researching this one. There is a lot more story to tell, as it goes much deeper.)

Obama to Curb Militarization of Local Police

A fact-sheet released today by the White House, Office of the Press Secretary, lays out plans to stop the flow of military equipment to local law-enforcement. The fact sheet is titled “Creating Opportunity for All Through Stronger, Safer Communities”.

The fact sheet highlights innovative steps to help police do their jobs with increased safety while reducing crime in the process. Today in Camden, New Jersey, a city that has struggled with one of the nation's highest violent crime rates, he will focus on how they have instituted a community policing initiative. That represents the culmination of five years of collaborative efforts aimed at improving the quality of life for Camden children, youth, and families.

The President will also highlight how communities are adopting the recommendations of the Task Force on 21st Century Policing and will highlight new tools all cities can utilize to build and maintain the all-important trust between the law enforcement officers who put their lives on the line every day, and the communities they have sworn to serve and protect. These tools include:

• A Blueprint for Improved Community Policing: The final Task Force Report provides a blueprint for cities and towns to utilize as they develop policing strategies that work best for building trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve while enhancing public safety.
• The White House Police Data Initiative:  Leading jurisdictions have joined technologists, community organizations and police associations to commit to use data and technology in ways that build community trust and reduce unnecessary uses of force.
• Community Policing Grants: The Department of Justice (DOJ) will begin taking applications for grants designed to advance the practice of community policing in law enforcement agencies through hiring, training and technical assistance, the development of innovative community policing strategies, applied research, guidebooks, and best practices that are national in scope.
• A Body-Worn Camera Tool Kit:  Earlier this month, the DOJ announced a new pilot grant program that will help local law enforcement agencies develop, implement, and evaluate body-worn camera programs, and today, DOJ is releasing an online clearinghouse of resources designed to help law enforcement professionals and the communities they serve plan and implement body-worn camera (BWC) programs.
• Partnerships with National Law Enforcement Focused Organizations to Implement Recommendations: With support from the Department of Justice, nine law enforcement-focused organizations will develop national-level, industry-wide projects for several of the pillars outlined in the Task Force Report.
• Equipment Working Group Final Report: A federal interagency working group—led by the Departments of Justice, Defense, and Homeland Security – has now completed an extensive review of federal programs that support the acquisition of equipment by state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies.  On the basis of that review, the working group developed a series of concrete steps to enhance accountability, increase transparency, and better serve the needs of law enforcement and local communities.

Last December, President Barack Obama created the Task Force on 21st Century Policing with a mission to identify best practices and make recommendations on how such practices can promote effective crime reduction while building public trust. The Task Force was chaired by Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey and George Mason University Professor Laurie Robinson and included, among others, law enforcement representatives, community leaders, academics, and youth leaders.  Over several months, the Task Force held public hearings across the country; took testimony from over 100 witnesses; reviewed hundreds of written submissions and thoughtfully came to consensus on 59 concrete recommendations. The Task Force presented their interim report, including recommendations regarding policies, training, transparency, accountability, technology and officer safety and wellness, to the President in March, and today the final report is available.

Here are some highlights of the work police departments currently involved are taking, along with other Police Data Initiative (PDI) participants.

Open Data to Build Transparency and Increase Community Trust

• Twenty-one jurisdictions committed to release a combined total of 101 data sets that have not been released to the public.  The types of data include uses of force, police pedestrian and vehicle stops, citations, officer involved shootings and more, helping the communities gain visibility into key information on police/citizen encounters.
• Code for America and CI Technologies will work together to build an open source software tool to make it easier for more than 500 U.S. law enforcement agencies using IA Pro police integrity software to extract and open up data.
• To make police open data easy to find and use, the Police Foundation and ESRI will build a non-exclusive police open data portal to serve as a central clearinghouse option for police open data, making it easily accessible to community groups and researchers to analyze and see trends.
• To help this newly released data come alive for communities through mapping, visualizations and other tools, city leaders, non-profit organizations, and private sector partners will host open data hackathons in cities around the country.
• The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department is working with the Southern Coalition for Social Justice to use open data to provide a full picture of key policing activities, including stops, searches and use-of-force trends, information and demographics on neighborhoods patrolled, and more.   This partnership will build on a website and tools already developed by the Southern Coalition for Justice which provide visualization and search tools to make this data easily accessible and understandable.
• Presidential Innovation Fellows, through the U.S. CTO and U.S. Chief Data Scientist will release an Open Data Playbook that police departments can use as a reference for open data best practices and case studies.
• The International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Police Foundation, and Code for America have committed to help grow communities of practice for law enforcement agencies and technologists around open data and transparency around police/community interactions.

Early Warning Systems and Data Research

• While many police departments have systems in place, often called “early warning systems”, to identify officers who may be having challenges in their interactions with the public and link them with training, there has been little research to determine which indicators are most closely linked  to bad outcomes.  To tackle this issue, twelve police departments have committed to share data on police/citizen encounters with data scientists for in-depth data analysis, strengthening the ability of police to intervene early and effectively: Austin, TX; Camden, NJ; Charlotte, NC; Dallas, TX; Indianapolis, IN; Knoxville, TN; LA City; LA County; Louisville, KY; New Orleans, LA; Philadelphia, PA and Richmond, CA.
• The University of Chicago will provide a team of five data science fellows from the Eric and Wendy Schmidt Data Science for Social Good program to work with 3-4 police departments over a 14 week engagement, starting in late May to begin to prototype data analysis tools that will help police departments identify the behaviors most indicative of later problems.
• Today in Camden, NJ, the city will welcome a Police Data Initiative Tech Team. This volunteer team of technology experts and data scientists will spend two days with Camden PD. They will focus on key technology systems with a goal of helping the Camden police enhance analysis and gain greater insights on officer activity. The goal is for the Camden PD to begin developing the solutions that surface potential problems before they happen while pointing to best practices that other departments can follow.

Jurisdictions taking part in the White House Police Data Initiative (PDI) so far include: Atlanta, GA; Austin, TX; Camden, NJ; Charlotte-Mecklenburg, NC; Cincinnati, OH; Columbia, SC; Dallas, TX; Hampton, VA; Indianapolis, IN; Knoxville, TN;  Los Angeles, CA; LA County, CA; Louisville, KY; Montgomery County, MD; New Orleans, LA; Newport News, VA; Oakland, CA; Philadelphia, PA; Richmond, CA; Rutland, VT; and Seattle, WA.

The Task Force recommended that DOJ, through the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office) provide incentives for state and local law enforcement to adopt the recommendations. Today, the COPS office will launch solicitations for grants and technical assistance that are closely aligned with the recommendations.  Funding is available for local law enforcement agencies committed to implementing the recommendations and to adopting policies that build community trust, including through hiring, training, initiating pilot projects, and developing new guidance and best practices.

With support from the COPS Office, law enforcement focused organizations including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Police Executive Research Forum, the National Sheriffs’ Association, Major County Sheriffs, the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the Police Foundation, will develop national-level, industry-wide projects for several of the pillars outlined in the Task Force Report.

Since 2011, the Ford Foundation, with other foundations, has supported Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) in Seattle, an innovative arrest diversion program co-designed by police, prosecutors, public defenders, civil rights leaders and public health experts.  This evidence-based program lets law enforcement officers directly divert people, whom they could arrest for low-level crimes, such as drug or prostitution offenses, to case managers, who assist with housing, treatment and other supportive services, instead of using jail and prosecution.  An evaluation by the University of Washington, funded by the Arnold Foundation and released in March 2015, found that participants in the program had 58% lower odds of a subsequent arrest as compared to a control group. Equally important, it helps improve the relationship between the police and the people they encounter on the streets.

In addition to the work completed by the Task Force on 21st Century Policing, a separate federal interagency working group—led by the Departments of Justice, Defense and Homeland Security – has now completed an extensive review of federal programs that support the transfer of equipment to state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies.  On the basis of that review, the working group developed a series of concrete steps to enhance accountability, increase transparency, and better serve the needs of law enforcement and local communities.  The President has directed departments and agencies to put the working group’s recommendations into practice and continue to partner with law enforcement and local communities during the implementation process.

• The working group developed a unified list of prohibited equipment that may not be acquired under any of the various programs. This list includes tracked armored vehicles, weaponized aircraft and vehicles, bayonets, grenade launchers, and large-caliber firearms.
• The working group developed a unified list of equipment that law enforcement may acquire only in accordance with new and more rigorous controls.  This controlled list includes armored vehicles, tactical vehicles, riot gear, and specialized firearms and ammunition.
• Uniform Acquisition Standards: Across all programs, the transfer of equipment on the controlled list will require the consent of the appropriate local civilian governing body (e.g., City Council, County Council, Mayor) as well as a clear and persuasive explanation of the need for the equipment and the appropriate law enforcement purpose that it will serve.
• Training and Protocols: To receive such equipment, law enforcement agencies must commit to have in place “general policing” training standards, including training on community policing, constitutional policing, and community impact.  Agencies must also agree to protocols on the appropriate use, supervision, and operation of such equipment.
• Required Data Collection: Law enforcement agencies must collect and retain certain information whenever such equipment is involved in a “significant incident.”   Upon request or during a compliance review, the law enforcement agency must provide this information to the federal agency that supported the equipment’s acquisition.  This information will also be made publicly available in accordance with the law enforcement agency's applicable policies and protocols.

Aside from having to give a "clear and persuasive explanation of the need for the controlled equipment," local law enforcement will not be eligible unless they have adopted what General Policing Standards. Including community policing programs, with more foot cops on the beat interacting with the public as well as regular consultation with community groups - as opposed to zero-tolerance policies in use by the vast majority of local law-enforcement

Source: http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/taskforce/TaskForce_FinalReport.pdf