By Daniel Noe
While the Obama administration sets out to eviscerate the gun rights of American citizens in the aftermath of Sandy Hook, earlier this week it was announced that the Department of Homeland Security has awarded a company a contract worth over $45,000 dollars to provide the DHS with 200,000 more rounds of bullets.
As Florida becomes the first state to register one million concealed carry permits and the Illinois’ legislature proposes the nation’s most draconian gun regulations, the US government is quietly using $1.6 billion in borrowed money to amass ammunition for the domestic operations of Homeland Security.
A 91 page standard transaction form filled out by the Department of Homeland Security Training Center in Glynco, GA reveals a staggering amount of ammunition purchased (in unit price in the thousands) by the Department. The .223 Rem Caliber 62/64 Grain JHP was purchased in quantity of 1,100; the .40 S&W Caliber 180 Grain JHP buy quantity was 2,824; 209 9 MM Luger 115 Grain JHP along with even buckshot is on this order form now hard to Google.
The purchase of 1.6 BILLION rounds of ammo and other weaponry, which may or may not include bullets banned by the Geneva Convention, leaves many Americans wondering why all this heavy stuff is needed inside the United States! For the DHS operates only within the nation’s borders, only on American soil.
The first page of this huge, federal government ammo buy states: “Acceptance of an award certifies that the firm will comply with FAR 52,22-50, combating trafficking in persons, by notifying all employees and subcontractors at all levels. Period of Performance: 10/01/2012 to 09/30/2017.” The next item on page 1 states: “Lot 1-base year: date of award and continuing for 12 months (actual 12 month period of performance will be reflected on award document) This contract is for commercial leaded training ammunition (CLTA) in accordance with this document”
Commercial Leaded Training Ammunition is being acquired upon award of this order, but the period of performance extends out over five years! This offer due date was made on 08/20/2012 at 1430 ET and extends out to September of 2017. What is this? Way into September of 2017, these CLTA ammunition bundles are being acquired for domestic use by Homeland Security. And the Department is buying the stuff with money our country does NOT even have! Just what is their purpose? One source even says that “radiation pellets for protection of the thyroid gland” are even included!
Yet just as federal bureaucrats have decided to arm their agencies for a level of action seemingly not anticipated since World War II, State legislators in Illinois are hoping to place legislation on the Governor’s desk next week that will guarantee an outright ban on countless rifles, shotguns, and some 80% of the state’s most widely-owned handgun models. (2)
Why would elected officials prepare the GOVERNMENT for a massive gunfight on U.S. soil while working to disarm the American people it ostensibly serves? Could it be the leftist breed that now dominates the nations’ capitol harbors a greater fear of the American people than of the country’s well-known enemies?
Dozens of federal agencies, from the Energy Department to the Department of Homeland Security, have the authority to issue regulations without any congressional involvement.
By Neal Colgrass
Source: Newser – Great Finds
When Dan Bell drives through his 35,000-acre cattle ranch, he speaks of the hurdles that the Border Patrol faces in his rolling green hills of oak and mesquite trees — the hours it takes to drive to some places, the wilderness areas that are generally off-limits to motorized vehicles, the environmental reviews required to extend a dirt road.
John Ladd offers a different take from his 14,000-acre spread: the Border Patrol already has more than enough roads and its beefed-up presence has flooded his land and eroded the soil.
Their differences explain why ranchers are on opposite sides of the fence over a sweeping proposal to waive environmental reviews on federal lands within 100 miles of Mexico and Canada for the sake of border security. The Border Patrol would have a free hand to build roads, camera towers, helicopter pads and living quarters without any of the outside scrutiny that can modify or even derail plans to extend its footprint.
The U.S. House of Representatives approved the bill authored by Utah Republican Rob Bishop in June. But prospects in the Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate are extremely slim and chances of President Barack Obama‘s signature even slimmer. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano testified in Congress this year that the bill was unnecessary and “bad policy.”
Still, an idea that House Republicans kicked around for years has advanced farther in the legislative process than ever before and rekindled discussion over how to balance border security with wildlife protection.
The debate raises some of the same questions that will play out on a larger scale when Congress and the president tackle immigration reform: Is the U.S. border with Mexico secure, considered by some lawmakers to be a litmus test for granting legal residency and citizenship to millions? Has the U.S. reached a point of border security overkill?
Heightened enforcement — along with a fewer available jobs in the U.S. and an aging population in Mexico — has brought Border Patrol arrests to 40-year lows.
The U.S. has erected 650 miles of fences and other barriers on the Mexican border, almost all of it after a 2005 law gave the Homeland Security secretary power to waive environmental reviews. The administration of President George W. Bush exercised its waiver authority on hundreds of miles after years of court challenges and environmental reviews delayed construction on a 14-mile stretch in San Diego.
The Border Patrol, which has doubled to more than 21,000 agents since 2004, has also built 12 “forward operating bases” to increase its presence in remote areas. Instead of driving long distances from their stations every shift, agents stay at the camps for several days.
Lots more needs to be done, according to backers of Bishop’s bill to rewrite rules on millions of acres of federal land managed by the Interior and Agriculture departments, including more than 800 miles bordering Mexico and 1,000 miles bordering Canada. The bill would waive reviews required under the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act and 14 other laws in dozens of wilderness areas, national forests and national parks.
“It’s a paralyzing process now,” said Bell, 44, as his GMC truck barreled down a dirt road on a 10-mile stretch of his ranch that borders Mexico. “They wanted to put this road in for a decade, probably even longer. They broke ground on it last year.”
Bell, a burly, third-generation rancher who leases his land from the Agriculture Department, acknowledges there are noticeably fewer border crossers since the government built a fence on the eastern part of his ranch, near Nogales. In the ranch’s west end, the Border Patrol opened one of its camps in 2005 — a collection of shipping containers that agents use as a base while alternating 12-hour shifts.
Yet migrants continue crossing in some rugged reaches that are well outside of cellphone range. Bell says waiving environmental reviews within 100 miles of the border may be unnecessary but that a 25-mile zone would help immensely.
“There are areas where the agents can’t get to,” he said. “By the time they get out of the station and get to these remote areas, then hike another two or three hours just to get close to the border, they have to come back because their day is pretty much eaten up. It’s really difficult when there’s no access out there.”
Ladd, a fourth-generation rancher whose spread near Douglas is in a flatter, more easily traveled area of mesquite-draped hills, thinks the Border Patrol has gone far enough. The agency installed four 80-foot camera towers on his land about six years ago. In 2007, it completed a fence along the 10.5 miles of his ranch that borders Mexico.
Rainfall that runs downhill from Mexico is stopped by debris caught in the mesh fence and an adjoining raised road, Ladd says. The water is diverted to other areas, causing floods and soil erosion on his property.
Ladd, 57, thinks the bill would allow the Border Patrol to “run roughshod” over ranches and farms.
“Be careful what you wish for, they’re going to tear it up,” Ladd tells other ranchers. “Once they get in, it pretty well turns into a parking lot. It’s really hard to get them out.”
Ladd says the 37 miles of roads on his ranch are enough for the Border Patrol‘s needs. “Why do you need new ones?” he asks.
The Interior Department raised concerns in a survey of Arizona’s Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge last year that found nearly 8,000 miles of off-road vehicle trails, blaming much of it on smuggling and Border Patrol activity. It urged the Border Patrol to rely on tools like radars and cameras, which are less threatening to wildlife.
Critics of the Border Patrol‘s growth have long called new fences, roads and other infrastructure a threat to Sonoran pronghorn, Mexican grey wolves, jaguars and other border wildlife.
A Government Accountability Office report in 2010 offered fodder for both sides of the debate. It found Border Patrol supervisors generally felt land laws didn’t hinder them on the job but that the agency sometimes encountered roadblocks. An unnamed agency took four months to review a Border Patrol request to move a camera tower in Arizona, by which time traffic had moved to another area.
Rep. Raul Grijalva, an Arizona Democrat who has led opposition to the bill that has largely split along party lines, calls the effort a disguised step toward repealing environmental laws.
“The border has become a very convenient excuse to go after laws that have been on the books for four or five decades,” he said. “You plant your flag on the 100 miles (of border) and then build from there.”
Bishop dismisses that criticism as a scare tactic and a “lousy argument.”
“Sovereign countries control their borders. Anything that stops us from that is a violation of why we are a nation,” he said.
Source: Fox US News
The Department of Justice (DOJ) plans to throw its prosecutorial weight behind efforts to stem the growing number of foreign government-sponsored cyberattacks against U.S. companies and government agencies.
The DOJ‘s effort marks a shift in combating the national security threat. In the past, the Department of Homeland Security, the Defense Department and the National Security Agency led investigations of state-sponsored cyberespionage.
Now, the DOJ will step up the part it plays by prosecuting government officials and hackers with the Federal Bureau of Investigation providing the police work.
“There is, I guess, a tactical shift when we’re dealing with cyber-threats and national security to examine whether criminal investigations and prosecutions are a viable option in some of these cases,” DOJ spokesman Dean Boyd said on Wednesday. “And I think we’re pursuing that very vigorously with the FBI.”
To read this article in full or to leave a comment, please click here
Source: PCWorld
The Federal Communications Commission is advising smartphone users on how to protect their mobile devices and data from mobile security threats.
The Commission released an online tool called the “Smartphone Security Checker” this week that outlines a 10-step action plan that mobile users can follow to prevent their personal data from being exposed in case their devices get infected with malware or are lost, stolen or resold.
The tool provides recommendations including: locking access to the phone with PINs or passwords; avoiding changing the phone’s factory security settings or rooting/jailbreaking the phone; backing up the phone data regularly in the cloud, on a computer or on a removable memory card; installing apps only from trusted sources and after checking their user reviews; reviewing and understanding the permissions requested by applications before installing them; installing the firmware updates issued by the manufacturer; installing security apps that allow remote locking and wiping of the phone; avoiding connecting to the Internet from untrusted wireless hotspots; wiping data from the phones before reselling; donating or recycling devices; and reporting stolen devices to the authorities and the operator for inclusion in a national database of stolen smartphones.
The recommendations were drafted by the FCC in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; the Federal Trade Commission; the National Cyber Security Alliance; CTIA, a wireless industry trade association; and other public and private sector partners including antivirus vendors and cybersecurity organizations.
To read this article in full or to leave a comment, please click here
Source: PCWorld
Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz is pressing the Department of Homeland Security for an explanation following a report that the department waited to arrest an illegal immigrant intern working for a prominent U.S. senator until after the election.
Source: Fox News – Politics
Twenty-four-hour news networks interrupted their coverage of skydiving cats earlier this week to light a fire under NHTSA’s announcement that it planned to mandate event data recorders, or black boxes, be installed in all new cars. Amidst the frenzy, it almost seems as though many reporting on the announcement didn’t actually read the proposed NHTSA rule or anything about what the event data recorders actually do. We’re here to debunk some of the rumors in circulation.
Myth 1: NHTSA’s Announcement Last Week Said Something We Haven’t Heard Before
Nope. NHTSA has been talking about mandating event data recorders since at least 2006, when it first set rules about how voluntarily installed EDRs had to operate. The only thing NHTSA announced recently is that it plans to put this rule into effect beginning in 2014, which was the date floated officially and unofficially during the past year.
Myth 2: The White House “Signed Off” on NHTSA’s Proposal for Event Data Recorders
A number of major news outlets based their reporting of the black box topic on a story published in the Detroit News, which was titled “NHTSA gets White House OK to mandate vehicle ‘black boxes.’” This makes it sound like Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood brought a bottle of brandy to the Oval Office, kissed Barack Obama’s ring, and said, “Mr. President, even though it’s not the day of your daughter’s wedding, we’d like your blessing for our plan to require automakers to install black boxes in every car. Can we go ahead with this?”
In reality, any time an executive agency proposes a new regulation—whether it’s NHTSA or the Forest Service—they have to clear it with the Office of Management and Budget to make sure the new reg doesn’t conflict with what another agency is doing, isn’t creating some new huge burden for the budget, and that the new rule wouldn’t be totally contrary to the president’s stated goals. The OMB is part of the White House organizational structure, so while it’s technically accurate that the White House cleared the black box plan, this routine rubber stamp is meaningless.
Myth 3: Mandating Black Boxes Will Change the Status Quo
Does your car have an event data recorder? Even you, the automotive illuminati who read Car and Driver, would be forgiven for not knowing. It’s not something listed in a database or published on a window sticker. It turns out that well over 90 percent of new cars sold today in the U.S. already have event data recorders, which automakers have been voluntarily installing for several years. The proposed mandate would extend to the remaining holdover vehicles, which includes some high-end sports cars and a number of Volkswagens and Audis.
What we’re talking about, then, is a rule that would change a sliver of the automotive market. Typically, automakers—either directly or through group lobby associations—push back against any additional government regulation; they don’t want control and they don’t want added costs. But when it comes to EDRs, the counter-campaign against event data recorders has been virtually nonexistent. Toyota’s continuing nightmare surrounding unintended acceleration showed car manufacturers just how helpful EDRs can be in defending themselves. When a company can analyze black boxes and say, “Sorry, driver, but the computer recorded you mashing the gas pedal with no input on the brake,” that’s persuasive evidence.
Instrumented Test: 2013 Lincoln MKZ AWD V6
Instrumented Test: 2013 Porsche Boxster Manual
Instrumented Test: 2013 Fiat 500 Turbo
Myth 4: Privacy is at Risk Because the Gub’mint Is Gonna Track People
Make no mistake: The government—local police, the CIA, the FBI, DEA, Homeland Security, water department—can and does track individual cars. Much of the time it’s done in a squeaky-clean way, with warrants and court approval for monitoring Fat Tony and the Don Bot. Sometimes, it’s a legal gray area, and we wind up with major court battles trying to sort out the rules for law enforcement. (Privacy advocates, like this writer, were pleased by the recent Supreme Court decision saying that law enforcement officers need a warrant to track vehicles using GPS tags.) Event data recorders are an entirely separate matter. They don’t transmit data. The boxes record certain characteristics about the vehicle, like steering input, acceleration, seatbelt status, and brake usage, in a sort of “streaming” format, retaining only the past few seconds of data for any given moment.
There are serious questions about who owns the data, who can use it, and who can access it. Even with plain-language rules from NHTSA, our judges will end up having to hammer out the details. Bear in mind, though, that a huge cache of information already is stored in in-car GPS systems, and that’s all subject to download by the police or an opponent in a lawsuit. The same is true for smart phones, by the way, which contain way more than just GPS coordinates.
Source: Car & Driver
U.S. Border Patrol agents will no longer serve as interpreters when local law enforcement agencies request language help, according to a new decree issued by the Department of Homeland Security.
The new guidance said agents should refer such requests to private services often used by government agencies.
Seeking language help is a common practice among local law enforcement agencies in Washington state. If a person is pulled over and can only speak Spanish, the U.S. Border Patrol is often called.
However, immigration advocates complain that Border Patrol agents ask people questions about immigration and in some cases arrest people suspected of being in the country illegally.
“The concept of language access should be without people being questioned about their immigration status,” said Jorge Baron, executive director of the Seattle-based Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, a legal aid organization.
Immigrants have grown apprehensive about calling local law enforcement agencies if they knew the Border Patrol is going to respond, he said.
The new Border Patrol guidance should help, even though it leaves agents some room for decision-making, he said.
The Border Patrol said Thursday it is trying to use its resources efficiently.
“The new guidance related to requests for translation services helps further focus CBP efforts on its primary mission to secure our nation’s borders.” a statement by Customs and Border Protection said. “CBP remains committed to assisting our law enforcement partners in their enforcement efforts.”
The Northwest Immigrant Rights Project sent a letter in May to the Department of Justice and Homeland Security saying the interpreting practice violated the Civil Rights Act.
The letter included dashboard camera video in which a Border Patrol agent is heard using a derogatory term for illegal immigrants.
After the Sept. 11 attacks, President George W. Bush ordered U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which oversees the Border Patrol, to beef up its presence on the U.S.-Canada border, which is almost twice as long as the U.S.-Mexico border.
In 2007, the northern border had about 1,100 agents. Now it has more than 2,200. In the same period, the number of agents in the Blaine sector, which covers the border west of the Cascades, went from 133 to 331.
Along with providing language services, Border Patrol agents often assist local law agencies that are short on personnel and equipment. In addition, highway checkpoints have been implemented. On the southern U.S. border, the ability to speak Spanish is prevalent among local law enforcement agencies.
The American Civil Liberties Union and Northwest Immigrant Rights Project filed a lawsuit earlier this year seeking to bar Border Patrol agents from doing traffic stops on the Olympic Peninsula, claiming people were being pulled over and questioned over the way they look and without reasonable suspicion. The lawsuit is pending.
The Border Patrol has denied any discrimination.
Representatives of the National Border Patrol Council did not immediately return a message Thursday seeking comment. It previously argued that federal officials are buckling to political pressure from advocacy groups.
In May, union vice president Shawn Moran said traffic stops are a basic tool for agents trying to catch terrorists, illegal immigrants and drug smugglers.
Source: Newser – Home
A Somali-born woman was sentenced Tuesday to eight years in prison for routing money to a terrorist organization in her native country.
Nima Ali Yusuf, who pleaded guilty last December to one count of conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization, is one of several people linked to al-Shabab in a federal investigation centered in Minnesota. Yusuf, 26, acknowledged sending $1,450 to four people she knew were affiliated with al-Shabab in 2009 and 2010 and lying to FBI and Homeland Security investigators about the payments.
Prosecutors urged U.S. District Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz to sentence Yusuf to 10 years in prison, saying it would send a strong message to others considering support for groups deemed terrorist organizations. Al-Shabab, based in Somalia, is designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department.
Prosecutors characterized Yusuf at the time of her involvement with the fighters as an insecure woman in her mid-20s “whose extremist beliefs made her feel better by making her feel part of something big.”
“She clearly relished her proximity to the fighters and the reflected glory she felt when describing their exploits and tribulations to her friends,” Sabrina Feve, an assistant U.S. attorney, wrote the judge.
Yusuf’s attorneys recommended five years in prison, saying the money was to help her friends with living expenses and debt relief and not intended as “direct support” for al-Shabab. Still, they acknowledged that she embraced al-Shabab’s efforts.
“(She) discouraged the young men from engaging in martyrdom operations, such as suicide attacks, but was otherwise supportive of their willingness to give up everything to fight against the Ethiopian troops and the transitional federal government of which she herself had been a victim.”
Yusuf’s family was granted asylum in the U.S. and settled in Salt Lake City in 2001.
“I am and will always be thankful to this country for the help my family was given. There’s nothing by sorrow in my heart for causing this problem and cost to the government,” she wrote.
Source: Fox US News