What happened to the ACL website?

We are getting emails and comments about taking all the research pages off the Anti Communitarian League website. Some of them are friendly inquiries wondering how long it will take us to put it all back online. One person offered to help us restore it. And more than one person is criticizing us because they used the old site and often referred other people to it.

One commenter just told me that removing my research is "disappointingly Jewey." I suppose I was supposed to take that as an insult since I oppose Zionism and often expose the role Israelis play in rebuilding America under communitarian community leadership. Their obvious assumption is that only a Jew would try to make money off their work... and I find that hilarious. But it does get to the heart of the issue, one that has plagued me since I started my research in 1999... eleven years ago.

For almost a decade I was willing to be an unpaid servant for "freedom." I was more voluntarily communitarian in my actions than any communitarian writer or thinker I oppose. I believed it was my duty and obligation to share my research with the world. I believed sharing what I know was more important than the money I stopped making because I spent all my time researching, or the respect I lost from almost everyone I knew because I wasn't making any money. I believed that sharing what I know was more important than any of my own personal needs or comforts. I was willing to die if I had to... it was that important to me.

So when I lost my home and became homeless in January 2002, and spent my first winter in a tent writing time lines for the Dawson attorneys, I barely noticed that I almost starved to death. Had it not been for my friend Patty Flanary insisting I come stay with her in April, I would have. From the beginning I made the ACL my first priority and dragged Nordica into it. Every time she quit helping, I forced her to help me again. I could never have built the ACL myself, I'm not a web designer or master, and the fact that she was only 14 years old when we started the ACL research made it almost child abuse.

When I started blogging about my tent lifestyle in 2006, I got quite a few donations from readers who felt I deserved it. But over the last couple years donations trickled down to zero. So by the time I lost my front teeth and broke my glasses... I had no way to replace them. I put my name on everything I wrote, so even if I had teeth and could see, any potential employer can find my name along with all the rude comments about me being a wacko conspiracy theorist, and it's no surprise I don't get any responses to resumes I send out for jobs. Even if I want to go back to being a "normal working person" I doubt I can anymore. But for some reason, even with the hardships, health dangers and lack of support, I still believed it was all worth it.

But now I get it... and believe me... I'm not a believer anymore. I realize I don't owe the world anything, and I never did. My sense of duty to my country was drilled into me by my Army father, but even he got a paycheck every month from the U.S. government and a LOT of respect for his work. I not only don't get paid regularly, I am constantly disrespected for my efforts.

I am beyond certain that not one of the people rudely complaining about the status of the ACL has given up anything near what I have, and they never would. What kind of person would demand I stop trying to make money now and get back to work on the site because THEY need it? What kind of person thinks they can insult me into being a slave? How many of the people who "need" the ACL would be willing to work on it in a tent in Alaska with no teeth, no car, no plumbing, no fuel, no money, no food, under constant harassment, just so I could use it?

This does not mean the ACL will never go back online. But the ACL website is NOT my number one priority anymore, and it never will be again. I'll work on it after I get what I need just to live, and no, I don't expect to make it off 2020 book sales... we'd starve for sure waiting for that. The new book edition is for the small number of people who put value on our research.

"Nothing ain't worth nothing...but it's free."

The communitarian's "Tea Party" paranoia

The communitarians are freaking out because Americans are finally challenging Agenda 21. I didn't realize how many people were going to their local agenda 21 meetings and asking direct questions about the plans. The LAST thing LA21 planners want or need is a room full of Americans asking them for definitions of legal terms, authority of law, grant sources for pilot tests and developments and other such "nonsense."

This is fantastic news and gives me a reason to give thanks today! For the first time in almost eleven years I have hope that the communitarian agenda for reinventing American government will go public, be debated (legitimately) and finally go before ALL the voters who pay for it.

Why are communitarians so quick to sling mud in the faces of Americans who want to know more about Local Agenda 21? Because American voters were never told anything about it. Our people were never supposed to have any voice in the decision to implement it. And, up until now, we didn't. The irrefutable FACT of this whole matter is the same as it's been since I first uncovered it in Seattle in 1999: most Americans have never heard anything about it, not even the ones who participate in passing the plans! LA21 changes our entire legal system and anyone who asks where the authority for doing that comes from is a nutcase? Yeah right.

Here's the communitarian's idea of damage control: Insult your opponent and hope that deters others from thinking they have any right to answers. Slander them, mock their education, ridicule their lifestyle, dis their culture.. whatever is easiest to identify. Show zero respect for their nation, their laws or their customs. Violate their space, threaten their livelihood, bribe, steal, trick, deceive, lie, cheat, sneer, yawn, disrupt, stalk, terrorize... it's all okay because the ends justifies the means.

The Tea Party Targets... Sustainable Development? If you believe conservative activists, smart growth is really a global conspiracy to herd Americans into "human habitation zones." By Stephanie Mencimer http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/11/tea-party-agenda-21-un-sustainable-development?page=2

"The scene in Maine is repeating itself across the country. Only sometimes the activists are less polite. One planning consultant I spoke with, who requested anonymity, recalled a recent meeting where he was on the receiving end of tea party rage. "I got called a communist," he says. Someone in another tea party-heavy area recently told him, "We don't need none of that smart growth communism." The people he's been encountering are new to the process, short on solid facts, and many are "spitting mad." Combined with what they see as an "elitist" bent in planning consultants, he says, it makes for a toxic and intimidating mix for local officials who aren't used to being accosted by conspiracy theory wielding activists."

For the past ten years I've heard the claim that UN Local Agenda 21 is a conspiracy theory. It never seemed to matter that the document exists and that America is being modified to adopt its principles. The term conspiracy theorist is thrown out EVERY TIME an average American citizen asks a legitimate question about the plan to rebuild America into communities. And no matter who responds, the questions are never answered honestly, and insults are all we hear.

Isn't it amazing how many different ways communitarians can skirt direct questions? It must be part of their academic training because they all use the same meaningless insults no matter what kind of people they're confronted by. Anyone outside the "development loop" who shows even the slightest interest in questioning the validity of UN sustainable development is a: tin foil hat, conspiracy theorist, paranoid obstructionist, credulous fool, ignorant back woods hick, mad hatter, wing nut, terminally moronic, white racist, Nazi thug, 2oth century Neanderthal, etc, etc.

The Tea Party's "livability" paranoia, by Jonathan Hiskes, 23 Nov 2010 5:23 PM
http://www.grist.org/article/2010-11-23-the-tea-partys-livability-paranoia

I am not a right wing conservative, I am not a Libertarian and I didn't vote for Ron Paul, but I did send out a letter to the Tea Party asking them to consider making communitarian community development one of their issues. While my "open letter" may have only reached a very small percentage of those members, it's entirely possible I had something to do with putting LA21 on the Tea Party's agenda. Maybe that's why one of my readers told me I've reached millions of people through my work. Nordica and I laughed at that... we just did a count of how many books we've sold and joked about putting "Over 400 copies sold!" on the new cover. I am going to work my butt off to get the new books ready asap... we can certainly fill in those "short on solid facts" areas for some people. This is why understanding the communitarian philosophy and system of LAW is so necessary to seeing the truth about SD.... otherwise objecting to it makes no sense. We have to decide on whether to adopt the principles as well as the plans.

Happy Thanksgiving from our house to yours. We're fortunate enough to have a ham and some fixin's, and we hope you are too. Might just turn on the piano and pretend we're at my moms too. Our family always started rehearsing for Christmas after Thanksgiving dinner. Been many years since we were all together for the holidays... the last time I sang Christmas carols with my sisters and my brother was during a family reunion in 1998.. in August. Ever since I began researching LA21 I stopped enjoying a full life. I'm thinking of happier times today.

New Zeal from Maggie at Unsolicited Opinion radio

Maggie sent an email update about her scheduled guests, Henry Lamb and Trevor Loudon. I've never heard of Loudon before and at first glance of his site I wasn't interested in reading any more of the left v right nonsense libertarian political pundits continue to peddle. But then I scrolled down and got to all his research about Marxist and Communist ties to Mark Ritchie: http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2010/11/mark-ritchie-file-4-minnesota-sos.html

Loudon links to eye opening research like http://www.keywiki.org/index.php/New_Party
Wouldn't it be a bonus if Trevor has also researched "right wing" radicals like Rand, the Libertarian Party, John Birchers, Freemasons, and Christian Zionists with the same scrutiny? He recovered from his socialist upbringing after reading Atlas Shrugged. What book will help him recover from Rand's Hegelian Libertarian ideology? At what point do Libertarians move to the communitarian middle? Before they know what it is.... or after?

A search of Loudon's site shows the use of the word Communitarian... in the comments:
http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2010/08/concious-capitalism.html

"theSandMan said... Communitarian thinking at its best! If you do not know the term, look it up. It is the Trojan Horse ideology that has spread through corporate America, government, Associations and even Churches like a cancer. In this case, most Doctor's don't even know what it is, let alone how to stop it." http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2010/08/phoenix-economy.html?showComment=1282139625238

and in quotes:
http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2010/10/new-book-confirms-obama-socialist.html?showComment=1286972505634

http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2008/01/nandor-tanczos-anti-capitalist.html

Nothing else at New Zeal about Communitarianism. Amazing, isn't it? Maybe our friend Maggie will ask him about why he hasn't written anything about it, for us. :)

Redistributing the truth one word at a time...

Heard live every Wednesday 8P EST and Friday 5PM EST via

AM radio 1360 in Philadelphia

www.theunsolicitedopinion.com

www.talkstreamlive.com

www.WNJC1360AM.COM

replay M-F 4pm EST & Sat. 3-5pm EST via www.NetTalkWorld.com

Heard live Sundays @ NOON EST via

www.micro1650am.com/orionradionetwork.html

Libertarian Communitarianism - Nolan Chart, Zeitgeist and the Venus Project

Tonight I did a recent search of blogs using the word communitarian and found a post at nolanchart.com called The Ethics of Capitalism vs. Socialism vs. Communitarianism, "A focus on the moral distinctions between different social systems: Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, Altruism, Statism & Communitarianism, including and introducing Jacque Fresco's futurist society" by Jose Roldan: the Abolitionist, (libertarian) Thursday, April 8, 2010.

Mr. Roldan makes some bold and sweeping assumptions about Communitarianism, not the least being his assurance that the internet is the first evolutionary stage of a communitarian society:

"The ultimate expression of communitarianism - (my term not his), is Jacque Fresco's Venus Project. In this social engineering vision of a future social system devoid of capitalism or socialism the needs and human rights of the community are provided for by a combination of volunteers and robotic mechanization.

"The basic fundamental principle is that all of the world's natural resources belong to all. As the sun begins its trajectory across the sky radiating more free energy upon the Earth in one day than in centuries of human fossil-burning activity, the logic of harnessing and living in harmony with Nature seems sublime.

"The ethics of a free public library has made the technological leap to the internet and only statist government intrusion will try to curtail this natural advancement in freedom of information and expression. The internet is the greatest example of today's communitarianism, one that we all embrace and acknowledge as a huge step forward in man's evolution, as significant today as the Gutenburg press of yesterday. To the children of today, the internet is as free and natural as the sunshine.

"While Fresco's vision of the future may seem hindered by our own negative associations with the failed and failing systems of socialism and communism, rest assured that the internet is none other than part of this technological and social eventuality. It represents the first preliminary stage of a communitarian society and the end of capitalism and our artificial political and economic world as we know it."

The Zeitgeist movies claim to be an expose of the "real" conspiracy and then leads the viewers into accepting communitarianism as the solution! Brilliant really, and a lot of people are duped by this angle. It has a growing following, the producer is said to be inspirational, and The Zeitgeist Movement is the activist arm of The Venus Project http://www.thevenusproject.com/

Is Amitai Etzioni, the father of the Communitarian movement, a human being or a robot?

Defining Communitarianism - Is it law, theory or religion?

“The vast majority of your rights are not constitutional,” he asserted. “Most of them can be taken away. Once upon a time, people would have thought it outrageous to have someone pass his hands over your body, and to have to take your shoes off in order to get on an airplane,” he continued. “As it turned out, that freedom was not below the constitutional minimum. Congress could eliminate it.” Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia - Justice Challenges Privacy Rights at Talmudic Conference

Is there a way to define communitarianism that makes immediate sense to TV trained Americans? I never really directed my articles toward Star Trek fans or regular viewers of Friends. I was fairly certain they were not interested in anything I wrote, simple or complex, based on the bored and sarcastic reactions I got from my RL family and friends who watch TV every day and get all their news from mainstream media. In the past decade since I found the word communitarianism and began writing about it, I have noticed more and more people using communitarian terms and phrases... yet none of them seem to care what it is they're repeating. I am to the point where I never talk about anything real to the Americans I meet in my daily life.

Most people who mention it in their writings refer their readers to wikipedia for a definition of communitarianism. Then, for some reason, they never mention it again. There are many people writing about LA21 now, but most of the leading "freedom" experts refuse to explain the philosophy and never address the verifiable legal system LA21 is based upon. I do not trust most of the people who put U.S. flags and claim to promote "freedom" all over their websites because these are usually the groups that either ignore communitarianism or, like Dave Hodges at Freedom's Phoenix, just plagiarize my research in order to make themselves the "expert."

Here's the whitewashed definition from answers.com:

http://www.answers.com/topic/communitarianism

I've tried this a hundred times or more already, but okay, here's my latest short definition:

Communitarianism is the global "community" legal system. It strikes a balance between fascism, eugenics, communism, socialism, capitalism, environmentalism, warmongering, democracy, and totalitarian dictatorships with mysticism, Biblical, Talmudic and Sharia moral platforms.

Travel News from msnbc.com

Here's the latest news from the mainstream viewpoint, includes a story about a man with a urostomy bag having a humiliating experience during a TSA pat down, videos, and a list of all the U.S. airports now offering the new enhanced security.

Does anybody else remember how fun it used to be to fly? People had huge parties at the airports, meeting arrivals and seeing people off was normal for Americans. I tended bar at both major Alaskan airports so I know airport bars were our old social hubs, even for people traveling with children. Then the communitarians came along and started regulating Americans' public drinking and smoking and eating and in my opinion, it's all gone straight downhill from there. I believe that when we allowed trained facilitators to tell us what was bad for us and allowed them to press their opinions into law, we gave up our adulthood and became wards of Big Mother. If our neo government has the power to tell us how many drinks we can order in one night, then why would we expect to be able to say we won't pull our pants down if we need a spanking?

Seems like all kinds of horror stories about tsa harassment that happened over the past eight years are being revived for recently planned "opt out" days. I read a new old story every day. Makes me wonder what it would have been like if the Germans and Italians had internet in the 30s and we moderns had all their blogs and facebook pages to study for similarities.

It's kind of weird but I'm getting regular hits on the TSA job post I made of the local craigslist ad for Anchorage Airport TSA testers, from people looking for information about how to apply. Is it ethical for me to trick unsuspecting people into coming to my blog?

TSA pat-down leaves traveler covered in urine
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40291856/ns/travel-news

SNL TSA spoof http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joIxWcFO3bY

Song/video: Don't Touch My Junk (with a blatant pitch for Alex Jones embedded in the script) http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/70298.html

Thanks to Connie for finding these links!

CONGRESSIONAL LETTER URGES OBAMA TO RELEASE SPY JONATHAN POLLARD

Dr. Amitai Etzioni once explained his duel Israeli/US citizenship status as not a big deal and insists it's nothing anyone in the U.S. should be concerned about. He said his loyalty is clear. Because he is the "everything expert" his mystical, sage advice should never be questioned.

In the google book excerpt I used for Etzioni's name above, from The Communitarian Reader, he (along with Elanit Rothschild) advises we establish "appropriate principles and practices" regardng the conflicts of dual citizenship, and that there is a "principle that the nation of permanent residence takes priority." (I wasn't able to easily find that exact principle or where it's stated... maybe it's a Zionist or a Talmudic principle? Or hey, maybe it's in the Kaballah? )

"It is Important to mention, in that many people do not know it, that two of AIPACs top officials will soon go on trial for espionage agaisnt the US for the crime of illegally receiving classifed US intel on Iran with the intent of using the information to help foment war between the US and Iran." Comment by Justtellthetruth 09:29 PM on 10/05/2007 at Etzioni's article about the Israeli Lobby and authors John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt relying mainly on anecdotal information: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amitai-etzioni/small-lies-big-lies-and-t_b_67158.html

Here's how blatant U.S. elected representatives are about their loyalty to Israel first. This list of U.S. Congressmen shows exactly why American voters are the biggest joke in sociology circles.

CONGRESSIONAL LETTER URGES OBAMA TO RELEASE SPY JONATHAN POLLARD, http://www.intifada-palestine.com/2010/11/congressional-letter-urges-obama-to-release-spy-jonathan-pollard/
Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

Jonathan Jay Pollard, the former civilian Naval intelligence analyst who pleaded guilty to spying for Israel, was sentenced to life in prison in 1987. According to Ian Williams’ article in the July/Aug. 1993 Washington Report (see link below): “although Pollard insists he was motivated by concern for Israeli security, he was paid (and is still being paid) a handsome salary by the Israeli government. His Israeli handlers also provided gifts and trips to Europe for Pollard and his wife, Anne. The severity of Pollard’s sentence was based on secret testimony by [then-Defense Secretary] Caspar Weinberger, who is on record as saying that Pollard was lucky–he should have received three life sentences. Pollard provided Israeli intelligence with more than 1,000 classified U.S. documents, some consisting of hundreds of pages, comprising overall some 360 cubic feet of paper.

“According to American investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, Pollard sold information on nuclear targets in the Soviet Union to Israel. U.S. defense sources suggest that what caused the most bitter anger against Pollard in the Pentagon and throughout the American intelligence community was the fact that the information compromised human agents in the Soviet Union and elsewhere. U.S. intelligence sources have concluded that the Israeli government bartered this information to the Soviet Union.”

Until 1998 Israel publicly denied that Pollard was an Israeli spy–even though it granted him citizenship in 1995.

The most recent salvo in the relentless campaign to release Pollard is a letter circulated by Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and signed by more than 30 Democratic members of the (U.S) House of Representatives calling on President Barack Obama to grant clemency to the confessed spy. Please contact the members of Congress who signed the letter reprinted below to express your opinion on their advocacy for someone who has done incalculable damage to this country. Express your appreciation to members of Congress who did not sign, and urge them to resist pressure from their Israel-first colleagues. And write President Obama to register your disapproval of this letter, which was written in coordination with the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, National Council of Young Israel, B’nai B””rith International, the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, the Zionist Organization of America, Agudath Israel, and former presidential candidate Gary Bauer, a Christian Zionist whose non-profit organization “American Values” seems to be more concerned with Israel than the United States.

November 18, 2010

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

We write to urge you to use your constitutional power to extend clemency to Jonathan Pollard, thereby releasing him from prison after the time he has already served. Mr. Pollard committed serious crimes and he has expressed remorse. Such an exercise of the clemency power would not in any way imply doubt about his guilt, nor cast any aspersions on the process by which he was convicted. Those who have such views are of course entitled to continue to have them, but the clemency grant has nothing to do with that.

We believe that there has been a great disparity from the standpoint of justice between the amount of time Mr. Pollard has served and the time that has been served — or not served at all — by many others who were found guilty of similar activity on behalf of nations that, like Israel, are not adversarial to us. It is indisputable in our view that the nearly twenty-five years that Mr. Pollard has served stands as a sufficient time from the standpoint of either punishment or deterrence.

In summary, we see clemency for Mr. Pollard as an act of compassion justified by the way others have been treated by our justice system. We urge you to use the clemency power in this case.

Sincerely,

Barney Frank (D-MA)

Gary L. Ackerman (D-NY)

Robert E. Andrews (D-NJ)

Shelley Berkley (D-NV)

Robert A. Brady (D-PA)

Danny Davis (D-IL)

Theodore E. Deutsch (D-FL)

Eliot L. Engel (D-NY)

John J. Hall (D-NY)

James A. Himes (D-CT)

Maurice D. Hinchey (D-NY)

Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX)

Patrick J. Kennedy (D-RI)

John Lewis (D-GA)

Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY)

Michael E. McMahon (D-NY)

Gregory W. Meeks (D-NY)

Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)

Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC)

John W. Olver (D-MA)

Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ)

Bill Pascrell, Jr. (D-NJ)

Donald M. Payne (D-NJ)

Charles B. Rangel (D-NY)

Laura Richardson (D-CA)

Janice D. Schakowsky (D-IL)

Robert C. “Bobby” Scott (D-VA)

Brad Sherman (D-CA)

Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS)

Edolphus Towns (D-NY)

Niki Tsongas (D-MA)

Henry A. Waxman (D-CA)

Anthony Weiner (D-NY)

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Jerusalem Post, Nov. 19, 2010: www.jpost.com/home/article.aspx?id=195988>;

Ian Williams, “A Tale of Two Spies,” July/August 1993 Washington Report, p. 13: http://www.wrmea.org/component/content/article/149-1993-july-august/7255-a-tale-of-two-spies.html

Paul Findley, “Clinton Under Pressure to Grant Clemency to Pollard,” June 1993 Washington Report, p. 15: http://www.wrmea.org/component/content/article/148-1993-june/7215-clinton-under-pressure-to-grant-clemency-to-pollard.html

Source : Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

In totally related "health" news, here's how the D.C. lobbies continue to build communitarian legal competences and preferences in the U.S., since it's all about harmonization and norms. Anyone who hasn't heard about S.510 yet probably doesn't care what it is anyway:

Name of Senator - Party & State - Bribe For S.510 or Bribe Against S.510

http://www.libertynewsonline.com/article_301_29693.php


Daniel Akaka - D HI - Bribe For: $27,690 - Against: $700

Lamar Alexander - R TN - Bribe For: $190,421 - Against: $4,850

John Barrasso - R WY - For: $31,350 - Against: $27,500

Max Baucus - D MT - Bribe for: $123,803 - Against: $55,980

Evan Bayh - D IN - Bribe For: $45,200 - Against: 8,250 {THIRD WAY SENATE COMMITTEE}

Mark Begich - D AK - Brobe For: $23,050 - Against: $2,000 (Anchorage 2020-UN LA21}

Michael Bennet - D CO - Bribe For: $38,509 - Against: $22,050

Robert Bennett - R UT - Bribe For: $105,530 - Against: $10,000

Jeff Bingaman - D NM - Bribe For: $31,498 - Against: $8,450

Christopher Bond - R MO - Bribe For: $49,550 - Against: $5,200

Barbara Boxer - D CA - Bribe For: $120,000 - Against: $13,650

Sherrod Brown - D OH - Bribe For: $57,800 - Against: $6,600

Samuel Brownback - R KS - Bribe For: $20,950 - Against: $13,500

Jim Bunning - R KY - Brobe For: $20,700 - Against: $2,000

Richard Burr - R NC - Bribe For: $328,086 - Against: $32,292

Roland Burris - D IL - Bribe For: $0 - Against: $0

Maria Cantwell - D WA - Bribe For: $93,541 - Against: $2,750

Benjamin Cardin - D MD - Bribe For: $72,200 - Against: $0

Thomas Carper - D DE - Bribe For: $83,150 - Against: $0

Robert Casey - D PA - Bribe For: $80,576 - Against: $4,600

Saxby Chambliss - R GA - Bribe For: $557,694 - Against: $108,041

Thomas Coburn R OK - Bribe For: $64,400 - Against: $14,200

Thad Cochran - R MS - Bribe For: $50,144 - Against: $22,000

Susan Collins - R ME - Bribe For: $157,438 - Against: $7,800

Kent Conrad - D ND - Bribe For: $41,650 - Against: $29,612

Bob Corker - R TN - Bribe For: $298,639 - Against: $8,850

John Cornyn - R TX - Bribe For: $286,648 - Against: $254,730

Michael Crapo - R ID - Bribe For: $64,199 - Against: $14,350

Jim DeMint - R SC - Bribe For: $149,935 - Against: $5,000

Christopher Dodd - D CT - Bribe For: $36,400 - Against: $4,500

Byron Dorgan - D ND - Bribe For: $28,200 - Against: $6,000

Richard Durbin - D IL - Bribe For: $151,050 - Against: $19,000

John Ensign - R NV - Bribe For: $76,297 - Against: $10,500

Michael Enzi - R WY - Bribe For: $87,394 - Against: $21,450

Russell Feingold - D WI - Bribe For: $53,854 - Against: $2,200

Dianne Feinstein - D CA - Bribe For: $168,189 - Against: 25,314

Kirsten Gillibrand - D NY - Bribe For: $98,210 - Against: $10,650

Lindsey Graham - R SC - Bribe For: $101,272 - Against: $5,700

Charles Grassley - R IA - Brobe For: $112,150 - Against: $25,500

Judd Gregg - R NH - Bribe For: $26,000 - Against: $0

Kay Hagan - D NC - Bribe For: $36,250 - Against: $3,500

Thomas Harkin - D IA - Bribe For: $138,135 - Against: $40,600

Orrin Hatch - R UT - Bribe For: $102,215 - Against: $11,600

Kay Hutchison - R TX - Bribe For: $127,811 - Against: $103,386

James Inhofe - R OK - Bribe For: $66,744 - Against: $36,430

Daniel Inouye - D HI - Bribe For: $26,350 - Against: $11,200

John Isakson - R GA - Bribe For: $280,995 - Against: $10,100

Mike Johanns - R NE - Bribe For: $159,259 - Against: $59,785

Tim Johnson - D SD - Bribe For: $26,850 - Against: $15,000

Edward Kaufman - D DE - Bribe For: $0 - Against: $0

John Kerry - D MA - Bribe For: $14,406 - Against: $250

Amy Klobuchar - D MN - Bribe For: $149,778 - Against: $16,250

Herbert Kohl - D WI - Bribe For: $300 - Against: $0

Jon Kyl - R AZ - Bribe For: $363,660 - Against: $58,906

Mary Landrieu - D LA - Bribe For: $73,622 - Against: $2,250

Frank Lautenberg - D NJ - Bribe For: $37,883 - Agqinst: $3,550

Patrick Leahy - D VT - Bribe For: $13,800 - Against: $2,750

Carl Levin - D MI - Bribe For: $49,900 - Against: $2,000

Joseph Lieberman - I CT - Bribe For: $121,075 - Against: $0

Blanche Lincoln - D AR - Bribe For: $347,526 - Against: $125,297

Richard Lugar - R IN - Bribe For: $153,579 - Against: $21,000

John McCain - R AZ - Bribe For: $118,070 - Against: $21,525

Claire McCaskill - D MO - Bribe For: $48,950 - Against: $7,650

Mitch McConnell - R KY - Bribe For: $439,593 - Against: $42,244

Robert Menéndez - D NJ - Bribe For: $183,850 - Against: $250

Jeff Merkley - D OR - Bribe For: $27,350 - Against; $3,300

Barbara Mikulski - D MD - Bribe For: $52,165 - Against: $1,000

Lisa Murkowski - R AK - Bribe For: $164,713 - Against: $5,800

Patty Murray - D WA - Bribe For: $136,500 - Against: $3,150

Ben Nelson - D NE - Bribe For: $254,906 - Against: $44,950

Bill Nelson - D FL - Bribe For: $205,471 - Against: $35,748

Mark Pryor - D AR - Bribe For: $115,550 - Against: $16,565

John Reed - D RI - Bribe For: $29,350 - Against: $0

Harry Reid - D NV - Bribe For: $133,985 - Against: $10,000

James Risch - R ID - Bribe For: $56,750 - Against; $36,050

Pat Roberts - R KS - Bribe For: $167,294 - Against: $65,186

John Rockefeller - D WV - Bribe For: $21,250 - Against: $1,000

Bernard Sanders - I VT - Bribe For: $7,800 - Against: $4,200

Charles Schumer - D NY - Bribe For: $175,185 - Against: $14,200

Jefferson Sessions - R AL - Bribe For: $65,303 - Against: $16,800

Jeanne Shaheen - D NH - Bribe For: $17,090 - Against: $7,300

Richard Shelby - R AL - Bribe For: $73,616 - Against: $10,000

Olympia Snowe - R ME - Bribe For: $78,136 - Against: $2,000

Arlen Specter - D PA - Bribe For: $209,124 - Against: $9,400

Debbie Ann Stabenow - D MI - Bribe For: $84,941 - Against: $14,482

Jon Tester - D MT - Bribe For: $21,250 - Against: $61,550

John Thune - R SD - Bribe For: $218,900 - Against: $55,625

Mark Udall - D CO - Bribe For: $34,435 - Against: $45,050

Tom Udall - D NM - Bribe For: $27,102 - Against: $51,900

David Vitter - R LA - Bribe For: $188,225 - Against: $8,500

George Voinovich - R OH - Bribe For: $103,850 - Against: $185

Mark Warner - D VA - Bribe For: $116,450 - Against: $8,600

Jim Webb - D VA - Bribe For: $25,300 - Against: $7,700

Sheldon Whitehouse- D RI - Bribe For: $27,025 - Against: $1,500

Roger Wicker - R MS - Bribe For: $147,650 - Against: $16,250

Ron Wyden - D OR - Bribe For: $58,700 - Against: $4,900

Here's a list of the Special Interest Groups that support S.510 and how much they bribed (I mean donated) to Senators:

Restaurants & drinking establishments $3,217,767
Food and kindred products manufacturing $1,753,503
Milk & dairy producers $1,717,687
Food stores $1,473,532
Beverages (non-alcoholic) $744,551
Vegetables, fruits and tree nut $709,238
Veterinarians $551,750
Beverage bottling & distribution $289,725
Food wholesalers $284,900
Food & Beverage Products and Services $281,137
Fishing $277,984
Chambers of commerce $219,234
Manufacturing $207,740
Food catering & food services $171,835
Confectionery processors & manufacturers $96,438
Consumer groups $6,100
Farm bureaus $0

Here's a list of Here's a list of the Special Interest Groups that sopposed S.510 and how much they bribed (I mean donated) to Senators:


Milk & dairy producers $1,717,687
Livestock $1,561,207
Farm organizations & cooperatives $412,976
Consumer groups $6,100
Farmers, crop unspecified $0

I wonder how the Senators will Vote when the bill reaches the floor of the Senate?

Communitarian Super Heroes!

This is not a prank story. It really happened.

Police alerted to 'superheroes' patrolling Seattle

By CASEY MCNERTHNEY
SEATTLEPI.COM STAFF

Seattle police say a group of self-described superheroes have been patrolling the streets at night trying to save people from crime. They call themselves the Rain City Superhero Movement and say they're part of a nationwide movement of real-life crime fighters.

The national website -- cited in a police bulletin sent to Seattle officers Wednesday -- states

"a Real Life Superhero is whoever chooses to embody the values presented in super heroic comic books, not only by donning a mask/costume, but also performing good deeds for the communitarian place whom he inhabits."

Police say the "costume-wearing complainants" are lucky they haven't been hurt."

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/430430_super19.html

I don't know about you, but this story may be the first time we've found something referring to communitarian that just made us laugh. Sure hard to explain anti communitarianism in this context.

How bizarre that the neighborhood in the article is where we lived and started the ACL, back before anyone knew what communitarian places were. And it sounds weird but I doubt this brave masked crusader meant to say "whom" because he thinks a communitarian place is a person, I'm assuming he meant "which." I do wonder where he learned to use the word communitarian place. Maybe we should track him down and arrange a secret interview.

I know my 3 year old grandson would think it's a great idea! He plays Batman all the time.

Well duh, went and read their website and not laughing as much anymore. It's all tied to their belief in "community service." They're tools for the evolving collective... and that's not funny at all. So much for my looking at the brighter side of life. :)

Adept Congressman takes us down the dialectical path

Airports Weigh Congressman's Call To Ditch TSA

Published: November 18, 2010

by The Associated Press

In a climate of Internet campaigns to shun airport pat-downs and veteran pilots suing over their treatment by government screeners, some airports are considering another way to show dissatisfaction: ditching TSA agents altogether.

Federal law allows airports to opt for screeners from the private sector instead. The push is being led by a powerful Florida congressman who's a longtime critic of the Transportation Security Administration and counts among his campaign contributors some of the companies who might take the TSA's place.

Furor over airline passenger checks has grown as more airports have installed scanners that produce digital images of the body's contours, and the anger intensified when TSA added a more intrusive style of pat-down recently for those who opt out of the full-body scans. Some travelers are using the Internet to organize protests aimed at the busy travel days next week surrounding Thanksgiving.

For Republican Rep. John Mica of Florida, the way to make travelers feel more comfortable would be to kick TSA employees out of their posts at the ends of the snaking security lines. This month, he wrote letters to nation's 100 busiest airports asking that they request private security guards instead.

"I think we could use half the personnel and streamline the system," Mica said Wednesday, calling the TSA a bloated bureaucracy.

So, now the "debates" are not over whether HS/TSA performs a legitimate function in a free society, it's between using govt thugs versus private sector thugs. Who wins that argument?

"The Doctrine of Union Preemption in the EU Single Market: Between Sein and Sollen"

Under a global system of governance, all people must live under the same laws. Which laws rule supreme is what determines the character of the global system.

From the Jean Monet Working Paper Series:
Amedeo Arena, "The Doctrine of Union Preemption in the EU Single Market:Between Sein and Sollen" (JMWP no. 03/10)

"The introduction of a competence catalogue in the TFEU by the Treaty of Lisbon eliminated the overlap between the preclusion of national lawmaking powers attributable to the exclusive character of EU competences and that stemming from the enactment of EU legislation, thus opening the doors to scholarly investigation of Union Preemption as a general theory of the effects of EU legislation in non-exclusive competence areas. The first aim of this work is to describe what Union Preemption is ("Sein") in the context of the EU single market, thus allowing, given an item of EU legislation, to determine its preemptive scope by reference to certain "markers", such as its legal form and the harmonization model it embodies. Against the background of the existing application uncertainties, this work further seeks to suggest what Union Preemption ought to be ("Sollen") to meet the current needs of European integration, taking into account the diversity of situations where preemption issues arise and the changes in the legal, political, and economic context that have occurred in the single market since 1957."

What is preemtion? It's the decision over WHICH law holds more weight. In the U.S. that would be federal law over a conflicting state law:

"The doctrine of federal preemption declares that federal law displaces overlapping or potentially conflicting state law.1" http://www.willamette.edu/wucl/pdf/review/41-3/rice.pdf

In the EU, that would be Community Law over a conflicting national law:
http://eulaw.typepad.com/eulawblog/2005/10/gmos_preemption.html

Article on the relationship between the UK and the EU
http://eulaw.typepad.com/eulawblog/2006/01/article_on_the_.html?no_prefetch=1

The relationship between the United Kingdom and the EU is one of those fascinating topics that just seems to get more complex the more you look into it. So it is good to point to a refreshingly original and carefully researched article by a British academic, Richard Mullender of the Newcastle Law School. The article is entitled "Two Nomoi and a Clash of Narratives: The Story of the United Kingdom and the European Union". You can download it here (you may need to register, but it's free to do so for just the odd download).

This is what the abstract states :

"Robert Cover’s argument in Nomos and Narrative applies to a system of municipal law (that of the U.S.A.). This article seeks to demonstrate that Cover’s claims concerning nomoi and narratives have relevance to relations between the United Kingdom and the European Union (a non-municipal context, in which the concept of supranationalism figures prominently). While making this move from a municipal to a non-municipal setting, central strands in Cover’s argument are explained or developed by reference to the literary theory of Mikhail Bakhtin, communitarian political philosophy, and the writings of Isaiah Berlin and Joseph Raz on value incommensurability. Along with Cover, these writers are used to analyse a clash between a narrative of redemption (associated with the pursuit of European integration) and British narratives of insularity (which run on, among other things, the themes of independence and sovereignty). This essay concludes by identifying these two types of narratives as standing in a relationship of ineliminable tension."

Really, it rewards reading.

(emphasis in the first graph and eternal links in the abstract added by Niki)

See also:
http://nafcucomplianceblog.typepad.com/nafcu_weblog/preemption/

Becoming the Communitarian Middle

A + B = Z
anti-war versus war equals
peaceful nuclear war

Rainmaking in Afghanistan
by Amitai Etzioni

The reports from our generals in Afghanistan—trying to convince the public to support extension of the war, to be shortly reviewed by the President-- remind me of a study by anthropologist E. E. Evans-Pritchard. He wondered how rain makers could stay in business, given that they hardly produce rain on demand. The shamans, he found, had well-honed explanations that kept them in business. Our generals are using the same rationales to keep going. When no raindrops followed the rain makers’ dance, they would claim that the dance was not properly performed. Our generals argue that we did not fight right in the first six years of our engagement in Afghanistan—but now they have found a better way: it is called counterinsurgency. So far, though, it has not produced any better results.

If still no rain was coming the rain makers in Africa would argue that some external force interfered, and it is to be blamed for their failings. Our generals are employing a similar argument . Indeed, they name the external force. They call it Pakistan—which provides a safe haven for the Taliban—and the ISI is said to arm them and provide them with intelligence and training. True enough, but this “external” force is not going away.

And if countering the external force with a new dance still did not do the trick, the shamans held that the dance had to be done over again, and that it will rain—only later. The generals argue that they need more time; they assure us they will prevail by 2014 or by 2015, or—some say—it will take even longer.

Indeed, the generals have a rationale they can add to the rain makers’ repertoire. They say that they did not have enough “dancers”. And whatever additional numbers they get is never enough.

There is one very telling difference. Eventually, it would rains and “validate” the shamans. I am far from sure that our generals will be able to keep us supporting their “dances” for long enough for them to win in Afghanistan, if only because what winning means is changing all the time.

We first were in Afghanistan—in wake of the 2001 attacks on our homeland to ensure that it did not harbor terrorists. Indeed, as late as 2009 President Obama defined our mission there as “to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda,” period. Since then, the mission has been expanded to include building a legitimate and effective government in this 12th-century country, in order to prevent future terrorists from making it their home, a very tall order, at best. We recently added that we cannot leave unless the Taliban agree to abide by the Afghan constitution that guarantees women’s rights. We are now also told that we must stay there to avoid a civil war.

The most recent twist, in this ever changing –and growing—rationale is that if we leave, it would “be a big shot in the arm to different militant groups in the region, groups that are not just Taliban insurgents—and they are diverse—but groups such as the Lashkar-e-Taiba that are fighting into Kashmir and want to attack India, and groups in Tariqi Taliban in Pakistan that are fighting the Pakistanis,” according to Caroline Wadhams, Director for South Asia Security Studies at the influential Center for American Progress. Still others argue that India will be troubled if Pakistan can unduly influence the post–U.S. Afghanistan, and—that Pakistan will be upset if India gains more influence after we leave. Some even argued that our retreat could lead to a regional war.

Those of us who opposed the war in Vietnam and the 2003 invasion of Iraq, find all this all too familiar. Generals are wisely very reluctant to go to war, but once they do, they hate cutting their losses and calling it a day. This is why we must raise our voices. We cannot build a legitimate, effective government in Afghanistan. We should let the people of Afghanistan figure out what kind of government they want. And it is up to Pakistan and India to work out their differences, curb terrorist groups that aim to undermine their regimes. We never could be the world’s policeman, and we are less equipped to do so now than we were in more affluent days. Above all, never mind the shamans’ excuses. Look at the result, here and now.

Amitai Etzioni is a professor of international relations at the George Washington University and the author of Security First (Yale 2007).

http://blog.amitaietzioni.org/2010/11/rainmaking-in-afghanistan.html

For more information, please visit:
-The Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies at www.icps.gwu.edu
-The Communitarian Network at http://communitariannetwork.org/

If you do not wish to continue receiving mailings from us, please send a message to icps@gwu.edu with the subject line "unsubscribe."

The Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies
The George Washington University
1922 F St. NW, Rm. 413
Washington, DC 20052
ph: 202.994.8190
fax: 202.994.1606
icps.gwu.edu

Where does Iranian opinion fit into Etzioni's dialectic? It doesn't.

The Mafia Principle that drives U.S. foreign policy means that the power elites cannot tolerate the slightest open defiance from any entity, even when that entity is not a serious threat to their global interests. This mafia principle is the overwhelming driver for the U.S. war preparations against Iran. The possibility of gaining effective control over Iran's vast hydrocarbon resources, educated workforce, and substantial market, however remote, is but an added bonus that could turn the ruling elites' wildest wet dream into reality. Failing that, there is always the exciting prospect of breaking up the country into more managable pieces. Bomb Iran Back to the Stone Age: U.S. Army Journal Cover Story by BabakSabzevari
24-Jun-2010 http://www.iranian.com/main/blog/babaksabzevari/bomb-iran-back-stone-age-u-s-army-journal-cover-story

Etzioni praises autocracy as efficient, blames "democracy" for our nation's woes

Dr. Amitai Etzioni bills himself as the "everything expert"... because he knows more than any other Israeli just about everything there is to know about terrorism and the need for building a safer global military police state.

"If I were an actuary selling insurance for death by asteroid or death by terrorism, I'd charge about the same premium for either one." Alan W. Harris
Senior Research Scientist, Space Science Institute

In an opinion piece at CNN today, Amitai Etzioni poses the Tea Party against the Fed:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/11/16/etzioni.fed.teaparty/

Here's Etzioni's moral argument in favor of TSA full body scanners:
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/78250/private-security-virtual-strip-search?page=0,1

Did Etzioni really say we should bomb Iran back to the Stone Age?
http://www.iranian.com/main/blog/babaksabzevari/bomb-iran-back-stone-age-u-s-army-journal-cover-story

Did Etzioni really say we should bomb Iran's civilian infrastructure:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/24/etzioni_time_to_bomb_irans_civilian_infrastructure/

Etzioni seems to be less subtle about his true intentions in the Israeli press;
http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/focus-u-s-a/focus-u-s-a-the-u-s-will-have-to-confront-iran-or-give-up-the-middle-east-1.297931

Here's Etzioni's feelings about (goyim?) civilian casualties:
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/magazine/76426/afghanistan-war-troops-taliban

"The notion of engagement and turning another cheek is a wonderful idea, it’s just not working.” Former Israeli terrorist Dr. Amitai Etzioni on the futility of Western Christian values.

“Gentiles need to die….goyim have no place in the world.” Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, founder of the Shas Party, part of the Likud coalition headed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/10/20/gordon-duff-israeli-rabbi-gentiles-need-to-die/

"Etzioni was on a panel in our temple about a year after 9/11. I was so excited because I had read his work during my sociology graduate program.

Wow was he a disappointment! He was on with Chertoff (Chertoff was then working at Homeland Security under Ridge) and he lied more than Chertoff did.

For example, in talking about people rounded up, hauled in for questioning and detained after 9/11, he claimed that it was no big deal and that the longest anyone had been held without contact was 3 hours! Chertoff said nothing and actually looked uncomfortable.
Etzioni was vitriolic and hateful and totally closed to any opinions other than his own.
So I'm hardly surprised by his proposal to bomb Iran. Posted by Tamarat June 24, 2010 10:21 AM

Amitai Etzioni, CFR, participates in the
The United States and the Future of Global Governance Roundtable Series
http://www.cfr.org/project/1379/united_states_and_the_future_of_global_governance_roundtable_series.html

The McGraw-Hill Homeland Security Handbook cites Etzioni (next to Shaw!):
http://www.homelandsecuritybook.com/book/section-12---domestic-counterterrorism-and-civil-liberties.html

HARRIS ON TERRORISM AND ASTEROID RISKS

For terrorism deaths I referred to the following web site:
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/intlterror.html
Using statistics compiled by the U.S. Department of State for international terrorism, I tally up an average of about 1,000 deaths per year over the eight years between 1997 and 2004. This includes the one big spike of 9/11, but enough other years to smooth it out to less than half the total. Without 9/11, it would be around 600 per year. So, taking a life span to be 80 years and the population of the world to be 6 billion, we have the chance of death by terrorism in a lifetime to be one in (6 billion)/(80,000), or about one in 75,000. I rounded to 80,000 since the number is at least that uncertain. Note that this process essentially assumes that, in addition to the usual number of deaths from international terrorism, there will be a 9/11-type catastrophe somewhere on the globe every several years. Excluding 9/11 and such repeats, the probability becomes about one in 120,000.

For the asteroid risk, I referred to the NASA report of a few years ago that I participated in (so the numbers are somewhat my own). The publication can be found at: http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/neo/report.html
In that report, we estimate a "nominal" risk from asteroid impacts of about 1,300 deaths/year from all sizes of impacts. That translates to about one in 60,000 using the above population of the planet and human lifetime. However, we are discovering NEAs (near-earth asteroids) all the time, and with each asteroid discovered and certified not to be on a collision course in our lifetimes, the short-term risk (in the next 100 years or so) is reduced. So far we have retired about half the total risk, so it is arguably only about one in 100,000. However, you will see in the report that the range of uncertainty is a factor of several, so it is reasonable to say that the
risk is in the same range as from terrorism, in the general range of one in a hundred thousand.
We know they are out there, we can count them in our telescopes, and we know statistically how often they hit the Earth. We know roughly the statistical probability of any one hitting the Earth, however there is considerable uncertainty concerning the consequences of an impact of a given size. However, other than this uncertainty, the rest is pretty hard fact, even if we have never experienced it even once.

In both cases, the odds vary by region. In the case of terrorism, the most dangerous place to live is in the Middle East. In the case of impact hazard, most dangerous is living along an exposed shoreline where an impact-generated tsunami might get you.
If I were an actuary selling insurance for death by asteroid or death by terrorism, I'd charge about the same premium for either one. The only difference is, with terrorism I'd probably have to pay up a small amount every year. With the asteroid, we'll all go together and I won't be around to pay up.

Alan W. Harris
Senior Research Scientist
Space Science Institute
4603 Orange Knoll Ave. 818-790-8291
La Canada, CA 91011-3364 awharris@SpaceScience.org
From JOHN MUELLER: OVERBLOWN
http://polisci.osu.edu/faculty/jmueller/overblown.html

Common Purpose moves to censor its opponents in the UK

Just got this from our friend John over at Stop Common Purpose: http://www.stopcp.com/cpcensorship.php

It appears the moral communitarians in England are not up for a rigorous public debate over their "charitable" activities in the UK.

Free people must remain free to criticize governments and it is essential they are able to produce evidence to support their criticism. Common Purpose trains government "leaders" in global communitarian leadership. But like Etzioni's communitarian programs in the U.S., public disclosure of these programs and the ideology behind the training is suppressed, and open public debate over the validity or legality of these programs is rare. Common Purpose seeks to make it even rarer.

TSA Screeners and Innappropriate Touching of Children

The Communitarians insist that Americans must "BALANCE" their individual liberty against the needs of the Zionist global collective.

To a Communitarian, everything we do is a privilege that can be taken away at any time, for any reason they deem reasonable. They distorted the meaning of the word "reasonable" in order to push their rationalization in ways we could not defend against.

For years the Communitarian guru Dr. Amitai Etzioni has been telling us that Americans must willingly give up some of their privacy in order to maintain security. We're following a guru without having any idea we even have a guru who's more moral than us.

BALANCING INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AGAINST CITIZEN RESPONSIBILITIES to the collective is the ENTIRE BASIS of the Israeli terrorist Etzioni's "moral" lectures to Americans. Etzioni is the "everything expert," and while few Americans have ever even heard of him, everything that is going on in the "balancing of rights" department is his Communitarian "logic."

I am one of those mothers prepared to assault anyone who tries to touch my children. I did not allow my family or my babysitters or even my ex-husband to spank my kids or touch them anywhere. Friends and roommates were all forewarned that if they did anything to my kids I would kill them with my bare hands. My daughter was taught that nobody had the right to touch her privates, not even me unless it was to clean her after she used the toilet. When a teenage boy put his hand up her dress in a store when she was eight, she immediately screamed and ran to tell the cashier while the kid ran away. I hunted for that perpetrator all night with full permission from a Fairbanks Police Officer to beat the crap out of him if I found him.

What kind of people don't protect their children? Brainwashed Communitarians.

Listen to the father of this little girl use Etzioni's rationale for this "necessary" touching:
TSA Screener Accosts 3 Year Old Child at Security Checkpoint
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26809.htm#idc-cover

So TSA can stick their hands on our children's behinds while others are arrested for it?
Subsitute Teacher Arrested for Inappropriate Touching
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2010/11/yuma_substitute_teacher_says_a.php

What other "jobs" allow this kind of touching?
What's Inappropriate Touching at Work?
http://www.businessmanagementdaily.com/articles/19545/1/Whats-Inappropriate-Touching-at-Work/Page1.html#

People keep suggesting we should all stop flying now. Maybe instead we should give up our automobiles and all buy private airplanes and learn to fly them ourselves ... small ones are almost cheaper than a new car. Anything to avoid the real issue... right?

Checkpoint Chertoff: A Neo- American Nightmare

Checkpoint Charlie

http://www.dailysoft.com/berlinwall/history/checkpoint-charlie.htm

A fact little known to most Americans, and certainly a surprise to this writer, Zionists gained a foothold in our federal government under President Wilson. The United States began quietly adopting the Talmud (not the written Torah/Bible) as the basis of our national law after the first Zionist judge was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Louis Brandeis was an assimilated Jew from Kentucky. He had had little formal association with Jews being more closely identified with the Brahmanism of the Bostonian social elite. Ironically, Louis Brandeis, who was to become the energetic exponent in word and deed, the legitimizer of American Zionism, descended from Judaism darkest heretical rejecters, the Jacob Frank heresies.

Jacob Frank converted, as did many of his followers, to Christianity believing in a perverted salvation theory that through the debasement of Judaism the Messiah could be forced from heaven. It was from heretical adherents of Frankist beliefs that Louis Brandeis, the spiritual and moral salvation, the galvanizer, the leader of American Zionism, and reputedly even his wife, descended from. http://www.jewishmag.com/118mag/richard_gottheil/richard_gottheil.htm

By 1939, federal agencies created under Roosevelt's New Deal had become a "headless fourth branch of government," and more Zionists were appointed to the Supreme Court. In 1941 Roosevelt created a committee to study the problem of federal agency rule making and suggest solutions. In 1941 the Report was made.

The need for re framing rule making under Zionist Communitarian Administrative Laws was delayed until after the end of WWII. Initially, the U.S. Congress was opposed to the Zionist "solution" because it violated the Separation of Powers clause in the U.S. Constitution. (I haven't the resources or the time to study the "compromises" that led to passage of the act.)

"By demonstrating the philosophy of Jewish law and its moral values,
we can bring a little beacon of light in this world,"
Noson Gurary, founder of the U.S. National Institute for Judaic Law

By the time Bush II was president, the National Institute for Judaic Law was introduced openly " to make Jewish law more accessible to everyone." What is "Jewish Law" in Israel?

The Emergency Regulations of 1945 consist of 170 articles divided into 15 sections. They deal with censorship, the restriction of freedom of movement, every aspect of control of the freedom of speech and the press, control of the various means of transport, regulation on the possession of arms, etc. The laws give the minister of defense the power to appoint military commanders as governors over any area he may see fit. On appointment, the governor automatically becomes a competent authority with the power to enforce, at his own discretion, all powers covered by the Defense Laws. (4)

Alleged grounds for issuing an order of administrative detention under the Defense Regulations are: "To secure public safety, the maintenance of public order or suspicion of mutiny, rebellion or riot." While the detainee is permitted theoretically to be represented by counsel, if word of his detention gets out, neither the detained nor his or her counsel is permitted to know the grounds for designating the detainee a security risk.

A soldier or policeman may hold a suspect for four days, a police officer can extend it for an additional seven days and a higher ranking officer can add another seven days. In total, a person can be brought before a military judge for the first time after eighteen days of detention.

http://www.palestine-encyclopedia.com/EPP/Chapter25.htm

My initiation into the cult of Zionist programs was involuntary. When the Seattle Community Developers used our neighborhood to test new ways to give "community" police access to private homes in order to gather our personal information, I did everything I could to "opt out." I cited U.S. laws and codes and begged, pleaded and demanded my right to not participate in this clearly unconstitutional program... all to no avail. I had lived all my life under the assumption that American law was Supreme in the United States. The brutal truth was, to say the least, shocking. Prior to 1999 I knew next to nothing about Israel, nor did I care to know anything. It was certainly not introduced as a topic that my children's freedom depended upon my knowing.

Checkpoint Chertoff
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/69451.html

“We’ve borrowed this from what the … Israelis do,” Chertoff said during his 2007 address to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, explaining that “it involves looking at behavior, and training officers to be out in the actual flow at the airport and in the actual flow in some of our mass transit to watch the behavior of people; how they react as they approach the checkpoint, how they react as they’re unloading things. And that cues us that there may be some people we want to take a closer look at. This, by the way, is a concept that we’ve used at the border for many years, which is training people to look for human behavior which is the giveaway as to whether somebody is planning something big.” OPERATION VIPER: http://grendelreport.posterous.com/dhs-tests-airport-checkpoints

When every attempt I made to "withdraw" from the program was denied, I began investigating the "neo" community police who were created to enforce the new laws. I looked for all the ways they were gathering our private INFORMATION. I studied DOJ's new GIS database and the EXPANDED AUTHORITY to USE it to "predict and prevent crime." I read and re read the stated goal of every COPS (Community Oriented Policing Services) GIS program tested on us. Along the way I learned about the foundation for Communitarian/Community Law, the Talmud.

"The Anti Defamation League documented a criticism that alleges that the Talmud endorses child molestation involving children under the age of three.^[120] The text of the Talmud is from tractate Kethubot 11b: "If an adult has sex with a girl under the age of three, it is ignored, for it is like putting a finger in someone’s eye [i.e., tears may drip from the eye but there will always be more tears to replace them; so too the hymen of a girl so young may break but it will heal]."^[121] This criticism was published by Pranaitis and repeated by modern sources.^[122] However, the context of this statement is within a discussion of divorce settlements - which are higher for the wife if the wife was a virgin at the time of marriage - and that text means that if the wife was molested as a young child, she is still considered a virgin for purposes of the divorce.^{[123][124]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Talmud}

Who is Michael Chertoff and what values does he hold? Apparently he's one of the good guys fighting the Evil Axis, and like so many modern U.S. elected officials from every party and platform, he's obviously devoted to doing god's work.

Chertoff Joins Defense Firm that Defrauded U.S.
Saturday, March 27, 2010

Michael Chertoff, the former homeland security chief who’s not been shy about exploiting terrorist threats for the benefit of his clients, has decided to join a top defense contractor that defrauded the U.S. government.

The one-time head of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under President George W. Bush is now a board member of BAE Systems, the United Kingdom-based defense corporation that agreed to pay $447 million in fines to the American and British governments to settle allegations of corruption, including bribing a top Saudi Arabian official.

BAE is the eighth-largest contractor doing business with Washington, having received $7.1 billion in government contracts in 2009 alone. It also has received more than $200 million from DHS since 2005.

Following the attempted bombing of a Northwest Airlines flight on Christmas Day, Chertoff was seen on television calling for the government to buy full-body scanners for airport checkpoints. Chertoff failed to mention in numerous interviews that his consulting business represented the company, Rapiscan Systems, that makes the scanners.

-Noel Brinkerhoff

Chertoff Joins BAE, Defense Contractor Recently Embroiled In Bribery Scandal (by Dan Froomkin, Huffington Post)

Secretary Michael Chertoff Joins BAE Systems, Inc. Board of Directors (BAE Systems press release)

Defense Contractor Agrees to Pay $400 Million Criminal Fine (by Noel Brinkerhoff, AllGov)

Chertoff Exploits Detroit Plane Bomb to Stir up Business for Client (by Noel Brinkerhoff, AllGov)

As TSA's Administrative authority to stop, interrogate and detain American travelers extends to vehicles OUTSIDE U.S. airports, what can we expect America to "evolve" into next?

Gaza checkpoints in 2002
http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2010/01/playmobil-tsa-security-checkpoint.html

How many U.S. laws is TSA exempt from? How about we start with The Privacy Act of 1974?

++++

For those who choose further study:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 114(l)(1), 40113, 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) and (k).

Source: 69 FR 35537, June 25, 2004, unless otherwise noted.

§ 1507.1 Scope.

This part implements provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974 (the Act) that permit TSA to exempt any system of records within the agency from certain requirements of the Act. The procedures governing access to, and correction of, records in a TSA system of records are set forth in 6 CFR part 5, subpart B.

§ 1507.3 Exemptions.

The following TSA systems of records are exempt from certain provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974 pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j), (k), or both, as set forth in this section. During the course of normal agency functions, exempt materials from one system of records may become part of one or more other systems of records. To the extent that any portion of system of records becomes part of another Privacy Act system of records, TSA hereby claims the same exemptions as were claimed in the original primary system of which they are a part and claims any additional exemptions in accordance with this part.

(a) Transportation Security Enforcement Record System (DHS/TSA 001). The Transportation Security Enforcement Record System (TSERS) (DHS/TSA 001) enables TSA to maintain a system of records related to the screening of passengers and property and they may be used to identify, review, analyze, investigate, and prosecute violations or potential violations of criminal statutes and transportation security laws. Pursuant to exemptions (j)(2), (k)(1), and (k)(2) of the Privacy Act, DHS/TSA 001 is exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I), and (f). Exemptions from the particular subsections are justified for the following reasons:

(1) From subsection (c)(3) (Accounting for Disclosures) because release of the accounting of disclosures could alert the subject of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to the existence of the investigation and reveal investigative interest on the part of TSA, as well as the recipient agency. Disclosure of the accounting would therefore present a serious impediment to transportation security, law enforcement efforts, and efforts to preserve national security. Disclosure of the accounting would also permit the individual who is the subject of a record to impede the investigation and avoid detection or apprehension, which undermines the entire system.

(2) From subsection (d) (Access to Records) because access to the records contained in this system of records could inform the subject of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to the existence of the investigation and reveal investigative interest on the part of TSA, as well as the recipient agency. Access to the records would permit the individual who is the subject of a record to impede the investigation and avoid detection or apprehension. Amendment of the records would interfere with ongoing investigations and law enforcement activities, and impose an impossible administrative burden by requiring investigations to be continuously reinvestigated. The information contained in the system may also include properly classified information, the release of which would pose a threat to national defense and/or foreign policy. In addition, permitting access and amendment to such information also could disclose sensitive security information, which could be detrimental to transportation security.

(3) From subsection (e)(1) (Relevancy and Necessity of Information) because in the course of investigations into potential violations of transportation security laws, the accuracy of information obtained or introduced occasionally may be unclear or the information may not be strictly relevant or necessary to a specific investigation. In the interests of effective enforcement of transportation security laws, it is appropriate to retain all information that may aid in establishing patterns of unlawful activity.

(4) From subsection (e)(3) (Privacy Act Statement) because disclosing the authority, purpose, routine uses, and potential consequences of not providing information could reveal the investigative interests of TSA, as well as the nature and scope of an investigation, the disclosure of which could enable individuals to circumvent agency regulations or statutes.

(5) From subsections (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I) (Agency Requirements), and (f) (Agency Rules), because this system is exempt from the access provisions of subsection (d).

(b) Transportation Workers Employment Investigations System (DHS/TSA 002). The Transportation Workers Employment Investigations System (TWEI) (DHS/TSA 002) enables TSA to facilitate the performance of background checks on employees of transportation operators and others who are issued credentials or clearances by transportation operators, other than TSA employees. Pursuant to exemptions (k)(1) and (k)(2) of the Privacy Act, DHS/TSA 002 is exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (H) and (I), and (f). Exemptions from the particular subsections are justified for the following reasons:

(1) From subsection (c)(3) (Accounting for Disclosures), because release of the accounting of disclosures could reveal investigative interest on the part of the recipient agency that obtained the record pursuant to a routine use. Disclosure of the accounting could therefore present a serious impediment to law enforcement efforts on the part of the recipient agency, as the individual who is the subject of a record would learn of third-agency investigate interests and thereby avoid detection or apprehension.

(2) From subsection (d) (Access to Records), because access to the records contained in this system could reveal investigate techniques and procedures in the transportation workers employment investigation process, as well as the nature and scope of the employment investigation, the disclosure of which could enable individuals to circumvent agency regulations or statutes and obtain access to sensitive information and restricted areas in the transportation industry. The information contained in the system might include properly classified information, the release of which would pose a threat to national defense and/or foreign policy. In addition, permitting access and amendment to such information could reveal sensitive security information protected pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 114(s), the disclosure of which could be detrimental to the security of transportation.

(3) From subsection (e)(1) (Relevancy and Necessity of Information), because third-agency records obtained or made available to TSA during the course of an employment investigation may occasionally contain information that is not strictly relevant or necessary to a specific employment investigation. In the interests of administering an effective and comprehensive transportation worker employment investigation program, it is appropriate and necessary for TSA to retain all such information that may aid in that process.

(4) From subsections (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I) (Agency Requirements), and (f) (Agency Rules), because this system is exempt from the access provisions of subsection (d).

(c) Personnel Background Investigation File System (DHS/TSA 004) . The Personnel Background Investigation File System (PBIFS) (DHS/TSA 004) enables TSA to maintain investigative and background material used to make suitability and eligibility determinations regarding current and former TSA employees, applicants for TSA employment, and TSA contract employees. Pursuant to exemptions (k)(1) and (k)(5) of the Privacy Act, the Personnel Background Investigation File System is exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) (Accounting of Disclosures) and (d) (Access to Records). Exemptions from the particular subsections are justified because this system contains investigatory material compiled solely for determining suitability, eligibility, and qualifications for Federal civilian employment. To the extent that the disclosure of material would reveal any classified material or the identity of a source who furnished information to the Government under an express promise that the identity of the source would be held in confidence, or, prior to September 27, 1975, under an implied promise that the identity of the source would be held in confidence, the applicability of exemption (k)(5) will be required to honor promises of confidentiality should the data subject request access to or amendment of the record, or access to the accounting of disclosures of the record. Exemption (k)(1) will be required to protect any classified information that may be in this system.

(d) Internal Investigation Record System (DHS/TSA 005) . The Internal Investigation Record System (IIRS) (DHS/TSA 005) contains records of internal investigations for all modes of transportation for which TSA has security-related duties. This system covers information regarding investigations of allegations or appearances of misconduct of current or former TSA employees or contractors and provides support for any adverse action that may occur as a result of the findings of the investigation. It is being modified to cover investigations of security-related incidents and reviews of TSA programs and operations. Pursuant to exemptions (j)(2), (k)(1), and (k)(2) of the Privacy Act, DHS/TSA 005 is exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I), and (f). Exemptions from the particular subsections are justified for the following reasons:

(1) From subsection (c)(3) (Accounting for Disclosures) because release of the accounting of disclosures could reveal investigative interest on the part of the recipient agency that obtained the record pursuant to a routine use. Disclosure of the accounting could, therefore, present a serious impediment to law enforcement efforts on the part of the recipient agency, as the individual who is the subject of a record would learn of third-agency investigative interests and thereby avoid detection or apprehension, as well as to TSA investigative efforts.

(2) From subsection (d) (Access to Records) because access to the records contained in this system could reveal investigative techniques and procedures of the investigators, as well as the nature and scope of the investigation, the disclosure of which could enable individuals to circumvent agency regulations or statutes. The information contained in the system might include properly classified information, the release of which would pose a threat to national defense and/or foreign policy. In addition, permitting access and amendment to such records could reveal sensitive security information protected pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 114(s), the disclosure of which could be detrimental to the security of transportation.

(3) From subsection (e)(1) (Relevancy and Necessity of Information) because third agency records obtained or made available to TSA during the course of an investigation may occasionally contain information that is not strictly relevant or necessary to a specific investigation. In the interests of administering an effective and comprehensive investigation program, it is appropriate and necessary for TSA to retain all such information that may aid in that process.

(4) From subsection (e)(3) (Privacy Act Statement) because disclosing the authority, purpose, routine uses, and potential consequences of not providing information could reveal the targets of interests of the investigating office, as well as the nature and scope of an investigation, the disclosure of which could enable individuals to circumvent agency regulations or statutes.

(5) From subsections (e)(4)(G), (H) and (I) (Agency Requirements), and (f) (Agency Rules), because this system is exempt from the access provisions of subsection (d).

(e) Correspondence and Matters Tracking Records (DHS/TSA 006). The Correspondence and Matters Tracking Records (CMTR) (DHS/TSA 006) system allows TSA to manage, track, retrieve, and respond to incoming correspondence, inquiries, claims and other matters presented to TSA for disposition, and to monitor the assignment, disposition and status of such matters. This system covers information coming into TSA from individuals as well as information recorded by TSA employees in the performance of their duties. Pursuant to exemptions (k)(1) and (k)(2) of the Privacy Act, DHS/TSA 006 is exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (H) and (I), and (f). Exemptions from the particular subsections are justified for the following reasons:

(1) From subsection (c)(3) (Accounting for Disclosures), because release of the accounting of disclosures could reveal investigative interest on the part of the recipient agency that obtained the record pursuant to a routine use. Disclosure of the accounting could therefore present a serious impediment to law enforcement efforts on the part of the recipient agency, as the individual who is the subject of a record would lean of third-agency investigative interests and thereby avoid detection or apprehension.

(2) From subsection (d) (Access to Records), because access to the records contained in this system could reveal investigative interest on the part of TSA or other agency and the nature of that interest, the disclosure of which could enable individuals to circumvent agency regulations or statutes. The information contained in the system might include properly classified information, the release of which would pose a threat to national defense and/or foreign policy. In addition, permitting access and amendment to such information could reveal sensitive security information protected pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 114(s), the disclosure of which could be detrimental to transportation security.

(3) From subsection (e)(1) (Relevancy and necessity of Information), because third-agency records obtained or made available to TSA during the course of an investigation may occasionally contain information that is not strictly relevant or necessary to a specific investigation. In the interests of administering an effective and comprehensive investigation program, it is appropriate and necessary for TSA to retain all such information that may aid in that process.

(4) From subsections (e)(4)(G), (H) and (I) (Agency Requirements), and (f) (Agency rules), because this system is exempt from the access provisions of subsection (d).

(f) Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Records (DHS/TSA 007). The Freedom of Information and Privacy Act (FOIA/PA) Records System (DHS/TSA 007) system enables TSA to maintain records that will assist in processing access requests and administrative appeals under FOIA and access and amendments requests and appeals under the PA; participate in associated litigation; and assist TSA in carrying out any other responsibilities under FOIA/PA. Pursuant to exemptions (k)(1) and (k)(2) of the Privacy Act, Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Records are exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (H) and (I), and (f). Exemptions from the particular subsections are justified for the following reasons:

(1) From subsection (c)(3) (Accounting for Disclosures), because release of the accounting of disclosures could reveal investigative interest on the part of the recipient agency that obtained the record pursuant to a routine use. Disclosure of the accounting could therefore present a serious impediment to law enforcement efforts on the part of the recipient agency, as the individual who is the subject of a record would learn of third-agency investigative interests and thereby avoid detection or apprehension.

(2) From subsection (d) (Access to Records), because access to the records contained in this system could reveal investigative interest on the part of TSA or other agency and the nature of that interest, the disclosure of which could enable individuals to circumvent agency regulations or statutes. The information contained in the system might include properly classified information, the release of which would pose a threat to national defense and/or foreign policy. In addition, permitting access and amendment to such information could reveal sensitive security information protected pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 114(s), the disclosure of which would be detrimental to transportation security.

(3) From subsection (e)(1) (Relevancy and necessity of Information), because third-agency records obtained or made available to TSA during the course of an investigation may occasionally contain information that is not strictly relevant or necessary to a specific investigation. In the interests of administering an effective and comprehensive investigation program, it is appropriate and necessary for TSA to retain all such information that may aid in that process.

(4) From subsections (e)(4)(G), (H) and (I) (Agency Requirements), and (f) (Agency Rules), because this system is exempt from the access provisions of subsection (d).

(g) General Legal Records System (DHS/TSA 009). The General Legal Records (GLR) System (DHS/TSA 009) enables TSA to maintain records that will assist attorneys to perform their functions within the office of Chief Counsel, to include providing legal advice, responding to claims filed by employees and others, and assisting in litigation and in the settlement of claims. Pursuant to exemptions (k)(1) and (k)(2) of the Privacy Act, DHS/TSA 009 is exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (H) and (I), and (f). Exemptions from the particular subsections are justified for the following reasons:

(1) From subsection (c)(3) (Accounting for Disclosures), because release of the accounting of disclosures could reveal investigative interest on the part of the recipient agency that obtained the record pursuant to a routine use. Disclosure of the accounting could therefore present a serious impediment to law enforcement efforts on the part of the recipient agency, as the individual who is the subject of a record would learn of third-agency investigative interests and thereby avoid detection or apprehension.

(2) From subsection (d) (Access to Records), because access to the records contained in this system could reveal investigative interest on the part of TSA or other agency and the nature of that interest, the disclosure of which would enable individuals to circumvent agency regulations or statutes. The information contained in the system might include properly classified information, the release of which would pose a threat to national defense and/or foreign policy. In addition, permitting access and amendment to such information could reveal sensitive security information protected pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 114(s), the disclosure of which could be detrimental to transportation security.

(3) From subsection (e)(1) (Relevancy and Necessity of Information), because third-agency records obtained or made available to TSA during the course of an investigation may occasionally contain information that is not strictly relevant or necessary to a specific investigation. In the interests of administering an effective and comprehensive investigation program, it is appropriate and necessary for TSA to retain all such information that may aid in that process.

(4) From subsections (e)(4)(G), (H) and (I) (Agency Requirements), and (f) (Agency Rules), because this system is exempt from the access provisions of subsections (d).

(h) Federal Flight Deck Officer Records System (DHS/TSA 013). The Federal Flight Deck Officer Record System (FFDORS) (DHS/TSA 013) enables TSA to maintain a system of records documenting the application, selection, training, and requalification of pilots deputized by TSA to perform the duties of a Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO). Pursuant to exemptions (k)(1), (k)(2), and (k)(6) of the Privacy Act, DHS/TSA 013 is exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), and (e)(1). Exemptions from the particular subsections are justified for the following reasons:

(1) From (c)(3) (Accounting of Certain Disclosures) and (d) (Access to Records), because access to the accounting of disclosures in this system could reveal the identity of a confidential source that provided information during the background check process. Without the ability to protect the identity of a confidential source, the agency's ability to gather pertinent information about candidates for the program may be limited. In addition, the system might contain information that is properly classified, the release of which would pose a threat to national security and/or foreign policy, or information the disclosure of which could be detrimental to the security of transportation pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 114(s). Finally, the agency must be able to protect against access to testing or examination material as release of this material could compromise the effectiveness of the testing and examination procedure itself. The examination material contained in this system is so similar in form and content to the examination material used in the selection process for TSA security screeners, or potential selection processes that TSA may utilize in the future, that release of the material would compromise the objectivity or fairness of the testing or examination process of those TSA employees.

(2) From (e)(1) (Relevancy and Necessity of Information), because information obtained or made available to TSA from other agencies and other sources during the evaluation of an individual's suitability for an FFDO position may occasionally include information that is not strictly relevant or necessary to the specific determination regarding that individual. In the interests of effective program administration, it is appropriate and necessary for TSA to collect all such information that may aid in the FFDO selection process.

(i) Registered Traveler Operations Files (DHS/TSA 015) . The purpose of this system is to pre-screen and positively identify volunteer travelers using advanced identification technologies and conduct a security threat assessment to ensure that the volunteer does not pose a security threat. This system may expedite the pre-boarding process for the traveler and improve the allocation of TSA's security resources on individuals who may pose a security threat. Pursuant to exemptions (k)(1) and (k)(2) of the Privacy Act, DHS/TSA 015 is exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (H) and (I), and (f). Exemptions from the particular subsections are justified for the following reasons:

(1) From subsection (c)(3) (Accounting for Disclosures) because release of the accounting of disclosures could alert the subject of heightened security concerns relating to an actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to the existence of an investigative interest on the part of the Department of Homeland Security or another Federal law enforcement or other recipient agency. Disclosure of the accounting would therefore present a serious impediment to transportation security law enforcement efforts and efforts to preserve national security. Disclosure of the accounting would also permit the individual who is the subject of a record to impede the program suitability determination, which undermines the entire system.

(2) From subsection (d) (Access to Records) because access to some of the records contained in this system of records could permit the individual who is the subject of a record to impede the program suitability determination. Amendment of the records would interfere with ongoing security assessment investigations and program suitability determinations and impose an impossible administrative burden by requiring such investigations to be continuously reinvestigated. The information contained in the system may also include classified information, the release of which would pose a threat to national defense and/or foreign policy. In addition, permitting access and amendment to such information also could disclose sensitive security information protected pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 114(s) and 49 CFR part 1520, the disclosure of which could be detrimental to transportation security.

(3) From subsection (e)(1) (Relevancy and Necessity of Information) because in the course of screening applicants for program suitability, TSA must be able to review information from a variety of sources. What information is relevant and necessary may not always be apparent until after the evaluation is completed. In the interests of transportation security, it is appropriate to include a broad range of information that may aid in determining an applicant's suitability for the Registered Traveler program.

(4) From subsections (e)(4)(G), (H) and (I) (Agency Requirements), and (f) (Agency Rules), because this system is exempt from the access and amendment provisions of subsection (d).

(j) Transportation Security Intelligence Service (TSIS) Operations Files. Transportation Security Intelligence Service Operations Files (TSIS) (DHS/TSA 011) enables TSA to maintain a system of records related to intelligence gathering activities used to identify, review, analyze, investigate, and prevent violations or potential violations of transportation security laws. This system also contains records relating to determinations about individuals' qualifications, eligibility, or suitability for access to classified information. Pursuant to exemptions (j)(2), (k)(1), (k)(2), and (k)(5) of the Privacy Act, DHS/TSA 011 is exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I), and (f). Exemptions from particular subsections are justified for the following reasons:

(1) From subsection (c)(3) (Accounting for Disclosures) because release of the accounting of disclosures could alert the subject of intelligence gather operations and reveal investigative interest on the part of the Transportation Security Administration, as well as the recipient agency. Disclosure of the accounting would therefore present a serious impediment to transportation security law enforcement efforts and efforts to preserve national security. Disclosure of the accounting would also permit the individual who is the subject of a record to impede operations and avoid detection and apprehension, which undermined the entire system. Disclosure of the accounting may also reveal the existence of information that is classified or sensitive security information, the release of which would be detrimental to the security of transportation.

(2) From subsection (d) (Access to Records) because access to the records contained in this system of records could inform the subject of intelligence gathering operations and reveal investigative interest on the part of the Transportation Security Administration. Access to the records would permit the individual who is the subject of a record to impede operations and possibly avoid detection or apprehension. Amendment of the records would interfere with ongoing intelligence and law enforcement activities and impose an impossible administrative burden by requiring investigations to be continually reinvestigated. The information contained in the system may also include properly classified information, the release of which would pose a threat to national defense and/or foreign policy. In addition, permitting access and amendment to such information also could disclose sensitive security information, which could be detrimental to transportation security if released. This system may also include information necessary to make a determination as to an individual's qualifications, eligibility, or suitability for access to classified information, the release of which would reveal the identity of a source who received an express or implied assurance that their identity would not be revealed to the subject of the record.

(3) From subsection (e)(1) (Relevancy and Necessity of Information) because in the course of gathering and analyzing information about potential threats to transportation security, the accuracy of information obtained or introduced occasionally may be unclear or the information may not be strictly relevant or necessary to a specific operation. In the interests of transportation security, it is appropriate to retain all information that may aid in identifying threats to transportation security and establishing other patterns of unlawful activity.

(4) From subsections (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I) (Agency Requirements), and (f) (Agency Rules), because this system is exempt from the access and amendment provisions of subsection (d).

(k) Secure Flight Records . (1) Secure Flight Records (DHS/TSA 019) enables TSA to maintain a system of records related to watch list matching applied to air passengers and to non-traveling individuals authorized to enter an airport sterile area. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) and (k)(2), TSA is claiming the following exemptions for certain records within the Secure Flight Records system: 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) and (4); (d)(1), (2), (3), and (4); (e)(1), (2), (3), (4)(G) through (I), (5), and (8); (f), and (g).

(2) In addition to records under the control of TSA, the Secure Flight system of records may include records originating from systems of records of other law enforcement and intelligence agencies which may be exempt from certain provisions of the Privacy Act. However, TSA does not assert exemption to any provisions of the Privacy Act with respect to information submitted by or on behalf of individual passengers or non-travelers in the course of making a reservation or seeking access to a secured area under the Secure Flight program.

(3) To the extent the Secure Flight system contains records originating from other systems of records, TSA will rely on the exemptions claimed for those records in the originating system of records. Exemptions for certain records within the Secure Flight Records system from particular subsections of the Privacy Act are justified for the following reasons:

(i) From subsection (c)(3) (Accounting for Disclosures) because giving a record subject access to the accounting of disclosures from records concerning him or her could reveal investigative interest on the part of the recipient agency that obtained the record pursuant to a routine use. Disclosure of the accounting could therefore present a serious impediment to law enforcement efforts on the part of the recipient agency because the individual who is the subject of the record would learn of third agency investigative interests and could take steps to evade detection or apprehension. Disclosure of the accounting also could reveal the details of watch list matching measures under the Secure Flight program, as well as capabilities and vulnerabilities of the watch list matching process, the release of which could permit an individual to evade future detection and thereby impede efforts to ensure transportation security.

(ii) From subsection (c)(4) because portions of this system are exempt from the access and amendment provisions of subsection (d).

(iii) From subsections (d)(1), (2), (3), and (4) because these provisions concern individual access to and amendment of certain records contained in this system, including law enforcement counterterrorism, investigatory and intelligence records. Compliance with these provisions could alert the subject of an investigation of the fact and nature of the investigation, and/or the investigative interest of intelligence or law enforcement agencies; compromise sensitive information related to national security; interfere with the overall law enforcement process by leading to the destruction of evidence, improper influencing of witnesses, fabrication of testimony, and/or flight of the subject; identify a confidential source or disclose information which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of another's personal privacy; reveal a sensitive investigative or intelligence technique; or constitute a potential danger to the health or safety of law enforcement personnel, confidential informants, and witnesses. Amendment of these records would interfere with ongoing counterterrorism, law enforcement, or intelligence investigations and analysis activities and impose an impossible administrative burden by requiring investigations, analyses, and reports to be continuously reinvestigated and revised.

(iv) From subsection (e)(1) because it is not always possible for TSA or other agencies to know in advance what information is both relevant and necessary for it to complete an identity comparison between aviation passengers or certain non-travelers and a known or suspected terrorist. In addition, because TSA and other agencies may not always know what information about an encounter with a known or suspected terrorist will be relevant to law enforcement for the purpose of conducting an operational response.

(v) From subsection (e)(2) because application of this provision could present a serious impediment to counterterrorism, law enforcement, or intelligence efforts in that it would put the subject of an investigation, study or analysis on notice of that fact, thereby permitting the subject to engage in conduct designed to frustrate or impede that activity. The nature of counterterrorism, law enforcement, or intelligence investigations is such that vital information about an individual frequently can be obtained only from other persons who are familiar with such individual and his/her activities. In such investigations, it is not feasible to rely upon information furnished by the individual concerning his own activities.

(vi) From subsection (e)(3), to the extent that this subsection is interpreted to require TSA to provide notice to an individual if TSA or another agency receives or collects information about that individual during an investigation or from a third party. Should the subsection be so interpreted, exemption from this provision is necessary to avoid impeding counterterrorism, law enforcement, or intelligence efforts by putting the subject of an investigation, study or analysis on notice of that fact, thereby permitting the subject to engage in conduct intended to frustrate or impede that activity.

(vii) From subsections (e)(4)(G) and (H) (Agency Requirements) and (f) (Agency Rules), because this system is exempt from the access provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a(d).

(viii) From subsection (e)(5) because many of the records in this system coming from other system of records are derived from other domestic and foreign agency record systems and therefore it is not possible for TSA to ensure their compliance with this provision, however, TSA has implemented internal quality assurance procedures to ensure that data used in the watch list matching process is as thorough, accurate, and current as possible. In addition, in the collection of information for law enforcement, counterterrorism, and intelligence purposes, it is impossible to determine in advance what information is accurate, relevant, timely, and complete. With the passage of time, seemingly irrelevant or untimely information may acquire new significance as further investigation brings new details to light. The restrictions imposed by (e)(5) would limit the ability of those agencies' trained investigators and intelligence analysts to exercise their judgment in conducting investigations and impede the development of intelligence necessary for effective law enforcement and counterterrorism efforts. However, TSA has implemented internal quality assurance procedures to ensure that the data used in the watch list matching process is as thorough, accurate, and current as possible.

(ix) From subsection (e)(8) because to require individual notice of disclosure of information due to compulsory legal process would pose an impossible administrative burden on TSA and other agencies and could alert the subjects of counterterrorism, law enforcement, or intelligence investigations to the fact of those investigations when not previously known.

(x) From subsection (f) (Agency Rules) because portions of this system are exempt from the access and amendment provisions of subsection (d).

(xi) From subsection (g) to the extent that the system is exempt from other specific subsections of the Privacy Act.

[69 FR 35537, June 25, 2004, as amended at 70 FR 33384, June 8, 2005; 71 FR 44227, Aug. 4, 2006; 72 FR 63709, Nov. 9, 2007]