Understanding The Official White House View Of Global Warming

22 Responses to Understanding The Official White House View Of Global Warming

1. Gail Combs says:

   January 26, 2015 at 11:49 am

   Steve Grammar Nazi time:

   “few NASA and NCDC employees who report [to] the president, …”

   And I think Constitution is supposed to be capitalized.

   Reply
   • gator69 says:

     January 26, 2015 at 2:16 pm

     Constitution should be in all caps, as far as I am concerned.

     Reply
     • Gail Combs says:

       January 26, 2015 at 4:49 pm

       The Seal of Approval
       http://crotchgroin.info/galleries/62_thumbs/ist2_2381624_seal_of_approval.jpg

       Reply
   • Donna K. Becker says:

     January 26, 2015 at 5:27 pm

     Gail,

     That’s also my title!

     I’ve noticed lately that you often substitute “effect” for “affect” in your posts. I suspect that this error may be the fault of Spellcheck.

     Reply
     • Gail Combs says:

       January 26, 2015 at 8:29 pm

       No it is the result of bad schooling. I was in a John Dewey ‘experimental class’ we never got decent reading or grammar instruction.

       Reply
       • Donna K. Becker says:

         January 26, 2015 at 8:40 pm

         Well, I’m here to help! Another issue I see everywhere is mistaking “It’s” (it is) for “its” (possessive). As in, the government rears its ugly head to exert power in the worst possible ways.

         .
       • Gail Combs says:

         January 26, 2015 at 9:05 pm

         Thanks Donna

         I have no problem with corrections if they are done as a means of helping and not as a put-down.
       • Donna K. Becker says:

         January 26, 2015 at 9:14 pm

         Gail,

         My aim is to call errors to people’s attention. I believe that when errors of any type remain uncorrected, they become the accepted standard. So, please don’t think I’m trying to put anyone down–especially you. I admire your intelligence and dedication to promulgating truth.
       • Gail Combs says:

         January 26, 2015 at 9:43 pm

         As I said no problem. I happen to live with a technical writer… My Husband. He also has a problem with incorrect use of the language.

         When I said ‘put-down’ I was thinking of another person who has been taking aim at me for years and occasionally shows up here. He has gone as far as calling me crazy.
2. BobW in NC says:

   January 26, 2015 at 4:37 pm

   …and of course, ‘consensus’ trumps direct evidence to the contrary of NO AGW!!! Infuriating.

   And as to Obama’s power grab? I would have no problem believing that he could unilaterally declare a national emergency, suspend the Constitution, and become absolute in his rule.

   I do not trust the man for a moment.

   Reply
   • Gail Combs says:

     January 26, 2015 at 5:06 pm

     Given:
     1. The arming of the Department of Homeland Security with war machines and buying of billions of rounds of Ammo
     2. The Militarization of the Police
     3. The February 2008 agreement with the Canadian military to invade the USA in a crisis, link
     4. The scuttling of The Law of Posse Comitatus link

     Why Is Homeland Security Taking Control of Local Police?

     …. Fitzgerald said there is “virtually no use” for the military-grade equipment being bought by local law enforcement with DHS grant money.

     “The only reason to have this equipment is to use it,” Fitzgerald said, and it is likely it would be used against local citizens who have risen up and created some sort of civil disorder.

     DHS probably has orchestrated, are targets of all the tactical weaponry, ammunition, and monitoring technology.

     From license plate readers to facial recognition software, from surveillance cameras to cellphone signal trackers, the Department of Homeland Security is providing police with all the gadgets, hardware, and software necessary to keep everybody under surveillance, without the targeted public ever realizing that it’s the Capitol, not the cops, that are behind the monitoring.

     Local police who participate in the program will have access to a shockingly broad array of personal information of citizens. Facial recognition technology, license plate readers, and stop light camera video feeds will all be funneled to a Regional Operations Intelligence Center where FBI, police, and DHS agents can watch the live feeds.

     In fairness, most police chiefs and sheriffs are unaware of any larger, more sinister DHS program to foment riot as a pretext for quelling it.

     But whether these lawmen realize it or not, when they accept federal gadgets and grants, they are surrendering their independence and their citizens’ civil liberties.

     Perhaps the most important argument against the federalization of local police departments is that there is not a single syllable of the Constitution authorizing any such federal participation in law enforcement. If the power isn’t granted to the federal government in the Constitution, then authority over that area remains with the states and the people as described in the Tenth Amendment.

     Self-serving bureaucrats inside the U.S. government are tirelessly trying to obliterate local police forces answerable to local citizens and promote the consolidation movement as a step toward federalization of law enforcement. These proponents of regional and national police forces desire nothing less than the eradication of all local police departments and sheriffs’ offices, the surrender of state and municipal sovereignty, and the conversion of police into federal security agents sworn not to protect and to serve their neighbors, but to protect the prerogatives of politicians….

     Reply
     • Hew Manatee says:

       January 26, 2015 at 9:31 pm

       Gail; As I understand it, enlisted men swear to defend the Constitution and obey orders from the President, whereas officers only swear to support and defend the Constitution. This means that when push comes to shove, any President has to think twice about how the officer corps will respond. Given that, it would make sense to implement a dual strategy, namely, 1) set up an alternative militarized “Brown-shirts” whose loyalty was a lot less in question, and 2) reduce the effectiveness of the military by getting rid of officers who take their duties seriously. You don’t have to look too hard to find examples of this in history.

       Reply
       • Gail Combs says:

         January 26, 2015 at 10:38 pm

         Why has Obama Fired 197 US Senior Military Commanders in 5 years? (nine Generals in 2013)

         Discussion from ‘retired military’
         Top Generals Reveal Obama’s Secret High Level Military Purge…

         Of course when you fire high level military personnel that means they are no longer IN the military and therefore do not have to keep their mouths shut!

         July 2014 Many Military Generals Now Taking Public Stands Against Obama

         This is one of the most interesting developments I think we have seen in all of the Obama Presidency….

         Now, we are even beginning to see a number of military generals begin to take an active stand against Obama and his policies. Many of these leaders feel very strongly that Obama has created a situation which could lead to the US being run by a ruler, rather than elected official. The first clue we had of Obama’s real intentions should have been the firing of General Petraeus when he decided to tell the truth about Obama under oath. Imagine that, an Obama Regime official who actually tells the truth when he gives testimony!

         The situation has continued to deteriorate since then…..

         We should also point out the fact that our lovely commander in chief has also undertaken one of the most dramatic (although highly under reported thanks to his buddies in the mainstream media) purges the military has ever seen. This has included the firings of literally hundreds of high ranking officials, including dozens of generals, colonels, lieutenant colonels, majors, and other ranks. He has also insisted that current officials actually take an oath to him personally.…

         He has also insisted that current officials actually take an oath to him personally.
         Is someone just making stuff up out of whole cloth??

         Seems not — Black Five is a military type website
         http://www.blackfive.net/main/2009/01/oaths-changing.html

         …. A spokesman for General James Cartwright, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, states that the Obama Administration wants to have soldiers and officers pledge a loyalty oath directly to the office of the President, and no longer to the Constitution.

         …The back-and-forth between the White House and the Defense Department was expected as President George W. Bush left office. President Obama has already signed orders to close Guantanamo and to pull combat troops from Iraq. But, this, say many at the Defense Department, goes to far.

         “Technically, we can’t talk about it before it becomes official policy.” the spokesman continued. “However, the Defense Department, including the Secretary, will not take this laying down. Expect a fight from the bureaucracy and the brass.”

         Sources at the White House had a different point of view. In a circular distributed by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, the rationale for the change was made more clear.

         “The President feels that the military has been too indoctrinated by the old harbingers of hate: nationalism, racism, and classism. By removing an oath to the American society, the soldiers are less likely to commit atrocities like those at Abu Ghraib.”…..
       • Gail Combs says:

         January 26, 2015 at 10:46 pm

         I would think the above stuff on Obama and the military was just conspiracy crap except I have read this:

         It is a 133 page FOIA document obtained from the Department of Defense entiled: AFSS 0910 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND TREATMENT INCIDENTS (EOTI) LESSON PLAN

         The whole document was obtained by Judicial Watch.
         Judicial Watch: Defense Department Teaching Documents Suggest Mainstream Conservative Views “Extremist”

         D. Extremist Ideologies
         1. Introduction
         • As noted, an ideology is a set of political beliefs about the nature of people and society. People who are committed to an ideology seek not only to persuade but to recruit others to their belief. In U.S. history, there are many examples of extremist ideologies and movements. The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule and the Confederate states who sought to secede from the Northern states are just two examples.

         • While not all ideologists are violent in nature, it is characteristic of ideology to be action-oriented and to regard action in terms of a military analogy. How often have you heard words such as struggle, resist, march, victory, and overcome when reading about or talking to ideologists about their beliefs?

         2. Ideologies
         <b.a. Nationalism – The policy of asserting that the interests of one’s own nation are separate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations. Many nationalist groups take it a step further and believe that their national culture and interests are superior to any other national group.

         b. Supremacy – The belief that one’s race or ethnicity is superior to all others and should dominate society. Supremacy, as with racial supremacies in general, has frequently resulted in anti-Black and anti-Semitic violence.

         c. Separatism – Setting oneself or others apart based on culture, ethnicity, race, or religion.

         d. Anarchism – A political ideology that considers the state to be unnecessary, harmful, or undesirable. National anarchists appeal to youths in part by avoiding the trappings of skinhead culture—light jackets, shaved heads, and combat boots—in favor of hooded sweatshirts and bandanas. They act the part of stereotypical anarchists as envisioned by most Americans outside of far-left circles: black-clad protesters wreaking havoc at political conventions and anti-globalization rallies.

         e. Religion – Extremist ideology based on intolerance toward other religions.…..
       • Hew Manatee says:

         January 27, 2015 at 1:16 am

         Of course when you fire high level military personnel that means they are no longer IN the military and therefore do not have to keep their mouths shut!
         Of course, when you are no longer an officer in the military, you can no longer give (or NOT give) orders, which is the bigger consideration.
       • Gail Combs says:

         January 27, 2015 at 10:25 am

         Seems no one caught this trap:
         “He has also insisted that current officials actually take an oath to him personally.
         Is someone just making stuff up out of whole cloth??”

         It is a false rumor but the alleged change in the oath even had the guys at Black five going because of all the other illegal and unconstitutional stuff Obummer has pulled.
   • Gail Combs says:

     January 26, 2015 at 5:27 pm

     Not only is the US government giving the local police military weapons, the local police are now staffed with soldiers returning from combat and are being trained with combat soldiers.

     John W. Whitehead is Constitutional attorney and this is what he writes about the militarized police.

     …A field training officer for new recruits and a firing range instructor, Gelhaus seems to subscribe to the philosophy that an officer should ensure their own safety at all costs.

     As Gelhaus wrote in a 2008 article for S.W.A.T. magazine:

     Today is the day you may need to kill someone in order to go home. If you cannot turn on the “mean gene” for yourself, who will? If you find yourself in an ambush, in the kill zone, you need to turn on that mean gene. Taking some kind of action – any kind of action – is critical. If you shut down (physically, psychologically, or both) and stay in the kill zone, bad things will happen to you. You must take some kind of action.

     …As PoliceLink reports:

     
     “As the competition for coveted law enforcement positions increases throughout the country, police and federal recruiters have the luxury of picking and choosing the absolute best and brightest individuals. More often than not, police chiefs, sheriffs, and recruiters are turning to military veterans to fill these positions as they staff the next wave of warriors in the war on crime.”

     In addition to staffing police departments with ex-military personnel and equipping them with military gear, the government is also going to great lengths to train local police in military tactics.

     For example, civilian police train alongside military forces at the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center in Twentynine Palms, California, making full use of their weapons and equipment.

     …The collaborated training exercises help police incorporate military techniques into their skillset, including exercises in how to clear and move up a stairway, position themselves as snipers and take aim at opposing snipers, and clear a room.

     With such military training a.k.a. indoctrination in the works, it’s little wonder that police officers increasingly look upon American citizens as enemy combatants.

     Even those police officers who are not formally trained in military tactics are at a minimum being given greater access to more powerful firepower.

     In Boston, for example, the police department is preparing to train 99 of its patrol officers in how to use semiautomatic rifles, which would become standard fare in police cruisers.

     “It’s almost like we’re moving away from being community policing officers to being Navy SEALs,” stated Jack Kervin, president of the Boston Police Superior Officers Federation.

     http://apainfultruth.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/US-Militarized-police-raids.jpg

     Reply
3. Gail Combs says:

   January 26, 2015 at 6:51 pm

   Data on police shootings
   http://threepercenternation.com/2014/08/how-are-guns-being-used-by-american-citizens-this-infographic-breaks-it-down-for-you/

   The Best Reporting on Federal Push to Militarize Local Police: A few facts you might have missed about the flow of military equipment and tactics to local law enforcement.
   http://www.propublica.org/article/the-best-reporting-on-the-federal-push-to-militarize-local-police

   The ACLU prepared an excellent report: From the World Socialist Web Site no less!
   ACLU report exposes US federal government’s role in creating “paramilitary police”
   http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/06/27/aclu-j27.html

   Of course as one commenter put it they are rather late to the party.

   The only problem is the statistics are off — It IS worse than we thought – no surprise there
   Hundreds of Police Killings Are Uncounted in Federal Stats
   http://www.wsj.com/articles/hundreds-of-police-killings-are-uncounted-in-federal-statistics-1417577504

   …A Wall Street Journal analysis of the latest data from 105 of the country’s largest police agencies found more than 550 police killings during those years were missing from the national tally or, in a few dozen cases, not attributed to the agency involved. The result: It is nearly impossible to determine how many people are killed by the police each year…

   <b.Federal Law Ordering US Attorney General To Gather Data On Police Excessive Force Has Been Ignored For 20 Years from the another-optional-law dept
   https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140822/07034228290/federal-law-ordering-us-attorney-general-to-gather-data-police-excessive-force-has-been-ignored-20-years.shtml

   Reply
4. Gail Combs says:

   January 26, 2015 at 6:51 pm

   Why US police have an almost unlimited license to kill

   <b.SCOTUS and the license to kill

   
   http://www.thenation.com/article/190937/why-its-impossible-indict-cop

   Chapter 563 of the Missouri Revised Statutes grants a lot of discretion to officers of the law to wield deadly force, to the horror of many observers swooping in to the Ferguson story. The statute authorizes deadly force “in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody” if the officer “reasonably believes” it is necessary in order to “to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested has committed or attempted to commit a felony…or may otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.”

   But this law is not an outlier, and is fully in sync with Supreme Court jurisprudence. The legal standard authorizing deadly force is something called “objective reasonableness.”

   This standard originates in the 1985 case of Tennessee v. Garner, which appeared at first to tighten restrictions on the police use of deadly force. The case involved a Memphis cop, Elton Hymon, who shot dead one Edward Garner: 15 years old, black and unarmed. Garner had just burgled a house, grabbing a ring and ten bucks. The US Supreme Court ruled that a police officer, henceforth, could use deadly force only if he “has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.” The ruling required that the use of force be “objectively reasonable.” How this reasonableness should be determined was established in a 1989 case, Graham v. Connor: severity of the crime, whether the suspect is resisting or trying to escape and above all, whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to the safety of officers or others. All this appeared to restrict police violence—even if, in the end, Officer Hymon was never criminally charged for fatally shooting Edward Garner.

   “Objectively reasonable”—what could be wrong with that? But in actual courtroom practice, “objective reasonableness” has become nearly impossible to tell apart from the subjective snap judgments of panic-fueled police officers. American courts universally defer to the law enforcement officer’s own personal assessment of the threat at the time.

   The Graham analysis essentially prohibits any second-guessing of the officer’s decision to use deadly force: no hindsight is permitted, and wide latitude is granted to the officer’s account of the situation, even if scientific evidence proves it to be mistaken. ….

   Not surprisingly then, legal experts find that “there is built-in leeway for police, and the very breadth of this leeway is why criminal charges against police are so rare,”

   Reply
5. Gail Combs says:

   January 26, 2015 at 6:54 pm

   Someone here had mentioned that local law enforcement had shifted to reporting to the Feds instead of the local people. so as usual I went digging.

   I do not like to link to Alex Jones because he is regarded as a major kook. I will in this case because of the numerous links embedded within his text. Don’t miss the Fusion Center/DHS link.

   His first link is the Aspen Institute which I already had bookmarked. Do not forget that Communist/Socialist Maurice Strong is linked to the Aspen Institute along with the UN and CAGW.

   I am going to provide a bookmarkable link to the Aspen report that contains a bit more info:
   http://www.aspeninstitute.org/publications/homeland-security-intelligence-next-steps-evolving-mission

   Reply
6. Gail Combs says:

   January 26, 2015 at 7:30 pm

   The National Network of Fusion Centers seems to be where the transfer of control of the police from local to federal is occurring. There is a bit of psychology here where the locals are going to bond to the group that is training them giving them cool toys and stroking their egos.
   DHS Fact Sheet

   “A fusion center is a collaborative effort of two or more agencies that provide resources, expertise and information to the center with the goal of maximizing their ability to detect, prevent, investigate, and respond to criminal and terrorist activity.”
   – Baseline Capabilities for State and Major Urban Area Fusion Centers (October 2008)

   <b.Overview

   State and major urban area fusion centers (fusion centers) serve as primary focal points within the state and local environment for the receipt, analysis, gathering, and sharing of threat-related information among federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial (SLTT) partners. Located in states and major urban areas throughout the country, fusion centers are uniquely situated to empower front-line law enforcement, public safety, fire service (PDF – 22 pages, 2.21 MB), emergency response, public health, critical infrastructure protection (PDF – 30 pages, 3.54 MB) and private sector security personnel to lawfully gather and share threat-related information. They provide interdisciplinary expertise and situational awareness to inform decision-making at all levels of government. Fusion centers conduct analysis and facilitate information sharing, assisting law enforcement and homeland security partners in preventing, protecting against, and responding to crime and terrorism. Fusion centers are owned and operated by state and local entities with support from federal partners….

   So there is the Camel’s nose under the tent.

   Obama Martial Law EO moves power from FEMA to President
   Compares Clinton and Obama’s EOs

   Implementation. Sec. 104: (a) The National Security Council is the principal forum for consideration and resolution of national security resource preparedness policy.
   (b) The Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) shall…
   (b3) Establish procedures, in consultation with Federal departments and agencies assigned functions under this order, to resolve in a timely and effective manner conflicts and issues that may arise in implementing the authorities and functions delegated under this order; and
   (b4) Report to the President periodically concerning all program activities conducted pursuant to this order.

   The latest from the US government:
   Review: Federal Support for Local Law Enforcement Equipment Acquisition
   Executive Office of the President

   DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS)
   Since 2003, DHS has made funding available for LEAs chiefly through FEMA’s Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP), pursuant to the authorities currently provided at 6 U.S.C. §§ 603-609. The HSGP is comprised of three, interconnected grant programs; the State Homeland Security Program (SHSP), the Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) and Operation Stonegarden (OPSG). SHSP and UASI are designed to build capabilities to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks, disasters, and other incidents in support of the National Preparedness Goal. States are required by law to pass-through (i.e., sub-award) at least 80 percent of funding to local or tribal jurisdictions. The UASI program provides funding for high-threat, high-density urban areas. States are required to pass-through at least 80 percent of UASI funds directly to those local jurisdictions situated in urban areas. These funds are then administered by an Urban Area Working Group. States and urban areas allocate grant funds at their own discretion as long as those allocations conform to applicable governing laws, regulations and guidelines. Operation Stonegarden provides funding to enhance cooperation and coordination among local, tribal, territorial, state and federal law enforcement agencies to secure the United States’ borders. OPSG funds are allocated based on a sector-specific DHS border risk methodology. In FY2014, HSGP provided over $1 billion in grant funding to all U.S. States and Territories and to 39 Urban Areas across the country.

   Within each state or territory participating in the HSGP, State Administrative Agencies (SAAs) are designated by the Governor to act as the recipient agency responsible for administering SHSP, UASI and OPSG grant funds. Prior to FY2014, HSGP applicants were required to provide broad narratives laying out how proposed expenditures addressed unmet capability gaps. Beginning in FY2014, project-based requirements were incorporated into the HSGP. Applicants are now required to provide project-level information in the application that is more extensive than in the past. When submitting their applications for SHSP and UASI funds, LEAs must develop a formal Investment Justification (IJ) that addresses each investment being proposed for funding. The IJ demonstrates how proposed projects support sustainment of existing core capabilities or address capability gaps and deficiencies in one or more core capabilities outlined in the National Preparedness Goal and as identified in their most recent State Preparedness Report. The IJ also demonstrates alignment to the urban area, state, and/or regional Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessments (THIRAs), national priorities, and applicable guidance provided by FEMA. The IJ also describes engagement with and/or impacts on the general and vulnerable populations, to include children, the elderly, pregnant women, and individuals with disabilities. Furthermore, the IJ must clearly identify and explain the investment’s nexus to terrorism preparedness….

   OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY (ONDCP)
   
   High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) Program
   Created by Congress in 1988, the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) Program coordinates federal, state, local and tribal LEAs operating in areas determined to be critical drug trafficking regions of the United States. There are currently 28 HIDTAs affiliated with 200 grantees located in 47 states. HIDTA funds are not used to acquire military style equipment. However, federal, state, and local law enforcement organizations participating in a regional HIDTA may deploy such equipment.

   ADMINSTRATION
   ONDCP operates the HIDTA program, pursuant to the “Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2006.” Through non-competitive grants, HIDTA provides resources to assist federal, state, local and tribal agencies in coordinating activities that address multi-jurisdictional drug trafficking and supports task forces to conduct drug enforcement related operations.

   Each designated HIDTA region has an Executive Board composed of federal, state, local and tribal law enforcement leaders that submit an annual Threat Assessment, Strategy, and budget request to fund activities that fall within any of four categories: 1) Enforcement, 2) Intelligence and Information Sharing, 3) Support, and 4) Management and Coordination. Specific activities include enforcement such as multi-agency investigations, interdiction, and prosecution activities targeting drug trafficking and money laundering organizations, drug production organizations, drug gangs, drug fugitives, and other serious crimes with a drug nexus. The annual budget submissions are reviewed by ONDCP to ensure compliance with grant law and HIDTA program policy….

   Reply
7. Gail Combs says:

   January 26, 2015 at 8:10 pm

   MISSION CREEP: The camel (aka the US Government) now has it’s head and not just its nose under the tent.

   To understand why the following makes NO SENSE look at Janet Napolitano’s atitude towards the Mexican Border and her granting Saudis ‘Trusted Traveler’ Privileges to Help Them Through Airport Security Napolitanno was Governor of Arizona from 2003 to 2009 so she was well aware of the Muslims and drugs and criminals and disease coming across our wide open southern border. Instead of addressing the issue she focuses on ‘Home Grown Terrorists’ Those that supported former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr and a list of 72 types of Americans that are considered to be “extremists” and “potential terrorists” in official U.S. government documents. To see the original source document for each point, just click on the link. As you can see, this list covers most of the country

   More recently we have Texas Democrats, Rep. Beto O’Rourke of El Paso, Rep. Pete Gallego of Alpine and Rep. Filemon Vela of Brownsville, seeking to block expansion of U.S.-Mexico border fence
   blog(DOT)chron.com/txpotomac/2013/06/texas-democrats-seek-to-block-expansion-of-u-s-mexico-border-fence/

   2009 Operation Stonegarden Program Guidance – South Carolina

   Additional overview information: In FY 2009, OPSG eligibility has been expanded to inude local units of government at the county level and Federally-recognized tribal governments in the States bordering Canada (including Alaska), southern States bordering Mexico, and States and territories with International water borders. This key change increases the total number of eligible applicants from 15 in FY 2008 to 38 in FY 2009.
   ….Operation Stonegarden (OPSG) provides funding to designated localities to enhance cooperation and coordination between Federal, State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies in a joint mission to secure the United States borders
   ..

   ….Since its inception, the intent of OPSG has been to enhance law enforcement preparedness and operational readiness along the borders of the United States. ..

   In FY 2009, OPSG has been enhanced to effectively address the constantly changing threats to our borders based upon new, emerging, and changing intelligence. The FY 2009 OPSG funds must be used to increase operational capabilities of Federal, State, local and tribal law enforcement, promoting a layered, coordinated approach to law enforcement within U.S. border States and territories.
   ….

   So while the US government will not build the Mexican border fence required by law, while the US government grants citizens of the country that caused the passage of the Patriot Act air travel privileges, it treats US citizens as Enemies of the state and is slowly co-opting local law enforcement.

   Reply