DHS, Motor Vehicles and You

Will this be a growing trend?

Homeland Security's watch list and DMV put Debbie Arthur through a nightmare
Cathy Benson
From Freedom's Phoenix

What happened to Blue Ridge resident Debbie Williams Arthur is one of those events you have nightmares over.

A couple of days before schools went on Christmas break, Williams—who teaches German at William Byrd High School—tried to get her vehicle decals online through the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV).

She said she was rejected and told she had to go to a DMV office. She sent her husband Jimmy the next day, but he was informed she had to come in personally and was given a toll-free telephone number for her to call.

Arthur said her husband called her and gave her the number.

What happened next scared her very much, and many would think rightly so.

She was in a classroom with students she tutors after school when she made the call. The woman on the other end of the line called her a convicted felon and a fugitive.

Arthur tried to explain herself but the lady on the other end kept telling her she was a fugitive from Decatur, Ga. and she had to come into the DMV in Roanoke with identification.

Williams said the woman she spoke with was very aggressive towards her, but she learned her identification had been connected through Homeland Security to a Debra K. Williams, who apparently is a felon and fugitive from the law.

The next day was the first day out of school for Christmas break so Arthur took her birth certificate, marriage license, Social Security card and passport and, with a former student who rode with her, went to the Crossroads Mall DMV site in Roanoke.

The girl with Arthur attends the University of Southern California and had her driver’s license stolen in California.

Now, the plot thickens.

When Arthur arrived at the DMV she was told to wait and it would take 15 minutes to separate her information from the other person with the similar name, she said. Arthur waited one hour and was told there were problems.

The DMV had faxed her documents to Richmond and the computer override from Homeland Security would not allow the DMV to separate the two identities. Her 15 minutes turned into three and half hours.

In the course of those hours she spent at DMV, she learned the DMV system said she did not exist when her Social Security number was keyed into the agency’s system.

Arthur said her stress level increased with each piece of information DMV delivered.

Unbelievably, she said, they told her not to drive home because should she be stopped that the police would arrest her for being a fugitive.

She finally got a handwritten note from a DMV worker to give a policeman in case she got stopped.

“Imagine that,” said Arthur, “a handwritten note to convince a police officer that you were not a fugitive from the law. I left at 5:20 p.m. and the DMV closes at 4:30 p.m. and I was nervous on the drive home.”

She said she was told the DMV had an expert on her case in Richmond and she would get a call at 10 a.m. the next day. She waited and waited and no call came, so she called. “Still no progress,” she said she was told.

Finally, she went back to the DMV and eventually her identity was returned to her.

In the meantime she called Del. Lacey Putney, her representative in the Virginia House of Delegates, and he delivered some astounding news.

She said he told her of a glitch in the state computer system and that 1 out of 30 Virginians are either keyed in wrong or there is some other flaw in the system, and so problems can arise when the computers search for a match.

That is how Arthur was attached to the fugitive in Georgia—by the computer—and how she was connected to Homeland Security.

Being a teacher, she said she is well aware what the mistake could have done to her career.

While it is a state problem, the federal aspect made her call Congressman Bob Goodlatte’s office as well. Arthur said the congressman told his secretary it was not in his area of governance.

There’s more.

The former student who rode with Arthur to DMV hit a roadblock trying to get a duplicate driver’s license.

When her Social Security number was keyed into the system, she came up as a 40-year-old male Hispanic.

She had to call her mother to get all of her documents to prove who she was. That meant a return trip to the DMV after her mother faxed her those documents. She did get her identity straightened out in 15 minutes on her return to DMV, but Arthur said it sure felt like more than 1 in 30 was having difficulties that day.

“Something needs to be done. I could have been carted away by Homeland Security and the Patriotic Act,” said Arthur. “Del. Putney told me several horror stories about the situation that he is familiar with, and, well, I would not have gotten a complimentary phone call to tell my family where I was had I been stopped for a traffic infraction.”

Sphere: Related Content

H.R. 1955 and The Generalization of Terrorism

Good article on H.R. 1955 and it's dastardly ramifications from a fellow blogger. Many of us have the same thoughts on this subject but just say it a bit differently. Also, there are good articles that should be circulated and this is one of them. And sometimes it's just easier to let other people take the podium...

Indentity Check

Anok
1.17.08

Yesterday I wrote a rather dismal bit about our country’s downward spiral into regulated actions and thoughts and an overwhelming Orwellian State. I also said I would comment on the actual bill that inspired the doomsday post, and so, I am delivering.

According to Thomas H.R. 1955, and its related bill, S. 1959 outlines the problems of "homegrown terrorism, and radical violence". There are, and have been serious discussions among us "lefty" and even not-so-lefty bloggers and ordinary citizens. There has been an amazing amount of silence about the subject from our government, and mainstream media sources.

I touched on this bill, by reposting someone else’s post about it after the bill passed the house. I want to remind everyone, that the house passed the bill, without debate on it, 404-6 with only 22 not voting. No debate! At that time, the discussion was mainly about who the bill would affect. The argument is that it only addresses violent acts , thus peaceful protesters, conscientious objectors, and ordinary bloggers like you and me would be perfectly exempt from anything having to do with the piece of crap legislation. But I would like for everyone to stop for a moment, and take a closer look at the bill. Last time, I posted someone else’s words. This time, it is my own, with careful consideration, research, and of course - the overtone of my Anarchist sensibilities. I’m trying to keep this light hearted, if you can tell, because every time I read this bill, I get a little nauseous.

Let us take a look at what the government defines as "Violent Radicalization";

`(2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization’ means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.

Ok, so it consists of people using "ideological based violence" to promote their agenda. Got it. But wait! What is ideological based violence? Well, it goes on to say;

`(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologically based violence’ means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual’s political, religious, or social beliefs.

Aha! Herein lies a great deal of the vague language that has caused such a brouhaha amongst us "lefties". "Planned use" what exactly does planning entail? How deep into planning would something have to be, in order for it to go from thought, to an act of Violent Radical Behavior? Would they need maps, weapons, and well trained militia style radicals at the ready? Or would it simply entail people gathered together to discuss what kind of actions they might want to take before actually committing to anything? And how would one prove that they have, or haven’t committed to any such action? Would that thinking it through qualify as "planning" or "threatening"? Or would it fall under the category of common sense, that says you can’t be guilty of a crime if you only thought about it, but never committed it?

It doesn’t just address the use of violence, though. It also says "force". Who defines force? Would peaceful protesters who happen to be blocking a building or sidewalk or who refuse to vacate be considered "forceful"?

Many would say yes - and in a way, I agree that they are. However, and here is the real problem, how does a group of other wise ordinary citizens exercising their first amendment rights - albeit in a civil disobedient manner - go from protester, to terrorist?

Haven’t we begun to throw "terrorist" around a little too much lately? If you listen to right-wing pundits, you might believe that anyone who opposes (a sort of "ideological force" if you will) the government on any base, is a terrorist at home. From the Department of Homeland Security’s "National Strategy for Homeland Security", addresses violent radicalization, if only briefly as;

The terrorist threat to the Homeland is not restricted to violent Islamic extremist groups. We also confront an ongoing threat posed by domestic terrorists based and operating strictly within the United States. Often referred to as “single-issue” groups, they include white supremacist groups, animal rights extremists, and eco-terrorist groups, among others.

Now, I think we all agree that white supremacists are a bad lot, the antics of hard hitting animal rights groups such as PETA flirt with the line between legal and illegal actions…and…eco-terrorists? What is an eco-terrorist? From Wikipedia;

For example, a bill proposed by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in Texas called the "Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act", begins with the description, "An act relating to criminal offenses involving acts against certain activities involving animals or involving natural resources and to civil consequences arising from convictions of those offenses." The bill defines an "animal rights or ecological terrorist organization" as "two or more persons organized for the purpose of supporting any politically motivated activity intended to obstruct or deter any person from participating in an activity involving animals or an activity involving natural resources."[5]

If the state of Texas can define terrorist actions on behalf of the environment or animals as "two or more persons organized for the purpose of supporting any politically motivated activity intended to obstruct or deter any person from participating in an activity involving […]"

Any activity? There is no standard there for violence… Legally protected protests, sit ins, and otherwise peaceful forms of civil disobedience are activities by two or more people intended to deter (any) people from engaging in certain acts. Boycotts are a time tested form of financial obstruction or determent - aimed at companies (legally considered individual citizens) who engage in or support actions that we often oppose. Furthermore, it takes far more than two people to make it successful.

Are we to now understand that these forms of redress - a consistent form of grievance airing, social motivation, and change initiation - are acts of terrorism?!

If Texas can make it a law, our government can do the same. That legislation sets the precedent for labeling time honored traditions as acts of terrorism.

I seriously recommend that anyone concerned about our loss of rights take a look - not just at the bill on the senate’s plate - but also the Homeland Security documents, and start looking into laws and bills that have the kind of language that support "ideological warfare" on "Ideological, home grown, or radical terrorists".

The language is vague enough to allow room for further restrictions, some of what I have read is downright scary in the sense that it already eradicates the need for actual violence to occur, or even for "planned violence" to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

The worst part about all of this is the end game. If person has been labeled a "terrorist", American citizen or otherwise, they can be locked up indefinitely because their right to Habeas Corpus no longer exists. In fact, if I am not mistaken, our country is prepared to take away all constitutional rights for suspected terrorists. Suspected terrorists.

Still yet, if our country were to initiate Martial Law because of some disaster, then this bill, H.R. 1955/S. 1959 would only be strengthened - and our country to lock up anybody who starts gathering in groups, for any purpose if they so decide.

Make no mistake, the Homeland Security department has this bill now, is reviewing it, revising it, and it will probably end up with some different language in it when it finally gets back to the senate. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was more inclusive, like the bill from Texas. Many people will still say "It could never happen here." or "They would never…" or proclaim that they trust the government to act in an appropriate manner with this sort of power. I am revisiting this issue because it is of the utmost importance that we not ignore the potential here. Take a look around, there has been no country, no citizen throughout history who hasn’t be deceived, enslaved, or outright betrayed by their government in the cruelest manner. Governments have a nasty habit of turning on it’s people.

Humans have not progressed to the point of eradicating this type of power hungry behavior - look at world events, it is still occurring today! Are we so naive to think that it would never happen to us? The only way to prevent it from happening here, is to actively fight to prevent it. To blindly trust in a government with our freedoms, liberties and personal safety is to make a grave mistake. Isn’t it time we learned to see the slippery slope before we are pushed down it?

Think I am an alarmist? Read it for yourselves, then take a look through your history books, and pay close attention to other countries who have gone through a similar metamorphosis. Read the end of their chapter, to see what our future could hold.

{For your consideration: The links provided to the Thomas page will ask you to resubmit your query. It is time sensitive, so search for the bill by it’s number H.R. 1955 and reference it with (110th) to make sure you have the right bill. Or you can just google it. The Department of Homeland security link is a PDF for those of you who hate PDF’s, this is your warning! The Wikipedia link is for eco-terrorism, but the texts are sourced on that page.}

Sphere: Related Content

U.S. Issues National ID Standards, Setting Stage for a Showdown

By MATTHEW L. WALD

Published: January 12, 2008
NYTimes

WASHINGTON — The federal government issued national standards on Friday that states would have to meet in order for driver’s licenses they issue to qualify as identification at airports and federal buildings, setting the stage for a confrontation with states that have voted not to cooperate.

Under a measure known as Real ID legislation, the states must comply by May 11, the third anniversary of the measure’s enactment, or obtain a waiver from the Department of Homeland Security.

Meeting the May 11 deadline is impossible because the regulations have been delayed so long, but Michael Chertoff, the secretary of homeland security, said Friday that his department would issue a waiver to states that promised to comply later.

He laid out a very long schedule, with the final deadline in December 2017, more than 16 years after the events that prompted the law, the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Several states have voted not to comply. One is Washington, where the chairwoman of the Senate’s transportation committee, when asked what difference the new federal rules would make, said, “None.”

The Washington Legislature is to begin a special session on Monday but it will be brief, said Senator Mary Margaret Haugen, the chairwoman.

“It’s very unrealistic of the federal government to think that states that are not in session or in a short session can resolve this in a short time frame,” she said. “Our state has said we will not spend money on the Real ID unless they fund it, and I don’t see any money coming from the federal government.”

In Washington and elsewhere, state lawmakers have complained that the requirements add up to a national identification card, that it is too costly, puts privacy at risk and poses severe technical challenges.

The Legislature in Maine overwhelmingly passed a resolution last January vowing not to comply. The Legislature there is in its “short session” and can take up only legislation that all the leadership decides is an emergency, said Peggy Schaffer, chief of staff to the Senate majority leader.

Ms. Schaffer predicted that pressure from the airlines might force the federal government to reverse itself.

The airlines, in fact, are worried, because travelers with driver’s licenses from states that do not have a waiver would have to use a passport or a military ID, or face additional screening, including a pat-down.

“This has the potential to be hugely problematic,” said David Castelveter, a spokesman for the Air Transport Association, a trade association of the major carriers. “It appears as if the Department of Homeland Security is placing the burden on the traveling public for a state’s inability to comply.”

Exactly how many states will decide not to apply for waivers is unclear. Arkansas, Idaho, Montana and others have voted against the program, which was a central recommendation of the Sept. 11 Commission.

States would have to require applicants for new licenses or renewals to prove they are legally in the country, and then record and verify the documents.

Opponents have complained that passports and Social Security cards are easy to verify promptly, but birth certificates, issued by thousands of jurisdictions, are not.

While some states are in revolt, others were moving to tighten their licensing standards even before Sept. 11. And some advocates say that tighter controls would help prevent identity theft and drunken driving.

“We can kill three birds with one stone if we get ourselves on a path to a secure driver’s license,” Mr. Chertoff said.

Civil libertarians counter that the new licenses must have all the information encoded into a machine-readable bar code. These will be read by retail stores, hotels and other companies, the American Civil Liberties Union predicted, creating powerful intrusions of privacy.

Barry Steinhardt of the A.C.L.U. predicted that the program would never take effect. By setting deadlines so far in the future, he said, the administration had “kicked the can down the road” to the next one.

The schedule released Friday calls for compliant licenses for everyone under 50 by May 11, 2014, and for those 50 and over, by Dec. 1, 2017.

The Homeland Security Department decided this would lower costs, according to Mr. Chertoff. He called it “risk management,” saying older people were less likely to be terrorists.

Sphere: Related Content

THE KENNEBUNKPORT WARNING

Below is a copy of the Kennebunkport warning, which should be emailed to everyone.
Please note there have been supposed redactions by certain members and even an attack by the Ford Foundation regarding it. Nevertheless, It is NOT a fraud, as many sites have claimed. To learn more about it, click here.
Please spread the word, as the Cheney Doctrine, as it is referred to, implies a false flag attack on US soil in order to trigger the invasion of Iran.

*********

THE KENNEBUNKPORT WARNING

To the American people, and to peace loving individuals everywhere:

Massive evidence has come to our attention which shows that the backers, controllers, and allies of Vice President Dick Cheney are determined to orchestrate and manufacture a new 9/11 terror incident, and/or a new Gulf of Tonkin war provocation over the coming weeks and months. Such events would be used by the Bush administration as a pretext for launching an aggressive war against Iran, quite possibly with nuclear weapons, and for imposing a regime of martial law here in the United States. We call on the House of Representatives to proceed immediately to the impeachment of Cheney, as an urgent measure for avoiding a wider and more catastrophic war. Once impeachment has begun, it will be easier for loyal and patriotic military officers to refuse illegal orders coming from the Cheney faction. We solemnly warn the people of the world that any terrorist attack with weapons of mass destruction taking place inside the United States or elsewhere in the immediate future must be considered the prima facie responsibility of the Cheney faction. We urge responsible political leaders everywhere to begin at once to inoculate the public opinion of their countries against such a threatened false flag terror operation.

(Signed) A Group of US Opposition Political Leaders Gathered in Protest at the Bush Compound in Kennebunkport, Maine, August 24-25, 2007

CYNTHIA MCKINNEY, FORMER U.S. CONGRESSWOMAN, GEORGIA

CINDY SHEEHAN, CANDIDATE FOR U.S. CONGRESS, CALIFORNIA*

ANN WRIGHT, COLONEL US ARMY RESERVE, FORMER US DIPLOMAT*

JAMILLA EL-SHAFEI, ORGANIZER OF KENNEBUNKPORT PEACE DEMONSTRATION , KENNEBUNK PEACE DEPARTMENT*

DAHLIA WASFI, M.D. WWW.LIBERATETHIS.COM*

GEORGE PAZ MARTIN

JOHN KAMINSKI, MAINE LAWYER, IMPEACHMENT ADVOCATE **

WEBSTER G. TARPLEY, AUTHOR, 'UNAUTHORIZED BIOGRAPHY OF GEORGE H.W. BUSH' & '9/11 SYNTHETIC TERROR: MADE IN THE USA'

CRAIG HILL, GREEN PARTY OF VERMONT, CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE

BRUCE MARSHALL, ORGANIZER OF PHILADELPHIA EMERGENCY ANTIWAR CONVENTION, PHILADELPHIA PLATFORM, WWW.ACTINDEPENDENT.ORG, GREEN PARTY OF VERMONT

Sphere: Related Content

DHS: Its Got Its Eye on You

DHS Student and Alumni Newsletter for December 2007

Beware anti-abortionists, followers of the Odinist faith, anti-tax protesters, and fierce God-fearing Christians! Christians? Yes, Christians! You're all classified as right-wing terrorists the same as the KKK and neo-Nazi groups!

The Department of Homeland Security is watching all of you. AND DHS is teaching its new recruits to watch you too.

Don't worry though.. Environmental, animal rights and conspiracy theory groups and individuals are DHS targets, as well.

All of these right-wing groups and individuals

"account for a significant percentage of criminal activity"

and are highly likely to commit homicides, at least according to DHS,

"One facet of right-wing groups’ actions is homicide. Current data shows they are responsible for more than 500 murders and more than 200 murder attempts since 1990."

Amazing statistics considering there are a billion people in the U.S. and that this little tidbit has no information to back it up so it could be made up! Sounds like this information is a bit stretched to me, using words like "significant"...

Anyways, here's some more info from the newsletter:

Classifications of domestic terror groups & members

Right-wing:
Fierce nationalism, reverence of individual liberties, anti-global and anti-government beliefs. Some groups conduct paramilitary and survivalist training, adhere to conspiracy theories,
and think of themselves as a religion

Left-wing:
Desire to end social class distinctions, associated with state-sponsorship, espionage and planning against U.S. government. May adhere to Marxist, Leninist or communist beliefs,
seeing force as a tool for removing an oppressive society.

Single-issue:
Often seen as militancy linked with environmentalism,
animal rights and abortion. Members act on a perceived grievance or wrong attributed to government action or inaction. Threats, violence and the destruction of property are used.

Percentage of U.S. states with a far-right presence:
Neo-nazi: 92%
Racist Skinheads: 89%
Militias / Patriot groups: 89%
Freeman / Sovereign citizen: 87%
KKK: 73%
Christian Identity: 70%
Extreme Anti-tax groups: 67%
Extreme anti-immigration groups: 65%
Extreme anti-abortion groups: 62%
Odinists: 35%

But don't just believe me read it for yourself: DHS Newsletter

Soon it will be a police state and we won't be sitting here at our computers but in a cell in one of the Halliburton "camps". So hang on and get ready to ride... It's gonna be a bumpy one!

Sphere: Related Content

ACLU and H.R. 1955: "Serious Concerns"

Yesterdays' press release from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) states that they continue to have "serious concerns regarding the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007" a.k.a. H.R. 1955.

This measure, sponsored by Congresswoman Jane Harman (D) of California, reads in summary:

Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to add provisions concerning the prevention of homegrown terrorism (terrorism by individuals born, raised, or based and operating primarily in the United States).

Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to: (1) establish a grant program to prevent radicalization (use of an extremist belief system for facilitating ideologically-based violence) and homegrown terrorism in the United States; (2) establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States; and (3) conduct a survey of methodologies implemented by foreign nations to prevent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.

Prohibits the Department of Homeland Security's efforts to prevent ideologically-based violence and homegrown terrorism from violating the constitutional and civil rights, and civil liberties, of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.

The ACLU has been sparring over the language of the measure with Representative Harman with the ACLU suggesting that the language be more specific. The ACLU feels that the current language is too vague and too reminiscent of "thought police."

As ACLU legislative director Caroline Fredrickson has pointed out, the measure, as currently written, implies that what "you’re really looking at [is what] someone’s thought processes are, what their ideology is, and not what they’re doing."

Harman has dismissed the ACLU's concerns as unfounded. Her counterpoint is, "HR 1955 is not about interfering with speech or belief. The hearing record makes that abundantly clear. Radical speech, as I have said repeatedly, is protected under our Constitution."

Well, Jane Harman, the people are disagreeing with you and we are concerned...

John Nichols, associate editor at the Capital Times, writes that

"H.R. 1955 would establish the framework for an Orwellian network charged with policing not the actions but the thoughts and statements of Americans. It would establish a commission with broad investigative powers and an official charge to propose legislation and regulatory moves to bar whatever thoughts or words the commission identifies as "homegrown terrorism."

Philip Giraldi, Huffington Post, also questions H.R. 1955 saying that it could be used as a tool to target specific groups such as Muslims. He feels that this is unquestionable as certain groups of people within America "see a terrorist hiding under every rock, particularly if the rock is concealing a Muslim."

Bill Haymin writes that the signing of H.R. 1955 at the time of the California fires "was no accident" as the government runs in fear from its own people as it has brought Americans to the "brink of financial ruin." He also writes that it is due to "the push for a new, unbiased investigation into 911 [which] is turning into an unmanageable situation for the shadow government."

The ACLU's, my and John Nichols, Philip Giraldi and Bill Haymin, concern should be everyone's concern as this measure imposes restrictions on free speech, thought and belief.

It's McCarthyism all over again! And Americans are being targeted as terrorists for not buying into the official "party line" on any subject our overzealous and misdirected officials have been shoving down our throats especially since 9/11.

I think we need to start flooding our elected officials offices with a copy of the Bill of Rights. It seems that they forgot what was on it...

Sphere: Related Content