Archive for April, 2013

Europol in the United States — Beginning of an EU-U.S. Police Merger?

April 29, 2013

From The New American by William F. Jasper, April 27, 2013

Europol, the burgeoning police and intelligence agency of the European Union, has many people in Europe concerned about its continuously expanding mission and powers (see here and here). Now the agency appears to be getting ready to extend its reach into the United States in new ways, as part of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) being promoted by President Obama and a powerful coalition (see here and here ) of Wall Street one-worlders and globalist corporate executives.

Europol in the United States — Beginning of an EU-U.S. Police Merger?

 

On April 16, the Delegation of the European Union to the United States and Europol welcomed more than 140 members of the U.S. and European law enforcement communities for an in-depth discussion of transatlantic cooperation on law enforcement in Washington, D.C. According to the EU delegation’s press release on the event, the conference topics covered would include “cyber crime, terrorism, and crimes related to intellectual property rights.”

“As globalization intensifies, we have to recognize that crime has also become increasingly multinational, multifaceted, innovative and disruptive, and not in a good way,” EU Ambassador to the United States Joao Vale de Almeida said during his introduction. “The onus is on us, the EU and the U.S., public and law enforcement officials, to ensure that as we prepare to deepen our economic ties [through a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership], we adapt effectively to this transformation. We also need to consider how to align our law enforcement resources to ensure that as we open up the opportunity for businesses and working families, we also keep criminal interests in check.”

Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security Jane Holl Lute reinforced the EU-U.S. convergence theme. She said, “Working together, we have already begun to see how we can transform the way in which we protect our nations, and our citizens, against the shared threats that we face. Whether those threats are from terrorists, cyber criminals, or those who seek to steal intellectual property … the cooperation between our law enforcement agencies, governments, and our nations have never been stronger, and its impact has never been greater.” (A video recording of the conference can be viewed on You Tube here.)

The sparse reportage of this important development in EU-U.S. relations left unmentioned the fact that Europol, like so many of the EU’s institutions, has incrementally taken on increased powers, with the European Commission always citing some crisis or exigency allegedly requiring more centralized police authority.

The EU’s steady erosion of the independence and sovereignty of its member states is not occurring by chance. As The New American has previously reported in many articles (see articles listed below), the architects of the Common Market (as the EU was known in one of its earliest incarnations) insisted from the start that the “project” would never evolve into a central government or in any way compromise the sovereignty of the nations involved. All the while, the same designers — as their correspondence and private speeches and communications show — were working assiduously to create a supranational federal government that would completely override the nation states of Europe. With the conclusion of the Lisbon Treaty, the people of the European Union were tricked, bribed, browbeaten, and cajoled into jettisoning almost every remaining vestige of sovereignty.

EU Ambassador to the U.S. Joao Vale de Almeida (quoted above) has been a key functionary in this subversion of sovereignty, including assisting in negotiating the deceptive and subversive Lisbon Treaty. As we reported earlier this week, many of the most influential people in the U.S. government and foreign policy and economic establishments are completely in tune with this subversive process. Our article “CFR Applauds European Union’s ‘Real Subversion of Sovereignty’” links to a video of a recent panel discussion at which top members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) explicitly acknowledge and applaud the fact that “there’s real subversion of sovereignty by the EU that works.”

It is not surprising then to see the CFR well represented at this recent Europol conference. Among those attending the conference for the United States — and speaking at it — were:

• Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano (CFR)

• Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security Jane Holl Lute (CFR)

• Director of the Stein Program on Counterterrorism and Intelligence, Washington Institute for Near East Policy Matthew Levitt (CFR)

“Eroding Sovereignty Piece by Piece”

In 1974, CFR member Richard N. Gardner penned a signal article in the CFR journal Foreign Affairs entitled “The Hard Road to World Order.” Since hopes for “instant world government” under the United Nations had proven illusory, he wrote, the best hope for building “the house of world order” lay in a longrange “end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece.” This could best be done, he noted, on an ad hoc basis with treaties and international “arrangements” — on environment, trade, security, etc. — that could later be brought within “the central institutions of the U.N. system.” Gardner, now a professor emeritus of law at Columbia University, served in ambassadorial and diplomatic posts for Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton.

The Council on Foreign Relations has been pursuing that end-run strategy around national sovereignty — through both Republican and Democrat administrations — for many decades now. In a 2006 op-ed entitled “State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era,” CFR President Richard Haass argued that “in the age of globalization, states should give up some sovereignty to world bodies.” The CFR chief claimed that “sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker.” Haass and his fellow one-worlders in the CFR globalist cabal are now pushing to destroy U.S. sovereignty in the same way that the EU has all but completely destroyed the national sovereignty of its member states. The primary vehicle currently being promoted by the CFR and the Obama administration to entangle the United States in the EU project is the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). President Obama is calling on Congress to give him “fast track” Trade Promotion Authority that would enable him to push the TTIP through Congress with little or no debate and no amendments.

Obama Condemns Efforts to Protect Unborn

April 29, 2013

From The New American by Dave Bohon, April 28, 2013

President Obama spoke at Planned Parenthood’s annual gala April 26, using the platform to affirm his continued support of the abortion giant, while attacking states that have worked to protect the unborn and their mothers by passing legislation to defund Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.

Obama Addresses Planned Parenthood Gala, Condemns Efforts to Protect Unborn

President Obama at 2013 Planned Parenthood National Conference in Washington: AP Images

Significantly, Obama is the first sitting president to address the so-called “family planning” organization. Just as significant is the fact that nowhere in Obama’s lengthy speech could he bring himself to utter the word “abortion,” although Planned Parenthood is responsible for 40 percent of the murderous procedures done in the United States, and abortion makes up a significant portion of its revenue stream.

Instead, the president played on Planned Parenthood’s penchant for posing as the friend of women — particularly low-income women who sometimes use its clinics for cancer screenings, contraceptives, and such. “Somewhere there’s a woman who just received a new lease on life because of a screening that you provided that helped catch her cancer in time,” crooned Obama to his Planned Parenthood audience. “Somewhere there’s a woman who’s breathing easier today because of the support and counseling she got at her local Planned Parenthood health clinic.”

And — without speaking the abhorrent “A” word — the president noted that “somewhere there’s a young woman starting a career who, because of you, is able to decide for herself when she wants to start a family.” By which he meant that Planned Parenthood has been only too willing to kill the pre-born babies of countless women who decided that, for whatever reason, a baby would be an unnecessary inconvenience.

As he ingratiated himself to the Planned Parenthood audience by affirming the group’s contraception and abortion agenda, Obama also affirmed his commitment to aggressively oppose those who are fighting for the pre-born and their mothers by working to defund Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers. Referring to such states as North Dakota, which recently passed legislation that would ban abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, and Mississippi, where pro-life lawmakers were unsuccessful in their attempts to pass a personhood measure that would have protected all humans from the moment of conception, Obama fairly sneered that “after decades of progress, there’s still those who want to turn back the clock to policies more suited to the 1950s than the 21st century. And they’ve been involved in an orchestrated and historic effort to roll back basic rights when it comes to women’s health.”

Ridiculing the over 40 states where lawmakers have introduced or passed laws to protect the unborn, Obama quipped to the supportive chuckles of the pro-abortion audience: “When you read about these laws you want to check the calendar. You want to make sure you’re still living in 2013. Forty years after the Supreme Court affirmed a woman’s constitutional right to privacy, including the right to choose [abortion], we shouldn’t have to remind people that when it comes to a woman’s health, no politician should get to decide what’s best for you.”

During his talk the president admitted that his ObamaCare “Affordable Care Act” socialized medicine scheme will be a financial windfall to the folks at Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers. “Because of the ACA, most insurance plans are now covering the cost of contraceptive care,” the president announced, “so that a working mom doesn’t have to put off the care she needs just so she can pay her bills on time. Because of the Affordable Care Act, 47 million women have new access to preventive care like mammograms and cancer screenings with no copay, no deductible, no out-of-pocket costs, so they don’t have to put off a mammogram just because money is tight.”

Add to that the ACA’s infamous contraception mandate rider that would require businesses to provide free contraception — including abortion-inducing drugs — to their employees, and Planned Parenthood is set to add more billions to the hundred of millions in federal tax dollars it receives.

Re-affirming his commitment to do everything in his power to protect the abortion giant, which ponied up some $15 million in its efforts to help re-elect Obama in 2012, the president concluded his speech with the declaration that if he, his attorney general, and a core of federal judges get their way, “Planned Parenthood is not going anywhere. It’s not going anywhere today. It’s not going anywhere tomorrow.”

After the president’s patronizing address, Planned Parenthood’s head, Cecile Richards, returned the favor, crowing that “President Obama has done more than any president in history for women’s health and rights” — even while she conceded that Planned Parenthood faces “unprecedented attacks” from states that have grown tired of pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into the coffers of the abortion business.

Predictably, during his speech Obama made no mention of the alarming testimony offered recently by a Planned Parenthood representative during a Florida legislative session, in which she refused to condemn what has euphemistically been termed “post-birth abortion” — the killing of a baby moments or more after he or she has been successfully delivered by a mother.

Nor did the president make any allusion to the high-profile trial of Philadelphia’s “House of Horrors” abortionist Kermit Gosnell, charged with the “post abortion” murders of several babies born alive at his climic. A grand jury report laid out the horrific conditions inside Gosnell’s clinic, and speculated that hundreds of newborns were murdered over the years by Gosnell and his workers.

Marjorie Dannenfelser of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List accused Obama of intentionally turning a blind eye to the fact that Planned Parenthood admitted to having been informed about the conditions inside Gosnell’s clinic “yet chose not to act to help end the killing of newborn babies and butchering of women,” charged Dannenfelser. “President Obama blatantly ignored this inconvenient truth about the abortion industry’s horrific lack of oversight, and disparaged the pro-life advocates who wake up each morning with the goal of saving the lives of unborn children and women from the pain of abortion.”

She added that “not even eyewitness accounts of Gosnell-style conditions” in Planned Parenthood’s own clinics appeared to be enough “to make President Obama reconsider his unyielding support for Planned Parenthood, which in a single year performed more than 333,000 abortions and received half a billion dollars in taxpayer money.”

Specifically, noted LifeNews.com, Planned Parenthood’s own annual report “shows the abortion giant did a record 333,964 abortions on unborn children during the 2011-2012 fiscal year. Those abortions were estimated to have generated $150 million dollars for the ‘nonprofit’ organization. While the number of abortions reached a record high, only 2,300 Planned Parenthood customers were referred to adoption agencies during the 2011-2012 fiscal year.”

NYPD Whistle-Blowers Testify at Stop-Frisk Trial

April 28, 2013

After Officer Pedro Serrano decided to testify in federal court about what he sees as wrongdoing within the New York Police Department, a rat sticker appeared on his locker.

In this Dec. 13, 1971 file photo, New York City Detective Frank Serpico, right, sits beside his attorney, Ramsey Clark, in New York, during the Knapp Commission hearings on police corruption. Things haven’t changed much since Serpico broke the NYPD's code of silence more than 40 years ago. Police officers are still encouraged to turn a blind eye to wrongdoing within their ranks and never question authority, or else face harassment by peers and punishment by superiors. (AP Photo/Jim Wells, File)

Associated Press/Jim Wells, File – In this Dec. 13, 1971 file photo, New York City Detective Frank Serpico, right, sits beside his attorney, Ramsey Clark, in New York, during the Knapp Commission hearings.

That was the least of his problems.

Serrano claims he’s been harassed, micromanaged and eventually transferred to a different precinct and put on the overnight shift.

“It hasn’t been a picnic,” he said in an interview this week. “They have their methods of dealing with someone like me.”

Serrano and other whistle-blowers took the stand in a civil rights case challenging some of the 5 million streets stops made by police in the past decade using a tactic known as stop and frisk. They believe illegal quotas are behind some wrongful stops of black and Hispanic men.

“A lot of people told me not to come forward because of what would happen — they said the department would come after me,” Serrano said. “But I’ve been thinking about it since 2007. I felt I couldn’t keep quiet.”

Several other officers and police brass testified to the opposite: They say there are no quotas. Most officers follow the letter of the law, and low-performing cops like Serrano are lazy malcontents who make the city less safe.

Under NYPD policy, officers are required to report corruption without fear of retribution to the internal affairs bureau, which investigates the claims.

But starting with legendary whistle-blower Frank Serpico in the 1970s, corruption scandals large and small have exposed a clannish culture that critics say encourages police officers to turn a blind eye to wrongdoing and never question authority — or else face harassment by peers and punishment by superiors.

As a plainclothes officer, Serpico was labeled a traitor for refusing payoffs and reporting corruption. On Feb. 3, 1971, he was shot in the face during a drug raid; he says other officers purposely failed to back him up. He recovered and testified before the Knapp Commission — a story etched in popular culture by a hit movie starring Al Pacino.

In the early 1990s, an internal affairs investigator who pursued drug-dealing officers was blackballed by his commanders before an independent investigation by the Mollen Commission proved him right. And the 1997 police assault of Abner Louima resulted in charges against officers who kept quiet because of a so-called blue wall of silence — an unspoken code among the rank-and-file to never “rat” on each other.

“Nothing’s changed,” the 76-year-old Serpico said in a recent phone interview when asked about the current crop of whistle-blowers. “It’s the same old crap — kill the messenger.”

In the ongoing federal trial over stop and frisk, lawyers for men who have sued police are seeking to show a disproportionate number of black and Hispanic men are being wrongly stopped in part because officers are under too much pressure to keep enforcement numbers up.

Serrano, along with Officers Adhyl Polanco and Adrian Schoolcraft secretly recorded hours of patrol briefings, meetings with bosses and encounters on the streets that they say show they were being targeted by overzealous officials bent on making their precincts look good. The recordings were played at trial.

Both Serrano and Polanco said they made stops they didn’t think were right as a result.

“I was extremely bothered with what I was seeing out there,” Polanco testified. “The racial profiling, the arresting people for no reason, being called to scenes that I did not observe a violation and being forced to write a summons that I didn’t observe.”

Polanco said he agonized over the decision to come forward.

“I was afraid,” he said. “It’s not that easy to report corruption. … Look at what happened to Schoolcraft.”

Schoolcraft, who didn’t appear in court because he has filed his own federal suit, was taken to a psychiatric ward in 2009 by his superiors, he says against his will. He remains suspended.

Polanco was suspended with pay for years after internal affairs officers brought charges of filing false arrest paperwork; he says the charges came because he detailed a list of complaints to internal affairs.

Serrano testified that he received poor evaluations, was denied vacation days and was forced to work overtime as punishment because he tallied too few arrests and stop-and-frisk reports.

“There’s a whole bunch of things they do, but they’re minor,” Serrano said. “But when you put it all together, it becomes a hostile work environment.”

For example, he says, he never saw his commanding officer until word got out about his quota allegations — then the official was personally checking Serrano’s shift paperwork. He says he was forced to drive around with a sergeant and issue summonses and stop people until he brought up his numbers. Even after his numbers improved, his evaluations didn’t. And he claimed he was forced to come in during a massive snowstorm even though he was nearly in a car accident.

When asked whether Serrano’s complaints were considered punishment, several other officers who testified said no — it’s just part of the job.

Most officers “leave their house every day to go to work to protect the city. They have the best intentions all the time, and they do it,” Joseph Esposito, the former chief of the department, testified. “There is a small percentage … we’re talking about in any profession, there is a group that will try to do the least amount and get paid the most.”

After Serrano appeared in court last month, he was transferred from the Bronx to a Manhattan precinct where he now works the midnight shift.

Serpico, who adopted a pet rat after he was accused of being one, says he holds the bosses responsible.

“Their message is ‘Do you want to write a summons or do you want to be delivering pizza? As a police officer, you’re duty-bound to refuse an illegal order. … But where do you go? The police department doesn’t want to hear it.”

Serpico, who now lives in upstate New York, still feels like an outsider to the police. He says he’s there to listen when fellow whistle-blowers reach out.

“I’ve become their grandfather,” he said. “They don’t want nothing. They just want somebody who knows what they’re going through. I give them moral support.”

Manhunt on After girl, 9, Stabbed to Death by Intruder

April 28, 2013

By NBCBayArea.com, April 28, 2013

Authorities in the Northern California town of Valley Springs are searching for an intruder who killed a 9-year-old girl at her house.

The Calaveras County Sheriff’s office said Saturday that the man was considered armed and dangerous, and authorities are warning residents in the country town to lock their doors.

The office declined to release details on the slaying.

NBC’s Sacramento affiliate KCRA reported the victim’s 12-year-old brother encountered an intruder in his home and saw the man run away. The boy went to check on his sister and found she had been stabbed.

The girl was later pronounced dead at a hospital.

Valley Springs is a town of about 3,500 some 60 miles southeast of Sacramento.

Charges Filed Against Burglar Who Punched Police Dog

April 28, 2013

By NBCPhiladelphia.com, April 28, 2012

Numerous charges have been filed against a burglary suspect who allegedly punched a police dog that helped apprehend him in northern New Jersey.

Clifton police tell The Record of Woodland Park that 22-year-old Angel Mendez ran from police on Friday and was found a short time later hiding under the front porch of a home. Mendez allegedly punched the police dog as he was being arrested, and the canine bit Mendez on the upper thigh.

Mendez, who has no known address, faces four counts of burglary.

He’s also charged with aggravated assault of a police dog, resisting arrest and obstruction of justice. A telephone number for Mendez could not be found Saturday, and it was not known if he has retained an attorney.

Feds Caught Promoting Welfare to Foreigners

April 27, 2013

Judicial Watch report: Obama Cannot be Trusted to Protect Borders

From http://www.wnd.com, April 27, 2013

The U.S. government has been caught promoting the delivery of taxpayer-funded welfare benefits to foreigners, and Judicial Watch’s conclusion is that the Obama administration “cannot be trusted to protect our borders.”

Judicial Watch, the Washington watchdog which is known for tracking down and trying to stamp out government corruption, has issued a report revealing that the U.S. Department of Agriculture is working with the Mexican government to promote the U.S. food stamp program to illegal aliens.

The report said the program, called Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, features a Spanish-language flyer supplied to the Mexican Embassy by the USDA “with a statement advising Mexicans in the U.S. that they do not need to declare their immigration status in order to receive financial assistance.”

Just so they don’t miss the idea, the message is in bold and underlined on the brochure: “You need not divulge information regarding your immigration status in seeking this benefit for your children.”

“The revelation that the USDA is actively working with the Mexican government to promote food stamps for illegal aliens should have a direct impact on the fact of the immigration bill now being debated in Congress,” said Tom Fitton, the president of the organization.

“These disclosures further confirm the fact that the Obama administration cannot be trusted to protect our borders or enforce our immigration laws. And the coordination with a foreign government to attack the policies of an American state is contemptible,” he said.

Last year, Judicial Watch reported that Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., wrote to USDA chief Tom Vilsack asking questions about the Obama’s administration partnership with Mexican officials to hand out taxpayer-paid benefits to those illegally in the U.S.

At the time, Sessions wrote, “It defies rational thinking for the United States – now dangerously $16 trillion in debt – to partner with foreign governments to help us place more foreign nationals on American welfare and it is contrary to good immigration policy.”

Now Judicial Watch has released documents it obtained in response to a Freedom of Information Act request made to USDA on July 20, 2012. The FOIA request sought: “Any and all records of communication relating to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to Mexican Americans, Mexican nationals, and migrant communities, including but not limited to, communications with the Mexican government.”

The results revealed USDA is trying to give away tax benefits “with no effort to restrict aid to, identify, or apprehend illegal immigrants who may be on the food stamp rolls.”

One document was an email to Jose Vincente and Borjon Lopez-Coterilla, in the Mexican Embassy, from January 2012.

Yibo Wood of the Food and Nutrition Service in the U.S. sympathized with illegals, saying, “FNS understands that mixed status households may be particularly vulnerable. Many of these households contain a non-citizen parent and a citizen child.”

It followed a request from the Mexican Embassy that the Obama administration prevent Kansas from making a proposed change in a food stamp procedure that would limit financial help to illegals.

Judicial Watch also showed the USDA asked Mexico for permission to draft a letter to consulates to encourage Mexican employees to participate in training intended to promote enrollment in the tax benefits program.

An earlier document reveals the USDA made contact with Mexican officials in New York regarding benefits programs over “maximizing participation among Mexican citizens.”

Also, according to the report, “The USDA and the Mexican Consulate exchange ideas about getting the First Ladies of Mexico and United States to visit a school for purposes of creating a photo opportunity that would promote free school lunches for low-income students in a predominantly Hispanic school. Though a notation in the margin of the email claims that the photo op never took place, UPI reported that it actually did.”

The report continues that taxpayer money was used to run Spanish-language television ads “encouraging illegal immigrants to apply for government-financed food stamps. The Mexican Consul in Santa Ana, Calif., at the time even starred in some of the U.S. government-financed television commercials, which explained the program and provided a phone number to apply. In the widely viewed commercial the consul assured that receiving food stamps ‘won’t affect your immigration status.’”

Alcoholism Disability Claim: Can Fired Officer Win this $6 Million Lawsuit?

April 27, 2013

Alcoholism disability claim: An Oregon policeman says he was fired due to alcoholism, which he’s claims is illegal under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

By Steven Dubois, Associated Press / April 27, 2013

A police officer fired for driving drunk in an unmarked police car while off-duty has filed a $6 million lawsuit against the city of Gresham, the police chief and others, alleging his rights were violated under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The lawsuit filed in Portland alleged the officer, Jason Servo, was suffering from alcoholism, a recognized disability under the act, and shouldn’t have been dismissed.

The suit also alleged Servo was denied due process, and the police union failed to represent him adequately.

“Just as with any type of disability or disease, they should have made some kind of effort to accommodate that, or some kind of effort to work with him, and not simply sever all ties,” said Shawn Kollie, one of Servo’s attorneys.

Police Chief Craig Junginger was out of the office Friday. City spokeswoman Laura Shepard said officials would not discuss the case because their policy is to not talk about pending litigation.

Servo, 43, was arrested in January 2011 after he crashed into a ditch while off-duty. The lawsuit said that Servo, a detective who was the department’s lead firearms instructor, had taken the police vehicle to a firearms training session in the nearby city of Troutdale. He later joined fellow officers for dinner and drinks.

“This was a common practice among (Gresham) officers and had become an inherent part of the culture,” according to the lawsuit filed late Thursday.

Servo was alone when his vehicle veered into a ditch and he was not hurt. Though Servo refused to take breath or field sobriety tests, the Clackamas County sheriff’s deputy who arrested him later testified before the state Department of Public Safety Standards and Training that Servo was probably one of the top 10 most intoxicated people he had arrested in almost 15 years of drunken-driving investigations.

Two months after the accident, Servo pleaded guilty to drunken driving and entered a diversion program. He fulfilled the program’s requirements and the DUI was dismissed.

Servo also voluntarily entered an in-patient program at a Serenity Lane drug-and-alcohol treatment center, where he was diagnosed as an alcoholic.

“There were times where I went home and I couldn’t get crime scenes out of my head; I went to drinking for that and there are other officers that do the same thing,” Servo said Friday, adding that he has now been sober for 818 days.

The lawsuit alleged the chief fired Servo to save money, ignoring the known disability of alcoholism.

“I know it sounds kind of like a conspiracy theorist’s claim,” Kollie said, “but we do believe there was a funding issue in the Gresham police department at the time.”

It could not immediately be determined how common it is for alcoholics to claim their rights have been violated under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, in a fact sheet, provides an example of how an alcoholic can justly be fired, and it’s similar to the Servo case.

In its example, a federal police officer is involved in an accident for which he is charged with drunken driving. About a month later, he gets a termination notice stating that his conduct makes it inappropriate for him to continue. The officer says the arrest made him realize he is an alcoholic and that he is obtaining treatment. According to the EEOC, the employer may proceed with the firing.

The example, of course, is not precise because Servo’s crash happened while he was off-duty.

“The ADA has provisions in it, across the board, to not require employers to subject other people to unreasonable risk to accommodate a disability,” said Bob Joondeph, executive director with Disability Rights Oregon.

Joondeph said he couldn’t comment on any specifics in the Servo case, but generally accommodations for an alcoholic might include letting the worker attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings — not allowing them to drink on the job or drive drunk.

Separate from the lawsuit, Servo is appealing the standards-and-training agency’s decision to strip him of his police certification.

Servo is currently working as a private investigator.

American Gestapo: Boston Bombing Reveals Washington’s True Colors

April 25, 2013

by Jerry Robinson, FTMDaily.com Editor-in-Chief, April 24, 2013

The Gestapo-like tactics that were implemented in Boston last week by the military-style police forces are just a small sign of things to come in America… including a large spike in military-style drones flying over — and spying on — American cities as well as a new influx of high definition security cameras in major U.S. cities.

American Gestapo: Boston Bombing Reveals Washington's True Colors

As we expected, the power hungry elites in Washington are using the Boston bombings to force a false choice on the American “sheeple”.

And they are using the corporate-controlled media to spread their delusional attempts at a massive power grab.

The talking heads on TV will put forth reasoning that will sound something like this…

Which would you prefer if a “terrorist” is loose in your town?

1) Armed policemen enacting martial law in your city, imposing curfews, and conducting door-to-door searches while holding your family at gunpoint?

or

2) Heat-seeking military drones flying over your city peering into your homes in a search for the “terrorist” in order to “keep you safe?”

Apparently these are the only two options that Washington is prepared to consider.

This choice is entirely fabricated. Americans can say “no” to both choices. Unfortunately, with the recent passage of the unpatriotic Patriot Act and the outrageous National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, American citizens can now be detained indefinitely strictly based on suspicion. No evidence is needed and the decision cannot be questioned by the American public.

After being subjected to martial law, mobs of Bostonians rushed into the streets holding American flags while chanting “U.S.A, U.S.A.” It was appalling to witness the birthplace of early revolt applaud the military-industrial complex rolling through its streets armed to the teeth. Bostonians have just had their most basic rights infringed upon. It is no jubilant matter. Any American who considers this type of police behavior commendable or even acceptable should be ashamed to call themselves a patriot.

The government shakedown of Boston is a sign of things to come.

In his farewell speech, highly decorated General and former U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned against the threat posed by the creeping influence of something he referred to as the “Military-Industrial Complex.” Today, that complex also includes the corporate-controlled mainstream media. 95% of the media consumed by the American people every day is framed, produced, and edited by U.S. corporations. As profit-seeking entities, these massive media conglomerates are not benevolent institutions committed to keeping you informed and safe. Instead, their reports are designed to drive more value for shareholders. If you trust the mainstream media, it is time you woke up to this reality. And if you are just waking up, don’t feel too bad. I was totally unaware of these facts until I began doing my own investigation in the wake of the tragic events of September 11, 2001. It took me three years to fully grasp what was happening to our country.

Consider these treasonous words from Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina):

“The homeland is part of the battlefield and people can be held without trial whether an American citizen or not.”

It is common knowledge that the Department of Homeland Security has been preparing for combat through the purchase of instruments of war. These include: Approximately 1.6 billion hollow-point bullets, 7,000 fully automatic assault weapons, 2,700 MRAP (Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected) vehicles, and an increasing number of military-style unmanned aerial drones.

Make no mistake. These are weapons of war. So, who is DHS planning on waging a war against?

Via Rail Train Plot Brings Counterterrorism, Civil Liberties to Top of Canada’s House of Commons Agenda

April 25, 2013

STEVEN CHAS, OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail, April 22, 2013

News of a terror plot to attack a Via Rail train, just one week after the Boston Marathon bombings, has pushed public security to the front burner just as the Harper government seeks Parliament’s authority to curb civil liberties in the name of keeping Canadians safe.

The House of Commons was several hours into a debate Monday over a government-sponsored counterterrorism bill that would give authorities extra powers of arrest and detention when the RMCP announced they had foiled an al-Qaeda-backed plan to attack a Toronto-area passenger train.

At issue is S-7, the Combating Terrorism Act, which would authorize police to pre-emptively detain Canadians and hold them for up to three days without charging them.

Late last week the Harper government, citing the Boston bombings as a reason, cleared the legislative schedule for Monday and Tuesday to conduct third readings of S-7, a bill that has been moving relatively slowly through Parliament.

The bill would also allow authorities to imprison a Canadian for up to 12 months if the person refuses to testify in front of a judge at an investigative hearing.

The legislation would also make it a federal crime to leave or try to leave Canada for the purpose of committing terrorism or attending a terrorist training camp.

Some of the measures in S-7 have previously been law in Canada but expired because they were so-called sunset provisions introduced in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The sudden renewed focus on the terrorist threat facing North America shifts the political conversation both in Parliament and around dinner tables to territory where the tough-on-crime Harper Conservatives feel their credentials are strong. Recent months have been trying for the Tories as they drifted from one controversy to another – from aboriginal anger to foreign workers – with few high-profile items left on its agenda.

Monday’s arrests “demonstrate that terrorism continues to be a real threat to Canada,” Public Safety Minister Vic Toews said a short while after Mounties began explaining the arrests. “Preventing, countering, and prosecuting terrorism is a priority for our government.”

Critics, however, say the thwarted train attack demonstrates that authorities can disrupt terrorist schemes without requiring additional powers that would further encroach on civil rights.

The Conservatives invoked Boston on Monday as they sought to justify the measures.

“We must ensure – it’s so important – that Canada has the necessary laws and tools to prevent such a heinous attack,” Candice Bergen, parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, said in the Commons. “We have to ensure that the evildoers are met with the justice that they deserve otherwise we as parliamentarians have failed our most basic duty: that is to protect Canadians.”

The legislation would also make it a federal crime to leave or try to leave Canada for the purpose of committing terrorism or attending a terrorist training camp.

The bill is supported by Justin Trudeau’s Liberals but opposed by Thomas Mulcair’s New Democrats, who say its measures are unnecessary and ineffective intrusions, citing the detention provisions.

“The key question that needs to be asked is this: is S-7 necessary or are our current laws sufficient? Today’s arrests show that our police force can fight terrorism with existing tools,” NDP foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar said.

York South-Weston NDP MP Mike Sullivan said former Progressive Conservative prime minister John Diefenbaker, a champion of civil rights, “would be rolling over in his grave” if he knew of this bill.

Paul Calarco, a member of the Canadian Bar Association’s national criminal justice section, said his organization believes the legislation “does not add in any substantive way to the tools that already exist in the Criminal Code.”

The use of investigative hearings where people would be forced to answer questions on threat of imprisonment is “totally contrary to our civil liberties traditions.” Mr. Calarco said. It’s not clear this was effective when it was last on the books, he said.

The Conservatives said, however that there would be careful protections against indiscriminate use of the detention provisions.

Mr. Calarco said the proposal to make it an offence to leave Canada to commit terrorism or attend a terrorist camp unnecessarily duplicates existing prohibitions under the law.

“If you’re leaving the country to go to a terrorist camp … you’re going there to learn how to commit a crime, to perform the activities of a terrorist organization, so you’re already guilty of either conspiracy to commit terrorist acts, aiding and abetting a terrorist organization, possession of weaponry,” to name a few, Mr. Calarco said.

“Repetitive legislation is not necessarily helpful to what we’re dealing with.”

FBI Conducting Gun Sweeps in Oakland

April 25, 2013

From infowars.com, April 25, 2013

Less than a week after SWAT police went house to house ripping families out of their homes during broad daylight in the manhunt that ensued following the Boston bombings, other police departments have seemingly taken a police state cue and followed suit.

Yesterday it was reported that FBI agents and local police SWAT along with the California Highway Patrol conducted a “massive sweep” of Oakland where they barricaded several streets and closed down certain parts of the town for more than an hour.

“It appeared to be an extensive operation with many officers involved,” KTVU reported, adding, “There were agents carrying out actions in numerous parts of the city Wednesday night.”

Armored vehicles and helicopters circling overhead assisted the patrols as law enforcement allegedly served warrants for drugs and weapons charges.

It’s reasonable to assume that the raids partially occurred as a result of SB 140‘s recent passage, a California bill touted as one that would expedite the confiscation of “illegal” firearms from people with “serious mental illness” and criminal convictions.

Reportedly, the tax-payer funded Oakland police did not feel it necessary to divulge details to news crews the night of the raid, saying “they were not at liberty to discuss what the action concerned.”

As we witnessed just last week during the Watertown, Mass. lockdown, a hit squad of 9000+ police could barely locate a lone unarmed 19-year-old.

Regardless of the excuses listed to justify this flagrant and hideous overreach of power, it has never been more evident that the public is being acclimated to accept militarized police of all flavors as a normal part of life; and with rhetoric regarding gun control reaching fever pitch, a true police state takeover like the one seen in the Boston suburb, is liable to occur in any town overnight and without warning.

Those in Oakland defending police actions as only targeting members of low income communities should be reminded of a quote by anti-Nazi theologian Martin Niemöller:

First they came for the communists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.