Homeland Security Watch

News and analysis of critical issues in homeland security

June 14, 2013

Friday Free Forum

Filed under: General Homeland Security — by Philip J. Palin on June 14, 2013

The Black Forest Fire, raging just a few miles northeast of Cheyenne Mountain, has claimed at least 379 homes and two lives.  This morning it is reported five percent contained.  You can read more at the Colorado Springs Gazette.

What’s on your mind related to homeland security?

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Print
  • LinkedIn

10 Comments »

Comment by William R. Cumming

June 14, 2013 @ 8:04 am

Today’s topic for me is that of the 72 FUSION CENTERS!

Originally a post 9/11 Administrative creation via Executive Order these centers gained a statutory charter in Section 511 of Public Law 110-53 enacted August 3, 2007 by virtue of that statute that is entitled “Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007”!

Apparently often overlooked including detailed discussion of preparedness policy the language of section 511 is instructive and therefor I include it in its entirety.

Recently the House Appropriations Committee at the behest of some Governors desperate as always for financial support from the federal government has adopted an amendment making the FUSION cENTERS all-hazard.

Text posted in next comment by me!

Comment by William R. Cumming

June 14, 2013 @ 8:41 am

Language of Section 511 set forth below:

Subtitle B—Homeland Security
Information Sharing Partnerships
SEC. 511. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY STATE, LOCAL, AND
REGIONAL FUSION CENTER INITIATIVE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Subtitle A of title II of the Homeland Security
Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 121 et seq.) is further amended by adding
at the end the following:
‘‘SEC. 210A. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY STATE, LOCAL,AND REGIONAL FUSION CENTER INITIATIVE.
‘‘(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary, in consultation with the program manager of the information sharing environment established under section 1016 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (6 U.S.C. 485), the Attorney General, the
Privacy Officer of the Department, the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties of the Department, and the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board established under section 1061 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (5 U.S.C.
601 note), shall establish a Department of Homeland Security State, Local, and Regional Fusion Center Initiative to establish partnerships with State, local, and regional fusion centers.
‘‘(b) DEPARTMENT SUPPORT AND COORDINATION.—Through the
Department of Homeland Security State, Local, and Regional Fusion Center Initiative, and in coordination with the principal officials
of participating State, local, or regional fusion centers and the officers designated as the Homeland Security Advisors of the States,the Secretary shall—
‘‘(1) provide operational and intelligence advice and assistance to State, local, and regional fusion centers;
‘‘(2) support efforts to include State, local, and regional fusion centers into efforts to establish an information sharing environment;
‘‘(3) conduct tabletop and live training exercises to regularly assess the capability of individual and regional networks of State, local, and regional fusion centers to integrate the efforts of such networks with the efforts of the Department;
‘‘(4) coordinate with other relevant Federal entities engaged in homeland security-related activities;
‘‘(5) provide analytic and reporting advice and assistance
to State, local, and regional fusion centers;
‘‘(6) review information within the scope of the information sharing environment, including homeland security information, terrorism information, and weapons of mass destruction
information, that is gathered by State, local, and regional fusion centers, and to incorporate such information, as appropriate, into the Department’s own such information;
‘‘(7) provide management assistance to State, local, and regional fusion centers;
‘‘(8) serve as a point of contact to ensure the dissemination of information within the scope of the information sharing environment, including homeland security information, terrorism information, and weapons of mass destruction information;
‘‘(9) facilitate close communication and coordination
between State, local, and regional fusion centers and the Department;
‘‘(10) provide State, local, and regional fusion centers with expertise on Department resources and operations;
‘‘(11) provide training to State, local, and regional fusion centers and encourage such fusion centers to participate in terrorism threat-related exercises conducted by the Department; and
‘‘(12) carry out such other duties as the Secretary determines are appropriate.
‘‘(c) PERSONNEL ASSIGNMENT.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Under Secretary for Intelligence
and Analysis shall, to the maximum extent practicable, assign officers and intelligence analysts from components of the Department to participating State, local, and regional fusion
centers.
‘‘(2) PERSONNEL SOURCES.—Officers and intelligence
analysts assigned to participating fusion centers under this subsection may be assigned from the following Department components, in coordination with the respective component head and in consultation with the principal officials of participating
fusion centers:
‘‘(A) Office of Intelligence and Analysis.
‘‘(B) Office of Infrastructure Protection.
‘‘(C) Transportation Security Administration.
‘‘(D) United States Customs and Border Protection.
‘‘(E) United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
‘‘(F) United States Coast Guard.
‘‘(G) Other components of the Department, as determined by the Secretary.
‘‘(3) QUALIFYING CRITERIA.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall develop qualifying criteria for a fusion center to participate in the assigning of Department officers or intelligence analysts under this section.
‘‘(B) CRITERIA.—Any criteria developed under subparagraph
(A) may include—
‘‘(i) whether the fusion center, through its mission
and governance structure, focuses on a broad
counterterrorism approach, and whether that broad
approach is pervasive through all levels of the
organization;
‘‘(ii) whether the fusion center has sufficient numbers of adequately trained personnel to support a broad counterterrorism mission;
‘‘(iii) whether the fusion center has—
‘‘(I) access to relevant law enforcement, emergency
response, private sector, open source, and
national security data; and
‘‘(II) the ability to share and analytically utilize
that data for lawful purposes;
‘‘(iv) whether the fusion center is adequately
funded by the State, local, or regional government
to support its counterterrorism mission; and
‘‘(v) the relevancy of the mission of the fusion
center to the particular source component of Department officers or intelligence analysts.
‘‘(4) PREREQUISITE.—
‘‘(A) INTELLIGENCE ANALYSIS, PRIVACY, AND CIVIL LIBERTIES TRAINING.—Before being assigned to a fusion center under this section, an officer or intelligence analyst shall undergo—
‘‘(i) appropriate intelligence analysis or information
sharing training using an intelligence-led policing curriculum that is consistent with—
‘‘(I) standard training and education programs
offered to Department law enforcement and intelligence
personnel; and
‘‘(II) the Criminal Intelligence Systems Operating
Policies under part 23 of title 28, Code of
Federal Regulations (or any corresponding similar
rule or regulation);
‘‘(ii) appropriate privacy and civil liberties training that is developed, supported, or sponsored by the Privacy Officer appointed under section 222 and the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties of the Department, in consultation with the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board established under section 1061 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (5 U.S.C. 601 note); and
‘‘(iii) such other training prescribed by the Under
Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis.
‘‘(B) PRIOR WORK EXPERIENCE IN AREA.—In determining
the eligibility of an officer or intelligence analyst to be assigned to a fusion center under this section, the Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis shall consider the familiarity of the officer or intelligence analyst with the State, locality, or region, as determined by such factors as whether the officer or intelligence analyst—
‘‘(i) has been previously assigned in the geographic
area; or
‘‘(ii) has previously worked with intelligence officials or law enforcement or other emergency response providers from that State, locality, or region.
‘‘(5) EXPEDITED SECURITY CLEARANCE PROCESSING.—The
Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis—
‘‘(A) shall ensure that each officer or intelligence
analyst assigned to a fusion center under this section has the appropriate security clearance to contribute effectively to the mission of the fusion center; and
‘‘(B) may request that security clearance processing
be expedited for each such officer or intelligence analyst and may use available funds for such purpose.
‘‘(6) FURTHER QUALIFICATIONS.—Each officer or intelligence analyst assigned to a fusion center under this section shall satisfy any other qualifications the Under Secretary for Intelligence
and Analysis may prescribe.
‘‘(d) RESPONSIBILITIES.—An officer or intelligence analyst assigned to a fusion center under this section shall—
‘‘(1) assist law enforcement agencies and other emergency response providers of State, local, and tribal governments and fusion center personnel in using information within the scope of the information sharing environment, including homeland
security information, terrorism information, and weapons of mass destruction information, to develop a comprehensive and accurate threat picture;
‘‘(2) review homeland security-relevant information from law enforcement agencies and other emergency response providers of State, local, and tribal government;
‘‘(3) create intelligence and other information products derived from such information and other homeland securityrelevant information provided by the Department; and
‘‘(4) assist in the dissemination of such products, as coordinated by the Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis, to law enforcement agencies and other emergency response providers of State, local, and tribal government, other fusion
centers, and appropriate Federal agencies.
‘‘(e) BORDER INTELLIGENCE PRIORITY.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall make it a priority to assign officers and intelligence analysts under this section from United States Customs and Border Protection, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Coast Guard to participating State, local, and regional fusion centers located in jurisdictions along land or maritime borders of the United States in order to enhance the integrity of and security at such borders by helping Federal, State, local, and tribal
law enforcement authorities to identify, investigate, and otherwise interdict persons, weapons, and related contraband that pose a threat to homeland security.
‘‘(2) BORDER INTELLIGENCE PRODUCTS.—When performing
the responsibilities described in subsection (d), officers and intelligence analysts assigned to participating State, local, and regional fusion centers under this section shall have, as a
primary responsibility, the creation of border intelligence products that—
‘‘(A) assist State, local, and tribal law enforcement
agencies in deploying their resources most efficiently to help detect and interdict terrorists, weapons of mass destruction, and related contraband at land or maritime borders of the United States;
‘‘(B) promote more consistent and timely sharing of
border security-relevant information among jurisdictions along land or maritime borders of the United States; and
‘‘(C) enhance the Department’s situational awareness
of the threat of acts of terrorism at or involving the land or maritime borders of the United States.
‘‘(f) DATABASE ACCESS.—In order to fulfill the objectives described under subsection (d), each officer or intelligence analyst assigned to a fusion center under this section shall have appropriate
access to all relevant Federal databases and information systems, consistent with any policies, guidelines, procedures, instructions, or standards established by the President or, as appropriate, the
program manager of the information sharing environment for the implementation and management of that environment.
‘‘(g) CONSUMER FEEDBACK.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall create a voluntary mechanism for any State, local, or tribal law enforcement officer or other emergency response provider who is a consumer of the intelligence or other information products referred to in
subsection (d) to provide feedback to the Department on the quality and utility of such intelligence products.
‘‘(2) REPORT.—Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives a report
that includes a description of the consumer feedback obtained under paragraph (1) and, if applicable, how the Department has adjusted its production of intelligence products in response to that consumer feedback.
‘‘(h) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The authorities granted under this section
shall supplement the authorities granted under section
201(d) and nothing in this section shall be construed to abrogate the authorities granted under section 201(d).
‘‘(2) PARTICIPATION.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to require a State, local, or regional government or entity to accept the assignment of officers or intelligence analysts of the Department into the fusion center of that State,locality, or region.
‘‘(i) GUIDELINES.—The Secretary, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall establish guidelines for fusion centers created and operated by State and local governments, to include standards that any such fusion center shall—
‘‘(1) collaboratively develop a mission statement, identify expectations and goals, measure performance, and determine effectiveness for that fusion center;
‘‘(2) create a representative governance structure that includes law enforcement officers and other emergency response providers and, as appropriate, the private sector;
‘‘(3) create a collaborative environment for the sharing of intelligence and information among Federal, State, local, and tribal government agencies (including law enforcement officers and other emergency response providers), the private sector,
and the public, consistent with any policies, guidelines, procedures,instructions, or standards established by the President or, as appropriate, the program manager of the information sharing environment;
‘‘(4) leverage the databases, systems, and networks available from public and private sector entities, in accordance with all applicable laws, to maximize information sharing;
‘‘(5) develop, publish, and adhere to a privacy and civil liberties policy consistent with Federal, State, and local law;
‘‘(6) provide, in coordination with the Privacy Officer of the Department and the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties of the Department, appropriate privacy and civil liberties
training for all State, local, tribal, and private sector representatives at the fusion center;
‘‘(7) ensure appropriate security measures are in place for the facility, data, and personnel;
‘‘(8) select and train personnel based on the needs, mission, goals, and functions of that fusion center;
‘‘(9) offer a variety of intelligence and information services and products to recipients of fusion center intelligence and information; and
‘‘(10) incorporate law enforcement officers, other emergency response providers, and, as appropriate, the private sector,into all relevant phases of the intelligence and fusion process,consistent with the mission statement developed under paragraph
(1), either through full time representatives or liaison relationships with the fusion center to enable the receipt and sharing of information and intelligence.
‘‘(j) DEFINITIONS.—In this section—
‘‘(1) the term ‘fusion center’ means a collaborative effort of 2 or more Federal, State, local, or tribal government agencies that combines resources, expertise, or information with the goal of maximizing the ability of such agencies to detect, prevent,
investigate, apprehend, and respond to criminal or terrorist activity;
‘‘(2) the term ‘information sharing environment’ means the
information sharing environment established under section
1016 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act
of 2004 (6 U.S.C. 485);
‘‘(3) the term ‘intelligence analyst’ means an individual who regularly advises, administers, supervises, or performs work in the collection, gathering, analysis, evaluation, reporting, production, or dissemination of information on political, economic, social, cultural, physical, geographical, scientific,or military conditions, trends, or forces in foreign or domestic
areas that directly or indirectly affect national security;
‘‘(4) the term ‘intelligence-led policing’ means the collection and analysis of information to produce an intelligence end product designed to inform law enforcement decision making at the tactical and strategic levels; and
‘‘(5) the term ‘terrorism information’ has the meaning given that term in section 1016 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2004 (6 U.S.C. 485).
‘‘(k) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012, to carry out this section, except for subsection (i), including
for hiring officers and intelligence analysts to replace officers and
intelligence analysts who are assigned to fusion centers under this section.’’.
(b) TRAINING FOR PREDEPLOYED OFFICERS AND ANALYSTS.—
An officer or analyst assigned to a fusion center by the Secretary of Homeland Security before the date of the enactment of this Act shall undergo the training described in section 210A(c)(4)(A)of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as added by subsection
(a), by not later than 6 months after such date.
(c) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of
contents in section 1(b) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.) is further amended by inserting after the item relating to section 210 the following:
‘‘Sec. 210A. Department of Homeland Security State, Local, and Regional Information Fusion Center Initiative.’’.
(d) REPORTS.—
(1) CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS.—Not later than 90 days after
the date of enactment of this Act and before the Department of Homeland Security State, Local, and Regional Fusion Center Initiative under section 210A of the Homeland Security Act
of 2002, as added by subsection (a), (in this section referred to as the ‘‘program’’) has been implemented, the Secretary, in consultation with the Privacy Officer of the Department, the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties of the Department,
and the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board
established under section 1061 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (5 U.S.C. 601 note), shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives a report that contains a concept of operations for the program, which shall—
(A) include a clear articulation of the purposes, goals,and specific objectives for which the program is being developed;
(B) identify stakeholders in the program and provide
an assessment of their needs;
(C) contain a developed set of quantitative metrics
to measure, to the extent possible, program output;
(D) contain a developed set of qualitative instruments
(including surveys and expert interviews) to assess the extent to which stakeholders believe their needs are being met; and
(E) include a privacy and civil liberties impact assessment.
(2) PRIVACY AND CIVIL LIBERTIES.—Not later than 1 year
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Privacy Officer of the Department of Homeland Security and the Officer for Civil Liberties and Civil Rights of the Department of Homeland
Security, consistent with any policies of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board established under section 1061 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (5 U.S.C. 601 note), shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the Committee
on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives,
the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Intelligence and Analysis, and the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board a report on the privacy
and civil liberties impact of the program.”

TBC!

Comment by William R. Cumming

June 14, 2013 @ 8:51 am

I have no knowledge of whether statutorily mandated reports under the language of Section 511 were submitted.

Also my understanding is that no CRS report has been issued discussing the FUSION CENTERS although GAO has issued several reports on the topic.

And few Congressional oversight hearings have been held on the FUSION Centers.

And I have not found many academic studies of the FUSION CENTERS but perhaps Chris B. can help on that score.

To repeat my oft-stated mantra about the formation of the DHS there were three priority areas IMO. These three (3) were clearly HS and not the many other day jobs conducted by components coming into DHS from predecessor organizations.

First priority was WMD prevention, protection, detection, response and recovery and perhaps an anti-proliferation effort also.

Second, processing of domestic intelligence, including of course, collection, analysis and dessemination. My understand is that the FUSION CENTERs were never informed by the FBI of their interest in the Boston Bombers but now the FBI has announced some revision in its procedures as a result of that event. And the FBI Directors 12 years of service ends in September and of course in an odd timing he became Director on September 4th, 2001.

And finally CIP and cyber security were a driver in formation of DHS.

As always could be wrong about my analysis or conclusions but thinking the FUSION CENTERS are a critical component of the second raison d’etre mentioned above for formation of DHS.

Comment by Bruce Martin

June 14, 2013 @ 3:46 pm

How do we connect fires and fusion centers? Perhaps metaphorically?

Read this article on fires and prevention (disclosure I’m quoted): http://tinyurl.com/kuxkanp. With regards to fire, prevention is less expensive in dollars than response. In terms of human cost I submit fire prevention is preferable to response. The fire community has learned that fire such as the Black Forest is a force of nature, and does not recognize geographical or agency jurisdiction. Such fires are resistant to control, to use dry industry jargon, and response efforts are generally focused on containing the spread, rather than repairing or minimizing damage. What’s lost is lost.

The fire community has also learned to work together in response, and is getting better at cooperation in prevention and preparedness. The last two items are clearly less exciting than the first and historically receive less money and attention. Working together takes a variety of forms and mechanisms in our system of government, from hand shakes to contracts to regional operations centers which co-locate federal, state and sometimes local resources.

Now substitute “terrorism” for “fire” and see what we come up with … Never mind the grammar.

In California fire protection is “a matter of local interest” according to the government code so the idea breaks down a little if we discuss authorities. The notions of prevention and collaborative efforts resonate with me — in the fusion center, too.

Comment by William R. Cumming

June 14, 2013 @ 9:08 pm

Thanks Bruce for comment and link to thoughtful article. The addition of “prevention” undefined to the EM paradigm of preparedness, mitigation, response and recovery in PKEMRA 2006 perhaps foreshadowed the link you identify.

Certainly a collaborative process for the urban/wildland interface fire problem would seem logical.

Comment by Christopher Tingus

June 15, 2013 @ 9:09 pm

I have had the opportunity to rely on a local fusion center in the past and off hours (weekend) and I wish to commend the dedication and immediacy of response of those so committed to assure we the citizenry of such expedient response 24×7.

Kudos to the men and women who stand ready and qualified to respond with such collaborative effort w/other agencies.

Christopher Tingus
Harwich (Cape Cod), MA 02645

Comment by Christopher Tingus

June 15, 2013 @ 9:29 pm

“Keep not thou silence, O God: hold not thy peace, and be not still, O God. For, lo, thine enemies make a tumult: and they that hate thee have lifted up the head. They have taken CRAFTY COUNSEL against thy people [Israel], and consulted against thy hidden [or sheltered] ones” (Ps. 83:1-3). God’s “hidden ones” are His own people. In the midst of these warring nations, God protects His people (Rev. 12:14). As with many other biblical prophecies, we see God’s people in the spotlight.

The “enemies” are an Arab alliance that is about to attack the modern descendants of Israel. That is primarily America, Britain and Judah (the little nation called Israel today). Bible prophecy says the end-time nations of Israel are unusually fearful and gullible, like a “silly dove” (Hos. 7:8-12). Their enemies take advantage of their weaknesses to destroy them (Hos. 5:5). God only protects the nations of Israel from grave danger if they are obedient—which they are not in the end time.

This will be a deceitful alliance. “They have said, Come, and LET US CUT THEM OFF FROM BEING A NATION; THAT THE NAME OF ISRAEL MAY BE NO MORE IN REMEMBRANCE” (Ps. 83:4). Their goal is to utterly destroy Israel—including America and Britain!

“For they have consulted together with one consent: they are confederate against thee: The tabernacles of Edom, and the Ishmaelites; of Moab, and the Hagarenes; Gebal, and Ammon, and Amalek; the Philistines with the inhabitants of Tyre; Assur also is joined with them: they have holpen the children of Lot. Selah” (vv. 5-8). Here are the modern names of these nations, as taught at Ambassador College under Herbert W. Armstrong: Edom—Turkey; Ishmaelites—Saudi Arabia; Moab—Jordan; Hagarenes—anciently dwelt in the land known as Syria today; Gebal—Lebanon; Ammon—also Jordan.

Iraq and Iran appear to be missing in this Psalm. And clearly, Egypt is not a part of this alliance. Is this because these countries by this point have already been defeated by the king of the north?

There has never been such an alliance to attack or totally destroy Israel in history. Concerning this Psalm, the Anchor Bible reads, “History transmits no record of the national crisis when the nations enumerated in this Psalm formed a league to wipe out Israel .…”

Lange’s Commentary points out, “The 10 nations who are here enumerated as being combined against Israel, are never mentioned elsewhere as enemies allied at the same time and for the purpose of annihilating Israel.” Other commentaries make the same point. This must be an end-time prophecy!

Most of the Arabs were allied with Germany in World War II. They knew what Hitler was doing to the Jews, and we know the way many Arabs feel toward the Jews. Since America and Britain support the Jews today, it is not difficult to envision the Arabs and Germans allied against them. And this prophecy ties in with other end-time Bible prophecies very well. After all, God does tell us to put various Bible verses together in order to understand prophecy (Isa. 28:13).

Is this Psalm closely related to what Daniel saw in a vision?

“And … the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind .… He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon” (Dan. 11:40-41). The area of Jordan (here described as Edom and Moab) will escape.

“He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape” (v. 42). Egypt will be conquered by the king of the north—probably because of an alliance with the king of the south. The radical Islamic movement, led by Iran, is very strong in Egypt and Algeria. This religion will probably take control of both countries very soon.

Iran appears to be on the verge of becoming a world superpower—the kind of superpower that will conquer or be conquered!

Daniel’s prophecy could certainly account for Iran, Iraq and Egypt not being in the Psalm 83 alliance. ?

Reference: Trumpet

submitted by:

Christopher Tingus
PO Box 1612
Harwich (Cape Cod), MA 02645 USA
chris.tingus@gmail.com
skype: christopher.tingus

*We have no strategic reason whatsoever to be giving any weapons into Syria. We also have no reason to impose andy no-fly zone and shortly as I have stated in HLS Watch for years, even Hezbollah will switch suddenly and Not support Assad so America on the beltway, stay out of what is evolving for we have no place engaging what will be a shock and awe to may of those engaged in Syria. You, the American People have been deceptively duped by the empty rhetoric of Barry Obama and standing shoulder to shoulder, Ms. Hillary who blatantly lied at the “benghazi massacre” – a breach of faith, treason!

Recall back in ’08 and I have referred to the Rev Wright-Obama stance that as long as the “Zionists” had WMD, Tehran has every right to the same. You in America are so bent on needing to belong to a Republican or Democratic party and you fail as American citizens who prefer such partisanship and divisiveness which now lead to the erosion of trust We the People have with government just when government is becoming ever imposing….

Unfortunately, we ar being led astray and You are obviously blinded by the foollhearty and incompetent who have nota clue and this very much includes this Chicago city street slicker and nothing more….

God Bless our once great nation!

Christopher Tingus
“Main Street USA”
– Open the White House Doors Now – Our Kids Deserve Better –

PO Box 1612
Harwich (Cape Cod), MA 02645
chris.tingus@gmail.com

Comment by simcell

June 16, 2013 @ 12:40 am

Are there any local first-responders that are actually concerned about losing their local autonomy, or is everybody just so psyched about the extra hours that come with exercise grant money that they look the other way?

What are we losing by training all first-responders under a national system (HSEEP)?

As a regular citizen that follows this stuff it is more than a bit spooky that the term “HSEEP” gets close to NO mentions in news media. Yes, there are key-terms that identify an HSEEP exercise (if you know what to look for), but for such a widespread program I am astonished that nobody is asking hard questions.

There is no true dissent here but there are a few silent observers that know that there’s more to HSEEP than meets the eye.

Comment by simcell

June 16, 2013 @ 12:56 am

Here’s a question for for anybody that wants to answer it. Who is ‘Snowden’ in the novel ‘Catch-22’ and what secret is learned when he ‘Spills his guts’?

Comment by William R. Cumming

June 20, 2013 @ 4:21 am

Is Snowden in many ways even more important than Yossarian to Catch 22?

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>