Obamalaw plan

And it begins.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/02/obama-unveils-national-obamalaw-plan/2/


nationalized law enforcement. Welcome comrades to the USSA.

Will your gun rights be obamacized by the new local almost-feds?

Obama pressing for federal control of local police
Like Common Core for schools, plan ties funding to following rules
http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/obama-pressing-for-federal-control-of-local-police/#kSl9gXWIdKyOEU0X.99

Tricorn said:

Obama pressing for federal control of local police
Like Common Core for schools, plan ties funding to following rules
http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/obama-pressing-for-federal-control-of-local-police/#kSl9gXWIdKyOEU0X.99

Click to expand...

If I remember correctly this was started under the previous administration too, with "First Responder" nonsense.

sudden valley gunner said:

If I remember correctly this was started under the previous administration too, with "First Responder" nonsense.

Click to expand...

Yes this has been going on for decades, federal funding is tied to federal mandates. Any local government can turn down the funding, but they won't.

IMO Obama is using this as a shiny object to distract from body cams, that the public wants. But the police unions do not want.

Translated from Obamaspeak and Holderspeak, it says, "We have a great opportunity, to really transform how we force our despotic nonsense onto the American people."

Obama hinted that his plan to centralize policing rules is likely to face widespread opposition. “Law enforcement is largely a local function as opposed to a federal function…A lot of our work is going to involve local police chiefs, local elected officials, states recognizing that the moment is now for us to make these changes.”

Obama pushed the media to aid his takeover.

Click to expand...

1 - I though policing rules were already centralized - like in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th Amendmendements in particular. Am I missing something?

2 - Where can I find a list of those "changes"?

3 - Where can I get more information of the plan(s) to federalize the law enforcement establishment?

stay safe.

Is it even possible to have an honest discussion in American politics anymore?

The article shared by the OP is, at best, devoid of content. At worst, it's intentionally poisoning the well.

This is all about Obama's "Task Force on 21st Century Policing", which has nothing to do with a "Federal takeover of policing".

Keep in mind that the GOP establishment has for decades been, in an effort to bolster their "law and order" image, nothing if not apologists for police and all their excesses. So, when Obama proposes, "the need for independent investigations and independent special prosecutors [in] a situation in which law enforcement has interacted with an individual that results in death," I would expect the GOP to hysterically oppose this because it might mitigate the impunity of police which their "law and order" ilk have spent so much time erecting.

Those of us with an iota of civil libertarianism, however, ought to agree with such a proposal. It's damn well time for police departments to stop being their own judges, and I'd rather the Feds do that than nobody. And if the GOP wants to scream "FEDERAL TAKEOVER OF LAW ENFORCEMENT!", then they demonstrate how absolutely corrupt, immoral, and generally soulless their political machine is.

marshaul said:

...And if the GOP wants to scream "FEDERAL TAKEOVER OF LAW ENFORCEMENT!", then they demonstrate how absolutely corrupt, immoral, and generally soulless their political machine is.

Click to expand...

...idiotic, and not having actually read what the "Task Force on 21st Century Policing" is constituted to do. Though, we are referring to a bunch of folks who forget where they came from their first 75% of their time inside the Beltway. They remember what state/district they represent a few months prior to primary season.

More federal control? Hmmmm. Lemme see what I can think up off the top of my head.

Fusion centers. Police are already tied-in to the fed's thru so-called Fusion Centers for coordination on so-called terrorism.

Asset Forfeiture. Oh, there's a good one. The fed's agree to let local cops keep (40%?) of property and cash warrantlessly seized and kept in violation of the Fifth Amendment's due process guarantee if the seizing local cops can somehow rationalize a connection between the cash or property and drug trade. No matter how contrived or strained the rationale. No recourse for the victim except to spend a ton of money petitioning a court for return of the property or cash. I you are unfamiliar with the multitudinous abuses on this subject, just google the first two words of this paragraph.

Speed of information sharing? Oh, my. I well recall the FOIA return from the Tony's Incident in Manassas in early 2007. A few of the police e-mails coughed up by the police showed a particular police officer e-mailing several others he knew around the state for intelligence about OCDO and VCDL. You read that right. A detective or supervisor in that police department sought intelligence from other departments about pro-rights organizations because members of those organizations exercised their First Amendment rights (FOIA) (The intelligence-seeking e-mails were not sent until after the FOIA arrived). Compare that behavior to the only legitimate* reason for government: "To secure these [inalienable] rights, governments are instituted among men..." Declaration of Independence. Apparently being able to use e-mail for intelligence sharing isn't good enough for the latest round of fed influence and control.

Well, that's three right off the top of my head. Betcha you can think of more examples.



*I disagree strongly that securing rights is a legitimate reason to create government--government as perpetrated against humanity these last 4500 years, even including the governments that succeeded the Declaration of Independence. I would agree that securing rights is a legitimate reason for people to voluntarily, consensually form a government to govern themselves--the people who consented. But, that is not the way its been done since 1776 in this country. Government in this country lies about consent of the governed. Government means to rule you whether you consent or not.

Citizen said:

More federal control? Hmmmm. Lemme see what I can think up off the top of my head.

Fusion centers. Police are already tied-in to the fed's thru so-called Fusion Centers for coordination on so-called terrorism.

Asset Forfeiture. Oh, there's a good one. The fed's agree to let local cops keep (40%?) of property and cash warrantlessly seized and kept in violation of the Fifth Amendment's due process guarantee if the seizing local cops can somehow rationalize a connection between the cash or property and drug trade. No matter how contrived or strained the rationale. No recourse for the victim except to spend a ton of money petitioning a court for return of the property or cash. I you are unfamiliar with the multitudinous abuses on this subject, just google the first two words of this paragraph.

Speed of information sharing? Oh, my. I well recall the FOIA return from the Tony's Incident in Manassas in early 2007. A few of the police e-mails coughed up by the police showed a particular police officer e-mailing several others he knew around the state for intelligence about OCDO and VCDL. You read that right. A detective or supervisor in that police department sought intelligence from other departments about pro-rights organizations because members of those organizations exercised their First Amendment rights (FOIA) (The intelligence-seeking e-mails were not sent until after the FOIA arrived). Compare that behavior to the only legitimate* reason for government: "To secure these [inalienable] rights, governments are instituted among men..." Declaration of Independence. Apparently being able to use e-mail for intelligence sharing isn't good enough for the latest round of fed influence and control.

Well, that's three right off the top of my head. Betcha you can think of more examples.



*I disagree strongly that securing rights is a legitimate reason to create government--government as perpetrated against humanity these last 4500 years, even including the governments that succeeded the Declaration of Independence. I would agree that securing rights is a legitimate reason for people to voluntarily, consensually form a government to govern themselves--the people who consented. But, that is not the way its been done since 1776 in this country. Government in this country lies about consent of the governed. Government means to rule you whether you consent or not.

Click to expand...

I might point out that plenty of states have egregious asset forfeiture laws of their own. I certainly don't think Federal control is what's called for, but oversight may well be a good thing.

Without suggesting an untarnished record (especially not if you go all the way back to reconstruction), one of the few things I put in the "plus column" for our Federal government is its occasional use of Federal law to punish individual officers for civil rights violations under color of law. In some states at some times, the Feds were literally the only party willing and enabled to do so.

Most of Obama's "Task Force on 21st Century Policing" is so much "elephant talk" – committees, discussions, ad nauseam. One of the few concrete proposals I see is for independent investigations/prosecutions when police shoot a citizen during an encounter. To me this seems like a decided step in the right direction.

Are there any concrete proposals attached to this which you find objectionable?

marshaul said:

SNIP Are there any concrete proposals attached to this which you find objectionable?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure which "this"you are referring to, but let me give you my take on what I think you might be talking about by way of a very recent development in my geographical area.

Maybe 20 months ago, members of the tax-feeding parasitical enforcement class locally known as Fairfax Co Police Department (FCPD) killed a man in the doorway of his home. According to the local press, at least one cop who witnessed the shooting told investigators the victim was unarmed. The local prosecutor turned the case over to the feds in Richmond. As I understand it, that move by the prosecutor was more of a "get this hot-potato off my plate"; rather than a referral for a federal civil rights violation. Several months ago, the ruling gang locally known as the Fairfax Co. Board of Supervisors queried the feds as to why the fed investigation was not yet complete. The feds said the tax parasites (FCPD) were withholding information. It took a court order to make the parasites cough up information.

Very recently, as out-growth of the killing, the ruling gang established a committee or commission to look into policies and procedures within the FCPD. Now, superficially, this sounds very admirable: concerned politicians (sic for ruling gang) exercising their responsibility for oversight. However, the public statements by the ruling gang do not stand up to even a shallow closer look. Here's why.

FCPD is an accredited agency. They are accredited by a national police accreditation agency whose initials are CALEA. FCPD's policies and procedures are CALEA's recommended policies, procedures, and so-called "best practices". Any committee investigating FCPD's policies and procedures cannot help but conclude that FCPD policies and procedures meet the best national standards. The conclusion is foreordained. It is also a red-herring. The question is not, "what are the policies and procedures?" The question is, "What happens to the violators when the policies and procedures are broken?"

The ruling gang cannot possibly not know about CALEA and FCPD's accreditation. They cannot--as politicians--have failed to think through on what their commission will find. It is too obvious the whole thing is a ploy to mislead outraged citizens into thinking the ruling gang is actually doing something. What a beautiful little ploy. The commission discovers the FCPD has the best standards, policies, and procedures in the country. The police come out untarnished. The ruling gang looks good for establishing the commission.

Thus, regarding the thread topic, I view any recommendations by politicians and bureaucrats with deep suspicion, no matter how noble-sounding their sales pitch. I don't believe for one second the feds are concerned about tax-victims being abused by the enforcement class. (How could they? They think so little of their fellow human beings, they're willing to rule them without their consent, and inflict enforcement on them for all manner of unconstitutional and malum prohibitum laws.) The feds will be looking to make themselves look good, increase their budgets, and follow the First Law of Bureaucracy--perpetuate the bureaucracy. If there is any benefit for the tax-victims, it will be accidental.

sudden valley gunner said:

If I remember correctly this was started under the previous administration too, with "First Responder" nonsense.

Click to expand...

To go off on a tangent for a moment, this is an annoyance of mine: parasites who call themselves first responders.

A commentator pointed out a few years ago that the first responders are the citizens already on the scene. For example, if you witness a car crash, pull over, run up to one of the crashed cars and ask the driver, "Are you OK?", you are a first responder. If you help evacuate people from a fire, you are a first responder. If you administer CPR to heart-attack victim in a restaurant, you are a first responder. If you administer rescue breathing to a child pulled from swimming hole or pool, you are a first responder.

This evening, in a national network news feed, it was reported that Harrison Ford crashed his vintage plane (on golf course I think). The spokesperson (sic for propagandist) for the local fire/rescue/police reported Mr. Ford was initially assisted by bystanders. Huh!?!?! (No, that was too polite.) Hogwash!!!!! Those people the propagandist derogated with the term bystanders were the first responders! The propagandist, in his next sentence, said that second responders administered (insert here unfamiliar jargon intended to make the tax-victim listeners think the second responders are super-extra-professional.) Understand that the term second responders is mine, not the propagandist's. What unadulterated, breathtaking arrogance: calling the first people on the scene to help Mr. Ford bystander.

Just exactly how low an opinion do these sorts of tax parasites have of their hosts?

I agree with you in that context. You seem, to me, to be pointing out the 'hidden' (or not so hidden to those that are looking) agenda behind certain terminology.

I think that there is some legitimacy to distinction, if it is done without an agenda behind it. I think that we can use the term 'first responder' legitimately to refer to people that volunteer to train and stand by for the purpose of responding to incidents as quickly as possible, without a sinister motive.

But do some abuse or misuse common, legitimate terminology for ulterior motives? Absolutely, happens often.

On the other hand, I do wonder if using terminology like 'first responder' contributes to issues like the bystander effect, even if the effect is unintended. I'm not a 'first responder,' so I can't help. There is such a thing as a 'first responder,' so, perhaps subliminally, we may think that the first people to render aid should be them.

Nightmare said:

The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office) is the component within the U.S. Department of Justice dedicated to the concept that trust and mutual respect between police and the communities they serve is critical to public safety.

Click to expand...

Community Oriented Policing just another way of saying "ignore the crimes committed by certain politically privileged (blacks, muslims) groups in their communities".

Citizen said:

To go off on a tangent for a moment, this is an annoyance of mine: parasites who call themselves first responders.

A commentator pointed out a few years ago that the first responders are the citizens already on the scene. For example, if you witness a car crash, pull over, run up to one of the crashed cars and ask the driver, "Are you OK?", you are a first responder. If you help evacuate people from a fire, you are a first responder. If you administer CPR to heart-attack victim in a restaurant, you are a first responder. If you administer rescue breathing to a child pulled from swimming hole or pool, you are a first responder.

This evening, in a national network news feed, it was reported that Harrison Ford crashed his vintage plane (on golf course I think). The spokesperson (sic for propagandist) for the local fire/rescue/police reported Mr. Ford was initially assisted by bystanders. Huh!?!?! (No, that was too polite.) Hogwash!!!!! Those people the propagandist derogated with the term bystanders were the first responders! The propagandist, in his next sentence, said that second responders administered (insert here unfamiliar jargon intended to make the tax-victim listeners think the second responders are super-extra-professional.) Understand that the term second responders is mine, not the propagandist's. What unadulterated, breathtaking arrogance: calling the first people on the scene to help Mr. Ford bystander.

Just exactly how low an opinion do these sorts of tax parasites have of their hosts?

Click to expand...

I agree.

This term was a propaganda term to help nationalize local agencies, against the so called war on boogey men often called terrorism. Another play on words like war on drugs, or poverty etc....