"Homeland Security - Security For Whom?"

By Ron Ewart, President of the

National Association of Rural Landowners

and creator of the

"PARALLAX PROPHECIES INSTITUTE"

Devoted to the noble goal of getting Americans to think LIKE Americans and acting FOR America.

© Copyright Sunday, March 24, 2013 - All Rights Reserved

 

EDITOR'S NOTE: Re-posted with direct permission of Ron EWART.

 

This article can also be viewed at: http://www.theparallaxprophecies.com/pparchives/032413.html

 

 

NOTE: We will be devoting this and future columns to why government has become the enemy of the people, by highlighting government agencies, their history and their actions, with the goal of getting more Americans to take on their government by uniting as Americans for America.

---

The U. S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) came into being shortly after the attack of September 11, 2001 on the Twin Towers in New York and the Pentagon in Washington DC, under the Homeland Security Act of 2002.  (http://www.dhs.gov/homeland-security-act-2002).  The new DHS combined 22 agencies under one presidential cabinet level bureaucracy.  You can find what agencies became part of DHS at this link:  http://www.dhs.gov/who-joined-dhs.  The department's stated mission is to protect the "homeland" from terrorist attacks, except in the process DHS, with the help of their private partner and radical left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center, have labeled American patriots, conservatives and returning vets as domestic terrorists. 

 

About the same time, the Congress and President Bush passed the Patriot Act in a knee-jerk reaction to the 9/11 attack without regard to constitutional violations.  What next ..... drone surveillance or assassination of American citizens in America, warrantless arrests under the NDAA, National ID cards, RFID identity chips implanted under the skin, or just outright confiscation (stealing) of our bank deposits, IRA's and 401K's, Cyprus style?  Sure, these are stretches, but what or who will stop government if they decide to do it?

 

Unfortunately, when you give a government agency power without a lot of oversight, they exercise that power way beyond the limits of their charter, because that is the nature of government.  All cabinet level departments have done this over the last several decades, only under Obama it has increased.  Even state and local bureaucracies take on this arrogant, "we-are-the-masters" posture.  They think they own us.  They have become little tin Gods who yell at us,"... obey the law or else!"  Some brave Americans resist, but today over half the American people think government does own us and they don't care because they are getting "free stuff".  How easily they have surrendered their freedom.

 

In any event, we were very curious as to why DHS purchased about 1,600,000,000 rounds of ammunition (much of it the deadly hollow-points) and 7,000 fully automatic assault rifles?  DHS is not part of the military so why would they be stockpiling such huge quantities of ammunition and weapons, enough ammunition to pump five bullets into each American, man, woman and child?  As we mentioned in a previous column, on January 31, 2013 we filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with DHS asking them to produce documents for three specific questions.  We also requested a fee waiver under the provisions of 5 USC S 552 4(A)(iii).  You can view our FOIA request in PDF format HERE.  We requested documents regarding:

 

1.    Who (name and title) at DHS approved the purchases of ammunition and assault rifles?

2.    What agencies were designated to receive the ammunition and rifles?

3.    Where did the money come from to make the purchases and who in the Congress authorized the purchases?

 

Sounds simple enough doesn't it?  It is anything but simple when it comes to government.  We received a long letter from DHS a couple of weeks later telling us the fee waiver was approved and we could expect the documents in about 30 working days.  Then, just the other day we received another letter from DHS saying that they had funneled our FOIA request out to eight (8) different agencies under DHS and on the same day we received letters from two of those agencies denying our fee waiver.  We were incensed by this side-step maneuver by DHS and fired off a certified letter to Secretary Janet Napolitano indicating our displeasure with their decision and a few other well-chosen words.  We sent a copy of the letter to U. S. Attorney General Eric Holder at the U. S. Department of Justice as well.  

 

Our letter fully explains how we felt about their attempts to divert attention away from DHS for the purchases.  Readers are welcome to share it, if they deem it appropriate.  In fact, we encourage them to share it.  Our readers might even consider sharing their thoughts with Madame Secretary Napolitano.  

 

Our letter to Napolitano expresses our view as well as the views of millions of other freedom-loving Americans about how we are arrogantly treated by government, at all levels.  Unfortunately, government will continue to be arrogant and abusive if we don't challenge them, en masse.  They have the "guns" and the "bullets" that they just bought with our money.  Nevertheless, we're challenging them at our own risk, as we know that they are monitoring our website daily!  Will you challenge them?  Or, are you going to just watch from the shadows and let others take the risks and fight the fight and hope you don't get noticed?  There is a name for that.

 

The following letter is just one way we are challenging them peacefully.

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

CERTIFIED – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

FEDERAL INFORMATION REQUEST UNDER THE

“Freedom Of Information Act”

March 18, 2013

Secretary Janet Napolitano
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Washington, D.C. 20528

cc:      Eric Neuschaefer, FOIA Program Specialist, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C. 20528

          Attorney General Eric Holder, U. S. Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington DC 20530-0001

                                                                        Re:       Ammunition and AR-15 Acquisitions, et al

                                                                                    FOIA Request Number 2013 HQFO-00426

Dear Madame Secretary Napolitano:

We filed a formal written Freedom of Information Request (FOIA) under 5 USC S 552, by first-class letter dated January 30, 2013, to the agency over which you have jurisdiction, the U. S. Department of Homeland Security, (DHS) regarding the acquisition by DHS of over 1 billions rounds of ammunition (much of it hollow-point ammunition) and at least 7,000 fully automatic AR-15 assault rifles.  On February 19, 2013 we received a long first-class letter from one Eric Neuschaefer, DHS FOIA Program Specialist, indicating how he, Mr. Neuschaefer, would handle our request.  We responded with a first-class letter dated February 20, 2013, narrowing our request to a few specific documents at his suggestion.

To our absolute amazement, surprise and disgust, we received a first-class letter from Mr. Neuschaefer dated March 4, 2013 that he had funneled our request out to eight (8) different agencies that fall under the jurisdiction of DHS.  On the same day we received two responses from DHS agencies.

Secretary Napolitano, our request was significantly specific.  We wanted to know:

1.               Who (that is a real live person with a name and title) approved the said purchases at DHS?

2.               What federal agencies were designated to receive the ammunition and assault rifles?

3.               Where did the money come from to make the purchases?

Three (3) documents should pretty well answer our request, not a thousand documents from eight (8) different agencies, subject to FOIA fees.

The whole country knows that DHS signed the purchase orders for the ammunition and assault rifles.  The purchase order for the ammunition and assault rifles originated in the offices of DHS not eight (8) different agencies under DHS.  Therefore, DHS knows (the person) who approved the purchase.  They know where the ammunition and assault rifles are supposed to be distributed and they know where the money came from to make the purchases.

To funnel our FOIA request off to eight (8) different agencies is a blatant attempt to obfuscate DHS’s complicity in the purchase.  It is also an attempt to make our request much more complicated than it has to be.  It’s the old “document blitz” model used by way-too-many attorneys to run their opponent out of money.  The decision by Mr. Neuschaefer to funnel our request out to eight (8) different agencies will also cost the government more money to respond to our request, when DHS is quite capable of responding with little time and little expense. 

We requested a waiver of fees under 5 USC 552 4(A)(iii), which was conditionally granted in Mr. Neuschaefer’s February 20, 2013 response to our original request, as long as it was less than 100 documents.  In the now three responses from the eight (8) agencies, (we’ve only received two so far) they are denying our fee waiver.  Consequently this action by DHS also forces us to pay FOIA fees to eight (8) different agencies, when it is absolutely clear that DHS is wholly responsible for the purchases and it is absolutely clear that our fee waiver request is 100% valid under 5 USC 552 4(A)(iii).

Mr. Neuschaefer’s decision to funnel our FOIA request out to eight (8) different agencies is an all-too-frequently used government attempt to “snow” the so-called ignorant population.  For all we know, you personally, directed Mr. Neuschaefer to make that decision to re-direct responsibility away from DHS and cover up an overt act by DHS.  For all we know, you approved those purchases.  This is what government does when it doesn’t want its negligent, or criminal acts known to the public, you know, like Benghazi and Fast and Furious.  It is these kinds of actions by government that is why millions of Americans don’t trust it anymore.

DHS has had ample opportunity, under the time requirements of federal law, to answer our FOIA request, but has failed to do so.  If we have not received a response to our very simple FOIA request from DHS by April 1, 2013, we will consult with a national legal firm on our options to obtain the information we have requested that, by federal law, DHS is obligated to provide.  Or, we will file our own case in U. S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.  Either way, it will just cost the government a great deal more money than if they had just responded appropriately to our request. 

The government demands that the people obey the law, or suffer the consequences.  We are demanding that the government obey the law ….. or suffer the legal consequences.  The buck stops with you Madame Secretary.

You might be saying to yourself right now, how dare this ignoramus challenge our authority and our processes.  Well Madame Secretary this is still America.  It isn’t communist Russia, Mao’s China, or Hitler’s Germany.  Americans still have rights under the law and the government is obligated, under the U. S. Constitution, to protect and defend those rights, that is if they are true to their oath.  Otherwise, government is just an abusive, arrogant tyrant.

                                                                        Respectfully,

cc:  copies of this letter have been sent to major newspapers, radio, TV and cable news networks and other interested parties. .

---

We are under no illusions that we could even get an answer to our FOIA request from DHS since they won't even tell the Congress what they are doing.  (See http://www.infowars.com/big-sis-refuses-to-answer-congress-on-ammo-purchases/)  But we can't just sit back and do nothing.

If you care about the survival of a free America, please join with us at the "Parallax Prophecies Institute" to bring the citizens of this great country back to being united Americans who fearlessly turn on their enemies when threatened, foreign or domestic, instead of being divided, weak, spineless Americans who are locked in the yoke of enslavement, pulling the royal cart of government.  Join with us as free Americans peacefully, against a government that has become the enemy of the people.  Remember!  If you fear government, they win and you are but a slave.

Next week the Parallax Prophecies column will take up the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), another in-your-face enemy of the people and freedom.

QUESTIONS ABOUT OBAMA’S BIRTHPLACE AND PARENTAGE ARE STILL UNANSWERED
Was Obama Sr.’s “U.S. Citizen Wife in the Philippines” Stanley Ann Dunham?
by Sharon Rondeau

Editor's Note: Reprinted with permission of The Post & Email.

Was Stanley Ann Dunham an unmarried expectant mother in 1961 who left the country to have her child?

(Jul. 7, 2011) — Despite numerous FOIA requests made and lawsuits filed against the U.S. State Department, no travel or passport information on Stanley Ann Dunham prior to 1965 has been made available to the public. Contrary to a State Department assertion that “Many passport applications and other non-vital records were destroyed during the 1980s in accordance with guidance from the General Services Administration,” neither the GSA nor NARA was able to locate any evidence that such destruction took place.

The current U.S. Department of Justice states on its FOIA page:

…Obama and Attorney General Holder have directed agencies to apply a presumption of openness in responding to FOIA requests. The Attorney General specifically called on agencies not to withhold information just because it technically falls within an exemption and he also encouraged agencies to make discretionary releases of records. The Attorney General emphasized that the President has called on agencies to work in a spirit of cooperation with FOIA requesters. The Office of Information Policy at the Department of Justice oversees agency compliance with these directives and encourages all agencies to fully comply with both the letter and the spirit of the FOIA. …Obama has pledged to make this the most transparent Administration in history.

Regarding exceptions to the 1966 FOIA law, the web page states:

Not all records can be released under the FOIA. Congress established certain categories of information that are not required to be released in response to a FOIA request because release would be harmful to governmental or private interests. These categories are called “exemptions” from disclosures. Still, even if an exemption applies, agencies may use their discretion to release information when there is no foreseeable harm in doing so and disclosure is not otherwise prohibited by law. There are nine categories of exempt information and each is described below.

Exemption 1: Information that is classified to protect national security. The material must be properly classified under an Executive Order.

Exemption 2: Information related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency.

Exemption 3: Information that is prohibited from disclosure by another federal law. Examples of laws which Courts have approved for use under Exemption 3 can be found here.

Exemption 4: Information that concerns business trade secrets or other confidential commercial or financial information.

Exemption 5: Information that concerns communications within or between agencies which are protected by legal privileges, that include but are not limited to:

Attorney-Work Product Privilege
Attorney-Client Privilege
Deliberative Process Privilege
Presidential Communications Privilege

Exemption 6: Information that, if disclosed, would invade another individual’s personal privacy.

Exemption 7: Information compiled for law enforcement purposes if one of the following harms would occur. Law enforcement information is exempt if it:

7(A). Could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings
7(B). Would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication
7(C). Could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy
7(D). Could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source
7(E). Would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions
7(F). Could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual

Exemption 8: Information that concerns the supervision of financial institutions.

Exemption 9: Geological information on wells.

Mr. Kenneth Allen supplied The Post & Email with additional information recently released to him on Barack Hussein Obama Sr. as a result of an additional Freedom of Information request which quotes Obama Sr. as having told INS authorities that he had an American wife overseas in April 1964.

Dated 4/21/64, a memo entitled “RE: A11 938 537 – BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA” indicates that Obama had attended the University of Hawaii from 1959 to 1962, graduating with a Bachelor of Arts degree. It continues:

Transferred to Harvard in September 1962 to study for Ph.D. in Economics. Expects to get degree in 2-3 years and then go home. Had not filled in marital status, etc. and employment portion of I-539. E.J.Golden said to hold up extension for present.

Talked with Miss Frost at Harvard as alien claimed he couldn’t remember where he had worked in the U.S. She said he works on research at Harvard; and that Mr. Henry, one of the Harvard officials, intends to talk to subject re his marital situation. Harvard thinks he’s married to someone in Kenya and someone in Honolulu, but that possibly he belongs to a tribe where multiple marriages are O.K.

Mr. Henry may not talk to him until after his exams in case he might get upset and use that as an excuse for not passing. Harvard will call us with the results of the interview.

After alien stated he was married, he said he was separated and thatthey [sic] may get a divorce. The wife in the Philippines from whom he is separated is a U.S.C. Memo on yellow paper in file indicates he had wife in Kenya when he arrived in U.S. in 1959.

Was the wife “in the Philippines” Stanley Ann Dunham? What was the “U.S.C. wife” to Barack Obama Sr. doing overseas? If it was Dunham, why wasn’t she in Hawaii as her biography typically reads? If Dunham had “fallen in love with a grad student” in Hawaii, why did Harvard state that Obama Sr. had achieved a B.A. as of 1962, not 1960 or 1961?

If Stanley Ann Dunham left the United States between 1960 and 1964, the years for which records have been unavailable, she would have had to have applied for a passport, yet the State Department maintains that the records were “destroyed.” If she had her baby overseas and that baby is Barry Soetoro, aka Barack Hussein Obama II, is he a natural born Citizen as required by Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution?

If some records for Lolo Soetoro and Stanley Ann Dunham were finally made available to Mr. Allen, why was nothing released under the name “Barry Soetoro,” which appears to be an alias for Barack Hussein Obama II? The exemption frequently cited on the documents is (b)(6), which claims privacy concerns, just as the Hawaii Department of Health has in regard to releasing Obama’s original birth certificate, if in fact they have it.

While Obama Sr. supposedly had a wife in Honolulu, why did he tell immigration authorities that a U.S. citizen wife was in the Philippines?

An article dated July 7, 2011 from The Boston Globe states that Obama Sr. told an INS official that he and his “USC wife,” who was expecting his child, had discussed arranging for an adoption of the baby. If they were married, why would they have discussed such a thing? The article contains no documentation or external links to source the information.

Page 21 from documentation released by the State Department on Barack Hussein Obama stating that he had a U.S. citizen wife in the Philippines in April 1964

Were Obama Sr. and Stanley Ann Dunham ever really married? Obama had already been married to a Kenyan woman, Kezia, and although it has been reported that he “divorced” her, it has also been reported that Kezia gave her approval for Obama to take another wife and even became “friends” with Stanley Ann.

Did Dunham go to Kenya to have her baby with the expectation that the child’s father’s family would raise him? If she had gone overseas for the birth of the baby, she would have needed a passport. Mysteriously, the State Department has maintained that it doesn’t have the records, which could imply that they did or do exist.

The address provided in the two purported birth announcements for Obama II stating the parents’ address does not agree with the address which the father provided in his application for a visa extension in August 1961. He lists a wife, Ann Dunham, but does not provide her address on the form when asked, nor does he acknowledge having a child born earlier that month.

One of Stanley Ann’s biographers, Janny Scott, stated that Stanley Ann married Lolo Soetoro in 1964, but records released by the State Department revealed that Dunham married Soetoro in 1965, although she provided two different dates for the marriage.

Did the biographer use original sources such as documents from the State Department or Hawaii Department of Health to arrive at the 1964 date? If not, how much of the biography is accurate? Where are the footnotes stating Ms. Scott’s sources? Writer Jack Cashill has also questioned the reliability of Scott’s work, citing the lack of information regarding Ann Dunham’s relationship with Barack Obama Sr., their alleged wedding and the months leading up to the alleged birth of Barack Obama II.

A Certificate of Marriage document released by the State Department with signatures and signed statement of certification shows a marriage date of March 1965.

Portion of marriage certificate for Stanley Ann Dunham and Lolo Soetoro

Another biography of Dunham states that she and Lolo Soetoro were not yet married in 1967. An article published shortly after the 2008 presidential election maintains that Barack Hussein Obama II was born in Kogelo, Kenya. The same article states that Dunham married Soeotor in 1967, not 1965.

Why are there so many inconsistencies in the histories of Stanley Ann Dunham and her son, Barry Soetoro/Barack Hussein Obama II?

The document which Obama claimed as a certified copy of his original birth certificate on file with the Hawaii Department of Health is lacking the statement present on his mother’s marriage certificate from 1965, four years later, which reads:

This certifies that the above is a true and correct copy of the original record on file in the research and statistics office
Hawaii State Department of Health

There are two signatures below the statement: Walter B. Quisenberry, M.D., Director of Health, and George H. Tokuyama, State Registrar, and the document is dated “3-15-65.”

Other documents released contain the (b)(6) privacy exemption:



If Stanley Ann Dunham and Lolo Soetoro are deceased, whose privacy could the State Department be protecting?

Document dated 7-19-65 regarding whether or not Lolo Soetoro should be granted a waiver to allow him to remain in the United States following the expiration of his visa. The same (b)(6) exemption is used to redact information.

Obama’s “birth certificate” does not bear the signature of the director of the Hawaii Department of Health, currently Loretta J. Fuddy. However, the birth certificates released by Eleanor Nordyke, the mother of the twin girls born on August 5, 1961 at Kapiolani Medical Center, have the same statement quoted above which appears on the marriage certificate for Stanley Ann Dunham and Lolo Soetoro, including the two signatures below it.

Without that statement of certification, is the long-form birth certificate bearing Obama’s name authentic? Is his social security number? Is his real name Barack Hussein Obama II or Barry Soetoro?

Is there anything authentic about him?

Of the FOIA release, Mr. Allen told The Post & Email, “the 118 pages aren’t all I asked for, I asked for much more. I have 2 years to file suit for the rest and because the answer from the 9th circuit is due I’ll see what else I can retrieve.”









© 2011, The Post & Email. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.