Cell Phone Jammers are Illegal in USA
nick markowitz
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Shaker Hassan,
Sales Manager, Grand Trades Co.
4701 15th Avenue, N.E.
Apartment 108
Seattle, WA 98105
Re: File No. EB-05-SE-059
Dear Shaker Hassan:
This is an official CITATION, issued pursuant to Section 503(b)(5) of
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (“Communications Act”), 47
U.S.C. § 503(b)(5), for marketing unauthorized radio frequency devices
in the United States in violation of Section 302(b) of the
Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 302a(b), and Section 2.803(a) of the
Commission’s Rules (“Rules”), 47 C.F.R. § 2.803(a). As explained
below, future violations of the Commission’s rules in this regard may
subject your company to monetary forfeitures.
By letter dated March 15, 2005, the Spectrum Enforcement Division of
the Commission’s Enforcement Bureau initiated an investigation into
whether Grand Trades Co. (“Grand Trades”) is marketing in the United
States unauthorized radio frequency devices, specifically, cell phone
jammers, wireless device jammers and long range cordless telephones.
At the time of that letter, March 15, 2005, we observed on your
website, www.grandtrades.net, your advertisement for sale of the
following radio frequency devices:
1. SH-066BM2 A/B-R cell phone jammer. The website indicated that there
were two models of this device available, including one for “USA/
Canada.”
2. SH066PL2A/B portable cell phone jammer. The website indicated that
there were two models of this device available, including one for “USA/
Canada.”
3. GT-200 cell phone jammer. The website indicated that there were two
models of this device available, including one for “USA/Canada.”
4. SRC300 cell phone jammer. The website indicated that there were two
models of this device available, including one for “USA/Canada.”
5. GT300 cell phone jammer. The website described this device as a
“Worldwide” cell phone jammer.
6. 2.4 GHz wireless jammer. The website stated that this device
interferes with the video signals of wireless cameras and blocks the
communications of wireless LANs and Bluetooth devices.
7. Senao 358 long range cordless phone. The website indicated that
this device has a range of 20 km.
8. Senao 668 long range cordless phone. The website indicated that
this device has a range of 128 km.
9. Senao 869 long range cordless phone. The website indicated that
this device has a range of 20 km.
Your advertisement of these products specifically listed shipping
costs to customers in the United States. Your website also listed your
“USA” business address as 4701 15th Avenue, N.E., Apartment 108,
Seattle, Washington 98105, and your “USA” fax number as (206)
309-0271. Furthermore, your website stated that “[w]e run the business
from more than one location in Taiwan, Egypt & USA” and that “we
gladly served many customers worldwide from USA, UK, Canada, Germany,
Ireland, France, Italy, Portugal & more.”
In response to our letter of inquiry, you sent us two undated written
responses by facsimile, one received on or about March 20, 2005 and
one received on or about March 30, 2005. In these faxes, you claimed
that your company is based in Taiwan and Egypt, that you don’t have
any import or export business activity or distributors inside the
U.S., and that you don’t have an office or branch of Grand Trades or
hold any inventory in the U.S. You further claimed that Grand Trades
is “not directing our business to USA.” Nevertheless, you admitted
that since Grand Trades began its business about five months ago, it
has sold about 10 cell phone jammers, two video jammers, and four long
range cordless telephones to U.S. customers. You did not provide FCC
Identification numbers or other documentation showing that the devices
have been certified in accordance with the Commission’s equipment
authorization requirements. Finally, you stated that you do not
manufacture the devices and are not aware of the regulations of each
country.
Section 302(b) of the Act provides that “[n]o person shall
manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, or ship devices or home
electronic equipment and systems, or use devices, which fail to comply
with regulations promulgated pursuant to this section.” Section 2.803
(a)(1) of the Commission’s implementing regulations provides that:
no person shall sell or lease, or offer for sale or lease (including
advertising for sale or lease), or import, ship, or distribute for the
purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease, any radio
frequency device unless … [i]n the case of a device subject to
certification, such device has been authorized by the Commission in
accordance with the rules in this chapter and is properly identified
and labeled as required by § 2.925 and other relevant sections in this
chapter.
Pursuant to Section 15.201(b) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 15.201(b),
intentional radiators must be authorized in accordance with the FCC’s
certification procedures prior to the initiation of marketing in the
U.S. Based on your failure to provide FCC Identification numbers or
other documentation showing that the jammers and cordless telephones
marketed in the U.S. by Grand Trades have been certified, as well as
our review of the Commission’s equipment authorization database, it
appears that these devices have not been certified. Moreover, it does
not appear that these devices are capable of receiving a grant of
certification. In this regard, the main purpose of cell phone and
other wireless jammers is to block or interfere with radio
communications. Such use is clearly prohibited by Section 333 of the
Act, 47 U.S.C. § 333, which states that “[n]o person shall willfully
or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio
communications of any station licensed or authorized by or under this
Act or operated by the
United States Government.” A device such as a jammer which
intentionally interferes with radio communications is not eligible for
certification. Similarly, considering the long ranges cited in your
advertisements for the cordless telephones, it appears that they do
not comply with FCC technical requirements and therefore could not
receive a grant of certification. Accordingly, it appears that Grand
Trades has violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of
the Rules by marketing in the United States the nine unauthorized
radio frequency devices listed above. Finally, we note that the
evidence before us contradicts Grand Trades’ claim that it is not
directing its business to the United States. In this regard, we note,
among other things, that Grand Trades’ website advertised “USA/Canada”
models of several of its cell phone jammers, listed shipping costs to
the United States for its products, and stated that “[w]e run the
business from more than one location in Taiwan, Egypt & USA” and that
“we gladly served many customers worldwide from USA, UK,
Canada . . .”
If, after receipt of this citation, you violate the Communications Act
or the Commission’s rules in any manner described herein, the
Commission may impose monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for
each such violation or each day of a continuing violation.
You may respond to this citation within 30 days from the date of this
letter either through (1) a personal interview at the Commission’s
Field Office nearest to your place of business, or (2) a written
statement. Your response should specify the actions that you are
taking to ensure that you do not violate the Commission’s rules
governing the marketing of radio frequency equipment in the future.
The nearest Commission field office appears to be the Seattle District
Office, in Kirkland, Washington. Please call Katherine Power at
202-418-0919 if you wish to schedule a personal interview. You should
schedule any interview to take place within 30 days of the date of
this letter. You should send any written statement within 30 days of
the date of this letter to:
Kathryn Berthot
Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division
Enforcement Bureau
Federal Communications Commission
445-12th Street, S.W., Rm. 7-C802
Washington, D.C. 20554
Under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(e)(3), we are
informing you that the Commission’s staff will use all relevant
material information before it, including information that you
disclose in your interview or written statement, to determine what, if
any, enforcement action is required to ensure your compliance with the
Communications Act and the Commission’s rules.
The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the
concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is
punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.
Sincerely,
Kathryn Berthot
Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division
Enforcement Bureau
Federal Communications Commission
nick markowitz
I get people asking me about these units all the time as you can see
above they can bring big trouble.
thought the group might find this intresting.
Jim Rojas
Jim Rojas
JoeRaisin
> Jim Rojas wrote:
>
>> FCC, UL, FDA, DEA, ATF, FBI, CIA, USDA, GSA, etc, all assclowns in my book.
>
>
>
> Check out these series of videos regarding warrantless, suspicionless, and
> unconstitutional DHS harassment:
>
>
> (number 14 in the series)
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDLlEh0x2XA&feature=channel_page
I just wonder how it would have gone if he had answered the initial
question with the word "yes."
This guy is just an unreasonable prick like those "praying Mullas" in
the airport - acting suspicious by not answering a simple question then
complaining when the agents try to do their job.
I don't understand the idea that we want the border patrol to protect us
from illegal incursion but we citizens SHOULDN'T cooperate with them by
answering a simple "yes" and going on our way.
The guy is a jerk who is either trying to make it easier (in the future)
for him to run illegals or drugs, he lives in the area and is indignant
that HE has to conform to all the rules that everyone else has to
(without undo inconvenience by simply answering the first question) or
he is one of those attention whores who is creating his own controversy
so he can put these videos up on YouTube.
I wonder what his job is and how he responds to asshats that go out of
their way to pointlessly make it harder.
If there were no checkpoints or secondary enforcement (off the border)
he would be making videos of illegals walking along a "Public Highway"
and crying about the absence of the DHS.
If he wants yto impress me he should show where these checkpoints are
ineffective and NEVER result in any detentions of illegals. He has
obviously done quite a bit of homework and I suspect if that was the
case he would have mentioned it.
nick markowitz
Jim you forgot NFPA Not for practical Application
nick markowitz
> JoeRaisin wrote:
>
> >I don't understand the idea that we want the border patrol to protect us
> >from illegal incursion but we citizens SHOULDN'T cooperate with them by
> >answering a simple "yes" and going on our way.
>
> has the authority to stop & detain with questioning someone without suspicion
> of a crime committed. Furthermore, that question "Are you a US citizen" is
> about as useful as the dumb-ass "Did you pack your own suitcase" question at
> the airport. What's to prevent a non-citizen from.... lying?
>
> My friend, if you don't see a problem with the govnm't setting up roadblocks
> and asking for "your papers", then you are part of the problem. It is not
> acceptable for the government to violate our Constitutional Rights under the
> guise of "security". It is not acceptable for them to illegally tap our
> Internet communications, or phone calls either. Unfortunately, George
> 'Adolph' Bush felt it was necessary to impose the first stage of a "police
> state" on us with passage of the "Patriot Act". This scenario has played out
> before in the 1930's, in Germany. I don't want to see a repeat of that, and I
> guaranfuckintee I'll die in defense of my rights before I live in a
> totalitarian society.
I have customers who spend there winters in san diego area and said
twice this winter they were stopped at road blocks.
they were glad to see border patrol stopping the illegals but in same
breath it gave them the creeps.
JoeRaisin
> nick markowitz wrote:
>
>> I have customers who spend there winters in san diego area and said
>> twice this winter they were stopped at road blocks.
>> they were glad to see border patrol stopping the illegals but in same
>> breath it gave them the creeps.
>
>
> If the feds really wanted to do something about the illegal entry of people at
> the border, they could. Throwing out a dragnet some 40 miles from the border
> makes no sense. They are on a 'fishing' expedition, no probable cause, no
> reasonable suspicion. It is a 4th Amendment issue for me.
Fixing the problem of illegals would be a simple matter of drying up the
job market for them. Just make sure that it isn't worth hiring these folks.
Any company found knowingly hiring illegals is seized and put into
receivership by the government until it can be sold. The
President/CEO/Owner is put in jail and the head of human resources joins
him/her.
If the company is public, all stock is declared worthless and if the new
owners wish to issue new stock that is up to them.
That way, the big boss will want to ensure that every employee is above
board, the person in charge of hiring folks will be careful to vet new
employees as throughly as possible and the stock holders will be adamant
that the company does not engage in such behavior.
As for hiring illegal domestics, obviously private ci9tizens may not
have as much access to systems used to identify possible illegals but
even then, if it is apparent that the homeowner knowingly hired an
illegal - he/she loses the home.
Such penalties are already in place in other areas of the law so why not
here?
As for the road blocks - I found the following:
1) US v. MARTINEZ-FUERTE
This is a border-related case that incrementally increased law
enforcement�s ability to avoid Fourth Amendment restrictions. The court
permits the use of roadblocks several miles inland from national borders
under the following rationale:
* There aren�t feasible alternatives (in their opinion).
* It is a known and ongoing roadblock so travelers can avoid it if
they want to.
* And, supposedly motorist fear and surprise is minimal because
this is an established roadblock with clear evidence of enforcement
authority.
2) DELAWARE v. PROUSE 1979
This is the case that pulls together the two themes that have merged in
the dispute over when it is permissible to stop motorists without
probable cause or reasonable suspicion. The court re-affirmed that
individual officers cannot randomly stop motorists, just because they
don�t have anything better to do with their time. They must have at
least reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle and question the driver.
However, the court volunteered that all the issues that made such random
stops �unreasonable� under the Fourth Amendment could be remedied by
setting up formal roadblocks. This was a loud and clear signal from the
court that roadblocks were OK as long as they were organized and
systematic in their administration and implementation.
I can't find the source anymore but I remember reading somewhere that
the courts have determined that such checkpoints must be within a
reasonable distance to the border and that such a distance is considered
to be 100 miles.
I'm not saying that I think these checkpoints are my favorite things,
but since court precedent deems them legal this guys actions smack of
useless petulance.
The agents at these checkpoints are not jack-booted thugs. They are
just normal guys doing a legal (as deemed by court precedence) job they
are told to do. Giving them a hard time and backing up traffic making
other people late just so he can post inflammatory videos that do
nothing to change the law is childish.
At the very least he could be polite when he speaks to them. It seems
his rude and overbearing manner is actively trying to escalate the
situation - maybe hoping for a lucrative lawsuit if he is ever lucky
enough to run into an agent who is having a bad day.
Better he should be organizing folks to get his state (or federal)
congressman or senator to write laws that would change this on the basis
that it is a waste of taxpayer money since they are established and
easily avoidable by those that need to avoid them.
(PeteCresswell)
> "it's no big deal" just answer the questions to make it
>easy on everyone. It is a big deal. I don't want to give up my rights for
>the convenience of those sitting behind me in traffic,
Also, now we'd have one more uncertainty factory every time we go
somewhere. Will it take the usual 20 minutes? Or will we be
delayed an extra 10 waiting in line at some road block?
--
PeteCresswell
JoeRaisin
> JoeRaisin wrote:
>
>> I'm not saying that I think these checkpoints are my favorite things,
>> but since court precedent deems them legal this guys actions smack of
>> useless petulance.
>>
>> The agents at these checkpoints are not jack-booted thugs. They are
>> just normal guys doing a legal (as deemed by court precedence) job they
>> are told to do. Giving them a hard time and backing up traffic making
>> other people late just so he can post inflammatory videos that do
>> nothing to change the law is childish.
>
>
> 'cleared' by the Supreme Court are those which are "Fixed and permanent", not
> the temporary types that can be removed on a daily basis (such as the one in
> AZ).
>
> http://supreme.justia.com/us/428/543/case.html
>
> You may be thinking, "it's no big deal" just answer the questions to make it
> easy on everyone. It is a big deal. I don't want to give up my rights for
> officer's day less difficult. Every little time we waive our rights, we are
> inviting more opportunity for them to take advantage of us.
>
> I think Ben Franklin said it best:
> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
> deserve neither liberty nor safety."
>
>
You've convinced me that the checkpoints are bullshit but I still think
he's going about it the wrong way.
I'd be a lot more sympathetic if he was saying (in a polite tone),
"Agent (so-and-so) I don't believe this checkpoint is constitutional and
as so I am under no obligation to answer your question. Am I being
detained or am I free to leave?"
I still think his rude and confrontational approach is an attempt to
invite a (well deserved) pop in the nose so he can get his payday in court.
We live in a country of laws and those laws are interpreted by our courts.
If this guy really believes that the checkpoints are illegal then he
should simply not stop at it.
They would, of course, charge him with a felony which he could contest
on the grounds that the checkpoint was illegal and take it all the way
to the supreme court.
Hell, I'd even kick in on the defense fund.
When he stops acting like a petulant child, sucks it up and puts his
money where his mouth is I'll start listening to him.
Jim
In addition to the NFBAA
Robert L Bass
>
> ... Furthermore, that question "Are you a US citizen" is
> about as useful as the dumb-ass "Did you pack your own suitcase" question at
Did you ever wonder what would happen if you answered, "No?"
On my return flight from my first trip to Brazil, not long after 9/11, I did
just that. Along with my own luggage I was carrying an extra bag belonging to
a Brazilian friend. In it were perfectly legal gift items intended for his
family back in the States. I didn't actually pack the suitcase but I was
fairly certain nothing in it was prohibited -- a few toys, some cheap jewelry
and some herbal medicines which are sold over the counter in Brazil. My only
concern was those medicines. Though they were innocuous, I didn't know if US
or Brazilian law thought so. I figured by being totally open I'd avoid a
hassle if there was some regulation or other. So, when the security agent at
Jobim airport asked the question, I said, "No, and I'm not sure what's in it."
Asked who packed the bag, I pointed to my Brazilian friend who was waiting a
few feet away and said, "Him." (well, actually I said, "Ele," since the agent
was Brazilian. :^)
The next few minutes were umm, interesting. The agent pressed a little button
and shortly two very large, well-armed, uniformed men appeared at my side.
They asked me about the bag and I repeated what I told the other agent. They
politely asked if I would mind if they inspected it. I suspect if I said no
they would have dispensed with politeness and done so anyway.
We went into a small office with an X-ray machine. They unpacked the bag and
then X-rayed it to see if anything was concealed in the lining. They
inspected everything from that bag but never bothered with the ones I packed
myself. All the while they were polite and friendly. The fact that I spoke
to them in Portuguese may have helped. When I speak to officials in their own
language -- even poorly -- there's an appreciation and doors seem to open more
readily. At any rate, the whole affair was over in about 10 minutes. As I
left one of the security guys offered a "Bom viagem." I think this would have
been very different if it happened in the USA.
As to the video, I can't really comment since my PC speakers are currently
disconnected. US citizens standing on US soil do not have to answer questions
from law enforcement officers, border patrol or military personnel. However,
refusing to do so is a good way to get hassled. While it's our right to
refuse to answer, it's usually a lot easier to co-operate as long as the
officer is being reasonable. If he's being an a$$, feel free to exercise your
rights. Then, after he wrecks your day, file a lawsuit. It's the American
way. :^)
--
Regards,
Robert L Bass
==============================>
Bass Home Electronics
DIY Alarm and Home Automation Store
http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
Sales & Service 941-870-2310
Fax 941-870-3252
==============================>
Jim
wrote:
>
> Did you ever wonder what would happen if you answered, "No?"
>
I'm of a mind that it doesn't bother me if they want to inspect my
baggage of anything that they want to inspect. I'd rather they put me
through the minor inconvenience of checking my stuff so that they just
might discover something dangerous in someone else's stuff. If they're
going to let me though with out checking me out, that means there's a
greater possibility that someone will get through with something
they're not supposed to have.
Terrorist thrive on the fact that US citizens demand their freedom to
do what ever they want to do. Mankinds natural state is to be free.
And that's a good thing. But that presumes that there is no bad
intentions to do free people any harm. That's the loophole. How do we
remain free yet keep people who would use that freedom to harm us? I
don't have the answer but in the meantime, I'd rather submit to
inspections then demand my "rights". My rights will still be there if
I need them but during these times, the enemies of this country are at
least on guard.
I just don't feel that I should object to these minor inconveniences
on one hand and expect the authorities to protect us on the other
hand. I want every would be terrorist thinking that they just might
get caught. They should be looking over their shoulder at every turn.
I'd say that it would be better to encourage the authorities than to
discourage them. It's better that they feel that what they are doing
is for the betterment of our security so that presumably they will
keep alert, than to feel as if the public is against them and let
something get by them.
Those that have nothing to hide ummmm have nothing to hide ... and as
inadaquate as shat they do might seem, it's better than pre 9/11 and
it could be a lot more restrictive than it is.
Ver ar yough pepperrs.? Hugh kinnot crodss de borderr widout yough
pepperrs!!!
mleuck
>
> Sure, it's a minor inconvenience now. In the not to distant future though,
> left unchecked; these random 'checks' could become much more than just an
> inconvenience. That's why I feel so strongly about this. If the "sheep" are
> all just nodding in agreement with everything the Govm't tells them, then we
> have a problem. Surely I have not been the only one who has noticed the
> increased "police state" mentality? Am I the only one who can see something
> very nefarious going on in this country?
>
> Don't even get me started on the FEMA camps.
You are about an inch away from telling us all that the twin towers
came down by explosive charges which isn't surprising after knowing
you all these years
nick markowitz
I actually looked into all the suposed fema camps here in Pa and found
none. along with all the other nonsense.
the only legitamate site would be indian town gap thats where the
mariel boat lift from cuba peole were held while being checked out.
mleuck
I worked with a guy who swore one was underground in Denton Texas,
guys like G think they are everywhere just waiting to pounce
Robert L Bass
>
>> Did you ever wonder what would happen if you answered, "No?"
>
> I'm of a mind that it doesn't bother me if they want to inspect my baggage
> of anything that they want to inspect. I'd rather they put me through the
> minor inconvenience of checking my stuff so that they just might discover
> something dangerous in someone else's stuff. If they're going to let me
> though with out checking me out, that means there's a greater possibility
> that someone will get through with something they're not supposed to have.
Absolutely agree. I fealt that way long before 9/11. Many years ago when I
first started college I got a part time job doing campus security. One day I
saw a guy using a coat hanger to open a car window so I questioned him. He
said it was his car. When I asked for ID he got angry so I asked, "Suppose
someone else was messing with your car. Would you want me to question them?"
He took out his driver's license and student ID (with a somewhat better
attitude).
> Terrorist thrive on the fact that US citizens demand their freedom to do
> what ever they want to do...
I don't know how true that is. Terrorists strike more frequently in places
where their freedom is far more curtailed than in the USA. When they do
strike, marginal security gives them an edge. That is why we need to actually
DO something about our security -- not just talk about it while giving out
$billions in no-bid contracts to pals of Bush / Cheney. Fortunately, with the
recent arrival of adult supervision in Washington, all that is about to
change.
> Mankinds natural state is to be free. And that's a good thing. But that
> presumes that there is no bad intentions to do free people any harm. That's
> the loophole. How do we remain free yet keep people who would use that
> freedom to harm us? I
don't have the answer but in the meantime, I'd rather submit to inspections
then demand my "rights".
Yep. As long as the person doing the inspection isn't doing so with unmerited
malice toward me, I'm fine with a little inconvenience. I just resent the use
of "terrorism" as an excuse to bully people based on race. That's why I can't
stand the kind of crap that people like Michael Savage, Neal Boortz, Glenn
Beck and Michelle Malkin spread like maneur on the breakfast table.
> My rights will still be there if I need them but during these times, the
> enemies of this country are at least on guard.
There's another side to that argument, Jim. I think the famous Franklin
saying goes, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." I cherish my privacy
enough to resent like hell the idea that Bush ordered his minions to listen to
my phone conversations and those of millions of other US citizens. Before we
defend this as a measure to protect America, remember that the eavesdropping
specifically targeted members of political groups who opposed Bush but were
never in any way thought to be possible terrorists. The previous
administration was worse than Nixon. Obama can check my bags at the airport
if he wants. Bush should have had his bags checked for stolen silverware when
he left the White House.
> Those that have nothing to hide ummmm have nothing to hide ... and as
> inadaquate as shat they do might seem, it's better than pre 9/11 and it
> could be a lot more restrictive than it is.
> Ver ar yough pepperrs.? Hugh kinnot crodss de borderr widout yough
> pepperrs!!!
But sir, we *cook everything* with peppers!!! :^)
(PeteCresswell)
>Sure, it's a minor inconvenience now. In the not to distant future though,
>left unchecked; these random 'checks' could become much more than just an
>inconvenience. That's why I feel so strongly about this.
That's the rub with me too.
My belief: left unchecked law enforcement will abuse to the max
whatever powers are given them.
Did anybody see the news footage some years back of the (Denver?)
police using eyedroppers to place liquid tear gas in the eyes of
peaceful protesters who were kneeling and offering no resistance?
Need some overtime? How about a few road blocks?
--
PeteCresswell
alarman
> Executive Order Number 12148 created the Federal Emergency Management
> Agency that is to interface with the Department of Defense for civil
> defense planning and funding.
ker-snip
FEMA couldn't even manage a fleet of trailers after Katrina.
js
Jim
wrote:
You know I disagree with you on political matters.
As a matter of fact most of the people who frequent this group
disagree with you on politics.
And you know that.
I said that I wouldn't talk about matters political and so did you.
I haven't.
You have.
You persist
It serves no purpose but to stoke the fire.
It's been really nice here.
Do what you will.
alarman
> Exactly, that's because disaster relief is not a priority.
No, it is because the agency is bloated and incompetent. That has not
changed.
--
js
mleuck
> mleuck wrote:
> >guys like G think they are everywhere just waiting to pounce
>
> that is to interface with the Department of Defense for civil defense planning
> percent of its budget on national emergencies. The bulk of their funding has
> been used for the construction of secret underground facilities to assure
> continuity of government in case of a major emergency, foreign or domestic.
>
> Executive Order Number 12656 appointed the National Security Council as the
> principal body that should consider emergency powers. This allows the
> government to increase domestic intelligence and surveillance of U.S. citizens
> and would restrict the freedom of movement within the United States and grant
> the government the right to isolate large groups of civilians. The National
> Guard could be federalized to seal all borders and take control of U.S. air
> space and all ports of entry. Here are just a few Executive Orders associated
> with FEMA that would suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These
> Executive Orders have been on record for nearly 30 years and could be enacted
> by the stroke of a Presidential pen:
>
> EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of
> transportation and control of highways and seaports.
>
> EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the
> communication media.
>
> EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power,
> gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.
>
> EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to take over all food resources
> and farms.
>
> EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work
> brigades under government supervision.
>
> EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 allows the government to take over all health, education
> and welfare functions.
>
> EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national
> registration of all persons.
>
> EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and
> aircraft, including commercial aircraft.
>
> EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate
> communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be
> abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.
>
> EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland
> waterways and public storage facilities.
>
> EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency
> Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in
> times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.
>
> EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce
> the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to
> establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate
> penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.
>
> EXECUTIVE ORDER 11049 assigns emergency preparedness function to federal
> departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued
> over a fifteen year period.
>
> EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to
> develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and
> distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money
> in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also
> provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress
> cannot review the action for six months. The Federal Emergency Management
> Agency has broad powers in every aspect of the nation.
>
> General Frank Salzedo, chief of FEMA's Civil Security Division stated in a
> 1983 conference that he saw FEMA's role as a "new frontier in the protection
> of individual and governmental leaders from assassination, and of civil and
> military installations from sabotage and/or attack, as well as prevention of
> dissident groups from gaining access to U.S. opinion, or a global audience in
> times of crisis." FEMA's powers were consolidated by President Carter to
> incorporate: The National Security Act of 1947, which allows for the strategic
> relocation of industries, services, government and other essential economic
> activities, and to rationalize the requirements for manpower, resources and
> production facilities; The 1950 Defense Production Act, which gives the
> President sweeping powers over all aspects of the economy; The Act of August
> 29, 1916, which authorizes the Secretary of the Army, in time of war, to take
> possession of any transportation system for transporting troops, material, or
> any other purpose related to the emergency; and The International Emergency
> Economic Powers Act, which enables the President to seize the property of a
> foreign country or national. These powers were transferred to FEMA in a
> sweeping consolidation in 1979.
>
> Stolen from:http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/fema_executive_orders.htm
They're coming to take me away oh no, they're coming to take me away
my my to the happy place where life is beautiful......
Robert L Bass
>
> HELLO... Thank you. That's what I've been saying, in
> fact I posted that quote in this thread. Since Jim is
> obviously ignoring me...
Perhaps... perhaps not. Let's not make it personal either way, OK?
> I wish you would engage me further about what is an
> acceptable level of government intrusion for our
> "protection"...
This is just my personal attitude, not an attempt to define anyone's rights.
If they have reasonable cause to stop and question me, no problem. If not,
but I'm at or near the border, I don't mind answering a few questions. 100
miles from the border is (IMO) not the scope of Border Patrol and I'd resent
being stopped by them for more than an ID check.
BTW, the same kind of thing happens in other countries but not necessarily
with benign intentions. I think I may have already mentioned that I was
stopped once by a couple of dishonest cops in my favorite vacation country.
They were clearly looking for a "tip". While going through my stuff they
noticed a box of rubbers. I ended up giving this character 6 Trojans.
Somehow I doubt that would have worked with our Border Patrol. :^)
> Jim is one of those sheep that believes the government
> knows best when it comes to controlling the population...
Jim may be a number of things but it's clear he's no sheep. It seems he
thinks it's better to give up a little freedom in favor of security. I
disagree -- believing that those who would take our freedom for any reason
have no interest in our security -- only their own power.
> Of course, you'll be able to spot him behind the concentration
> camp constantine wire...
That's concertina wire, Graham. Constantine was an emperor. I disagree with
Jim on this but not 100%. There's got to be a balance.
Robert L Bass
>
> FEMA couldn't even manage a fleet of trailers after Katrina.
While G W Bush was in charge they couldn't manage a fleet enema.
Robert L Bass
>
> don't have the answer but in the meantime, I'd rather submit to inspections
> then demand my "rights".
As long as the "inspections" aren't just a thinly disguised attempt to
marginalize people of specific non-terrorist related groups, I agree.
>> But sir, we *cook everything* with peppers!!! :^)
> I specifically responded to your post in a non political way.
> You know I disagree with you on political matters.
Yep. I took it political without political provocation. Sorry. :^)
> As a matter of fact most of the people who frequent this group disagree with
> you on politics.
> And you know that.
Yep. I don't care. I figure someone has to stand up for the "other" side.
> I said that I wouldn't talk about matters political and so did you.
> I haven't. You have. You persist. It serves no purpose but to stoke the
> fire.
Not really. I think we can talk politics or anything else without getting
angry. The key is to realize it's not a personal insult to disagree. I know
you believe very differently from me on politics. That doesn't make you any
better or worse in my eyes -- just different. If we all agreed it'd be a
pretty boring world.
> It's been really nice here. Do what you will.
Yes, it has. We're both adults. You can proclaim the virtues of whatever
side of whatever issue you want without me getting angry. OK?
Robert
mleuck
> Good, that is what I believe too. The right always "say" they are for less
> government (even calling themselves the de facto Libertarian party), but it
> always seems to me the right wants to be involved in every aspect of or lives.
You mean like firing car company executives? Telling hedge funds what
to do? Regulating pay? Pushing government-run healthcare? Regulating
trans-fat?
Yea the right did that kinda stuff didn't they?
(PeteCresswell)
>EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows...
All those executive orders and they *still* couldn't get help
into New Orleans in a timely fashion for fear of stepping on the
state gov's toes???
It boggles the mind.
--
PeteCresswell
Frank Olson
FEMA "Executive Orders" are dispensed on toilet paper rolls.
Steve
"Robert L Bass" <Sa...@BassBurglarAlarms.com> wrote in message
news:sPGdnR3t1emUuJbX...@giganews.com...
> "alarman" wrote:
>>
>> FEMA couldn't even manage a fleet of trailers after Katrina.
>
> While G W Bush was in charge they couldn't manage a fleet enema.
>
performed just as poorly under Gore or Kerry as it did under Bush II.
mleuck
> won't be able to rub it in on the NG because the internets will be all gone.
The Internets are a permanent series of tubes so they can't go down
and I should think you'd be one of the first targets now that you've
exposed them
mleuck
It would have been illegal otherwise
Robert L Bass
>
> Good, that is what I believe too. The right always "say"
> they are for less government (even calling themselves
> the de facto Libertarian party), but it always seems to
> me the right wants to be involved in every aspect of
> or lives.
Not all of them. Most are genuinely interested in smaller government, lower
taxes and better personal freedom. Note: I'm talking about the people -- not
the politicos.
Robert L Bass
>
> You mean like firing car company executives? Telling hedge funds what to do?
> Regulating pay? Pushing government-run healthcare? Regulating trans-fat?
>
> Yea the right did that kinda stuff didn't they?
True indeed. Right-wing politicians didn't fire car company executives or any
of that other stuff. They just allowed them to run rampant, destroying our
economy while raking in personal fortunes at taxpayer expense. BTW, that
first bailout -- the one that was spent on trips to Vegas, etc. -- was a Bush
program.
That was fun. Care to play again?
Robert L Bass
> performed just as poorly under Gore or Kerry as it did under Bush II.
Since Bush stole the election we'll never know that.
mleuck
wrote:
> > The problems with FEMA have been there since its inception. It would have
> > performed just as poorly under Gore or Kerry as it did under Bush II.
>
> Since Bush stole the election we'll never know that.
Sounds like someone has been listening to too much Rachael Maddow,
either that or Alex Jones
Robert L Bass
> that or Alex Jones
I knew about Bush long before I ever heard of Rachael. BTW, unlike Faux News'
pandering to Bush, Maddow has been lambasting the head of the Democratic party
lately. That's the difference between truly "fair and balanced" and the
propaganda you get from Bill'O the Clown.
Steve
"Robert L Bass" <Sa...@BassBurglarAlarms.com> wrote in message
Actually we do...it was bad under Clinton too.
Robert L Bass
>
>> Since Bush stole the election we'll never know that.
>
> Actually we do...it was bad under Clinton too.
I'll grant you that for sure. Maybe if Monica had worked for FEMA he'd have
paid better attention.