Monthly Archives: January 2011

New feature on AxXiom For Liberty Live “The IACP Report”

Kaye Beach and Howard Houchen on AxXiom For Liberty Live will begin to watch these watchers in earnest.

You may not know who the IACP is but you should!

Beginning tonight, The IACP Report will be a regular feature on our show.

The International Association of Chiefs of Police

The IACP is an international, non-governmental organization associated with the UN since the 1970’s. Billed as the world’s oldest and largest nonprofit membership organization of police executives, The IACP deserves credit for much of the bewildering changes taking place in the way the American justice system and policing works.

Intelligence Led Policing, a philosophy imported to the US from the UK, is preemptive in nature.  This form of policing has helped turn the UK and Australia into shameful surveillance societies and it is working the same magic on the US where it is jeopardizing the natural and legal rights of US residents. Intelligence Led Policing, admittedly based on utilitarian principles, uses social and behavioral engineering techniques to induce the social norms considered desirable by policy makers.

(Utilitarian theory proposes that the value of a certain rule must be that which secures the greatest benefit for the greatest number.)

Fusion Centers, suspicious activity reporting, were born of IACP policy.  The IACP, true to its adopted UN code of ethics, take the same stances on gun control that led to the loss of gun rights in the UK and Australia.

Tonight: the IACP promotes cash tracing tech-Homeland Security buys on.

Also the IACP pushes Internet Dragnets, Police Drones and more!

Listen live from 6-8 pm cst on Rule of Law Radio Network

AxXiom for Liberty Jan.28, 2011 Guests: Matt and Janet Thompson

Tonight on AxXiom For Liberty Radio fro 6-8 pm CST

Friday – Jan. 28, 2011

Guests: Matt and Janet Thompson Owners of Narrogin Beef Producers in Narrogin, W. Australia

Show audio A4L_2011-01-28_128k.mp3

Kaye and I welcome a couple of “hometown” folks to AxXiom for Liberty this Friday to discuss property rights, Freedom of Speech, and government intrusions and usurpation of powers in Australia, America, and around the globe.

Matt and Janet’s story must be heard and understood, and it is a tragic one, for us to be armed with the knowledge required to turn back the destructive locomotive that is Government today.

We will also discuss a variety of topics ranging from upcoming Grassroots events, the Oklahoma biennial GOP Precinct meeting ruckus that is brewing, gov’t desires to implement a cash transaction verification and tracking system (Yes, that is correct…they want to know everything while letting We, the people, know nothing), to a rant or two about the cataloging and CONTROL of Human Beings.

ListenLive at www.ruleoflawradio.com fro 6 – 8pm CST.

Click below for the AxXiom for Liberty Flyer for more info:

A4l Friday Jan 28, 2011 Guests: Matt and Janet Thompson

See Something, Say Anything You Want (because you won’t get sued)

Kaye Beach

Jan 27, 2011

Not if Pete King gets his way.   He’s a Republican by the way.  It’s hard to tell anymore, isn’t it?


He wants to grant immunity to busy bodies that report you when they think you are acting act weird.


With all of the reports that are bound to pour in since DHS Secretary, Janet Napolitano began her Wal Mart telescreen gig, this bill is bound to be a winner.

Pete might try listening to this expert;

“Director Michael Leiter complained that the NCTC receives ‘literally thousands’ of pieces of intelligence every day. Adding innocuous information about the everyday activities of Americans will only increase this burden on intelligence resources.” link

Instead of this one;  (results yahoo search “Pete King+IACP” first hit)

4:00 p.m. – 4:30 p.m. - Meet in office with Jim McMahon, the Deputy Executive Director of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) and former NYS Director of Homeland Security. Good conversation and cooperation on terrorism. Jim is a terrific guy. LINK

Ahhh!  Second hit is worse!

Press Release of Senator Lautenberg

Police Chiefs Endorse Lautenberg, King Bill To Close ‘Terror Gap’

Lautenberg-King Bill Would Restrict Terrorists’ Access To Guns

LINK

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) has announced its support for legislation — the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2007 (S.1237/H.R.2074) — Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Rep. Pete King (R-NY) have introduced to prevent terrorist suspects from purchasing firearms.


JoeFranzese writes;

Republican quislings Peter King of New York, Mark Kirk of Illinois and Mike Castle of Delaware have just introduced a new gun control bill that comes right out of this so-called “Rightwing Extremist” report.  I’m talking about H.R. 2159, the shockingly misnamed “Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009.”  I call it the “Disarming American Citizens Act of 2009.” Read more about this awful bill

Does Pete King’s “R” stand for Ridiculous?  I knew I smelled IACP all over this guy.

But back to his current travesty…

Pete goes on and on  about Muslim extremists.  Has he been under a rock for the past few years?  It’s not just the Muslims that are at the other end of the end of the of the snitch state spy glass.  Not to say that it is a good idea to let Wal Mart people get away with ruining anyone’s life by siccing the feds on them for buying too many diapers or taking photographs, Muslim or otherwise.

…This might be a good time to look at who is working on the domestic “extremism” problem before you buy on to this nonsense. (See below)

It might not hurt to take a short trip back to the recent past either and see who the domestic extremists are in the eyes of Homeland Security and their Fusion Centers.

Here are just a couple of examples (there are many, many, more)

DHS: Rightwing Extremism report

lawmaker aims to protect tipsters on extremists

(AFP) – 1 day ago

WASHINGTON — A top US lawmaker unveiled legislation on Wednesday to protect individuals who tip off authorities to potential extremist threats from lawsuits, in the event that they turn out to finger innocents.

House Homeland Security Chairman Pete King introduced the “See Something, Say Something Act” as a shield for those “acting in good faith” and with “objectively reasonable suspicion” that a plot may be unfolding.

“Good citizens who report suspicious activity in good faith, should not have to worry about being sued,” King, a Republican, said in a statement released by his office, citing “frivolous lawsuits” in 2007.

Read More

Who decides what constitutes an extremist threat?

Experts…of course.

HSAC -The Homeland Security Advisory Council

The HSAC shall provide organizationally independent, strategic, timely, specific and actionable advice to the Secretary and senior leadership on matters related to homeland security.Link

The Council is comprised of experts from state, local and tribal governments, emergency and first responder communities, academia and the private sector. Link

Problems with HSAC?

Private Interests Influence Homeland Security Agenda: POGO Criticizes Conflicts of Interest & Secrecy of Advisory Council

HSAC -The Homeland Security Advisory Council

The HSAC shall provide organizationally independent, strategic, timely, specific and actionable advice to the Secretary and senior leadership on matters related to homeland security.Link

The Council is comprised of experts from state, local and tribal governments, emergency and first responder communities, academia and the private sector. Link

Check out the membership!

DHS Announces New Initiatives to Counter Violent Extremism in Communities

Six months ago, the Homeland Security Advisory Council’s (HSAC) “Countering Violent Extremism” Working Group–comprised of chiefs of police, sheriffs, community leaders and homeland security experts–made a series of recommendations to the DHS leadership.

HSAC Recommendations

The overarching goal was to incorporate efforts to counter violent extremism into pre-existing, community-oriented violent crime reduction efforts.

There were many great ideas in this report aimed at increasing public awareness of the threat:

- Develop case studies on recent events (Zazi, Ft Hood, Jihad Jane, etc) and use them to train local law enforcement
- Create public service ads to educate public on the threat and how to recognize characteristics of dangerous behavior
- Share threat info and assist with better security practices for faith-based communities
- Create a web sites for parents, caregivers, educators on human trafficking, hate crimes and predators.
- Develop a comment lexicon and definitions for “radicalization”, “extremism”, etc
- More focus on community-oriented policing

Six months later, DHS released the follow on guidance: Next Steps: Supporting Community-Based Efforts to Reduce Violent Crime (dated August 2, 2010)  DHS Fact Sheet
- DHS is developing standardized curriculum for state and local  LE
- Will host regional summits to discuss best practices
- More focus on educating the community on recognizing threats and how to report (expand the “If You See Something, Say Something” campaign)
- More partnering with communities and sharing threat info

TSA caught in more radiation lies

From the Douglass Report;

TSA claims about the safety of its radioactive full-body scanners are falling apart — and now, even the agency’s pals are backing away.

Here’s the deal: In a desperate attempt to prove those scanners are safe, the TSA named all sorts of agencies and organizations that it claimed was helping to test and maintain them.

Just one little problem: That was news to all those organizations and agencies.

Even the FDA wants nothing to do with this one — a spokesman told AOL News that, despite TSA claims to the contrary, it has no role in testing the machines or inspecting the manufacturer.

They couldn’t even do it even if they wanted to — since the machines aren’t medical devices, they’re outside of the FDA’s legal authority.

More

Oklahoma-TSA Employees Could Face Increased Scrutiny Under Bill

Kaye Beach

Jan, 24, 2011

 

I am thankful for  the good folks who voted out Glen Bud Smithson.

His successor seems to be getting off on the right foot!

 

Contact: State Rep. John Bennett
Capitol: (405) 557-7315

OKLAHOMA CITY (January 21, 2011) – Transportation Security Administration employees who exploit their power over citizens could face significant state penalties under legislation filed by state Rep. John Bennett.

“It seems every day you hear a new story about a TSA employee being overly aggressive when conducting ‘pat-downs’ of citizens who decline to go through the full-body scan at the airport,” said Bennett, R-Sallisaw. “In some cases, it appears those pat-downs cross the line into sexual harassment or assault, something we should not tolerate, especially when teenagers are the target.

“My legislation will send a clear message that there will be serious consequences for anyone who takes advantage of their authority to grope or fondle children.”

House Bill 1245 would allow federal employees and contractors working for the TSA to face felony charges if they “touch, maul, or feel the body or private parts of any child” younger than 16 “in any lewd or lascivious manner.”

Those convicted would face up to 25 years in prison based on the age of the child.

The legislation would also allow for civil actions to be pursued against any TSA official accused of sexual battery.

The bill also adds an extra layer of protection by allowing citizens the right to request that local police be present when pat-downs are conducted to ensure a TSA employee does not abuse his or her power.

“Parents’ most important responsibility is the protection of their children,” Bennett said. “This legislation will help parents in that role by reducing the ability of any rouge TSA agent to mistreat a child.”

Renewing the Patriot Act While America Sleeps

By John W. Whitehead
1/24/2011

Of course, there is no doubt that if we lived in a police state, it would be easier to catch terrorists. If we lived in a country that allowed the police to search your home at any time for any reason; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to open your mail, eavesdrop on your phone conversations, or intercept your email communications; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to hold people in jail indefinitely based on what they write or think, or based on mere suspicion that they are up to no good, then the government would no doubt discover and arrest more terrorists. But that probably would not be a country in which we would want to live. And that would not be a country for which we could, in good conscience, ask our young people to fight and die. In short, that would not be America.–Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI), voicing his concerns over Congress’ passage of the USA Patriot Act (Oct. 25, 2001)

[. . .] From the start, Feingold warned that the massive 342-page piece of legislation would open the door to graver dangers than terrorism–namely, America becoming a police state. He was right.

The Patriot Act drove a stake through the heart of the Bill of Rights, violating at least six of the ten original amendments–the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Amendments–and possibly the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, as well. The Patriot Act also redefined terrorism so broadly that many non-terrorist political activities such as protest marches, demonstrations and civil disobedience were considered potential terrorist acts, thereby rendering anyone desiring to engage in protected First Amendment expressive activities as suspects of the surveillance state.

he Patriot Act justified broader domestic surveillance, the logic being that if government agents knew more about each American, they could distinguish the terrorists from law-abiding citizens–no doubt an earnest impulse shared by small-town police and federal agents alike. According to Washington Post reporter Robert O Harrow, Jr., this was a fantasy that had been brewing in the law enforcement world for a long time. And 9/11 provided the government with the perfect excuse for conducting far-reaching surveillance and collecting mountains of information on even the most law-abiding citizen.

Read More

Pastor Unloads on Chief Citty

This letter is sent to you in response to Bryan Dean’s January 17 article in the Oklahoman:  “Oklahoma City Police Chief Laments Criminals’ Access to Military-Style Guns.”

Pastor Tom Vineyard
Open Letter to Chief Bill Citty

January 19, 2011

Dear Chief Citty:

I want to start this letter by saying thank you for your 33 years of service in law enforcement.  Having personally been the victim of a violent crime, I cannot emphasize enough how grateful I am to all those who put their lives on the line every day in order to keep the citizenry safe.

Since 1985, the members of Windsor Hills Baptist Church have had the privilege of honoring city, county, and state law enforcement officers on our annual Law and Order Sunday.  By our conservative estimation, we have honored approximately 300 such officers, of which at least  75 have been from the Oklahoma City Police Department.  We even made efforts this last fall to invite Officer Katie Lawson in order to honor her.

I am writing this letter because of the January 16 article written by Bryan Dean that was printed in the January 17 Oklahoman.  There are some things in the article that you were quoted as stating that I feel need to be addressed.

Mr. Dean stated in the article that you see “no practical reason why someone needs an AR-15 or similar weapon.”  A few paragraphs later you said, “There are just more and more assault rifles out there, and it is becoming a bigger threat to law enforcement each day.  They [law enforcement] are outgunned.”

With all due respect, Chief Citty, I would like to point out a few things about the article and your comments in it.

It needs to be clarified that there is a great difference between an AR-15 and an assault rifle.  To place both in the same group is incorrect and misleading.

The Free Online Encyclopedia defines an assault rifle as a “military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and has the capacity to switch between semi-automatic and fully-automatic fire.”

The definition goes on to state that “assault rifles have become the standard infantry weapon of modern armies.  Their ease of handling makes them ideal for mobile assault troops crowded into personnel carriers or helicopters, as well as for guerilla fighters engaged in jungle or urban warfare.”

Please note that the U.S. M16, NOT the AR-15, is included on the list of Military/Assault rifles.

The website NSSF.org additionally explains that sporting rifles based on the AR-15 cosmetically look like military rifles but do not function the same way that Military/Assault rifles do.

“AR” stands for Armalite rifle, not “assault rifle.”  NSSF.org states, “AR-15 ‘style’ rifles are NOT assault weapons or rifles.  An assault rifle is fully automatic – a machine gun.”

The article goes on to state that the term “assault weapon” is a political term created by California
anti-gun legislators in order to ban some semi-automatic rifles there in the 1980′s.

Additionally, NSSF states that the AR-15 style rifles fire “only one round with each pull of the trigger.  Versions of the modern sporting rifles are legal to own in all 50 states, provided the purchaser passes the mandatory FBI background check required for all retail firearm purchases.”

“AR-15 style rifles are no more powerful than other hunting rifles of the same caliber and in most
cases are chambered in calibers less powerful than common big-game hunting cartridges like the 30-06 Springfield and .300 Win. Mag.”

Chief, may I respectfully remind you that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution assures the right and responsibility of individuals to protect themselves, their family, and their property:   “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

May I also respectfully remind you that the Constitution of our great state of Oklahoma clearly states in Section II-26:   “The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons.”

As a Christian and a pastor, I feel it my duty to also respectfully remind you that it is the God-given right and responsibility of every individual to protect themselves, their family, and their property.

Abraham armed his trained servants in Genesis 14:15 in order to recover Lot, his family, and his goods as well as everything else from Sodom.  Abraham was just one man in a strange land.

David armed himself with the sword of Goliath in 1 Samuel 21:9.  By 1 Samuel 25:13, every one of David’s men was armed with a sword.

When Nehemiah and the men of Jerusalem went to rebuilding the wall, they each had their sword girded by their side, working in the work with one hand and holding their weapon with the other. (Nehemiah 4:17-18)

Even the Lord Jesus Christ instructed His disciples who did not have a sword to go and buy one.  (Luke 22:36)

This is just a few of the many examples that the Bible presents, from Abraham to Christ, of people who armed themselves with the preferred weapon of their time, the sword.  We could very easily say that it was the AR-15 of their day.

Mr. Dean stated that you see “no practical reason why someone needs an AR-15 or similar weapon.”  Again, with all due respect, Chief Citty, you have obviously never been the victim of a violent crime.

In just a few days, sir, will be the sixth anniversary of my family being robbed in our home while we were missionaries in Africa.  Every day since then, when I look in the mirror to brush my teeth, wash my face, shave, or comb my hair, I see what I call my trophy from Africa, a scar on my forehead where I suffered a skull fracture from a rifle that was used on me while I was fighting to defend my family against five armed men who broke into our home.  I nearly lost my hearing and my ear in the attack, and still have daily headaches to remind me of it.

Please understand that when they entered our home, we were unarmed.  The law there in that country prohibited citizens from possessing firearms of any kind.

We cooperated with the thieves and even went so far as to show them where things were so that they could take what they wanted and then be on their way.  For reasons we still do not know, they were unsatisfied with what we had and proceeded to tell us that they would kill our children if we did not give them more money.  Chief, all that I had left that I could do to protect the lives of my children was to fight with my hands.  It was not enough.  To borrow your expression, I was “outgunned.”

Again, with all due respect, sir, I beg to differ with you that THERE IS a practical reason why someone needs an AR-15 or a similar weapon.  If you and your family were ever robbed by someone who was armed while you were unarmed, you would understand.

You used the term “unscrupulous gun sellers.”  How is it unscrupulous to engage in commerce?  Are you implying that those who sold the gun did it with the intention of him shooting a police officer?

Can you not see that to raise the restrictions on firearms such as the AR-15 is simply to take them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens but not out of the hands of the bad guys?

You stated that Officer Lawson was outgunned.  I would like to ask why?  From what I understand in talking to police officers, they are permitted to carry shotguns and even AR-15′s in their vehicles.  Did she not have one?  Is your department underfunded and unable to provide each officer on duty with a shotgun and AR-15?  If so, may I help you in a fund raising effort to provide each on-duty officer with a shotgun and AR-15?  I am confident that with the multitude of law-abiding citizens who are thankful for law enforcement that we could easily raise the needed funds to properly arm our law enforcement officers.

According to the December 31, 2010, article that Bryan Dean wrote, “Oklahoma City officer recounts night she was ambushed,” Mr. Dean reported that police carry their own AR-15 rifles in their cars, but that Lawson “never had a chance to retrieve hers.”  So it is obvious that Officer Lawson was not completely outgunned; she was only taken by the element of surprise.  What law could be passed to stop such a crime if the death penalty is already in effect in Oklahoma?  The answer is NOT to prohibit law-abiding citizens from purchasing sporting rifles such as the AR-15.

The question was asked, “How does a teenager get an AR-15?”  While an 18 year old is still a teenager, an 18 year old is also old enough to drive, to vote, and even to go serve our country in Iraq
or Afghanistan.  It is understandable that since the majority of 18 year olds are law-abiding citizens it is legal for them to purchase a firearm if they can afford it and so desire to do.

Chief, it is unacceptable that the military would trust some 18 year olds enough to send them overseas with a fully-automatic weapon in their hand to defend themselves and their country while at the same time you want to take semi-automatic sporting rifles out of those same law-abiding citizens’ hands in order to “make it harder for criminals to get such weapons.”

The article states that the gun was tracked to a dealer in Tulsa.  The original sale was a legal sale. The weapon was tracked to its source.  The shooter was found.  Were you able to put it in his hand when he committed the crime?  I believe the correct answer is yes.  Adding extra hoops for law-abiding citizens to have to jump through will not keep criminals from breaking the law by shooting or killing someone.  It makes absolutely no sense to cumber law-abiding citizens with even more regulation and further hinder them from protecting their families from those who have no regard for the law and will get and use guns even if they were completely outlawed and banned.  It has been said that everywhere that gun regulation has been implemented, it is eventually followed by gun confiscation.  Simply look across the pond to our friends in England and to those in the southern hemisphere in Australia as proof of this.  Please understand that I am not implying this of you personally, but the reason that our founders included the 2nd Amendment in our Constitution was to protect the citizens from a government overstepping its bounds.

I challenge you to research the statistics in places such as Chicago, Washington D.C., Australia, and Great Britain where guns are prohibited.  You will find that crimes with firearms still take place.  More restrictive laws will not keep bad guys from committing crimes.  Has the sign with the little pistol with the slash through it ever stopped a crime from being committed in places where firearms are forbidden?  No, absolutely not!  There are still school shootings like the one yesterday in California or the school board shooting in Florida.  Even the shooting in Arizona would have most certainly turned out differently if the Safeway there had been “Concealed Carry” friendly.

At the end of the article, you said that officers are running into guns at a much higher rate now than  they did 20 years ago, “even on routine traffic stops.”

A clarification of your term “guns” would be helpful.  Are you speaking of the encyclopedia definition of a fully-automatic Military/Assault rifle, or a sporting AR-15 rifle, or are you speaking of the legal conceal carry pistols that law-abiding citizens are permitted to carry?  Well, there is a problem if what you are referring to is the legally permitted conceal carry or even a rifle or shotgun without a round in the chamber.

Correct me if I am wrong, but does not Oklahoma law permit the transportation of firearms in the vehicle as long as there is not a round in the chamber?  Are you speaking of those type guns that are legal under Oklahoma law?

I want to respectfully challenge your statement about running into guns at a much higher rate now than twenty years ago.  I don’t know if you are from Oklahoma or how long you have been here, but when I was a teenager growing up here in Oklahoma, I remember seeing pickup trucks with gun racks carrying a rifle.  Our school would play other schools in smaller, more rural towns where it was common to see them even in the pickups of the boys we played in football.  That’s Oklahoma, Chief!  Go back and study the statistics of shootings in smaller, rural towns.  I am sure that you will find that while the guns in the back windows of pickups were common, the shootings were few and far between.

Oklahomans, in general, are good people, Chief.  The majority of us are law-abiding citizens.

We respectfully reserve the right to keep and bear our arms, even our AR’s, protecting ourselves and our families.  It is our state Constitutional right.  It is our U.S. Constitutional right.  And if either or both of them were to be taken away from us, it is our God-given right!

God forbid that those who would seek to disarm the citizens of the United States or the citizens of Oklahoma ever get their way here as they have elsewhere.  My personal sentiment is and my reaction will be that of Charlton Heston, “I’ll give you my gun when you take it from my cold, dead hands!”

If our Oklahoma City police officers are truly outgunned, then let me help you get an AR in each of their patrol cars.  I would like to boldly suggest though that the real problem is not the style of guns that citizens are allowed to possess, but the illegal immigrants who are the cause of many such crimes.

Mr. Dean’s article completely overlooked the fact that Mr. Hector Mercado who had previously been deported and was in the country illegally was pulled over for a traffic violation.

May I remind you, Chief Citty, that after HB 1804 was passed, law enforcement offices all across the state were permitted to cross-train some or all of their officers and deputies with ICE agents to help apprehend and deport illegal aliens.  I would like to know if you have accepted this offer for Oklahoma City police.  I am further going to research to see if Sheriff Whetsel has allowed his deputies to be trained in this program.

I think that I can confidently speak for the majority of law-abiding citizens in the state of Oklahoma that they would much rather you focus your attention upon the much more pertinent issue of illegal immigrants in our state and in Oklahoma City than to try to fabricate illegitimate reasons to regulate the state and country’s lawful liberty to keep and to bear arms.

Sincerely your friend and servant,

Tom Vineyard, Pastor
Windsor Hills Baptist Church
5517 N.W. 23rd Street
Oklahoma City, OK  73127
(405) 943-3326

TV:sgb

 

Okla. Texting Ban: The questions we weren’t supposed to ask (but did anyways)

Kaye Beach

Jan. 22, 2011

Based upon the complaints about enforceability coming from law enforcement officers nationwide and the fact that Oklahoma passed a pretty tough distracted driving law recently,  I asked Rep. Morgan some questions regarding  the necessity of  this bill and how it might address the enforcement issue.

More about problems with this legislation here

The Red Dirt Report reports:

OKLAHOMA CITY —  It appears that Oklahoma is poised to be the next state to ban texting-while-driving, at least if State Rep. Danny Morgan (D-Prague) has anything to do with it.

At a press conference held Wednesday afternoon at the State Capitol, Morgan, surrounded by a coalition of folks representing everything from AT&T to Triple A to the Oklahoma Highway Patrol, said texting-while-driving is “a difficult task at best and dangerous at worst.”

He [Rep. Morgan] said his proposed legislation, HB 1316, co-authored by Sue Tibbs (R-Tulsa) has bipartisan support and would specifically prohibit not only texting while driving but also talking on cell phones while driving through school zones and construction zones.

. . .Interestingly, Oklahoma already has a distracted driving statute in place. However this would be more specific and give a chance for law enforcement to be “pro-active.” Read more from the Red Dirt Report

Turn out the lights on idea of using cameras as cops

By Randy Schultz

Friday, Jan. 21, 2011

Even if red-light cameras were more about safety than money in Florida, we might be where we are. But red-light cameras are more about money than safety, which is why we are where we are.

Last week, Post reporter Jane Musgrave showed in two stories how this technology that so many cities and counties in Florida lust after as a revenue stream may produce only a trickle of money but a river of problems. Local governments imagined that motorists would fork over their fines without protest. Instead, some of those drivers have hired attorneys.

Before Palm Beach County traffic hearing officers, those attorneys and some drivers have exposed flaws in the system. Drivers weren’t in the intersection – or even in the country – when the camera caught them. Cameras weren’t calibrated correctly. When camera photos were enlarged to identify the license plate number, the time and date stamp got fuzzy.

None of it surprises Susan Haynie, a Boca Raton council member who opposes the city’s plan to install cameras, a plan that will wait until the legal issues are resolved – if they can be. “It is crazy to abdicate a law-and-order function to private industry for this ‘supposed’ revenue stream,” Ms. Haynie said. “I continue not to be convinced.”

Ah, but the true believers – most of them motivated by money – won’t give up. A representative of American Traffic Solutions, which installs the cameras and gets paid to operate them, blamed some ticket dismissals on a single Palm Beach County hearing officer. Read More

Show Notes: AxXiom For Liberty Friday Jan. 21 Guest Amanda Teegarden

Listening info

Amanda Teegarden of OK-SAFE will be our special guest this evening.

Amanda Teegarden is the Executive Director of OK-SAFE, Inc., (Oklahomans for Sovereignty and Free Enterprise), an Oklahoma non-profit Oklahoma corporation, dedicated to the principles of the American Free Enterprise system and to the Constitutional Sovereignty of the individual, Oklahoma and the United States.  OK-SAFE

She will give a run down on the upcoming GOP Precinct elections, how they work and what they are for.  Amanda will also tell us about some big changes coming to Oklahoma government.

Here is a great article that explains the importance of the Precinct Chair:

The Most Powerful Office in the World is NOT the President of the United States

Oklahoma GOP Precinct Meetings Feb 1, 2011

______________________________

Going Technotronic?


The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. [...] The capacity to assert social and political control over the individual will vastly increase. It will soon be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and to maintain up-to-date, complete files, containing even most personal information about the health or personal behavior of the citizen in addition to more customary data. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.”
https://www.mega.nu/ampp/privacy.html
-Zbigniew Brzezinski

 

 

 

Oklahoma-CapGemini Contract for IT Services main contract
Addendum
Change Order

 

Page 21…   “to automate the collection of 16 agencies reflects an increase from the originally proposed 10 agency /locations.  The State of Oklahoma will provide Capgemini and BDNA resources secure, remote VPN access to the State agencies identified for automated data collection when it is available.  If VPN access is not available, Capgemini and BDNA will be required to physically connect the BDNA tool behind the agency firewall.  Remote access will allow the data to be collected remotely, increasing efficiency, lowering costs and adding a level of flexibility to the collection schedule.

What and who are BDNA?

http://www.informationweek.com/news/infrastructure/management/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=224400254

BDNA Maps The IT Genome

With Microsoft, HP, and others crowding the market, BDNA VP Amit Golan said the company’s shift to data enhancement services is driven by the fact that the market for asset discovery tools has become commoditized.

“It’s not a fight we want to fight anymore,” said Golan, in an interview.

Instead, BDNA will focus on adding value to customers’ discovery data by running it through a massive database called Technopedia that Golan described as the industry’s only, fully comprehensive listing of virtually every IT product in existence.

The database, which includes more than 800,000 data points on over 200,000 IT hardware and software products, is constantly updated by a team of researchers based in China.

We’ve been assembling the building blocks of IT,” said Golan. Technopedia also includes information on software and hardware product version numbers, upgrades, support dates, and more. Customers can access Technopedia and related services through BDNA’s just-launched IT Genome Center, which is an online portal.

What is Capgemini?

Capgemini is a global consulting and information technology firm, with a seasoned approach working collaboratively with many federal, state and local government agencies to help address fiscal challenges and improve the efficiency and quality of IT services delivered to citizens. We work with the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Justice, Treasury, Health and Human Services, and Agriculture, as well as multiple state and municipal tax, social welfare, criminal justice and public health departments.

http://www.us.capgemini.com/services-and-solutions/by-industry/public-sector/overview/

They offer a wide range of solutions within four key areas of focus:
o Consulting Services
o Outsourcing Services
o Technology Services
o Local Professional Services

Capgemini helps clients deal with changing business and technology
issues. Read More

2004-The Capgemini pitch to the town of Swansea

Capgemini picked for Swansea eGov project

By Tim Richardson

Hailed as the biggest eGovernment programme of its kind in Wales, service@swansea is set to introduce new ICT systems and working practices which should help reduce paperwork, increase efficiency and make it easier for local residents to contact the council. Read More

Swansea thinks Capgemini deal stinks-gives them the boot!

The Swansea City Council announced on 14 April 2005 that between 50 and 70% of its ICT staff would be transferred to Capgemini as part of the Council’s e-government programme. This announcement comes despite fierce opposition by the Council’s staff and persistent doubts concerning the positive impact of such e-government public-private partnerships (PPPs).

In 2006 The Register reports:

Swansea IT staff shunted to Capgemini

E-gov deal underway

By Tim Richardson

IT staff at Swansea Council have been transferred to Capgemini as part of a controversial £83m e-government outsourcing project designed to modernise the way the council provides its public services.

As part of the first phase, Capgemini intends to overhaul the council’s existing IT systems and working practices as part of an “integrated programme of business process re-engineering and technology transformation”.

The council’s plans to outsource its IT systems as part of its service@swansea e-government scheme was the subject of a bitter eight-week strike in 2004.

Read More

2007  CAPGEMINI AXED!

http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/it-business/4042/swansea-links-up-with-cardiff-after-capgemini-problems/

OKLAHOMA

In 2009 the OK Republican-led legislature created the position of Chief Information Officer (CIO), a new cabinet position appointed by the Governor. (HB 1170)

Oklahoma’s new CIO is Alex Pettit, officed in the Office of State Finance.

The OK CIO has signed a $1 million (actually $999,100) contract with a global company named Capgemini, specializing in Consulting, Technology, and Outsourcing, to perform an assessment of the state’s entire IT systems.

(Capgemini Oklahoma research Information provided by OK-SAFE_)

. . .incorporate Palantir into the wider intelligence environment as part of the Capgemini Intelligence Grid© – a public security architecture and transformation approach that rests on the ability to share information and turn it into real intelligence.

Capgemini Intelligence Grid

MuseGlobal writes about their partnership with Capgemini

Capgemini Government Solutions approached us when they were faced with the challenge of integrating more intelligence and background data that would allow public officials to connect, collaborate on, analyze, investigate and identify public safety risks for government agencies in the U.S. Can’t say more about the client at this point, of course (you understand), but Capgemini needed to expand their vision for providing a broad array of information sources to law enforcement officials that would not be compromised by the typical challenges of content integration and applications development. (MuseGlobal)

Capgemini, ESRI, CISCO, Cognitec

The new public security network fosters collaboration among independent software vendors (ISVs) such as Adobe (interactive forms), Cognitec (facial recognition technology), Daon (identity assurance software and services), ESRI (geographic modeling and mapping technology), Genesys (contact center solutions), Human Inference (solutions to enhance the quality of data), Idematrix (biometric identity management solutions), Ontos (semantic technologies and solutions), Open Text (enterprise content management solutions), technology vendors such as Cisco (IP networks) and systems integrators such as Capgemini and Itelligence. The IVN members are collaborating to solve industry-wide pain points in the areas of investigative case management, intelligence-led policing, identity management, emergency management as well as operational resource management by co-innovating end-to-end business processes running on a common business process platform. Partner applications will leverage the SAP NetWeaver® technology platform.

We have developed the Capgemini Intelligence Grid© to help governments identify and prevent new public security threats. Based on Service-Oriented Architecture, this tool enhances interoperability between Public Security systems, enabling active and efficient collaboration.

Before you know it, the Capgemini Intelligence Grid was extended, integrating content from all of the key sources that law enforcement officials need to catch the bad folks using MuseGlobal’s exclusive MuseConnect architecture. Also unlike other content connectors, our Smart Connectors are maintained by MuseGlobal automatically, so you can keep your entire range of sources normalized through MuseConnect acting as one unified source of content.

Vision 2015

—————————————-

We will be discussing Rep. Morgan’s texting ban and what happened at his press conference on the 18th that the media didn’t tell you about.

The Tulsa World’s report on the event and also my post examining the issue of texting while driving.

Oklahoma Legislative Lu Lu’s or “Lets Play Cell Phone Follies!”

and

Texting Ban Unenforceable? There’s an App for that!

Also, the latest on Real ID.  Is there an alternative?

There is more than one way to skin a cat, don’t you know.

I don’t care who you are; the government does by Mark Lerner

Don’t miss this show!

Join myself and co-host Howard Houchen today from 6-8 pm CST