It does not take a rocket scientist to see to where these increasingly totalitarian security and surveillance policies are MOVING FORWARD. We are told all this infrastructure is for our PUBLIC SAFETY-------as more and more of what was our community policing is tied to HOMELAND SECURITY digital surveillance eliminating the HUMAN FACTOR in policing and public safety.
BUT THERE ARE HUMANS WATCHING THESE DRONE OPERATIONAL SCREENS SAME GLOBAL BANKING 5% FREEMASON/GREEK PLAYERS INSTALLING THESE LAWS.
We KNOW the goal is to eliminate the need for human involvement-----global banking 1% want to take the HUMANITY from decisions to capture, kill, neutralize any population group deemed suspicious-----terrorist-----anti-government. We also KNOW that MOVING FORWARD US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES taking the US to colonial status WILL indeed have DRONES firing on our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE and our new to US immigrants black, white, and brown citizens because we have watched as overseas these few decades of developing DRONE technology there has been constant use of this technology against civilians----for intimidation and fear----and of course global banking 1% will do that here in US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES as well.
When we allow global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS take HUMANITY from our community policing---we will get INHUMANITY.
Two pre-filed 2019 bills seek to lift ban on law enforcement’s use of drones
- By John Haughey | Watchdog.org
- Dec 29, 2018
Insurance adjusters use them to recreate accident scenes. Farmers use them to create 3-D soil analysis maps. Surveyors use them to plot plats. Realtors use them to give prospective home-buyers a bird’s eye view of houses and neighborhoods.
But Florida statutes prohibit law enforcement from legally using drones in any capacity.
At least two bills pre-filed for the 2019 legislative session seek to change that.
Rep. Clay Yarborough, R-Jacksonville, is sponsoring House Bill 75, which would allow law enforcement to use unmanned aircraft to assess traffic accidents, collect crime scene evidence, and assist in crowd control at large gatherings, including concerts and sporting events.
Yarborough, who has sponsored drone-related bills now for three successive sessions, says HB 75’s intent is to provide another “tool in the toolbox” for law enforcement.
The proposed bill’s language makes a point of noting it does not violate Florida Statute 934.50, the ‘Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act,’ and will restrict law enforcement from using drones for “pre-crime” mass surveillance or “spying” on suspects without a warrant.
The Florida American Civil Liberties Union describes the proposal as an “end-run around judicial warrant requirements” and wants an amendment ensuring law enforcement can only use drones “pursuant to a probable cause warrant.”
Yarborough, for his part, has invited the ACLU and others concerned with privacy issues to committee meetings to ensure the bill addresses such objections.
Shortly after Yarborough submitted HB 75, one of more than 100 bills pre-filed in Tallahassee for the 2019 legislative session, Sen. Darryl Rouson, D-Tampa, posted Senate Bill 132, which would also allow law enforcement to use drones to monitor “large-scale events,” but prohibits them from being armed or “equipped to fire on crowds” with “tear gas canisters, stun gun technology, or any other dangerous or deadly weapon.”
Rouson’s bill calls for law enforcement being able to use unmanned vehicles for “evaluating crowd size, assessing public-safety vulnerabilities, determining staffing levels for public-safety personnel or identifying possible criminal activity.”
Florida’s 2013 seminal drone statute prohibits law enforcement agencies from using unmanned aerial vehicles for surveillance or evidence gathering. It does allow a judge to issue a warrant allowing the use of drones if there is a "high risk of terrorist attack" or if officials fear someone is in imminent danger.
HMMMM, WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT JUDGE AND COURT TO CONTROL NSA SURVEILLANCE ISSUING WARRANTS LIKE MERS TURNS A MORTGAGE TITLE.
Yarborough’s proposal is actually a pared down version of HB 471, his 2018 bill that would have allowed law enforcement use of drones for crime scenes, traffic control and around jails and prisons to prevent contraband smuggling.
HB 471 passed the House and through several Senate committees, but never made it to the Senate floor for a vote. HB 75 excludes the prison surveillance component.
During the 2017 legislative session, Yarborough and Sen. Dana Young, R-Tampa, co-sponsored HB 1027, the ‘Unmanned Aircraft Systems Act,’ essentially a pre-emption bill limiting the extent local governments can regulate drones.
OH NO----THAT SOUND LIKE THE EISENHOWER AVIATION ACT THAT GAVE US GLOBAL PRIVATE MILITARY COMPLEX AND GLOBAL SECRET SOCIETIES.
In adopting the bill, legislators claimed they were responding to the mushrooming growth of a confusing array of local ordinances. The bill bestows on state lawmakers the responsibility for regulating “personal delivery devices (PDDs) and unmanned aircraft systems (UVAs).”
The bill bans “political subdivisions from enacting or enforcing ordinances or regulations relating to the use of unmanned aircraft systems (or drones),” but allows local “ordinances regarding illegal acts arising from the use of unmanned aircraft systems if the ordinances are not specific to unmanned aircraft systems.”
PDD and UVA regulation are a growing realm of administrative governance and economic development with drones gaining in commercial application as they become less expensive.
According to Global Industry Analysts, Inc., an international financial analytics firm, the American drones-as-a-service market will generate more than $1.8 in revenues annually by 2020, up from about zero less than a decade ago.
We want to be clear-------the MOVING FORWARD of global military junta policing and security brings far larger concerns then PRIVACY-------these are indeed US CONSTITUTIONAL and US 300 years of Federal legal precedence violations for PRIVACY----but, the gorilla-in-the-room issue of far-right wing global banking 5% freemason/Greek player pols CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA---NOW TRUMP-----installing these HOMELAND SECURITY laws is less about privacy and ALL ABOUT TOTALITARIANISM.
'The Florida American Civil Liberties Union describes the proposal as an “end-run around judicial warrant requirements” and wants an amendment ensuring law enforcement can only use drones “pursuant to a probable cause warrant.”'
As we discuss often today's US ACLU is far-right wing global banking 1% LAISSEZ FAIRE neo-liberalism----it has not been fighting for our REAL left social progressive AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT rights these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA----and we see above the Florida ACLU filing court cases that PRETEND to fight against these TOTALITARIAN structures but never mention these public policy concerns------and do not use 300 years of US Federal legal history and several centuries of COMMON LAW to STOP MOVING FORWARD global military junta DEEP, DEEP, REALLY DEEP STATE.
IF WE KEEP MAKING ALL OF HOMELAND SECURITY ABOUT PRIVACY ISSUES WE WILL BE A FAR-RIGHT WING AUTHORITARIAN, MILITARISTIC CORPORATE FASCIST COLONIAL ENTITY.
So, please make these protests address the gorilla-in-room issue for our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE----it is the global militarized surveillance and spying structure having all intentions of using FORCE against average citizens for any number of reasons real or imaginary-----that is the policing and safety issue for our COMMUNITIES ----PUBLIC SAFETY.
Share On: Fiscal Year 2019
Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Bill Released
Bill targets funding to national security, federal law enforcement, school safety, programs to address the opioid epidemic, and important investments in space exploration and science
Washington, May 8, 2018
The House Appropriations Committee today released the fiscal year 2019 Commerce, Justice, Science (CJS) Appropriations bill. The bill funds the Departments of Commerce and Justice, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the decennial census, and other related programs.
REMEMBER, COMMERCE SCIENCE IS TIED TO ONE WORLD FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE TRADE PACTS LIKE TRANS PACIFIC TRADE PACT---NO JUSTICE FOR THE GLOBAL 99% SEEN INSIDE TPP.
The legislation contains $62.5 billion in total discretionary funding, an increase of $2.9 billion above the fiscal year 2018 level. The bill provides increases for federal law enforcement to crack down on illegal immigration, violent crime, gangs and opioid trafficking. The bill targets funding increases for national security – including countering cybercrime, terrorism and espionage. Funds are included to continue investments in space exploration, advance groundbreaking science, enhance school safety, and provide adequate resources for the upcoming decennial census.
“This bill provides funding for many critically important programs. It prioritizes national security and law enforcement, including activities that will continue the fight against illegal drugs. It invests in scientific research that will help our nation be successful for generations to come. It will support programs to keep our children and our schools safe. And it will ensure the proper resources are available to conduct a responsible census so that all communities can be fairly represented,” House Appropriations Chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen said.
“This bill invests our hard-earned tax dollars into the safety and security of our nation. It ensures that our federal law enforcement officers have the resources they need to fight drug and human trafficking, secure our borders, increase investigations into terrorism, and prosecute drug dealers. It prioritizes the protection of women against violence and helps prosecutors address sexual assault in our communities,” said CJS Subcommittee Chairman John Culberson. “It supports critical medical and scientific research so that we’re able to tackle the economic and technological challenges of the digital age. Additionally, it continues NASA’s record-level funding, setting the agency on the trajectory to rise above and beyond the glory days of Apollo.”
Anti-Opioid Abuse – Opioid abuse is a national epidemic, killing more people than car crashes each year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The bill includes $447 million for grant programs to help stem this abuse. This includes funding for activities such as drug courts, treatment, prescription drug monitoring, overdose-reversal drugs, and at-risk youth programs. In addition, the bill increases federal law enforcement resources to investigate and prosecute drug traffickers.
Gun Crimes and School Safety – The bill increases resources for multiple programs that reduce violent and gun crime, including fully funding the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System; increasing funds for U.S. Attorneys and the Marshals Service to address violent crime; provides $75 million in grants to states to improve their records used in background checks; $50 million in grants to reduce gang and gun violence; $100 million as authorized by the STOP School Violence Act; $100 million for youth mentoring programs; and $20 million for police active shooter training.
Department of Justice (DOJ) – The bill funds DOJ at $30.7 billion, an increase of $793 million above the fiscal year 2018 enacted level. These investments will give federal law enforcement more tools to thwart violent crime, drug and human traffickers, and terrorism, and bring criminals to justice.
- Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) – Funding for EOIR is increased by $126 million above fiscal year 2018, for a total of $630 million. This increase annualizes the additional 100 immigration judge teams the Committee provided in the fiscal year 2018 Omnibus and provides funds for 100 additional immigration judge teams in fiscal year 2019. This addition of 200 new immigration judge teams over a two-year period should drastically reduce the immigration case backlog.
- United States Attorneys (USA) – The bill includes $2.3 billion for USA operations – an increase of $113 million above fiscal year 2018 to increase prosecutions of drug and human traffickers, violent criminals, criminal aliens, cybercriminals and terrorists.
- Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) – The DEA is funded at $2.7 billion – $130 million above the fiscal year 2018 enacted level. Within the DEA, priority is placed on anti-opioid and other illegal drug enforcement efforts by providing additional heroin enforcement teams, additional agents and equipment for opioid enforcement efforts, and additional resources to disrupt transnational organized crime. The bill also includes $421 million in the Diversion Control Program to enhance opioid diversion investigations and prosecutions. In addition, the bill provides $570 million for Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Forces, a $27 million increase over the current level, to target major drug trafficking organizations.
- U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) – The bill includes $3 billion for the USMS, an increase of $85 million above fiscal year 2018. This funding will strengthen fugitive apprehension efforts, provide additional resources for court security and prisoner transportation, and fund the increasing detainee population resulting from more vigorous violent, drug trafficking, and immigration crime enforcement initiatives.
- Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) – The legislation contains $1.3 billion for the ATF, $23 million above the fiscal year 2018 enacted level. This funding will provide additional resources to reduce violent crime and expedite licensing applications. The bill continues all legislative provisions carried in previous years to protect the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.
- Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) – The bill includes $9.3 billion for the FBI – a reduction of $81 million below the fiscal year 2018 enacted level. The bill increases funding for critical functions of the FBI, including anti-cybercrime, counterterrorism, counterintelligence, human trafficking investigations, and NICS gun background checks while reducing construction funding.
- Grant Programs – The bill includes a total of $2.9 billion for various state and local law enforcement assistance grant programs including:
- $493 million for Violence Against Women Act programs
- $442 million for Byrne Justice Assistance Grants
- $255 million for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program
- $130 million for DNA Initiative Grants
- $48 million for Reduce Sexual Assault Kits Backlog grants
- $100 million for Anti-Human Trafficking grants
- $380 million for Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act grants
- $76 million for Missing and Exploited Children programs.
- Grant Programs – The bill includes a total of $2.9 billion for various state and local law enforcement assistance grant programs including:
- $5.1 billion for Deep Space Exploration Systems – $294 million above the fiscal year 2018 enacted level. This includes funding to continue the development of the Orion crew vehicle, Space Launch System, and related ground systems.
- $6.7 billion for NASA Science programs – $459 million above the fiscal year 2018 enacted level. This targets funding to planetary and other sciences to ensure the continuation of groundbreaking scientific missions.
- The bill fully funds the requested amounts for robotic and human exploration of the moon, including $504.2 million for the lunar orbital platform; $116.5 million for advanced lunar and surface capabilities; $218 million for planetary science, including rovers and science instruments; and $150 million for commercial low-earth orbit development.
- Bureau of the Census – The bill provides $4.8 billion for the Bureau of the Census to ramp up for the 2020 Decennial Census. The funding provided in the bill is a down payment on the total cost of the next census, which the Administration estimates will total more than $15 billion. These funds will cover activities such as technology improvements, address listing, and opening of Census field offices.
- Economic Development Administration (EDA) – The legislation includes $302 million for the EDA, the fiscal year 2018 level. These funds will help innovative community development, coal communities, and boost economically recovering communities.
- National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) – NIST is funded at $985 million in the bill, including $140 million for the Manufacturing Extension Partnerships program and $720 million for core research activities to help advance U.S. competitiveness and economic growth, while lower-priority activities are reduced.
- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – The legislation contains $5.2 billion for NOAA, which is $751 million below the fiscal year 2018 level. Funding is targeted to important priorities such as the National Weather Service, the reduction of harmful algal blooms, fisheries management, weather research, and ocean exploration while reducing funds for lower-priority programs and one-time investments made in fiscal year 2018.
National Science Foundation (NSF) – The legislation funds NSF at $8.2 billion – $408 million above the fiscal year 2018 enacted level. Research and related activities are funded at $6.7 billion, $317 million above the current level. These funds will foster innovation and U.S. economic competitiveness, including funding for research on advanced manufacturing, physics, mathematics, cybersecurity, neuroscience, and STEM education. The bill also invests in important scientific infrastructure such as modernization of Antarctica facilities along with telescopes and research vessels.
Other Provisions – The bill includes several policy provisions, such as:
- Continuing a prohibition on the transfer or release of Guantanamo detainees into the U.S.;
- Continuing various existing provisions related to firearms, such as a prohibition on the implementation of the UN Arms Trade Treaty, and makes four of these provisions permanent;
- Prohibiting unauthorized reporting and registration requirements on consumers purchasing multiple rifles or shotguns;
- Prohibiting NASA, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the National Space Council from engaging in bilateral activities with China unless authorized or certified via procedures established in the bill;
- Preventing settlement money from going to activist groups by prohibiting the Justice Department from entering into civil settlement agreements in which a defendant is required to make a donation to a third party;
- Countering cyberespionage by requiring agencies to conduct supply chain reviews before procuring sensitive information technology systems; and
- Continuing existing policies related to the sanctity of life.
Let's face it-----INDIANA has always been far-right wing Bush neo-con-------hyper- laissez faire neo-liberalism not letting any of our pesky US CONSTITUTIONAL CIVIL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES get in the way during these few decades of US cities as FAILED STATES ---ROBBER BARON sacking and looting of our government coffers and people's pockets. We are glad Indiana thinks all these RIGHTS which have been on our US Federal precedence and COMMON LAW ---as well as our US Constitutional amendments of EQUAL PROTECTION for decades and not ENFORCED in INDIANA-----now we see they care about these issues.
In the Zone: A Look at Indiana's Enterprise Zones
Jim Landers, Ph.D., Senior Fiscal Analyst
Indiana Legislative Services Agency
Dagney Faulk, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Economics
Indiana University Southeast
Over the past several decades, state and local governments have become more active in promoting economic development, and Enterprise Zones (EZs) have become a common tool.(1) Forty-three states currently provide incentives for businesses to locate or expand in these distressed and blighted areas, which are often traditional downtown areas or old industrial and manufacturing areas that have gone through a protracted period of decline. Typically, EZ incentives consist of tax instruments, such as property tax abatements, income tax deductions and credits for employment creation, capital investment, and income creation in the EZs. At the present time, Indiana has twenty-five municipal EZs and three EZs located on closed military bases (see Figure 1).
Indiana EZ Locations
Indiana’s Enterprise Zone (EZ) program was established in 1983 and allows EZs to be located in municipalities or on closed military bases.
The Indiana Economic Development Corporation (IEDC) administers the EZ Program and has the power to review and approve applications for proposed EZs, renew existing EZs, and monitor EZ operations and incentive use. EZs are designated based on demographic, socioeconomic, and geographic size criteria. The initial designation period for an EZ is ten years, with EZs eligible for two five-year renewals based on performance reviews by the IEDC Board. In addition, EZs that have operated for a full twenty-year period may be redesignated for a new term with an initial ten-year designation period by the IEDC Board.(2) The IEDC Board is currently authorized to designate two new municipal EZs each year until December 31, 2015. Table 1 shows Indiana EZs and the year each was initially designated.
When the 2008 economic crash occurred we saw in our US national media lots of references to WINNERS AND LOSERS ----those LEFT BEHIND being HATERS. When REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVES shout against global banking 5% freemason/Greek players capturing and corrupting our US DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN PARTIES-----we are called HATERS.
Being politically active and identifying an opposing public policy force is called CITIZENSHIP. What is defined as HATE here in INDIANA----we see the same in each US state-----individual laws tied to CRIME BILL all of which are already covered in our US FEDERAL LEGAL standings.
Our earlier post stated this MOVING FORWARD DEEP, DEEP, REALLY DEEP STATE will kill all rights and freedoms of our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE regardless if one is black, white, or brown-----REAL Jewish, Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Hindi-Buddhist/Seik----whether GBLT or straight----whether MAN OR WOMAN.
INDIANA is ground zero for all that is MOVING FORWARD DEEP STATE global military junta technology especially DRONES ----so, it does not intend to enforce these 2019 HATE CRIMES policies.
If any US state failed to enforce all these laws already US FEDERAL and CONSTITUTIONAL laws for decades and centuries-----they are not going to MOVING FORWARD.
Indiana lawmakers to discuss hate crimes laws again in 2019 session
Posted: 10:40 AM, Nov 28, 2018
Updated: 1:59 PM, Nov 28, 2018
By: Matt McKinney
INDIANAPOLIS -- Indiana is one of five states without a hate crime law. One Republican lawmaker will try to change that.
Rep. Tony Cook (R-Cicero) will propose legislation to create a hate crime law in Indiana, he said Tuesday.
Cook's proposal would allow Indiana courts to increase sentencing if the suspect commits a crime against the victim's age, race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, ancestry, color, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, status as a police officer or service in U.S. armed forces.
The gender identity and sexual orientation parts of the bill may end up being a sticking point when the general assembly reconvenes in January. Some Republicans have shown interest in supporting the legislation, but it's unclear if they would support it if it covers gender identity and sexual orientation, also known as comprehensive hate crime legislation.
It isn't a one-to-one comparison because they are in different chambers, but Senate Minority Leader Tim Lanane said Indiana Senate Democrats will be arguing for comprehensive hate crime legislation in January.
"Our bill is comprehensive," Lanane said. "I think the environment is right for us to look at Indiana finally having a hate crime legislation on the books in 2019. ... It's up to [Republicans] as to whether or not they'll allow [gender identity and sexual orientation] to stop legislation from going forward. But it needs to be comprehensive."
Cook said his bill was created with input from judges, prosecutors and interest groups across Indiana.
Gov. Eric Holcomb said he supported a hate crime law in Indiana after anti-Semitic graffiti was found at a Carmel synagogue in July.
"I think it's long overdue that we move forward as a state," Holcomb said. "I want to be one of 46, not one of five."
A common argument against hate crime legislation is that it would legislate or prosecute a person's thought. Cook said his bill will not do that. Lawmakers will get to argue about the bill when the 2019 legislative session begins in January.
"It's not possible to eliminate discrimination and this bill is not about criminalizing thought, or First Amendment free speech," Cook said. "There is still a lot more to be done moving forward, but I am hopeful that by working together with my House and Senate colleagues, we can present a solid framework for hate crime legislation that can help support victims and hold criminals accountable."
BUT IT QUIETLY DISAPPEARED.
First, we want to remind many of our US states are passing state constitutional laws because global banking 1% has dismantled all our US FEDERAL SOVEREIGNTY------we no longer have a national Congress working for our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE rights-------so, many states are PRETENDING they are going to enforce what were those FEDERAL and US CONSTITUTIONAL rights-------while MOVING FORWARD US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE policies which even eliminate STATE CONSTITUTIONAL sovereignty.
If a US state is a FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE----a SANCTUARY CITY/STATE----then that state no longer has STATE SOVEREIGNTY and state assemblies passing these FAKE civil liberties/civil rights laws are no doubt trying to bring population groups into the state for GLOBAL FACTORY /GLOBAL LABOR POOL recruitment.
We want to remind our global labor pool 99% of immigrants-----REAL left social progressives are against SANCTUARY city/state policies not because we are against our immigrant workers----SANCTUARY city is the same as US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE and these policies kill all rights our immigrants have had for centuries inside US.
INDIANA has US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES slowly expanding across the state----which will be used as a reason for NOT ENFORCING ANY OF THESE CIVIL RIGHTS/CIVIL LIBERTIES laws being passed in 2019 CRIME BILL.
Indiana once had a hate crimes law, but it quietly disappeared
Tony Cook, firstname.lastname@example.org Published 6:00 a.m. ET Nov. 28, 2017 | Updated 9:11 p.m. ET Nov. 29, 2017
One of the big questions state lawmakers are considering as they gear up for the 2018 legislative session is whether to enact hate crime legislation. ...
Supporters of such a measure often note that Indiana is one of only five states without a law addressing penalties for crimes that target people because of certain characteristeristics.
But that wasn't always true.
For 30 years, Indiana had a hate crime law on the books that was used to target white supremacists and neo-Nazis. One Indiana prosecutor even held up the law as a national model during testimony before Congress, boasting of its effectiveness in combating hate groups.
But lawmakers quietly repealed the law in 1977, when it disappeared amid a broad overhaul of the state's criminal code.
Today, the law is largely forgotten, relegated to newspaper archives, historic Indiana code volumes and the memories of a few living Hoosiers.
The old law differs significantly from what's being debated at the Statehouse now, but the circumstances under which the law was passed are similar in many ways to those today. The difference is that lawmakers acted quickly and decisively then.
Here's a history of Indiana's 1947 anti-hate act.
Hate groups re-emerge
In November 1946, The Indianapolis Star exposed attempts to reorganize the Ku Klux Klan in Indiana and to launch a Hoosier version of the Columbians Inc., a Nazi-type political party.
The activities of the revived KKK, which had once dominated Indiana government in the 1920s, were reportedly directed by a "secret five" advisory council and based in Muncie. The Columbians, meanwhile, were described as even more vicious than the KKK and had a simple membership pitch: "Do you hate Negroes? Do you hate Jews? Do you have $3?"
The flurry of hate-group-organizing activity, just a year after Nazi Germany's surrender in World War II, sent shock waves through the state.
Reaction was swift.
We want to remember the debacle that was CLINTON CRIME BILL 1994---------all touted as keeping communities safe. Clinton not only built the global private military corporate complex with BUSH------he built the corporate prison industry with this bill.
The US became #1 in the world for incarcerating its 99% WE THE PEOPLE black, white, and brown citizens as US city police departments JUKED THE STATS making it appear crime rate was falling when it was not. This crime bill was all SMOKE AND MIRRORS leading to an attack on our US civil rights and liberties----an attack against 300 years of freedom, liberty, and justice ------Clinton pushed this forward at the same time he ended WELFARE while super-sizing efforts to send US corporations to US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES knowing he would push tens of millions of US workers in deep poverty. PIPELINE TO PRISON was sold as a SOCIAL BENEFIT -----while US cities as FAILED STATES was installed.
We knew in 1990s this bill would destroy lives-----why write about it now? How about writing NOW how the current 2019 crime bills will destroy lives!
Let's ask THOMAS FRANK and GUARDIAN why not write today how the goals of MOVING FORWARD CRIME BILL will result in FAR WORSE.
Bill Clinton's crime bill destroyed lives, and there's no point denying it
Thomas Frank THE GUARDIAN
Fri 15 Apr 2016 07.00 EDT Last modified on Wed 20 Sep 2017 12.10 EDT
The former president made sure low-level drug users felt the full weight of state power at the same moment bankers saw the shackles that bound them removed
Here is an actual headline that appeared in the New York Times this week: Prison Rate Was Rising Years Before 1994 Law.
It is an unusual departure for a newspaper, since what is being reported here is not news but history – or, rather, a particular interpretation of history. The “1994 Law” to which the headline refers is the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act; the statement about the “prison rate” refers to the fact that America was already imprisoning a large portion of its population before that 1994 law was approved by Congress.
The media has stepped up to reassure us that the nightmare isn’t real, that this honorable man did the best he could
As historical interpretations go, this one is pretty non-controversial. Everyone who has heard about the “War on Drugs” knows that what we now call “mass incarceration”, the de facto national policy of locking up millions of low-level offenders, began long before 1994. And yet similar stories reporting that non-startling fact are now being published all across the American media landscape. That mass incarceration commenced before 1994 is apparently Big News.
Why report a historical fact that everyone already knows?
The answer is because former president Bill Clinton, the man who called for and signed the 1994 crime bill, is also the husband of the current frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination, and Democratic voters are having trouble squaring his draconian crime bill with his wife’s liberal image.
REMEMBER, CLINTON NEO-LIBERALISM IS THE OPPOSITE OF REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE LIBERALISM
IT IS I CALIGULA VS I AM MAN.
That might be the reason so many of these stories seem to unfold with the same goal in mind: to minimize Clinton’s moral culpability for what went on back in the 1990s. Mass incarceration was already happening, these stories agree. And besides, not everything in the crime bill was bad. As for its lamentable effects, well, they weren’t intentional. What’s more, Bill Clinton has apologized for it. He’s sorry for all those thousands of people who have had decades of their lives ruined by zealous prosecutors and local politicians using the tools Clinton accidentally gave them. He sure didn’t mean for that to happen.
When I was researching the 1994 crime bill for Listen, Liberal, my new book documenting the sins of liberalism, I remember being warned by a scholar who has studied mass incarceration for years that it was fruitless to ask Americans to care about the thousands of lives destroyed by the prison system. Today, however, the situation has reversed itself: now people do care about mass incarceration, largely thanks to the Black Lives Matter movement and the intense scrutiny it has focused on police killings.
All of a sudden, the punitive frenzies of the 1980s and 1990s seem like something from a cruel foreign country. All of a sudden, Bill Clinton looks like a monster rather than a hero, and he now finds himself dogged by protesters as he campaigns for his wife, Hillary. And so the media has stepped up to do what it always does: reassure Americans that the nightmare isn’t real, that this honorable man did the best he could as president.
Allow me to offer a slightly different take on the 1990s. I think today (as I thought at the time) that there is indeed something worth criticizing when a Democratic president signs on to a national frenzy for punishment and endorses things like “three strikes”, “mandatory minimums”, and “truth in sentencing”, the latter being a cute euphemism for “no more parole”. The reason the 1994 crime bill upsets people is not because they stupidly believe Bill Clinton invented these things; it is because they know he encouraged them. Because the Democrats’ capitulation to the rightwing incarceration agenda was a turning point in its own right.
Another interesting fact. Two weeks after Clinton signed the big crime bill in September 1994, he enacted the Riegle-Neal interstate banking bill, the first in a series of moves deregulating the financial industry. The juxtaposition between the two is kind of shocking, when you think about it: low-level drug users felt the full weight of state power at the same moment that bankers saw the shackles that bound them removed. The newspaper headline announcing the discovery of this amazing historical finding will have to come from my imagination – Back-to-Back 1994 Laws Freed Bankers And Imprisoned Poor, perhaps – but the historical pattern is worth noting nevertheless, since it persisted all throughout Clinton’s administration.
For one class of Americans, Clinton brought emancipation, a prayed-for deliverance from out of Glass–Steagall’s house of bondage. For another class of Americans, Clinton brought discipline: long prison stretches for drug users; perpetual insecurity for welfare mothers; and intimidation for blue-collar workers whose bosses Clinton thoughtfully armed with the North American Free Trade Agreement. As I have written elsewhere, some got the carrot, others got the stick.
The drug identified with black users (crack) was treated as if it were 100 times as villainous as cocaine
But what is most shocking in our current journo-historical understanding of the Clinton years is the idea that the mass imprisonment of people of color was an “unintended consequence” of the 1994 crime bill, to quote the New York Daily News’s paraphrase of Hillary Clinton. This is flatly, glaringly false, as the final, ugly chapter of the crime bill story confirms.
Back in the early 1990s, and although they were chemically almost identical, crack and powder cocaine were regarded very differently by the law. The drug identified with black users (crack) was treated as though it were 100 times as villainous as the same amount of cocaine, a drug popular with affluent professionals. This “now-notorious 100-to-one” sentencing disparity, as the New York Times put it, had been enacted back in 1986, and the 1994 crime law instructed the US Sentencing Commission to study the subject and adjust federal sentencing guidelines as it saw fit.
The Sentencing Commission duly recommended that the 100-to-1 sentencing disparity be abolished, largely because (as their lengthy report on the subject put it) “The 100-to-1 crack cocaine to powder cocaine quantity ratio is a primary cause of the growing disparity between sentences for black and white federal defendants.” By the time their report was released, however, Republicans had gained control of Congress, and they passed a bill explicitly overturning the decision of the Sentencing Commission. (Bernie Sanders, for the record, voted against that bill.)
The bill then went to President Clinton for approval. Shortly before it came to his desk he gave an inspiring speech deploring the mass incarceration of black Americans. “Blacks are right to think something is terribly wrong,” he said on that occasion, “… when there are more African American men in our correction system than in our colleges; when almost one in three African American men, in their twenties, are either in jail, on parole, or otherwise under the supervision of the criminal system. Nearly one in three.”
Two weeks after that speech, however, Clinton blandly affixed his signature to the bill retaining the 100-to-1 sentencing disparity, a disparity that had brought about the lopsided incarceration of black people. Clinton could have vetoed it, but he didn’t. He signed it.
Today we are told that mass incarceration was an “unintended consequence” of Clinton’s deeds.
For that to be true, however, Clinton would have not only had to ignore the Sentencing Commission’s findings but also to ignore the newspaper stories appearing all around him, which can be found easily on the internet to this day. Here’s one that appeared in the Baltimore Sun on 31 October 1995, in which it is noted that:
Civil rights organizations had led a telephone campaign to pressure the president to veto the bill. At a rally last week in Chicago, the Rev Jesse L Jackson said that Mr Clinton had the chance, ‘with one stroke of your veto pen, to correct the most grievous racial injustice built into our legal system.’
It is impossible to imagine that Bill Clinton, the brilliant Rhodes Scholar, didn’t understand what everyone was saying.
A BRILLIANT RHODES SCHOLAR! OH, REALLY? TRUTH WRAPPED IN IRONY MR FRANK
How could he sign such a thing right after giving a big speech deploring its effects? How can he and his wife now claim it was all an accident, when the consequences were being discussed everywhere at the time? When everyone was warning and even begging him not to do it? Maybe it didn’t really happen. Maybe it was all a bad dream.
But it did happen. There it is, Bill Clinton’s signing statement on the website of the American Presidency Project. Yes, the 100-to-1 disparity was finally reduced in 2010, but we liberals still can’t ignore what Clinton did back in 1995. Every historian who writes about his administration will eventually have to deal with it.
Until then, we have our orders from the mainstream media: Clinton didn’t mean it. Clinton has apologized. Things were bad even before Clinton got started.
It is a hell of a way to do history. Millions of proudly open-minded people are being asked to twist themselves into propaganda pretzels to avoid acknowledging the obvious: that the leaders of our putatively left party aren’t who we think they are.