Report Slams DHS Fusion Centers: No Terrorists Nabbed, Civil Rights Violated

PolygamousRanchKid writes with news of a Senate report on just how ineffective those DHS "Fusion centers" have proven to be. From the article: "The lengthy, bipartisan report is a scathing evaluation of what the Department of Homeland Security has held up as a crown jewel of its security efforts. ... Because of a convoluted grants process set up by Congress, Homeland Security officials don't know how much they have spent in their decade-long effort to set up so-called fusion centers in every state. ... 'The subcommittee investigation could identify no reporting which uncovered a terrorist threat, nor could it identify a contribution such fusion center reporting made to disrupt an active terrorist plot,' the report said. When fusion centers did address terrorism, they sometimes did so in ways that infringed on civil liberties. The centers have made headlines for circulating information about Ron Paul supporters, the ACLU, activists on both sides of the abortion debate, war protesters, and advocates of gun rights."

Comments

Surprise!

[Shaman]

There are virtually no government ministries that are effective, why would this one be different? Actually, it is... it's even less effective and even more insulting than most.

Re:Surprise!

[nschubach]

Yet it will be buried as a failure and ignore the next time someone wants to implement something similar.

Re:Surprise!

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Be careful not to confuse dishonesty with ineffectiveness. If you go by their ostensible objective(reducing the already pretty tiny threat of 'terrorists' to an even tinier one), they are a total failure. Whether they have been quite as feckless on other metrics(number of jackboot keyboard jockeys employed, assorted entirely-legal-but-officially-disliked groups surveilled and/or COINTELPROed, etc.) is another question entirely.

Re:Surprise!

[ByOhTek]

it's even less effective and even more insulting than most.

IIRC it is partially a privately run organization (TSA). The only thing worse than government, is private contractors to government, because of (a) the private sector's belief that the government is a endless source of income, (b) the private sector's disdain for the government and (c) the general belief that the government is usually the worst at getting things done (so the blame tends to slide completely over the private contractors)*.

* Note, this isn't to absolve the government of their incompetence or irresponsibility - just to point out part of the problem that is overlooked.

Re:Surprise!

[gman003]

More succinctly put:

Government private contractors combine the worst parts of the government-run systems with the worst parts of a corporate-run system, while bringing in few to none of the intended benefits of either.

The government side brings in ineffectiveness at designed purpose, and effective immunity from prosecution in event of error. The private side brings in a higher cost (gotta have a profit margin, after all) and an utter disregard for anything so trifling as "human rights". The combination of the two latters is particularly dangerous.

Re:Surprise!

[dkleinsc]

There are virtually no government ministries that are effective, why would this one be different?

I'm focusing on US agencies (I'm guessing you're from a country with a parliamentary system from your use of the term "ministry") since that's what's in question here.

As common a belief as it is that government doesn't do anything useful, it's simply not true:
* The VA demonstrably provides more health care bang for the buck than any other system in the US.
* The EPA has been quite effective at ensuring that we no longer have burning rivers, choking smog, serious levels of acid rain, and safe tap water.
* The FDA has been effective at ensuring that we can buy pharmaceuticals and know that we're getting what we think we're getting instead of quack remedies, and in ensuring that there's very very little chance of getting food poisoning from what you buy in a grocery store.
* The FCC does an excellent job of preventing one radio or TV station from interfering with the broadcasts of another.
* The NLRB has helped resolve lots of labor disputes before they turned into serious strikes or lockouts.
* The NHTSA does a good job of ensuring that you can drive down an Interstate Highway and be close to certain you won't hit a giant pothole or something and wreck just because of road conditions.
* State-level building codes do a pretty good job of ensuring that you aren't sold a new house where the roof is about to collapse, the wiring is about to catch on fire, or the plumbing about to leak sewage all over your floor.
* The FDIC ensures that if your bank collapses through no fault of your own, you won't lose your money, making bank runs a thing of the past (many folks who lived through the Depression can tell you stories about their dad coming home and announcing that their life savings were gone.)

I could go on, but the point is that most government agencies do a pretty good job of serving their original purpose. The problem is that they've done those things for so long that you take them for granted and stop thinking about them, and focus more on what they don't do than what they do do.

Now, in this case, I'm going to fault these agencies for being frauds, not for being ineffective.

Re:Surprise!

[kilfarsnar]

There are virtually no government ministries that are effective, why would this one be different?

Effective at what? Catching terrorists? Yes, I agree, not very effective. Effective at sweeping up all kind of information about all kinds of people, for use later by who knows whom for who knows what? Very effective.

Re:Surprise!

[Anonymous Coward]

But! The EPA and the FDA have kowtowed to corporate interest by raising allowable limits for contaminants such as chloroform (more than +50ppb) and approving drugs which are tested by drug companies and determined to be 'safe' when in fact they're not even close when tested by independent third parties.

While I have no specifics on the rest of the agencies you list and certainly do not doubt their attempts at doing the right thing as often as they can, these are damaging issues which must not be ignored.

Re:Surprise!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really. You have to use wide scope accounting.

The FDA universally prevents useful meds reaching the market, and the regulatory burden makes those that do prohibitively expensive.

The EPA has done nothing that advancing tech wouldnt have done anyway. In other words, it is not the EPA that is causal in your clean air.

The FDIC props up the fiat ponzi scheme and does not have sufficient funds to cover the next round of bank runs.

The FCC thru its regulatory capture has given us the.slowest most expensive Internet connections possible.

The NLRB would not be necessary at all if .gov had not created the insane union laws that prevent the wholesale firing of strikers and other factors that give union thugs the upper hand.

The NHTSA created a system that by systematic error and poor design is responsible for two thirds of all driving related fatalities. Not to mention blind spot mirrors that with more advanced optics could be eliminated but car manufacturers are prevented from replacing by law.

I couls go on, but you get the point.

Re:Surprise!

[Sir_Eptishous]

(Score:5, Insightful)?

No government ministries that are effective.

Really? I love blanket statements like this, especially when they modded so high, which is ridiculous.

Here, I'll try some:
No lawyers have the best interests of their clients.
No mechanics can be trusted.
No one in the military cares about civilian casualties.

Re:Surprise!

[medcalf]

Having been a government contractor, I agree, with a small caveat. If corporations are truly given a contract with measurable and concrete goals, and the government oversight is just ensuring that those goals are met, it can work. Too often, it's government managers and contract workers, and the government managers look at the contract workers as a way to dump off responsibility. This in turn leads to low retention due to low morale, and thus to higher costs to attract and retain people. (Made much worse because of the large amount of things that are classified, and the costs associated with clearing employees.) The net effect is poor management made worse, expensive labor made more so, and work done badly. I used to think the bureaucratic side of the Federal government was horrid, until I worked there, after which I think it would have to get much better to rise to the level of horrid.

Can we finally admit that the Republicans were right after 9/11, that DHS is not needed and in fact a bad thing, and dismantle it?

Re:Surprise!

[TheLongshot]

As someone who works in the government contracting realm, I do find this attitude frustrating. I have found in general that government contractors do tend to be patriotic and want to do a good job in serving their government. Many are former military people, so the "disdain" just doesn't exist for most contractors. Also, most of them damn well know that there isn't endless money, which is why there is always a lot of work put in finding new work.

Not to say that government contracting is perfect, but in general they do a good job serving the needs of government. Now, you can question whether those jobs need to be done at all, but that isn't a question for contractors, who are mostly there to do what their customer wants. Most of the faults of contractors are similar to the faults of most private enterprises.

Re:Surprise!

[celle]

"Can we finally admit that the Republicans were right after 9/11, that DHS is not needed and in fact a bad thing, and dismantle it?"

      The republicans were in charge at that time. They, in fact, voted to put the damn thing in to go with the republican president who signed the bill. Get your facts straight.

Re:Surprise!

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

The Fusion Center network has been plausibly alleged to be used for coordination by various municipalities with Federal agencies - for suppression of "Occupy" protests.

Another group of documents shows that on November 9, two days after a demonstration by 1000 Occupy activists in Chicago protesting social service cuts in that city, the NOC Fusion Desk relayed a request from Chicago Police asking other local police agencies what kind of tactics they were using against Occupy activists. They specifically requested that information be sought from police departments in New York, Oakland, Atlanta, Washington, D.C. Denver, Boston, Portland OR, and Seattle â" all the scene of major Occupation actions and of violent police repression. Realizing that it would look bad if it assisted in such coordination overtly, higher officials in the DHS ordered the recall of the request but then simply rerouted it through "law enforcement channels," where presumably it would be harder for anyone to spot a federal role in the coordination of local police responses. In response to that order, the documents show that the duty director of the NOC wrote that he would "reach out" to "LEO LNOs (liaison officer) on the floor" to assist.

http://my.firedoglake.com/joeshikspack/2012/05/30/foia-revelations-show-administration-role-in-occupy-crackdown/

So, the Fusion centers are used by DHS to obfuscate their role in suppression of people's rightful, democratic action.

"Hostility to nonviolent public protests is hostility to democracy."
http://www.eschatonblog.com/2012/09/suck-on-it.html

DHS

[roman_mir]

Aah, DHS, yet another delegation of Congressional power to an unelected office with officials that apparently have unlimited powers, yet another violation of Constitution by the Congress and all other branches of government that do not protect the Constitution and are not stopping this. Yet another manifestation of collectivism, rejection of individual liberties for the purpose of maintaining the planned economy and planned society, which eventually leads to destruction of economy and of society.

Not just for terrorism

[Nidi62]

A lot of these fusion centers do more than just work on terrorism-related issues. They deal with drug trafficking, kidnapping, organized crime, and other issues that concern both state and federal authorities and which require them to work together. Their primary role is really more of a clearinghouse, where state authorities can contact other state and federal agencies to share information, and they allow local state officials to work side by side with federal officials. On top of this, they provide for state governments what the CIA does for the White House, it gives the state analysts that can be called upon to give briefings on a regular basis as well as in more imediate cases, such as after the Dark Knight shooting in Colorado. It is important that state government officials know the drug, organized crime, etc situation in their state, and this is how they find out.

Re:Not just for terrorism

[squiggleslash]

It is important that state government officials know the drug, organized crime, etc situation in their state, and this is how they find out.

Perhaps, but the DHS was founded in an atmosphere of paranoia about terrorism. The rights that politicians granted it were granted in the belief that the DHS was necessary to prevent terrorists from killing large numbers of people. For it to be coopted into the war on drugs or anything similar is overreach in that context (even if there's some line item in some bill somewhere that allows it to do that.)

I think the DHS is a pretty absurd response to terrorism. But much of the opposition to it comes not from it obeying its perceived public mandate, but for a government agency to be endowed with such powers using them in contexts that were never publicly justified. Let the FBI work with local authorities if they have to on organized crime, and the DEA on drugs, but let's leave the monster of an organization tasked with investigating politically motivated violent crimes - out of it.

Russian Cyber attack on Water Pump

[Anonymous Coward]

And in other news, the Russian Cyber War attack on a SCADA system controlling a water pump that burned out the pump?
Well they decided it was an attack based on a Russian IP address for a control engineers login. He in turn points out that he was asked to check it when he was on holiday (in Russia), and that the pump burned out 5 months later due to simple wear and tear.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/10/dhs-false-water-pump-hack/

More over, the biggest part of this news is that the DHS already knew it wasn't a cyber attack when its press office was leaking details of the story.

As long as the DHS exists, and has a budget to defend it will do this. Just as the FBI has been equipping disgruntled individuals with terrorists garb (plans bombs weapons money) in order to arrest them as terrorists.
They'll keep leaking super secret terrorists plots that have Hollywood scenarios, but lucky they saved us from them, and can't tell us anything about them, other than they were DEFINITELY REAL.

Disband the DHS

[dywolf]

It was fishy 11 years ago when it was first created. It's still fishy now.
All the entities that were put under its umbrella (ICE, BCP, Coast Guard, etc) can and should go back to being seperate entities.

Re:Disband the DHS

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Why do you hate the Homeland, citizen?

Re:Disband the DHS

[nschubach]

Because the Homeland looks more like a Prison Yard every day. ;)

Actual Fusion

[halcyon1234]

Man, can you imagine if those funds had been put into researching and building actual fusion centers? The US would have nigh-unlimited energy and resources to distribute around the world, ending famine, starvation, poverty and oil tyrants. THAT would have done a hell of a better job of eliminating terrorists, I bet you.

DHS.. They need more money!

[brxndxn]

Just last week, Janet Napolitano testified before a congressional committee about the state of terrorism in America. She was testifiying exactly how you would expect the head of a government agency with endless authority and no clear-cut goal to testify. She was.. asking for more money, saying the terrorist threat is greater than ever before, and saying the DHS has helped to curb the terrorist threat.

So.. the DHS:
- We need more taxpayer money
- The terrorist threat is greater than ever before
- The DHS does a great job

Hrm.. seems like bullshit.

Re:DHS.. They need more money!

[Eevee]

She was testifying exactly how you would expect anyone to behave in front of the bosses. She was...asking for more money, saying her job was more important than ever, and she's doing a great job. It's true in government, it's true in business, it's true in academia, it's true just about everywhere...damn few people try to talk their bosses into reducing their importance.

Re:DHS.. They need more money!

[Required Snark]

If you want to understand the DHS, all you have to do is change the name: Department of Homeland Pork. When you follow their activity, just think DHP instead of DHS, and it all becomes perfectly clear.

The DHP has two missions. The primary mission is to expand the budget of the DHP. The secondary mission is to intrude into every aspect of peoples lives. Mission two is a way to justify mission one. So far they have a 100% success rate. Note that security is not even on the list.

Re:DHS.. They need more money!

[Spectre]

If you want to understand the DHS, all you have to do is change the name: Department of Homeland Pork. When you follow their activity, just think DHP instead of DHS, and it all becomes perfectly clear.

The DHP has two missions. The primary mission is to expand the budget of the DHP. The secondary mission is to intrude into every aspect of peoples lives. Mission two is a way to justify mission one. So far they have a 100% success rate. Note that security is not even on the list.

Very true, it is one large funnel, with taxpayers at the big end pouring in cash, and various cronies of those in power taking turns holding their money bags under the narrow end.

I'll put my name on the "watch list" by saying that DHS has a second goal: looking for citizens that would attempt to organize a revolt against those in power.

Foreign terrorists are way down the list of threats actually being considered.

Don't forget Criminal

[Anonymous Coward]

A detective, Shannon Dowell, from a Fusion center has been implicated in setting up the "Gulf Port 7" (Occupy protesters) for felony charges:

http://houston.culturemap.com/newsdetail/09-06-12-a-chilling-police-infiltration-of-occupy-houston-port-protest-shines-a-harsh-spotlight-on-undercover-cops/

Last I heard about the case the detective claimed that he lost the USB drive with subpoenaed evidence down a storm sewer on the way to work the morning of his court appearance. Even finding out that a detective from a fusion center had been assigned to infiltrate occupy was difficult.

One of the protesters and his lawyer was interviewed on Democracy Now, here's the transcript: http://www.democracynow.org/2012/9/10/infiltrating_occupy_austin_activists_face_charges

Government efficiency

[tolkienfan]

If you want something done inefficiently, badly, at high cost and overly influenced by politics, have the government do it.
It seems like a good idea - share intelligence information between different agencies at the local level, in a way that was impossible previously. But the government fucked it up.
I'm sure this country could be run at a fraction of the cost if it weren't for the government. :)

People are really surprised by this???

[realsilly]

After the 1st plane flew into the 1st of the twin towers I knew our world changed. Within mere weeks our civil liberties were being stripped in the form of the Patriot act. But it was justified. "If a few innocents get caught in the nets for the sake of millions...."

Well we have gotten what we've asked for, right? We're more secure now, right?

By accepting the Patriot Act, we've given away our rights to not get caught up in nets like this, and because we've sat back quietly and let it happen we are at fault as citizens, and we have no room to complain.

People forget that if you don't like your limited choices at voting time, they can write in their vote, and if you are doing that because you disagree with the limited choices then you are indeed making the first step in stopping this bullshit. But if you vote for someone on the ballot and don't agree with what they stand for because the other choices suck too, you're just as much at fault.

Stop voting party lines, break from the mold, write in your vote, you're not throwing it away, that is just republican and democratic fear mongering to get you to vote for one of their two parties.

Politicians hated / feared Ross Perot because he stressed real change in our Government. Ron Paul is hated / feared for his stance being against the norm.

If enough people wrote in a vote and took away any majority to the limited parties on the ballot, who knows maybe there will be an awakening in Politics that things need to change and citizens won't stand for their rights being squashed any longer.

Never give up on a bad idea

[mattashburn]

Never give up on a bad idea. Because, then, the terrorists win.

Ron Paul

[roman_mir]

When fusion centers did address terrorism, they sometimes did so in ways that infringed on civil liberties. The centers have made headlines for circulating information about Ron Paul supporters, the ACLU, activists on both sides of the abortion debate, war protesters, and advocates of gun rights"

- make a mental note that DHS treats Ron Paul supporters as 'terrorists'. Apparently at the minimum 15% of population of USA are on this terrorist list just according to this little fact.

Also note that Republicans and Democrats always are very capable of 'putting their differences aside' when attacking a third party candidate, especially as it was the case with Ron Paul. The Republican primary debates were televised by various networks, Ron Paul was mostly ignored, in one debate, hosted by CBS, Ron Paul got a total of 89 seconds of speaking time out of 90 minutes. Of-course there were 7 more people on stage, still, even if split evenly everybody could get almost 12 minutes of time. And that's with 'serious' people on stage like Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Gingrich and Santorum.

Why are Ron Paul supporters labelled as terrorists? Is it because Ron Paul wouldn't go to war with Iran?

Is it because Ron Paul wouldn't authorise torture of prisoners?

Is it because Ron Paul is against the federal government telling people how to live their lives? Some will say that leaving things up to States is wrong, they are missing the bigger point, that leaving things like that to federal government is completely wrong and unconstitutional. As to allowing people to deal with these issues on State level does not mean that the State should in fact interfere with people either! At the minimum there should be competition among States for residents.

Is it because Ron Paul wants to audit and eventually get rid of the Federal reserve? The Fed is the actual main tool of destruction of US economy with its inflationary policy.

Is it because Ron Paul actually wants to balance the budget and start working out the problem of debt? Yes, it means cutting all sorts of programs and departments, but a government that you cannot afford will destroy you.

Is it because Ron Paul is against bail outs, stimulus and any form of welfare including corporate welfare?

Is it because Ron Paul is honest about Medicare and SS being bankrupt? He offers a transition period off these programs by means testing people and cutting military spending, foreign aid spending and various illegal domestic programs first that are not Medicare and SS, and by allowing people to opt out of the system and save their money for themselves to take care of themselves.

Is it because Ron Paul is in general against government intervention into the economy?

----

Of-course no MSM outlet is reporting on Gary Johnson being in the race, being on 47 ballots (and Washington DC) out of 50 in USA. He is not on all 50 yet because of lawsuits by Romney campaign. Gary Johnson is trying to prevent the debate between Romney and Obama with a court order or to be in that debate. Gary Johnson is also trying to get documents released that would show whether th

Re:Ron Paul

[dkleinsc]

Also note that Republicans and Democrats always are very capable of 'putting their differences aside' when attacking a third party candidate, especially as it was the case with Ron Paul.

Ron Paul isn't a third-party candidate, and hasn't been since 1988. One way of looking at it is that Ron Paul is as marginalized by his party's machinery as Dennis Kucinich has been marginalized by his party: both have been basically ignored in debates for decades, and both have had their districts gerrymandered into non-existence with what appears to be support from their party.

You're right that there should be more discussion of the other candidates. I was chatting with a local Libertarian congressional candidate at a protest, and he discussed a fantastic debate he'd had with his Green counterpart - that nobody really noticed, because no reporters covered it.

Re:Ron Paul

[roman_mir]

No, you are right, Ron Paul was running as a Republican, that's because nobody actually reports on anything related to third parties. Ron Paul had enough following and electoral machinery in place to be able to get the nomination, but in the very first primaries he got screwed by the Establishment (I don't care Republican or Democratic), it was reported that somebody else won, I think it was reported that Romney won, then Santorum and finally, many months later that in fact Ron Paul took all of the delegates in Ohio.

Do you think it would make a huge difference for Ron Paul's chances of getting the nomination of the system wasn't set up to prevent him from getting his actual record out into the public? If the public saw that he won Ohio, would it make more or less likely that he could then win the primaries? Because beating Obama is EASY for Ron Paul, that's the crazy part. All die-hard Republicans would vote for Republican as long as it's not Obama. All libertarians would vote for Ron Paul and many independents and Democrats would also vote for Ron Paul. Obama would be totally screwed and thus Romney was placed onto the ballot by the establishment.

Was Ron Paul really not a third party candidate running as a Republican?

Re:Ron Paul

[roman_mir]

You got the cart before the horse. You said:

A person with no real power can afford to be honest.

And you are saying:

Gingrich and Pelosi have power. Ron Paul doesn't, and never did.

.

It's not about having power and then selling out, it's about selling out to get power.

Then all of a sudden you get it right:

If he wants it, he will have to sell out.

thus your comments are confusing.

----

However you said all of that as a response to my comment, where I was noting not only that the system decided to list Ron Paul supporters as terrorists but also that the MSM outlets are colluding with the power in this endeavour by blocking all alternatives at the source.

What I am talking about is that there is a systemic failure, where the system is no longer governed by the laws of the land (the Constitution) and all of the institutions that are supposed to protect the law and stop and reverse corruption are themselves taken over by that power system.

The corruption is total. Here are some points to think about:

1. Every politician who gets into the highest offices supports various forms of central planning.

2. Every politician who gets into the highest offices supports reduction in individual liberties and passage of more mandates, more laws, more regulations. From Patriot Act to NDAA, it all gets passed.

3. Every politician who gets into the highest office supports deficit spending and inflation as a way to monetise the debt.

4. Every politician who gets into the highest office supports the status quo with top corporations having top access to the politicians' ears.

5. Every politician who gets into the highest office supports wars, they may support some wars over other wars, but they are similarly uninterested in actually declaring the wars, going all the way to get authorisation from the citizens to run the wars. It's all about executive power.

Summing all of it up, it's easy to argue that whoever comes into power is anti-capitalist, anti-free market, anti-individual liberties, pro-corporation, pro-military, pro-deficit spending and pro-inflation.

How are these people different? There are marginal differences that capture the mass-appeal. However these marginal differences can also be understood as part of the system.

The so called 'left' supports 'gay rights', abortions and employees over over employers and the so called 'right' rejects 'gay rights' and abortions but supports employers over employees. Both 'sides' have similar positions on immigration and militarism though, the differences are really minor.

So what is the TRUTH? The truth is that the Establishment wants more gov't power, more control over production, thus central planning, more militarism as a way to make money and threaten (sorry, 'project power' to) the world, more nationalistic ideas. NDAA and Patriot Act are supported by all sides.

The transition from mostly socialistic to mostly fascist State ideology will come in time, as the dollar becomes weaker and weaker and the Establishment will find it more and more difficult to keep up with just the socialist policies, it will have to invoke more nationalistic policies, more fascist policies.

Any third party ideology is an immediate threat to the Establishment though, so it fights those ideas from all sides.

Re:Ron Paul

[roman_mir]

And I am saying that the system is corrupt in a systemic way, that the reason that a politician can sell out in the first place is because he can take what is not his to take.

A politician can take your individual freedom away from you and that is what he is selling. He is taking your freedoms away from you and he is selling them. The Constitution was supposed to prevent the politicians from doing that exact thing, becoming a Senator, a Congressman, a judge or POTUS wasn't supposed to make that person wealthy! That's because those people weren't supposed to be able to take something from you to sell to those, who have the means to buy.

The system has been hacked, cracked wide open, there are no laws, it has failed and it needs a reset.

Just get rid of the f*cking DHS, ok?

[John Hasler]

It's the greatest expansion of Federal power since the New Deal, and it's 100% crap.

Yes, I know this is a troll.

Perhaps it's better to have terrorists?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know this might sound crazy, but perhaps the DHS should be given up entirely. Perhaps it is better to accept that terrorist attacks can and will happen occasionally instead of giving up civil liberties and spending billions of dollars trying to prevent them. What if some day civil liberties will have been undermined so much and there will be so much oppression that terrorists become freedom fighters? Shouldn't there be a balance of power between the people and the government, such that by risking their lives people fighting against an oppressive and undemocratic government could still stand a chance?

Re:Bullshit!

[CanHasDIY]

Obvious DHS shill is obvious.

Holy citation needed, batman!

[damn_registrars]

The fact that your comment was modded up only shows just how many other paullowers there are on slashdot. You made a wild-assed and completely unsubstantiated claim:

- make a mental note that DHS treats Ron Paul supporters as 'terrorists'. Apparently at the minimum 15% of population of USA are on this terrorist list just according to this little fact.

And provided not one iota of evidence to support it. You linked to a bunch of biased youtube clips to somehow make an argument for your cult leader being the greatest thing since air itself.

And for that matter, even your claim of 15% of the US population being either on the terrorist list or supporters of ron paul is bullshit.

You are a disgrace to the ron paul campaign. He does actually have a few valid points but you twist it so severely that sometimes it looks like you are actually trying to discredit the campaign and make him look like a nutjob.

You deserved the terrible karma that you had earned earlier; how on earth you managed to get back to positive is anyone's guess. Did your sock puppets manage to score some mod points and push you back into the positive?