Tuesday, January 13, 2015

Germany Bracing for Islamic Terror
Paris "Just the First Shot

German police have evidence "that key European cities could be attacked at any time." — Der Spiegel.
"This is a serious situation." — German Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere.
"You will pay the price as you walk on your streets, turning right and left, fearing the Muslims. We will conquer your Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women, by the permission of Allah." — Jihadist video threatening Italy.
"The Islamists... showed France that they are incapable of democracy and rather look to violence and death as an answer! Our politicians want us to believe the opposite. Must such a tragedy happen here in Germany first???" — Patriotic Europeans against the Islamization of the West [PEGIDA].
The offices of a German newspaper that republished satirical cartoons from Charlie Hebdo, a French magazine known for lampooning Islam, have been hit by arsonists.
No one was hurt in the attack on the Hamburger Morgenpost, which occurred in the early morning hours of January 11 and caused only minor damage.
Although police arrested two individuals in connection with the incident, their identities have not yet been released to the public. But German police said they are "working under the assumption" that the attack was connected to the decision by the paper, also known as MOPO, to republish cartoons spoofing Mohammed on its front page on January 8, as an act of solidarity with the attack on the journalists of Charlie Hebdo.
Firefighters work at the offices of the Hamburger Morgenpost newspaper in Hamburg, Germany, which was attacked by arsonists on January 11. (Image source: Tagesschau video screenshot)

Hamburg Mayor Olaf Scholz said that any attack on the press and freedom of expression is an attack on democracy. "A free press and freedom of expression are part of the foundation on which democracy rests," Scholz said. "A democratic society without a press-mediated conversation about the political and social issues of our time cannot be imagined."
The attack came a day after the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel reported that Germany's Federal Criminal Police Agency (Bundeskriminalamt, BKA) has enacted a nationwide emergency plan in an effort to prevent Islamic terrorists from striking in Germany.
According to Der Spiegel, federal and state security agencies have been ordered to locate the whereabouts of up to 250 German Islamists and other "relevant persons" whose identities are known to counter-terrorism authorities. The magazine also reported that the BKA had evidence "that key European cities could be attacked at any time."
In an interview with the newspaper Bild am Sonntag on January 11, German Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere confirmed that German intelligence was monitoring "around 260 individuals" who could potentially strike at any moment. He said:
"We have no concrete evidence of attacks. But, as I said, we have about 260 dangerous individuals (Gefährder). We also have around 550 people who have travelled to the battle zones in Syria and Iraq. Between 150 and 180 of these have returned to Germany, and 30 of them are battle-hardened fundamentalists. They pose a serious threat to our security. I am very concerned about well-prepared perpetrators such as those in Paris, Brussels, Australia and Canada. This is a serious situation."
Bild questioned whether Germany has enough security personnel to track all the potential terrorists. According to the newspaper, at least 60 police officers are needed to successfully monitor just one German jihadist around the clock.
De Maiziere said he was doing all he could, but he conceded: "So far we have been lucky. Unfortunately, this may not always be the case."
In a separate article, Bild reported that British intelligence has warned European authorities of a plan to attack passenger aircraft with explosives that cannot be detected by airport scanners.
In December, undercover inspectors from the European Commission, the administrative arm of the European Union, reportedly found that dangerous weapons and other banned items passed through security at Frankfurt Airport, the largest in Germany, undetected 50 percent of the time. The security lapses at Europe's third-largest airport have set off alarm bells across the continent.
Bild also reported that American intelligence agencies had intercepted the conversations of senior members of the Islamic State [IS] in which they said the attacks in Paris were just the "first shot" in a series of attacks to be carried out in other European capitals, including Rome.
Italian media have been reporting on a four-minute video that threatens to attack famous historical sites in Rome, including the Coliseum, the Pantheon, the Trevi Fountain and the Vatican. The video includes English subtitles that warn:
"O Europeans, the Islamic State did not initiate a war against you, as your governments and media try to make you believe. It is you who started the transgression against us, and thus you deserve blame and you will pay a great price.
"You will pay the price when your economies collapse. You will pay the price when you sons are sent to wage war against us, and they return to you as disabled amputees, or inside coffins, or mentally ill.
"You will pay the price as you are afraid of travelling to any land. Rather you will pay the price as you walk on your streets, turning right and left, fearing the Muslims. You will not feel secure even in your bedrooms.
"We will strike you in your homeland, and you will never be able to harm anyone afterwards.
"We have warned you that today we are in a new era, an era where the [Islamic] State, its soldiers, and its sons are leaders not slaves. They are a people who through the ages have not known defeat. The outcome of their battles is concluded before they begin. Being killed—according to their account—is a victory.
"This is where the secret lies. You fight a people who can never be defeated. They either gain victory or are killed.
"O Crusaders, you have realized the threat of the Islamic State, but you have not become aware of the cure, and you will not discover the cure because there is no cure. If you fight it, it becomes tougher and stronger. If you leave it alone, it grows and expands.
"We will conquer your Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women, by the permission of Allah."
Back in Germany, more than 25,000 people showed up in the eastern German city of Dresden on January 12 for a weekly gathering of a burgeoning grassroots movement known as PEGIDA—short for "Patriotic Europeans against the Islamization of the West."
In what was the largest turnout yet, marchers wore black armbands and observed a minute of silence for "the victims of terrorism in Paris."
PEGIDA, which has been organizing so-called "evening walks" (Abendspaziergang) through downtown Dresden every Monday evening since October, has seen the number of protesters increase exponentially from week to week. Around 500 people gathered at the first such event, while 18,000 people attended a rally that was held on January 4.
PEGIDA offshoots are also emerging across Germany, including: Bavaria (BAGIDA), Berlin (BAERGIDA), Cologne (KöGIDA), Hamburg (HAGIDA), Kassel (KAGIDA), Leipzig (LEGIDA), Rostock (ROGIDA), Südthüringen (SüGIDA) and Würzburg (WüGIDA).
On its Facebook page, PEGIDA wrote that the attack against Charlie Hebdo in Paris confirmed its worst fears. It warned:
"The Islamists who PEGIDA has been warning about for 12 weeks showed France that they are incapable of democracy and rather look to violence and death as an answer! Our politicians want us to believe the opposite. Must such a tragedy happen here in Germany first???"

Petition to Separate from California

STATE OF JEFFERSON WHITE PAPER

Wednesday Jan 13 at 5:00 pm PST , call-in (347) 826-7353

Since 1965, northern California has not had adequate representation in the state legislature. The most expeditious way to restore representation to the counties of northern California is to create a new state with those counties that want representation restored. The only viable plan to restore representation is the “Jefferson” state movement which is using the only legal method of engineering a state split through the formula required by Article IV, Section 3 of the US Constitution.i This formula necessitates a simple majority of both houses of the state legislature and Congress approve the split in order to create a state out of an existing state or states. This process has created four new states in our nation's history.

 

In order for “Jefferson” to be successful, two tenets must be completed and one verified. First, counties that want to be part of the new state must give the Jefferson Committee some indication of support. Typically this is done by the Board of Supervisors affirming a Declaration and Petition to Withdraw from the State of California. This is not the only avenue open to a County. Second, the state and national legislative actions outlined above must achieve a simple majority result.

Third, although not required by Article IV, Section 3, the Committees will illustrate the financial viability of the new State to its citizens.

As of January 1, 2015, six counties have Declared and Petitioned to Separate from California and join the new state of “Jefferson”. Both the California Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) and an internally generated financial model have shown that “Jefferson” is a viable entity. By the end of January 2015, four counties will have had their Declarations filed with the Secretary of State of California which could initiate the legislative phase of state separation. The legislative action will be delayed long enough to determine if additional counties would like to join the new state.

 

There are 14 additional counties that have active committees educating the public and reaching their supervisors with the message of republican based representation which is guaranteed in Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution.ii

Issue

A basket of Supreme Court opinions, finalized by Reynolds v. Sims diluted the representation in rural counties in thirty states in 1964.iii Up until that decision, California, and many other states, had roughly one state senator for each county. This was consistent with the Connecticut Compromise as implemented in Article I, Sections 2 and 3 of the US Constitution where the House of Representatives is determined by population and the Senate is comprised of two individuals from each state ensuring small or less populous states have an equal footing in Congress.iv The Warren Court in 1964 invalidated this form of government for thirty states by manufacturing the doctrine of “one man, one vote” from the 14th Amendment which used population as the sole arbiter of representation in both houses of the state legislature.

The California state senate became a mirrored representation structure of the assembly. Based on population, roughly three senators and assemblymen total come from the twenty northern most counties of California while 35 of 120 legislators come from Los Angeles County alone as shown in Exhibit 2. As go the large population centers, so goes the entire state. For nearly fifty years, adequate representation has not existed for the counties of northern California. Rural counties are taxed but have no representation to determine how tax monies are spent.


 

Sunday, January 11, 2015

About Muslims:
20 Commandments of Muhammad the founder of Islam.
1. Thou shall Rape, Marry, and Divorce Pre-pubescent Girls. Koran 65:4
...
2. Thou shall have Sex Slaves and Work Slaves. Koran 4:3, 4:24, 5:89, 33:50,
58:3, 70:30
3. Thou shall Beat Sex Slaves, Work Slaves, and Wives. Koran 4:34
4. Thou shall have 4 Muslim male witnesses to prove rape. Koran 24:13
5. Thou shall Kill those who insult Islam or Mohammed. Koran 33:57
6. Thou shall Crucify and Amputate non-Muslims. Koran 8:12, 47:4
7. Thou shall Kill non-Muslims to guarantee receiving 72 virgins in heaven.
Koran 9:111
8. Thou shall Kill anyone who leaves Islam. Koran 2:217, 4:89
9. Thou shall Behead non-Muslims. Koran 8:12, 47:4
10. Thou shall Kill AND be Killed for
Islamic Allah. Koran 9:5
11. Thou shall Terrorize non-Muslims. Koran 8:12, 8:60
12. Thou shall Steal and Rob from non-Muslims. Koran Chapter 8 (Booty/Spoils
of War)
13. Thou shall Lie to Strengthen Islam. Koran 3:28, 16:106
14. Thou shall Fight non-Muslim even if you don't want to. Koran 2:216
15. Thou shall not take non-Muslims as friends. Koran 5:51
16. Thou shall Call non-Muslims Pigs and Apes. Koran 5:60, 7:166, 16:106
17. Thou shall Treat non-Muslims as the vilest creatures deserving no mercy.
Koran 98:6
18. Thou shall Treat non-Muslims as sworn enemies. Koran 4:101
19. Thou shall Kill non-Muslims for not converting to Islam. Koran 9:29
20. Thou shall Extort non-Muslims to keep Islam strong. Koran 9:29.
If you believe this you are not a Moderate Muslim. In fact there are no Moderate Muslims. Political Correctness clouds truth. What you see above is but a few of the rules set up by Islam. So now you know. You can never say, you weren’t told. If you chose to disbelieve, look it up in the Koran, see for yourself. Then you can face the truth. However, as a result of Islam, Muslims...
They’re not happy in Gaza
They're not happy in Egypt
They're not happy in Libya
They're not happy in Morocco
They're not happy in Iran
They're not happy in Iraq
They're not happy in Yemen
They're not happy in Afghanistan
They're not happy in Pakistan
They're not happy in Syria
They're not happy in Lebanon
They're not happy in Nigeria
They're not happy in Kenya
They're not happy in Sudan
******** So, where are they happy? **********
They're happy in Australia
They're happy in England
They're happy in Belgium
They're happy in France
They're happy in Italy
They're happy in Germany
They're happy in Sweden
They're happy in the USA & Canada
They're happy in Norway & India
They're happy in almost every country that is not Islamic! And who do they blame? Not Islam... Not their leadership... Not themselves... THEY BLAME THE COUNTRIES THEY ARE HAPPY IN!! And they want to change the countries they're happy in, to be like the countries they came from where they were unhappy.
You Don't Count?
A number of folks who have shown appreciation for things that I share or opinions that I offer have noted the small number of folks who like or share these little ditties. If you were to take the Facebook allowed count of likes or shares you would have a totally distorted view of the reality of the influence that we have. I hired a firm that studies influence on the internet and asked them to follow my posts for the period of time that they recommended. The s...tatistics for articles that I wrote entirely on my own and offering only my own view of reality showed a minimum of 3.8 million reached and a maximum of 4.3 million reached. It would appear that those of us who share a Christ oriented world view that leans decidedly right and is given to exposing the lies of Obama, his muslim faith, his marxist ideology and his treasonous betrayal of America are legion in numbers. It is the media that does not subscribe to what the majority of Americans hold dear. The Founding Fathers would embrace our worldview in support of the Republic and its Christian roots. In fact we are merely following them and acknowledging their leadership and wisdom in serving the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, as their duty and obligation to the God whose love and grace gifted us with inalienable rights.
The next time someone tries to minimize your effectiveness or treat you with disrespect as if your worldview did not count or that you were foolish in the faith that you hold in God or the Republic that He inspired in its creation and sustained by His hand, remember that you are not only "surrounded by a multitude of witnesses", but you are supported in common by at least 200 million of your fellow Americans. Don't feel lonely or dispirited, your majority is huge and your cause is just. God also happens to be on our side, as He promised.
- Dr. Jim Garrow -
Spain wants to change Europe visa-free travel zone to thwart Islamists

Madrid wants to see changes made to the treaty governing the visa-free Schengen area, which would allow Spain to introduce border controls to stem the tide of Islamic militants returning from the Middle East, the country’s interior minister has said.
READ MORE: Marine Le Pen to Hollande: Suspend visa-free zone, strip terror suspects of French citizenship
"We are going to back border controls and it is possible that as a consequence it will be necessary to modify the Schengen treaty," Interior Minister Jorge Fernandez Diaz told the daily El Pais in an interview on Saturday.
"The existing mobility in the European Union is facilitating the movements (of jihadists) to any country and also to our country," he continued.
The minister and his European counterparts are set to discuss the future of Schengen during a meeting in Paris on Sunday.
Diaz is not the first European politician to consider revamping or altogether suspending the Schengen zone in response to the deadly attacks in and around Paris this week, which left 20 dead, including three attackers.
On Friday, The leader of France’s rightwing Front National (FN), Marine Le Pen, told French President Francois Hollande that the country should “immediately suspend Schengen to be able to control our borders” in what she called an “essential element in the fight against terrorism.”
Paris Mosque rector Dalil Boubakeur (front), French political, religious and personalites take part in a solidarity march (Marche Republicaine) in the streets of Paris January 11, 2015. (Reuters / Stephane Mahe)
Paris Mosque rector Dalil Boubakeur (front), French political, religious and personalites take part in a solidarity march (Marche Republicaine) in the streets of Paris January 11, 2015. (Reuters / Stephane Mahe)

READ MORE: Charlie Hebdo massacre aftermath LIVE UPDATES
The Schengen Area consists of 26 European countries that have abolished passport and any other type of border controls. The agreement allows for both freedom of movement for both European citizens, Schengen visa holders and those who can travel in the area visa-free. Freedom of movement is considered “a fundamental right” guaranteed by the EU to its citizens.
Diaz further called for the establishment of a Europe-wide passenger name record data base, which would aid in sharing passenger information between member states.
"We are convinced of the need for such a tool, to follow those who travel to terrorist operating theaters or who return from there," he said.
He further said that the hate speech, particularly anti-Semitic messages and attempts to recruit young people to militant organizations, needed to be tackled online in a way that did not stop the internet from being a venue of free expression.
"We need to work more closely with Internet companies to guarantee the reporting and if possible removal of all content that amounts to an apology for terrorism or calls for violence and hatred," he said.
A man holds a placard reading "Je suis Charlie" (I am Charlie) during a Unity rally “Marche Republicaine” on January 11, 2015 in Strasbourg, eastern France, in tribute to the 17 victims of the three-day killing spree. (AFP Photo / Patrick Hertzog)
A man holds a placard reading "Je suis Charlie" (I am Charlie) during a Unity rally “Marche Republicaine” on January 11, 2015 in Strasbourg, eastern France, in tribute to the 17 victims of the three-day killing spree. (AFP Photo / Patrick Hertzog)

Fears of another terror attack in Europe are running high following the recent shootings in France. On Sunday, a report in the Germany daily Bild, citing intelligence from the US National Security Agency, warned that the events in France may be the first in a wave of attacks to strike Europe.
READ MORE: Paris massacre possible prelude to wave of Europe-wide attacks – media citing NSA
The intelligence, reportedly citing conversations between Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) leaders, said a series of European cities could be attacked, including Rome.
The article, however, didn’t furnish details of a concrete terror plot.
EU and US security ministers also met at France’s interior ministry on Sunday to discuss a joint response to terrorism in the wake of the Paris assault. The meeting was held just hours before a massive parade through Paris, where hundreds of thousands of people, along with dozens of world leaders, came in a show of solidarity and remembrance for those who lost their lives.
Following the meeting, French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said European interior ministers had agreed to ratchet up cooperation in an effort to halt future terrorist attacks.
The White House further announced it had incited its allied to Washington for a February 18 security summit in Washington to try and stem the tide of violent extremism
Amid Terror in Paris, Gun Control Leaves French Defenseless

With terrorists rampaging through Paris for a second time this week after gunmen massacred 12 victims in the Charlie Hebdo attack, at least four more victims are dead as panic grows across the city and even the nation of France. And thanks to draconian gun-control laws severely infringing on the French people’s right to keep and bear arms, actual and potential victims of the ongoing slaughter have been left largely defenseless, to cower in the face of Islamists armed with Kalashnikovs and other weaponry. Despite all of that, rather than discussing more respect for gun-rights and liberty, experts say it is unlikely that the people of France under Socialist Party rule will be able to even have a real debate any time soon — much less lawfully protect themselves from terrorists and criminals.    
  
The French government and the European Union both impose extraordinarily strict restrictions on firearm possession by civilians. In France, where owning a gun for self-defense is essentially out of the question for average citizens, even many police officers are unarmed. Still, media reports and experts suggest that France is awash in firearms that are freely available on the black market for a small premium over what Americans might pay at a store. The difference is that in the United States, law-abiding citizens are free to own and use those weapons in lawful self-defense, while in France and virtually all of the EU, murderers and criminals know their victims will be disarmed and helpless, courtesy of the political class.

According to the French police union UNSA chief, fully automatic AK-47s, which were apparently used by the terrorists in the latest attack in Paris, can be purchased or sold for less than $1,200 U.S. dollars on the black market. Paris is apparently a hub of gun trafficking. “The French black market for weapons has been inundated with eastern European war artillery and arms,” UNSA police union boss Philippe Capon told the anti-gun Bloomberg outlet. “They are everywhere in France.” The same holds true for other nations and jurisdictions with strict infringements on the right to keep and bear arms.

With the latest attacks in Paris, it seems that, yet again, terrorists determined to violate laws against murder and terrorism still have no scruples about violating gun-control regulations. Instead, the only people disarmed by French gun-control scheming are law-abiding citizens, victims, and in some cases, even police — not criminals, murderers, and terrorists. “If the people so violently shot down in Paris had guns, at least they would have had a fighting chance,” noted U.S. real-estate titan and political pundit Donald Trump on his Twitter feed, sparking headlines around the world. “Isn’t it interesting that the tragedy in Paris took place in one of the toughest gun control countries in the world? Remember, when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns!”

Other Americans similarly lambasted French gun-control laws in the wake of the recent attack. The group Gun Owners of America, for instance, perhaps the fiercest major defender of gun-rights in the United States, created and circulated a “meme” on Facebook ridiculing efforts to disarm citizens as a way of supposedly keeping people safe. “You mean to tell me that banning AK-47s won’t stop Muslim terrorists from massacring people in France?” reads the text in the image, which shows an incredulous-looking boy asking a woman the question along with the Gun Owners of America logo. Tens of thousands of people shared, “liked,” and commented on the meme.

Former judge-turned-Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano, an ardent defender of individual rights and the U.S. Constitution, also commented on the link between forcible disarmament of victims and the latest slaughter in France. “One of the reasons these people are dead is because they were sitting ducks,” he explained in comments made on the Fox Business Network, rebuking arguments for more statism and mass-surveillance as a way of preventing future attacks. “One of the reasons they're sitting ducks is you can't carry a gun in Paris.... This would not happen in this building.”

That all may seem painfully obvious to everyday Americans — many of whom take for granted the God-given right to keep and bear arms enshrined in the Second Amendment to the Constitution. But in France, the EU, and totalitarian-ruled nations around the world, draconian infringements on gun rights are unlikely to end any time soon, regardless of how many defenseless victims are slaughtered by heavily armed attackers with no respect for gun-control laws. In fact, some analysts suggested that even a mere discussion about gun rights was unlikely in the wake of the slaughter of more than a dozen helpless victims.

“It's certainly a logical question to ask, because it is so engrained in Europe that the state is responsible for protecting its citizens,” International Association for the Protection of Civil Arms Rights director Mark Barnes was quoted as saying after the tragedy. “What you have to recognize is that the right to self-defense is shaped much differently in Europe….  It will be interesting to see if this [attack by gunmen in Paris who ignored murder and gun-control laws] does lead to a legitimate discussion.”
In a piece for the International Business Times, Second Amendment Foundation founder Alan Gottlieb was quoted saying that he did not think the Paris attacks would prompt policy changes or even a debate. He also cited the EU’s role in imposing draconian gun-control policies on the entire bloc of formerly sovereign nations. “You don’t just have the laws of individual countries, you have EU laws, too,” he noted. “Part of the debate is ‘Should the EU get to dictate to countries or should member states be able to decide for themselves?’”
As usual, apologists for victim-disarmament schemes — also known as gun control — are already trotting out the usual arguments purporting to justify leaving law-abiding citizens defenseless by stripping them of their unalienable rights. However, with the French government and the EU already imposing radical anti-gun rights policies that obviously failed to deter terrorists, as virtually the entire world witnessed this week yet again, the establishment press has decided to largely ignore the gun-rights issue.

Of course, Americans are well accustomed to having the increasingly discredited “mainstream” press attack gun rights every time a firearm-related tragedy strikes in the United States. Yet, when similar events occur in anti-gun Europe, which has seen numerous mass shootings in recent years — including the cold-blooded murder of dozens of defenseless young children in the gun-control utopia of Norway — the anti-gun rights crowd remains eerily silent. In 2012, Islamist gunmen massacred children at a Jewish school in France. More recently, an Islamist shot numerous victims to death in Belgium at a Holocaust museum. In Australia, where law-abiding citizens have also been forcibly disarmed by their rulers, a gunman last month seized hostages, resulting in multiple fatalities. The press cannot exploit those incidents, because citizens of those nations have already been disarmed and left helpless in the face of attacks.
  
On the other hand, when an armed citizen prevents or minimizes a tragedy in the United States, the establishment press is nowhere to found. When a recent convert to Islam beheaded a coworker in Oklahoma and openly sought to decapitate more victims, for example, an armed citizen stopped the attack. The national media was not interested at all, because the heroic tale put the benefits of respect for gun rights on full display. Similar stories of armed Americans preventing or minimizing tragedies are a regular occurrence — though one would probably never know it by relying on the national press for information. The link between decreasing levels of violent crime as gun ownership goes up has also been firmly established in multiple studies.  
     
Could an armed citizenry have potentially prevented the latest attacks in France, or at least helped minimize the body count? Certainly. If employees of the Charlie Hebdo newspaper that was attacked this week — all of whom knew they could become a target at any time — had been allowed to exercise their right to keep and bear arms, the outcome of the attack could have definitely been different. The same is true for the more recent hostage situations that on Friday, January 9, claimed at least four more innocent lives in Paris.

It is impossible to know with any certainty, of course, how recent events in Paris might have unfolded if the victims had been armed and allowed to defend themselves rather than being forced to rely on ineffective government “protection.” However, the bloody massacre illustrates once again that only a heartless tyrant or a fool would willingly deny potential victims of murder, rape, or terrorism the right to own and use effective tools such as firearms to protect their lives, their colleagues, and their families. While Socialist French authorities, the EU, Islamist terrorists, and criminals of all varieties may relish the fact that their victims are unarmed, those victims deserve better.
Americans should take note: Next time politicians and the media seek to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, remember Paris.   
FEMA: A Disaster for Taxpayers and Federalism

“If the government were to design a new disaster declaration system from scratch it surely would not look like the system that we have today,” the just-retired Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) asserted in a report issued shortly before his departure from the Senate.

Although the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was originally intended to assist states only where disasters were of such magnitude that relief was beyond their capabilities, the number of disaster declarations has exploded in recent years. Routine weather events that would not previously have been cause for federal aid are now being declared disasters by FEMA, making the states in which they occurred eligible for assistance from Washington. “At one point this year [2014], there were 33 states with active disaster zones,” of which 18 “were for winter storms, where a large portion of the estimated damages included snow removal,” Coburn wrote. Moreover, the main criterion for determining when a disaster should be declared in a state is skewed such that “in some instances the same storm can result in a declaration on one side of a state border, but not on the other.”

The primary source of all this trouble is FEMA’s “per capita damage indicator,” the result of dividing the estimated damage from an event by the population of the state in which it occurred. If this quotient exceeds a certain threshold, a disaster is declared and aid is disbursed. Despite changes in the value of the dollar, individual incomes, and states’ fiscal health, FEMA has made few modifications to the indicator since it was introduced in 1985. “FEMA’s 30-year hesitancy to update it has significantly inflated the number of officially declared ‘disasters,’” averred Coburn.
To begin with, the per capita damage indicator has never been properly adjusted for inflation. FEMA started out with a threshold of one dollar, which remained unchanged through 1999. Coburn pointed out that FEMA considered adjusting it for inflation in 1998 but decided against doing so “because of the influence of state emergency management officials,” who realized that raising the threshold meant they would have more difficulty getting federal aid. Since 1999, the threshold has been adjusted for inflation, though FEMA has chosen to use the consumer price index rather than the growth in personal income as its measure of inflation, leading the threshold to increase to just $1.37 instead of $2.16.
As a result, the number of declared disasters has grown dramatically, with 2011 setting a record of 242 declarations. (There were 59 declared disasters in 1979, the year FEMA was created.) According to Coburn, a 2012 Government Accountability Office (GAO) analysis of disaster declarations from 2004 to 2011 “found that nearly half — a full 44 percent — of those disasters would not have met the threshold public assistance per capita indicator if the indicator had been adjusted for changes in income, and that 25 percent would have failed to qualify had the public assistance per capita damage indicator been adjusted for inflation.”

Another problem with the indicator is that FEMA relies on the last official census for its state population counts. That data, of course, becomes less reliable as the decade between censuses wears on. However, the Census Bureau does modify its counts annually based on births, deaths, and migrations. “If FEMA adjusted their population numbers based on the most current annual Census data, from 2008 to 2013, eight disasters likely would not have been declared, saving taxpayers over an estimated $93.4 million,” wrote Coburn.

The use of population in the indicator has one additional side effect: It favors states with small populations over those with large ones. Since the estimated amount of damage is divided by the population, an event might well qualify as a disaster in a small state but not in a large state — even if the event caused damage in both states. Coburn cited the example of a winter storm that hit northern Texas and southern Oklahoma in 2013. The damage from the storm was estimated at just over $5 million in Oklahoma and $30 million in Texas; but because Texas has a much larger population, FEMA denied its application for disaster relief even as it approved Oklahoma’s.
FEMA’s failure to consider states’ fiscal health is yet another factor in the large number of disaster declarations. The point of federal disaster relief, after all, is to help states that are overwhelmed by the costs of disaster recovery. If a state is perfectly capable of paying for its own recovery, then there is no justification for soaking taxpayers in other states to pay for it.

All of these factors “create incentives for states to overestimate the damage [from a disaster] because it gives them a better chance to secure federal funding,” Coburn noted. This is especially true because, he added, “there is no way to reclaim money if the estimates turn out to be wrong.” His examination of states’ damage estimates for 2011 and 2012 found that “states consistently overestimate the damage caused by weather events, and do so much more frequently than they underestimate the cost of the storm damage. The analysis found that in many of those cases, the events would not have been declared disasters if the states had more accurately assessed damage.” (Emphasis in original.)

One might be inclined to overlook some of FEMA’s extravagance if the agency were actually providing a net benefit to the country. On the contrary, observed the Washington Times: “FEMA has endangered disaster-stricken communities by placing them under the control of a lumbering, distant bureaucracy.... When disaster does strike, confusing regulations scare off emergency workers from other regions, since you can get called into court if you don’t jump through the right hoops.”
“The agency’s failure [in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina] cost taxpayers billions of dollars, suffocating state and local governments and private aid organizations, which are far better suited to help disaster victims, and the failure put everyone at unnecessary risk,” the paper editorialized.
According to the Fiscal Times, various investigations of FEMA programs have found that “$4.7 million in Hurricane Katrina aid had either been misused or not used at all,” the agency handed out over $5.8 million in excessive Hurricane Sandy relief, and it “allocated $12 million dollars more than it should have to assist Cedar Rapids, Iowa[,] while responding to a severe flood that devastated the community in 2008.”

Coburn called on Congress to reform FEMA’s disaster-declaration process so as to reduce the number and cost of declared disasters and make the process fairer. While such reform would certainly be welcome, a better suggestion would be to simply abolish FEMA, which has no constitutional justification for existing in the first place. As Coburn noted in his report, the United States got along quite well before the federal government got into the disaster-relief business. It could surely do so again.