it's the First Defense Against Terror Watch List; but when its used on a protected species it's "Kafkaesque World of the No-Fly List."
Who wants to bet that someone will claim that being on the list 'drove him into the arms of ISIS!' ?
Seems a bunch of control freaks took the unconstitutional and just plain wrong garbage in Wisconsin as how-to list. These people need to be shown the door.
What was the reaction of the TEC to these cases that obliterate the
basis for its investigation and its attempt to force Empower Texans to
disclose its donors? On April 3, 2014, at a hearing before the Ethics
Commission, the director of enforcement John Moore (who is one of the
participants in the secret listserve) told the eight commissioners to
essentially ignore the issue of whether what they were doing was
“constitutional or not.”
And from Vermont,
The attitude of other state regulators is epitomized by an Oct. 25,
2013 email from Eve Jacobs-Carnahan of the Vermont Attorney General’s
Office to the listserve members. One of the holdings of the Citizens United
decision and other prior precedent is that it is unconstitutional to
limit independent expenditures used to engage in independent political
speech. Yet in the Oct. 25 email, Jacobs-Carnahan tells the group about a
“bad thing” that has happened: the Second Circuit Court of Appeals
issued a preliminary injunction that New York’s contribution limits
couldn’t be applied to a political committee that was engaged only in
independent political expenditures.
Apparently, she believes that
the ability of citizens to freely engage in First Amendment-protected
activity is a “bad thing.” That attitude seems to be increasingly common
among government bureaucrats with prosecutorial power. It’s a dangerous
It's a development that should result in people involved becoming unemployed. Permanently, in the case of state agencies.