Microsoft: Tea Party App "Divisive" for Report on Islamic Terrorism

The Obama Administration's IRS criminally targeted the tea party, Jewish, and minority conservative groups to interfere with the 2012 election. The DOJ targeted reporters to silence scandals during the election. The White House jailed an innocent man to support the Benghazi cover-up prior to the election. Government, however, might not be the only powerful entity in America bullying groups. Microsoft may be discriminating against the tea party on the Windows App Store.

Our tea party group, The San Diego Local Order of Bloggers (The SLOBs), is not based on political party, religion, race, gender, age or sexual orientation. We are concerned with taxes and the growth of government as it infringes upon civil rights. Occasionally, we address other important issues as individuals concerned for the freedom of humanity. The tea party is about civil rights.

Our Windows 8 app is the only tea party news app on the Windows App Store. A recent technical update to our app was rejected by Microsoft's testers as "divisive" because one article discussed the roots of Islamic supremacists.

Bloggers use attention grabbing story titles. The post in question is titled, "Islam: Violence Emanates from its Core." Microsoft's reviewers use personal judgement in reviewing content compliance issues. In fairness, it is understandable that this post was subjected to review based upon the title. Lets look at this article. The article begins:

The Boston Marathon bombings, by a seemingly “average” college student and his more obviously troubled and radicalized older brother has led to discussion on our policy towards Muslim immigrants; and our Visa policy regarding foreign students in general. What it should also trigger is a meaningful policy discussion on the nature of Islamic violence. Because unlike any other religion in the world, violence is an integral part of Islam.

The problem lies within the Quran itself.

Microsoft's reviewers noted:

The content in this app appeared, to our reviewers, to be to divisive.

The precise violation referenced is:

5.2 Your app must not contain content that advocates discrimination, hatred, or violence based on membership in a particular racial, ethnic, national, linguistic, religious, or other social group, or based on a person’s gender, age, or sexual orientation

There are two concerns with this content issue.

1. The certification requirements do not specify "divisive" as a violation. "Divisive" is a subjective term that might apply to dog lovers who are offended by pictures of cats. ( KT Cat would be "divisive.")
2. "This is one example of the issue." This statement suggests that there are multiple examples of "content that advocates discrimination, hatred, or violence."  There are not.

Obviously, the post topic is politics and religion, but there is no "advocating discrimination, hatred or violence." It is quite the opposite. The article opposes violence perpetrated by those who are part of a violent subset of the Islamic faith.

But to the truly dedicated, observant, fundamentalist Muslims these more cerebral (nice) Muslims aren’t really Muslims at all. To the ones we call “radicals”, a real Muslim has the Allah-given task of converting, enslaving, or killing the rest of us.

“Good Muslims” are commanded to kill other Muslims who stray from the path.  Consequently, the nice Muslims have to keep their mouths shut. This slows down the spread of the nicer varieties of Islam; while the radicalization of Mosques (or ”cells” within those Mosques) goes unabated.

The topic in this article is controversial. It is not politically correct, but it is factually correct and observable.

Since 9/11/01, there has been an average of 5 attacks a day by Muslim terrorists!

The blog post in question was written prior to the beheading of British soldier Lee Rigby in London by a British born convert to Islam and his friend. Since the post, video by Human Rights Watch showed a Syrian rebel eating a soldier's heart to the chant "Allahu Akbar." Currently, the top story on Google news is President Obama's comment that America is at a "crossroads" in fighting terrorism.

"America has confronted many forms of violent extremism in our time. Deranged or alienated individuals - often U.S. citizens or legal residents - can do enormous damage, particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad," Mr. Obama said. "Homegrown extremists. This is the future of terrorism."

To stop the terrorism, we must understand it. To understand it, we must discuss it from all perspectives. There is an observable trend around the world which must be considered for the sake of survival. Because Americans are intimidated from honest debate on Islamic terrorism, President Obama made this statement today:

Moreover, we have to recognize that these threats don’t arise in a vacuum.  Most, though not all, of the terrorism we faced is fueled by a common ideology — a belief by some extremists that Islam is in conflict with the United States and the West, and that violence against Western targets, including civilians, is justified in pursuit of a larger cause.  Of course, this ideology is based on a lie, for the United States is not at war with Islam.  And this ideology is rejected by the vast majority of Muslims, who are the most frequent victims of terrorist attacks.

Nevertheless, this ideology persists, and in an age when ideas and images can travel the globe in an instant, our response to terrorism can’t depend on military or law enforcement alone. We need all elements of national power to win a battle of wills, a battle of ideas.  So what I want to discuss here today is the components of such a comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy.

First, we must finish the work of defeating al Qaeda and its associated forces.

This statement is a failure of leadership. It is lukewarm to the observable threat. These comments are a politically correct mess from a man trying to manage his image without uttering "Islam." A fate that Microsoft might impose on us via the term "divisive."

Word Warrior does not mince words on the subject. To be fair and balanced, his conclusion does use the term "evil". Those unable or unwilling to consider the point of the article could challenge the semantics of the conclusion:

Religiously, it is unique to Islam. There are no Christian terrorist organizations or movements, financing and sponsoring terrorism in the name of Christ. Nor are there any such Buddhist nor Hindu groups.

Liberals hate the idea of evil. But radical Islam is as evil in the 21st Century as Christianity sometimes was in the Middle Ages. And Islam has no prospect of getting any better, of internal reformation because the evil in it comes from its most fundamental tenets.

The evil in Christianity came from ignoring its fundamental tenets.

Conclusion

Word Warrior explored Islamic supremacists, but does not "advocates discrimination, hatred, or violence." He is reporting on a hard truth in an effort to save lives. We hope that Microsoft reviewers keep this in mind when reviewing our technical app update which has nothing to do with content.

With all this said, the post in question is no longer displayed in our app. The SLOBs app includes dozens of articles. The articles update with the news cycle and feature only the most recent posts. Most of the content is created by our authors, but we also include feeds from respected news organizations as supplemental information on our top story. The constant updates keep our content dynamic and fresh.

We also have an Android app which has been perfected over many revisions. It never ran into similar content issues. As bloggers, we consistently deal with politically incorrect issues. The issue of Islamic terrorism is one topic requiring open discussion despite pressures to acquiescence to intimidation and fear.

We have re-submitted app Release 3 to the Windows App Store. It will be interesting to see what they say this time.

How to Help

Please go download our free Windows App and support our efforts. Hopefully, Release 3 will be waiting for you to download.

If you are interested in reaching tea party members, consider purchasing an advertisement for the "SLOBS W8" ad unit under the category "News" (250px by 250px). We have graphics to help you create your ad.

UPDATE: A Happy Ending

Revision 3 was approved by Microsoft and is now on the Windows App Store.

Gun Control: California DOJ Confiscating Guns (updated)

1/25/2013 5:31 PM

The California Department of Justice is running a program to confiscate registered guns from homes that local law enforcement refused to implement. Mark LeForestier, California Supervising Deputy Attorney General & Legislative Affairs Director, testified to a Congressional Task force determined to implement gun controls about the Armed Prohibited Persons program.

It is intended to disarm people who are prohibited from owning or possessing firearms under both federal and California law. It is really a preventative law enforcement program that we believe is critical to enhance and move forward and should be used as a model nationally.

This program works into the framework we have been discussing in which "public health" is being used to subvert the civil rights of Americans as protected by the second amendment. Our report "ObamaCare Insurance Will Not Cover Gun Owners" outlines a theoretical strategy in which the second amendment may be subverted at the federal level. The California state constitution does not include the right to keep and bear arms which has led to draconian state gun laws.

Mr. LeForestier goes on to report:

California retains the records relating to purchases to handguns. That provides us with the data to create a firearms registry. I understand that is very controversial in some quarters, but it is essential in our efforts to disarm prohibited persons.

Coming online in January 2014, will be sales of long guns and we will be retaining those records as well.

He doesn't stop there and goes on to describe the APPs program as carried by Jim Brulte, "someone who is in line now to be the chairman of the California Republican party." The APPs program empowers the CA DOJ to create the firearms registry mentioned above by cross referencing criminal history records, domestic violence databases, as well as mental health records. A list of those who are both armed and prohibited is the result.

It allows us to capture people who have purchased weapons and then subsequently become prohibited as a result of a felony arrest or mental health issue. 

In 2005, the program began and local law enforcement failed to enforce the program. So, in 2007 the CA DOJ started their own force to confiscate weapons and by 2010 had 18 full time agents.

Today we have 33 agents dedicated to this program, but it is still not enough. We have close to 20,000 people on the APPs list. That is a backlog of people that we know to be prohibited. The thirty-three agents that we have dedicated can clear about 2500 cases a year. Yet, each year we have 3000 more cases.

The CA DOJ wants to again double the number of agents dedicated to confiscating weapons in 2013. The list of "Armed Prohibited People" is uploaded to the federal NICS system. In July 2011, mental health records were added to the NICS upload.

Don't believe bloggers... here is the video testimony  You may click the image below to watch on C-SPAN. This video is 7 minutes and 18 seconds.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/4335886

Additional Information:
NCIC
San Diego Police Chief: "We can disarm Americans within a Generation"
Sheriffs v. Political Police Chiefs and President Obama

Update 2/19/2013:

Senate Bill 5737 out of Olympia, Washington  (h/t Glenn Beck), Shocking proposed law would give sheriff access to the homes of gun owners:

In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing shall safely and securely store the assault weapon and the sheriff of the county may, may, but no more than once per year, conduct an inspection of the house

“I’m a liberal Democrat — I’ve voted for only one Republican in my life,” Palmer told me. “But now I understand why my right-wing opponents worry about having to fight a government takeover.”
He added: “It’s exactly this sort of thing that drives people into the arms of the NRA.”

Update 3/9/2013:

AP via Yahoo News
State Senate OKs money for gun-seizure program
State Senate approves money for program that seizes guns from people banned from having them

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- Legislation approved Thursday by the state Senate would send more money to a program unique to California that seizes guns from people who are prohibited from having them, a number that has risen to nearly 20,000.

The bill authorizes $24 million for the state Department of Justice's Armed and Prohibited Persons program, which is the only one of its kind in the nation. It prohibits gun ownership for people convicted of a felony or a violent misdemeanor, who are subject to a domestic violence restraining order or who are determined to be mentally unstable.

The department has confiscated more than 10,000 weapons under the program since 2006 but has a backlog of nearly 20,000 people because it has too few agents to go after the weapons. Those individuals own about 39,000 handguns and 1,600 assault weapons, said Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, the author of SB140.

The additional money would come from a surplus in fees paid for firearms purchases. It would let the department hire six supervisors, 30 special agents and support staff to create six new teams to seize the weapons.

Update 3/11/2013:
Tense moments as California agents confiscate illegal guns
CBS rode along on a gun confiscation. Two legally registered guns owned by a felon, but 5 guns confiscated. Who owned the other 3 guns was not reported. See report for video.

In six years, agents have been seizing guns. They've prevented shootouts by showing up unexpectedly in force, as many as 10 agents.

California Attorney General Kamala Harris said that the people on the list are the ones who should not be in possession of a gun.

Last year, Harris' agents seized 2,033 guns.

The reporter does not report how many shootouts have occurred, how many people have been killed or injured, who prioritized which people were targeted for confiscation or how the targeting was done. The report fails to mention that "violent" misdemeanors are also justification for gun confiscation or whether a judge determines "mental instability."

As you can see by the screen capture above, the neighborhood raided was a gated community.

Update 3/12/2013:
Bloomberg.com Picks up the story!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
California Seizes Guns as Owners Lose Right to Keep Arms

Merely being in a database of registered gun owners and having a “disqualifying event,” such as a felony conviction or restraining order, isn’t sufficient evidence for a search warrant, Marsh said March 5 during raids in San Bernardino County. So the agents often must talk their way into a residence to look for weapons, he said.


At a house in Fontana, agents were looking for a gun owner with a criminal history of a sex offense, pimping, according to the attorney general’s office. Marsh said that while the woman appeared to be home, they got no answer at the door. Without a warrant, the agents couldn’t enter and had to leave empty- handed.

They had better luck in nearby Upland, where they seized three guns from the home of Lynette Phillips, 48, who’d been hospitalized for mental illness, and her husband, David. One gun was registered to her, two to him.

“The prohibited person can’t have access to a firearm,” regardless of who the registered owner is, said Michelle Gregory, a spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office.

Update 3/13/2013:
The Blaze Picks up the story!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Guns of Law-Abiding Husband Confiscated After Wife’s Single Voluntary Mental Health Visit 

Phillips told TheBlaze she had an adjustment to her medication in December and could not stop crying. Her personal psychiatrist suggested she go to Aurora Charter Oak Hospital in Covina, Calif., where she said she was admitted voluntarily, not a threat to herself or others. Then, when she reviewed her file, Phillips said the nurse had recorded that she was involuntarily admitted and indicated she might be a suicide risk. Phillips claims the nurse had put words into her mouth. 

“I kept telling her I had a grand-baby at home and had to be better for Christmas,” she said. “Does that sound like the words of someone who is a risk to themselves and others?”

Update 3/15/2013:
Legal Insurrection gives us a mention!!
California’s mental gun law

San Diego conservative activist Charles Fettinger offers more concerning details about the new state program that was used to confiscate Phillips’ guns.

ObamaCare Insurance Will Not Cover Gun Owners

Following is the list of President Obama's 23 executive orders on "gun violence." We are highlighting the  orders that we believe will be used to vilify gun owners and report them through health care providers. The end goal is to declare gun ownership a public health threat and then deny health insurance to gun owners when ObamaCare morphs into the "single-payer" health insurance provider in America.

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
5. Propose rule making to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
11. Nominate an ATF director.
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

There are three steps in this process revealed by these new executive orders.

Step one is to create a linkage between mental health and gun ownership background checks. Executive orders 1,2,3 and 4 address this linkage. Once that connection is established, gun ownership background check information is integrated with individual medical information. This information directs ObamaCare, Medicare and other government financed health care professionals to question and evaluate gun owners during normal medical care per orders 16 and 17.

Background check information reveals gun ownership or attempts at gun ownership. Health professionals might then be trained to "flag" gun owners for reasons including:

• Denial of gun ownership by known gun owners (lying)
• Threats of violence
• Violent behavior
• Abusiveness (verbal or behavioral)
• Observed violent or abusive behavior toward one's self

The key to understanding how this can be exploited is to understand the intentional vagueness of the directives. Administrators are enabled to interpret the executive orders as best suits the goals of the anti-second amendment agenda. 

Step two is to classify guns as a public health issue per orders 4, 14, 15 and 23. Order 15 addresses technology including information technology like databases for tracking gun owners and assigning mental health issues. More importantly, statistics are often driven by the ability to identify and/or report.

Closer scrutiny of gun owners will naturally create more reported illnesses with a correlation to gun ownership. This is particularly true for the most common reasons people visit their doctor. This statistical bias also occurs when mandates drive what doctors look for during their time with patients. We might expect to see future headline such as:

• "Gun Ownership Linked to Erectile Dysfunction"
• "High Blood Pressure and Glaucoma Associated with Gun Owners"
• "Report: Gun Owners More Verbally Abusive"

"Experts" will use these flawed statistics to further fear and misunderstanding of gun ownership.

Step three occurs after ObamaCare becomes the "single-payer" insurance in America. The stated goal of ObamaCare in liberal circles is to end private insurance. The argument that Medicare has less administrative cost than private insurance is an example of this train of thought. The core argument is that "capitalism is evil" and cares about "profits over people."

Medicare administrative costs exclude the collection costs which are handled by the IRS through the tax system. Private insurance considers this as accounts receivable, an administrative cost. Further, Medicare has federal law enforcement agencies to pursue people who violate the system and public grants to social workers across the country to sign up new customers. Private companies must employ lawyers and sales people in these roles. All of these uncounted costs show the "low cost Medicare" argument to be a farce.

Once "single-payer" ObamaCare becomes a reality, gun owners will be denied coverage in ObamaCare insurance as public health threats. This possibility is hinted at by executive orders 20,21 and 22. Gun owners could then be fined per ObamaCare insurance tax mandates.  This gets around fining people directly for gun ownership in violation of second amendment civil rights protections.

Court challenges that occur prior to ObamaCare becoming the "single-payer" health insurance in America can be used to provide precedent. ObamaCare defenders will argue that "private health insurance is a valid alternative to avoid the mandatory fine". The argument will change to "ObamaCare is not responsible for the availability or affordability of private insurance" after ObamaCare becomes America's "single-payer" insurance.

If this theory has flaws, please let us know...

Update:

We found a Congressional Research Service paper by William J. Krouse from February 3, 2011 that points out enacted legislation which directly contradicts President Obama's Executive Orders listed above as 16 and 17:

Prohibiting data collection on gun ownership or higher premiums for gun owners who are beneficiaries of healthcare wellness programs (P.L. 111-148).

Note:

This articles is referring to "executive orders" per news reports, but these are actually "executive actions".

Update:

Here is an article outlining the battle in Oregon between the Oregon Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) privacy provisions and the The Drug Enforcement Administration attempts at accessing the private information without a warrant.