Returning? Login
  • What's New?

  • AP CEO Says Government Sources Won’t Talk After Justice Department Probe

    Image by CBS, Chris Usher / AP
    “The government may love this,” says the AP CEO. “I suspect that they do.”

    Evan McMorris-Santoro BuzzFeed Staff - June 19, 2013

    WASHINGTON — The CEO of the Associated Press told an audience Wednesday that the Department of Justice has succeeded in muzzling government employees from talking to AP reporters in the weeks since the seizure of AP phone records was revealed.
    “What I learned from our journalists should alarm everyone in this room and I think should alarm everyone in this country. The actions of the DOJ against AP are already having an impact beyond the specifics of this particular case,” AP CEO Gary Pruitt told an audience at the National Press Club. “Some of our longtime trusted sources have become nervous and anxious about talking to us, even about stories that aren’t about national security. In some cases, government employees that we once checked in with regularly will no longer speak to us by phone, and some are reluctant to meet in person.”
    After it was made public that the Justice Department took AP Washington bureau phone records as part of the Obama administration’s aggressive anti-leak operation, Pruitt said the fear among potential sources has spread to reporters from other outlets.
    “I can tell you that this chilling effect is not just at AP, it’s happening at other news organizations as well,” he said. “Journalists from other news organizations have personally told me it has intimidated sources from speaking to them.”
    Pruitt said he believes government officials are happy to see the process of newsgathering become more difficult in Washington.
    “The government may love this. I suspect that they do,” he said. “But beware the government that loves secrecy too much.”
    During a question-and-answer session after his speech, Pruitt said he did not believe the Obama administration has had a different relationship with the press than past administrations, but he said that the Obama administration’s aggressive attempts to prosecute leakers have put the administration’s view of the press front and center.

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/ap-ceo-details-chilling-effect-after-dept-of-justice-seized

  • The F.B.I. Deemed Agents Faultless in 150 Shootings

    By CHARLIE SAVAGE-MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT Published: 06-19-13 NYTimes.com

    WASHINGTON — After contradictory stories emerged about an F.B.I. agent’s killing last month of a Chechen man in Orlando, Fla., who was being questioned over ties to the Boston Marathon bombing suspects, the bureau reassured the public that it would clear up the murky episode.

    “The F.B.I. takes very seriously any shooting incidents involving our agents, and as such we have an effective, time-tested process for addressing them internally,” a bureau spokesman said.

    But if such internal investigations are time-tested, their outcomes are also predictable: from 1993 to early 2011, F.B.I. agents fatally shot about 70 “subjects” and wounded about 80 others — and every one of those episodes was deemed justified, according to interviews and internal F.B.I. records obtained by The New York Times through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

    The last two years have followed the same pattern: an F.B.I. spokesman said that since 2011, there had been no findings of improper intentional shootings.

    In most of the shootings, the F.B.I.’s internal investigation was the only official inquiry. In the Orlando case, for example, there have been conflicting accounts about basic facts like whether the Chechen man, Ibragim Todashev, attacked an agent with a knife, was unarmed or was brandishing a metal pole. But Orlando homicide detectives are not independently investigating what happened.

    “We had nothing to do with it,” said Sgt. Jim Young, an Orlando police spokesman. “It’s a federal matter, and we’re deferring everything to the F.B.I.”

    Occasionally, the F.B.I. does discipline an agent. Out of 289 deliberate shootings covered by the documents, many of which left no one wounded, five were deemed to be “bad shoots,” in agents’ parlance — encounters that did not comply with the bureau’s policy, which allows deadly force if agents fear that their lives or those of fellow agents are in danger. A typical punishment involved adding letters of censure to agents’ files. But in none of the five cases did a bullet hit anyone.

    Critics say the fact that for at least two decades no agent has been disciplined for any instance of deliberately shooting someone raises questions about the credibility of the bureau’s internal investigations. Samuel Walker, a professor of criminal justice at the University of Nebraska Omaha who studies internal law enforcement investigations, called the bureau’s conclusions about cases of improper shootings “suspiciously low.”

    Current and former F.B.I. officials defended the bureau’s handling of shootings, arguing that the scant findings of improper behavior were attributable to several factors. Agents tend to be older, more experienced and better trained than city police officers. And they generally are involved only in planned operations and tend to go in with “overwhelming presence,” minimizing the chaos that can lead to shooting the wrong people, said Tim Murphy, a former deputy director of the F.B.I. who conducted some investigations of shootings over his 23-year career.

    The F.B.I.’s shootings range from episodes so obscure that they attract no news media attention to high-profile cases like the 2009 killing of an imam in a Detroit-area warehouse that is the subject of a lawsuit alleging a cover-up, and a 2002 shooting in Maryland in which the bureau paid $1.3 million to a victim and yet, the records show, deemed the shooting to have been justified.

    With rare exceptions — like suicides — whenever an agent fires his weapon outside of training, a team of agents from the F.B.I.’s Inspection Division, sometimes with a liaison from the local police, compiles a report reconstructing what happened. This “shooting incident review team” interviews witnesses and studies medical, ballistics and autopsy reports, eventually producing a narrative. Such reports typically do not include whether an agent had been involved in any previous shootings, because they focus only on the episode in question, officials said.

    That narrative, along with binders of supporting information, is then submitted to a “shooting incident review group” — a panel of high-level F.B.I. officials in Washington. The panel produces its own narrative as part of a report saying whether the shooting complied with bureau policy — and recommends what discipline to mete out if it did not — along with any broader observations about “lessons learned” to change training or procedures.

    F.B.I. officials stressed that their shooting reviews were carried out under the oversight of both the Justice Department’s inspector general and the Civil Rights Division, and that local prosecutors have the authority to bring charges.

    The 2,200 pages of records obtained by The Times include an internal F.B.I. study that compiled shooting episode statistics over a 17-year period, as well as a collection of individual narratives of intentional shootings from 1993 to early 2011. Gunfire was exchanged in 58 such episodes; 9 law enforcement officials died, and 38 were wounded.

    The five “bad shoots” included cases in which an agent fired a warning shot after feeling threatened by a group of men, an agent fired at a weapon lying on the ground to disable it during an arrest, and two agents fired their weapons while chasing fugitives but hit no one. In another case, an agent fired at a safe during a demonstration, and ricocheting material caused minor cuts in a crowd of onlookers.

    Four of the cases were in the mid-1990s, and the fifth was in 2003.

    In many cases, the accuracy of the F.B.I. narrative is difficult to evaluate because no independent alternative report has been produced. As part of the reporting for this article, the F.B.I. voluntarily made available a list of shootings since 2007 that gave rise to lawsuits, but it was rare for any such case to have led to a full report by an independent authority.

    Occasionally, however, there were alternative reviews. One, involving a March 2002 episode in which an agent shot an innocent Maryland man in the head after mistaking him for a bank robbery suspect, offers a case study in how the nuances of an F.B.I. official narrative can come under scrutiny.

    In that episode, agents thought that the suspect would be riding in a car driven by his sister and wearing a white baseball cap. An innocent man, Joseph Schultz, then 20, happened to cross their path, wearing a white cap and being driven by his girlfriend. Moments after F.B.I. agents carrying rifles pulled their car over and surrounded it, Agent Christopher Braga shot Mr. Schultz in the jaw. He later underwent facial reconstruction surgery, and in 2007 the bureau paid $1.3 million to settle a lawsuit.

    The internal review, however, deemed it a good shoot. In the F.B.I.’s narrative, Agent Braga says that he shouted “show me your hands,” but that Mr. Schultz instead reached toward his waist, so Agent Braga fired “to eliminate the threat.” While one member of the review group said that “after reading the materials provided, he could not visualize the presence of ‘imminent danger’ to law enforcement officers,” the rest of the group voted to find the shooting justified, citing the “totality of the circumstances surrounding the incident,” including that it involved a “high-risk stop.”

    But an Anne Arundel County police detective prepared an independent report about the episode, and a lawyer for Mr. Schultz, Arnold Weiner, conducted a further investigation for the lawsuit. Both raised several subtle but important differences.

    For example, the F.B.I. narrative describes a lengthy chase of Mr. Schultz’s car after agents turned on their siren at an intersection, bolstering an impression that it was reasonable for Agent Braga to fear that Mr. Schultz was a dangerous fugitive. The narrative spends a full page describing this moment in great detail, saying that the car “rapidly accelerated” and that one agent shouted for it to stop “over and over again.” It cites another agent as estimating that the car stopped “approximately 100 yards” from the intersection.

    By contrast, the police report describes this moment in a short, skeptical paragraph. Noting that agents said they had thought the car was fleeing, it points out that the car “was, however, in a merge lane and would need to accelerate to enter traffic.” Moreover, a crash reconstruction specialist hired for the lawsuit estimated that the car had reached a maximum speed of 12 miles per hour, and an F.B.I. sketch, obtained in the lawsuit, put broken glass from a car window 142 feet 8 inches from the intersection.

    The F.B.I. narrative does not cite Mr. Schultz’s statement and omits that a crucial fact was disputed: how Mr. Schultz had moved in the car. In a 2003 sworn statement, Agent Braga said that Mr. Schultz “turned to his left, towards the middle of the car, and reached down.” But Mr. Schultz insisted that he had instead reached toward the car door on his right because he had been listening to another agent who was simultaneously shouting “open the door.”

    A former F.B.I. agent, hired to write a report analyzing the episode for the plaintiffs, concluded that “no reasonable F.B.I. agent in Braga’s position would reasonably have believed that deadly force was justified.” He also noted pointedly that Agent Braga had been involved in a previous shooting episode in 2000 that he portrayed as questionable, although it had been found to be justified by the F.B.I.’s internal review process.

    Asked to comment on the case, a lawyer for Agent Braga, Andrew White, noted last week that a grand jury had declined to indict his client in the shooting.

    In some cases, alternative official accounts for several other shootings dovetailed with internal F.B.I. narratives.

    One involved the October 2009 death of Luqman Ameen Abdullah, a prayer leader at a Detroit-area mosque who was suspected of conspiring to sell stolen goods and was shot during a raid on a warehouse. The F.B.I. report says that Mr. Abdullah got down on the ground but kept his hands hidden, so a dog was unleashed to pull his arms into view. He then pulled out a gun and shot the dog, the report says, and he was in turn shot by four agents.

    The Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations filed a lawsuit against the F.B.I. The group was concerned in part because the handgun had no recoverable fingerprints and because of facial injuries to Mr. Abdullah. It also contends that the dog may have been shot instead by the F.B.I. agents and the gun thrown down in a cover-up.

    A report by the Michigan attorney general’s office, however, detailed an array of evidence that it says “corroborates the statements of the agents as to the sequence of events,” including that bullet fragments in the dog’s corpse were consistent with the handgun, not the rifles used by the F.B.I. agents. Such an independent account of an F.B.I. shooting is rare. After the recent killing of Mr. Todashev in Orlando, both the Florida chapter of the same group and his father have called for investigators outside the F.B.I. to scrutinize the episode.

    James J. Wedick, who spent 34 years at the bureau, said the F.B.I. should change its procedures for its own good.

    “At the least, it is a perception issue, and over the years the bureau has had a deaf ear to it,” he said. “But if you have a shooting that has a few more complicated factors and an ethnic issue, the bureau’s image goes down the toilet if it doesn’t investigate itself properly.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/19/us/in-150-shootings-the-fbi-deemed-agents-faultless.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130619&_r=3&

  • SEQUESTER JESTERS: IRS to pay $70 MILLION in employee bonuses...

    Sen. Chuck Grassley: IRS to pay $70M in employee bonuses
    By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER - Jun 19, 2013 - AP

    WASHINGTON (AP) - The Internal Revenue Service is about to pay $70 million in employee bonuses despite an Obama administration directive to cancel discretionary bonuses because of automatic spending cuts enacted this year, according to a GOP senator.
    Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa says his office has learned that the IRS is executing an agreement with the employees' union on Wednesday to pay the bonuses. Grassley says the bonuses should be canceled under an April directive from the White House budget office.
    The directive was written by Danny Werfel, a former budget official who has since been appointed acting IRS commissioner.
    "The IRS always claims to be short on resources," Grassley said. "But it appears to have $70 million for union bonuses. And it appears to be making an extra effort to give the bonuses despite opportunities to renegotiate with the union and federal instruction to cease discretionary bonuses during sequestration."
    The IRS said it is negotiating with the union over the matter but did not dispute Grassley's claim that the bonuses are imminent.
    Office of Management and Budget "guidance directs that agencies should not pay discretionary monetary awards at this time, unless legally required," IRS spokeswoman Michelle Eldridge said in a statement. "IRS is under a legal obligation to comply with its collective bargaining agreement, which specifies the terms by which awards are paid to bargaining-unit employees."
    Eldridge, however, would not say whether the IRS believes it is contractually obligated to pay the bonuses.
    "In accordance with OMB guidance, the IRS is actively engaged with NTEU on these matters in recognition of our current budgetary constraints," Eldridge said.
    The National Treasury Employees Union did not respond to requests for comment.
    The IRS has been under fire since last month, when IRS officials acknowledged that agents had improperly targeted conservative groups for additional scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status during the 2010 and 2012 elections. A few weeks later, the agency's inspector general issued a report documenting lavish employee conferences during the same time period.
    Three congressional committees and the Justice Department are investigating the targeting of conservative groups. And key Republicans in Congress are promising more scrutiny of the agency's budget, especially as it ramps up to play a major role in implementing the new health care law.
    Much of the agency's top leadership has been replaced since the scandals broke. President Barack Obama forced the acting commissioner to resign and replaced him with Werfel, who used to work in the White House budget office.
    In a letter to Werfel on Tuesday, Grassley said the IRS notified the employee union March 25 that it intended to reclaim about $75 million that had been set aside for discretionary employee bonuses. However, Grassley said, his office has learned that the IRS never followed up on the notice. Instead, Grassley said, the IRS negotiated a new agreement with the bargaining unit to pay about $70 million in employee bonuses.
    Grassley's office said the information came from a "person with knowledge of IRS budgetary procedures."
    "While the IRS may claim that these bonuses are legally required under the original bargaining unit agreement, that claim would allegedly be inaccurate," Grassley wrote. "In fact, the original agreement allows for the re-appropriation of such award funding in the event of budgetary shortfall."
    Werfel wrote the directive on discretionary employee bonuses while he was still working in the White House budget office. The directive was part of the Obama administration's efforts to impose across-the-board spending cuts enacted by Congress.
    The spending cuts, known as "sequestration," are resulting in at least five unpaid furlough days this year for the IRS' 90,000 employees. On these days, the agency is closed and taxpayers cannot access many of the agency's assistance programs.
    Werfel's April 4 memorandum "directs that discretionary monetary awards should not be issued while sequestration is in place, unless issuance of such awards is legally required. Discretionary monetary awards include annual performance awards, group awards, and special act cash awards, which comprise a sizeable majority of awards and incentives provided by the federal government to employees."
    "Until further notice, agencies should not issue such monetary awards from sequestered accounts unless agency counsel determines the awards are legally required. Legal requirements include compliance with provisions in collective bargaining agreements governing awards."

    http://apnews.myway.com/article/20130619/DA70MJC00.html

  • Majority of Americans Don't Trust Newspapers and Television News

    According to a new Gallup poll, confidence in mass media continues to fall

    By ALLIE BIDWELL June 18, 2013 USNews.com

    Continuing a decades-long downward trend, fewer than one-fourth of Americans have confidence in newspapers, according to a recent Gallup poll.

    The percentage of Americans saying they have "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in newspapers dropped to 23 percent this year from 25 percent last year, according to a report on the poll, which was released Monday.

    American confidence in newspapers reached its peak at 51 percent in 1979, and a low of 22 percent in 2008.

    But newspapers don't stand alone. Confidence in television news has also been slipping — it's tied with newspapers this year at 23 percent, which is slightly up from last year's all-time low of 21 percent. Newspapers and television news rank near the bottom of a list of 16 "societal institutions," according to the report. The only institutions television news and newspapers beat out this year are big business, organized labor, health maintenance organizations and Congress. Americans expressed the most confidence in the military, at 76 percent, and small businesses, at 65 percent.

    Gallup attributed the drop in confidence to a number of factors, including a growth in social networking websites and an online audience that left news outlets struggling to find their place.

    "Americans' confidence in newspapers and television news has been slowly eroding for many years, worsening further since 2007," the report says. "By that point, newspapers and television news had been struggling for years to figure out how to adjust their strategy for a growing Internet audience."

    Though all key demographic groups express low levels of confidence in the media, according to the report, the levels of negativity varied by age, education and gender. College graduates are less likely to trust the media than those with only a high school diploma, for example. The poll also found that women are slightly more confident than men in both television news and newspapers.

    Much of the confidence can also be measured by political orientation. Conservatives remain the most critical of newspapers and television news, while liberals are the most supportive. Confidence in newspapers by party also mirrors their ideologies. Democrats are most confident, at 33 percent, while Republicans, at 16 percent, are least confident.

    "The divided Congress, with Democrats controlling the Senate and Republicans the House, is likely part of the reason for the low levels of confidence rank-and-file Democrats and Republicans express, and is tied to Americans' frustrations with Congress' inability to get much done," the report says.

    http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/06/18/majority-of-americans-dont-trust-newspapers-and-television-news

  • Michelle Obama: “There are some seriously ugly looking motherfuckers living on this island.”

    EDITORS NOTE: Waterford Whispers News is a fabricated satirical newspaper and comedy website published by Waterford Whispers News.

    Waterford Whispers News uses invented names in all its stories, except in cases when public figures are being satirized. Any other use of real names is accidental and coincidental.

    BY COLM WILLIAMSON · JUNE 17, 2013 LOCAL NEWS WaterfordWhispersNews.com·

    THE AMERICAN first lady, Michelle Obama, said on her arrival today that there are some seriously ugly looking motherfuckers living in Ireland, and that she couldn’t wait leave this God forsaken place.

    After arriving at Dublin Airport on Marine Helicopter II she was whisked to Trinity College along with her daughter Malia (14) and Sasha (12) to study their family heritage and see the Book of Kells.

    “There must be something in the water here.” said the 49-year-old. “Everyone looks grey and poorly.

    “No wonder people get drunk before heading out for the night.” she added.

    The comments came following a brief introduction to several TD’s and lecturers at the 500 year-old college.

    “Your man Gilmore smells like a bar toilet seat.” said the first lady. “He has gooey yellow corners in his eyes like you’d see on a sick dog.”

    The Obamas arrived in Belfast on Air Force One after 8.30am this morning and are expected to leave ‘as soon as humanly possible’, a source close to the family said earlier.

    “They really don’t want to stay any longer than they have to.” said a personal aid. “I think Michelle thinks the ugliness is contagious and doesn’t want any of her two daughters mingling with the natives.”

    After her comments this morning, Michelle Obama requested to be flown somewhere quiet and peaceful, and to be left enjoy the Irish scenery, without any Irish people in it.

    http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2013/06/17/there-are-some-seriously-ugly-looking-motherfuckers-living-on-this-island-michelle-obama/

  • House Passes Bill Eliminating Senate Confirmation for Presidential Appointees

    Alex Pappas - Dailycaller-Political Reporter

    UPDATE: The House passed the legislation Tuesday night by a vote of 261-116. The bill now goes to President Obama’s desk for his signature.

    The House of Representatives is set to consider legislation Tuesday that would exempt certain presidential appointees from having to be confirmed by the Senate.

    But a number of conservative groups are arguing that the “Presidential Efficiency and Streamlining Act” amounts to Congress neutering itself and giving the executive branch unprecedented power.

    Presidential appointees that would no longer require Senate confirmation under the legislation include the treasurer of the United States and the deputy administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration.

    “The United States Constitution does not bestow kingly powers on the President to appoint the senior officers of the government with no process,” wrote Thomas McClusky, the senior vice president for the Family Research Council’s legislative arm, in a Monday memo to lawmakers.

    Sources told The Daily Caller that there is concern in the ranks among conservatives opposed to the legislation that House leaders will bring the legislation up for a voice vote to avoid putting members on the record.

    “I can tell you that there will be members who want this vote on the record,” an aide to one conservative member told TheDC. “Whether or not they’ll get the chance is still in question.”

    House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s office didn’t comment on questions Tuesday from TheDC about the bill.

    But the intent of the legislation is to help tackle the backlog of presidential appointees needing congressional confirmation. Critics like McClusky argue this is the result of a larger problem.

    “If the Senate wants to streamline the process, it should eliminate some of the administration’s positions,” McClusky wrote.

    The legislation, sponsored by New York Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer, passed the Senate in June 2011, with 20 Republicans voting against it. The Senate bill has 17 co-sponsors, including both Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

    McClusky of FRC Action estimated in his memo that “thousands of positions would be filled by the President without any Senate vetting.”

    The legislation would affect appointments across the executive branch, including to the Defense, Homeland Security and Justice departments.

    Referencing the Obama administration, McClusky wrote that, “In an administration that’s already circumvented Congress with dozens of controversial ‘czars’ this would mean even less accountability for the White House.”

    In an April 2011 blog post, David S. Addington, a senior vice president and deputy chief operating officer of The Heritage Foundation, cited the “slow and detailed background investigations and mounds of duplicative paperwork.” He wrote that the bill sponsors have “identified a valid problem, but proposed the wrong solution.”

    “The proper solution to the problem of a slow Senate is to speed up the Senate rather than to diminish the role of the Senate,” he wrote.”The Senate should look inward and streamline its internal procedures for considering all nominations.”

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/31/house-to-consider-eliminating-senate-confirmation-for-presidential-appointees/#ixzz2WVHuQVoW

  • GCHQ intercepted foreign politicians' communications at G20 summits

    Exclusive: phones were monitored and fake internet cafes set up to gather information from allies in London in 2009

    Ewen MacAskill, Nick Davies, Nick Hopkins, Julian Borger and James Ball - The Guardian, Sunday 16 June 2013 15.46 EDT

    GCHQ intercepted foreign politicians' communications at G20 summits 16 Jun 2013 Foreign politicians and officials who took part in two G20 summit meetings in London in 2009 had their computers monitored and their phone calls intercepted on the instructions of their British government hosts, according to documents seen by the Guardian. Some delegates were tricked into using internet cafes which had been set up by British intelligence agencies to read their email traffic. The revelation comes as Britain prepares to host another summit on Monday -- for the G8 nations, all of whom attended the 2009 meetings which were the object of the systematic spying. Named targets include long-standing allies such as South Africa and Turkey.

    Foreign politicians and officials who took part in two G20 summit meetings in London in 2009 had their computers monitored and their phone calls intercepted on the instructions of their British government hosts, according to documents seen by the Guardian. Some delegates were tricked into using internet cafes which had been set up by British intelligence agencies to read their email traffic.

    The revelation comes as Britain prepares to host another summit on Monday – for the G8 nations, all of whom attended the 2009 meetings which were the object of the systematic spying. It is likely to lead to some tension among visiting delegates who will want the prime minister to explain whether they were targets in 2009 and whether the exercise is to be repeated this week.

    The disclosure raises new questions about the boundaries of surveillance by GCHQ and its American sister organisation, the National Security Agency, whose access to phone records and internet data has been defended as necessary in the fight against terrorism and serious crime. The G20 spying appears to have been organised for the more mundane purpose of securing an advantage in meetings. Named targets include long-standing allies such as South Africa and Turkey.

    There have often been rumours of this kind of espionage at international conferences, but it is highly unusual for hard evidence to confirm it and spell out the detail. The evidence is contained in documents – classified as top secret – which were uncovered by the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and seen by the Guardian. They reveal that during G20 meetings in April and September 2009 GCHQ used what one document calls "ground-breaking intelligence capabilities" to intercept the communications of visiting delegations.

    This included:

    • Setting up internet cafes where they used an email interception programme and key-logging software to spy on delegates' use of computers;

    • Penetrating the security on delegates' BlackBerrys to monitor their email messages and phone calls;

    • Supplying 45 analysts with a live round-the-clock summary of who was phoning who at the summit;

    • Targeting the Turkish finance minister and possibly 15 others in his party;

    • Receiving reports from an NSA attempt to eavesdrop on the Russian leader, Dmitry Medvedev, as his phone calls passed through satellite links to Moscow.

    The documents suggest that the operation was sanctioned in principle at a senior level in the government of the then prime minister, Gordon Brown, and that intelligence, including briefings for visiting delegates, was passed to British ministers.

    A briefing paper dated 20 January 2009 records advice given by GCHQ officials to their director, Sir Iain Lobban, who was planning to meet the then foreign secretary, David Miliband. The officials summarised Brown's aims for the meeting of G20 heads of state due to begin on 2 April, which was attempting to deal with the economic aftermath of the 2008 banking crisis. The briefing paper added: "The GCHQ intent is to ensure that intelligence relevant to HMG's desired outcomes for its presidency of the G20 reaches customers at the right time and in a form which allows them to make full use of it." Two documents explicitly refer to the intelligence product being passed to "ministers".

    According to the material seen by the Guardian, GCHQ generated this product by attacking both the computers and the telephones of delegates.

    One document refers to a tactic which was "used a lot in recent UK conference, eg G20". The tactic, which is identified by an internal codeword which the Guardian is not revealing, is defined in an internal glossary as "active collection against an email account that acquires mail messages without removing them from the remote server". A PowerPoint slide explains that this means "reading people's email before/as they do".

    The same document also refers to GCHQ, MI6 and others setting up internet cafes which "were able to extract key logging info, providing creds for delegates, meaning we have sustained intelligence options against them even after conference has finished". This appears to be a reference to acquiring delegates' online login details.

    Another document summarises a sustained campaign to penetrate South African computers, recording that they gained access to the network of their foreign ministry, "investigated phone lines used by High Commission in London" and "retrieved documents including briefings for South African delegates to G20 and G8 meetings". (South Africa is a member of the G20 group and has observer status at G8 meetings.)

    A detailed report records the efforts of the NSA's intercept specialists at Menwith Hill in North Yorkshire to target and decode encrypted phone calls from London to Moscow which were made by the Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, and other Russian delegates.

    Other documents record apparently successful efforts to penetrate the security of BlackBerry smartphones: "New converged events capabilities against BlackBerry provided advance copies of G20 briefings to ministers … Diplomatic targets from all nations have an MO of using smartphones. Exploited this use at the G20 meetings last year."

    The operation appears to have run for at least six months. One document records that in March 2009 – the month before the heads of state meeting – GCHQ was working on an official requirement to "deliver a live dynamically updating graph of telephony call records for target G20 delegates … and continuing until G20 (2 April)."

    Another document records that when G20 finance ministers met in London in September, GCHQ again took advantage of the occasion to spy on delegates, identifying the Turkish finance minister, Mehmet Simsek, as a target and listing 15 other junior ministers and officials in his delegation as "possible targets". As with the other G20 spying, there is no suggestion that Simsek and his party were involved in any kind of criminal offence. The document explicitly records a political objective – "to establish Turkey's position on agreements from the April London summit" and their "willingness (or not) to co-operate with the rest of the G20 nations".

    The September meeting of finance ministers was also the subject of a new technique to provide a live report on any telephone call made by delegates and to display all of the activity on a graphic which was projected on to the 15-sq-metre video wall of GCHQ's operations centre as well as on to the screens of 45 specialist analysts who were monitoring the delegates.

    "For the first time, analysts had a live picture of who was talking to who that updated constantly and automatically," according to an internal review.

    A second review implies that the analysts' findings were being relayed rapidly to British representatives in the G20 meetings, a negotiating advantage of which their allies and opposite numbers may not have been aware: "In a live situation such as this, intelligence received may be used to influence events on the ground taking place just minutes or hours later. This means that it is not sufficient to mine call records afterwards – real-time tip-off is essential."

    In the week after the September meeting, a group of analysts sent an internal message to the GCHQ section which had organised this live monitoring: "Thank you very much for getting the application ready for the G20 finance meeting last weekend … The call records activity pilot was very successful and was well received as a current indicator of delegate activity …

    "It proved useful to note which nation delegation was active during the moments before, during and after the summit. All in all, a very successful weekend with the delegation telephony plot."

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/16/gchq-intercepted-communications-g20-summits

  • Kissinger: U.S. and China should work together for the establishment of a "world order globalist"

    Kurt Nimmo. - AlertaDigital.com

    New World Order: U.S. and China should work to establish a new world order. This is what Kissinger says.
    Why State communism is always given as an example by oligarchs like Rockefeller, the Fabian Society, etc ...? Because Marxist doctrine not only questions the system, but instead reinforces it. The Marxist doctrine is an unconditional support from the state, political and economic monopoly absolutely necessary for the survival of an exclusive oligarchy.
    Communism becomes possible economic and political extremism of the "elites" are never self-proclaimed mast as well as under totalitarianism.
    In the video below, the protégé of David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, asked the U.S. and the Chinese government to work together to create a totalitarian world government. In a speech given at the Asia Society last week, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has said the following: "The challenge is to know how to build a global world order for the first time in history. We talk a lot of world community but the fact is that there has never been a world community before, and suggests that China and the U.S. cooperate on that goal.
    From 3 minute video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxGFmDYdkP8
    For his part, David Rockefeller and surrendered at the time Communist leader Mao tribute to the most comprehensive mass exterminator twentieth century, responsible for the death of 50 to 78 million Chinese, according to different sources. Rockefeller sees Mao as a great political leader and the Communist revolution and its many political purges as a model of global government.
    "Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution (referring to the millions of deaths), it has managed to not only produce a more efficient government administration and motivated, but also the source of great morality and community goal. The social experience of China under the leadership of Mao is one of the biggest hits of human history. " (David Rockefeller in the New York Times, August 10, 1973).
    Rockefeller was full of honeyed compliments about Mao and the Communists three years before the end of the Cultural Revolution in China. Optimistic estimates of the dead have been established due to cultural purges of Mao have exceeded 30 million people. The favorite faithful Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger believes that it is time to export to the rest of the world what Mao did in China.

    http://www.alertadigital.com/2013/06/13/kissinger-los-eeuu-y-china-deben-colaborar-para-el-establecimiento-de-un-orden-mundial-globalista/

  • BOMBSHELL OBAMA VETTING: 1979 NEWSPAPER ARTICLE BY VALERIE JARRETT FATHER-IN-LAW REVEALS START OF MUSLIM PURCHASE OF U.S. PRESIDENCY

    1979 article by Vernon Jarrett about Khalid al-Mansour
    The Vernon Jarrett syndicated column of Nov. 6, 1979, that appeared in the St. Petersburg Evening Independent. It originally appeared in the Chicago Tribune on Nov. 2. This image was pieced together from screen shots of the St. Petersburg Independent page available for viewing in the Google Newspaper Archive. Jarrett was the father-in-law of Valerie Jarrett, President Obama's closest adviser.

    Bombshell Obama Vetting: 1979 Newspaper Article By Valerie Jarrett Father-In-Law Reveals Start Of Muslim Purchase Of U.S. Presidency

    Patdollard.com

    Why would Muslim oil billionaires finance and develop controlling relationships with black college students? Well, like anyone else, they would do it for self-interest. And what would their self-interest be? We all know the top two answers to that question: 1. a Palestinian state and 2. the advancement of Islam in America. The idea then was to advance blacks who would facilitate these two goals to positions of power in the Federal government, preferably, of course, the Presidency. And why would the Arabs target blacks in particular for this job? Well, for the same reason the early communists chose them as their vanguard for revolution (which literally means “change”) in America. Allow me to quote Trotsky, in 1939: “The American Negroes, for centuries the most oppressed section of American society and the most discriminated against, are potentially the most revolutionary element of the population. They are designated by their historical past to be, under adequate leadership, the very vanguard of the proletarian revolution.” Substitute the word “Islam” for the words “the proletarian revolution,” and you most clearly get the picture, as Islam is a revolutionary movement just like communism is. (Trivia: it is from this very quote that communist Van Jones takes his name. Van is short for vanguard. He was born “Anthony”). In addition, long before 1979, blacks had become the vanguard of the spread of Islam in America, especially in prisons.

    Interestingly, in context with the fact that this article was written by her father-in-law, Valerie Jarrett has an unusual amount of influence over Obama (along with personal security that may be even better than his, another unusual and intriguing bit of business here). And equally interesting is that Obama, who may have been a beneficiary of this Muslim money, and may now be in this Muslim debt, has aggressively pursued both of the Muslim agendas I cited above. And, also equally interesting, is that Obama has paid a king’s ransom for court ordered seals of any such records of this potential financing of his college education, and perhaps, of other of his expenses.

    Lastly, it’s very important to note that the main source for the article is Khalid Mansour, “the same lawyer who allegedly helped arrange for the entrance of Barack Obama into Harvard Law School in 1988.” (Valerie Jarrett, by the way, was born in Iran. The one country protected by Obama from the sweep of the Arab Spring.) Now all of this may seem sensational, but let’s face facts. What makes it most disturbing is that not only is it all logical, but it suddenly makes a lot of previously confusing things make perfect sense. – Pat Dollard

    Excerpted from Daily Interlake: Searching old newspapers is one of my favorite pastimes, and I have tried to use them many times to shed light on current events — or to inform readers about how the past is prologue to our very interesting present-day quandaries.

    Recently, I came across a syndicated column from November 1979 that seemed to point 30 years into the future toward an obscure campaign issue that arose briefly in the 2008 presidential campaign.

    Though by no means definitive, it provides an interesting insight, at least, into how Chicago politics intersected with the black power movement and Middle Eastern money at a certain point in time. Whether it has any greater relevance to the 2012 presidential campaign, I will allow the reader to decide. In order to accomplish that, I will also take the unusual step of providing footnotes and the end of this column so that each of you can do the investigative work for yourself.

    The column itself had appeared in the St. Petersburg (Fla.) Evening Independent of Nov. 6, but it was the work of a veteran newspaperman who at the time was working for the prestigious Chicago Tribune and whose work was syndicated nationally. (1)

    So far as I know, this 1979 column has not previously been brought to light, but it certainly should be because it broke some very interesting news about the “rumored billions of dollars the oil-rich Arab nations are supposed to unload on American black leaders and minority institutions.” The columnist quoted a black San Francisco lawyer who said, “It’s not just a rumor. Aid will come from some of the Arab states.”

    Well, if anyone would know, it would have been this lawyer — Donald Warden, who had helped defend OPEC in an antitrust suit that year and had developed significant ties with the Saudi royal family since becoming a Muslim and taking the name Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour.

    Al-Mansour told Jarrett that he had presented the “proposed special aid program to OPEC Secretary-General Rene Ortiz” in September 1979, and that “the first indications of Arab help to American blacks may be announced in December.” Maybe so, but I looked high and wide in newspapers in 1979 and 1980 for any other stories about this aid package funded by OPEC and never found it verified.

    You would think that a program to spend “$20 million per year for 10 years to aid 10,000 minority students each year, including blacks, Arabs, Hispanics, Asians and native Americans” would be referred to somewhere other than one obscure 1979 column, but I haven’t found any other word of it.

    Maybe the funding materialized, maybe it didn’t, but what’s particularly noteworthy is that this black Islamic lawyer who “for several years [had] urged the rich Arab kingdoms to cultivate stronger ties to America’s blacks by supporting black businesses and black colleges and giving financial help to disadvantaged students” was also the same lawyer who allegedly helped arrange for the entrance of Barack Obama into Harvard Law School in 1988.

    That tale had surfaced in 2008 when Barack Obama was a candidate for president and one of the leading black politicians in the country — Percy Sutton of New York — told an interviewer on a Manhattan TV news show that he had been introduced to Obama “by a friend who was raising money for him. The friend’s name is Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, from Texas. He is the principal adviser to one of the world’s richest men. He told me about Obama.” (2)

    This peculiar revelation engendered a small hubbub in 2008, but was quickly dismissed by the Obama campaign as the ditherings of a senile old man. I don’t believe President Obama himself ever denied the story personally, and no one has explained how Sutton came up with this elaborate story about Khalid al-Mansour if it had no basis in fact, and in any case al-Mansour no longer denies it. (3)

    Back in 2008, while actually supporting Hillary Clinton in the New York primary, Percy Sutton was interviewed on TV and said that he thought Barack Obama was nonetheless quite impressive. He also revealed that he had first heard about Obama 20 years previously in a letter where al-Mansour wrote, “there is a young man that has applied to Harvard. I know that you have a few friends up there because you used to go up there to speak. Would you please write a letter in support of him?”

    Sutton concluded in the interview, “I wrote a letter of support of him to my friends at Harvard, saying to them I thought there was a genius that was going to be available and I certainly hoped they would treat him kindly.”

    Until now, there really has been no context within which to understand the Sutton story or to buttress it as a reliable account other than the reputation of Sutton himself as one of the top leaders of the black community in Manhattan — himself a noted attorney, businessman and politician. But the new discovery of the 1979 column that established Khalid al-Mansour’s interest in creating a fund to give “financial help to disadvantaged students” does provide a clue that he might indeed — along with his patron, Arab Prince Alwaleed bin Talal — have taken an interest in the “genius” Barack Obama.

    It also might be considered more than coincidence that the author of that 1979 newspaper column was from Chicago, where Barack Obama settled in 1986 a few years after his stint at Columbia University. It is certainly surprising that the author of that column was none other than Vernon Jarrett, the future (and later former) father-in-law of Valerie Jarrett, who ultimately became the consigliatore of the Obama White House.

    It is also noteworthy that Vernon Jarrett was one of the best friends and a colleague of Frank Marshall Davis, the former Chicago journalist and lifelong communist who moved to Hawaii in the late 1940s and years later befriended Stanley and Madelyn Dunham and their daughter Stanley Ann, the mother of Barack Obama. (4)

    And to anyone who has the modicum of a spark of curiosity, it is surely intriguing that Frank Davis took an active role in the rearing of young Barack from the age of 10 until he turned 18 and left Hawaii for his first year of college at Occidental College in Los Angeles. (5)

    It is also at least suggestive that Obama began that college education as a member of the highly international student body of Occidental College in 1979, the same year when Vernon Jarrett was touting the college aid program being funded by OPEC and possibly Prince Alwaleed. The fact that President Obama has studiously avoided releasing records of his college years is suggestive also, but has no evidentiary value in the present discussion. (6)

    The nature of Vernon Jarrett’s relationship to Khalid al-Mansour is likewise uncertain, but it is very likely they had known each other as leaders of the black civil-rights movement for many years. Under his previous name of Donald Warden, al-Mansour had founded the African American Association in the Bay Area in the early 1960s. He had also helped inspire the Black Panther Party through his association with black-power leaders such as Huey Newton and Bobby Seale. Seale, of course, had a famous association with Chicago later, when he was part of the Chicago Eight charged with conspiracy and inciting to riot at the Democratic National Convention in 1968. (7)

    In any case, it doesn’t matter if Vernon Jarrett and Khalid al-Mansour had a personal relationship or not. For some reason, al-Mansour had used Jarrett as the messenger to get out the word about his efforts to funnel Arab oil money to black students and minority colleges at about the same time that Barack Obama began his college career. That doesn’t mean either Jarrett or al-Mansour knew Obama at that time, but eight years later when Obama was a rising star in Chicago, a friend of Bill Ayers and Valerie Jarrett, it is much more likely that he did indeed have the assistance of very important people in his meteoric rise. The words of Percy Sutton about what al-Mansour told him regarding Obama certainly have the ring of truth:

    “His introduction was there is a young man that has applied to Harvard. I know that you have a few friends back there… Would you please write a letter in support of him? (That’s before Obama decided to run.) … and he interjected the advice that Obama had passed the requirements, had taken and passed the requirements necessary to get into Harvard and become president of the Law Review. That’s before he ever ran for anything. And I wrote a letter in support of him to my friends at Harvard, saying to them that I thought there was a genius that was going to be available and I certainly hoped they would treat him kindly…” (2)

    What possible significance could all this have? We may never know, but Vernon Jarrett, back in 1979, thought that OPEC’s intention to fund black and minority education would have huge political ramifications. As Jarrett wrote:

    “The question of financial aid from the Arabs could raise a few extremely interesting questions both inside and outside the black community. If such contributions are large and sustained, the money angle may become secondary to the sociology and politics of such an occurrence.” (1)

    He was, of course, right.

    As Jarrett suggests, any black institutions and presumably individuals who became beholden to Arab money might be expected to continue the trend of American “new black advocacy for a homeland for the Palestinians” and presumably for other Islamic and Arabic interests in the Middle East. For that reason, if for no other, the question of how President Obama’s college education was funded is of considerably more than academic interest.

    http://patdollard.com/2012/09/obama-vetting-1979-newspaper-article-by-valerie-jarrett-father-in-law-reveals-start-of-arab-purchase-of-u-s-presidency/

    Does 1979 newspaper column shed light on 2008 campaign story?
    Posted: Saturday, September 22, 2012 | Updated: Fri Sep 28, 2012.
    FRANK MIELE/Daily Inter Lake

    Searching old newspapers is one of my favorite pastimes, and I have tried to use them many times to shed light on current events — or to inform readers about how the past is prologue to our very interesting present-day quandaries.
    Recently, I came across a syndicated column from November 1979 that seemed to point 30 years into the future toward an obscure campaign issue that arose briefly in the 2008 presidential campaign.
    Though by no means definitive, it provides an interesting insight, at least, into how Chicago politics intersected with the black power movement and Middle Eastern money at a certain point in time. Whether it has any greater relevance to the 2012 presidential campaign, I will allow the reader to decide. In order to accomplish that, I will also take the unusual step of providing footnotes and the end of this column so that each of you can do the investigative work for yourself.
    The column itself had appeared in the St. Petersburg (Fla.) Evening Independent of Nov. 6, but it was the work of a veteran newspaperman who at the time was working for the prestigious Chicago Tribune and whose work was syndicated nationally. (1)
    So far as I know, this 1979 column has not previously been brought to light, but it certainly should be because it broke some very interesting news about the “rumored billions of dollars the oil-rich Arab nations are supposed to unload on American black leaders and minority institutions.” The columnist quoted a black San Francisco lawyer who said, “It’s not just a rumor. Aid will come from some of the Arab states.”
    Well, if anyone would know, it would have been this lawyer — Donald Warden, who had helped defend OPEC in an antitrust suit that year and had developed significant ties with the Saudi royal family since becoming a Muslim and taking the name Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour.
    Al-Mansour told Jarrett that he had presented the “proposed special aid program to OPEC Secretary-General Rene Ortiz” in September 1979, and that “the first indications of Arab help to American blacks may be announced in December.” Maybe so, but I looked high and wide in newspapers in 1979 and 1980 for any other stories about this aid package funded by OPEC and never found it verified.
    You would think that a program to spend “$20 million per year for 10 years to aid 10,000 minority students each year, including blacks, Arabs, Hispanics, Asians and native Americans” would be referred to somewhere other than one obscure 1979 column, but I haven’t found any other word of it.
    Maybe the funding materialized, maybe it didn’t, but what’s particularly noteworthy is that this black Islamic lawyer who “for several years [had] urged the rich Arab kingdoms to cultivate stronger ties to America’s blacks by supporting black businesses and black colleges and giving financial help to disadvantaged students” was also the same lawyer who allegedly helped arrange for the entrance of Barack Obama into Harvard Law School in 1988.
    That tale had surfaced in 2008 when Barack Obama was a candidate for president and one of the leading black politicians in the country — Percy Sutton of New York — told an interviewer on a Manhattan TV news show that he had been introduced to Obama “by a friend who was raising money for him. The friend’s name is Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, from Texas. He is the principal adviser to one of the world’s richest men. He told me about Obama.” (2)
    This peculiar revelation engendered a small hubbub in 2008, but was quickly dismissed by the Obama campaign as the ditherings of a senile old man. I don’t believe President Obama himself ever denied the story personally, and no one has explained how Sutton came up with this elaborate story about Khalid al-Mansour if it had no basis in fact, and in any case al-Mansour no longer denies it. (3)
    Back in 2008, while actually supporting Hillary Clinton in the New York primary, Percy Sutton was interviewed on TV and said that he thought Barack Obama was nonetheless quite impressive. He also revealed that he had first heard about Obama 20 years previously in a letter where al-Mansour wrote, “there is a young man that has applied to Harvard. I know that you have a few friends up there because you used to go up there to speak. Would you please write a letter in support of him?”
    Sutton concluded in the interview, “I wrote a letter of support of him to my friends at Harvard, saying to them I thought there was a genius that was going to be available and I certainly hoped they would treat him kindly.”
    Until now, there really has been no context within which to understand the Sutton story or to buttress it as a reliable account other than the reputation of Sutton himself as one of the top leaders of the black community in Manhattan — himself a noted attorney, businessman and politician. But the new discovery of the 1979 column that established Khalid al-Mansour’s interest in creating a fund to give “financial help to disadvantaged students” does provide a clue that he might indeed — along with his patron, Arab Prince Alwaleed bin Talal — have taken an interest in the “genius” Barack Obama.
    It also might be considered more than coincidence that the author of that 1979 newspaper column was from Chicago, where Barack Obama settled in 1986 a few years after his stint at Columbia University. It is certainly surprising that the author of that column was none other than Vernon Jarrett, the future (and later former) father-in-law of Valerie Jarrett, who ultimately became the consigliere of the Obama White House.
    It is also noteworthy that Vernon Jarrett was one of the best friends and a colleague of Frank Marshall Davis, the former Chicago journalist and lifelong communist who moved to Hawaii in the late 1940s and years later befriended Stanley and Madelyn Dunham and their daughter Stanley Ann, the mother of Barack Obama. (4)
    And to anyone who has the modicum of a spark of curiosity, it is surely intriguing that Frank Davis took an active role in the rearing of young Barack from the age of 10 until he turned 18 and left Hawaii for his first year of college at Occidental College in Los Angeles. (5)
    It is also at least suggestive that Obama began that college education as a member of the highly international student body of Occidental College in 1979, the same year when Vernon Jarrett was touting the college aid program being funded by OPEC and possibly Prince Alwaleed. The fact that President Obama has studiously avoided releasing records of his college years is suggestive also, but has no evidentiary value in the present discussion. (6)
    The nature of Vernon Jarrett’s relationship to Khalid al-Mansour is likewise uncertain, but it is very likely they had known each other as leaders of the black civil-rights movement for many years. Under his previous name of Donald Warden, al-Mansour had founded the African American Association in the Bay Area in the early 1960s. He had also helped inspire the Black Panther Party through his association with black-power leaders such as Huey Newton and Bobby Seale. Seale, of course, had a famous association with Chicago later, when he was part of the Chicago Eight charged with conspiracy and inciting to riot at the Democratic National Convention in 1968. (7)
    In any case, it doesn’t matter if Vernon Jarrett and Khalid al-Mansour had a personal relationship or not. For some reason, al-Mansour had used Jarrett as the messenger to get out the word about his efforts to funnel Arab oil money to black students and minority colleges at about the same time that Barack Obama began his college career. That doesn’t mean either Jarrett or al-Mansour knew Obama at that time, but eight years later when Obama was a rising star in Chicago, a friend of Bill Ayers and Valerie Jarrett, it is much more likely that he did indeed have the assistance of very important people in his meteoric rise. The words of Percy Sutton about what al-Mansour told him regarding Obama certainly have the ring of truth:
    “His introduction was there is a young man that has applied to Harvard. I know that you have a few friends back there... Would you please write a letter in support of him? (That’s before Obama decided to run.) ... and he interjected the advice that Obama had passed the requirements, had taken and passed the requirements necessary to get into Harvard and become president of the Law Review. That’s before he ever ran for anything. And I wrote a letter in support of him to my friends at Harvard, saying to them that I thought there was a genius that was going to be available and I certainly hoped they would treat him kindly...” (2)
    What possible significance could all this have? We may never know, but Vernon Jarrett, back in 1979, thought that OPEC’s intention to fund black and minority education would have huge political ramifications. As Jarrett wrote:
    “The question of financial aid from the Arabs could raise a few extremely interesting questions both inside and outside the black community. If such contributions are large and sustained, the money angle may become secondary to the sociology and politics of such an occurrence.” (1)
    He was, of course, right.
    As Jarrett suggests, any black institutions and presumably individuals who became beholden to Arab money might be expected to continue the trend of American “new black advocacy for a homeland for the Palestinians” and presumably for other Islamic and Arabic interests in the Middle East. For that reason, if for no other, the question of how President Obama’s college education was funded is of considerably more than academic interest.

    http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=950&dat=19791106&id=RcFaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=GFkDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6597,1456637&hl=en

    http://www.dailyinterlake.com/opinion/columns/frank/article_7924e4f0-0468-11e2-8da2-0019bb2963f4.html?mode=story

  • WHAT SEQUESTER? OBAMA PLANS 60-100 MILLION DOLLAR AFRICAN ADVENTURE,1000 IRS AGENTS ABUSE GOVERNMENT CREDIT CARDS AND BOUNCE 325 BAD CHECKS, CORRUPT ERIC HOLDER SQUANDERS MORE THAN 100 MILLION DOLLARS ON DOJ CONFERENCES AND OTHER “FRIVOLITIES”!

    By JOE CALANDRA JR.- LibertyNews.com - June 14, 2013

    OBAMA PLANS 60-100 MILLION DOLLAR AFRICAN ADVENTURE:
    Six months after President Obama’s second Inauguration, it looks like he is already in desperate need of some time away from the White House.

    Obama is planning a family excursion to the three Sub-Saharan African nations from June 26 to July 3.

    The Washington Post estimates that The First Family’s escapade will cost American taxpayers’ 60-100 million dollars!

    The Weekly Standard reports that the price-tag is so high because the President is practically deploying an army to protect him. Here is a small snapshot of the logistics associated with this trip:

    “Hundreds of U.S. Secret Service agents will be dispatched to secure facilities in Senegal, South Africa and Tanzania. A Navy aircraft carrier or amphibious ship, with a fully staffed medical trauma center, will be stationed offshore in case of emergency.

    Military cargo planes will airlift 56 support vehicles, including 14 limousines and three trucks loaded with sheets of bullet-proof glass to cover the windows of the hotels where the first family will stay. Fighter jets will fly in shifts giving 24-hour coverage over the president’s airspace so they can intervene quickly if an errant plane gets too close.”

    The Washington Post also added:
    “Among the 56 vehicles for the trip are parade limousines for the president and first lady, a specialized communications vehicle for secure telephone and video connections, a truck that jams radio frequencies around the presidential motorcade, a fully loaded ambulance that can handle biological or chemical contaminants and a truck for X-ray equipment.”

    President and Mrs. Obama, originally had planned on enjoying an African safari at taxpayer’s expense during the trip, but cancelled the safari on Wednesday when an unnamed source, close to the President, leaked the plans of the recreational trip to the press.

    The source told the media about the potential safari because they were concerned about the logistical costs involved which would include stationing secret service along the safari route with sniper rifles in the event that any wild tigers, cheetahs, or lions tried to eat the First Family.

    While many American families are struggling to pay their bills, feed their children and find work, the American President and his wife will be touring in Africa spending millions of your hard-earned dollars.

    The Post reported:
    “The [Secret] service has had to slice $84 million from its budget this year, and this spring, the agency canceled public White House tours to save $74,000 a week in overtime costs.”

    In short, Obama could have saved jobs and providing working families like White House tour guides with more money in their paycheck if had he decided to simply cancel his personal African adventure.

    The bottom line is Obama is putting himself before the American people once again.

    http://www.libertynews.com/2013/06/what-sequester-obama-plans-60-100-million-dollar-african-adventure/

    1000 IRS AGENTS ABUSE GOVERNMENT CREDIT CARDS AND BOUNCE 325 BAD CHECKS:
    There’s never any fraud, waste and abuse in the squeaky clean IRS that hounds cash-strapped, out of work citizens who can’t afford to pay their taxes on-time, right?

    CNS News is reporting that the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration released an internal IRS audit, which states that more than 1000 IRS agents used government-issued Citibank travel cards for personal, non-work related use between 2010 and 2011!

    Maybe you’re thinking, well, the agents probably made a mistake and simply paid for a few things with the wrong card.

    You might be imagining that every one of these agents just reached in their wallets while they were at Wal-Mart, or perhaps renting their own hotel on a personal trip, and then, oops, out came their government issued-travel card by accident.

    It was a series of innocent mistakes. It can happen to anyone. They realized their errors; they paid their bills and moved on.

    If that’s what you were thinking, you would be wrong.

    The IRS agents ran up 121 million dollars in personal charges to their official government travel cards in 2011 alone!

    To make matters worse, 325 bad checks were written to Citibank to cover the unlawful expenditures. Those checks bounced because the agents were trying to pay their bills with insufficient funds in their personal checking accounts.

    The Inspector General reported that the agents who had top secret clearance who were guilty of misconduct did have their clearances revoked.

    However, those whose clearances were not high enough to be harshly punished for their bad account activity were simply warned and remained at their posts.

    Citibank eventually charged off the unpaid accounts.

    The next time you might be a little late on your taxes, feel free to remind your friendly IRS agent about their Inspector General’s latest report.

    http://www.libertynews.com/2013/06/what-sequester-1000-irs-agents-abuse-government-credit-cards-and-bounce-325-bad-checks/

    CORRUPT ERIC HOLDER SQUANDERS MORE THAN 100 MILLION DOLLARS ON DOJ CONFERENCES AND OTHER “FRIVOLITIES”:

    Despite Sequestration’s looming layoffs and furloughs, which Eric Holder warned, “Would have an impact on the safety of this country,” his DOJ continues to employ “558 prison recreation specialists.”

    Oklahoma Conservative Senator, Tom Coburn, sent Holder a scathing letter today that condemned the DOJ for employing these leisure specialists whose job it is to plan exercise routines and other “frivolities” for prison inmates.

    Coburn also condemned Holder’s DOJ for wasting more than 58 million dollars on conferences during 2012 alone.

    Here are a few highlights of flagrantly meaningless DOJ spending for which Coburn blasted Holder today, as reported by Breitbart.com:

    “In FY 2012, DOJ spent more than $58 million on conferences…despite an amendment to FY 2008 appropriations to stop DOJ conference spending beyond $15 [million]…In 2010, the department spent a whopping $90 million on conferences.

    One DOJ conference during 2012 included 30 employees traveling to Indonesia, costing $500,000; another cost $200,000 for 4 employees to head to Senegal; a third cost $100,000 for a conference in the Northern Mariana Islands that was not attended by anyone from the DOJ.”

    As Holder’s senior executives and their international friends enjoy lavish conferences all around the globe at taxpayer expense, hardworking, rank-and-file corrections officers and agents wonder how they are going to provide for the daily needs of their families as Sequestration takes effect.

    These citizens are wondering what the next few months will hold for them as they continue working for an Attorney General who just doesn’t seem to care.

    http://www.libertynews.com/2013/06/what-sequester-corrupt-eric-holder-squanders-more-than-100-million-dollars-on-doj-conferences-and-other-frivolities/

  • Obama's 'IRS Enemies List' -- Updated Chronology

    The Patriot Post -- IRS Target of Opportunity
    By Mark Alexander · May 16, 2013 - PatriotPost.us

    "Of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people, commencing demagogues and ending tyrants." --Alexander Hamilton (1787)

    NOTE: This column has been updated with new and relevant findings, in order that it may serve as a chronology of how Obama's IRS union thugs targeted conservative "Patriot," "Tea Party" and other groups in an effort to censure the advocacy of Liberty and conservative causes.

    As the first conservative digest of news, policy and opinion on the Internet, our startup team knew that if we were effective at advocating for Liberty and Rule of Law, we would someday be targeted, organizationally and individually, by those wanting to silence us.

    We must be fulfilling our mission, because over the years we have received all manner of threats. So vivid have some of those threats been that we screen incoming mail and packages. Apparently, some NeoComs are not so "tolerant" of diverse viewpoints.

    If you asked me whether I thought card-carrying members of the Socialist Democratic Party would, by way of their bureaucratic surrogates, use the IRS and other government agencies to target groups with the name "Patriot," I would have said, "Of course." If you asked me whether I thought they would get caught at it, I would have said "No," because they're smart enough to use "cutouts" between their office and the bureaucrats committing the offense.

    Cutouts are bureaucratic managers who act as surrogates to do the political bidding of elected officials. They are blamed and sacrificed for the "good of the cause," in order to protect (read: "provide plausible deniability for") elected officials who feign outrage and indignation at the violation of law in support of their political agenda. When the president of the United States is the elected official behind a culture of corruption and abuse of power, the layers of cutouts make it nearly impossible to find impeachable evidence of executive collusion.

    Needless to say, Barack Obama and his black-bag dirty tricks team learned well from their Democrat predecessors, FDR, JFK and Clinton, how to use the Internal Revenue Service to harass their opponents. But they also learned a few things from Richard Nixon about the importance of using cutouts. Nixon resigned to avoid impeachment after being caught on tape discussing the Watergate burglary with key staffers, where today those staffers would never directly discuss such abuse of power with a sitting president.

    I assume that, unlike Nixon, Obama is probably clever enough to ensure his fingerprints are not on anything directly related to the most significant scandal of his administration -- the politically-motivated adulteration of the Benghazi talking points ahead of his 2012 re-election campaign.

    Likewise, don't expect Obama to be convicted for "guilt by association" with those in the West Wing, who have apparently been directing the IRS to target his political "Patriot" and "Tea Party" opponents since at least 2010. As his former chief dirty trickster, David Axelrod, said this week, "Part of being president is there's so much beneath you that you can't know because the government's so vast." Yes, vast layers of cutouts...

    A legal and tax advisor to The Patriot Post informed us that the Post and Patriot Foundation Trust, our education fund advocating Liberty and constitutional integrity, clearly "met the criterion for the corrupt IRS inquisition," but for a couple of reasons (which we can't disclose publicly) we were passed over for review. She asked, "What's it like being on Obama's "enemies list." I responded, "It's like receiving a gold star on a badge of honor!"

    However, almost 500 other groups with "Patriot" or "Tea Party" in their name were not so fortunate. (For the record, this is not the first time that Obama sycophants in a powerful government agency have targeted Patriot and Tea Party groups. Read "Army Preps for Tea Party 'Terrorists'," a Patriot Post exclusive from the same time period the IRS began its targeting operations.)

    Obama's political and legal team certainly recalls Article II, Section 1 of the 1974 House impeachment against Nixon, which could be a template for a case against Obama today if not for all the cutouts: "He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavored to ... cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner."

    Undoubtedly, the current regime's dirty tricksters have learned their history and covered all the bases to protect their radical socialist leader.

    As for his knowledge of the IRS case, Obama claims, "I first learned about it from the same news reports that I think most people learned about this. I think it was on Friday. And this is pretty straightforward." Really -- nobody thought to run that one by you in the President's Daily Brief?

    If that sounds familiar, it is because he has issued the same defense when previous scandals have landed at his feet. Recall, if you will, Obama's 2011 response when asked what and when he knew about his administration's deadly Fast and Furious charade to promote gun control on the U.S. side of our porous border with Mexico: "I heard on the news about this story that, uh, fast and furious...it was something, uh, we found out about, uh, along with all of you."

    However, we now know that Obama's Chief Counsel, Kathryn Ruemmler, was alerted to the IRS scandal on 22 April. The administration, at this date, has refused to make her available for comment, and refused to say whether Ruemmler told anyone else in the administration. Apparently they need more time to get their stories straight.

    These claims are tantamount to the Sergeant Schultz defense: "I know nothing, I see nothing, I was not here, I did not even get up this morning."

    However, it's difficult to reconcile Obama's claim with the 54-page report issued by the Inspector General of the U.S. Treasury regarding the targeting of his political opponents.

    That report concludes:
    1. For 18-months, all tax exempt applicants with the words "Patriot" or "Tea Party" in their names were selected for review, however, the IG report said it was unclear who had ordered the IRS to target Patriot and Tea Party groups. Later that order was expanded to include "groups focused on government spending, government debt, taxes, and education on ways to 'make America a better place to live'." Then came groups with educational missions focused on the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Notably, while the IRS Cincinnati office was stalling conservative group applications for tax exempt status, it awarded the Barack Hussein Obama Foundation its status in just 34 days. (So, the Obama administration rejects terrorist profiling, but supports Patriot profiling...)

    2. IRS section chief Lois Lerner knew about the profiling in June 2011, but in March 2012, the former head of the IRS, Douglas Shulman, testified before Congress "that the agency was not targeting conservative groups that applied for tax-exempt status as 'social welfare' groups." Shulman's denial undoubtedly provides Obama political cover, even though he logged into the White House 157 times since 2009 -- more often than any Cabinet member. Even Obama's close friend, AG Eric Holder, only logged in 62 times. Shulman’s predecessor, Mark Everson, visited the White House only once in his four years as IRS head under President George W. Bush, and said he might as well have been in "Siberia."

    On several of Shulman's White House visits with Obama, he was joined in those meetings by Stephanie Cutter, deputy manager for President Obama's 2012 reelection campaign, Cutter claims those meetings were not political...so, why was she there?

    Notably absent from the IG's report is the fact that Lerner was given $42,531 in "bonuses" during the time period when she was overseeing the IRS agents who were targeting conservative groups. In fact, the IRS has given more than $100 million in bonuses since Obama took office. And fact is, the groups that were being targeted likely extend far beyond Patriot and Tea Party groups, and include Christian ministries and other groups deemed a threat to Obama's re-election campaign. It is also likely that their are additional IRS offices involved.

    Don't expect to hear any more testimony from Lerner as she insists, "I have not done anything wrong, I have not broken any laws, I have not violated any IRS rules and regulations, and I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee [but] I'm asserting my right not to testify... One of the basic functions of the Fifth Amendment is to protect innocent individuals..." As Lerner might recall, "One of the basic functions of the [First and Fourth] Amendment is to protect innocent individuals," and the IRS abjectly violated those protections. The real question for Lerner -- if she is innocent, then who IS she protecting by invoking the Fifth?

    Fact is, Lerner has a history of using her government office to target conservatives -- including Republican candidates when she was at the Federal Elections Commission.

    Sidebar: On the subject of bonuses and other IRS perks, former Secretary of Treasury Tim Geithner testified that last year, the IRS spent $500,000 of taxpayer revenue on five conferences. According to another IG report, however, it turns out that almost $50 million in taxpayer revenue was allocated for more than 200 lavish events featuring a long list of ridiculous and wasteful speakers and activities. Apparently the IRS does not do a good job of accounting for such events...

    If you think the IRS is out of control, it is important to understand that there is nothing that distinguishes the IRS waste from every other government agency.

    For the record, the IRS harassment of conservative groups was not limited to a few "low-level employees" in Cincinnati. The current complaint count involves Obama's union thugs in at least three IRS regional offices who have targeted more than 500 conservative groups. And notably, an IRS agent in Cincinnati protested, "We people on the local level are doing what we are supposed to do. Everything comes from the top. We don't have any authority to make those decisions without someone signing off on them. There has to be a directive." They further identified IRS attorney Carter Hull in the Washington headquarters as one individual who told employees to target Patriot and Tea Party groups.

    "Union thugs?" Indeed. Colleen Kelley, president of the IRS employees' union, was most likely the conduit for Obama's wink-n-nod "directive". Kelly met with Obama on 31 March 2010, the day before the first Sensitive Case Reports on conservative groups were initiated. Kelley already had Obama's 2009 Executive Order 13522 in her corner, which directed that the IRS must “allow employees and unions to have pre-decisional involvement in all workplace matters…” -- giving unions an unprecedented end run on legislative authority. However, Obama's political agenda, shared by his unionistas, required no directive.

    Of course, Obama feigned indignation: "Americans have a right to be angry about it, and I'm angry about it. The good news is we can fix this." I presume that means making sure the abuse is better concealed in the future? Obama added, "I will not tolerate this kind of behavior in any agency." This from an ideological socialist whose appointees have ensured that ALL government agencies are acting as "enforcers" of his political agenda.

    To deflect attention from his West Wing administrators, Obama fired acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller Wednesday, though Miller was already scheduled to resign next month. Miller's firing is nothing more than a diversionary tactic. In testimony befovisited the White House 165 timere the House Ways and Means Committee this week, Miller insisted, "I do not believe that partisanship motivated the people that engaged in the practices described in the inspector general's report." (See Rep Mike Kelly's interrogation Miller.)

    Fishing for the truth, Julianna Goldman of Bloomberg News asked Obama: "Can you assure the American people that nobody in the White House knew about the agency’s actions before your Counsel’s Office found out on April 22nd?" Obama replied, "Let me make sure that I answer your specific question. I can assure you that I certainly did not know anything about the IG report before the IG report had been leaked through the press."

    You will note that Obama did not answer the "specific question," choosing instead to distance himself from any complicity.

    Moreover, Sarah Hall Ingram, who served as commissioner of the office overseeing tax-exempt organization from 2009 to 2012 -- the division responsible for targeting Obama's "enemies list," visited the White House 165 times, none of which overlapped with Shullman's frequent visits. And making matters worse, in 2012 Ingram was transferred to oversee the IRS office enforcing ObamaCare mandates, greatly expanding the opportunity to target a much broader "enemies list" with a wide range of tax and regulatory compliance mandates. By the way, Ingram received $103,390 in "bonuses" at the time the Patriot and Tea Party organizations were being targeted. And a related case, the IRS is being sued right now because agents seized the medical records of more than 10,000,000 Americans while investigating an employee of a records aggregating company. The medical records were unrelated to the original case.

    In response to these violations, Sen. John Cornyn has sponsored legislation to prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury, or any of its enforcement wings, including the IRS, from enforcing ObamaCare provisions.

    And then there's the question of how Obama's 2012 campaign co-chair, Joe Solmonese, far above most cutouts in the IRS case, acquired the confidential donor tax records of the National Organization for Marriage and assailed Mitt Romney for his donation of $10,000 to NOM in support of traditional marriage. Solmonese protested that Romney's "funding of a hate-filled campaign designed to drive a wedge between Americans is beyond despicable. Not only has Romney signed NOM's radical marriage pledge, now we know he's one of the donors that NOM has been so desperate to keep secret all these years."

    At the time, Solmonese was still president of the so-called Human Rights Campaign, a major homosexual advocacy organization. A day after posting that criticism of Romney in the liberal Huffington Post, he resigned his position with HRC and became Obama's co-chair.

    Additionally, ProPublica, a non-profit which is funded by George Soros’ Open Society Foundation, also received conservative applications for tax exemption. The IRS claims the release of this confidential information was "inadvertent and unintentional disclosures by the employees involved.”

    It's no small irony that before the IRS scandal broke last week, Obama delivered a commencement address at Ohio State University, where he counseled graduates, "Unfortunately, you've grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn ... that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices."

    Using the strong arm of government to suppress political opponents exercising our constitutional prerogative to "petition the government for a redress of grievances" is the very definition of tyranny.

    To that end, I recall language from another historic impeachment, which most assuredly applies to Obama: "He has refused his Assent to Laws... He has obstructed the Administration of Justice... He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people... He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation ... all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States."

    That indictment is, of course, from our Declaration of Independence.

    I am also reminded of another commencement speech Obama delivered in 2009 at Arizona State University, after university officials declined to give Obama an honorary doctorate. Obama "joked" that "[university president Michael] Crowe and the Board of Regents will soon learn all about being audited by the IRS." Maybe not so much of a joke after all...

    As you recall, Obama proclaimed in 2010, when the IRS began its work on his enemies list, "We have put in place the toughest ethics laws and toughest transparency rules of any administration in history." That was just another fine example of rhetorical horse pucky from the master prevaricator.

    It is truly difficult to perceive just how ignorant Obama's low-information poverty plantation constituents have to be at this point to believe anything this pathological narcissist says.

    Last month, Obama asserted, "I am elected by you. I am constrained ... by a system that our Founders put in place. It's a government of and by and for the people."

    He may have uttered the words of a solemn presidential oath to abide by the constraints of the "system our Founders put in place," but there is no evidence he has, does or ever will abide by that oath.

    Obama's spin machine is running full throttle.

    After Lois Lerner publicly acknowledged, "We made some mistakes; some people didn't use good judgment. We're apologetic [for] absolutely inappropriate" actions against conservative groups, Jay Carney, proxy spokesman for the president of the United States, rebutted, "You know, one person's view of what actions were taken happened is not enough for us to say concretely what happened was inappropriate."

    Carney's non-committal confutation was on cue from Obama's qualification of his "outrage" about the IRS accusations: "If, in fact, IRS personnel engaged in the kind of practices that had been reported on..." And David Plouffe, manager of Obama's 2008 campaign and a senior advisor until January of this year, responded via Twitter, "[Important] to note GOP groups flourished [the] last 2 elections, overwhelming Ds. And they will use this to raise more $." (So the IRS actions were justified on the grounds of "leveling the playing field"?)

    When Carney was confronted by CNN's Piers Morgan, one of Obama's otherwise sycophantic media promoters, for more information on the Benghazi and IRS scandals, Carney replied, "You're concocting scandals that don't exist, especially with regard to the Benghazi affair that was contrived by Republicans and, I think, has fallen apart largely this week."

    But the inquiry into the politically-motivated adulteration of the Benghazi talking points should not fall into the shadow of the IRS scandal, because Americans died in Benghazi. In fact, Watergate reporter Bob Woodward said, after the release of the Benghazi emails, "I have to go back 40 years to Watergate when Nixon put out his edited transcripts to the conversations, and he personally went through them and said, 'Oh, let's not tell this, let's not show this.' I would not dismiss Benghazi. It's a very serious issue."

    Commenting on the common thread of lies about Benghazi and the IRS, Newt Gingrich notes, "The parallel between Benghazi and the IRS story is ... lying and then lying about lying then hiding from the fact that they're lying then seeking to apologize from lies that they claim they didn't tell. .. There's something culturally sick if the American government says, 'You put that word Constitution in your name, we're going to come after you."

    Now that the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight has received White House emails which clearly contradict Obama's "Benghazi script," the Subcommittee is demanding that the Internal Revenue Service turn over every communication in its records that includes the words "tea party," "patriot" or "conservative." The Democrat-Senate is still ducking for cover.

    Footnote: In a commencement speech to Morehouse College this week, Obama said that if not for his integrity and values, "I might have been in prison. I might have been unemployed." He might yet!

    http://patriotpost.us/alexander/18211

  • The behind-the-scenes story of Matt Drudge

    NEWS SHARK 'DISRUPTED LIKE A NUCLEAR BOMB'
    The behind-the-scenes story of Matt Drudge

    “The Internet is going to save the news business.” – Matt Drudge, June 2, 1998

    Today, on the 15th anniversary of visionary Matt Drudge’s speech to the National Press Club, his prophetic words haunt once-flourishing segments of the news industry.

    According to the Pew Research Center for People & the Press, more Americans now get news from the Internet rather than radio or newspapers. Likewise, Pew notes that TV news is “increasingly vulnerable, as it may be losing its hold on the next generation of news consumers.”

    It’s been almost two decades since Drudge crashed the news scene and turned the Old Media on its head – causing many mainstream newshounds to sneer at the thought of an amateur with wild instinct and an unpretentious news website threatening their media empire.

    Drudge, occasionally dressed in only his underwear, rocked the news world from a small Hollywood apartment accompanied only by his black stray feline, aptly named “Cat.”

    Mainstream Media gatekeepers have groaned and scoffed at the mere mention of his name, even calling him the “devil of journalism incarnate.” Once dubbed the “country’s reigning mischief-maker” by the New York Times and “Sludge” by former President Bill Clinton, Drudge scours the Web for intriguing stories and breaking news to post on the Drudge Report, the mega-hit website he launched in 1995.


    Then-President Bill Clinton poses with White House intern Monica Lewinsky
    Drudge captured worldwide attention in 1998 when he broke the news of former President Bill Clinton’s sexual affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. While Newsweek had the Lewinsky scoop first, the magazine spiked the story. Drudge, working from the apartment he once called “the most dangerous newsroom in America,” bucked the big journalistic machine and blasted the affair into national headlines.

    “The Drudge vibe defined the time,” recalled Scott Baker, editor of the Blaze.

    “His news sensibility is, of course, legendary,” Baker told WND. ”But when we think about ‘disruptive’ business models, Drudge disrupted like a nuclear bomb. One guy and a keyboard.”

    The Drudge Report was also first to report the death of Princess Diana to an American audience, early box office results and the NBC-Microsoft merger, among other major events through the years.

    Little Drudge plays editor

    Who is this rebellious mastermind who ushered in the rebirth of modern news gathering?

    His 2000 book, “Drudge Manifesto,” co-authored by the late Julia Phillips, chronicled the Web-news pioneer’s early days as a news junkie.


    Matt Drudge as a high-school senior
    Drudge recalled his childhood when “talk radio tucked me in at night and the police scanner was my unconditional best friend.”

    He was barely a teen when he began his newspaper delivery route in Takoma Park, Md.

    “Each day after junior high school, I would load up the cart and hit the sidewalks. Newspaperboy Drudge. … Most days I wouldn’t get to each and every address on my route,” he wrote.

    “That might’ve been because I stopped to read the entire paper on a park bench one block from my house before I even started.

    “On the bench, I would play editor.

    “I noticed how their lead story was not really the lead story. How the hottest news was buried on the inside pages and the best reporting was riding at the end of the copy when it should have been at the beginning.

    “I’d rewrite my own headlines for an audience of one. Not counting the squirrels.”

    Drudge also worked at 7-Eleven, where he had access to early newspaper editions.

    “Every morning at about 2 o’clock the bulldog editions of all the major papers would be dropped off right at my doorstep,” he recalled.

    “I couldn’t wait to get my hands on them.

    “While the rest of the city slept, I’d read fresh headlines and bylines – first, before anyone else.

    “The predawn customers would get an earful.

    “I was never sure why I cared about being first, but boy did I feel connected when I was.”

    But Drudge knew he’d never break into the news world the old-fashioned way.

    “Every time, it seemed, I’d end up at the Washington Post Newsroom on 15th [Street], I’d look up longingly, knowing I’d never get in,” he wrote. “Didn’t attend the right schools. Never enjoyed any school, in fact. My father was not the son of a famous drunken Southern senator, nor was I even remotely connected to a powerful publishing dynasty.”

    Drudge collected celebrity scoops as he worked at a CBS gift-shop clerk folding and delivering T-shirts in California. At CBS, he would eavesdrop on conversations, intercept memos and volunteer in the mail room.

    When his father bought him his first computer from Radio Shack in 1994, Drudge learned how to post his entertainment and political scoops on the Internet. Then he collected email addresses for the list he would later call the Drudge Report.

    “One reader turned into five,” Drudge explained to the National Press Club in 1998. “Then it turned into 100. Faster than you could say, ‘I never had sex with that woman,’ it was 1,000, 5,000, 100,000 people. The ensuing website practically launched itself.”

    -The Drudge Report's leading story on Election Day 2012
    In 1998, Drudge received 6 million page views in one month.

    Today, that number has skyrocketed to 900 million.

    “Clearly there is a hunger for unedited information, absent corporate considerations,” Drudge prophesied at the time. “Exalted minds … didn’t appear to have a clue what this Internet’s gonna do, what we’re going to make of it, what this is all going to turn into. But I have glimpses. …

    “We have entered an era vibrating with the din of small voices. Every citizen can be a reporter, can take on the powers that be. The difference between the Internet, television, radio, magazines, newspapers is the two-way communication.

    “The Net gives as much voice to a 13-year-old computer geek like me as to a CEO or speaker of the House. We all become equal. And you would be amazed what the ordinary guy knows.”

    Drudge briefly hosted a Fox News show called “Drudge” from 1998 to 1999 and was a radio talk-show host until 2007.

    ‘He’s an authentic genius’

    David Jackson, executive editor of the Washington Times, told WND, “Matt Drudge has proven year after year that the secret to growing audiences online is not fancy web design and bells and whistles; it’s knowing your audience and what they want to read about. When it comes to news, the Drudge Report is still the single best aggregation site out there.”

    In an interview with WND, Tucker Carlson, co-founder and editor of the Daily Caller, explained, “Drudge’s news judgment is entirely his own, and that is a rare thing among editors. Virtually everybody else is looking up to see what his peers are doing. Drudge trusts his own instincts on what qualifies as news. He has a remarkable ability to tell a story with other people’s headlines.”

    He added, “There’s a reason he’s dominated Internet news for more than 15 years: He’s an authentic genius.”

    Stephen K. Bannon, executive chairman of Breitbart News, said Drudge brought news “narrative” to the Web.

    “Before Drudge, news articles were presented to the public as if they existed in a vacuum,” Bannon told WND. “The Drudge Report connects the headlines to one-another in a way that tells a story much broader than the sum of the individual headlines.

    “And on top of that, he was among the first to embrace the 24-hour news cycle. The news doesn’t wait for the morning papers to go to print or the evening news to broadcast, and it’s those two concepts that have made Drudge a visionary and a leader.”

    The emergence of Drudge’s website inspired a wave of fresh Internet news sites through the years, including WND.

    “I can honestly say that without Drudge, there would be no WND,” said editor and CEO Joseph Farah. “I’m sure that would please many people in America – especially those in power and in establishment media circles. But Matt was clearly our inspiration. He blazed the trail.”

    Farah revealed that he even tried to hire Drudge many years ago.

    “Oh, how I wish he took me up on that offer! It was Drudge who showed us it was possible to have an impact in the news business without spending $100 million getting started,” he said. “He showed us the how the Internet leveled the playing field. And he blew up the barriers the media gatekeepers had erected and maintained for so many years. Drudge rocks today just like he did back then.”

    Breitbart News Editor Ben Shapiro, who called Drudge the “father of conservative Internet journalism and activism,” told WND, “His ability to shift a news cycle is unparalleled. The left tries to pretend that Drudge is just some muckraker living out of an undisclosed location. In actuality, he’s the most powerful news shaper of our generation.”

    In April, talk-radio giant Rush Limbaugh declared, “The New York Times should be doing what Drudge is doing. If they’re really interested in the news, and they’re really interested in … people being informed, all the news fit to print, but they don’t do it. It’s a niche that Matt came along and filled quite ably.”

    Love him or hate him, even the White House checks his website frequently. In March 2010, Drudge reported that his site received 10,825 hits from the White House in just nine days. The White House did not respond to WND’s requests for comment on the impact of the Drudge Report.

    The Obama administration has scolded reporters for citing the Drudge Report, publicly warning them, “Be mindful of your sources.” Also, in April, White House Senior Adviser Dan Pfeiffer condemned media reliance on the Drudge Report for news content.

    “It’s not that it drives our conversation in our world. I’m fairly ambivalent to what Drudge puts up on a daily basis,” Pfeiffer said. “This is less true now than it was before, but there’s a Pavlovian response from, you know, some media outlets.”

    He admitted that Drudge’s site “hurts” the Obama administration’s message.

    “Anyone saying anything can get caught up in the spin cycle in a way that is very damaging,” Pfeiffer told Politico. “It hurts what we’re trying to do, but then it is very damaging to that individual person.”

    Now, the 46-year-old media kingpin who began his wholly independent website as a one-man operation in his apartment runs the Drudge Report with the help of two assistants and lives a private life in South Florida, where he continues to forge his own path in the industry.

    -Matt Drudge
    “Beyond his news instincts, what I most admire about Drudge is his relentless independence,” said Scott Baker, editor of the Blaze. “He likes what he likes and is never in anyone’s pocket.”

    In fact, Drudge’s widespread appeal is largely due to that fiercely independent spirit.

    “Since I cover the Makeup out of The Chair, I can report candidly on nefarious activities,” he explained in his 2000 New York Times best-seller. “I’ve discovered and revealed dozens of media blow-ups, fake-outs and frauds perpetrated by frauds, fakers and blow-by-blowers. …

    “I’m not beholden to them in any way.

    “I’m not carried on their air.

    “I’m not a byline in their dirty print.

    “I don’t use their bandwidth.

    “I have created my own ‘paper’ printed on my own ‘presses.’

    “Distributed on my own.

    “Technology has finally caught up with liberated individuals. [W]e call it ‘freedom of the brain.’”

    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/06/news-legend-disrupted-like-a-nuclear-bomb/#PJicCvzsw6sQlAHC.99 .

  • How Barack Obama avoids prison

    15.06.2012 By Lawrence Sellin - Pravda.ru

    A political deal will be struck to save the Democrat Party from total collapse and protect the Republican Party from revelations of complicity in the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people.

    A growing number of Americans are now learning that Barack Obama, according to Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the U. S. Constitution, is an illegal President. The law requires a candidate for the Presidency to be a "natural born citizen," that is, a second generation American, a U.S. citizen, whose parents were also U.S. citizens at the time of the candidate's birth.

    Obama's father was a citizen of Kenya and a British subject at the time of his birth, which made him forever ineligible for the Presidency.

    Practically speaking, that issue is not a problem for Obama because the Republican Party also wants to violate the Constitution. Many Republicans are aggressively advocating Florida Senator Marco Rubio as Mitt Romney's Vice Presidential candidate. Rubio is ineligible because, even though he was born in the United States, his parents were Cuban citizens at the time of his birth.

    Since 1975, both Democrat and Republican politicians have been trying unsuccessfully to amend Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the U. S. Constitution. The election of Obama has allowed them to do so, not legally, but by fait accompli.

    According to the wishes of Democrat and Republican politicians, Anwar al-Awlaki, killed by a drone strike on September 30, 2011, was eligible to be President because he was born in New Mexico of Yemeni parents. Al-Awlaki was the "spiritual leader" of al-Qaida in the Arabian peninsula, whose sermons at the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, Virginia were attended by two hijackers who carried out the 9/11 attacks, Nawaf al-Hamzi and Hani Hanjour. Likewise, accused Fort Hood shooter and alleged al-Awlaki disciple, Nidal Malik Hasan, is eligible to be President because he was born in Virginia of Palestinian parents.

    There are also persistent questions about the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate, Selective Service registration and his use of a Social Security number not issued to him, all serious crimes with the potential for lengthy prison sentences.

    The law, however, is not a problem for Obama because any serious investigation would implicate far too many Democrat and Republican politicians. That is why the political establishment and the media are suppressing every effort to uncover the truth about Obama's personal history because it would expose their own corruption and hypocrisy.

    The greatest danger to Obama is the potential collapse of the Democrat Party from the failed policies engineered by his Administration and the Party's progressive wing.

    The Clinton faction and other Democrats outside of Obama's circle of supporters now fear he may be leading the Party, not only to certain electoral defeat, but to political oblivion. They are actively working behind the scenes, likely with the collusion of Republicans, to ensure Obama's defeat or, perhaps, even quietly to force him out of the 2012 Presidential contest. They all have a vested interest in maintaining the balance of power of the political status quo, which an Obama victory would permanently alter.

    An Obama win would, for example, forever eliminate Clinton Democrats as a political factor and nullify all the Republican economic arguments, which represent the core of the Romney campaign.

    In general, however, politicians' concern for the well-being of country exists only in the context of the power they wield and the health of their financial portfolios and that is the essence of the Obama threat that they perceive.

    Much can happen between now and November to determine whether or not the non-Obama Democrat and Republican coalition will succeed. Will Attorney General Eric Holder be forced to resign paving the way for other investigations? Will there be selective leaks to embarrass Obama? Will the financiers and liberal media turn against him? Will Obama be privately blackmailed or promised a pardon?

    The fate of Obama has already been determined, not by voters, but by powerbrokers using tactics that will unfold over the coming months.

    There is one thing, however, that is certain. Regardless of who wins in November, Obama's alleged crimes will never be fully investigated and his personal history will never be exposed by either Democrat or Republican politicians. Their involvement in a conspiracy of silence is unmistakable and their protection of Obama stems solely from political self-interest.

    Barack Obama has been issued a "get out of jail free" card by a corrupt political establishment and a dishonest media.

    Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq. Colonel Sellin is the author of "Afghanistan and the Culture of Military Leadership". He receives email at lawrence.sellin@gmail.com

    http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/15-06-2012/121397-barack_obama_prison-0/

  • Mankind could have had a utopian world

    MAY 27, 2013 BY: JOEL HENDON - Examiner.com

    With the explosion of highly advanced technology, it becomes obvious that there are things available to us that is, even still, beyond the wildest imagination. One of the current near miraculous events to hit the news, doctors have created a 3D printing breathing splint which saved a baby boy’s life.

    Amazing technologies such as this are being discovered right and left with promises of so much progress. Technologies and brilliant men are creating things that can erase many of the worlds day to day problems.

    Yet, the world is becoming evil, lazy, selfish and filled with hatred. In fact so much so, that the great discoveries being made in the scientific fields may become a mute advantage. It is painful to watch the two progressions grow almost equally fast.

    We have governments to control various aspects of our lives, but virtually all on the face of this earth are failing miserably in their efforts. Some feel that those who have prospered should share with those who have not. This is a noble attribute and would be extremely beneficial if it were not for the fact that, probably 50%, or possibly many more, of those who have not prospered, have failed to do so of their own volition. Their lives are consumed in desire to have fun and do no work. Those who work hard to earn enough for a decent life, in some cases are still willing to share to the truly needy, but few are pleased to sustain the worthless and sorry excuses of humanity who feel that others owe them a living.

    Plus, greed and extreme envy has divided the world’s people to the point of hatred. People who know no one from some other country, still hate them because they have a pre-set opinion of them.

    This writer is perfectly aware that he will not live on the earth very much longer, so the eventual outcome of this hatred, lazy and worthless portion of society, and their resulting effect on the other portion is not of a personal concern, except for caring for others who will remain and attempt to be decent and law abiding citizens.

    There is only one resolution for the world to continue to survive and live amicably together, and yet this resolution is swiftly fading into the shadows and will soon reach a point of no return if, indeed it has not already reached such.

    The life of Jesus Christ was recorded for all mankind. It is not only for the salvation of our souls through eternity, but holds the true secret of mankind’s relationship with others. Jesus, himself, and those devoted disciples of his first century church gave an example of how man should feel and act toward their fellowman. If all men would present a life of respect and good will towards each other as these men did, the world would be a most wonderful place to reside. Many enjoy ridiculing the savior but it only shows their own lack of knowledge and care of others. Jesus taught his disciples to care for others and not to fight back.

    You will find extremely little retaliation for evil deeds of Jesus, and his apostles, plus a great number of those who followed him. Instances can be found which gives antagonists fodder to criticize, but even those were done for a definite and edifying purpose. Read the following:

    And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves. (Matthew 21:12-13 KJV)

    The story behind the money changers is too lengthy to include in this article, however, they were deserving of Jesus wrath. And besides, The Jews had left the paths laid out for them under the law of Moses and were being guided primarily by their “traditions”. Ideas which they had added to the law and now considered them of equal importance to that of the commandments. Jesus emphasized nothing more vigorously than his condemnation of the Jews hypocrisy. In fact, you can find this statement, “But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!”, seven times in Matthew chapter 23, alone. Read the chapter here.

    Another factor, Jesus himself, never took any retaliatory action against anyone. When he was about to be taken by the Roman soldiers, Peter took out his sword and cut an ear off one of the soldiers. Jesus told him to put up his sword and he touched the man and healed his ear. And here is what he said to Peter:

    Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? (Matthew 25:53)

    Now, there were times when a legion was considered 4,200, 5,000 and 6,000 and notice that he said “more than”. At the very least it would have been over 50,400 angels and possibly more than 72,000.

    Once when Paul was on a missionary journey, on the isle of Cyprus, he was called to come to one Sergius Paulus, a deputy of the country who wished to hear the word of God. But there was with the deputy, a sorcerer, Elymus, who withstood them, trying to stir the deputy away from them. And here is what Paul did and said

    And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord? And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season. And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness; and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand. (Acts 13:10-11)

    Needless to say, the deputy was deeply impressed and was converted on the spot, and who knows, the sorcerer may have been converted also.

    The basic point of our article is to show the results if people truly tried to follow the teachings of Jesus, primarily those things he brought out in the beginning of his ministry in his famous ‘sermon on the mount’. If all men everywhere followed those instructions, this world would indeed be a virtual utopia. There would be no wars, no thieving, no murder, no fighting and there would be sharing among all men. I urge all readers to read the entire sermon, contained in the chapters, five, six and seven of Matthew.

    No one is so foolish as to believe this will ever happen, but the more people who strive to do so will each make the world a better place to live. God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, have done their share. They have given us the opportunity to live a contented and happy life if we would adhere to their teachings. And if others continue to make that life unhappy for us, we can still gain eternal life by our efforts. And there, all care and sorrow will be gone. It is definitely worth working for.

    In biblical times, transportation on land was primarily walking. There were dangers on the roads from beasts and robbers. Strangers passing through were accepted in as guests and were fed and furnished provisions if the household they visited were able to do so. It was also a custom that most adhered to, that some of the household should walk with the stranger for a mile outside the village so the stranger might be better assured that any robbers might not follow them out of town. This was a bother to some but those who were striving to live a godly life would do it. Jesus, in his sermon on the mount, addressed this subject thusly:

    And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. (Matthew 5:41 KJV)

    Again, readers are strongly urged to read those chapters in Matthew which has the record of Jesus sermon on the mount, chapters 5, 6 and 7. Many things seem to be far beyond that of ordinary people’s ideas and dispositions, such as the following:

    Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.4But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; (Matthew 5:44-45 KJV):

    Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. (Matthew 6:19-21 KJV)

    Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matthew 5:38-39 KJV)

    Those remarks, and many more were the principles given by Jesus and do not cover all situations. However, they spell out that man should not seek revenge for the wrong doing of others. That one would pray for those who do them wrong and ask that they might have a change of heart and themselves, be saved.

    The task of living a Christian life is a daunting one, without question. But the statement which makes it all worthwhile is found in the book of Revelation.

    Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life. (Revelation 2:10 KJV)

    http://www.examiner.com/article/mankind-could-have-had-a-utopian-world?cid=rss

  • George Orwell and the American complex terror

    25.04.2013 By Nicolas Bonnal Pravda.ru

    When Orwell wrote his most famous novel, which happened to be the most emblematic of dramatic past century, he was not writing about Soviet Union and Stalin. He was basically writing a dystopia about Britain, the ruined Britain of Churchill and Lord Beveridge, a desperate country ruled now by conservative nihilism, social security services and the ideology of iron curtain and cold war. Orwell gave to his republic the cromwellian name of Oceania, in reference to the dictator of the British puritan revolution who murdered his king and the catholic peasants of Ireland; but at least Cromwell created the patterns of a future imperial grandeur: the navy, the bank and the secret services. Cromwell believed too like the puritans he was a synthetic Hebrew. He devised modern democratic fanaticism, a long time before French Revolution. Read Orwell better:

    What was required in a Party member was an outlook similar to that of the ancient Hebrew who knew, without knowing much else, that all nations other than his own worshipped 'false gods'... He knew Jehovah and the commandments of Jehovah: he knew, therefore, that all gods with other names or other attributes were false gods.

    Let us talk about fake terror. It is too present in 1984 and was recycled by the Washowski bothers in their strange and provocative movie Vendetta.

    The rocket bombs which fell daily on London were probably fired by the Government of Oceania itself, 'just to keep people frightened'.

    Frightened people are easily submitted and cheated. Possessed and traumatized by the screens, people believe like children in any conspiracy, in any theory, especially in a time we have to analyze - to swallow- simultaneously so many sources of images. So the people will accept any official conclusion and in the future any rule, any state of exception, any patriot act and the militarization of society, including a coup d'état organized by the omnipresent secret services and the most powerful military force in the world. Here too Orwell had predicted the authoritarian future of the west, which would be the opposite of Soviet Union (the later being so sweet and tolerant at the end...)

    It will be a world of terror as much as a world of triumph. The more the Party is powerful, the less it will be tolerant: the weaker the opposition, the tighter the despotism.

    Naomi Klein has very well described he reality (and not the theory) of the shock therapy. A shock therapy may be economical, psychological, and military. In order to impose a shock therapy you have to invent a false enemy or to increase his size: the worker in England (at the time of Thatcher), the communist contaminator of water (remember Dr Strangelove!), the Islamic wild man hidden in Afghani mountains (or in deep Russia now), the internet sceptic (dubbed a conspiracy theorist, someday a terrorist). Orwell has predicted us the future of the big game:

    The tales about Goldstein and his underground army, she said, were simply a lot of rubbish which the Party had invented for its own purposes and which you had to pretend to believe in.

    Orwell too knew the necessary democratic strong replica: as wrote last great French Marxist, Guy Debord, this society has been too good so far; so she needs no gloves now. Speaking of Afghanistan or Chechnya:

    He might be denouncing Goldstein and demanding sterner measures against thought-criminals and saboteurs, he might be fulminating against the atrocities of the Eurasian army...

    Always the religious fear of the heartland! Debord added that our new elites (this is obvious in this century) know now of what enemy they are rid of: shrewdness, courage, sense; Debord adds too they have nothing to do, these new elites, with enlightened despotism of Russian times: ask Libya, Syria or Serbia to see. They will use terror as a political tool to devise their shock therapies: the debt-crisis for instance in order to steal any account in Cyprus and impose food or health shortage like in Spain.

    With Boston we are entering the dark ages of democracy, the times of zombie economics -10% of deficit financed by the Fed's indefatigable printing machine- and a time of global cultural voodoo (just watch one night of MTV to see). Once resilient (during Bush mandate) Hollywood has been turned into a propaganda machine and a war agency: see Bigelow or Argo. We may predict continuous and rabid attacks against our lives and against our liberties. Self-provoked Terror is the best weapon in the hand of our broke democracies ruled by a handful of humanitarian billionaires and their active agents. This is how Italy got rid of communism during infamous 'lead years'.

    At the end of 1984, O'Brien quietly confesses his best crime:

    You have read the book, Goldstein's book, or parts of it, at least. Did it tell you anything that you did not know already?'

    'You have read it?' said Winston.

    'I wrote it. That is to say, I collaborated in writing it.

    Orwell writes this confession with a cold indifferent style, as if he knew we could not believe him, preferring the mainstream media thrash. And he was right: truth has become a moment of falsehood (Debord). We have to stand now this 'green-eyed monster' of mass disaster capitalism and I don't know where he is getting us to: to a world that will be a mix of Texas, Benghazi and Damas.

    'I am with you,' O'Brien seemed to be saying to him. 'I know precisely what you are feeling. I know all about your contempt, your hatred, your disgust. But don't worry; I am on your side!'

    Nicolas Bonnal

    http://english.pravda.ru/history/25-04-2013/124418-orwell_american_terror-0/

  • Pravda: Putin's letter to Obama leaves the world as it is

    27.05.2013 Pravda.ru

    The letter from President Vladimir Putin to his U.S. counterpart Barack Obama, which the Russian leader wrote to criticize the U.S. position on missile defense, has not discouraged Washington. The Americans are not ready to make any concessions to Russia. Instead, they expect to reach progress on the most sensitive issue in the relations between the two countries during personal meetings of Putin and Obama in June and September, a source in the U.S. State Department said.

    Not that long ago, the two heads of state exchanged letters. At first, Obama's letter was brought to Moscow on April 15th by National Security adviser of the U.S. President, Thomas Donilon. In the letter, Obama offered Putin not to be distracted by little things, and focus on the main points of the bilateral cooperation.

    In addition, Obama proposed to develop a legally binding agreement on the transparency of missile defense, which would not require the consent of the U.S. Congress. A weak point of such an agreement is that a successor to the U.S. president will have a right to cancel it.

    Moscow perceived the message from Barack Obama "positively" but anonymous diplomatic sources indicated that the Russian side, under no circumstances, would give up the efforts to obtain legal guarantees saying that the missile defense would not be targeted against Russia. Washington strongly refuses to provide such guarantees to Russia.

    On May 22nd, Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev arrived in the United States and personally gave Putin's message to Barack Obama. Nothing has been reported on the content of the letter by the Russian president. However, journalists found out that the key subject of the letter was the issue of missile defense. According to sources, Putin rejected Obama's idea to provide personal guarantees regarding interceptor missiles in Europe.

    According to NATO officials, the United States is not going to make any further concessions to Russia. Moreover, it will be difficult to keep Obama's promises due to the start of the new electoral season. Obama's willingness to ignore national security for the sake of good relations with Moscow is likely to be raised during the season.

    According to experts, chances of an agreement on missile defense between Russia and the United States are slim. Washington believes that they did everything to overcome the problem. In turn, in Moscow is not going to give up its requirements either. Russia will ok only legally binding guarantees from the U.S..

    Nevertheless, observers lay hopes on Obama's meeting with Putin within the scope of international forums and on the June round of talks on missile defense between Moscow and Washington (on the level of Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov and his American counterpart Jim Miller). Bilateral talks between the presidents will be held during the G8 summit in Northern Ireland in June. In addition, it is expected that Obama will visit Moscow in September to talk to Putin, two days before the G20 summit in St. Petersburg.

    http://english.pravda.ru/russia/politics/27-05-2013/124669-putin_obama_letter-0/

  • Mychal Massie: Why I Do Not Like The Obamas

    by Mychal Massie on January 5, 2013 in Daily Rant, Featured

    The other evening on my twitter, a person asked me why I didn’t like the Obama’s? Specifically I was asked: “I have to ask, why do you hate the Obama’s? It seems personal not policy related. You even dissed their Christmas family pic.” The truth is I do not like the Obamas, what they represent, their ideology, and I certainly do not like his policies and legislation.

    I’ve made no secret of my contempt for the Obamas. As I responded to the person who asked me the aforementioned question, I don’t like them because they are committed to the fundamental change of my/our country into what can only be regarded as a Communist state.

    I don’t hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists, they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America. They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit same Michelle Obama’s raw contempt for white America is transpicuous.

    I don’t like them because they comport themselves as emperor and empress. I expect, no I demand respect for the Office of President and a love of our country and her citizenry from the leader entrusted with the governance of same. President and Mrs. Reagan displayed an unparalleled love for the country and her people. The Reagans made Americans feel good about themselves and about what we could accomplish. Could you envision President Reagan instructing his Justice Department to act like jack-booted thugs?

    Presidents are politicians and all politicians are known and pretty much expected to manipulate the truth, if not outright lie, but even using that low standard, the Obama’s have taken lies, dishonesty, deceit, mendacity, subterfuge and obfuscation to new depths. They are verbally abusive to the citizenry and they display an animus for civility.

    I do not like them, because they both display bigotry overtly, as in the case of Harvard Professor Louis Gates, when he accused the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly, and her code speak pursuant to now being able too be proud of America. I view that statement and that mindset as an insult to those who died to provide a country where a Kenyan, his illegal alien relatives, and his alleged progeny, could come and not only live freely, but rise to the highest, most powerful, position in the world. Michelle Obama is free to hate and disparage whites, because Americans of every description paid with their blood to ensure her right to do same.

    I have a saying, that “the only reason a person hides things, is because they have something to hide.” No president in history has spent over a million dollars to keep his records and his past sealed. And what the two of them have shared has been proved to be lies. He lied about when and how they met, he lied about his mother’s death and problems with insurance, Michelle lied to a crowd pursuant to nearly $500,000 bank stocks they inherited from his family. He has lied about his father’s military service, about the civil rights movement, ad nauseum.

    He lied to the world about the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address. He berated and publicly insulted a sitting Congressman. He has surrounded himself with the most rabidly, radical, socialist academicians today. He has fought for abortion procedures and opposed rulings that protected women and children, that even Planned Parenthood did not seek to support. He is openly hostile to business and aggressively hostile to Israel.

    His wife treats being the First Lady, as her personal American Express Black Card (arguably the most prestigious credit card in the world). I condemn them because, as people are suffering, losing their homes, their jobs, their retirements, he and his family are arrogantly showing off their life of entitlement – as he goes about creating and fomenting class warfare.

    I don’t like them, and I neither apologize nor retreat from my public condemnation of them and of his policies. We should condemn them for the disrespect they show our people, for his willful and unconstitutional actions pursuant to obeying the Constitutional parameters he is bound by, and his willful disregard for Congressional authority.

    Dislike for them has nothing to do with the color of their skin, it has everything to do with their behavior, attitudes, and policies. And I have open scorn for their playing the race.

    It is my intention to do all within my ability to ensure their reign is one term. I could go on, but let me conclude with this. I condemn in the strongest possible terms the media for refusing to investigate them as they did President Bush and President Clinton, and for refusing to label them for what they truly are. There is no scenario known to man, whereby a white president and his wife could ignore laws, flaunt their position, and lord over the people as these two are permitted out of fear for their color.

    As I wrote in a syndicated column titled “Nero In The White House” – “Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequalled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood…Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement – while America’s people go homeless, hungry and unemployed.” (WND.com; 8/8/11)

    Oh, and as for it being personal, you tell me how you would feel if a senator from Illinois sent you a personally signed card, intended to intimidate you and your family. Because you had written a syndicated column titled “Darth Democrat” that was critical of him. (WND.com 11/16/04)

    About Mychal Massie
    Mychal S. Massie is the former National Chairman of the conservative black think tank, Project 21-The National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives; and a member of its’ parent think tank, the National Center for Public Policy Research. In his official capacity with this free market public policy think tank he has spoken at the U.S. Capitol, CPAC, participated in numerous press conferences on Capitol Hill, the National Press Club and has testified concerning property rights pursuant to the “Endangered Species Act” before the Chairman of the House Committee on Resources. He has been a keynote speaker at colleges and universities nationwide, at Tea Party Rallies, at rallies supporting our troops and conservative presidents; and rally’s supporting conservative causes across the country. He is an unapologetic supporter of our right to own and carry firearms.

    http://mychal-massie.com/premium/why-i-do-not-like-the-obamas/

  • US smuggling weapons to Syrian rebels: The real Benghazi story

    Daya Gamage - Asian Tribune US National Correspondent
    Washington, D.C. 16 May (Asiantribune.com):

    There is a 'side story' going on in the American media - both the electronic and print about the Islamist jihadists lethal attack on the American 'post' in Benghazi, Libya last September 11 which killed American ambassador Christopher Steven and three others; The emphasis and the debate is on why the event was twisted by the Obama administration to conceal a terrorist attack on eve of the presidential election.

    With the killing of Osama bin Larden on May 2 last year the administration, which was approaching the re-election of Mr. Obama in November, wants to convince the American people that the al Qaeda was now annihilated for good.

    When the Islamist jihadist group affiliated to al Qaeda lethally attacked the American 'post' in Benghazi the Obama administration twisted the events to convince that a anti-Islamic video produced by someone in California was the cause of the attack.

    These days the highlights and debate is about why the 'talking points' were changed twelve times to give that different picture.

    As Obama rightfully said a couple of days ago about this debate, mostly spearheaded by the Republicans, was a 'side show.'

    The 'real show' is in fact buried. And the 'real show' is that the United States, Ambassador Steven playing a major role, was in the process of shipping arms to Syrian rebels to topple Basher el-Assad's regime.

    It was on October 25 last year that FoxNews.com broke the story that a mysterious Libyan ship was reportedly carrying weapons and bound for Syrian rebels would have had some link to the September 11 terror attack on the U.S. 'post' in Benghazi.

    Why do we use the term 'post' in this report? Because when changes were made to the Benghazi attack story by the Obama administration it changed from 'American Consulate' to 'American Post'. The reason: Benghazi operation was entirely a CIA operation.

    Through shipping records, Fox News has confirmed that the Libyan-flagged vessel Al Entisar, which means "The Victory," was received in the Turkish port of Iskenderun -- 35 miles from the Syrian border -- on Sept. 6, just five days before Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other American officers were killed during an extended assault by more than 100 Islamist militants.

    On the night of Sept. 11, in what would become his last known public meeting, Stevens met with the Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin, and escorted him out of the 'posts' front gate one hour before the assault began.

    Although what was discussed at the meeting is not public, a source told Fox News that Stevens was in Benghazi to negotiate a weapons transfer, an effort to get SA-7 missiles out of the hands of Libya-based extremists. And although the negotiation said to have taken place may have had nothing to do with the attack on the consulate later that night or the Libyan mystery ship, it could explain why Stevens was travelling in such a volatile region on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

    When asked to comment, a State Department spokeswoman dismissed the idea, saying Stevens was there for diplomatic meetings, and to attend the opening of a cultural center.

    According to an initial Sept. 14 report by the Times of London, Al Entisar was carrying 400 tons of cargo. Some of it was humanitarian, but also reportedly weapons, described by the report as the largest consignment of weapons headed for Syria's rebels on the frontlines.

    The cargo reportedly included surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles, RPG's and Russian-designed shoulder-launched missiles known as MANPADS.

    In March 2011 Stevens became the official U.S. liaison to the al-Qaeda-linked Libyan opposition, working directly with Abdelhakim Belhadj of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group—a group that has now disbanded, with some fighters reportedly participating in the attack that took Stevens' life.

    In November 2011 The Telegraph reported that Belhadj, acting as head of the Tripoli Military Council, "met with Free Syrian Army [FSA] leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey" in an effort by the new Libyan government to provide money and weapons to the growing insurgency in Syria.

    The Internet Media reported at that time that Ambassador Stevens had only one person—Belhadj—between himself and the Benghazi man who brought heavy weapons to Syria.

    The Asian Tribune has also found that the Internet Media further reported that if the new Libyan government was sending seasoned Islamic fighters and 400 tons of heavy weapons to Syria through a port in southern Turkey—a deal brokered by Stevens' primary Libyan contact during the Libyan revolution—then the governments of Turkey and the U.S. surely knew about it.

    Furthermore there was a CIA post in Benghazi, located 1.2 miles from the U.S. consulate, used as "a base for, among other things, collecting information on the proliferation of weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals, including surface-to-air missiles" ... and that its security features "were more advanced than those at rented villa where Stevens died."

    As noted earlier, the Obama administration has since described the American facility in Benghazi not as a 'Consulate' but as a 'Post'.

    The U.S. Republican Senator Rand Paul, who is expected to run for his party presidential nomination in the year 2016, was the only American lawmaker who disclosed about this 'arms deal' which he connects to Ambassador Steven's brutal muder in the hands of the Islamist Jihadists.

    In an interview aired on CNN May 9 evening, Sen. Paul said he hasn’t ruled out the possibility that last year’s attack unfolded as a result of a secret arms trade. The confusion in the immediate aftermath of the event — including unfounded admissions from America’s United Nations envoy Susan Rice that contradicted what is known today about the attack — could actually be a cover-up, the senator said.

    The Obama administration sent its ambassador to UN Susan Rice on the following Sunday talk shows to say that the offending Islamic video was the cause of the attack in Benghazi.

    “I’ve actually always suspected that, although I have no evidence, that maybe we were facilitating arms leaving Libya going through Turkey into Syria,” he said.

    “Were they trying to obscure that there was an arms operation going on at the CIA annex?” Paul asked. “I’m not sure exactly what was going on, but I think questions ought to be asked and answered, and I’m a little curious when employees of the State Department are told by government officials they shouldn’t testify - before the Senate or House committees - and then they are sort of sequestered and kept away from testimony, so I think there may be more to this.”

    This is not the first time either that Senator Paul raised questions about possible arms supplies under the CIA umbrella. During her testimony in the Senate in January, Rand Paul asked then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton whether the spy agency was sending weapons from Benghazi into other countries. Clinton replied that he would have to ask CIA officials about it.

    Sen. Rand Paul said on Aaron Klein Radio in mid April: “First of all with regard to Benghazi, I think it’s important [to determine more about the apparent gun-running program] because it may have something to do with why the compound was attacked. If we were involved with shipping guns to Turkey, there was a report that a ship left from Libya towards Turkey and that there were arms on it in the week preceding this [attack]; there were reports that our ambassador was meeting with the Turkish attaché, so I think with regards to figuring out what happened at Benghazi, it’s very important to know whether or not the CIA annex had anything to do with facilitating guns being sent to Turkey and ultimately to Syria. With regard to arming the rebels, just this week in the armed services committee, General Dempsey, the [Chairman of the] Joint Chiefs of Staff said that we were no longer able to distinguish who the good guys were from the bad guys and that sounds pretty worrisome if we are actually arming people who in the end may be enemies of America…enemies of Israel… enemies maybe of the Christians who live within Syria...sending arms to a rebel force to that may include Al-Nusra and other radical jihadists.”

    In the eighties, the Iran-Contra Arms Affair shook the Regan administration the way the Benghazi affair is developing to shake the foundation of the Obama administration.

    Iran-contra affair, in U.S. history, secret arrangement in the 1980s to provide funds to the Nicaraguan contra rebels from profits gained by selling arms to Iran. The Iran-contra affair was the product of two separate initiatives during the administration of President Ronald Reagan. The first was a commitment to aid the contras who were conducting a guerrilla war against the leftist Sandinista government of Nicaragua. The second was to placate "moderates" within the Iranian government in order to secure the release of American hostages held by pro-Iranian groups in Lebanon and to influence Iranian foreign policy in a pro-Western direction.

    Despite the strong opposition of the Reagan administration, the Democratic-controlled Congress enacted legislation that prohibited the Defense Dept., the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or any other government agency from providing military aid to the contras from Dec., 1983, to Sept., 1985. The Reagan administration circumvented these limitations by using the National Security Council (NSC), which was not explicitly covered by the law, to supervise covert military aid to the contras. Under Robert McFarlane (1983–85) and John Poindexter (1985–86) the NSC raised private and foreign funds for the contras. This operation was directed by NSC staffer Marine Lt. Col. Oliver North. McFarlane and North were also the central figures in the plan to secretly ship arms to Iran despite a U.S. trade and arms embargo.

    In early Nov., 1986, the scandal broke when reports in Lebanese newspapers forced the Reagan administration to disclose the arms deals. Poindexter resigned before the end of the month; North was fired. Select congressional committees held joint hearings, and in Dec., 1986, Lawrence E. Walsh was named as special prosecutor to investigate the affair. Higher administration officials, particularly Reagan, Vice President Bush, and William J. Casey (former director of the CIA, who died in May, 1987), were implicated in some testimony, but the extent of their involvement remained unclear. North said he believed Reagan was largely aware of the secret arrangement, and the independent prosecutor's report (1994) said that Reagan and Bush had some knowledge of the affair or its cover-up. Reagan and Bush both claimed to have been uninformed about the details of the affair, and no evidence was found to link them to any crime. A presidential commission was critical of the NSC, while congressional hearings uncovered a web of official deception, mismanagement, and illegality.

    A number of criminal convictions resulted, including those of McFarlane, North, and Poindexter, but North's and Poindexter's were vacated on appeal because of immunity agreements with the Senate concerning their testimony. Former State Dept. and CIA officials pleaded guilty in 1991 to withholding information about the contra aid from Congress, and Caspar Weinberger, defense secretary under Reagan, was charged (1992) with the same offense. In 1992 then-president Bush pardoned Weinberger and other officials who had been indicted or convicted for withholding information on or obstructing investigation of the affair.

    Will the Benghazi Affair leads that far?

    http://www.asiantribune.com/node/62584

  • To You The Commentor: Im not the one you should trust as with ANY media, Im just a messenger, I report... YOU decide...

    Do some research for yourself, instead of "Thinking" you know and want challenge me, or call me a liar and other Bull Sh-t names then I'll feel threatened and I WILL come back at you and not in a nice way!

    People do make honest mistakes "like me" while reporting news,
    there is a lot of dis-info out there to sort through and some will slip by,
    Im only human, but there are MSM's that WILL INTENTIONALLY misinform people, look at FOX News, CBS, MSNBC ABC CNN is going through today, they have been mis-leading people for years and that HAS been PROVEN, always take EVERYTHING you hear as a grain of salt unless it's has been proven other wise, find out the whole story yourself!

    If you have a gripe or disagreement with a story, go to the ORIGINAL source, the links are provided on every story that is posted here, post your gripe there, usually Im not the writer of the story and I don't have the time or want to hear you bitch because you don't like a story!

    If you don't have anything good or constructive to comment about on my page, don't make a issue out of it! MOVE ON... Simple As That!
    I have other things to worry about and I do not have the time for you...
    I TRY my best to win your trust, but that's up to you to trust me!
    Im just a messenger NOT YOUR DEBATER!

    Im sorry to post this and you to see my rant, but that guy yesterday really pissed me off, telling me Im posting BS and I should remove it because Snopes said something different,
    WHO THE HELL ARE YOU to TELL ME what stories to post on MY SITE?
    Do you pay me?

    I can be the most lovable guy you'll ever have met,
    or you cross me I CAN SHOW YOU how to be an ass...
    I am a fighter by nature when threatened and there is ways of finding you via your IP address, don't ever think your secure behind that computer, someday somebody you pissed off could be knocking on your door, never take ANYTHING for granted!
    What's the first three letters of assume?
    Don't be one and I wont either!
    Assume NOTHING, find out the FACTS FIRST!

  • UN a tool of international Zionist power: activist

    Kourosh Ziabari - Tehran Times - 06 January 2012

    The United Nations is a tool of international Zionist power and by extension, so is the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), says an Iraqi-U.S. activist.

    Jonathan Azaziah made the remarks during an email interview with the Tehran Times during the last week of December.

    He also commented on the latest rounds of Western sanctions against Iran, U.S. war threats against the Islamic Republic and the role of Zionism in international politics.

    Following are the excerpts of the interview:

    Zionist mindset

    The nucleus of the Zionist mindset, the energy source that drives those who think in this manner to behave like the inhuman monsters that they are is Jewish supremacism; the need to destroy all that it is not Jewish, the goyim, in order for "the Jewish people" to survive.

    The developer of the neutron bomb, Samuel T. Cohen, was a Zionist with a strong Talmudic-Jewish upbringing, as was Robert J. Oppenheimer, the creator of the atom bomb. The supremacist need to destroy all non-Jewish peoples and cultures was close to the blackened hearts of the early leaders of the usurping Zionist entity, hence why Ben-Gurion, Dayan, Eshkol and Peres collectively came up with the "Samson Option," the military plan to unleash 'Israeli' nukes upon the world if any nation or every nation attempted to confront Zionist power.

    The polar opposite of this thuggish outlook on existence, is the Islamic Revolutionary Republic of Iran, a nation whose Persian history is rooted in the very essence of creation. The finest poets, artists, mathematicians, scientists and theologians that the world has ever known originate from this great land.

    The Zionist entity, in its twisted collective mind, must destroy Iran because the Islamic Republic represents everything that it is not: tolerant, beautiful, non-destructive, non-aggressive and most importantly, God fearing. Iran does not bow down to the feet of the Zionists and their rabbinical overlords, it only bows before Almighty God and for this, it has drawn the ire of the Zionists and their imperial conduit puppets. From the geopolitical perspective, the Zionist entity must not allow any Islamic nation to acquire nuclear weapons because that would neutralize its domination of the region; the annihilation of Iraq, the demolition of Libya and constant assault on nuclear-armed Pakistan are prime examples of this.

    Zionism far worse than apartheid system

    The term "apartheid" is an attempt to make international Zionism seem like it is innocuous or closely related with previous colonial endeavors when in reality, it is something far worse and far uglier. Apartheid is simply one facet of the Zionist regime that it is criminally and disgustingly occupying holy al-Quds and the rest of historic Palestine, as is colonization, and most importantly, they are only temporary.

    The true goal of Zionism is to wipe out all non-Jewish peoples in vast parts of Egypt, including most of its north, all of Sinai and Cairo, all of Jordan, all of Kuwait, a gargantuan portion of Saudi Arabia, all of Lebanon, all of Syria, all of Cyprus, an elephantine part of Turkey up to Lake Van and finally, part of Iraq south of the Euphrates River. The expulsion and/or mass murder of these peoples would lead to the creation of the Zionist dream known as Greater Israel. So branding this usurping dragon of an entity simply as an "apartheid state" is not only incomplete, it is deceptive. And this disingenuous injection of language into the vocabularies of Palestine's supporters is also meant to deflect the attention from the root cause of this 63-year occupation: the Talmudic ideology that gave birth to Zionism, which is an amalgamation of terrorism, racism, barbarism, supremacism, expansionism and imperialism.

    After all of the massacres committed against our brothers and sisters, all of the babies murdered, women raped, mosques and churches destroyed and land stolen, the least we can do is label this extremist enclave what it actually is: a fabricated entity that has no right to exist. Finally, all persons who represent this entity, all of its occupiers and squatters, must be thrown out immediately so the 8 million Palestinian refugees worldwide can finally return to their homes. We will not make peace with this usurping Jewish supremacist beast. We will never recognize this filthy entity. We will not share our lands with thieves and thugs, killers and degenerates. There will not be 'equal rights' for oppressed and oppressed. There will only be equal rights for Palestinians, the true owners of the land, and whoever that they decide will live with them, chiefly those who respect their dignity and who have fought alongside them from Nakba to Naksa to now, not those who killed them and maimed them; they will be delivered into the clutches of justice for a century of inhumanity and malevolence.

    Saudi assassination plot – a Mossad false flag

    The ludicrous, ridiculous "Saudi assassination plot" has already been debunked as another Mossad false flag and I must say, it was one of the most pathetic that the Zionist regime's international intelligence directorate had concocted in quite some time.
    The allegations of "human rights violations" in the Islamic Republic are nothing but atrocious attempts by the Zionist-occupied U.S. government (of) -- regime change. We know this to be massively farcical.

    Additionally, there is no larger violator and destroyer of human rights than the United States, which under Zionist direction, has initiated one war after another in the last 100 years and murdered tens of millions of innocents. How dare these hooligans and monsters criticize Iran for "human rights abuses" after their fire bombing of Tokyo, their nuking of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, their decimation of Dresden, Frankfurt, Hamburg, their concentration camps set up after WW2 that murdered over 1 million innocent Germans, their rape of Vietnam and Cambodia for the expansion of Jewish mob boss Meyer Lansky's criminal narcotics syndicate, their eradication of Iraq over the last 20 years, their crushing of Afghanistan, their ruining of Libya and incessant drone bombing of Pakistan, Yemen and occupied Somalia, along with their assistance in the ongoing six-decade-long brutalization of Palestine. Their hypocrisy is legendary and sickening. And the IAEA report is such a joke, such a steaming mound of rubbish that it is not even worth analyzing. It is clear that the reason for this 'trilateral attack' that you speak of is desperation.

    The Iranian leadership is cool, calculated and undeterred. They have not taken the Zionist bait in responding to the multiple transgressions that the occupier of Palestine has committed against them and this display of sabr (patience) has infuriated the monsters greatly.

    New round of Western sanctions against Iran

    I do not believe for a second that the sanctions will bring the Islamic Revolution to its knees; not even a single second. The Persian people, first and foremost, kneel only before ALLAH (SWT) and this was proven by their triumph over the Shah and the CIA-Mossad-run counter-revolution in 1979. The would-be-invaders and 'arrogant powers' that (Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution) Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei constantly refers to know that the only way Iran will break is through all-out aggression and as described already, they are not ready for this kind of war at this juncture.

    This is why we see increased cooperation between the (P)GCC countries, America and the Zionist entity, mainly the excessively large weapons deals between the House of Saud, America and Germany as well as the increased 'defense' relations between the House of Khalifa in Bahrain and the Zionist-occupied U.S. government. International Zionism loves nothing more than Muslims killing Muslims and nothing would satisfy its bloodlust quite like a 'Sunni-Shi'a, Persian-Arab' war, in which its Israeli occupation forces would not have to lift a single weapon; the goyim would do all the work for them, eliminating the usurping Jewish supremacist state's greatest enemy. The Zionists and the real power behind them, their racist genocidal rabbis, according to their satanic Talmud, view the Arab and Persian peoples as "Ishmaelites" and "Amalekites" who must be destroyed in order to erect a "Jewish Utopia" on earth, in which Jews rule over non-Jews in a sort of supremacist paradise. It is a religious duty for Zionists to murder us, steal our lands and desecrate what it is holy to us and they have the authority in their Talmud to use any and all means to do it, including using our own people against us. Therefore, the sanctions are only a precursor to what the globe holders really have in store for Iran.

    Why Iran will be victorious

    For 22 years, South Lebanon was savagely occupied by the monstrous Zionist entity. The righteous Islamic Resistance of Lebanon, Hezbollah, liberated its land, conquering the fourth (some say third) mightiest military in the world and rightfully humiliating it. In 2006, the Zionist entity launched a criminal war against Lebanon to avenge its defeat 6 years earlier. Unleashing cluster bombs, white phosphorus and depleted uranium on the dignified and innocent Lebanese people, the usurping regime murdered nearly 1,500 Lebanese and the unexploded cluster bombs continue killing to this very moment.

    Defiantly and inspired by the steadfastness of the Lebanese people, Hezbollah defeated the Jewish supremacist entity again, crushing their plots to reoccupy Lebanon and upholding their Resistance to global Zionism. How was this small fighting force able to best such a monolithic military power? Because the faith of a people cannot be pierced with bullets or devastated by bombs. Because the dignity of a people cannot be occupied or colonized. The Zionists have no faith; they are godless, satanic supremacists. The Zionists have no dignity, they are the swindlers of humanity. Comparatively, the Palestinian people have been occupied for 63 years. Still, the Zionists have not been able to expel them to exalt their 'Greater Israel' dream. The Kashmiri people have been occupied for 64 years. Still, the Hindutvadis have been able to crush them to initiate their first phase of 'Greater Hindutva.' Why? Because like Hezbollah and the exceptional Lebanese people, the Palestinians' and Kashmiris' faith and dignity are a weapon that cannot be defeated by their occupiers. And the revolutionary Islamic Republic of Iran, like Hezbollah, the Palestinians and Kashmiris is on a greater scale, with more weaponry at its disposal. It will not give up its nuclear program nor will it bow before hollow military threats because it doesn't take orders from Zionism; Iran does not recognize Zionism or the Jewish supremacists that govern it as legitimate authorities.

    Iran only takes orders from Al-Hakam (SWT), the supreme Judge of this universe. For us, Allah (SWT) is Al-Mu'izz, because He has honored us with Resistance and martyrdom if we die in our path of Resistance, giving hope to our brothers and sisters still struggling because as the Holy Qur'an says, we are alive though we are not seen. For the monsters, the enemies and the 'arrogant powers' though, Allah (SWT) is Al-Moumit, and the day of the Zionists' doom at His hands is much nearer than they think. Iran and all those who support it will be victorious.

    U.S. a leader in international terrorism

    There is no doubt that the United States, the 'golem' of the international Zionist Power Configuration and Jewish banking interests, is the world leader in terrorism. The US is in no moral position to condemn any government or group in the world until it fesses up to its own blood-soaked history. 100 million Native Americans exterminated. 150 million Africans, many of them Muslims, murdered in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, which was dominated by Spanish Jews like Aaron Lopez who had an entire fleet of slaveships and financing from the Rothschild family; these Jews, who were of the extremist and now dominant Talmudic-Kabbalistic school of thought, also introduced to the Curse of Ham to their Gentile slave-trading brothers, a horrific, racist story concocted and developed by the rabbis in their Talmud which lowered the rank of our brothers and sisters of beautiful black skin to animals. This Talmudic drivel was used to justify the dehumanization of millions of others and in the greater geopolitical sense, it is now being exercised to justify more Zionist aggression on the African continent. These two historical atrocities alone show the true face of America, and its support of brutish dictators and monarchical maniacs across the globe is well-known. And while Iran's millennial history is one of peace and diplomacy with its neighbors, the U.S. has launched hundreds of wars, covert and overt over its short two-century history. There is an old Kufan saying that my uncle once shared with me, which has been around since Al-Mukhtar (RA) launched his rebellion against the Umayyads to defend the martyrdom of Imam Hussein (AS) more than 1,300 years ago, that perfectly sums up the United States' glorious fraudulence. Loosely translated from Arabic, it goes, "He who spills the most blood, talks of the most peace." I cannot think of truer words that have been spoken.

    IAEA not an independent outfit

    First and foremost, the IAEA is not an independent outfit like its public relations stooges would like the world to believe. The IAEA reports directly to the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council and coordinates all of its actions with these two institutions of Zionist power. Therefore, without question, it can be said that the IAEA is nothing but a tool of the UN. The same UN hasn't done a damn thing to stop Zionist tyranny in Palestine, scripting hundreds of resolutions against this racist usurping entity but enforcing none of them. The same UN has done nothing to stop Hindutvadi tyranny in Kashmir, which is intimately aided by the Zionist entity with arms and intelligence, scripting dozens of other resolutions and enforcing none of them. The same UN that introduced Resolution 661 to Iraq, the treacherous 'sanctions resolution,' which crippled Iraq, prepared it for the Zionist invasion of 2003 and murdered over 2 million people by starvation including 800,000 Iraqi children. The same UN paved the way for the mutilation of Libya, in which at least 100,000 have been mass murdered. The same UN that now seeks to turn Syria into another Iraq or Libya 2.0. And besides, what is the UN really? As is the case with all matters of history and the revisionism that follows, we must return to the beginning; the origins. The origins of the UN can be found in the financing of the same Zionist banking families, the Rothschilds, Schiffs, Warbugs, Lazards and Oppenheimers, who have financed strife on this earth for centuries. The UN was created to justify the existence of the Zionist entity as a legitimate nation-state, to put a shroud on its hideous supremacist character. Despite the illegal Jewish colonization of Palestine financed by the Rothschild family since the 1880s and the horrible Zionist atrocities of the Nakba in 1948, still the UN recognized this fabricated regime, still gave it a name and a seat. Why? Because its godfathers, the Zionist bankers, wanted it that way. The UN is a tool of international Zionist power and by extension, so is the IAEA. And if the evidence isn't clear enough, one simply needs to look at the previous IAEA head, Mohamed ElBaradei, who is hailed as a great humanitarian and even a hero, when he is nothing more than a wolf in sheep's clothing, a snake in the grass, a two-faced Zionist hypocrite who has condemned the Islamic Resistance of illegally besieged Gaza, who supports the insane 'right to exist' of the Zionist entity and who shakes hands with Israeli war criminals. While ElBaradei ran the IAEA, he sat on the board of the International Crisis Group, a highly-influential international Zionist think tank, right next to none other than Shimon Peres, George Soros and Morton Abramowitz, three of the most powerful Zionists on this planet. There is your 'IAEA independence,' yet another Zionist fraud.

    Jonathan Azaziah is an Iraqi-U.S. Muslim poet, activist, analyst, writer and journalist from Brooklyn, New York. He is currently residing in Florida. His articles, poems and music deal with the subject of international Zionism. He is also a staff writer for Pakistan's premier alternative media outlet, Opinion Maker, a regular contributor to Veterans Today journal and a frequent guest and co-host of the Crescent and Cross Solidarity Movement's Ugly Truth radio broadcast.

    http://www.tehrantimes.com/world/94288-un-a-tool-of-international-zionist-power-activist

  • History of the Muslim Brotherhood Penetration of the U.S. Government. Gohmert: Muslim Brotherhood influences White House to ignore threats

    Gohmert: Muslim Brotherhood influences White House to ignore threats... Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) says the Obama administration is influenced by members of the Muslim Brotherhood so much so that they ignore the threat of radical Islamic terrorism. According to a report today in The Blaze, Gohmert says, “it's very clear to everybody but this administration that radical Islam is at war against us.”

    Gohmert interviewed with the conservative news outlet World Net Daily, and was very critical of the Obama administration's policy on Islamic terrorism. He condemned the decision to read Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev his Miranda rights.

    Gohmert said, “I guess, you know, with our attorney general having spent more time before being AG trying to help terrorists than trying to corral them, first impulse was let’s get him to stop talking. If it’s not bad enough that they bungled getting this guy picked up and his brother picked up and questioned before they blew up people in Boston, then now to get him to shut up when he has invaluable information potentially is just really egregious.”

    The congressman from Texas was heavily critical of how the administration and law enforcement handled the process of seeking information from Dzhokhar Tsarnaev after he was detained by police.

    “I guess, you know, with our attorney general having spent more time before being AG trying to help terrorists than trying to corral them, first impulse was let’s get him to stop talking. If it’s not bad enough that they bungled getting this guy picked up and his brother picked up and questioned before they blew up people in Boston, then now to get him to shut up when he has invaluable information potentially is just really egregious,” said Gohmert.

    Just days after the Boston Marathon bombing, and after it was clear the bombing suspects were Muslims, President Barack Obama was accused by critics of being more concerned with being “political correct” when he issue a statement urging against rushing to judgment about whole groups of people in reaction to the announcement of suspects. The president has no such response when many media outlets speculated that a Tea Party member or “right wing extremist” might have committed the bombing.

    http://www.examiner.com/article/gohmert-muslim-brotherhood-influences-white-house-to-ignore-threats .

    History of the Muslim Brotherhood Penetration of the U.S. Government...
    15 April 2013 by Clare Lopez RightsideNews.com

    Given the long history of Muslim Brotherhood activity in this country, its declared objective to "destroy the Western civilization from within," and the extensive evidence of successful influence operations at the highest levels of the U.S. government, it is urgent that we recognize this clear and present danger that threatens not only our Republic but the values of Western civilization.
    "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest aspiration."
    -- Motto of the Muslim Brotherhood.

    The upheavals of 2011-2012 across the Middle East and North Africa swept aside secular rulers and the established political order with startling speed, and continue to focus world attention on the revolutionary forces driving these far-reaching events. Poverty, oppression, inequality, and lack of individual freedom are all hallmarks of the societal stagnation that has gripped the Islamic world for the better part of fourteen centuries, but the driving force of the so-called "Arab Spring" is a resurgent Islam, dominated by the forces of al-Qa'eda and the Muslim Brotherhood. Energized as Islam may be at this time, however, without the active involvement of the United States to help arm[1], fund[2], support[3], and train[4] the region's Islamic rebels, it is questionable whether they could have gotten this far, this fast.

    This report describes how the Muslim Brotherhood infiltrated and suborned the U.S. government to actively assist, whether knowingly or not, the mission of its grand jihad. Its hard-won position at the forefront of the 21stcentury Islamic Awakening is possible only because of decades of patient infiltration and political indoctrination (Da'wa) in the West, and especially the United States of America, even as the grassroots work of building an organizational structure advanced steadily in the land of its origin as well. It is important to recognize the sophistication of the Brotherhood's international strategy and how the takedown of U.S. national security defenses from within was critical to the current Middle East-North Africa (MENA) campaign to re-establish the Caliphate and enforce Islamic Law (shariah).

    Origins of the Muslim Brotherhood
    To understand the Brotherhood and how it operates, especially inside Western societies such as America's, a brief overview of where it came from and why it was established is in order. Following the early years of blindingly fast military conquests, Islam began to falter as European Christendom doggedly kept pushing back, eventually surpassing an increasingly corrupt empire that had run out of lands to conquer, people to enslave, and riches to plunder. Yoked by consensus of the scholars (ijma) to an ideology that rejected critical thought, innovation, and scientific inquiry in favor of blind obedience to revelation, the Islamic world remained largely untouched by the Renaissance, Enlightenment, and eventual Industrial and Technological revolutions that catapulted the West to global power status.[5] Eventual European colonization of the Arab and Muslim world and the stunningly successful re-establishment of the Jewish nation in the modern State of Israel brought humiliation to people raised on tales of historical supremacism over these, its traditional dhimmi victims.

    Aside from Israel, which came later, this was the world into which Hassan al-Banna was born in the early 20thcentury. An Egyptian Cairene, al-Banna seethed with frustration at Islam's diminished status in the world; in particular he resented the presence and power of the British colonial administration in Egypt. The abolishment of the last Caliphate by Kemal Ataturk in 1924 was perhaps the worst indignity, one that left al-Banna and his young Muslim university contemporaries apparently feeling unmoored. They joined together in 1928, determined (as we know from their statements and writing) to rectify things; "rectifying things," for them, seems to have meant re-establishment of the Caliphate and global enforcement of Islamic Law (shariah). The organization they founded to return Egypt, the Middle East, and eventually the world to "proper" subservience to Islam as ordained by Allah would be the Muslim Brotherhood (Al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun in Arabic).

    Global Jihad
    Since its inception in 1928, the Muslim Brotherhood consistently has championed the cause of global jihad to "mobilize the entire Umma into one body to defend the right cause with all its strength…to jihad, to warfare…"[6]Until early 2011, its original bylaws could be found on the Brotherhood's English language website, Ikhwanweb, established in 2005 by senior Brotherhood official Khairat al-Shater. Since then, they have been preserved by Steven Emerson at The Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT)[7]. Article (2) makes clear that the Brotherhood conceives of itself as "an international Muslim Body, which seeks to establish Allah's law in the land by achieving the spiritual goals of Islam and the true religion…establishing the Islamic State" and "…building a new basis of human civilization as is ensured by the overall teachings of Islam.

    In case that sounds relatively benign, Article (3) E gets more to the point: "The Islamic nation must be fully prepared to fight the tyrants and the enemies of Allah as a prelude to establishing an Islamic state."[9] This is exactly what the Brotherhood did in Egypt in the violent years before and after the 1949 death of al-Banna, until it was forcibly suppressed, only to rise again in 2011-2012 when circumstances permitted.

    The story of how those circumstances shifted to permit (even compel) the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood to power not only in Egypt, but also Libya, Tunisia, and perhaps soon, Syria and elsewhere, spans 20th century world history. World War II and the Brotherhood's close alliance with Adolf Hitler and his genocidal antisemitic Nazis provided the perfect opportunity for Islam's latest expansion into Europe, where dozens of Brotherhood branches were established. Upon the defeat of Nazi Germany, its clandestine networks of Muslim operatives were picked up by the western Allies and naively turned to the same purpose as the Nazis had pursued: to counter the influence of atheist communist Soviets.[10] So it was that Sa'id Ramadan, the son-in-law of Hasan al-Banna, and a delegation of Muslim Brothers, found themselves in the Oval Office on 23 September 1953 meeting with President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

    Organization and the Settlement Process
    Aside from its ideology, if there is a single characteristic that defines the Brotherhood, it is organization. From its earliest days, the Ikhwan has operated with military-like efficiency. The Muslim Brotherhood plan for the infiltration and subordination of America is no different. Once again, the blueprint can be found in Hasan al-Banna's Brotherhood bylaws, where, in Article (2) D, he lists as one of the key "Objectives and means" the following:
    Make every effort for the establishment of educational, social, economic and scientific institutions and the establishment of mosques, schools, clinics, shelters, clubs as well as the formation of committees to regulate zakat affairs and alms."[12]
    To be sure, the patient task of Da'wa includes establishment of Islamic institutions, education of the non-Muslim population, and countering "the prejudices of Judeo-Christians against Islam," as Ikhwan scholar Shamim A. Siddiqi wrote in 1989.[13] But in Islam, Da'wa, or the call to Islam, is always followed by jihad. Siddiqi, writing for the Muslim Brotherhood cadre in the U.S., was candid with them and cautioned that "[i]n this initial stage there may not be any opposition to Dawah work. For some time the Islamic Movement of America may have some smooth sailing. But with the increase in Dawah efforts, in the number of activities and growth of the strength of the organization, the anti-Islamic forces will take notice of the multifarious activities of the Movement," "…the fight…may become a challenge for them," and "[a]larming signals will be raised by the so-called 'free press.'"[14]
    "Smooth sailing" indeed would seem to characterize the early decades of the Ikhwan's Da'wa movement in America. The first official Muslim Brotherhood front organization founded in the U.S. was the Muslim Students Association (MSA), established on the Urbana-Champaign campus of the University of Illinois in 1964. Today, there are over 600 MSA chapters at colleges and universities across North America, working to recruit members to the Muslim Brotherhood and jihad. According to former FBI Special Agent John Guandolo, "The MSA serves as a recruitment tool to bring Muslims into the Brotherhood…[w]hich was its original purpose: to evaluate Muslims and to bring them into the Brotherhood and to recruit non-Muslims into Islam as a dawa entity, giving them the call to Islam."[15] The MSA was the blueprint model for the thousands of Muslim Brotherhood front groups that exist, function, and continue to multiply across the U.S. today.

    "The process of settlement is a "Civilization-Jihadist Process" with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions.

    -- 'An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America,' 1981[16]
    Holy Land Foundation Trial
    The 2008 Holy Land Foundation terror-funding trial[17] has proven extremely valuable, well beyond its success in putting a U.S.-based jihad money channel out of business that had that sent millions of dollars to HAMAS, the Muslim Brotherhood's Palestinian branch. Hundreds of documents presented as evidence in the trial by U.S. Department of Justice prosecutors were subsequently placed online.[18] Among these was a transcript of a talk given in the U.S. in the early 1980s by a Muslim Brotherhood executive-level leader, Zeid al-Noman.[19] In it, al-Noman provided a remarkably detailed description of the history and mission of the Muslim Brotherhood in America, beginning with the establishment of the first front groups, such as the MSA, and proceeding according to the Ikhwan Bylaws to expand the network in a methodical, organized manner.[20] Today, this infrastructure extends its reach within every single pillar of societal support in America – academia, government, intelligence, legal community, media, military, society, and the workplace – and demonstrably exerts a powerful influence on U.S. policy, both domestic and foreign, at the highest levels.

    The recruitment process begins with identifying and cultivating Muslims who show, by their dedication to living a devout Islamic life, that they might be susceptible to Brotherhood da'wa.[21] In a 27 December 2012 essay, Eric Trager, a Next Generation fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, provided a detailed look at the intensive process by which the Egyptian Brotherhood conducts its recruitment and training of young Muslim membership candidates; develops, reinforces, and repeatedly tests their commitment over a multi-year period, and ultimately incorporates them into its nationwide hierarchical organization.[22] What he describes tracks closely with al-Noman's U.S. lecture from three decades earlier—which itself references a process modeled on Hassan al-Banna's original vision. The ideological continuity and internal discipline manifested by the Brotherhood's ability to maintain and replicate its "settlement process" across the world, and a span of more than eight decades, is remarkable. This is a formidable enemy.

    The "Explanatory Memorandum" cited above, and also in the documentary evidence at the Holy Land Foundation trial, likewise provides a telling glimpse into "the process of settlement" that the Brotherhood termed "civilization jihad."[23] Quite literally, the Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the U.S. began as an immigration and settlement experience. As al-Noman recounts in his talk, "the first generation of the Muslim Ikhwan in north [sic] America composed [sic] of a team which included he who was an Ikhwan in his country…," among others.[24] After that, 'the Movement,' as he calls it, slowly established the organizational structures from basic cell level all the way to leadership Councils that define the Brotherhood's extensive presence in Egypt and elsewhere. The emphasis on an internal stealth jihad, to "sabotage" the West from within, characterized the movement from the beginning and drove the strategic decision to use front groups that are calculated to arouse little concern in an open and democratic society such as the U.S. Although not the focus of this report, it should be noted that massive financial support from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf sheikhdoms has always played a central and deeply important role in the ability of the Brotherhood to fund its global expansion, especially in the U.S. -- the ultimate prize for Islamic colonization.

    The last page of the "Explanatory Memorandum" listed 29 Muslim Brotherhood groups under the heading, "A list of our organizations and the organizations of our friends."[25] Among these are the names of some of the best-known, mainstream Islamic organizations in the U.S. today, including a number whose Muslim Brotherhood-linked officials advise[26], socialize with[27], and train[28] the leadership of key agencies within the U.S. national security community. The list includes the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP, the immediate parent organization of the Council on Islamic American Relations or CAIR), the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), the International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT), the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), and the Muslim Students Association (MSA). This is, of course, but a small sampling of North American Muslim Brotherhood front groups, but gives an idea of the level of "acceptability," among both mainstream Muslim and U.S. society in general, that the groups have achieved by stealth and deception.

    One of the most "mainstream" of these front groups is the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), named, by the Justice Dept., an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding case. According to Frank Gaffney, the president of the Center for Security Policy (CSP)[29], ISNA functions as a kind of umbrella organization for many hundreds of offshoot Islamic Societies across North America. Yet, in spite of its DoJ status as a front group for the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood, ISNA still has been granted a coveted advisory role with the National Security Council (NSC) of the Obama White House.[30] ISNA's president, Muhammed Magid, is not only the Director of the All-Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS) Center, but also an A-list invitee to White House iftardinners, and a member of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) "Countering Violent Extremism" Advisory Council.[31] In that capacity, Magid participated in a July 2012 CIA training session, speaking at Langley about "Building Communities of Trust: A Local Example of a Partnership between the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS) and Law Enforcement."[32].

    The Project
    There is one more document, called simply "The Project," that should be examined in the study of the Brotherhood's expansion into Western society in general, and the U.S. government in particular. A November 2001 raid by Swiss authorities on a villa belonging to Yousef Nada, the Muslim Brotherhood director of the Al-Taqwa bank (which had been funding al-Qa'eda), recovered this 14-page plan, written in Arabic and dated December 1, 1982. "The Project" presents a "flexible, multi-phased, long-term approach to the 'cultural invasion' of the West," according to Patrick Poole, a counterterrorism and Muslim Brotherhood expert. [33] Rather than relying primarily on terrorism, as al-Qa'eda and other kinetic-approach jihadis do, the Muslim Brotherhood opted instead for a progressive infiltration of the very structures of Western society in order to achieve the same end result that al-Qa'eda seeks: Islamic domination over the West.

    In view of the alarming success this approach has achieved to date, not only across the Middle East and North Africa, but inside Europe and the U.S., it is worthwhile to quote from Poole's articles just some of the tactics outlined in "The Project:" [emphasis added].

    Networking and coordinating actions between likeminded Islamist organizations;.

    Avoiding open alliances with known terrorist organizations and individuals to maintain the appearance of "moderation";.

    Infiltrating and taking over existing Muslim organizations to realign them towards the Muslim Brotherhood's collective goals;
    Using deception to mask the intended goals of Islamist actions, as long as it doesn't conflict with shari'a law;.

    Establishing financial networks to fund the work of conversion of the West, including the support of full-time administrators and workers;.

    Putting into place a watchdog system for monitoring Western media to warn Muslims of "international plots fomented against them";.

    Cultivating an Islamist intellectual community, including the establishment of think-tanks and advocacy groups, and publishing "academic" studies, to legitimize Islamist positions and to chronicle the history of Islamist movements;.

    Building extensive social networks of schools, hospitals and charitable organizations dedicated to Islamist ideals so that contact with the movement for Muslims in the West is constant;.

    Involving ideologically committed Muslims in democratically-elected institutions on all levels in the West, including government, NGOs, private organizations and labor unions;.

    Instrumentally using existing Western institutions until they can be converted and put into service of Islam;.

    Instituting alliances with Western "progressive" organizations that share similar goals;.

    Inflaming violence and keeping Muslims living in the West "in a jihad frame of mind";.

    Supporting jihad movements across the Muslim world through preaching, propaganda, personnel, funding, and technical and operational support;.

    Instigating a constant campaign to incite hatred by Muslims against Jews and rejecting any discussions of conciliation or coexistence with them;.

    Collecting sufficient funds to indefinitely perpetuate and support jihad around the world[34].

    Information Dominance
    With all of this information so readily available in the public domain, the obvious question must be, "Why doesn't the U.S. government know that it is a target, realize that it is penetrated, and take steps to correct an obviously dangerous situation?" The answer can be summarized in two words: information dominance. As described in preceding pages, the Muslim Brotherhood approached its campaign to subvert U.S. society in a comprehensive but also a stealthy way. Recall the wording from the "Explanatory Memorandum," which stated it would sabotage [our] "miserable house by their [our] hands."[35] What this means is that the Ikhwan intend to co-opt the leadership of this country by fooling it into "believing a counterfactual understanding of Islam and the nature of the Muslim Brotherhood, thereby manipulating or coercing these leaders to enforce the MB narrative on their subordinates."[36].

    Siddiqui, too, emphasized how the fight to impose Islam will intensify with "the help and involvement of the people of the land."[37] As the evidence indicates, this is already happening.
    As with any totalitarian system, controlling the information that the U.S. government is allowed to know about Islamic doctrine, history, law, and scriptures is paramount for the Brotherhood. If its sabotage operation were to be successful, the Ikhwan knew it would have to keep its targets ignorant of the true nature of Islamic jihad and shariah. This objective also fulfills the parallel objective to implement Islamic Law on slander and blasphemy, which says that "slander (ghiba) means to mention anything concerning a person [that is, a Muslim] that he would dislike."[38] The truth about Islam's violent history, savage penal system, inherent inequality and supremacism, and legal commitment to "warfare to establish the religion"[39] obviously would not be helpful in lulling unsuspecting kufr (infidels) into somnolence.

    One of the early and most important indicators of the Brotherhood's surreptitious expanding influence within the Intelligence Community [IC] showed up as a terminology scrub of official strategic documents dealing with counterterrorism. As Robert Spencer explains, the trend toward politically correct Global War on Terror (GWOT) language began with a misguided effort by Jim Guirard, the founder and president of the TrueSpeak Institute[40], a lobbying group influenced by input from the Muslim Brotherhood, including Yousef al-Qaradawi, the senior jurist of the Muslim Brotherhood. Unfortunately, thanks to Mr. Guirard, senior U.S. government officials, either incompetent or unwilling to fulfill their professional duty to "know the enemy," fell under the Brotherhood's influence and began substituting a garbled lexicon of inaccurate Arabic vocabulary[41] in place of the actual words the enemy uses to describe what he does and why he does it.[42].

    As a consequence, for example, where the 2004 9/11 Commission Report contained hundreds of instances of the use of words like "Jihad," "Muslim," and "Islam," by the time the FBI published its unclassified Counterterrorism Lexicon in 2008, those words were gone, entirely missing from the document.[43].

    That same year, the State Department, DHS, and the National Counter Terrorism Center (NCTC) all instructed their employees to refrain from using the words "jihad" or "mujahedeen" to describe Islamic terrorism and its perpetrators. A flurry of publications such as DHS's "Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations from American Muslims"[44]and NCTC's "Words That Work and Words That Don't: A Guide for Counterterrorism Communication"[45] advised that using such terms (that is, accurately, as the jihadis themselves do), could confer some level of religious credibility on terrorists or even possibly alienate moderate Muslims.[46] The 2009 National Intelligence Strategy[47] and 2010 National Security Strategy[48] both followed suit, avoiding the use of "jihad," "Muslim," "Islam," the "Muslim Brotherhood" or "shariah" (except to say that these were not what U.S. strategy was about except in terms of "engagement" or "partnership"). By 2012, the entire Executive Branch, including DHS and the Defense, Justice, and State Departments, of the U.S. government was busy purging all instructors and training curriculum that associated Islamic doctrine, law, and scriptures with Islamic terrorism.[49].

    The sheer absurdity of America's unilateral rejection of the vocabulary required appropriately to describe, understand, and counter the enemy is topped only by the sophistication of that enemy's tactics in getting us to do it. If the officials whose professional responsibility it is to implement countermeasures based on the enemy's threat doctrine are not allowed even to speak the words that explain the ideology that drives that enemy's hatred, there is no chance these officials will be able effectively to direct a national security strategy. And that, of course, is the whole point.

    The full-court press came in October 2011. On 19 October, an editorial appeared in the Los Angeles Times by Salam al-Marayati, president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), that threatened the FBI and Dept. of Justice with a refusal from the U.S. Muslim community to assist in counterterrorism efforts if alleged "deep anti-Muslim sentiment" in training materials were not "immediately addressed."[50] Piling on, a group of 57 "top U.S. Muslim groups," including Muslim Brotherhood front groups, delivered a letter the same day to NSC counterterrorism advisor John Brennan, urging him to begin an "independent, effective investigation into the federal government's training of its agents and other law enforcement" and institute a "purge" of any material that the undersigned organizations deemed unacceptable."[51].

    The official U.S. response followed closely at a 19 October meeting held at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. that was attended by representatives of many of the groups which had signed the letter and top officials from the Justice Department. Reportedly, the Muslims lobbied for "cutbacks in anti-terror funding, changes in agents' training manuals, additional curbs on investigators and a legal declaration that U.S. citizens' criticism of Islam constitutes racial discrimination."[52] By early 2012, it was reported that the FBI had "purged hundreds of bureau documents of instructional material about Muslims, some of which characterized them as prone to violence or terrorism."[53].

    This is what is meant by the Brotherhood term, "by their hands," from the Explanatory Memorandum.

    U.S. Government in the Bull's-Eye
    To reach this level of influence, the Muslim Brotherhood had moved gradually, in the classical stepped process patterned after Muhammad and his early followers, and that Sayyed Qutb outlined in his seminal monograph, "Milestones."[54] The establishment of Islamic centers, mosques, communities, and front group organizations was the first step in the "civilization jihad." The mainstreaming of their existence—and ultimately their messaging—in American society formed the foundation of a Brotherhood campaign to target U.S. government circles in all three branches (executive, judicial, and legislative) at the federal, state, and local levels. The national security and intelligence communities were top priority, but law enforcement, military and penal institutions, the media, think tanks and policy groups, academia, and non-Muslim religious communities were also part of the overall strategy. The remainder of this paper will focus in more closely on Muslim Brotherhood penetration of U.S. government agencies, especially at the senior executive level.

    The careful insinuation of Muslim Brothers into positions from which they can exercise influence on U.S. policy began long before the attacks of 9/11, although their success has accelerated dramatically under the administration of President Barack Obama. The massive Muslim Brotherhood organizational network in the U.S., so patiently built up over the decades since that first Oval Office meeting in 1953, eventually gave it a prominence and (false) reputation of credibility that was unmatched by any other Islamic groups, moderate or otherwise. Using a combination of taqiyya (deceit, dissimulation) and intimidation, the Muslim Brotherhood succeeded not only in making itself the "go-to" authority on all things related to Islam, but in suppressing those who would speak truth about Islam—again, often by persuading the U.S.'s own senior officials to do the job for them: "by their hands". When Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, publicly excoriated, then fired, US Army LTC Matthew Dooley, an instructor at National Defense University, in April 2012 over an earlier-approved course on Islam, and then ordered Dooley's career-ending Negative Officer Evaluation Report, the lesson was meant to serve as a stark warning to anyone else in the DoD who might be tempted to become accurately educated about Islam.[55].

    The horrific violence of terror attacks such as 9/11 also played a role by softening up the intended target: Western society. As Pakistani Brigadier S.K. Malik wrote in 1979, "Terror struck into the hearts of the enemies is not only a means, it is the end in itself. Once a condition of terror into the opponent's heart is obtained, hardly anything is left to be achieved."[56] By contrast with jihadis, who would fly airplanes into skyscrapers and send suicide bombers into pizza parlors full of women and children, the Muslim Brotherhood looked tame. That its ideology and ultimate objectives — re-establishment of the Caliphate and universal enforcement of Islamic Law — were identical to those of al-Qa'eda was part of the Ikhwan's Information Operation to control what U.S. officials are allowed to know.

    The first task was to maneuver Muslim Brothers into positions of trust with key U.S. government officials. One of the most successful Brotherhood placement and influence operations discovered to date involved Abdurahman Alamoudi, who penetrated the upper echelons of both Democratic and Republican presidential administrations. A naturalized American citizen who emigrated from Eritrea in 1979, Alamoudi parlayed his leadership roles with dozens of Muslim organizations all the way to the White House.[57]

    Despite being a member of the Muslim Brotherhood who openly had declared his support for HAMAS, he was accepted as a "moderate Muslim" and became an advisor to President Bill Clinton and then-First Lady Hillary Clinton. He was permitted to establish the Muslim Chaplain Program for the Department of Defense and then served as its nominating and certifying authority from 1993-98.[58] Deciding to hedge his bets by 1998, Alamoudi provided at least $20,000 in start-up funds to Republican activist Grover Norquist "to establish what would become a Muslim Brotherhood front organization" called the Islamic Free Market Institute, which aimed to penetrate Republican Party circles and the campaign of future President George W. Bush.[59] Along the way, Alamoudi inserted his long-time deputy, Khaled Saffuri, and eventually another prominent Ikhwan operative, Sami al-Arian, into the Bush presidential campaign. Alamoudi's moves paid off: after Bush's victory, another Alamoudi protégé with vast Brotherhood connections, Suhail Khan, was appointed to the White House Office of Public Liaison, from which key position he was able to manage the access of the U.S. Muslim community to the White House. This position gave the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood unprecedented opportunities to influence operations at the top levels of U.S. policymaking.[60] Grover Norquist himself escaped scrutiny for years thereafter as he continued operating within the conservative movement.[61]
    Despite Alamoudi's eventual fall from grace, arrest and imprisonment following conviction on terrorism-related charges as a senior al-Qa'eda financier, the damage was done. Even the eventual unmasking of Sami al-Arian as a senior operative of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) did not seem to jolt the counterintelligence instincts of the U.S. intelligence community. The U.S. executive branch, from the president to the NSC and key Cabinet Departments, had been effectively neutered at the very start of the Global War on Terror. This is how President Bush could stand on 17 September 2001 inside the Islamic Center of Washington, D.C., flanked by Nihad Awad, Executive Director of CAIR (the U.S. branch of HAMAS), and in all sincerity, declare that "Islam is peace."[62].

    The George W. Bush administration was targeted with a multifaceted, sophisticated information operation designed to deceive national security officials about the true nature of the Islamic jihadist enemy that attacked the homeland on 9/11. Surrounded by Muslim Brotherhood voices which told him true Islam had been "hijacked" by a "tiny minority of extremists," President Bush responded by flinging U.S. military might against those who had physically carried out those attacks. Far more importantly, however, is that he was successfully deterred from investigating the belief system that inspired those hijackers by a blanket of Muslim Brotherhood taqiyya that successfully smothered inquiry about the very Islamic doctrine that al-Qa'eda and the hijackers themselves declared to be their motivation. Although few realize it to this day, the crippling of the Bush administration's GWOT response marked a crucial turning point in the U.S. ability to defend itself against Islamic jihad.

    Hesham Islam was a senior advisor for international affairs who worked for Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England in the George W. Bush administration. A native of Cairo, Egypt, Islam, who is a Muslim, acted as point man for Pentagon outreach program to the Muslim community.[63] Among the groups with which Islam brokered contacts for the Defense Department was ISNA (Islamic Society of North America), an acknowledged affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood[64] that was named by the Justice Department in the summer of 2008 an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation's HAMAS terror-funding trial.[65] Thanks to Islam's efforts, England forged close ties with ISNA, attended its conventions and hosted ISNA delegations at Pentagon events, even inside England's own office.[66].

    Also serving in the Bush administration, in the intelligence section of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), was Army Reserve Major Stephen Coughlin, a lawyer by training, who had become the Pentagon's top expert in Islamic law and jihad.[67] His 2007 master's thesis, "'To Our Great Detriment': Ignoring What Extremists Say AboutJihad,"[68] accepted at the National Defense Intelligence College, has become the standard classic on the subject of what Islamic law teaches about jihad. Coughlin conducted countless briefings on his findings for senior Defense Department officials, and in 2007 prepared an analysis on the evidence being submitted by Justice Department prosecutors in the Holy Land Foundation case. That evidence, based on the Brotherhood's own documents, demonstrated that U.S. Islamic organizations established as front groups by the Muslim Brotherhood were waging a "civilization jihad" to "destroy the Western civilization from within," to use its own words.

    Among the organizations actively involved in channeling illicit funding to the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood offshoot, HAMAS, was ISNA, one of the largest and most prominent of such front groups — and, thanks to Mr. Islam[69], a Pentagon outreach partner. Hesham Islam moved swiftly to defend his own position, ISNA, and the Brotherhood. In March 2008,[70] as a result of Hesham Islam's campaign to have him removed, Coughlin's contract with the JCS was not renewed.

    Louay Safi is a Syrian-American Muslim who has held official positions with the Brotherhood-affiliated ISNA and the International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT). As ISNA's Executive Director of Leadership Development,[71]Safi served for a number of years in the mid-2000s as an endorsing agent for the Pentagon's Muslim military chaplain program.[72] He also served as IIIT's executive director (1995-97), and director of research (1999-2003);[73] IIIT is another listed Muslim Brotherhood organization.[74] Safi was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2003 trial of Sami al-Arian, who was convicted as a fundraiser for the terrorist group, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ).[75]

    Despite this documented resume, Safi was hired by the Pentagon under a Naval Postgraduate School contract to teach Islam to U.S. troops about to depart on deployments to Afghanistan.[76] Safi was at Ft. Bliss, TX on the day in November 2007 when Army Major Nidal Hassan gunned down thirteen service members and civilian employees at Ft. Hood, TX. The Army Criminal Investigations Division subsequently opened an investigation into the Army's use of Safi to provide seminars on Islam -- and those seminars were ended.[77] Grieving family members were outraged in early December 2011 when Safi was permitted access to Ft. Hood in an attempt to present a check to them on behalf of ISNA; called "blood money" by at least one military source, the check was refused.[78].

    Later, Safi's 2011 book, "Peace and the Limits of War" (published by IIIT), openly justified violence against apostates from Islam as well as "preemptive strikes" against troops preparing to attack Muslims.[79] Apparently in search of new employment for his skills, in August 2011, Safi reappeared as a founding member and director of the political office of the Syrian National Council (SNC), a Syrian rebel group dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood.[80] His photo and profile appear on the SNC website[81].

    As bad as these developments were, things became immeasurably worse for American national security under the administration of Barack Obama. Whereas President Bush and most of his administration insiders remained largely unaware that they had been manipulated by the Muslim Brotherhood, Obama and his close advisors proactively chose to reach out to the Brotherhood, its affiliates, and supporters for advice, training, and even administration appointments.

    Another senior affiliate, Rashad Hussain, is the Obama administration's envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). Hussain's background is replete with Muslim Brotherhood associations, including the American Muslim Council (founded by al-Qa'eda and Muslim Brotherhood operative, Abdurahman Alamoudi); the IIIT (which is on the Brotherhood's own list of "our friends and the organizations of our friends"); and the Muslim Students Association (MSA, the original Brotherhood front group in the U.S.).[82] In his official capacity, Hussain is responsible for providing advice on national security and Muslim outreach.

    He assisted in writing the President's June 2009 Cairo speech, in which Obama announced a new approach to the Muslim world and essentially declared war on his host, then-President Hosni Mubarak, by publicly signaling his recognition of the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood. Hussain also acts as point man for the Obama administration's cooperation with the Istanbul Process, the OIC effort to criminalize internationally any criticism of Islam. The current administration's weeks-long duplicity in the aftermath of the 11 September 2012 terror attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, when it repeatedly and mendaciously claimed that an Internet video trailer sparked a protest there that got out of hand, appears to have been carefully scripted not just with the OIC but Muslim Brotherhood organizations in the U.S., as well.

    Eboo Patel, Obama Administration Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighborhood Partnerships, spoke at a Muslim Students Association and ISNA convention, appearing on a panel[83] alongside Tariq Ramadan, grandson of the Muslim Brotherhood's founder, and Siraj Wahhaj, who was named as a possible co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and has defended the convicted WTC bombers. Wahhaj allegedly advocates the Islamic takeover of America.

    Huma Abedin, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff, has served her in various capacities since first coming to the White House as an intern in 1996, while a student at George Washington University in Washington DC (where she was a member of the MSA Executive Board).[84] For decades, she and members of her immediate family — mother, father, brother, and sister — have been closely associated with individuals among the top ranks of the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qa'eda financial support organizations, and the Saudi royal family. Given Abedin's security clearance and responsibilities to advise the Secretary on Middle East policy and politics, these affiliations must raise serious questions about her suitability for this post.

    To begin, Abedin's mother, Dr. Saleha Abedin[85] is a senior member of the Muslim Sisterhood (the distaff side of the Muslim Brotherhood) and is on record publicly supporting female genital mutilation, child marriage, marital rape, as well as stoning and lashing for adultery because they are consistent with Islamic shariah.[86] A co-founder with Dr. Abedin of the Dar el-Hekma Women's College in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, Yaseen Abdullah Kadi, is a Treasury Department "specially designated global terrorist."[87] In February 2010, at the behest of Huma Abedin,[88] Secretary Clinton visited and spoke at Dar el-Hekma.

    The most troubling associate of the Abedin family, however, is Abdullah Omar Nasseef,[89] a senior Muslim Brotherhood leadership figure and Saudi royal family insider with direct connections to financial entities implicated in pre-9/11 funding of al-Qa'eda. During his long career, Nasseef has been the President of the Muslim World Congress, Vice President of the Saudi Shura Council, President of King Abdul Azziz University, and Secretary General of the Muslim World League (MWL, co-founded by al-Banna son-in-law Ramadan and the parent organization of International Islamic Relief Organization [IIRO], an al-Qa'eda front tied to the 1993 World Trade Center and 1998 East Africa Embassy bombings[90]). Nasseef and his financial organizations were listed as defendants in post-9/11 legal cases[91] based on his involvement with Al-Baraka Investment and the Rabita Trust (which Nasseef founded in 1988), a subsidiary of the Muslim World League, and a Special Designated Global Entity listed by the UN Security Council for financing al-Qa'eda.

    Abdullah Omar Nasseef has been a close associate and benefactor of the Abedin family for well over 30 years.[92] While President of King Abdul Azziz University in the 1970s, Nasseef named Huma Abedin's father, Zainul Abedin (who was a visiting professor) the head of his newly-established Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA) and editor of its journal (JMMA). From then through at least 2012, the Abedin family — both parents, Huma, her brother Hassan, and sister Heba A. Khalid — has been responsible for editorial production of the IMMA journal. For twelve years, from 1996-2008, Huma Abedin and Nasseef, the al-Qa'eda financier, served together on the JMMA's editorial board.[93] This included the time when Huma Abedin was serving as a White House intern, then as assistant during and after Clinton's Senate campaigns, and finally as Clinton's traveling chief of staff during her 2008 presidential campaign.

    During the years that Huma Abedin has been a close to Hillary Clinton, the Department of State, like the U.S. government as a whole, has undergone a drastic shift in policy direction. Free speech issues and US government support for the al-Qa'eda/Muslim Brotherhood role in the MENA region revolts certainly top the list of concerns. While no outsider can know what advice Abedin provides behind closed doors, she has given no indication that her own world view or allegiance to the Muslim Brotherhood differs in any major respect from that of her family or life-long family associates.

    Conclusion
    As we can see, as early as the George W. Bush administration period, the Muslim Brotherhood already had achieved an information dominance that, in coming years, would only intensify. Not only did figures associated and identified with the Muslim Brotherhood achieve broad penetration at senior levels of U.S. policymaking, but voices that warned of their true agenda (such as Stephen Coughlin's) were actively excluded. That information dominance has contributed to startling consequences, most evident in the U.S. policy towards the al-Qa'eda and Muslim Brotherhood-dominated revolutions that many call the "Arab Spring," but which in fact are more accurately termed an "Islamic Awakening." Under the Muslim Brotherhood-influenced Obama administration, U.S. policy has undergone such a drastic shift in the direction of outright support for these jihadist movements — from al-Qa'eda militias in Libya, to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and both al-Qa'eda and Muslim Brotherhood-linked rebels in Syria — that it is scarcely recognizable as American any more. The infiltration of individuals such as Magid, Hussain, and Abedin, to name just a few, with such close Muslim Brotherhood identifications, to positions of influence at the highest levels of U.S. policymaking must be considered, at a minimum, a contributing factor.

    In June 2012, five courageous U.S. Congressional representatives (Michele Bachmann, Trent Franks, Louie Gohmert, Tom Rooney, and Lynn Westmoreland) sent letters to the Inspectors General of the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Justice, and State as well as the Office of the Director of National Security, requesting an investigation of Muslim Brotherhood influence within those agencies. That their patriotic initiative in defense of the security of U.S. policymaking should have been met only with an overwhelming barrage of criticism is tragic testament to the extent of success the Muslim Brotherhood has achieved in suppressing even the duty to counterintelligence awareness that is the first defense of a free people.[94] Given the long history of Muslim Brotherhood activity in this country, its declared objective to "destroy the Western civilization from within," and the extensive evidence of successful influence operations at the highest levels of the U.S. government, it is urgent that we recognize this clear and present danger that threatens not only our Republic but the values of Western civilization.
    Clare M. Lopez, a strategic policy and intelligence expert, is a senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy and the Clarion Fund. She was formerly a career operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency.

    Gatestone Institute: a non-partisan, not-for-profit international policy council and think tank is dedicated to educating the public about what the mainstream media fails to report in promoting:

    http://www.rightsidenews.com/2013041532349/us/islam-in-america/history-of-the-muslim-brotherhood-penetration-of-the-u-s-government.html

  • Pravda: Barack Obama is an illegal president, period... American politicians and the media are lying to the American people.

    By Lawrence Sellin • 06 26, 2012 •

    American politicians and the media are lying to the American people. They do so because they hope that their complicity in the greatest fraud in U.S. history will be overtaken by events, that is, the 2012 election. It is the Big Stall to cover up the Big Lie.

    In the Russian language there is a term called "vranyo." It is loosely defined as telling a white lie or a semi-truth. It may contain fantasy or involve the suppression of unpleasant parts of the truth.

    In regard to Obama's ineligibility and his alleged felonies, politicians and the media expect the American people to respond in this way:

    "You know that you are lying, I know that you are lying, and you know that I know that you are lying, but we both smile and nod in agreement."

    Barack Obama, according to Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the U. S. Constitution, is an illegal President. The law requires a candidate for the Presidency to be a "natural born citizen," that is, a second generation American, a U.S. citizen, whose parents were also U.S. citizens at the time of the candidate's birth.

    Obama's father was a citizen of Kenya and a British subject at the time of his birth, which made him forever ineligible for the Presidency. For the same reason, Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio is ineligible for the Presidency and Vice Presidency because his parents were Cuban citizens, not U.S. citizens at the time of his birth.

    There is no ambiguity, although those who wish to undermine the Constitution would like the American people to think otherwise.

    The difference between "citizen," that is, born in the U.S. and "natural born citizen" has been clear since the adoption of the U.S. Constitution on September 17, 1787.

    Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 states:

    "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

    A first draft of what would become Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, submitted by Alexander Hamilton to the Constitutional Convention on June 18, 1787 stated:

    "No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States."

    Fearing foreign influence on a future President and Commander in Chief of the American military, the future first U.S. Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, on July 25, 1787, asked the convention presiding officer George Washington to strengthen the requirements for the Presidency:

    "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."

    The term "or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" referred to loyal Americans who lived in the thirteen colonies at the time of the Revolutionary War, thus establishing the first generation of United States "citizens," upon which future "natural born" citizens would be created. The Founders, under Article II, allowed these original U.S. citizens to be eligible for the Presidency.

    As understood by the Founders and as applied to the U.S. Constitution, the term "natural born citizen" derived its meaning less from English common law, than from the codification of natural law described by Emerich de Vattel in his 1758 book "The Law of Nations."

    They knew from reading Vattel that a "natural born citizen" had a different standard from just "citizen," for he or she was a child born in the country to two citizen parents (Vattel, Section 212 in original French and English translation).

    That is the definition of a "natural born citizen," as recognized by numerous U.S. Supreme Court and lower court decisions (The Venus, 12U.S. 253(1814), Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242 (1830), Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) , Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F. Cas. 582 (C.C.W.D. Ark 1879), United States v. Ward, 42 F. 320 (1890); Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), Ludlam, Excutrix, & c., v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356 (1863) and more) and the framers of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the 14th Amendment, the Naturalization Act of 1795, 1798, 1802, 1885, and our modern 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401.

    There are historical arguments too numerous to include in a short article, which explain why the definition of "natural born subject," as found in the English common law, was not used as the basis of "natural born citizen" in the U.S. Constitution because Great Britain was a monarchy and the new nation was a constitutional republic.

    Legal precedent and interpretation leave no doubt regarding the meaning of "natural born citizen."

    The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

    "The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens."

    Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

    "The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."

    John Bingham, father of the 14th Amendment, which gave citizenship to American slaves after the Civil War, stated on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives in 1862:

    "All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens."

    In 1866, Bingham also stated on the House floor:

    "Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen."

    Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

    "The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first."

    United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

    "At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

    In the first of many recent efforts to amend the Constitutional requirement of "natural born" citizenship, Democrat House Rep. Jonathon B. Bingham introduced House Joint Resolution 33 (1975), which clearly recognized the distinction between "citizen" and "natural born citizen."

    "Provides that a citizen of the United States otherwise eligible to hold the Office of President shall not be ineligible because such citizen is not a natural born citizen."

    In a September 2008 Michigan Law Review article entitled "Originalism and the Natural Born Citizen Clause," Lawrence B. Solum, then John E. Cribbet Professor of Law at the University of Illinois College of Law, wrote:

    "What was the original public meaning of the phrase that establishes the eligibility for the office of President of the United States? There is general agreement on the core of its meaning. Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a natural born citizen."

    If you are unwilling to accept the exhaustive legal documentation regarding the true meaning of "natural born" citizenship, you may also try the common sense question:

    Why has every President since Martin van Buren been a second generation American except Obama and Chester A. Arthur, who also lied about his personal history?

    According to his own autobiography "Dreams from My Father," Barack Obama is not a "natural born citizen" and, therefore, is an illegal President. Every law that he has signed and every appointment that he has made is invalid.

    Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq. Colonel Sellin is the author of "Afghanistan and the Culture of Military Leadership". He receives email at lawrence.sellin@gmail.com

    http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/26-06-2012/121474-barack_obama_illegal_president-0/


    Special Report: The Story of Obama: All in The Company Part I
    By Wayne Madsen August 15, 2010

    WMR has discovered CIA files that document the agency’s connections to institutions and individuals figuring prominently in the lives of Barack Obama and his mother, father, grandmother, and stepfather.

    President Obama’s own work in 1983 for Business International Corporation, a CIA front that conducted seminars with the world’s most powerful leaders and used journalists as agents abroad, dovetails with CIA espionage activities conducted by his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham in 1960s post-coup Indonesia on behalf of a number of CIA front operations, including the East-West Center at the University of Hawaii, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and the Ford Foundation. Dunham met and married Lolo Soetoro, Obama’s stepfather, at the East-West Center in 1965. Soetoro was recalled to Indonesia in 1965 to serve as a senior army officer and assist General Suharto and the CIA in the bloody overthrow of President Sukarno.

    Barack Obama, Sr., who met Dunham in 1959 in a Russian language class at the University of Hawaii, had been part of what was described as an airlift of 280 East African students to the United States to attend various colleges — merely “aided” by a grant from the Joseph P. Kennedy Foundation, according to a September 12, 1960, Reuters report from London. The airlift was a CIA operation to train and indoctrinate future agents of influence in Africa, which was becoming a battleground between the United States and the Soviet Union and China for influence among newly-independent and soon-to-be independent countries on the continent.

    The airlift was condemned by the deputy leader of the opposition Kenyan African Democratic Union (KADU) as favoring

    Obama's African family
    certain tribes — the majority Kikuyus and minority Luos — over other tribes to favor the Kenyan African National Union (KANU), whose leader was Tom Mboya, the Kenyan nationalist and labor leader who selected Obama, Sr. for a scholarship at the University of Hawaii. Obama, Sr., who was already married with an infant son and pregnant wife in Kenya, married Dunham on Maui on February 2, 1961 and was also the university’s first African student. Dunham was three month’s pregnant with Barack Obama, Jr. at the time of her marriage to Obama, Sr.

    KADU deputy leader Masinda Muliro, according to Reuters, said KADU would send a delegation to the United States to investigate Kenyan students who received “gifts” from the Americans and “ensure that further gifts to Kenyan students are administered by people genuinely interested in Kenya’s development.’”

    Mboya received a $100,000 grant for the airlift from the Kennedy Foundation after he turned down the same offer from the U.S. State Department, obviously concerned that direct U.S. assistance would look suspicious to pro-Communist Kenyan politicians who suspected Mboya of having CIA ties. The Airlift Africa project was underwritten by the Kennedy Foundation and the African-American Students Foundation. Obama, Sr. was not on the first airlift but a subsequent one. The airlift, organized by Mboya in 1959, included students from Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika, Zanzibar, Northern Rhodesia, Southern Rhodesia, and Nyasaland
    Reuters also reported that Muliro charged that Africans were “disturbed and embittered” by the airlift of the selected students. Muliro “stated that “preferences were shown to two major tribes [Kikuyu and Luo] and many U.S.-bound students had failed preliminary and common entrance examinations, while some of those left behind held first-class certificates.”

    Obama, Sr. was a friend of Mboya and a fellow Luo. After Mboya was assassinated in 1969, Obama, Sr. testified at the trial of his alleged assassin. Obama, Sr. claimed he was the target of a hit-and-run assassination attempt after his testimony.

    Obama, Sr., who left Hawaii for Harvard in 1962, divorced Dunham in 1964. Obama, Sr. married a fellow Harvard student, Ruth Niedesand, a Jewish-American woman, who moved with him to Kenya and had two sons. They were later divorced. Obama, Sr. worked for the Kenyan Finance and Transport ministries as well as an oil firm. Obama, Sr. died in a 1982 car crash and his funeral was attended by leading Kenyan politicians, including future Foreign Minister Robert Ouko, who was murdered in 1990.

    CIA files indicate that Mboya was an important agent-of-influence for the CIA, not only in Kenya but in all of Africa. A formerly Secret CIA “Current Intelligence Weekly Summary,” dated November 19, 1959, states that Mboya served as a check on extremists at the second All-African People’s Conference (AAPC) in Tunis. The report states that “serious friction developed between Ghana’s Prime Minister Kwame NNkrumah and Kenyan nationalist Tom Mboya who cooperated effectively [emphasis added] last December to check extremists at the AAPC’s first meeting in Accra.”

    The term “cooperated effectively” appears to indicate that Mboya was cooperating with the CIA, which filed the report from field operatives in Accra and Tunis. While “cooperating” with the CIA in Accra and Tunis, Mboya selected the father of the president of the United States to receive a scholarship and be airlifted to the University of Hawaii where he met and married President Obama’s mother.

    An earlier CIA Current Intelligence Weekly Summary, Secret, and dated April 3, 1958, states that Mboya “still appears to be the most promising of the African leaders.” Another CIA weekly summary, Secret and dated December 18, 1958, calls Mboya the Kenyan nationalist an “able and dynamic young chairman” of the People’s Convention party who was viewed as an opponent of “extremists” like Nkrumah, supported by “Sino-Soviet representatives.”

    In a formerly Secret CIA report on the All-Africa Peoples Conference in 1961, dated November 1, 1961, Mboya’s conservatism, along with that of Taleb Slim of Tunisia, are contrasted to the leftist policies of Nkrumah and others. Pro-communists who were elected to the AAPC’s steering committee at the March 1961 Cairo conference, attended by Mboya, are identified in the report as Abdoulaye Diallo, AAPC Secretary General, of Senegal; Ahmed Bourmendjel of Algeria; Mario de Andrade of Angola; Ntau Mokhele of Basutoland; Kingue Abel of Cameroun; Antoine Kiwewa of Congo (Leopoldville); Kojo Botsio of Ghana; Ismail Toure of Guinea; T. O. Dosomu Johnson of Liberia; Modibo Diallo of Mali; Mahjoub Ben Seddik of Morocco; Djibo Bakari of Niger; Tunji Otegbeya of Nigeria; Kanyama Chiume of Nyasaland; Ali Abdullahi of Somalia; Tennyson Makiwane of South Africa, and Mohamed Fouad Galal of the United Arab Republic.

    The only attendees in Cairo who were given a clean bill of health by the CIA were Mboya, who appears to have been a snitch for the agency, and Joshua Nkomo of Southern Rhodesia, B. Munanka of Tanganyika, Abdel Magid Shaker of Tunisia, and John Kakonge of Uganda.
    Nkrumah would eventually be overthrown in a 1966 CIA-backed coup while he was on a state visit to China and North Vietnam. The CIA overthrow of Nkrumah followed by one year the agency’s overthrow of Sukarno, another coup that was connected to President Obama’s family on his mother’s side. There are suspicions that Mboya was assassinated in 1969 by Chinese agents working with anti-Mboya factions in the government of Kenyan President Jomo Kenyatta in order to eliminate a pro-U.S. leading political leader in Africa. Upon Mboya’s death, every embassy in Nairobi flew its flag at half-mast except for one, the embassy of the People’s Republic of China.

    Mboya’s influence in the Kenyatta government would continue long after his death and while Obama, Sr. was still alive. In 1975, after the assassination of KANU politician Josiah Kariuki, a socialist who helped start KANU, along with Mboya and Obama, Sr., Kenyatta dismissed three rebellious cabinet ministers who “all had personal ties to either Kariuki or Tom Mboya.” This information is contained in CIA Staff Notes on the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia, formerly Top Secret Umbra, Handle via COMINT Channels, dated June 24, 1975. The intelligence in the report, based on its classification, indicate the information was derived from National Security Agency intercepts in Kenya. No one was ever charged in the assassination of Kariuki.

    The intecepts of Mboya’s and Kariuki’s associates are an indication that the NSA and CIA also maintain intercepts on Barack Obama, Sr., who, as a non-U.S. person, would have been lawfully subject at the time to intercepts carried out by NSA and Britain’s Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ).
    Wayne Madsen is a Washington, DC-based investigative journalist, author and syndicated columnist. He has written for several renowned papers and blogs.

    Madsen is a regular contributor on Russia Today. He has been a frequent political and national security commentator on Fox News and has also appeared on ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera, and MS-NBC. Madsen has taken on Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity on their television shows. He has been invited to testifty as a witness before the US House of Representatives, the UN Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and an terrorism investigation panel of the French government.

    As a U.S. Naval Officer, he managed one of the first computer security programs for the U.S. Navy. He subsequently worked for the National Security Agency, the Naval Data Automation Command, Department of State, RCA Corporation, and Computer Sciences Corporation.

    Madsen is a member of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ), Association for Intelligence Officers (AFIO), and the National Press Club. He is a regular contributor to Opinion Maker.

    http://www.opinion-maker.org/2010/08/obama-all-in-the-company-part-i/

  • BENGHAZI: Names of "whistleblower" witnesses revealed... State Dept. Caught Editing Talking Points

    By James Rosen, Chad Pergram • May 04, 2013 • FoxNews.com

    Their identities have been a well-guarded secret, known only to their high-powered lawyers and a handful of House lawmakers and staff. But now Fox News has learned the names of the self-described Benghazi “whistleblowers” who are set to testify before a widely anticipated congressional hearing on Wednesday.

    Appearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee will be three career State Department officials: Gregory N. Hicks, the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya at the time of the Benghazi terrorist attacks; Mark I. Thompson, a former Marine and now the deputy coordinator for Operations in the agency’s Counterterrorism Bureau; and Eric Nordstrom, a diplomatic security officer who was the regional security officer in Libya, the top security officer in the country in the months leading up to the attacks.

    U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks on the U.S. outpost in Benghazi, Libya.
    At the time of Stevens's death, Hicks became the highest-ranking American diplomat in Libya.

    Nordstrom previously testified before the oversight committee, which is chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., in October 2012. Of the three witnesses, he is the only one who does not consider himself a whistleblower. At last fall's hearing, however, Nordstrom made headlines by detailing for lawmakers the series of requests that he, Ambassador Stevens, and others had made for enhanced security at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi in the period preceding the attacks, requests mostly rejected by State Department superiors.

    "For me the Taliban is on the inside of the [State Department] building," Nordstrom testified, angry over inadequate staffing at a time when the threat environment in Benghazi was deteriorating,
    The other two witnesses have not been heard from publicly before.
    Hicks is a veteran Foreign Service officer whose overseas postings have also included Afghanistan, Syria, and Yemen.

    Rep. Jason Chaffetz, a Utah Republican and committee member, said Hicks was in Tripoli at 9:40 p.m. local time when he received one of Stevens’ earliest phone calls amid the crisis.
    “We’re under attack! We’re under attack!” the ambassador reportedly shouted into his cell phone at Hicks.

    Chaffetz, who subsequently debriefed Hicks, also said the deputy “immediately called into Washington to trigger all the mechanisms” for an inter-agency response.

    “The real-life trauma that [Hicks] went through,” Chaffetz recalled to Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren, “I mean, I really felt it in his voice. It was hard to listen to. He’s gone through a lot, but he did a great job.”

    According to the State Department website, Thompson “advises senior leadership on operational counterterrorism matters, and ensures that the United States can rapidly respond to global terrorism crises.”

    Five years before the Benghazi attacks, he lectured at a symposium hosted by the University of Central Florida and titled “The Global Terrorism Challenge: Answers to Key Questions.”
    Joe diGenova, a former U.S. attorney, and wife Victoria Toensing, a former chief counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee -- Republicans -- disclosed this week that in their private practice in the nation’s capital, they now represent pro bono two career State Department employees who regard themselves as “whistleblowers” and would be testifying before Issa’s committee at its next Benghazi hearing, on May 8.

    The lawyers said their clients believe their accounts of Benghazi were spurned by the Accountability Review board (ARB), the official investigative body convened by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to review the terrorist attacks, and that the two employees have faced threats and intimidation from as-yet-unnamed superiors.

    “I'm not talking generally, I'm talking specifically about Benghazi -- that people have been threatened,” Toensing told Fox News on Wednesday. “And not just the State Department; people have been threatened at the CIA. ... It's frightening. ...They're taking career people and making them well aware that their careers will be over.”

    DiGenova told Fox News on Thursday, by way of describing his and Toensing’s respective clients: “There were people who were material witnesses, who wanted to talk to [the ARB], and they were not allowed to talk to them.

    “The people that we are representing are career civil
    servants...people who have served the country overseas…in dangerous positions all over the world, have risked their lives and only want to tell the truth.”

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/04/benghazi-names-whistleblower-witnesses-revealed/


    The Benghazi Talking Points
    And how they were changed to obscure the truth
    MAY 13, 2013 • BY STEPHEN F. HAYES • WeeklyStandard.com

    Even as the White House strove last week to move beyond questions about the Benghazi attacks of Tuesday, September 11, 2012, fresh evidence emerged that senior Obama administration officials knowingly misled the country about what had happened in the days following the assaults. The Weekly Standard has obtained a timeline briefed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence detailing the heavy substantive revisions made to the CIA’s talking points, just six weeks before the 2012 presidential election, and additional information about why the changes were made and by whom.

    As intelligence officials pieced together the puzzle of events unfolding in Libya, they concluded even before the assaults had ended that al Qaeda-linked terrorists were involved. Senior administration officials, however, sought to obscure the emerging picture and downplay the significance of attacks that killed a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans. The frantic process that produced the changes to the talking points took place over a 24-hour period just one day before Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, made her now-famous appearances on the Sunday television talk shows. The discussions involved senior officials from the State Department, the National Security Council, the CIA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the White House.

    The exchange of emails is laid out in a 43-page report from the chairmen of five committees in the House of Representatives. Although the investigation was conducted by Republicans, leading some reporters and commentators to dismiss it, the report quotes directly from emails between top administration and intelligence officials, and it includes footnotes indicating the times the messages were sent. In some cases, the report did not provide the names of the senders, but The Weekly Standard has confirmed the identities of the authors of two critical emails—one indicating the main reason for the changes and the other announcing that the talking points would receive their final substantive rewrite at a meeting of top administration officials on Saturday, September 15.

    The White House provided the emails to members of the House and Senate intelligence committees for a limited time and with the stipulation that the documents were available for review only and would not be turned over to the committees. The White House and committee leadership agreed to that arrangement as part of a deal that would keep Republican senators from blocking the confirmation of John Brennan, the president’s choice to run the CIA. If the House report provides an accurate and complete depiction of the emails, it is clear that senior administration officials engaged in a wholesale rewriting of intelligence assessments about Benghazi in order to mislead the public. The Weekly Standard sought comment from officials at the White House, the State Department, and the CIA, but received none by press time. Within hours of the initial attack on the U.S. facility, the State Department Operations Center sent out two alerts. The first, at 4:05 p.m. (all times are Eastern Daylight Time), indicated that the compound was under attack; the second, at 6:08 p.m., indicated that Ansar al Sharia, an al Qaeda-linked terrorist group operating in Libya, had claimed credit for the attack.

    According to the House report, these alerts were circulated widely inside the government, including at the highest levels. The fighting in Benghazi continued for another several hours, so top Obama administration officials were told even as the fighting was taking place that U.S. diplomats and intelligence operatives were likely being attacked by al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists. A cable sent the following day, September 12, by the CIA station chief in Libya, reported that eyewitnesses confirmed the participation of Islamic militants and made clear that U.S. facilities in Benghazi had come under terrorist attack. It was this fact, along with several others, that top Obama officials would work so hard to obscure.

    After a briefing on Capitol Hill by CIA director David Petraeus, Democrat Dutch Ruppersburger, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, asked the intelligence community for unclassified guidance on what members of Congress could say in their public comments on the attacks. The CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis prepared the first draft of a response to the congressman, which was distributed internally for comment at 11:15 a.m. on Friday, September 14 (Version 1 at right).

    This initial CIA draft included the assertion that the U.S. government “know[s] that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack.” That draft also noted that press reports “linked the attack to Ansar al Sharia. The group has since released a statement that its leadership did not order the attacks, but did not deny that some of its members were involved.” Ansar al Sharia, the CIA draft continued, aims to spread sharia law in Libya and “emphasizes the need for jihad.” The agency draft also raised the prospect that the facilities had been the subject of jihadist surveillance and offered a reminder that in the previous six months there had been “at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy.”

    After the internal distribution, CIA officials amended that draft to include more information about the jihadist threat in both Egypt and Libya. “On 10 September we warned of social media reports calling for a demonstration in front of the [Cairo] Embassy and that jihadists were threatening to break into the Embassy,” the agency had added by late afternoon. And: “The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al Qaeda in Benghazi and Libya.” But elsewhere, CIA officials pulled back. The reference to “Islamic extremists” no longer specified “Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda,” and the initial reference to “attacks” in Benghazi was changed to “demonstrations.”

    The talking points were first distributed to officials in the interagency vetting process at 6:52 p.m. on Friday. Less than an hour later, at 7:39 p.m., an individual identified in the House report only as a “senior State Department official” responded to raise “serious concerns” about the draft. That official, whom The Weekly Standard has confirmed was State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland, worried that members of Congress would use the talking points to criticize the State Department for “not paying attention to Agency warnings.”

    In an attempt to address those concerns, CIA officials cut all references to Ansar al Sharia and made minor tweaks. But in a follow-up email at 9:24 p.m., Nuland wrote that the problem remained and that her superiors—she did not say which ones—were unhappy. The changes, she wrote, did not “resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership,” and State Department leadership was contacting National Security Council officials directly. Moments later, according to the House report, “White House officials responded by stating that the State Department’s concerns would have to be taken into account.” One official—Ben Rhodes, The Weekly Standard is told, a top adviser to President Obama on national security and foreign policy—further advised the group that the issues would be resolved in a meeting of top administration officials the following morning at the White House.

    There is little information about what happened at that meeting of the Deputies Committee. But according to two officials with knowledge of the process, Mike Morrell, deputy director of the CIA, made broad changes to the draft afterwards. Morrell cut all or parts of four paragraphs of the six-paragraph talking points—148 of its 248 words (see Version 2 above). Gone were the reference to “Islamic extremists,” the reminders of agency warnings about al Qaeda in Libya, the reference to “jihadists” in Cairo, the mention of possible surveillance of the facility in Benghazi, and the report of five previous attacks on foreign interests.

    What remained—and would be included in the final version of the talking points—was mostly boilerplate about ongoing investigations and working with the Libyan government, together with bland language suggesting that the “violent demonstrations”—no longer “attacks”—were spontaneous responses to protests in Egypt and may have included generic “extremists” (see Version 3 above).

    If the story of what happened in Benghazi was dramatically stripped down from the first draft of the CIA’s talking points to the version that emerged after the Deputies Committee meeting, the narrative would soon be built up again. In ensuing days, administration officials emphasized a “demonstration” in front of the U.S. facility in Benghazi and claimed that the demonstrators were provoked by a YouTube video. The CIA had softened “attack” to “demonstration.” But as soon became clear, there had been no demonstration in Benghazi.

    More troubling was the YouTube video. Rice would spend much time on the Sunday talk shows pointing to this video as the trigger of the chaos in Benghazi. “What sparked the violence was a very hateful video on the Internet. It was a reaction to a video that had nothing to do with the United States.” There is no mention of any “video” in any of the many drafts of the talking points.

    Still, top Obama officials would point to the video to explain Benghazi. President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton even denounced the video in a sort of diplomatic public service announcement in Pakistan. In a speech at the United Nations on September 25, the president mentioned the video several times in connection with Benghazi.

    On September 17, the day after Rice appeared on the Sunday shows, Nuland defended Rice’s performance during the daily briefing at the State Department. “What I will say, though, is that Ambassador Rice, in her comments on every network over the weekend, was very clear, very precise, about what our initial assessment of what happened is. And this was not just her assessment, it was also an assessment you’ve heard in comments coming from the intelligence community, in comments coming from the White House.”

    It was a preview of the administration’s defense of its claims on Ben­ghazi. After pushing the intelligence community to revise its talking points to fit the administration’s preferred narrative, administration officials would point fingers at the intelligence community when parts of that narrative were shown to be misleading or simply untrue.

    And at times, members of the intelligence community appeared eager to help. On September 28, a statement from ODNI seemed designed to quiet the growing furor over the administration’s explanations of Benghazi. “In the immediate aftermath, there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo. We provided that initial assessment to Executive Branch officials and members of Congress, who used that information to discuss the attack publicly and provide updates as they became available.”

    The statement continued: “As we learned more about the attack, we revised our initial assessment to reflect new information indicating that it was a deliberate and organized attack carried out by extremists. It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attack, and if extremist group leaders directed their members to participate. However, we do assess that some of those involved were linked to groups affiliated with, or sympathetic to al Qaeda.”

    The statement strongly implies that the information about al Qaeda-linked terrorists was new, a revision of the initial assessment. But it wasn’t. Indeed, the original assessment stated, without qualification, “we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack.”

    The statement from the ODNI came not from James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, but from his spokesman, Shawn Turner. When the statement was released, current and former intelligence officials told The Weekly Standard that they found the statement itself odd and the fact that it didn’t come from Clapper stranger still. Clapper was traveling when he was first shown a draft of the statement to go out under his name. It is not an accident that it didn’t.

    The revelations about exactly how the talking points were written, revised, and then embellished come amid renewed scrutiny of the administration’s handling of Benghazi. Fox News spoke to a Special Ops soldier last week who raised new questions about what happened during the attack, and the State Department’s inspector general acknowledged that the office would be investigating the production of the Administrative Review Board report on the attacks because of concerns that investigators did not speak to a broad spectrum of individuals with knowledge of the attack and its aftermath. On May 8, the House Oversight and Government Reform committee will hold another hearing on the matter. And Republicans in Congress have asked the administration to release all of the emails, something that would further clarify how the changes came about.

    Stephen F. Hayes is a senior writer at The Weekly Standard.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/benghazi-talking-points_720543.html

  • Eric Holder says Feds Will Ignore State Laws and Enforce Gun Grab

    Eric Holder to Kansas governor: New state gun law unconstitutional
    By David Sherfinski-The Washington Times

    A new law in Kansas that prevents government agents from enforcing federal gun laws in the state is unconstitutional, Attorney General Eric H. Holder said.

    “In purporting to override federal law and to criminalize the official acts of federal officers, [the law] directly conflicts with federal law and is therefore unconstitutional,” Mr. Holder wrote to Gov. Sam Brownback in a letter dated April 26. “Federal officers who are responsible for enforcing federal laws and regulations in order to maintain public safety cannot be forced to choose between the risk of a criminal prosecution by a state and the continued performance of their federal duties.”

    The measure, known as the Second Amendment Protection Act, prevents any law enforcement official from enforcing any federal regulation or law governing any firearm, accessory, or ammunition “manufactured commercially or privately and owned in Kansas, provided it remains within the borders of Kansas.”

    It also exempts any firearm of the same description from federal regulation and allows state officials to enjoin agents from enforcing federal gun laws regarding firearms owned in the state.
    Mr. Holder cites the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which says federal law trumps conflicting state authority or exercise of power. Kansas’s law became effective April 25.

    Mr. Holder wrote that federal authorities “will continue to execute their duties to enforce all federal firearms laws and regulations. Moreover, the United States will take all appropriate action, including litigation if necessary, to prevent the State of Kansas from interfering with the activities of federal officials enforcing federal law.”

    Mr. Brownback replied to Mr. Holder on Thursday.
    “The right to keep and bear arms is a right that Kansans hold dear,” Mr. Brownback wrote in a letter dated May 2. “It is a right enshrined not only in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, but also protected by the Kansas Bill of Rights.

    “The people of Kansas have repeatedly and overwhelmingly reaffirmed their commitment to protecting this fundamental right. The people of Kansas are likewise committed to defending the sovereignty of the State of Kansas as guaranteed in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution,” he said.
    Mr. Brownback goes on to write that the legislation was passed on wide and bipartisan votes in the Kansas House of Representatives and the Kansas Senate (96-24 and 35-4, respectively), and that the Democratic minority leader in each chamber supported it.

    “This is not a partisan issue in Kansas,” he wrote. “The people of Kansas have clearly expressed their sovereign will. It is my hope that upon further review, you will see their right to do so.”
    A handful of states proposed similar laws as Congress was weighing measures to ban semiautomatic, military-style rifles and high-capacity magazines, as well as expanded background checks on gun purchases.

    An effort to expand gun-purchase background checks to sales online and at gun shows recently stalled in the U.S. Senate, though some proponents say similar legislation could be brought up later this year.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/2/attorney-general-eric-holder-kansas-gov-sam-brownb/


    Eric Holder says Feds Will Ignore State Laws and Enforce Gun Grab
    FRACTURED PARADIGM – MAY 3, 2013

    Attorney General Eric Holder has written to Kansas Governor Sam Brownback[1], informing him that the Obama administration considers state attempts to protect the Second Amendment “unconstitutional” and that federal agents will “continue to execute their duties,” regardless of state statutes to the contrary.

    The letter, dated April 26, specifically references a Kansas statute recently signed into law by Brownback[2] that criminalizes any attempt by federal officers or agents to infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of citizens of the Sunflower State. Section 7 of the new law declares:

    It is unlawful for any official, agent or employee of the government of the United States, or employee of a corporation providing services to the government of the United States to enforce or attempt to enforce any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States regarding a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately and owned in the state of Kansas and that remains within the borders of Kansas. Violation of this section is a severity level 10 nonperson felony.

    The right of states to refuse to enforce unconstitutional federal acts is known as nullification.

    Nullification is a concept of constitutional law recognizing the right of each state to nullify, or invalidate, any federal measure that exceeds the few and defined powers allowed the federal government as enumerated in the Constitution.

    Nullification exists as a right of the states because the sovereign states formed the union, and as creators of the compact, they hold ultimate authority as to the limits of the power of the central government to enact laws that are applicable to the states and the citizens thereof.

    As President Obama and the United Nations accelerate their plan to disarm Americans[3], the need for nullification is urgent, and liberty-minded citizens are encouraged at the sight of state legislators boldly asserting their right to restrain the federal government through application of that very powerful and very constitutional principle.

    Both Attorney General Holder and President Obama are trained lawyers, so one would expect that they have read the Federalist Papers. In fairness, they probably have, but perhaps they overlooked Federalist, No. 33[4], where Alexander Hamilton explained the legal validity of federal acts that exceed the powers granted to it by the Constitution. Hamilton wrote:

    If a number of political societies enter into a larger political society, the laws which the latter may enact, pursuant to the powers intrusted [sic] to it by its constitution, must necessarily be supreme over those societies and the individuals of whom they are composed…. But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the larger society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such. [Emphasis in original.]

    Holder denies that states have the right to withstand federal tyranny and argues that the Constitution declares federal acts to be the “supreme law of the land.”

    His comments echo a common misreading and misunderstanding of Article VI of the Constitution, the so-called Supremacy Clause.

    The Supremacy Clause (as some wrongly call it) of Article VI[5] does not declare that federal laws are the supreme law of the land without qualification. What it says is that the Constitution “and laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof” are the supreme law of the land.

    Read that clause again: “In pursuance thereof,” not in violation thereof. If an act of Congress is not permissible under any enumerated power given to it in the Constitution, it was not made in pursuance of the Constitution and therefore not only is not the supreme law of the land, it is not the law at all.

    Constitutionally speaking, then, whenever the federal government passes any measure not provided for in the limited roster of its enumerated powers, those acts are not awarded any sort of supremacy. Instead, they are “merely acts of usurpations” and do not qualify as the supreme law of the land. In fact, acts of Congress are the supreme law of the land only if they are made in pursuance of its constitutional powers, not in defiance thereof.

    Alexander Hamilton put an even finer point on the issue when he wrote in Federalist, No. 78[6], “There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the constitution, can be valid.”

    Once more legislators, governors, citizens, and law professors realize this fact, they will more readily and fearlessly accept that the states are uniquely situated to perform the function described by Madison above and reiterated in a speech to Congress delivered by him in 1789. “The state legislatures will jealously and closely watch the operation of this government, and be able to resist with more effect every assumption of power than any other power on earth can do; and the greatest opponents to a federal government admit the state legislatures to be sure guardians of the people’s liberty,” Madison declared.

    State lawmakers in Kansas and several other states are catching on, and nullification bills stopping federal overstepping of constitutional boundaries are being considered. These measures nullify not only the impending federal gun grab, but the mandates of ObamaCare and the indefinite detention provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), as well.

    In light of Holder’s letter, it appears that we have arrived at a time in the history of our Republic when the author of the Declaration of Independence (Thomas Jefferson) and the “Father of the Constitution” (James Madison) are considered enemies of liberty.

    In the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions[7], Jefferson and Madison declared their allegiance to the union, but insisted that states have the right — the duty — to interpose themselves between citizens and federal despotism.

    What Holder fails to appreciate is that the consent of the states created the Constitution and thus created the federal government. This act of collective consenting is called a compact. In this compact (or contract), the states selected delegates who met in Philadelphia in 1787 and conferred some of the powers of the states to a federal government. These powers were enumerated in the Constitution drafted at that convention and the Constitution became the written record of the compact.

    This element of the creation of the union is precisely where the states derive their power to nullify acts of the federal government that exceed its constitutional authority. It is a trait woven inextricably within every strand of sovereignty, and it was the sovereign states that ceded the territory of authority that the federal government occupies.

    In his letter to Governor Brownback, Attorney General Holder demonstrates that he is as ignorant as his boss as to the proper, constitutional relationship between state governments and the federal government. Accordingly, when Holder threatens to use “all appropriate action” to “prevent the State of Kansas from interfering with the activities of federal officials enforcing federal law,” what he is saying is that he will use any means necessary to prevent the sovereign state of Kansas (and any other state brave enough to take a stand against the federal government) from exercising its right to protect its citizens from federal disarmament.

    And, more importantly, by disregarding a legally enacted Kansas statute preserving the right of its citizens to keep and bear arms, the Obama administration is not only ignoring the Second Amendment, but it is also ignoring the 10th Amendment and its restrictions on federal power.

    http://fracturedparadigm.com/2013/05/03/eric-holder-says-feds-will-ignore-state-laws-and-enforce-gun-grab/

  • Obama document fraud case on the move

    ‘We recently discovered new irrefutable evidence, which confirms, hands down, the document is a fraud’
    By Linda Bentley @ Sonoran News | MAY 1, 2013

    CAVE CREEK – On Tuesday, Cold Case Posse lead investigator Lt. Mike Zullo (r) told Sonoran News there is a movement underfoot toward prosecution of the Obama document fraud they uncovered during their investigation.

    According to Zullo, there is an increased number of people, whom he would only refer to as “VIPs,” that will not only bring the case to the public light, but to prosecution.

    Zullo also stated, “We recently discovered new irrefutable evidence, which confirms, hands down, the document [birth certificate] is a fraud.”

    “The problem isn’t the evidence,” said Zullo, “It’s getting people who can do something about it to attend an evidence presentation.”

    But, he said, that all appears to be changing and there is increased interest in exposing the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people.

    Attorney Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, currently has an Obama eligibility case on appeal in the Alabama Supreme Court before Judge Roy Moore.

    Klayman is representing 2012 Constitution Party presidential nominee Virgil Goode and Alabama Republican Party leader Hugh McInnish, who are asking the court to force Secretary of State Beth Chapman to verify that all candidates on the state’s 2012 ballot were eligible to serve.

    The appeal was filed last month after the case was dismissed by the Montgomery Circuit Court.
    In an interview with WND in 2010, Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he’s not.

    Moore defended Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin’s right to demand Obama provide proof of his eligibility to serve as Commander in Chief prior to obeying his deployment orders and said Lakin “not only has a right to follow his personal convictions under the Constitution, he has a duty.”

    According to Klayman, the secretary of state “has an affirmative duty that stems from her oath of office under both the U.S. and Alabama constitutions, to protect the citizens from fraud and other misconduct by candidates.”

    In his brief, Klayman stated, Chapman was presented with “credible evidence and information from an official source,” indicating Obama might not be qualified to hold the position of president of the United States, prior to the election.

    Moore is known for his refusal to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Supreme Court after being ordered to do so by a federal judge.

    In 2003, the Alabama Court of the Judiciary voted unanimously to remove Moore from his post as chief justice.

    Moore won his seat back as Alabama Chief Justice on Nov. 6, 2012.

    Klayman said Moore was “one courageous and brave man,” adding, “There are few in this country.”

    Zullo said the Democrat Party has filed an amicus brief in the case and included as “evidence” a copy of Obama’s purported birth certificate.

    The birth certificate is not authenticated by anyone, which Zullo said makes it “just a piece of paper.”

    However, Zullo pointed out the birth certificate is printed on safety paper that was never used by the state of Hawaii during the period of time the document was supposedly produced.

    Reminding everyone there has been a media blackout for the last five years on the issue, Zullo said he sees a light at the end of the tunnel and asks people to be patient just a little while longer and stated, “Hopefully by mid-summer.”

    http://www.sonorannews.com/archives/2013/130501/news-obama.html

  • SHERIFF: 'We want people to call us if guy down street hates government'...

    Palm Beach County sheriff gets $1 million for violence prevention unit amid questions about civil liberties, care for mentally ill

    BY DARA KAM AND STACEY SINGER - PALM BEACH POST STAFF WRITERS Monday, April 29, 2013

    Florida House and Senate budget leaders have awarded Palm Beach County Sheriff Ric Bradshaw $1 million for a new violence prevention unit aimed at preventing tragedies like those in Newtown, Conn., and Aurora, Colo., from occurring on his turf.
    Bradshaw plans to use the extra $1 million to launch “prevention intervention” units featuring specially trained deputies, mental health professionals and caseworkers. The teams will respond to citizen phone calls to a 24-hour hotline with a knock on the door and a referral to services, if needed.

    The goal will be avoiding crime — and making sure law enforcement knows about potential powder kegs before tragedies occur, Bradshaw said. But the earmark, which is a one-time-only funding provision, provoked a debate Monday among mental health advocates and providers about the balance between civil liberties, privacy and protecting the public.

    Bradshaw said his proposal is a first-of-its-kind in the nation, and he hopes it will become a model for the rest of the state like his gang prevention and pill-mill units.

    “Every single incident, whether it’s Newtown, that movie theater, or the guy who spouts off at work and then goes home and kills his wife and two kids — in every single case, there were people who said they knew ahead of time that there was a problem,” Bradshaw said. “If the neighbor of the mom in Newtown had called somebody, this might have saved 25 kids’ lives.”

    Bradshaw is readying a hotline and is planning public service announcements to encourage local citizens to report their neighbors, friends or family members if they fear they could harm themselves or others.

    The goal won’t be to arrest troubled people but to get them help before there’s violence, Bradshaw said. As a side benefit, law enforcement will have needed information to keep a close eye on things.

    “We want people to call us if the guy down the street says he hates the government, hates the mayor and he’s gonna shoot him,” Bradshaw said. “What does it hurt to have somebody knock on a door and ask, ‘Hey, is everything OK?’ ”

    That’s enough for Senate budget chief Joe Negron, R-Stuart, who helped push through the funding last weekend.

    He said he met with Bradshaw about the program and “got assurances from the sheriff that this is going to be done in a way that respects people’s autonomy and privacy, and that he makes sure to protect against people making false claims.”

    Mental health advocates, however, worry about a potential new source of stigma, and the potential for erosion of the civil rights of people with mental illnesses.

    “How are they possibly going to watch everybody who makes a comment like that? It’s subjective,” said Liz Downey, executive director of the Palm Beach County branch of the National Alliance on Mental Illness. “We don’t want to take away people’s civil liberties just because people aren’t behaving the way we think they should be.”

    Bradshaw acknowledged the risk that anyone in a messy divorce or in a dispute with a neighbor could abuse the hotline. But, he said, he’s confident that his trained professionals will know how to sort out fact from fiction.

    “We know how to sift through frivolous complaints,” he said.

    The proposal still needs the blessing of Gov. Rick Scott, who has line-item veto authority.

    But if it goes forward, Palm Beach County’s already stretched mental health and substance abuse providers could find themselves even busier. There is no ready source of funds once the $1 million runs its course, as there hasn’t been an increase to community mental health funding in many years.

    “Our community agencies throughout the state don’t have the funds to meet the needs they have currently,” said Bob Sharpe, CEO of the Florida Council for Community Mental Health. “It sounds like it could work, but with no new funding we’d have to find it within existing resources.”

    If Bradshaw’s teams can keep people out of crisis units and promote early intervention, that has the potential to save money, said Ann Berner, CEO of the Southeast Florida Behavioral Health Network, which manages mental health care payments for the state.

    To be successful, however, there will have to be close coordination with the mental health providers, she said. For example, the county already pays for mobile crisis response teams at two nonprofit mental health providers, a service that includes a 24-hour crisis call center. They, too, are trained to de-escalate conflicts and refer troubled people to care. Which ones will respond when there’s a call from a school or a home? That will have to be clarified.

    Also, after troubled people are identified by Bradshaw’s teams, then what? Who will pay for their care? The state? Medicaid? The county? The Palm Beach County Public Defender has a good program to ensure qualified people apply for the Social Security and Medicaid benefits they may need, she said. Some high-level conversations have started, but more are needed, Berner added.

    “I think that would be an area we really need to collaborate on, and soon,” she said.

    The $1 million Bradshaw won represents a third of what he had sought from the Legislature, but it’s a 10-fold bump from what was originally earmarked before House and Senate budget leaders finalized the state’s $74 billion budget over the weekend.

    http://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/bradshaw-gets-1-million-for-violence-prevention-un/nXbs4/

  • US unveils major arms deal with Israel, Saudi, UAE

    By Dan De Luce

    WASHINGTON (AFP) -- The United States unveiled plans Friday to sell $10 billion worth of advanced missiles and aircraft to Israel, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia in a bid to counter the threat posed by Iran.

    It was highly unusual for the Pentagon to announce an arms deal covering three countries and the move seemed to be designed to send a warning to Iran that Washington's partners in the region were beefing up their military power.

    But officials insisted the arms package did not reflect any shift in US policy on Iran.

    The elaborate deal would provide Israel with anti-radiation missiles designed to take out enemy air defenses, radar for fighter jets, aerial refueling tankers and Osprey V-22 tilt-rotor transport aircraft, defense officials told reporters.

    Israel would be the first foreign country to be allowed to buy the US military's Osprey, which can take off and land like a helicopter but fly with the speed of a plane, officials said.

    The deal "not only sustains but augments Israel's qualitative military edge," said a senior defense official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

    Under the package, which is still being finalized, the US government will sell 26 F-16 fighter jets to the United Arab Emirates as well as sophisticated missiles for the warplanes, which officials would not specify.

    The UAE part of the arms deal comes to nearly $5 billion, officials said.

    Saudi Arabia, which had already agreed to buy 84 F-15 fighters in 2010, would purchase the same advanced missiles provided to the United Arab Emirates, allowing Saudi fighters to strike ground targets at a safe distance.

    Pentagon officials unveiled the deal a day before Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel's departure on a week-long trip to the region, with stops in Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates.

    Bolstering Israel's air power with crucial mid-air refueling tankers and missiles is sure to fuel speculation that Washington could be helping Israel to prepare for a preemptive strike against Iran.

    But officials said it would be months or more for the weapons and aircraft to be delivered. They also insisted the hardware could be used for a variety of missions and was not intended to address a particular country or specific threat.

    "This doesn't signal a change in US policy towards Iran," said the defense official.

    But the UAE and the Saudi leadership are deeply concerned over Iran's nuclear and missile programs while Israel has said it may be forced to take preemptive military action if it believes Iran is close to having an atomic bomb.

    The arms sales followed months of intense "shuttle diplomacy" by the Pentagon among the three countries, officials said, with the Americans seeking to boost the capabilities of Arab allies while maintaining a longstanding US commitment to ensure Israel enjoys military superiority in the region.

    "This is one of the most complex and carefully orchestrated arms packages in American history," said the defense official.

    http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=587394

  • Biden: 'The President Is Already Lining Up Some Additional Executive Actions' for Guns

    Biden Pledges More Executive Action On Guns “Later This Week”

    On conference call with stakeholders, Biden says Obama will carry the gun control fight forward on his own.

    Updated: The White House says it is only implementing some of the executive actions Obama announced in January.

    April 18, 2013 Evan McMorris-Santoro BuzzFeed

    WASHINGTON — Vice President Biden told White House allies in the gun control fight Thursday that President Obama will be announcing new executive actions on gun violence in the days after the Senate voted down a gun violence bill.

    On a conference call with "stakeholders," Biden told gun control advocates that the fight is not over and that eventual action on gun control will come. Press were not invited to the conference call; a participant provided BuzzFeed with access.

    "Look, I know you're going to say that I'm just being an optimist and I'm trying to put a good face on this. But, you know, I've been around here a long time and we've already done, because of you, some really good things," Biden said. "Number one, the president is already lining up some additional executive actions he's going to be taking later this week."

    After the Newtown shootings, Obama took a number of executive actions to expand research into gun violence and other areas favored by the gun control community. He took the actions without congressional approval, leading to outrage by some conservatives.

    Biden mentioned several areas where executive action has been taken, including helping schools that want them to hire more armed police offers and training teachers to identify and treat possible future school shooters.

    "Already we have put out notifications to all communities that if they want school resource officers to use their portion of the COPS grant to be able to deal with a school resource officer or someone in the school who's a counselor, or whatever they need," he said.

    "Secondly, we also have pushed forward grants for new and available funding for dealing with training teachers and dealing with alerting them to high-risk, you know, kids in their communities and their school that are signs that they're going to have a real problem and may be the very kids you need to get to now before they end up like an Adam Lanza," he said. "We also are going to have a national mental health dialogue where we're going to vastly expand mental health availability under the Mental Health Parity act as well as the Affordable Care Act."

    Biden said the White House is looking at ways to increase the number of people denied the right to buy a firearm under the current background check system.

    "We also are reviewing the list of prohibited purchasers to maybe expand that list of prohibited purchasers," he said. "Granted, only 60% of people who go for a purchase are doing it [background checks]."
    Biden lamented Wednesday's Senate vote on the call but said it had taken him multiple attempts to pass the Brady Bill in the 1990s. He said that in the long run, supporters of gun control will win out over the NRA and its allies.

    Update: A White House official told BuzzFeed the executive actions Biden was referring to on the call are part of Obama's original list of 23 executive actions on guns announced in January.


    Biden: 'The President Is Already Lining Up Some Additional Executive Actions' for Guns
    APR 18, 2013 • BY DANIEL HALPER WeeklyStandard

    Joe Biden says the president of the United States is preparing to take "executive actions" to deal with guns.

    BuzzFeed reports:

    Vice President Biden told White House allies in the gun control fight Thursday that President Obama will be announcing new executive actions on gun violence in the days after the Senate voted down a gun violence bill.

    On a conference call with "stakeholders," Biden told gun control advocates that the fight is not over and that eventual action on gun control will come. Press were not invited to the conference call; a participant provided BuzzFeed with access.

    "Look I know you're going to say that I'm just being an optimist and I'm trying to put a good face on this. But you know I've been around here a long time and we've already done, because of you, some really good things," Biden said. "Number one, the president is already lining up some additional executive actions he's going to be taking later this week."

    After the Newtown shootings, Obama took a number of executive actions to expand research into gun violence and other areas favored by the gun control community. He took the actions without Congressional approval, leading to outrage by some conservatives.

    Gun control measures failed in the Democratic-controlled Senate earlier this week.

    UPDATE: And now Democratic majority leader Harry Reid has pulled the gun bill.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-president-already-lining-some-additional-executive-actions-guns_718027.html

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/biden-pledges-more-executive-action-on-guns-later-this-week

  • Pentagon seeks $220 million for Israel’s Iron Dome

    US Missile Defense Agency also projects to request $510b. for Arrow 3, long-range missile interceptor and David's Sling 17 Apr 2013 The Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency for the first time in its regular annual budget contains funds to buy additional Iron Dome missile defense systems for Israel, according to documents and an agency spokesman.

    The budget requests $220 million for missile batteries in fiscal 2014, which begins Oct. 1, and an additional $175.9 million in fiscal 2015, according to budget documents the Missile Defense Agency posted online last week. The money, if approved during the annual defense budget process, would be on top of $486 million the White House and Congress have requested or added for the system in recent years after formal budgets were submitted.

    This includes $211 million added in the defense appropriations bill for this year, which US President Barack Obama signed into law last month. [So, let me get this straight. The US coterie of sociopaths, terrorists, and dirt-bags is going to CUT Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid so we can fund another country's war machine?

    http://www.legitgov.org/Pentagon-seeks-220-million-Israels-Iron-Dome

    Arming the Left: Is the time now? By Charles Southwell*

    I hope you didn't open this page to read what we already know: that this is the most rightwing government we have ever had in the US, even far right of Bush I, that our rights are being eroded daily, and that our democratic process is all but gone, if it isn't already gone.

    I hope you came here to read about tactics for action that will finally have some consequence. I hope you agree that our protests, petitions, letters, and on and on, have been utterly ignored. The fascistas that run our country laugh at us. They believe they can do anything and that we haven't got the guts to revolt, but only to wage a war of words. I have seen the Bush cavalcades, as they drive away, his aids sneering and jeering and laughing and mocking our protests. They think we are a JOKE. Tens of millions of Americans protested the war, but because we posed no REAL THREAT to their power, we were UTTERLY IGNORED.

    As long as we pose no REAL threat to the powers-that-be, to what is shaping up into a dictatorship, we will continue to be ignored. Right now, we are ignored because we present no organized power to fight this onslaught of anti-democratic, totalitarian government that we are up against.

    It will take time, but it's time to get more left-leaning liberals and outright leftists to at least POSE a threat, by getting organized and getting ARMED. It's time to get well past this liberal phobia and taboo about weapons and force. After all, our liberalism was won with a REVOLUTIONARY WAR! they used real guns in that war. The French Revolution was also a WAR and they used real weapons there too.

    Perhaps people believe that since the US federal government has the fire power to blow up the world X times over, that we have no chance, and that the 2nd amendment is therefore moot. I used to think the same thing. In fact, this was the major if not the only lasting upshot of the Cold War! the Cold war wasn't about one opposing ideology against the other; it wasn't about the East vs. the West. In the end, it was about the respective governments against their own peoples. The Cold War resulted in the repression of the peoples in those countries, and likewise, of peoples around the world.

    But, it is still a myth that the US citizens are powerless against their government, a government that has become tyrannical and has usurped our democratic rights. We are not powerless against it. If we get organized and armed, and form a force of hundreds of thousands, we can overcome this government, or pose enough of a threat to have power. The government cannot drop a nuclear bomb on DC. It cannot risk the lives of whole cities, without revealing its own contradictions that is. Further, there is no guarantee that the military will remain loyal to a government that continually reveals itself as imperialistic and ruthless and having no real concern for its own personnel. The Iraqi occupation is teaching many of them that hard lesson. They are realizing that not Hussein, but the Bush regime, is their real enemy.

    So I ask you, isn't it time that left-leaning liberals and leftists exercised their 2nd amendment rights and got organized and prepared? Isn't it time, before it's too late? Isn't it time, before another Bush coup and the following four years of increased repression and economic ruin?

    We should remain committed to the absolute condemnation of individual acts of violence or terrorism. Read Trotsky's essay on terrorism, in the political education section of this website. Our reference to Trotsky does not mean that we are Marxists. I am merely referring to a good argument for any real revolutionaries against terrorism. We want a democratic government, which is not predicated on a Marxist state. In fact, we leave that to the future of the new movement for democracy, given that the future should be democratic and in a democracy, the people will decide. But, our goal is to make a future wherein the people CAN and WILL decide!!!!!! 21 October 2003

    http://www.legitgov.org/essay_southwell_arming_the_left_is_the_time_now_102203.html

    Pentagon seeks $220 million for Israel’s Iron Dome
    By BLOOMBERG 04/17/2013

    US Missile Defense Agency also projects to request $510b. for Arrow 3, long-range missile interceptor and David's Sling.
    Iron Dome fires interceptor rocket south of Ashdod Photo: REUTERS
    The Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency for the first time in its regular annual budget contains funds to buy additional Iron Dome missile defense systems for Israel, according to documents and an agency spokesman.

    The budget requests $220 million for missile batteries in fiscal 2014, which begins Oct. 1, and an additional $175.9 million in fiscal 2015, according to budget documents the Missile Defense Agency posted online last week.

    The money, if approved during the annual defense budget process, would be on top of $486 million the White House and Congress have requested or added for the system in recent years after formal budgets were submitted. This includes $211 million added in the defense appropriations bill for this year, which US President Barack Obama signed into law last month.

    The $220 million request for fiscal 2014 “is new money, and it is the first time funding specifically for Iron Dome procurement has been requested in our budget submission,” Missile Defense Agency spokesman Richard Lehner said in an e- mail.

    House and Senate defense committees last year signaled they wanted to approve spending as much as $680 million on Iron Dome through 2015.

    The fiscal 2014 request “is a smaller piece of the larger amount and supports the various production lines and schedules to meet the desired goals,” Lehner said.

    Intercepting Rockets

    The US and Israel in October conducted their biggest joint air and missile defense exercise amid rising tensions with Iran. The “Austere Challenge 12” exercise involved as many as 3,500 US personnel in the region along with 1,000 members of the Israel Defense Forces.

    Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said Tuesday at a US House hearing that he plans within “a few days” to visit Israel.

    “Our interests are very clear and common,” Hagel said. “I think the Israelis know that.”

    Israeli and US officials last year said the Iron Dome missile defense system intercepted about 400 rockets fired at Israel, or about 85 percent of those targeted by its radar and battle-management system as heading toward populated areas, during eight days of bloodshed between Israel and Hamas, which controls the Gaza strip.

    Iron Dome, made in Israel by Haifa-based Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd., is designed to intercept and destroy rockets capable of flying as far as 70 kilometers (44 miles). Israel has fielded its first five batteries of launchers and interceptors costing as much as $90,000 apiece, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

    Praising US

    Then-defense minister Ehud Barak last year praised the US for the prior investments that allowed Israel’s military to more quickly deploy the initial batteries in southern Israel.

    In addition to the new Iron Dome funding, the Missile Defense Agency requested $95.7 million to bankroll three other systems under the general category of Israeli Cooperative Programs, about $4 million less than this year’s request.

    The missile defense agency projects it will request $510 million for these three systems through 2018

    The category includes money for improvements to the existing Arrow program and new Arrow 3, intended to intercept long- and medium-range ballistic missiles such as those possessed by Iran, and a shorter range new system called David’s Sling, designed to intercept rockets fired by Hamas and Hezbollah.

    Long-Range Detection

    The fiscal 2014 request includes money for Arrow 3 to continue development testing, conduct a second intercept flight and prepare the weapon to start initial production, according to agency documents. Chicago-based Boeing Co. (BA) and Tel Aviv-based Israel Aerospace Industries Ltd. are developing the Arrow 3 interceptor.

    Enhancements to the existing Arrow program funded in the fiscal 2014 request include integrating a “long-range detection suite” of sensors designed to detect the flight of unmanned aerial drones into Israeli territory, according to the budget documents.

    The Arrow “Weapon Systems Improvement” also funds the integration of data links that allow Israeli missile defense units to integrate with US weapons in the region.

    http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Pentagon-seeks-220-million-for-Israels-Iron-Dome-system-310026

  • Top Senate Republican Mitch McConnell seeks FBI Investigate Possible Illegal “Nixonian tactics” Wiretap

    By LOIS ROMANO and KEVIN ROBILLARD | 4/9/13 | Politico.com
    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s reelection campaign asked the FBI and the U.S. attorney’s office on Tuesday to investigate how Mother Jones magazine obtained a recording of a February strategy session.

    “Senator McConnell’s campaign is working with the FBI and has notified the local U.S. Attorney in Louisville, per FBI request, about these recordings,” McConnell campaign manager Jesse Benton said in a statement. “Obviously a recording device of some kind was placed in Senator McConnell’s campaign office without consent. By whom and how that was accomplished presumably will be the subject of a criminal investigation.”

    Added a source close to the campaign: “We’re going on the assumption that a crime has been committed. No one at the meeting leaked this.”

    The McConnell campaign has not offered any direct evidence the recording was the result of an illegal bug.
    On Tuesday morning, Mother Jones, a liberal magazine, published an audio recording of McConnell staffers discussing opposition research they could use against actress Ashley Judd, who was considering running against veteran senator in the 2014 Senate race. Judd announced last week that she would not make the race.
    The magazine reported that in the Feb. 2 recording, McConnell and his aides were heard considering attacking Judd for “past struggles with depression and for her religious views.”

    Someone on the tape is heard saying:
    “She’s clearly, this sounds extreme, but she is emotionally unbalanced. I mean it’s been documented. Jesse can go in chapter and verse from her autobiography about, you know, she’s suffered some suicidal tendencies. She was hospitalized for 42 days when she had a mental breakdown in the ’90s.”

    McConnell is not disputing the authenticity of the tape. Yesterday, his campaign offices were swept by a private security detail, which did not find a bug. Still, given that the meeting was attending by only a handful of longtime McConnell insiders, team McConnell is convinced it was not an internal leak. In an earlier statement, the McConnell campaign accused “the Left” of using “Nixonian tactics” and bugging the campaign’s headquarters.

    David Corn, the Mother Jones reporter who broke the story, stood by his reporting and noted that he repeatedly reached out to the McConnell camp before publication.

    “Our lawyers vetted the story,” he told POLITICO. “The story itself says we were provided the tape by a source who wishes to remain anonymous. You know this job. I really can’t say much beyond that.”
    In a later statement, the magazine said they weren’t involved in the tape’s production.

    “We are still waiting for Sen. Mitch McConnell to comment on the substance of the story,” the statement read. “Before posting this article, we contacted his Senate office and his campaign office—in particular, his campaign manager, Jesse Benton—and no one responded. As the story makes clear, we were recently provided the tape by a source who wished to remain anonymous. We were not involved in the making of the tape, but we published a story on the tape due to its obvious newsworthiness. It is our understanding that the tape was not the product of a Watergate-style bugging operation. We cannot comment beyond that.”

    McConnell himself is heard speaking at the beginning of the meeting, which features aides presenting a whole range of opposition research they were considering using against a candidate Judd. At one point, a person describes “a wealth of material” to use potentially against Judd, prompting laughter from those present.

    The veteran senator invokes an old arcade game to describe the campaign’s strategy for dealing with challengers.
    “I assume most of you have played the, the game Whac-A-Mole?,” he said to laughter. “This is the Whac-A-Mole period of the campaign…when anybody sticks their head up, do them out.”

    Most of the discussion focuses on Judd’s liberal positions, including support for gay marriage and President Barack Obama’s health-care reform law. It’s unclear how long McConnell was present during the session.

    Earlier that day, McConnell had a party to officially open the campaign offices. There were about 75 invitation-only guests at the event. The meeting occurred later in the day.

    McConnell’s 2014 campaign is expected to be one of the nastiest, closest watched and most expensive races in the country. The senator’s approval ratings have been down, making him appear vulnerable. But the Democrats have yet to line up a strong candidate to challenge him.

    Judd ultimately decided not to challenge McConnell.
    “We expected nothing less from Mitch McConnell and his camp than to take a personal struggle such as depression, which many Americans cope with on a daily basis, and turn it into a laughing matter,” Judd spokeswoman Cara Tripicchio wrote in an e-mail to CBS News. “Every day it becomes clearer how much we need change in Washington from this kind of rhetoric and actions.”

    While the McConnell campaign has offered no proof of an illegal bug, Republicans have pushed forward with the charge. The McConnell campaign posted and then deleted a Tweet accusing “liberals” of “wiretap[ing]” his campaign office.

    “First they attack our right to bear arms, then they wiretap,” the @TeamMitch account wrote, according to the Twitter archiving site Politwoops. “Stand up against the liberal left with Sen. McConnell.”

    The message linked to a fundraising page declaring: “BREAKING: LIBERALS WIRE TAP MCCONNELL’S OFFICE. Stand with Senator McConnell against the liberal media’s illegal and underhanded tactics.”
    The National Republican Senatorial Committee condemned the “Watergate-era tactics.”

    “Secret recordings, private conversations leaked, reports of bugs — these Watergate-era tactics have no place in our campaigns,” Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kans.), the NRSC’s chair, said in a statement. “I am glad to read Senator McConnell’s campaign is working with the Department of Justice and the FBI to find answers.”
    Moran called on a wide variety of Democratic and liberal groups to “state for the record that they had nothing to do with these illegal acts, denounce them, and make clear they have no place in our political debate.”

    http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/mitch-mcconnell-ashley-judd-recordings-fbi-89803.html#ixzz2PzfRdem1

    ----------------------------------------------------

    MoJo’s secret recording of McConnell meeting called ‘Nixonian tactics’
    Alex Pappas - Political Reporter - DailyCaller.com

    Mitch McConnell’s re-election campaign is decrying “Nixonian tactics” after the liberal bimonthly Mother Jones posted a secret recording of the Senate minority leader and staffers discussing campaign strategies against potential rivals in the Kentucky Senate race.

    “We’ve always said the left will stop at nothing to attack Sen. McConnell, but Nixonian tactics to bug campaign headquarters is above and beyond,” McConnell campaign manager Jesse Benton said Tuesday.

    The left-leaning Mother Jones website — known for also posting a secret recording of Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney — released recordings and a transcript of a February 2 McConnell meeting with his staff on opposition research.

    In response to the secret recording, Republicans are questioning whether McConnell’s campaign was bugged and are suggesting the FBI could get involved.

    Brad Dayspring, the spokesman of the NRSC, wrote in a morning email to reporters: “MCCONNELL CAMPAIGN HQ BUGGED, DOJ/FBI INVESTIGATION IMMINENT? Stay tuned after this popped on Mother Jones overnight.”

    Actress Ashley Judd — who recently opted against a Kentucky Senate campaign — is discussed in the recording at length.

    “The first person we’ll focus on, Ashley Judd—basically I refer to her as sort of the oppo research situation where there’s a haystack of needles, just because truly, there’s such a wealth of material,” a staffer told McConnell in the recording.

    Those at the meeting also discussed Alison Lundergan Grimes, the Kentucky Secretary of State who is thought to be considering a run.

    “The best hit we have on her is her blatantly endorsing the 2008 Democratic national platform,” a staffer said.

    http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/09/mojos-secret-recording-of-mcconnell-meeting-called-nixonian-tactics/#ixzz2PzgVGA2w

    ----------------------------------------------------

    Top Senate Republican Asks Feds to Investigate Possible Illegal Wiretap
    BY DANIEL HALPER WeeklyStandard.com

    The top Republican in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, is asking the feds to investigate whether a closed campaign meeting was illegally wiretapped by his political opponents. The issue arises after the liberal outlet Mother Jones published "A recording of a private meeting between the Senate GOP leader and campaign aides."

    In a statement to the press, McConnell's campaign manager, Jesse Benton, says the feds are getting involved. "Senator McConnell’s campaign is working with the FBI and has notified the local U.S. Attorney in Louisville, per FBI request, about these recordings," says Benton. "Obviously a recording device of some kind was placed in Senator McConnell’s campaign office without consent. By whom and how that was accomplished will presumably be the subject of a criminal investigation."

    The federal wiretapping law thought to have been violated reads, "It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication, where such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception."

    And surreptitious recording also violates Kentucky law, where this meeting took place:

    526.030 Installing eavesdropping device.

    (1) A person is guilty of installing an eavesdropping device when he intentionally installs or places such a device in any place with the knowledge that it is to be used for eavesdropping.

    (2) Installing an eavesdropping device is a Class D felony.

    Effective: January 1, 1975

    History: Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 228, effective January 1, 1975.

    An aide to McConnell's office tells me the recorded meeting took place in a conference room rented out by the campaign and that there were fewer than 10 people present. (The conference room is not shared; it is used exclusively by the campaign.) The likelihood it was an inside job--that it was recorded by someone invited to the meeting--is, I'm told, very, very slim.

    Mother Jones says the recording "reveals how far they were willing to go to defeat the actor/activist."

    "On February 2, Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the US Senate, opened up his 2014 reelection campaign headquarters in Louisville, Kentucky, and in front of several dozen supporters vowed to 'point out' the weaknesses of any opponent fielded by the Democrats. 'They want to fight? We're ready,' he declared. McConnell was serious: Later that day, he was huddling with aides in a private meeting to discuss how to attack his possible Democratic foes, including actor/activist Ashley Judd, who was then contemplating challenging the minority leader. During this strategy session—a recording of which was obtained by Mother Jones—McConnell and his aides considered assaulting Judd for her past struggles with depression and for her religious views," reports Mother Jones, which does not reveal how exactly they received this recording.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/top-senate-republican-asks-feds-investigate-possible-illegal-wiretap_716166.html