'Yes We scan' - NSA monitors WiFi on US planes ‘in violation’ of privacy laws

'Yes We scan' - NSA monitors WiFi on US planes ‘in violation’ of privacy laws.(RT).

In a letter leaked to Wired, Gogo, the leading provider of inflight WiFi in the US, admitted to violating the requirements of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA). 

The act is part of a wiretapping law passed in 1994 that requires telecoms carriers to provide law enforcement with a backdoor in their systems to monitor telephone and broadband communications.
Gogo states in the letter to the Federal Communications Commission that it added new capabilities to its service that go beyond CALEA, at the behest of law enforcement agencies.

“In designing its existing network, Gogo worked closely with law enforcement to incorporate functionalities and protections that would serve public safety and national security interests,” Gogo attorney Karis Hastings wrote in the leaked letter, which dates from 2012.

He did not elaborate as to the nature of the changes, but said Gogo “worked with federal agencies to reach agreement regarding a set of additional capabilities to accommodate law enforcement interests.”

Gogo, which provides WiFi services to the biggest US airlines, are not the only ones to adapt their services to enable spying. Panasonic Avionics also added “additional functionality” to their services as per an agreement with US law enforcement, according to a report published in December.

The deals with security services have civil liberties organizations up in arms. They have condemned the WiFi providers’ deals with authorities as scandalous.

“Having ISPs [now] that say that CALEA isn’t enough, we’re going to be even more intrusive in what we collect on people is, honestly, scandalous,” Peter Eckersley, of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told Wired.

The powers of the National Security Agency and other US law enforcement agencies have come under harsh criticism since the data leaks from whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed the extent to which they monitor citizens’ communications. In particular, critics have taken issue with the NSA’s mass, indiscriminate gathering of metadata which has been described as “almost Orwellian in nature” and a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Judge Richard Leon of the US District Court for the District of Columbia has filed a lawsuit against the US agency and is pushing to have the case heard in the US Supreme Court. Last week the Supreme Court said that Leon would have to wait for a ruling from the lower court before his case could be heard.

Since the NSA scandal blew up last year, prompting widespread public anger in the US and internationally at the violation of privacy rights, President Barack Obama’s administration has reluctantly taken some modest steps to curb the powers of the agency.


At the beginning of this year, Obama announced that the NSA would no longer be able to monitor the personal communications of world leaders. In addition, last month Obama formally proposed to end the NSA’s bulk data collection, proposing legislation that would oblige the agency to get a court order to access information through telecoms companies.

House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa Suggests Sebelius May Have Committed Perjury.

House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa Suggests Sebelius May Have Committed Perjury.HT: WhiteHouseDossier.

In a sharply worded letter sent today to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) suggested Sebelius may have perjured herself before Congress, accusing her of providing “false and misleading” testimony before various congressional panels about Healtcare.gov.

Issa, who said testimony and documents obtained by the committee contradicted several Sebelius statements, pressed for revisions and explanations of her testimony and demanded documents and communications made as part of the preparation for her appearances.

Moreover, Issa accused Sebelius of misleading Congress about the health of the website.

He reminded her that giving false testimony to Congress is a crime:
“Witnesses who purposely give false or misleading testimony during a congressional hearing may be subject to criminal liability,” he wrote.

The letter cites four examples of allegedly false statements:

• That MITRE Corp., a contractor hired by HHS, was conducting ongoing security testing;
• That MITRE’s preliminary report “did not raise flags about going ahead;”
• That “no one… suggested that the risks outweighed the importance of moving forward;”
• That MITRE made recommendations to CMS about moving forward.

And Issa wrote:

Your failure during numerous Congressional hearings to explicitly mention the serious problems with security testing in the month prior to launch creates the appearance that you carefully chose language that would mislead Members of Congress and the American public.

HHS indicated it would respond to the letter, but so far does not appear to have publicly addressed the charges directly.

Germany, Brazil submit UN draft resolution to end mass surveillance.

Germany, Brazil submit UN draft resolution to end mass surveillance.(RT).

The draft resolution did not point fingers at any specific country, but UN diplomats said it was in response to recent revelations of US mass surveillance programs, Reuters reported.

The text of the resolution asks the 193-nation assembly to declare that it is "deeply concerned at human rights violations and abuses that may result from the conduct of any surveillance of communications, including extraterritorial surveillance of communications.”
The circulated draft also urges member states "to take measures to put an end to violations of these rights and to create the conditions to prevent such violations, including by ensuring that relevant national legislation complies with their obligations under international human rights law.”

It is expected that the draft resolution will be debated in the General Assembly's Third Committee, which deals with human rights issues.
"We have received the draft and will evaluate the text on its merits," said an official at the US mission to the United Nations. 
Several diplomats said they expect the resolution to receive support from the vast majority of UN member states.
The goal of the resolution is to gain wide international support and spread moral and political values on the subject of surveillance. 

The resolution’s intention is to call on member states “to establish independent national oversight mechanisms capable of ensuring transparency and accountability of State surveillance of communications, their interception and collection of personal data.”

It would also ask UN human rights chief Navi Pillay to publish a report "on the protection of the right to privacy in the context of domestic and extraterritorial, including massive, surveillance of communications, their interception and collection of personal data.”

US global surveillance sparked international outrage following leaks from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.

Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff and German Chancellor Angela Merkel found themselves in the middle of the controversy after reports emerged that both leaders were spied on by the NSA.
The US has stated that it is not spying on Merkel will not do so in the future. However, Washington has not commented on possible past surveillance.

Meanwhile, spy chief Keith Alexander has blamed US diplomats for ordering the surveillance of EU politicians. The White House is seeking to distance itself from the scandal, intimating the NSA was acting of its own volition. 

In a video conference to London on Thursday, US Secretary of State John Kerry addressed accusations that the NSA recorded millions of European citizens’ telephone calls. Kerry conceded that US surveillance has “in some cases...reached too far” and said the NSA had been conducting its espionage on “automatic pilot.”

EU delegation left with more questions than they arrived with, Washington’s answers don’t justify NSA spying.

EU delegation left with more questions than they arrived with, Washington’s answers don’t justify NSA spying. (RT).

The European Union’s delegation of politicians trusted with getting answers from Washington over the National Security Agency’s (NSA) espionage programs in the EU left with more questions than they arrived with.
The heated condemnation of the reports the US eavesdropped on millions of calls as well as the communication of EU leaders was dampened by spy Director Gen. Keith Alexander.
“It is much more important for this country that we defend this nation and take the beatings than it is to give up a program that would result in us being attacked,” Alexander told House of Representatives Intelligence Committee on Wednesday.

Furthermore, he said that the reports in European media alleging the NSA recorded millions of personal phone calls were “completely false.”

Addressing allegations of EU complicity in the spying he said that some data had been provided “to NSA by foreign partners,” but it is “not information that we collected on European citizens.”
“It represents information that we and our NATO allies have collected in defense of our countries and in support of military operations," said Alexander.

Following the meeting members of the delegation told RT’s Gayane Chichikyan that espionage on such a scale could not be justified by the American fight against terrorism.

Spanish MEP Salvador Sedo said that Alexander gave some statistics and an explanation neither of which “clarify the situation.” “This is not justifiable,” said Sedo, adding that the tapping of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s phone was not included in Alexander’s explanation.

A group of German officials are also in Washington this week to address allegations of the NSA eavesdropping on the Chancellor phone.

RT’s correspondent, Gayane Chichikyan, described the EU delegation’s visit as purely “symbolic.”
“They came to Washington, expressed reserved indignation and then agreed to cooperate further. This is something that we’ve seen before,” said Chichikyan.


The EU delegation left Washington on Wednesday and it remains to be seen what action will be taken in relation to the talks with US officials. European leaders have threatened to suspend the multi-billion ‘Safe Harbor’ trade pact as a measure against US spying. The deal allows American companies to collect data on clients, something that the EU believes is being undermined by the NSA.Read the full story here.

"Yes We Can" - EU calls for suspension of multi-billion ‘Safe Harbor’ deal over NSA spying.

"Yes We Can" - EU calls for suspension of multi-billion ‘Safe Harbor’ deal over NSA spying.(RT).

The EU’s top politicians have slammed Washington for a “breakdown of trust” and seek guarantees for the safety of EU customer data.

“For ambitious and complex negotiations to succeed there needs to be trust among the negotiating partners,” EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding said Wednesday in a speech at Yale University.

The Safe Harbor agreement has been in place for 13 years and it allows over 4,300 American companies to collect and process sales, emails and photos from EU customers. In order for firms to be able to collate this information they have to comply with seven directives to prevent data loss and disclosure.

However, EU officials believe the system is flawed and can be manipulated by the NSA. “If you look at the US legal environment, there is no adequate legal protection for EU citizens,” said the European Parliament’s leading data protection lawmaker Jan Philipp Albrecht after talks with officials in Washington.

In the light of the spy scandal the EU has threatened to suspend the treaty pending stipulated changes that would sure up security. EU leaders are expected to urge the US to strengthen its privacy laws to allow European citizen more control over how their private data is used.

If the ‘Safe Harbor’ pact is suspended it could have a massive knock-on effect, costing the US and EU billions of dollars in trade. Moreover, the pact allows US companies to get around the lengthy approval procedure by the European data protection authorities, without it some US firms would be forced to stop doing business in the EU.

“I don’t think the US government can be convinced by arguments or outrage alone, but by making it clear that American interests will suffer if this global surveillance is simply continued,” said Peter Schaar, the head of Germany’s data protection watchdog.


If Washington fails to comply with the EU’s demands then it could further endanger a free trade deal which could add an estimated $138 billion a year to each economy’s gross domestic product.

Reding warned that if changes were not made to US privacy regulations, negotiations for the free trade agreement could easily be “derailed.”

Negotiations on the conditions of the transatlantic agreement are due to resume in December and a decision is likely to be reached by the end of the year.

The revelations of the NSA’s spying activities in Europe scandalized the 28-nation bloc. Security leaks released by former CIA worker Edward Snowden revealed that the NSA taps millions of phone calls across the continent and stores the collected information in its data banks.

Furthermore, the security disclosures indicate the NSA not only monitors citizens it suspects are involved in terrorism, but also businessmen and high-profile politicians. ......AND THE VATICAN!

In the wake of the scandal the White House has launched an inquiry into its intelligence-gathering practices. Hmmm.........

Clapper: Obama was aware of NSA spying efforts.

Clapper: Obama was aware of NSA spying efforts.(Fars).

Despite US President Barack Obama rejecting the idea that he was aware of Washington’s spying on world leaders, the nation’s top spymaster said Tuesday that the president had been informed about the surveillance activities.

During a House Intelligence Committee hearing, National Intelligence Director James Clapper said that the National Security Agency and the CIA cannot tap into any leader’s private communications without permission from the White House.

The New York Times said Clapper did not specifically say whether Obama was told of the spying efforts, “but he appeared to challenge assertions in recent days that the White House had been in the dark about some of the agency’s practices.”

Clapper’s remark contradicts Obama’s claim that he didn’t know about the spying efforts.
The testimony came amid mounting questions about how the NSA collects information overseas, with congressional lawmakers calling for a review of surveillance programs.
Last week, revelations based on documents provided by former NSA contractor Edward J. Snowden showed that the US had monitored phone calls of 35 world leaders including that of German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
German newspaper Bild am Sonntag reported that NSA Director Gen. Keith Alexander had briefed President Obama in 2010 that Merkel’s phone was being tapped. “Obama did not halt the operation but rather let it continue,” the paper said, citing a high-ranking NSA official.
President Obama has promised a “complete review” of overseas spying operations and reportedly apologized to Merkel and the presidents of France and Brazil, who were also subject to NSA surveillance.

Bild: "Obama wanted to know everything about Merkel, personally authorized espionage against Merkel"

Bild: "Obama wanted to know everything about Merkel, personally authorized espionage against Merkel".HT : Bild.(googletranslate).

Bild : "This report, the White House must deny on Sunday: The U.S. president has explicitly approved the eavesdropping attack against the Chancellor!"

According to a report in the "Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung" Obama assured the chancellor on Wednesday afternoon in a personal telephone conversation that he had known nothing of it.

Should the report be true, then at least that was a diplomatic white lie. For, according to information from Bild am Sonntag in U.S. intelligence circles of the President 2010 by NSA chief Keith Alexander was personally informed about the covert operation against Merkel.

"Obama did not stop the easedropping action, but it continue to operate," said one of the NSA operation against Merkel intelligence officials familiar Bild am Sonntag.

"Obama has not stopped the action, but continue to operate the wiretapping," said one of the NSA operation against Merkel intelligence officials familiar Bild am Sonntag.

The White House ordered the NSA a comprehensive dossier on the Chancellor. For Obama, the senior NSA man, Merkel did not trust, wanted to know everything about the German: "Who is this woman exactly"

For the high interest to the Obama eavesdroppers results also says: The findings of the NSA specialists were not, as usual, first in the intelligence headquarters at Fort Meade / Maryland, but went directly to the White House in Washington. 

Collected the information about Merkel on the fourth floor of the U.S. Embassy at the Brandenburg Gate. There, the secret force works with the latest technology, which recorded everything about the Merkel cell phone ran.Read the full story here.

BBC: US bugged Merkel's phone from 2002 until 2013, report claims

"The King and US" - White House postpones annual congressional picnic.

"The King and US" - White House postpones annual congressional picnic.(TheHill).

The White House will not hold its annual congressional picnic in June, according to sources familiar with the planning.

The annual event, traditionally held for Senate and House members and their families, might happen in September instead. The administration blamed automatic spending cuts for canceling tours of the White House, but a source close to the situation said delaying the bipartisan, bicameral picnic was “schedule-related, not sequester-related.”

It’s unclear what factors will determine whether the White House will hold the event in September. But even if the picnic happens then, fewer children will be able to attend because school will be back in session. That fact has irritated people who have attended in the past.

Over the last week, frustration on Capitol Hill mounted as to why the White House was taking so long to make the call. Sources speculated that sequestration politics was at play.

As of Monday evening, the White House had not made an official announcement on the picnic.

Lawmakers however, received a notice on Monday afternoon from the White House Office of Legislative Affairs: “The White House Congressional Picnic for Members of Congress and their families will not take place in June this year. We are hopeful that we will be able to reschedule this event for September.”

When the White House canceled the public tours earlier this year, some lawmakers proposed that the administration make cuts elsewhere, such as limiting the parties thrown for Congress and members of the media.

At that time, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) called the White House’s decision “just silly,” noting that tours of Capitol Hill would continue.

The matter came up in a rare closed-door meeting that President Obama held with members of the House GOP Conference in mid-March.

Rep. Candice Miller (R-Mich.), chairwoman of the House Administration Committee, asked why Obama ended the White House tours in light of the sequester instead of the annual Christmas Party or congressional picnic.

The president said the Secret Service didn’t want to have to furlough staff and opted instead to cut non-essential tasks.Read the full story here.

Source: Only President Could Have Made 'Stand Down' Call On Benghazi.

Source: Only President Could Have Made 'Stand Down' Call On Benghazi.HT: Breitbart.

A source with intimate information about the events that happened on the ground in Benghazi the night the U.S. Consulate and the CIA annex was attacked by terrorists told Breitbart News that, ultimately, only the President of the United States, or someone acting on his authority, could have prevented Special Forces either on the ground or nearby from helping those Americans who were under deadly assault.

According to the source, when the attack on the Consulate occurred, a specific chain of command to gain verbal permission to move special-forces in must have occurred. SOCAFRICA commander Lieutenant Col. Gibson would have contacted a desk officer at the time, asking for that permission.

That desk officer would have called Marine Corps Col. George Bristol, then in command of Joint Special Operations Task Force-Trans Sahara. From there, Bristol would have made contact with Rear Admiral Brian Losey, then Commander of Special Operations Command Africa. Losey would have contacted four-star General Carter Ham, commander of U.S. AFRICOM at the time.

“Ham answers directly to the President of the United States,” said the source. It wasn’t a low-level bureaucrat making the call, the source adamantly added.

That call may have been made early in the engagement. Both Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey testified in January that they had no further communication with President Barack Obama after an initial briefing in the early hours of the Benghazi crisis, which continued through the night.

But what about then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton?

“I have a hard time thinking it was Hillary alone. Hillary may have tried to circumvent the counterterrorism board and deal with this. I think in order for her to tell General Ham, ‘No, you’re not going to get involved,' she would have had to talk to the president. The president would have had to say, ‘No, take your commands from Hillary.’ He would have had said something, because Ham does not work for the Department of State; he works directly for the president,” the source explained.

The lack of clarity surrounding orders given during the Benghazi attacks is a stark contrast to the clarity projected after the successful Osama bin Laden raid in May 2011, when administration officials were keen to attribute responsibility for the orders to the president.Read the full story here.

Impeachmentum: Reagan AG Says Obama Can Be Impeached Over Guns.

Impeachmentum: Reagan AG Says Obama Can Be Impeached Over Guns.(TPM).Former Reagan Attorney General Edwin Meese, now a prominent emeritus official at the Heritage Foundation, became the latest conservative to warn that President Obama could risk impeachment if he takes executive action on reducing gun violence in an interview Monday night.
Speaking with Newsmax, Meese said Congress may have to consider impeaching Obama if he were “to try to override the Second Amendment in any way” with an executive order. He did allow that there are some executive actions related to guns that Obama could take wouldn’t be impeachable.
“It would be up to the Congress to take action, such as looking in to it to see if, in fact, he has really tried to override the Constitution itself,” Meese told Newsmax. “In which case, it would be up to them to determine what action they should take — and perhaps even to the point of impeachment.”
He said that there are certain executive actions the White House can take without fear of impeachment.
“An executive order without specific congressional authority can only apply to those portions of the government that are under his control — in their words, the executive branch,” Meese said. “Now there are some things he can probably do in regard to the actions of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or some other governmental agency in its operations.”
“But to impose burdens or regulations that affect society generally, he would have to have Congressional authorization,” he said.Read the full story here.

Secret Service shuts down ‘Fire Holder’ protest outside White House

Secret Service shuts down ‘Fire Holder’ protest outside White House.(DC).Secret Service agents shut down a protest outside the White House on Monday where about 30 young protesters demanded President Barack Obama fire Attorney General Eric Holder. Agents on scene claimed a backpack abandoned on a sidewalk was a “suspicious package,” closing the Pennsylvania Avenue pedestrian mall in front of the White House, and the adjoining Lafayette Park, from protesters and tourists. All pedestrian traffic, including media, was forced to retreat to side streets. Officers roped the streets off with bright yellow crime scene tape and brought in bomb-sniffing K-9 dogs. After waiting on the sidewalk behind the police line for about half an hour, a middle-aged woman came forward to claim the backpack, telling agents that she had put her small bag on the ground so she could take a photograph with her family. She declined to be interviewed. The protesters had a National Park Service protest permit from 10 a.m. to noon. Agents began clearing the crowd at 10:43 a.m., giving little information to protesters and tourists as they forced them out of the area. Organizer Oliver Darcy told The Daily Caller that he didn’t believe the protest’s premature end was an accident. Darcy noted that he and others were demanding the president fire his attorney general over a scandal the White House doesn’t want to talk about. “To me, it seems like a bit of an overreaction to evacuate the entire — like — I don’t know. Was the White House evacuated?” Darcy said. “On Pennsylvania Avenue, they shut the entire block down, you know? From my judgment, it seemed like an overreaction, but I don’t work for the Secret Service and I know they take this stuff very seriously.” “It did seem very odd that during a protest of Attorney General Eric Holder and Barack Obama in front of the White House that all of a sudden there was a mysterious bag left — accidentally, right?” Darcy continued. “I really don’t know, but she [the backpack's owner] looked like she was pretty sincere that she left it accidentally, but I’m not a secret service agent so I don’t know what the protocol is. … I’ve taken part in multiple protests in front of the Supreme Court, in front of the Capitol Building, in front of the White House. Never have I seen anything like this before.” Secret Service spokesman Brian Leary told The Daily Caller later that law enforcement was not trying to chill protesters’ free speech rights. “We had an unattended package, and we cleared it for public safety,” he said.Hmmmm.......Remember: President Obama signed bill H.R. 347 (also known as the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011) into law.Read and see the full story here.

Obama 'Administration' admits to ‘hundreds’ of meetings with Muslim Brotherhood-linked group CAIR

Obama 'Administration' admits to ‘hundreds’ of meetings with Muslim Brotherhood-linked group CAIR.(DC).President Barack Obama’s deputies are holding “hundreds” of closed-door meetings with a jihad-linked lobbying group that is widely derided by critics as a U.S. arm of the theocratic Muslim Brotherhood. The admission of meetings with the Council on American-Islamic Relations came from George Selim, the White House’s new director for community partnerships, which was formed in January to ensure cooperation by law enforcement and social service agencies with Muslim identity groups in the United States. “There is hundreds of examples of departments and agencies that meet with CAIR on a range of issues,” he told The Daily Caller, after being asked if his office refuses to meet with any Muslim groups. CAIR is “the group with the worst record of deception and the deepest ties to terrorists,” said Steven Emerson, the director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, which tracks the public activities of Islamist lobbying groups.
“The White House is so clueless and/or compromised” when dealing with the brotherhood, said Robert Spencer, the author of several books about Islam and jihad. CAIR, he said, is “the political front of a radically repressive, Jew-hating, woman-hating organization.” The House of Representatives last month prodded the Department of Justice to end all contacts with CAIR. “The [appropriations] committee understands that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has an existing policy prohibiting its employees from engaging in any formal non-investigative cooperation with CAIR [and] the committee encourages the attorney general to adopt a similar policy for all department officials,” said the committee report accompanying the 2013 Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations bill, passed in mid-May by the House. However, the White House’s cooperation with Muslim groups complements the Democratic Party’s diversity strategy. That strategy seeks to accumulate votes from a discordant variety of minority groups, including Muslims and feminists, Jews, gays, Latinos and African-Americans. The party’s Muslim outreach is focused on Michigan and Illinois, which are home to significant numbers of Muslim immigrants. CAIR is especially controversial because of its many links to the theocratic Muslim Brotherhood, whose political wing is set to dominate Egyptian politics since the 2011 departure of Egyptian strongman Hosni Mubarak. In 2009, a judge confirmed the Justice Department’s decision to name CAIR as an unindicted conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation conspiracy to smuggle funds to HAMAS, which is a jihadi affiliate of the Egypt-based brotherhood. Five men in the smuggling ring were sentenced to jail in 2009, including two who were given 65-year sentences. HAMAS controls the Gaza Strip between Egypt and Israel. It has launched thousands of missile attacks against Jewish residents in Israel, because it believes Israel’s territory should be ruled by Muslims. CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper refused to comment when called by TheDC.Hmmmm......Obama : "“A man is judged by his deeds, not his words.” So if you want to know where my heart lies, look no further than what I have done — to stand up for Israel.".......Yup it's obvious.Read the full story here.More here.

Video - Rep. Issa Exposes the Obama Administration's Green Jobs Scam.

Rep. Issa Exposes the Obama Administration's Green Jobs Scam.(Forbes).Does the teenage kid who sells used records count as someone who has a green job? What about an oil lobbyist, or someone who works at an antique shop? Those all count as “Green Jobs” according to the Obama Administration’s top statistician at the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The “Green Jobs” initiative cost $38.6 billion or $5 million per job and now through the Oversight Committee’s work we are learning more about how the Obama administration gambled away tax payer dollars to support their ideological interests. Take a look at the Oversight Committee’s excerpt video above.
Nearly every myth they highlighted has since been proven to be just that, a myth, founded on nothing but ideology.
Solyndra and the dubious counting methods employed by the Obama Administration are just further proof of the Green Jobs Scam. Indeed, as Morris et.al., predicted “To attempt to transform modern society on the scale proposed by the green jobs literature is an effort of staggering complexity and scale. To do so based on the wishful thinking and bad economics embodied in the green jobs literature would be the height of irresponsibility.” In light of the dubious counting methods employed by BLS, it seems the Green Jobs Scam was indeed the height of irresponsibility.Read the full story here.

The Vetting: Obama Decried 'Spread of Militarism,' Lauded Anti-Selective Service Group at Columbia

The Vetting: Obama Decried 'Spread of Militarism,' Lauded Anti-Selective Service Group at Columbia.(Breitbart).In late 2008—long after the election—the media revealed a long-forgotten article written by Barack Obama while at Columbia.
Obama wrote the March 1983 article, “Breaking the War Mentality,” about two campus groups, Arms Race Alternatives (ARA) and Student Against Militarism (SAM). Ben Smith of Politico (now at Buzzfeed) told readers that Obama’s views reflected the “very conventional campus liberalism of the time.” Wrong. Smith and the media failed to investigate what the activists at SAM were actually doing: encouraging students to break the law by not registering for the Selective Service and harassing military recruiters.

* * Obama wrote that SAM “was formed in response to the passage of the registration laws in 1980.” Obama noted that the activists had “fostered awareness and practical action necessary to counter the growing threat of war.” That “awareness” and “practical action” went beyond mere protest, or encouraging students to break the law. SAM also wanted to break the military itself by sapping it of support—as Obama must have known from contemporaneous articles in the Columbia Spectator and from campus politics.

* * SAM’s most serious form of political activism, however, was encouraging students not to register for the Selective Service. Refusing to register for the Selective Service could mean arrest, imprisonment, and—most importantly—denial of federal student aid. SAM counseled Columbia’s estimated 400 non-registrants and tried to form them into a political force on campus. The non-registrant’s “refusal to register seems to reflect more of an abstract repulsion to war and violence than any political opposition to the American political system,” wrote Julius Genachowski for the Spectator on November 29, 1982 (later Obama’s classmate at Harvard Law School, and his appointee to lead the Federal Communications Commission). “But they are nevertheless acutely aware that a peaceful world would require a restructuring of that system—and that such a change could only be furthered by the public declaration of their opposition to draft registration.”
SAM hosted an event encouraging students to do just that. It even formed a support group for law-breakers.On March 11, 1982, the Spectator’s John Jay Tilsen wrote: About twenty demonstrated from the Students Against Militarism stage a protest outside the building to condemn what, they said, is a national shift of job opportunities from human services industries to military industries. The students walked in the snow, carrying placards that said, ‘Marine Corps Not Welcome Here We Want Peace Jobs,” as they distributed leaflets calling for a new type of recruitment program that would list only organizations and companies that had no connections with the military. As few jobs become available in the private sector, job-seekers ‘see few alternatives to the military, which is always hiring,’ Rob Kahn of SAM said, ‘All of this adds up to increased militarization of the campus.’(Hmmm.....Why does the name Kagan come to my mind?).
Matt Meyer, a public non-registrant, from the War Resisters League, spoke to about 30 students in a speech sponsored by SAM about the legitimacy of resisting draft registration, the important of being outspoken in that dissent, and the need for resisters to reinforce each other’s beliefs. (Julius Genachowski, “Draft Law Violators to Resist Together,” Columbia Spectator, December 2, 1982)

* Former Democratic Congressman Bella Abzug joined Sister Anne Montgomery and Father Paul Dinter at the rally, denouncing President Ronald Reagan and the “militaristic and adventuristic [sic] attitudes of the current administration.” When student athletes joined the counter-protest, the left-wing rally fizzled. However, SAM successfully promoted its ideas by distributing flyers calling for the following policy steps:

• Financial Aid for Non-Registrants [those who refused to register for the Selective Service] 

• No to the Solomon Amendment! [which took away federal aid from those who refused to register] 

• No Draft or Registration! 

• No to Militarism in Our Schools and In Our Country! While Obama did register for the draft in Honolulu, Hawaii on September 4, 1980, far out of sight of his fellow student radicals at Occidental or Columbia, he backed SAM’s program.Hmmmm........It should be noted that failure to register for selective service disqualifies you from holding any government position/office.Today, as Barack Obama cuts military spending and advertises to the Russians that he will have more “flexibility” on American defense after the election, it appears that old lessons die hard. Read the full story here.

Obama impeachment bill gaining steam.

Technically, the President isn’t even legally “Commander and Chief” until an official Declaration of War is given by Congress as an OK for the President to begin war-time operations against an aggressor.

Obama impeachment bill gaining steam.(Examiner).By Jeffrey Phelps.Hoping to soon pass committee and make it to the house is HCR 107, a bill threatening the possibility of the impeachment of the President of the United States for high crimes and misdemeanors, now thrust into the spotlight.

Citing a demand Wednesday that Obama regain respect for the War Powers Act, constitutional laws that restrict a President from waging a war without first receiving the approval of the people and its Congress, was the architect of the legislation, 9-term North Carolina Congressman,,Walter Jones.

Thanking the most popular internet radio show and its host, Alex Jones, was Congressman Jones, grateful for the opportunity to speak to the perfect audience for gaining support and momentum for this type of bill. One that already has multiple co-sponsors.After all, it was Ron Paul and his supporters who started the modern Tea Party on the very same radio show in 2007, with dedicated listeners and supporters that helped the movement eventually gain national prominence in the 2010 mid-terms, with many ‘unsuspecting’ upsets and likely more on the way.

Stating the need to reign the Peace Prize White House in from continuing the constant, deafening pounding on the drums of war, the Congressman used Libya as a prime example, alleging the constitution explicitly states something the government has mysteriously allowed a free pass on for far too long…Article II, Section 4 of the US Constitution. Alex Jones added Article I, Section 8, Clause 11.

In order to garner approval for the actions taken against Gaddafi in Libya, for instance, Obama went even one step further by openly waging a war, with US troops and equipment, with only an OK by the UN, again declaring Congress totally irrelevant.

Even Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta recently reiterated the startling sentiments in an Armed Services Committee meeting, ones he shared a couple months earlier, while echoing the administration’s open disrespect for the law and arguing for the UN’s authority, over the US, to use the US military overseas, for its own agenda. Open and clear violations that could present a clear and present danger to US national security.

Especially after such egregious acts of war taken by the last few successive administrations, with 2 or 3 panels of experts on the constitution available for testimony, Congressman Jones is looking to fashion a hearing by July, before the committee moves it to the floor.

He’s confident, with the situation at hand, he may finally get enough members of congress to move this type of resolution forward in the house.

Ron Paul and Congressman Jones was with mostly Republicans in 1999 filing suit on Clinton’s decision to bomb Kosovo, but the courts used the easy to say, yet seemingly impossible to accomplish, excuse that “congress has the power to cut the war budgets.”

Last year it was he and only five other Congressman, two other Republicans including Ron Paul and three Democrats, including Dennis Kucinich, confidently taking it to the courts again over Obama’s decision to bomb Libya, with the courts repeating the excuse that Congress already has the ability to cut the funding if they really wanted.

The courts know Congress is very unlikely to cut the war budget, however, because of the political pressure of not wanting to leave the military high and dry during actions overseas, a vicious cycle that perpetuates the problem.

But the broadcast reminded listeners that, technically, the President isn’t even legally “Commander and Chief” until an official Declaration of War is given by Congress as an OK for the President to begin war-time operations against an aggressor. Stunningly, this is something that hasn’t actually happened since prior to the Korean War.

Since the TV boom, however, the government has magically been able to get away with waging wars without approval, on just about whomever they’ve wanted to, and Congress has done virtually nothing to remain relevant against a consistently over-reaching Executive Branch.

All this could very well be a large part of the reason polls have long-stated Congressional approval ratings to be under an astounding 10% for years, with still nothing ever reasonably done to regain the people’s confidence.

Obama is also the first sitting President to ever join a foreign governing body while still sitting President. He accepted the duty of acting Chair of the UN Security Council, even striking the gavel in open session, a clear violation of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Something you’d think a President who happens to also be a former “constitutional law professor” would know is highly illegal and sure to eventually, hopefully attract the attention of the people and its Congress.

Officially introduced to the congressional legislature on March 7tth, the actual title of Congressman Jones’ bill reads, “Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution,”

Congressman Jones has also been seen recently spelling out a great case for a Trading with the Enemy Act argument, against Obama, for publicly funding Al Qaeda in Libya with money, weapons and training.

Obama has allegedly used a widely-known, enemy terrorist group, supposedly the prime suspects in the WTC attacks on 9/11, to further an overseas political agenda, apparently also largely run by the UN, at the expense of the US military/taxpayer.

Senator, Prescott Bush, Grandfather to George W. Bush, was also tied to a seizure of the Union Bank and its assets in 1942, suspected of holding gold of behalf of NAZI leaders during WW II.

It seems as though the more things change, the more they actually stay the same. Until now, if the necessary support for HCR 107 has anything to do with it.

Congressmen Jones, Kucinich, Paul and many others ask that citizens and all supporters of the bill call the US Capital switch-board, at 202-224-3121, and ask to speak to your Representative.

They will put you through to your Representative’s office and there you can ask them to co-sponsor and/or support the bill, H.C.R. 107, to help insure the President follows the law and uses the proper channels before waging a war on yet another country.

If you’re unsure who your representatives are, use this official tool to easily locate them by zip code.Read the full story here.

JW Probe: Special WH Access For Obama-Tied founded by Van Jones, Anti-Gun Groups Against Voter ID Laws.

JW Probe: Special WH Access For Obama-Tied founded by Van Jones, Anti-Gun Groups Against Voter ID Laws.(JW).A radical leftwing group that’s led a damaging boycott against corporations that support gun rights and voter identification laws has special access to the Obama White House and strong ties to top Democrats, according to internal documents obtained in the course of a Judicial Watch investigation.

The JW probe initially focused on a nonprofit (Color of Change) that claims to “strengthen Black America’s political voice” but uncovered an intricate brew of like-minded groups that have joined forces to push their common agenda against voter ID measures and gun rights, including “stand your ground” laws. The groups, all tax-exempt nonprofits, wield tremendous power because they have alarming access to the Obama White House and strong ties to top Democratic figures connected to the president, JW found.

Here is a sample of what these community organizations are about, straight from Color of Change’s website (incidentally, the group was founded by Obama pal Van Jones, whose radical, racist history got him booted as “Green Czar”): “For years, the right wing has been trying to stop Black people, other people of color, young people, and the elderly from voting — and now some of America’s biggest companies are helping them do it. These companies have helped pass discriminatory voter ID legislation by funding a right wing policy group called the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).”

ALEC is an influential conservative organization of state legislators and private companies that helps craft laws that often get enacted nationwide. An example is Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, which allows victims of violence to use deadly force when attacked outside their homes. The measure, adopted in two dozen states, has come under fire from the left after a black Florida teenager was killed by a neighborhood watch volunteer this year. Color of Change has led a successful corporate boycott campaign against ALEC for its support of stand your ground laws.

Joining Color of Change in its mission and at White House visits are the equally radical leftist groups New Organization Institute, which called for the national demonstrations to “end economic segregation” and social injustice in the U.S. (Occupy Wall Street), and the League of Young Voters, which claims to help low-income communities of color have an impact on elections and federal policy. 

The Ruckus Society, which provides “direct action” training for protestors, is also part of the syndicate and so is the founder of a national hip-hop movement, Chuck “Jigsaw” Creekmur.

The White House welcomed representatives from the groups at least twice in 2011, according to records obtained by JW. On February 18 James Rucker, Color of Change’s executive director, had a one-on-one meeting with Miti Sathe, the Assistant Director of Youth Outreach in the Office of Public Engagement. On April 12 Rucker and representatives from the other organizations met with Kalpen Modi, the Associate Director of the Office of Public Engagement.

JW found that Color of Change isn’t the only group with deep ties to the president. The New Organization Institute is, not only run by Obama campaign operatives, it also shares office space in Washington D.C. with Democratic Gain, a nonprofit whose leadership consists almost entirely of Democratic Party, union, and Obama campaign veterans. Among those listed as directors at the New Organization Institute are Obama campaign agents such as Judith Freeman and Zack Exley, who also helped run Massachusetts Senator John Kerry’s failed presidential campaign. This colocation certainly raises questions about the ties between the Democratic Party, the president and the New Organizing Institute.Hmmmm...........Obama Blames “Founding Fathers” For Making It Difficult For Him To “Bring Change”But..."I will keep plotting".Read the full story here

Video - America can't run the risk.

HT: The AstuteBlogger.....more here.

Senators Speak Out Against President’s Microphone Whispers.

Senators Speak Out Against President’s Microphone Whispers.(Heritage).“On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this—this can be solved, but it’s important for him to give me space,” stated President Obama during his recent conversation with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. The President’s comments have caused quite a stir, since they imply his willingness to further give in to Russia’s demands after the election.
This week, a group of Republican Senators led by Senator Jon Kyl (R–AZ) penned a letter objecting to the President’s indications that he might favor Russian concerns over his duty to defend Americans against foreign military threats. “Not having to worry about the judgment of the American people on this important national security issue may allow more flexibility to make concessions to the Russians, but it would be antithetical to our safety and security and would be counter to other assurances you’ve given,” states the letter. The Senators are correct.

As Heritage’s Baker Spring concludes, “The President’s comments in Seoul are completely in keeping with this past behavior. What is now evident is the scope of the manipulation he is pursuing to fool the American people about something essential to their security. It is now undeniable that President Obama is breaking the most basic trust the American people put in any President.”Read the full story here.

Will Sitting President Obama Finally Be Held Accountable For High Crimes and Misdemeanors?

Will Sitting President Obama Finally Be Held Accountable For High Crimes and Misdemeanors?ActivistPost.By Eric Blair.Since 2005, Veterans for Peace and others have been calling for the impeachment of the sitting president for war crimes. After their demands to lawmakers to uphold the rule of law against Bush were largely ignored (except by Dennis Kucinich who introduced impeachment articles too late in 2008), they renewed their effort to impeach Obama once he continued to bomb sovereign nations without congressional approval. Now, some lawmakers seem to have finally decided to take the rule of law and Separation of Powers seriously.

Obama will face impeachment over his failure to seek congressional authorization before launching offensive military action in Libya last year. Official impeachment proceedings have now been filed in both the House and Senate.

Last week, North Carolina Representative Walter Jones filed an Impeachment Resolution in the House H.CON.RES.107.IH stating; "Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.

"Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution:

Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution."

President Barack Obama becomes only the third sitting president to face impeachment following Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. Johnson was impeached for illegally dismissing an office holder without the Senate's approval, and Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice. Both were acquitted by the Senate.

Significantly, President Obama faces much more serious charges than his impeached predecessors and it's still unclear what legal defense he will use to diffuse the charges as the legal basis for his unilateral action has been inconsistent and vague from the beginning of the Libya assault.

Prior to military operations in Libya, the Justice Department advised the Administration on the legality of using unauthorized force in Libya in a 14-page memo titled Authority to Use Military Force in Libya, which states vaguely:

We conclude...that the use of military force in Libya was supported by sufficiently important national interests to fall within the President's constitutional power. At the same time, turning to the second element of the analysis, we do not believe that anticipated United States operations in Libya amounted to "war" in the constitutional sense necessitating congressional approval under the Declaration of War clause.

The memo goes on explain why the alleged situation on the ground in Libya was in U.S.'s national interest, cites previous times when the U.S. military was deployed without congressional approval and claims the mission was an international support mission with no deployed ground troops to justify their conclusion.

However, in no way were national interests under an "imminent" threat by hostilities in Libya as required by the War Powers Act, and supporting an international mission is irrelevant to the Act. Furthermore, Obama has maintained the legal defense that American involvement fell short of full-blown hostilities even after hostilities exceeded the 90-day limit of unauthorized use of force afforded under the War Powers Act.

The New York Times quotes directly from the 38-page report Obama sent to concerned lawmakers after the 90-day deadline passed “U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve U.S. ground troops.”

Therefore, the Administration claims it wasn't a real military conflict that Congress should concern itself with. However, at the same time, the White House acknowledged that the cost to U.S. taxpayers was well over $1 billion for these non-hostile military activities.

Coincidentally, on the same day the impeachment resolution was filed, Obama's Defense Secretary Leon Panetta acknowledged that the Libya War did indeed constitute military combat, but claimed the legal basis for spending U.S. tax dollars on war rested in "international permission":
This impeachment comes on the heals of other Administration officials giving equally flimsy legal justifications for assassinating U.S. citizens without due process. Where, also last week, Attorney General Holder sought to clarify this tyrannical authority in a speech at Northwestern University by claiming "judicial process" was not the same as "due process" under the Constitution.

Yet, the Fifth Amendment clearly states "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury."

And as Wikipedia defines due process:

Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person. Due process balances the power of law of the land and protects individual persons from it. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due-process violation, which offends against the rule of law.

The Obama Administration has clearly "offended against the rule of law," and it appears his only defense lies in somehow changing the definition of words. It's not a strong legal position to be in and it seems that, for the first time in history, a sitting president may be held accountable for high crimes and misdemeanors.Read the full story here.

Media Cover-up Of Obama Impeachment Exposed !

Related - The U.S. Does Not Need “International Permission” to Defend its Interests.(Heritage).Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s comments earlier this week were a very revealing insight into the Obama administration’s mindset on the legal regime governing America’s decisions to use force. During the hearing, Secretary Panetta repeatedly stated that the U.S. needed “permission” from international bodies and organizations as a legal basis for using military force, citing NATO support or a United Nations Security Council resolution as an example of such “legal basis” for action.
Senator Jeff Sessions sought to clarify the Secretary’s position asking, before the administration sought to get congressional approval or inform congress about the action “you would seek permission of the international authorities?” This led to a stunning exchange:

Panetta: If we are working with an international coalition and we’re working with NATO we would want to be able to get appropriate permissions in order to be able to do that. That’s something that all of these countries would want to have – some kind of legal basis on which to act.

Sessions: What kind of legal basis are you looking for? What entity?

Panetta: Well, obviously, if NATO made the decision to go in, that would be one. If we developed an international coalition beyond NATO then obviously some kind of U.N. Security Resolution would be the basis for that.

Sessions: So you are saying NATO would give you a legal basis and an ad hoc coalition of nations would provide a legal basis?

Panetta: If we were able to put together a coalition and were able to move together then obviously we would seek whatever legal basis we would need in order to make that justified. You can’t just pull them all together in a combat operation without getting the legal basis on which to act.

Sessions: Well who are you asking for the legal basis from?

Panetta: If the U.N. passed a Security Resolution as it did with Libya, we would do that. If NATO came together as it did in Bosnia, we would rely on that, so we have options here if we want to build the kind of international approach for dealing with the situation.

Sessions: I’m all for having international support but I’m really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States Military to be deployed in combat. I don’t believe it’s close to being correct. They provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that is required to deploy the United States Military is the Congress and the President and the law and the Constitution.

Panetta: Let me for the record be clear again Senator so there is no misunderstanding. When it comes to the national defense of this country, the President of the United States has the authority under the Constitution to act to defend this country and we will. If it comes to an operation where we are trying to build a coalition of Nations to work together to go in and operate as we did in Libya or Bosnia, for that matter Afghanistan, we want to do it with permissions either by NATO or by the international community.
The fact that Secretary Panetta finally stated that that the President could and would take military action to defend the U.S. is welcome, but the fact that he had to be coaxed into making that clarification is alarming.

He never, however, stopped using the “permission” line nor did he back away from the assertion that the U.S. and other nations needed international permission or a formal approval from an international body like the U.N. Security Council or NATO to provide legitimate legal basis for military action. He never attempted to couch that position in a political context or explain that such resolutions make constructing coalitions easier or bolster America’s legal case. He unmistakably says that such “permissions” are the legal basis for action and, by implication, asserts that action without such permissions would be illegal.This is profoundly disturbing.

Presumably, Secretary Panetta’s appeal to the UN Security Council as a basis for legal permission is based on the U.N. Charter, which invests that body with preeminent authority in addressing threats to international peace and security. Although nice in theory, the UN Security Council has proven to be spectacularly feckless in reality, frequently paralyzed by the divergent interests of its members. The military operations that gain rapid, unequivocal support in the Security Council are rare and nearly always involve situations where the interests of the major powers are minimal. Serious threats to international peace and security are generally stonewalled because of the interests of the major powers.
Under Secretary Panetta’s theory, if the UN Security Council is not able or likely to act, then the U.S. should turn to a less than universal body, such as NATO. He cites the NATO operation in 1999 against Yugoslavia to protect civilians in Kosovo as an example.

But what if NATO had not been willing to act? Could any international organization or group of nations suffice to provide legal permission? Why would that group of nations be superior to that of another group or even one nation? Does a Russian veto in the Security Council make a military operation invalid or illegal? Does French opposition to a NATO operation make a military operation by NATO members outside of NATO approval illegitimate? Are legal and legitimate synonymous?

In other words, does the simple arithmetic of 1+Nations=legal basis/legitimacy apply to international action? Of course not.

Getting “permission” from the U.N. Security Council or NATO or any other grouping of nations doesn’t change the nature of the mission. Nor does a lack of such permission necessarily invalidate its justification or legitimacy. This is one of the reasons that the U.N. Charter itself states, “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations.”

The founding governments of the U.N. understood that no reasonable nation would stand to cede determination of what constitutes an act of self-defense, which in the modern context contemplates preemptive action, to any international body or foreign nation. That determination must be based on the decision of a sovereign government in analyzing the situation, assessing the relatively benefits and ramifications of military action, and going through the proper processes for approving whatever action is undertaken. As Senator Sessions correctly points out, in the U.S. that process is vested in the Presidency and the Congress, not an international organization.
The potential objections, resistance, or approval of other nations is built into that process. Getting international support for the operation is often very useful, but it should never be dispositive.Hmmmm......"How to get impeached in America"?Read the full story here.