It is easy to over think in trying to figure out why the WH does what it does. Grab this Washington Post full read to capture the essence of what the AP story is really about. Simple retaliation. Obama wanted the full credit for averting a potential terrorist attack. It’s all about Obama and his ego. It’s all about doing it the Chicago way. Intimation. So if Obama and crew thought they could take on the largest news agency and knee cap them, good luck. Nice that the Post chose to run with it. Wander over to the Mark Levin piece for a great rant. Here is a partial cut:
For five days, reporters at the Associated Press had been sitting on a big scoop about a foiled al-Qaeda plot at the request of CIA officials. Then, in a hastily scheduled Monday morning meeting, the journalists were asked by agency officials to hold off on publishing the story for just one more day. The CIA officials, who had initially cited national security concerns in an attempt to delay publication, no longer had those worries, according to individuals familiar with the exchange. Instead, the Obama administration was planning to announce the successful counterterrorism operation that Tuesday.
The president’s top counterterrorism adviser at the time, John O. Brennan, had appeared on “Good Morning America” the following day to trumpet the successful operation. He said that because of the work of U.S. intelligence, the plot did not pose an active threat to the American public.
Holder said this week that the unauthorized disclosure “put the American people at risk.”
This is an amazing story. Mark Levin reads and reacts to a WaPo story that suggests the recent DOJ subpoena of the AP phone records was not really about hunting down a leak, but rather it was retribution over the fact that the AP scooped the White House on a foiled terrorism plot that the White House wanted to make a big deal over because it was during an election year.
Head on over for Mark’s take down of the Chicago way of doing business. video here at Right Scoop
It is amazing how they dig out this old war-horse that was put out to Pasteur years ago, but apparently never too old to be resurrected by NBC and MSNBC and Tingles. Perhaps after the Benghazi hearing this week more will have a taste for it. I thought this was Obama’s idea of what to do with his opponents.
Former CBS News anchor Dan Rather said Sunday that President Barack Obama’s opponents want to politically “cut his heart out and throw his liver to the dogs.”
Rather’s descriptive analysis came during “The Chris Matthews Show” on NBC. Obama has been on a so-called “charm offensive” to try to foster better relations with Republicans.
“All of these things we’ve said about what the president could do, should do, might have, could have, but the central thing to keep in mind is his opponents — you talk about taking them out to dinner, making nice with them — these people politically want to cut his heart out and throw his liver to the dogs. That does make it very, very difficult to come on nice to them,” Rather said.
“Yeah, it causes indigestion over dinner don’t you think?” Matthews cracked.
Just for the record, so much for the 3:00am phone call.
Rep. Tom Cotton speaks on the Obama Administration’s counterterrorism efforts
“I rise today to express grave doubts about the Obama Administration’s counterterrorism policies and programs,” said the freshman congressman from Arkansas. “Counterterrorism is often shrouded in secrecy, as it should be, so let us judge by the results. In barely four years in office, five jihadists have reached their targets in the United States under Barack Obama: the Boston Marathon bomber, the underwear bomber, the Times Square Bomber, the Fort Hood shooter, and in my own state—the Little Rock recruiting office shooter. In the over seven years after 9/11 under George W. Bush, how many terrorists reached their target in the United States? Zero! We need to ask, ‘Why is the Obama Administration failing in its mission to stop terrorism before it reaches its targets in the United States?’”
Charles Krauthammer was on The O’Reilly Factor to discuss Barack Obama’s bizarre reaction to radical Islam. Krauthammer told Bill, “I don’t know what he’s thinking but I sure know what he’s saying and doing. The lengths to which he will go to avoid telling us the truth about the enemy is becoming comical and certainly embarrassing… He refuses to use the word Islamist which is used throughout the Muslim world… And yet Obama won’t touch it because he refuses to use any words that might imply a connection between radical Islam and terrorism which as anybody who’s over the age of 9 knows is the single greatest cause of terror in the world today.”
This is a part of a post I did back in 2011 with disturbing updates. We were concerned then, and we need to be more concerned now. Obama and Eric Holder have indicated that there is no need to Mirandize the Boston terror suspect right way. We will do some sort of a hybrid thing. No, not a military court but sort of a civil court with well……maybe 48 hours is permissible before he gets read his rights. Where does the constitution or court decision state this is “subject to interpretation.” But here is the concern. Recall that now Obama has deemed the whole of the United States a potential battlefield. Which means any of us could caught in his web. Worse, he now promulgates “Preventive Detention” and “Prolonged Detention”.
The Senate voted on whether Congress will give this president—and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world. Even Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) raised his concerns about the NDAA detention provisions during last night’s Republican debate. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself. UPDATE: The New American has a great analysis… Be sure and look at this ACLU link.
Then we have “Prolonged Detention” that even Rachael Maddow had a problem with. “Prolonged Detention” is the term being used. This is not your father’s Gitmo.
Tinkering with Miranda… is this another step… “Obama can unilaterally change Supreme Court rulings should be concerning to all Americans”. Obama has contempt for the Supreme Court, the Constitution which he says is flawed, and Congress. “Domestic Terror” suspects…my guess he has in mind American Citizens who he may feel are a threat to his growing usurping of all powers which belong to other branches of government.If he gets by with this one, what will be the next change to Miranda or any law for that matter. What is your guess?
Now Obama and Holder have revised Miranda rights for what the Wall Street Journal describes as “domestic-terror” suspects. The policy is so vaguely described here, if at all, and who the new Miranda policy applies to and how Obama can unilaterally change Supreme Court rulings should be concerning to all Americans. via Rights Are Curtailed for Terror Suspects – WSJ.com.
New rules allow investigators to hold domestic-terror suspects longer than others without giving them a Miranda warning, significantly expanding exceptions to the instructions that have governed the handling of criminal suspects for more than four decades.
The Supreme Court’s 1966 Miranda ruling obligates law-enforcement officials to advise suspects of their rights to remain silent and to have an attorney present for questioning. A 1984 decision amended that by allowing the questioning of suspects for a limited time before issuing the warning in cases where public safety was at issue.
The Justice Department believes it has the authority to tinker with Miranda procedures. Making the change administratively rather than through legislation in Congress, however, presents legal risks.
“I don’t think the administration can accomplish what I think needs to be done by policy guidance alone,” said California Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. “It may not withstand the scrutiny of the courts in the absence of legislation.”
Shades of Benghazi: State Department changes story on Afghanistan blast that killed diplomat
More lies from the Obama regime. Apparently it is just so much more advantageous to spin whatever story comes to mind then to be concerned about the truth. Again, we lose more State Department staff members and no one cares enough to give their families the truth of what happened to them. The MSM? Nothing to see, move it along.
Ms. Smedinghoff is the first U.S. diplomat to die in Afghanistan in 11 years of U.S.-led war and counterinsurgency, and the incident is the worst this year in terms of U.S. casualties.
Mr. Ventrell said four other State Department employees were injured in the blast. He identified one of them — the most seriously hurt — as Kelly Hunt, a public affairs officer who was evacuated to Germany.
“She is receiving the best possible medical care,” Mr. Ventrell said, adding that Secretary of State John F. Kerry had spoken with Ms. Hunt’s parents twice since the weekend “and conveyed his sympathy to the family during this difficult time.”
Two other injured State Department personnel were being treated at an allied medical facility in Afghanistan, and a fourth was released.
The State Department has acknowledged that five Americans killed in Afghanistan, including 25-year-old diplomat Anne Smedinghoff, were on foot when they were caught in the blast of a suicide bomber, and not in an armored vehicle as officials told bereaved relatives earlier this week.
The deaths of U.S. diplomatic personnel — and the State Department’s changing account of how they died — raise echoes for some of the security failures in Benghazi, Libya, where Islamist extremists killed four Americans in assaults on the U.S. diplomatic compound Sept. 11.
“The question about Benghazi I always wanted an answer to was whether it was a one-off or whether there were systemic problems with the way the State Department was doing risk management for high-risk posts,” said James Carafano, a scholar at the Heritage Foundation think tank. “We never found that out.
“Obviously, in a war zone, you can’t have zero risk and you can’t have zero casualties. But now, is this [incident] a one-off as well?” Mr. Carafano said.
Questions about the incident are likely to multiply in coming days, as more details about the attack are revealed. A witness reported Thursday that the provincial reconstruction team was lost, which is why the personnel were caught in the blast.
Update: looks like this was written as of April 1 apparently a joke but who would know?
but here we go. I guess we could say we knew this was coming. All of the LaHood’s previous statements would lead us to this. The mandate for those new Black Box requirement sure should have given us a heads up. But to put this together with DHS? They want us to “narrow our streets”?? Not one new road will be funded. Not one. Back in May, 2010 I posted: LaHood: “We are going to coerce people out of their cars”
On May 21, 2010 LaHood told reporters at the National Press Club that the “Partnership for Sustainable Communities’ his department had formed with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Housing—sometimes known as the “livability initiative”–was designed to “coerce” people out of their cars.
The moderator later asked: “Some conservative groups are wary of the livable communities program, saying it’s an example of government intrusion into people’s lives. How do you respond?”
“About everything we do around here is government intrusion in people’s lives,” said LaHood. “So have at it.” -(an honest man).
As we know, elections have consequences, the wish now comes true. Withholding funds to States until they come under the boot of our infamous leader. Here we go:
LaHood and Sebelius used the press conference to release a proposed set of actions their agencies and Congress can take to advance the health initiative. Congress could withhold federal transportation funds until states develop and implement aggressive vehicle miles traveled reduction goals and public engagement campaigns highlighting the health impacts of automobile use. State DOTs and legislatures could also levy a health excise fee on auto purchases to fund cycling, walking and transit infrastructure. As the nation’s largest insurer, HHS would revise underwriting standards to reflect the risks of high-mileage communities, and pair medical treatment with interventions to introduce customers and communities to non-auto transportation. Tax benefits for automobile parking would be rescinded, and the NHTSA would move immediately to require automakers to install ignition interlocks on all new vehicles.
Ignition interlocks? We are all going to have to breath into a machine before we can drive. Are you nuts? The cost of this? Use a treadmill for 30 minutes before the lock opens? Where does this end?
Standing side by side with many state DOT heads, US DOT Secretary Ray La Hood and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius today announced a new public safety campaign to encourage less driving, lower speeds, and encourage more cycling and walking to meet the nation’s transportation needs.
“The use of motor vehicles, like smoking, heart disease and other public health threats, pose a grave risk to our children, friends and neighbors,” said Secretary Sebelius.
“For too long, the assumption has been that the negative impacts of auto travel are just the price we must pay for modern life”, said Secretary LaHood, “Well, no longer. It’s time to build a people-centered transportation system. We have the tools and policies to make change now, and we need to get to work.” LaHood urged DOTs and municipalities to begin immediately by reducing speed limits on residential streets, narrowing streets, and installing protected cycling facilities. LaHood also pointed to the benefits of the change, citing the continuing decline in vehicle travel nationwide. “Cities, counties and states no longer need to pour money into new infrastructure that will serve fewer and fewer drivers while their existing roads crumble. We’ll be doing our pocketbooks and the climate a favor while we reactivate our streets and improve public health”.
Secretarys LaHood and Sebelius tour a road ready to be retrofitted with a cycletrack
It was certainly rich hearing Obama gain attention this weekend. We had his Saturday’s remarks, and of course he had to be sure he was seen on Easter. It sounds like Obama has found his religious home again. First the Pastor’s remark, and then let’s reflect on Obama and his own dissing of Christianity.
President Obama and his family this morning went to Easter Sunday services at St. John’s Episcopal Church in Washington, D.C. Here are notes on the Easter service from the pool reporter, which included this part, “It drives me crazy when the captains of the religious right are always calling us back … for blacks to be back in the back of the bus … for women to be back in the kitchen … for immigrants to be back on their side of the border”
Then we have Obama’s Saturday remarks regarding Easter that makes one cringe:
….Of course, those values are at the heart not just of the Christian faith; but of all faiths. From Judaism to Islam; Hinduism to Sikhism; there echoes a powerful call to serve our brothers and sisters. To keep in our hearts a deep and abiding compassion for all. And to treat others as we wish to be treated ourselves.
That’s the common humanity that binds us together. And as Americans, we’re united by something else, too: faith in the ideals that lie at the heart of our founding*; and the belief that, as part of something bigger than ourselves, we have a shared responsibility to look out for our fellow citizens.
Here is Obama’s bizarre view on his personal salvation. Apparently only if we agree to becoming a Marxist nation, can the man find salvation.
In case there are any questions left, Obama mocks the Christianity and the second amendment.
Yesterday I posted a story Obama” ‘Prolonged Detention”, otherwise known as FEMA Camps. Even Rachael Maddow took him on. He posited that it was now permissible to detain without trial as a preemptive move.Now on to part two. Before we get to the heart of the matter via the video, here is a bit of History.
Obama fights the preliminary injunction granted to American Citizens against unlawful imprisonment. But Obama is not through with us yet. They are fighting it big time, and the rationale gets even more creepy. The argument goes something like this, if we are thrown in jail, we can always appeal, even though it may take years to prove our innocence. Guilty until proven otherwise, typical Marxist justice.
On May 16th,federal judge Kathleen Forrest granted a preliminary injunction to plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed against Barack Obama and the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA),striking down those sections of the Act that provide the president the power to indefinitely detain American citizens without benefit of their 5th and 6th Amendment rights. As a reminder, keep in mind it was Obama that insisted that the language in the NDAA bill include Citizens:Obama lies-he insisted that detention of Americans be in defense bill
“But… It was his administration that insisted that the language be included in the bill”.
From the video: Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.) told Congress recently that under the original wording of the National Defense Authorization Act, American citizens were excluded from the provision that allowed for detention. Once Obama’s officials saw the text though, says Levin, “the administration asked us to remove the language which says that US citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section.”
Under the terms of the Act,Obama had been given exclusive authority to direct members of the US military to arrest and imprison anyone he believed to have “substantially supported” al Qaeda,the Taliban,or “associated forces.” When pressed by plaintiff’s attorneys about the practical extent of this authority,government lawyers admitted “…the NDAA does give the president the power to lock up people like journalist Chris Hedges and peaceful activists,” admitting that “…even war correspondents could be locked up indefinitely under the NDAA.”
Yet incredibly,when pressed on the issue,this Obama mouthpiece suggested to Judge Forrest that concerns about the president’s detention powers were excessive as American citizens would,after all,have the ability to file a writ of habeas corpus should they be illegally or improperly jailed! “How long does [such a] petition take,” asked Forrest? When Torrance refused to answer,the Judge continued,“Several years,right”? (In Yesterday’s post, Obama seemed to think that ten years might be about right) -prolonged detention. Keep that phrase in mind.
Keep this in mind:
On July 2nd, 2008—Obama delivered a speech in Boulder, Colorado in which he promised the creation and establishment of a “Civilian National Security Force.” He further promised it would be “just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded as the US Military.”
It is well known amongst dictators, the world over, that a private army is necessary to control the great unwashed masses over which they force their rule.
We have seen Obama steadily assume dictatorial powers over apathetic Americans in just four and a half years. He has all but hushed the people’s voice in government, the US Congress, by simply by-passing them and ruling by executive order—just like any other two-bit dictator. Some feel even the US Supreme Court has lost the steel from its collective spine under withering pressure from our budding domestic dictator, Obama.
If one did not know better, one would think there is a move afoot to institute a complete Marxist insurgency in America with Obama at the top—and —at the leading edge.
“The things done in every Marxist insurgency are being done in America today.” … Retired Lt. General William G.”Jerry” Boykin says in a new video he has just released . Boykin is a decorated former Delta Force Commander, US Deputy Under Secretary for Defense, and a recipient of the Purple Heart
Let me see if I have this straight. All of the GOP Senators didn’t think they were going to be poisoned. but because there wasn’t any food taster for him he wouldn’t eat it? I wonder how much his “Food Taster” gets paid? By the way the food was Lobster.
WASHINGTON — Following President Obama’s lunch meeting with Senate Republicans on Capitol Hill, Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins described the food served and the president’s reaction to what was on menu.
“Unfortunately, you know, the president can’t,” said Collins when asked if Obama ate at the lunch meeting.
“He looked longingly at it,” Collins continued. “He honestly did look longingly at it, but apparently he has to have essentially a taster, and I pointed out to him that we were all tasters for him, that if the food had been poisoned all of us would have keeled over so, but he did look longingly at it and he remarked that we have far better food than the Democrats do, and I said that was because I was hosting.”
“University of Maine recipe for healthy lobster salad — I pointed that out to the president in keeping with the first lady’s initiatives and Fox Family Potato Chips made in Aroostook County where I’m from and wild blueberry pie full of anti-oxidants, see this was a healthy lunch as well. We did have a little ice cream on the pie too, also made in Maine, Gifford’s Ice Cream. So in all seriousness this was well received,” Collins told reporters on Thursday after the meeting at the Capitol.
If we thought that Lisa Jackson was bad, we have another one that is sure one crackerjack of a nut case. Let’s hope before she is confirmed we get all of the Jackson alias ”Richard Windsor” faux e-mails she wrote. Check out the video, and slide over for the short version: Here at News Alert.
President Barack Obama on Monday nominated Gina McCarthy to replace Lisa Jackson as Environmental Protection Agency administrator.
McCarthy, who currently heads the EPA’s air and radiation office, has vowed “not to sit around and wait for congressional action” when issuing environmental regulations.
On May 1, 2010, in the keynote address for the Green Education Celebration at University of Massachusetts in Boston, McCarthy said she did not go to Washington to wait for congressional action and she said she did not intend to do so in the future.
“I love listening to Sen. Kerry. I love listening to Congressman Markey, because they talk funny and they talk real,” said McCarthy. “They tell it like it is and they make things happen. I am so proud that we have them in office so they can push us to face reality that one needs to face and to move forward with legislation that is absolutely essential.
“But I will tell you thatI didn’t go to Washington to sit around and wait for Congressional action. Never done that before, and don’t plan to in the future,” said McCarthy.
“EPA’s Administrator Lisa Jackson didn’t sit around so that she could look at the law and decide it was inconvenient to follow it. Or listen to the science and say, ‘You know, that might get me into trouble, so I ain’t going where the science tells me,’” said McCarthy. “What she actually said when she got there is that I’m going to listen to the law and I’m going where science is driving us, and that is why the EPA put forward just last December what we call the endangerment finding.”
McCarthy suggested that the volume of lawsuits against the move is a sign that the EPA is on the right track. And, she said the EPA has a legal mandate to regulate – and it’ll do so with, or without, Congress:
“Now, it doesn’t sound that exciting. But I will tell you that 320,000 people felt the need to comment at the time, and since we passed it, 15 entities have decided they want to sue us about it, so it must be pretty cool. It actually is a statement the administrator made that said, ‘You know, carbon dioxide and all these greenhouse gasses actually do pose a danger to public health and welfare under the Clean Air Act,’ and lo and behold, we’re required under law to regulate it. That is, indeed, what we are going to do whether Congress moves forward or -and- whether it doesn’t.”
