DOJ bugged AP: Simple Chicago Retaliation

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:

WaPo story:

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.”

Right Scoop:

Mark Levin reacts to WaPo story suggesting DOJ subpoena of AP was really about WH retaliation

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

Obama and his tinkering with Miranda Rights

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?

Obama has already given Miranda rights to foreign terrorists and Somali pirates waging jihad against U.S. soldiers and civilians.

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.”

More at Creeping Sharia

Obama administration admits killing 16 year old in drone attack a mistake

So Barry admits he did a oopsie when he killed al-walki’s 16-year-old son. It has plagued me during these months that little attention has been paid to the son, but rather just his father. Not one word about him was mentioned at the hearings. It is the son that has been my issue. What was the evidence against a 16 year-old that deserved a drone? Let me first give you a reminder of the path we are going down here in the U.S.

CNET News: (Only obtained by a FOIA request) that is how we know.

Homeland Security’s specifications say drones must be able to detect whether a civilian is armed. Also specified: “signals interception” and “direction finding” for electronic surveillance.

Homeland Security’s specifications for its drones, built by San Diego-based General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, say they “shall be capable of identifying a standing human being at night as likely armed or not,” meaning carrying a shotgun or rifle. They also specify “signals interception” technology that can capture communications in the frequency ranges used by mobile phones, and “direction finding” technology that can identify the locations of mobile devices or two-way radios.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center obtained a partially redacted copy of Homeland Security’s requirements for its drone fleet through the Freedom of Information Act and published it this week. CNET unearthed an unredacted copy of the requirements that provides additional information about the aircraft’s surveillance capabilities.

Oops!… Obama Adminstration Admits Killing 16 Year-Old Denver Boy in Drone Strike Was a Mistake

Barack Obama is the official who makes the final call on overseas drone strikes.

This weekend, The New York Times reported that US officials now admit that the drone bombing of the Denver teen was a mistake.
The New York Times reported:

The missile strike on Sept. 30, 2011, that killed Mr. Awlaki — a terrorist leader whose death lawyers in the Obama administration believed to be justifiable — also killed Mr. Khan, though officials had judged he was not a significant enough threat to warrant being specifically targeted. The next month, another drone strike mistakenly killed Mr. Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman, who had set off into the Yemeni desert in search of his father. Within just two weeks, the American government had killed three of its own citizens in Yemen. Only one had been killed on purpose. Oops.     H/T:Gateway Pundit

Treasury decision gives China Drilling rights in Gulf of Mexico

As if our Hypocrite-in-Chief has not done enough to sabotage our energy resources, now we hear that we are more than happy to give drilling rights to China in the Gulf. Best part is how the Treasury Dept. and the other Departments got their long fingers into the matter. Just think about it. No pipeline for us, but plenty for China. Obama’s bundler’s make out swell. H/T. goes to Judicial Watch and their FOIA request which has not been responded to.

Treasury Decision Gives Chinese National Offshore Oil Corporation Drilling Rights in Strategic Gulf of Mexico Waters, Provides Apparent Windfall of Financial Returns to Major Obama Contributors.

But let me digress first. Recall this one that covered what foreign companies are doing to us. One example:

China buying up U.S. Energy Supplies

CNOOC recently completed a 570 million dollar deal that gives it a one-third interest in huge oil and gas deposits in Colorado and Wyoming. The following is from Wyoming Energy News….

Chinese energy company Cnooc Ltd. has agreed to pay $570 million for a one-third interest in Chesapeake Energy Corp.’s 800,000 leased acres in northeast Colorado and southeast Wyoming. The acreage is in the Denver-Julesburg (DJ) and Powder River basins. Cnooc is China’s biggest offshore oil and natural gas producer.

In fact, according to a recent Business Insider article, this deal gives the Chinese government the right to a third of any new oil discovered by Chesapeake Energy in the entire region….

Now back to the story:

Because of Nexen’s holdings in the Gulf of Mexico, the CNOOC takeover required the approval of the CFIUS, which is chaired by the Secretary of the Treasury and includes the Attorney General, the U.S. Trade Representative, and the secretaries of the Department of Homeland Security, Commerce, Defense, State, and Energy. On February 12, 2013, the CFIUS announced its approval of CNOOC’s takeover of Nexen. As a state enterprise, CNOOC is owned by the Chinese government and is managed by Communist Party officials. CNOOC offered Nexen a 60% premium over the stock’s trading value at the time of the takeover, prompting analysts to describe the terms as “a fantastic deal for Nexen.” It also raised questions as to whether the Chinese government’s interests were more strategic than economic.

“With one ill-chosen action, the Obama administration has managed to undermine our strategic interests and reward its corporate cronies,” said Tom Fitton, President of Judicial Watch. “It’s little wonder that the Treasury Department is defying the open records law to stonewall accountability. And Americans may want to compare and contrast the quick approval of this Chinese strategic initiative with the Obama administration’s scandalous delay of the related Keystone XL oil pipeline project.”

The acquisition will reportedly provide a windfall return to Obama-connected investors, who profited heavily from Treasury’s approval of the takeover and Chinese expansion into the hemisphere, including:

• Taconic Capital, which reported in its third quarter SEC filing that it had acquired six million shares of Nexen between July 1 and September 30, 2012. Taconic’s founder and managing director is Frank Brosens, an Obama bundler who has raised more than $1 million for the President. Brosens was Timothy Geithner’s first choice to run the TARP (Troubled Assets Relief Program).

• Farallon Capital Management LLC, which bought 8.7 million shares of Nexen (1.65 percent of the company) between July 1 and September 30, 2012. The founder of Fallon Capital is Thomas Steyer, is a long-time Democratic fundraiser who ridiculed Romney’s energy plans at the 2012 Democratic National Convention.

• Eton Park Capital Management, which bought 6,737,000 shares (1.28 percent) of Nexen. Eton Park was founded and is directed by Eric Mindich, a bundler who raised more than $71,000 for Obama this cycle and has given more than $500,000 to Democratic candidates since 1990.

• D.E. Shaw & Co., which increased its position by 5.8 million to 6.5 million shares, or 1.22 percent of the company. D.E. Shaw was founded by David E. Shaw, an Obama bundler in the $200,000 to $500,000 range. He also sits on the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, as he did under the Clinton administration.

• Covington & Burling LLP, in which Eric Holder was formerly a partner, was hired by Nexen to lobby on behalf of the acquisition’s approval.

CNOOC’s July 2012 acquisition of Nexen drilling interests in northern Canada (which includes 1.6 billion barrels in Keystone XL oil reserves) and in the Gulf of Mexico (which includes 100 exploration projects and access to 116 million barrels in reserves) allowed the Chinese government a partial takeover of a vital strategic asset: accessible crude oil in the Western Hemisphere.

The acquisition is the largest Chinese takeover of a foreign company in history. More over at Judicial Watch

Bureaucrats can drop into our homes uninvited

Since we know Obama and his criminal Dept of Justice is scouring for any precedents to continue his grand march to control every aspect of our life, this little reported story raises an alarming Supreme Court decision. Ever hear of “Administrative warrants”? I haven’t. Something we will be hearing more about. It gives the local governments the authority apparently to ignore Probable Cause to enter one’s home and complete a search if one lives in an apartment. The first step.

For more try Wired: We Don’t Need No Stinking Warrant: The Disturbing, Unchecked Rise of the Administrative Subpoena

 Meet the administrative subpoena (.pdf): With a federal official’s signature, banks, hospitals, bookstores, telecommunications companies and even utilities and internet service providers — virtually all businesses — are required to hand over sensitive data on individuals or corporations, as long as a government agent declares the information is relevant to an investigation. Via a wide range of laws, Congress has authorized the government to bypass the Fourth Amendment — the constitutional guard against unreasonable searches and seizures that requires a probable-cause warrant signed by a judge.

In fact, there are roughly 335 federal statutes on the books (.pdf) passed by Congress giving dozens upon dozens of federal agencies the power of the administrative subpoena, according to interviews and government reports. (.pdf)

Here we go:

There can be no rest when it comes to defending constitutional rights. Government at every level constantly chips away at the fundamental principle that Americans should just be left alone if they’re not doing anything wrong.

Busybodies accept no such limit on what they can do. The city of Red Wing, Minn., adopted a city ordinance authorizing local bureaucrats to barge into the home of anyone who happens to be a renter. The purported intent was to identify building code violations — in the name of safety, naturally. The regulation even specified “containers, drawers, or medicine cabinets” could not be opened and their contents examined unless “reasonably necessary.” Once these nosy civil servants started having a look around, they didn’t identify serious, life-threatening flaws in crumbling buildings. Instead, they took note of missing doorstops and dirty stovetops, situations for which they demanded correction.

The sticking point is Camara v. Municipal Court, a 45-year-old U.S. Supreme Court precedent giving the green light to the concept of “administrative warrants” that serve as a blank check for local governments to ignore the requirement that searches be based on some kind of probable cause. This dismal ruling allows municipalities in more than a dozen states to snoop inside rental units hunting for trivial violations, but the Minnesota case represents the first legal challenge to reach a state’s high court. That’s not surprising since, on their own, renters aren’t going to have the resources needed to mount what, here, has been a seven-year battle.

This is a fight that needs to be won, because the country has been headed in the wrong direction for far too long. “The Fourth Amendment has been changing into just a protection for criminals against finding evidence of their crimes instead of what it was meant to be: a protection for the innocent in their privacy to just lead their own lives,” Ms. Berliner told The Washington Times. “The purpose is to protect ordinary, law-abiding citizens and that has been lost.”

Read more: Washington Times

VIDEOS Attorney General Eric Holder Said What About Gun Trafficking?

VIDEOS Attorney General Eric Holder Said What About Gun Trafficking?.

For those who have any interest left in fast and furious, take a fast look at this. This man never ceases to amaze.

VIDEO Sen Rand Paul on Gun Control Executive Order: Obama is Not ‘King’

Reblogged from Reclaim Our Republic:

January 15, 2013 at 11:02 am

“I’m against having a king,” Paul said. “I think having a monarch is what we fought the American Revolution over and someone who wants to bypass the Constitution, bypass Congress — that’s someone who wants to act like a king or a monarch.”

“I’ve been opposed to executive orders, even with Republican presidents. But one that wants to infringe on the Second Amendment, we will fight tooth and nail,” he continued.

Read more… 45 more words

I think this sums up things quite nicely.

Obama unleashes ‘Preferences’ juggernaut

More Obama phones on the way. Many more. Now this “Equal Outcomes” thing should make the lawyers happy. Watch them step up and make out of court settlements because it is just too expensive to fight. Maybe one or two might make it to the Supreme Court… in a few years. A new housing bubble now on its way. As an aside, just to remind folks, that Obamacare is filled with this preference thing. Jews, Indians and Asians need not apply.

Here is a memory first:

Obamacare quotas- cut Jews and Asian Doctors-

The word “underrepresented” is inserted into the bill’s language to make it clear the preferences are aimed at giving a leg up to black and Hispanic students. According to the soft bigotry of the left, “underrepresented” is always meant to be read as “black” and “Latino.”

Page 879: “Give preferences to entities that have a demonstrated record of … training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds.”

“Racial preferences in the Senate Health Care Bill, in addition to being unconstitutional, will not improve health care outcomes for minority patients.” Examining the terms of the race provisions, they said they find them “constitutionally suspect and ill-defined.”

Now the headline of the day: Obama To Unleash Racial-Preferences Juggernaut

If your organization has a policy or practice that doesn’t benefit minorities equally, watch out: The Obama administration could sue you for racial discrimination under a dubious legal theory that many argue is unconstitutional.

President Obama intends to close “persistent gaps” between whites and minorities in everything from credit scores and homeownership to test scores and graduation

His remedy — short of new affirmative-action legislation — is to sue financial companies, schools and employers based on “disparate impact” complaints — a stealthy way to achieve racial preferences, opposed 2 to 1 by Americans.

Under this broad interpretation of civil-rights law, virtually any organization can be held liable for race bias if it maintains a policy that negatively impacts one racial group more than another — even if it has no racist motive and applies the policy evenly across all groups.

Equal Outcomes:

This means that even race-neutral rules for mortgage underwriting and consumer credit scoring potentially can be deemed racist if prosecutors can produce statistics showing they tend to result in adverse outcomes for blacks or Latinos.

Also, the administration sent a chill through the financial industry earlier this year when it announced its new credit watchdog agency will join Justice, as well as HUD, in using the disparate-impact doctrine to enforce civil-rights laws.

Already, Attorney General Eric Holder has used the club of disparate-impact lawsuits to beat almost $500 million in loan set-asides and other claims out of the nation’s largest banks.

In addition to the financial settlements — which include millions in funding for affordable-housing activists — Bank of America, Wells Fargo and SunTrust have all agreed to adopt more minority-friendly lending policies.

Read More At: IBD

Obama’s DOJ Can’t Say Criticizing Religion Will Remain Legal

When I read that the Rockefeller Foundation has recently presided over the creation of a new international journalism group to “advance reporting on religion”, I could only wonder what the advancement might look like.

Maria Lopez, senior religion writer at La Vanguardia in Barcelona, Spain, said the goal is to help journalists write “with accuracy, fairness and balance” on a complex topic. You say complex?

This is the same fine group that has done its best to promote its position on climate change by influencing the same folks. For some reason, I have a hunch it is not to encourage free speech. Then last night I caught Mark Levin, who played this video clip and I thought these two reports go together nicely, in case we have forgotten what this election will mean to us.   

First,  the so-called “Department of Justice” clip:

DoJ official refuses to denounce demands for Saudi-style blasphemy law

Barack Obama’s top civil rights official repeatedly declined to support religious free speech during a July 27 congressional hearing, despite repeated questioning from Arizona Republican Rep. Trent Franks, who chairs the House’s constitution subcommittee.

Tom Perez, the progressive who runs the Justice Department’s civil rights office, refused to answer the questions posed by Franks.

“Will you tell us… that this administration’s Department of Justice will never entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion?” Frank asked four times.

Perez refused to answer, saying “it is a hard question…

Meanwhile,

The Rockefeller Foundation has recently presided over the creation of a new international journalism group to “advance reporting on religion”, the AP reports.

The stated goal of the newly created International Association of Religion Journalists? In the words of the steering committee’s chair Maria-Paz Lopez: to help journalists write “with accuracy, fairness and balance” on all religious matters.

Teaming up with the Association of Religion Data Archives, the international group launched its website, describing itself as “the world’s first international body of religion journalists provides editors, reporters and analysts with the tools, resources and support to promote accurate, fair and balanced reporting on religion worldwide.”

“The International Association of Religion Journalists (IARJ) was founded by leading journalists from 23 countries in six continents at a meeting at The Rockefeller Foundation Bellagio Center in Italy. Nearly 400 journalists from more than 90 nations have been accepted into the new organization.”, the group’s website states.

Under the header “A Global Voice”, the group states that “global religion journalism comes with great responsibility.”

What excellent coincidence that the Rockefeller Foundation came along to preside over the creation of this global group, ensuring a flying start. Or is it?

In the course of many decades several arms of the Rockefeller corpus have went out of their way to somehow co-opt religion, hoping to bring the flocks towards accepting climate change as being man-made.

In their 2010 review of grants extended from 2005 to 2010, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund admits to funding so-called “non-green voices”- meaning people outside the environmental community- to sell man-made climate change doctrine to their respective communities.

These voices include mayors, governors,  “national security hawks”, military leaders and… evangelicals.

It seems that the Rockefellers have now added religion journalists to that list.

H/T and more at:Intelhub

Holder jackboots Gallup – sues company to silence them

This has been out there for a few days, and I am late to the story. In truth, it reveals what we can expect if we have four more years of this. Chicago methods, or closer to Stalinist methods to silence us. If you do not toe the party line, the government will discredit you and literally sue you and put you out of business. Most do not have millions to defend themselves in court. Recall Gibson Guitar? Just  the beginning folks. Two posts today, a great video below this post to encourage our spirit. ”Ronald Reagan warned us about Obama”.

Here we go:

“What do you think of the Obama Administration threatening the Gallup Organization for essentially issuing a veiled warning about the tinkering of the unemployment numbers?” Sodahead, August 24, 2012.

Twice this summer, Gallup has published a report calling into question discrepancies between its unadjusted research and what is being tallied in the adjusted O-fficial statistics. In reporting in its latest jobless numbers — in a commentary titled August Unemployment Not Looking Good — Gallup noted (emphases added):

Regardless, barring heroic adjustments or a sharp change in direction, Gallup data suggest the seasonally adjusted U.S. unemployment rate for August will increase — possibly substantially — when announced in early September.

In other words, Gallup said the only way unemployment numbers don’t go up next month is if someone in Obamaland puts a finger on the scale.

Within days of the Gallup Organization issuing, essentially, a veiled warning to the Obama gang about tinkering with unemployment numbers, Obama’s DOJ jumped, jackboots first, into a multi-million dollar legal action against Gallup, in a case initiated by a former Obama operative.

A few days later, Eric Holder dropped the fifty-pound sledgehammer on Gallup, joining in a “whistleblower” action. The original complaint alleges that the Gallup organization inflated the number of hours required to do polling projects for the U.S. Mint, the State Department, and other federal agencies. (Why federal agencies even think they need to do polling is another subject for another time.)

Full story at Atlas Shrugs