Thursday, January 29, 2015

‘DO NOT DISCLOSE’: Obama Admin Tells Banks To Shut Up About Its Targeting of Consumers, Gun Dealers. How the totalitarian state works under Obama and the Democrats...by any means necessary.

‘DO NOT DISCLOSE’: Obama Admin Tells Banks To Shut Up About Its Targeting of Consumers, Gun Dealers

A shocking bulletin that CFPB issued to banks, which was obtained by The Daily Caller, was sent around this week in the midst of controversy regarding the administration’s Operation Choke Point program, by which the administration pressures banks to cut off accounts for supposedly suspicious businesses, including gun dealers. Operation Choke Point’s anti-gun mission was recently confirmed in a series of audiotapes published by the US Consumer Coalition, in which a bank teller explained to a gun dealer why his account was being shut down.
“The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau [CFPB] issues this compliance bulletin as a reminder that, with limited exceptions, persons in possession of confidential information, including confidential supervisory information [CSI], may not disclose such information to third parties,” the bulletin states.
“‘Confidential information’ means ‘confidential consumer complaint information, confidential investigative information, and confidential supervisory information, as well as any other CFPB information that may be exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act pursuant,” according to the bulletin.
Even non-disclosure agreements are invalid according to the CFPB’s effort to suppress information.CFPB states that “private confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements neither alter the legal restrictions on the disclosure of CSI nor impact the CFPB’s authority to obtain information from covered persons and service providers in the exercise of its supervisory authority.”
Good thing President Obama’s Dodd-Frank Act gave CFPB vast powers to enforce this kind of information-suppressing.
“Many supervised financial institutions became subject to federal supervision for the first time under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act [Dodd-Frank Act]. Pursuant to authority granted under the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB has issued regulations that govern the use and disclosure of CSI. The CFPB expects all supervised financial institutions to know and comply with the regulations governing CSI.”

Is she really saying blacks are criminals or just using a racialist "dog whistle"

Posted By Patrick Howley On 8:19 PM 01/28/2015 
President Obama’s Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch said that being “tough on crime” actually means being tough on black people.
Lynch, currently in Senate confirmation hearings to replace her sorority sister’s husband Eric Holder, expressed some bold racial views at a September 2007 panel at Duke University called “The Court of Public Opinion: The Practice & Ethics of Trying Cases In The Media,” which was convened after the Duke lacrosse rape case, in which three Duke players were falsely accused of sexual assault.
“I guess where you stand depends on where you sit — but even with the statements as a DA I’m going to be tough on crime, there are people who take that and have taken it for years because it has meant for years I’m going to be tougher on African Americans, depending upon the context, depending upon what else is being said in an election, depending upon what other issues are brought out there,” Lynch said.
“So there are times when these statements need further explanation because on the surface they say one thing but people really hear something else, and it’s informed completely by their environment and often their history.”
The Reverend Al Sharpton was instrumental in securing Lynch’s nomination to replace Holder.
Lynch’s suggestion in Wednesday’s confirmation hearing that illegal immigrants have a right to American jobs prompted a tough line of White House questioning from TheDC’s Neil Munro and a non-answer from a White House spokesman.

"If you cross this administration with perfectly accurate reporting they don’t like, you will be attacked and punished,” Attkisson said. "You and your sources may be subjected to the kind of a surveillance devised for enemies of the state."

Attkisson: Reporters treated like 'enemies of the state' under Obama



The Obama administration treats investigative journalists and their sources like “enemies of the state,” a former CBS News reporter who accuses the government of spying on her told a Senate panel Thursday.
“The job of getting at the truth has never been more difficult,” Sheryl Attkisson testified at the Senate confirmation hearing for Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch.
She said the DOJ’s surveillance of journalists could do “long-term damage to a supposedly free press” and urged Lynch to chart a new course.
Attkisson is one of several reporters the Justice Department has been accused of spying on. She was among a number of journalists who were investigating the DOJ’s failed gun-running program, known as Operation Fast and Furious, that lost weapons to Mexican drug cartels.
After her departure from CBS, Attkisson filed a $35 million lawsuit against outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder over the spying allegations.
"They bully and threaten the access of journalists who do their jobs, news organizations that publish stories they don’t like, and whistleblowers who dare to tell the truth,” Attkisson said.
The Fast and Furious investigation upset White House and DOJ officials, who called and emailed her superiors to put a lid on the story, she said.
The DOJ also shut her out from Fast and Furious briefings with select reporters.
"Government officials weren’t angry because I was doing my job poorly,” Attkisson said. "They were panicked because I was doing my job well."
Later, Attkisson said she discovered the government was spying on her.
She said she ordered three independent forensic examinations that indicated the DOJ was remotely surveilling her by monitoring her keystrokes, capturing her passwords and even listening to her conversations.
"If you cross this administration with perfectly accurate reporting they don’t like, you will be attacked and punished,” Attkisson said. "You and your sources may be subjected to the kind of a surveillance devised for enemies of the state."

Exclusive: Secret tapes undermine Hillary Clinton on Libyan war

Exclusive: Secret tapes undermine Hillary Clinton on Libyan war

Joint Chiefs, key lawmaker held own talks with Moammar Gadhafi regime
 - The Washington Times - Wednesday, January 28, 2015
First of three parts
Top Pentagon officials and a senior Democrat in Congress so distrusted Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's 2011 march to war in Libya that they opened their own diplomatic channels with the Gadhafi regime in an effort to halt the escalating crisis, according to secret audio recordings recovered from Tripoli.
The tapes, reviewed by The Washington Times and authenticated by the participants, chronicle U.S. officials' unfiltered conversations with Col. Moammar Gadhafi's son and a top Libyan leader, including criticisms that Mrs. Clinton had developed tunnel vision and led the U.S. into an unnecessary war without adequately weighing the intelligence community's concerns.
"You should see these internal State Department reports that are produced in the State Department that go out to the Congress. They're just full of stupid, stupid facts," an American intermediary specifically dispatched by the Joint Chiefs of Staff told the Gadhafi regime in July 2011, saying the State Department was controlling what intelligence would be reported to U.S. officials.
At the time, the Gadhafi regime was fighting a civil war that grew out of the Arab Spring, battling Islamist-backed rebels who wanted to dethrone the longtime dictator. Mrs. Clinton argued that Gadhafi might engage in genocide and create a humanitarian crisis and ultimately persuaded President Obama, NATO allies and the United Nations to authorize military intervention.
Gadhafi's son and heir apparent, Seif Gadhafi, told American officials in the secret conversations that he was worried Mrs. Clinton was using false pretenses to justify unseating his father and insisted that the regime had no intention of harming a mass of civilians. He compared Mrs. Clinton's campaign for war to that of the George W. Bush administration's now debunked weapons of mass destruction accusations, which were used to lobby Congress to invade Iraq, the tapes show.
"It was like the WMDs in Iraq. It was based on a false report," Gadhafi said in a May 2011 phone call to Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, an Ohio Democrat serving at the time. "Libyan airplanes bombing demonstrators, Libyan airplanes bombing districts in Tripoli, Libyan army killed thousands, etc., etc., and now the whole world found there is no single evidence that such things happened in Libya."
Seif Gadhafi also warned that many of the U.S.-supported armed rebels were "not freedom fighters" but rather jihadists whom he described as "gangsters and terrorists."
"And now you have NATO supporting them with ships, with airplanes, helicopters, arms, training, communication," he said in one recorded conversation with U.S. officials. "We ask the American government send a fact-finding mission to Libya. I want you to see everything with your own eyes."
The surreptitiously taped conversations reveal an extraordinary departure from traditional policy, in which the U.S. government speaks to foreign governments with one voice coordinated by the State Department.
Instead, the tapes show that the Pentagon's senior uniformed leadership and a congressman from Mrs. Clinton's own party conveyed sentiments to the Libyan regime that undercut or conflicted with the secretary of state's own message at the time.
"If this story is true, it would be highly unusual for the Pentagon to conduct a separate set of diplomatic negotiations, given the way we operated when I was secretary of state," James A. Baker III, who served under President George H.W. Bush, told The Times. "In our administration, the president made sure that we all sang from the same hymnal."
Mr. Kucinich, who challenged Mrs. Clinton and Barack Obama for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, acknowledged that he undertook his own conversations with the Gadhafi regime. He said he feared Mrs. Clinton was using emotion to sell a war against Libya that wasn't warranted, and he wanted to get all the information he could to share with his congressional colleagues.
"I had facts that indicated America was headed once again into an intervention that was going to be disastrous," Mr. Kucinich told The Times. "What was being said at the State Department — if you look at the charge at the time — it wasn't so much about what happened as it was about what would happen. So there was a distortion of events that were occurring in Libya to justify an intervention which was essentially wrong and illegal."
Mr. Kucinich wrote a letter to Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton in August explaining his communications in a last-ditch effort to stop the war.
"I have been contacted by an intermediary in Libya who has indicated that President Muammar Gadhafi is willing to negotiate an end to the conflict under conditions which would seem to favor Administration policy," Mr. Kucinich wrote on Aug. 24.
Neither the White House nor the State Department responded to his letter, he said.
A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton declined to provide any comment about the recordings.
The State Department also declined to answer questions about separate contacts from the Pentagon and Mr. Kucinich with the Gadhafi regime, but said the goal of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama was regime change in Libya.
"U.S. policy during the revolution supported regime change through peaceful means, in line with UNSCR 1973 policy and NATO mission goals," the State Department said. "We consistently emphasized at the time that Moammar Gadhafi had to step down and leave Libya as an essential component of the transition."
'President is not getting accurate information'
Both inside and outside the Obama administration, Mrs. Clinton was among the most vocal early proponents of using U.S. military force to unseat Gadhafi. Joining her in making the case were French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, and her successor as secretary of state, John F. Kerry.
Mrs. Clinton's main argument was that Gadhafi was about to engage in a genocide against civilians in Benghazi, where the rebels held their center of power. But defense intelligence officials could not corroborate those concerns and in fact assessed that Gadhafi was unlikely to risk world outrage by inflicting mass casualties, officials told The Times. As a result, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, strongly opposed Mrs. Clinton's recommendation to use force.
If Mrs. Clinton runs for president next year, her style of leadership as it relates to foreign policy will be viewed through the one war that she personally championed as secretary of state. Among the key questions every candidate faces is how they will assess U.S. intelligence and solicit the advice of the military leadership.
Numerous U.S. officials interviewed by The Times confirmed that Mrs. Clinton, and not Mr. Obama, led the charge to use NATO military force to unseat Gadhafi as Libya's leader and that she repeatedly dismissed the warnings offered by career military and intelligence officials.
In the recovered recordings, a U.S. intelligence liaison working for the Pentagon told a Gadhafi aide that Mr. Obama privately informed members of Congress that Libya "is all Secretary Clinton's matter" and that the nation's highest-ranking generals were concerned that the president was being misinformed.
The Pentagon liaison indicated on the tapes that Army Gen. Charles H. Jacoby Jr., a top aide to Adm. Mullen, "does not trust the reports that are coming out of the State Department and CIA, but there's nothing he can do about it."
In one conversation to the Libyans, the American intelligence asset said, "I can tell you that the president is not getting accurate information, so at some point someone has to get accurate information to him. I think about a way through former Secretary Gates or maybe to Adm. Mullen to get him information"
The recordings are consistent with what many high-ranking intelligence, military and academic sources told The Times:
Mrs. Clinton was headstrong to enter the Libyan crisis, ignoring the Pentagon's warnings that no U.S. interests were at stake and regional stability could be threatened. Instead, she relied heavily on the assurances of the Libyan rebels and her own memory of Rwanda, where U.S. inaction may have led to the genocide of at least 500,000 people.
"Neither the intervention decision nor the regime change decision was an intelligence-heavy decision," said one senior intelligence official directly involved with the administration's decision-making, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "People weren't on the edge of their seats, intelligence wasn't driving the decision one way or another."
Instead of relying on the Defense Department or the intelligence community for analysis, officials told The Times, the White House trusted Mrs. Clinton's charge, which was then supported by Ambassador to the United Nations Susan E. Rice and National Security Council member Samantha Power, as reason enough for war.
"Susan Rice was involved in the Rwanda crisis in 1994, Samantha Power wrote very moving books about what happened in Rwanda, and Hillary Clinton was also in the background of that crisis as well," said Allen Lynch, a professor of international relations at the University of Virginia. "I think they have all carried this with them as a kind of guilt complex."
Humanitarian crisis was not imminent
In 2003, Gadhafi agreed to dismantle his weapons of mass destruction and denounce terrorism to re-establish relations with the West. He later made reparations to the families of those who died in the bombing of Pan-Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.
News media frequently described the apparent transformation as Libya "coming in from the cold."
Still, he ruled Libya with an iron grip, and by February 2011 civil war raged throughout the country. Loyalist forces mobilized tanks and troops toward Benghazi, creating a panicked mass exodus of civilians toward Egypt.
Mrs. Clinton met with Libyan rebel spokesman Mahmoud Jibril in the Paris Westin hotel in mid-March so she could vet the rebel cause to unseat Gadhafi. Forty-five minutes after speaking with Mr. Jibril, Mrs. Clinton was convinced that a military intervention was needed.
"I talked extensively about the dreams of a democratic civil state where all Libyans are equal a political participatory system with no exclusions of any Libyans, even the followers of Gadhafi who did not commit crimes against the Libyan people, and how the international community should protect civilians from a possible genocide like the one [that] took place in Rwanda," Mr. Jibril told The Times. "I felt by the end of the meeting, I passed the test. Benghazi was saved."
So on March 17, 2011, the U.S. supported U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 for military intervention in Libya to help protect its people from Gadhafi's forthcoming march on Benghazi, where he threatened he would "show no mercy" to resisters.
"In this particular country — Libya — at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale," Mr. Obama declared in an address to the nation on March 28. "We had a unique ability to stop that violence: An international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves."
Yet Human Rights Watch did not see the humanitarian crisis as imminent.
"At that point, we did not see the imminence of massacres that would rise to genocidelike levels," said Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of the Middle East and North Africa division for Human Rights Watch. "Gadhafi's forces killed hundreds of overwhelmingly unarmed protesters. There were threats of Libyan forces approaching Benghazi, but we didn't feel that rose to the level of imminent genocidelike atrocities."
Instead, she said, the U.S. government was trying to be at the forefront of the Arab Spring, when many dictator-led countries were turning to democracy.
"I think the dynamic for the U.S. government was: Things are changing fast, Tunisia has fallen, Egypt has fallen, and we'd better be on the front of this, supporting a new government and not being seen as supporting the old government," Ms. Whitson said.
Clinton blocks Gadhafi outreach
On the day the U.N. resolution was passed, Mrs. Clinton ordered a general within the Pentagon to refuse to take a call with Gadhafi's son Seif and other high-level members within the regime, to help negotiate a resolution, the secret recordings reveal.
A day later, on March 18, Gadhafi called for a cease-fire, another action the administration dismissed.
Soon, a call was set up between the former U.S. ambassador to Libya, Gene Cretz, and Gadhafi confidant Mohammed Ismael during which Mr. Ismael confirmed that the regime's highest-ranking generals were under orders not to fire upon protesters.
"I told him we were not targeting civilians and Seif told him that," Mr. Ismael told The Times in an telephone interview this month, recounting the fateful conversation.
While Mrs. Clinton urged the Pentagon to cease its communications with the Gadhafi regime, the intelligence asset working with the Joint Chiefs remained in contact for months afterward.
"Everything I am getting from the State Department is that they do not care about being part of this. Secretary Clinton does not want to negotiate at all," the Pentagon intelligence asset told Seif Gadhafi and his adviser on the recordings.
Communication was so torn between the Libyan regime and the State Department that they had no point of contact within the department to even communicate whether they were willing to accept the U.N.'s mandates, former Libyan officials said.
Mrs. Clinton eventually named Mr. Cretz as the official U.S. point of contact for the Gadhafi regime. Mr. Cretz, the former ambassador to Libya, was removed from the country in 2010 amid Libyan anger over derogatory comments he made regarding Gadhafi released by Wikileaks. As a result, Mr. Cretz was not trusted or liked by the family.
Shutting the Gadhafis out of the conversation allowed Mrs. Clinton to pursue a solitary point of view, said a senior Pentagon official directly involved with the intervention.
"The decision to invade [Libya] had already been made, so everything coming out of the State Department at that time was to reinforce that decision," the official explained, speaking only on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution.
As a result, the Pentagon went its own way and established communications with Seif Gadhafi through one of his friends, a U.S. businessman, who acted as an intermediary. The goal was to identify a clear path and strategy forward in Libya — something that wasn't articulated by the White House or State Department at the time, officials said.
"Our big thing was: 'What's a good way out of this, what's a bridge to post-Gadhafi conflict once the military stops and the civilians take over, what's it going to look like?'" said a senior military official involved in the planning, who requested anonymity. "We had a hard time coming up with that because once again nobody knew what the lay of the clans and stuff was going to be.
"The impression we got from both the businessman and from Seif was that the situation is bad, but this [NATO intervention] is even worse," the official said, confirming the sentiments expressed on the audio recordings. "All of these things don't have to happen this way, and it will be better for Libya in the long run both economically and politically if they didn't."
Pentagon looks for a way out
The Pentagon wasn't alone in questioning the intervention.
The week the U.N. resolution authorizing military force was passed, Sen. Jim Webb, Virginia Democrat, expressed his own concerns.
"We have a military operation that's been put to play, but we do not have a clear diplomatic policy or clear statement of foreign policy. We know we don't like the Gadhafi regime, but we do not have a picture of who the opposition movement really is. We got a vote from the Security Council but we had five key abstentions in that vote."
Five of the 15 countries on the U.N. Security Council abstained from voting on the decision in Libya because they had concerns that the NATO intervention would make things worse. Mrs. Clinton worked to avoid having them exercise their veto by personally calling representatives from Security Council member states.
Germany and Brazil published statements on March 18, 2011, explaining their reasons for abstention.
"We weighed the risks of a military operation as a whole, not just for Libya but, of course, also with respect to the consequences for the entire region and that is why we abstained," Germany said.
Brazil wrote, "We are not convinced that the use of force as contemplated in the present resolution will lead to the realization of our most important objective — the immediate end of violence and the protection of civilians.
We are also concerned that such measures may have the unintended effect of exacerbating tensions on the ground and causing more harm than good to the very same civilians we are committed to protecting."
Sergey Ivanovich Kislyak, Russia's ambassador to the U.S., told The Times that history has proved those concerns correct.
"The U.N. Security Council resolution on Libya was meant to create a no-fly zone to prevent bombing of civilians," said Mr. Kislyak. "NATO countries that participated in this intervention were supposed to patrol the area. However, in a short amount of time the NATO flights — initially meant to stop violence on the ground — went far beyond the scope of the Security Council-mandated task and created even more violence in Libya."
On March 19, the U.S. military, supported by France and Britain, fired off more than 110 Tomahawk missiles, hitting about 20 Libyan air and missile defense targets. Within weeks, a NATO airstrike killed one of Gaddafi's sons and three grandsons at their the family's Tripoli compound, sparking debate about whether the colonel and his family were legitimate targets under the U.N. resolution.
Mr. Gates, the defense secretary, said the compound was targeted because it included command-and-control facilities.
Even after the conflict began, U.S. military leaders kept looking for a way out and a way to avoid the power vacuum that would be left in the region if Gadhafi fell.
As the intelligence asset working with the Joint Chiefs kept his contacts going, one U.S. general made an attempt to negotiate directly with his Libyan military counterparts, according to interviews conducted by The Times with officials directly familiar with the overture.
Army Gen. Carter Ham, the head of the U.S. African Command, sought to set up a 72-hour truce with the regime, according to an intermediary called in to help.
Retired Navy Rear Adm. Charles Kubic, who was acting as a business consultant in Libya at the time, said he was approached by senior Libyan military leaders to propose the truce. He took the plan to Lt. Col. Brian Linvill, the U.S. AFRICOM point of contact for Libya. Col. Linvill passed the proposal to Gen. Ham, who agreed to participate.
"The Libyans would stop all combat operations and withdraw all military forces to the outskirts of the cities and assume a defensive posture. Then to insure the credibility with the international community, the Libyans would accept recipients from the African Union to make sure the truce was honored," Mr. Kubic said, describing the offers.
"[Gadhafi] came back and said he was willing to step down and permit a transition government, but he had two conditions," Mr. Kubic said. "First was to insure there was a military force left over after he left Libya capable to go after al Qaeda. Secondly, he wanted to have the sanctions against him and his family and those loyal to him lifted and free passage. At that point in time, everybody thought that was reasonable."
But not the State Department.
Gen. Ham was ordered to stand down two days after the negotiation began, Mr. Kubic said. The orders were given at the behest of the State Department, according to those familiar with the plan in the Pentagon. Gen. Ham declined to comment when questioned by The Times.
"If their goal was to get Gadhafi out of power, then why not give a 72-hour truce a try?" Mr. Kubic asked. "It wasn't enough to get him out of power; they wanted him dead."
Libyan officials were willing to negotiate a departure from power but felt the continued NATO bombings were forcing the regime into combat to defend itself, the recordings indicated.
"If they put us in a corner, we have no choice but to fight until the end," Mr. Ismael said on one of the recordings. "What more can they do? Bomb us with a nuclear bomb? They have done everything."
Under immense foreign firepower, the Gadhafi regime's grip on Libya began to slip in early April and the rebels' resolve was strengthened. Gadhafi pleaded with the U.S. to stop the NATO airstrikes.
Regime change real agenda
Indeed, the U.S. position in Libya had changed. First, it was presented to the public as way to stop an impending humanitarian crisis but evolved into expelling the Gadhafis.
CIA Director Leon E. Panetta says in his book "Worthy Fights" that the goal of the Libyan conflict was for regime change. Mr. Panetta wrote that at the end of his first week as secretary of defense in July 2011, he visited Iraq and Afghanistan "for both substance and symbolism."
"In Afghanistan I misstated our position on how fast we'd be bringing troops home, and I said what everyone in Washington knew, but we couldn't officially acknowledge: That our goal in Libya was regime change."
But that wasn't the official war cry.
Instead: "It was 'We're worried a humanitarian crisis might occur,'" said a senior military official, reflecting on the conflict. "Once you've got everybody nodding up and down on that, watch out because you can justify almost anything under the auspices of working to prevent a humanitarian crisis. Gadhafi had enough craziness about him, the rest of the world nodded on."
But they might not be so quick to approve again, officials say.
"It may be impossible to get the same kind of resolution in similar circumstances, and we already saw that in Syria where the Russians were very suspicious when Western powers went to the U.N.," said Richard Northern, who served as the British ambassador to Libya during part of the conflict. "Anything the Western powers did in the Middle East is now viewed by the Russians with suspicion, and it will probably reduce the level of authority they're willing to give in connection to humanitarian crises."
Mr. Kucinich, who took several steps to end the war in Libya, said he is sickened about what transpired.
He sponsored a June 3 resolution in the House of Representatives to end the Libyan war, but Republican support for the bill was diluted after Speaker John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, proposed a softer alternative resolution demanding that the president justify his case for war within 14 days.
"There was a distortion of events that were occurring in Libya to justify an intervention which was essentially wrong and illegal because [the administration] gained the support of the U.N. Security Council through misrepresentation," said Mr. Kucinich. "The die was cast there for the overthrow of the Gadhafi government. The die was cast. They weren't looking for any information.
"What's interesting about all this is, if you listen to Seif Gaddafi's account, even as they were being bombed they still trusted America, which really says a lot," said Mr. Kucinich. "It says a lot about how people who are being bombed through the covert involvement or backdoor involvement of the U.S. will still trust the U.S. It's heart-breaking, really. It really breaks your heart when you see trust that is so cynically manipulated."
In August, Gadhafi's compound in Tripoli was overrun, signaling the end of his 42-year reign and forcing him into hiding. Two months later, Gadhafi, 69, was killed in his hometown of Sirte. His son Seif was captured by the Zintan tribe and remains in solitary confinement in a Zintan prison cell.
Since Gadhafi was removed from power, Libya has been in a constant state of chaos, with factional infighting and no uniting leader. On Tuesday, an attack on a luxury hotel in Tripoli killed nine people, including one American. A group calling itself the Islamic State-Tripoli Province took responsibility for the attack, indicating a growing presence of anti-American terrorist groups within the country.
© Copyright 2015 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Making attacking police profitable in NYC.

Bratton ‘outraged’ NYC gave machete man $5K for menacing cops

NYPD Commissioner William Bratton ​reacted with outrage over a $5,000 settlement the city made with a machete-wielding thug who menaced cops.
A front-page New York Post story revealed that the city settled with 24-year-old Ruhim Ullah, who was shot in the leg while wielding the 18-inch blade.
“I was sitting in the car with my wife. We were on our way to this event,” Bratton said after a morning speech at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel.
“And I couldn’t believe it when I first saw it (The Post’s story), and she sat beside me and looked over and said, ‘What is that?’ and she took the paper away from me.”
​Ullah pleaded guilty in 2010 to the dangerous confrontation ​— and even his lawyer admitted the shooting was likely justified — but still filed a $3 million lawsuit against the city.
Bratton said he’ll ​meet with Mayor Bill de Blasio ​to discuss the issue Thursday.
“I’ll be meeting the mayor this afternoon,” he said. “It’s outrageous.”
Bratton referenced The Post story during his address to the police foundation.
“Our officers did absolutely nothing wrong and it’s outrageous that, if that story, as written, is accurate, the city law department is continuing to not support the men and women of this department as they go about their duties and do those duties,” Bratton said.
After the speech, Bratton reiterated to reporters that settlements of frivolous lawsuits against cops hurt the morale of officers on the street.
“Our cops work very hard trying to keep this city safe and if they’re not going to be backed up by the city law office, we need to do something about that,” Bratton said.
New York’s top cop said he’s been fighting these kinds of settlements going back to his stint as commissioner under Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
“It’s a longstanding issue. I can remember going back to my time in ’94, the same issue,” he said.
“I believe there’s a willingness to more aggressively defend these cases and I certainly hope that’s the case because our cops deserve better. They really do.”
Going to bat for his boss, Bratton said he believes de Blasio is also troubled by these kinds of payouts.
“And I believe the mayor feels the same way also,” Bratton said. “We’ve had discussions around this issue. I believe he’s very supportive of it also, changing th

Code Pink, Obama's core constituency, proves once again their historical ignorance and hate.

Posted By Bridget Johnson On January 29, 2015 
A Senate hearing opened this morning with Code Pink protesters trying to arrest former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger for “war crimes.”
The protesters, bearing signs reading “Kissinger War Criminal” and “Cambodia,” rushed up behind the 91-year-old diplomat at the witness table of the Senate Armed Services Committee, which was holding a hearing on global challenges and the U.S. national security strategy.
Also testifying were 94-year-old former Secretary of State George P. Shultz and 77-year-old former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.
Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.) said he would call recess until Capitol Police removed Code Pink from the room.
“I’ve been a member of this committee for many years, and I have never seen anything as disgraceful and outrageous and despicable as the last demonstration that just took place,” McCain said, which led to shout-backs from the protesters.
“You know, you’re going to have to shut up, or I’m going to have you arrested. If we can’t get the Capital Hill Police in here immediately… Get out of here, you low-life scum,” McCain added.
“So Henry, I hope you will — Dr. Kissinger, I hope on behalf of all of the members of this committee on both sides of the aisle — in fact, from all of my colleagues, I’d like to apologize for allowing such disgraceful behavior towards a man who served his country with the greatest distinction. I apologize profusely.”
Later, when Kissinger began his opening statement, more protesters popped up in the room, screaming about Vietnam and rattling off his “war crimes.”
“Vietnam! From 1969 to 1973, Kissinger, working for Richard Nixon, oversaw the slaughter in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, that led to the deaths of millions — millions of people. Many thousands more died from the effects of massive doses of agent orange and from unexploded bombs that covered the countryside!” a protester shouted. “Chile! Henry Kissinger was one of the principle architects of the coup in Chile on September 11th, 1973…”
Shultz then stood up to verbally battle the protesters, saying, “I salute Henry Kissinger for his many contributions to peace and security.” That led to a standing ovation from the committee members and audience that drowned out Code Pink.

Obama's war against Israel.

Obama’s Israel Problem


The Muslim Brotherhood in America


Follow link in headline to see text messages not visible in post. Hat tip: PJ Media.

Posted By Patrick Poole On January 28, 2015 

Obama administration Muslim adviser Mohamed Elibiary is no stranger to regular PJ Media readers.
In September, Elibiary was unceremoniously removed from his fellowship position with the Department of Homeland Security, which he tried to spin as a “resignation,” but letters sent to members of Congress by DHS officials indicated he would not be reappointed.
Undoubtedly, one of the chief reasons for DHS cutting ties with Elibiary was a long string of extremist statements he had been making on Twitter, including talking about the inevitability of the return of an ISIS-style caliphate — tweets that were subsequently used by ISIS supporters for recruiting purposes.
But Elibiary has apparently not learned his lesson, engaging in a hate-filled anti-Christian rant on Twitter yesterday, even going so far to attack Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal as a “bottom feeder”:

Nor, as you’ll see below, is this the first time he has indulged in his anti-Christian bigotry.
Before revisiting his Twitter meltdown, perhaps it’s useful to revisit some of Elibiary’s greatest hits:
  • Elibiary admitted that his mentor and long-time friend was none other than Hamas terrorist leader Shukri Abu Baker, who is currently serving a 65-year prison sentence.
  • In 2003, Elibiary was listed as a board member for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Dallas chapter, which was founded by now-convicted Hamas operative Ghassan Elashi. In 2008, federal prosecutors declared in a federal court brief that “from its founding by Muslim Brotherhood leaders, CAIR conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists.”
  • In Dec 2004, Elibiary was a featured speaker at a Dallas rally honoring the Ayatollah Khomeini as a “Great Islamic Visionary,” an event the Dallas Morning News called a “disgrace.”
  • Immediately after the Fort Hood massacre in November 2009, Dallas Morning News editor Rod Dreher recounted Elibiary’s strident defense of jihadist ideologue Sayyid Qutb, whom the 9/11 Commission identified as the chief architect of Al-Qaeda’s ideology.
  • In April 2010, he published an op-ed at Fox News pleading with the Obama administration to not kill senior Al-Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.
  • In June 2010, he attacked the Supreme Court after they upheld the material support for terrorism statute in an op-ed for the Dallas Morning News.
  • In June 2011, the IRS revoked the 501c3 tax-exempt status of Elibiary’s Freedom and Justice Foundation for failing to file the required IRS Form 990s over a period of several years, documents which would reveal the source of his organization’s funding.
  • In October 2011, I reported exclusively here at PJ Media that Elibiary had downloaded sensitive documents by the Texas Dept. of Public Safety from a secure DHS database, and then unsuccessfully tried to shop them to the media claiming then-Gov. Rick Perry was running an “Islamophobic” operation. Despite multiple claims by top DHS officials that an internal investigation exonerated Elibiary, in Sept 2013 DHS admitted in response to the Judicial Watch FOIA request that no records related to any internal investigation existed, prompting members of Congress to claim DHS was engaged in a cover-up. Texas DPS, having conducted their own investigation, severed their relationship with Elibiary.
  • After 30 million Egyptians took to the streets to remove Muslim Brotherhood president Mohamed Morsi, leading to his ouster, Elibiary added a Muslim Brotherhood logo to his Twitter avatar in solidarity with the extremist Islamic group.
  • In November 2013, Elibiary took to Twitter to announce that the U.S. was a shariah-compliant Islamic country.
So that provides some context for his hate-filled Twitter rant yesterday.
Elibiary began his meltdown by denouncing “guilt by association,” and then engaged in the very group scapegoating (“Christianist culture wars”) he had just condemned:

Then in a bizarre statement, he claimed that Islam is the driving force for the “Far Right” (presumably he means that hatred of the religion of Islam itself drives the “Far Right” — again another sweeping group indictment that he previously denounced):

He then launched into a rage about “Christianist subculture”:



“Christianist” is a slur invented by Leftist reactionaries to attack Christians who take their faith seriously and are politically involved. And yet if Elibiary’s co-conspirators at CAIR can denounce the use of the term “Islamist,” as they recently did, isn’t it equally bigoted and unfair to use the term “Christianist” to attack Elibiary’s perceived enemies?
But he continues, identifying “Christianist subculture” as a “problem” for Muslims, and presumably one that must be eradicated:

“Christianist” subculture is unAmerican:

And again the attack continued, as he demonized a large group he had just identified in the millions as hateful and xenophobic:

And demonstrating the complete lack of self-awareness of his own hypocrisy:

Mohamed, if you find yourself gravitating towards a view that blames “Christianist subculture” broadly, then you’re lost.
But don’t dare call him out on his hypocrisy!

One is given to wonder what Elibiary’s reaction would be if someone were to simply modify his tweets to replace “Christianist subculture” with “American Islamist subculture.” Undoubtedly, he would froth at the mouth with rabid accusations of racism and “Islamophobia.”
This, however, is not remotely the first time that Christians have been the targets of Elibiary’s unbridled rage.
In September 2013, he engaged in a series of tweets attacking Egyptian Coptic Christians:


Which prompted this shocked response from a UK Coptic bishop:

But Elibiary was back spewing anti-Christian hate again last April, attacking Coptic church leaders as immoral:

As I witnessed first-hand in Egypt last year, Elibiary’s Muslim Brotherhood allies sacked and burned down nearly 100 churches in August 2013 and launched an ongoing wave of terror targeting Copts and the government after the ouster of Morsi. During Morsi’s regime, attacks on Christians were commonplace, with the Muslim Brotherhood setting up torture chambers for Christian protesters right outside Morsi’s palace. When Christians were murdered in April 2013, a Muslim mob aided by Morsi’s police attacked the funeral service and mourners at the Coptic Cathedral in Cairo. So it’s no surprise that Christians overwhelmingly supported Morsi’s overthrow.
And the outrage of Coptic Christians is understandable when, despite all the contrary evidence, Elibiary tweets out this:

Clearly, it is long past time for Elibiary’s friends to stage a mental health intervention. And because he exhibits undeniable anti-Christian hatred and bigotry, he clearly has no place advising anyone in our government.


Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Berkeley - paradise interrupted.



F-18 Supersonic Jet Fighter Buzzes Berkeley

by Brandon Mercer
Share on email

UPDATED: BERKELEY (CBS SF) — An F/A-18 Super Hornet Navy fighter jet buzzed Berkeley Tuesday, and created quite the buzz on Twitter as its fast and loud flyover got plenty of attention.One person reported the plane as low as 300-500 feet.
“I thought it may have been an earthquake. Pretty much the entire building was shaking,” said Ryen Banihashemi. “I thought maybe some people were running on the roof, honestly I had idea. It was that loud.”
The jet fighter flew from Naval Air Station Lemoore, south of Fresno. On Wednesday, the base commander responded to complaints.
Public Affairs Commander Jeannie Groeneveld told KPIX 5, “To answer your question, A U.S. Navy F/A-18E Super Hornet from Naval Air Station Lemoore, California, flew at 2,500-3,000 feet over Berkeley at approximately 2 p.m. PST Jan. 27. The F/A 18 was under Federal Aviation Administration control throughout the training flight. While training missions in the local area are common and the pilot was under positive FAA control, the U.S. Navy is investigating the flight to ensure the aviator complied with all FAA and U.S. Navy regulations.”
The “familiarization flight” requires the pilot to fly by looking outside the aircraft instead of relying on instruments, and this involved transitioning to a lower altitude 
Ian Gregor from the FAA confirms that, “FAA regulations require airplanes to be at least 1,000 feet above the nearest obstacle when flying over densely populated areas. My understanding is the F-18 never got below 2,500 feet.”
That’s not what locals observed, however.
Many people wondered about the flight path and nature of the flight, some seriously, others in true Berkeley fashion.

America skating very close to the big brother totalitarian state. We're watching you

DEA chief: US abandoned plan to track cars near gun shows

Jan 28, 


By ERIC TUCKER
(AP) In this April 12, 2013 file photo, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)...
Full Image

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Drug Enforcement Administration abandoned an internal proposal to use surveillance cameras for photographing vehicle license plates near gun shows in the United States to investigate gun-trafficking, the agency's chief said Wednesday.
DEA Administrator Michelle Leonhart said in a statement that the proposal memorialized in an employee's email was only a suggestion, never authorized by her agency and never put into action. The AP also learned that the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives did not authorize or approve the license plate surveillance plan.
Automated license plate scanners take pictures of every vehicle that passes their field of view and record the information in a database that can be used to track a vehicle's movements over time.
Federal, state and local police agencies routinely use the cameras mounted on patrol cruisers or in fixed locations, such as utility poles or busy intersections. Collectively, they capture the movements of millions of vehicles each day. Private companies, including tow truck agencies, also use them.
The scanners have raised significant privacy concerns even though they generally only record cars and trucks driving on public roads. There are no consistent, national rules that govern how police can use the information, how long it can be saved and how widely the records can be shared with other police agencies.
The Wall Street Journal reported the DEA's aborted plan in Wednesday's editions.