Obama secretly approves top-of-the-line anti-tank arms for Syrian rebels

Secretary Ban Ki-moon said he was “extremely troubled about the risk of an all-out civil war (in Syria) and was concerned about the outbreak of related violence in Lebanon.”

He spoke as dozens of Syrians died in clashes – mostly in the provinces of Aleppo and Idlib and the town of Homs – while two people were killed in Bashar Assad 

Syrian T-72 on fire

Beirut in a spillover of Syrian bloodshed.

Sunday, at the NATO summit in Chicago, Secretary Anders Fogh Rasmussen said firmly that the alliance has “no intention” of taking military action against President Bashar Assad’s regime. But he said nothing about individual NATO members translating their concern about the escalating violence in Syria into military action. Above all, he did not explain why Syrian army heavy T-72 tanks have in recent days started bursting into flames on the open roads.

Debkafile’s military sources disclose the cause: The Syrian rebels have received their first “third generation” anti-tank weapons, 9K115-2 Metis-M and Kornet E. They are supplied by Saudi and Qatari intelligence agencies following a secret message from President Barack Obama advising them to up the military stake in the effort to oust Assad.
Saturday, May 19, President Obama said in a speech to the G-8 summit at Camp David that “Bashar al-Assad must leave power.” Listening to him were Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev whose government strongly opposes the bid to topple Assad and is helping him to weather the uprising against his rule.
Medvedev and Chinese leader Hu Jintao both kept silent after Obama spoke. Both would have had intelligence updates relayed to Camp David on the latest turn of events in Syria.

The supply of powerful anti-tank missiles to the Syrian rebels is intended to achieve two purposes:

1. To impede Syrian military tank movements between flashpoints. During the 14-month uprising, there was nothing to stop Syrian tanks criss-crossing the country as back-up for the official crackdown on dissent. But in recent weeks, trucks hauling the T-72 are being blown up before they reach their destinations.
2.  The sight of blazing T-72  tanks is intended to undermine army morale and puncture the self-assurance of the security circles surrounding the president.
The anti-tank missiles reaching the rebels through Saudi and Qatari channels are only one facet of the unfolding US plan for the Syrian crisis, our military sources report. Turkish intelligence has been given the green light to arm Syria rebels with IED roadside bombs tailored for the Syrian theater and intensively train the dissidents in their use at Turkish military facilities. This is tantamount to Ankara’s first direct military intervention in Syria.
How will Assad and his backers in Tehran and Moscow handle the upscale of rebel munitions?
According to our sources, the Syrian ruler and his cronies are not shaken in their conviction that even with heavy weapons in play they will suppress the revolt, because the majority of the population is still behind the regime and because the rebels will find it hard to wield the advanced systems, especially by day.

Continue reading

High Court to Hear Warrantless Eavesdropping Challenge

I hope the Supreme Court agrees to let this lawsuit proceed….as we know for a fact the warrantless wiretapping violates the 4th amendment, no matter what the excuse!

The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide whether to halt a legal challenge to a once-secret warrantless surveillance program targeting Americans’ communications that Congress eventually legalized in 2008.

The announcement is a win for the Obama administration, which like its predecessor, argues that government wiretapping programs and laws can’t be challenged in court.

At issue is the FISA Amendments Act, (.pdf) the subject of lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and others, that authorizes the government to electronically eavesdrop on Americans’ phone calls and e-mails without a probable-cause warrant so long as one of the parties to the communication is outside the United States. The communications may be intercepted “to acquire foreign intelligence information.”

That bill was signed into law in July 2008, and the ACLU filed suit immediately. Then-senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama voted for the measure, though he said the bill was flawed and that he would push to amend it if elected. Instead, Obama, as president, simply continued the Bush administration’s legal tactics aimed at crushing any judicial scrutiny of the wiretapping program.

After a surprise appellate court decision last year that reinstated the ACLU’s challenge, the Obama administration asked the Supreme Court to overturn the decision. The government said the ACLU and a host of other groups don’t have the legal standing to bring the case because they have no evidence they or their overseas clients are being targeted.

Without comment, the justices agreed to review the lower court’s decision at a yet-to-be determined date. It marks the first time the Supreme Court has agreed to review any case touching on the eavesdropping program that was secretly employed in the wake of 9/11 by the Bush administration, and eventually largely codified into law four years ago.

A lower court ruled the ACLU, Amnesty International, Global Fund for Women, Global Rights, Human Rights Watch, International Criminal Defence Attorneys Association, The Nation magazine, PEN American Center, Service Employees International Union and other plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the case, because they could not demonstrate that they were subject to the eavesdropping.

The groups appealed to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that they often work with overseas dissidents who might be targets of the National Security Agency program. Instead of speaking with those people on the phone or through e-mails, the groups asserted that they have had to make expensive overseas trips in a bid to maintain attorney-client confidentiality.

The plaintiffs, some of them journalists, also claim the 2008 legislation chills their speech, and violates their Fourth Amendment privacy rights.

Without ruling on the merits of the case, the appeals court agreed with the plaintiffs last year that they have ample reason to fear the surveillance program, and thus have legal standing to pursue their claim.

The Obama administration disagreed.

Wired.com

NAACP votes to support marriage equality

Oh, but they’re not trying to cram this down anyone’s throat……We’re talking about a small minority in America that this type marriage applies to. You would think the majority of America is gay already with it being pushed from everywhere all of a sudden, the President, NAACP, legislators in several States…..Yet everytime it is put on a ballot for the “People” to vote on, it loses big time……anyway here’s the article.

The NAACP waded this weekend into the debate cracked wide open with President Obama’s recent public support of gay marriage, as the group’s national board voted on Saturday in support of same-sex unions.

CAPTION

By Steve Ruark, AP

According to a press release on the website of the Baltimore-based civil rights organization, the board of directors passed a resolution supporting marriage equality.

“The mission of the NAACP has always been to insure the political, social and economic equality of all people,” Roslyn Brock, chairwoman of the board, said in the statement.

Said Benjamin Todd Jealous, president and CEO, in that same statement: “Civil marriage is a civil right and a matter of civil law. The NAACP’s support for marriage equality is deeply rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and equal protection of all people.”

The NAACP vote comes about a week and a half after President Obama’s decision to support gay marriage and the subsequent decision by the pastors of some black churches to blast the president’s decision.

Bishop Timothy Clarke, head of the First Church of God in Columbus, Ohio, told his congregation that he opposes gay marriage, but also told USA TODAY that he hopes Obama’s decision does not become a political football.

Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, praised the NAACP decision in a statement released on the group’s website.

Same-sex ‘marriage’ advocates threaten Bristol Palin and her family with death

LifeSiteNews.com) – If homosexual activists have their way, Bristol Palin will not be dancing with the stars; she’ll be swimming with the fishes.

The daughter of former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin received vicious, hateful, and incendiary criticism – including death threats – after posting a blog registering her opposition to same-sex “marriage.”

She revealed the hatred she has endured in a follow-up post, “Hate in the Name of Love, Bullying in the Name of Tolerance,”  earlier this week.

In addition to more than 3,000 comments – which she noted contained mostly bullying and name-calling but no arguments – she unveiled some of the readers’ comments deemed too offensive to post:

• “You are a disgusting piece of sh-t ms. Palin. I wish awful things on you and your family. You all, including your son, deserve a slow, painful, and miserable death…May death be upon you.”
• “No, you’re the real problem, and America should kill you for it”;
• “bristol: kill yourself you fat f-ck”;
• “you’re an argument for abortion”;
• “Kill yourself.”

The reality television star is far from the only person opposing the radical homosexual activists’ attempt to redefine marriage to receive threats of violence.

Earlier this week vandals threatened to burn St. Francis Xavier Roman Catholic Church in Acushnet, Massachusetts, to the ground after it posted a message on its church sign stating, “Two men are friends, not spouses.”

Sarah Crank, a 14-year-old homeschooler in Maryland, received death threats after testifying before a Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee in January. She said the children of same-sex couples “have no idea what kind of wonderful experiences they miss out on” by not having traditional parents.

Mars Hill Church in Portland had bricks thrown through its windows by self-proclaimed “angry queers” after a pastor affiliated with another one of its branches said homosexuality was sinful.

In an online video entitled “Attacked by Tolerance,” volunteers from the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property (TFP) describe how they were physically attacked by homosexual activists after they took a stance for traditional marriage.

Continue reading:

Judge Strikes Down NDAA, Rules Obama Must Obey Constitution

At least one Judge has some Constitutional sense and isn’t afraid to use it.

In a considerable setback for a president eager to ravage the due process rights of the American people, Federal Judge Kathleen Forrest granted a preliminary injunction on Wednesday, striking down those sections of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012 which sought to provide Barack Obama the power to indefinitely detain citizens without benefit of their 5^th Amendment rights.

Signed very quietly into law on New Year’s Eve, the controversial Act has been roundly criticized as unconstitutional by groups on both the political left and right. Of greatest concern was Section 1021, which grants the United States military authority to exercise police powers on American soil. Upon order of the president and at his sole discretion, agents of the military are empowered to detain “until the end of hostilities” anyone the president believes to have “substantially supported” al Qaeda, the Taliban, or “associated forces.”

Judge Forrest concluded that the Section “…failed to ‘pass Constitutional muster’ because its broad language could be used to quash political dissent.” In a statement clearly directed to lawmakers, she added,   ”Section 1021 tries to do too much with too little – it lacks the minimal requirements of definition and scienter that could easily have been added, or could be added, to allow it to pass constitutional muster.” That is, Congress failed—perhaps deliberately– to define “substantial support” of terrorist groups or describe those activities which might be construed as crossing the legal line. And no law may be enforced if those to whom it applies are unable to clearly understand what a violation of that law entails.

Nothing could more plainly reveal the rank corruption and lust for power of the Manchurian Candidate than his involvement in crafting and then misrepresenting the final text and authority of the NDAA. According to Democrat Senator Carl Levin, it was Obama himself who demanded American citizens be included under the detention law and that the President have exclusive authority to invoke the statute. “The language which precluded the application of Section [1021] to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved…and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section,” said Levin after the NDAA was signed into law.

Yet in his signing statement, Obama wrote that he had in fact forced Congress to “…[revise] provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security and liberty of the American people.” So rather than the grand inquisitor, committing to prison any American citizens he chose to view as enemies, Obama claimed to be their champion and savior, protecting them from the excesses of an over-zealous Congress!

Read more

N.C. Teacher Tells Student He Could Be Arrested for Talking Badly About Obama

This teacher should be fired,but she wasn’t even reprimanded or suspended over the incident.

Last Monday, a high school student in North Carolina engaged his social studies teacher in a heated debate about politics and the two leading presidential candidates. During the exchange, the teacher (an obvious Obama supporter) got very angry with the student and accused him of disrespecting the president. She even went so far as to tell the boy that he could be jailed for speaking ill of Obama.

Meanwhile, an expert on politics at Catawba College says the social studies teacher just doesn’t have her facts straight when she insists speaking your mind about a president can get you charged with a criminal offense.

Sarah Campbell of the Salisbury Post first reported on the story. She claims that the school district is not releasing the name of the teacher and that she is not responding to requests for public comment (although the two students identified her to the newspaper). According to Campbell’s story, the teacher will not be suspended or even face disciplinary action for what was heard on the recording. A statement from the school was released at the end of the week:

“The Rowan-Salisbury School System expects all students and employees to be respectful in the school environment and for all teachers to maintain their professionalism in the classroom. This incident should serve as an education for all teachers to stop and reflect on their interaction with students. Due to personnel and student confidentiality, we cannot discuss the matter publicly.”

Read more

One of the commenters said this:

Timothy Rogers · Salisbury, North Carolina

I’m the father of this student. My son and two other students in this class have been attacked daily from this teacher, and the rest of the class, for their conservative political views since the beginning of this semester. I told him to stay out of the political conversations, but she said that if he didn’t participate he would receive a bad grade. This teacher is politically ignorant! I teach my sons to respect other peoples political opinion, but she has no right shoving her opinions down his throat! Since this day I have had to remove him from North Rowan High School and am going to enroll him at RCCC to finish his education. I am outraged that she can conduct herself in such an unprofessional manner and receive no disciplinary action. THIS IS NOT OVER! I will attempt to contact Rush Limbaugh this week.

Executive Orders And The New American Sovyet

Dear Mr. Boehner, Mr. McConnell, et. al;

Our federal government is out of control.  It is not the role of the federal government to regulate the daily lives of the citizens.   It is not the role of the federal government to regulate domestic commerce.  It is not the role of the federal government to tell farmers what to grow, nor tell people what to eat.  It is not the role of the federal government to dictate the education of our children.  It is not the job of the federal government to trespass into state criminal investigations.

It is not the role of the federal government to control our rural or municipal affairs; yet, the President has now established federal councils for both rural affairs (Executive Order 13575—Establishment of the White House Rural Council June 9, 2011)and municipal affairs (Executive Order– Establishing a White House Council on Strong Cities, Strong Communities May 1, 2012).  Russia called these councils the “sovyet” and they are the final building blocks to communism.  It is not the role of the Federal government to be the people’s nanny.

It’s not the role of the Federal government to spend this nation into oblivion.  Pardon me if I do not get excited about your current budget debate.  That drama has outlived itself, and I say let the government shut down for a while; we might buy a few more days of life for our Constitution.   I am also not impressed by your resolution on foreign affairs, encouraging “democracies” in foreign nations, while our republic is being actively destroyed by its own government.

It is your role, Congress, to stop the Executive encroachment into the Legislature and it is your duty to stop the Federal encroachment upon individual Liberty.  Our founders took great care when creating a federal government that would be limited and always in submission to the states and the people.  WHEN is Congress going to take a real stand against the destruction of the rights and privileges of this people? Will you wait until it’s too late? Mere “outrage” doesn’t get the job done.  This Congress is pushing the nation to a point of turmoil it has not seen for 150 years.  And make no mistake; each and every one of you will be personally responsible for what will occur.  Are you prepared to live with that responsibility and those consequences?  It will not fall on the shoulders of the President alone and the blame game will not alleviate the suffering of our children when they are so grievously affected.  Yet, we can avoid repeating the mistakes of our history.  But we must act now. We must act decisively.  If not, we will regret our neglect.  We have the opportunity now, but have no guarantee it will be available much longer.

Does Congress truly understand WHY people fled communist nations to come to the greatest nation in the world?  Do you truly know the cost of such sacrifice and what you are supposed to be defending?  You are fooling yourselves if you think one more election is going to fix it.  You don’t have that kind of time.  The blocks are in place, and you have provided the mortar.  Take a stand now.  Not a political stand, but a stand that involves integrity, courage, and resolve.  No more petitions asking the president to stop stealing legislative power.  No more demands that Eric Holder resign.  YOU must do your job and YOU must defend this nation and it’s Constitution from these enemies, both foreign and domestic.   You must:

1. Put an end to the executive order madness.  Exercise your constitutionally given power, as provided through the checks and balances and separation of powers.  Show this nation that you understand that Legislative power is not to be shared and it is definitely NOT to be taken.
2. We are not subjects of the United Nations and never intend to be.  Get them out of our business.
3. If you are unwilling to impeach, defund any person appointed by the executive branch outside Congressional and Constitutional authority.  (i.e. all the Christmas appointments and Czars)
4. Pick up your Congressional oversight responsibility and shut down these executive regulatory agencies whose only purpose is to “harass our people, and eat out their substance.”
5. Get control of the immigration in this nation.  We don’t want to see GAO reports telling us that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the State Department cannot agree on the degree of terrorist association a visa applicant must have to render the applicant ineligible.
6. It is time to indict Eric Holder for the criminal that he is. No more whining, no more demanding for resignations, INDICT him and then FIRE him.
7. Impeach Elena Kagan.  She is obviously incapable of using the appropriate professional ethic and judgment needed to be a Supreme Court Justice.  Learn from this mistake and actually involve yourselves in the confirmation process.  Your employers are sick to death of political games.
8. Repeal The Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act.  Now. You are supposed to be protecting the rights of the people, not violating them.
9. End the 4^th amendment violations permitted in the Patriot Act.  Now.
10. Repeal sections 1021 & 1022 of NDAA 2012. It’s not only about habeas corpus, it’s about
    1.  unilateral power given to the president by congress to determine who is a terrorist and then detain them in secret with no probable cause;
    2. unilateral power given to the president by congress to invoke the laws of war during a “hostility”;
    3. unilateral power given to the president by congress to transfer the power under the laws of war to “domestic agencies fighting terrorists”
11. Get the IRS out of the passport business.
12. Don’t just read the Constitution, study it.  Not how you studied it in law school, that wasn’t the Constitution, that was Constitutional Law, there is a huge difference.  Those of you who went to Harvard, we understand if you don’t know what the Constitution is, it hasn’t been studied there in years.  May I suggest a course that I know will teach you the truth and is so simple a Congressman can understand it.  I happen to know the teacher personally and I am sure that she would come teach it at her own expense and sacrifice.  Interested? Click Here.

These are some of the demands of your employers; we demand you do your job.  These are the requirements of our founders; they have entrusted us with the Liberty purchased with their lives.  These are the duties imposed upon you by the Constitution of the United States, and your obligations consistent with the oaths you took.  And, these are the times that try men’s souls. How will history remember us? The generation that participated in death of Liberty or the generation that gave our last breath to prosper it? I have made my choice. How will you choose?

Sincerely,

KrisAnne Hall

www.KrisAnneHall.com

 

Did a Drone Almost Cause a Mid-Air Collision over Denver?

A mystery object, thought to be a military or law enforcement drone, flying in controlled airspace over Denver almost caused a catastrophic mid air crash with a commercial jet Monday.

The pilot of the Cessna jet radioed air traffic controllers to warn them that “A remote controlled aircraft” had flown past his plane far too close for comfort.

“Something just went by the other way … About 20 to 30 seconds ago. It was like a large remote-controlled aircraft.” the pilot said in the transmission that was captured on the live air traffic audio website liveatc.net.

The craft was reported as being about 8,000 feet above sea level, or about 2,800 feet above the ground, at the time the pilot reported the seeing it. It did not show up on radar.

The type of drones used by NATO typically fly at 10,000 feet and below. Other tactical military drones can fly up to 18,000 feet.

Denver 9News reports that the Federal Aviation Administration is investigating the incident, which it has described as potentially “extremely dangerous.”

“The threat is there from a collision standpoint,” an FAA spokesman said.

Congress recently passed legislation paving the way for what the FAA predicts will be somewhere in the region of 30,000 drones in operation in US skies by 2020.

Privacy advocates have warned that the FAA has not acted to establish any safeguards whatsoever, and that congress is not holding the agency to account.

In addition, a recently uncovered Air Force document circumvents laws and clears the way for the Pentagon to use drones to monitor the activities of Americans.

Constitutional and legal expert Judge Andrew Napolitano, and his Fox News colleague Charles Krauthammer have both warned that the drones could become a literal shooting target for Americans protesting their illegal use for surveillance by the government and the military.

New Jersey Man Has $22k Stolen From Him by Tennessee Police

“CLIMATE CHANGE” TREATY: The Supreme Law Of The Land? Or Lawless Usurpation?

Another great article from my friend Publius Huldah…a retired Constitutional lawyer from the great State of Tennessee.

A Defense of the U.S. Constitution From Its Domestic Enemies.

by Publius Huldah

If President Obama signs a “global warming” treaty at the United Nations’ “Climate Change” Conference in Copenhagen this December; and if the U.S. Senate ratifies it, will it become part of the supreme Law of  the Land?

We hear it said that whenever the President signs, and the Senate ratifies, a Treaty, it becomes part of “the supreme law of the land”.  But is that True?  Not necessarily!  Walk with me, and I will show you how to think through this question, and how to analyze other constitutional questions which come your way.

Continue reading