Fox News chief Washington correspondent James Rosen, calling him a criminal ‘co-conspirator’
The Justice Department, already under fire for seizing AP phone records, also viewed e-mails of Fox News chief Washington correspondent James Rosen, calling him a criminal ‘co-conspirator’ for his reporting. Fox News responded: ‘We will unequivocally defend his right to operate as a member of what until now has always been a free press.’
The Justice Department obtained a portfolio of information about a Fox News correspondent’s conversations and visits as part of an investigation into a possible leak, The Washington Post reported Monday — in the latest example of the government seizing records of journalists.
This follows the charge that the department secretly obtained two months of phone records from Associated Press journalists as part of a separate leak probe. The department in this case, though, went a step further, as an FBI agent reportedly claimed there’s evidence the journalist in question — Fox News’ James Rosen — broke the law “at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator.”
That detail would potentially send the case into unprecedented territory. No reporter has been prosecuted for seeking information. Such cases often target the suspected leaker, but not the journalist who published sensitive or classified information.
“We are outraged to learn today that James Rosen was named a criminal co-conspirator for simply doing his job as a reporter,” Clemente said. “In fact, it is downright chilling. We will unequivocally defend his right to operate as a member of what up until now has always been a free press.”
Americans Fear Obama More Than Terrorists
Those of us who pay attention, who are not doing the zombie shuffle through life, take polling results with more than a grain of salt. But, I found the results of a couple of post-Boston bombing, small-sample polls conducted by Fox News and the Washington Post to be interesting for what they say about our perception of the federal government.
According to a pair of recent polls, for the first time since the 9/11 terrorist hijackings, Americans are more fearful their government will abuse constitutional liberties than fail to keep its citizens safe.
Even in the wake of the April 15 Boston Marathon bombing – in which a pair of Islamic radicals are accused of planting explosives that took the lives of 3 and wounded over 280 – the polls suggest Americans are hesitant to give up any further freedoms in exchange for increased “security.”
A Fox News survey polling a random national sample of 619 registered voters the day after the bombing found despite the tragic event, those interviewed responded very differently than following 9/11.
For the first time since a similar question was asked in May 2001, more Americans answered “no” to the question, “Would you be willing to give up some of your personal freedom in order to reduce the threat of terrorism?”
Of those surveyed on April 16, 2013, 45 percent answered no to the question, compared to 43 percent answering yes.
In May 2001, before 9/11, the balance was similar, with 40 percent answering no to 33 percent answering yes.
But following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the numbers flipped dramatically, to 71 percent agreeing to sacrifice personal freedom to reduce the threat of terrorism.
He goes on to report similar findings in the Washington Post poll.
Even though both polls represent a very small sample of the American people, I am convinced by all I have seen and read that many more Americans today do indeed fear the federal government, and I believe they have very good cause to do so. Despite the despicable “mainstream” media’s desperate attempts to give cover to, and lie for, the most lawless administration in American history, plenty of us, using other information sources, are able to see through the detestable media’s putrid smokescreens.
We can see that Barack Obama (or whatever his name is) and the anti-American radicals in his administration and Congress have boundless contempt for the constitutional limits on their power. It is clear to many of us that we are watching a federal government that is systematically working to tear down this nation, its freedoms and foundations.
So, is the federal government scarier than Muslim terrorism? I say it most certainly is. While Islamic jihad is a danger to our nation, we can still stop it if our authorities are willing, but in the federal government, which is run by power-mad people, we are dealing with a nearly unstoppable entity that has the power to rain destruction on the entire nation, not just spot locations.
Further, Islamists and the communists running the federal government (Senator McCarthy was right, by the way) share the same hatred of America and its freedoms and the same hatred of Jesus Christ and His followers. How can I say that Obama and his fellow-traveling buddies in the administration and Congress hate America and its freedoms? By their actions, their inactions and their words.
In their words, these people routinely lie about their motives, about the evil goals of their legislation, about their political opposition and even the American people who oppose them, who they falsely label as “racists” or “right wing extremists.” In his words, Obama regularly trash-talks America, apologizing for what needs no apologies.
In their actions, we see their ceaseless attempts to impose a socialist form of government on our nation, in contradiction to our Constitution’s design for a representative republic. They are destroying our military in every way, including forcing it to accept open homosexuals and women in front-line combat.
We see their vile attempts to squash our God-given right to self-defense under the guise of “public safety.” We see the war they have waged on our God-given rights to freedom of religion with their hell-born “Obamacare” abortion coverage mandate and their push for sodomy “rights” and fake marriage that would subvert our freedom of religion, association and ultimately, speech.
In their inactions, we see their treasonous refusal to secure our nations borders and deport the criminal aliens among us. We see their stonewalling of investigations into their other criminal actions like the Fast and Furious Mexican gun running scandal and the Muslim murders of our Ambassador and others in Benghazi, Libya – murders aided by this administration.
These are just the tip of an America-hating iceberg of lawlessness perpetrated by these people currently in power, not that other administrations and congresses have not abused their power, but we’ve never seen anything like the current administration. There is no conclusion that I can draw other than the people running our federal government are enemies of America. Our nation has been overthrown by enemies within.
These people are on the side of the Islamists. Again, their actions show this – their support for the Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East, and the outrageous purging of military and intelligence agencies of proper Muslim training materials at the demand of Islamist groups and Islamist “advisors” within the federal government. That says volumes about where this administration’s loyalties lie. They do everything they can to avoid even saying “Muslim terrorism.”
Since our “mainstream” media will never speak the truth about the Islamist infiltration of our nation and government, it took an Egyptian publication to report that the Obama administration has Muslim Brotherhood operatives at the highest levels.
America is in big trouble. I see the Lord’s judgment falling and the terrible storm gathering. The collective sins of our nation are coming home to roost. No nation can butcher pre-born – and even just-born – babies by the millions and not to expect awful consequences. No nation can hope to avoid God’s judgment while it embraces and even “glorifies” homosexuality and its various manifestations, along with its militant assault on the freedoms of those who oppose it.
No, we should not be surprised to see the sorry state of the soul of America when the leaders in our government, schools, entertainment industry, and institutions all across the land have spit on the Lord and have shunned His wisdom, knowledge and commands for living our lives. We now have the federal government we have earned while we slept and allowed God to be outlawed as sin was made mandatory.
We are not surprised to see that the federal government is now a monster that is scarier than the Muslim terrorists among us.
The case begins back in 2009. The Post’s Ann E. Marimow:
When the Justice Department began investigating possible leaks of classified information about North Korea in 2009, investigators did more than obtain telephone records of a working journalist suspected of receiving the secret material.
They used security badge access records to track the reporter’s comings and goings from the State Department, according to a newly obtained court affidavit. They traced the timing of his calls with a State Department security adviser suspected of sharing the classified report. They obtained a search warrant for the reporter’s personal e-mails.
A story in the Washington Post yesterday about the Internal Revenue Service’s Cincinnati office, which does most of the agency’s nonprofit auditing, clearly contradicted earlier reports that the agency’s targeting of Tea Party groups was the result of rogue agents.
The Post story anonymously quoted a staffer in Cincinnati as saying they only operate on directives from headquarters:
As could be expected, the folks in the determinations unit on Main Street have had trouble concentrating this week. Number crunchers, whose work is nonpolitical, don’t necessarily enjoy the spotlight, especially when the media and the public assume they’re engaged in partisan villainy.
“We’re not political,’’ said one determinations staffer in khakis as he left work late Tuesday afternoon. “We people on the local level are doing what we are supposed to do. . . . That’s why there are so many people here who are flustered. Everything comes from the top. We don’t have any authority to make those decisions without someone signing off on them. There has to be a directive.”
The staff member, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of losing his job, said that the determinations unit is competent and without bias, that it grouped together conservative applications “for consistency’s sake” — so one application did not sail through while a similar one was held up in review. This consistency is paramount in the review of all applications, according to Ronald Ran, an estate-tax lawyer who worked for 37 years in the IRS’s Cincinnati..
WASHPOST: Obama’s claim he called ‘act of terrorism‘ Gives him Four Pinocchios…
Once again, it appears that we must parse a few presidential words. We went through this question at length during the 2012 election, but perhaps a refresher course is in order.
Notably, during a debate with Republican nominee Mitt Romney, President Obama said that he immediately told the American people that the killing of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Libya “was an act of terror.” But now he says he called it “an act of terrorism.”
Some readers may object to this continuing focus on words, but presidential aides spend a lot of time on words. Words have consequences. Is there a difference between “act of terror” and “act of terrorism”?
Immediately after the attack, the president three times used the phrase “act of terror” in public statements:
“No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.”
— Obama, Rose Garden, Sept. 12
“We want to send a message all around the world — anybody who would do us harm: No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America.”
— Obama, campaign event in Las Vegas, Sept. 13
“I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world. No act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America.”
— Obama, campaign event in Golden, Colo., Sept. 13
Here’s how we assessed those words back in October:
Note that in all three cases, the language is not as strong as Obama asserted in the debate. Obama declared that he said “that this was an act of terror.” But actually the president spoke in vague terms, usually wrapped in a patriotic fervor. One could presume he was speaking of the incident in Libya, but he did not affirmatively state that the American ambassador died because of an “act of terror.”
Some readers may think we are dancing on the head of pin here. The Fact Checker spent nine years as diplomatic correspondent for The Washington Post, and such nuances of phrasing are often very important. A president does not simply utter virtually the same phrase three times in two days about a major international incident without careful thought about the implications of each word.
The Fact Checker noted last week that this was an attack on what essentially was a secret CIA operation, which included rounding up weapons from the very people who may have attacked the facility.
Perhaps Obama, in his mind, thought this then was really “an act of war,” not a traditional terrorist attack, but he had not wanted to say that publicly. Or perhaps, as Republicans suggest, he did not want to spoil his campaign theme that terror groups such as al-Qaeda were on the run by conceding a terrorist attack had occurred on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.
Whatever the reason, when given repeated opportunities to forthrightly declare this was an “act of terrorism,” the president ducked the question.
For instance, on Sept. 12, immediately after the Rose Garden statement the day after the attack, Obama sat down with Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes and acknowledged he purposely avoided the using the word “terrorism:”
KROFT: “Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word ‘terrorism’ in connection with the Libya attack.”
KROFT: “Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?”
OBAMA: “Well, it’s too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.”
Assault weapons ban now unlikely to pass. What happened?
What’s behind this development? The assault weapons ban was unlikely to pass the Senate in any case, and had become so unpopular it risked taking down with it other gun control measures, such as new restrictions on weapons trafficking and a possible expansion of federal background checks.
For one thing, the ban was just too controversial. Gun rights advocates argue that the difference between assault weapons and non-assault hunting rifles is largely cosmetic, and that banning guns based on style won’t make Americans any safer. In the proposed prohibition of an entire class of firearms many saw the beginnings of their nightmare of Washington coming after their guns.
by Garret Ean via FreeConcord.org
An article in the Washington Post that has been widely syndicated discusses how the collection of evidence by the use of drug detector dogs will be considered by the united states supreme court. Two cases are pending on the docket, both from Florida, which question the effectiveness as well as the constitutionality of canines for drug detection use. The article cites studies from the University of California at Davis in which 18 police canine teams were sent through a facility and tasked with finding hidden drugs. Though there were no drugs in the facility, 17 of the teams reported alerts. Barry Cooper, former police officer and producer of the Never Get Busted educational film series has discussed his own manipulation of police canines while he was working as one of the most successful narcotics interdiction detectives. Anyone who has owned a dog knows that their life revolves around serving their pack leader. There are no objective standards or testing done of the animals to demonstrate their effectiveness. In a 2005 case, former supreme court judge David Souter stated that the infallible dog “is a creation of legal fiction”.
Last year, the Florida supreme court had thrown out a case from 2006 which featured questionable probable cause for a search after a police dog sniffed and acted playfully. Judge Barbara Pariente wrote:
Courts often accept the mythic dog with an almost superstitious faith…The myth so completely has dominated the judicial psyche in those cases that the courts either assume the reliability of the sniff or address the question cursorily; the dog is the clear and consistent winner.
The reliability of drug detector dogs will always be tainted by the bias of the canine’s handler. Drug interdiction officers often become personally interested in finding larger quantities of drugs. Though the dog is a simple animal, its social awareness is in some ways more attuned than that of a human. It detects the subtle body language of its handler, and its desire to please them is the likely cause of most false alerts. Bearing this in mind, it would make more sense to have the drug detector dogs handled by individuals who are not personally invested in the drug war and who seek recognition among their peers for how much contraband they can confiscate. Previous supreme court cases have held that officers do not even need reasonable suspicion of illegal drug possession to initiate a drug dog sniffing of a vehicle during a traffic stop. Thus, the dogs are used without any accountability metric aside from that officers wanted to use them.
Grants and requests for canine unit funding by police continue to be popular despite their expense and unproven track record. There should be no surprise there, as many people would jump at the chance to be employed to play with a cute animal and occasionally give it cars and purses to sniff.
- Will Supreme Court turn up its nose at dog sniffs? (news.yahoo.com)
- Supreme Court Considers Two Drug Dog Cases (huffingtonpost.com)
- Canine as a search warrant? SCOTUS to debate dogs vs Fourth Amendment (rt.com)
The attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi has become a political football in the presidential campaign, with all the grandstanding and misinformation that entails. But Fox News has raised questions about the attack that deserve a clearer answer from the Obama administration.
Fox’s Jennifer Griffin reported Friday that CIA officers in Benghazi had been told to “stand down” when they wanted to deploy from their base at the annex to repel the attack on the consulate, about a mile away. Fox also reported that the officers requested military support when the annex came under fire that night but that their request had been denied.
The Benghazi tragedy was amplified by Charles Woods, the father of slain CIA contractor Tyrone Woods. He told Fox’s Sean Hannity that White House officials who didn’t authorize military strikes to save the embattled CIA annex were “cowards” and “are guilty of murdering my son.”
The Fox “stand down” story prompted a strong rebuttal from the CIA: “We can say with confidence that the agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi. Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.”
So what did happen on the night of Sept. 11, when Woods, Ambassador Christopher Stevens and two others were killed?
MORE . . .
- At Least Someone In The Mainstream Media Is Raising Questions On Benghazi (warnewsupdates.blogspot.com)
- DAVID IGNATIUS IN THE WASHINGTON POST: Benghazi Questions Deserve Answers. So what did happen in… (pjmedia.com)
- IN RESPONSE TO DAVID IGNATIUS’ BENGHAZI OPED that I linked earlier, Michael McConnell writes: Dav… (pjmedia.com)
- Is Benghazi Breaking Through the Media’s Wall of Silence? (pjmedia.com)
- Obama on Benghazi the hurricane: “We leave nobody behind” (hotair.com)