October 29, 2012
BENGAHZI: 150 WH-Claimed "Spontaneous Protesters"
Showed Up in Van Marked with Ansar al-Shariah Logo
TRIPOLI, Libya (AP) — It began around nightfall on Sept. 11 with around 150 bearded gunmen, some wearing the Afghan-style tunics favored by Islamic militants, sealing off the streets leading to the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. They set up roadblocks with pick-up trucks mounted with heavy machine guns, according to witnesses.
The trucks bore the logo of Ansar al-Shariah, a powerful local group of Islamist militants who worked with the municipal government to manage security in Benghazi, the main city in eastern Libya and birthplace of the uprising last year that ousted Moammar Gadhafi after a 42-year dictatorship.
There was no sign of a spontaneous protest against an American-made movie denigrating Islam's Prophet Muhammad. But a lawyer passing by the scene said he saw the militants gathering around 20 youths from nearby to chant against the film. Within an hour or so, the assault began, guns blazing as the militants blasted into the compound.
One of the consulate's private Libyan guards said masked militants grabbed him and beat him, one of them calling him "an infidel protecting infidels who insulted the prophet."
The witness accounts gathered by The Associated Press give a from-the-ground perspective for the sharply partisan debate in the U.S. over the attack that left U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead. They corroborate the conclusion largely reached by American officials that it was a planned militant assault. But they also suggest the militants may have used the film controversy as a cover for the attack.
The ambiguity has helped fuel the election-time bickering in the United States ever since.
The Obama administration has sent out muddled messages whether it was a planned attack or a mob protest that got out of control. A day after the attack, President Barack Obama referred to "acts of terror." He told CBS' "60 Minutes" in an interview aired the following Sunday that he believed those involved "were looking to target Americans from the start."
Within 24 hours of the attack, both the embassy in Tripoli and the CIA station chief sent word to Washington that it was a planned militant attack. Still, days later, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, said the attack began as a spontaneous protest over the film.
Republicans, embroiled in a heated presidential campaign, seized on the confusion. They have accused the Obama administration of being hesitant to call it a "terrorist attack" linked to al-Qaida because that would weaken one of Obama's key campaign selling points — that under his watch, al-Qaida had been weakened and Osama bin Laden had been killed..
As that debate roiled, the actual events — and their meaning — became somewhat skewed in the mouths of politicians. One assumption often made in the back-and-forth is that if the attack was planned, then it must have been linked to al-Qaida.
Ansar al-Shariah, the group whose members are suspected in the attack, is made up of militants with an al-Qaida-like ideology, but it is not clear whether it has any true ties to the terror organization. Made up mainly of veterans of last year's civil war, it is one of the many powerful, heavily armed militias that operate freely in Libya and in Benghazi, while government control remains weak. Some Benghazi officials have praised Ansar al-Shariah for helping keep order in the city, even as they note its jihadi ideology.
With its arsenal of weapons, the group is capable of carrying out such an attack on the consulate on its own and even on relatively short notice. Islamist militias in Benghazi had in previous months threatened to attack the compound.
U.S. officials say they are still investigating whether there is an al-Qaida connection. They say members of Ansar al-Shariah called members of al-Qaida's branch in North Africa outside of Libya and boasted of the attack. The administration has even said it is prepared to carry out drone strikes against the branch, known as al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb, or AQIM, if a link is proven. But the officials also acknowledge the calls alone do not yet prove AQIM was involved.
A day after the Benghazi attack, an unidentified Ansar al-Shariah spokesman said the militia was not involved "as an organization" — leaving open the possibility members were involved. He praised the attack as a popular "uprising" sparked by the anti-Islam film, further propagating the image of a mob attack against the consulate.
So far, the attackers' motives can only be speculated at.
Yasser el-Sirri, a former Egyptian militant who runs the Islamic Observation Center in London closely tracking jihadi groups, said the attack "had nothing to do with the film but it was a coincidence that served the (militants') purpose."
He believes the ambassador was the target and the attackers may have been inspired by an al-Qaida call to avenge the death of a top Libyan jihadist on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the United States in 2001. But he offered no firm evidence that was the motive.
The news trickled out slowly the night of the attack, with initial reports overshadowed by the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo by protesters angry over the film. It was only the next morning that Stevens' death was confirmed.
On the day of the attack and the next day, The Associated Press referred to it as a mob attack, based on Libyan officials' comment that there was a significant unarmed protest at the time. In reporting the following days, AP referred to it as an "armed attack" and detailed its organized nature.
The past week, the AP has gathered accounts from five witnesses, including one of the embassy guards and several people living next door to the consulate compound who were present when the militants first moved in. Most spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals for talking about the attack.
The neighbors all described the militants setting up checkpoints around the compound at about 8 p.m. The State Department's timeline says the attack itself began at around 9:40 p.m.
Khaled al-Haddar, a lawyer who passed by the scene as he headed to his nearby home, said he saw the fighters gathering a few youths from among passers-by and urged them to chant against the film.
"I am certain they had planned to do something like this, I don't know if it was hours or days, but it was definitely planned," said al-Haddar. "From the way they set up the checkpoints and gathered people, it was very professional."
The guard said he saw no protesters. He heard a few shouts of "God is great," then a barrage of automatic weapons fire and rocket-propelled grenades began, along with barrages from heavy machine guns mounted on trucks.
The attackers set fire to the main consulate building. Stevens and another staffer, caught inside amid the confusion, died of smoke inhalation.
The attack came from the front and the side. A neighbor whose house is on side of the consulate compound said militants with their faces wrapped in scarves attacking.
Because of the checkpoints, "it felt like our neighborhood was occupied, no one could get out or in," he said.
The effectiveness of the roadblocks was later revealed in the State Department's account of the evacuation. It described how the rescue force came under heavy fire and grenade attacks as they tried to leave the consulate area.
They evacuated staffers to a security compound across town, where they continued to come under fire. A precision mortar hit the compound's building at 4 a.m., killing two other Americans.
___
Michael reported from Cairo. Osama Alfitory in Benghazi contributed to this report.
Monday, October 29, 2012
BENGAHZI TIMELINE: The Long Road from 'Spontaneous Protest' to Premeditated Terrorist Attack
October 29, 2012
FACTCHECK.ORG - The question won’t go away: Did President Obama and administration officials mislead the public when they initially claimed that the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi began “spontaneously” in response to an anti-Muslim video?
The question surfaced again on Oct. 25 — more than six weeks after the incident — when government emails showed the White House and the State Department were told even as the attack was going on that Ansar al-Sharia, a little-known militant group, had claimed credit for it.
We cannot say whether the administration was intentionally misleading the public. We cannot prove intent. There is also more information to come — both from the FBI, which is conducting an investigation, and Congress, which has been holding hearings.
But, at this point, we do know that Obama and others in the administration were quick to cite the anti-Muslim video as the underlying cause for the attack in Benghazi that killed four U.S. diplomats, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens. And they were slow to acknowledge it was a premeditated terrorist attack, and they downplayed reports that it might have been.
What follows is a timeline of events that we hope will help put the incident into perspective. We call attention in particular to these key facts:
There were no protesters at the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack, even though Obama and others repeatedly said the attackers joined an angry mob that had formed in opposition to the anti-Muslim film that had triggered protests in Egypt and elsewhere. The State Department disclosed this fact Oct. 9 — nearly a month after the attack.
Libya President Mohamed Magariaf insisted on Sept. 16 — five days after the attack — that it was a planned terrorist attack, but administration officials continued for days later to say there was no evidence of a planned attack.
Magariaf also said the idea that the attack was a “spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous.” This, too, was on Sept. 16. Yet, Obama and others continued to describe the incident in exactly those terms — including during the president’s Sept. 18 appearance on the “Late Show With David Letterman.”
Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, was the first administration official to call it “a terrorist attack” during a Sept. 19 congressional hearing. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did the same on Sept. 20. Even so, Obama declined opportunities to call it a terrorist attack when asked at a town hall meeting on Sept. 20 and during a taping of “The View” on Sept. 24.
Here is our timeline:
Analysis
Sept. 11: The Attack
2:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (8:30 p.m. Benghazi time): U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens steps outside the consulate to say goodbye to a Turkish diplomat. There are no protesters at this time. (“Everything is calm at 8:30,” a State Department official would later say at an Oct. 9 background briefing for reporters. “There’s nothing unusual. There has been nothing unusual during the day at all outside.”)
3 p.m.: Ambassador Stevens retires to his bedroom for the evening. (See Oct. 9 briefing.)
Approximately 3:40 p.m. A security agent at the Benghazi compound hears “loud noises” coming from the front gate and “gunfire and an explosion.” A senior State Department official at the Oct. 9 briefing says that “the camera on the main gate reveals a large number of people – a large number of men, armed men, flowing into the compound.”
About 4 p.m.: This is the approximate time of attack that was given to reporters at a Sept. 12 State Department background briefing. An administration official identified only as “senior administration official one” provides an official timeline of events at the consulate, but only from the time of the attack — not prior to the attack. The official says, “The compound where our office is in Benghazi began taking fire from unidentified Libyan extremists.” (Six of the next seven entries in this timeline — through 8:30 p.m. EDT — all come from the Sept. 12 briefing. The exception being the 6:07 p.m. entry, which comes from Reuters.)
About 4:15 p.m.: “The attackers gained access to the compound and began firing into the main building, setting it on fire. The Libyan guard force and our mission security personnel responded. At that time, there were three people inside the building: Ambassador Stevens, one of our regional security officers, and Information Management Officer Sean Smith.”
Between 4:15 p.m.-4:45 p.m.: Sean Smith is found dead.
About 4:45 p.m.: “U.S. security personnel assigned to the mission annex tried to regain the main building, but that group also took heavy fire and had to return to the mission annex.”
About 5:20 p.m.: “U.S. and Libyan security personnel … regain the main building and they were able to secure it.”
Around 6 p.m.: “The mission annex then came under fire itself at around 6 o’clock in the evening our time, and that continued for about two hours. It was during that time that two additional U.S. personnel were killed and two more were wounded during that ongoing attack.”
6:07 p.m.: The State Department’s Operations Center sends an email to the White House, Pentagon, FBI and other government agencies that said Ansar al-Sharia has claimed credit for the attack on its Facebook and Twitter accounts. (The existence of the email was not disclosed until Reuters reported it on Oct. 24.)
About 8:30 p.m.: “Libyan security forces were able to assist us in regaining control of the situation. At some point in all of this – and frankly, we do not know when – we believe that Ambassador Stevens got out of the building and was taken to a hospital in Benghazi. We do not have any information what his condition was at that time. His body was later returned to U.S. personnel at the Benghazi airport.”
About 10:00 p.m.: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issues a statement confirming that one State official was killed in an attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. Her statement, which MSNBC posted at 10:32 p.m., made reference to the anti-Muslim video.
Clinton: Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.
Continue Reading September 12th and Beyond>>
source: Philly.com
FACTCHECK.ORG - The question won’t go away: Did President Obama and administration officials mislead the public when they initially claimed that the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi began “spontaneously” in response to an anti-Muslim video?
The question surfaced again on Oct. 25 — more than six weeks after the incident — when government emails showed the White House and the State Department were told even as the attack was going on that Ansar al-Sharia, a little-known militant group, had claimed credit for it.
We cannot say whether the administration was intentionally misleading the public. We cannot prove intent. There is also more information to come — both from the FBI, which is conducting an investigation, and Congress, which has been holding hearings.
But, at this point, we do know that Obama and others in the administration were quick to cite the anti-Muslim video as the underlying cause for the attack in Benghazi that killed four U.S. diplomats, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens. And they were slow to acknowledge it was a premeditated terrorist attack, and they downplayed reports that it might have been.
What follows is a timeline of events that we hope will help put the incident into perspective. We call attention in particular to these key facts:
There were no protesters at the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack, even though Obama and others repeatedly said the attackers joined an angry mob that had formed in opposition to the anti-Muslim film that had triggered protests in Egypt and elsewhere. The State Department disclosed this fact Oct. 9 — nearly a month after the attack.
Libya President Mohamed Magariaf insisted on Sept. 16 — five days after the attack — that it was a planned terrorist attack, but administration officials continued for days later to say there was no evidence of a planned attack.
Magariaf also said the idea that the attack was a “spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous.” This, too, was on Sept. 16. Yet, Obama and others continued to describe the incident in exactly those terms — including during the president’s Sept. 18 appearance on the “Late Show With David Letterman.”
Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, was the first administration official to call it “a terrorist attack” during a Sept. 19 congressional hearing. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did the same on Sept. 20. Even so, Obama declined opportunities to call it a terrorist attack when asked at a town hall meeting on Sept. 20 and during a taping of “The View” on Sept. 24.
Here is our timeline:
Analysis
Sept. 11: The Attack
2:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (8:30 p.m. Benghazi time): U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens steps outside the consulate to say goodbye to a Turkish diplomat. There are no protesters at this time. (“Everything is calm at 8:30,” a State Department official would later say at an Oct. 9 background briefing for reporters. “There’s nothing unusual. There has been nothing unusual during the day at all outside.”)
3 p.m.: Ambassador Stevens retires to his bedroom for the evening. (See Oct. 9 briefing.)
Approximately 3:40 p.m. A security agent at the Benghazi compound hears “loud noises” coming from the front gate and “gunfire and an explosion.” A senior State Department official at the Oct. 9 briefing says that “the camera on the main gate reveals a large number of people – a large number of men, armed men, flowing into the compound.”
About 4 p.m.: This is the approximate time of attack that was given to reporters at a Sept. 12 State Department background briefing. An administration official identified only as “senior administration official one” provides an official timeline of events at the consulate, but only from the time of the attack — not prior to the attack. The official says, “The compound where our office is in Benghazi began taking fire from unidentified Libyan extremists.” (Six of the next seven entries in this timeline — through 8:30 p.m. EDT — all come from the Sept. 12 briefing. The exception being the 6:07 p.m. entry, which comes from Reuters.)
About 4:15 p.m.: “The attackers gained access to the compound and began firing into the main building, setting it on fire. The Libyan guard force and our mission security personnel responded. At that time, there were three people inside the building: Ambassador Stevens, one of our regional security officers, and Information Management Officer Sean Smith.”
Between 4:15 p.m.-4:45 p.m.: Sean Smith is found dead.
About 4:45 p.m.: “U.S. security personnel assigned to the mission annex tried to regain the main building, but that group also took heavy fire and had to return to the mission annex.”
About 5:20 p.m.: “U.S. and Libyan security personnel … regain the main building and they were able to secure it.”
Around 6 p.m.: “The mission annex then came under fire itself at around 6 o’clock in the evening our time, and that continued for about two hours. It was during that time that two additional U.S. personnel were killed and two more were wounded during that ongoing attack.”
6:07 p.m.: The State Department’s Operations Center sends an email to the White House, Pentagon, FBI and other government agencies that said Ansar al-Sharia has claimed credit for the attack on its Facebook and Twitter accounts. (The existence of the email was not disclosed until Reuters reported it on Oct. 24.)
About 8:30 p.m.: “Libyan security forces were able to assist us in regaining control of the situation. At some point in all of this – and frankly, we do not know when – we believe that Ambassador Stevens got out of the building and was taken to a hospital in Benghazi. We do not have any information what his condition was at that time. His body was later returned to U.S. personnel at the Benghazi airport.”
About 10:00 p.m.: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issues a statement confirming that one State official was killed in an attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. Her statement, which MSNBC posted at 10:32 p.m., made reference to the anti-Muslim video.
Clinton: Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.
Continue Reading September 12th and Beyond>>
source: Philly.com
CNBC Reported a $43 TRILLION LAWSUIT Against Obama Gov't Officials and Major Bankers ...But Now the Story is Pulled and a CNBC Executive's Children were Murdered Next Day
October 29, 2012
CNBC Reported a $43 TRILLION LAWSUIT Against Obama Gov't Officials and Major Bankers ...But Now the Story is Pulled and a CNBC Executive's Children were Murdered Next Day
BeforeitsNews.com:
New York (CNN) — A Manhattan mother returned home early Thursday evening to find two of her young children stabbed to death in a bathtub, as their nanny lay bleeding nearby, police said.
NEW: The father is a CNBC executive, officials familiar with the investigation say.
The mother, 38, had just returned around 5:30 p.m. to the family apartment on Manhattan’s West Side with her 3-year-old daughter, who she had just taken to swimming lessons, police Commissioner Ray Kelly said.
All the lights were out in the residence, so she went downstairs to ask the doorman whether her two other children and their nanny had gone outside. After the doorman said they had not, the mother went back upstairs and started looking around, Kelly said.
Peering into a bathroom, she let out a scream upon finding her 1-year-old son and 6-year-old daughter stabbed to death in the bathtub, according to Kelly.
The children’s 50-year-old nanny was on the bathroom floor unconscious and bleeding from what appeared to be self-inflicted stab wounds to her neck, Kelly said. A kitchen knife sat next to her, according to police spokesman Paul Browne.
A neighbor, Sandy Marcus, told CNN that she called 911 after hearing the mother’s screams. Another neighbor recalled it was hard to ascertain what was going on since “everybody was screaming.”
The children were taken to Roosevelt Hospital and pronounced dead.
The father of the children is Kevin Krim, an executive with CNBC , several officials familiar with the investigation said.
The nanny is at St. Luke’s Hospital, also in New York, in critical but stable condition, according to Kelly. No charges have been filed yet in the case, he added.
Klein described the family at the center of the horror as “all-American” and “lovely.”
“It’s like something you read about in the papers, in some distant country, but never on your floor,” she said.
cnn.com/2012/10/25/us/new-york-nanny-deaths/
This story about the lawsuit broke Thursday at CNBC. (See the saved page above.)
Now following the original CNBC link takes you to a blank page, even though some of the comments on that original article remain (UPDATE: comments have been erased as well).
Here the story takes a dark turn! It turns out that Kevin Krim, the father of the two children stabbed to death, allegedly by the Nanny, is SVP and General Manager, CNBC Digital! And shortly after the murder of the children, CNBC pulled down the story regarding the lawsuit against the banks!
How long will the story remain at Marketwatch before it is “Orwellized?”
Are the children of the executives at Marketwatch even now in danger?
As a side note, the official story regarding the murders is that the nanny stabbed the children, then tried to slash her own throat. Suicide by cutting ones own throat is extremely rare, less than one percent of all suicides, and is primarily committed by men with military experience. Women committing suicide by slashing their own throat is almost unheard of!
While the corporate-owned media is proclaiming the “rush to judgement” guilt of the nanny (who has survived but cannot yet speak) she has not actually been charged yet, nor is there any apparent motive for the nanny to have done such a thing. whatreallyhappened.com/node/197971
Oct 27, 2012 by LoveTehSun
858-page court case 1:12-cv-04269-JBW-RML document, filed 8/24/12: img41.imageshack.us/img41/5857/usaracketeeringonmortga.pdf
Orignal CNBC link: cnbc.com/id/49555671
Original CNBC article: whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/CNBCvanishedarticleSpire.jpg
2nd article: news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/26/police-nanny-accused-in-kids-deaths-stab…
“In connection with the federal lawsuit now impending in the United States District Court in Brooklyn, New York (Case No. 12-cv-04269-JBW-RML) – involving, among other things, a request that the District Court enjoin all mortgage foreclosures by the Banksters nationwide, unless and until the entire $43 trillion is repaid to a court-appointed receiver – Plaintiffs now establish the location of the $43 trillion of laundered money in a racketeering enterprise participated in by the following individuals: Attorney General Holder, Assistant Attorney General Tony West, the brother in law of Defendant California Attorney General Kamala Harris, Jon Corzine, Robert Rubin, Timothy Geitner, Vikram Pandit, Valerie Jarrett, Anita Dunn, Robert Bauer, as well as the “Banksters” themselves, and their affiliates and conduits.”
CNBC Reported a $43 TRILLION LAWSUIT Against Obama Gov't Officials and Major Bankers ...But Now the Story is Pulled and a CNBC Executive's Children were Murdered Next Day
BeforeitsNews.com:
New York (CNN) — A Manhattan mother returned home early Thursday evening to find two of her young children stabbed to death in a bathtub, as their nanny lay bleeding nearby, police said.
NEW: The father is a CNBC executive, officials familiar with the investigation say.
The mother, 38, had just returned around 5:30 p.m. to the family apartment on Manhattan’s West Side with her 3-year-old daughter, who she had just taken to swimming lessons, police Commissioner Ray Kelly said.
All the lights were out in the residence, so she went downstairs to ask the doorman whether her two other children and their nanny had gone outside. After the doorman said they had not, the mother went back upstairs and started looking around, Kelly said.
Peering into a bathroom, she let out a scream upon finding her 1-year-old son and 6-year-old daughter stabbed to death in the bathtub, according to Kelly.
The children’s 50-year-old nanny was on the bathroom floor unconscious and bleeding from what appeared to be self-inflicted stab wounds to her neck, Kelly said. A kitchen knife sat next to her, according to police spokesman Paul Browne.
A neighbor, Sandy Marcus, told CNN that she called 911 after hearing the mother’s screams. Another neighbor recalled it was hard to ascertain what was going on since “everybody was screaming.”
The children were taken to Roosevelt Hospital and pronounced dead.
The father of the children is Kevin Krim, an executive with CNBC , several officials familiar with the investigation said.
The nanny is at St. Luke’s Hospital, also in New York, in critical but stable condition, according to Kelly. No charges have been filed yet in the case, he added.
Klein described the family at the center of the horror as “all-American” and “lovely.”
“It’s like something you read about in the papers, in some distant country, but never on your floor,” she said.
cnn.com/2012/10/25/us/new-york-nanny-deaths/
This story about the lawsuit broke Thursday at CNBC. (See the saved page above.)
Now following the original CNBC link takes you to a blank page, even though some of the comments on that original article remain (UPDATE: comments have been erased as well).
Here the story takes a dark turn! It turns out that Kevin Krim, the father of the two children stabbed to death, allegedly by the Nanny, is SVP and General Manager, CNBC Digital! And shortly after the murder of the children, CNBC pulled down the story regarding the lawsuit against the banks!
How long will the story remain at Marketwatch before it is “Orwellized?”
Are the children of the executives at Marketwatch even now in danger?
As a side note, the official story regarding the murders is that the nanny stabbed the children, then tried to slash her own throat. Suicide by cutting ones own throat is extremely rare, less than one percent of all suicides, and is primarily committed by men with military experience. Women committing suicide by slashing their own throat is almost unheard of!
While the corporate-owned media is proclaiming the “rush to judgement” guilt of the nanny (who has survived but cannot yet speak) she has not actually been charged yet, nor is there any apparent motive for the nanny to have done such a thing. whatreallyhappened.com/node/197971
Oct 27, 2012 by LoveTehSun
858-page court case 1:12-cv-04269-JBW-RML document, filed 8/24/12: img41.imageshack.us/img41/5857/usaracketeeringonmortga.pdf
Orignal CNBC link: cnbc.com/id/49555671
Original CNBC article: whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/CNBCvanishedarticleSpire.jpg
2nd article: news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/26/police-nanny-accused-in-kids-deaths-stab…
“In connection with the federal lawsuit now impending in the United States District Court in Brooklyn, New York (Case No. 12-cv-04269-JBW-RML) – involving, among other things, a request that the District Court enjoin all mortgage foreclosures by the Banksters nationwide, unless and until the entire $43 trillion is repaid to a court-appointed receiver – Plaintiffs now establish the location of the $43 trillion of laundered money in a racketeering enterprise participated in by the following individuals: Attorney General Holder, Assistant Attorney General Tony West, the brother in law of Defendant California Attorney General Kamala Harris, Jon Corzine, Robert Rubin, Timothy Geitner, Vikram Pandit, Valerie Jarrett, Anita Dunn, Robert Bauer, as well as the “Banksters” themselves, and their affiliates and conduits.”
Report: Obama tried to befriend Iran from Day 1
October 29, 2012
Times of Israel
Obama offered to reestablish full ties with Iran, Israeli paper reports
Israel was told about and opposed president’s diplomatic incentives package, initiated soon after he took office, and Iran rebuffed it, according to Maariv
Soon after he took office, President Barack Obama began a process ultimately designed to reestablish full US diplomatic relations with Iran, including a reopening of embassies, an Israeli daily reported Sunday. The initiative, part of a wider shift in America’s diplomatic orientation, aimed at reaching understandings with Tehran over suspending its nuclear program, Maariv claimed, citing “two Western diplomats very close to the administration.”
The initiative led to at least two US-Iran meetings, the report said. Israel was made aware of the contacts, and opposed them.
But Iran rebuffed the “diplomatic hand” offered by the White House, Maariv reported. The Islamist regime “opposed any sign of normalization with the US, and refused to grant a ‘prize’ to the Americans,” according to an anonymous Israeli source quoted by the paper.
The information — the lead item on Maariv’s front page, headlined “Obama offered to renew relations with Iran” — comes on the heels of reports earlier this month that the US and Iran held back channel contacts toward establishing direct talks over Tehran’s nuclear program. Both the White House and Iran denied those reports.
According to Maariv, Deputy Secretary of State William Burns met with chief Iranian nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili for an hour in 2009, and one other meeting between officials from both sides took place as well.
Included in the diplomatic incentives package offered by Washington would be, in the first stage, the opening of interest sections in Washington and Tehran, with the possibility subsequently of expanding to full diplomatic ties, including US and Iranian embassies and ambassadors in each other’s capitals, Maariv claimed.
As part of restored diplomatic relations with Iran, Maariv reported, Washington was ready to hold senior level diplomatic contacts, to agree to reciprocal visits, to approve security cooperation between the countries, direct flights between the US and Iran, and the granting of visas to Iranians wishing to visit the US.
The report, if true, would indicate a readiness by Obama to oversee a sea change in American policy toward Iran. The two countries have not had direct diplomatic relations since the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979-1981, when the Shah was overthrown during the Iranian Revolution and workers in the American Embassy held hostage for over a year. The US currently maintains a trade embargo with Iran and any diplomatic contacts are officially handled through third parties
According to Maariv, Iran also rejected the attempt to reestablish ties out of fear that the regime in Tehran would become weakened by normalization with Washington.
The meeting between Burns and Jalili was reportedly held in Geneva in October 2009, on the sidelines of talks between Tehran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany, also known as the P5+1.
Those talks, which Jerusalem has characterized as a stalling tactic by Tehran to buy time to develop its nuclear program to weapon capability, have mostly failed, despite several attempts to hash over curbs on Iran’s uranium enrichment activities.
Last week, the New York Times and NBC reported that Washington has held secret contacts with Iran with the goal of holding one-on-one negotiations over their nuclear program. According to the report in the New York Times, Iran was open to the possibility, but asked to wait until after the American elections on November 6 so they would know who they were negotiating with.
The White House denied the report, but said it has always had an offer on the table for Iran to engage in direct negotiations.
In Jerusalem, Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya’alon said last week that he knew about the contacts and welcomed them, while Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman said he hoped the Obama administration’s denial was true.
Iran’s nuclear program is widely believed to be for military purposes, a claim Iran denies.
Israel considers an Iranian bomb to be an existential threat and has reportedly lobbied for military action against the program, while the US and much of the West maintain that there is still time for sanctions and diplomacy to convince the Iranian government to abandon their attempt to develop a nuclear weapon.
Times of Israel
Obama offered to reestablish full ties with Iran, Israeli paper reports
Israel was told about and opposed president’s diplomatic incentives package, initiated soon after he took office, and Iran rebuffed it, according to Maariv
| A mural outside the former US Embassy in Tehran. (photo credit: CC-BY-SA davehighbury, Flickr) |
The initiative led to at least two US-Iran meetings, the report said. Israel was made aware of the contacts, and opposed them.
But Iran rebuffed the “diplomatic hand” offered by the White House, Maariv reported. The Islamist regime “opposed any sign of normalization with the US, and refused to grant a ‘prize’ to the Americans,” according to an anonymous Israeli source quoted by the paper.
The information — the lead item on Maariv’s front page, headlined “Obama offered to renew relations with Iran” — comes on the heels of reports earlier this month that the US and Iran held back channel contacts toward establishing direct talks over Tehran’s nuclear program. Both the White House and Iran denied those reports.
According to Maariv, Deputy Secretary of State William Burns met with chief Iranian nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili for an hour in 2009, and one other meeting between officials from both sides took place as well.
Included in the diplomatic incentives package offered by Washington would be, in the first stage, the opening of interest sections in Washington and Tehran, with the possibility subsequently of expanding to full diplomatic ties, including US and Iranian embassies and ambassadors in each other’s capitals, Maariv claimed.
As part of restored diplomatic relations with Iran, Maariv reported, Washington was ready to hold senior level diplomatic contacts, to agree to reciprocal visits, to approve security cooperation between the countries, direct flights between the US and Iran, and the granting of visas to Iranians wishing to visit the US.
The report, if true, would indicate a readiness by Obama to oversee a sea change in American policy toward Iran. The two countries have not had direct diplomatic relations since the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979-1981, when the Shah was overthrown during the Iranian Revolution and workers in the American Embassy held hostage for over a year. The US currently maintains a trade embargo with Iran and any diplomatic contacts are officially handled through third parties
According to Maariv, Iran also rejected the attempt to reestablish ties out of fear that the regime in Tehran would become weakened by normalization with Washington.
The meeting between Burns and Jalili was reportedly held in Geneva in October 2009, on the sidelines of talks between Tehran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany, also known as the P5+1.
Those talks, which Jerusalem has characterized as a stalling tactic by Tehran to buy time to develop its nuclear program to weapon capability, have mostly failed, despite several attempts to hash over curbs on Iran’s uranium enrichment activities.
Last week, the New York Times and NBC reported that Washington has held secret contacts with Iran with the goal of holding one-on-one negotiations over their nuclear program. According to the report in the New York Times, Iran was open to the possibility, but asked to wait until after the American elections on November 6 so they would know who they were negotiating with.
The White House denied the report, but said it has always had an offer on the table for Iran to engage in direct negotiations.
In Jerusalem, Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya’alon said last week that he knew about the contacts and welcomed them, while Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman said he hoped the Obama administration’s denial was true.
Iran’s nuclear program is widely believed to be for military purposes, a claim Iran denies.
Israel considers an Iranian bomb to be an existential threat and has reportedly lobbied for military action against the program, while the US and much of the West maintain that there is still time for sanctions and diplomacy to convince the Iranian government to abandon their attempt to develop a nuclear weapon.
The Case Against Obama
October 29, 2012
John Podhoretz on his radical agenda
Let us now praise Barack Obama. For if he loses on Nov. 6, he will lose for the same reason he would have won — because of his very real, very...
More in Oped Columnists
Michael Tanner on the cost of ObamaCare
Health-care reform is generally considered the signature accomplishment of President Obama’s first term. Certainly, it is representative of the...
More in Oped Columnists
Edward Klein on his amateur governance
It’s hard to remember now, but only a month ago most political pundits were predicting that Barack Obama was going to win the presidential election...
More in Oped Columnists
Matt Welch on his lies
Do you vote for presidents who repeatedly lie to you? I don’t. President Obama lied in his 2010 State of the Union Address when he said his...
More in Oped Columnists
Amir Taheri on how he lost the Middle East
For almost a century the Middle East has been a fault-line threatening international peace and stability. With the debris of successive empires...
More in Oped Columnists
John Bolton on that Nobel Peace Prize
Misjudging Obama’s future by giving him the Peace Prize has proven embarrassing to the Nobel committee. Obama’s failures, tragically exemplified by... More in Oped Columnists
Peggy Noonan on his debates and negotiations
We all say Ohio, Ohio, Ohio. But it’s all still Denver, Denver, and the mystery that maybe isn’t a mystery at all. If Cincinnati and Lake County go...
More in Oped Columnists
Kyle Smith on his lack of a second-term agenda
The worst-kept secret in Washington is that President Obama doesn’t have a second-term agenda. But actually that’s not quite true. He has a stated...
More in Oped Columnists
On the fiscal cliff
No matter who wins, averting the 2013 fiscal cliff is top of the agenda post-election. Unless Congress can come to an agreement on new legislation,...
More in Oped Columnists
Amity Shlaes on his bad economic choices
‘When it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s, just like the social policies of the 1950s and...
More in Oped Columnists
Jennifer Rubin on his crass campaign
There is nothing so revealing or, frankly, pathetic as the president of the United States, who has studiously avoided serious news interview shows,...
More in Oped Columnists
On his terrible statistics
Far from "hope and change," the numbers show more bank failures in 2012 than in 2008, more than $122.1 trillion in unfunded programs by Dec. 31, a...
More in Opinion
*source: New York Post
| 12 Reasons He Doesn't Deserve a Second Term |
Let us now praise Barack Obama. For if he loses on Nov. 6, he will lose for the same reason he would have won — because of his very real, very...
More in Oped Columnists
Michael Tanner on the cost of ObamaCare
Health-care reform is generally considered the signature accomplishment of President Obama’s first term. Certainly, it is representative of the...
More in Oped Columnists
Edward Klein on his amateur governance
It’s hard to remember now, but only a month ago most political pundits were predicting that Barack Obama was going to win the presidential election...
More in Oped Columnists
Matt Welch on his lies
Do you vote for presidents who repeatedly lie to you? I don’t. President Obama lied in his 2010 State of the Union Address when he said his...
More in Oped Columnists
Amir Taheri on how he lost the Middle East
For almost a century the Middle East has been a fault-line threatening international peace and stability. With the debris of successive empires...
More in Oped Columnists
John Bolton on that Nobel Peace Prize
Misjudging Obama’s future by giving him the Peace Prize has proven embarrassing to the Nobel committee. Obama’s failures, tragically exemplified by... More in Oped Columnists
Peggy Noonan on his debates and negotiations
We all say Ohio, Ohio, Ohio. But it’s all still Denver, Denver, and the mystery that maybe isn’t a mystery at all. If Cincinnati and Lake County go...
More in Oped Columnists
Kyle Smith on his lack of a second-term agenda
The worst-kept secret in Washington is that President Obama doesn’t have a second-term agenda. But actually that’s not quite true. He has a stated...
More in Oped Columnists
On the fiscal cliff
No matter who wins, averting the 2013 fiscal cliff is top of the agenda post-election. Unless Congress can come to an agreement on new legislation,...
More in Oped Columnists
Amity Shlaes on his bad economic choices
‘When it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s, just like the social policies of the 1950s and...
More in Oped Columnists
Jennifer Rubin on his crass campaign
There is nothing so revealing or, frankly, pathetic as the president of the United States, who has studiously avoided serious news interview shows,...
More in Oped Columnists
On his terrible statistics
Far from "hope and change," the numbers show more bank failures in 2012 than in 2008, more than $122.1 trillion in unfunded programs by Dec. 31, a...
More in Opinion
*source: New York Post
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Homeland Insecurity: Let's Brainwash Kindergarters
October 28, 2012
For DHS, Cybersecurity Education Begins in Kindergarten
(CNSNews.com) – In a blog on the Department of Homeland Security website, Secretary Janet Napolitano said her department is working to develop the next generation of leaders in cybersecurity beginning in kindergarten.
In a blog titled, “Inspiring the Next Generation of Cyber Professionals,” Napolitano said, “In addition, we are extending the scope of cyber education beyond the federal workplace through the National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education, involving students from kindergarten through post-graduate school.”
“At DHS, we’re working to develop the next generation of leaders in cybersecurity while fostering an environment for talented staff to grow in this field. We are building strong cybersecurity career paths within the Department, and in partnership with other government agencies,” the secretary said.
DHS also sponsors the U.S. Cyber Challenge, she said, “a program that works with academia and the private sector to identify and develop the best and brightest cyber talent to meet our nation’s growing and changing security needs.”
The National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education (NICE) noted on its website that the Department of Education and the National Science Foundation are leading the Formal Cybersecurity Education Component.
“Their mission is to bolster formal cybersecurity education programs encompassing kindergarten through 12th grade, higher education and vocational programs, with a focus on the science, technology, engineering and math disciplines to provide a pipeline of skilled workers for the private sector and government,” the website said.
“A digitally literate workforce that uses technology in a secure manner is imperative to the Nation’s economy and the security of our critical infrastructure,” NICE said on its website.
“Just as we teach science, technology, engineering, mathematics, reading, writing and other critical subjects to all students, we also need to educate all students to use technology securely in order to prepare them for the digital world in which we live,” the website added.
For DHS, Cybersecurity Education Begins in Kindergarten
(CNSNews.com) – In a blog on the Department of Homeland Security website, Secretary Janet Napolitano said her department is working to develop the next generation of leaders in cybersecurity beginning in kindergarten.
In a blog titled, “Inspiring the Next Generation of Cyber Professionals,” Napolitano said, “In addition, we are extending the scope of cyber education beyond the federal workplace through the National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education, involving students from kindergarten through post-graduate school.”
“At DHS, we’re working to develop the next generation of leaders in cybersecurity while fostering an environment for talented staff to grow in this field. We are building strong cybersecurity career paths within the Department, and in partnership with other government agencies,” the secretary said.
DHS also sponsors the U.S. Cyber Challenge, she said, “a program that works with academia and the private sector to identify and develop the best and brightest cyber talent to meet our nation’s growing and changing security needs.”
The National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education (NICE) noted on its website that the Department of Education and the National Science Foundation are leading the Formal Cybersecurity Education Component.
“Their mission is to bolster formal cybersecurity education programs encompassing kindergarten through 12th grade, higher education and vocational programs, with a focus on the science, technology, engineering and math disciplines to provide a pipeline of skilled workers for the private sector and government,” the website said.
“A digitally literate workforce that uses technology in a secure manner is imperative to the Nation’s economy and the security of our critical infrastructure,” NICE said on its website.
“Just as we teach science, technology, engineering, mathematics, reading, writing and other critical subjects to all students, we also need to educate all students to use technology securely in order to prepare them for the digital world in which we live,” the website added.
YOUR TAX MONEY FUNDED CUTTING OFF THIS MAN'S HEAD
October 28, 2012
Syrian Islamic Extremists (Armed by Obama, Hillary, John McCain, and Lindsey Graham) Proudly Show Us a Head They Chopped Off ...Warning: Extremely Graphic
Amazing to think it’s the official policy of the United States of America to back these same rebels.
HT: BCF
عصابات الجيش Ø§Ù„ØØ± تقطع رأس طيار سوري وتعرضه على... by syriatruth
Syrian Islamic Extremists (Armed by Obama, Hillary, John McCain, and Lindsey Graham) Proudly Show Us a Head They Chopped Off ...Warning: Extremely Graphic
Amazing to think it’s the official policy of the United States of America to back these same rebels.
HT: BCF
عصابات الجيش Ø§Ù„ØØ± تقطع رأس طيار سوري وتعرضه على... by syriatruth
State Dept: TX Can’t Arrest UN Election Observers
October 28, 2012
Washington Examiner
Reminder: there are other ways to deter the commies from their mission
International election observers planning to visit Texas polling places have “full immunity” from being arrested in the United States, the State Department said when discussing a letter from the Texas Attorney General.
“I’m not going to get into any kind of hypothetical situations or predict where this is going to go other than to say we have every expectation that this will be worked out and to state the fact, which is that under U.S. law they are eligible for immunities,” said State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland. Reporters tried to get her to state explicitly that Texas could not arrest election observers from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), but Nuland would only reiterate that OSCE observers have full immunity.
Attorney General Greg Abbott, R-Texas, warned OSCE that it “may be a criminal offense for OSCE’s representatives to maintain a presence within 100 feet of a polling place’s entrance,” as The Hill noted.
Nuland dismissed Abbott’s observation that OSCE consulted with Project Vote, a group that was affiliated with ACORN before that now-discredited organization collapsed under the weight of voter fraud charges.
“[I]f there are concerns that Texas authorities have, they have an opportunity through the direct dialogue that’s now going on in Texas with OSCE observers to take up their concerns,” she said. “But the mandate of the OSCE is designed to be absolutely and completely impartial, and that’s what we plan on when we participate and that’s what we’d expect here.”
Washington Examiner
Reminder: there are other ways to deter the commies from their mission
International election observers planning to visit Texas polling places have “full immunity” from being arrested in the United States, the State Department said when discussing a letter from the Texas Attorney General.
“I’m not going to get into any kind of hypothetical situations or predict where this is going to go other than to say we have every expectation that this will be worked out and to state the fact, which is that under U.S. law they are eligible for immunities,” said State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland. Reporters tried to get her to state explicitly that Texas could not arrest election observers from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), but Nuland would only reiterate that OSCE observers have full immunity.
Attorney General Greg Abbott, R-Texas, warned OSCE that it “may be a criminal offense for OSCE’s representatives to maintain a presence within 100 feet of a polling place’s entrance,” as The Hill noted.
Nuland dismissed Abbott’s observation that OSCE consulted with Project Vote, a group that was affiliated with ACORN before that now-discredited organization collapsed under the weight of voter fraud charges.
“[I]f there are concerns that Texas authorities have, they have an opportunity through the direct dialogue that’s now going on in Texas with OSCE observers to take up their concerns,” she said. “But the mandate of the OSCE is designed to be absolutely and completely impartial, and that’s what we plan on when we participate and that’s what we’d expect here.”
Is voter fraud being committed in Ohio?
Oct. 28, 2012
Human Events
COLUMBUS, Ohio — Two volunteer poll workers at an Ohio voting station told Human Events that they observed van loads of Ohio residents born in Somalia — the state is home to the second-largest Somali population in the United States — being driven to the voting station and guided by Democratic interpreters on the voting process. No Republican interpreters were present, according to these volunteers.
While it’s not unusual for get-out-the-vote groups to help voters get to the polls, the volunteers who talked to Human Events observed a number of troubling and questionable activities.
A source, who wishes to remain anonymous, is a volunteer outside the Morse Road polling center. She has witnessed Somalis who cannot speak English come to the polling center. They are brought in groups, by van or bus. The Democrats hand them a slate card and say, “vote Brown all the way down.” Given that Sherrod Brown is the incumbent Democrat Senator in Ohio, one can assume that this is the reference.
Non-English speaking voters may use an interpreter. The interpreters are permitted by law to interpret for the individual voting; however, they are forbidden from influencing their vote in any way. Another source who also wishes to remain anonymous has seen Democrat interpreters show the non-English speaking Somalis how to vote the Democrat slate that they were handed outside. According to this second source, there are not any Republican Somali interpreters available.
The logical follow-up question is whether a non-English speaking person is an American citizen. Although Republican leadership in Ohio passed a voting reform law, it was repealed by the legislature itself after the Democrats threatened a referendum. According to the Ohio Secretary of State’s web site, someone wanting to vote early in Ohio must supply one of the following in writing on the absentee ballot form, whether voting early by mail or in person: an Ohio driver’s license number; the last four digits of the social security number; or a copy of a current and valid photo identification, military identification, or a current — within the last 12 months — utility bill, including cell phone bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the person’s name and address in addition to the voter registration acknowledgement.
The voter is not required to show the driver’s license or social security card, but must merely write it on the absentee ballot request form. While the individual would be required to show a utility bill, bank statement or other printed document if he or she chooses that option, this is in lieu of writing the driver’s license or social security number. Therefore, the information cannot be checked against the Bureau of Motor Vehicles or other state databases. Essentially, a person is asked to check a box stating that they are a citizen, and the poll worker is to trust that they are the person who is listed on the item being shown or the information being written. In other words, someone can be an illegal resident of the state of Ohio and the United States, get an apartment, turn on the heat, bring in the Columbia Gas bill, register to vote by the deadline, and vote by showing that same bill. There is then no verification that this individual is a citizen of the United States.
Matt McClellan, the press secretary for Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted, explained, “There is a process to challenge a voter’s eligibility. The point in time for a challenge to be brought ended mid October. A poll worker could challenge a voter if they had questions as to whether or not a voter was registered or eligible to vote.” However, if the poll worker does not raise the issue at the time the voting occurs, that person’s vote will otherwise be counted on election day along with everyone else’s vote. McClellan was not aware of any reports of irregularities at the Morse Road voting place in Franklin County.
Two phone calls and a text message to the Public Information Office at the Franklin County Board of Elections were not returned.
According to the Somali Community Association of Ohio’s web site, over 45,000 Somalis live in Ohio. Only 40 percent have become citizens of the United States, and only 25 percent speak English well enough to get a job.
The second source mentioned has seen voter intimidation at this same voting place. A Mitt Romney bus stopped near the voting center, approximately 30 Democrats who were outside handing out the slate cards rushed over to the bus. They yelled at the bus, and swarmed around its door when anyone attempted to exit the bus. This, from the “tolerant left.”
All elements of this story are still developing and will be updated as new information is uncovered. Stay tuned.
Human Events
COLUMBUS, Ohio — Two volunteer poll workers at an Ohio voting station told Human Events that they observed van loads of Ohio residents born in Somalia — the state is home to the second-largest Somali population in the United States — being driven to the voting station and guided by Democratic interpreters on the voting process. No Republican interpreters were present, according to these volunteers.
While it’s not unusual for get-out-the-vote groups to help voters get to the polls, the volunteers who talked to Human Events observed a number of troubling and questionable activities.
A source, who wishes to remain anonymous, is a volunteer outside the Morse Road polling center. She has witnessed Somalis who cannot speak English come to the polling center. They are brought in groups, by van or bus. The Democrats hand them a slate card and say, “vote Brown all the way down.” Given that Sherrod Brown is the incumbent Democrat Senator in Ohio, one can assume that this is the reference.
Non-English speaking voters may use an interpreter. The interpreters are permitted by law to interpret for the individual voting; however, they are forbidden from influencing their vote in any way. Another source who also wishes to remain anonymous has seen Democrat interpreters show the non-English speaking Somalis how to vote the Democrat slate that they were handed outside. According to this second source, there are not any Republican Somali interpreters available.
The logical follow-up question is whether a non-English speaking person is an American citizen. Although Republican leadership in Ohio passed a voting reform law, it was repealed by the legislature itself after the Democrats threatened a referendum. According to the Ohio Secretary of State’s web site, someone wanting to vote early in Ohio must supply one of the following in writing on the absentee ballot form, whether voting early by mail or in person: an Ohio driver’s license number; the last four digits of the social security number; or a copy of a current and valid photo identification, military identification, or a current — within the last 12 months — utility bill, including cell phone bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the person’s name and address in addition to the voter registration acknowledgement.
The voter is not required to show the driver’s license or social security card, but must merely write it on the absentee ballot request form. While the individual would be required to show a utility bill, bank statement or other printed document if he or she chooses that option, this is in lieu of writing the driver’s license or social security number. Therefore, the information cannot be checked against the Bureau of Motor Vehicles or other state databases. Essentially, a person is asked to check a box stating that they are a citizen, and the poll worker is to trust that they are the person who is listed on the item being shown or the information being written. In other words, someone can be an illegal resident of the state of Ohio and the United States, get an apartment, turn on the heat, bring in the Columbia Gas bill, register to vote by the deadline, and vote by showing that same bill. There is then no verification that this individual is a citizen of the United States.
Matt McClellan, the press secretary for Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted, explained, “There is a process to challenge a voter’s eligibility. The point in time for a challenge to be brought ended mid October. A poll worker could challenge a voter if they had questions as to whether or not a voter was registered or eligible to vote.” However, if the poll worker does not raise the issue at the time the voting occurs, that person’s vote will otherwise be counted on election day along with everyone else’s vote. McClellan was not aware of any reports of irregularities at the Morse Road voting place in Franklin County.
Two phone calls and a text message to the Public Information Office at the Franklin County Board of Elections were not returned.
According to the Somali Community Association of Ohio’s web site, over 45,000 Somalis live in Ohio. Only 40 percent have become citizens of the United States, and only 25 percent speak English well enough to get a job.
The second source mentioned has seen voter intimidation at this same voting place. A Mitt Romney bus stopped near the voting center, approximately 30 Democrats who were outside handing out the slate cards rushed over to the bus. They yelled at the bus, and swarmed around its door when anyone attempted to exit the bus. This, from the “tolerant left.”
All elements of this story are still developing and will be updated as new information is uncovered. Stay tuned.
Al Qaeda leader urges kidnapping of Westerners
Oct. 28, 2012
New York Post
CAIRO — The leader of al Qaeda has urged Muslims to kidnap Westerners to exchange for imprisoned jihadists, including a blind cleric serving a life sentence in the United States for a 1993 plot to blow up New York City landmarks.
In an undated two-hour videotape posted this week on militant forums, the Egyptian-born jihadist Ayman al-Zawahri also urged support for Syria's uprising and called for the implementation of Islamic Shariah law in Egypt.
He said that abducting nationals of "countries waging wars on Muslims" is the only way to free "our captives, and Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman," the Egyptian cleric.
"This is the only language which they understand," said al-Zawahri, appearing in his customary white turban and robe. "We will keep on seizing more ... until we free our captives."
There was little clue to his whereabouts from the video, shot against a backdrop of brown curtains.
He periodically releases video and audio statements. Two weeks ago, an audio recording by him urged holy war over an amateur anti-Islam film produced in the United States. He released a video on this year's anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, claiming that his warriors "defeated America in Iraq".
Freeing Abdel-Rahman has become a rallying cause for Islamic militants and jihadists. A group named after him has claimed responsibility before for a June assault on the US Consulate in Benghazi, which caused no casualties. It caused no casualties, but a bigger attack on Sept. 11 claimed lives of four Americans including the U.S. Ambassador in Libya Chris Stevens.
Relatives and supporters of Abdel-Rahman have been holding a sit-in next to the US Embassy in Cairo for months. Egypt's new Islamist President Mohammed Morsi, under pressure from leading Egyptian jihadists recently released from prison, vowed to push for his release.
Al-Zawahri appeared to be following Egypt's debates over the country's political future, as he called upon ultraconservative clerics in Egypt to ensure clear mention of Islamic Shariah law in the new constitution. Members of Egypt's Salafi trend have been pushing the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist group from which Morsi hails, to make the role of Shariah explicit. Liberals fear that the Islamist groups will insert language that can be used to curb freedom of expression and the rights of women and minorities.
"Shariah must be the source of legislation ... This must be stated," Zawahri said. "This is the first step to cleanse the constitution and laws in order to implement Islamic Shariah law."
Egypt's old constitution and most drafts of the new one would include some reference to "Shariah" or the "principles" of Shariah, but the exact phrasing could have a major effect on future court rulings on the constitutionality of laws.
Al Qaeda leader also called on Muslims, especially in countries bordering Syria, to support the uprising there.
"I urge Muslims everywhere ... to rise up to support the brothers in Syria ... to get rid of the cancerous criminal regime," he said. "Syrian people have the right to defend themselves with all means."
The transformation of Syria's uprising into an open war has given an opportunity to foreign fighters and extremists to play a larger role in the uprising, analysts say. President Bashar Assad's regime has long blamed foreign "terrorists" for the country's crisis.
Al-Zawahri accused international community of indirectly approving the killing of Syrians.
"The international community ... is giving Assad a license to kill and one chance after the other to curb the Syrian revolution," he said. "They are afraid of a government that seeks victory for Islam and Muslims."
Syria's most Sunni rebels have received support from fellow Sunnis in the Gulf, while Assad's regime, dominated by a Shiite offshoot sect, is allied with Shiite-led Iran.
New York Post
CAIRO — The leader of al Qaeda has urged Muslims to kidnap Westerners to exchange for imprisoned jihadists, including a blind cleric serving a life sentence in the United States for a 1993 plot to blow up New York City landmarks.
In an undated two-hour videotape posted this week on militant forums, the Egyptian-born jihadist Ayman al-Zawahri also urged support for Syria's uprising and called for the implementation of Islamic Shariah law in Egypt.
He said that abducting nationals of "countries waging wars on Muslims" is the only way to free "our captives, and Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman," the Egyptian cleric.
"This is the only language which they understand," said al-Zawahri, appearing in his customary white turban and robe. "We will keep on seizing more ... until we free our captives."
There was little clue to his whereabouts from the video, shot against a backdrop of brown curtains.
He periodically releases video and audio statements. Two weeks ago, an audio recording by him urged holy war over an amateur anti-Islam film produced in the United States. He released a video on this year's anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, claiming that his warriors "defeated America in Iraq".
Freeing Abdel-Rahman has become a rallying cause for Islamic militants and jihadists. A group named after him has claimed responsibility before for a June assault on the US Consulate in Benghazi, which caused no casualties. It caused no casualties, but a bigger attack on Sept. 11 claimed lives of four Americans including the U.S. Ambassador in Libya Chris Stevens.
Relatives and supporters of Abdel-Rahman have been holding a sit-in next to the US Embassy in Cairo for months. Egypt's new Islamist President Mohammed Morsi, under pressure from leading Egyptian jihadists recently released from prison, vowed to push for his release.
Al-Zawahri appeared to be following Egypt's debates over the country's political future, as he called upon ultraconservative clerics in Egypt to ensure clear mention of Islamic Shariah law in the new constitution. Members of Egypt's Salafi trend have been pushing the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist group from which Morsi hails, to make the role of Shariah explicit. Liberals fear that the Islamist groups will insert language that can be used to curb freedom of expression and the rights of women and minorities.
"Shariah must be the source of legislation ... This must be stated," Zawahri said. "This is the first step to cleanse the constitution and laws in order to implement Islamic Shariah law."
Egypt's old constitution and most drafts of the new one would include some reference to "Shariah" or the "principles" of Shariah, but the exact phrasing could have a major effect on future court rulings on the constitutionality of laws.
Al Qaeda leader also called on Muslims, especially in countries bordering Syria, to support the uprising there.
"I urge Muslims everywhere ... to rise up to support the brothers in Syria ... to get rid of the cancerous criminal regime," he said. "Syrian people have the right to defend themselves with all means."
The transformation of Syria's uprising into an open war has given an opportunity to foreign fighters and extremists to play a larger role in the uprising, analysts say. President Bashar Assad's regime has long blamed foreign "terrorists" for the country's crisis.
Al-Zawahri accused international community of indirectly approving the killing of Syrians.
"The international community ... is giving Assad a license to kill and one chance after the other to curb the Syrian revolution," he said. "They are afraid of a government that seeks victory for Islam and Muslims."
Syria's most Sunni rebels have received support from fellow Sunnis in the Gulf, while Assad's regime, dominated by a Shiite offshoot sect, is allied with Shiite-led Iran.
Independents’ Day
October 28, 2012
Romney’s advantage with unaffiliated voters could prove key.
With a week to go until the 2012 presidential election, Mitt Romney has a decided leg up on President Barack Obama.
The polls are clear. Since the fallout from the first debate in Denver on October 3, Romney has enjoyed a relatively durable lead over the president in the Real Clear Politics average of the national polls. While the lead is small, it has persisted over time, and, more important, history suggests that this is trouble for an incumbent. The only sitting president to mount a last-minute comeback against his challenger was Gerald Ford in 1976, and of course Ford still lost. Usually, late deciders in a presidential campaign either break for the challenger or split about evenly between the two sides.
The problem for the president is Romney’s strong and sustained lead among independent voters. Despite four years of boasting from the Democrats that they were in the process of transforming the electorate, the fact remains that voters unaffiliated with either party determine the outcome of national elections. And with these voters, Romney has a substantial lead. The most recent Rasmussen Reports poll shows Romney besting Obama by 13 points, 52 percent to 39 percent, among unaffiliated voters. Since 1972, the first year of exit polling, no candidate for president has won election while losing independents by such a wide margin.
What is driving this is, above all, Romney’s growing advantage on who can best handle the economy. The most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll gives the Republican a 9-point lead on this issue, which remains the top determinant of most vote choices. The recent Associated Press-GfK poll found Romney with a 6-point lead on the economy among likely voters, as well as an 8-point lead on who can better handle the deficit.
More broadly, it looks as though Romney has passed a threshold among voters in terms of being an acceptable alternative. According to the Real Clear Politics average of the national polls, Romney’s favorable rating is about 49 percent and his unfavorable rating is 43 percent. That compares well with Obama’s rating of about 50 percent favorable and 45 percent unfavorable. In other words, it looks as though Romney has a lead because he has convinced a plurality of Americans that he is a decent person who can handle the tough issues better than President Obama.
And what of the state polls? Romney seems to have the edge in states whose electoral votes add up to 261 (with 270 needed for a majority), while Obama has the edge in states that add up to 237. Four states remain true tossups at this writing: Iowa, Nevada, Ohio, and Wisconsin. If Romney carries the states where he has the edge—and wins either Ohio or Wisconsin—he will be elected the 45th president of the United States.
It is worth asking: How did we arrive at this point? After all, it was not long ago that pundits pronounced the Romney campaign dead and buried. All that was left was the voting, we were told. Now, Romney has a lead in the nationwide polls and the momentum in the swing states.
The announcements of Romney’s demise said a lot more about the bias of the mainstream media, as well as their ignorance of how voters make decisions, than it did about the Romney team. The reality was that this was always bound to be a close race, and even when Romney was down in the polls, he was laying the groundwork for a strong finish.
Much of an election outcome depends on forces outside anybody’s control; very little is within the power of a candidate and his campaign. Yet Romney managed to do the things he could do quite well.
He finished the GOP nomination season without dividing his party and without having to take positions on issues that would later alienate swing voters. He raised a tremendous amount of money. He picked a fantastic candidate for vice president. His convention was solid, if not spectacular. And his debate performances uniformly gave the impression that he is a decent man who is fluent on the issues and whose highest priority is exactly what the American people most want, a robust economy.
The Obama team thought it could effectively disqualify Romney from the presidency before the real campaign even began, but this was a -mistake. In truth, they committed the same error that so many in the mainstream press did: They underestimated Romney’s appeal as a candidate, which, as everybody saw in the debates, is in fact very strong.
And now the Obama campaign is in a real bind. With a week left and behind in the polls, the president must dislodge the voters’ impression that Romney is the better man to handle the big issues. Hence, Obama’s starkly negative tenor and tone over the last few days. More and more, his campaign resembles those run by losers in the modern era; there is a kind of annoyance and anger to his attacks, which so far are not resonating with average Americans. Perhaps before the campaign is over, he’ll repeat Bob Dole’s frustrated cry of “Where’s the outrage?”
The president could have done more. And if he ultimately loses, the comparison with Bill Clinton will be instructive. After his rebuff in the 1994 midterms, Clinton made a course correction that likely saved his presidency. He rightly interpreted the Democrats’ drubbing that year as a sign of public frustration with the drift of the government, and a demand for greater cooperation between the two sides. A modified direction and greater cooperation is exactly what Clinton delivered through 1995 and 1996, with the bipartisan welfare reform bill serving as capstone.
President Obama, on the other hand, basically ignored the 2010 midterm verdict. The public clearly was demanding greater comity between the two sides and a focus on solving the problems of the economy and public finances, yet Obama brokered no lasting deals with his Republican foes. Instead, he battened down the hatches, figuring that he could wait out the Tea Party storm, then castigate the GOP as a bunch of right-wing crazies who had made things worse.
That strategy seemed to be working until the debates, when Romney utterly shattered the mold Obama had cast for him. Now, the country is left with a choice: more of the same with Obama or a change with Romney. More and more, Americans are coming around to the idea that a President Romney would be a change for the better, which means that—barring some unforeseen shift in public opinion—Obama’s days in office look to be numbered.
source: Jay Cost is a staff writer at The Weekly Standard.
Romney’s advantage with unaffiliated voters could prove key.
With a week to go until the 2012 presidential election, Mitt Romney has a decided leg up on President Barack Obama.
The polls are clear. Since the fallout from the first debate in Denver on October 3, Romney has enjoyed a relatively durable lead over the president in the Real Clear Politics average of the national polls. While the lead is small, it has persisted over time, and, more important, history suggests that this is trouble for an incumbent. The only sitting president to mount a last-minute comeback against his challenger was Gerald Ford in 1976, and of course Ford still lost. Usually, late deciders in a presidential campaign either break for the challenger or split about evenly between the two sides.
The problem for the president is Romney’s strong and sustained lead among independent voters. Despite four years of boasting from the Democrats that they were in the process of transforming the electorate, the fact remains that voters unaffiliated with either party determine the outcome of national elections. And with these voters, Romney has a substantial lead. The most recent Rasmussen Reports poll shows Romney besting Obama by 13 points, 52 percent to 39 percent, among unaffiliated voters. Since 1972, the first year of exit polling, no candidate for president has won election while losing independents by such a wide margin.
What is driving this is, above all, Romney’s growing advantage on who can best handle the economy. The most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll gives the Republican a 9-point lead on this issue, which remains the top determinant of most vote choices. The recent Associated Press-GfK poll found Romney with a 6-point lead on the economy among likely voters, as well as an 8-point lead on who can better handle the deficit.
More broadly, it looks as though Romney has passed a threshold among voters in terms of being an acceptable alternative. According to the Real Clear Politics average of the national polls, Romney’s favorable rating is about 49 percent and his unfavorable rating is 43 percent. That compares well with Obama’s rating of about 50 percent favorable and 45 percent unfavorable. In other words, it looks as though Romney has a lead because he has convinced a plurality of Americans that he is a decent person who can handle the tough issues better than President Obama.
And what of the state polls? Romney seems to have the edge in states whose electoral votes add up to 261 (with 270 needed for a majority), while Obama has the edge in states that add up to 237. Four states remain true tossups at this writing: Iowa, Nevada, Ohio, and Wisconsin. If Romney carries the states where he has the edge—and wins either Ohio or Wisconsin—he will be elected the 45th president of the United States.
It is worth asking: How did we arrive at this point? After all, it was not long ago that pundits pronounced the Romney campaign dead and buried. All that was left was the voting, we were told. Now, Romney has a lead in the nationwide polls and the momentum in the swing states.
The announcements of Romney’s demise said a lot more about the bias of the mainstream media, as well as their ignorance of how voters make decisions, than it did about the Romney team. The reality was that this was always bound to be a close race, and even when Romney was down in the polls, he was laying the groundwork for a strong finish.
Much of an election outcome depends on forces outside anybody’s control; very little is within the power of a candidate and his campaign. Yet Romney managed to do the things he could do quite well.
He finished the GOP nomination season without dividing his party and without having to take positions on issues that would later alienate swing voters. He raised a tremendous amount of money. He picked a fantastic candidate for vice president. His convention was solid, if not spectacular. And his debate performances uniformly gave the impression that he is a decent man who is fluent on the issues and whose highest priority is exactly what the American people most want, a robust economy.
The Obama team thought it could effectively disqualify Romney from the presidency before the real campaign even began, but this was a -mistake. In truth, they committed the same error that so many in the mainstream press did: They underestimated Romney’s appeal as a candidate, which, as everybody saw in the debates, is in fact very strong.
And now the Obama campaign is in a real bind. With a week left and behind in the polls, the president must dislodge the voters’ impression that Romney is the better man to handle the big issues. Hence, Obama’s starkly negative tenor and tone over the last few days. More and more, his campaign resembles those run by losers in the modern era; there is a kind of annoyance and anger to his attacks, which so far are not resonating with average Americans. Perhaps before the campaign is over, he’ll repeat Bob Dole’s frustrated cry of “Where’s the outrage?”
The president could have done more. And if he ultimately loses, the comparison with Bill Clinton will be instructive. After his rebuff in the 1994 midterms, Clinton made a course correction that likely saved his presidency. He rightly interpreted the Democrats’ drubbing that year as a sign of public frustration with the drift of the government, and a demand for greater cooperation between the two sides. A modified direction and greater cooperation is exactly what Clinton delivered through 1995 and 1996, with the bipartisan welfare reform bill serving as capstone.
President Obama, on the other hand, basically ignored the 2010 midterm verdict. The public clearly was demanding greater comity between the two sides and a focus on solving the problems of the economy and public finances, yet Obama brokered no lasting deals with his Republican foes. Instead, he battened down the hatches, figuring that he could wait out the Tea Party storm, then castigate the GOP as a bunch of right-wing crazies who had made things worse.
That strategy seemed to be working until the debates, when Romney utterly shattered the mold Obama had cast for him. Now, the country is left with a choice: more of the same with Obama or a change with Romney. More and more, Americans are coming around to the idea that a President Romney would be a change for the better, which means that—barring some unforeseen shift in public opinion—Obama’s days in office look to be numbered.
source: Jay Cost is a staff writer at The Weekly Standard.
Obama Administration Replaces Top Generals Following Benghazi Disaster
October 28, 2012
by Jim Hoft
The Gateway Pundit
The latest rumor making the rounds is that Barack Obama replaced General Carter Ham at Africom after the general made a move to help the US security officials at the Benghazi consulate and annex. Ham was replaced by Gen. David Rodriquez on October 18.
Tiger Droppings reported:
The information I heard today was that General [Carter] Ham as head of Africom received the same e-mails the White House received requesting help/support as the attack was taking place. General Ham immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had a unit ready.
General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command.
The story continues that now General Rodiguez would take General Ham’s place as the head of Africom.
Sure enough Obama nominated Gen. David Rodriguez to replace Gen. Carter Ham as commander of U.S. Africa Command.
The Stars and Stripes reported:
President Barack Obama will nominate Army Gen. David Rodriguez to succeed Gen. Carter Ham as commander of U.S. Africa Command and Marine Lt. Gen. John Paxton to succeed Gen. Joseph Dunford as assistant commandant of the Marine Corps, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced Thursday.
Both appointments must be confirmed by the Senate.
Rodriguez is the commander of U.S. Army Forces Command and has served in a “variety of key leadership roles on the battlefield,” Panetta said.
He’s “a proven leader” who oversaw coalition and Afghan forces during the surge in Afghanistan, and “was the key architect of the successful campaign plan that we are now implementing,” Panetta said.
In announcing Ham’s successor, Panetta also praised the work Ham has done with Africa Command.
“Gen. Ham has really brought AFRICOM into a very pivotal role in that challenging region,” Panetta said. “I and the nation are deeply grateful for his outstanding service.”
Hat Tip Tom
More…
The Obama Administration also relieved the admiral in command of an aircraft carrier strike group in the Middle East, Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette. It is highly unusual for the Navy to replace a carrier strike group commander during its deployment.
The Stars and Stripes reported:
The Navy said Saturday it is replacing the admiral in command of an aircraft carrier strike group in the Middle East, pending the outcome of an internal investigation into undisclosed allegations of inappropriate judgment.
Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette is being sent back to the USS John C. Stennis’ home port at Bremerton, Wash., in what the Navy called a temporary reassignment. The Navy said he is not formally relieved of his command of the Stennis strike group but will be replaced by Rear Adm. Troy M. Shoemaker, who will assume command until the investigation is completed.
It is highly unusual for the Navy to replace a carrier strike group commander during its deployment.
Ace of Spades says the move to replace Rear Adm. Charles Baouette is likely not related to Benghazi.
by Jim Hoft
The Gateway Pundit
| General Carter Ham |
Tiger Droppings reported:
The information I heard today was that General [Carter] Ham as head of Africom received the same e-mails the White House received requesting help/support as the attack was taking place. General Ham immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had a unit ready.
General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command.
The story continues that now General Rodiguez would take General Ham’s place as the head of Africom.
Sure enough Obama nominated Gen. David Rodriguez to replace Gen. Carter Ham as commander of U.S. Africa Command.
The Stars and Stripes reported:
President Barack Obama will nominate Army Gen. David Rodriguez to succeed Gen. Carter Ham as commander of U.S. Africa Command and Marine Lt. Gen. John Paxton to succeed Gen. Joseph Dunford as assistant commandant of the Marine Corps, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced Thursday.
Both appointments must be confirmed by the Senate.
Rodriguez is the commander of U.S. Army Forces Command and has served in a “variety of key leadership roles on the battlefield,” Panetta said.
He’s “a proven leader” who oversaw coalition and Afghan forces during the surge in Afghanistan, and “was the key architect of the successful campaign plan that we are now implementing,” Panetta said.
In announcing Ham’s successor, Panetta also praised the work Ham has done with Africa Command.
“Gen. Ham has really brought AFRICOM into a very pivotal role in that challenging region,” Panetta said. “I and the nation are deeply grateful for his outstanding service.”
Hat Tip Tom
More…
The Obama Administration also relieved the admiral in command of an aircraft carrier strike group in the Middle East, Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette. It is highly unusual for the Navy to replace a carrier strike group commander during its deployment.
The Stars and Stripes reported:
The Navy said Saturday it is replacing the admiral in command of an aircraft carrier strike group in the Middle East, pending the outcome of an internal investigation into undisclosed allegations of inappropriate judgment.
Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette is being sent back to the USS John C. Stennis’ home port at Bremerton, Wash., in what the Navy called a temporary reassignment. The Navy said he is not formally relieved of his command of the Stennis strike group but will be replaced by Rear Adm. Troy M. Shoemaker, who will assume command until the investigation is completed.
It is highly unusual for the Navy to replace a carrier strike group commander during its deployment.
Ace of Spades says the move to replace Rear Adm. Charles Baouette is likely not related to Benghazi.
3.6 million Social Security numbers hacked in S.C.
October 28, 2012
TheState.com
Tax returns, personal data compromised in ‘massive’ breach
The U.S. Secret Service detected a security breach at the S.C. Department of Revenue on Oct. 10, but it took state officials 10 days to close the attacker’s access and another six days to inform the public that 3.6 million Social Security numbers had been compromised.
The attack also exposed 387,000 credit and debit card numbers. The stolen data included other information people file with their tax returns such as names and addresses. Businesses’ taxpayer identification numbers also potentially have been comprised in the attack that is being described as one of the nation’s largest against a state agency.
The attack affects tax returns as far back as 1998, the Revenue Department said. But not all of the department’s data – so not every taxpayer – was affected, it said.
Most of the data had not been encrypted, meaning the hacker would not need a key to a secret code to read the stolen data.
Revenue director James Etter said none of the Social Security numbers were encrypted and about 16,000 credit card numbers were not encrypted.
“That was not part of the system at that point,” Etter said during Gov. Nikki Haley’s press conference Friday to announce the breach. “That’s something we’ll be looking into.”
Officials, including State Law Enforcement Division Chief Mark Keel, said the millions of affected S.C. taxpayers had not been notified sooner because agents needed to reach “certain benchmarks in their investigation.”
Keel said it took time to determine how much data had been compromised. And investigators needed time to gather evidence that could lead to prosecution.
It is not known how the security breach has affected taxpayers and whether or how the hacker might have used the data.
The Revenue Department established a toll-free phone line and a website for taxpayers who might be affected, but the system was overwhelmed Friday afternoon by the hundreds of thousands of people calling. The Revenue Department is increasing the number of receptionists at its call center, which will be open over the weekend, DOR spokeswoman Samantha Cheek said.
The security breach will be costly for the state, which hired a private cyber security firm to block the attack and to install new equipment and software at the Revenue Department. The state also promised to pay for one year of credit monitoring and identity theft protection for those affected.
The attack led Haley to pledge to beef up the state’s vulnerable information technology systems. She signed an executive order directing Cabinet agencies to cooperate with the state inspector general in an assessment of security. The order says that the state’s information technology security procedures have been “largely uncoordinated and outdated.”
It appears the hacker’s first attempt to probe the Revenue Department’s system came from a foreign Internet address on Aug. 27. Officials would not disclose where the attack originated.
The attack was discovered Oct. 10 by the U.S. Secret Service’s electronic crimes task force in South Carolina, Special Agent in Charge Michael Williams said.
His office notified SLED, and state agencies began scrambling to address the problem.
Upon the Secret Service’s recommendation, the state on Oct. 12 hired Mandiant, a private computer security firm based in Alexandria, Va. It was Mandiant’s experts who discovered that the hacker made two attempts to enter the system in early September and obtained data in mid-September. The company blocked the attacker’s access to the server Oct. 20.
The company also installed log-in monitoring and other tools to deter another attack, said Marshall Heilman, the company’s director of services.
Mandiant’s investigation into the attack is ongoing,
“We tend to measure investigations in weeks and months, not hours and days,” Heilman said during a Friday press conference. “We appreciate your patience.”
Officials declined to provide further details on the hacker or efforts to bring the person or persons to justice.
“My instructions to them were to slam him to the wall,” Haley said of her discussions with SLED’s Keel.
The attack was one of the largest the Secret Service has seen but not the biggest, Williams said.
The Privacy Rights Clearinghouse in San Diego, Calif., has compiled records of government security breaches since 2005. A State newspaper check of the clearinghouse’s database does not show any breaches of tax information that even approach the size of the attack against South Carolina.
The clearinghouse, a 20-year-old, nonprofit consumer and privacy advocacy organization, listed 11 other cases of tax records breaches by government agencies.
The group’s director, Beth Givens, described South Carolina’s example as a “massive breach.”
“This database should have been encrypted,” Givens said. “The fact that it wasn’t is a significant failing.”
She also criticized the state’s delay in notifying taxpayers.
“I don’t give the tax agency high marks for the amount of time it has taken to notify these individuals.” She said a lot of damage could have occurred since the attackers first struck.
Haley vowed to better protect S.C. residents’ personal information in April after a state employee gained access to 228,000 Medicaid beneficiaries’ data. She put the word out that jobs were on the line if supervisors were not vigilant in protecting private information.
S.C. Inspector General Patrick Maley said nine agencies had been evaluated thus far, and some corrective action had been taken. There was no overarching security policy within state government, he said.
No one at the Revenue Department or within the state’s information technology division has been disciplined over the latest attack. Haley said the latest cyber attack is different from the one reported in April.
“That was an internal breach. This is totally different. This is unprecedented,” Haley said. “This is an international attack that did not come from the inside, that was creative in nature and reminds all of us that we’re in a different age and time where internally is not just where you have to look. We have to look externally.”
TheState.com
Tax returns, personal data compromised in ‘massive’ breach
The U.S. Secret Service detected a security breach at the S.C. Department of Revenue on Oct. 10, but it took state officials 10 days to close the attacker’s access and another six days to inform the public that 3.6 million Social Security numbers had been compromised.
The attack also exposed 387,000 credit and debit card numbers. The stolen data included other information people file with their tax returns such as names and addresses. Businesses’ taxpayer identification numbers also potentially have been comprised in the attack that is being described as one of the nation’s largest against a state agency.
The attack affects tax returns as far back as 1998, the Revenue Department said. But not all of the department’s data – so not every taxpayer – was affected, it said.
Most of the data had not been encrypted, meaning the hacker would not need a key to a secret code to read the stolen data.
Revenue director James Etter said none of the Social Security numbers were encrypted and about 16,000 credit card numbers were not encrypted.
“That was not part of the system at that point,” Etter said during Gov. Nikki Haley’s press conference Friday to announce the breach. “That’s something we’ll be looking into.”
Officials, including State Law Enforcement Division Chief Mark Keel, said the millions of affected S.C. taxpayers had not been notified sooner because agents needed to reach “certain benchmarks in their investigation.”
Keel said it took time to determine how much data had been compromised. And investigators needed time to gather evidence that could lead to prosecution.
It is not known how the security breach has affected taxpayers and whether or how the hacker might have used the data.
The Revenue Department established a toll-free phone line and a website for taxpayers who might be affected, but the system was overwhelmed Friday afternoon by the hundreds of thousands of people calling. The Revenue Department is increasing the number of receptionists at its call center, which will be open over the weekend, DOR spokeswoman Samantha Cheek said.
The security breach will be costly for the state, which hired a private cyber security firm to block the attack and to install new equipment and software at the Revenue Department. The state also promised to pay for one year of credit monitoring and identity theft protection for those affected.
The attack led Haley to pledge to beef up the state’s vulnerable information technology systems. She signed an executive order directing Cabinet agencies to cooperate with the state inspector general in an assessment of security. The order says that the state’s information technology security procedures have been “largely uncoordinated and outdated.”
It appears the hacker’s first attempt to probe the Revenue Department’s system came from a foreign Internet address on Aug. 27. Officials would not disclose where the attack originated.
The attack was discovered Oct. 10 by the U.S. Secret Service’s electronic crimes task force in South Carolina, Special Agent in Charge Michael Williams said.
His office notified SLED, and state agencies began scrambling to address the problem.
Upon the Secret Service’s recommendation, the state on Oct. 12 hired Mandiant, a private computer security firm based in Alexandria, Va. It was Mandiant’s experts who discovered that the hacker made two attempts to enter the system in early September and obtained data in mid-September. The company blocked the attacker’s access to the server Oct. 20.
The company also installed log-in monitoring and other tools to deter another attack, said Marshall Heilman, the company’s director of services.
Mandiant’s investigation into the attack is ongoing,
“We tend to measure investigations in weeks and months, not hours and days,” Heilman said during a Friday press conference. “We appreciate your patience.”
Officials declined to provide further details on the hacker or efforts to bring the person or persons to justice.
“My instructions to them were to slam him to the wall,” Haley said of her discussions with SLED’s Keel.
The attack was one of the largest the Secret Service has seen but not the biggest, Williams said.
The Privacy Rights Clearinghouse in San Diego, Calif., has compiled records of government security breaches since 2005. A State newspaper check of the clearinghouse’s database does not show any breaches of tax information that even approach the size of the attack against South Carolina.
The clearinghouse, a 20-year-old, nonprofit consumer and privacy advocacy organization, listed 11 other cases of tax records breaches by government agencies.
The group’s director, Beth Givens, described South Carolina’s example as a “massive breach.”
“This database should have been encrypted,” Givens said. “The fact that it wasn’t is a significant failing.”
She also criticized the state’s delay in notifying taxpayers.
“I don’t give the tax agency high marks for the amount of time it has taken to notify these individuals.” She said a lot of damage could have occurred since the attackers first struck.
Haley vowed to better protect S.C. residents’ personal information in April after a state employee gained access to 228,000 Medicaid beneficiaries’ data. She put the word out that jobs were on the line if supervisors were not vigilant in protecting private information.
S.C. Inspector General Patrick Maley said nine agencies had been evaluated thus far, and some corrective action had been taken. There was no overarching security policy within state government, he said.
No one at the Revenue Department or within the state’s information technology division has been disciplined over the latest attack. Haley said the latest cyber attack is different from the one reported in April.
“That was an internal breach. This is totally different. This is unprecedented,” Haley said. “This is an international attack that did not come from the inside, that was creative in nature and reminds all of us that we’re in a different age and time where internally is not just where you have to look. We have to look externally.”
Napolitano says more than 3,000 illegal immigrants applying daily under deportation reprieve plan
Oct. 28, 2012
Fox News
More than 3,000 young illegal immigrants are applying daily to take part in the administration's new deportation reprieve policy, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said last week.
Napolitano said a total of roughly 200,000 people have applied since the agency began accepting applications two months ago.
She made the announcement Wednesday to a panel of educators from across the country who serve on the Homeland Security Academic Advisory Council, as reported by The Hill newspaper.
The agency began accepting applications after President Obama in June made the policy change -- after failing to pass comprehensive immigration reform and during an election year in which he will again need the Latino vote to help him win.
The group accounts for more than half of the U.S. population.
The growing numbers suggest that whether Obama or Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney is elected, either will have to further deal with the change.
Romney has been critical of the administration's policy, but has said if he is elected, he would not revoke permits granted under the change. He has also said his immigration reform plan would make deferred action unnecessary.
"Our immigration system is broken," Romney has said.
Napolitano announced earlier this year the agency would focus its resources on deporting illegal immigrants who are the most serious.
The change allows people under 31 who were brought the United States illegally by their parents to remain in the country for at least two years and get a temporary work permit. And the two-year permit can be renewed.
Applicants cannot have committed a felony or have been convicted of more than two misdemeanors. They also must have lived in the U.S. for the past five years, have graduated from high school or received an equivalent diploma, or been honorably discharged from the military.
Romney agrees that with the military clause.
Fox News
More than 3,000 young illegal immigrants are applying daily to take part in the administration's new deportation reprieve policy, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said last week.
Napolitano said a total of roughly 200,000 people have applied since the agency began accepting applications two months ago.
She made the announcement Wednesday to a panel of educators from across the country who serve on the Homeland Security Academic Advisory Council, as reported by The Hill newspaper.
The agency began accepting applications after President Obama in June made the policy change -- after failing to pass comprehensive immigration reform and during an election year in which he will again need the Latino vote to help him win.
The group accounts for more than half of the U.S. population.
The growing numbers suggest that whether Obama or Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney is elected, either will have to further deal with the change.
Romney has been critical of the administration's policy, but has said if he is elected, he would not revoke permits granted under the change. He has also said his immigration reform plan would make deferred action unnecessary.
"Our immigration system is broken," Romney has said.
Napolitano announced earlier this year the agency would focus its resources on deporting illegal immigrants who are the most serious.
The change allows people under 31 who were brought the United States illegally by their parents to remain in the country for at least two years and get a temporary work permit. And the two-year permit can be renewed.
Applicants cannot have committed a felony or have been convicted of more than two misdemeanors. They also must have lived in the U.S. for the past five years, have graduated from high school or received an equivalent diploma, or been honorably discharged from the military.
Romney agrees that with the military clause.
DNC puts up fake site asking for donations for Romney
October 28, 2012
http://romneyryan.com/
click "get Details button
Paid for by the DNC.
and just as stupid!
http://romneyryan.com/
click "get Details button
Paid for by the DNC.
and just as stupid!
Obama Supporters Slam ‘Romney’ Policies…Then Find Out They’re Actually Obama’s
October 28, 2012
The Blaze
Back in September, radio personality Howard Stern highlighted an often overlooked aspect of the average voter– namely, that they tend to feel strongly about the candidates they like and dislike, but know very little about what the candidates actually stand for.
In a new video by “We Are Change,” controversial reporter Luke Rudkowski (he appears to have a number of 9/11 “truther” connections) went to New York City, where he told a number of self-described Obama voters that the president’s policies are actually being supported by Mitt Romney.
Though Rudkowski has a history of “stirring the pot,” it’s certainly fascinating to see how people respond.
Romney was quickly called “crazy,” “his” policies deemed “unconstitutional” and “immoral.” The crowd seemed particularly disturbed by the expansion of the Patriot Act, the National Defense Authorization Act (which allows U.S. citizens to be detained without trial), and the proposed “Kill List.”
So what happened when Rudkowski had to tell the group that the policies they just eviscerated were actually being supported by their presidential pick?
To their credit, a number of the voters said they needed to look it up and do some more homework. Others refused to believe the man, while others spun 180 degrees almost immediately.
One girl concluded: “Well, I mean, I understand what you’re saying, but there’s a lot of other reasons I’m going to vote for Obama, and hearing that stuff honestly doesn’t change it…”
In the video’s description, the organization reiterated that their intention is not to support Mitt Romney, but to try to get an honest answer on certain issues.
Slate Magazine adds:
…two experiments are playing out at once. First: People are naturally inclined to oppose any policies if they believe those policies are held by the candidate they’re voting against. Second: How much attention have non-wonks paid to the kill list/disposition matrix? Almost none. How much of that is their fault? Well, how much sober coverage of the drone policy have they seen?
Watch the entire video, below:
(H/T: Hot Air)
The Blaze
Back in September, radio personality Howard Stern highlighted an often overlooked aspect of the average voter– namely, that they tend to feel strongly about the candidates they like and dislike, but know very little about what the candidates actually stand for.
In a new video by “We Are Change,” controversial reporter Luke Rudkowski (he appears to have a number of 9/11 “truther” connections) went to New York City, where he told a number of self-described Obama voters that the president’s policies are actually being supported by Mitt Romney.
Though Rudkowski has a history of “stirring the pot,” it’s certainly fascinating to see how people respond.
Romney was quickly called “crazy,” “his” policies deemed “unconstitutional” and “immoral.” The crowd seemed particularly disturbed by the expansion of the Patriot Act, the National Defense Authorization Act (which allows U.S. citizens to be detained without trial), and the proposed “Kill List.”
So what happened when Rudkowski had to tell the group that the policies they just eviscerated were actually being supported by their presidential pick?
To their credit, a number of the voters said they needed to look it up and do some more homework. Others refused to believe the man, while others spun 180 degrees almost immediately.
One girl concluded: “Well, I mean, I understand what you’re saying, but there’s a lot of other reasons I’m going to vote for Obama, and hearing that stuff honestly doesn’t change it…”
In the video’s description, the organization reiterated that their intention is not to support Mitt Romney, but to try to get an honest answer on certain issues.
Slate Magazine adds:
…two experiments are playing out at once. First: People are naturally inclined to oppose any policies if they believe those policies are held by the candidate they’re voting against. Second: How much attention have non-wonks paid to the kill list/disposition matrix? Almost none. How much of that is their fault? Well, how much sober coverage of the drone policy have they seen?
Watch the entire video, below:
(H/T: Hot Air)
What to do in the worst case scenario
October 28, 2012
by emax
I posted this on a few threads so I figured might as well start a separate thread and try to get some intelligent, insightful answers on this.
Now the Conservative Community just need to 1. Have a Plan A in order to prevent voter fraud from being used to get Obama reelected 2. A Plan B, C, D, E, F through Z to allow us to prepare to handle the worst case disaster scenario that Obama gets elected through voter fraud and other means. What are the Plans A through Z that we have ?
In particular, which of the Republicans in Congress and/or the Republicans will will control Congress do you think and trust will be able to effectively keep the Obama administration from using a Second Administration to cause a full on Depression and will have the ability and fortitude to pass some policies to help restore our values and economy and eliminate our debt to China and save our Constitution ? And I am interested in answers based on genuine knowledge of the Republicans who will be in Congress after this year's elections. Not knee jerk hysteria about how the Republicans supported NDAA (which, btw, does NOT give our president a brand new ability, which he never had before during wartime, to detain American citizens at will, and you can read through the excellent analysis at Lawfare Blog to find out more) or how the Republicans did not oppose Obama on Libya or what not and therefore we must panick and insist every Republican in Office after this year's elections will be useless. I am interested in hearing insight, based on knowledge of the Republicans in Congress, when it comes to determining which Republicans - and perhaps even which Democrats at this point as Party Lines become more meaningless - can and will prevent Obama from doing excessive damage at will.
And also, which State Governers and State Governments are there that can and will defend the economy, American values and our Constitution against a bloated Federal Government and which State Governments have done a good enough job at this so far to give us, shall we say, real hope ?
Now look, it doesn't have to repeated again how many severe problems we will have if Obama wins reelection. And I am certainly not expecting anyone to have rose colored glasses on this. But you have to enter any battle with plan to regroup in the event you lose said battle, and so what are we able and willing to do if we lose this battle? Again, I am interested in genuine, objective and yes, non hysterical answers instead of laments about how America is already a doomed nation.
To contribute or read the responses click here
by emax
I posted this on a few threads so I figured might as well start a separate thread and try to get some intelligent, insightful answers on this.
Now the Conservative Community just need to 1. Have a Plan A in order to prevent voter fraud from being used to get Obama reelected 2. A Plan B, C, D, E, F through Z to allow us to prepare to handle the worst case disaster scenario that Obama gets elected through voter fraud and other means. What are the Plans A through Z that we have ?
In particular, which of the Republicans in Congress and/or the Republicans will will control Congress do you think and trust will be able to effectively keep the Obama administration from using a Second Administration to cause a full on Depression and will have the ability and fortitude to pass some policies to help restore our values and economy and eliminate our debt to China and save our Constitution ? And I am interested in answers based on genuine knowledge of the Republicans who will be in Congress after this year's elections. Not knee jerk hysteria about how the Republicans supported NDAA (which, btw, does NOT give our president a brand new ability, which he never had before during wartime, to detain American citizens at will, and you can read through the excellent analysis at Lawfare Blog to find out more) or how the Republicans did not oppose Obama on Libya or what not and therefore we must panick and insist every Republican in Office after this year's elections will be useless. I am interested in hearing insight, based on knowledge of the Republicans in Congress, when it comes to determining which Republicans - and perhaps even which Democrats at this point as Party Lines become more meaningless - can and will prevent Obama from doing excessive damage at will.
And also, which State Governers and State Governments are there that can and will defend the economy, American values and our Constitution against a bloated Federal Government and which State Governments have done a good enough job at this so far to give us, shall we say, real hope ?
Now look, it doesn't have to repeated again how many severe problems we will have if Obama wins reelection. And I am certainly not expecting anyone to have rose colored glasses on this. But you have to enter any battle with plan to regroup in the event you lose said battle, and so what are we able and willing to do if we lose this battle? Again, I am interested in genuine, objective and yes, non hysterical answers instead of laments about how America is already a doomed nation.
To contribute or read the responses click here
Glenn Beck - Don't recognize my country anymore
October 28, 2012
Glenn: Today officially is the day that I no longer recognize my country.
Glenn: Today officially is the day that I no longer recognize my country.
Disclose.tv - Glenn Beck - Don't recognize my country anymore
Dem rep: How about 29 extra electoral votes for whoever wins the popular vote?
October 28, 2012
(Green Room) - A month ago, there would have been overwhelming Democratic support for this. Today? Not so much.
Swing states would retain their importance in the Electoral College, but the additional 29 delegates awarded to the popular-vote winner would fundamentally alter the focus of the campaigns. Candidates would have to target voters in states they have no chance of winning, as well as in states they have no chance of losing…
Most analysts believe the 2012 election will be decided by fewer than 29 Electoral College votes.
The timing of the resolution from Israel, the head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, is curious since there is increasing speculation that for the fifth time in history, the 2012 presidential election could result in a split between the popular vote and Electoral College decision. And in this case, most of the speculation has been that President Obama might win the Electoral College while losing the popular vote.
Yeah, that’s bizarre. He’s thinking, I assume, that this is a perfect moment to try to drum up support for a “National Popular Vote” initiative among normally reluctant Republicans. Romney, as Jim Geraghty notes, looks more and more like he’ll win that vote; Democrats who are playing a long game and expect to outnumber Republicans nationwide in the decades ahead might want to leverage that newfound GOP interest in the popular vote to try to build some momentum for getting rid of the electoral college now. Why he’d do this on the eve of an election, though, when his candidate may well end up winning the presidency but losing the popular vote, I can’t understand. First question for O at his first second-term press conference: “What does it say about your ‘mandate’ to govern that even the head of the DCCC would have awarded the presidency to Romney?”
(Green Room) - A month ago, there would have been overwhelming Democratic support for this. Today? Not so much.
Swing states would retain their importance in the Electoral College, but the additional 29 delegates awarded to the popular-vote winner would fundamentally alter the focus of the campaigns. Candidates would have to target voters in states they have no chance of winning, as well as in states they have no chance of losing…
Most analysts believe the 2012 election will be decided by fewer than 29 Electoral College votes.
The timing of the resolution from Israel, the head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, is curious since there is increasing speculation that for the fifth time in history, the 2012 presidential election could result in a split between the popular vote and Electoral College decision. And in this case, most of the speculation has been that President Obama might win the Electoral College while losing the popular vote.
Yeah, that’s bizarre. He’s thinking, I assume, that this is a perfect moment to try to drum up support for a “National Popular Vote” initiative among normally reluctant Republicans. Romney, as Jim Geraghty notes, looks more and more like he’ll win that vote; Democrats who are playing a long game and expect to outnumber Republicans nationwide in the decades ahead might want to leverage that newfound GOP interest in the popular vote to try to build some momentum for getting rid of the electoral college now. Why he’d do this on the eve of an election, though, when his candidate may well end up winning the presidency but losing the popular vote, I can’t understand. First question for O at his first second-term press conference: “What does it say about your ‘mandate’ to govern that even the head of the DCCC would have awarded the presidency to Romney?”
18 percent of Americans believe president Obama is Jewish
October 28, 2012
Gee, I wonder how many of those are Democrats? Hmmm...
18 percent of Americans believe that president Obama is Jewish, according to a new poll.
A new Associated Press poll finds that 18 percent, or nearly one in five Americans believe that President Barack Obama is Jewish, from zero who believed so in 2010.
The survey, that was conducted from August 30 to September 11, also found that 10 percent of Americans believe the president is Muslim, 35 percent believe that he has no religion and 28 percent refused to answer.
The President has often stated in public that he is a Christian.
There is no religious test for eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States.
The same survey also found that 67 percent of Americans correctly identified Mitt Romney's faith as a Mormon. 26 percent answered that they do not know and in comparison to Obama, only 2 percent refused to answer.
77 percent said religion from either candidate has no effect on whether they would vote for them or not.
To see the complete survey click here.
*source
Gee, I wonder how many of those are Democrats? Hmmm...
18 percent of Americans believe that president Obama is Jewish, according to a new poll.
A new Associated Press poll finds that 18 percent, or nearly one in five Americans believe that President Barack Obama is Jewish, from zero who believed so in 2010.
The survey, that was conducted from August 30 to September 11, also found that 10 percent of Americans believe the president is Muslim, 35 percent believe that he has no religion and 28 percent refused to answer.
The President has often stated in public that he is a Christian.
There is no religious test for eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States.
The same survey also found that 67 percent of Americans correctly identified Mitt Romney's faith as a Mormon. 26 percent answered that they do not know and in comparison to Obama, only 2 percent refused to answer.
77 percent said religion from either candidate has no effect on whether they would vote for them or not.
To see the complete survey click here.
*source
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

