CSIA Foundation

National security briefing, December13, 2014 Commentary and insight on U.S. national security.  This Week's Analysis:

#1 Democrats will kill & maim innocent Americans to "take out" former Bush Administration via International Courts

#2 Will you defend liberty? Evading constitutional constraints is even now killing America and Americans

#3 Dossier of "Renegade" ...Obama Caught Praying To Allah In The White House

#4 Exactly what is this all about?






Analysts' commentary & insight:  Even while trying to appear ultra-patriotic and with the Obama administration claiming a right to hide evidence before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Democrats are willing to risk the lives of those in the CIA, the military, the Pentagon and ANY American citizen who is in the wrong place at the wrong time by making this report public.  Americans and America are now expendable for a progressive agenda.  Approximately 1/3 our our nation will and does support any thing Obama and his "useful idiots" propose.

It is true that weakness doesn’t prevail against these Islamist animals. Fairness doesn’t accomplish anything except getting non-Muslims and those considered to be Muslim apostates killed. On the battlefield we must close with and destroy the enemy and the will to fight of those we missed.  This must be done while getting as much intelligence from him as possible.  Do not be mis-led America. This idealism of being nice when dealing with these people as put forth by the Obama  administration will end in disaster. Unfortunately for America, we will not likely learn the full impact of this truth until Barack Hussein Obama has left the White House. War is hell, it is NOT a school yard fight supervised by the coach.  As pointed out by Andrew C. McCarthy,  "The so-called torture report is worthless as an investigation, but it’s valuable to our enemies."  

In The Washington Free Beacon, we learn "Despite repeated warnings from U.S. politicians and security officials, the report was released shortly before noon on Tuesday and, after a few hours of combing through the 528-page report, jihadist Twitter users and IS supporters began using episodes of CIA “torture” to both accuse the U.S. of terrorism and incite marginalized Muslims to wage violent resistance against America and its allies in the Middle East such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan."  Read on and find out why it is clear that the Senate Intelligence Committee has shamed itself and the citizens it claims to serve.   BTW, CIA Docs Obtained by Judicial Watch in 2010 Show Congress Approved of Enhanced Interrogation.

"As some lawmakers purport to be stunned over the new CIA “torture report” the fact is Congress knew for years that enhanced interrogation techniques were being used on terrorists and in fact dozens of members were repeatedly briefed on the subject, including former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Back in 2010 Judicial Watch obtained government documents—once marked “Top Secret”—that reveal between 2001 and 2007, the CIA briefed at least 68 members of Congress on its interrogation program. This included so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques.” The dates of all congressional briefings and, in some cases, the members of Congress in attendance as well as the specific subjects discussed are included in the files. Pelosi, who has publicly denied she was briefed by the CIA on the use of these techniques, is specifically referenced in a briefing that took place on April 24, 2002, regarding the “ongoing interrogations of Abu Zubaydah.”
After being the subject of enhanced interrogation techniques, Zubaydah identified Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) as the mastermind of the September 11 terrorist attacks that killed thousands of innocent Americans. Before Zubaydah identified KSM, currently held at the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay Cuba, the 9/11 mastermind didn’t even appear in the intelligence community’s file of key Al Qaeda operatives or associates. KSM, in turn, provided valuable intel about another Al Qaeda jihadist, Majid Khan, who, in turn, identified a terrorist named Zubair who was subsequently captured. Zubair later provided information that led to the arrest of Al Qaeda’s South Asia leader.
These jihadists didn’t exactly provide this valuable information willingly over tea and biscuits...."
There is NO "Senate Report" on Torture in Newsletter by Newt Gingrich


There is NO Senate Report on torture.

Two big lies have been perpetrated on the American people.

The first lie is the partisan, dishonest, irresponsible, and destructive left-wing attack disguised as an Intelligence Committee report.

The second lie is the elite media deliberately overlooking the partisan, divisive and deeply disputed report and pretending it represents the verdict of the U.S. Senate.

First, lets look at just how dishonest and deceitful this report is.

There is a 528 page "Executive Summary" of a 6,000 page classified report based on more than a million documents turned over by the Central Intelligence Agency.

These numbers tell you several things.

First, you can make money betting that no Senator has read all 6,500 pages. This is a staff-written and staff-driven document in which left-wing employees got to smear the American intelligence community without serious supervision.

Second, it is astonishing that with all those pages, the Democratic staff asked no one at the CIA about the topic.

As President Obama's Director of Central Intelligence said in yesterday's press conference, "Unfortunately, the committee could not agree on a bipartisan way forward and no CIA personnel were interviewed by the committee during the course of the investigation."

Let me repeat this to drive it home. According to the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, "NO CIA PERSONNEL WERE INTERVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE."

If the elite media had reported on a narrowly partisan report written with no meetings with intelligence personnel people would have had a very different reaction.

The failure to proceed professionally and responsibly is highlighted in a devastating response in the Wall Street Journal from former CIA Directors George Tenet, Porter Goss and Michael Hayden (a retired Air Force general), and former CIA Deputy Directors John McLaughlin, Albert Calland (a retired Navy vice admiral) and Stephen R. Kappes:

How did the committee report get these things so wrong? Astonishingly, the staff avoided interviewing any of us who had been involved in establishing or running the program, the first time a supposedly comprehensive Senate Select Committee on Intelligence study has been carried out in this way.

The excuse given by majority senators is that CIA officers were under investigation by the Justice Department and therefore could not be made available. This is nonsense. The investigations referred to were completed in 2011 and 2012 and applied only to certain officers. They never applied to six former CIA directors and deputy directors, all of whom could have added firsthand truth to the study. Yet a press account indicates that the committee staff did see fit to interview at least one attorney for a terrorist at Guantanamo Bay.

We can only conclude that the committee members or staff did not want to risk having to deal with data that did not fit their construct. Which is another reason why the study is so flawed. What went on in preparing the report is clear: The staff picked up the signal at the outset that this study was to have a certain outcome, especially with respect to the question of whether the interrogation program produced intelligence that helped stop terrorists. The staff members then “cherry picked” their way through six million pages of documents, ignoring some data and highlighting others, to construct their argument against the program’s effectiveness. In the intelligence profession, that is called politicization.

If the elite media had accurately reported that the liberal staff refused to learn from any of the people involved the public's impression would have been very different.

The Republicans on the Intelligence Committee gave the elite media an opportunity to provide accurate and thorough reporting on this partisan travesty. Led by Ranking Member Saxby Chambliss of Georgia (an old and dear friend) the Republicans issued a dissenting report. This is 106 pages of devastating and factual rebuttal of both the process and the conclusions of the liberal Democratic report.

Trying to understand why the liberal Democrats would be so destructive and so willing to weaken America, risk American lives, help America's enemies and frighten America's allies, I was reminded of the brilliant speech given by Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick at the 1984 Republican Convention.

Ambassador Kirkpatrick was a lifelong Democrat. She had been driven to support President Reagan by the increasingly radical, destructive and dangerous foreign and national security policies. Her speech is worth reading in full but for now a few excerpts drive home the point.

Kirkpatrick describes the "San Francisco Democrats" because that is where their convention was. Ironically the chair of the committee that issued this destructive report is Senator Feinstein from San Francisco. So the term fits.

Kirkpatrick asserted left wing Democrats were neither hawks nor doves; they were "like an ostrich--convinced it would shut out the world by hiding its head in the sand."

Kirkpatrick warned, in a phrase which applies today as much as it ever has, that "foreign policy is central to the security, to the freedom, to the prosperity, even to the survival of the United States."

She outlined a series of threats and warned, "these are questions the San Francisco Democrats have not answered. These are questions they haven't even asked."

In a phrase which could apply directly to the anti-American tone of both the news media and the Democrats' report, Kirkpatrick insisted that "they always blame America first....the 'blame America first crowd' didn't blame the terrorists who murdered the Marines, they blamed the United States."

This partisan attack document is simply another product of the blame-America-first ostriches who dominate the Democratic Party.

Inexcusably, the elite news media piled on with false repeating and gleefully blamed the Americans who risk their lives protecting the first amendment the media is supposed to cherish.

When your friends ask you about this report, remind them there is no Senate report. There is a dishonest Democrat staff report given too much credence by the media.

It is a sad week for America and for those who risk their lives defending our nation.

Your Friend,



Former CIA Director John McLaughlin said the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on post-9/11 interrogation techniques is ‘flawed’ in its methodology, objecting to ‘cherry-picking’ information to make a case to fit Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.)’s narrative.

“I think what they have done here is go through 6 million pages of do you means and find the things that support the case they want to make,” McLaughlin told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell on Tuesday.

“They never interviewed any of us who had anything to do with this program. I know the chairman cited transcripts, but they had an opportunity to talk to people who upon ran the program. Many were not under investigation by the department. They passed that up. No serious reporter or historian would do that.”

Furthermore, McLaughlin pointed out that the members of the committee “don’t know how analysis works”—a crucial understanding when determining whether or not the CIA’s interrogation techniques were effective and led to actionable intelligence.

..... “For example, take the second wave attack on the United States that we think we prevented. They’ll find a report that said–and this is a case from the report—they’ll say ‘well, at some point a foreign intelligence service told you, a small one, that there’s going to be a second wave attack on the United States after 9/11, so what else did you need?’”

“That’s all we had. We had to find out, what does that mean? Who’s responsible for it? So we went to the detainees, a Southeast Asian terrorist named Hambali, and I can take you through the details, but the short version would be: he said ‘yes, there is such a plot and since I’m in captivity, I can’t run it but I know who would, It’s a fellow named Gunawan who is in Pakistan.’ We go find that guy and indeed he’s training 17 people to come here in an operation. So, we didn’t know any of that until we talked to the detainees, so their mistake here is to think that it’s simpler than it is.”




Senator Feinstein (D) admits ‘WHY’ and Dem’s reveal ‘WHAT’ their Plans for Bush Administration

by Crows Nest Politics

Obama and Feinstein

The universal question for the last 48 hours across America has been; ‘why is Dianne Feinstein so hell-bent on the release of this report now’? Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has been largely mum for the last two days. That is until this morning!

The news on the release of the now infamous Senate Intelligence Committee’s $40,000,000.00 trashing of the Bush Administration, began leaking out several days ago. As the hours clicked off, the rumor mill began circulating as to ‘what and why’ were the motivations for releasing it now for the world to read? Of course Feinstein gave the ultra-patriotic talking points of “this is America and we must retain our moral high-ground and my conscience just want allow me to sleep if I don’t tell the world how evil our nation is” argument.

In the interest of honesty; I was not buying into the moral high-ground argument. There is no way on God’s green earth this woman gives a rip about moral high-ground when she is getting ready to be the direct cause of American deaths across the globe. To further my claim of disbelief is Barack Obama’s involvement. When I wrote yesterday’s article pondering and tossing out the claim that these two collaborators might very well be “GUILTY OF TREASON“, I was seriously questioning “why”. Why would anyone be willing to throw the CIA, the military, the Pentagon and everyone under a bus (including allies), then risk lives? For what? What is to gain by doing this?

Quite by accident; I happened to be watching CNN tonight. More than anything, I wanted to spy on the left to see what their take on this national tragedy is. And what do you know? I cannot tell you who it was, but a Democrat talking head was being interviewed. It was around 5:30pm Central time, just before the Wolf hit the airwaves. The Democrat genuinely let this slip, because you could see the horror on the face of the Reporter-Et.

Question from the CNN Reporter; (paraphrasing)- Do you think that this report will allow for a foreign government to arrest any of our officials for war crimes?

Answer from interviewees: I don’t know, but I suspect “YES”!

And there you have the reasons! Could this entire report have been designed by the Democrat Party, Dianne Feinstein, Barack Obama and more, been designed all along to bring the much hated Bush Administration up on War Crimes charges? Not ten minutes later, we have Wolf interviewing John Rizzo (the former lead General Council for the CIA).

One of Wolf’s first questions for Rizzo was; How do you know that Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell knew anything about the torture being performed?

Rizzo’s answer; (are you sitting down while reading this? if not, sit now) Because I was the one that personally briefed them. They all knew full well what was happening and Vice President Cheney himself approved the interrogation methods and said they should continue.

Wolf; When did this meeting occur?

Rizzo; December of 2002! As a matter of fact, it was early December of 02.

It is now very apparent that Barack Obama’s end-game all along might very well have been to have Bush Administration officials arrested, extradited and put on trial in some foreign land for war crimes. If you’re Barack Obama, what better way to thumb your nose at America and it’s war-time president. He can now claim to the world that Bush was a war criminal, he was the nice guy that saw through the evil and is bringing the marauding United States to justice. In case anyone was wondering if Obama had ambitions of being President of the World, this might be answering that question.

Barack Obama cannot seem to ever represent America or her interest. He always in the end, seems to come down on the side of the murderers and war lords known as ISIS, Hezbollah, Hamas and Al Qaeda.

The fact is; Americans will be attacked and some will probably die because of Senator Dianne Feinstein’s and Barack Obama’s hatred for this nation. The fact is also; Those terrorist that were being interrogated were NOT AMERICAN CITIZENS! They did not deserve immediate trials, they do not deserve the same treatment as American citizens do. These are the scum that have killed Americans and tortured Americans and held Americans hostage. These are the people who pray daily for more opportunities to murder Jews and Christians. Can you imagine for one millisecond, General George Patton grabbing up German prisoners and offering them legal services and a soccer field?

It is acts such as these (spending $40M to trash our nation) that the enemy (terrorist and their organizations) is using to recruit, motivate and impassioned these crazed individuals to carry out the goal of slaughtering more Americans and her allies. The enemy does not view our actions and treatment as kind, moral, fair or compassionate. They view these sorts of treatment methods as weak.

This report (as nearly all of the commentators are saying) is not a fair and impartial report. This report was compiled by Democrats. These Democrats never interviewed anyone from the CIA or high-ranking officials from either the military or the Bush Administration. The facts are (according to high-ranking officials) these interrogation methods did in fact save untold amounts of lives. The interrogations did garner major Al Qaeda leadership which did lead to the killing or capture of many high-ranking terrorist of various cells. NONE of this information is in this report.

This report is nothing less than a partisan play by this administration in an effort to further the presidents ideological hatred of America and his effort to further defame our nation.

I personally prefer former Vice President Dick Cheney’s response when asked “would he do all this again”? Yes, he would not think twice, he would repeat it for it saved American lives. When one looks across the landscape of the Middle East and Northern Africa today, versus when Bush and Cheney left office. Terrorist have slaughtered hundreds of thousands, seized vast tracts of land, expanded their operations 10 fold and are becoming more dangerous almost on a daily basis. America is in more danger today than when Bush left the White House. Governments have been overturned and millions are now living under the tyranny of ISIS and Al Qaeda.

Weakness doesn’t prevail against these animals. Fairness doesn’t accomplish anything except getting people killed. Do not be mis-led America. This idealism of being nice when dealing with these people will end in disaster. Unfortunately for America, we will not know the full impact of this until Obama has probably left the White House. As Lt. General Mark Hertling (who was in charge of Baghdad, when the photo’s from GITMO were released) said last night, this release of this report will result in disastrous results for America. It will cause bloodshed and it will cause death.

I do hope Feinstein and Obama are happy, for the more blood of Americans are now going to be on your hands. Was it worth it?


Fmr. CIA chief legal officer recounts interrogation program


Cheney: CIA report a 'terrible piece of work'


Sheriffs want to have our borders controlled



Feinstein’s Acrimony for the CIA Revealed

Stand Up America By Denise Simon and Scott W. Winchell

On Tuesday, December 9, Senator Dianne Feinstein, the Majority leader for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), stood on the Senate floor for almost an hour and delivered a chilling verbal summary of the $40 million dollar investigation into the CIA Torture Report.

She spoke in a measured and assertive tone naming names all the way through. My bet is she delivered this performance for the sake of setting the table to close Guantanamo immediately out of establishing sympathy for detained combatants.


Further, Feinstein put every American in peril, wherever they travel internationally, or are part of the foreign service, or our very own troops.

She has aided and delivered comfort to the enemy as her 500 page summary report has been publicly published for all enemies to read. The summary report also explains sources, methods and locations.

What is worse, several countries friendly to America are formally exposed and will likely hesitate and filter cooperation with U.S. intelligence.

We cannot know the future damage, but the threat assessments have risen dramatically as all foreign U.S. military bases are presently on higher alert and some embassies are in fact closed for an undetermined period of time.

Feinstein denied all evidence that the CIA program saved lives, or stopped terror plots and led us to other terrorists in the global network. But how does this jive perhaps with the fact that over the weekend, Pakistani forces killed the man who was believed to be al-Qaeda’s top operational commander, Adnan el Shukrijumah — a terrorist who was identified thanks to the CIA’s interrogation of two senior al-Qaeda operatives.

A Pakistani man holds a match box with picture of Adnan Shukrijumah who is wanted in connection with possible terrorist threat attacks against the US, in Peshawar, 15 July 2006.  The US government has announced a 25 million USD reward for information leading to the capture of Shukrijumah in their Rewards for Justice Program. AFP PHOTO/ Tariq MAHMOOD

A Pakistani man holds a match box with picture of Adnan Shukrijumah  – AFP PHOTO/ Tariq MAHMOOD

The enhanced interrogation program was terminated several years ago, when in fact it began under the Clinton administration and several measures were passed to ensure they were never applied them again.

For Feinstein to say her only motivation was to ensure this never happened again, is misguided at best and violates OPSEC.

What is worse, the DOJ said they will not prosecute any participants of the program but the United Nations is saying otherwise. That places many contractors and CIA operatives in jeopardy of being bought up on charges under international law.

This matter is by far from over, as we have people in media that are outing names of countries that cooperated and they are posting names of CIA operatives that had a hand in the program.

Feinstein crossed the Rubicon and in the wake of destruction, damage, injury, or loss of life may still yet to be realized. Presently, the Taliban and al Qaeda factions are calling for an increase in attacks of the West already because of this speech and report.

We will never know exactly how many more, but it is certain that more people will be radicalized than she and others thought Guantanamo Bay lured into radicalization.

As a last note, this CIA Torture Report is highly partisan – no former or still active CIA operative were interviewed during this process nor was the top lawyer at CIA, John Rizzo interviewed. Rizzo formally asked to be interviewed and was denied and he then formally asked for a copy of the report and was denied.

If you think that George Soros did not have a hand in the Feinstein investigation, you need to think again. Feinstein, in her last act as Chairmen of the SSCI, had no support from the Republicans on her committee and it is clear she did this out of spite because of her well documented hatred for the CIA. Since that speech, many have responded, and most are none-to-pleased, especially our CIA and its former leadership.

The former deputy director of the CIA is ripping the torture report released by Democrats on Tuesday, calling it “deeply flawed.”

“Many of its main conclusions are simply not correct,” Mike Morell, who is a CBS News contributor, told CBS Evening News.” “And much of the context of the times and much of the discussion that took place inside the executive branch and with the Congress about this program is not in this report.”

Former CIA Directors Haydeon, Tenet, Goss, and Morell

Former CIA Directors Hayden, Tenet, Goss, and Morell

In addition to Mike Morell, the Wall Street Journal posted a responses from his predecessors:

The Senate Intelligence Committee has released its majority report on Central Intelligence Agency detention and interrogation in the wake of 9/11. The following response is from former CIA Directors George J. Tenet, Porter J. Goss and Michael V. Hayden (a retired Air Force general), and former CIA Deputy Directors John E. McLaughlin, Albert M. Calland (a retired Navy vice admiral) and Stephen R. Kappes :

The Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on Central Intelligence Agency detention and interrogation of terrorists, prepared only by the Democratic majority staff, is a missed opportunity to deliver a serious and balanced study of an important public policy question. The committee has given us instead a one-sided study marred by errors of fact and interpretation—essentially a poorly done and partisan attack on the agency that has done the most to protect America after the 9/11 attacks.

Examining how the CIA handled these matters is an important subject of continuing relevance to a nation still at war. In no way would we claim that we did everything perfectly, especially in the emergency and often-chaotic circumstances we confronted in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. As in all wars, there were undoubtedly things in our program that should not have happened. When we learned of them, we reported such instances to the CIA inspector general or the Justice Department and sought to take corrective action.Guantanamo-Bay_KG4EM1


The country and the CIA would have benefited from a more balanced study of these programs and a corresponding set of recommendations. The committee’s report is not that study. It offers not a single recommendation.

  Our view on this is shared by the CIA and the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Republican minority, both of which are releasing rebuttals to the majority’s report. Both critiques are clear-eyed, fact-based assessments that challenge the majority’s contentions in a nonpartisan way.

What is wrong with the committee’s report? (Read the rest here.)



Jose Rodriguez, the agent who ran the rendition/interrogation program had his own response to Feinstein:

WASHINGTON – The Central Intelligence Agency officer who headed the agency’s Rendition, Detention and Interrogation program calls a damning Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA interrogation activities a “totally egregious falsehood.”

 Jose Rodriguez, former director of the CIA’s National Clandestine Service, told WTOP in an exclusive interview, “For those of us who were there, who read the reporting coming out of our black sites and who acted upon that intelligence, the conclusions by the SSCI report that the program brought no value, and the CIA mislead the Congress is astounding.”

The committee, in a scathing, 600-page summary of a five-year, $40 million investigation into the now defunct Rendition, Detention and Interrogation program, says the agency of misled Congress about a program that essentially brought no value to U.S. efforts to track down the al-Qaida operatives responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

The program included waterboarding, sleep deprivation and other techniques that have been classified as torture.

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed after capture

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed after capture

The Senate Committee report cited several key findings:

  • The CIA’s “enhanced interrogation techniques” were not effective.
  • The CIA provided extensive inaccurate information about the operation of the program and its effectiveness to policymakers and the public.
  • The CIA’s management of the program was inadequate and deeply flawed.
  • The CIA program was far more brutal than the CIA represented to policymakers and the American public.

But Rodriguez says the value of the program was clear and convincing. He says the program produced connective intelligence that led U.S. authorities to the key players in al-Qaida’s hierarchy. (Read the rest here.)

This story will burn in the eyes and hearts of the professionals and troops for a long time and we are sad that a person who was often referred to as “the adult in the room” full of her fellow Democrats, Diane Feinstein’s career will be remembered for an act much more infantile and petulant because of her own ego couched as an act of Patriotism.

She has reopened wounds and poured salt on them for what gain for America?

At SUA, we have a real hard time worrying about the way non-citizens who wanted to kill us all and Feinstein along with many in America have forgotten that in the months and years following 9/11/01, we had to act under a “clear and present danger” none of us could fully know or predict.

Hindsight is usually 20/20, but in this case, it reverted to a myopic, personal, and political lens in a tunnel.

She would feel bad if the report caused harm…Somehow that just does not cut it Senator.


Editor’s Note – The article was adapted from an initial blog post after yesterdays events. We have adjusted it and added to it as events have unfurled. As time goes by, updates may be added as new information and responses develop. For more information, please click here to download a PDF from the Open Society Policy Center.

The 500 page report can be downloaded here. In addition, the video of the speech can be viewed here on CSPAN.


Senate Democrats Purge the Record

National Review Online by


Senator Dianne Feinstein and the Democrats of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence have released their summary report into the Bush-era CIA detention/interrogation program. While senior Democrats have little credibility on this issue — consider Nancy Pelosi, who has consistently misrepresented her CIA briefings — today they proudly claimed the mantle of honest objectivity.

The summary makes four key claims:

The CIA’s “enhanced interrogation techniques” were not effective.

The CIA provided extensive inaccurate information about the operation of the program and its effectiveness to policymakers and the public.

The CIA’s management of the program was inadequate and deeply flawed.

The CIA program was far more brutal than it represented to policymakers and the American public.

The product of selective half-truths and deliberate deception, these claims are ludicrous, because the CIA’s enhanced-interrogation techniques (EITs) were manifestly successful.

Breaking key figures in al-Qaeda’s international network, the EITs afforded America a unique window into al-Qaeda’s network structure, operational methodology, and strategic intent, as any honest examination of the record will show.

While the report claims that the CIA acted far more aggressively than represented by its officials, the simple fact is that the EITs were not designed to be pleasant. Moreover, as former CIA deputy director Jose Rodriguez outlined last Friday, Democrats knew about and supported the EITs.

They were right to do so, for the program was designed to defeat al-Qaeda training manuals. Those manuals inculcated AQ officers with the belief that U.S. interrogators would attempt to trick and manipulate them but would not apply measured physical or psychological force. And by applying the EITs, CIA interrogators were able to wrest control over their subjects and gain crucial intelligence.

The Senate Intelligence Committee report also argues that CIA management failed to supervise the program and brief government officials. But this requires the suspension of reality. First, just last week, former president George W. Bush again insisted that he was kept fully informed by the CIA.

The committee’s claim is also weakened by its assumption that the CIA’s inherently bureaucratic nature was impossibly suspended. After all, were the report to reflect reality, it would mean that successive CIA leaders, mid-level management officials, and operations officers engaged in a collective multi-year conspiracy of lies, for absolutely no reason. Aware that Beltway politics are radioactive, CIA officials are obsessed with limiting their institution’s vulnerability to political blowback. And so, when it came to the EITs, officials would have known that the program’s inherently controversial nature induced major political liabilities. But that they nevertheless decided to continue the program even with those risks speaks to a basic, undeniable truth.

A large number of officials were convinced that the program was necessary and was generating irreplaceable results. And it was. Responding to the committee report, the CIA notes that EITs led to critical intelligence. Cross-referenced with other sources, the following CIA assertions, I am confident, are true.

Enhanced-interrogation techniques led to the capture of Hambali, the “South Asian bin Laden,” who planned to use South Asian operatives in a 9/11-style attack on the U.S. West Coast.

EITs led to the capture of the second shoe bomber.

EITs led to the identification of Dhiren Barot and his seven-man terror cell in the U.K.: an operationally capable group that intended to detonate explosives at multiple targets in the U.K. Incidentally, the CIA explains that the claim of the committee report that the CIA already had sufficient information to identify Barot prior to EIT applications is the result of the committee’s mixing up two suspects with the same name.

Admitting that it overemphasized his connection to a “dirty bomb” plot, the CIA insists that the interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed led to the identification of U.S. citizen and al-Qaeda terrorist Jose Padilla.

The detention program was also critical in source corroboration leading to deeper understandings of al-Qaeda activities globally. While hard to tie down in individual arrest operation etc., these intelligence processes are the nuts and bolts of counterterrorism campaigns: patient covert action that supports a broader strategy.

Crucially, the CIA notes that EIT interrogations of two terrorists (one of whom was a courier for al-Zarqawi — remember him?) led the CIA to realize that bin Laden’s personal courier was recently operational and had gone into hiding. It also provided a corroborating counterpoint to efforts by KSM to throw his interrogators off the courier’s track. Applied as part of the broader analytic-intelligence process — a fundamental of intelligence that the committee report willfully ignores — the CIA acquired forensic intelligence on bin Laden’s inner circle, tracked the courier, and eventually killed al-Qaeda’s leader.

Defined by selective accounts and distorted by a partisan agenda, this Senate Intelligence Committee report is intelligence birtherism. Conspiring against truth, it sacrifices American patriots and America’s security in an “Oldspeak”-style of purging the record of any truth. Unconcerned by the propaganda victory they’ve given to U.S. enemies (contemplate how ISIS will manipulate this report), or the cost for liaison-intelligence relationships (foreign services will worry that future cooperation will be misrepresented), the Senate Intelligence Committee has shamed itself and the citizens it claims to serve.



Analysts' commentary & insight:  Americans are now beginning to see why it matters that our politicians remember that they work for us.  Clearly we can not just elect and then send them off to Washington without constant adult supervision.  Our nation is being destroyed before our very eyes and we have precious little time to correct it.  One more rush to the poll is not going to do solve the problem if those we elect are permitted to ignore our national "owners manual."  Liberty is our inherent possession, not agovernment gift.

We also also want to make sure that you are aware of the fact that the most recent Spending Bill Grants Half-Billion to ISIS-Linked Syrian Rebels

Spending Bill Grants Half-Billion to ISIS-Linked Syrian Rebels

"The $1.1 trillion federal spending bill rammed through Congress provides a half-billion dollars to arm and train ISIS-linked Syrian rebels who could potentially launch terrorist attacks against the U.S.

Section 9016 of the spending bill authorizes the Secretary of Defense $500,000,000 to equip “appropriately vetted elements of the Syrian opposition” who will defend “the Syrian people from attacks by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant,” but back in September ISIS signed a truce with the remaining rebel groups and they are now working together against the Syrian government.

“The Secretary of Defense is authorized, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to provide assistance, including training, equipment, supplies, sustainment and stipends, to appropriately vetted elements of the Syrian opposition and other appropriately vetted Syrian groups or individuals…” the bill states.

The Syrian rebels, however, consist of ISIS and groups with ties to ISIS. ...."






Gruber's arrogance is just the tip of the iceberg

NewsWithViews by Tom DeWeese

Same lying tactics being used across the nation

Recently Americans were shocked by the surfacing of video clearly revealing the blatant arrogance of White House Medical Consultant Jonathon Gruber as he described how Obamacare proponents were able to lie to the American people to get the law passed. “Lack of transparency,” he smugly stated, “is a huge political advantage.” Gruber went on to pound his chest over the “very clever basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter. “Stupid,” was his favorite word.

The fact is, what Americans actually witnessed in those videos is the way the insiders actually talk to each other behind closed doors and how they really regard the American people. This is their attitude as they force a complete agenda down our throats to radically change the American system. And when they get caught with their pants on fire, Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi look at reporters with deadpan faces, saying, “I don’t know who that guy is.” And these deliberate deceptions are not just connected to the passing of Obamacare.

A blatant case in point is our nationwide fight to stop Agenda 21. We opponents aren’t fortunate enough to have such revealing, dramatic video to instantly shock Americans awake. But we do have a whole lot of evidence to prove the same tactics are being employed, all the while, the proponents deny it even exists. Agenda 21? Never heard of it! Just a conspiracy theory! Wanna bet?

The facts clearly show that no one was denying Agenda 21 and its goals until after we made it a national issue. Just follow the bouncing ball:

1. On the American Policy Center’s website, (www.americanpolicy.org), readers can see a CSPAN video from September, 1992, recording the official business in the US House of Representatives. This particular session was held just after the UN’s Earth Summit ended. It clearly shows Rep. Nancy Pelosi introduced House Concurrent Resolution #353, which called for the “United States to take a strong leadership role on implementing decisions made at the UN Earth Summit, including Agenda 21, through domestic and foreign policy.” She went on to call Agenda 21 a “blue print,” and a “comprehensive strategy.” She also said her Resolution had 71 co-sponsors and was supported by Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that had been represented at the Earth Summit.

Apparently in September of 1992, Agenda 21 was considered a “blueprint” for the future, at least in our nation’s main governmental body.

2. In 1994, the American Planning Association (APA) issued an article in one of its Newsletters entitled “How Sustainable is Our Planning?” The APA is considered one of the nation’s most respected planning groups. Almost every city uses its policy guide book to make planning decisions and as it’s been around for several decades, the APA doesn’t openly have any ties to the United Nations.

Yet, this APA article, published just two years after the UN’s Earth Summit openly discusses the origins of Sustainable Development coming from the UN’s Bruntland Report entitled “Our Common Future.” The report was produced by the UN’s Commission on Global Governance (but the APA article doesn’t call it that).

The most telling paragraph of the article is the fifth one. It says “Vice President Gore’s book, Earth in the Balance, addressed many of the general issues of sustainability. Within the past year, the President’s Council on Sustainable Development has been organized to develop recommendations for incorporating sustainability into federal government. Also, various groups have been formed to implement Agenda 21, a comprehensive blueprint for sustainable development that was adopted at the recent UNCED Conference in Rio de Janeiro (the ‘Earth Summit’)”

In that one paragraph, the APA ties together its planning strategy to Al Gore, the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (which was organized to take the Agenda 21 soft law policy and make it official US policy), it revealed the organization of specific groups intended to bring Agenda 21 into federal, state and local policy. Above all, it defined Agenda 21 as a comprehensive blueprint for sustainable development.

Apparently in 1994, the American Planning Association considered Agenda 21 a “blueprint” to guide its planning policy in American cities.

3. In April, 1997, the United States issued a report to the United Nation’s Commission on Sustainable Development. The title of the report was “Implementation of Agenda 21: Review of Progress Made Since the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development” (Earth Summit). It details all of the actions the US had taken in the five years since the Earth Summit to implement the policy. In the report the US recommends that the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) “should continue to serve as the focal point for monitoring the implementation of Agenda 21 at local, regional and international levels.”

Apparently in 1997, the U.S. had no problem, not only implementing Agenda 21, but recognizing that the UN should be the main force to oversee it, even at the local level. By the way, for those not paying close attention, “local level” means YOUR community!

4. The Federal Register is the official document of the federal government, reporting on the day to day activities of Congress and detailing federal programs. In the August 24, 1998 Federal Register, on page 45156, there was a report entitled, “The Environmental Protection Agency: Sustainable Development Challenge Grant Program.” In that report was this interesting bit of information: “The Sustainable Development Challenge Grant Program is also a step in implementing Agenda 21, the Global Plan of Action on Sustainable Development, signed by the United States at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.” It also describes various programs offered through the grants to help local communities implement the goals of Agenda 21.

Apparently, in 1998, everything was well under way to make Agenda 21 policy unquestioned US policy. That’s how non-treaty, soft law “suggestions” become US law.

So, right up to at least the year 2000, no one in Congress, the EPA, or even the main national planning group – the APA, gave any pause or doubt in their proud support for this “comprehensive blue print called Agenda 21. They were all equally proud to work right along side the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). During those years, ICLEI was able to get more than 600 American cities to become dues paying members for the exact purpose of implementing Agenda 21.

But then the fun started. A group of Americans who saw the Agenda 21 “blueprint” to be a threat to things like local elected control, private property rights and even national sovereignty, began to organize under the banner of Freedom 21.

We put together eleven national conferences to teach activists about Agenda 21 and to create new tactics to fight it. As those activists took what they learned into their local communities, and as articles began to pop up on the internet and local media a strange thing began to happen. Suddenly, the once bold Agenda 21 movement that proudly proclaimed their “comprehensive blueprint” of change, began to deny its very existence.

By 2005, the once pro-Agenda 21 crowd apparently had a complete lobotomy to wipe out any memory of Agenda 21. The most often used words now heard in association with Agenda 21 were, “Never heard of it.” And that was from the people who actually wrote it.

ICLEI removed references of it from its website. The American Planning Association quickly established a “Myths and Facts” section to its website, adamantly denying it had any connections to Agenda 21. “None of APA’s programs, products or services… are linked to Agenda 21,” it said. And if Agenda 21 was mentioned, it was prefaced by such words as “innocuous 20 year old document;” “Obscure United Nations accord;” “arcane UN document.”

Of course, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) rushed into the fray by attacking all of those who dared speak out about Agenda 21. Somehow such open discussion of a political policy labeled us, at best, fringe nuts, as worst domestic terrorists. In April, 2014 report, the SPLC said, “Agenda 21 is not a treaty. It has no force of law, no enforcement mechanisms, no penalties, and no significant funding. It is not even a top down recommendation…. It’s a feel good guide….” That description is a long way from all of those giddy references about Agenda 21 being a “comprehensive blueprint.”

However, as we continued our fight, the once proud Sustainablists worked harder to bury their connections. The American Planning Association, in particular, went into panic mode. First the APA organized boot camps to “retrain” its planners on how to deal with our opposition. Then they produced a “Glossary for the Public” to give planners guidelines on how to “talk” about planning. The opening line of the Glossary is the most telling: “Given the heightened scrutiny by some members of the public, what is said – and not said – is especially important in building support for planning.”

Can it be any clearer? Transparency was no longer to be part of the debate on Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development. Hide it, deny it, lie about it. It was all summed up by one of the planners who actually had advised President Clinton’s Council on Sustainable Development.  J. Gary Lawrence warned planners that “Participating in a U.N. advocated planning process would very likely bring out many… right wing conspiracy groups…who would actively work to defeat any elected official… undertaking local Agenda 21. So, we call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth.”

In complete exasperation, the SPLC demanded that the business community, the Chamber of Commerce, local governments and the news media “stop reporting on Agenda 21 as if it were a bona fide controversy…” Further, it demanded that communities “need to be encouraged to return to or start to develop such plans in tandem with responsible groups like the American Planning Association.” In other words, stop questioning these plans and just shut up and do it. Ask yourself, what “plan” is the SPLC talking about, and why is it so very important that communities participate? Isn’t it all just “local” planning? Why would a national “anti-hate” group care so much about “local” programs?

There is no doubt that the attempts to hide implementation of Agenda 21 have been done using many of the same tactics Jonathon Gruber gloated over, and for the same reasons. If the American people knew the truth, they would rise up to stop it.


Replace the partisan sham, or liberty dies

by Alan Keys writing in WND

What will it take to get the people who are supposed to represent us in government to realize that America’s survival as a free nation urgently requires that Barack Obama and his collaborators be called to account? The situation of the United States today reminds me of the period during the 9/11 terrorist attack, between the moment when each tower was struck and the moment of its breathtaking collapse (about 2 hours, as I recall).

Obama’s two terms are like those hours. This analogy suggests that sometime in the next two years we have reason to expect the breathtaking implosion of what’s left of the American way of life. The collapse has already begun. Hopeless unemployment is being obscured by systematically falsified government statistics and debt-financed welfare expenditures. This is an intentional effort to create a permanent urban “lumpenproletariat,” ripe for violent outbreaks. Such outbreaks are already being stirred and manipulated for purposes of political/social intimidation.

In addition to domestic decline, our relative stature internationally is also declining. For the first time since post-Reconstruction era after the Civil War, the United States of America is not the world’s largest economy. Despite the rich natural endowments of our land and people, and our highly developed material and educational infrastructure, government policies inimical to our productivity are debasing the self-discipline and stifling the productive genius characteristic of the American people. These policies include the over-regulation and taxation of our economic activity. But what is often missed is that the promotion of irregular, self-indulgent moral behavior, specifically targeting the integrity of the family unit, works decisively toward the same bad end.

In his semi-fictional autobiography, Barack Obama portrays himself as an assiduous student of Marxism, an ideology inherently inimical to America’s economic and political institutions. The purposeful disintegration of America’s strength that is taking place on his watch is in line with that ideology. It corresponds to the deconstruction of bourgeois, capitalist society, intended to hasten the moment when the decadence occasioned by its historically inevitable internal contradictions leads to its collapse. From this ideological viewpoint, the destructive effect of the changes being imposed on the nation during Obama’s occupancy of the White House are successful acts of class warfare.

So are his persistent efforts to evade or overthrow constitutional constraints. But even though his Marxist background suffices to explain his destructive actions, it would be a mistake to conclude that he alone is the reason for them. The understanding of government on which the U.S. Constitution was based involves a far more ancient and compelling understanding of the class warfare endemic to human political affairs, one that involves the age-old struggle between the many and the few, the princes and the people at large, whom the nobility or gentry have habitually been tempted to regard as less than human.

Ironically, the left-wing ideologies rooted in Marxism are all of them predicated on some version of this dehumanization of what the Marxists are pleased to call the “masses” (as if the preponderance of human beings are no more individually distinctive than the cells in a mass of biological tissue.) This language is a clue to the fact that, for all its pretensions of indignant sympathy with the plight of the “people” and its proclaimed commitment to “progress,” in practice leftist ideology has uniformly ended up producing government by the few, predicated on nothing more than their ability to consolidate manipulative power by whatever means necessary. Americans commonly sense that, in terms of the understanding of justice on which their way of life has been predicated, this is not progress at all. It’s regression. It returns humanity to government of, by and for the powerful few, with their abuses unconstrained by any prescribed limit.

This common sense of the lie at the heart of Obama’s promise of “change” is leading more and more Americans to reject it. They are awakening to the fact that the damage America is suffering is no accident of circumstances, no happenstance of good intentions incompetently gone awry. They are finally acknowledging that an implacable foe is laying siege to our constitutional form of government, our faithfully self-disciplined free society and indeed our whole way of life.

The recent midterm election offered more than convincing evidence that a majority of Americans now stands decisively against Obama. Yet since the election every day brings new evidence that the juggernaut of anti-American change, for which Obama is the figurehead, moves forward apace. Though the GOP is supposedly committed to upholding the liberty he aims to destroy, its quisling leaders have been taking pains to make sure the election outcome doesn’t interfere with that juggernaut’s momentum.

In the past week or so, despite all their rhetoric to the contrary, these quislings have agreed to full funding for Obama’s dictatorial assault on the Constitution and integrity of the sovereign body of the American people. They are also open to cooperating with Obama on other agendas Americans reject, including approval of a new so-called “free trade” agreement for the Pacific, which further extends the regime of socialist regulation masked with that misnomer. Its passage will involve the reinstitution of “fast track” negotiating authority, giving the man the quislings decry as “lawless” free rein to negotiate trade deals in secret and then force them through the Senate without proper scrutiny or debate.

This is done precisely in order to impose results that advantage an elitist few at the expense of the people at large, results informed Americans would therefore reject. Do we require more striking proof that the so-called “two-party” system is now a vehicle for rubber-stamping dictatorial rule by an elitist few? When will Americans act in recognition of the fact, now painfully clear, that this corruptly phony partisan process must be urgently replaced? If it is not, government of, by and for the people will have suffered that fate instead.


What’s Really Going on with Holder’s Civil-Rights Crusade against Police Departments

National Review Online - by Andrew C. McCarthy


Civil-rights investigations in Ferguson and Staten Island? No, what denizens of St. Louis and New York City ought to be worried about right now is . . . the crime wave overtaking Seattle.

If you don’t understand why, then you probably thought Obamacare was about covering the uninsured. Like its health-care “reform” campaign, the Obama Left’s civil-rights crusade is about control — central control of state law enforcement by Washington.

The deaths of Michael Brown in Missouri and Eric Garner in New York are each tragic in their own way. But in neither is there a federal civil-rights case to be had. To think otherwise, you have to be getting your advice from Al Sharpton — the huckster confidant of President Obama and Attorney General Holder.


The law of civil rights requires the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, usually driven by racial prejudice, willfully acted — violently in these cases — with the evil purpose to deprive a person of specific federal rights. Let’s put aside the utter absence of proof that race had any bearing on what happened in Staten Island, for example, where police supervised by an African-American officer came to the scene because of complaints about Garner by local business owners. It is virtually impossible to prove a civil-rights violation when there is no denying that police were engaged in a good-faith arrest and were put in the position of using force because a suspect resisted.

In Ferguson, Michael Brown did not merely resist arrest. Having just robbed a store, he was the aggressor in a confrontation with a police officer, who was made to fear for his life. And in Staten Island, there may be a real question about whether one police officer used excessive force under the circumstances; but there is no question that some quantum of force was appropriate in arresting a physically imposing suspect who insisted he would not be taken into custody and waved his arms to prevent the cops from cuffing him.

Federal civil-rights cases are much harder to make than state homicide cases. They are supposed to be. They were conceived as a rare federal intrusion on the sovereign police power a state exercises within its territory. When police are engaged in an arrest because a crime really has been committed, and they use force because the suspect really does resist, the claim that they were actually scheming to deprive the suspect of his civil rights is asinine. The time to worry about the deprivation of civil rights, as Messrs. Williamson, Cooke, and Goldberg point out, is when progressives enact overbearing laws that criminalize things like untaxed cigarette sales, not when police dutifully carry them out.

Eric Holder knows this as well as anyone. The bloviating he is doing today about Ferguson and Staten Island is of a piece with the bloviating he was doing two years ago about Sanford, Fla. As I observed of the Trayvon Martin killing at the time, the attorney general huffed and puffed about bringing a civil-rights case against “white Hispanic” George Zimmerman, but he was never actually going to file one. It would have been even more embarrassing than the trumped-up murder case he and Sharpton browbeat Florida into charging — the one the jury threw out in nothing flat.

Holder and his constitutional-scholar boss are not banging the civil-rights drum because they believe these are prosecutable cases. It is just a pretext for unleashing Justice Department community organizers on state and municipal police departments.

The government cannot win a standalone loser of a civil-rights prosecution by crying, “Disparate impact!” Individual cases that have been demagogued by the racial-grievance industry become high profile. Once public attention is riveted, the legal and logical flaws become obvious. When people start looking long and hard, the “institutionalized racism” canard is exposed. For guys like Sharpton, that’s bad for business.

But the Justice Department civil-rights investigations Holder is fond of announcing are not like public trials. They occur out of the public eye, where feverish Justice Department claims are not aired and scrutinized. More significant, they happen with the air of extortion created by the nearly $28 billion in funding Congress keeps giving Justice every year, no matter how many congressional investigations it obstructs, how many false statements its officials make, and how much it politicizes law enforcement. The investigations are taxpayer-funded jihads that states, cities, and towns know they lack the resources to fight off.

Here is how the game works. Holder streams in behind a tragedy that Sharpton and Obama have demagogued. He announces a civil-rights investigation. Eventually, he backs down from the threat of an indictment in the individual case, never conceding that the supporting evidence was not there, usually citing some strawman injustice that has nothing to do with the matter at hand — in Florida, for example, it was “stand your ground” gun laws that purportedly needed reforming. But, the attorney general is pleased to add, the original civil-rights probe of the non-crime has metastasized into a thoroughgoing civil-rights probe of the state or local police department’s training, practices, and . . . drumroll . . . institutional racism.

You never get to see what that investigation turns up. States and their subdivisions know they cannot afford to go toe-to-toe with the Beltway behemoth. Big cities, moreover, are governed by Democrats sympathetic to the Obama/Holder race obsessions — they’re happy to have the feds come in and hamstring police with “social justice” guidelines that would be a hard sell politically. So the Justice Department makes the locals an offer they can’t refuse: A consent decree that makes the Treaty of Versailles look like a slap on the wrist. This device is the license by which the Obama administration is remaking state law enforcement in its own image.

How do they get away with this? Well, Obamacare may be the most notorious “reform” progressives have foisted on an unsuspecting nation in modern times, but it’s not the only one. In 1994 — the last time before 2009 that Democrats controlled the White House and both congressional chambers — they rammed through a monstrosity known as the “Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.” A Clinton deputy attorney general named Eric Holder was among the first to exploit it.

Consistent with the Left’s view of the states as cauldrons of racism, the statute criminalizes “any government authority” that “engage[s] in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers . . . that deprives persons of [federal] rights, privileges, or immunities.” It is the civil-rights laws writ large — imposed on whole cities rather than threatened against individual police officers and citizens. And for good measure, the act encourages the attorney general to file civil lawsuits in federal court to “obtain appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate the [offensive] pattern or practice.”

Under this scheme, there are now more than 20 major American cities and their police departments beholden to the Obama Justice Department. On Thursday, in fact, Holder took time out from stirring the Staten Island pot to pounce on Cleveland, which is still reeling from last month’s racially charged case involving the death of twelve-year-old Tamir Rice.


The boy was reportedly pointing a gun at people in a park, prompting an emergency call to police, one of whom tragically shot him to death only to find that the gun was a BB gun. Again, other than the happenstance that the boy was black and the officer was white, race had no bearing on the case. But that didn’t stop Holder from invoking the boy, along with Garner’s death in Staten Island, in announcing that Justice’s investigation had found a “pattern or practice” of excessive force used by Cleveland police. As he spoke, he was flanked by Mayor Frank Jackson, the Democrat who presided over this allegedly rogue police regime for the last decade — upon inheriting it from Jane Campbell, the last mayor . . . a Democrat who, you’ll be shocked to learn, moved on to Harvard’s Kennedy School to teach how cities should be run. Mayor Jackson has, of course, agreed to the installation of a “monitor,” who will see to it that Cleveland police conduct themselves in an Obama-compliant manner.

Seattle is another of the big cities that has been snagged by the DOJ. It has been under a consent decree since the Justice Department targeted it in 2012 for a “pattern or practice” of violations, allegedly including “subjecting individuals to excessive force” — in particular, “using excessive force against persons of color,” and “escalating situations and using excessive force when arresting individuals for minor offenses.”

You may recall that the tide of rampant crime in New York City was turned when, under Mayor Rudy Giuliani, the police began cracking down on minor offenses — not untaxed cigarette sales but real violations that had nearly destroyed the city’s quality of life. What ensued was a miraculous transformation, with the Big Apple becoming the safest big city in America.

That policing model is under attack now — just as the NYPD’s extraordinarily successful counterterrorism model has been undermined by Obama’s Homeland Security Advisory Council. As Holder was making his Cleveland splash, Bill de Blasio, New York City’s hard-left mayor, opportunistically — and in the absence of any evidence — pointed to Garner’s death as proof that “the way we go about policing has to change. . . . People need to know that black lives and brown lives matter as much as white lives.”

Holder announced that the Justice Department, which is already monitoring the NYPD, will conduct a civil-rights investigation into Garner’s death. Yes, that’s how it always starts.

Meanwhile, Seattle has been making announcements, too. It seems crime in the Emerald City has been skyrocketing since the Justice Department came in to, er, help. Homicides up 21 percent, car theft up 44 percent, aggravated assaults up 14 percent, and so on.

Welcome to Change: produced and directed by the Obama Justice Department and coming soon to a town near you.


Declaration Of Orders We Will Not Obey

Oath Keepers


Orders We Will Not Obey

“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their Houses, and Farms, are to be pillaged and destroyed, and they consigned to a State of Wretchedness from which no human efforts will probably deliver them. The fate of unborn Millions will now depend, under God, on the Courage and Conduct of this army” – Gen. George Washington, to his troops before the battle of Long Island


Such a time is near at hand again. The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the Courage and Conduct of this Army – and this Marine Corps, This Air Force, This Navy and the National Guard and police units of these sovereign states.

Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, reserves, National Guard, peace officers, fire-fighters, and veterans who swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic … and meant it. We won’t “just follow orders.”

Below is our declaration of orders we will NOT obey because we will consider them unconstitutional (and thus unlawful) and immoral violations of the natural rights of the people. Such orders would be acts of war against the American people by their own government, and thus acts of treason. We will not make war against our own people. We will not commit treason. We will defend the Republic.

Declaration of Orders We Will NOT Obey

Recognizing that we each swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and affirming that we are guardians of the Republic, of the principles in our Declaration of Independence, and of the rights of our people, we affirm and declare the following:

1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people.

The attempt to disarm the people on April 19, 1775 was the spark of open conflict in the American Revolution. That vile attempt was an act of war, and the American people fought back in justified, righteous self-defense of their natural rights. Any such order today would also be an act of war against the American people, and thus an act of treason. We will not make war on our own people, and we will not commit treason by obeying any such treasonous order.

Nor will we assist, or support any such attempt to disarm the people by other government entities, either state or federal.

Washington at Valley Forge

In addition, we affirm that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to preserve the military power of the people so that they will, in the last resort, have effective final recourse to arms and to the God of Hosts in the face of tyranny. Accordingly, we oppose any and all further infringements on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. In particular we oppose a renewal of the misnamed “assault-weapons” ban or the enactment of H.R. 45 (which would register and track gun owners like convicted pedophiles).

2. We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects – such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons.

One of the causes of the American Revolution was the use of “writs of assistance,” which were essentially warrantless searches because there was no requirement of a showing of probable cause to a judge, and the first fiery embers of American resistance were born in opposition to those infamous writs. The Founders considered all warrantless searches to be unreasonable and egregious. It was to prevent a repeat of such violations of the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects that the Fourth Amendment was written.

We expect that sweeping warrantless searches of homes and vehicles, under some pretext, will be the means used to attempt to disarm the people.

3. We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal.

One of the causes of the American Revolution was the denial of the right to jury trial, the use of admiralty courts (military tribunals) instead, and the application of the laws of war to the colonists. After that experience, and being well aware of the infamous Star Chamber in English history, the Founders ensured that the international laws of war would apply only to foreign enemies, not to the American people. Thus, the Article III Treason Clause establishes the only constitutional form of trial for an American, not serving in the military, who is accused of making war on his own nation. Such a trial for treason must be before a civilian jury, not a tribunal.

The international laws of war do not trump our Bill of Rights. We reject as illegitimate any such claimed power, as did the Supreme Court in Ex Parte Milligan (1865). Any attempt to apply the laws of war to American civilians, under any pretext, such as against domestic “militia” groups the government brands “domestic terrorists,” is an act of war and an act of treason.

4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state’s legislature and governor.

One of the causes of the American Revolution was the attempt “to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power” by disbanding the Massachusetts legislature and appointing General Gage as “military governor.” The attempt to disarm the people of Massachusetts during that martial law sparked our Revolution. Accordingly, the power to impose martial law – the absolute rule over the people by a military officer with his will alone being law – is nowhere enumerated in our Constitution.

Further, it is the militia of a state and of the several states that the Constitution contemplates being used in any context, during any emergency within a state, not the standing army.

The imposition of martial law by the national government over a state and its people, treating them as an occupied enemy nation, is an act of war. Such an attempted suspension of the Constitution and Bill of Rights voids the compact with the states and with the people.

5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union.

In response to the obscene growth of federal power and to the absurdly totalitarian claimed powers of the Executive, upwards of 20 states are considering, have considered, or have passed courageous resolutions affirming states rights and sovereignty.

Those resolutions follow in the honored and revered footsteps of Jefferson and Madison in their Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, and likewise seek to enforce the Constitution by affirming the very same principles of our Declaration, Constitution, and Bill of Rights that we Oath Keepers recognize and affirm.

Chief among those principles is that ours is a dual sovereignty system, with the people of each state retaining all powers not granted to the national government they created, and thus the people of each state reserved to themselves the right to judge when the national government they created has voided the compact between the states by asserting powers never granted.

Upon the declaration by a state that such a breach has occurred, we will not obey orders to force that state to submit to the national government.

6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.

One of the causes of the American Revolution was the blockade of Boston, and the occupying of that city by the British military, under martial law. Once hostilities began, the people of Boston were tricked into turning in their arms in exchange for safe passage, but were then forbidden to leave. That confinement of the residents of an entire city was an act of war.

Such tactics were repeated by the Nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto, and by the Imperial Japanese in Nanking, turning entire cities into death camps. Any such order to disarm and confine the people of an American city will be an act of war and thus an act of treason.

7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.

Mass, forced internment into concentration camps was a hallmark of every fascist and communist dictatorship in the 20th Century. Such internment was unfortunately even used against American citizens of Japanese descent during World War II. Whenever a government interns its own people, it treats them like an occupied enemy population. Oppressive governments often use the internment of women and children to break the will of the men fighting for their liberty – as was done to the Boers, to the Jewish resisters in the Warsaw Ghetto, and to the Chechens, for example.

mass execution
Such a vile order to forcibly intern Americans without charges or trial would be an act of war against the American people, and thus an act of treason, regardless of the pretext used. We will not commit treason, nor will we facilitate or support it.”NOT on Our Watch!”

8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control” during any emergency, or under any other pretext. We will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war.

During the American Revolution, the British government enlisted the aid of Hessian mercenaries in an attempt to subjugate the rebellious American people. Throughout history, repressive regimes have enlisted the aid of foreign troops and mercenaries who have no bonds with the people.

Accordingly, as the militia of the several states are the only military force contemplated by the Constitution, in Article I, Section 8, for domestic keeping of the peace, and as the use of even our own standing army for such purposes is without such constitutional support, the use of foreign troops and mercenaries against the people is wildly unconstitutional, egregious, and an act of war.

We will oppose such troops as enemies of the people and we will treat all who request, invite, and aid those foreign troops as the traitors they are.

9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies, under any emergency pretext whatsoever.

One of the causes of the American Revolution was the seizure and forfeiture of American ships, goods, and supplies, along with the seizure of American timber for the Royal Navy, all in violation of the people’s natural right to their property and to the fruits of their labor. The final spark of the Revolution was the attempt by the government to seize powder and cannon stores at Concord.

Deprivation of food has long been a weapon of war and oppression, with millions intentionally starved to death by fascist and communist governments in the 20th Century alone.

Accordingly, we will not obey or facilitate orders to confiscate food and other essential supplies from the people, and we will consider all those who issue or carry out such orders to be the enemies of the people.

10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

There would have been no American Revolution without fiery speakers and writers such as James Otis, Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, and Sam Adams “setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”


Patrick Henry: “Give me Liberty, or Give me DEATH!”

Tyrants know that the pen of a man such as Thomas Paine can cause them more damage than entire armies, and thus they always seek to suppress the natural rights of speech, association, and assembly. Without freedom of speech, the people will have no recourse but to arms. Without freedom of speech and conscience, there is no freedom.
Therefore, we will not obey or support any orders to suppress or violate the right of the people to speak, associate, worship, assemble, communicate, or petition government for the redress of grievances.

— And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually affirm our oath and pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor. Oath Keepers

The above list is not exhaustive but we do consider them to be clear tripwires – they form our “line in the sand,” and if we receive such orders, we will not obey them. Further, we will know that the time for another American Revolution is nigh. If you the people decide that you have no recourse, and such a revolution comes, at that time, not only will we NOT fire upon our fellow Americans who righteously resist such egregious violations of their God given rights, we will join them in fighting against those who dare attempt to enslave them.

NOTE: please also read our Principles of Our Republic We Are Sworn to Defend

More About Oath Keepers

Oath Keepers is a non partisan association of currently serving military, peace officers, fire-fighters, and veterans who will fulfill our oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God.

Our oath is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and not to any political party. In the long-standing tradition of the U.S. military, we are apolitical. We don’t care if unlawful orders come from a Democrat or a Republican, or if the violation is bi-partisan. We will not obey unconstitutional (and thus unlawful) and immoral orders, such as orders to disarm the American people or to place them under martial law. We won’t “just follow orders.” Our motto: “Not on Our Watch!” or to put it even more succinctly, in the words of  101st Airborne Commander General Anthony McAuliffe at the Battle of the Bulge, “NUTS!”

There is at this time a debate within the ranks of the military regarding their oath. Some mistakenly believe they must follow any order the President issues.  But many others do understand that their loyalty is to the Constitution and to the people, and understand what that means.

The mission of Oath Keepers is to vastly increase their numbers.

We are in a battle for the hearts and minds of our own troops.

Help us win it.



Oath Keepers is growing FAST, but like General Patton, we are outpacing our own supply lines. Your donations are “fuel” for our advance!

Oath Keepers Declaration of Orders We Will NOT Obey





TellMeNow - Obama Caught Praying To Allah In The White House

Analysts' commentary & insight:   "Evidence is continuing to pile up that President Barack Obama is actually a devout Muslim.  Pictures have been released that appear to show Barack Obama praying to Allah in the White House. Fast forward to the 1:45 mark to see a speech by Obama in which he expressed his devotion to the Muslim faith."  But this is certainly not all.





Analysts' commentary & insight: I really don't make this stuff up.

Why Did The Treasury Department Just Purchase Thousands of Survival Kits For Bank Examiners?  SHTF - by Mac Slavo

In recent years the U.S. government has been making massive preparations. They’ve been stockpiling food, riot gear, automatic weapons and billions of rounds of ammunition. While no one in Federal emergency planning services is talking any specifics, recent exercises over American cities and military training simulations all suggest that whatever it is that the government is preparing for is a very serious affair. One possibility, as evidenced by war gaming simulations being performed by intelligence agencies, Homeland security and the Pentagon is that the U.S. economy could collapse under the weight of trillions of dollars in debt. Another points at the real possibility of a widespread attack on the U.S. power grid that could throw the country back into the stone age.

Whatever it is, it should be clear that preparations are being made.

The latest eye-opener comes from the U.S. Treasury, a department tasked with managing the country’s debt as well as the banking system as a whole. According to a new report the Treasury Department has ordered over $200,000 Survival Kits for as many as 3,814 employees who oversee the federal banking system.

It’s not clear why the federal government has ordered the kits, but perhaps they are expecting some sort of disturbance to take place and they want their employees to be prepared for it. According to Zero Hedge, the kits will be delivered to every major bank in the United States and include Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and Capital One.

The “kits,” which contain items such as high calorie food rations, emergency water, first aid supplies and an emergency radio, suggest that the Treasury Department wants their people to be prepared for scenario where they may be out of contact from officials for 24 – 48 hours.

A full list of the specifications for the survival kits has been made available by Free Beacon:

Treasury-Survival-Kits(Full Request For Proposal Here via Zero Hedge)

Survival kits will be delivered to every major bank in the United States including Bank of America, American Express Bank, BMO Financial Corp., Capitol One Financial Corporation, Citigroup, Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Company, and Wells Fargo.

The agency has roughly 3,814 employees, each of which would receive a survival kit. The staff includes “bank examiners” who provide “sustained supervision” of major banks in the United States.

It is not clear why the Treasury Department is ordering the kits.

This, of course, begs the question: why?

Does the Treasury Department know something we don’t? And why bank examiners? Is it possible someone, somewhere knows something significant is about to go down?

They certainly understand that the U.S. economy and financial system are susceptible to massive shocks. Last year they released a report warning of a catastrophic event that could last generations should the U.S. government fail to secure additional credit:

“In the event that a debt limit impasse were to lead to a default, it could have a catastrophic effect on not just financial markets but also on job creation, consumer spending and economic growth,” the report said.

“Credit markets could freeze, the value of the dollar could plummet, US interest rates could skyrocket, the negative spillovers could reverberate around the world, and there might be a financial crisis and recession that could echo the events of 2008 or worse.”

“Considering the experience of countries around the world that have defaulted on their debt, not only might the economic consequences of default be profound, but those consequences, including high interest rates, reduced investment, higher debt payments, and slow economic growth, could last for more than a generation,” the report states.

It’s only a matter of time, it seems.

And, while the survival kits purchased by the Treasury Department are basic units that provide about two days worth of supplies, it’s notable that they have purchased these kits specifically for their bank examiners. In the preparedness community we call it a bug out bag, or depending on the circumstances, a get-home bag. They are part of a broader preparedness strategy designed to provide supplemental support to those who are away from home and out of touch in the event of an emergency. So the specific kits being distributed by the Treasury Department will provide limited support at best and are not full-out multi-month preparedness kits.

Nonetheless, we are seeing the government not only regionalize distribution centers around the country and stockpile typical “prepper” supplies, but they are also now getting their individual employees and agents prepared.

Those who have yet to prepare for major disasters should do so now, because if whatever Treasury and other Federal agencies expect to happen actually happens then all bets are off.

The reason, for example, that someone would need a 2,400 calorie food bar like the one in these kits is because store shelves would likely have been looted and no food will be available. Tess Pennington, author of the best selling disaster guide The Prepper’s Blueprint, explains:

When the needs of the population cannot be met in an allotted time frame, a phenomena occurs and the mindset shifts in people. They begin to act without thinking and respond to changes in their environment in an emotionally-based manner, thus leading to chaos, instability and a breakdown in our social paradigm.

When you take the time to understand how a breakdown behaves and how it progresses, only then can you truly prepare for it.

Source: Anatomy of a Breakdown

As part of a complete preparedness strategy Pennington suggests having an emergency bag similar to the one being purchased by the Treasury Department – but with a little more hardcore survival built in because during a serious and widespread emergency scenario a couple thousand calories and a survival blanket may not be enough:

  •  What’s missing from the kits above is a self defense tool. If recent events have proven anything it’s that large groups of people, especially hungry people, will turn to violence. That means you should be carrying a firearm. If you are in a state that does not allow you to do so, then we suggest adding something like a Cold Steel Rifleman’s Hawk ax to your bag.
  • Bulk up on calories because walking during an event like a power outage is going to take a lot of energy. The Daltrex 3600 calorie bar is designed to keep you loaded up with carbs and proteins, and one bar can provide an adult with enough food for two days. Put several of them in your bag and you can survive for nearly 7 days without a grocery store.
  • Walking, running and surviving is going to take water. Emergency water pouches are fine, but having a portable water filter or a Life Straw could really mean the difference between life or death should water utility plants succumb to power outages. Considering including some electrolytes to help prevent fatigue, headaches and other physical issues.
  • You never know where you’ll be should an emergency happen. It may be cold and you may need to cook your food, so having a fire starter wouldn’t be a bad idea. Ready Nutrition provides a list of some very innovative and useful fire starting tools.
  • And be sure to have a multi-tool. Among other things, they include a knife, screwdriver, and pliers, all of which you won’t need until you need them. And should you not have them you could be facing serious problems. Think back to how often you’ve used just these three items in the past and how frustrating or impossible your task would have been to accomplish without them. So, definitely put a high quality multi-tool in your kit.
  • The above list is limited but highlights some key considerations for any short-term survival kit. For a complete list of survival tools and strategies we urge you to visit Tess Pennington’s free 52 Weeks to Preparedness online series.

Someone in the upper echelons of government understands the threats being faced by Americans. Efforts are being made from coast-to-coast to prepare for these threats. But, as even the director of Homeland Security has warned, in an emergency every individual needs to make preparations for at least a two week period during which food, gas, clean water and emergency response may be unavailable.


U.N. sending thousands of Muslims to America WND by Leo Hohmann  Analysts' commentary & insight: By what authority?
Syrian refugees displaced by civil war.

The federal government is preparing for another “surge” in refugees and this time they won’t be coming illegally from Central America.

The U.S. State Department announced this week that the first major contingent of Syrian refugees, 9,000 of them, have been hand-selected by the United Nations for resettlement into communities across the United States.

The announcement came Tuesday on the State Department’s website.

WND reported in September that Syrians would make up the next big wave of Muslim refugees coming to the U.S., as resettlement agencies were lobbying for the U.S. to accept at least 75,000 Syrian refugees over the next five years.

....once refugees get to the United States they are placed on a fast track to citizenship and are able to get their extended families to join them in the states under the government’s Refuge Family Reunification program.

The State Department works to place refugees in 180 cities across 49 states.

.... Muslim countries in the Middle East have so far not stepped up to permanently take in their Islamic brothers and sisters ...

.... The United States has accepted nearly 2 million refugees from Muslim countries since 1992, WND previously reported. The authority for the resettlement program is the Refugee Act of 1980, signed into law by President Jimmy Carter.

....The cost of resettling 70,000 refugees comes to just over $1 billion per year to the U.S. government, according to a State Department report for fiscal 2015. This includes running the program and issuing federal grants to the nine resettlement agencies. The $1 billion figure does not include the cost of the unaccompanied alien children program, supplying food stamps, subsidized housing, interpreters, Medicaid, WIC, temporary assistance to needy families (TANF) and educating the children, much of which falls to states and localities.

Corcoran estimates that, taken in total, the cost of the U.S. refugee resettlement program could run as high as $10 billion per year.

.... That also does not include the potential cost of security risks. WNDreported in September that 22 Somali-Americans brought in through the refugee program have been documented by the FBI to have left the country to fight for Al-Shabab, a terrorist organization in Somalia, while several others have gone to fight for the Islamic State, also called ISIS, in Syria. Dozens of others have been prosecuted for sending money or other material support to terrorist organizations.

.... most of the resettlement work done by the above network of agencies is taxpayer funded through various grants distributed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Refugee Resettlement Program.

....Several of the resettlement agencies, such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, have posted statements on their websites welcoming President Obama’s recent executive action granting amnesty to up to 5 million illegal aliens. The religious “charities” conduct their refugee resettlement work with government grants accounting for 90 to 98 percent of their budgets, as previously reported by WND.



  • 12th imam
  • 8 signs
  • 9/11
  • Absentee
  • absolutely
  • Achilles Heel
  • al-Awlaki
  • Al-Qaeda
  • Alinsky
  • Ammo
  • Amnesty
  • Awlaki
  • AWOL
  • Baby
  • Bailout
  • Bankrupt
  • Battle
  • Benghazi
  • bin Talal
  • Bio
  • Birth certificate
  • Black Panther
  • Budget
  • Bulb
  • CAIR
  • Caliph
  • Caliphate
  • Cartel
  • Census
  • China
  • Chinese
  • Christian
  • Cloward
  • Club-K
  • COIN
  • Condell
  • Constitution
  • Contractor
  • Conyers
  • Cordoba
  • Correctness
  • Corsi
  • Debt
  • Deficit
  • Deradicalization
  • Detention
  • Dhimmi
  • DHS Homeland
  • Dialog: East Coast - West Coast
  • Domestic
  • Earth
  • Economic
  • Economy
  • Egypt
  • Electoral College
  • Electromagnetic Pulse
  • eligibility
  • Executive Orders
  • Farrakhan
  • Fast and Furious
  • FBI
  • Federal Reserve
  • Food
  • Fraud
  • Gas
  • Gaubatz
  • Global
  • Global economy
  • Governor
  • Grover Norquist
  • Guardians
  • Gulen
  • Gun control
  • Hagmann
  • Hawala
  • Healthcare
  • Hezbollah
  • Hillsdale College
  • Hizb ut-Tahrir
  • HLF
  • Holy Land Foundation
  • Homegrown
  • homosexual
  • Immigration
  • Implant
  • Information Warfare
  • Iran
  • Iranian Revolutionary Guards
  • IslamBerg
  • Islamist
  • Jekyll
  • Jew
  • jihad
  • Libya
  • like to know
  • Mafia
  • Manipulating Perceptions
  • Marriage
  • Marxist
  • Mexico
  • Military
  • Missile
  • Moderate Muslim
  • Money laundering
  • Muslim Brotherhood
  • must read
  • Myrick
  • Nazi
  • net neutrality
  • Nuclear
  • Oath Keepers
  • oil
  • Open Society
  • Operation Fast and Furious
  • Panther
  • Patriot
  • PFLP
  • Phares
  • pitchfork
  • Policy
  • political correctness
  • Politicians
  • Power
  • Progressive
  • Rare earth minerals
  • Responsibility to Protect
  • Reza Kahlili
  • ROE
  • Root
  • Roy Beck
  • Rules of Engagement
  • Russia
  • Salafists
  • Schools
  • Scout
  • Semper Fidelis
  • sharia
  • Shoebat
  • Sibel
  • social justice
  • Social Security Number
  • Socialist
  • Soros
  • Spending
  • Spies
  • Strategic
  • Stuxnet
  • Submarine
  • Sunni
  • Super-sized
  • survival
  • SWAT
  • Taliban
  • Taqiyya
  • Tawfik
  • Tax
  • Team B II
  • Treason
  • troubling
  • Truth
  • TSA
  • Unemployment
  • Uplift
  • USMC
  • Vallely
  • Vieira
  • Vote
  • Voter fraud
  • War
  • Weather Underground
  • WMD
  • Zero