Friday, June 28, 2013

Good Example of the DCVZ Today… | CHASECASECO.NET - SCOTT HAMMEL

Good Example of the DCVZ Today… | CHASECASECO.NET - SCOTT HAMMEL

Good Example of the DCVZ Today…

DCVZ
Of the many terms I’ve seen countlessly misidentified this year such as landspout, Bears Cage, gustnado, and so on, when people claim a DCVZ is setup when it’s clearly not, I tend to go a little nuts.  Now in all fairness, I’m sure I mis-speak and misidentify things all the time as well, so I get that we’re all human.  BUT, since the DCVZ is such a critical component of chasing here in Colorado, there’s really no excuse to not have at least a basic understanding of what it is, and how to tell if one is actually in place.  So let’s start from the beginning…
The DCVZ stands for the Denver Convergence Vorticity Zone.  The phenomenon also led to the term ‘Denver Cyclone.’  Now, why do we get these?  Like with a lot of things related to weather here in Colorado, our geography and topography, namely the Palmer Divide, is the critical part.  When we get a surge of moist, southeasterly winds that come up over the Palmer, they essentially get ‘trapped’ in the Front Range area due to the topography.  When these southeasterly winds make it over the Palmer, they run in to the winds coming off the foothills which tend to be northwesterly or uplsoped in the Summer.  So, when you have dry northwest winds, meeting moist southeast winds and they get trapped in our area, we get more vorticity.
Here’s a pretty good rough graphic that I found online…
dcvzwinds
But what does it tend to look like on radar?  Well, I grabbed this image from my radar software just about 20 minutes ago…
DCVZ
What I’ve outlined here with the yellow arrows is basically the flow of the wind once it gets trapped near the Denver metro.  You can see that a ‘cyclone’ forms surrounding the city.  The size of this cyclone can vary, and is generally not this big or visible on radar.  However today, because our dew points are higher you can actually see the convergence and boundary on radar which I’ve pointed to with the blue arrow.
In my experience with DCVZ days, storms that tend to form just outside the boundary (my red elipse in the photo) drift off to the east or northeast and eventually fizzle.  The storms that form ON the boundary are the one’s as a chaser you’re gonna want to stick with.  June 6th of last year was a great example of this.  A lot of people bit on a storm that formed just off the boundary and chased it as it drifted away and eventually died.  Meanwhile another storm formed on the boundary near Elizabeth/Ponderosa Park and just sat there dumping hail and eventually producing a decent tornado.
June62012Pic15
So anyways, that’s the basic gist of the DCVZ and what it looks like on radar.  I don’t expect much in the way of severe weather from it today.  The overall parameters are lacking, but it still is neat to see it show up so visibly on radar.

THE DAILY PEN: CONGRESS KNEW OBAMA WAS INELIGIBLE…SIX YEARS BEFORE HE WAS ELECTED!

THE DAILY PEN: CONGRESS KNEW OBAMA WAS INELIGIBLE…SIX YEARS BEFORE HE WAS ELECTED!

CONGRESS KNEW OBAMA WAS INELIGIBLE…SIX YEARS BEFORE HE WAS ELECTED!

Congressional records reveal a viral premeditation within the liberal ranks of our government to alter fundamental Constitutional eligibility protections in order to covertly assist an ineligible Obama candidacy and his usurpation of America’s executive power.
by Penbrook Johannson
Editor of The Daily Pen
Some diseases are so viral, so invasive, so insidious, so contagious…that they eventually infect what most would believe is the most sanitary part of any body. Even the once honored sovereignty of America’s highest legislative body is now coming under the attack of the disease of multi-culturalism and liberal extremism.

Congressional records show that on eight separate occasions over six years, between 2003 and 2008, legislators attempted to eliminate or change the definition of the “Natural Born” eligibility clause of Article 2 of the Constitution in order to remove restrictions and, thereby, create legal justifications supporting Obama’s unlawful candidacy for President.


We now know what members of congress knew about Obama’s ineligibility, and when they knew it.


In a recently produced documentary, Carl Gallups, a senior pastor at Hickory Hammock Baptist Church for more than two decades with a ten year professional background in law enforcement, presents documented evidence showing that members of congress submitted repetitive, coordinated proposals to alter the 'natural-born' eligibility clause.


Gallups also serves on the board of regents at the University of Mobile and hosts several weekly radio programs in the northwest Florida region.


Gallups’ documentary shows that between June 11, 2003 until Feb. 28, 2008, there were eight attempts to circumvent the Natural-born eligibility clause of the U.S. Constitution.


1. On June 11, 2003, Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Arkansas, introduced House Joint Resolution 59 (HJR 59) which attempted to Constitutionally change the understood historical definition of a ‘natural-born’ eligibility for the U.S. Presidency in order to "permit persons who are not natural born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 35 years, to be eligible to hold the offices of president and vice president.” The resolution did not make it to a senate vote at that time.

2. Then, on Sept. 3, 2003, Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan, introduced HJR67, which would have defined presidential eligibility the same as Snyder's proposal, only the requirement to be a citizen in Conyers’ bill was actually lowered to 20 years, not the more stringent 35 years. Conyers’ bill was also rebuffed prior to an official vote. However, the introduction of two such proposals within a mere four month period reveals that Congressional leadership was conscious of the issue of Presidential eligibility prior to Obama’s candidacy. Whether these acts were put into motion at this time specifically for the benefit of Obama, exclusively, is unclear, but highly suspicious.

3. Then, in an attempt to contend with the obvious attack against the natural born citizenship clause, on Feb. 25, 2004, Sen. Don Nickles, R-Oklahoma, introduced Senate Bill 2128 which also failed to hit the eligibility requirement target. It defined a ‘natural-born citizen’ as someone who was born in and is subject to the United States.” This was not the understanding of the framers of the Constitution. Exhibiting the same ignorance as other legislators, Nickles failed to acknowledge that the intended purpose of the natural-born eligibility clause was to ensure that the sovereignty, identity and loyalty of a presidential candidate was measured by not only a geographic birth under the protection of the U.S. Constitution but also the possession of natural natal biology afforded by birth to TWO parents who are U.S. citizens at the time of conception AND the preservation of the continuity of that citizenship status until election.

Five months later, on July 27, 2004, Barack Obama delivered his keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention which essentially and suddenly made America aware of him at a national level.

4. Then, just two months later, on Sept. 15, 2004, House Representative Dana Rohrabacher, R-California, submitted HJR 104, which audaciously attempted "to make eligible for the office of president a person who is not a natural born citizen of the United States but has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years." Rohrabacher’s fallow resolution attempted to completely ignore the Constitution’s requirement that a president had to be a natural born citizen. The resolution was rejected on its face.

5. Four months later, on Jan. 4, 2005, Conyers pushed yet another unwanted attempt to change the definition of ‘natural born citizen’ in HJR 02, which was the exact same as Rohrabacher's.

6. Just one month later, on Feb. 1, 2005, Rohrabacher submitted a revised version of her previous resolution in HJR 15 which would require only 20 years of citizenship to be eligible for the office of president.

7. Two months later, on April 14, 2005, Snyder resubmitted his bill under another proposal, HJR42, requiring 35 years of U.S. citizenship to be eligible. Interestingly, it has long since been established that Barack Obama’s return to the U.S. from Indonesia took place in approximately 1970-1971. At that time, if Obama had re-naturalized as a U.S. Citizen, this resolution would have made him just eligible in 2005.
Barack Obama announced his candidacy for the U.S. presidency on February 10, 2007.
The Iowa Caucus is held on January 3, 2008.


8. Finally, in Feb. 28, 2008, after seven failures to change the natural-born eligibility requirement, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., attempted to parasite SB 2678 with the Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act, an amendment clarifying what "natural-born citizen" includes. Obama and Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., were sponsors of this bill.
Liberal democrats in Congress were in an obvious array to push against this long-standing Constitutional mandate at the time, coincidentally, when the first unnatural born presidential candidate, Barack Obama, began his political career at the national level. Why? Who or what was pulling their strings?


As reported by Bob Unruh of World Net Daily, Gallups’ documentary then demonstrates that “..on April 10, 2008, being "unable to alter or remove" the natural-born eligibility requirement for Barack Obama..", the Senate engaged an active deception by distracting the growing consciousness of Obama’s ineligibility by introducing Senate Resolution 511, which addressed Sen. John McCain's qualifications as a ‘natural-born citizen.’

Overcompensating for their failure to validate Obama, the Senate feigned generosity for McCain in hopes of making his eligibility the target of attention, but not criticism, by declaring him eligible as a “natural born citizen”. Senate leadership desired to avoid making McCain's eligibility the subject of criticism because they knew that if McCain was not eligible, Barack Obama was certainly not eligible. The weight of scrutiny against a worthier McCain would have caused Obama's campaign to fail, politically, if not legally.

However, in what can only be described as complete legislative incompetence, SR511 writers and sponsors specifically stated McCain was eligible because he was "...born in a territory under treaty with the U.S." and, therefore, under the protection of the U.S. Constitution and, most importantly, "because he was the son of TWO U.S. citizen parents." The language of Resolution 511 actually and explicitly commits McCain to presidential eligibility because of the citizenship of his parentage. Both of McCain's parents were U.S. citizens. This is a qualification which Barack Obama does not possess.

Shockingly, Obama voted in favor of Resolution 511 knowing he, himself, was not eligible under these same metrics. Barack Obama voted in favor of a formal resolution stating that a presidential candidate was Constitutionally eligible because the candidate was defined as being ‘natural born’ by the fact that the candidate’s birth was, in fact, to TWO U.S. citizen parent. Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen and his mother was only 18 at the time of his birth which disqualified transfer of citizenship if the birth occurred outside the U.S
Obama's qualifications were never reviewed or conferred upon under any similar resolution, nor were his qualifications to be president ever vetted by any federal authority, legislative body or formal inquiry, as were John McCain’s. Not ever.

Unruh continues: “After his election, Gallups points out, Obama held a secret meeting with eight of the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court – from which no public information was released. The meeting was held even though there were legal challenges in which Obama was a defendant pending before the Supreme Court at the time. The attorneys for the plaintiffs never were told of the meeting or invited to participate in what critics have described as extrajudicial contact between the court and a defendant.”
Consider this very carefully, sons and daughters of vintage America. Barack Obama, an illegally appointed president under suspicion of violating the U.S. Constitution, actually engaged personal contact with eight sitting supreme court judges who were actively considering pending cases regarding his ineligibility as president, in covert meetings, without the presence of any opposing legal representation. The suspect was allowed to meet alone with very authorities who were presiding in law suits against him, who have the supreme legal power to dismiss, overrule or uphold these lawsuits with binding jurisdictions, without any record of the content or accounting of attendance of those meetings, and without any representation of those filing complaints against him.
This level of corruption and judicial tampering is unprecedented in American history.

Ironically, only Justice Scalia, the longest serving conservatively oriented judge, appointed by Republican President, Ronald Reagan, in 1986, was absent from this secret meeting. Scalia has often been hailed as the "conservative intellectual anchor" of the supreme court. If any one of the nine supreme court justices would have held opposition to Obama's illegal presidency, Scalia would be the first. He was either not allowed in the meeting, or recused himself for reasons of deniability about the subject.


Unruh continues, “WND previously reported on another link between Obama and a campaign to change the constitutional provision. It came from an associate lawyer in a Chicago-based firm whose partner served on a finance committee for then-Sen. Barack Obama. She advocated for the elimination of the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural-born" citizen, calling the requirement "stupid" and asserting it discriminates, is outdated and undemocratic."

The paper was written in 2006 by Sarah Herlihy, just two years after Obama had won a landslide election in Illinois to the U.S. Senate. Herlihy was listed as an associate at the Chicago firm of Kirkland & Ellis. A partner in the same firm, Bruce I. Ettelson, cited his membership on the finance committees for both Obama and Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., on the corporate website.

The article by Herlihy was available online under law review articles from Kent University when it originally was the subject of reports but later was removed.


Herlihy's published paper reveals that the requirement likely was considered in a negative light by organizations linked to Obama in the months before he announced in 2007 his candidacy for the presidency.


The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the "stupidest provision" in the Constitution, "undecidedly un-American," "blatantly discriminatory" and the "Constitution's worst provision," Herlihy begins in her introduction to the paper titled "Amending the Natural Born Citizen Requirement: Globalization as the Impetus and the Obstacle."


She concludes that the "emotional" reasons to oppose changing the Constitution will prevail over the "rational" reasons demanding a change.

The current American perceptions about the effects of globalization and the misunderstanding about what globalization actually is will result in Americans deciding that naturalized citizens should not be president because this would, in effect, be promoting globalization, Herlihy wrote.

"Although this argument is admittedly circular, because globalization is the thing that makes the need to abolish the requirement more and more persuasive, Americans' subsequent perceptions about globalization are the very things that will prevent Americans from embracing the idea of eliminating the natural born requirement.
"Logical Americans are looking for a reason to ignore the rational reasons promoted by globalization so that they may vote based on their own emotions and instincts," she wrote.

In the body of her argument, Herlihy said the constitutional provision simply is outdated.

"Considering that the Founding Fathers presumably included the natural born citizen clause in the Constitution partly out of fear of foreign subversion, the current stability of the American government and the intense media scrutiny of presidential candidates virtually eliminates the possibility of a 'foreigner' coming to America, becoming a naturalized citizen, generating enough public support to become president, and somehow using the presidency to directly benefit his homeland," she wrote.

"The natural born citizen clause of the United States Constitution should be repealed for numerous reasons. Limiting presidential eligibility to natural born citizens discriminates against naturalized citizens, is outdated and undemocratic, and incorrectly assumes that birthplace is a proxy for loyalty," she wrote.

Many of the reasons for keeping the limit, she wrote, "are based primarily on emotion."
Or, Ms. Herlihy, perhaps you must be forced to accept that it was simply a wise measure correctly foreseen as necessary to prevent a lying, criminal usurper, perhaps like Barack Obama, from assuming power over the value, work and lives of the greatest people in world history. There is nothing outdated in any doctrine devised to preserve that.

Is there no limit to the degeneracy of this current political roster into which they will descend in order to acheive their psychotic agenda and control over the blood-ransomed freedom, value and power of the only true decent and prosperous people of humanity?

Wake up, vintage America. Your nation is under attack from within. Liars and deceivers are stealing your daily lives, creeping closer into your personal boundaries and mocking the screaming blood of your pristine warriors.

It is time all who consider themselves decent and sovereign to reject Barack Obama as the criminal usurper that he is.

California Passes Sweeping Gun Control: $50 Ammo Permit Fee, No Detachable Magazines or Mags over 10 rounds | The Daily Sheeple

California Passes Sweeping Gun Control: $50 Ammo Permit Fee, No Detachable Magazines or Mags over 10 rounds | The Daily Sheeple

California Passes Sweeping Gun Control: $50 Ammo Permit Fee, No Detachable Magazines or Mags over 10 rounds

Rob Richardson
Off Grid Survival
June 1st, 2013
Reader Views: 17,281
 776  28  1403
handgunThe State of California has once again gone off the deep end, and has approved a whole range of new gun control bills that will make it even harder on law abiding citizens to own a gun in California.
The California Senate approved a package of bills this week that goes directly after law-abiding gun owners. The bills make the state’s already draconian gun laws even more ridiculous, by outlawing detachable and large-capacity magazines (which they define as anything over 10 rounds), tracking anyone who buys ammunition and reporting orders over 3,000 rounds, imposing large fees for those who do buy ammo, and expanding the category of offenders prohibited from owning guns for 10 years.
One of the most controversial bills will require the State’s residents to submit personal information and a $50 fee anytime they want to purchase ammunition. The State will then determine whether the buyer will be allowed to purchase the ammunition, which means  depending on how the background checks come back, the same day purchase of ammunition in California may be a thing of the past.
The California Senate also OK’d a bill that will outlaw the sale, purchase and manufacture of semiautomatic rifles that can accommodate detachable magazines. It also requires that anyone who currently owns one of these weapons, immediately register it with the State.
Guilty until Proven Innocent
This is nothing more than targeting and criminalizing law-abiding gun owners. In no way do any of these laws make it harder for a criminal to acquire ammunition, since most do so through illegal channels to begin with.
All these bills will do, is send criminals over the California border, ensuring a larger black market of guns and ammunition to stream into California.
Attorney General Approves Mandated Bullet Stamping That Will Effectively Ban All New Guns

Earlier this week, California Attorney General Kamala Harris officially certified a law that will require all new semiautomatic handguns to use technology that stamps identifying information on bullet casings. Since gun manufacturers are not likely to spend money retrofitting their entire production lines, California has effectively banned the sale of all new guns.
Here are the provisions that have been approved by the California State Senate.
  • The state Department of Justice must notify local law enforcement agencies when a person purchases more than 3,000 rounds of ammunition.
  • SB 47 by Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, bans so-called “bullet buttons” that are used to get around current laws banning detachable magazines.
  • SB 53 by Sen. Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles, to create new state permits that require background checks for buyers of ammunition. Buyers will also have to submit to a $50 permit fee to buy Ammo.
  • An additional 10 percent tax on all ammunition sold in California
  • SB 374 by Steinberg, D-Sacramento, to ban detachable magazines in rifles. (Yep, even a Ruger 10/22 will be considered an illegal assault weapon)
  • SB 396 by Sen. Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, to prohibit possession of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
  • SB 567 by Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, to change the definition of certain kinds of shotguns to make them assault weapons, thus making them illegal in California.
  • SB 683 by Sen. Marty Block, D-San Diego, to require all gun buyers to take a firearm safety class and earn a safety certificate.
  • SB 755 by Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, to increase the number of crimes – including offenses related to drug addiction,  alcoholism and others – that result in a 10-year ban on being allowed to own a gun.
- See more at: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/california-passes-sweeping-gun-control-50-ammo-permit-fee-no-detachable-magazines-or-mags-over-10-rounds_062013#sthash.4W27fI3f.dpuf

California Passes Sweeping Gun Control: $50 Ammo Permit Fee, No Detachable Magazines or Mags over 10 rounds

Posted By Contributing Author On June 1, 2013 @ 10:57 am
handgun [1]The State of California has once again gone off the deep end, and has approved a whole range of new gun control bills that will make it even harder on law abiding citizens to own a gun in California.
The California Senate approved a package of bills this week that goes directly after law-abiding gun owners. The bills make the state’s already draconian gun laws even more ridiculous, by outlawing detachable and large-capacity magazines (which they define as anything over 10 rounds), tracking anyone who buys ammunition and reporting orders over 3,000 rounds, imposing large fees for those who do buy ammo, and expanding the category of offenders prohibited from owning guns for 10 years.
One of the most controversial bills will require the State’s residents to submit personal information and a $50 fee anytime they want to purchase ammunition. The State will then determine whether the buyer will be allowed to purchase the ammunition, which means  depending on how the background checks come back, the same day purchase of ammunition in California may be a thing of the past.
The California Senate also OK’d a bill that will outlaw the sale, purchase and manufacture of semiautomatic rifles that can accommodate detachable magazines. It also requires that anyone who currently owns one of these weapons, immediately register it with the State.
Guilty until Proven Innocent
This is nothing more than targeting and criminalizing law-abiding gun owners. In no way do any of these laws make it harder for a criminal to acquire ammunition, since most do so through illegal channels to begin with.
All these bills will do, is send criminals over the California border, ensuring a larger black market of guns and ammunition to stream into California.
Attorney General Approves Mandated Bullet Stamping That Will Effectively Ban All New Guns

Earlier this week, California Attorney General Kamala Harris officially certified a law that will require all new semiautomatic handguns to use technology that stamps identifying information on bullet casings. Since gun manufacturers are not likely to spend money retrofitting their entire production lines, California has effectively banned the sale of all new guns [2].
Here are the provisions that have been approved by the California State Senate.
  • The state Department of Justice must notify local law enforcement agencies when a person purchases more than 3,000 rounds of ammunition.
  • SB 47 [3] by Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, bans so-called “bullet buttons” that are used to get around current laws banning detachable magazines.
  • SB 53 [4] by Sen. Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles, to create new state permits that require background checks for buyers of ammunition. Buyers will also have to submit to a $50 permit fee to buy Ammo.
  • An additional 10 percent tax [5] on all ammunition sold in California
  • SB 374 [6] by Steinberg, D-Sacramento, to ban detachable magazines in rifles. (Yep, even a Ruger 10/22 [7] will be considered an illegal assault weapon)
  • SB 396 [8] by Sen. Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, to prohibit possession of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
  • SB 567 [9] by Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, to change the definition of certain kinds of shotguns to make them assault weapons, thus making them illegal in California.
  • SB 683 [10] by Sen. Marty Block, D-San Diego, to require all gun buyers to take a firearm safety class and earn a safety certificate.
  • SB 755 [11] by Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, to increase the number of crimes – including offenses related to drug addiction,  alcoholism and others – that result in a 10-year ban on being allowed to own a gun.
Delivered by The Daily Sheeple [12]

Contributed by Rob Richardson of Off Grid Survival [13].

Article printed from The Daily Sheeple: http://www.thedailysheeple.com
URL to article: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/california-passes-sweeping-gun-control-50-ammo-permit-fee-no-detachable-magazines-or-mags-over-10-rounds_062013
URLs in this post:
[1] Image: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/california-passes-sweeping-gun-control-50-ammo-permit-fee-no-detachable-magazines-or-mags-over-10-rounds_062013/handgun
[2] California has effectively banned the sale of all new guns: http://offgridsurvival.com/californiabanonnewguns/
[3] SB 47: http://www.firearmspolicy.org/the-issues/california/2013-2014/sb47/
[4] SB 53: http://sd22.senate.ca.gov/sites/sd22.senate.ca.gov/files/SB%2053-Background%20Sheet%203-12-13%20v.%204.pdf
[5] tax: http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/california-approves-92m-ammo-tax-combat-gun-violence
[6] SB 374: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_0351-0400/sb_374_bill_20130220_introduced.html
[7] Ruger 10/22: http://offgridsurvival.com/bestsurvivalrifle/
[8] SB 396: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_0351-0400/sb_396_cfa_20130415_155914_sen_comm.html
[9] SB 567: http://totalcapitol.com/?bill_id=201320140SB567
[10] SB 683: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB683
[11] SB 755: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB755
[12] The Daily Sheeple: http://www.TheDailySheeple.com/
[13] Off Grid Survival: http://offgridsurvival.com/californiaguncontrolbills/

California Passes Sweeping Gun Control: $50 Ammo Permit Fee, No Detachable Magazines or Mags over 10 rounds

Rob Richardson
Off Grid Survival
June 1st, 2013
Reader Views: 17,281
 776  28  1403
handgunThe State of California has once again gone off the deep end, and has approved a whole range of new gun control bills that will make it even harder on law abiding citizens to own a gun in California.
The California Senate approved a package of bills this week that goes directly after law-abiding gun owners. The bills make the state’s already draconian gun laws even more ridiculous, by outlawing detachable and large-capacity magazines (which they define as anything over 10 rounds), tracking anyone who buys ammunition and reporting orders over 3,000 rounds, imposing large fees for those who do buy ammo, and expanding the category of offenders prohibited from owning guns for 10 years.
One of the most controversial bills will require the State’s residents to submit personal information and a $50 fee anytime they want to purchase ammunition. The State will then determine whether the buyer will be allowed to purchase the ammunition, which means  depending on how the background checks come back, the same day purchase of ammunition in California may be a thing of the past.
The California Senate also OK’d a bill that will outlaw the sale, purchase and manufacture of semiautomatic rifles that can accommodate detachable magazines. It also requires that anyone who currently owns one of these weapons, immediately register it with the State.
Guilty until Proven Innocent
This is nothing more than targeting and criminalizing law-abiding gun owners. In no way do any of these laws make it harder for a criminal to acquire ammunition, since most do so through illegal channels to begin with.
All these bills will do, is send criminals over the California border, ensuring a larger black market of guns and ammunition to stream into California.
Attorney General Approves Mandated Bullet Stamping That Will Effectively Ban All New Guns

Earlier this week, California Attorney General Kamala Harris officially certified a law that will require all new semiautomatic handguns to use technology that stamps identifying information on bullet casings. Since gun manufacturers are not likely to spend money retrofitting their entire production lines, California has effectively banned the sale of all new guns.
Here are the provisions that have been approved by the California State Senate.
  • The state Department of Justice must notify local law enforcement agencies when a person purchases more than 3,000 rounds of ammunition.
  • SB 47 by Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, bans so-called “bullet buttons” that are used to get around current laws banning detachable magazines.
  • SB 53 by Sen. Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles, to create new state permits that require background checks for buyers of ammunition. Buyers will also have to submit to a $50 permit fee to buy Ammo.
  • An additional 10 percent tax on all ammunition sold in California
  • SB 374 by Steinberg, D-Sacramento, to ban detachable magazines in rifles. (Yep, even a Ruger 10/22 will be considered an illegal assault weapon)
  • SB 396 by Sen. Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, to prohibit possession of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
  • SB 567 by Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, to change the definition of certain kinds of shotguns to make them assault weapons, thus making them illegal in California.
  • SB 683 by Sen. Marty Block, D-San Diego, to require all gun buyers to take a firearm safety class and earn a safety certificate.
  • SB 755 by Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, to increase the number of crimes – including offenses related to drug addiction,  alcoholism and others – that result in a 10-year ban on being allowed to own a gun.
- See more at: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/california-passes-sweeping-gun-control-50-ammo-permit-fee-no-detachable-magazines-or-mags-over-10-rounds_062013#sthash.4W27fI3f.dpuf

California Passes Sweeping Gun Control: $50 Ammo Permit Fee, No Detachable Magazines or Mags over 10 rounds

Rob Richardson
Off Grid Survival
June 1st, 2013
Reader Views: 17,281
 776  28  1403
handgunThe State of California has once again gone off the deep end, and has approved a whole range of new gun control bills that will make it even harder on law abiding citizens to own a gun in California.
The California Senate approved a package of bills this week that goes directly after law-abiding gun owners. The bills make the state’s already draconian gun laws even more ridiculous, by outlawing detachable and large-capacity magazines (which they define as anything over 10 rounds), tracking anyone who buys ammunition and reporting orders over 3,000 rounds, imposing large fees for those who do buy ammo, and expanding the category of offenders prohibited from owning guns for 10 years.
One of the most controversial bills will require the State’s residents to submit personal information and a $50 fee anytime they want to purchase ammunition. The State will then determine whether the buyer will be allowed to purchase the ammunition, which means  depending on how the background checks come back, the same day purchase of ammunition in California may be a thing of the past.
The California Senate also OK’d a bill that will outlaw the sale, purchase and manufacture of semiautomatic rifles that can accommodate detachable magazines. It also requires that anyone who currently owns one of these weapons, immediately register it with the State.
Guilty until Proven Innocent
This is nothing more than targeting and criminalizing law-abiding gun owners. In no way do any of these laws make it harder for a criminal to acquire ammunition, since most do so through illegal channels to begin with.
All these bills will do, is send criminals over the California border, ensuring a larger black market of guns and ammunition to stream into California.
Attorney General Approves Mandated Bullet Stamping That Will Effectively Ban All New Guns

Earlier this week, California Attorney General Kamala Harris officially certified a law that will require all new semiautomatic handguns to use technology that stamps identifying information on bullet casings. Since gun manufacturers are not likely to spend money retrofitting their entire production lines, California has effectively banned the sale of all new guns.
Here are the provisions that have been approved by the California State Senate.
  • The state Department of Justice must notify local law enforcement agencies when a person purchases more than 3,000 rounds of ammunition.
  • SB 47 by Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, bans so-called “bullet buttons” that are used to get around current laws banning detachable magazines.
  • SB 53 by Sen. Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles, to create new state permits that require background checks for buyers of ammunition. Buyers will also have to submit to a $50 permit fee to buy Ammo.
  • An additional 10 percent tax on all ammunition sold in California
  • SB 374 by Steinberg, D-Sacramento, to ban detachable magazines in rifles. (Yep, even a Ruger 10/22 will be considered an illegal assault weapon)
  • SB 396 by Sen. Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, to prohibit possession of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
  • SB 567 by Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, to change the definition of certain kinds of shotguns to make them assault weapons, thus making them illegal in California.
  • SB 683 by Sen. Marty Block, D-San Diego, to require all gun buyers to take a firearm safety class and earn a safety certificate.
  • SB 755 by Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, to increase the number of crimes – including offenses related to drug addiction,  alcoholism and others – that result in a 10-year ban on being allowed to own a gun.
- See more at: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/california-passes-sweeping-gun-control-50-ammo-permit-fee-no-detachable-magazines-or-mags-over-10-rounds_062013#sthash.4W27fI3f.dpuf

Top Obama Donor Now Says: Obama is a Fraud

Top Obama Donor Now Says: Obama is a Fraud

.
Keep in mind that this is an opinion piece written by a Democrat, or at least a "former" Democrat.
From Daily Kos:
I gave this man $5000 in 2007 and spent many hours to canvass and phonebank for him.
I gave him another $500 in 2011 and again voted for him.
I bought the boohoo story of those meanie Republicans obatructing everything. I bought the story that we "won" with the ACA passing and broadended gay rights, but had to give up $800 billion of our hard earned money to bank crooks and let them drive away in their Bentleys to their 20 room mansions because he just couldn't do anything about it-- too big to fail. While us peons were left to fall.
There's no Republican or Democrats folks.
Just a giant stage on which a play of deception is played on the American people to believe we still live in a Democracy.
What it really is, is a game of Masters and Serfs.
Those "conspiracy theorists" don't sound so crazy anymore to me. Maybe their name is not "Illuminati", but it seems "they" are really there. In secret board rooms and meeting rooms, conjuring the strategems on how best to extract subservience and resources from the massses.
And Obama? Those same entities making even bigger shitwads of cash than even Village idiot.
Follow the money, that's the answer to every question you have about politics and the US government.
OBAMA IS A **** FRAUD-- you heard me NSA scumbag?

Look What Just Happened: Damning Expose Of The Greatest Fraud In History | The Liberty Beacon

Must Read: Look What Just Happened: Damning Expose Of The Greatest Fraud In History | The Liberty Beacon


Must Read: Look What Just Happened: Damning Expose Of The Greatest Fraud In History

Was3237857Coincidence?
Any one of these ‘coincidences’ when taken singularly appear to not mean much, but when taken as a whole, a computer would blow a main circuit if you asked it to calculate the odds that they have occurred by chance alone. Sit back, get a favorite beverage, and then read and ponder  the Obama-related ‘coincidences’ …  then super-impose the bigger picture of most recent events i.e. Fast and furious, Benghazi, the IRS scandal and the NSA revelations … then pray for our country.

Obama just happened to know 60′s far-left radical revolutionary William Ayers, whose father just happened to be Thomas Ayers, who just happened to be a close friend of Obama’s communist mentor Frank Marshall Davis, who just happened to work at the communist-sympathizing Chicago Defender with Vernon Jarrett, who just happened to later become the father-in-law of Iranian-born leftist Valerie Jarrett, who Obama just happened to choose as his closest White House advisor, and who just happened to have been CEO of Habitat Company, which just happened to manage public housing in Chicago, which just happened to get millions of dollars from the Illinois state legislature, and which just happened not to properly maintain the housing—which eventually just happened to require demolition.
Valerie Jarrett also just happened to work for the city of Chicago, and just happened to hire Michelle LaVaughan Robinson (later Mrs.Obama), who just happened to have worked at the Sidley Austin law firm, where former fugitive from the FBI Bernardine Dohrn also just happened to work, and where Barack Obama just happened to get a summer job.
Bernardine Dohrn just happened to be married to William Ayers, with whom she just happened to have hidden from the FBI at a San Francisco marina, along with Donald Warden, who just happened to change his name to Khalid al-Mansour, and Warden/al-Mansour just happened to be a mentor of Black Panther Party founders Huey Newton and Bobby Seale and a close associate of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, and al-Mansour just happened to be financial adviser to a Saudi Prince, who just happened to donate cash to Harvard, for which Obama just happened to get a critical letter of recommendation from Percy Sutton, who just happened to have been the attorney for MalcolmX, who just happened to know Kenyan politician Tom Mboya, who just happened to be a close friend of Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., who just happened to meet Malcolm X when he traveled to Kenya.
Obama, Sr. just happened to have his education at the University of Hawaii paid for by the Laubach Literacy Institute, which just happened to have been supported by Elizabeth Mooney Kirk, who just happened to be a friend of Malcolm X, who just happened to have been associated with the Nation of Islam, which was later headed by Louis Farrakhan, who just happens to live very close to Obama’s Chicago mansion, which also just happens to be located very close to the residence of William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, who just happen to have been occasional baby-sitters for Malia and Natasha Obama, whose parents just happened to have no concern exposing their daughters to bomb-making communists.
After attending Occidental College and Columbia University, where he just happened to have foreign Muslim roommates, Obama moved to Chicago to work for the Industrial Areas Foundation, an organization that just happened to have been founded by Marxist and radical agitator Saul “the Red” Alinsky, author of Rules for Radicals, who just happened to be the topic of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s thesis at Wellesley College, and Obama’s $25,000 salary at IAF just happened to be funded by a grant from the Woods Fund, which was founded by the Woods family, whose Sahara Coal company just happened to provide coal to Commonwealth Edison, whose CEO just happened to be Thomas Ayers, whose son William Ayers just happened to serve on the board of the Woods Fund, along with Obama.
Obama also worked on voter registration drives in Chicago in the 1980s and just happened to work with leftist political groups like the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and Socialist International (SI), through which Obama met Carl Davidson, who just happened to travel to Cuba during the Vietnam War to sabotage the U.S. war effort, and who just happened to be a former member of the SDS and a member of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, which just happened to sponsor a 2002 anti-war rally at which Obama spoke, and which just happened to have been organized by Marilyn Katz, a former SDS activist and later public relations consultant who just happened to be a long-time friend of Obama’s political hatchet man, David Axelrod.
Obama joined Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC), whose pastor was Reverend Jeremiah Wright, a fiery orator who just happened to preach Marxism and Black Liberation Theology and who delivered anti-white, anti-Jew, and anti-American sermons, which Obama just happened never to hear because he just happened to miss church only on the days when Wright was at his “most enthusiastic,” and Obama just happened never to notice that Oprah Winfrey left the church because it was too radical, and just happened never to notice that the church gave the vile anti-Semitic Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan a lifetime achievement award.
Although no one had ever heard of him at the time, Obama just happened to receive an impossible-to-believe $125,000 advance to write a book about race relations, which he just happened to fail to write while using the cash to vacation in Bali with his wife Michelle, and despite his record of non-writing he just happened to receive a second advance, for $40,000, from another publisher, and he eventually completed a manuscript called Dreams From My Father, which just happened to strongly reflect the writing style of William Ayers, who just happened to trample on an American flag for the cover photograph of the popular Chicago magazine, which Obama just happened never to see even though it appeared on newsstands throughout the city.
Obama was hired by the law firm Miner, Banhill and Galland, which just happened to specialize in negotiating state government contracts to develop low-income housing, and which just happened to deal with now-imprisoned Tony Rezko and his firm Rezar, and with slumlord Valerie Jarrett, and the law firm’s Judson Miner just happened to have been a classmate of Bernardine Dohrn, wife of William Ayers. In 1994 Obama represented ACORN and another plaintiff in a lawsuit against Citibank for denying mortgages to blacks(Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Federal Savings Bank), and the lawsuit just happened to result in banks being blackmailed into approving subprime loans for poor credit risks, a trend which just happened to spread nationwide, and which just happened to lead to the collapse of the housing bubble, which just happened to help Obama defeat John McCain in the 2008 presidential election.
In 1996 Obama ran for the Illinois State Senate and joined the “New Party,” which just happened to promote Marxism, and Obama was supported by Dr. Quentin Yong, a socialist who just happened to support a government takeover of the health care system.
In late 1999 Obama purportedly engaged in homosexual activities and cocaine-snorting in the back of a limousine with a man named Larry Sinclair, who claims he was contacted in late 2007 by Donald Young, who just happened to be the gay choir director of Obama’s Chicago church and who shared information with Sinclair about Obama, and Young just happened to be murdered on December 23, 2007, just weeks after Larry Bland, another gay member of the church, just happened to be murdered, and both murders just happened to have never been solved. In 2008 Sinclair held a press conference to discuss his claims, and just happened to be arrested immediately after the event, based on a warrant issued by Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden, who just happens to be the son of Joe Biden.
In 2003 Obama and his wife attended a dinner in honor of Rashid Khalidi, who just happened to be a former PLO operative, harsh critic of Israel, and advocate of Palestinian rights, and who Obama claims he does not know, even though the Obamas just happened to have dined more than once at the home of Khalidi and his wife, Mona, and just happened to have used them as occasional baby-sitters. Obama reportedly praised Khalidi at the decidedly anti-Semitic event, which William Ayers just happened to also attend, and the event Obama pretends he never attended was sponsored by the Arab American Action Network, to which Obama just happened to have funneled cash while serving on the board of the Woods Fund with William Ayers, and one speaker at the dinner remarked that if Palestinians cannot secure a return of their land, Israel “will never see a day of peace,” and entertainment at the dinner included a Muslim children’s dance whose performances just happened to include simulated beheadings with fake swords, and stomping on American, Israeli, and British flags, and Obama allegedly told the audience that “Israel has no God-given right to occupy Palestine” and there has been “genocide against the Palestinian people by (the) Israelis,” and the Los Angeles Times has a videotape of the event but just happens to refuse to make it public.
In the 2004 Illinois Democrat primary race for the U.S. Senate, front-runner Blair Hull just happened to be forced out of the race after David Axelrod just happened to manage to get Hull’s sealed divorce records unsealed, which just happened to enable Obama to win the primary, so he could face popular Republican Jack Ryan, whose sealed child custody records from his divorce just happened to become unsealed, forcing Ryan to withdraw from the race, which just happened to enable the unqualified Obama to waltz into the U.S. Senate, where, after a mere 143 days of work, he just happened to decide he was qualified to run for President of the United States.
FLASH: Listen Here: Sheriff Joe Arpaio To Address Obama ID Fraud Investigation Live June 28 – DETAILS HERE http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2013/06/sheriff-joe-addresses-obama-id-fraud.html
WATCH: Raw Video Archive: Sheriff Arpaio Obama ID Fraud Presentation Live From Missouri – VIDEO HERE http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2013/06/live-video-stream-sheriff-joe-obama-id-fraud.html
((( This High Definition video was produced in 720P HD – Select the HD quality setting for optimal viewing experience )))
2006: Obama In Kenya: I Am So Proud To Come Back Home –  VIDEO HERE http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/04/video-obama-speaking-in-kenya-with-mass.html
2007: Michelle Obama Declares Obama Is Kenyan And America Is Mean – VIDEO HERE http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/04/video-obama-speaking-in-kenya-with-mass.html
2008: Michelle Obama Declares Barack Obama’s Home Country Is Kenya – VIDEO HERE http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/04/video-obama-speaking-in-kenya-with-mass.html
FLASHBACK: Obama Is The Original Birther! Obama In 1991 Stated In His Own Bio He Was Born In Kenya. DETAILS HERE http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/05/breitbart-goes-birther-obama-listed-as.html
WATCH SHERIFF, OBAMA INVESTIGATION PRESS CONFERENCE HERE: CLICK HERE http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://www.art2superpac.com/joe.html
ARTICLE II ELIGIBILITY FACTS HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html


See this and more pertinent information at: BEFORE IT’S NEWS
See original here: http://beforeitsnews.com/obama-birthplace-controversy/2013/06/must-read-look-what-just-happened-damning-expose-of-the-greatest-fraud-in-history-2462676.html?h=eAQHLB7L1&amp&amp

BUSTED? OBAMA WORKING WITH THE IRS THE WHOLE TIME?: In 2010, The Koch Brothers Asked The WH How In The Hell It Got Its Tax Returns

BUSTED? OBAMA WORKING WITH THE IRS THE WHOLE TIME?: In 2010, The Koch Brothers Asked The WH How In The Hell It Got Its Tax Returns

BUSTED? OBAMA WORKING WITH THE IRS THE WHOLE TIME?: In 2010, The Koch Brothers Asked The WH How In The Hell It Got Its Tax Returns



May 13, 2013 18 Comments Pat Dollard obama-liar
If the White House illegally had the Koch Brothers tax returns, which, per the article below, it appears they did, then Obama has been working with the IRS for 2 years to wage a war on his political enemies. Today he said he just learned about the IRS war Friday.

Excerpted from a September 20, 2010 article in The Weekly Standard:
…a lawyer for Koch Industries now tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD that the administration may have crossed a line by revealing tax information about Koch Industries. According to Mark Holden, senior vice president and general counsel of Koch Industries, a senior Obama administration official told reporters at an August 27 on-the-record background briefing on corporate taxes:
So in this country we have partnerships, we have S corps, we have LLCs, we have a series of entities that do not pay corporate income tax. Some of which are really giant firms, you know Koch Industries is a multibillion dollar businesses. So that creates a narrower base because we’ve literally got something like 50 percent of the business income in the U.S. is going to businesses that don’t pay any corporate income tax. They point out [in the report] you could review the boundary between corporate and non-corporate taxation as a way to broaden the base.
Holden tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD that this quotation from a senior administration official “came to our attention from different avenues. We are very concerned about why this would be said about us, particularly in this setting. We are concerned where this information would have been obtained from. We also are concerned in light of recent events that we have been singled out by the government and others as a campaign against us because of our political views.”
THE WEEKLY STANDARD asked White House press office officials in an email on Friday to verify the quotation’s accuracy, but 72 hours later they have not replied. A White House press aide reached this morning on the phone said she would look into whether a transcript of the call exists. The aide has not yet responded. (Correction: The press aide replied just prior to publication of this report to say, “I haven’t been able to track a transcript down.”)
But an independent source who participated in the briefing confirms to THE WEEKLY STANDARD that the quotation matches the source’s careful notes from the briefing.
Holden claims that the revelation of tax information could have been improper, depending on how the information was obtained by the White House:
“I’m not accusing any one of any illegal conduct. But it’s my understanding that under federal law, tax information, is confidential and it’s not to be disclosed or obtained by individuals except under limited circumstances. … I don’t know what [the senior administration official] was referring to. I’m not sure what he’s saying. I’m not sure what information he has. But if he got this information–confidential tax information–under the internal revenue code … if he obtained it in a way that was inappropriate, that would be unlawful. But I don’t know that that’s the case.”
Holden says that to his knowledge the tax status of Koch Industries has not been previously reported in the press.
So, questions remain: Why won’t White House officials say if the quotation about Koch Industries is accurate–or even if a transcript of the briefing exists?
And, if the quotation is accurate, why won’t they say how the White House obtained tax information on Koch Industries?

Thursday, June 27, 2013

Politics: Obama orders CDC gun violence study, study shreds his position | CainTV

Politics: Obama orders CDC gun violence study, study shreds his position 


Politics: Obama orders CDC gun violence study, study shreds his position

Published by: Robert Laurie on Thursday June 27th, 2013

Robert Laurie
By ROBERT LAURIE - Guns used overwhelmingly for defense, make carriers safer
Earlier this year, President Obama signed a set of executive orders targeting gun violence in the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings. Among them was an edict commanding the CDC to do a comprehensive survey of studies regarding guns and gun violence in the United States. Clearly, once the CDC produced the hard evidence that the US was a violent nation of wild-west shootouts, people would be eager to embrace strict gun control legislation.
At least that was the plan.  The study, which was compiled by the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council under the CDC's direction, was recently completed and released. The anti-gun crowd has been awfully quiet about it. Could it be that it didn't support their bogus hypothesis?
In a word, Yes. The CDC's numbers basically back every pro-gun rights argument made over the course of the last year.
First and foremost, the majority of annual gun-related deaths are due to suicide, not crime.
The study finds that "Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.”
While this is still a depressing statistic, it supports gun-rights advocates' claims that the country has a mental health problem, not a gun owner problem.  In fact, the study found that those who own guns, carry them, and fight back against criminals are actually fare better in dangerous situations.
The CDC notes that virtually all studies which "assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns” found the same thing.  There are "consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”
But self-defense with a firearm is incredibly uncommon. After all, that's what the lefties are always telling us, so it must be true. Right?
Wrong.
The CDC report finds that "“Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence."  In fact, while exact statistics are hard to come by, the report indicates that "Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008."
So, there's as much as a 10 to 1 ratio of defensive firearm use vs. offensive use, though admittedly the 3 million figure is probably a bit high.
On the downside, the study does indicate that we have the most firearm related deaths of any wealthy western nation, but - contrary to what the left would like you to believe - those numbers are declining.  Things are getting better, not worse.
The report indicates that “Overall crime rates have declined in the past decade, and violent crimes, including homicides specifically, have declined in the past 5 years." However, “Between 2005 and 2010, the percentage of firearm-related violent victimizations remained generally stable.”
According to the report, “firearm-related death rates for youth ages 15 to 19 declined from 1994 to 2009," while the number of accidental shootings declined as well. The report states that “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”
We all know the United States has too much crime, and yes, too much gun violence. No one is arguing that we need to work to bring those numbers down.  However, gun control has never been the answer.  Now, with all of this data in mind, we wouldn't expect to see Obama and Biden waving their study around. It simply does too much damage to many of their specious claims.

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

Five myths about the National Security Agency - The Washington Post

Five myths about the National Security Agency - The Washington Post

Five myths about the National Security Agency

By James Bamford, Published: June 21

James Bamford is the author of three books on the NSA, including “The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA From 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America.”
by James Bamford When the National Security Agency was created through a top-secret memorandum signed by President Harry Truman in 1952, the agency was so secret that only a few members of Congress knew about it. While the NSA gradually became known over the decades, its inner workings remain extremely hidden, even with the recent leaks about its gathering of Americans’ phone records and tapping into data from the nine largest Internet companies. Let’s pull back the shroud a bit to demystify this agency.
1. The NSA is allowed to spy on everyone, everywhere.
After his release of documents to the Guardian and The Washington Post, former NSA contractor Edward Snowden said, “I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant to a federal judge to even the president if I had a personal e-mail.”
But Snowden probably couldn’t eavesdrop on just about anyone, including the president, without breaking the law. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act forbids the NSA from targeting U.S. citizens or legal residents without an order issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. This applies whether the person is in the United States or overseas. According to documents from Snowdenpublished by The Post and the Guardian on Thursday, if agency employees pick up the communications of Americans incidentally while monitoring foreign targets, they are supposed to destroy the information unless it contains “significant foreign intelligence” or evidence of a crime.
What’s technically feasible is a different matter. Since 2003, the NSA has been able to monitor much of the Internet and telephone communication entering, leaving and traveling through the United States with secret eavesdropping hardware and software installed at major AT&T switches, and probably those of other companies, around the country.
2. The courts make sure that what the NSA does is legal.
This is part of the NSA’s mantra. Because both the surveillance court and the activities it monitors are secret, it’s hard to contradict. Yet we know about at least one transgression since Congress created the court in 1978 in response to the NSA’s previous abuses.
Under the court’s original charter, the NSA was required to provide it with the names of all U.S. citizens and residents it wished to monitor. Yet the George W. Bush administration issued a presidential order in 2002 authorizing the NSA to eavesdrop without court-approved warrants.
After the New York Times exposed the warrantless wiretapping program in 2005, Congress amended the law to weaken the court’s oversight and incorporate many of the formerly illegal eavesdropping activities conducted during the Bush years. Rather than individual warrants, the court can now approve vast, dragnet-style warrants, or orders, as they’re called. For example, the first document released by the Guardian was a top-secret order from the court requiring Verizon to hand over the daily telephone records of all its customers, including local calls.
3. Congress has a lot of oversight over the NSA.
This is the second part of the mantra from NSA Director Keith Alexander and other senior agency officials. Indeed, when the congressional intelligence committees were formed in 1976 and 1977, their emphasis was on protecting the public from the intelligence agencies, which were rife with abuses.
Today, however, the intelligence committees are more dedicated to protecting the agencies from budget cuts than safeguarding the public from their transgressions. Hence their failure to discover the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping activity and their failure to take action against the NSA’s gathering of telephone and Internet records.
4. NSA agents break into foreign locations to steal codes and plant bugs.
According to intelligence sources, a number of years ago there was a large debate between the NSA and the CIA over who was responsible for conducting “black-bag jobs” — breaking into foreign locations to plant bugs and steal hard drives, or recruiting local agents to do the same. The NSA argued that it was in charge of eavesdropping on communications, known as signals intelligence, and that the data on hard drives counts. But the CIA argued that the NSA had responsibility only for information “in motion,” while the CIA was responsible for information “at rest.” It was eventually decided that the CIA’s National Clandestine Service would focus on stealing hard drives and planting bugs, and the NSA, through a highly secret unit known as Tailored Access Operations, would steal foreign data through cyber-techniques.
5. Snowden could have aired his concerns internally rather than leaking the documents.
I’ve interviewed many NSA whistleblowers, and the common denominator is that they felt ignored when attempting to bring illegal or unethical operations to the attention of higher-ranking officials. For example, William Binney and several other senior NSA staffers protested the agency’s domestic collection programs up the chain of command, and even attempted to bring the operations to the attention of the attorney general, but they were ignored. Only then did Binney speak publicly to me for an article in Wired magazine.
In a Q&A on the Guardian Web site, Snowden cited Binney as an example of “how overly-harsh responses to public-interest whistle-blowing only escalate the scale, scope, and skill involved in future disclosures. Citizens with a conscience are not going to ignore wrong-doing simply because they’ll be destroyed for it: the conscience forbids it.”
And even when whistleblowers bring their concerns to the news media, the NSA usually denies that the activity is taking place. The agency denied Binney’s charges that it was obtaining all consumer metadata from Verizon and had access to virtually all Internet traffic. It was only when Snowden leaked the documents revealing the phone-log program and showing how PRISM works that the agency was forced to come clean.

Sunday, June 23, 2013

Obama Administration Cuts Oil Development on Federal Land

Obama Administration Cuts Oil Development on Federal Land

Obama Administration Cuts Oil Development on Federal Land

Saturday, 22 Jun 2013 12:10 PM
By Sandy Fitzgerald
Share:
The Obama administration is calling for cutting the amount of federal lands open for oil shale and tars sands development in the Western states, a plan that industry officials say may force companies to look overseas for opportunities.

A new Bureau of Land Management plan calls for allowing 700,000 acres of land for development, reports Fox News. This is a drastic cut from the Bush administration, which had set aside 1.3 million acres, and the oil industry is outraged by the change.

"What they basically did was make it so that nobody is going to want to spend money going after oil shale on federal government lands," said Dan Kish, Senior Vice President of Institute for Energy Research.

Oil shale drilling is different from the hydraulic fracking process being used in places like the Bakken shale region in North Dakota or the Niobrara in Colorado. Fracking breaks through lwyers of shale rock and pumps out oil.

But oil shale refers to the rock itself. When companies subject the rock to pressure or high temperatures, either by leaving it in place or removing it, oil develops.

Colorado Wildlife Federation Spokesman Todd Malmsbury said the process raises a great deal of concerns about the impact on the region's water and land.

"Water is the most important resource we have in the West," Malmsbury said. "If we pollute that water, if we deplete that water, it's going to hurt everyone out here."

The Bureau of Land Management said it is not against the oil shale and tar sands development, but is restricting the amount of public lands until the processes prove safe, and may release more federal lands in coming years if it is safe to do so.

But Kish said the reduction will force the energy industry to look elsewhere, even in other countries, for development.

"The Chinese are inviting companies in, companies that may have done business in the United States if we'd had a better approach," said Kish. "And we don't even know the total extent (of the potential for oil from shale in America) but it's basically around a trillion barrels...which would be as much as the world has used since the first oil well was drilled 150 years ago."

But conversation groups applaud the decision, saying that drilling can damage the land and its natural resources.

"Why in the world risk our heritage, our hunting and fishing traditions and all of the sustainable economy that comes from that on something that's speculative? said Malmsbury. "It doesn't make sense from a dollars and cents standpoint."

However, seven different environmental groups plan to sue over the issue, reports KSL.com in Utah,  saying BLM did not consider the impact of oil development on endangered species in the area.

“The Colorado River has nothing left to give, and it’s not in the public interest to allow water-guzzling mining projects to mangle and pollute the productivity of this vital watershed any further,” said John Weisheit, Living Rivers’ conservation director.



© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.