Search This Blog

Thursday, January 16, 2014






Latest Developments
Congress Introduces Voting Rights Act Bill
Today, Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), with Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and others, introduced a bill to strengthen the Voting Rights Act after the Supreme Court eliminated its key protections last year.

“From its first days, the Voting Rights Act united members of both parties. Critically, this proposal continues that bipartisan approach,” said Brennan Center President Michael Waldman. “America was founded on the principle that we all are ‘created equal.’ To fulfill that promise, we need an election system that works well for everyone, and doesn’t tolerate discrimination against anyone. This bill is a crucial first step. We hope it gets stronger as it moves through the legislative process.”

Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, jurisdictions with a history of discrimination must seek pre-approval of changes in voting rules that could affect minorities. This process, known as “preclearance,” blocks discrimination before it occurs. Last June, the Supreme Court invalidated Section 4 — which determines the states and localities covered by Section 5 — arguing that current conditions require a new coverage formula.

Today’s bill would, among other changes:
  • Require jurisdictions with a recent record of repeated Voting Rights Act violations to pre-clear election law changes.
  • Expand the current “bail-in” procedures, which allow courts to subject jurisdictions to preclearance. 
  • Create a uniform requirement to inform voters of certain pending voting changes.
  • Enhance the ability of lawyers to halt discriminatory election measures before they can harm citizens.   (Allow voter fraud by not requiring ID)
  • Allow federal observers to monitor elections to ensure compliance with laws protecting the rights of Americans who speak limited English.
State Updates
Arizona – The Associated Press spoke to several voters caught up in Arizona’s fight over its documentary proof of citizenship law, which the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated last year for federal elections.
Kansas – Kansas has a similar problem. More than 19,000 registrations are on hold due to the state’s proof of citizenship requirement. A group of Democratic legislators introduced a bill to fix the problem. Jean Schodorf, a former Republican state senator who had voted for the law, is now demanding an audit of Secretary of State Kris Kobach’s supervision of the measure. “He promised that this law would be simple, easy and seamless to implement,” said Schodorf, who switched parties and is expected to challenge Kobach as a Democrat. “We’re in this horrible mess.”
Alabama – State officials last week agreed to provide voter registration opportunities at public assistance agencies. Read more here. Meanwhile, a federal judge used a mechanism in the Voting Rights Act to reinstate federal oversight of voting laws in Evergreen, Alabama.
California – “Conservatives and Tea Partiers” are trying to put voter ID on the ballot this November, according to MSNBC.
Florida – State election officials will soon start efforts to remove non-citizens from the voter rolls, but this time election supervisors will have a chance to opine on the plan. Voting advocates and the Justice Department sued to halt a purge in 2012 after the supervisors found the lists were riddled with errors.
Iowa – State Senator Tom Courtney (D) wants to investigate whether Secretary of State Matt Schultz (R) properly used federal money to investigate voter fraud charges. But the agency that can conduct an investigation, the Election Assistance Commission, currently has no commissioners. Courtney sent a letter last week asking the U.S. Senate’s Judiciary Committee to confirm the nominees.
Kentucky – A state House committee approved a constitutional amendment to restore voting rights to those with past criminal convictions. The bill, which is backed by U.S. Sen. Rand Paul (R), needs 60 percent of the vote in the House and the Senate to be placed on the ballot this fall.
Mississippi – State Sen. David Blount (D) believes there will be bipartisan support for his bill to offer online voter registration.
North Carolina – The NAACP broadened its lawsuit challenging North Carolina’s package of restrictive voting laws, arguing the measures discriminate against Hispanics as well as African Americans. The group is also asking for access to Republican lawmakers’ emails to show the bill’s “sponsors knowingly discriminated against racial minorities.” The state says the emails should be private because of legislative privilege.
Ohio – The legislature will consider a series of bills to restrict voting, including a measure to eliminate Ohio’s “Golden Week,” the one week where a voter can register and cast a ballot on the same day. Meanwhile, Secretary of State Jon Husted (R) reached a settlement in which he agreed to use an interstate database to identify ineligible voters on election lists. Advocates worry the program “makes it too easy to wrongly remove voters from the rolls.”

Media Round-Up
  • The courts will consider a number of voting rights issues in 2014. “If judges have to rule whether new restrictions are inspired by party politics or racial motives, it will be difficult to predict what they will say,” wrote UC-Irvine Law Professor Rick Hasen at TPM. “But the impeding rulings will make a huge difference for minorities and younger Americans, whose voting rights are very much on the line.”

  • “If I need ID to buy cough syrup, why shouldn’t I need ID to vote?” Brennan Center Fellow Andrew Cohen breaks down his answer to that flawed question at The Atlantic.

  • Single-party control of state governments is leading to radically different approaches on a wide range of issues, from voting rights to labor contracts to health care, reported Dan Balz of The Washington Post.

  • The Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony last week from Debo Adegbile, former head of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, who was nominated to lead the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. Stanford Law Professor Pam Karlan will oversee the Division’s voting section, which handles the federal government’s voting rights policy.

  • The Nation’s  (COMMUNIST PUBLICATION) John Nichols highlighted the Brennan Center’s recent report, How to Fix the Voting System, as one of his “five reforms to make our politics matter.”

  • “Online registration is cost-effective for states, convenient for voters, and secure, because it reduces the potential for fraud while improving the accuracy of voter rolls,” according to new report from The Pew Charitable Trusts. 
The following is from the Brennan Center For Justice's website:

Voting Rights Act Bill: Critical First Step to Improve Elections

January 16, 2014
Today, members of Congress introduced a bill to strengthen the Voting Rights Act after the Supreme Court eliminated key protections last year.

The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law released the following statement from President Michael Waldman:

“The Supreme Court gutted the core of the Voting Rights Act, removing a critical protection against discrimination in voting. We applaud these members of Congress for introducing this bill to help strengthen the law. Reps. Conyers and Sensenbrenner, as well as Sen. Leahy, have shown tremendous leadership. From its first days, the Voting Rights Act united members of both parties. Critically, this proposal continues that bipartisan approach. Voting rights should not be a partisan issue.

“America was founded on the principle that we all are ‘created equal.’ To fulfill that promise, we need an election system that works well for everyone, and doesn’t tolerate discrimination against anyone. This bill is a crucial first step. We hope it gets stronger as it moves through the legislative process.

“We also expect the president’s bipartisan voting commission to issue recommendations soon, which states can adopt quickly to improve elections. We look forward to working with members of Congress and election officials across the country to modernize voting and bring our system into the 21st century. We should assure that only eligible citizens can vote — but every single eligible citizen can vote.”

Read the Brennan Center’s report, If Section 5 Falls: New Voting Implications. Also see our resources on Voter Registration Modernization, including our recent report, How to Fix the Voting System.
For more information, or to set up an interview, please contact Erik Opsal at or 646-292-8356.
To better understand why this bill needs to be killed, take a look at what the Brennan Center For Justice thinks about our Constitution: 
The Brennan Center plays a central, critical role in the drive for a renewed democracy and justice system. Our goal: To advance a robust vision of the Constitution as a charter for a thriving democracy. Bold policy reform must be supported by a long-term effort to shift legal doctrine. That is why we lead an ambitious new initiative to develop and articulate a compelling progressive jurisprudence for the 21st century.

This starts with our multi-year drive to roll back Citizens United. We convened what The New York Times called an “A list” of First Amendment scholars to begin to chip away at the ruling’s foundations, which led to our publication “Money, Politics, and the Constitution: Beyond Citizens United,” the first major book to assess the constitutional way forward. The Center previously published, “The Genius of America: How the Constitution Saved Our Country and Why It Can Again.”

The Center also holds numerous public events centered on the Constitution. Created in 1996, our annual Brennan Center Jorde Symposium sponsors top scholarly discourse and writing from a variety of perspectives on issues that were central to the legacy of Justice Brennan. Our Living Constitution Lecture series brings together thinkers and policymakers to further understanding of the Constitution and its role in a changing world.

The Brennan Center forges new doctrines not only in the halls of academia, but in the active fight for justice. We play the lead legal role in defending the integrity of our elections, coordinating the legal strategy to defend voting rights, working with civil rights and voting rights allies. Through lawsuits, advocacy, and research, we have protected voting rights for hundreds of thousands of Americans. We also insist on a fair and impartial judiciary, working hard to protect the courts from the influx of special interest spending that threatens to overwhelm judicial selection in the states.

By developing this kind of progressive legal scholarship, the Brennan Center has real impact in the academy, in legal practice and jurisprudence, and in the public debate on policy issues.

US General: Muslim Brotherhood Inside White House And Now See What Eric Holder Wants To Do To Further Hamper Law Enforcement

(Tea Party) – A Washington political insider, retired US Air Force General Tom McInerney has confirmed that the Muslim Brotherhood has a major presence in the White House inner circle. In an interview with a Washington radio station, the for assistant vice chief of staff and commander in chief of U.S. Forces Europe has identified as least two Muslim Brotherhood players with direct Oval Office access.

The Muslim Brotherhood influence has been detailed in the book “Impeachable Offenses: The Case to Remove Barack Obama from Office” by New York Times bestselling authors Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott.

In the book the authors document that Obama has aided the return to power of Islamic extremist groups in the Middle East and confirms that the administration may have exposed national security information through Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s deputy chief of staff. Abedin’s family has very close personal ties with the Muslim Brotherhood that run deep.

The second White House figure with disturbing ties to the extremist group is Mohamed Elibiary who is a member of the Department of Homeland Security’s Advisory Council.

In an interview with a Washington radio station concerning a tell-all book by former Defense Secretary Robert Gates that strongly criticizes President Obama and Vice-President Biden for making decisions about national security that were politically motivated, McInerney applauded Gates for doing the nation a service for exposing the practice.

He noted that Gates should have made his concerns known earlier indicating, “We’ve got Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. government today.”

When asked for their names by the radio talk-show host, McInerney stated, “I haven’t got their names exactly but there’s a list of them, at least 10 to 15 in the U.S. government.”

McInerney expressed strong concern  due to the extremist organization’s influence on our Homeland Security and the secretary of state’s office, where Abedin holds a key post.

“Her parents are Muslim Brotherhood.  And her intuitions are in that direction,” said McInerney. “There are a whole host of people in this government.”  He also cited Islam experts Frank Gaffney and Claire Lopez as those who would have details.

As president of the Center for Security Policy, Gaffney has created a publication called “The Muslim Brotherhood in the Obama Administration.” The publication was created to address the issue that was presented to Congress in July 2012 by Republican Reps. Michele Bachmann, Trent Franks, Louie Gohmert, Tom Rooney and Lynn Westmoreland.

It was those five lawmakers that requested the inspector generals at the Department of Homeland Security, Justice and State to investigate.

While both Democrats and Republicans rushed to defend Abedin, is was reported by news media WND that Abedin worked for an organization that was founded by her family and that planned to mobilize U.S. Muslim minorities in order to transform America into a Wahhabi-style Islamic state. This was according to a manifesto issued by the Saudi monarchy.

Further, Abedin was also a member of the Muslim Student Association where she was a member of the executive board. The association was identified in a 1991 document as a Muslim Brotherhood front group. That document was introduced into evidence during a trial for the Texas-based Holy Land Foundation during the terror-financing trial.

An internal memo is quoted as saying that the Muslim Brotherhood members “must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and by the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

Claire Lopez, a CSP senior fellow with The Gatestone Institute further wrote: “The careful insinuation of Muslim Brothers into positions from which they can exercise influence on U.S. policy began long before the attacks of 9/11, although their success has accelerated dramatically under the administration of President Barack Obama.”

She went on to say that the “massive Muslim Brotherhood organization network in the U.S., so patiently built up over the decades since that first Oval Office meeting in 1953 [with President Dwight D. Eisenhower], eventually gave it a prominence and (false) reputation of credibility that was unmatched by any other Islamic groups, moderate or otherwise.”

This “information dominance” only intensified during the George W. Bush administration and in the following years, reported Lopez.

“Not only did figures associated and identified with the Muslim Brotherhood achieve broad penetration at senior levels of U.S. policy making, but voices that warned of their true agenda (such as Stephen Coughlin’s) were actively excluded,” she said.

Lopez also identifies this information dominance as the key driver in the U.S policy toward the al-Qaida and Muslim Brotherhood led revolution or “Arab Spring” which she terms more accurately as “Islamic Awakening.”

“Under the Muslim Brotherhood-influenced Obama administration, U.S. policy has undergone such a drastic shift in the direction of outright support for these jihadist movements – from al-Qaida militias in Libya, to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and both al-Qaida and Muslim Brotherhood-linked rebels in Syria — that it is scarcely recognizable as American anymore.”

She continues: “The Middle East is coming apart with this administration’s policies. Look at Libya. We should never have gone into Libya. … We’ve got Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. government.”
It was not by chance that the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, “reading from prepared notes, absurdly describing the Muslim Brotherhood to the House Intelligence Committee last year as a ‘largely secular’ organization,” wrote WND columnist Diana West.

West adds: “Is it an accident that in June the State Department issued a visa to Hani Nour Eldin of Egypt to meet with senior White House officials? Eldin is a member of Gama’a al-Islamiyya, a terrorist organization once led by Omar Abdel Rahman, ‘the blind sheikh’ convicted of the first attack on the World Trade Center. In the person of Rahman’s successor, Refai Ahmed Taha, the group is one of the five signatories of Osama bin Laden’s February 1998 ‘World Islamic Front Statement Urging Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders.’ Isn’t it imperative to review the policy mechanism that permitted a member of bin Laden’s jihad front into the White House?”

It was also reported in the book “Impeachable Offenses” that the then-CIA director John Brennan, in a speech arranged by a Muslim Brotherhood-tied group, indicated that the Obama administration was calibrating policies in the fight against terrorism to ensure Americans are never “profiled.”  The group has extensive ties with other Brotherhood fronts as well as to the White House and national security agencies.

The session Brennan participated in was organized by the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) whose members blasted Brennan with questions stating that the purpose of the meeting was to launch a “dialogue between government officials and Muslim American leaders to explore issues of national security.”

The group was founded in 1981 by the Saudi-funded Muslim Students Association, a group created by the Muslim Brotherhood. Both groups continue to work as partners. ISNA is recognized for promoting strict Saudi-style Islam in mosques throughout the U.S.

And the indictments of ISNA continue with terrorism expert Steven Emerson calling ISNA “a radical group hiding under a false veneer of moderation” and  Islam scholar Stephen Schwartz describing the group as “one of the chief conduits through which the radical Saudi form of Islam passes into the United States.”

Source: Tea
This administration has aligned themselves with our enemies.  They have done everything they could to destabilize the Middle East while putting the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qeada in charge. They have done everything they could to put Anti-Christian and Anti-Israel terrorists in charge in Libya, Egypt and are trying to do the same in Syria. 

Thank God the Egyptians realized what was happening and overthrew the government Obama helped to put in charge!  American's need to do the same!

When are the majority of American's going to wake up to the fact that this administration's ultimate goal is to destroy our country?  Obama, along with all of the far left, hate this country, and are on a mission to take it down.  These acts are acts of treason and should be treated as such.  

Take a look at what Eric Hold had to say today:

U.S to Ban Profiling Based on National Origin, Religion, Gender, Sexual Orientation


Expanding a limited 2003 ban, the Justice Department will soon prohibit federal agents from profiling suspects based on national origin, religion, gender, and sexual orientation. The Bush administration's ban applied only to race, allowing federal agents to specifically target Muslims in terrorism cases and Latinos for immigration investigations.
From the New York Times:
President George W. Bush said in 2001 that racial profiling was wrong and promised "to end it in America." But that was before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. After those attacks, federal agents arrested and detained dozens of Muslim men who had no ties to terrorism. The government also began a program known as special registration, which required tens of thousands of Arab and Muslim men to register with the authorities because of their nationalities.
"Putting an end to this practice not only comports with the Constitution, it would put real teeth to the F.BI.'s claims that it wants better relationships with religious minorities," Hina Shamsi, a national security lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, told the Times.

But a critical part of the ban's expansion is still unknown. As it stands now, the prohibitions on racial profiling do not apply to cases involving national security, which has been an obvious cause for concern for Arab and Muslim rights groups. The rule also applies only to traffic stops and arrests, not surveillance.

"Adding religion and national origin is huge," Linda Sarsour, advocacy director for the National Network for Arab American Communities, told Times. "But if they don't close the national security loophole, then it's really irrelevant."

And local law enforcement groups, like the NYPD, will not be subject to the new regulations. 

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder revealed the changes to New York Mayor Bill de Blasio Wednesday night, according to government official who spoke with the Times.

Photo courtesy of


UN climate chief: Communism is best to fight global warming

Photo courtesy of Reuters

12:08 PM 01/15/2014
United Nations climate chief Christiana Figueres said that democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China, she says, is the best model.

China may be the world’s top emitter of carbon dioxide and struggling with major pollution problems of their own, but the country is “doing it right” when it comes to fighting global warming says Figueres.

“They actually want to breathe air that they don’t have to look at,” she said. “They’re not doing this because they want to save the planet. They’re doing it because it’s in their national interest.”

Figueres added that the deep partisan divide in the U.S. Congress is “very detrimental” to passing any sort of legislation to fight global warming. The Chinese Communist Party, on the other hand, can push key policies and reforms all on its own. The country’s national legislature largely enforces the decisions made by the party’s Central Committee and other executive offices.

..................................The Wall Street Journal notes that China’s air quality was so bad that about “1.2 million people died prematurely in China in 2010 as a result of air pollution” and Chinese government figures show that “lung cancer is now the leading cause of death from malignant tumors. Many of those dying are nonsmokers.”

The Soviet bloc’s environmental track record was similarly dismal.

The Communist Party’s National Action Plan spent $275 billion to combat rampant pollution through 2017, including reducing particulate matter 2.5 levels in the Beijing region by 25 percent.

Read more: The Daily Caller

You just can't make this shit up.  So the UN thinks China is the model country for combating faux global warming....and the same day, an article comes out about how dangerous their air quality is.  

Air pollution spikes to dangerously high levels in Beijing

Air pollution has reached dangerously high levels in China's capital, where the concentration of toxic small particles registered more than two dozen times the level considered safe.

The density of PM2.5 particles was at about 350 to 500 micrograms per cubic meter in the midmorning, and had reached as high as 671 at 4 a.m. at a monitoring post at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing. That is about 26 times as high as the 25 micrograms considered safe by the World Health Organization.

Serious air pollution plagues most major Chinese cities, where environmental protection has been long sacrificed for the sake of economic development. In recent years, China has beefed up regulations to fight pollution.

Beijing authorities say the severe pollution is likely to continue through Friday.
Read More: Fox News

Wednesday, January 15, 2014

UPDATE: Breaking: Far Left Code Pink “Peace” Activists Linked to Second Al-Qaeda Group in a Week


UPDATE: Breaking: Far Left Code Pink “Peace” Activists Linked to Second Al-Qaeda Group in a Week

Posted by Jim Hoft on Thursday, January 16, 2014, 8:10 AM 
Last week Kristinn Taylor reported that Jodie Evans and Code Pink, the leftist group she co-leads, were reportedly working with a group whose leaders have recently been declared terrorists and al Qaeda supporters by the Treasury Department. As Kristinn noted, Code Pink has a long history of working with terrorist organizations and enemies of the United States.

The most recent allegations involve Code Pink’s relationship with al Karama, a so-called human rights group. Mohammad Al Ahmady, the Yemeni director for Geneva-based NGO Al Karama, was expected to brief Reps. Alan Grayson (D., Fla.), Barbara Lee (D., Calif.), and Jan Schakowsky (D., Ill.) the morning of the Nov. 19, according to press release from Grayson’s office. Ahmady, who also serves as a top official in an al Qaeda-linked Yemeni political party.

Now this…
Turkish officials raided the offices of an al-Qaeda-linked charity on Wednesday. The Humanitarian Relief Foundation was responsible for organizing the 2010 Gaza flotilla. Barack Obama’s close family friends, terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, and top campaign bundler Jodie Evans from Code Pink were top activists with the Gaza flotilla group that attacked the IDF in 2010.
Now authorities say the criminal groups are linked to Al-Qaeda.
The Free Beacon reported:
Turkish police on Tuesday raided the offices of an al Qaeda-linked charity group responsible for organizing the 2010 Gaza flotilla that caused a deadly international incident.
The main offices of the Humanitarian Relief Foundation (IHH), a Turkish charity that claims to support humanitarian causes, were raided by Turkish anti-terror forces in connection with a larger bust on al Qaeda militants, according to Turkish media reports.
IHH has long been suspected of having ties to terror organizations, including Hamas and al Qaeda.
Regional experts said the Turkish raid provides the first definitive evidence that IHH is not the humanitarian organization it claims to be.
“One gets a sense that the Turkish military knows something about the IHH that we’ve long suspected,” said Jonathan Schanzer, a former intelligence analyst who has written about U.S. government bids to designate the IHH a terror group.
IHH, which is often lauded by U.S. groups critical of Israel, has been encircled in controversy since it organized the 2010 Gaza flotilla, a supposedly humanitarian aid mission that sought to breach Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip.
“One gets a sense that the Turkish military knows something about the IHH that we’ve long suspected,” said Jonathan Schanzer, a former intelligence analyst who has written about U.S. government bids to designate the IHH a terror group.
IHH, which is often lauded by U.S. groups critical of Israel, has been encircled in controversy since it organized the 2010 Gaza flotilla, a supposedly humanitarian aid mission that sought to breach Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip.
Via The Gateway Pundit
Confirmed: Obama Bundler Caught Working With al-Qaeda Linked Group
Posted by Jim Hoft on Friday, January 10, 2014, 11:51 AM 
From The Gateway Pundit 
Obama bundler Jodie Evans and Code Pink, the leftist group she co-leads, have been found to be working with a group whose leaders have recently been declared terrorists and al Qaeda supporters by the Treasury Department.

This is not the first time the Democratic Party allied group has been caught in bed with terrorists. As this writer has reported over the years, Code Pink works with terrorists, state sponsors of terrorists, the Democratic Party and President Barack Obama against the United States in the war on terror.

This most recent Code Pink tie to terrorists involves al Karama, a so-called human rights group. A report published this week by the Washington Free Beacon about Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) scheduling a meeting with a representative from the al Karama in November about the Obama administration’s use of armed drones to kill suspected terrorists prompted an examination by this writer of Code Pink’s alliance with al Karama.

Mohammad Al Ahmady, the Yemen director for Geneva-based NGO Al Karama, was expected to brief Reps. Alan Grayson (D., Fla.), Barbara Lee (D., Calif.), and Jan Schakowsky (D., Ill.) the morning of the Nov. 19, according to press release from Grayson’s office.

Ahmady, who also serves as a top official in an al Qaeda-linked Yemeni political party, did not attend because of visa issues. The State Department said it could not comment on visa matters.

Several Al Karama officials have faced terrorism allegations. Al Karama’s founder and current president Abdul Rahman Naimi was designated as a terrorist and al Qaeda supporter by the U.S. Treasury Department in December, along with the group’s Yemen representative Abdulwahab Al-Humayqani. Al Karama’s legal director, Rachid Mesli, is currently wanted for terrorism charges in Algeria.

Unreported by the Free Beacon was that the meeting was likely arranged by Code Pink, which has worked with Grayson in the past, and had hosted an anti-drone conference in Washington the previous weekend. Also unreported by the Free Beacon was Code Pink’s history of working with al Karama in Yemen.

The Free Beacon report keys off a press release by Grayson that listed the anti-drone delegation that was to meet with him, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL). Most of the delegation that was listed on the press release was also listed as speakers at Code Pink’s anti-drone conference.
WHAT: Congressional briefing on U.S. drone strikes in Yemen
WHO: Reps. Alan Grayson, Barbara Lee, and Jan Schakowsky
Faisal bin Ali Jaber, a Yemeni civil engineer whose brother-in-law and nephew were killed by a drone strike
Entesar al Qadhi, Yemeni Politician from Mareb, a frequent location for drone strikes
Baraa Shiban, Yemen Project Coordinator for Reprieve
Mohammad al-Ahmady, lawyer and Director of the Yemen division of al-Karama, an independent human rights organization
Robert Naiman, Policy Director for Just Foreign Policy
WHEN: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 at 4:00 p.m.
WHERE: 2456 Rayburn House Office Building
A spokesman for Grayson told the Free Beacon Mohammad al-Ahmady did not attend the meeting and noted that the terrorist designation for al-Ahmady’s group al Karama was not in place at the time the meeting was scheduled.

Last June, Code Pink traveled to Yemen and met with the father of slain al-Qaeda spiritual leader Anwar al-Awlaki. While in Yemen with Code Pink, Obama bundler Jodie Evans sought donations for families of drone victims and Yemenis held at the U.S. terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Code Pink also worked with al Karama while in Yemen, according to report on al Karama’s website.
Yesterday, 17 June 2013, Yemeni and American activists organized a sit-in in front of the American embassy in Sanaa to protest against drone attacks in the context of American counter-terrorism policy, and to denounce the inability of the Obama administration to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. This campaign, launched under the slogan “Human Dignity” in April 2013 by Alkarama and other human rights organizations in Yemen, aims for the closure of Guantanamo and Bagram detention centers. Several members of Code Pink, a pacifist American organization, joined Alkarama and Hood yesterday to show their support to the families of Guantanamo detainees and pay a tribute to the victims of American airstrikes.
 qaeda code pink

Wednesday, January 8, 2014

NY Times Article From 2011 Links Obama Administration With Terrorist Now Implicated In Benghazi Attack

Former Guantanamo detainee implicated in Benghazi attack

Original Article: The Washington Post
January 7, 2014
U.S. officials suspect that a former Guantanamo Bay detainee played a role in the attack on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, and are planning to designate the group he leads as a foreign terrorist organization, according to officials familiar with the plans.

Militiamen under the command of Abu Sufian bin Qumu, the leader of Ansar al-Sharia in the Libyan city of Darnah, participated in the attack that killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, U.S. officials said.

Witnesses have told American officials that Qumu’s men were in Benghazi before the attack on Sept. 11, 2012, according to the officials. It’s unclear whether they were there as part of a planned attack or out of happenstance. The drive from Darnah to Benghazi takes several hours.

The State Department is expected to tie Qumu’s group to the Benghazi attack when it designates three branches of Ansar al-Sharia, in Darnah, Benghazi and Tunisia, as foreign terrorist organizations in the coming days.

In 2007, Qumu was released from the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and sent to Libya, where he was detained. The Libyan government released him in 2008.

He and two other men, militia leaders Ahmed Abu Khattala and Seif Allah bin Hassine, will be identified as “specially designated global terrorists,” a determination that allows U.S. officials to freeze their financial assets and bar American citizens and companies from doing business with them.

The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the developments.

About a dozen criminal complaints have been filed in the Benghazi case, with more expected. U.S. intelligence officials have said that several militias had a hand in the attack. Some of the individuals charged are from Darnah, although it’s not clear if they are tied to Qumu’s group. Khattala has already been named in a criminal complaint.

The FBI declined to comment Tuesday.

U.S. officials are also investigating whether any of the people involved in the Benghazi raid had a role in the killing of Ronnie Smith, an American schoolteacher who was gunned down while jogging in the city last month.

Lawless conditions in eastern Libya have frustrated U.S. efforts to investigate the attack in Benghazi and capture those responsible. U.S. officials scrapped a plan to snatch Khattala in Benghazi for fear that American action could trigger unrest and destabilize the Libyan government.  

Read More: The Washington Post 
So Now that there appears to be some evidence tying  Abu Sufian Ibrahim Ahmed Hamuda Bin Qumu to the Benghazi attack....take a look at this article from 2011 by the NY Times:

 Libyan, Once a Detainee, Is Now a U.S. Ally of Sorts 

Published: April 24,2011
For more than five years, Abu Sufian Ibrahim Ahmed Hamuda bin Qumu was a prisoner at the Guantánamo Bay prison, judged “a probable member of Al Qaeda” by the analysts there. They concluded in a newly disclosed 2005 assessment that his release would represent a “medium to high risk, as he is likely to pose a threat to the U.S., its interests and allies.

Today, Mr. Qumu, 51, is a notable figure in the Libyan rebels’ fight to oust Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, reportedly a leader of a ragtag band of fighters known as the Darnah Brigade for his birthplace, this shabby port town of 100,000 people in northeast Libya. The former enemy and prisoner of the United States is now an ally of sorts, a remarkable turnabout resulting from shifting American policies rather than any obvious change in Mr. Qumu.

He was a tank driver in the Libyan Army in the 1980s, when the Central Intelligence Agency was spending billions to support religious militants trying to drive Soviet troops out of Afghanistan. Mr. Qumu moved to Afghanistan in the early 1990s, just as Osama bin Laden and other former mujahedeen were violently turning against their former benefactor, the United States.

He was captured in Pakistan after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, accused of being a member of the militant Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, and sent to Guantánamo — in part because of information provided by Colonel Qaddafi’s government.

“The Libyan Government considers detainee a ‘dangerous man with no qualms about committing terrorist acts,’ ” says the classified 2005 assessment, evidently quoting Libyan intelligence findings, which was obtained by The New York Times. “ ‘He was known as one of the extremist commanders of the Afghan Arabs,’ ” the Libyan information continues, referring to Arab fighters who remained in Afghanistan after the anti-Soviet jihad. 

When that Guantánamo assessment was written, the United States was working closely with Colonel Qaddafi’s intelligence service against terrorism. Now, the United States is a leader of the international coalition trying to oust Colonel Qaddafi — and is backing with air power the rebels, including Mr. Qumu. 

The classified Guantánamo assessment of Mr. Qumu claims that he suffered from “a non-specific personality disorder” and recounted — again citing the Libyan government as its source — a history of drug addiction and drug dealing and accusations of murder and armed assault.

In 1993, the document asserts, Mr. Qumu escaped from a Libyan prison, fled to Egypt and went on to Afghanistan, training at a camp run by Mr. bin Laden. At Guantánamo, Mr. Qumu denied knowledge of terrorist activities. He said he feared being returned to Libya, where he faced criminal charges, and asked to go to some other country where “You (the United States) can watch me,” according to a hearing summary.

Nonetheless, in 2007, he was sent from Guantánamo to Libya and released the next year in an amnesty for militants.

Colonel Qaddafi has cited claims about Mr. Qumu’s past in statements blaming Al Qaeda for the entire Libyan uprising. American officials have nervously noted the presence of at least a few former militants in the rebels’ ranks.

The walls of buildings along the road into Darnah are decorated with the usual anti-Qaddafi and pro-Western slogans, in English and Arabic, found all over eastern Libya. But there are notable additions: “No Qaeda” and “No to Extremism.”

Darnah has reason to be touchy. The town has a long history of Islamic militancy, including a revolt against Colonel Qaddafi’s rule led by Islamists in the mid-1990s that resulted in a vicious crackdown. Activists from here are credited with starting the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which later announced that it was affiliating with Al Qaeda, and which sent militants like Mr. Qumu to fight in Afghanistan.

Most famously, though, Darnah has a claim to being the world’s most productive recruiting ground for suicide bombers. An analysis of 600 suicide bombers in Iraq by the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point found that of 440 who listed their hometowns in a recruiting roster, 52 were from Darnah, the most of any city, with Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 40 times as populous, as the next biggest source, sending 51.

In addition to Mr. Qumu, local residents say the Darnah Brigade is led by Abdul-Hakim al-Hasadi, another Libyan thought to be a militant who was in Afghanistan during the Taliban’s rule, when Al Qaeda had training camps there. 
Read More: NY Times

View a copy of the Department of Defense Document Here

The Daily Mail 
WikiLeaks: Guantanamo detainee is now Libyan rebel leader
Al Qaeda, ex-Gitmo detainee involved in consulate attack, intelligence sources say
Ex-Mujahedeen Help Lead Libyan Rebels
Bin Laden's ex-bodyguard cleared for release from Guantanamo  

Saturday, January 4, 2014

WOW- A MUST WATCH DOCUMENTARY: Hillary Clinton Exposed, Movie She Banned From Theaters - Full

Photo courtesy of

  Hillary Clinton Exposed, Movie She Banned From Theaters - Full 

2008 Hillary Clinton Exposed Website
There is a reference to "The Path To 9/11" in the movie.  In it, the director talks about how after airing and receiving 7 emmy nominations, ABC/Disney refuses to release it on DVD on the orders of the Clinton's.  I checked to see if it was available yet.  It is not.


Hillary: The Movie (How she banned it)

August 31, 2009 6:24PM

The Supreme Court is soon to hear a case that may drastically roll back campaign finance regulation in the United States:
The case involves “Hillary: The Movie,” a mix of advocacy journalism and political commentary that is a relentlessly negative look at Mrs. Clinton’s character and career. The documentary was made by a conservative advocacy group called Citizens United, which lost a lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission seeking permission to distribute it on a video-on-demand service. The film is available on the Internet and on DVD. The issue was that the McCain-Feingold law bans corporate money being used for electioneering.
The right position for the Court is that McCain-Feingold, and all other campaign finance regulation, constitutes unconstitutional limitation on free speech. This means reversing the Court’s 1974 Buckley v. Valeo decision, which held that government limits on campaign spending were unconstitutional but limits on contributions were not.

This distinction is meaningless. If it is OK for a millionaire to spend his own money promoting his own campaign, why can he not give that money to someone else, who might be a more effective advocate for that millionaire’s views, so that this other person can run for office?

More broadly, campaign finance regulation is thought control: it takes a position on whether money should influence political outcomes. Whether or not one agrees, this is only one possible view, and freedom of speech is meant to prevent government from promoting or discouraging particular points of view.

It would be a brave step for Court to reverse Buckley, but it is the right thing to do.

For more background on the case, watch this:



Conservative group to produce Hillary Clinton documentary

Despite CNN and NBC canceling planned projects on Hillary Clinton, a conservative organization announced this week that they were moving forward with a project of its own about the former First Lady and Secretary of State.

Citizens United Productions, which bills itself as the “country’s leading conservative filmmaker,” has produced a number of exposés over the last few years. The organization made waves in 2008 with Hillary: The Movie, which shed light on Clinton’s public life as she ran for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination.

That exposé was also the issue in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission (2008), a landmark Supreme Court decision that overturned the parts of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (McCain-Feingold) and restored free speech rights that were regulated by the law.

“Unlike CNN and NBC Citizens United Productions will not be deterred in uncovering the truth behind the ongoing Clinton charade,” said David Bossie, President of Citizens United Productions, in a statement from the organization. “As we have seen in our successes with ‘Hillary The Movie’ and most recently ‘Fast Terry’, Clinton world has unlimited storylines, nefarious characters, and an overall record American’s should be concerned about.”

Citizens United had sought equal time from CNN and NBC to run its exposé on Clinton in concert with the networks’ now-terminated projects.

“Citizens United is currently in pre-production of our film that will no doubt shake the Clinton world to the core with a scheduled release date of early 2016,” added Bossie. “And unlike CNN and NBC we are not intimidated about airing what Bill and Hillary Clinton do not want the American people to see.”

The details of the project, whether it will be an update of its previous exposé or an entirely different project, were not made available. The release of the project will coincide with the 2016 presidential election. Clinton is considered to be the frontrunner for the Democratic Party’s nomination.

Citizen United Productions has previously produced exposés on various topics, including Occupy Wall Street (Occupy Unmasked) and Barack Obama (The Hope and The Change). Its most recent offering is Fast Terry, which is an exposé on Terry McAuliffe, who is the Democratic nominee for Governor of Virginia.

Barack Obama And His DOJ's War On The Little Sisters Of The Poor


Catholic nuns forced to comply with contraception rule? 


 Barack Obama And His DOJ's War On The Little Sisters Of The Poor

Published on Sep 24, 2013

The Little Sisters of the Poor are
an international Roman Catholic Congregation of women Religious founded in 1839 by St. Jeanne Jugan. They operate homes in 31 countries, where they provide loving care for over 13,000 needy elderly persons.
Although the Little Sisters' homes perform a religious ministry of caring for the elderly poor, they do not fall within the government's narrow exemption for "religious employers." Accordingly, beginning on January1, the Little Sisters will face IRS fines unless they violate their religion by hiring an insurer to provide their employees with contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs.

For more information, visit

Sometime this weekend, consider a word or donation of support by way of thanks to the Little Sisters for being so counterculturally authentic, beacons of integrity, and inspiration.


Big Government vs. the Little Sisters of the Poor

As expected, the Obama Administration today asked the Supreme Court not to exempt Catholic groups from an ObamaCare requirement to offer contraceptive coverage, after
Justice Sonia Sotomayor gave them a temporary reprieve earlier this week.

That means that Catholic doctrine notwithstanding, President Obama and his minions want to enforce coverage which includes birth control pills and abortifacients for this person:

The Administration’s court filing comes in response to an emergency stay  issued late Tuesday, December 31 by Justice Sonia Sotomayor which prevented the government from enforcing the Mandate against the LittleSisters of the Poor Home for the Aged.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing the nuns in the case, argue that since the Catholic Church strongly opposes birth control, any requirement which requires that they
 pay for it or their insurance coverage include it is a violation of the  Sisters’ religious liberties, as guaranteed by the First Amendment.

But the Justice Department, responding this morning before the 10 a.m. deadline imposed by Justice Sotomayor, reiterated its tired argument that the group has no foundation for its case.  The
Obama Administration contends that religious groups such as Little Sisters of the Poor can simply certify that they don’t want to provide contraception coverage, leaving it to a third-party provider (the
insurance plan) to decide whether to provide coverage.  The Administration’s response claims,

“Applicants have no legal basis to challenge the self  certification requirement or to complain that it involves them in the  process of providing contraceptive coverage.” 

However, the Sisters have argued that even signing the certification form would violate their religious beliefs.

Mark Rienzi, senior counsel for the Becket Fund, said in a statement,

“The government demands that the Little Sisters of  the Poor sign a permission slip for abortion drugs and contraceptives, or pay millions in fines.  The Sisters believe that doing that violates their faith, and that they shouldn’t be forced to divert funds from the
poor, elderly and dying people they’ve devoted their lives to serve.”

Until now, the Obama Administration has insisted that only churches are entitled to an exemption—and  that the exemption does not extend to religious institutions such as social service agencies or schools.  The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, in their March 2012 statement, listed three areas of concern with the Affordable Care Act: (1) the narrow definition of
“religious employers” that are exempted, (2) the “accommodation” of religious ministries excluded from that definition, and (3) the treatment of businesses run by people who seek to operate their
companies according to religious principles.

The USCCB has refused to comply.  In a fact sheet on the contraceptive mandate, the USCCB explained:
1. The mandate forces coverage of sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs and devices as well as contraception. Though commonly called the “contraceptive mandate,” the federal mandate also forces employers to sponsor and subsidize coverage of sterilization. And by including all drugs approved by the FDA for use as contraceptives, the mandate includes drugs that can induce abortion such as “Ella” (Ulipristal), a close cousin of the abortion pill RU-486. 
2. The mandate does not exempt Catholic charities, schools, universities, or hospitals. These institutions are vital to the mission of the Church, but the Administration does not deem them “religious employers” deserving conscience protection because they do not “serve primarily persons who share the[ir] religious tenets.” The Administration denies these organizations religious freedom precisely because their religiously motivated purpose is to serve the common good of society—a purpose that government should encourage, not punish.

3. The mandate forces these institutions and others, against their conscience, to pay for and facilitate things they consider immoral. Under the mandate, the government forces religious insurers to write policies that violate their beliefs; forces religious employers and schools to subsidize and facilitate coverage that violates their beliefs; and forces conscientiously objecting employees and students to purchase coverage that violates their beliefs.

4. The federal mandate is much more sweeping than existing state mandates. Employers can generally avoid the contraceptive mandates in 28 states by self-insuring their prescription drug coverage, dropping that part of their coverage altogether, or opting for regulation under a federal law (ERISA) that pre-empts state law. The HHS mandate closes off all these avenues of relief.  HHS’ policy of mandating surgical sterilization coverage is reflected in only one state law, Vermont. HHS also chose as its model the narrowest state-level religious exemption, drafted by the ACLU and existing in only 3 states (New York, California, Oregon).

5. Many others have joined the Catholic bishops in speaking out against the mandate. Many recognize this as an assault on the broader principle of religious liberty, whether or not they agree with the Church on the underlying moral question. For example, at a February 2012 congressional hearing on this issue, testimony supporting the USCCB’s position was heard from the President of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, a distinguished Orthodox rabbi, and officials and professors from several Protestant institutions of higher learning. The nation’s two  largest non-Catholic denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, has strongly criticized the contraceptive mandate, as have leaders of the National Association of Evangelicals, Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, Evangelicals for Social Action, and the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities. An online declaration supporting the Church’s position has been signed by about 28,000 Catholic and non-Catholic women, including many health professionals, academics and businesswomen.

6. The rule that created the uproar has not changed at all, but was finalized as is. After its initial proposal of August 2011 was widely criticized across the political spectrum as an attack on religious freedom, the Administration announced its final rule of February 15, 2012 as a compromise. But in fact that rule finalizes the original proposal “without change.” So religious organizations dedicated to serving people of other faiths are still not exempt as “religious employers.”

7. The proposed “accommodation” is not a current rule, but a promise that comes due beyond the point of public accountability. On February 15, besides finalizing its mandate without change, HHS also announced it will develop more regulations to apply that mandate differently to “non-exempt, non-profit religious organizations”—the charities, schools, and hospitals that were left out of the “religious employer” exemption. The regulations for this “accommodation” will be developed during a one-year delay in enforcement, their impact not felt until after the November election.

8. In its March 21 Advance Notice, HHS makes it clear that even the “accommodation” will do nothing to help objecting insurers, objecting employers that are not “religious” as defined by HHS, or individuals. In its August 2011 comments, and many times since, the Catholic bishops’ conference identified all the stakeholders in the process whose religious freedom is threatened—all employers, insurers, and individuals, not only those who meet the government’s definition of religious employers.  It is now clear that all insurers, including self insurers, must provide the coverage; and almost all individuals who pay premiums (whether enrolled in an individual plan or an employer plan) have no escape from subsidizing that coverage. Only organizations identified as “religious” (to be defined by later regulation) may qualify for the “accommodation.”

9. Even religious charities, schools, and hospitals that do qualify for the “accommodation” will still be forced to violate their beliefs. The mandate will still be applied with full force to all employees of these “second-class-citizen” religious institutions, and to the employees’ dependents such as teenage children. While the Administration says employees will not pay an additional charge for this coverage, ultimately the funds to pay for it must come from the premium dollars of the employer and employees. And when these organizations provide any health coverage to their employees, that will be the trigger for having the objectionable coverage provided “automatically” to all these employees and their dependents — even if both employer and employee object to it.

There’s more.  You can access the full fact sheet and additional information regarding the HHS Mandate at the US Bishops’ website.

Read More: SOURCE 

UPDATE:  Kathryn Jean Lopez, over at The Corner, participated today in a conference call in with the Becket Fund.  She reports on the Obama Administration’s “Shocking and Unnecessary ‘War’ on
 Nuns Who Serve the Elderly Poor”, and she invites her readers to consider making a financial gift to the Little Sisters of the Poor.  Read her excellent insights here.

 Little Sisters Of The Poor - Jeanne Jugan