NRA supports ACLU lawsuit against NSA’s phone records program

The National Rifle Association filed an amicus brief on Wednesday supporting the American Civil Liberties Union’s lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the National Security Agency’s phone records collection program.

The NRA filed a brief of amicus curiae in U.S. District Court in support of the plaintiff in the ACLU’s lawsuit against key Obama administration officials, including director of national intelligence James Clapper, NSA director Keith Alexander, defense secretary Chuck Hagel, Attorney General Eric Holder and FBI director Robert Mueller.

The gun-rights group — often associated in the public consciousness with conservative politics — and the progressive-leaning civil rights advocacy organization might appear to be strange bedfellows, but the NRA claims that the two groups have common interests.

“The mass surveillance program threatens the First Amendment rights of the NRA and its members,” according to the NRA counsel’s argument in the amicus brief. “The mass surveillance program could allow identification of NRA members, supporters, potential members, and other persons with whom the NRA communicates, potentially chilling their willingness to communicate with the NRA.”

“If programs like those currently justified by the government’s interpretation are allowed to continue and grow unchecked, they could also contrary to clear congressional intent undo decades of legal protection for the privacy of Americans in general, and of gun owners in particular,” according to the NRA counsel’s conclusion.

The ACLU filed its lawsuit in June, following public revelations regarding what it called “the NSA’s unprecedented mass surve

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading...

Markey (D-MA) votes ‘present’ on Syria resolution

WASHINGTON — A Senate committee voted on Wednesday to give President Obama the authority to use military force in Syria, providing momentum to the White House plan to punish President Bashir Assad for allegedly using chemical weapons.

But in twist that signaled the issue still faces an uncertain outcome, Senator Edward J. Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, voted “present,” choosing not to register his position on the highest-profile issue to come before him since he was sworn in nearly two months ago. He was the only senator to cast a noncommital vote.

The measure in the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations passed by a 10-to-7 vote — with seven Democrats and three Republicans in favor, and two Democrats and five Republicans opposed — and heads to the full Senate next week.

It would authorize a limited military strike against Syria that could not exceed 90 days and prohibit US ground troops from being sent into combat. The House is considering a similar resolution.

Via: Boston Globe

Continue Reading....

Will Congress Support Military Action In Syria? A ThinkProgress Whip Count [UPDATED]

As members of Congress consider President Obama’s request to authorize military force in Syria, following evidence that President Bashar Assad’s use of chemical weapons killed over 1,400 people, a ThinkProgress analysis of the public statements of 398 Representatives found that 199 lawmakers have either decisively ruled out supporting the measure or say they are unlikely to back it.

Just 49 of the 398 members of the House of Representatives said they will definitely or likely vote in favor or the resolution. 151 are undecided.

Republicans were far more likely to oppose military action in Syria, while Democrats were more likely to support it. The numbers are a contrast to 2002, when Democrats in the House provided “the bulk of the opposition” to President George W. Bush’s Iraq war resolution — though a majority of Democrats (61 percent) still backed war. Only six House Republicans voted against the Iraq war in 2002.

Lawmakers in support of military action argued that the United States has a “moral imperative” to deter Assad from further use of chemical weapons and maintained that military consequences would deter bad actors like Iran and North Korea from using similar tactics in the future. Conversely, opponents of the resolution maintained that the nation could scarcely afford getting entangled in another conflict in the Middle East, following the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and questioned whether or not limited action would be effective in deterring Assad or lead to greater American military involvement. No lawmaker supported putting American boots on the ground in Syria.

Via: Think Progress

Continue Reading....

Obama Melts Down

Maybe it’s jet lag.

Maybe it’s the sleeping pills.

Whatever. Barack Obama has melted down. Reality has slipped his grip like a wet salmon. Obama has always been one to take credit for everything (“I got Bin Laden”) and own everything (“my military”) yet never, ever take responsibility for anything. At his news conference in Sweden he said things that a rational person could never utter.

    STEVE HOLLAND, REUTERS: Have you made up your mind whether to take action against Syria whether or not you have a congressional resolution approved? Is a strike needed in order to preserve your credibility for when you set these sort of red lines? And were you able to enlist the support of the prime minister here for support in Syria?

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: Let me unpack the question. First of all, I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world’s population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent and passed a treaty forbidding their use even when countries are engaged in war. Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty. Congress set a red line when it indicated that in a piece of legislation titled the Syria Accountability Act that some of the horrendous thing that are happening on the ground there need to be answered for. And so, when I said, in a press conference, that my calculus about what’s happening in Syria would be altered by the use of chemical weapons, which the overwhelming consensus of humanity says is wrong, that wasn’t something I just kind of made up. I didn’t pluck it out of thin air. There was a reason for it. That’s point number one. Point number two, my credibility is not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line. And America and Congress’ credibility is on the line because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important.

The world set the red line? Which world is that??? Not this world. Let’s crank up the Wayback machine.

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading....

Putin greets Obama with Syria threat

PUTIN GREETS OBAMA WITH SYRIA THREAT - President Obama arrived in Russia today to find the already failing relations with his host in even worse condition. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s threat to provide his Syrian allies with a missile shield in the event of U.S. air strikes further complicates Obama’s flagging effort to win international support for an attack on Damascus. As the Guardian reports, Putin’s warning that an attack without UN backing would provoke military aid from Russia may drive away the handful of international partners for Obama’s proposed attack.

[Watch Fox: Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., appears in the noon ET hour]

Liar’s poker in St. Petersburg - Russian President Vladimir Putin’s claim that the main combat unit of the Syrian rebels is part of al Qaeda adds a further chill to U.S.-Russia relations. Putin said Secretary of State John Kerry “lies openly” about al Qaeda’s role among U.S.-backed rebels in Syria. Putin’s comments came after Kerry’s testy exchange with Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., over the role of terrorists groups in the rebellion. Kerry claimed that al Qaeda-allied groups were a small fraction of the force. State Department officials dismissed Putin’s charge.

[House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Rep. Mike McCaul, R-Texas, told reporters he was “stunned” by Kerry’s claim.]

Video portrays role for radical Islam among Syrian rebels – Intelligence analysts are examining a new video featuring Syrian rebel commanders amid symbols of the Islamist movement. Chief Intelligence Correspondent Catherine Herridge is looking at warnings that radicals are seeking chemical weapons and their role among U.S.-backed Syrian rebels.

Via: Fox News Politics

Continue Reading...

Report: Pentagon Considering Use of Air Force Bombers In Syria Attack Plan…

Senate Panel Backs Use of Force Against Syria

WASHINGTON—A key Senate panel on Wednesday backed President Barack Obama's request to strike Syria, while the Pentagon prepared to employ greater firepower to reach a shifting array of military targets.

The revised options under development, which reflect Pentagon concerns that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has dispersed his military equipment, include the use of Air Force bombers to supplement the four Navy destroyers armed with missiles that are deployed in the eastern Mediterranean. Initially, Pentagon planners said they didn't intend to use aircraft in the proposed strikes.

The Pentagon shift came amid an accelerating tempo toward U.S. military action in response to the Assad regime's alleged use of chemical weapons on a large scale Aug. 21, an attack U.S. officials say killed more than 1,400 people, including hundreds of children.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed a resolution Wednesday saying a goal of U.S. policy will be to "change the momentum on the battlefield'' in Syria's civil war and speed a negotiated removal of Mr. Assad. The measure would ban the use of ground forces in Syria "for the purpose of combat operations" and sets a 60-day limit for Mr. Obama to launch strikes. It includes a possible 30-day extension if Mr. Obama determined that was needed to meet the resolution's goals.

Via: WSJ

Continue Reading...

[AUDIO] RUSH LIMBAUGH LETS LOOSE ON OBAMA OVER THIS ‘PSYCHOPATHIC’ STATEMENT

Earlier this week, President Barack Obama reframed his “red line” rhetoric in regards to Syria and the use of chemical weapons, saying it was the “world,” not him, that “set a red line.”

Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh on Thursday expressed his disbelief at the claim, which he called “psychopathic.” According to the online Merriam-Webster dictionary, “psychopathic” is defined as: “of, relating to, or characterized by psychopathy or antisocial personality disorder.”

Limbaugh is not alone in his confusion over the statement.

Obama last year clearly stated that Syria would cross a “red line” that would “change my equation” if he used chemical weapons on his own people.

“This is some ‘pathic’ – psychopathic,” Limbaugh said. “He drew the red line, then he said he didn’t, then he said his credibility [isn't] on the line, it’s Congress’ fault because they’re the ones who passed a resolution decades ago against the use of chemical weapons. So yeah, it’s the Republicans fault.”

The conservative radio host went on to say that President Obama’s handling of Syria and the so-called “red line” is “dangerous” and “not cool.”

“It’s not brilliant politics, it’s not Obama cleverly outwitting his opponents,” he added. “He’s president of the United States, he’s not up to it. He doesn’t want the job. He doesn’t want the responsibility, not with something like this. He’ll be glad to raise your taxes and control your life with health care — he doesn’t want all this. It’s too messy.”

Listen to the segment via the Daily Rushbo below:

Via: The Blaze

Continue Reading...

Kerry: Arab countries offered to pay for invasion

Secretary of State John Kerry said at Wednesday’s hearing that Arab counties have offered to pay for the entirety of unseating President Bashar al-Assad if the United States took the lead militarily.

“With respect to Arab countries offering to bear costs and to assess, the answer is profoundly yes,” Kerry said. “They have. That offer is on the table.”

Asked by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) about how much those countries would contribute, Kerry said they have offered to pay for all of a full invasion.

“In fact, some of them have said that if the United States is prepared to go do the whole thing the way we’ve done it previously in other places, they’ll carry that cost,” Kerry said. “That’s how dedicated they are at this. That’s not in the cards, and nobody’s talking about it, but they’re talking in serious ways about getting this done.

Via: Washington Post

Continue Reading....

FOX, CNN see triple-digit jumps for Saturday Syria announcement; MSNBC falters

President Barack Obama’s Saturday announcement that he would seek congressional authorization for a strike on Syria gave two of the three major cable news channels a big ratings bump.

CNN earned the early lead during the 1 p.m. ET hour in both total viewers and in the coveted 25-54 demo. CNN also eked out a win over Fox News for the 25-54 demo during the 12 p.m.-5 p.m. ET time slot, but Fox News won the overall rating contest.

Both Fox News and CNN interrupted their normally scheduled programing for live Syria coverage during the pivotal 1 p.m.-5 p.m. ET slot.

Meanwhile, left-leaning MSNBC saw a 19-percent dip in its numbers from the weekend before in which it went wall-to-wall with events related to the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have a Dream Speech” at the 1963 march on Washington.

12-5PM/ET

Time Period Averages, Live+SD
Crisis in Syria (8/31/13) vs. previous week (8/24/13)
Total coverage was from 12-5p
				P 2+		P 25-54
Network	Period	Time	Days	(000s)	% diff	(000s)	% diff
FOXN	08/31/13-08/31/13	12:00P -05:00P	_____S_	971	-	235	-
FOXN	08/24/13-08/24/13	12:00P -05:00P	_____S_	652	49%	102	130%
CNN	08/31/13-08/31/13	12:00P -05:00P	_____S_	926	-	242	-
CNN	08/24/13-08/24/13	12:00P -05:00P	_____S_	397	133%	115	110%
MSNB	08/31/13-08/31/13	12:00P -05:00P	_____S_	390	-	124	-
MSNB	08/24/13-08/24/13	12:00P -05:00P	_____S_	484	-19%	153	-19%

In overall total day, from 3 a.m. to 3 a.m. on Saturday, Fox News won handily.

TOTAL DAY

Time Period Averages, Live+SD
Crisis in Syria (8/31/13)
				P 2+	P 25-54
Network	Period	Time	Days	(000s)	(000s)
FOXN	08/31/13-08/31/13	03:00A -03:00A	_____S_	772	183
CNN	08/31/13-08/31/13	03:00A -03:00A	_____S_	470	151
MSNB	08/31/13-08/31/13	03:00A -03:00A	_____S_	364	154

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading....

Obama's Economy Hits His Voters Hardest

Stephen Moore: Obama's Economy Hits His Voters Hardest
Young people, single women and minorities have fared the worst during the past four years.
By STEPHEN MOORE, Wall Street Journal

For better or worse, a truism of American politics is that voters vote their pocketbooks. Yet according to a new report on median household incomes by Sentier Research, in 2012 millions of American voters apparently cast ballots contrary to their economic self-interest.

Each month the consultants at Sentier analyze the numbers from the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey and estimate the trend in median annual household income adjusted for inflation. On Aug. 21, Sentier released "Household Income on the Fourth Anniversary of the Economic Recovery: June 2009 to June 2013." The finding that grabbed headlines was that real median household income "has fallen by 4.4 percent since the 'economic recovery' began in June 2009." In dollar terms, median household income fell to $52,098 from $54,478, a loss of $2,380.

What was largely overlooked, however, is that those who were most likely to vote for Barack Obama in 2012 were members of demographic groups most likely to have suffered the steepest income declines. Mr. Obama was re-elected with 51% of the vote. Five demographic groups were crucial to his victory: young voters, single women, those with only a high-school diploma or less, blacks and Hispanics. He cleaned up with 60% of the youth vote, 67% of single women, 93% of blacks, 71% of Hispanics, and 64% of those without a high-school diploma, according to exit polls.

According to the Sentier research, households headed by single women, with and without children present, saw their incomes fall by roughly 7%. Those under age 25 experienced an income decline of 9.6%. Black heads of households saw their income tumble by 10.9%, while Hispanic heads-of-households' income fell 4.5%, slightly more than the national average. The incomes of workers with a high-school diploma or less fell by about 8% (-6.9% for those with less than a high-school diploma and -9.3% for those with only a high-school diploma).

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading....

Bill Clinton sells Obamacare, calls for bipartisan efforts to fix problems with the unpopular law

With less than a month before the Obamacare exchanges open, the administration dispatched former president Bill Clinton to tout the unpopular law.

Speaking at the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Arkansas on Wednesday, President Obama’s “Secretary of Explaining Stuff” offered up a practical sell for Obama’s signature law.

“I’ll do the best I can in plain language to say how the law works, what’s happened so far, what has to be done now, what the unsolved problems are,” he said. “And why we’re better off working together to fix those problems than continuing to fight to repeal the law, or even worse, to make sure its implementation is a failure.”

Clinton noted at the outset that he had taken an “unusual” tack by writing out his whole speech.

The former Democratic president spoke of Obamacare as a cost-saver aimed at delivering better-quality affordable health care to more Americans.

He delved into political divisions on the issue, concluding that given Obamacare is law, the responsible thing for Democrats and Republicans to do is to work together to implement it.

“I think we should all work together to implement this law, whether we supported its passage or not,” Clinton said, explaining in part that “it’s better than the current system” and “it is the law.”

Clinton, who was introduced by a diabetic 25-year-old gradate student still on her parent’s health insurance, spoke about the changes in health care coverage that have already taken effect — such as allowing people under the age of 26 to remain on their parents health insurance, preventative care coverage and less expensive prescription drugs for seniors — and what is coming, specifically the open enrollment period for the exchanges.

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading....

Obama denies his Syrian ‘red line’ comments

RED LYIN'

Obama claims he never set a 'red line' on Syria... even though he did

President Barack Obama repeatedly denied Wednesday that he ever set a “red line” against the use of chemical weapons in Syria, and he insisted that the “world community” and Congress created the so-called red line, and should enforce the line.

“I didn’t set a red line,” he insisted to reporters at a press conference in Sweden Wednesday morning.

“The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world’s population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent and passed a [1993] treaty forbidding their use even when countries are engaged in war,” he said.

“Congress set a red line when it indicated that — in a piece of legislation [in 2003] titled the Syria Accountability Act that some of the horrendous things that are happening on the ground there need to be answered for,” he said.

Following the Syrian gas attack on Aug. 21, Obama called on the U.S. and foreign governments to respond, or give up efforts to police rogue nations. ”Are we going to try to find a reason not to act? And if that’s the case, then I think the world community should admit it,” he said.

“My credibility is not on the line,” he insisted. “The international community’s credibility is on the line, and America and Congress’ credibility is on the line, because we give [only] lip service to the notion that these international norms are important,” he said.

Obama’s repeated denial of his red line statements comes as Congress debates whether to let him lead the nation into a limited war in Syria.

VIDEO: WATCH PRESIDENT OBAMA’S FLIP-FLOP ON WHETHER HE SET A ‘RED LINE’

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading...

Report: State Department’s Lax Security Policy Led to Benghazi Attack

New reports say that the State Department’s poor focus on embassy security contributed to the terrorist attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi Libya.

The State Department’s security policy lacked coordination and accountability at the time of the attack,according to America Rising. 

The reports also revealed that Hillary Clinton personally ordered Ambassador Chris Stevens to stay in Benghazi despite the increasing danger to U.S. personnel.

According to America Rising:

None of the five high-risk diplomatic facilities the panel visited in the Middle East and Africa had an intelligence analyst on staff, described as a “critical” need.

Diplomatic security training is inadequate, with no designated facility available to train agents to work at high-risk diplomatic posts. …

Although the State Department reopened the embassy on Sept. 22, 2011, the Special Mission in Benghazi remained open despite serious security concerns. In December 2011, Undersecretary for Management Kennedy approved a one-year extension of the Benghazi post. …

Via: WFB

Continue Reading....