Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Friday, August 30, 2013

Clapper Promises More Transparency--Just Like He Said The NSA Was Not Spying On Americans--Fat Chance

US intelligence chief promises transparency reports

The annual reports, however, will be geared toward "aggregate information" on certain information-gathering activities and will be "limited by our need to protect intelligence sources and methods."


tJames Clapper
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper
(Credit: CBSNews video/Screenshot by CNET)
Leaker of secrets Edward Snowden has brought no end of unwanted transparency to the activities of US spy agencies. Now the US intelligence community is promising a little transparency of its own.
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said in a Tumblr post Thursday night that his office will issue an annual report to the public on certain aspects of what US intelligence agencies have been up to. The new promise follows a directive by President Obama in June that those agencies provide a degree of insight to US citizenry into what they've been up.
Don't expect any salacious details about undercover operations, however. The transparency report will be geared toward "aggregate information" on certain information-gathering activities and will be "limited by our need to protect intelligence sources and methods," Clapper wrote.
The first such transparency report will be issued in "the late fall," according to a Washington Post story that cited an unnamed spokesperson for Clapper's office.
Here's what the report will encompass:
 Specifically, for each of the following categories of national security authorities, the [intelligence community] will release the total number of orders issued during the prior twelve-month period, and the number of targets affected by these orders:
  • FISA orders based on probable cause (Titles I and III of FISA, and sections 703 and 704)
  • Section 702 of FISA
  • FISA Business Records (Title V of FISA)
  • FISA Pen Register/Trap and Trace ( Title IV of FISA)
  • National Security Letters issued pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 3414(a)(5), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681u(a) and (b), 15 U.S.C. § 1681v, and 18 U.S.C. § 2709
FISA is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which defines activities allowed to surveillance agencies -- including intercepts of some online communications, under certain conditions. Under Section 702, for instance, the National Security Agency acquires more than 250 million Internet communications each year, primarily from Internet service providers.
Among the revelations by Snowden since his first appearance in the UK-based Guardian newspaper in May was the recent allegation that tech heavyweights including Google, Facebook, Yahoo, and Microsoft have received money from the NSA to cover legal-compliance costs connected with its Prism surveillance program.
Those tech companies have been bristling about charges they're making nice with spies. Google, for one, has mounted a legal effort to overturn a gag order that prevents it from sharing even summary statistics about the FISA-approved data requests that it gets.

Syria Could Bring On Next Recession--Does Obama Care?

What would you do if gas prices went up by 50%? How would that effect the economy? Could it wreck the very weak recovery? These all are considerations that should be considered before Obama pulls the pins from the cruise missiles and drones that he is likely to use in Syria.


The real question is...will he?  Is he concerned with the price of oil or only his legacy? Will a shut down of the Suez or Straits of Hormuz effect his calculus or is his ego more important?

We all know that Obama has a strong ego and the people around him  constantly pump air into his already overfilled balloon. (He has no one around him that will give him contrary views. They all have left.)  Would he love to make Putin stand down over Syria, we think so. The same goes for the Chinese.  Is he willing to risk a major regional conflict or larger to prove his manhood? It is starting to appear this way.

When the British decided they would not participate and Obama said he would "go it alone" that should have scared us all. He is willing to risk all to prove that he is a leader. The trouble is that he is a leader of one--himself. (It doesn't appear that he even has any input in his own household.)  He will do anything in his power to prove that he is "strong." It is like the short man complex needing to prove they can stand up to anyone.

If we are correct, there is no information, no data or proof that will dissuade him from his "mission."  We are going to take action against Syria and it will all be to prove that Obama is a man. He won't care what it does to the economy, the debt, the civilians who might get hurt in Syria or the Americans who get killed as long as he can stand up to Putin and the Chinese. That all that matters.

If that does not scare you, nothing will!

Conservative Tom


SocGen: Oil Could Hit $150 if Syrian War Spreads

Wednesday, 28 Aug 2013 02:33 PM

 . .


Brent crude oil is likely to rise towards $125 a barrel if the West launches air strikes against Syria and could go even higher if the conflict spills over into the rest of the Middle East, Societe Generale said on Wednesday.

Michael Wittner, oil analyst at the French bank, said the North Sea crude oil benchmark could surge as high as $150 per barrel if the war affects key oil producers such as Iraq, although any jump in prices would probably be brief.

"We believe that in the coming days, Brent could gain another $5-10, surging to $120-$125, either in anticipation of the attack or in reaction to the headlines that an attack had started," Wittner said in a note to clients.



"If the regional spill-over results in a significant supply disruption in Iraq or elsewhere, Brent could spike briefly to $150," he added.

"In our base case, we assume an attack begins in the next week. If it takes longer, and there are no signals that an attack is imminent, the oil price uplift from the entire Syrian situation will start to fade."

Brent crude oil futures for October hit a six-month high of $117.34 on Wednesday on fears that a regional conflict could affect supplies at a time of restricted output from other oil producers in the Middle East and North Africa.

Wittner said if oil supplies were curtailed by a military conflict the oil market would rely on extra output from Saudi Arabia, the only member of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries with sufficient spare oil production capacity.

"The Saudis could handle most likely scenarios, but the markets will look at the shrinking spare capacity that remains after any disruption is made up, and that would be bullish."

Wittner said oil consumer countries might consider releasing part of their considerable strategic oil reserves if oil prices rose too high or supply shortages became acute.



© 2013 Thomson/Reuters. All rights reserved.


ObamaCrapCare--Will It Be Ready For Prime Time? Doubtful

Colorado’s Data Tangle Shows Strain for 'Obamacare' Targets

by: Jennifer Oldham & Annie Linskey
August 29, 2013
 Print
 Email
(Bloomberg) -- With 33 days and counting until online health insurance exchanges must open for business, states are racing to fine-tune computer systems, educate consumers and manage expectations.
Marketplaces in California and Oregon said this month that technical hurdles may force consumers to apply with a broker or counselor instead of online when the exchanges start Oct. 1. In Colorado, managers are literally working around the clock to ensure computer systems share accurate Medicaid data.
On the East Coast, exchange managers voiced concern that millions of Americans without health insurance don’t know about the new shopping hubs. Kevin Counihan, chief executive of Access Health CT, Connecticut’s exchange, even attended a concert featuring rapper Lil Wayne to get the word out to young people, then reported his progress to President Barack Obama and state officials last week in a videoconference.
“We got 500 names of people who want information,” Counihan said. “The president asked me if I had any pictures of the Lil Wayne concert. I said that I do, but my daughter has asked that they not see the light of day.”
The exchanges, a cornerstone of the 2010 Affordable Care Act, are expected to attract about 7 million people next year, rising to 24 million by 2023, the Congressional Budget Office estimates.
The health care law, the signature legislation of the Obama administration, is reviled by Republicans who have voted more than three dozen times in Congress to repeal it. It is also opposed by most of the nation’s Republican governors.
Backup Plans
In the 14 states and the District of Columbia that are building their own exchanges, staff members detailed contingency plans that would kick in if complex new computer systems crash, or fail to connect with the federal government’s data hub, which will be used to verify a consumer’s immigration status and income information.
As they supervised renovation of the space intended to house a call center for the Colorado exchange, managers tried to gauge initial demand for the service, which will offer health plans for small businesses and people who don’t receive coverage through their jobs.
“It’s a large task to convince almost 20% of the population that spending money in this way is worthwhile,” said Michele Lueck, president of the Colorado Health Institute, a Denver-based nonpartisan research center. “I tell people to think about a vacation they would want to take and then think about things they would have to take out of their budget to make it reality.
‘‘Maybe they stop getting their hair done, they stop going out to dinner,’’ she added. ‘‘Then I tell them that’s what they’re going to have to do to afford health insurance.”
Going Online
To use state exchanges, consumers will visit websites and input income, family and employment information. The portals will determine eligibility for government programs such as Medicaid, the joint state-federal health plan for the poor, or for federal subsidies for private insurance. Those not covered by public programs will see a menu of private options selected by each state. If consumers who aren’t insured don’t purchase coverage by January, they can face penalties.
In 27 states that asked the federal government to operate their exchanges, politics intervened, leading to wide variations in the choices of plans and questions about whether their marketplaces would open on time. By law, the exchanges must open by October to allow consumers to enroll for coverage that starts in January. Nine states are moving forward with state-federal partnerships for their exchanges.
New Hampshire’s Effort
In New Hampshire, only one insurance company, Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield, announced it will participate in the exchange, which will operate under a state-federal partnership in which the state retains control over plan management and consumer assistance.
“The down side is obviously you want some competition,” said Tyler Brannen, a health policy analyst at the New Hampshire Insurance Department. “If there is only one carrier what is to prevent them from charging what they want?”
Brannen said there are only a handful of insurance carriers that operate in his state, so he was not surprised to have a sluggish initial response. And he anticipates at least one more company will begin offering plans on the exchange in 2015 -- giving New Hampshire residents some choice.
The state is playing catch-up marketing the program. The Republican-controlled state Senate blocked the insurance department from accepting a $5 million federal grant to advertise. The New Hampshire Health Plan, a nonprofit, stepped in to handle outreach activities using the grant.
Communication Issues
In Ohio, there has been little communication with federal officials about the work they’ve done on the state’s exchange, said Lieutenant Governor Mary Taylor, who also directs the state’s Department of Insurance.
Taylor, a Republican and critic of the health care law, said she is concerned the Ohio marketplace won’t open on time because there was a delay earlier this month in transferring data about the insurance plans filed in the state to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and insurance companies have had trouble accessing information.
“I know they keep saying the exchange will be up and running come Oct. 1, but we have seen little evidence that that’s the case,” Taylor said.
Federal View
Ohio’s marketplace will open on time, said Alicia Hartinger, a spokeswoman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which is overseeing the development of healthcare.gov, the federal exchange where residents in states without their own insurance portals will shop.
In California and Oregon, officials say they’ll provide direct online access to exchanges soon after they open.
In Colorado, IT managers with Connect for Health Colorado, a nonprofit created by state law to run the insurance marketplace, told the exchange’s board on Aug. 12 their systems were not getting accurate data from the state’s Medicaid engines.
The approach the two computer systems were using to share information “did not allow some application data fields to be sent and received” between the two, said Rachel A. Reiter, a spokeswoman for Colorado’s Department of Health Care Policy and Financing.
The department and the exchange are working on a solution that would route individuals applying for assistance to a joint online application to check for Medicaid eligibility, she added.
Difficult Deadlines
“The reality is all of the technology timelines are very tight,” said Gretchen Hammer, board chairwoman for the Colorado exchange. “There are a number of the key technology aspects that remain in testing.”
Integrating new computer systems and existing Medicaid databases is a primary challenge for exchanges from a technology perspective, said Dan Schuyler, a director for Leavitt Partners, a consulting firm that is advising states on their marketplaces.
“Medicaid systems across the country use a variety of different data systems,” he added. “Some are old and outdated and many are involved in modernization projects.”
If computer systems fail to interact, it could lead to inaccurate eligibility determinations for Medicaid, said Colorado’s Reiter.
Even as they sought to reassure board members on Aug. 26 that Colorado’s exchange will open on time to serve 1 in 6 residents, or about 829,000 people, who are without health insurance, managers cautioned the new venture will likely endure growing pains.
“Our biggest concern is the amount of time we have to complete around testing and around training,” said Patty Fontneau, executive director of Colorado’s exchange. “We are going to open Oct. 1. Will there be bumps in the road? Yes. We are literally going to have people working around the clock to meet these deadlines.”

Bad News For Obama--Brits Say No To Syria Invasion

Britain’s Parliament Votes Against Military Action in Syria
Prime Minister David Cameron said that Britain would not participate militarily in any strike against Syria after he lost a parliamentary vote on Thursday on an anodyne motion urging an international response by 13 votes.
It was a stunning defeat for a government that had seemed days away from joining the United States and France in a short, punitive cruise-missile attack on the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad for allegedly using chemical weapons against civilians.
Thursday evening’s vote was nonbinding, but in a short statement to Parliament afterward, Mr. Cameron said that he respected the will of Parliament and that it was clear to him that the British people did not want to see military action over Syria. “I get it,” he said.
The government motion was defeated by 285 votes to 272.

READ MORE »

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/30/world/middleeast/syria.html?emc=edit_na_20130829

Not The Way To Impress Friends And Enemies Obama Learns(??)

NY Times: Putin Incensed by Obama's 'Bored Kid' Remark

Wednesday, 28 Aug 2013 10:42 PM
By Cathy Burke



A comment by President Obama that Vladimir Putin looked "like the bored kid in the back of the classroom" apparently "infuriated" the Russian president, The New York Timesreported Wednesday.

The comment came Aug. 9 at a news conference concerning a showdown with Putin over Edward Snowden, the former defense contractor who leaked top-secret details of the National Security Agency's surveillance programs.

Putin ultimately gave Snowden temporary asylum over the objections of Obama, and the president was asked about his working relationship with the Russian leader.



"I know the press likes to focus on body language, and he's got that kind of slouch, looking like the bored kid in the back of the classroom. But the truth is that when we're in conversations together, oftentimes it's very productive," Obama said.

The president went on to say that he didn't have "a bad personal relationship with Putin," and that "when we have conversations, they’re candid, they’re blunt; oftentimes, they’re constructive."

But Putin was not amused — and the remark just "intensified" Putin's suspicion of Obama, as did his abrupt cancellation of a meeting scheduled for next week in Moscow, The Times reported.

"The comment infuriated" Putin, The Times said, citing an unnamed Russian official.



© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.


Could Obama Be Impeached For Syrian Strike?

Buchanan to Newsmax: Obama's Syrian Strike Would be Impeachable

Thursday, 29 Aug 2013 02:39 PM
By Jim Meyers and Kathleen Walter
Share:
More . . .
A    A   |
   Email Us   |
   Print   |
ld be an impeachable act, political commentator Pat Buchanan has told Newsmax in an exclusive interview.


The former presidential candidate and best-selling author also says he prefers "the devil we know" in Syria — Bashar Assad — to the al-Qaida elements he asserts are leading the rebellion against his regime.



Buchanan has been a senior advisor to three presidents, a two-time candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, and the presidential nominee of the Reform Party in 2000.

President Obama has signaled that he is considering a strike on Syria amid administration claims the Assad regime has used chemical weapons.

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax TV on Thursday, Buchanan says his chief concern about a potential strike is that "the president of the United States is threatening a war and planning a war he has no right to wage. The Congress of the United States alone has the power to authorize war or declare war and it has not done so.

"President Obama is usurping the authority of the Congress first and foremost and he appears about to launch an unconstitutional and unnecessary war. So the President should be called to account by the Congress and told: no war without our approval. That's the way the Constitution works.

"The key figure is Speaker of the House John Boehner, who should call the House of Representatives back into session on Monday and instruct the president directly: Mr. President, you have no authority and no right to launch acts of war against Syria against whom we have not declared or authorized any war. We are calling on you not to engage in what would clearly be an impeachable act – starting a war against a country without the approval of the Congress when you are asked directly not to do so.

"If the president launched an unnecessary and unconstitutional war, striking a country against whom we have not declared war and has not attacked us, that is de facto an impeachable act that could lead to an open-ended war, the consequences of which we cannot even see."

The White House has talked about the moral justification for a strike. Asked if there is also a legal justification, Buchanan responds: "There's no constitutional justification right now in my judgment for a strike on Syria. The U.N. Security Council has not authorized a war, the Congress of the United States has not authorized a war.

"I do agree that the use of poison gas by the Syrian government — if it was President Assad who authorized it — is an obscene act which the international community and the Security Council should take up. But we don't know who ordered it; we don't know how it was delivered; we don't know if Assad knew about it; we don't know if Assad ordered it.

"But if he did, this is an issue that ought to be taken up by the international community and the Security Council, not the United States of America unilaterally and certainly not the president of the United States based on the flimsy evidence we have seen to date."

Obama declared unequivocally on Wednesday that the Syrian government was responsible for the chemical attacks on. However, several U.S. officials are now using the phrase "not a slam dunk" to describe the intelligence picture.

Buchanan comments: "I would not understand or comprehend if Assad, no matter how bad a man he may be, would be so stupid as to order a chemical weapons attack on civilians in his own country when the immediate consequence might be that he would be at war with the United States.

"But what the United States should do is quite clear: Gather all the evidence through the U.N., gather all the evidence through our intelligence, take this to the Security Council the same way President Kennedy through Adlai Stevenson took the [evidence] during the Cuban Missile Crisis. We had our photographs, we showed the world what we had, we proved the missiles were in Cuba.

"That is the constitutional and legal way to do this. It is not to act in panic because John Kerry is shocked at the pictures he saw on YouTube."

Buchanan said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid should call the Senate into session and "if he believes we should go to war, authorize it."

"That is what George H. W. Bush did before he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait. That is what George W. Bush did. I was against that war on Iraq but the president won the authority from Congress so it was a constitutional and legitimate war no matter that I did not like it."

If Obama does attack Syria without approval, "it is a clear, unconstitutional, illegal act," Buchanan reiterated. "If the president did this, he would be a rogue president."
Buchanan says he disagrees with former ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton's assertion that we should seek to take out Assad.


"Look who is on the other side of this war," he tells Newsmax. "We have al-Qaida elements that are murderous, that have tortured people, that have killed Christians, and they're the leading force in the elements that are fighting against Assad.

"Behind Assad we have the Iranians and Hezbollah and the Russians. It is not our war. Quite frankly, I would prefer the devil we know, which is Assad, to the devil we don't know, which is that crowd in the rebels who are torturing and killing people and engaging in atrocities of their own."

Buchanan also says the Republicans have "the power of the purse" and should block spending by those agencies that would implement Obamacare.

And regarding immigration reform, Buchanan doubts that the GOP-controlled House will go along with the amnesty that President Obama wants and the Senate has approved.

He adds: "I believe and hope that the House of Representatives will deny amnesty, deny legal rights to people who've broken into our country and broken our laws."


© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.


Is Obama Nuts?

One can only wonder what Senator Obama would be saying if a President decided to take military action against another country without Congressional approval. On other hand, we already know. He said it in 2007. He would not approve in the least. 


To make matters worse, he is going to go alone into Syria. This is a fools errand for a couple reasons. First, he has no authority and second the blow back will be tremendous from the Arab Street.

His authority he granted to himself. He did not agree with Bush during the run up to Iraq. Now that things are different and he is making the decisions, it is OK to kill, maim, injure and destroy as long as the President thinks it is right. We think that any legislator on the "let's not get involved" side of the argument, should be playing those words of Senator Obama over and over.

Additionally, for the US to get involved in a civil war when we do not have incontrovertibly evidence that it was the Assad regime that used the chemical weapons is a travesty. The UN inspectors have not completed their investigation so it appears the only evidence is coming from the rebels who claim it was Assad.  We don't think that the source of this information is reliable enough to risk personnel and treasure.

Should  the US attack Syria,  it will be played around the Muslim world that once again, we are destroying an Arab country just like we tried to do in Iraq and Afghanistan.  There will be calls for Jihad against anything American which will make even us, who live in the States, less safe.  This is a very dangerous move that Obama is thinking about doing.

We wrote earlier this week that the US should play a "back bench" role in Syria and allow the Arab League and others to be on the front lines. Obviously, Obama has different plans.  

President Obama has no authority to "go it alone" and from where we sit, it will become a disaster with many unforeseen and unconsidered outcomes. It will endanger the US and its citizens, it will put the US in direct conflict with China and Russia and could lead to an explosion of violence across the Middle East and beyond. This is a total losing proposition.

So why is Obama doing it?  He is either blood thirsty or so desperate to prove that he is not a wimp. Or he feels a war will solve his economic problems. Or he wants the US to be taken down several notches. We don't know. Whatever the reason, it is imperative that Congress stop him and stop him soon.

Otherwise, the dangers to our economy, our nation and our people far outweigh the rewards we could receive if the Assad regime were removed.

Conservative Tom



Obama Ready to Go It Alone on Syria

Thursday, 29 Aug 2013 07:53 PM
By Cathy Burke
Share:
More . . .
A    A   |
   Email Us   |
   Print   |
The White House signaled Thursday that President Barack Obama is ready to go it alone to strike Syria despite the British parliament's rejection of military action and the lack of a UN mandate.
Aides said Obama believes that Syria must pay a price for breaking taboos on the use of chemical weapons, action which he sees as posing a grave threat to US national security.
US plans to build an international coalition for a "limited" strike on Syria suffered a devastating blow when the House of Commons in London voted against the use of force to punish a chemical weapons attack last week outside Damascus.

US officials signaled earlier Thursday that Obama would take unilateral action if necessary, but the possibility became a reality with the vote, which reverberated immediately across the Atlantic.
"We have seen the result of the parliament vote in the UK tonight," National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said. "The US will continue to consult with the UK government -- one of our closest allies and friends.

"As we've said, President Obama's decision-making will be guided by what is in the best interests of the United States.
"He believes that there are core interests at stake for the United States and that countries who violate international norms regarding chemical weapons need to be held accountable."
Thursday's 272-285 nonbinding vote in the U.K. was a major blow to the president's efforts to build an international coalition in advance of a strike against the regime of President Bashar Assad afer its suspected use of chemical weapons in a deadly attack last week.

The vote was also a sharp rebuke to Prime Minister David Cameron.

“It's clear to me that the British parliament and the British people do not wish to see military action,” Cameron said in a statement.

Earlier Thursday, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said his country would remain on the sidelines of any military action as well.

“This is a very big risk and we do support our allies who are contemplating forceful action to deal with this,” Haper said, according to The Daily Star, in Toronto.

“That said, at the present time the government of Canada has no plans, we have no plans of our own, to have a Canadian military mission.”

And Italian Foreign Minister Emma Bonino also said Thursday her country wouldn't join the military action without a United Nations mandate, The Hill reported.

Russia has said it'll block any attempt to secure a Security Council vote for intervention.

“We have been trying to get the U.N. Security Council to be more assertive on Syria even before this incident,” deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes told The New York Times.“The problem is that the Russians won’t vote for any accountability.”

The Times reported the White House intelligence that will be presented to congressional leaders Thursday night doesn't tie Assad directly to the deadly attack outside Damascus.

But the administration believes the information is compelling enough to justify a limited strike, the newspaper said.

Only hours before the British Parliament's stunning rejection, White House spokesman Josh Earnest had thanks top politicians there for their “strong words” following the alleged chemical weapons attack, The Hill reported.

“You've heard both the prime minister and the foreign secretary articulate their strong objection and condemnation of the use of chemical weapons,” Earnest said. “We've heard them talk about their desire to see the Assad regime be held accountable for its actions in carrying out this chemical weapons attack.”

But British Foreign Secretary William Hague sounded a cautious note Wednesday, saying the U.Sl would "make their own decisions” about intervention, The Hill reported.

“We will remain closely coordinated with them and in close in touch with them, as we are every day,” Hague said. “I speak to my counterpart Secretary Kerry every day and have done so this evening.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report




© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.