Petraeus' Mistress Speaks

CAN YOU BELIEVE WE ARE LESS THAN THREE MONTHS FROM THE ONE YEAR ANNIVERSARY? WHERE DOES THE TIME GO?

Congressman Says NSA Does Not Get Warrants to Eavesdrop on Phone Calls

Cnet is not generally a source of political information. For those not familiar with the website it is now owned CBS and focuses on consumer technology such as computers, cell phones, cameras etc.

The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, disclosed this week that during a secret briefing to members of Congress, he was told that the contents of a phone call could be accessed "simply based on an analyst deciding that."
If the NSA wants "to listen to the phone," an analyst's decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required, Nadler said he learned. "I was rather startled," said Nadler, an attorney and congressman who serves on the House Judiciary committee.
Not only does this disclosure shed more light on how the NSA's formidable eavesdropping apparatus works domestically it also suggests the Justice Department has secretly interpreted federal surveillance law to permit thousands of low-ranking analysts to eavesdrop on phone calls.

I can find no other source to verify the assertion so presumably Nadler made it to Cnet. In addition to not needing a warrant to listen to phone calls the article states that the same legal principle applies to internet content such as emails and text messages.

Special Forces Were Just Hours From Benghazi

Recent testimony by General Martin Dempsey before the Senate Budget Committee essentially confirms a Fox News report by Adam Housley. Maybe by design or maybe by innocent oversight this testimony has gone unreported in the media, including Fox News. In Housley's report an unidentified special operation officer claims that the United States had military forces at the ready but refused to deploy them to rescue the defenders of the CIA annex in Benghazi.
“I know for a fact that C-110, the EUCOM CIF, was doing a training exercise in … not in the region of North Africa, but in Europe, and they had the ability to act and to respond.”
The operator told Fox News the C-110 forces were training in Croatia.
“We had the ability to load out, get on birds and fly there, at a minimum stage,” the operator told Fox News. “C-110 had the ability to be there, in my opinion, in a matter of about four hours … four to six hours.”
Senator Ron Johnson asked General Dempsey about the Housley report during a Senate Budget Committee hearing. Dempsey confirmed that Fox News was correct in that C-110 was on a training exercise in Croatia. In the clip below notice that Dempsey also testifies that this unit was transferred from EUCOM to AFRICOM command during the attack. This lends credence to the rumor that circulated wildly about the internet immediately following the Benghazi raid that AFRICOM Commander General Carter Ham had assembled a rescue force but was refused permission to proceed.

Dempsey was asked whether he agreed with the Fox News timeline that the C-100 could deploy in four to six hours.
“No, I would not agree to that timeline,” he stated. “The travel time alone would have been more than that, and that is if they were sitting on the tarmac.”
Really? If one assumes that military aircraft travel at least as fast as commercial airlines that statement is absurd. A quick check with Travel Math reveals that distance from the capital of Croatia, Zagreb to Benghazi is just slightly further than JFK to St. Louis. When is the last time it took 6 hours to fly from New York to St. Louis?

Can't We Put This Silly Birther Thing To Rest?

Apparently we cannot. I am more focused on metadata and the IRS's abuse of power and sharing of information but let's face it: Barack Obama is the most duplicitous human being in American history! Bar none! He has zero credibility!

With that in mind, let us review the ONGOING deception of Barack Barry Hussein Soetoro Onemorenameweneverheardbefore Obama.


MIKE ZULLO BRINGS IT

Has Rush Limbaugh Lost The Will To Fight?

I usually listen to Rush Limbaugh for about forty five minutes/day, switching off to local programming when he goes to commercial. I used to think of Limbaugh as an often-entertaining bag of wind but I grew more appreciative of him post 9/11 and even more so post-Obama. He is simply more truthful than the mainstream media especially in regards to the anointed one.

Twice recently Limbaugh has told us to forget about impeachment. I understand Obama's fortified status but so what? There is a preponderance of evidence that leads us to conclude that Barack Hussein Obama is not just a fraud, a thug, a tyrant, a slob, a bully, a buffoon, an incompetent, and a pathological liar, he is more importantly....a habitual criminal!

If we do not fully investigate the Obama Administration's ongoing abuse of power, then we put our seal of approval on their crimes. We must investigate. We must fight. And should the preponderance of evidence rise to a level beyond reasonable doubt (and I strongly suspect it will) then we must impeach and/or prosecute. Damn the torpedoes.

Getting back to Limbaugh. On Friday, Rush expanded his futility rant and said that Lerner and Shulman and Holder and a rogues gallery of unsavory characters were also made of Teflon and would ultimately escape justice. We should forget all about the rule of law and the pursuit of justice and the righting of wrongs. Huh?

Men like Jim Jordan and Trey Gowdy and Darrel Issa disagree, Rush. They have not betrayed us just yet and they are willing to fight. Maybe it's time for Rush Limbaugh to play the back nine. Pass that golden microphone to someone who still has functioning gonads.

They have been tough on you, Rush, but you always fought back. Now, we need to know. Do you still have the will to fight?

Tim Stanley and 'The Telegraph'

I heard Tim Stanley on talk radio last night (must have been the Jerry Doyle show given the time of evening but Doyle's website is not worth navigating so I cannot verify that.) Tim Stanley seemed like a level-headed guy and like other Brit journalists, he is not afraid to report on Obama. Stanley was commenting on the Snowden/NSA situation and he seemed worth looking into.

So then today Limbaugh described Stanley as a far leftist or some such and claimed that he was trying to discredit Snowden in part because of 'The Telegraph's' rivalry with 'The Guardian.' I think Rush might be wrong with his assessment.

Stanley did write an article about Snowden's story unraveling. Possibly, but the gist of Snowden's revelations is still valid.

Please do not dismiss Tim Stanley as a wacky leftist because Limbaugh has mischaracterized him. Tim Stanley is well worth reading. Below is a link that is worth sharing.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100221244/edward-snowden-and-the-prism-scandal-show-that-ron-and-rand-paul-were-right-all-along/

Sarah Hall Ingram Visited the White House 165 Times

Our trivia question today is; Who from the IRS made the most trips to the White House? If you guessed Doug Schulman, wrong! Sarah Hall Ingram visited 165 times compared to Schulman's insignificant 157. That's a combined total of 322 and their visits did not overlap. For her trouble Ingram racked up $100,000 in bonuses and was promoted to oversee Obamacare. Keep in mind she was in charge of TE/GE, the division that targeted tea party groups, at the time. Doug Wead asks?

During those 322 visits to the White House, which represents almost every other working day, did they ever encounter the president?  And if so, what did they talk about?  Baseball?  Did they ever talk about work?
Did they feel comfortable about quizzing nonprofit applicants about their prayer language because they knew the president wouldn’t mind?  How could Barack Obama possibly not know what was going on?  When they met with him, did they lie to him?