Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions said today that the Obama Administration's proposed "Executive Order" amnesty for "5-6 million more illegal immigrants is unlawful and that:

"...Any action Congress might consider to address the current border crisis would be futile should the President go forward with these lawless actions. Congress must speak out and fight against them. It must use its spending power to stop the President’s executive amnesty..."

In a communique to the press the Senator said in reference to what is known as "the Granger Package," organized and introduced by Texas Representative Kay Granger:

"...That the House leaders’ border package includes no language on executive actions is surrender to a lawless President. And it is a submission to the subordination of congressional power.

Sessions said that after years of falling wages and rising joblessness, American workers are pleading for someone to hear them.  "How can it be that our President is brazenly advertising that he will nullify and strip away American workers' immigration protections, and their own elected leaders will not rise to their defense?  Or to the defense of our laws and our Constitutional order?" Sessions asked.

 Sessions said "...because it does not fix our asylum rules and loopholes, the end result of the additional judges and hearings will be more illegal immigrants gaining asylum and access to U.S. welfare. It is a plan for expedited asylum, not expedited removal...Nor will this package make our rogue President actively enforce anything, coming nowhere close to the kinds of reasonable enforcement activities needed to restore the interior application of our immigration laws..."

The "Granger Package"  purports to "...address the national security and humanitarian crisis at the southern border..."

The Congresswoman issued a statement today that said:  "...This is a crisis that deserves decisive leadership from President Obama, but his Administration has failed to lead, so the House will take action this week to resolve the urgent situation at the southern border. It would be irresponsible to allow this crisis to continue unabated for another month without immediate action to secure the border and deter more unaccompanied minors from making the journey and crossing the border illegally.

“The working group recommendations that have been included are the options I believe represent the most urgent actions that need to be taken to curb the flow of unaccompanied minors, along with women with children, from making the perilous journey to the U.S. border. Additionally, this plan provides the tools necessary to process and humanely return unaccompanied children and family units home as quickly as possible as well as to secure our southern border..."

The statement lists the salient points of the measure: 

Policy Recommendations Included in the House Border Crisis Supplemental Package 

•    Amend the Trafficking Victims Protection and Reauthorization Act of 2008 to require that all unaccompanied minors are treated the same as unaccompanied minors from Canada and Mexico for the purpose of removals. Additionally, this would require unaccompanied children who do not wish to be voluntarily returned to their home country to remain in Health and Human Services custody while they await an expedited immigration court hearing that must occur not more than 7 days after they are screened by child welfare officials. Priority removal will be given to the children who have most recently arrived in the United States.
•    Deploy additional temporary judges to expedite the hearing of asylum and credible fear claims.
•    Change the Immigration and Nationality act to strengthen the law prohibiting criminals with serious drug related convictions from applying for asylum.
•    Prohibits the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture (USDA) from denying or restricting U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) activities on federal land under their respective jurisdictions within 100 miles of the US-Mexico border.
•    Deploy the National Guard to the Southern border to assist Border Patrol. 

Today's statement from session follows yesterdays address by the Senator in Congress, where he said:

"...The president is preparing to assume for himself the absolute power to set immigration law in America.  'Well, I'll just enforce what I wish to enforce.'  The absolute power to determine who may enter and who may work, no matter what the law says, by the millions.  Our response now is of great import.  It will define the scope of executive and congressional powers for years to come..."

In his address broadcast by C-Span, Sessions issued a warning:

"...Let me state a warning... The American people are being roused to action -- and once activated, their power will be felt.  They will not be mocked.  They have begged and pleaded for our nation's immigration laws to be enforced for 30 or 40 years.  The politicians have refused, refused, refused...There's one thing the powers in Washington fear; that is being voted out of office.  Before a member of Congress acquiesces to any action of this kind, they should consider their responsibility to their constituency...Mr. President, you work for the American people, they don't work for you, and they will not accept nullification of their law passed by their elected representatives...I'm calling on all members of Congress today to stand up to these lawless actions and sponsor legislation that will block them... I'm calling on every person in this body and in this house and in the House of Representatives to stand and be counted at this perilous hour..."  (See the full video HERE)

In today's statement, Sessions addresses the Granger Package and concludes with:

"...And finally, a package that is silent on blocking executive amnesty creates an opportunity for Senate Democrats to add elements of their party’s open borders and mass immigration agenda.  This legislation is unworthy of support.”

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)---- investigations coming for obama (Photo credit: SS&SS)

The Chairman of the House Committee On Oversight and Government Reform, Darrell Issa,  says the IRS is "Dilatory," (causing delays) and "Obstructionist."  Issa said in a letter to the IRS Commissioner:

"...The failure of you and your predecessors to take timely steps to prevent the loss or destruction of electronic records may impair the effort to fully understand how and why the IRS inappropriately targeted conservative applicants for tax-exempt status. This revelation is merely the most recent in a series of actions that have delayed the Committee's investigation. Due to the IRS's continued dilatory and obstructionist actions, I am issuing the enclosed subpoena compelling your testimony at a hearing of the Committee..."

Issa's response came on the heels of the IRS's notification to Congress that a key figure in the Oversight Committee's investigation of the political targeting of conservatives by the IRS, Lois Lerner, had "lost" emails pertinent to the investigation because of a computer glitch.  Said Issa:

"...I was astounded and disappointed to learn on Friday that the Internal Revenue Service has lost a substantial portion of e-emails sent or received by former IRS official Lois Lerner from January 2009 to April 2011. For over a year, the [Oversight] Committee has sought all of Ms. Lerner's e-mails from the IRS. Because of the IRS's obstruction, I have issued two subpoenas compelling the production of documents, including all of Ms. Lerner's e-mails from the applicable period..."

Issa reminds the IRS Commissioner:

"...Indeed, you testified--under oath--during a Committee hearing in March 2014 that you would produce all of Ms. Lerner's e-mails subpoenaed by the Committee...By the IRS's admission, an unknown number of federal records were permanently lost or destroyed when Ms. Lerner's computer crashed in mid-2011...Congress passed the Federal Records Act (FRA) to preserve key documents--such as those that were stored on Lerner's hard drive--for production to congressional investigators and other stakeholders, including historians and FOIA requesters. The FRA requires agencies to make and preserve records of agency decisions, policies, and essential transactions, and to take steps to safeguard against the loss of agency records..."

According to Issa "...The Federal Records Act places the burden on the 'head of each federal agency' to 'establish safeguards against the removal or loss' of federal records.

Issa tells the IRS Commissioner:

"...Clearly, former Commissioner Douglas Shulman did not do so.  The Federal Records Act also requires the IRS Commissioner to notify the Archivist of the United States if there is reason to suspect that the records in question were unlawfully destroyed.  It is not clear whether former Commissioner Shulman or any of his successors, including you, have taken that step with respect to the documents stored on Ms. Lerner's hard drive..."

Issa's language in the letter clearly describes the possibility of willful deception and disguise by the IRS, and/or, at best, flagrant incompetence when he states:

"...By failing to establish a recordkeeping system that could have withstood the failure of Lerner's hard drive, Commissiner Shulman also failed to comply with guidance from the Office of Management and Budget, and the IRS's own internal regulations. OMB requires federal agencies to maintain electronic records, including e-mails, in an enterprise-wide managemen system.  Clearly, IRS did not.  The contents of Ms. Lerner's hard drive apparently were not backed up anywhere.  Furthermore, IRS's own Standards for Managing Electronic Mail Records require that 'IRS' offices will not store the official recordkeeping copy of e-mail messages that are federal records ONLY on the electronic mail system...'  IRS's internal guidelines also required 'IRS offices that maintain their e-mail records electronically [to] move or copy them to a separate electronic recordkeeping system...'  IRS did not do so with respect to Lerner's hard drive..."

On tuesday, Chairman Issa also subpoenaed the IRS Commissioner for documents related to the email loss, "...Lerner's hard drive and electronic devices, as well as documents connected to the IRS's response to Congress..." According to a statement from the Ovesight Committee Issa told the IRS Commissioner:

"...After a year of beating down efforts by the Obama Administration and its allies to obstruct an investigation into targeting, the IRS now says it lost perhaps the most critical evidence...When Commissioner Koskinen testified before the Committee in February, he made no mention of this.  It was only earlier this month, during an interview with a Justice Department official, that the Oversight Committee learned about the existence of subpoenaed 2010 Lerner e-mails that the IRS had not produced.  While this apparently forced the IRS to cough up an admission, we still do not have answers about how and why the IRS tried to deceive Congress about these missing e-mails. This subpoena seeks those answers..."

The statement details the requested items:

•         All back-up tapes, external drives, thumb drives, or other storage media the IRS used to capture, archive, back up, or otherwise record e-mails sent or received by Lois Lerner from January 1, 2009, to September 23, 2013.
•         All hard drives, external drives, thumb drives, and computers Lois G. Lerner used from January 1, 2009, to September 23, 2013.
•         All electronic communication devices the IRS issued to Lois G. Lerner from January 1, 2009, to September 23, 2013.
•         All electronic files, including, but not limited to, .pst files, relating to the IRS e-mail account Lois G. Lerner used from January 1, 2009, to September 23, 2013.
•         All documents and communications that Lois G. Lerner printed and/or stored for Federal Records Act compliance purposes from January 1, 2009 to September 23, 2013.
•         All documents and communications referring or relating to the production to any congressional committee or Member of Congress of e-mail communications sent or received by Lois G. Lerner from January 1, 2009, to August 2, 2013.
•         All documents and communications referring or relating to the creation of “Enclosure 3” from the June 13, 2014 letter from Leonard Oursler to Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden and Ranking Member Orrin Hatch, entitled “Description of IRS Email Collection and Production” (enclosed herein).
•         All documents and communications between or among IRS employees and employees of any Executive Branch entity referring or relating to the IRS’s production of documents to Congress from May 10, 2013, to the present.
•         All documents and communications referring or relating to the subpoena issued by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew on August 2, 2013.
•         All documents and communications referring or relating to the subpoena issued by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to Internal Revenue Service Commissioner John Koskinen on February 14, 2014.

Issa in his letter to Koskinen said:

"...I will not tolerate your continued obstruction and game-playing in response to the Committee's investigation on the IRS targeting.  For too long, the IRS has promised to produce requested--and, later, subpoenaed--documents, only to respond later with excuses and inaction.  Despite your empty promises and broken commitments to cooperation, the IRS still insists on flouting Constitutional congressional oversight..."

This is why it's called "The Socialist Cult Of Mass Murder."  It does not value Life. In fact, it promotes death at every turn.

John Nolte at Breitbart takes a look at this from the perspective of terminally ill patients, and offers a perspective of the underlying motives of ObamaCare by scrutinizing New York Times editor Bill Keller's article, which essentially advocates that the terminally ill should just shut up and die.

"...On the pages of the Sunday Times Keller reveals a monstrous philosophy that in so many ways is revealing of the elite left as a whole -- especially as it pertains to ObamaCare. In so many words, Keller just can't bring himself to understand why Adams doesn't give up her fight and die. In his mind, her death is inevitable and all she's doing is spending a lot of money that could be better spent elsewhere..."

Nolte's observations pack a wallop, and his article is certainly worth your time. (See that HERE)

American Culture is not deteriorating.  A deteriorated, degraded culture has invaded America and now exists within it.

[James 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. Peter 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the long suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.]

Constitutionalists are continually perplexed by the impositions of the Socialist Cult on Americans. There are incessant claims that our culture is dying or is being destroyed, or at the very least, that it is being perverted into something else.  These complaints are no accident. There is a constant barrage of propaganda assailing Americans to make it seem so.

But it is not so. The American Culture is not dying.  It lives in the hearts of Americans.  It is perhaps true that the Socialist Cult is advancing by increasing its ranks of adherents, but that hardly means that you are now a pervert because the Socialists insist on being perverted.

John 15:19 "...If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you..."

When a person "converts" to a religion or a belief other than the one that he subscribed to that was similar to yours, it does not make you like him or her.  Yes, if that cult gets large enough, you may suffer the consequences of not becoming an adherent, and be subject to persecution, but that still does not mean that you now believe and adhere to the beliefs of that cult. It does not mean that YOU have become degraded, nor that you have renounced your culture, your beliefs, your religion.

Even the mass murder of Jews at the hands of German socialists, did not cause the Jews to change their religion.

The American landscape, tolerant as it is, has experienced within the political and physical boundaries of the nation, the growth of a Socialist culture, which from the perspective of the Judeo-Christian fundamentals, is a decadent culture, hell-bent on self destruction. The constant and relentless barrage of Socialist culture via the propaganda machines of their media and their political activism provides the illusion that YOUR culture is deteriorating and dying.

Matthew 24:24 "...For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect..."

And the propagation of Socialist culture has relied on the propaganda that spews continually that THEY are Americans; that they just happen to be Americans of a different political stripe. Well, that's just a very clever way to market their cult to acquire new recruits.

American culture is not dying.  It has simply lost adherents to another religion, a religion of death, the Socialist Cult of Mass Murder. There are ways of preventing the loss of adherents to another religion.  I would say, get back to basics.  Stress the fundamentals.

Christian fundamentals are not about controlling or about acquiring political power.  Christian fundamentals are about emancipation: Freedom.  Christianity is about the emancipation of you, the soul.  It is not about you, the body. Christianity is about Life.

Luke 21:28 "...And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh..."

The product of Socialism is death. The statistics that tell the toll of death are an indictment of that cult: Six million Jews. Thirty to Sixty million souls at the hands of Soviet Russia.  Three million in Cambodia; millions more in China. And at the hands of the socialist mass murderers that have destroyed future generations, the abortionists, millions of innocents have been slaughtered.

Peter 5:8 KJV "...Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour..."

By the way, no one has ever been officially held accountable for the millions of deaths at the hands of socialist regimes.

Does that tell you something?

Here they are doing it again, this time in your own back yard.

Breitbart's Nolte puts it this way:

"...What the Kellers appear to be doing is worse than lobbying for euthanasia, which at the very least is a personal decision. From their elite perches, the Kellers are tag-teaming a woman hospitalized with Stage IV cancer as a selfish and narcissistic financial drain over the twin sins of aggressively fighting for her life and, through her example, possibly encouraging others to do the same...This is yet another glimpse into those I call 'Soylent Green Liberals.' The left's mask of compassion slipped late last year as they attempted to dismiss millions losing their health insurance as an overall positive.  And now the Kellers have given us another chilling example of those who are all too eager to sacrifice a few to serve some cold robotic vision of a cold robotic Utopia..."

This is not about a doubtful conspiracy theory or some esoteric idea that aliens from Pluto have invaded earth and are here to exploit our planet's resources.  This is not some far-fetched theory about reptilian ghouls living amongst us piping radio signals to a lizard civilization in another part of the galaxy.

This is about the cold, hard, brutal reality, that there is a cult that is dedicated to mass murder, operating in your midst, pretending to be one of you, and using your laws and your cultural values, your kindness and tolerance against you to advance, not just its political agenda, but its end-game, which is the eradication of not just individuals, but the entirety of your culture, including your religion.

John 4:3b "...and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world..."

This is not about trying to scare you into voting Republican or Libertarian. Nor is it about trying to scare you into not voting. It's not about being scared.

Quite the opposite.  You are a Free Being; an eternal Spirit; that is, if you subscribe to being Christian. And by incident of birth you are bound by the founding principles of your nation to uphold and defend your Constitution.

This is about standing up to the Socialist Cult of Mass murder, stalling its advancement, and taking it apart once and for all. It is not just a political party or movement. It is a cult.  And the god they worship is death.

This is why it's called "The Socialist Cult Of Mass Murder."

Vanguard of Freedom
with Emil J. Milano

Will Attorney General Eric Holder Remove Barbara Bosserman As Head Of Investigation of IRS?

Revelations that a Democrat political donor was appointed to head the criminal investigation into the IRS's targeting of Tea Party and Conservative groups have prompted Congressmen Darrell Issa and Jim Jordan to request that Attorney General Eric Holder remove Department of Justice Trial Attorney, Barbara Bosserman as head of that investigation.

Last November, frustrated that progress into the investigation of IRS abuses against the Tea Party and Conservatives was not progressing, the House Oversight committee subpoenaed Treasury Secretary Jack Lew for documents and communications regarding those abuses, stating that "...Secretary Lew is responsible for providing all pertinent documents Treasury has in its possession, both within and outside the IRS..."

Congressmen Issa and Jordan wanted Lew to produce nine categories of documents by June 27, and complained on that date that he had responded with only 356 pages of documents that were "..mostly letters from Member of Congress and drafts of congressional testimony..."

Lew was not forthcoming and in September the Congressmen reiterated their request, whereupon Lew provided in October, after another delay, "..an additional 800 pages of document[s], mostly draft regulations and comments to proposed regulations..."

The Congressmen again complained the documents were insufficient and subpoenaed for specific documents including:

• All documents and communications to or from any employee of the U.S. Department of the Treasury referring or relating to Internal Revenue Service processes, procedures, or criteria for evaluating applications for tax exempt status.
• All documents and communications referring or relating to a June 4, 2012 briefing delivered by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration to General Counsel Christopher Meade.
• All documents and communications referring or relating to the disclosure, potential disclosure, or any plan to disclose the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration’s audit 2013-10-53, entitled, Inappropriate Criteria Were Used to Identify Tax-Exempt Applications for Review.
• All documents and communications to or from any employee of the U.S. Department of the Treasury referring or relating to congressional requests for information about the process for reviewing applications for tax-exempt status.
• All documents and communications to or from any employee of the U.S. Department of the Treasury referring or relating to the drafting, review, editing, or approval of testimony given to Congress by any employee of the U.S. Department of the Treasury about matters related to the IRS, including, but not limited to, communications between and among employees of the U.S. Department of the Treasury and employees of the Office of Management and Budget.
• All documents and communications to or from any employee of the U.S. Department of the Treasury referring or relating to the drafting, review, editing, or approval of letters sent by the IRS to any Member of Congress, including, but not limited to, the following letters:
• Steven Miller’s letter to House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, dated July 1, 2011;
• Steven Miller’s letter to House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, dated July 25, 2011;
• Joseph Grant’s letter to House Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Charles Boustany, dated November 18, 2011;
• Joseph Grant’s letter to House Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Charles Boustany, dated March 12, 2012;
• Joseph Grant’s letter to House Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Charles Boustany, dated March 23, 2012;
• Lois Lerner’s letter to House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa and House Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Job Creation and Regulatory Affairs Chairman Jim Jordan, dated April 26, 2012;
• Joseph Grant’s letter to House Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Charles Boustany, dated April 26, 2012;
• Steven Miller’s letter to Senator Orrin Hatch, dated April 26, 2012;
• Lois Lerner’s letter to House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa and House Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Job Creation and Regulatory Affairs Chairman Jim Jordan, dated May 4, 2012;
• Steven Miller’s letter to House Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Charles Boustany, dated June 15, 2012; and
• Steven Miller’s letter to Senator Orrin Hatch, dated September 11, 2012.
• All documents and communications to or from any employee of the U.S. Department of the Treasury referring or relating to the establishment of the IRS Affordable Care Act Office and related personnel and staffing decisions for the Affordable Care Act Office.
• All documents and communications to or from any employee of the U.S. Department of the Treasury referring or relating to any internal IRS evaluation, review, or investigation into the processing of applications for tax-exempt status.

Meanwhile the Obama Administration's "solution" to the problem of IRS abuses was to change existing regulations governing groups, such as the Tea Party and Conservative groups that had been targeted by the IRS.  The IRS rule change was to set up "social welfare" organizations under Section 501(c)4 of the tax code, with the "primary" purpose of social welfare.  Previously IRS regulaltions were interpreted to mean that such organizations were required to dedicate at least 51 percent of their funds on things like community beautification and education.

That did not sit well with Oversight Committee Congressmen and in late November, Chairman Issa responded:

"...This new effort by the Obama Administration to limit traditional advocacy efforts by social welfare organizations will have a much more profound impact on grassroots and community organizations than on the well-heeled groups it supposedly targets. The fact that the Administration’s new effort only applies to social welfare organizations — and not powerful unions or business groups — underscores that this is a crass political effort by the Administration to get what political advantage they can, when they can.,,The Committee’s interim report into the IRS’s targeting scandal explained how the Citizens United decision caused the IRS to handle conservative tax-exempt applicants in a distinct and unfair manner. The regulation released today continues this Administration’s unfortunate pattern of stifling constitutional free speech.”

Since then it has come to light that a Democrat donor (as in, political monetary contributions) is heading up the investigation into IRS abuses.  (Tantamount to the wolf guarding the hen-house?) Expressing obvious outrage in a letter to Holder, about Barbara Bosserman heading the Justice Department's  investigation of the IRS, the Congressmen reminded the Attorney General that:

"...When the IRS's misconduct became public in May 2013, you called it 'outrageous and unacceptable' and ordered a Department of Justice Investigation in coordination with the Federal Bureau of Investigation.  In light of indications that the Bureau was not taking the investigation serioulsly, we have written to FBI Directro James Comey on September 6, 2013, and again on December 2, 2013, seeking information about the status of this matter...The FBI has failed to provide the requested information, and after Department officials apparently interfered, the Bureau rescinded an offer to meet with [Congressman] Mr. Jordan to discuss the investigation...As we pointed out in our most recent letter to Director Comey on December 2, 2013, the FBI's blatant lack of cooperation with the Committee may rise to the level of criminal obstruction of a congressional investigation..."

Issa and Jordan minced no words, confronting the Attorney General with new information that "raises additional questions about the integrity of the DOJ/FBI investigation."  Their letter to Holder says that "[s]ince the FBI has refused to cooperate with the Committee's oversight, the Committee [has] requested information about the DOJ/FBI investigation from current and former IRS officials whom the Committee has interviewed about their respective roles in the targeting of conservative groups.  According to several current and former IRS officials whom both the Committee and the Department have interviewed, Barbara Bosserman, a trial attorney in the Department's Civil Rights Division, is leading the DOJ/FBI investigation."

The letter then provides an itemized list of dollar amount donations by Bosserman to the Democratic National Committee, Obama for America, and the Obama Victory Fund, which covered a period from October of 2004 to November of 2012, totaling $6,750.00.  The Congressmen then declare:

"...By selecting a significant donor to President Obama to lead an investigation into inappropriate targeting of conservative groups, the Department has created a startling conflict of interest. It is unbelievable that the Department would choose such an individual to examine the federal government's systematic targeting and harassment of organizations opposed to the President's policies.  At the very least, Ms. Bosserman's involvement is highly inappropriate and has compromised the Administration's investigation of the IRS.  We request that you immediately remove Ms. Bosserman from the ongoing investigation.  In addition, since the aforementioned conflict of interest has tainted any information Ms. Bosserman gas gathered thus far, we request that you take all necessary steps to ensure that the DOJ/FBI criminal investigation is thorough and unbiased, including steps to remedy the damage created by Ms. Bosserman's leadership of and participation in the investigation..."

In a related statement about the letter to Holder, Issa and Jordan said:

"...It is unbelievable that the Department would choose such an individual to examine the federal government’s systematic targeting and harassment of organizations opposed to the President’s policies...At the very least, Ms. Bosserman’s involvement is highly inappropriate and has compromised the Administration’s investigation of the IRS..."


While it is definitely appropriate that the Congressmen be outraged, and that they find it unbelievable that the Justice department cannot police itself to maintain a climate of political objectivity (as opposed to political bias), and as appalling as it might be, when are the arrogant, tyrannical actions of an oppressive government enough to move the citizenry to more sanctions than the back and forth ping pong-ing of political hot potatoes?  What does it take to catalyze the outrage into causative action that will hold government servants accountable for their criminal offenses?

Vanguard of Freedom Perspectives

Wyoming State Boundary Changed By EPA

Michael Bastasch at the Daily Caller News Foundation reported Wednesday the story of the residents of Riverton, Wyoming:

"...One day they were Wyomingans, the next they were members of the Wind River tribes — after the Environmental Protection Agency declared the town part of the Wind River Indian Reservation, undoing a 1905 law passed by Congress and angering state officials..."

Bastasch reports that, while the federal Environmental Protection Agency has "unilaterally" changed the boundaries of the state of Wyoming, Wyoming Governor Matt Mead has informed the EPA that he will not honor its decision related to the boundary of the state and the Wind River Reservation.

According to a statement issued by the Wyoming Governor's office:

"...Three days after signing the decision the regional administrator of the EPA told Wyoming the EPA was granting the Northern Arapaho and Eastern Shoshone Tribes application for Treatment as a State. Treatment as a State gives Tribes access to grant funding for air quality monitoring, but the EPA decision also purports to re-interpret a 1905 Congressional Act and in doing so expand the boundaries of the Wind River Reservation..."

Last month the EPA effectively changed the boundaries of the reservation by using as reference a 2011 finding by the Interior Department that a law passed in 1905, which in effect opened the Riverton area and "one million more acres to homesteading" by "non-Indians," did not diminish the reservation.

That means, essentially that land that has been considered since 1905, specifically  an area referenced as Fremont County and the city of Riverton, Wyoming, to be under local jurisdiction, is instead, Indian Country.  Among other things, because the ruling makes the area part of the Wind River Indian Reservation, the city and its surrounding areas are subject now, not to local laws, but to federal law, including law enforcement (police) and other laws.

On January 6 of this year the Wyoming Attorney General, Peter K. Michael, petitioned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for "...Reconsideration and Stay of Approval of Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapho Tribes' Application for Treatment as a State..." stating that the "...legal opinion offered in support of EPA's decision depends on a shost of faulty factual and legal conclusions..."

It said further that:

"...The legal opinion offered in support of EPA's decision presents a selective history of the Wind River Reservation more akin to advocacy for a predetermined outcome than to the objective analysis required for this complicated issue.  The plan language of the 1905 Act of Congress, the 1891 and 1904 treaties, the legislative history and other contemporaneous historical evidence, decisions of the United States Supreme Court in analogous cases, and he State's pervasive exercise of civil and criminal jurisdiction over the territory in dispute for more than one hundred years--especially when coupled with the disavowal of federal jurisdiction and the absence of tribal jurisdiction--demonstrate conclusively that EPA's reservation boundary determination is wrong..."
"...EPA not only reached the wrong conclusion, but the agency also employed a fundamentally unfair and skewed process, to the detriment of the State and its citizens, in pursuit of its predetermined objective..."

Governor Mead said in a statement:

"...I understand that the Northern Arapaho and Eastern Shoshone Tribes have a different opinion about the Wind River Reservation Boundary. My deep concern is about an administrative agency of the federal government altering a state’s boundary and going against over 100 years of history and law. This should be a concern to all citizens because, if the EPA can unilaterally take land away from a state, where will it stop...?"

Bastasch reports that "State courts have heard at least two cases on the boundary in the last three decades — one 1980s Wyoming Supreme Court case found that Riverton was part of the reservation, and another state high court case in 2008, which found that the town was in Wyoming...The only problem is that the state court decisions don’t set a solid precedent, since neither case involves both tribes living on the reservation, nor the state and the federal government all at once, Howell... [lobbyist for the Northern Arapaho tribe] ... told the Star-Tribune."  See Bastasch's Report HERE... 

Once again, an agency of the Obama Administration over-extends its reach, and takes actions that are Unconstitutional, bypassing Congress and the Courts, while using as pawns U.S. Citizens of two factions to create a conflict in order to advance its political agenda.

Vanguard of Freedom Perspectives

For Whom The Benghazi Bell Tolls

Bill Gertz @ the Washington Free Beacon is reporting that  "..[t]he U.S. government is trying to apprehend an al Qaeda terrorist wanted for his role in the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack that killed four Americans..."


And, yes, he says that  "...The identification of Jamal as an al Qaeda member linked to the Benghazi attack contradicts a recent New York Times investigative report that concluded there was no evidence al Qaeda or foreign terrorists were behind the Benghazi attack that is currently the subject of several congressional inquiries..."


Gertz joins dozens of journalists and pundits in debunking the New York Times article, A Deadly Mix in Benghazi, by David D. Kirkpatrick, in which Kirkpatrick claims that:

"...Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam...

If the New York Times, and, indeed, Kirkpatrick had any intention of publishing anything resembling a truthful, accurate, and,  moderately objective article, they could have at least asked the U.S. State Department, if they had knowledge of any al-Qaeda links to the Benghazi attacks, which, according to their own media note of October 7, 2013, nearly three months ago, and well before the release of the NYT article, STATES:

"...The Department of State has designated the Muhammad Jamal Network (MJN) and founder, Muhammad Jamal, as Specially Designated Global Terrorists under Executive Order (E.O.) 13224, which targets terrorists and those providing support to terrorists or acts of terrorism.

Muhammad Jamal journeyed to Afghanistan in the late 1980s where he trained with al-Qa’ida (AQ) and learned how to construct bombs. Upon returning to Egypt in the 1990s, Muhammad Jamal became a top military commander and head of the operational wing of Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ), then headed by AQ leader Ayman al-Zawahiri. Jamal has been arrested multiple times by Egyptian authorities for terrorist activities and was incarcerated for years in Egypt. Muhammad Jamal has developed connections with al-Qa’ida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), AQ senior leadership, and al-Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) leadership including Nasir 'Abd-al-Karim 'Abdullah al-Wahishi and Qasim Yahya Mahdi al-Rimi. 

Jamal formed the MJN after his release from Egyptian prison in 2011 and established several terrorist training camps in Egypt and Libya. AQAP has provided funding to the MJN and Jamal has used the AQAP network to smuggle fighters into training camps. Suicide bombers have trained at MJN training camps, and Jamal established links with terrorists in Europe.  

Jamal was re-arrested by Egyptian authorities in November 2012. His confiscated computer contained letters to al-Zawahiri in which Jamal asked for assistance and described MJN’s activities, including acquiring weapons, conducting terrorist training, and establishing terrorist groups in the Sinai..."

A few clicks of the lap top were too much trouble for the NYT, if they were too concerned about a State Department Cover-Up about al-Qaeda involvement in the Benghazi attack, because that would have procured for them this little nugget from the United Nations:

"...QE.M.136.13. MUHAMMAD JAMAL NETWORK (MJN)
Date on which the narrative summary became available on the Committee’s website: 21 October 2013 

The Muhammad Jamal Network (MJN) was listed on 21 October 2013 pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3 of resolution 2083 (2012) as being associated with Al-Qaida for “participating in the financing, planning, facilitating, preparing, or perpetrating of acts or activities by, in conjunction with, under the name of, on behalf of, or in support of”, “supplying, selling or transferring arms and related materiel to”, and “recruiting for; or otherwise supporting acts or activities of” Al-Qaida (QE.A.4.01), Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (QE.A.129.10.) and The Organization of Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (QE.T.14.01.).  MJN is controlled by Muhammad Jamal Abd-Al Rahim Ahmad Al-Kashif (QI.A.318.13). 

Additional information
Egyptian Muhammad Muhammad Jamal Abd-Al Rahim Ahmad Al-Kashif formed the MJN after his release from prison in 2011 and established multiple terrorist training camps in Egypt and Libya.  AQAP (QE.A.129.10.) has provided funding to the MJN. 

Muhammad Jamal was most recently arrested by Egyptian authorities in November 2012.  His confiscated computer contained letters to Al-Qaida leader Aiman Muhammed Rabi al-Zawahiri (QI.A.6.01.) in which Muhammad Jamal described MJN’s activities as including acquiring weapons, conducting training, and establishing terrorist groups in the Sinai, and in which he asked Al-Zawahiri for assistance. Al-Zawahiri reportedly gave Jamal the go-ahead to launch terrorist attacks in Egypt, Libya, and elsewhere. 

Muhammad Jamal has used the Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) network to smuggle fighters into MJN training camps.  Suicide bombers are being trained at MJN training camps, and Muhammad Jamal has established links with violent extremists in Europe.  Muhammad Jamal set up a training camp in Libya where Libyan and foreign violent extremists were trained.  Some of the attackers of the U.S. Mission in Benghazi on 11 September 2012 have been identified as associates of Muhammad Jamal, and some of the Benghazi attackers reportedly trained at MJN camps in Libya. 

Before he was arrested in November 2012, Muhammad Jamal was the leader of the Nasr City Cell (the Cell), whose members have been accused of plotting terrorist attacks inside Egypt.  Raids against the Cell in October 2012 recovered a large amount of weapons, explosives, and related material..."

MJN is connected to Al-Qaida senior leaders, including Aiman al-Zawahiri, and AQAP leaders Nasir ‘abd-al-Karim ‘Abdullah al-Wahishi (QI.A.274.10.) and Qasim Yahya Mahdi al-Rimi (QI.A.282.10.). MJN is also connected to The Organization of Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb..."

In addition to the numerous indicting references to a Libyan connection to al-Qaeda and Benghazi, please highlight and note that the U.N. statement says specifically:

"...Some of the attackers of the U.S. Mission in Benghazi on 11 September 2012 have been identified as associates of Muhammad Jamal, and some of the Benghazi attackers reportedly trained at MJN camps in Libya..."

On occasion it is appropriate for journalists to thank a peer for doing a shoddy job of "reporting," or specifically, of indulging in advancing propaganda for political reasons, being a hack and doing favors for a favored politician, and compromising what's left of any journalistic integrity at a once prominent socialist propaganda rag, because the subsequent flurry of scrutiny and investigation to qualify and certify outrageous claims provides undeniable evidence of collusion between pretended "Media" and the politicos and ideologues they advance their propaganda for.

Certainly they pass up no opportunity to live up to their name, The SLIME,  the Socialist Liberal Media...


Vanguard of Freedom

No self respecting reporter would dare make a claim that there are no al-Qaeda operatives operating within the ranks of "unafilliated" terrorist groups or Jihadi militias.

And yet that is precisely what David D. Kirkpatrick's article in the New York Times, which claims there was no al-Qaeda connection to the Benghazi terrorist attack on 9-11-2012, would have us believe.

To believe that the hand of al-Qaeda does not guide, or does not manipulate covertly the action of impassioned radicals, is to believe that the CIA does not ever covertly influence the outcome of any events.

Kirkpatrick and the Times claim that "...Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam..."

It isn't necessary to even mention the already published claims and assertions by Legislators on both sides of the proverbial "aisle" that discredit the Times' article.

And while there exists plenty of evidence that contradicts the Kirkpatrick claims, there is that one little tid-bit that blows his claims conclusively out of the water, and that is the glaring, underlying detail that al-Qaeda is able to either buy or infiltrate (or both) radical groups in order to accomplish its goals.

What evidence is there to support this?

How about the endless claims by the FBI and its concerns about "home-grown" terrorism.

How about the claims by our own intel operatives of internet recruitment attempts of Americans by, guess who?

Certainly al-Qaeda operates out in the open, but by the very nature of the type of organization that it is, it most definitely operates covertly, and most probably operates covertly  to inflame and to manipulate groups not officially affiliated with it.

Only a report by a "journalist" and a "newspaper," with a purpose other than the truth would leave out even the most minute possibility that that could be the case.

Only an account intent on advancing propaganda, and a specific ideological agenda, would leave out the possibility of such pertinent a detail.

The audacity and arrogance of such propagandists, who expect readers to actually believe its blatant falsehoods, reveals political desperation beyond the pale.

Vanguard of Freedom

New York Times Tower seen from streetlevel (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The New York Times' Robert Pear got his pantaloons in a bunch on Christmas Eve over the seemingly endless adjustments by Obama of the Affordable Care Act.

Pear detailed the various adjustments and extensions in an article titled, "Sign-Up Period Extended Again for Health Plan."

His conclusion:

"...In its effort to help consumers and to avoid political damage to the president, the administration has announced a series of policy changes, delays, extensions and clarifications in recent months...Taken together, they amount to a sweeping exercise of executive power — what Prof. Jonathan Turley of George Washington University Law School describes as a “pattern of circumventing Congress in the creation of new major standards, exceptions or outright nullifications...”

This declaration so impressed the folks at Breitbart, mainly Wynton Hill, and reported as news, that the New York Times had made the statement, apparently, as if to say, "now even the Times is appalled at Obama's dictatorial over-reach."

He did quote a professor Turley from the George Washington University Law School, who said that the Obama administration "...has engaged in a "pattern of circumnavigating Congress in the creation of new major standards, exceptions or outright nullifications..."

Most "astute" people have known this for some time; that is, those that are aware and not afraid to voice their challenges to the President's series of Constitutional breaches. And yet now, it seems, some find a sort of confirmation in certain circles, as if the entire time, they had been holding their breath in hopes that their protests against Constitutional infractions might some day be affirmed and declared correct by an annointed Socialist Lackey in one of their "esteemed" propaganda rags.

Constitutionalists have been, for some time, writing about the President's circumvention of Congress, but have been quiet about the fact that he could only bypass the Constitution if he had first effected a quiet "coup d' etat," a "golpe de estado," a Presidential take-over of the nation, and had assumed his throne as dictator.

He, after all,  stated he would bypass via executive orders, and warned the nation he would do so, if Congress would not cooperate with his agenda.  This, after, he lied about ObamaCare, apparently to get re-elected.

Perhaps he can continue to do this, because the coup we are so quick to credit him with occurred long before he took office, and there have been, as it is becoming more and more apparent, since time immemorial, a series of federal government administrations, along with their accomplices in Congress,and in the Courts, who have, in succession, advanced the ruse that we live in a Constitutional Republic, when we evidently do not.

The question remains:  What are we going to do about it?

Vanguard of Freedom

Texas Senator Ted Cruz said he was deeply concerned that "...Congress still has not prohibited President Obama’s ability to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens arrested on American soil without trial or due process..."

His statement reflected his "No" vote for passage of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).  Said Cruz:

"..."The Constitution does not allow President Obama, or any President, to apprehend an American citizen, arrested on U.S. soil, and detain these citizens indefinitely without a trial. When I ran for office, I promised the people of Texas I would oppose any National Defense Authorization Act that did not explicitly prohibit the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens. Although this legislation does contain several positive provisions that I support, it does not ensure our most basic rights as American citizens are protected..."

There were some aspects of the Bill Cruz supported, but the Senator said:

"...Unfortunately, the final outcome of the NDAA bill included provisions that made it impossible for me to support; specifically, Sen. Harry Reid refused to allow a vote on any amendments to protect the Due Process rights of American citizens not to be subject to indefinite detention..."

The statement from Cruz's office asserted that items of the Bill the Senator had worked to help pass included the following:

• A Cruz Amendment requiring an independent investigation into reports of religious discrimination against troops sharing their faith (Section 533).
• A Lee-Cruz amendment that strengthens the protection of religious liberty in the military (Section 532).
• Provision prohibiting the President from selling or transferring the Mount Soledad veterans’ memorial in San Diego to the highest bidder. The ACLU and groups hostile to this veterans memorial have long advocated this transfer (page 298, Joint Explanatory Statement). Sen. Cruz offered a similar amendment on the Senate floor.
• A provision that anonymously surveys chaplains on threats to their faith and their work (Section 534).
• Language from a Cruz amendment to recognize and commend the State Department’s authorization of the Rewards for Justice program for the terrorists who attacked the diplomatic facilities in Benghazi Libya on September 11, 2012 (Sections 1206, Joint Explanatory statement).
• Language from Sen. Cornyn’s amendment, co-sponsored by Sen. Cruz, authorizing the Purple Heart to victims of the Fort Hood terrorist attack (Section 565).
• A Cruz amendment to direct the Secretary of Defense to address the growing threat of a missile attack from the Gulf of Mexico or the southern hemisphere through bolstered missile defense capabilities (Section 238).
• A Cornyn amendment, supported by Sen. Cruz, to prohibit the Department of Defense from using taxpayer dollars to purchase Russian-made helicopters (Section 1255).
• Prohibition of moving Guantanamo detainees back to the United States (Section 1034). Sen. Cruz introduced an amendment in the Senate Armed Services Committee markup to authorize the Department of Defense to transport medical supplies or needed personnel from the U.S. to Guantanamo Bay in order to prevent detainees from being transported to the United States for medical care.
• Prohibition on a new Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round (Section 2711). Sen. Cruz won adoption of an amendment in committee markup that would have required DOD to conduct an overseas BRAC study before even considering a domestic BRAC round.
• Protection of Servicemen and Women and their Families
• Protection for graduates of home school education to ensure they are not discriminated against in joining the military (Section 573).
• Improved assistance for widows of troops killed in combat (Section 633).

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Scott Henson @ "Grits For Breakfast reported this week that a Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruling has allowed "...another court-created federal exception to the exclusionary rule in state-level search and seizure cases that allows evidence to be admitted in the face of clear police misconduct, even though Texas has a statutory exclusionary rule that - unlike the court-created federal version - includes no exceptions on its face..."

Henson says:

"...The case - Wehrenberg v. State - involved a drug bust in Parker County in which officers received a tip from a confidential informant that the defendant and others were "fixing to" cook meth later that evening. Three or four hours later, after midnight, officers illegally entered Mr. Wehrenberg's residence "without a search warrant and without consent," handcuffing everyone inside and escorting them all into the front yard, conducting a "protective sweep" of the house. Then they held everyone outside in handcuffs for an hour and a half while one of the officers went to find a judge to secure a search warrant. The search warrant affidavit did not inform the judge that officers had already entered the premises and detained everyone found in the house. The judge issued a warrant, police found contraband, and charged Mr. Wehrenberg with a second degree felony, for which he was convicted..."

In a nut-shell, cops allegedly lied to a judge to get a warrant.  Ostensibly and arguably, as the defense might have contended, the "evidence" seized was taken illegally and should not have been allowed.

Yes, there was a crime allegedly committed or about to be committed, and the argument that judicial action was warranted in order to thwart that crime was warranted might pass inspection at the muster of those same troopers that contend the ends justifies the means.  But what if this becomes a precedent for law enforcement to target someone for political reasons?

Sound familiar?

Just look at what happened with the NSA. Ostensibly NSA'ers were given permission to spy on terrorists via electronic means. Somehow, the geniuses at the NSA, fueled by the enthusiasm of the new toys of digital espionage, extrapolated that they could spy on Americans just "cuz" you never know who might be plotting what. And of course, they even got a special court to decide when it was ok to do that, which from what most now are able to discern, is, anytime they feel like it.

Partner that with the fact that Congressional oversight committee members get campaign contributions from government "intelligence" contractors, and there you have a hot recipe for an illegal plate of enchiladas certain to result in a severe case of Constitutional indigestion.

Where should the lines get drawn then?  At the local and state level?  Or at the point where you have wholesale violation of Constitutional rights being violated for "national security" reasons.

When does it become "too late?" to restore your Freedoms?

And, as Henson writes,

"...In that light, whether or not the majority's hair-splitting legalisms are valid, the net effect of the ruling in this particular instance was to allow police to gloss over actions that everyone agrees were illegal conduct. Bottom line: In Texas, if citizens break the law, they go to jail. If police break the law, some activist judge will find or create a reason to excuse their misbehavior, which is precisely what happened in this case..."

And at the federal level, when it involves your "national security," when millions of Americans are being subjected to violations of privacy, and with respect to the possession of their information, illegal search and seizure, shall we just twiddle our thumbs and turn the nation back over to King George?

Vanguard of Freedom

Dianne Feinstein, member of the United States Senate. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein said today that the Judge that ruled that the National Security Agency's records collection program was unconstitutional, is wrong in his ruling.

Feinstein issued a statement saying:

"...Judge Leon made a preliminary ruling yesterday that the NSA business records program may be unconstitutional. The preliminary injunction was stayed pending appeal by the government...It should be noted that last month Judge Jeffrey Miller of the Southern District of California found the NSA business records program to be constitutional...Judge Miller was ruling on a real world terrorist case involving the February 2013 conviction of Basaaly Moalin and three others for conspiracy and providing material support to the Somali terrorist organization Al-Shabaab. In that case, the NSA provided the FBI with information gleaned from an NSA query (under Section 215) of the call records database that established a connection between a San Diego-based number and a number known to be used by a terrorist with ties to al Qaeda..."

Feinstein said that:

"...In upholding these convictions, Judge Miller cited Smith v. Maryland (1979) the controlling legal precedent and held the defendants had ‘no legitimate expectation of privacy’ over the type of telephone metadata acquired by the government—which is the ‘to’ and ‘from’ phone numbers of a call, its time, its date and its duration. There is no content, no names and no locational information acquired...Judge Leon’s opinion also differs from those of at least 15 separate federal district court judges who sit, or have sat, on the FISA Court and have reauthorized the program every 90 days—a total 35 times in all...Clearly we have competing decisions from those of at least three different courts (the FISA Court, the D.C. District Court and the Southern District of California). I have found the analysis by the FISA Court, the Southern District of California and the position of the Department of Justice, based on the Supreme Court decision in Smith, to be compelling..."

Feinstein asserted that only the Supreme Court can resolve the question on the constitutionality of the NSA's program. She said she welcomed a Supreme Court review since it had been more than 30 years since the court's original decision on constitutionality, and she believes it is crucial to settling the issue once and for all.

But in yesterday's ruling, Judge Leon was adamant and although he kept his decision from being acted upon immediately, he indicated he was certain the Supreme Court would uphold his decision. He wrote:

"...in light of the significant national security interests at stake in this case and the novelty of the constitutional issues, I will stay my order pending appeal.  In doing so, I hereby give the Government fair notice that should my ruling be upheld,this order will go into effect forthwith.  Accordingly, I fully expect that during the appellate process, which will consume at least the next six months, the Government will take whatever steps necessary to prepare itself to complyh with this order when, and if, it is upheld.  Suffice it to say, requesting further time to comply with this order months from now will not be well received and could result in collateral sanctions..."

Not included in that debate between Senator Feinstein and Judge Leon, is the "Maplight" factor, which examined campaign contributions to members of the intelligence committee by businesses which had been granted contracts by the National Security agency. While this is not illegal, it calls into question the ethics, morals and motives of those serving on intelligence oversight committees, which are tasked with monitoring and controlling intelligence activities by contractors and the National Security Agency.

The article (which you can see HERE)    reports that companies "....receiving intelligence contracts are major donors to members of the intelligence committees, including L-3 Communications, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Honeywell International...Campaign contributions amount to $3.7 million.

Another article in Maplight, by Donny Shaw reveals that Senator Feinstein has received 3 times more money from top intelligence service contractors than Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont.  (See that breakdown HERE)...

"...Feinstein has continually defended the legality of the phone records program and at a hearing earlier this month said, 'I will do everything I can to keep this program from being cancelled out...to destroy it is to make this nation more vulnerable.'..."

Feinstein asserts further that in spite of Judge Leon's ruling:

"...the call records program remains in effect...Those of us who support the call records program do so with a sincere belief that it, along with other programs, is constitutional and helps keep the country safe from attack. I believe the program can benefit from additional transparency and privacy protections—including additional public reporting and added court review provisions which were recently adopted by the Senate Intelligence Committee in the bipartisan FISA Improvements Act.”

Still another factor is President Obama's recent appointment of Patricia Millet to the Appeals Court for the District of Columbia, which rules on the legality of White House actions and federal agency regulations, an appointment that gives that court a 5-4 majority in favor of Democrat appointments.

Another possible twist in they dynamics of this development is that the political "Left" has demonstrated noticeable opposition to NSA spying programs, and may add its argument and political force toward getting the unconstitutionality of the NSA programs upheld.

Vanguard of Freedom

US District Court Judge, Richard D. Leon (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Associated Press is reporting that in a ruling, "...with potentially far-reaching consequences, a federal judge declared Monday that the National Security Agency's bulk collection of millions of Americans' telephone records likely violates the U.S. Constitution's ban on unreasonable search. The ruling, filled with blistering criticism of the Obama administration's arguments, is the first of its kind on the controversial program..."

Associated Press Correspondent Frederic J. Frommer reports:

"...Even if NSA's "metadata" collection of records should pass constitutional muster, the judge said, there is little evidence it has ever prevented a terrorist attack. The collection program was disclosed by former NSA systems analyst Edward Snowden, provoking a heated national and international debate..."

That would be Judge Richard Leon, a U.S. District Court Judge, who, Frommer says has granted a preliminary injunction against the collecting of the phone records of two men, "...who had challenged the program and said any such records for the men should be destroyed. But he put enforcement of that decision on hold pending a near-certain government appeal, which may well end up at the Supreme Court..."

[Source for Court Ruling: The BLT: The Blog Of LegalTimes (legaltimes.typepad.com)]

The ruling states:

"...For the reasons discussed below, the Court first finds that it lacks jurisdiction to hear plaintiff's Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") claim that the Government has exceeded its statutory authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ("FISA").  Next, the Court finds that it does, however, have the authority to evaluate plaintiffs' constitutional challenges to the NSA's conduct, notwithstanding the fact that it was done pursuant to orders issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ("FISC").  And after careful consideration of the parties' pleadings and supplemental pleadings, the representations made on the record at the November 18, 2013 hearing regarding these two motions,and the applicable law, the Court concludes that plaintiffs have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Government's bulk collection and querying of phone record metadata, that they have demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their Fourth Amendment claim, and that they will suffer irreparable harm absent preliminary injunctive relief.  Accordingly the Court will GRANT, in part, the Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Klayman I (with rspect to Larry Klayman and Charles Strange only) and DENY the Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Klayman II.  However, in view of the significant national security interests at stake in this case and the novely of the constitutional issues, I will STAY my order pending appeal."

The Court (Judge Richard J. Leon) then provides extensive background information (which you can see HERE) then presents the plaintiff's statutory claim under the APA, followed by the plaintiff's constitutional claim under the Fourth Amendment, after which he concludes with:

"...This case is yet the latest chapter in the Judiciary's continuing challenge to balance the national security interests of the United States with the individual liberties of our citizens. The Government, in its understandable zeal to protect our homeland, had crafted a counterterrorism program with respect to telephone metadata that strikes the balance based in large paret on a thirty-four year old Supreme Court precedent, the relevance of which has been eclipsed by technological advances and a cellphone-centric lifestyle heretofore inconceivable.  I the months ahead, other Article III courts, no doubt, will wrestle to find the proper balance consistent with our constitutional system.  But in the meantime, for all the above rasons, I will grant Larry Klayman's and Charles Strange's requests for an injunction and enter an order that (1) bars the Government from collecting, as part of the NSA's Bulk Telephony Metadata Program, any telephony metadata associated with their personal Verizon accounts and (2) requires the Government to destroy any such metadata in its possession that was collected through the bulk collection progam...However, in light of the significant national security interests at stake in this case and the novely of the constitutional issues, I will stay my order pending appeal.  In doing so, I hereby give the Government fair notice that should my ruling be upheld,this order will go into effect forthwith.  Accordingly, I fully expect that during the appellate process, which will consume at least the next six months, the Government will take whatever steps necessary to prepare itself to complyh with this order when, and if, it is upheld.  Suffice it to say, requesting further time to comply with this order months from now will not be well received and could result in collateral sanctions..."

Vanguard of Freedom News

United States Senator and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

McConnel's referenced amicus brief was filed to support Kentucky’s coal miners, their families, small businesses and all those negatively affected by the Obama "Administration’s War on Coal," according to a statement released by the Senator:

"...The amicus brief was filed in a sequel case (Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency) to the Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency that the EPA may regulate greenhouse gases as hazardous pollutants under the Clean Air Act – which resulted in the EPA’s 2010 first-ever permitting requirements for motor vehicles, known as the 'Tailpipe Rule.' The EPA has since used the Tailpipe Rule to trigger regulations on coal-fired power plants and other stationary sources..."

*The EPA issued its "Tailpipe Rule" to set emission standards for cars and light trucks, after a June 26, 2012 ruling by a District of Columbia U.S. Court of Appeals panel found that "...rules and findings by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars, light trucks and large, stationary emission producers are neither "arbitrary nor capricious" and are "unambiguously correct"; it also found that various state and industry appellants lack standing to sue the agency. (According to the Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc.,et al. No 09-1322, D.C. Cir. [via Tom Moylan, LexisNexis® Legal Newsroom ] )

Moylan reported that the EPA had determined that the Clean Air Act:

"...required major stationary sources of greenhouse gases to obtain construction and operating permits.  To avoid overwhelming burdens on greenhouse gas producers who needed permits, the agency issued Timing and Tailoring Rules that required only the largest stationary sources of greenhouse gases to get permits..."

According to Moyland, 26 appeals to these rulings were consolidated by the District of Columbia U.S. Court of Appeals, including "...Various state governments and industry groups ... [which] ... challenged the rules and findings, arguing that they were based on improper constructions of the CAA and were arbitrary and capricious..."

Joining the Amicus Brief with McConnel are also Senator Rand Paul, and Congressmen Hal Rogers, Ed Whitfield, Brett Guthrie, Thomas Massie, Andy Barr, and Lamar Smith.

“This case is an egregious example of the EPA’s violation of the law in pursuit of its overzealous, anti-coal agenda. The ability to create laws is the purview of Congress and the EPA has clearly overstepped its authority. In doing so, accountability has been thrown out the window and Kentucky families are left with nothing but frustration and the likelihood of even higher energy costs and more job losses,” stated Congressman Paul.

Congressman Rogers said, "The EPA's power-grabbing schemes are unbelievable, and unconstitutional. This federal agency wants to bend the rules to suit its own agenda by undermining the authority of Congress. Time and again, the courts have struck down the overreaching arm of the EPA, and I hope that our highest court will see through the agency's efforts to impose one-size-fits-all regulations on greenhouse gas emissions. No region has realized the cost of the EPA's job-killing regulations more than the Central Appalachian coalfields, where power plants and mines are shutting down, and thousands of coal miners are losing their jobs every year."

Congressman Barr added that, "This case is an important opportunity for the Supreme Court to make clear that the EPA’s legislation by regulation aimed at killing the coal industry and stifling our economic recovery is unconstitutional. For the EPA to amend or misinterpret unambiguous provisions of the Clean Air Act to advance its War on Coal is not acceptable and it intrudes on Congress’s lawmaking authority as reserved by the Constitution. Just because the votes for the President’s environmental agenda don’t exist in either the House nor the Senate, doesn’t change the fact that the EPA’s overreach is unlawful.”

Darrell Issa, Chairman of House Committee On Oversight And Government Reform

Vanguard of Freedom News reported yesterday on Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Chairman, Darrel Issa's admonition of Kathleen Sebelius, Health and Human Services Director for her telling government contractors not to comply to the Congressional Committees requests for information about the roll-out of the HealtCare.gov website.  Issa promptly warned Sebelius that telling them not to comply was against the law. (See that story HERE).

Today two of those contractors ignored orders from HHS Director, Sebelius, and complied with the Committee's request for data regarding their involvement with the website.

The House Oversight Committee announced that contractor Creative Computing Solutions, Inc. (CCSi) "...rejected an unlawful request from the Department of Health and Human Services to withhold documents subpoenaed by the Oversight Committee..."

According to a Committee statement:

"...In a letter to HHS Office of Acquisition and Grants Management Director Daniel Kane CCSi Senior Vice President wrote: 'CCSi takes [its] contractual compliance and customer relations extremely seriously. To that end, CCSi has concluded, after consulting legal counsel, that the enclosed subpoena compels production of the documents requested and, therefore, falls outside the above-referenced contract clause and guidance letter from your office. A validly-issued congressional subpoena compelling the production of documents that are within CCSi’s possession is neither a ‘request’ for documents nor an ‘unauthorized’ disclosure of such documents.'..."

The Committee describes that as a response to a December 6, 2013 letter from HHS to CCSi that demanded, "...As it relates to your contract with CMS, you are required to inform me, as Director of the Office of Acquisition and Grants Management, of any requests for ST&E information that you receive from any party, and you may not release documents without authorization from CMS.  If you receive a request for this information from Congress, CMS will respond directly to the requestor and will work with the requestor to address its interests in this information...”

Later today, Chariman Issa scored another victory for the Oversight Committee, and reports via Committee statement that "...a second contractor working on the HealthCare.gov website, has rejected illegal requests from the Department of Health and Human Services to withhold documents subpoenaed by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee..."

The Committee's statement says that MITRE's President and CEO Alfred Grasso, in a letter sent to the Committee today, stated::  “MITRE continues to believe that HHS is the appropriate party to provide the Committee with the unredacted SCA documents you are seeking. Nonetheless, I understand from consultation with MITRE’s legal counsel that MITRE has no alternative but to comply with the terms of a congressional subpoena absent some form of judicial intervention.”

Issa reiterated his position on the matter stating:

"...MITRE’s decision is a rejection of efforts by the White House to obstruct oversight...The American people deserve an honest assessment of decisions by the Administration to proceed with the October 1 launch of HealthCare.gov despite warnings about security vulnerabilities. When we have released information on sensitive topics, we have exercised great care to ensure that there are not unintended consequences.  Most often, these releases shed light on false and misleading public statements, whether they are made by the Administration or others. In reviewing the documents lawfully provided by MITRE, we intend to consult carefully with non-conflicted experts to ensure no information is released that could further jeopardize the website’s security..."

In additition to yesterday's warning issued to HHS Director, Sebelius, Oversight Committee Chairman, Issa said today:  "Americans should be disturbed that this Administration is trying to stop government contractors from providing Congress with documents related to the decision to launch HealthCare.gov while known and serious security vulnerabilities were and still may be present.  CCSi’s analysis of the law is correct and its decision to comply protects its executives, investors, and customers from the risk of criminal prosecution for contempt of Congress...The Committee has told HHS that it will make needed consultations with security experts to ensure the protection of sensitive information.  The Administration’s remaining objections are a specious effort to hide serious problems and reckless decision making by officials..."

MAPLIGHT, the non-profit government watchdog that reveals the influence of money on politics in the U.S. Congress and in the California and Wisconsin state legislatures, has released a report that details financial contributions by "intelligence services contractors" to members of Congress that oversee their activities.

Maplight asserts that "...We provide journalists and citizens with transparency tools that connect data on campaign contributions, politicians, legislative votes, industries, companies, and more to show patterns of influence never before possible to see. These tools allow users to gain unique insights into how campaign contributions affect policy so they can draw their own conclusions about how money influences our political system..."

The report, submitted by Donny Shaw, explains that in the wake of document leaks by former National Security Agency contractor, Edward Snowden, "...the congressional committees in charge of overseeing the government's intelligence operations have come to the defense of the surveillance and data collection programs, and the agencies that administer them. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence have rejected attempts to reform the programs while advancing legislation to bolster their legal status and providing a funding boost to the National Security Agency (NSA) to protect their secrecy..."

United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (United States House of Representatives) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The report states that several of the companies "...receiving intelligence contracts are major donors to members of the intelligence committees, including L-3 Communications, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Honeywell International..."

Specifically:

• "...In total, members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence have received $3.7 million from top intelligence services contractors since January 1, 2005.
• Members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence from Maryland -- home of NSA headquarters -- led the committees in money received from top intelligence contractors. Representative C.A. "Dutch" Ruppersberger, D-Md., is the largest recipient, having received $363,600 since January 1, 2005. Senator Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., is the second largest recipient, having received $210,150.
• Republican members of House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence have received $1.86 million since January 1, 2005, while Democrat members have received $1.82 million over the same time period.
• Members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence have received $2.2 million since January 1, 2005 from top intelligence services contractors, while members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence have received $1.5 million.
• Lockheed Martin has given $798,910 to members the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence since January 1, 2005, more than any of the other top 20 intelligence service contractors. Northrop Grumman has given $753,101, the second highest amount, and Honeywell has given $714,913, the third highest amount..."

English: Dianne Feinstein http://bioguide.congress.gov/bioguide/photo/F/F000062.jpg (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Additionally Shaw reports that California (Dem) Senator Dianne Feinstein, and Vermont (Dem) Senator Patrick Leahy, "...are in a showdown over legislation related to the National Security Agency's bulk data collection programs...Last week, Leahy, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, introduced legislation that would put an end to many of the NSA's bulk surveillance and data collection activities that have come to light from the release of classified documents leaked by Edward Snowden. Groups like the ACLU and Public Knowledge are hailing the bill as an effective measure that would enact core reforms to protect civil liberties..."

However, Shaw says:

"...on October 30, Feinstein, the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, pushed legislation through her committee that would provide legal authority for many of the NSA's current records collection policies, while making changes to the agency's reporting requirements and requiring Senate confirmation of the NSA director. Feinstein has continually defended the legality of the phone records program and at a hearing earlier this month said, 'I will do everything I can to keep this program from being cancelled out...to destroy it is to make this nation more vulnerable.'..."

Are these legislators breaking any laws by receiving campaign contributions from the very vested interests they are supposedly regulating?

While the answer is "no," does anyone not wonder why they do not have the integrity, the ethics, the "internal compass" that tells them that it is wrong to do so, even for the sake of the appearance of propriety.

How can money they receive from the agencies these elected officials are supposed to "check" not be more than a bribe, so that they vote in favor of the interests of the contractors?

One can argue that there is no law that prohibits Legislators from receiving the big bucks from the agencies they are supposed to be regulating.  But why does there need to be an "external deterrent," i.e., a law that punishes them for doing so?  Why can they not ethically or morally control themselves? Why must there be the force of law and a penalty at the point of a gun to regulate them?

Was not their being elected to Congress a trust that they would uphold the ethics of their office?

It appears not.

In fact, it appears that they believe their being sent to represent "We, the People" is a license to lie, sneak, steal, and violate the trust of the very people, whose interests they were sent there to protect.

If this seems like an isolated case to you, consider this little gem.  Back in 2011 CBS 60 Minutes broke a story about Congress being exempt from insider trading rule penalties.  Legislators, due to the nature of their office may or may not have access to inside stock market information.  They, in fact, may have such knowledge because in some cases they make the rules, or at least have knowledge of how the rules are going to be changed, and how that will affect some markets.  This could possibly give them an "edge" to know which way to invest, and therefore have an unfair advantage over others who are not privy to that information.

There are, as a matter of fact, laws that penalize for "insider trading," but Congress was exempt from those laws.  After the CBS expose, there was a clamor for change; there was outrage that Congress men and women might be lining their pockets with "insider" knowledge of market information, and so a law was passed.  Congress was "eager" to restore the trust and confidence that their constituents no longer had and so, essentially they were shamed into passing a law to regulate themselves.

Cumbaya?

Nope.

Just when you thought the sociopaths had turned over a new leaf, last April your Congress, when you were no longer looking, rolled back a major portion of that law.  They specifically undid the portion of the law that required congressional staffers to disclose financial transactions, so that their dealings could be seen by the public to ensure that no insider trading was occurring.

And of when they sent the new law that undid the new restrictions over to the President, did Obama stand up for you, veto it and say "No, I am going to protect the good citizens of this nation from corruption?"

No sir.

The questions here are being asked rhetorically.  There is no pretense of innocence.  There is a point to be made, and that point is that outrage must translate into action.

We have the good people of Maplight politically extending themselves out on a limb so that we can have this information.  But their actions will be in vain unless "We the People" take that information and act on it to make the required changes to impose restrictions, and our wrath, if necessary, to ensure the ethical and moral administration of our government.

It is not enough to be cynical or to laugh and sneer because our government is infested with corruption.  We must act to disinfect, and then act to maintain the required hygiene.

Kathleen Sebelius, Health and Human Services Secretary . (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

SEBELIUS TELLS CONTRACTORS NOT TO TALK TO CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATORS; ISSA WARNS HER THAT'S A CRIME...

The Chairman of the Congressional Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Representative Darrel Issa has been conducting an investigation of the Obama Administration's roll-out of the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), and in doing so has requested information from the companies that the government contracted to do work on the HealthCare.gov website.

According to Issa, the Director of the Department of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, has "...instructed those companies not to comply with the Investigative Committee's request..." for that information.

In a tersely worded letter to Sebelius, Issa stated that "...The Department's hostility toward questions from Congress and the media about the implementation of ObamaCare is well known...The Department's most recent effort to stonewall, however, has morphed from mere obstinacy into criminal obstruction of a congressional investigation..."

Issa referred to a December 6, 2013 letter from the Department of Health and Human Services to the contractor, Creative Computing Solutions, Inc. (CCSI), in which HHS claimed the company is contractually precluded from producing documents to Congress.  Issa asserts that the letter further stated that HHS will respond to requests from Congress on the company's behalf:

"...It is my understanding that CCSI was not the only contractor to receive a letter like this...The letter to CCSI stated that the company is:  '[N]ot authorized to disclose to third parties information collected or maintained by or on behalf of a federal agency, including information collected, or information produced during security testing...If you receive a request for this information from Congress, CMS will respond directly to the requestor and will work with the requestor to address its interests in this information..."

Congressman Darrell Issa (Photo credit: stanfordcis)

Issa declares in the letter to Sebelius that the language in the contract between the government (HHS) and the private contractor, which purports to supersede Congress' "...constitutional prerogative to conduct oversight--is without merit..."

"...In fact, it strains credulity to such an extent that it creates the appearance that the Department is using the threat of litigation to deter private companies from cooperating with Congress..." said Issa.

"...The Department's attempt to threaten CCSI for the purpose of deterring the company from providing documents to Congress places the officials responsible for drafting and sending the letter on the wrong side of federal statutes that prohibit obstruction of a congressional investigation...Obstructing a Congressional investigation is a crime..." he writes.

Issa then instructs Sebelius on federal obstruction laws.

"...Congress' right of access to information is constitutionally based and critical to the integrity and effectiveness of our oversight and investigative activities...For that reason, it is widely understood that private citizens and companies cannot contract away their duty to comply with a congressional request for documents...[T]he Department's instruction to CCSI and other contractors not to respond to congressional document requests runs afoul of a federal statute that prohibits interfering with an employees' right to furnish information to Congress.  Under that statute, any effort to enforce a contract that prevents a federal employee -- or in this case, a contractor -- from communicating with Congress is unlawful..."

Issa essentially reads Sebelius the "Riot Act," when he quotes the law that prohibits, and makes it a crime to obstruct a Congressional investigation:

"...Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both..."

Issa tells Sebelius that Congressional Committee investigators take any effort to obstruct or otherwise interfere with its investigations very seriously, and requests that she:

"...direct all employees in your Department to cease obstructing the Committee's investigation of the implementation of the ACA through HealthCare.gov..."

Issa reminds Sebelius that an October 30, 2013 subpoena issued to her, that would "capture" the information he requested from contractors, is still in effect, and asserts that "...The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is the principal oversight committee of the House of Representatives and has broad authority to investigate 'any matter' at 'any time' under House Rule X..." which states that "... The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform shall review and study on a continuing basis the operation of Government activities at all levels with a view to determining their economy and efficiency..."

Seymour Hersh, at Trinity University, San Antonio, Texas (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Pulitzer Prize winning Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh has authored an article in the London Review of Books, in which he makes the case that Obama (and his Secretary of State, John Kerry) lied to the American people about allegations that the Syrian Assad regime had used Sarin gas against its own people, in order to justify taking military action against the Syrian regime. Hersh made the assertions in an article titled "Whose Sarin?" According to Hersh:

"...Barack Obama did not tell the whole story this autumn when he tried to make the case that Bashar al-Assad was responsible for the chemical weapons attack near Damascus on 21 August. In some instances, he omitted important intelligence, and in others he presented assumptions as facts. Most significant, he failed to acknowledge something known to the US intelligence community: that the Syrian army is not the only party in the country’s civil war with access to sarin, the nerve agent that a UN study concluded – without assessing responsibility – had been used in the rocket attack. In the months before the attack, the American intelligence agencies produced a series of highly classified reports, culminating in a formal Operations Order – a planning document that precedes a ground invasion – citing evidence that the al-Nusra Front, a jihadi group affiliated with al-Qaida, had mastered the mechanics of creating sarin and was capable of manufacturing it in quantity. When the attack occurred al-Nusra should have been a suspect, but the administration cherry-picked intelligence to justify a strike against Assad..."

The Hersh allegations add gasoline to the fire of widespread and growing public perceptions about Obama and his administration's diminished credibility due to his having lied to Americans about what they should have expected from ObamaCare, including the failed roll-out of the ObamaCare web site weeks ago, and a host of scandals that continue to plague the White House: The failed "Fast and Furious" Gun Running scandal; Benghazi; the IRS targeting of the Tea Party and Conservatives; the NSA Spying scandal; the Department of Justice spying on the media; the killing of Seal Team Operatives in Afghanistan by the Taliban; etc.

Hersh writes:

"...In his nationally televised speech about Syria on 10 September, Obama laid the blame for the nerve gas attack on the rebel-held suburb of Eastern Ghouta firmly on Assad’s government, and made it clear he was prepared to back up his earlier public warnings that any use of chemical weapons would cross a ‘red line’: ‘Assad’s government gassed to death over a thousand people,’ he said. ‘We know the Assad regime was responsible … And that is why, after careful deliberation, I determined that it is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike.’ Obama was going to war to back up a public threat, but he was doing so without knowing for sure who did what in the early morning of 21 August..."

Hersh says in the article that "... In the months before the attack, the American intelligence agencies produced a series of highly classified reports, culminating in a formal Operations Order – a planning document that precedes a ground invasion – citing evidence that the al-Nusra Front, a jihadi group affiliated with al-Qaida, had mastered the mechanics of creating sarin and was capable of manufacturing it in quantity. When the attack occurred al-Nusra should have been a suspect, but the administration cherry-picked intelligence to justify a strike against Assad..." 

Hersh reports that Obama's actions were in question by military and intelligence leaders, writing that:

 "...in recent interviews with intelligence and military officers and consultants past and present, I found intense concern, and on occasion anger, over what was repeatedly seen as the deliberate manipulation of intelligence. One high-level intelligence officer, in an email to a colleague, called the administration’s assurances of Assad’s responsibility a ‘ruse’. The attack ‘was not the result of the current regime’, he wrote. A former senior intelligence official told me that the Obama administration had altered the available information – in terms of its timing and sequence – to enable the president and his advisers to make intelligence retrieved days after the attack look as if it had been picked up and analysed in real time, as the attack was happening. The distortion, he said, reminded him of the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident, when the Johnson administration reversed the sequence of National Security Agency intercepts to justify one of the early bombings of North Vietnam. The same official said there was immense frustration inside the military and intelligence bureaucracy: ‘The guys are throwing their hands in the air and saying, 'How can we help this guy' – Obama – 'when he and his cronies in the White House make up the intelligence as they go along?'..."

Hersh concludes that:

"...The administration’s distortion of the facts surrounding the sarin attack raises an unavoidable question: do we have the whole story of Obama’s willingness to walk away from his ‘red line’ threat to bomb Syria? He had claimed to have an iron-clad case but suddenly agreed to take the issue to Congress, and later to accept Assad’s offer to relinquish his chemical weapons. It appears possible that at some point he was directly confronted with contradictory information: evidence strong enough to persuade him to cancel his attack plan, and take the criticism sure to come from Republicans..."

See Hersh article Here.