By Matthew Boyle
The recent New York Times article attempting to downplay terrorist involvement in the Benghazi attack that claimed the lives of four Americans on Sept. 11, 2012, directly contradicts evidence in the now infamous pre-edited talking points of then-United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice.
“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,” David D. Kirkpatrick wrote in the Times.
As others like Breitbart News’s Kerry Picket have already noted, the themes of Kirkpatrick’s article directly contradict the reporting of others at the New York Times over the past year or more since the attack in Benghazi.
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…” Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…” – Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
Alex Merced discusses how stupid the faux controversy over Rand Paul using movie descriptions from Wikipedia is. If anything it makes it very clear how threatened the left is by Rand Paul that they are grasping at straws.
Alex argues why Mcdonalds large profits has nothing to do with tr minimum wage.
By Oliver Knox
In a stinging rebuke to President Barack Obama’s surveillance policies, a federal judge on Monday branded the National Security Agency’s mass collection of Americans’ telephone data “almost Orwellian” and likely a violation of the Constitution. Former NSA contractor Edward Snowden cheered the ruling… “I cannot imagine a more ‘indiscriminate’ and ‘abitrary invasion’ than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen for purposes of querying and analyzing it without prior judicial approval,” Leon wrote.
As many have stated from the start, the FOURTH AMENDMENT protects us from these NSA abuses…. – Mr Blacksheep
By Josh Gerstein
A federal judge ruled Monday that the National Security Agency’s phone surveillance program is likely unconstitutional, Politico reports.
U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon said that the agency’s controversial program, first unveiled by former government contractor Edward Snowden earlier this year, appears to violate the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which states that the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”
By Jon Fingas
The NSA may say that its phone surveillance efforts focus on metadata rather than the associated calls, but we now know that the agency can listen to many of those conversations whenever it wants. Documents leaked to the Washington Post by Edward Snowden confirm that the NSA can decode GSM-based cellphone calls without obtaining the encryption keys. The ability isn\’t surprising when GSM has known weaknesses, but the document suggests that the NSA (and potentially other US agencies) can easily process cellphone calls worldwide. Not surprisingly, the intelligence branch argues that such cracking is necessary — folks on both sides of the law use encryption to hide information, after all.
via NSA can decode many GSM cellphone calls.
By Avik Roy
Of all of the last-minute delays, website bungles, and Presidential whims that have marred the roll-out of Obamacare’s subsidized insurance exchanges, what happened on Thursday, December 12 will stand as one of the most lawless acts yet committed by this administration. The White House—having canceled Americans’ old health plans, and having botched the system for enrolling people in new ones—knows that millions of Americans will enter the new year without health coverage. So instead of actually fixing the problem, the administration is retroactively attempting to force insurers to hand out free health care—at a loss—to those whom the White House has rendered uninsured. If Obamacare wasn’t a government takeover of the health insurance industry, then what is it now?
On Wednesday afternoon, health policy reporters found in their inboxes a friendly e-mail from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, announcing “steps to ensure Americans signing up through the Marketplace have coverage and access to the care they need on January 1.” Basically, the “steps” involve muscling insurers to provide free or discounted care to those who have become uninsured because of the problems with healthcare.gov.