The U.S. Makes Another Huge Payment to Iran, $1.3 Billion

imageedit_2_7236884497September 7, 2016

By Lorra B.

On Tuesday the Obama administration admitted to transferring $1.7 billion in cash to Iran earlier this year to settle a long ago 1979 arms deal that went wrong.

An initial $400 million was sent to Tehran Jan. 17. Ironically, that was the same day Iran agreed to release four American prisoners. Congressional officials stated that the remaining $1.3 billion was paid in two more installments, one on Jan. 22 and the other on Feb. 5.

Treasury spokesperson Dawn Selak stated, “The form of those principal and interest payments—made in non-U.S. currency, in cash—was necessitated by the effectiveness of U.S. and international sanctions regimes over the last several years in isolating Iran from the international financial system.”

According to the Wall Street Journal, The Obama administration was initially unwilling to reveal the inner workings of the &1.7 billion settlement and did not let congress know that they had paid the whole settlement in cash.

It was the belief of the White House that the 37-year-old conflict would be lost due to the initial $400 million payment, “made by the last Shah of Iran months before the Islamic Revolution. Such a decision would have made them liable for much more money,” about $10 billion.

Though the administration continues to claim that no negotiations were made with terrorists, they did acknowledge using the cash as leverage until the Americans were released.

How is that different?

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla. and Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., may have been wondering the same thing when they presented bills to kill future payments such as these.

Rubio stated, “The U.S. government should not be in the business of negotiating with terrorists and paying ransom money in exchange for the release of American hostages.”

The bill presented on Tuesday would stop any payments by the Treasury Department to Iran until the $1.7 billion is repaid to the United States. The bill also insists on Iran paying the American terrorism victims.

Iran still holds three dual U.S.-Iranian citizens hostage.

By Lorra B.

Veteran Anger – Has Obama Really Made a Difference In Veteran Care & Homelessness?

End Veteran Homelessness (Photo: Public Domain)

End Veteran Homelessness (Photo: Public Domain)

August 2, 2016

By Lorra B. 

In a speech on Monday, President Obama addressed the many issues facing the veterans health care system. In fact, Obama insisted that long wait times to see doctors had dramatically declined since he took office and that veteran homelessness had been cut nearly in half since 2010.

Out of the nearly 40,000 veterans that are homeless, 13,000 are living on the streets. According to this figure that was released on Monday, there are 56% fewer homeless vets living on the streets, according to HUD and the VA.

Chairman of the House Committee on Veterans’ affairs, Rep. Jeff Miller, said the cost of the homeless program is increasing dramatically and the program is showing limited results.

The cost of this program is 1.5 billion annually, reports USA Today.

Obama had promised to end veteran homelessness by 2015. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Julian Castro, stated, “The effort has been an unqualified success over the last few years.” But has it really?

Even Obama calls the delays that continue to plague the VA system “inexcusable” and that veterans “remain frustrated by the health care bureaucracy,” according to The New YorkTimes.

“We’ve hired thousands more doctors, nurses, staff,” Mr. Obama said at a conference of the Disabled American Veterans. “When we really put our sweat and tears and put our shoulder to the wheel, we can make things better.”

These are some of the statements by the Obama Administration that completely frustrate Veteran and Fox News affiliate, Pete Hegseth.

“This is exactly why people are frustrated with Washington DC because our ruling class in Washington tell them time and time again that things are getting better, their lives are better,” stated Hegseth. “And then they look at their own lives, and in this case for veterans, their own waits [wait times], [the] care that they are getting and then they say, ‘It’s not better, in fact it’s even worse.’ And the stats they are quoting to people are stats that grow government. More spending, more staffing, more clinicians. If you’re adding so much more on top, why is my life not getting better. Why has my wait time actually increased? Why do I still not have a choice?  Why has no one still been fired?”

“This is why Donald Trump resonates, because elites are lying to us about the reality. And this speech at the VA from…Barack Obama is a perfect example of that.”

Donald Trump supports more privatization of the Department of Veteran Affairs, though Obama adamantly rejects that idea.

The current secretary, Robert McDonald, has been a critic of the Obama administration. In 2014 problems and corruption within the VA surfaced including manipulated waiting lists to see doctors and the compulsory resignation of Eric Shinseki.

According to McDonald, more people need to be held accountable, though he does remain optimistic about putting an end to veteran homelessness.

“I don’t know when we’ll get to zero,” McDonald said. “Zero continues to be the goal.”

The cost to create and maintain the VA programs have skyrocketed and, according to many, the payoff has been tremendous and the programs a huge success. Others believe the programs to be a failure and that the continued wait-times, homelessness and deaths remain unacceptable.

There is one thing all parties can agree on and that is that the VA system needs vast improvement. No veteran should die waiting to see a doctor or remain homeless. No president, past, present or future, should be content with the status quo but do all in their power to protect the very Heroes that have risked it all for this great Nation.


By Lorra B. 

Veterans Against The Iran Deal: Are You Listening Mr. Obama?

Veteran Robert Bartlett

Veteran Robert Bartlett

August 14, 2015

By Lorra B.

A group of war veterans, including wounded Iraq war veteran Robert Bartlett, is opposing President Obama and the Iran nuclear deal by the initiation of a million dollar campaign.

The effort is geared toward contradicting the president’s assessment that to be against the Iran deal is to be in favor of war. The veteran’s message is that Obama’s argument couldn’t be further form the truth.

“Obama has said recently that there are only two camps: those who support the deal verses those who would prefer a bloody and costly war like the conflict in Iraq,” reports BloombergView. “The new ad campaign complicates that, asserting that the deal itself will lead to more war. And the voices putting forth that case do not prefer war; they are soldiers who have had enough of it.”

The states running these ads are states whose lawmakers are on the fence about the Iran Deal. “The deal calls for Iran tamping down its nuclear program,” states Fox11 News. “If the terrorist nation does, the U.S. agrees to ease sanctions which will free up to $100 billion of frozen Iranian assets.”

Veterans Against The Deal (VATD) is funding the ad.

The executive director of VATD, Michael Pregent, stated “As military veterans, we want Congressmen and Senators to know that we know this enemy. We know what it has done, and we know what it is doing, and we know what it will do with more funding.”

Retired staff sergeant Bartlett, who was badly injured while serving in the Iraq war in 2005, is the first featured veteran in the group’s videos. “Every politician who is involved in this will be held accountable; they will have blood on their hands. A vote for this deal means more money for Iranian terrorism. What do you think they are going to d when they get more money?

Bartlett, to many Americans, posses a good question, a question that is sure to hurt the Obama Administrations push for the Iran Deal.

The only incentive these veteran’s have, according to Preget, is to be heard and that the only motivating factor for the videos is to share their views and personal experiences.

“We don’t want to make this a partisan issue. We’ll have Democratic vets who voted for Obama participating in this as well.”

Retired Army Lt. Gen Michael Flynn

Retired Army Lt. Gen Michael Flynn

Mike Flynn, Retired Gen. and director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (2012-2014) said the troops were called on to serve their country during the war in Iraq, and they did just that. Their call to service did not mean they were advocates of the Iraq war but rather simply doing their duty. 

“They have a responsibility to speak up,” stated Flynn, and they did. Flynn is an adviser to the VATD.

Are you listening America…are you listening Mr. President?

By Lorra B.

Watch: Has The Obama Administration Found A Way To Strip Veteran’s Second Amendment Rights? Are Citizens Next?

navy-vet-gun-4-e1438949096787August 10, 2015

By Lorra B.

President Obama has made no secret of the fact that gun control has been on his top list of priorities. In fact, he has stated on numerous occasions that his utmost disappointment while in office has been his inability to further limit American’s rights to maintain and bear arms.

Obama just may have stooped to a new low concerning our veteran’s when the Administration passed new strategies that would make it impossible for disabled veterans to carry out their Second Amendment rights.

Citizens of northern Idaho, who where in an uproar over claims that Federal Representatives were planned on taking a Navy veteran’s weapons from him, lined up outside the veteran’s home in protest, according to the Associate Press.

“Idaho Republican State Rep. Heather Scott of Blanchard said the Veteran Affairs office has sent a letter to John Arnold of Priest River warning him that he cannot possess or purchase firearms.”

I wonder how this could have happened. After all, it wasn’t long ago that American’s were being told by liberals that our paranoia of weapon confiscation was just that, paranoia.

It looks like fiction, then, has been born of the non-fiction writings as veterans wonder when and if their 2A rights will be violated.

How is this being done you might ask? By placing veterans on the FBI’s criminal background-check list, that’s how.

“The VA sends veterans’ personal medical and financial information directly to the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which can seize their guns in home raids,” reports The Daily Caller.

111207-N-HW977-458 NORCO, Calif. (Dec. 7, 2011) Navy veteran and Pearl Harbor survivor John Busma, a machinist's mate 1st Class aboard the repair ship USS Medusa (AR 1), rings a bell during the 5th annual Pearl Harbor Commemorative Celebration at Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, Detachment Norco, home of Naval Surface Warfare Center, Corona Division. The theme of the event was Keeping Traditions Alive, commemorating the 70th anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and 70 years of Navy presence in Riverside County, first as a naval hospital serving wounded from Pearl Harbor and currently as the Navy's independent assessment agent and one of its newest federal labs. (U.S. Navy photo by Greg Vojtko/Released)

NORCO, Calif. (Dec. 7, 2011) Navy veteran and Pearl Harbor survivor John Busma, a machinist’s mate 1st Class aboard the repair ship USS Medusa (AR 1), rings a bell during the 5th annual Pearl Harbor Commemorative Celebration at Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, Detachment Norco, home of Naval Surface Warfare Center, Corona Division. The theme of the event was Keeping Traditions Alive, commemorating the 70th anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and 70 years of Navy presence in Riverside County, first as a naval hospital serving wounded from Pearl Harbor and currently as the Navy’s independent assessment agent and one of its newest federal labs. (U.S. Navy photo by Greg Vojtko/Released)

“Veterans deemed mentally incompetent or financially incapable are finally speaking out about the errors in the system and the fearful harassment they and their families face from the federal government. And it all starts when vets go to the VA to get medical help.”

This takes us back to veteran Arnold and the protest that went on at his house. 70 year-old Arnold has full cognition but a stroke he suffered in January made it necessary to seek medical attention from the VA. The VA deemed Arnold, solely because of his inability to handle his own finances, “mentally defective.” That diagnosis alone gave the government ‘cause’ to take Arnold’s Second Amendment rights away.

Yes, thus far, it seems only the VA is being affected by these ‘financial/incompetency’ reports. But, doesn’t this set up a precedent? Why, then, would the same standard not be applied to ALL Americans?

Based on that unjust governmental assessment alone, there will be millions upon millions of American’s who will lose their rights to bear arms. How many very ‘sane’ people do YOU know who can’t seem to handle their finance? Look at the bankruptcy in this country and you will get a pretty good idea.

According to AP, “The protest—spearheaded by Scott [Republican state Rep. Heather Scott of Blanchard] —attracted roughly 100 people. Among them were Bonner County Sheriff Daryl Wheeler, who promised to stand guard against any federal attempts to remove Arnold’s guns, and Washington state Rep. Matthew Shea of Spokane Valley, who described the event as a ‘defiance against tyranny.’”

“’I took an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution and uphold the laws of Idaho’, Wheeler said. This seemed appropriate to show my support. I was going to make sure Mr. Arnold’s rights weren’t going to be breached.’”

Well, can we give them a round of applause for doing the right thing in this incident?

Now, don’t get mad at the VA on this one. The Va HAS to send the health information to the FBI and they received a memo stating as much. “VA will provide an encrypted compact disc exchanged via mail to the FBI no less than quarterly for, inter alia, inclusion in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS),” according to the memo.

What happened to Mr. Arnold is surely an outrage and it is a sure indication that Obama has not given up on his dream, or to what lengths he will go, to limit America’s rights to keep and bear arms. 

The government seems to be having a problem with their own financial situation and by that fact and their rules, maybe THEY should also have their guns taken away….

By Lorra B

Growing Global Security Threats, What’s Being Done?

Photo: Public Domain / Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Photo: Public Domain / Nuclear Regulatory Commission

July 29, 2015

By Lorra B.

To say we have global security threats might be an understatement. Just looking at a few of them should give us reason for pause and concern.

In the 29 pages of the Obama administration’s 2015 National Security Strategy report, the increase of nuclear threat or nuclear material is referred to eight times.

“…no threat poses as grave a danger to our security and well-being as the potential use of nuclear weapons and materials by irresponsible states or terrorists.” (Page 11)

President Barrack Obama’s answer to the possible nuclear threat from Iran, for example, is to turn a sworn and very old enemy of the United States into an ally in order to join with other regional allies to help with threats such as fighting the Islamic State.

But is this something viable? “The effort has no obvious precedent in U.S. history, and analogies to earlier landmark successes—arms control with the soviets and President Richard Nixon’s opening to China—don’t withstand scrutiny. And if Obama’s problematic theory of global change doesn’t bear fruit, the deal will severely imperil U.S. national security,” reports US News.

Cyber Security threats are another hot topic when it comes to Global Security. James Andrew Lewis, a programmer at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, states, “The biggest threats come from four countries: Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea.”

“Russian and Chinese hackers steal billions from the U.S. every year. Iran and North Korea are risky because they have used cyber attacks for political coercion against U.S. Citizens. Any of these four could disrupt critical services or data, and while Russia and China are careful, Iran or North Korea could easily make a mistake.”

So, even if the Obama administration is successful in his nuclear deal with Iran, America still faces a very real and potentially devastating Cyber Security threat from them.

Finally, the threat of Social Unrest. Lets face it, most would agree we look more like a Police State than a democracy and with this comes civil unrest.

“With cradle-to-grave welfare protecting all citizens from any mistakes and a perpetual global war on terrorism, which a majority of Americans were convinced was absolutely necessary for our survival, our security and prosperity has been sacrificed,” reports

The influx of immigrants to America, for example, legal or otherwise, has set many citizens at each other’s throats because of differing opinions of what that means for America, politically, economically and socially.

The constant disregard of U.S. borders have caused many American’s to be distrustful and angry with the White House administration and worry what the influx of immigrants means from a welfare and safety stance.

Sociology professor Ruben Rumbaut warns of the danger that “civil unrest in the United States will result if we ignore the developing underclass of children born to illegal immigrants,” reports PR News wire. “…illegal immigration in the United States could lead to the same type of violence that occurred in France and England.”

After 9/11 the world seems committed to perpetual war and America became conditioned to accept total surveillance. We have become used the Political Correctness we are being fed and the regulations imposed upon us by an ever growing government who tells Americans what to think, eat and say. Since the 9/11 attacks America has also seen a sharp decline in our civil liberties.

America seems to be growing ever discontent as see cries for security and safety from her government. The civil unrest that could very possibly ensue would have a direct impact of Global Security.

Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, cautioned on Tuesday that global threats are increasing and that “the world risks becoming immune and [is] doing nothing [about it],” according to Military Times.

“In my 41 years of military service, I’ve never witnessed such significant shifts in the international security environment as we are seeing all around us today,” he said. “The complex array of threats and, let’s call it geopolitical jockeying, requires all of us to contend with an unpredictable landscape.”

By Lorra B.

The Impact Of The Hillary Clinton Email Scandal May Have Far Reaching Implications

dJuly 28, 2015

By Lorra B.

The impact of the Hillary Clinton email scandal may have farther reaching implications than first thought especially since no experts consulted by Hillary could come up with any credible explanation for her use of a private email server while she was Secretary of State.

Two Obama administration inspector generals want the Justice Department to investigate how Hillary handled classified material, according to the New York Post. This could potentially very negatively change everything for Hillary, and her presidential run.

Though Hillary is still popular with the American voters and leading the Democratic primary polls, the lead is slipping. According to the latest RealClearPolitics estimate, Clinton is leading with 56 percent of the vote but this is down from the 60.8 percent of just a few days ago.

Hillary is already being threatened by an increasing voter trust issue so how will she handle being up against the White House?

“Someone very high in the food chain leaked the memos requesting the probe,” states New York Post. “The New York Times, which broke the story, identified its source only as ‘a senior government official.’”

Hillary sent classified information via her private email server, but that may not be the worst of her offence. The worst of her offence may prove to be what the White House discovers she has been discussing in some of those emails.

“Any honest prosecutor looking at her e-mails would also look for evidence she traded government favors for contributions to the Clinton Foundation or paid speeches,” states the report. “She and Bill Clinton were paid $25 million for speeches in just 16 months, and some of that cash came from donors and companies with business before her. Similarly, big donors to the foundations also sought help from her as secretary.”

“There is also serious suspicion about some payments made by foreign governments and foreign companies. Ericsson, the Swedish conglomerate, paid Bill Clinton $750,000 for a speech as it was lobbying to avoid America’s penalties for doing business with Iran, according to The Washington Times.”

The fact is that Hillary Clinton deleted tens of thousands of emails before she handed them over. Though Hillary insistently declares “I am confident that I never sent nor received any information that was classified at the time it was sent and received.” But in March she said there was no classified material at all. This is a classic talking in circles loophole.

There is no spin Hillary can make on this to make it look good. She, in fact, has provided ample ammunition for her political demise but just how far this gun will shoot is yet to be seen. The impact of Hillary’s email scandal has only just begun and how it affects her run for presidency just well be in how the White House pursues her.

By Lorra B.

Why, It Looks Like Obamacare is Causing Massive Rate Hikes. Imagine That…

Drink ObamacareJuly 7, 2015

Reclaim Our Republic: H/T Brittius

The Grafts and video tell it all.

by Guy Benson

Here is the New York Times’ front page on Independence Day, when few Americans were paying close attention to current affairs:

Two stories on “progressive” welfare states collapsing under the crush of reckless, unsustainable profligacy — and one on Obamacare’s double-digit rate increases:

Health insurance companies around the country are seeking rate increases of 20 percent to 40 percent or more, saying their new customers under the Affordable Care Act turned out to be sicker than expected. Federal officials say they are determined to see that the requests are scaled back. Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans — market leaders in many states — are seeking rate increases that average 23 percent in Illinois, 25 percent in North Carolina, 31 percent in Oklahoma, 36 percent in Tennessee and 54 percent in Minnesota, according to documents posted online by the federal government and state insurance commissioners and interviews with insurance executives…Jesse Ellis O’Brien, a health advocate at the Oregon State Public Interest Research Group, said: “Rate increases will be bigger in 2016 than they have been for years and years and will have a profound effect on consumers here. Some may start wondering if insurance is affordable or if it’s worth the money.”

“It’s working,” they insist, as the ‘Affordable’ Care Act slams Americans with higher costs. President Obama, who continues to claim that his unpopular law is surpassing his wildest expectations, has nothing but anti-reality tantrums to offer:

President Obama, on a trip to Tennessee this week, said that consumers should put pressure on state insurance regulators to scrutinize the proposed rate increases. If commissioners do their job and actively review rates, he said, “my expectation is that they’ll come in significantly lower than what’s being requested.” The rate requests, from some of the more popular health plans, suggest that insurance markets are still adjusting to shock waves set off by the Affordable Care Act. It is far from certain how many of the rate increases will hold up on review, or how much they might change. But already the proposals, buttressed with reams of actuarial data, are fueling fierce debate about the effectiveness of the health law.

Alas, Obama speeches cannot alter the laws of economics. But wait, the Times notes, there is a way for consumers to mitigate the effects of huge 2016 premium increases: People can go through the headache of dropping their current plans in pursuit of arrangements with less steep hikes — which, in turn, could threaten access to doctors and care:

A study of 11 cities in different states by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that consumers would see relatively modest increases in premiums if they were willing to switch plans. But if they switch plans, consumers would have no guarantee that they can keep their doctors. And to get low premiums, they sometimes need to accept a more limited choice of doctors and hospitals.

Keep your plan, keep your doctor, etc. Please recall that the president and his allies repeatedly pledged that everybody’s rates would drop under Obamacare. Comprehensively, spectacularly false. Why the huge spikes? Simple cause and effect:

In their submissions to federal and state regulators, insurers cite several reasons for big rate increases. These include the needs of consumers, some of whom were previously uninsured; the high cost of specialty drugs; and a policy adopted by the Obama administration in late 2013 that allowed some people to keep insurance that did not meet new federal standards…Insurers with decades of experience and brand-new plans underestimated claims costs…The rate requests are the first to reflect a full year of experience with the new insurance exchanges and federal standards that require insurers to accept all applicants, without charging higher prices because of a person’s illness or disability…In financial statements filed with the government in the last two months, some insurers said that their claims payments totaled not just 80 percent, but more than 100 percent of premiums. And that, they said, is unsustainable.

Behold, a peek at Oregon’s approved — i.e., finalized — 2016 premium increases:

oregon ObamaCare rates

Costs are jumping drastically because Obamacare’s provisions are driving a price spiral, fueled by an older, sicker risk pool. It’s almost as if the law’s critics were right. About almost everything.

More at Reclaim Our Republic

This article was not written by Lorra B.


dJune 12, 2015


YOUR GOVERNMENT AT WORK!  Since nothing is bad enough what our leader has done to our country and the people and,  any other leader would have been in the pokey long time ago – let’s just arrest him for just being Obama!  Isn’t  that what this administration is doing to the American people?  Just making up lies and not following the Constitution!

Obama pummeling freedom of information.

Sharyl Attkisson: Bureaucrats face ‘consequences’ for releasing info!

WASHINGTON – Reporters are renowned for swapping war stories, but they came to Capitol Hill on Tuesday to tell horror stories about trying to use Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, requests to get the truth from the federal government.

Testifying before the House Oversight Committee, five-time Emmy award-winning investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson described receiving FOIAs with everything redacted (blacked out) but the address line.

She said it took the Defense Department 10 years to comply with one FOIA, in violation of the 20 days prescribed by law. The reporter said the Centers for Disease Control once told her it was too busy dealing with Ebola to even bother complying with her FOIA.

Attkisson testified federal bureaucrats have told her they don’t face repercussions for withholding information, but they would face “consequences” for releasing information.

Investigative reporter Leah Goodman of Newsweek said reporters with whom she had spoken feared they would be the ones facing consequences if they testified before the committee.

She said there were no Washington-based editors or reporters from major publications on the panel testifying before the committee because they were afraid it would have a “chilling effect” on their relations with the federal departments they cover.

Goodman said that was also the reason no one had done a major story on the problems with government agencies stonewalling FOIA requests.
Former Associated Press reporter Terry Anderson, who was kidnapped in 1985 and held hostage by Hezbollah for seven years in Lebanon, said he was told by the federal government he couldn’t FOIA information on his kidnappers because it would violate their privacy rights.

Anderson said he was told he could get the information if his kidnappers signed a notarized release, but said he was not interested in reuniting with them.

Anderson also described a four-year battle with 13 federal agencies, each with their own standards and processes, over just one FOIA.

Investigative reporter Jason Leopold of Vice News said fewer than 1 percent of his thousands of FOIA requests have been processed within the required 20-day limit.

He said the Defense Department recently sent him 150 pages that were completely redacted and so useless he was trying to figure out how to turn them into an art display.

Goodman likened dealing with a federal agency to coping with an off-shore call center. She said there was truth to the joke, “If you want to know what you’ll be writing about in three years, file a FOIA.”

Attkisson concluded the FOIA system is broken, but broken by design, because of all the delays and obstructions federal agencies employ to avoid complying with the law that gives the public the right to see the information they own.

WND recently had first-hand experiences with the labyrinthine FOIA process.

Months after it FOIA’d the police report on the shooting death of unarmed, suburban mother Miriam Carey by federal officers, the request was denied by the Washington, D.C., police department.

However, WND won an appeal to the Washington, D.C., mayor’s office and the police were ordered to turn over the report.

WND also FOIA’d the Department of Justice’s report on the Carey shooting.

After a nine-month delay by the department, the watchdog group Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit in April to compel the federal government to comply with the FOIA from WND.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton told the Oversight Committee there was a “transparency and corruption crisis” and that the unresponsiveness of the federal government was worse now than ever. He described government agencies as “black holes.”

Fitton said Judicial Watch has filed more than 3,000 FOIAs with the Obama administration but has been forced to file 225 lawsuits to compel compliance.

He called the Obama administration’s “casual law breaking” a “national disgrace.”

Even though WND obtained the Carey shooting police report on appeal, its experience was similar to that of the reporters who described massive redactions in the material they received.

The official police report on Carey was riddled with blacked-out sections and missing information.

A police representative told WND that only names would be redacted, for purposes of privacy.

But this is one of the 322 pages of that report received by WND:
redacted pic 3

That was not an isolated example:
•12 pages in the report are entirely blacked out
•15 are mostly blacked out
•22 pages are partially blacked out

(That tally does not include numerous blacked-out sections and pages that appear to be redacted to protect personal information that might identify the witnesses.)

Some of the blacked-out pages just included a heading marked “Evidence.”

Some just had a date.

Some just had the handwritten word “Detective” at the top of a piece of notebook paper, indicating they are either notes or statements from an officer.

redacted pic 2

One had an entire email reply blacked out.

But that was hardly all that was not included.

Also missing from the report were:
•Security and traffic camera videos
•Police radio recordings or transcripts
•Crime-scene photographs
•Ballistics reports
•Statements from the four officers who fired weapons
•38 witness statements
•Verbatim transcripts of all the statements
•The analysis of whether the shooting was justified
•A summary of findings

Particularly noteworthy was that nothing in the report indicated how investigators came to the conclusion that the chase and deadly shooting of Carey were justified.

In its Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, request, WND specifically sought the final report and the findings of the shooting investigation:

“All materials used in the investigation into the October 3, 2013, fatal shooting of Miriam Carey, by uniformed agents of the U.S. Secret Service, and officers of the U.S. Capitol Police Department, to include the final report and findings of that investigation.”
In his opening statement during Tuesday’s hearing, chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said one of the frustrations in trying to obtain FOIAs was that federal agencies all have their own standards for what amounts to compliance with requests. He noted that an astounding 550,000 FOIA requests had been rejected during just his six-plus years in Congress.

He released figures showing the backlog of FOIA cases that had not been processed within the statutory time limit under the Obama administration has jumped from 95,564 to 159,741 in just the year between 2013 and 2014.

And the total backlogged FOIAs had doubled since Obama took office, from 77,377 to 159, 741.

Attkisson testified that the FOIA law had become a “largely useless shadow of its intended self.”

She said agencies constantly employ new tactics to obfuscate and delay compliance, complaining they say don’t understand requests or call them too broad. They also claim to be understaffed, but “create their own delays.”

The reporter called the Justice Department one of the worse offenders, wasting untold taxpayer dollars to keep public information secret.

Attkisson said federal agencies treat Congress and the people as enemies rather than the rightful owners of public information.

The problem had grown worse, she asserted, because penalties are never imposed on agencies that do not comply with FOIA requests, “so there’s no deterrent.”

Attkisson said only the threat of strong criminal penalties could fix the FOIA process.

I would vote for that – STRONG CRIMINAL PENALTIES!


Disclaimer: This article was not written by Lorra B.

US Might Deploy Missiles In Europe To Counter Russia

dJune 5, 2015

Stars and StripesBy ROBERT BURNS

The Obama administration is weighing a range of aggressive responses to Russia’s alleged violation of a Cold War-era nuclear treaty, including deploying land-based missiles in Europe that could pre-emptively destroy the Russian weapons.

This “counterforce” option is among possibilities the administration is considering as it reviews its entire policy toward Russia in light of Moscow’s military intervention in Ukraine, its annexation of Crimea and other actions the U.S. deems confrontational in Europe and beyond.

The options go so far as one implied – but not stated explicitly – that would improve the ability of U.S. nuclear weapons to destroy military targets on Russian territory.

It all has a certain Cold War ring, even if the White House ultimately decides to continue tolerating Russia’s alleged flight-testing of a ground-launched cruise missile with a range prohibited by the treaty.

Russia denies violating the treaty and has, in turn, claimed violations by the United States in erecting missile defenses.

It is unclear whether Russia has actually deployed the suspect missile or whether Washington would make any military move if the Russians stopped short of deployment. For now, administration officials say they prefer to continue trying to talk Moscow into treaty compliance.

In public, administration officials have used obscure terms like “counterforce” and “countervailing strike capabilities” to describe two of its military response options, apparently hoping to buy time for diplomacy.

The Pentagon declined to make a senior defense policy official available to discuss the issue. A spokesman, Lt. Col. Joe Sowers, said, “All the options under consideration are designed to ensure that Russia gains no significant military advantage from their violation.”

At his Senate confirmation hearing in February, Defense Secretary Ash Carter noted his concern about Russia’s alleged violation of the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces, or INF, treaty. He said disregard for treaty limitations was a “two-way street” opening the way for the U.S. to respond in kind.

The standoff speaks volumes about the depths to which U.S.-Russia relations have fallen. And that poses problems not only for the Obama administration but also for the NATO alliance, whose members in eastern Europe are especially leery of allowing Russian provocations to go unanswered.

More at Stars and Stripes Associated Press contributed to this report.

Disclaimer: This article was not written by Silent Soldier.

Obama To Unleash ‘Community Organizers’ On Crime-Filled Cities

Obama taught “father of community organizing” Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” (Screenshot Credit, WND)

Obama taught “father of community organizing” Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”
(Screenshot Credit, WND)

May 20, 2015


The Department of Justice announced it will send millions of dollars to various community-activist groups to combat urban crime and reduce tensions between racial minorities and the police.

But critics believe such policies will only fuel further unrest by funding many of the so-called “community organizers” responsible for creating anti-police sentiment in American cities.

To spread awareness of the new campaign, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch toured Cincinnati Tuesday and identified the city as a model for how police departments around the country should operate.

Until recently, Cincinnati operated under a “Collaborative Agreement” after a 2001 police shooting. The agreement allowed various community organizations, including the Cincinnati Black United Front and the American Civil Liberties Union, to work directly with the police through a court-brokered agreement.

New guidelines on how officers were to interact with the public, especially blacks, were often imposed over the objections of police themselves.

President Obama, himself, toured the crime-plagued city of Camden, New Jersey, Monday to promote the new report from his “21st Century Policing Task Force,” designed to increase public trust in the police.

The report calls for “mitigating implicit bias” as a “part of training at all levels of a law enforcement organization to increase awareness and ensure respectful encounters both inside the organization and with communities.”

It particularly condemned “the use of disrespectful language and the implicit biases that lead offices to rely upon race” in the context of the law enforcement policy known as “stop and frisk.”

The president also restricted the availability of military hardware previously provided to local law enforcement. Critics, including Cheryl Chumley, author of “Police State USA,” charge such actions are less about “saving innocent lives” and more about “creating a social justice movement that’s likely to clamp police from doing their jobs even while it federalizes the nation’s forces.”

The Justice Department also announced $163 million in grants to be distributed for the purpose of “building trust with the community.” As part of its effort to execute the recommendations of the president’s task force, the Justice Department is looking for 10 localities to participate in a “collaborative reform” process to serve as a model for the rest of the country, emphasizing “procedural justice” and “implicit bias training.”

‘Racial agitators’

A list of grants awarded by the Justice Department in 2013 indicate federal funding has been and will continue to be directed toward activist groups described by critics as “racial agitators.”

For example, “Community Policing Development Awards” were given in 2013 to programs including “Building Trust With Communities of Color” from the Vera Institute of Justice, the “Race and Social Justice Initiative” at the Portland Police Department and “Racial Reconciliation, Truth-Telling, and Police Legitimacy” at John Jay College.

Matthew Vadum, an expert in left-wing activist groups and the author of “Subversion, Inc.,” warns such federal funding invariably finds its way into the hands of progressive activists who personally profit from increased community tensions.

“President Obama is no stranger to irony, or hypocrisy for that matter,” Vadum said in an interview with WND.

“After attacking police as stupid, racist, vicious and thuggish almost non-stop throughout his presidency, now he suddenly cares about police officers and the communities they serve. Now he wants to throw millions of taxpayer dollars at ACORN-like groups and professional left-wing agitators whose calling in life is to generate civil unrest,” he said.

“This means that people like the president’s point man on race relations, riot organizer Al Sharpton, will get his hands on lots of government money. This money won’t actually help anyone except for the often-violent Saul Alinsky-inspired community organizers who have been living high off the hog ever since one of their own took up residence in the White House.”

More at WND

Disclaimer: This article was not written by Lorra B.