MB in Cairo – shifts its spawn, Hamas – goal?

Editor’s Note – Its an Islamist movement in charge now in Egypt, telling another in Gaza what to do. The Muslim Brotherhood’s spawn, Hamas, is now taking orders from Cairo, the MB seek to scrap the peace with Israel, so this effort to counsel Hamas has only one end. That end is the destruction of Israel.

New leadership, same goal…and our White House and its grand advisers told us the fall of Mubarak was a good thing…now a vacuum is filled, and its even worse. Clapper even said the MB was basically secular.

What great foreign policy? Obama is going to run on that; crushing pressure on Israel as Egypt plays its black cards?

Islamist Victors in Egypt Seeking Shift by Hamas

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK – NY Times

CAIRO — As it prepares to take power in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood is overhauling its relations with the two main Palestinian factions in an effort to put new pressure on Israel for an independent Palestinian state.

Officials of the Brotherhood, Egypt’s dominant Islamist movement, are pressing its militant Palestinian offshoot, Hamas, which controls Gaza, to make new compromises with Fatah, the Western-backed Palestinian leadership that has committed to peace with Israel and runs the West Bank.

The intervention in the Palestinian issue is the clearest indication yet that as it moves into a position of authority, the Brotherhood, the largest vote getter in Egypt’s parliamentary elections, intends to both moderate its positions on foreign policy and reconfigure Egypt’s.

Brotherhood officials say that they are pulling back from their previous embrace of Hamas and its commitment to armed struggle against Israel in order to open new channels of communications with Fatah, which the Brotherhood had previously denounced for collaborating with Israel and accused of selling out the Palestinian cause. Brotherhood leaders argue that if they persuade the Palestinians to work together with a newly assertive Egypt, they will have far more success forcing Israel to bargain in earnest over the terms of statehood.

Fatah and Hamas - Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood counsels cooperation - pressure on Israel

“Now we have to deal with the Palestinian parties as an umbrella for both of them, and we have to stand at an equal distance from each,” said Reda Fahmy, a Brotherhood leader who oversees its Palestinian relations and is now chairman of the Arab affairs committee in Egypt’s upper house of Parliament. “Any movement of the size of the Muslim Brotherhood, when it is in the opposition it is one thing and then when it comes to power it is something completely different.”

The shift in the Brotherhood’s stance toward neutrality between Hamas and Fatah — acknowledged by officials of both groups — may relieve United States policy makers, who have long worried about the Brotherhood’s relationship with the more militant Hamas. The United States considers the Palestinian group to be a terrorist organization. But the shift in Egypt’s policies may unnerve Israel, because it is a move away from former President Hosni Mubarak’s exclusive support for the Western-backed Fatah movement and its commitment to the peace process. Israeli officials have said they will not negotiate with a Palestinian government that includes Hamas.

But Mr. Fahmy said the Brotherhood believed that Palestinian unity could break the deadlock in talks with Israel. “A Palestinian negotiator will go the table and know that all the Palestinian people are supporting his project,” Mr. Fahmy said.  “This will be a huge change and very important to both sides.” Jailed at times by the Mubarak government for his role in the Brotherhood, Mr. Fahmy spoke this month from an ornate hall of Parliament.

After decades of denunciations and enmity — Brotherhood texts still sometimes refer to the Jewish state as “the Zionist entity” — Brotherhood leaders have said that as members of the governing party they will honor Egypt’s 1979 peace accord with Israel. Some of its leaders say they believe that such coexistence can become a model for Hamas as well, if Israel moves toward accepting a fully independent Palestinian state.

He noted that Hamas had already made statements indicating that it would accept coexistence with Israel along its borders before the 1967 war. “It is true that it is like a person who is forced to drink poison or eat a dead animal, but they still made the statements,” he said, “so we support that, provided that this state within the ’67 borders is completely sovereign in air and in sea and in land.”

Already, Mr. Fahmy claimed, the Brotherhood’s new stance was making “a fundamental difference,” including jump-starting the stalled reconciliation talks between the two Palestinian groups.

The Brotherhood’s supreme guide, Mohammed Badie — effectively its chairman — had personally told Hamas’s top political leader, Khaled Meshaal, to be “more flexible,” Mr. Fahmy said, and at recent talks in Doha, Qatar, Hamas had agreed for the first time to let Fatah’s leader, Mahmoud Abbas, preside over the first six months of a unity government for the Palestinian territories until new elections could be held.

“Hamas never would have accepted that Abbas heads the government,” Mr. Fahmy said, “but now they are.”

Moussa Abu Marzook, a senior Hamas leader who has settled in Cairo after fleeing Damascus, said that the group was full of hope about the rise of the Brotherhood, from which Hamas originally sprang 25 years ago.

His circumstances attested to those hopes. In 1995, he was arrested the United States, and spent two years fighting an Israeli extradition request and until recently was permitted to enter Egypt only under the watchful eye of its intelligence service. Now he spoke from the large and sunny salon of the second-floor office above his well-fortified suburban villa here. He acknowledged that the rise of its fellow Islamists in Egypt had set off a deep debate inside Hamas.

Some argued against any compromise with Fatah, predicting that Hamas’s bargaining position would only grow stronger as its Islamist allies in Egypt took on new power. Fatah, on the other hand, had lost its primary regional sponsor, the government of Mr. Mubarak.

But Mr. Abu Marzook said that those who expected the new Egypt to back Hamas completely would be disappointed. “It’s normal that the Muslim Brotherhood will be more realistic than they used to be when they weren’t in power,” he said.

He said he favored more conciliations with Fatah. “Reaching reconciliation is in the best interest of the Palestinian people,” he said.

Fatah officials, for their part, say that so far they have been pleased with the Brotherhood’s neutral approach to both factions. “The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is doing everything it can to end the Palestinian division,” said Saeb Erekat, Fatah’s chief negotiator.

Mr. Fahmy said that the Brotherhood still believed that United Nations resolutions still qualified Hamas’s armed struggle as a legitimate movement of resistance to an armed occupation. “The texts of all religions guarantee the right to self-defense,” he said.

But he said that the Brotherhood’s support would never extend to supplying weapons. “Foolishness,” he said. “Turning the region into an arms market is not good for anyone. We are against the distribution of weapons anywhere or supporting such a movement, even if we are biased towards it in defending people’s rights. We are careful about the region’s stability.”

Fatah has gone much further than both Hamas and the Brotherhood in seeking peaceful coexistence with Israel. But Mr. Erekat suggested that the differences between the parties may not be as great now as they were in the past. “The Muslim Brothers are the majority party now in Egypt; they are the masters of themselves,” he said. “If they think it’s in the best interest of Egypt, let them abolish the Camp David treaty. But this isn’t what I heard.”

Israel, for its part, rejects the 1967 borders as insufficiently defensible for its security.

But some in Israel are watching the shifts. “Hamas is showing indications that it’s moving towards a more responsible position,” said Shlomo Brom, an analyst and retired brigadier general in the Israeli military. “But because of Hamas’s bloody history, it will be very difficult for the Israeli government to accept this reality. I don’t know how long it will take.”

Mr. Fahmy, though, predicted continued “tranquillity” between Hamas and Israel, in part because Hamas understands that the Brotherhood needs to stability to manage Egypt’s political transition.

“Hamas considers the Muslim Brotherhood a strategic extension of itself,” he said. “And I think that this in itself is a strong guarantee that the situation will not explode in the area.”

_________

Mayy el Sheikh contributed reporting.

The money in the game – the reward?

Editor’s Note – Why bother with campaign finance laws, and court decisions, campaign rules, and promises concerning campaigns? Donations and bundling always end up doing exactly what we know they do – provide access, and cushy jobs – rewards. To deny this is happening is just rhetoric no one believes.

…at least 68 bundlers or their spouses have received administration appointments ranging from advisory economic boards to humanities posts… (List here.)

Of course, they all do it, and this article does mention that Romney refused to name his bundlers, but we all know his list will be vilified, while the media just ignores people like Jon Corzine of MF Global fame who is still bundling for Obama. Others include Jeff Katzenberg, who currently tops the list, and Andy Spahn, separately, but both of Hollywood’s DreamWorks, Justin Tanner in the Atlanta Mayor’s Office, Spencer Overton and Alfreda Robinson (separately) of George Washington University, and so on and so forth.

Everyone on these lists is part of the so-called 1% – #Occupy does not seem to notice.

If the name Koch appeared on Romney’s list, MSNBC, NBC, CNN, and all the liberal sites and groups would flood the discourse to a point where you would not be able to hear yourself think. But George Soros’s son has done much to support Obama…crickets, chirp, chirp, chirp…all those “Tides” connections…shhhh!

We know Obama “rewarded” his supporters – will Romney if he wins?

Major Obama ‘bundler’ gets Dutch ambassador’s post

By Luke Rosiak – The Washington Times

D.C. lawyer Timothy Broas, who has funneled more money to the political campaigns of President Obama than nearly anyone else, last week was recommended by Mr. Obama as the next U.S. ambassador to the Netherlands.

As a campaign “bundler,” Mr. Broas collected more than a half-million dollars for Mr. Obama’s 2012 campaign, raising money from family members, colleagues and other wealthy associates; four years ago, he assisted Mr. Obama’s successful bid for the presidency by raising between $200,000 and $500,000.

According to the Center for Responsive PoliticsMr. Broas becomes the latest of dozens of Obama “bundlers” who are already serving as ambassadors.

The fundraiser’s selection was first reported by the Center for Public Integrity.

This election cycle, 117 people have raised $500,000 or more each for the president’s reelection efforts – totaling at least $59 million. That’s at least 40 percent of the $145 million Mr. Obama has raised.

One hundred and forty-one people have collected between $200,000 and that amount, or $30 million to $70 million. One hundred and twenty people have bundled $100,000 to $200,000, an analysis by The Washington Times showed.

Among new bundlers disclosed this month were figures as eclectic as spiritual healer Deepak Chopra and Robert Pohlad, of the family that once owned the Minneapolis Twins.

Fifteen people. including actor Tyler Perry, raised more than half a million dollars in three months alone, between January and March of this year. Bundlers typically collect $35,000 checks – the maximum allowed to the national party, plus $5,000 to a campaign committee – often from both husband and wife.

The list of Mr. Obama’s 532 2012 bundlers so far is dominated by lawyers, financial professionals and Hollywood figures.

The Center for Public Integrity found that at least 250 bundlers, including Mr. Broas, have been invited to the White House, and at least 68 bundlers or their spouses have received administration appointments ranging from advisory economic boards to humanities posts.

Mr. Broas is a partner at the law firm Winston and Strawn, and also serves as a member of the board of trustees of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, according to a White House statement.

In the past, not all of those who have been appointed to prestigious diplomatic posts after raising campaign funds have proven qualified for those jobs.

A State Department investigation tied 2008 bundler-turned-Bahamas Ambassador Nicole Avant to “dysfunctional leadership and mismanagement, which has caused problems throughout the embassy” since she was appointed by President Obama, Foreign Policy magazine reported.

Mrs. Avant has since rejoined the ranks of Obama bundlers, having raised the better part of a million dollars from her Beverly Hills home this election cycle, after resigning from her Caribbean assignment in November.

In a departure from his own precedent in 2008 as well as standard practice for recent presidential campaigns, Mitt Romney, Mr. Obama’s likely opponent in November, has refused to release the names of his bundlers.

Blind as a nation due to intelligence failures

Editor’s Note – Are we blind as a nation due to intelligence failures? Are we blind concerning Iran?

Admiral Lyons does a great job describing how broken our intelligence community is and where it is evolving. He does mention failures, but perhaps the biggest failure is who is appointed and by whom. In the current administration, the proof is as clear as a sunny day in May – political ideology has cheapened the quest for true security in the homeland.

Just like the failures of 1983 – Iranian backed – What are we missing or not reporting up today?

This issue is similar to one of an NSA intercept of the Iranian ambassador in Damascus reporting back to the foreign ministry in Tehran on instructions he had given terrorist groups in Beirut to concentrate their attacks on the Multi-National Force but undertake a “spectacular action” against the U.S. Marines. This intercept was issued by the NSA in a highly classified message on Sept. 27, 1983, almost four weeks before the Marine barracks bombing.

SUA has been pointing out these failures – Janet Napolitano, General Clapper, Eric Holder, and ultimately, a President who has an agenda that defies explanation, from a patriotic American and Constitutional perspective. Islam seems more important than traditional American values and is ruled by an extreme politically ideological Progressivism.

Politics trumps national security.

LYONS: How smart is intelligence bureaucracy?

Post-9/11 reform still results in erroneous threat assessments

By Adm. James A. Lyons – Washington Times

Adm. James A. Lyons

The 9/11 Commission concluded in its final report in 2004 that the U.S. intelligence community (IC) organization, as it was structured then, had contributed to a failure to develop a management strategy to counter Islamic terrorism. The report concluded that the traditional existing IC agencies’ stovepipes had to be eliminated and a position should be established for an administrator who would have powerful oversight authority.

To accomplish this urgent task, one of the commission’s principal recommendations was establishment of the position of director of national intelligence (DNI), which would be separate from the director of the CIA.

There were many arguments against establishing the position of DNI. Some asserted that had it existed before the Sept. 11 attacks, it would not have prevented them. That remains an open question. It should be recalled that the 9/11 Commission staff discovered just before its final report went to the printers in July 2004 a six-page National Security Agency (NSA) analysis summarizing what the intelligence community had learned about Iran’s direct involvement in the attack.

Was this information collected before or after the attacks? As of now, we don’t know because there has been no follow-up investigation by any congressional committee or the newly established DNI.

This issue is similar to one of an NSA intercept of the Iranian ambassador in Damascus reporting back to the foreign ministry in Tehran on instructions he had given terrorist groups in Beirut to concentrate their attacks on the Multi-National Force but undertake a “spectacular action” against the U.S. Marines. This intercept was issued by the NSA in a highly classified message on Sept. 27, 1983, almost four weeks before the Marine barracks bombing.

I was the deputy chief of naval operations then and did not get to see this critical message until two days after the bombing. Most key decision-makers have never seen this message.

Would a DNI have ensured that such a critical message was brought to the attention of key decision-makers? That also remains an open question. The bottom line is that personnel performance at all levels must recognize the critical nature of key intelligence and not worry about who gets the credit.

Interviews of former 9/11 Commission members showed they thought the structure of the DNI’s support should remain small, but it has evolved into essentially a new intelligence agency. It has expanded rapidly, with many large offices and a staff of at least 1,600 (as of 2010), plus untold numbers of contract personnel.

The question has to be asked: Has the establishment of the DNI improved the performance of the intelligence community? Aside from Islamic terrorist attacks such as the massacre at Fort Hood, the nation has been kept safe from Sept. 11-like attacks since the establishment of the DNI. However, it is believed that the difference can be attributed to the added investment in IC resources rather than to more centralized or cogent management of the community by the DNI.

The DNI organization has evolved into an oversight bureaucracy for much broader intelligence activities, in which it has not been entirely effective. For example, the DNI wrongly claimed that the Muslim Brotherhood is a “largely secular” organization in spite of the fact that its creed is to topple the U.S. government and replace our Constitution with Shariah law.

There was a failure to predict and keep pace with the “Arab Spring” uprisings and their rapid evolution. During the Libyan uprising, the DNI specifically stated that he thought Moammar Gadhafi would prevail. We all know how that came out.

There also have been wrong assessments on key stages in the development of Iran’s nuclear weapon program. On Feb. 16, the DNI released a questionable gap-laden threat assessment to the Senate Armed Services Committee. It failed even to mention the terrorist group Hezbollah or any of Iran’s asymmetric “acts of war” against the United States for more than 30 years, led by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

These obviously wrong assessments raise questions about the validity of other DNI assessments in critical areas that affect not only the United States but our allies. The DNI and the IC are facing a number of major intelligence challenges involving the Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan and North Korea, and also China’s aggressive military expansion program. Immediate concerns involve China’s clear assistance to North Korea’s nuclear weapon program, which highlight the folly of the Six Party talks, which should be terminated immediately. China’s assistance to Iran’s nuclear weapon program – either directly or through third parties – needs to be uncovered.

The American public needs to have confidence in the DNI’s and intelligence community’s capability of providing accurate intelligence that is not politicized.

At the end of the day, having a DNI does not guarantee that there will be no more Sept. 11s.

________________

Retired Adm. James A. Lyons was commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations.

Federalizing our Law Enforcement – TSA in your backyard now!

Editor’s Note – Every state, county, and the vast majority of municipalities in the USA already have police forces, so why do we need federal TSA inspectors/agents patrolling our transportation hubs and routes? At a minimum, this is another example of the extended reach of the Executive Branch of the federal government.

We already have the FBI, so why do we have so many federal agencies now amongst our communities? Yet, our borders are sieves, the TSA gropes 4-year old kids and old ladies at our airports, and we have border check points well with-in our borders in the southern states along the Mexican border to try and find the ones that got by on the border.

It looks far more like the tyranny of government than it does homeland security.

Why Is It Necessary For The Federal Government To Turn The United States Into A Prison Camp?

By Michael Snyder of Economic Collapse 

There has been no society in the history of the world that has ever been 100% safe. No matter how much money the federal government spends on “homeland security”, the truth is that bad things will still happen.  Our world is a very dangerous place and it is becoming increasingly unstable.  The federal government could turn the entire country into one giant prison camp, but that would still not keep us safe.  It is inevitable that bad stuff will happen in life.  But we have a choice.  We can choose to live in fear or we can choose to live as free men and women.  Our forefathers intended to establish a nation where liberty and freedom would be maximized.

"Show me your papers" is a phrase we may all hear too frequently soon - from the TSA?

But today we are told that we have to give up our liberties and our freedoms and our privacy for increased security.  But is such a trade really worth it?  Just think of the various totalitarian societies that we have seen down throughout history.  Have any of them ever really thrived?  Have their people been happy?  Unfortunately, the U.S. federal government has decided that the entire country needs to be put on lock down.  Nearly everything that we do today is watched and tracked, and personal privacy is rapidly becoming a thing of the past.  Many of the things that George Orwell wrote about in 1984 are becoming a reality, and that is a very frightening thing.  The United States is supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave.  Sadly, we are rapidly becoming the exact opposite of that.

I don’t know about you, but I never signed up to live in North Korea.  When I was growing up I was taught that repressive regimes such as North Korea are “the bad guys” and that America is where “the good guys” live.

So why do we want to be just like North Korea?

When they put in the naked body scanners at U.S. airports and started having TSA agents conduct “enhanced pat-downs” of travelers, I decided that I was not going to fly anymore unless absolutely necessary.

Then I heard about how “random bag checks” were being conducted at Metro train stations in the Washington D.C. area, and I was glad that I was no longer taking the train into D.C. anymore.

But now the TSA is showing up everywhere.  Down in Houston, undercover TSA agents and police officers will now “ride buses, perform random bag checks, and conduct K-9 sweeps, as well as place uniformed and plainclothes officers at Transit Centers and rail platforms to detect, prevent and address latent criminal activity or behavior.”

So now I have another thing to add to my list of things that I can’t do anymore.

No more riding buses for me.

But the truth is that you can’t escape this expanding security grid no matter how hard you try.

In fact, TSA “VIPR teams” conduct approximately 8,000 “unannounced security screenings” every year at bus terminals, train stations, ports and highway rest stops throughout the United States.

Look, every society needs some level of security.  There are always bad guys out there that want to harm innocent people.

But in the United States we must demand that those in charge of our security do their jobs in a way that does not compromise our dignity, our liberties or our freedoms.

Does having TSA thugs touch the private parts of old women and young children before they get on their flights keep us any safer?

Of course not.

But it does move our country in a very dangerous direction.

The reality is that this “Big Brother control grid” that is being constructed all around us is expanding in a thousand different ways.

For example, a new bill before the U.S. Congress would require black box data recorders to be installed in all new vehicles starting in 2015.  These black box data recorders will be able to constantly transmit data about everything that your car is  doing to the government and to the insurance companies.  The following is from a recent article by Eric Peters….

And naturally, they – the government, insurance companies – will be able to track your every move, noting (and recording) where you’ve been and when. This will create a surveillance net beyond anything that ever existed previously. Some will not sweat this: After all, if you’ve got nothing to hide, why worry? Except for the fact that, courtesy of almost everything we do being either “illegal” or at least “suspicious” we all have a great deal to hide. The naivety of the Don’t Worry, it’s No Big Deal crowd is breathtaking. Did the average Soviet citizen also “not have anything to hide,” and hence why worry?

But the last possibility is probably the creepiest possibility: EDRs tied into your car’s GPS will give them – the government and its corporate **** ******* (edited for language) – literal physical control over (hack) “your” vehicle. This is not conspiracy theorizing. It is technological fact. Current GM vehicles equipped with the same technology about to be mandated for every vehicle can be disabled remotely. Just turned off. All the OnStar operator has to do is send the appropriate command over the GPS to your car’s computer, which controls the engine. It is one of the features touted by OnStar – of course, as a “safety” feature.

In the future, it will be used to limit your driving – for the sake of “energy conservation” or perhaps, “the environment.” It will be the perfect, er, vehicle, for implementing U.N. Agenda 21 – the plan to herd all of us formerly free-range tax cattle into urban feedlots. So much easier to control us this way. No more bailing out to the country or living off the grid – unless you get there (and to your work) by walking.

Even when you are sitting at home you are still being watched and monitored in countless ways.

For example, every single call you make on your cell phone is intercepted and monitored by the government.

Your Internet activity is tracked and monitored by a whole host of government agencies as well.  If you doubt this, just read this article.

Now CISPA would expand government surveillance of the Internet even further.  The following description of CISPA comes from the Electronic Frontier Foundation website….

CISPA creates an exception to all privacy laws to permit companies to share our information with each other and with the government in the name of cybersecurity…. CISPA’s ‘information sharing’ regime allows the transfer of vast amounts of data, including sensitive information like internet use history or the content of emails, to any agency in the government including military and intelligence agencies like the National Security Agency or the Department of Defense Cyber Command. Once in government hands, this information can be used for any non-regulatory purpose so long as one significant purpose is for cybersecurity or to protect national security.

Frightening stuff, eh?

I want you to imagine a scenario for a moment.  Imagine that the government assigned two “watchers” to you that followed you everywhere you went and stared directly into your face the entire time.

Would you feel comfortable?

Why not?

You don’t have anything to hide, do you?

Well, of course the truth is that none of us would like having our privacy constantly invaded.  It is not pleasant to constantly feel like you are being watched.

That is why all of these new “security measures” are so alarming.  A system is being set up where all of us are being constantly watched and monitored 24 hours a day.

And most Americans have no idea how fast the transition to full martial law could potentially be.

Barack Obama recently updated an old executive order that has been around for decades that would enable him to take charge of all food, all energy, all health resources and all transportation resources in the United States with the stroke of a pen. This new update would allow him to do it even in “non-emergency” situations.

The following is what U.S. Representative Kay Granger recently had to say about this executive order….

This means all of our water resources, construction services and materials (steel, concrete, etc.), our civil transportation system, food and health resources, our energy supplies including oil and natural gas – even farm equipment – can be taken over by the President and his cabinet secretaries.  The Government can also draft U.S. citizens into the military and force U.S. citizens to fulfill “labor requirements” for the purposes of “national defense.”  There is not even any Congressional oversight, only briefings are required.

Later on in her letter, Representative Granger even used the phrases “martial law” and “government takeover” to describe the power that Barack Obama potentially has under this executive order…

It is still unclear why this order was signed now, and what the consequences are for our nation – especially during times of peace.  This type of Martial Law imposes a government takeover on U.S. citizens that is typically reserved for national emergencies, not in a time of relative peace.

Do you trust Barack Obama with that kind of power?

Unfortunately, considering the really bad decisions that all of our government officials regularly make, it is really hard to trust any of them to do the right thing at this point.

The American people need to let their voices be heard on these issues.  If not, the federal government will continue to strip away our privacy, our liberties and our freedoms until everything is gone.

Do you want your children to grow up in a country that has been turned into a giant prison camp and that more closely resembles North Korea than it does the nation that our forefathers originally founded?

If not, please do what you can to speak out against these abuses.

The truth is that the federal government does not really even care about our national security anyway.

If they did, they would secure our borders. Just today I read that the National Guard is withdrawing 900 troops from the U.S.-Mexico border.  Our border security is already a total joke and now it is going to be even worse.

Over the past several decades, tens of millions of people have crossed that border illegally.  Every single day, terrorists, drug dealers, gang members, sexual predators and a whole host of other “bad guys” could be crossing that border and we would never even know about it because we aren’t doing anything to stop it.

For nearly 60 years, the U.S. government has successfully protected the border between South Korea and North Korea, but the U.S. government flatly refuses to protect our own borders.

Until the federal government decides to do what the U.S. Constitution requires them to do and start protecting our borders, then the federal government should not be asking any of us to make a single sacrifice in the name of “security”.

The truth is that we can have a reasonable level of security in this nation without giving up the liberties and the freedoms that millions of Americans have shed their blood to protect.

We do not need to turn the United States into a giant prison camp.  America is supposed to be the land of the free, and we need to work hard to get that dream back.

Armendariz EPA Crucify Video Pulled – Too Late

Editor’s Note – The big news yesterday about the EPA addressed the ideology of those who were appointed to very powerful positions by Obama. The EPA has unprecedented power, and this issue was personified by Al Armendariz, who heads the EPA’s Dallas office. The story and the video were all over the news, yet You Tube pulled the video and scrubbed the site. TOO LATE! It’s everywhere now!

YouTube pulls Armendariz ‘crucify them’ video

By Caroline May – Daily Caller

The YouTube channel where Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe’s office originally discovered the video of EPA official Al Armendariz speak about his “crucify them” enforcement philosophy has scrubbed the original video and lodged a complaint against Inhofe to YouTube.

The source and now YouTube complainant, David McFatridge of “Citizen Media for We The People,” is an environmentalist and, according to Inhofe’s office, has eliminated all content related to Armendariz’s speech from his YouTube channel.

The original video now turns of an error notice that reads: “This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by David McFatridge.”

McFatridge’s complaint comes despite the fact that his page reads, “Consider ALL video Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)”.

Inhofe spokesman Matt Dempsey told TheDC they are working to connect with a YouTube representative.

Dempsey also explained that Inhofe’s office covered their bases with their use of the video.

“In short, the video we cut and posted to our YouTube channel came from a YouTube channel, “Citizen Media for We The People,” that said reuse is allowed and we attributed the site in the description of the video,” he explained in an email to reporters. “Further in our original website post for our media advisory, we also included a link to the original source.”

EPA official blasted over ‘crucify’ oil and gas comments

By Todd Sperry, CNN Senior Producer

Washington (CNN) — The White House and the Environmental Protection Agency are distancing themselves from controversial remarks that surfaced this week by a regional administrator attacking the oil and gas industry.

Al Armendariz

In a video made in 2010, Al Armendariz, who heads the EPA’s Dallas office, suggested his approach to dealing with noncompliant oil and gas companies is “like when the Romans conquered the villages in the Mediterranean, they’d go into little villages in Turkish towns and they’d find the first five guys they saw and crucify them.”

Sen. James Inhofe, who posted the video online Wednesday, blasted the EPA administrator’s comments on the Senate floor during a 30-minute speech attacking the Obama administration’s energy policy. “His comments give us a rare glimpse into the Obama administration’s true agenda,” the Oklahoma Republican said.

The White House and the EPA were quick to clarify they didn’t agree with Armendariz’s remarks. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters Thursday, “The official’s comments are inaccurate as a representation or characterization of the way the EPA has operated under President Obama.”

The EPA released a statement on its website, saying, “It is deeply unfortunate that in a 2010 video an EPA official inaccurately suggested we are seeking to ‘make examples’ out of certain companies in the oil and gas industry.”

Armendariz, appointed by President Obama in 2009, apologized for the remarks, “It was an offensive and inaccurate way to portray our efforts to address potential violations of our nation’s environmental laws.”

But Inhofe rejected the apology. “Administrator Armendariz apologized yesterday for his ‘poor choice of words’ when he admitted that EPA’s ‘general philosophy’ is to ‘crucify’ and ‘make examples’ of oil and gas companies, but he did not apologize for EPA’s actions towards its apparent crucifixion victims.”

Inhofe added, “Take the word ‘crucify’ out of Administrator Armendariz’s statement and nothing has changed: You still have a rogue agency following through on President Obama’s ‘general philosophy’ to increase the price of gas and electricity.”

The EPA did not respond to multiple attempts from CNN to answer questions regarding Armendariz’s future with the agency, whether he’ll face disciplinary action or if EPA Chief Lisa Jackson has spoken with him directly.