"NOT GUILTY" – End or beginning?

SUA Editors – Emotions versus fact and the ‘rule-of-law’. The verdict came in and there is likely not a soul in North America, or the Western World for that matter, that does not already know of the outcome. “Not Guilty” was the verdict the all woman, six person jury returned to the court.

The case consumed the country’s attention for more than a year, sparking heated racial debate. While some criticized Zimmerman for racially profiling 17-year-old Martin, others said the teen was, in fact, the aggressor. Although counsel was advised to leave race out of the discussion during trial, during the post-trial press conference, Zimmerman’s defense attorney, Mark O’Mara, remarked that if his client were black, “he never would’ve been charged with a crime.”(Huffington Post)

The trial is over, “Mr. Zimmerman has no further business before the court.” But is this the end? …Hardly!


Soon after the verdict was read and the jury was polled, Zimmerman was a free man and the press conferences and statements followed quickly. Vitriol abounded and continues with violence breaking out in some locations like Oakland, California. Then there are the Twitter messages of mass violence, local demonstrations, slurs by an NFL player, and even Senator Harry Reid said “this is not over.”

The problem is, people saw things so diametrically opposed that the verdict is sure to be of no consolation for one side, and the other cannot rest much easier due to threats, the possibility of a civil suit, and now many calling for the Department of Justice to join in…but they already had, right after the news broke of the incident and race quickly became the focal point. The DoJ is warned though of many obstacles and fallout should it weigh in again as it is reported to be doing now.

Attorney General Eric Holder faces a crucial decision on whether to press federal civil rights charges against George Zimmerman, after the neighborhood watchman was acquitted Saturday in the shooting death of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin.

The NAACP and other leading civil rights groups are pressing for Holder to open a federal case against Zimmerman, after he was found not guilty on second-degree murder and manslaughter charges by a Florida jury. (Read more here at The Hill.)neighborhood-watch-california-protests

But, Anger Flows –  and  write at the Washington Post:

From church pews to the broadcast airwaves, to tweets and hastily organized protests, Americans reacted strongly Sunday to the news that George Zimmerman had been acquitted of all charges in the killing of teenager Trayvon Martin.

The nation’s foremost civil rights organization called on the Department of Justice to file civil rights charges against Zimmerman, who had followed the unarmed black teenager as he walked through his central Florida neighborhood, and then claimed he shot Martin in self-defense. The NAACP began circulating a petition late Saturday asking U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to take action in the case, as it held its annual conference in Orlando.

“It is time for the Department of Justice to act,” the petition says. “The most fundamental of civil rights — the right to life — was violated the night George Zimmerman stalked and then took the life of Trayvon Martin.” (Read more at the Washington Post.)

Al Sharpton spoke out immediately as well, caution Mr. Sharpton, remember the Tawana Brawley affair? – from the Weekly Standard:

“Well, I think that this is an atrocity,” said Sharpton. “I think that it is probably one of the worst situations that I’ve seen. What this jury has done is establish a precedent that when you are young and fit a certain profile, you can be committing no crime, just bringing some Skittles and iced tea home to your brother, and be killed and someone can claim self-defense having been exposed with all kinds of lies, all kinds of inconsistencies. … Even at trial when he is exposed over and over again as a liar, he is acquitted. This is a sad day in the country. I think that we clearly must move on to the next step in terms of the federal government and in terms of the civil courts. Clearly, we want people to be disciplined, strategic. But this is a slap in the face to those that believe in justice in this country.”

We all know that race was the focus, and no matter the facts and verdict, emotion and prejudice would consume the hearts and minds of many, but there were other matters of importance below the surface. Like the law, legal procedure.

The two other matters of importance address our national discussion on gun control and ‘standing your ground’, and the ‘rule-of-law’; having a fair trial amidst a sea of media and political spin over race. Many call for the case to be a lightening rod for gun control as well.

The case did one thing for sure – it validated the right to bear arms once again, and the right to ‘stand your ground’ in the face of threats. The right to defend yourself was the key all along, not race, or profiling – when you are being accosted, and Zimmerman clearly was – the jury could not do nothing but follow the law, not emotion.

Was it a fair trial? Was the ‘rule-of-law’ strictly adhered to? Yes and no in our opinion. The trial was as fair as the climate would allow, especially for the deceased, but it was palpably unfair in some regard to the defense, especially how the judge handled the case, frequently showing open animosity for the defense team.

Then there were the constant tricks and surprises from the prosecution and all that high-pitched buffoonery in the State’s closing remarks. When the state asks a jury to consider things not in fact, calls the other side liars incessantly, some level of professionalism was lost for good

It is obvious – no one can say the prosecution did not try their damnedest to succeed in convicting Zimmerman, especially since clear thinking jurists knew there never should have been a case in the first place – but that would not suffice in the court of public opinion. Again, we live in odd times, when fact and reason are outweighed by emotion, zealotry, and bias.

Trayvon Martin did get a fair day in court, to deny that is to say the judge and prosecutors were at fault. The law was followed, the jury adhered to it strictly and decided. Perhaps people should avail themselves more thoroughly of that aspect. To say you accept the verdict but disagree with the outcome is to deny the law; you cannot have it both ways in this case.

Many in the the public demanded an arrest, they got it. They demanded a trial, they got it. They demanded an outcome, they got one, just not the one they wanted. All of this due to external pressures that have no place in our judicial system. (Read about the media’s involvement and the timeline of events that made this so volatile at Breitbart.)

Much of what took place over the past 18 months was unfair and did not follow proper procedure or the law, but not to Trayon Martin’s detriment. In fact, the accusations that the Sanford Police and fired Police Chief Bill Lee mis-handled the case early on was quite unfair and simply untrue. Defense Attorney Mark O’Mara went on to say something important that is missed by those so focused on race:

“It seems as though what happened was an event that was being looked into by Sanford Police Department and quite honestly — as we now know — looked into quite well. I have taken advantage of police departments who have not done a good investigation of crimes because that’s what I do for a living. When I looked at the Sanford Police Department investigation, they had done quite a good job, and you can compare what they did across the country to see who does good or bad jobs with their investigation, but they were doing quite a lot.” (CBS News)

But O’Mara also eluded to the fairness of the actual trial in terms of how the defense was allowed to defend its client, and they were asked about the judge and prosecutors’ actions. Both Attorneys West and O’Mara deflected with West saying “..he wanted to keep his law license for a few more years”, and O’Mara saying the “…trial was fair, though more fair for one side…” – referring to the State.

The prosecution was openly dismayed and disappointed and you can see what they had to say here. They definitely tried hard, but the case had no merit despite what supporters of convicting Zimmerman believed.

“I have an amazing team of lawyers … and investigators … and I’m so proud to stand here with them to be part of the historical aspect of this case,” Special Prosecutor Angela Corey said on live TV.

“I am disappointed as we are with the verdict, but we accept it,” said prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda. (See more here.)

What is not yet in the discussion of future events is the fact that the judge held a very tight grip on discussing race, the character of the deceased and what motivated him, and the climate of that neighborhood in terms of security and previous crimes. However these aspects would well emerge in any civil action, and all would be wise to consider how that would play out in the court of public opinion. Remember, Trayvon’s Mother already received $1 million from that homeowner association in a settlement.

But now, doesn’t George Zimmerman also have some recourse, the option to sue those who so defamed him, like NBC and others who spewed untrue accounts to the public, doctored videos, spun the defamation wheel. Defamation of character and more certainly took place – that rush to judgment may be mighty costly for the likes of NBC. (Remember, they fired people over this.)

Please read the following article on the case and most importantly, also watch the video at the bottom where Piers Morgan of CNN, interviews George Zimmerman’s brother right after the verdict. This is one of several times the two went face-to-face on the case.

A Just Verdict

By the Editors at the National Review

The George Zimmerman case was a wretched spectacle from the beginning, but for this we are glad: People in America are still tried in the courts rather than by left-wing protesters or by the media. To their credit, the jurors appear to have decided the case strictly on the facts, which gave them no choice other than to acquit Zimmerman, despite the long campaign of defamation against him outside the courtroom.

The most compelling moment in the post-verdict press conference by Zimmerman’s legal team came when Mark O’Mara slapped the media for making a monster out of his client. You don’t have to endorse Zimmerman’s poor judgment that night to realize that he didn’t commit a crime and isn’t a bullying white racist circa 1955. He isn’t even white, so the media had to resort to the “white-Hispanic” label to save their racial storyline. If Zimmerman had set out to assassinate Trayvon Martin, he never would have called the police to alert them to Martin’s whereabouts. (Read the rest here at the National Review Online.)

This is the act of so-called profiling that is supposed to prove Zimmerman’s dark, racist motivation. But he may have singled out Martin for his youth, his dress, or his behavior; he might have been just as suspicious of a white teenager dressed and acting the same way. (Zimmerman told the police on the call that Martin seemed like he was “up to no good.”) He didn’t volunteer Martin’s race on his 911 call, but in response to the operator’s question said that he “looks black.”

What ensued was a tragedy that is a terrible loss to Martin’s family. That tragedy would have been avoided had Zimmerman never fastened on Martin and if he had never gotten out of his car to trail him. What Zimmerman’s haters never acknowledge is that it also would have been avoided had Martin never, as the evidence indicates, hit Zimmerman. It was a prosecution eyewitness who said that he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman beating him “ground-and-pound” style. Logic suggests that it was Zimmerman, who had the injuries consistent with getting beaten, who was yelling out for help that night.

This made the case a simple matter of self-defense, which is what police initially concluded when they declined to arrest Zimmerman. After an enormous firestorm and campaign of race-hustling political intimidation — loosely joined by President Obama when he said that if he had a son, he’d look like Trayvon — authorities charged Zimmerman with second-degree murder. With this, they lashed themselves to the most malign interpretation of Zimmerman’s intent from MSNBC and the left-wing blogs. They never came close to proving their case and, in desperation at the end of the trail, tried to get the judge to allow the jury to consider a child-abuse charge (the jury was allowed to consider manslaughter).

Now that the jury has rendered the only verdict it reasonably could, the same characters who have spent more than a year smearing Zimmerman are indicting the American justice system. Al Sharpton wants the feds to pursue Zimmerman on civil-rights charges. Tavis Smiley says that “color gets you killed” in America, and “somebody can always explain away why this person got off, why this person was not found guilty, and what we have is a bunch of dead black men.” A focus of ire is the “stand your ground” law, even though the Zimmerman case had nothing to do with Florida’s version of that law — his lawyers made a strict self-defense argument, and a compelling one.

We wish the purveyors of perpetual outrage would pause from saying stupid and inflammatory things about the Zimmerman case long enough to consider how wrong they were about it all along. But we are realists.

This is the must see video of the interview between CNN’s Piers Morgan and George Zimmerman’s brother. Watch closely as Piers just simply cannot accept facts and reason as usual:


U.S. forces Net firms to cooperate – act or NSA will

Editor’s Note – Once again we have to ask, do you believe what Washington tells you or do you need a new, more reliable source to understand what is taking place affecting our liberties and privacy? Then ask, why does our government need such widespread investigative tools when it clearly crosses the line on our freedoms?

How the U.S. forces Net firms to cooperate on surveillance

Officially, Uncle Sam says it doesn’t interfere.

But behind the scenes, the feds have been trying to browbeat Internet firms into helping with surveillance demands.

By wielding a potent legal threat, the U.S. government is often able to force Internet companies to aid its surveillance demands. The threat? Comply or we’ll implant our own eavesdropping devices on your network.nsa-square

Under federal law, the National Security Agency can serve real-time “electronic surveillance” orders on Internet companies for investigations related to terrorism or national security.

These orders, authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, are used to feed data into the NSA’s PRISM software program that was revealed last month by former intelligence analyst Edward Snowden. PRISM documents indicate that the NSA can receive “real-time notifications” of user log-ins.

Some Internet companies have reluctantly agreed to work with the government to conduct legally authorized surveillance on the theory that negotiations are less objectionable than the alternative — federal agents showing up unannounced with a court order to install their own surveillance device on a sensitive internal network. Those devices, the companies fear, could disrupt operations, introduce security vulnerabilities, or intercept more than is legally permitted.

“Nobody wants it on-premises,” said a representative of a large Internet company who has negotiated surveillance requests with government officials. “Nobody wants a box in their network…[Companies often] find ways to give tools to minimize disclosures, to protect users, to keep the government off the premises, and to come to some reasonable compromise on the capabilities.”

Precedents were established a decade or so ago when the government obtained legal orders compelling companies to install custom eavesdropping hardware on their networks.

One example, which has not been previously disclosed, arose out of a criminal investigation in which the Drug Enforcement Administration suspected a woman of trafficking in 1,4-Butanediol. The butane-derived chemical is used industrially as a solvent and recreationally as a date rape drug or sedative.

The DEA’s Special Operations Division, which includes FBI representatives, obtained a real-time intercept order — sometimes called a Title III order — against EarthLink and WorldCom, a network provider that’s now part of Verizon Business. Both companies were targeted by the order because EarthLink routed outgoing e-mail messages through equipment leased from WorldCom.

WorldCom technicians were required to help the DEA install surveillance equipment that the agency had purchased and provided. Over the course of the wiretap, the government’s hardware vacuumed up over 1,200 e-mail messages from the targeted account. EarthLink did not respond to a request for comment this week.

TECH-articleLargeFISA gives the government a powerful club to wield against Internet companies. The law requires the firms to “furnish all information, facilities, or technical assistance necessary to accomplish the electronic surveillance” as long as it can be done with a “minimum of interference” with other users.

In another case that was closely watched within the industry, the FBI invoked similar language to force EarthLink to install a Carnivore network monitoring device, over the company’s strenuous objections. EarthLink challenged the surveillance order in court because it was concerned that Carnivore would vacuum up more user metadata than the court order authorized.

It lost. A federal magistrate judge sided with the government, despite the fact that “Carnivore would enable remote access to the ISP’s network and would be under the exclusive control of government agents,” Robert Corn-Revere, an attorney for EarthLink, told Congress at the time.

Those legal victories allowed the government to strong-arm Internet companies into reworking their systems to aid in surveillance — under the threat of having the FBI install NarusInsight or similar devices on their networks. “The government has a lot of leverage,” including contracts and licenses, said a representative for an Internet company. “There is a lot of pressure from them. Nobody is willingly going into this.”

Jennifer Granick, director of civil liberties at Stanford University’s Center for Internet and Society, said, referring to the government’s pressure tactics:

They can install equipment on the system. And I think that’s why companies are motivated to cooperate [and] use their own equipment to collect for the government. They would rather help than let any government equipment on their service, because then they lose oversight and control.

In 1994, then-President Bill Clinton signed into law the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, or CALEA, which required telephone companies to configure their systems to perform court-authorized lawful intercepts in a standard way. In 2004, that requirement was extended to cover broadband providers, but not Web companies.

A survey of earlier litigation shows, however, that the Justice Department was able to convince courts to force companies to take steps to permit surveillance through their networks long before CALEA became law.

In 1977, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that surveillance law is a “direct command to federal courts to compel, upon request, any assistance necessary to accomplish an electronic interception.”

Other courts followed suit. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit concluded in 1979 that the Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania must comply with a surveillance order because it would cause only “a minimal disruption of normal operations.” The Ninth Circuit ruled against Mountain Bell a year later, saying a surveillance order “recognized the practical fact that the actions ordered were technical ones which only that company could perform.”

If an Internet company offers encryption designed in such a way that even its engineers can’t access users’ files or communications, it would be unable to comply with a FISA or other surveillance order.

But with a few exceptions, such as SpiderOak and Fogpad, nearly all companies use encryption only in transit, meaning data stored on servers remains unencrypted.

That’s why Microsoft could be compelled to work with the NSA and the FBI’s Data Intercept Technology Unit to aid in surveillance of Outlook.com and Hotmail messages, a situation the Guardian disclosed yesterday, citing documents provided by Snowden.

Internet companies have, on occasion, created “teams of in-house experts” to figure out how to respond to FISA surveillance orders, The New York Times reported last month.

Microsoft’s engineers have quietly designed a system to comply with government orders, which manages to avoid having a surveillance device implanted on a internal network. (Microsoft declined to comment for this article.)

One case that used it arose out of a probe into illegal drug sales in Philadelphia. As part of that investigation, the government obtained a court order for a real-time wiretap against a Hotmail account.

Microsoft’s wiretap compliance system worked by forwarding a copy of two suspects’ e-mail messages to a “shadow account” located elsewhere on Hotmail’s servers. Each address under surveillance had a separate “shadow account” associated with it.

Every 15 minutes, an automated process logged in to these shadow accounts and transferred the retrieved e-mails into “case folders” on computers at a DEA office in Lorton, Va.

Homeland Security agents separately obtained a real-time wiretap of a Hotmail account used by a man suspected of possessing pornography involving minors. A case associated with that criminal prosecution, which might reveal more about surveillance techniques used by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, remains under seal in a New Jersey federal court.

A Google spokesman declined to say this week whether the company could comply with a wiretap order targeting a Google Hangout or Google Talk conversation.

The government’s ability to perform surveillance even when armed with a court order depends in large part on the decisions engineers made when designing a product. “Many implementations include an ability to monitor sessions as a debugging tool,” one government official said this week. “Depending on how things have been built, a real-time wiretap may be nothing more than turning that on. As an example, all enterprise-grade Ethernet switches include a monitor port — not because the FBI demands it, but because sysadmins need it.”

Christopher Soghoian, principal technologist for the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy and Technology Project, said the PRISM disclosures show Internet companies should embrace strong encryption for their users. “This is a place where the companies have an opportunity to do something that doesn’t hurt their ability to make money and [that wins] them praise,” he said.

LTC Dooley – Follow the rules, get thrown under the bus

Editor’s Note – The Obama administration again places the sensitivities of the un-American Muslims ahead of our soldiers. He is continually changing the very ethic of what it means to be a soldier for his religious and political fealty that belie his oath of office. Then again, it is now clearly evident that he never regarded the oath as sacred.

He holds these two aspects ahead of the Constitution and the security of the United States, just shameful!

U.S. Decorated Veteran: Tossed Under the Bus Because He DID Follow the Rules

By Katharine Russ – City Watch LA

RUSS REPORT – The saga of LTC Matthew Dooley, the Officer condemned for portraying Islam negatively, terminated from a teaching position and publicly scorned by high-ranking officials continues to suffer the “fall-out” from recklessly made decisions absent of any due process.

For over a year, Dooley’s career has been in limbo creating undue hardship for his family. Dooley

Earlier this year, a military corrections board consisting of 2 Generals and 3 Colonels, recommended Dooley be retained on the Army’s Battalion Command List. The newly confirmed Chief of the U.S. Central Command, General Lloyd J. Austin III, then Deputy Chief of Staff for the Army, overruled that approval. Austin ordered Dooley’s name to be taken off the list signaling what appears to be the end of a decorated career for Dooley.

Dooley was targeted for termination from a teaching post in the spring of 2012 for teaching an APPROVED course at the Joint Forces Staff College (JFSC), a branch of National Defense University (NDU).  (emphasis added)

Dooley took the course titled “Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism” in 2010 at the Joint Forces Staff College (JFSC) and shortly after, he was selected to teach the course.  “Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism” had been an approved elective course by the National Defense University (NDU) for over six years.

The curriculum and guest speakers had also been vetted by the school administration. This was again confirmed in writing by the NDU Deputy VP for Academic Affairs, Dr. Brenda Roth in December 2011.

His class garnered high praise from his Superiors, particularly the Commandant at JFSC who gave Dooley an outstanding Officer Evaluation Report (OER) and recommended Dooley for an immediate promotion.

It was a series of articles published by Wired Magazine (based in San Francisco, California)  prompted by a single student “whistleblower” who violated the “Non-Attribution” policy of NDU and was supposedly concerned over the use of “false and highly offensive training materials” towards Muslims and Islam that generated the much sensationalized publicity.

That publicity fuelled a letter to the White House, signed by 57 Muslim-American groups, including Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), known to have ties with Hamas that targeted the course taught by Dooley. Their October 19, 2011 letter demanded that all training materials offensive to Islam be scrubbed and instructors be effectively disciplined.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin Dempsey ordered a review of the instruction on April 24, 2012 that was allegedly “disrespectful of the Islamic religion” so to ensure “cultural sensitivity.”

Even before the “investigation” was concluded, Dempsey made it a point on a nationally broadcast Pentagon Press Conference on May 10, 2012 to personally attack Dooley and severely criticized his course as “objectionable, unprofessional, and “against our values.” He accused Dooley of formally advocating actions contrary to U.S. policy, despite a preliminary finding that confirmed the theoretical and conceptual notion of Dooley’s class. Dooley was relieved of his teaching assignment citing the negative way he portrayed Islam in the elective course.

Dempsey’s vicious national attack sparked threats against Dooley and his family and additional security measures had to be put in place for their protection.

Not long after Dempsey’s harsh criticism, Dooley received his first Negative OER, which, most likely, tarnished any opportunities for promotion.

In September 2012, the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) in Ann Arbor, Michigan took on Dooley as a client. Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel-TMLC expounded on Dooley’s distinguished career, saying, “Dooley, a combat veteran, was deployed to Bosnia, Kuwait, and Iraq for a total of six operational and combat tours over the course of his career. He attended the United States Military Academy at West Point, where he graduated and received his commission as a Second Lieutenant in May 1994.

“Dooley has served as a Tank Platoon Leader, Tank Company Executive Officer, Tank Company Commander, Headquarters Company Commander, Captains Career Course Small Group Instructor, Cavalry Squadron Operations Officer, Cavalry Squadron Executive Office, Regimental Plans Officer, Aide-de-Camp (to three separate General Officers), and Instructor at the Joint Combined Warfare School.

“He is a graduate of the Command and General Staff College as well as the Joint Forces Staff College.

“His awards and decorations include the Bronze Star Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal with two Oak Leaf Clusters, the Joint Service Commendation Medal, the Army Commendation Medal with three Oak Leaf Clusters, the Army Achievement Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal with Star, Medal, the Iraq Campaign Medal with Two Stars, both the Global War on Terrorism Service and Expeditionary Medals, the Armed Forces Service Medal, the NATO Medal, the Parachutist Badge, the Air-Assault Badge, and two Army Superior Unit Awards.”

In a letter to Dempsey dated October 10, 2012, Congressman Duncan Hunter (California-District 50) and Thomas Rooney (Florida-District 17) questioned Dempsey’s reasoning for such unprecedented punishment. “In his 18 year long career, LTC Dooley had never received a negative OER, until this year. In fact, his last five OER’s, prior to the ordered negative one, have all listed his performance as outstanding and best qualified.

“Since DoD (Dept. of Defense) had already directed NDU to cancel the JFSC elective, and LTC Dooley was then relieved as its instructor, we would like to know why the DoD was compelled to further discipline LTC Dooley by jeopardizing his reputation and his future in the service. It is our understanding that LTC Dooley did not violate any established University practices, policies or DoD regulations to merit a negative OER.”

On January 14, 2013, TMLC filed a complaint on behalf of Dooley with the Middle States Commission of Higher Education. Thompson pointed to NDU’s Regulations on Free Speech and Academic Freedom, which clearly states, “Academic freedom is not an indulgence but a necessity to realize the university’s aspirations. Academic freedom is therefore understood to be essential to the U.S. national interest, and upheld by the United States Supreme Court as a right protected by the First Amendment (Keyishian v. Board of Education, 385 U.S. 589-1967).

“The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, under provisions and requirements of Title 10, United States Code (USC), has directed the President of the NDU to establish a climate of academic freedom within the university to foster thorough and lively academic debate, and to examine national security issues. Non-attribution is a policy well entrenched at NDU. That is so to enable and encourage the university community and visiting guests to speak candidly. The university assures that nothing will be attributed to speakers directly or indirectly without their expressed permission.”

Thompson said, “In order to appease Muslims and the White House, General Dempsey and the Department of Defense rushed to punish LTC Dooley. In the process, they violated not only our Nation’s core principles of free speech and academic freedom guaranteed by our Constitution, but also, a number of the military’s own regulations dealing with academic freedom and non-attribution policies of the National Defense University (NDU) to which LTC Dooley was assigned. They violated the right to due process of law and even by-passed the University’s Provost, who under NDU’s own rules has primary responsibility for adjudication of this matter.”

Political “sensitivity” has run amok in this country and poses a dangerous environment for our soldiers still fighting Afghanistan, the security in other nations as well the security of our own country.  One need only point to the characterization of the Fort Hood massacre in which 13 people were killed and 30 injured as “workplace violence” and more recently, the events of Benghazi where U.S.

Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others were killed was described as a protest prompted by a video and the Boston Marathon Bombings where the Tsarnev brothers ties to a Chechnya militant jihadist insurgency were underscored. Even anthrax and ricin tainted letters sent to the White House and two others have been downplayed. Islamic Sharia Law prohibits criticism of Islam and notably appears to have a foothold within our nation’s highest offices.

Claire M. Lopez, a former CIA agent and strategic policy and intelligence expert, pointed this out months ago when she commented on General Dempsey’s order.

Lopez said, “The final bastion of America’s defense against Islamic jihad and sharia, the Pentagon, fell to the enemy in April 2012, with the issuance of a letter from General Martin E. Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, re-issuing his earlier order that all Department of Defense (DoD) course content be scrubbed to ensure no lingering remnant of disrespect to Islam. 

“All U.S. military Combatant Commands, Services, the National Guard Bureau and Joint Staff are under Dempsey’s Muslim Brotherhood-dictated orders to ensure that henceforth, no U.S. military course will ever again teach truth about Islam that the jihadist enemy finds offensive (or just too informative).

“To all intents and purposes, DoD Secretary Leon E. Panetta likewise has acquiesced to a Muslim Brotherhood takeover of U.S. military education.”

Calls to NDU were not returned.

Dooley remains on active duty and is not allowed to speak publicly on his case.

Obama delays ACA, is it legal, an end run around Congress and failure?

Editor’s Note – Unilaterally delaying PPACA implementation – is it legal? Can the President unilaterally change the implementation of a law passed by Congress?

That is the question, and though it means that ObamaCare was what we all knew, in deep, deep trouble, it’s puzzling at the same time and once again borders on the usurpation of power from a co-equal branch of government. He punted the Employer Mandate to 2015 unilaterally.

It is becoming clear, even to its backers, this law was a failure from day one. It was forced down our throats and now Obama wants to allow large businesses to delay one year in its mandatory aspects. Does this help or hinder employment questions? Does this mean individuals must still join starting in October while others get a reprieve?ObamaCareThumb

Either way, the storm is brewing and its a mess to say the least. It is also highly unfair and in the opinion of SUA, illegal and unconstitutional. Is this what Max Baucus meant when he said it was a train wreck? We think it is more than a train wreck, it is truly un-American and the worst train wreck in history.

‘Rule-of-law’ be damned – Obama will do whatever he wishes, but will Congress allow it? If there was ever a need and time to defund it all, it is now! What will Republicans do with this engraved invitation? It truly is a ‘shovel ready’ project – destined for the burial it deserves. Can we start digging now?

House to Investigate Decision to Delay Obamacare Employer Mandate

By Daniel Halper – Weekly Standard

The House of Representatives will investigate the Obama administration’s sudden decision to delay the employer mandate in Obamacare, leaders in the House Energy and Commerce Committee announced today.

“House Energy and Commerce Committee leaders today wrote to Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, and Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, requesting documents and information regarding the administration’s decision to delay full implementation of the health care law’s employer mandate for one year. The Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Tim Murphy (R-PA), has held a series of hearings on the president’s health care law and will examine the administration’s delay of the employer mandate in the coming weeks,” reads a press release from the committee.

“Just as the law was crafted out of sight from the American people, the administration is again taking care of some interests behind closed doors while struggling Americans are left to pay for the looming rate shock and grapple with the law’s complex mandates. Despite delays and missed deadlines, administration officials had repeatedly testified before Congress that they were still on schedule to implement the law. Yesterday, they admitted that wasn’t the case, and it’s clear we have no idea the full scope of delays and disarray that may be coming. The American public deserves answers,” said full committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI).

PPACAIn the letters to the administration, the committee leaders write, “This decision was made after ‘[the administration] heard concerns about the complexity of the requirements and the need for more time to implement them effectively.’ In the three years since the passage of the PPACA, we have heard similar complaints not only from business owners, but from state leaders, government watchdogs, and individual citizens as well.

As the Treasury Department statement makes clear, the administration has been ‘engaging in a dialogue with businesses’ and is pursuing changes in the law’s implementation and requirements based on their feedback. We note that these communications and the decision-making process related to the delay of certain aspects of the law have not been disclosed publicly. The acknowledgement that a delay in the law’s implementation is needed is completely at odds with previous statements made by administration officials.”

The administration’s abrupt decision has raised significant concerns about the full implementation of the law, what components may be delayed next, which parties are being consulted as part of the implementation process, and what the decision-making process is for these major changes to the legislation.The committee leaders are seeking documents and information “to better understand the process being used by this administration to determining which provisions of the law to implement, on what time-table, and the feedback upon which such decisions are being made.”

They have requested information regarding the individuals, companies, and organizations the administration was consulting with regarding the employer mandate and other provisions that may be delayed or modified. The leaders set a July 17, 2013, deadline for the administration to comply.