Bill To Get U.S. Out Of UN Introduced in House

Editor’s Note – The United States is responsible for almost one quarter of the U.N.’s funding and taxpayers have the pleasure of supporting some of our biggest enemies, and those of our allies, most especially Israel.

The “Dictators Club” is rife with rip-offs, fraud, and scandals that reach back decades, yet we furnish the location as well.

We could not agree more with Rep. Mike Rogers, R-AL for filing legislation to leave the UN and in our opinion, move the entire operation to some place in West Africa where Ebola is rife.U.N.me_poster

How about a stellar member of the “Community of Nations” like Zimbabwe where scandal is the common sport of people like Robert Mugabe. Remember the “Oil for Food” program/scandal for Iraq under Saddam Hussein and former Secretary General Boutros Boutros Ghali?

How about those sexual abuse scandals, or the perennial money abyss of UNRWA in Gaza, and its complicity with Hamas?

Then there are all those commissions, like the human rights scandals and the hypocritical way Israel is always targeted and how the UN always works against American interests and rights!

It is worthy to once again view the movie “U.N. Me” by Ami Horowitz.

The movie exposes many of the scandals and is a MUST SEE if you have not seen it yet. After you review it, call your Congressman to support Rep. Rogers’ bill.

The list goes on and on, ship it out!

Congressman Mike Rogers Introduces Bill to Get U.S. Out of UN

By Alex Newman – The New American

Citing wasted tax dollars and attacks on the constitutionally guaranteed liberties of the American people, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) introduced a bill to restore U.S. sovereignty and withdraw from the United Nations.

The effort to de-fund and exit the UN comes amid growing scrutiny of the global organization, often ridiculed as the “dictators club,” and myriad mega-scandals swirling around it.

However, despite ever-growing support in Congress for restoring U.S. sovereignty by withdrawing from the UN over the years, the legislation still faces an uphill battle.

In a statement last week announcing the American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2015 (H.R. 1205), Rep. Rogers noted that many of his constituents in East Alabama would likely agree with his position that U.S. government participation in the UN should end immediately.

“The U.N. continues to prove it’s an inefficient bureaucracy and a complete waste of American tax dollars,” the congressman said, echoing widespread concerns about the international outfit expressed across America and worldwide.

“Why should the American taxpayer bankroll an international organization that works against America’s interests around the world?” asked Rep. Rogers. “The time is now to restore and protect American sovereignty and get out of the United Nations.” He cited attacks on U.S. liberties as a key motivation for the legislation.

Several other liberty-minded congressmen have also sponsored the legislation including constitutionalist Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), Rep. John Duncan (R-Tenn.), Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.), and Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.).

A previous bill to withdraw from the UN introduced in the last Congress by then-Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) garnered nine co-sponsors. With the regime ruling Communist China increasingly taking a leading role at the UN, among numerous other concerns, opposition to the global body is expected to continue growing.

Get-Us-Out.635

If approved, the legislation would repeal the UN Participation Act of 1945 and shutter the U.S. government’s mission to the outfit. It would also “terminate all membership by the United States in the United Nations, and in any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other formally affiliated body of the United Nations.”

That specifically includes UNESCO, which President Ronald Reagan withdrew from, along with the World Health Organization, the UN Environment Program (UNEP), and more. It would end all U.S. involvement in all UN conventions and agreements, too.

The proposed law, introduced in numerous legislative session of Congress in recent decades, would also end all funding to the UN and all of its agencies — with the estimated savings to taxpayers reaching into the billions per year, and potentially even more.

The legislation also aims to end all U.S. military involvement in UN military “peacekeeping” schemes and ban U.S. troops from serving under UN command. Finally, the bill would seek to evict the UN and its dictator-infested headquarters from U.S. soil.

It would also ban any use of American government facilities by the global outfit, while stripping UN bureaucrats and dignitaries of diplomatic immunity.

Rep. Rogers pointed to a wide range of reasons why the U.S. should dump the UN. “Although the United States makes up almost a quarter of the U.N.’s annual budget, the U.N. has attempted a number of actions that attack our rights as U.S. citizens,” he explained.

“To name a few, these initiatives include actions like the Law of the Sea Treaty, which would subject our country to internationally-based environmental mandates, costing American businesses more money, or the U.N.’s work to re-establish an international regulation regime on global warming which would heavily target our fossil fuels.”

Indeed, especially in recent years, the UN has become increasingly brazen in attacking the rights of Americans, and even the U.S. Constitution that enshrines those unalienable rights.

From attacks on free speech and gun rights to assaults on America’s federalist system of government and states’ rights, the UN and its member regimes have become increasingly aggressive.

Now, the UN is working on a series of major schemes that would undermine even the principles upon which the United States was founded, much of it under the guise of promoting pseudo-human rights and pseudo-environmentalism.

Rep. Rogers took special aim at a UN gun treaty that has become a lightning rod for bipartisan opposition across America.

“The U.N. has also offered a potential Arms Trade Treaty which would threaten our Second Amendment rights and impose regulations on our gun manufacturers, who are already facing regulations and pressure from the Obama Administration,” Rogers explained.

That treaty, ATT for short, would purport to require gun registration and eventually strict controls, with the ultimate aim of disarming civilians.

The UN’s perceived anti-Israel bias, which some critics have even dubbed systemic anti-Semitism, also attracted criticism from Rep. Rogers. “Lastly, the U.N. does not support Israel and voted to grant the Palestinian Authority ‘non-member state’ permanent observer status,” he argued.

“Anyone who is not a friend to our ally Israel, is not a friend to the United States.” Even some globalist neo-con senators such as Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) have threatened the UN over its apparent hostility to Israel, and the outrage continues to grow.

For the reasons cited above, “among others,” Rep. Rogers said, he introduced the American Sovereignty Restoration Act. By introducing the bill in this session, the congressman from Alabama continues the long and valiant effort by lawmakers to get the U.S. government out of the UN.

Former Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), a GOP presidential candidate last election and a hero of many liberty-minded and constitutionalist Americans, first introduced the bill in 1997, when it garnered 54 supporters. The next time it was voted on, support had drastically increased.

While anti-UN sentiment is fierce and growing across much of America, in Alabama, where the legislation’s lead sponsor comes from, that animosity is especially pronounced.

In 2012, for example, both houses of the state legislature voted unanimously to ban the deeply controversial UN “sustainable development” program known as Agenda 21 in what was hailed as a major victory for property rights and sovereignty.

Since then, UN meddling in American affairs has accelerated dramatically, sparking even more outrage about the global organization across Alabama and beyond.

In the U.S. Senate, pro-sovereignty sentiment is also growing. Earlier this year, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a leading contender for the 2016 nomination, blasted the UN and suggested it should be dismantled.

“I dislike paying for something that two-bit Third World countries with no freedom attack us and complain about the United States,” explained the senator, who is also Ron Paul’s son. “There’s a lot of reasons why I don’t like the UN, and I think I’d be happy to dissolve it.”

The American public generally shares those sentiments, with a 2014 Gallup poll showing that a staggering 57 percent of Americans believed the UN was doing a “bad job,” versus 37 percent who thought it was doing a “good job.”

More than two thirds of Americans were upset with the UN, and independents were also overwhelmingly opposed. But even among Democrats, half thought the UN was doing a bad job.

The Obama administration, meanwhile, apparently out of step with the American people, has called for drastically expanding and empowering the UN and its scandal-plagued military forces.

The legislation to withdraw U.S. participation in the UN is currently sitting in the House Foreign Affairs Committee chaired by Rep. Edward “Ed” Royce (R-Calif.), who will play a key role in deciding whether it moves on to the full House for a vote by the American people’s elected representatives.

Americans who support U.S. sovereignty and the U.S. Constitution should urge their representatives to take action.

As efforts to fully restore U.S. sovereignty proceed, though, the Republican Congress should completely de-fund the UN in the meantime.

Without action, the increasingly powerful and lawless UN will continue seeking to further empower itself at American expense — trampling on liberty and sovereignty in the process.


End Note – The image below shows just how vast the UN is and much is headquartered in the USA. To see a much larger version, click here:

UNworld-government.1280

Boehner and McConnell Speak – Mr. Obama, it's about the People

Editor’s Note – As many pundits agreed, the President’s response to the historical drubbing his party took on Tuesday  was dubious at best. He spoke about hearing the 2/3 of America that spoke by staying home instead of the ones that actually voted. It was almost contempt for the people to swat away how the elections turned out. This was clearly a repudiation of you Mr. Obama.

He talked about working together with Congress and his tone sounded conciliatory, but his words belied all. He said he does not read the tea leaves of elections yet he spiked the football in the past telling America that “elections have consequences!” Now, not so much? Mr. Obama – you and Harry Reid were basically handed your hats.

Obama seems to think that Congress now owes him something it appeared from his presser. He wants Congress to give him their plans and ideas, as if that is how it is supposed to work. Unfortunately, his edicts to Congress means he is telling the Americans they represent that he is still going to do what he feels is necessary – alone.

Boehner speaks to the President - for 'We The People' about the results of election 2014
Boehner speaks to the President – for ‘We The People’ about the results of election 2014

Yesterday, newly reelected and presumptive Majority Leader of the Senate for the 114th Congress, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner today, each spoke in tones not heard in years and rang out clear as a bell. Mr. Obama, your policies are what are on trial here, not Congress’.

It is very difficult to know exactly how bad things were in the Senate behind closed doors, and how difficult it was to stay civil with Harry Reid and other shrill Democrat Senators. Many got mad that he did not fight back more fiercely and that Boehner was too timid. In January, we will see for ourselves how their metal is forged.

Since we have never had enough power against Obama’s policies, now we get to see the forces come to bear on him, not on the people anymore. We at SUA have been critical of Boehner and McConnell in the past, now we hope we were incorrect. We like the initial statements, now we get to see how they will proceed.

Several times Boehner pointed out to the President, that they were going to do the will of the people, that is their job.

Mr. Obama, America spoke loud and clear, liberal policies and go-it-alone strategies and policies are unwelcome – this rang true not only in the US Congress, but even more clearly in Governor’s offices and Statehouses across the land. America was seeing red, and now America is painted red once again.

‘Republicans had a good night’ is the best you can say? No, America had a GREAT night. McConnell: “Trust but verify” is the start, let’s see what Obama does now and if he burns his fingers for ‘playing with matches’ as Boehner said.

John Boehner Strikes Combative Tone

House Speaker Puts Onus on Obama to Work With Republicans

By Michael Crittenden – WSJ

Washington—House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) struck a combative tone Thursday in his first post election comments, vowing the House would again vote to repeal the federal health-care law and warning the White House from “poisoning the well” on immigration.

The  presumptive new Majority Leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell - Harry Reid, you got fired!
The presumptive new Majority Leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell – Harry Reid, you’ve been fired!

Emboldened by electoral victories that allowed Republicans to take control of the Senate, Mr. Boehner put the onus on President Barack Obama to work with Republicans now that they will control both the House and Senate in the new year.

“Finding common ground is going to be hard work, but it will be even harder if the president isn’t willing to work with us,” Mr. Boehner said in a news conference on Capitol Hill.

Mr. Boehner specifically warned Mr. Obama from taking executive action to address problems with the immigration system. Such a move could ruin any chances of lawmakers taking on a broad overhaul of a system the Ohio Republican said is not working.

“If the president continues to act on his own, he’s going to poison the well,” Mr. Boehner said. “When you play with matches, you take the risk of burning yourself, and he’s going to burn himself if he continues to go down this path.”

Mr. Boehner laid out a number of items on Republicans’ wish list to address when the new Congress begins its term in January. Mr. Boehner said lawmakers will work on approval of the Keystone XL pipeline, an overhaul of the tax code, and a number of bills related to the economy that the House has voted on and passed this year.

Additionally, he said Republicans would continue to try and repeal Mr. Obama’s signature achievement in office, the Affordable Care Act.

“Obamacare is hurting our economy, is hurting middle class families,” Mr. Boehner said. “It should be repealed and it should be replaced with common sense reforms. Whether that can pass the Senate I don’t know, but I know in the House it will pass.”

Credibility in DC, Obama's is melting but he is not alone

Editor’s Note – Credibility – the term should be on the tip of everyone’s tongue and the question in everybody’s ears as Obama or anyone speaks in DC, on any subject. There simply is no credibility in the Oval Office and in a lot of offices in Congress.

From Fast & Furious, to the IRS Scandal, to the NSA Scandal, to the “Grenade Walking” follow-on from Fast & Furious, to the complete flip flops on the debt ceiling, to the promises broken and the disastrous failure that was the roll-out on Obamacare – credibility?

Ask the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee as they have to handle people in all the many scandals like Kathleen Sebelius, Lois Lerner, Eric Holder, National Parks Director Jonathan Jarvis, and Hillary Clinton, et al.

Ask the Saudis about credibility, ask the Israelis, ask the Syrian freedom fighters, ask German Chancellor Angela Merkel, ask the Brazilians, ask the French – credibility? Ask MG Vallely who wrote on this very subject many times as well.

This is only a short and incomplete list of the administration’s failures, but first and foremost, ask the families of the lost heroes of Benghazi – CREDIBILITY?

Obama and his entire team, including his sycophants, apologists, and surrogates – zero credibility. How can anyone defend anything the Obama administration has done with a straight face anymore – it defies all credulity. These were the very people who blamed the “shutdown” on Ted Cruz and the Tea Party – again zero credibility, but they are not the only ones to question.

What is worse to many including SUA though are the many establishment Republicans who cried that what Ted Cruz did ruined their plan for recapturing the power in DC, it was the wrong tactic. Their credibility is also suspect now. At least in the House there were many votes to keep the government from partially closing, but establishment folks called Cruz and others names, just as the left did.

The abysmal Obamacare roll-out shows that what Ted Cruz and the Tea Party wanted was correct – to save Americans from this imminent train wreck, one aimed at the American citizenry, and now John McCain wants to run for President again – credibility?

And then there are the democrats who are seeking reelection in 2014 now pushing for exactly what Cruz and the Tea Party wanted – a delay and fairness at a minimum – will we see them flip flop more as Obamacare disintegrates before our eyes as well?

Train_Wreck

Henninger: Obama’s Credibility Is Melting

Here and abroad, Obama’s partners are concluding they cannot trust him.

By Daniel Henninger – WSJ Online

The collapse of ObamaCare is the tip of the iceberg for the magical Obama presidency.

From the moment he emerged in the public eye with his 2004 speech at the Democratic Convention and through his astonishing defeat of the Clintons in 2008, Barack Obama’s calling card has been credibility. He speaks, and enough of the world believes to keep his presidency afloat. Or used to.

All of a sudden, from Washington to Riyadh, Barack Obama’s credibility is melting.

Amid the predictable collapse the past week of HealthCare.gov’s too-complex technology, not enough notice was given to Sen. Marco Rubio‘s statement that the chances for success on immigration reform are about dead. Why? Because, said Sen. Rubio, there is “a lack of trust” in the president’s commitments.

“This notion that they’re going to get in a room and negotiate a deal with the president on immigration,” Sen. Rubio said Sunday on Fox News, “is much more difficult to do” after the shutdown negotiations of the past three weeks.

Sen. Rubio said he and other reform participants, such as Idaho’s Rep. Raul Labrador, are afraid that if they cut an immigration deal with the White House—say, offering a path to citizenship in return for strong enforcement of any new law—Mr. Obama will desert them by reneging on the enforcement.

When belief in the average politician’s word diminishes, the political world marks him down and moves away. With the president of the United States, especially one in his second term, the costs of the credibility markdown become immeasurably greater. Ask the Saudis.

Last weekend the diplomatic world was agog at the refusal of Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah to accept a seat on the U.N. Security Council. Global disbelief gave way fast to clear understanding: The Saudis have decided that the United States is no longer a reliable partner in Middle Eastern affairs.

The Saudi king, who supported Syria’s anti-Assad rebels early, before Islamic jihadists polluted the coalition, watched Mr. Obama’s red line over Assad’s use of chemical weapons disappear into an about-face deal with Vladimir Putin. The next time King Abdullah looked up, Mr. Obama was hanging the Saudis out to dry yet again by phoning up Iran’s President Hasan Rouhani, Assad’s primary banker and armorer, to chase a deal on nuclear weapons. Within days, Saudi Arabia’s intelligence chief, Prince Bandar, let it be known that the Saudis intend to distance themselves from the U.S.

What is at issue here is not some sacred moral value, such as “In God We Trust.” Domestic politics or the affairs of nations are not an avocation for angels. But the coin of this imperfect realm is credibility. Sydney Greenstreet’s Kasper Gutman explained the terms of trade in “The Maltese Falcon”: “I must tell you what I know, but you won’t tell me what you know. That is hardly equitable, sir. I don’t think we can do business along those lines.”

Bluntly, Mr. Obama’s partners are concluding that they cannot do business with him. They don’t trust him. Whether it’s the Saudis, the Syrian rebels, the French, the Iraqis, the unpivoted Asians or the congressional Republicans, they’ve all had their fill of coming up on the short end with so mercurial a U.S. president. And when that happens, the world’s important business doesn’t get done. It sits in a dangerous and volatile vacuum.

The next major political event in Washington is the negotiation over spending, entitlements and taxes between House budget chairman Paul Ryan and his Senate partner, Patty Murray. The bad air over this effort is the same as that Marco Rubio says is choking immigration reform: the fear that Mr. Obama will urge the process forward in public and then blow up any Ryan-Murray agreement at the 11th hour with deal-killing demands for greater tax revenue.

Then there is Mr. Obama’s bond with the American people, which is diminishing with the failed rollout of the Affordable Care ActObamaCare is the central processing unit of the Obama presidency’s belief system. Now the believers are wondering why the administration suppressed knowledge of the huge program’s problems when hundreds of tech workers for the project had to know this mess would happen Oct. 1.

Rather than level with the public, the government’s most senior health-care official, Kathleen Sebelius, spent days spewing ludicrous and incredible happy talk about the failure, while refusing to provide basic information about its cause.

Voters don’t normally accord politicians unworldly levels of belief, but it has been Barack Obama’s gift to transform mere support into victorious credulousness. Now that is crumbling, at great cost. If here and abroad, politicians, the public and the press conclude that Mr. Obama can’t play it straight, his second-term accomplishments will lie only in doing business with the world’s most cynical, untrustworthy partners. The American people are the ones who will end up on the short end of those deals.

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.

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.