Categories
Archives
Please donate any amount you can to help us try to recover legal costs in defending liberty and the right of free speech !

EXHAUSTED

Exhausted-NRD-600

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal says Common Core is an Illegal “Scheme”

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, locked in multiple legal battles with his own school board over Common Core education standards, has has made a new, ambitious legal claim.Bobby

Common Core, he says, is not merely bad policy, but a violation of federal law. It’s an allegation that could encourage lawsuits against the standards in other states currently implementing the standards.

In a brief submitted Wednesday as part of a lawsuit against Louisiana’s Board for Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE), Jindal’s attorneys claim that a consortium used to create multistate standardized tests aligned with Common Core was transformed into a cudgel to force states to obey federal edicts on education.

The Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) is a consortium of more than a dozen states who are working together to create common assessments built around Common Core. Louisiana was an early member of the consortium, and until two months ago was preparing to use PARCC materials for the state’s 2015 standardized tests.

Such plans collapsed into chaos, though, when Jindal issued a set of executive orders declaring that the state’s contract with PARCC violated state law and required the creation of a brand new contract to craft standardized tests, which Jindal said should not be aligned with Common Core. BESE has alleged that Jindal’s actions are illegal, and has vowed to continue forward with Common Core-derived tests while joining a lawsuit against the governor.

“Simply put, PARCC is the implementation platform for a carefully orchestrated federal scheme to supervise, direct and control educational curriculum, programs of instruction and instructional materials in direct violation of federal law,” the report argues.

PARCC’s creation, as well as the creation of the Smarter Balanced consortium (which serves the same purpose but has different members), was enabled through grants by the federal government through the Race to the Top program. That federal involvement, Jindal’s team argues, irretrievably taints the organization as well as Common Core more broadly, even though the government was not directly involved with the standards’ creation. commoncoreThe Department of Education Organization Act (DOEA) and other federal laws, they say, explicitly bar the Department of Education from taking actions that increase federal control over education.

“Race to [the] Top…effectively coopted Common Core for the federal government, attempting to accomplish indirectly through economic coercion that which the federal government is prohibited from accomplishing directly,” the brief argues.

Wednesday’s brief is an effort to obtain a preliminary injunction against using PARCC materials while Jindal’s lawsuit is litigated. Using PARCC materials, the brief says, would cause “irreparable harm created by the unlawful exercise of federal control of education in Louisiana.”

Jindal’s argument is not limited to Louisiana, and if it finds traction in court it could encourage legal challenges to the standards in many other states.

PARCC fired off a statement on Wednesday evening to dispute the Jindal administration’s claims. Calling it a federal organization, it said, was completely untrue, because the organization is completely controlled at the state level.

“The education chiefs in each of the member states comprise the Governing Board of the consortium and make all decisions,” the PARCC statement said. The statement also asserts that the final authority to implement any standards or assessments always lies with state and local authorities.

By Blake Neff from the Daily Caller News Foundation…

Read more at http://lastresistance.com/6799/louisiana-governor-bobby-jindal-says-common-core-illegal-scheme/#jPbLkCjG1cPviqLQ.99

Cafeteria Workers Say Kids Don’t Want Michelle Obama’s Lunches, Sales Down in 49 States

6277240734_75d5a813f9-220x120

by Paul Bedard

School cafeteria workers, already frustrated that kids don’t like menus ordered by Michelle Obama and the Agriculture Department, slapped as “offensive” the first lady’s latest criticism that some school districts have given up and are just lazily serving junk food.

“It is offensive to America’s frontline cafeteria professionals to say that those who struggle with the national decline in school lunch participation have simply said, ‘Well, the kids like junk food, so let’s just give ‘em junk food,’ ” said Patti Montague, chief executive of the School Nutrition Association, in a letter to the White House.

“Our members are not offering their students junk food,” she added in the letter, the latest by the group to get the first lady’s attention to the huge drop in school lunch participation due to the awful taste and higher costs of the foods now pushed by Obama.

At a White House event earlier this week, the first lady praised school districts that are offering the healthy menus — and took a shot at those who aren’t.

“In a number of school districts, participation in the lunch program has actually risen. And there’s a simple reason for that: It’s because those districts actually put some effort into marketing the new meals to the kids. They didn’t just sit back and say, well, the kids like junk food so let’s just give them junk food,” she said.
That was too much for Montague and her 55,000-member association. “I write in disappointment regarding your July 22nd comments disparaging school nutrition professionals who work hard every day, despite limited resources and overwhelming regulatory challenges, to serve healthy, appealing school meals that help students succeed in the classroom,” she wrote.

Her group has been trying to get a meeting with the first lady to win changes to new school lunch nutrition rules that have led to a drop in student participation in 49 states, according to the Agriculture Department.

“USDA’s data points to a national problem under the new standards, and it is not, as you imply, simply because schools have failed to ‘put some effort into marketing the new meals to the kids,’ ” said Montague.

At a Senate hearing this week, the president of the School Nutrition Association detailed the problems school cafeterias are facing under the new standards and warned that as kids turn their noses up and refuse to buy lunches, funds to pay for expensive new menus are drying up.

“Despite our best efforts to make meals more appealing, schools nationwide have also struggled with student acceptance of new menu options. As of July 1, all grains offered with school meals must be whole grain rich, but many schools have been challenged to find whole grain rich tortillas, biscuits, crackers and other specialty items that appeal to students,” said Julia Bauscher.

“We’ve heard students complain that their pastas and breads are burnt or tough or taste strange, and indeed, these whole grain rich foods do have a different texture, appearance and flavor than what students might find at home or in their favorite restaurants,” she told the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry.

Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner’s “Washington Secrets” columnist, can be contacted at pbedard@washingtonexaminer.com.

Corruption At The FCC? TV Execs Donate To Dem Lawmaker, Get Million-Dollar Rule Exception


A single television station has been granted a significant exception to the Federal Communications Commission’s upcoming broadcast spectrum overhaul — a station whose operators made joint campaign contributions to a key lawmaker with oversight authority over the FCC.

House Energy & Commerce Committee Ranking Democrat Henry Waxman — who oversees the FCC — received more than $12,000 in campaign contributions from three television executives in danger of losing broadcast rights after their company missed a crucial agency deadline. The company was subsequently granted the sole exception to the FCC’s rule.

“The timing of the campaign donations is very suspicious,” a source at the FCC familiar with the spectrum deliberations told The Daily Caller. “It appears that you can buy special favors from the FCC worth millions of dollars by giving money to Democrats. Would the result have been the same if the company’s executives were Republican donors? I doubt it.”

In May the FCC finalized plans to hold a spectrum incentive auction, the goal of which is to free up and transition broadcast television ultra-high frequency spectrum space over to the growing mobile broadband services market.

Starting sometime in mid-2015, TV broadcasters will have the opportunity to sell spectrum back to the commission, which will then re-sell it to wireless carriers. Broadcasters choosing not to sell will be repacked (or moved to different spectrum) in order to stay in business.

The central question facing broadcasters is who will be eligible for auction participation, and who will be eligible for repacking in the event they fail to sell their spectrum.

That decision will be left up to the commission based on three FCC broadcast power and classification distinctions — “Class A” and “Full-Power Stations,” which will be eligible for auction participation or repacking, and “Low-Power Stations,” which will be ineligible for auction participation.

Full-Power Stations cover large broadcast ranges and must meet certain public interest requirements. Low-Power Stations cover smaller, more-localized areas and are exempt from those requirements. Class A Stations are former Low-Power Stations that received full-power status by filing an application with the commission, and meeting the public interest protocols.

Class A and Full-Power Stations will either receive millions of dollars by selling their spectrum to the FCC or stay in the television business via new, repacked spectrum, whereas Low-Power Stations are not guaranteed spectrum after the auction — meaning if there’s no room left, they’ll be forced off the air.

That makes the distinction between Class A and Low-Power Stations worth, literally, millions of dollars more for the former.

The commission released its adopted incentive auction rules in June, which established a simple rule: All Low-Power Stations that failed to file applications to become Class A Stations by February 22, 2012 (the date the law authorizing the incentive auction was enacted) would be ineligible to participate in the auction, or be protected through repacking.

All except one – a local station based in Los Angeles, which received a special exception to the rule.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/20/corruption-at-the-fcc-tv-execs-donate-to-dem-lawmaker-get-million-dollar-rule-exception/#ixzz3BV1m69Ui

MUSLIM JOHN BRENNAN

by Dee Fatouros

Brennan speaks in the White House Briefing Room in Washington
This man is a danger to America simply because, IF he is a true “believer” he cannot serve this country’s national interest and follow Islam.
If he appears to be doing so, he is practicing Taquia–which is a provision in Islam to lie under 3 conditions including advancing the cause of Allah and to deceive your enemies. So, it is very hard to trust Muslims because you don’t know if they are saying what they really believe or they are lying to the Westerners because they are in a weaker stage of Jihad (the stage of El-estedaaf), but they can change when they are in a stronger position to fight and express their true feelings.source

“A Fox New’s report, titled “Counterterror Adviser Defends Jihad as ‘Legitimate Tenet of Islam,’” has the details:
During a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, John Brennan described violent extremists as victims of “political, economic and social forces,” but said that those plotting attacks on the United States should not be described in “religious terms.”
In other words, despite the fact that Islamists describe all their goals in “religious terms,” Brennan sees them as naught more than victims of the system. And why is that? Because Brennan believes that “political, economic and social forces”—the three I specifically stressed in my excerpt above—are the only precipitators to violence. So jihadis can openly articulate their violent bloodlust through religious terms all they want, it matters not: Brennan and his ilk have their intellectual blinders shut tight and refuse to venture outside the box.”source

From Discover The Networks
Longtime CIA official
Converted to Islam while serving in an official capacity on the behalf of the U.S. in Saudi Arabia
Served as a senior advisor to Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign
Said in 2009 that he was “pleased to see that a lot of Hezbollah individuals are in fact renouncing … terrorism and violence and are trying to participate in the political process in a very legitimate fashion”
Believes that tactics like waterboarding are not only inconsistent with “our ideals as a nation,” but also “undermine our national security” because they “are a recruitment bonanza for terrorists”
Explains that “jihad” means “to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal”
Supports trials of Islamic terrorists in civilian courts rather than in military tribunals
In 2011, he called for the FBI to eliminate its “offensive” curriculum/training materials which made reference to “jihad” and “radical Islam.”
Was involved in crafting the false talking points that then-Secretary of State Susan Rice gave regarding the 9/11/12 terrorist attack against a U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi
Was appointed as CIA director by President Barack Obama in 2013
Also in 1980, Brennan joined the CIA as an intelligence director, and in the ’90s he served a stint as a daily intelligence briefer for President Bill Clinton. According to one former CIA official, Brennan in 1998 was “instrumental in preventing … an operation … that would have killed or captured Osama bin Laden,” and instead advised the U.S. to “trust the Saudis to take care of” the al Qaeda leader.
In 1999, CIA director George Tenet appointed Brennan as his chief of staff. From March 2001 until 2003, Brennan served as the CIA’s deputy executive director. In 2003-04 he headed the newly created Terrorist Threat Integration Center, and in 2004-05 he directed the National Counterterrorism Center. In 2005 Brennan left government to become CEO of the Analysis Corporation, a Virginia company that supported the federal government’s counterterrorism efforts. He also chaired the Intelligence and National Security Alliance.
In a 2006 interview on C-SPAN, Brennan said: “It would be nice to be able to put Hizballah [Hezbollah] in a category of being totally evil, but Hezbollah as an organization is a very complex one that has a terrorist arm to it. It has a social and political nature to it as well.”
When news of the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping initiative made headlines in late 2005, Brennan defended the practice and maintained that the telecommunication companies participating in the program “should be granted … immunity, because they were told to [participate] by the appropriate authorities that were operating in a legal context.” Brennan also supported “enhanced interrogation” techniques and described “extraordinary rendition” as “an absolutely vital tool” that “without a doubt has been very successful as far as producing intelligence that has saved lives.” in a 2007 interview with CBS News, Brennan stated that waterboarding in particular was a highly useful practice: “There has been a lot of information that has come out from these interrogation procedures that the agency [CIA] has, in fact, used against the real hard-core terrorists. It has saved lives.”

Brennan subsequently departed from these positions when he served as a senior advisor to Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. In a letter to Obama, for example, Brennan called himself “a strong opponent of many of the policies of the Bush administration, such as the preemptive war in Iraq and coercive interrogation tactics, to include waterboarding.”

In a paper he published in July 2008, Brennan called on U.S. officials to “cease public Iran-bashing,” and advised the U.S. to “tolerate, and even … encourage, greater assimilation of Hizballah into Lebanon’s political system, a process that is subject to Iranian influence.” Such political participation, he maintained, was an indication that Hizballah was turning away from terrorism:

“Not coincidentally, the evolution of Hizballah into a fully vested player in the Lebanese political system has been accompanied by a marked reduction in terrorist attacks carried out by the organization. The best hope for maintaining this trend and for reducing the influence of violent extremists within the organization—as well as the influence of extremist Iranian officials who view Hizballah primarily as a pawn of Tehran—is to increase Hizballah’s stake in Lebanon’s struggling democratic processes.”[1]

In that same 2008 paper, Brennan endorsed direct political and diplomatic engagement with Iran despite its status as the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. Writes terrorism expert Steven Emerson: “He [Brennan] minimized the threat of Iran’s nuclear weapons program and blamed American rhetoric as ‘brash labeling’ for hardening Tehran’s position toward the United States.”

After Barack Obama’s election victory in 2008, Brennan was widely regarded as the leading contender for the position of CIA director, but he withdrew his name from consideration when alalysts noted that his previous support of enhanced interrogation was inconsistent with Obama’s stated opposition to the practice. In January 2009, Obama appointed Brennan as deputy national security adviser for counterterrorism—a post that, unlike CIA director, did not require Senate confirmation.

In August 2009 Brennan said that tactics like waterboarding were not only inconsistent with “our ideals as a nation,” but also “undermine our national security” because they “are a recruitment bonanza for terrorists, increase the determination of our enemies, and decrease the willingness of other nations to cooperate with us.” Further, Brennan detailed for the first time the Obama administration’s decision to dispense with the term “global war on terror.” Emphasizing the need to target “extremists” rather than “jihadists,” he explained that “jihad” means “to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal.” The use of that term, Brennan elaborated, “risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve. Worse, it risks reinforcing the idea that the United States is somehow at war with Islam itself.” Adding that it was vital “to confront the broader political, economic and social conditions in which extremists thrive,” Brennan called terrorism “the final murderous manifestation of a long process rooted in hopelessness, humiliation, and hatred.”

Also in August 2009, Brennan said he was “pleased to see that a lot of Hezbollah individuals are in fact renouncing … terrorism and violence and are trying to participate in the political process in a very legitimate fashion.” “Hamas,” he added, had “started out as a very focused social organization that was providing welfare to Palestinians,” but eventually “developed an extremist and terrorist element” that “unfortunately delegitimized it in the eyes of many” and diminished the chances of the Palestinian people getting “what they truly deserve, which is a Palestinian state side-by-side with Israel.” Nation reporter Robert Dreyfuss, meanwhile, revealed that Brennan had once told him that (as Dreyfuss paraphrased): “talking to Hamas and Hezbollah is the right thing to do.”

On Christmas Day 2009, Nigerian al Qaeda operative Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted, unsuccessfully, to blow up a Northwest Airlines flight (from Amsterdam to Detroit) in midair with a powerful chemical bomb. In the aftermath of the incident, Brennan explained that the Obama administration would treat it as a law-enforcement matter rather than as an act of war or terrorism; that the perpetrator would be offered a plea agreement in exchange for information about al Qaeda operations in Yemen; and that if such an agreement could not be worked out, Abdulmutallab would be tried in a federal court rather than a military tribunal. When some commentators subsequently complained that Abdulmutallab’s name had never been added to the U.S. “no-fly” list even though his own father had warned CIA officials of his son’s radicalization, Brennan claimed that their “politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering” would “only serve the goals of al-Qaeda.”

Brennan sought to try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in a civilian court as well, stating, in a February 2010 speech to Islamic law students at New York University, that “we need to bring him to justice in an American court”—a goal the Obama administration eventually abandoned, due to the plan’s unpopularity with the public. Also during his NYU speech, Brennan referred to Jerusalem by its Arabic name, “Al-Quds”; stated that the 20% recidivism rate of former Guantanamo detainees “isn’t that bad” when compared to criminal recidivism trends generally; asserted that “while poverty and lack of opportunity do not cause terrorism, it is obvious that the lack of education, of basic human services and hope for the future make vulnerable populations more susceptible to ideologies of violence and death”; and called Hezbollah “a very interesting organization” whose “more moderate elements” the U.S. should strive to “build up.”[2]

Three months later, Brennan again said the Obama administration was trying to establish a positive relationship with “moderate elements” of Hezbollah.

Around the time of his NYU speech in 2010, Brennan met privately with the founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, Salam al-Marayati, who views Hamas and Hezbollah as political and “educational” organizations that engage in “legitimate resistance.” After the meeting, MPAC claimed credit for the Obama administration’s decision to, as MPAC put it: “rejec[t] the label of ‘jihadist’ to describe terrorists, because it legitimates violent extremism with religious validation, a point MPAC made in its 2003 policy paper on counterterrorism.”

When reporter Patrick Poole in September 2010 revealed that under Brennan’s watch, a known, high-level Hamas official in the U.S. had received a guided tour of the top-secret National Counterterrorism Center and FBI Academy at Quantico, Virginia, several former intelligence and defense officials called for Brennan to resign.

Speaking in June 2011 about how the Obama administration would deal with terrorism following the recent death of Osama bin Laden, Brennan dismissed any notion that Islamic terrorists might attempt to build a caliphate in the Middle East. “Our strategy is shaped by a deeper understanding of al-Qaeda’s goals, strategy and tactics that we have gained over the last decade,” said Brennan. “I’m not talking about al-Qaeda’s grandiose vision of global domination through a violent Islamic caliphate. That vision is absurd, and we are not going to organize our counter-terrorist polices against a feckless delusion that is never going to happen…. We are not going to elevate these thugs and their murderous aspirations into something larger than they really are.”

Events over the ensuing three years, however, would prove Brennan wrong vis a vis his assessment of the possibility that Islamists might seek to establish a caliphate. As The Daily Caller reported in August 2014:

“Beginning in the summer of 2013, fighters from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria [ISIS] — the successor of al-Qaida and other jihadist movements — seized vast swathes of Syria and began pushing into Iraq. Their offensive picked up speed in the early months of 2014, snowballing out of control after their capture of Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city, in June. At the end of June ISIS changed their name to Islamic State (IS) and announced the formation of an Islamic caliphate in the Syrian and Iraqi territory they controlled. Under the leadership of Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the group has cut a swath of death and devastation through northern Iraq, killing Christians and other religious minorities, forcing thousands more into hiding and assaulting key U.S. allies in the Kurdish region of northern Iraq.”

On October 19, 2011, Farhana Khera, president and executive director of the organization Muslim Advocates, sent Brennan a letter charging that the FBI was a bigoted agency which kept “antiquated and offensive documents about Muslims and Islam” on its intranet, and that some of the Bureau’s new recruits were taught “that Islam is a religion that ‘transforms a country’s culture into 7th-century Arabian ways.’” Within two weeks, Brennan capitulated to Khera’s demand that the FBI eliminate its “offensive” curriculum/training materials; i.e., he called for a purge of materials that made reference to “jihad” and “radical Islam.” In a written response to Khera, Brennan said:

“I am aware of the recent unfortunate incidents that have highlighted examples of substandard and offensive training that some United States Government elements have either sponsored or delivered. Any and all such training runs completely counter to our values, [and] our commitment to strong partnerships with communities across the country…”

Brennan added that the Obama administration had already initiated a review of all FBI and Department of Homeland Security training materials on the subject of “countering violent extremism.” He also assured Khera that the administration would do everything in its power to improve “cultural competency training across the United States Government,” and to emphasize “cultural awareness.”

In September 2012, Brennan was involved in crafting the false talking points that then-Secretary of State Susan Rice gave regarding the 9/11/12 terrorist attack against a U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya. Specifically, Rice claimed that according to the “best information at present,” the deadly attack was not premeditated, but rather, a “spontaneous reaction” to “a hateful and offensive video that was widely disseminated throughout the Arab and Muslim world.”

On January 7, 2013, President Obama nominated Brennan for the position of CIA director. During his Senate confirmation hearing on February 7, 2013, he called waterboarding a “reprehensible” practice that “never should’ve taken place in my view.” “As far as I’m concerned, waterboarding is something that never should’ve been employed,” Brennan told Senator Carl Levin, “and, as far I’m concerned, never will be if I have anything to do with it.”

In February 2013, John Guandolo, a former Marine who subsequently worked eight years in the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division as a “subject matter expert” regarding the Muslim Brotherhood and the global spread of Islam, stated that Brennan had converted to Islam years earlier in Saudi Arabia. Said Guandolo:

“Mr. Brennan did convert to Islam when he served in an official capacity on the behalf of the United States in Saudi Arabia. That fact alone is not what is most disturbing. His conversion to Islam was the culmination of a counterintelligence operation against him to recruit him. The fact that foreign intelligence service operatives recruited Mr. Brennan when he was in a very sensitive and senior U.S. government position in a foreign country means that he either a traitor … [or] he has the inability to discern and understand how to walk in those kinds of environments, which makes him completely unfit to the be the director of Central Intelligence…. The facts of the matter are confirmed by U.S. government officials who were also in Saudi Arabia at the time that John Brennan was serving there and have direct knowledge. These are men who work in very trusted positions, they were direct witnesses to his growing relationship with the individuals who worked for the Saudi government and others and they witnessed his conversion to Islam.”

Brennan has publicly praised “the goodness and beauty of Islam,” which he characterizes as “a faith of peace and tolerance.” “The tremendous warmth of Islamic cultures and societies,” he said in 2010, typically makes visitors from non-Muslim lands feel very “welcomed.”

On March 7, 2013, the Senate (by a margin of 63-34) confirmed Brennan for the position of CIA director.

Brennan’s Deception Regarding the Survivors of the Benghazi Terrorist Attacks

At a May 21, 2013 CIA ceremony honoring the Agency officials killed in the September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, several CIA officers who had survived those attacks were asked to sign non-disclosure agreements (NDAs)—despite the fact that they were: (a) leaving government service, and (b) still bound by previous NDAs which they had signed. Both before and after the May 21st NDAs, intelligence officials adamantly denied that anyone affiliated with the CIA had been asked to sign nondisclosure agreements regarding the events in Benghazi.

Perhaps the most notable of those denials came in a September 3, 2013 letter from CIA director Brennan to House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence chairman Mike Rogers, in which Brennan responded to several specific questions that Rogers had previously posed (in a letter dated August 2, 2013) regarding whether or not the CIA officers who survived the Benghazi attacks were subsequently subjected to polygraphs or required to sign NDAs. Posing and answering several questions as a means of responding to Rogers’ queries, Brennan wrote:

1. Has any officer, either staff of contractor, been forced to undergo any polygraph because of their presence or their participation in any activity related to Benghazi attacks?

Response: No.

2. Has any officer, either staff of contractor, been required to sign any non-disclosure agreement because of their presence at Benghazi or their participation in any activity related to the Benghazi attacks?

Response: No

According to sources familiar with the NDAs that were presented to the Benghazi survivors at the May 21, 2013 memorial service, the documents did not specifically mention the Benghazi attacks and thus were technically consistent with Brennan’s letter. But as a Weekly Standard analysis notes:

“That’s a generous interpretation. The new NDAs were presented to Benghazi survivors after they had flown in from around the country (or world) to attend a CIA memorial for the Benghazi fallen at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia—where the attacks in Benghazi were the focus of the day. It’s hardly a leap to imagine that these NDAs, perhaps not even necessary, were intended to remind CIA officials a little more than six months removed from their service in Benghazi that the U.S. government would prefer that they not discuss what happened there.”

In March 2014, Senator Dianne Feinstein—the head of a Senate Intelligence Committee that was involved in a multi-year probe (begun in 2009) of the CIA’s use of harsh interrogation measures on suspected terrorists during the Bush Administration—went to the Senate floor and angrily accused Brennan’s CIA of having hacked into the computers of her Committee staffers. In response, Brennan expressed dismay that “some members of the Senate” were making “spurious allegations about CIA actions that are wholly unsupported by the facts.” Moreover, he demanded an end to “outbursts that do a disservice to the important relationship that needs to be maintained between intelligence officials and Congressional overseers.” And he told NBC’s Andrea Mitchell: “As far as the allegations of the CIA hacking into Senate computers, nothing could be further from the truth. We wouldn’t do that. I mean, that’s just beyond the, you know, the scope of reason in terms of what we do.” Brennan likewise told the media that “a lot of people who are claiming that there has been this tremendous sort of spying and monitoring and hacking will be proved wrong.”

But according to the findings of a CIA inspector general’s report released on July 31, 2014, it was actually Brennan who was proved wrong. The report indicated that five CIA employees—two attorneys and three computer specialists—indeed had surreptitiously and unlawfully searched files and emails on the computers of the aforementioned Senate investigators. In response to the report, Brennan apologized to Senate Intelligence Committee leaders.

Committee members were infuriated, however. Senator Mark Udall (D-Colorado), for example, called for Brennan’s resignation, citing “the unprecedented hacking of congressional staff computers,” damaging leaks about the Committee’s investigations, and Brennan’s “abject failure to acknowledge any wrongdoing by the agency.” By contrast, White House press secretary Josh Earnest said that President Obama continued to support Brennan and had “not at all” lost faith in the CIA leader’s credibility.

You Do Realize that Obama Funded and Trained ISIS, Right?

Just so we are all clear here. Now that ISIS, or the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, is becoming a threat so powerful Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told reporters at the Pentagon that the terrorist group is “beyond anything we’ve seen,” it’s time to remind everyone of a few little factoids regarding how exactly that came to be.

Hagel’s exact quote was:
“They are beyond just a terrorist group. They marry ideology, a sophistication of … military prowess. They are tremendously well-funded. This is beyond anything we’ve seen.”
Well-trained in military prowess. Tremendously well-funded. Super sophisticated terrorists. Hm.
And how do you think they got that way so fast? Super magic terrorist training money tree fairy dust?

Apparently the mainstream establishment media would more likely attempt to have people believe such a thing exists rather than expose the blatant reality that yes, the U.S. has trained and funded ISIS and without the U.S. government, ISIS would not be the threat it has become.
It came out back in 2012 that the U.S., Turkey and Jordan were jointly running a US CIA and Special Forces command training base for Syrian rebels out of the Jordanian town of Safawi, but apparently according the Jordanian officials, that training ‘wasn’t meant to be used in Iraq’ (via WND):
Syrian rebels who would later join the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIS, were trained in 2012 by U.S. instructors working at a secret base in Jordan, according to informed Jordanian officials.
The officials said dozens of future ISIS members were trained at the time as part of covert aid to the insurgents targeting the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Syria. The officials said the training was not meant to be used for any future campaign in Iraq.
So future ISIS members were specially trained by the U.S. government, huh? Ya don’t say. But they weren’t supposed to be used for campaigns in Iraq?
Oops.
This was, at least superficially, so they could wage war against the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria, and again, they weren’t called ISIS at the time, they were referred to as the Syrian rebels.
But the government won’t even admit what they’ve done here. Instead, they’re just bombing Iraq and hoping for the best…
Meanwhile, our government is still funding the “Syrian rebels” today!
Back at the end of June, Obama was requesting another $500 million in aid for them, even though the fact that many were now calling themselves ISIS was so blatantly obvious even back then that it could no longer be disputed.

As Hagel said, ISIS are not just well-funded, but “tremendously well-funded.” Now you know where ISIS gets a hefty chunk of its tremendous funding.
This really isn’t that hard to figure out, just hard to comprehend; mostly because IT’S COMPLETELY INSANE.
Even worse, former state department official Andrew Doran let the cat out of the bag back in June that some of these ISIS members are actually combat veterans from Western nations including the U.S. who have passports and could return home anytime, basically asserting that ISIS could easily attack America at any time.
Of course, it isn’t like anyone would need a passport, what with the porous U.S.-Mexico border basically sitting there wide open.
A documentary maker recently even dressed up in an Osama Bin Laden mask and crossed the Southern border just to make the point.
Either way, this is madness.
Now we not only have Hagel telling America that ISIS is ‘beyond anything the Pentagon has ever seen’ but in the same week the former deputy director of the CIA is telling CBS This Morning that he fears ISIS is going to start carrying out 9/11-style attacks on American soil, including this little gem:
“If an ISIS member showed up at a mall in the United States tomorrow with an AK-47 and killed a number of Americans, I would not be surprised.”
If anyone is terrorizing America directly right now, it’s the American government that would first fund and train terrorists who are raping people and setting them on fire, crucifying Christians and beheading children, then conspire with the media to scare the American people that the government’s own terrorist creation is going to attack here 9/11-style RIGHT BEFORE ANOTHER 9/11 ANNIVERSARY.
Creating one’s own enemies then declaring war on them while putting the rest of the world in grave danger…

Again. This is madness.
And the lunatics are running the asylum.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/08/you-do-realize-that-the-us-funded-and-trained-isis-right/#lv2ej7kGXpSdyllE.99

Please donate any amount you can to help us try to recover legal costs in defending liberty and the right of free speech !