JOHN BRENNAN'S SECURITY CLEARANCE REVOKED BY TRUMP (NO LONGER NEEDED)

JOHN BRENNAN'S SECURITY CLEARANCE REVOKED BY TRUMP:

SINCE BRENNAN IS NO LONGER EMPLOYED WITH CIA WHY DOES HE STILL NEED HIS CLEARANCE?

TRUMP IS CORRECT TO REVOKE CLEARANCES OF FORMER GOVT OFFICIALS WHO ABUSE THEIR PRIVILEGE.

SECURITY CLEARANCES SHOULD NOT BE USED TO SPY ON OR INTIMIDATE OTHER CITIZENS UNLESS TO STOP TERRORISM.

TRUMP IS A MAN OF HIS WORD.


Post Sources: ABC News, Fox News, Washington Post, Youtube


******** Trump revokes security clearance of former CIA director John Brennan — a leading critic of the president


President Trump on Wednesday followed through on threats to strip the security clearance of former CIA director John Brennan, igniting a firestorm of criticism that the president was recklessly attempting to distract from his own political problems and silence high-profile critics.

Press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders announced the decision at a White House briefing, reading a statement from Trump that accused Brennan of making “a series of unfounded and outrageous allegations — wild outbursts on the internet and television — about this Administration.”

Brennan, who led the CIA during most of President Barack Obama’s second term, has emerged as one of Trump’s fiercest critics, denouncing his performance at a summit with Russian President Vladi­mir Putin last month as “treasonous.” On Tuesday, Brennan lambasted Trump’s personal character after he derided former White House aide Omarosa Manigault Newman as a “dog.”

“Any benefits that senior officials might glean from consultations with Mr. Brennan are now outweighed by the risk posed by his erratic conduct and behavior,” Trump said in his statement. “Mr. Brennan has a history that calls into question his objectivity and credibility.”

Trump added that he is reviewing the security clearances of nine other former officials, including former FBI director James B. Comey, all of whom have criticized the president or been targeted by congressional Republicans seeking to discredit the Russia probe.

The move sent shock waves through Washington’s political class and the nation’s intelligence community, which has traditionally sought to avoid public partisanship but has been dragged into the debate as Trump has accused what he calls the “deep state” of seeking to undermine his presidency through leaks of sensitive material.

The president also has lashed out repeatedly against the ongoing investigation led by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III into possible contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives accused of tampering in the 2016 presidential election.

Brennan was a longtime intelligence official who briefed three presidents and served as CIA station chief in Saudi Arabia, CIA chief of staff, director of the Terrorist Threat Integration Center, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, and assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism.

His former colleagues rallied to his defense, hailing his service to the nation, including a key role in the 2011 operation that killed Osama bin Laden.

In a tweet Wednesday, former vice president Joe Biden said Trump’s decision was “unbecoming of a President” and praised Brennan as someone who “has never been afraid to speak up.”

“If you think it will silence John, then you just don’t know the man,” he wrote.

Brennan reacted to the news by comparing Trump’s actions to those of “foreign despots and autocrats.”

“I never, ever thought I’d see it here in the United States,” Brennan said on MSNBC. “I believe all Americans need to take stock of what is happening right now in our government — how abnormal and how irresponsible and how dangerous these actions are. If Mr. Trump believes this is going to lead me to just go away and be quiet, he is very badly mistaken.”

Sanders cast Trump’s decision as the outcome of an ongoing review of former and current officials whose conduct has led the president to question their willingness to “protect classified information.”

But since aides first raised the specter of Trump’s stripping Brennan and several others of their clearances, security experts have described such a move as unprecedented and warned that words and actions protected by the First Amendment are not grounds to take a clearance away.

“As far as we know, this is the first time that a president of the United States has individually taken action against somebody’s security clearance,” said Mark Zaid, an attorney who represents government employees in security-clearance disputes.

Last month, the White House said that along with Brennan and Comey, the president was scrutinizing former CIA director Michael V. Hayden, former national security adviser Susan E. Rice, former director of national intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. and former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe.

On Wednesday, Sanders expanded that list to include former acting attorney general Sally Q. Yates, former FBI lawyer Lisa Page, former FBI agent Peter Strzok and Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, who was recently demoted.

Yates was fired by Trump last year after she defied the president and ordered federal attorneys not to defend his controversial travel ban. Strzok and Page, two of Trump’s favorite targets on Twitter, became the centerpiece of Republicans’ efforts to discredit Mueller’s Russia probe after anti-Trump texts between the two were revealed last year. Strzok was fired over the texts this week.

Ohr is also a frequent object of GOP criticism; he was named by Republicans in a memo earlier this year that targeted his ties to the former British intelligence officer who wrote the controversial dossier on the Trump campaign’s alleged contacts with Russian officials.

The timing of the announcement suggested that the president may also have been trying to distract public attention from saturation media coverage of accusations in Manigault Newman’s new book that Trump made racist statements before he took office that were captured on tape.

After Sanders’s briefing Wednesday, the White House released the written statement from Trump bearing the date July 26 — before quickly releasing an identical statement with the date removed. That led some of Trump’s critics to conclude that he had made the decision on Brennan’s security clearance weeks ago but that the White House strategically delayed an announcement for maximum political benefit.

“This might be a convenient way to distract attention, say from a damaging news story or two,” Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.) said on Twitter. “But politicizing the way we guard our nation’s secrets just to punish the President’s critics is a dangerous precedent.”

Some Republicans, including Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.), applauded Trump’s move. In a statement, Paul sought to take credit for the idea of revoking Brennan’s clearance.

“I urged the President to do this,” Paul said. “I filibustered Brennan’s nomination to head the CIA in 2013, and his behavior in government and out of it demonstrate why he should not be allowed near classified information.”

Douglas Brinkley, a presidential historian, called Trump’s action unprecedented, saying he knew of no historical example of a president’s trying to “dehumanize and embarrass an outstanding intelligence officer like John Brennan. There has always been a bipartisan spirit of support since the CIA was created in the Cold War.”

Brinkley suggested that the closest antecedent was President Richard Nixon’s attempts to use the Internal Revenue Service to harass people on his “enemies list” and Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s congressional hearings to try to identify and punish suspected communists inside the U.S. government in the 1950s.

“The public outcry of Brennan being stripped will echo long and far in the annals of American history,” Brinkley said. “It will be seen like McCarthyism — a dark stain on our democracy.”

Nearly 4.1 million Americans have federal government security clearances of varying levels up to “top secret,” according to government estimates. In some cases, former officials retain their clearances and are called on to provide advice or input on classified or highly sensitive matters, experts said. Some former officials also have jobs that require a security clearance.

It is not clear how much of an impact Trump will have if he seeks to strip others of their clearances. Comey and McCabe have said their security badges were automatically demagnetized after they were fired.

But the action was the latest in a long battle between Trump and top members of the intelligence and national security communities. During the 2016 campaign, a bipartisan group of national security experts, including Hayden, signed a pair of “Never Trump” letters asserting that he “lacks self-control and acts impetuously,” has demonstrated “erratic behavior” and is “fundamentally dishonest.”

Since taking office, Trump has faced criticism that he has been reckless in his own handling of sensitive information, including disclosing highly classified material during an Oval Office meeting last year with the Russian foreign minister and ambassador to the United States. And at his Florida retreat, Mar-a-Lago, Trump appeared to discuss the U.S. response to a North Korean missile launch in full view of patrons.

Questions also have been raised about Trump’s staff, including son-in-law Jared Kushner, whose security clearance was downgraded in February before he was granted a permanent clearance in May. Former White House staff secretary Rob Porter was granted clearance despite allegations that he had been violent toward two ex-wives, which he has denied.

“This is not merely erratic, it’s somewhat dangerous, using clearances to get at political opponents,” Eliot Cohen, a former State Department counselor during the George W. Bush administration who organized one of the “Never Trump” letters, said of the president’s decision on Brennan.

Rep. Adam B. Schiff (Calif.), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said on Twitter that Trump’s move demonstrates “how deeply insecure and vindictive he is — two character flaws dangerous in any President.”

“An enemies list is ugly, undemocratic and un-American. I also believe this action to silence a critic is unlawful,” Schiff said in a tweet.

Republican reactions were more muted. Last month, House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (Wis.) minimized Trump’s threats, suggesting that the president was merely “trolling people.” Ryan’s office declined to comment Wednesday.

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who, after tangling with Trump on foreign policy issues, is not seeking reelection called the president’s action a “banana republic kind of step.”

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said Brennan has been “far too political” in his commentary about Trump. But she added that recently retired intelligence officials generally have worthwhile expertise to offer and called Trump’s move “unwise.”

KATRINA'S REAL DEATH TOLL NEVER REVEALED BY FED GOV'T (DEPOPULATION)

KATRINA'S REAL DEATH TOLL NEVER REVEALED BY FED GOV'T (DEPOPULATION):

MOST OF KATRINA'S DEAD WERE POOR & BLACK.


Sources: US News, YouTube


***** No One Knows How Many People Died in Katrina


Ten years after the third-deadliest hurricane in U.S. history, we still don't know how many people died because of it. We'll never know for certain how many people died in Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath.

The problems are inherent in the confusion of disasters, especially those involving multiple states and various local, state and federal agencies.

Inquires to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, and The Department of Health in Louisiana led U.S. News to a 2008 report as the most accurate and updated source of information. The report was years in the making as deaths were investigated and missing persons were located. In an effort to cut down on the confusion among agencies, the report reviewed all available death databases to attempt the impossible: an accurate count of Katrina's victims in Louisiana.

Although 1,833 is an often-cited mortality figure, it is older than figures in the report and none of the agencies we spoke to claimed it as an accurate estimate of the final death toll, as FiveThirtyEight also reported.

The most likely cause of death was drowning. The victims of the storm were often black and skewed older. In Orleans Parish, where 70 percent of the victims counted in the study died, the mortality rate for black adults was 1.7 times to 4 times higher than the mortality rate for white adults.

Forty percent of victims were aged 75 or older, which further complicated the process of counting victims. Many of the deceased had serious preexisting medical conditions. It's impossible to know if the person would have died from those conditions if the storm hadn't occurred or if the storm exacerbated medical conditions enough to cause death.

"If an evacuee died after a heart attack two months following the storm, was that death attributable to Katrina?" says John Ford of the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals.

The researchers confirmed 986 victims (including 15 deaths from Louisiana evacuees in other states), but called the estimate "conservative." The higher estimate for deaths in Louisiana was 1,440.

This graphic shows the conservative estimate, including the staggering impact on the elderly population. While the number of people who died in Hurricane Katrina is likely much higher, even the lower bound shows the devastating impact of a huge storm that New Orleans was ill-equipped to handle.

While the death toll in the study is 986, the total in the graphic is slightly lower because it doesn't include the 15 deaths from other states or the 22 deaths for which age information was not available.

COMEY APPEARS TO BE A LOYAL, REBELLIOUS OBAMA HOLDOVER (DRAIN THE SWAMP)

COMEY NOW APPEARS TO BE A LOYAL OBAMA HOLDOVER (DIVIDED FEDERAL GOVT):

TRUMP NEEDS TO DRAIN THE SWAMP OR RISK IMPEACHMENT.

Sources: Fox News, YouTube

**** Trump's personal lawyer to file complaint after Comey testimony , source says

President Trump’s lawyer will file a complaint with the Department of Justice’s Inspector General's Office and the Senate Judiciary Committee after it was revealed Thursday that former FBI director James Comey leaked memos to a friend in order to inform the media about conversations with the president, a source told Fox News.

is not clear when the attorney, Marc Kasowitz, will file the complaint. But the move appears to show that team Trump is trying to go on the offensive after Comey’s testimony.

Kasowitz is focusing on part of the testimony where Comey said he leaked the private conversation he had with Trump in order to prompt the appointment of a special counsel to investigate Russian interference.

“I woke up in the middle of the night on Monday night, ‘cause it didn’t dawn on me originally that there might be corroboration for our conversation; there might be a tape,” Comey said. “And my judgment was I needed to get that out in the public square so I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter. Didn’t do it myself for a variety of reasons but I asked him to because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel. So I asked a close friend of mine to do it.”

Daniel Richman, a Columbia University law professor and close friend of Comey, has confirmed he leaked contents of one of Comey’s memos to The New York Times. Richman served with Comey in the Southern District of New York and at the FBI.

Kasowitz said in a statement that "Comey’s excuse for this unauthorized disclosure of privileged information and appears to entirely retaliatory. We will leave it the appropriate authorities to determine whether this leaks should be investigated along with all those others being investigated."

Comey, during his testimony, accused the Trump administration of “spreading “lies, plain and simple” about him and the FBI in the aftermath of his abrupt firing last month, declaring that the administration “defamed him and more importantly the FBI.”

In that testimony he had already disclosed that Trump demanded his "loyalty" and directly pushed him to "lift the cloud" of investigation by declaring publicly the president was not the target of the FBI probe into his campaign's Russia ties.

Comey said that he declined to do so in large part because of the "duty to correct" that would be created if that situation changed. Comey also said in his written testimony that Trump, in a strange private encounter near the grandfather clock in the Oval Office, pushed him to end his investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

MCCRORY vs LORETTA LYNCH: MCRORY MAY LOSE

MCCRORY vs LORETTA LYNCH: MCRORY MAY LOSE

WHITE MAN vs BLACK WOMAN FOR 2016 POLITICS.

MCRORY STOOD UP AGAINST POLITICAL INTIMIDATION BUT HE MAY HAVE DONE SO TOO LATE.

Sources: Fox News, CNN, Citizen Wells, Youtube

In February 2016, despite wide voter opposition, Charlotte City Council members passed a Transgender Bathroom Sharing Ordinance which only forced Private Businesses, Private Schools (not Public Schools), Churches and Non-Profit agencies to comply.

The Ordinance was due to become effective April 1st.

In March 2016, North Carolina Gov Pat McCory and the NC General Assembly repealed the Charlotte Ordinance via passage of House Bill 2.

Ironically the man who spearheaded passage of Charlotte's Transgender Bathroom Ordinance is an LGBT Advocate who was Convicted of taking Indecent Liberties with a 15-yr old boy on a field trip.

The mainstream media refuses to report on this fact.

In May 2016, GOP North Carolina Gov Pat McCrory is suing the Federal gov't for its overreach in trying to force every state and commonwealth in America to enact laws which order Private Businesses and Churches to allow Transgender people to use Bathroom facilities of their personal choice.

US DOJ Attorney General Loretta Lynch, a Black Woman from North Carolina, claims that denying Transgender people access to use Bathrooms of their choice is a Civil Rights Violation.

In response to Gov McCrory's lawsuit, Loretta Lynch has now countersued the state of North Carolina.

So here we have a Powerful Black Woman from North Carolina fighting a Powerful White Man from North Carolina over Bathrooms for Transgender people during a critical election year.

Unlike Black people, Transgender were not Biologically born Transgender. Instead their sexual orientation is merely a Lifestyle choice.

Millions of US citizens are unemployed, the US Military is lacking in crucial funding for Training so they can defeat ISIL and America's Borders are porous yet Obama has Politicians fighting and wasting US Taxpayer money over Bathrooms for Transgender people.

God Forbid!

I stand with Gov McCrory on HB2, however this public legal battle may indeed cost him re-election.

Why?

Because McCrory sat quietly for too long and then allowed Obama to intentionally drag him into a Cultural Political war for the sole purpose of destroying Pat McCrory's political career forever and for the 2016 election.

I will continue to Pray diligently for Gov McCrory and for the entire United States of America.

**** North Carolina, U.S., square off over transgender rights

(CNN)The United States and North Carolina tangled over transgender rights on Monday, with the Justice Department filing a civil rights lawsuit over the state's so-called bathroom bill and state officials defiantly filing suits against the federal directive to stop the implementation of the controversial legislation.

Also, a major player in North Carolina -- the state's public university system -- defied the governor and legislature and told the Justice Department on Monday it intends to act "in compliance with federal law" as it relates to House Bill 2, known as HB2.

The Justice Department seeks declaratory relief and threatens to curtail federal funding to the North Carolina Department of Public Safety and the University of North Carolina.

With hundreds of millions of dollars in funding at stake, UNC System President Margaret Spellings said longstanding policy prohibits university personnel from discriminating on the basis of, among other things, gender identity, sex, or sexual orientation.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch, announcing the U.S. legal action to reporters on Monday, cast the bathroom bill issue as the latest civil rights struggle of the era.

"It was not so very long ago that states, including North Carolina, had other signs above restrooms, water fountains, and on public accommodations, keeping people out based on a distinction without a difference. We've moved beyond those dark days," Lynch said.

The act bans people from using public bathrooms that do not correspond with their biological sex. Since its passage in March, North Carolina has become a national battleground on the issue of transgender rights. It has drawn a flurry of condemnation from civil liberties groups, LGBT advocates and major businesses. It has also won praise from groups like the Family Research Council.

After the law's passage, musicians Bruce Springsteen, Demi Lovato, Nick Jonas, and the bands Pearl Jam and Boston canceled concerts in the state. Those cancellations have cost one major venue nearly $200,000 in ticket sales.

PayPal and Deutsche Bank have both canceled plans to expand into North Carolina.

The Justice Department said last week that "access to sex-segregated restrooms and other workplace facilities consistent with gender identity is a term, condition or privilege of employment. Denying such access to transgender individuals, whose gender identity is different from their gender assigned at birth, while affording it to similarly situated non-transgender employees, violates Title VII," a section of the Civil Rights Act prohibiting discrimination against workers on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, and religion.

The federal government demanded the state "remedy" the act or risk being in violation of federal law. 

Instead, North Carolina officials filed a lawsuit calling the Justice Department's position a "radical reinterpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act." Top state legislators, Phil Berger and Tim Moore, also filed a complaint against the Justice Department.

But Lynch on Monday said the legislature and governor put the state in "direct opposition to federal laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex and gender identity. More to the point, they created state-sponsored discrimination against transgender individuals who simply seek to engage in the most private of functions in a place of safety and security, a right taken for granted by most of us."

After the federal government asked the state to certify by the end of the day Monday that it would not comply with or implement the bill's restriction on bathroom access, Lynch said the state requested an extension and that had been under "active consideration."

Instead, the governor and the state chose another course: a lawsuit.

"But instead of replying to our offer or providing a certification, this morning, the state of North Carolina and its governor chose to respond by suing the Department of Justice. As a result of their decisions, we are now moving forward," Lynch said.

The federal suit also says the state is in violation of Title IX, the Education Acts Amendment of 1972 that bans gender discrimination in education, and the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act that outlaws discrimination on the basis of sex. 

"This action is about a great deal more than bathrooms," Lynch said. "This is about the dignity and the respect that we accord our fellow citizens and the laws that we as a people and as a country have enacted to protect them."

Lynch said there have been "discriminatory responses to historic moments of progress": the Jim Crow laws that followed the Emancipation Proclamation, the resistance to Brown V. Board of Education, and the "proliferation of state bans on same-sex unions that were intended to stifle any hope that gay and lesbian Americans might one day be afforded the right to marry."

"That right, of course, is now recognized as a guarantee embedded in our Constitution. And in the wake of that historic triumph, we have seen bill after bill in state after state taking aim at the LGBT community," she said. 

She told transgender people that the Obama administration "will do everything we can to protect you going forward."

'Not a protected class'

McCrory's communications director Josh Ellis said after Lynch's remarks that the governor is "appropriately seeking legal certainty to a complex issue impacting employers and students throughout the country" but "in contrast, the attorney general is using divisive rhetoric to advance the Obama administration's strategy of making laws that bypass the constitutional authority of Congress and our courts." 

The act puts in place a statewide policy that bans individuals from using public bathrooms that do not correspond to their biological sex and stops cities from passing anti-discrimination ordinances to protect gay and transgender identity. That power is reserved for the state under the new law. 

North Carolina officials defend the act and said it doesn't violate federal law. The state also said the United States didn't give the state enough time to deal with the matter.

McCrory said Monday that he requested an additional two weeks to respond but was told he would be granted one week, and only if he issued a statement concurring with the Justice Department.

The lawsuit filed by the governor and Public Safety Secretary Frank Perry calls the demand that the state "remedy" the legislation by Monday or risk being in violation of federal law "a baseless and blatant overreach" and said it is making a "radical reinterpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act."

McCrory's argument also said the state of North Carolina hasn't been given enough time to respond and that the federal government is overstepping its authority.

In a Monday news conference, McCrory blamed the city of Charlotte for raising the issue of gender identity and public restrooms. The matter was not on the state's agenda, he said, until the city imposed a mandate that "caused major privacy concerns about males entering female facilities and females entering male facilities."

Because, he said, this is now a national issue -- and could affect every U.S. company with more than 15 employees -- McCrory called on Congress to revisit the anti-discrimination provisions under Titles VII and IX.

"Our nation is one nation, especially when it comes to fighting discrimination, which I wholeheartedly support," McCrory said. 

North Carolina homes in on Title VII in its lawsuit, saying precedence is clear: "Transgender status is not a protected class under Title VII," and it cites a half-dozen cases that it says back its stance. Only Congress can change this, the lawsuit says.

Even if the state felt transgender individuals were afforded federal protection, the Justice Department demands overstep, the state suit says, because the law "allows accommodations based on special circumstances, including but not limited to transgender individuals." 

In a statement announcing the lawsuit, McCrory said the federal government was trying to tell every government agency and company employing more than 15 people "that men should be allowed to use a women's locker room, restroom or shower facility."

He said later that the "new, complex and emotional issue" pitted privacy against equality.

The lawsuit emphasizes that no one is facing discrimination because the law applies equally to everyone.

"All state employees are required to use the bathroom and changing facilities assigned to a person of their same biological sex, regardless of gender identity, or transgender status," it says.

The lawsuit filed by Berger, North Carolina Senate president pro tempore and Moore, state House Speaker, reflected the views of many of the bill's supporters that people "expect to encounter only other people of the same biological sex" when they are in intimate setting such as public bathrooms.

It says the "ideological extremity -- and utter unworkability -- of the department's position on the issues in this case is astonishing." 

NC SUES FEDERAL GOVT BULLIES & DEFENDS U.S. CONSTITUTION (HB2)

@northcarolina

NC SUES FEDERAL GOVT BULLIES & DEFENDS U.S. CONSTITUTION (HB2):

GOV MCCRORY IS PROVEN TO BE A POLITICIAN WITH A REAL BACKBONE.

IT'S NOT ABOUT LGBT DISCRIMINATION, IT'S ABOUT ELIMINATING CIVIL LIBERTIES.

Sources:  The Hill, Fox News, CNN, YouTube

****** North Carolina Sues Federal Gov't Over Bathroom Law

Officials in North Carolina on Monday filed a lawsuit against the federal government in an effort to keep the state's controversial bathroom law in place, according to multiple reports.

The lawsuit comes after the Department of Justice (DOJ) told Gov. Pat McCrory (R) that the state's law — which requires transgender people to use the bathroom corresponding to their biological sex — violates the Civil Rights Act. 

The DOJ ordered McCrory to respond by Monday to confirm "that the State will not comply with or implement HB2."

North Carolina's lawsuit against the federal government said the DOJ's position is "baseless and blatant overreach," NBC News reported.

"If the United States desires a new protected class under Title VII, it must seek such action by the United States Congress," the suit said.

McCrory said Sunday that the state was given an "unrealistic" deadline for response, adding that the federal government is "being a bully."

"They gave the ninth-largest state in the United States ... three working days to respond to a pretty complex letter and to a pretty big threat," McCrory said on "Fox News Sunday."

"We don't think three working days is enough to respond to such a threat." 

The North Carolina law, condemned by LGBT rights supporters, also has provisions restricting local governments from enacting their own anti-discrimination legislation for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

The DOJ announced that Attorney General Loretta Lynch will announce a "law enforcement action" connected to the state later Monday afternoon.

FED JUDGE BLOCKS OBAMA ADMIN FROM JAILBREAKING ALL IPHONES (1st-5th AMENDMENTS)

FED JUDGE BLOCKS OBAMA ADMIN FROM JAILBREAKING ALL IPHONES (1st-5th AMENDMENTS):

APPLE WILL ASSIST GOVT TO KEEP AMERICA SAFE WITHOUT VIOLATING PRIVACY.

Sources:  ABC News, Youtube

**** NY Judge: US Cannot Make Apple Provide iPhone Data

The U.S. Justice Department cannot force Apple to provide the FBI with access to locked iPhonedata in a routine Brooklyn drug case, a federal judge ruled Monday.

U.S. Magistrate Judge James Orenstein's written decision gives support to the company's position in its fight against a California judge's order that it create specialized software to help the FBI hack into an iPhone linked to the San Bernardino terrorism investigation. Apple on Thursday formally objected to the order in a brief filed with the court.

The San Bernardino County-owned iPhone 5C was used by Syed Farook, who was a health inspector. He and his wife Tashfeen Malik killed 14 people during a Dec. 2 attack that was at least partly inspired by the Islamic State group.

Apple's opposition to the government's tactics has evoked a national debate over digital privacy rights and national security.

Orenstein concluded that Apple is not obligated to assist government investigators against its will and noted that Congress has not adopted legislation that would achieve the result sought by the government.

Orenstein said he was offering no opinion on whether in the instance of this case or others, "the government's legitimate interest in ensuring that no door is too strong to resist lawful entry should prevail against the equally legitimate societal interests arrayed against it here."

He said the interests at stake go beyond expectations of privacy and include the commercial interest in conducting business free of potentially harmful government intrusion and the "far more fundamental and universal interest ... in shielding sensitive electronically stored data from the myriad harms, great and small, that unauthorized access and misuse can cause."

"How best to balance those interests is a matter of critical importance to our society, and the need for an answer becomes more pressing daily, as the tide of technological advance flows ever farther past the boundaries of what seemed possible even a few decades ago," Orenstein wrote. "But that debate must happen today, and it must take place among legislators who are equipped to consider the technological and cultural realities of a world their predecessors could not begin to conceive."

The Justice Department said in a statement that it's disappointed in the ruling and plans to appeal in coming days. It said Apple had previously agreed many times prior to assist the government and "only changed course when the government's application for assistance was made public by the court."

Apple and their attorneys said they were reading the opinion and will comment later.

In October, Orenstein invited Apple to challenge the government's use of a 227-year-old law to compel Apple to help it recover iPhone data in criminal cases, noting that another law on the books already covered the issue.

The Cupertino, California-based computer maker did, saying in court papers that extracting information from an iPhone "could threaten the trust between Apple and its customers and substantially tarnish the Apple brand."

It followed up by declining to cooperate in a dozen more instances in four states involving government requests to aid criminal probes by retrieving data from individual iPhones.

In ruling, Orenstein wrote: "I believe Apple has the better argument" because the other law covering wiretaps for telecom companies "explicitly absolves a company like Apple of any responsibility to provide the assistance the government seeks here."

Federal prosecutors say Apple has stopped short of challenging court orders judicially, except in the cases before Orenstein and the California jurist who ruled about the San Bernardino shooter's phone.

"Ultimately, the question to be answered in this matter, and in others like it across the country, is not whether the government should be able to force Apple to help it unlock a specific device; it is instead whether the All Writs Act resolves that issue and many others like it yet to come," Orenstein wrote. "For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that it does not."

FEDERAL GOV'T WANTS BLACK PEOPLE TO "SHACK UP" LIKE SLAVES, NOT LEGALLY MARRY

FEDERAL GOV'T WANTS BLACK PEOPLE TO "SHACK UP" LIKE SLAVES, NOT LEGALLY MARRY:

BLACK TRADITIONAL MARRIAGES ARE UNDER ATTACK.

BLACK CHILDREN NO LONGER HAVE POSITIVE IMAGES OF TRADITIONAL BLACK MARRIAGES.

In 21st century America BLACK Men and BLACK Women are no longer encouraged to LEGALLY Marry each other.

Instead it is becoming less common to see BLACK Men married to BLACK Women or BLACK Women married to BLACK Men.

However it has become increasingly common to see BLACK Men marry WHITE Women or to see BLACK Women marry WHITE Men.

In fact BLACK Men who marry BLACK Women often witness their BLACK Wives being Disrespected by mainstream American society.

The Federal govt also appears to reward BLACK Men and Women who choose to Co-habit (Shack-up) like SLAVES versus creating a LEGAL marriage relationship as Human Beings.

BLACK Traditional marriages are also being replaced with SAME-SEX marriages.

SAME-SEX Couples are not genetically, nor physically capable of  PROCREATING with one another.

As more and more Unemployed BLACK Men are INCARCERATED for not paying CHILD SUPPORT, what LEGACY is the BLACK community leaving for the next generation of BLACK Children as it relates to BLACK Traditional marriage and Strong BLACK Family units?

I am deeply concerned.

~ Black Pastors Denounce NAACP And Gay Marriage Which They Say 'Threaten To Destroy Western Civilization'  (CIRCA 2014)

A National Coalition of Black Pastors and Christian Leaders has announced that they are holding a special Press Conference in Detroit, Michigan on September 23, 2014.

The Coalition will reveal a national strategy to combat court decisions overturning state laws protecting traditional marriage in partnership with the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

The Press Conference shall be held at 10am, in Dearborn Room 1, at the Marriott- Detroit Metro Airport, Romulus, Michigan 48174.

The Council, which has denounced gay marriage as "a threat to end western civilization as we know it," has also condemned the NAACP as a "morally bankrupt institution" that has "sold Black civil rights for gay rights," according to its spokesperson, Minister Stacy Swimp.

In 2012, the NAACP took an official position to endorse "gay marriage," by putting out a press release saying "we support marriage equality consistent with equal protection under the law provided under the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution."

The NAACP has not recanted their position, in spite of the fact the overwhelming majority of Black Americans oppose gay marriage.

"How is it that the NAACP concludes that the 14th Amendment, which was created to guarantee the citizenship rights of Black Americans, is now meant to give license to a behavior which would devastate an already fractured institution in the Black community, which is the family?" says Pastor Danny Holliday, Founder and Pastor of Victory Baptist Church in Alton, Illinois.

"Every God fearing American has a moral obligation to renounce membership to this once proud organization that has clearly lost its moral compass."

The NAACP and other advocates of redefining marriage say that lesbians and homosexuals are "born gay" and should not be discriminated against because of how they were born.

The Coalition of Black Pastors and Christian leaders disagree.
"No one is created homosexual and forever condemned to being so.

That argument, in defense of gay marriage cannot be substantiated. I am living proof." says Evangelist Janet Boynes, a former lesbian who is one of the leaders of the Coalition.

"Therefore, to redefine marriage and, essentially, render the concept of family without true meaning, would be an action against the will of God and the best interest of nation, family, and person who has been deceived into thinking he or she is without hope of walking away from homosexuality."

The Coalition, represented by the Thomas More Law Center, of Ann Arbor, Michigan, has filed several briefs on behalf of the Coalition in the Circuit Court of Appeals and in the US Supreme Court.

"We pray that Federal judges shall uphold the rule of law and dismiss the wrongful assertion which says that so called gay marriage has association with the 14th Amendment, which was passed to guarantee the citizenship rights of Black Americans," says Pastor Emery Moss, Strictly Biblical, Detroit, Michigan.

"Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it indicate that equal justice under the law is related to gay marriage," says Bishop Samuel Smith, of the Apostolic World Christian Fellowship.

"Marriage, furthermore, was defined by God. Not by government. Government has no right to redefine marriage and destroy the meaning of family."

Bishop Smith concludes, "The Constitution provides us our civil, political, and religious freedom, in accordance with our God given rights.

The courts of the United States have a duty to the American people to uphold these God given rights and the Constitution."

Sources: Gospel Herald, Youtube

OBAMA ADMIN BLOCKS PUBLIC INFO & SOCIAL MEDIA ACCESS (GOV'T PROPAGANDA)

OBAMA ADMIN BLOCKS PUBLIC INFORMATION & SOCIAL MEDIA ACCESS (GOV'T PROPAGANDA):

INCLUDES YOUTUBE AND ON-AIR CABLE NEWS ABOUT RADICAL ISLAM.

~ 8 ways the Obama Administration is blocking information

The fight for access to public information has never been harder, Associated Press Washington Bureau Chief Sally Buzbee said recently at a joint meeting of the American Society of News Editors, the Associated Press Media Editors and the Associated Press Photo Managers.

The problem extends across the entire federal government and is now trickling down to state and local governments.

Here is Buzbee’s list of eight ways the Obama administration is making it hard for journalists to find information and cover the news:

1) As the United States ramps up its fight against Islamic militants, the public can’t see any of it. News organizations can’t shoot photos or video of bombers as they take off — there are no embeds. In fact, the administration won’t even say what country the S. bombers fly from.

2) The White House once fought to get cameramen, photographers and reporters into meetings the president had with foreign leaders overseas. That access has become much rarer. Think about the message that sends other nations about how the world’s leading democracy deals with the media: Keep them out and let them use handout photos.

3) Guantanamo: The big important 9/11 trial is finally coming up. But we aren’t allowed to see most court filings in real time — even of nonclassified material. So at hearings, we can’t follow what’s happening. We don’t know what prosecutors are asking for, or what defense attorneys are arguing.

4) Information about Guantanamo that was routinely released under President George W. Bush is now kept secret. The military won’t release the number of prisoners on hunger strike or the number of assaults on guards. Photo and video coverage is virtually nonexistent.

5) Day-to-day intimidation of sources is chilling. AP’s transportation reporter’s sources say that if they are caught talking to her, they will be fired. Even if they just give her facts, about safety, for example. Government press officials say their orders are to squelch anything controversial or that makes the administration look bad.

6) One of the media — and public’s — most important legal tools, the Freedom of Information Act, is under siege. Requests for information under FOIA have become slow and expensive. Many federal agencies simply don’t respond at all in a timely manner, forcing news organizations to sue each time to force action.

7) The administration uses FOIAs as a tip service to uncover what news organizations are pursuing. Requests are now routinely forwarded to political appointees. At the agency that oversees the new health care law, for example, political appointees now handle the FOIA requests.

8) The administration is trying to control the information that state and local officials can give out. The FBI has directed local police not to disclose details about surveillance technology the police departments use to sweep up cellphone data. In some cases, federal officials have formally intervened in state open records cases, arguing for secrecy.

Sources: Associated Press, Infowars, Youtube

FEDERAL CHILD SUPPORT SPIES ARE LOCAL MAIL CARRIERS IN CHARLOTTE, ATLANTA & CHICAGO

#‎Atlanta‬

FEDERAL CHILD SUPPORT SPIES ARE LOCAL MAIL CARRIERS:

IN CHARLOTTE, ATLANTA & CHICAGO.

* Discussion Highlights:

~ U.S. Mail Carriers have in fact teamed up with the Federal Govt to Spy on citizens.
Including Men who are working to catch up their Child Support payments.

~ US Mail Carriers working as SPIES is a growing problem in cities with a high BLACK Male UNEMPLOYMENT Rate such as CHARLOTTE, ATLANTA and CHICAGO.

~ Low Delinquent Child Support actual balances are being trumped to extremely high balances via State & County Fees which could be considered a CHILD SUPPORT TAX.

~ In 2015 Pres OBAMA and UN Officials spearheaded a Global Child Support Treaty.

However most of the Child Money collected does not go to Mothers. Instead it goes to State Coffers.

~ Due to low Child Support balances being trumped up to extremely high Child Support balances via State & County Fees, and high UNEMPLOYMENT Rates, many Fathers can NEVER really get caught up, thus many Fathers end up in JAIL or PRISON.

When these Men are Incarcerated, the States then receive FEDERAL FUNDING.

~ Snail mail spy: U.S. Postal Service active partner with feds for surveillance

The U.S. Postal Service has two key programs with the federal government aimed at rooting out terrorism that track and record data on all mail that travels through its offices.

The New York Times reported on a U.S. Postal Service “mail cover” program that’s been in place for decades. That program allows postal workers the ability to record — by hand — all the information on the front and back of letters that are mailed to residences, at the request of law enforcement.

But another program, called “Mail Isolation Control and Tracking,” is much more high-tech.

It started in 2001, after anthrax attacks hit at Capitol Hill and at various spots around the nation, and gives U.S. Postal Service workers the ability to photograph the exterior of each piece of mail that passes through the office.

The data is then recorded in case it’s needed in a future investigation.

An ex-Justice Department worker said, Newser reported:

“In the past, mail covers were used when you had a reason to suspect someone of a crime.

Now it seems to be, ‘Let’s record everyone’s mail so in the future we might go back and see who you were communicating with.’ Essentially, you’ve added mail covers on millions of Americans.”

Post Sources: Washington Times, NY Times, Marshall Project, YouTube

Careerbuilder.com Is Posting Discriminatory Employment Ads: Chicago-Based Company

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Most American Employers know it is Illegal & a Violation of Federal Law to Discriminate against Job Applicants based on Ethnicity, Race, Gender, Religion, Sexual Orientation, Faith, Appearance & Disability.

So how are they bypassing Federal Law while still practicing Employment Discrimination?

Via Employment Recruiting Websites such as “Careerbuilder.com & Monster.com" By listing Unfair JOB REQUIREMENTS!

For Example:
“Must have 3 Years Experience” (Entry Level Jobs)
“Must have 5 Years Experience” (Entry Level Jobs)
Or…..
“Must be Currently Employed to Apply”

So what is Pres. Obama’s Administration & Congress doing to STOP this Unfair Practice which continues to keep Millions of American Citizens, mostly BLACKS & Latinos, out of the 21st Century Workforce? Including College Graduates!

What's even worse is that most of the Companies practicing Widespread National Employment Discrimination via Unfair JOB REQUIREMENTS, are Still receiving Government Subsidies & Tax Breaks!!!





Careerbuilder.com Posts New Wave Of Discriminatory Job Ads


A recent survey of online job sites has shown that CareerBuilder.com continues to post numerous new ads that discriminate against unemployed job-seekers.

The latest examples appear two months after the National Employment Law Project (NELP) released a report detailing similarly exclusionary job postings this spring.

Since then, federal legislation has been introduced that would ban hiring practices, including job ads, that discriminate against unemployed workers by excluding them from consideration for employment opportunities.

As these harmful practices have attracted growing attention, one leading job site -- Indeed.com -- recently announced it would no longer post such exclusionary ads.

President Obama has recently said he backs legislation to end such discriminatory practices that serve to lock-out unemployed job-seekers from job opportunities, and has included such a federal ban in the proposed American Jobs Act.

In the last month, however, CareerBuilder.com has continued to post new ads like this one for a Medical Pharma Sales Rep in La Crosse, Wisconsin, which not only says applicants "MUST BE CURRENTLY EMPLOYED" -- it also says:


Reminds me of "No soup for you!" But I digress.

Another recent example is this September 5 posting for Restaurant Managers Upscale AGM Needed!! in Louisville, Kentucky. To qualify -- you guessed it -- you "must be currently employed."

Then there's this CareerBuilder.com job posting from September 16 for a Corrugated Packing sales rep in Lima, Ohio which requires applicants to be "currently employed within the Distribution Packaging Jan/san industry."

And then there's this ad on CareerBuilder.com from The Porter Group, posted September 15, looking for a Sales Executive for an interesting firm:

Nice, huh? Oh, well, that probably wasn't something you'd enjoy anyway.

How about the food service industry or the restaurant business? Take a look at this posting from last month from Martin Recruiting Partners for Kitchen Managers in Atlanta, Georgia. Among the required qualifications it says you must be "currently working with a quick casual or full service restaurant manager background."

Sometimes, a limited acceptable duration of unemployment is specified, as in this Restaurant Management, Long Island, NY posting from Gecko Hospitality last month which specifies candidates "must be currently employed or not out of the restaurant business for more than 3 months."

Enough already. This has to stop. And it's not just these pernicious ads -- it's the full range exclusionary practices that discriminate against unemployed job-seekers. If employers, recruiters, staffing firms and online job posting sites like CareerBuilder.com and Monster.com will not voluntarily do the right thing and end the lockout against unemployed workers in the job market -- as Indeed.com has taken steps to do -- then new federal legislation is clearly needed.

Call your U.S. Representative and Senators and tell them to support and pass the Fair Employment Opportunity Act to end discrimination against unemployed workers in hiring. You can call 202-224-3121 for the Senate and 202-224-3121 for the House, or reach the Capitol switchboard toll-free at 877-851-6437 or 877-210-5351.




View Larger Map


Sources: Careerbuilder.com, CNN, MSNBC, Youtube, Google Maps